BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration To Thread - Forum Home

The Mudcat Café TM
https://mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=62901
1911 messages

BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration

13 Sep 03 - 01:34 PM (#1018192)
Subject: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Finally, a candidate who can explain the Bush administration's positions on civil liberties in the original German." -- Bill Maher, on Schwarzenegger running for Governor.

"President Bush is supporting Arnold but a lot of Republicans are not, because he is actually quite liberal. Karl Rove said if his father wasn't a Nazi, he wouldn't have any credibility with conservatives at all." -- Bill Maher

"They're saying Arnold will get 95% of the vote. At least according to his brother, Jeb Schwarzenegger." -- Craig Kilborn

"President Bush has been silent on Schwarzenegger. Of course, he can't pronounce Schwarzenegger." -- David Letterman

"Here's how bad California looks to the rest of the country. People in Florida are laughing at us." -- Jay Leno

"Well, we're all excited because President Bush has started his
35-day vacation. He's down there in Crawford, Texas and on the first day of his vacation he went fishing. He didn't find any fish but he believes they're there and that his intelligence is accurate." -- David Letterman

"President Bush held his first full press conference in over 5 months this week. He announced that the war on terrorism is continuing, much, much more work needs to be done on the economy, and Saddam Hussein has not yet been captured. And then he said, 'I'm going on vacation for a month.'" -- Jay Leno

"President Bush is leaving to go to Crawford, Texas, for a 35-day working vacation. This should go over big with all the people taking a can't-get-work vacation." -- David Letterman

"The White House says that the vacation in Texas will give President Bush the chance to unwind. My question is, when does the guy wind?" -- David Letterman

"President Bush's economic team is now on their jobs and growth bus tour all across America. I think the only job they created so far is for the guy driving the bus." -- Jay Leno

"President Bush has refused to declassify portions of the congressional 9/11 reports about the Saudis, because he says it will help the enemy. Not Al Qaeda, the Democrats." -- Jay Leno

"The United States is putting together a Constitution now for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It's served us well for 200 years, and we don't appear to be using it anymore, so what the hell?" -- Jay Leno


13 Sep 03 - 04:14 PM (#1018264)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Ebbie

Thanks, Amos. I once read that when a leader becomes a laughingstock he's on his way out. I only wish.


13 Sep 03 - 05:32 PM (#1018304)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amergin

the problem with bush he was never anything more than a laughingstock.....but then he never was a leader either....


13 Sep 03 - 06:36 PM (#1018333)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: katlaughing

Ebbie, let's make it so..I've decided I am going to make a bumper sticker that says Just say NO to 4 More Years!


13 Sep 03 - 10:45 PM (#1018422)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Ebbie

Good one, kat. And maybe we could come up with one of his own 'wise sayings'? Like 'Make the pie higher'! You don't suppose they're copywrited, do you?! In today's climate I can imagine being cited for something or another.


13 Sep 03 - 11:52 PM (#1018440)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Rapparee

How about a bumpersticker that says "No more years!"?

You CAN laugh him out of office. Laughing AT someone can ruin them politically. They all take themselves SOOOOOOOOO seriously.


14 Sep 03 - 12:04 AM (#1018442)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Just say no to Thugs!!

A


14 Sep 03 - 05:09 AM (#1018512)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Wilfried Schaum

"Well, we're all excited because President Bush has started his 35-day vacation. He's down there in Crawford, Texas and on the first day of his vacation he went fishing. He didn't find any fish but he believes they're there and that his intelligence is accurate." -- David Letterman

Intelligence in the meaning od mental capabilites or reports of CIA?
Both fit well from this side of the pond.

Wilfried


14 Sep 03 - 05:36 AM (#1018518)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: C-flat

This may have been doing the rounds for some time, if so I apologise, but I've just found it and it cracked me up so, whatever.


14 Sep 03 - 06:02 PM (#1018835)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Alaska Mike

Hopefully, enough of the non-voting majority will get off their patoots and away from their boob-tubes long enough to cast their ballots in 2004. The current president didn't even get 25% of the registered voter's support. He sure got lots of support from big business though. And they certainly got a good return on their investment.

Mike


14 Sep 03 - 07:13 PM (#1018897)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Gareth

Yet again - don't weep, organize !!!!

Its the nity grity of politics, making sure your people are registered, that they know when and where to vote, that they know where your candidate is on the ballot paper, or computer screen, getting them to the polls, and checking that the count is fair and square.

Its sitting in the smoky back room, writing, and printing leaflets, addressing envelopes, filling in data bases, telephoning the undecided. Its standing in the rain outside a supermarket, or school handing out leaflets, and watching half of them go straight on to the floor.

It's missing a folk festival, or a weekends sailing, because XYZ want's an area lefleted that week end and it's "Gareth, can you produce one of your specials, please"

It poring over printouts trying to allocate scarce resourses. It's trying to raise the money for the next batch of ink and paper. It's driving a loudspeaker van, with the Tintinitus roaring in your ear knowing that you can't stop and give it up.

Its when your girl/boy friend gives you an ultimatum, the party or me.

Its walking out of the count, having taken a hammering and still smileing.

Hands up all those 'Catters who have taken part in that.

And a small bet says some of the more vocal Bush/Blair critics won't have bothered to give up thier time or get thier hands dirty.

Gareth - A qualified Election Agent.


15 Sep 03 - 10:46 AM (#1019198)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: TIA

Let's make it a very large bet, shall we?


15 Sep 03 - 11:37 AM (#1019244)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

On another facet of the popular acceptance of GWB:

SEPTEMBER 12--North Carolina cops are searching for a guy who successfully passed a $200 bill bearing George W. Bush's portrait and a drawing of the White House complete with lawn signs reading "We like ice cream" and "USA deserves a tax cut." The phony Bush bill--a copy of which you'll find below--was presented to a cashier at a Food Lion in Roanoke Rapids on September 6 by an unidentified male who was seeking to pay for $150 in groceries. Remarkably, the cashier accepted the counterfeit note and gave the man $50 change. In a separate incident involving a different perp, Roanoke Rapids cops Tuesday arrested Michael Harris, 24, for attempting last month to pass an identical $200 Bush bill at a convenience store.

For a picture of the bill that was passed see http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushbill1.html.

Regards,

A


15 Sep 03 - 11:46 AM (#1019254)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Dave Bryant

Aren't the terms "Popular" and "Views of the Bush Administration" a bit of a contradiction ?


15 Sep 03 - 11:51 AM (#1019260)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: TIA

To the great disgust of many, no.


15 Sep 03 - 12:01 PM (#1019271)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The great shame of this nation is not so much that Bush's machinery managed to railroad the election, but that almost half the people in the country thought he was eligible material, and a lesser, but still highly significant number, have supported him in his insanities since then.

There are significant numbers of people who call him the leader of the free world, no less; and attribute high moral qualities to him including courage and integrity.

All of which strikes me as shamefully backwards-minded.

A


15 Sep 03 - 12:30 PM (#1019300)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Ebbie

Yesterday I had an interesting two-hour conversation with a middle-aged, self-proclaimed conservative couple from Colorado. The name 'Bush' was never mentioned but it was implied in every facet of the conversation.

Their take on it:

The war should perhaps not have been begun "We'll never know", but now that we're there we must complete the process. We should "send the Iraqis back to the camel age". We should ("politically incorrect as it seems") obliterate North Korea NOW, so as to avoid inevitable war later. "China and South Korea are being blackmailed into sending millions of dollars in aid to North Korea." (Neither of them had a good answer as to why China would not instead send a vast army into North Korea NOW before North Korea has a working nuclear capability, rather than allowing itself to be extorted for years.)

"Why should we support those who don't work?" (Because, I quoted: A nation is judged by its treatment of the least among them.)

Lots more. They are a couple with a small business, and they seemed well informed on a great many issues. The conversation remained cordial throughout, but I'm beginning to understand why Bush's approval rating remains high, or at least where it's coming from.

I despair.


15 Sep 03 - 01:04 PM (#1019324)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth

Well, lemme see. . . .

If these "significant numbers of people" are right, and Bush is truly the "leader of the free world" and actually does have "high moral qualities to him including courage and integrity," then I'm forced to the inevitable conclusion that God has a really atrocious sense of humor. . . .

It's gotta be some great, cosmic joke.

My first response to Amos's quote of Bill Maher's remark about Schwarzenegger running for California governor, "Finally, a candidate who can explain the Bush administration's positions on civil liberties in the original German." was to snicker and mutter "Right on!" My second response was "Uh-oh!" and a cold shudder. Too close.

I keep hearing about how popular Bush is in the polls (although lately, he seems to be slipping), and yet I don't actually know anybody who likes him or thinks he's doing a good job with much of anything. And not all the people I know are liberals. Where are all these people who think he's such a great president?

Don Firth


15 Sep 03 - 01:30 PM (#1019339)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

Well, fir those of you who think there isn't some serious grassroots organizing going on, one just need to look at what Howard Dean has done in a very short time with no real big money backers in his corner. Yeah, though I haven't beat on any doors for a Dem since McCarthey (no, not Joe)/Kennedy/Humphry in '68, I and many of my Green friends, are concerned enough about the dangerous folks who have highjacked the country that many of us are willing to do what it takes to get them out. And get America back from the Bushwackers... After that, we'll get back to pesterin' the Dems....

Bobert


15 Sep 03 - 02:38 PM (#1019369)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth

Good move, Bobert. I think that's the way to go, and I'm laible to join you once the job is done.

First priority: stop the country from circling the drain.

Don Firth


15 Sep 03 - 06:34 PM (#1019514)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

"From a pure-science point of view, embryonic stem cells are more powerful than the genome project," says Johns Hopkins pediatric oncologist Curt Civin. "They could tell us what each and every gene actually does. And they could be used to cure cancers, Parkinson's disease, diabetes." You name it. But by and large, American researchers must stop there—at the hopeful act of recognizing the potential. Their ability to study actual stem cells is hobbled by the federal regulation triggered in 2001 by President Bush's famously faux-Solomonic—tear the baby in half!—decision to limit the cells a federally funded researcher can study to those coming from the 78 cell lines cultured prior to the date of the regulation. In practice, though, only 11 approved lines have been made available to researchers. It's like handing an oceanographer a cup of salt water and saying, "Study only this."

In contrast, the sensible British have got it right, says Civin. Under strict regulation, and culling from IVF throwaways, doctors are allowed to create their own embryonic stem cell lines. "We're going to be trumped," says Civin. "I'd like to figure out everything there is about blood stem cells, but in all, the discovery is going to be slower, and as an American, I'm not going to be a part of it."

From a PopSci article on stem cell researcher's travails...

A


15 Sep 03 - 07:51 PM (#1019580)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Alice

Have you ever read www.bushwatch.com?


15 Sep 03 - 11:01 PM (#1019637)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: NicoleC

Well, Don, a lady I work with has a picture of GWB where most people keep family pictures. (And yes, she has a husband and several kids. No pictures of them.) She practically worships the guy. On the other hand, when pressed she doesn't much seem to agree with him on much of anything -- it's perplexing. But don't insult HER president! He's FLAWLESS!

Truth is, many people will worship almost anyone elevated to a leadership position regardless of merit or ability or what they actually do. And I'm not just talking about politics. (Many of the others will hate anyone elevated to a leadership position etc., etc. Any conversation about Bill Gates will troll up people who rapidly hate him, without having any good reasons why.) It's human mob mentality.


15 Sep 03 - 11:19 PM (#1019645)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From a friend:

"It was recently mentioned that the Presidential Prayer Team is
currently urging us to: "Pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on
how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be
according to Biblical principles. With many forces insisting on variant
definitions of marriage, pray that God's Word and His standards will be
honored by our government."

I'm sure any good religious person believes prayer should be balanced
by action. So here, in support of the Prayer Team's admirable goals, is
a proposed Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage entirely on
biblical principles:

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one
man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.) Marriage
shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his
wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

B. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin.
If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed.(Deut 22:13-21)
Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen
24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

C. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the
constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be
construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

D. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the
widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does
not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise
punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut
25:5-10)

Yes, it is time to PRAY for divine intervention with our president...."

Big sigh...


16 Sep 03 - 08:41 AM (#1019801)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: curmudgeon

For a different take on the Resident's campaign of mis-information, look here.


16 Sep 03 - 08:46 AM (#1019806)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

And also here...


16 Sep 03 - 09:52 AM (#1019858)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: TIA

And here....


16 Sep 03 - 10:43 AM (#1019887)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

That boy has generated an awful lot of fertilizer, considering he isn't going to reap more than a whirlwind, hasn't he?


A


16 Sep 03 - 05:43 PM (#1020187)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Greg F.

AND HERE


16 Sep 03 - 07:10 PM (#1020253)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

That last one is really grim...the track record of interference with science.


16 Sep 03 - 07:21 PM (#1020266)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Reiver 2

Thanks for those Amos. Have you checked out the Bushisms on http://home.twcny.rr.com/felicity/bushisms.htm

The Bush Dyslexicon by Mark Crispin Miller, subtitle: Observations on a National Disorder, is good too.

Absolutely the worst president in the history of the U.S. You might enjoy some of the posts I've made on my blog site:
http://news-opinion.blog-city.com

Reiver 2


16 Sep 03 - 09:22 PM (#1020343)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Greg F.

Well, Amos, when you've got fundamentalist "Christianity"[sic] to explain everything for you, and to obviate the necessity of rational thought, who needs science? Not just Dumbya, but his whole crew.

THAT'S grim.


16 Sep 03 - 09:41 PM (#1020359)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

I read and recommended the Bush Dyslexicon earlier but let me repeat here that it is highly worth reading.

Greg -- I believe that people will grab any information in a storm as long as it will hold things still for a bit -- a religion, an authority, or some other conclusion, rational or not, as long as it fends off confusion. Perfectly workable as long as you don't mix it up with truth, eh?

A


16 Sep 03 - 09:44 PM (#1020363)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: AliUK

Here in Brazil they were a little bemused that Arnie was going in as a candidate for the Governership of California...they were under the impression that he was already the President of the US of A.


16 Sep 03 - 09:51 PM (#1020367)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Greg F.

Depends what you mean by "workable" I suppose. ;>)

Queen of Fools, turn around, life will be your folly
Wave your wand at those who will waste away and worry
Play them for the fools they are, make their steps up for them
A clock that's shaken hard enough, it cannot stay in rhythm.
Pat Sky The Dance of Death


20 Sep 03 - 07:37 PM (#1022297)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Gareth

And not one word on the practicalities !!!!!!!!

Gareth


20 Sep 03 - 07:53 PM (#1022304)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Thomas the Rhymer

These both made me laugh so hard, that that I broke my 'bummed out' 'lost it' card...


Finally, a candidate who can explain the Bush administration's positions on civil liberties in the original German." -- Bill Maher, on Schwarzenegger running for Governor...


"The United States is putting together a Constitution now for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It's served us well for 200 years, and we don't appear to be using it anymore, so what the hell?" -- Jay Leno ...
Thanks!, Amos


20 Sep 03 - 09:31 PM (#1022319)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: toadfrog

With all due respect, guys, there were a lot of Clinton jokes too. The only nationally known politician I can remember that there were no jokes about was Benson, the guy who was not elected Vice President in 1988. Who remembers Benson?


21 Sep 03 - 09:07 PM (#1022771)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Thomas the Rhymer

"...I knew Jack Kennedy, he was a friend of mine... and let me tell you, Mr Quale... You're no Jack Kennedy..."


21 Sep 03 - 09:26 PM (#1022781)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

That one line nearly immortalized Benson in my mind. Benson signature is also still found on a lot of dollar bills out there. I thought he would have made an excellent VP...

A


21 Sep 03 - 10:11 PM (#1022800)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Joe Offer

My brother sent me this:

Bumper Sticker ideas for the GOP for 2004:
Bush/Cheney '04: Four More Wars!
Bush/Cheney '04: Assimilate. Resistance is Futile.
Bush/Cheney '04: Apocalypse Now!
Bush/Cheney '04: Because the truth just isn't good enough.
Bush/Cheney '04: Compassionate Colonialism
Bush/Cheney '04: Deja-voodoo all over again!
Bush/Cheney '04: Don't Change Whores in Midstream
Bush/Cheney '04: Get used to it!
Bush/Cheney '04: In your heart, you know they're technically correct.
Bush/Cheney '04: Leave no billionaire behind
Bush/Cheney '04: Less CIA -- More CYA
Bush/Cheney '04: Lies and videotape but no sex!
Bush/Cheney '04: Making the world a better place, one country at a
time.
Bush/Cheney '04: Or else.
Bush/Cheney '04: Over a billion Whoppers served.
Bush/Cheney '04: Putting the "con" in conservatism
Bush/Cheney '04: Thanks for not paying attention.
Bush/Cheney '04: The economy's stupid!
Bush/Cheney '04: The last vote you'll ever have to cast.
Bush/Cheney '04: This time, elect us!
Bush/Cheney '04: We're Gooder!
Bush/Cheney: Asses of Evil
Don't think. Vote Bush!
George W. Bush: A brainwave away from the presidency
George W. Bush: It takes a village idiot
George W. Bush: Leadership without a doubt
George W. Bush: The buck stops Over There
God Save the King!
Let them eat yellowcake! Vote Bush!
Peace & Prosperity Suck -- Big-Time
Vote Bush in '04: "Because every vote counts -- for me!"
Vote Bush in '04: "Because I'm the President, that's why!"
Vote Bush in '04: Because dictatorship is easier
Vote Bush in '04: It's a no-brainer!
Vote for Bush & You Get Dick!
Who would Jesus Bomb?
Vote Bush in '04: "I Has Incumbentory Advantitude"

My favorite is:
BU__SH__!

In summary, I can't stand the guy. I agree with what the Dixie Chicks said before they were forced into a retraction.
But most people I know think he's wonderful.
-Joe Offer-


21 Sep 03 - 10:49 PM (#1022815)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: The Fooles Troupe

U S   U N D E R   A T T A C K

       WASHINGTON OBSERVED
       Blind fury that sparks bloodlust
       Sep 14 2001
       Peter Hartcher

Nine out of 10 Americans support armed retaliation against the forces that struck New York and Washington this week, even if it means getting into a war.

And a quarter of this group endorses launching military strikes immediately - without waiting to find out who is actually responsible.

In the absence of a known enemy, whom and where would the US attack? Should it be random, with a pin on a map directing a hail of missiles? Or should it be racially based?

Surely only an infuriated minority of rednecks would propose such blind bloodlust? Not at all.

Democratic Senator Robert Torricelli has an idea for dealing with the
absence of a known perpetrator. He proposed yesterday that Congress
authorise the President to open "general hostilities" and assault 10
terrorist organisations around the world immediately.

"Given the enormity of the attack against our country, I think we're
entitled to take action against each of them," he said.

This is despite the lessons of history.

The last time the US launched massive and hasty missile strikes against a terrorist, Osama bin Laden, in 1998, "all we managed to do was bounce some rubble around in Afghanistan and raise the level of anti-Americanism", in the words of Milt Bearden, a former CIA agent who worked in Afghanistan.

The missiles apparently killed six children, but missed bin Laden, who survived to become the prime suspect in this week's atrocities.

For many in the US, the fury is so deep that it is blind and irrational.

For most Americans, it is beyond the reach of civilised restraint. The Gallup poll found that 66 per cent of the US public favours armed action "even if it means that innocent people are killed".

For the US at war, this fury is normal. "Once wars begin, a significant element of American public opinion supports waging them at the highest possible level of intensity," writes the US scholar Walter Russell Mead in the journal The National Interest.

And the key to understanding this war frenzy, he argues, is the same key to grasping other aspects of the American popular psyche, such as the national fetish for guns.

And that key is Jacksonianism - the tradition named after the sixth US president. Andrew Jackson was a Scots-Irish immigrant who was orphaned on the frontier, fought in wars against American Indians and the British, and suffered as a prisoner of war - all by the age of 15.

He was an intense hater, with crazy blue eyes, fearless in battle and "mad upon his enemy", said his biographer Robert Remini.

He was poorly educated, but a brilliant strategist. At the Battle of New Orleans he shattered an invading British army of 5,000 men, dealing them a staggering 2,000 casualties, with the loss of only a dozen or so of his own troops.

Nicknamed Old Hickory for his wiry toughness and known by the Indians as Sharp Knife for his tactics, Jackson had no control over his temper.

One of his contemporaries, Thomas Jefferson, said of him: "When I was
president of the Senate, he was Senator, and he could never speak on
account of the rashness of his feelings. I have seen him attempt it
repeatedly, and as often choke with rage... He is a dangerous man." But as the country's foremost war hero, he could not be denied the presidency.

Jacksonianism is a populist folk culture that has its roots in the sense of identity among the Scots-Irish who settled much of the American West.

It distrusts elites, favours rugged individualism, loves guns, loathes multilateralism and prizes courage.

Ronald Reagan tapped it more successfully than any modern president.

Understanding Jacksonianism is to understand the American attitude to war. According to Mead, "the first Jacksonian rule of war is that wars must be fought with all available force. The use of limited force is deeply repugnant."

This school also draws sharp distinction between honourable and
dishonourable enemies. In the case of dishonourable enemies, "all rules are off". This was the fate of the Japanese. Jacksonian America had no compunction about using the atomic bomb against civilians.

Jackson's cultural heirs believe that the chief object of warfare was
breaking an enemy's spirit. "It was not enough to defeat a tribe in battle; one had to pacify the tribe.

"For this to happen, the war had to go to the enemy's home. The villages had to be burned, food supplies destroyed, civilians had to be killed. From the tiniest child to the most revered of the elderly sages, everyone in the enemy nation had to understand that further armed resistance to the will of the American people... was simply not an option."

Mead argues that this strand of public opinion determines how America
fights and wins wars, or, if it is denied, how it makes and breaks the presidents who defy it.

Truman, Johnson and George Bush senior all defied the Jacksonian code by trying to wage limited war, and none survived the decision.

The choking rage of Jacksonianism, now fully roused by a dishonourable enemy, will demand the ferocious and unrestrained prosecution of this next American war.

And George W. Bush will defy it at his peril.

As one of Jackson's intellectual heirs, General Curtis Le May, the man who dropped the atomic bomb, once said: "I'll tell you what war is. You've got to kill people, and when you've killed enough, they stop fighting."


23 Dec 03 - 12:08 AM (#1078191)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Here's a wonderful sport for those who have some time on their hands: sign in and review this colorful series of 30-second quick messages by a wide span of artistic talent found at "Bush in 30 Seconds". They are a puredee hoot.

A


23 Dec 03 - 01:39 AM (#1078239)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Ebbie

Today I saw a bumper sticker on a parked car: RE-DEFEAT BUSH! Made me feel like hunting up the driver to make his/her acquaintance.


23 Dec 03 - 04:53 AM (#1078273)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: kendall

Re elect Gore in 2004.

What scares me is that so many people now believe that it's ok to pull a "first strike" on a POTENTIAL enemy! And, they don't see the similarity between Iraq and Pearl Harbor.\They destroyed the towers, so, we get to destroy their whole country. The problem with that "logic" is; THEY didn't destroy the towers!


23 Dec 03 - 10:43 AM (#1078449)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Here's a scary story from the Times documenting Rumsfeld's special envoy duties visiting Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war and letting him know we were against chem warfare in general but we weren't mad at him and didn't want to compromise our relationship, yadda yadda...the implication of which is that it was Bush Senior and Bush Junior between them, who managed things in such a way as to necessitate the Iraq war and all the deaths concomitant thereunto.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/23/international/middleeast/23RUMS.html

WASHINGTON, Dec. 22 — As a special envoy for the Reagan administration in 1984, Donald H. Rumsfeld, now the defense secretary, traveled to Iraq to persuade officials there that the United States was eager to improve ties with President Saddam Hussein despite his use of chemical weapons, newly declassified documents show.


Mr. Rumsfeld, who ran a pharmaceutical company at the time, was tapped by Secretary of State George P. Shultz to reinforce a message that a recent move to condemn Iraq's use of chemical weapons was strictly in principle and that America's priority was to prevent an Iranian victory in the Iran-Iraq war and to improve bilateral ties...


A


23 Dec 03 - 11:11 AM (#1078484)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From Slate's "Today's Papers" site:

The Post's Style section profiles former Centcom commander General George Zinni, who endorsed Bush in 2000 and has become one of the fiercest critics of the invasion of Iraq. "I think the American people were conned into this," he says. "The more I saw, the more I thought that this was the product of the neocons who didn't understand the region and were going to create havoc there. These were dilettantes from Washington think tanks who never had an idea that worked on the ground." Zinni says that after he oversaw the bombing of Baghdad in 1998, he thought Saddam was on the verge of falling, so he drew up a detailed plan for occupying Iraq, called Desert Crossing. Concerned that his plan wasn't being properly considered, before the war Zinni called a Centcom general, asking, "Are you guys looking at Desert Crossing?" The general responded, "What's that?"




A


13 Jan 04 - 07:07 PM (#1092249)
Subject: RE: BS: Ineptitude at the Top: Bush Administration
From: Amos

From the N Y TIMES:

Former Official Describes Bush as ‘Disengaged’


14 Jan 04 - 03:46 AM (#1092485)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Wolfgang

Ex-Treasury Chief Says He'll Probably Vote For Bush In '04

Not just the kind of witness a prosecutor would wish for.
But still the publication is quite damning at least for one aspect of the Bush government in my eyes. WMDs have never been the real motive for the war against Iraq. But at the time of the publication this didn't really come as a big surprise, but then, perhaps to some it did.

Wolfgang


26 Jan 04 - 09:13 AM (#1101661)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

An interesting dissertation on "Bush As Ali Baba" can be found on this page which characterizes him as a thief.

A


26 Jan 04 - 09:49 AM (#1101678)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Teribus

Wait up a minute:

"...Zinni says that after he oversaw the bombing of Baghdad in 1998, he thought Saddam was on the verge of falling, so he drew up a detailed plan for occupying Iraq, called Desert Crossing."

So the "revelation" by Paul O'Neill that GWB had the invasion of Iraq on the table from day one (2000) is incorrect. Those plans, formulated by Centcom commander General George Zinni, had been made in 1998 while Bill Clinton was in office?

Hmmmmmmm as Bobert would say.


26 Jan 04 - 11:16 AM (#1101762)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

I think it is incumbent on us out of respect for the truth to see the whole descritpion by Zinni when he spoke out.

Here's an article that describes it.

Zinni's perspective is clearly that our resident Veep is just a liar, or a badly misled biped at best.

A


26 Jan 04 - 11:31 AM (#1101774)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST

Thanks Amos.

Quoted from the above link:

[But Zinni vows that he has learned a lesson. Reminded that he endorsed Bush in 2000, he says, "I'm not going to do anything political again -- ever. I made that mistake one time." ]


26 Jan 04 - 12:33 PM (#1101832)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,The B-I-B-L-E Was Once The Book For Me...

Amos:

Are those biblical verses you quoted above about marriage really in the bible (don't have one handy to check the authenticity of those verses. Maybe a Mudcat biblical scholar can verify those).

The B-I-B-L-E Was Once The Book For Me...


26 Jan 04 - 12:50 PM (#1101840)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: McGrath of Harlow

Here are some interesting comments about Bush and Co: "The US is now in the hands of a group of extremists" - by George Soros, who isn't exactly a lefty. The link is to "an edited extract" pubished in today's Guardian, from "The Bubble of American Supremacy",a book by Soros published this week.

"We have fallen into a trap. The suicide bombers' motivation seemed incomprehensible at the time of the attack; now a light begins to dawn: they wanted us to react the way we did. Perhaps they understood us better than we understand ourselves.

"And we have been deceived. When he stood for election in 2000, President Bush promised a humble foreign policy. I contend that the Bush administration has deliberately exploited September 11 to pursue policies that the American public would not have otherwise tolerated."


I especially agree with his judgement that what has happened since Seoptemer 11th has been precisely what the people who organised it and took part in it wanted to happen.


26 Jan 04 - 01:12 PM (#1101853)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

TBWOTFM:

I don't know. I don't consider it a reliable source of information.

A


26 Jan 04 - 01:20 PM (#1101858)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,The B-I-B-L-E Was Once The Book For Me...

"I don't consider it a reliable source of information"

Are you talking about your friends quote or the bible?

The B-I-B-L-E Was Once The Book For Me...


26 Jan 04 - 01:22 PM (#1101859)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The Bible.

A


26 Jan 04 - 01:31 PM (#1101865)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST

Thank you.


26 Jan 04 - 02:53 PM (#1101914)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton

Hi Teribus,

Your question,

"Those plans, formulated by Centcom commander General George Zinni, had been made in 1998 while Bill Clinton was in office?"

is easilly answered. Obviously if plans had been made, they were rejected by the Clinton Administration and revived by the
Bush Administration.

Frank


26 Jan 04 - 03:04 PM (#1101922)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: DougR

"Popular."

"Popular" as defined by?

If the answer is liberals, I would say this thread is well named.

If the answer is the American people, I would say it is mis-titled. Fifty-four percent of Americans (according to the major polls) approve of the job the president is doing.

DougR


26 Jan 04 - 04:14 PM (#1101961)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: McGrath of Harlow

Most people don't see it that way, Doug, even if maybe most people in the USA do.


26 Jan 04 - 04:29 PM (#1101974)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The word popular in this sense means views held among the population at large; it includes conservative, liberal, illiberal and reactionary.

Most of the Bush camp holds views in the latter two catego9ries.

A


26 Jan 04 - 05:01 PM (#1101995)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

Well, Dougie, you know how I distrust polls but since you've gone and thrown yers out, what do you think of Kerry 49 Bush 46 with 5 undecided? And that was on Fox news at noon today...

Bobert


26 Jan 04 - 07:19 PM (#1102072)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: McGrath of Harlow

But don't forget, they'll have a lot of electronic voting systems this time, which should make it easier getting the desired result, when it comes to counting anyway..


26 Jan 04 - 07:36 PM (#1102090)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Walking Eagle

Reading all of this puts me in mind of what my mom said during the 2000 elections. She said that she thought that Bush was likeable, someone you would like to go to a football game with. But in her mind, that was it. Not someone to be our president.

Keep in mind that Pres. Bush was not elected the first time, he was appointed.


28 Jan 04 - 07:39 PM (#1103873)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

An urgent appeal to those who are in a position to do anything with it, from Daniel Ellsburg, who demonstrated his own kind of courage, can be found in this article in the Guardian entitled "Leak Against This War".

A


22 Feb 04 - 11:25 PM (#1121522)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From the New York Times:

Uses and Abuses of Science




Published: February 23, 2004


lthough the Bush administration is hardly the first to politicize science, no administration in recent memory has so shamelessly distorted scientific findings for policy reasons or suppressed them when they conflict with political goals. This is the nub of an indictment delivered last week by more than 60 prominent scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates. Their statement was accompanied by a report published by the Union of Concerned Scientists, listing cases where the administration has manipulated science on environmental and other issues.


22 Feb 04 - 11:27 PM (#1121524)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Correction to the link -- the original article can be found on this page.

A


23 Feb 04 - 12:08 AM (#1121540)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: dianavan

Gareth - Its also going door to door in you neighborhood to see if anyone needs a ride to the polling station, especially the elderly or offering to babysit for the single mom so she can run out and vote.

Put those SUV's to work!

d


01 Mar 04 - 08:12 PM (#1127351)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

A very interesting discussion on Bush's worldview by one of his college professors can be found on this page.

Regards,

A


01 Mar 04 - 08:40 PM (#1127371)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

Well, gol danged, Amos! I thought I had a low opinion of the Bush administration. Geeze, compared to Bush's former Harvard professor, I'm closer to DougR.... Danged....

Jus' funnin...

But, boy oh boy...

McKinley/Rove? Well, ahhh, yeah. I was listening to this guy on NPR today who called in to talkabout his experiences in Haiti and what he described is what I fear will become of the US... It may be too late to turn it around now that Boss Hog is laying waste to the labor movement much like Sherman burned the South to the ground...

Just today the grocery workers out in your area settled on a "two tiered" program that will be a tamplate for other unions. In essence the "two tiered" program provides fir the current workers to be able to maintain their pay and health benefits (no increases) while allowing for new hires to work for less with less benefits... Think Social Security here. "We're not going to cut any current retirees or those getting ready to retire but................"

Now Boss Hog is going to drag out his anti-human, anti-God, anti-anti "Personal Responsibility" CRAP! Translated, "Personal Respnsibility" means "I'm rich and you ain't! Get over it!"...

Yeah, welcome to America. The world's next Third World nation with 1% controlling 99% of the wealth. Just like Haiti.

I wish some other country would just come and take Mr. Bush off to Africa so he could live out his days with the rest of the bad guys...

And take the rest of the ruling class wid him, thank you...

Bobert


02 Mar 04 - 02:50 AM (#1127453)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Walking Eagle

I just know that Bush has started to piss off the hunting and fishing folks. That includes me. Everyone from the Izak Walton League to Trout and Ducks unlimited is starting to sqawk. Reason? Bushes hell bent for leather attempts to drill, mine, and log some of the nation's most productive breeding and spawning areas. In other words, places where the hunters and fishing folks go. Backwoods wilderness areas where hunting and fishing is allowed mostly because hunters and fishing folks have to backpack in for about two days before reaching these prime spots.

The heck with the second ammendment. Who is going to need hunting rifles if there is nothing to hunt.

Yeah, I'm a rifle totin' radically liberal Cherokee mama!


02 Mar 04 - 08:11 AM (#1127579)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

He has ruined more lives singlehanded than anyone since that AUstrian paperhanger fellow....Schickelgruber, I think it was. Anyway, it is high time someone stopped this fellow from messing things up even more.

A


02 Mar 04 - 05:22 PM (#1127971)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST

Nice of you to include the "unbiased" comments of Bush's former college professor Amos.

Just tuned into this thread again to see if you folks were still having fun. Obviouvly you are! Does my old heart good.

DougR


02 Mar 04 - 06:52 PM (#1128033)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

Well, Doug, we're doing it for you, pal... We hate to do it but we know how much it means to ya'....

Hey, put Cindy on the board to give us a progress (pun iintended) report...

Bobert


02 Mar 04 - 10:30 PM (#1128167)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Marriage history of public figures who feel that gays will destroy the
institution of Marriage

Food for thought:

*Ronald Reagan - divorced the mother of two of his children to marry Nancy
Reagan who bore him a daughter only 7 months after the marriage.

*Bob Dole - divorced the mother of his child, who had nursed him through the
long recovery from his war wounds.

*Newt Gingrich - divorced his wife who was dying of cancer.

*Dick Armey - House Majority Leader - divorced

*Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas - divorced

*Gov. John Engler of Michigan - divorced

*Gov. Pete Wilson of California - divorced

*George Will - divorced

*Sen. Lauch Faircloth - divorced

*Rush Limbaugh - Rush and his current wife Marta have six marriages and
four divorces between them.

*Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia - Barr, not yet 50 years old, has been married
three times. Barr had the audacity to author and push the "Defense of
Marriage Act." The current joke making the rounds on Capitol Hill is "Bob
Barr...WHICH marriage are you defending?!?

*Sen. Alfonse D'Amato of New York - divorced

*Sen. John Warner of Virginia - divorced (once married to Liz Taylor.)

*Gov. George Allen of Virginia - divorced

*Henry Kissinger - divorced

*Rep. Helen Chenoweth of Idaho - divorced

*Sen. John McCain of Arizonia - divorced

*Rep. John Kasich of Ohio - divorced

*Rep. Susan Molinari of New York - Republican National Convention Keynote
Speaker - divorced

Don't let homosexuals destroy the institution of marriage?!?! The
"Christian" "Do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do" Republicans are doing a fine job
without anyone's help!!


16 Mar 04 - 10:09 AM (#1138100)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

I am pleased to see that the New York TImes, bastion of conservative thought, has begun to giove voice to critical thoughts about Bush and Co.

Today they offer a critique from Hans Blix on the duplicity behind the arms inspections.

It can be found here. Enjoy!

A


16 Mar 04 - 11:01 AM (#1138152)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Teribus

Amos - 02 Mar 04 - 10:30 PM

Oh St. Amos - would that we could all be as perfect as you.

Give you a tip - introduction to Scotland's national poet Robert Burns - first poem to read - Holly Wullies Prayer.


16 Mar 04 - 11:08 AM (#1138160)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Teribus:

I think you're babbling.

What are you trying to say underneath all that sarcasm?

A


16 Mar 04 - 11:51 AM (#1138191)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Teribus

OK Amos,

Do you know the personal circumstances involved in the break-up of the marriages you thought fit to have a cheap shot with?

Rhetorical question because I don't for one second believe that you do.

The reasons and circumstances probably are many and varied, in most the decision to divorce was probably arrived at by mutual arrangement for the best as viewed by both partners. But you don't seem to be that prepared to give people the benefit of the doubt, particularly if you can manage to get in a snide dig at the same time - grow up you're old enough!!


16 Mar 04 - 12:17 PM (#1138232)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Well, maybe you're right that listing all those divorces was inappropriate -- and in all humility, T., I don't know the details. It is perhaps arrogant and wrong-headed to take it on myself to meddle in the private affairs of people who probably were dealing with difficult situations as well as anyone else could; I should trust our own citizens to manage their own lives without my interference and niggling about it. I apologize for the cheap shots by listing their failures in public. I was meddling in their private lives. And that is wrong.

It is possible the same policies apply to any citizens regardless of their sexual grain, I would add.

A


16 Mar 04 - 12:19 PM (#1138236)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

In other news, an editorial lambasting the Bush administrations coverup, misrepresentation and plain deceit on Medicare issues can be found on this page.

Enjoy.

A


16 Mar 04 - 12:55 PM (#1138293)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: DougR

Amos: whatever would we do without your constantly posting articles from publications you discover on the Internet that support your POV? One would think we did not have access to the Internet, newspapers and none of us owned TV sets. I'm sure you don't believe such postings, particularly in publications that present views contrary to our own, will change minds do you?
:>)
DougR


16 Mar 04 - 01:02 PM (#1138298)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

In keeping with local policy I try to constrain myself to posting links and excerpts, Doug. Sure, I choose things that align with my POV -- why the hell would I do otherwise? But let me tell you what that point of view is. I think a lot of lies and manipulation have occurred under the direct or indirect control of the Bush machine; and I think by and large that those lies and manipulations have done more harm than good to the nation and the world. I think they have used perfectly sound ideals in false and hollow ways and done everything in their power to do what they want, rather than seek truth and right action. I am embarassed to be associated through citizenship with Rove, Bush, Cheny, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.

So forgive me if I try to offset this little wave of evildoing in the world. We do what we can.

A


16 Mar 04 - 02:58 PM (#1138414)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Deda

Go, bro! Here are some reinforcements.
About truth and lies in the Pentagon. (Rather long but worth printing and reading.)
Lies about Medicare cost.

Actually, finding press report about Bush administration lies is like shooting fish in a barrel. There are so many, it's no sport at all.


16 Mar 04 - 03:19 PM (#1138447)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Further on the Bush Machine's Lies About Medicare front:

Washington Times story

New York Times Story with the following awesome introductory lines:

"An Orwellian taint is emerging in the Bush administration's big victory last year in wringing the Medicare prescription drug subsidy from a balky Congress. The plan is being sold to the public through propagandistic ads disguised as TV news reports, and it turns out the government's top Medicare actuary was muzzled by superiors during the debate about the program's price tag."

Lies may be easy to find, but they are a royal pain to combat.

A


16 Mar 04 - 03:40 PM (#1138464)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: McGrath of Harlow

Here's a link to Holy Willie's Prayer, and also to its sequel Holy Willie's Epitaph.

I can't see that there's anything out-of-line in pointing a contradiction between sounding off too loudly about the overriding importance of the institution of marriage, and yet being somewhat flexible about it in private life.

It's the kind of thing that was just up Holy Willie's street. The point being, when we expect other people to accept our own failings, we should be willing to accept theirs as well.


16 Mar 04 - 05:32 PM (#1138589)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

And another thread on another dimension of what can only be termed political fraud.

A


22 Mar 04 - 12:42 AM (#1142640)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

A presentation concerning the influence of Katherine Harris and the STate of FLorida shenanigans.

It would be highly entertaining except that it actually happened.

Maybe I am oldfashioned, but I believe sending one American to his death, or disenfranchising one human being unnecessarily, is anathema, hateful, to be avoided at all costs.. Mebbe that's just me.

A


22 Mar 04 - 05:57 PM (#1143290)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: DougR

Nope, Amos, I wouldn't accuse you of being "old fashioned." Liberal, yes, but not necessarily old fashioned.

A lie is only a lie when it is PROVEN to be one. To date, the lies Bush is accused of are only lies because the accuser believes them to be.

DougR


22 Mar 04 - 06:42 PM (#1143333)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,guest from NW

"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."
Source: Interview of the President by TVP, Poland, White House (5/29/2003).

dougR, would you consider this annotated quote from GWB a lie? let me highlight the parts to especially consider...

..."We found the weapons of mass destruction"..."But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."

waddaya think?


22 Mar 04 - 07:50 PM (#1143399)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

DougR:

I am sorry but I think a large number of lies have been proven. The first and foremost was the lies of the Florida election machine, and it declines from there.

Here is just one writeup out of many. Here's an excerpt:

"George W. Bush is a liar. He has lied large and small, directly and by omission. His Iraq lies have loomed largest. In the run-up to the invasion, Bush based his case for war on a variety of unfounded claims that extended far beyond his controversial uranium-from-Niger assertion. He maintained that Saddam Hussein possessed "a massive stockpile" of unconventional weapons and was directly "dealing" with Al Qaeda--two suppositions unsupported then (or now) by the available evidence. He said the International Atomic Energy Agency had produced a report in 1998 noting that Iraq was six months from developing a nuclear weapon; no such report existed (and the IAEA had actually reported then that there was no indication Iraq had the ability to produce weapons-grade material). Bush asserted that Iraq was "harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior Al Qaeda terrorist planner"; US intelligence officials told reporters this terrorist was operating ouside of Al Qaeda control. And two days before launching the war, Bush said, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Yet former deputy CIA director Richard Kerr, who is conducting a review of the prewar intelligence, has said that intelligence was full of qualifiers and caveats, and based on circumstantial and inferential evidence. That is, it was not no-doubt stuff. And after the major fighting was done, Bush declared, "We found the weapons of mass destruction." But he could only point to two tractor-trailers that the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency had concluded were mobile bioweapons labs. Other experts--including the DIA's own engineering experts--disagreed with this finding. "

Thos os just a small scraping from his foul deposits. His history is a carpet of large and small lies woven together in a comfortable web of convenient deception.

He has the moral fiber of a ringworm.

A


23 Mar 04 - 04:02 AM (#1143589)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Clint Keller

"A lie is only a lie when it is PROVEN to be one."

Wrong. A lie is a lie when you knowingly say something false.

If it's not proven, it just means you got away with the lie.

When it's proven to be a lie is when you got caught.

The latest Republican morality, is it? - it's only a lie if you get caught?

clint


24 Mar 04 - 10:16 AM (#1144835)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Here an interesting analysis of why Bush's statements seem so out of touch with the facts over and over, by Wm Saletan writing for Salte magazine online.

From this perspective it is only a lie if you don't believe it!

It still adds up to "unqualified" in my opinion.


A


24 Mar 04 - 05:42 PM (#1145225)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: DougR

Amos: you offer David Corn and "The Nation" as proof that Bush is a liar? You're kidding, right?

DougR


24 Mar 04 - 05:53 PM (#1145233)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Peace

Doug,

Your support of Bush is admirable. I wouldn't call him a liar; he simply has no commerce with truth as most people understand it.


24 Mar 04 - 05:59 PM (#1145240)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The article was " Bush's difficult relationship with reality" by William Saletan, Doug; and the magazine was of course Slate. As to the earlier post, I can't speak for the writer's background, but as he is expressing a popular view of Bush's credibility I thought it appropriate to include it here.   What is your problem with it exactly?

A


25 Mar 04 - 09:20 AM (#1145744)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

I got this humorous bit from an avid Bush supporter:

You know, they've released John Hinckley from prison for unsupervised visits to his parents’ home on weekends. This is such a nice letter from the President:

THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON D.C.

Mr. John Hinckley
St. Elizabeth's Hospital
Washington, DC

Dear John:

Laura and I hope that you are continuing your excellent progress in recovery from your mental problems. We were pleased to hear that you are now able to have unsupervised visits with your parents. The staff at the hospital reports that you are doing fine.

I have decided to seek a second term in office as your president and I would appreciate your support and the support of your fine parents.

I would hope that if there is anything that you need at the hospital, you would let us know.

By the way, are you aware that John Kerry is screwing Jody Foster?!

Sincerely,

George W. Bush, President


25 Mar 04 - 11:52 AM (#1145874)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: el ted

Brilliant! This is second 100th post today. Carry on with whatever it was you were talking about.


25 Mar 04 - 02:50 PM (#1146060)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST

Doug - Is it your assertion that GWB has been entirely truthful throughout his campaign for, and occupation of, the Presidency?

____yes

____no


26 Mar 04 - 08:52 AM (#1146622)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

On the embarassment of the Bushies by Clarke's apology, see "Democracy's Revenge".

A


26 Mar 04 - 11:23 AM (#1146753)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

A short excerpt:

The commission is encouraging the country to consider questions the administration has never wanted asked. Why did these attacks happen on its watch? Could the government have done more to prevent them? Were intelligence warnings given short shrift? What was the administration thinking about on Sept. 10, 2001, and in the months before? And, yes, might the president not usefully express some remorse over any of these failures?

What's important is that the country is being pushed away from an empty debate over who is "tough" and who is "soft" to a substantive discussion of what our government might practically have done -- and can now do -- to stop terrorism.



A


26 Mar 04 - 07:47 PM (#1147133)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,guest from NW

hey, dougR, i cited an actual bush lie a few days ago. it's in print and on videotape. i stuck with just one lie to keep things simple. any comment on that?


28 Mar 04 - 01:24 AM (#1148015)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,guest from NW

dougR, i answered your query on the condi rice thread within hours. i cited a documented bush lie on march 22 after your statement on 22 Mar 04 - 05:57 PM and asked for your comment. does this staement count as a lie from your perspective? if not, why not?


28 Mar 04 - 07:25 PM (#1148503)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The NEw York TImes is feeling the tug back from the brink of Neocon mania: see this article which is actually critical of the adminsitration's low regard ofr truth.

A


28 Mar 04 - 07:58 PM (#1148525)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From Salon:

“We should have had orange or red-type of alert in June or July of 2001”


19 Apr 04 - 12:38 AM (#1164868)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

A compelling description of the effect of Bushthink on the quality of life in Iraq can be found in this article from the New Statesman. Enjoy.

A


19 Apr 04 - 12:41 AM (#1164869)
Subject: George and the Amazing Technicolor Dream-Tie
From: Amos

A refreshing and sharp-witted article concerning George's press conference


A


19 Apr 04 - 11:20 PM (#1165691)
Subject: North Korean Intelligence Gets it Right for Once..
From: Amos

It seems the North Korean Intell is a little quicker than our own this time.

A


20 Apr 04 - 06:34 AM (#1165920)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Teribus

Thanks for the link Re: the North Korean Intell, that you find so believable Amos.

Does that include the following from that article?

Statement 1:
Pyongyang insists it will freeze its nuclear weapons drive only in return for rewards from the United States.

Statement 2:
North Korea "has no idea of dealing with the US any longer if the latter insists on the disgusting CVID (complete, verifiable, and irreversible dismantling)," he said.

Both indicate the extent of the "midget's turd" (KIJ's own description of himself by the way) threat posture to the world. Statement 1 summed up in one word - BLACKMAIL.

Everybody quite happy and content about that - I certainly wouldn't be - Statement 2 summed up in an old saying, "Pay the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane". What CVID, of our nuclear programme - don't be ridiculous! we might want to Blackmail you some more at some time in the future.


20 Apr 04 - 09:15 AM (#1166043)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

T:

My remarks were limited to the observation about Cheney's mental state.

A


20 Apr 04 - 10:22 AM (#1166110)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Teribus

That would tend to explain a great deal.


20 Apr 04 - 11:22 AM (#1166173)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

But let me add thta many poeple would like to know more about their so-called President and often ask what he is really like. For those who really care, bo0rrowed from another thread and quoting Wm Shaxpere of ENgland, no less -- here is what he is really like, this aloof and secretive Mister Bush:

       MIster Bush is a knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a
       base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three-suited,
       hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a
       lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson,
       glass-gazing, super-serviceable finical rogue;
       one-trunk-inheriting slave; one that wouldst be a
       bawd, in way of good service, and is nothing but
       the composition of a knave, beggar, coward, pandar,
       and the son and heir of a mongrel bitch.

USually we just abbreviate the last element of that tirade.

A


21 Apr 04 - 04:53 AM (#1166892)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Teribus

"Wm Shaxpere of ENgland"

Never heard of him or the place he come from.


21 Apr 04 - 03:21 PM (#1167155)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

I am sorry -- but not surprised -- to hear as much, T. Unless you are just being snide about my typos.


A


21 Apr 04 - 03:56 PM (#1167198)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Shlio

Ouch - remind me never to get in an argument with you, Amos


21 Apr 04 - 04:42 PM (#1167238)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Sorry, Shlio -- I just hate to see mass hypnosis succeed when it is for dubious ends.

A


22 Apr 04 - 10:32 AM (#1167956)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: el ted

Boring.


24 Apr 04 - 11:29 AM (#1169718)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

In other news, today's New York Times has an op-ed piece describing unintended consequences of our obsession with security since 9-11. The character of America is less than it was.

A


30 Apr 04 - 08:18 AM (#1174881)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Twenty Nobel Prize winning scientists have joined a slew of others in condemning George Buish's anti-scientism. Scientific American covers the story in this article.

The man is a Ass.

A


30 Apr 04 - 02:07 PM (#1175169)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: robomatic

In Alaska I qualify as a liberal. Why? Because I only have three guns in the house, and one of them is an air rifle. All my friends in Alaska are gung ho for Bush. When I go back East it's the other way around. I'm the gun-loving ANWR desecratin' arch conservative. All my friends here are anti-war.

But I'm more tortured than that.

Herman Wouk wrote a novel "The Caine Mutiny" and a play called "The Caine Mutiny Courtmartial". The two were turned into a good 1954 war flick with Van Johnson, Fred McMurry, and a famous supporting role by Humphrey Bogart as Captain Queeg. The story was about a U.S. Navy minesweeper being captained by a fairly unsteady almost senile type, who impressed his crew as a chickenshit officer, a chickenshit being somebody who is both ineffective and domineering at the same time. During a tropical storm in which the ship is almost lost at sea, some officers take over the ship. In the resulting courtmartial they seem to be about to lose their case (which is potentially a capital one) when their lawyer, a slick one well aware of his own capabilities, puts their captain on the stand and leans on him so hard that some of his nervous traits appear (the famous ball bearings). The judges are swayed by his obvious instability to find the officers innocent.

That night the officers are celebrating their good fortune when their slick lawyer shows up having tied one on and very angry with everyone. He feels guilty as if he'd crucified Queeg. His message, and the author's, is: You guys had a choice. You knew you had a weak leader. But, you could have sucked it in and helped him as best you could, and played a part in the war effort against the real enemy. Instead you let pride and a poor knowledge of psychology lead you to create a dangerous legal mess and a drain on your country's resources. The lawyer felt sorry for the men because there was an additional character who had egged them into it, yet escaped being charged by the court.

George W. has his faults. He doesn't shine in debate, and he has a garbled way of expressing himself in public. I disagree with much of his domestic agenda and the folks he was working it. I personally think he does not have a deep background in foreign affairs.

But he is the leader of the U.S. and the free world at a time when we have a real enemy out there, and he deserves support no matter what we think of him personally. If our European allies out there were a bit less self-centered (and, yes, a bit more gutsy), they could have led us to a more cooperative effort that brought us under U.N. jurisdiction and it would have been better for everyone.

W is not a bad person. He is not a stupid person. He is no coward. He has a moral center. He is someone we can work with. That is the message that is not getting out, although I suspect that that could be Blair's perception of him and the situation, and the PM has been IMHO courageous and brilliant in putting the British into the fray on our side.

I think we will find out that France and Russia had their own more selfish Iraqi agendas. I think we are already finding out about major corruption in that paragon of ethics and upright standards, The United Nations.

The reality of the world is that it isn't just what you stand for but the way you stand. So the U.S. is up for justifiable criticism in how we have gone about what we've gone about. But the U.S. also deserves some help. Accusing W of being a worse menace than Osama or Hitler is just not on.


30 Apr 04 - 02:19 PM (#1175179)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Clint Keller

"You knew you had a weak leader. But, you could have sucked it in and helped him as best you could, and played a part in the war effort against the real enemy."

It seems like a false analogy to me. My belief is that Bush is not a weak leader, and not attacking the real enemy. Saddam and Iraq are not responsible for 911. But Mr Bush said some time ago that he didn't think about bin Laden very much any more.

Waist deep in the Big Muddy, as the folkies say.

clint


30 Apr 04 - 02:26 PM (#1175186)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Robo:

I appreciate your thoughtful argument.

I believe you give him too much credit, though. A moral center would surely flinch at falsifying major information; and surely would blanch at the needless deaths of American soldiers in pursuit of an enemy not clearly linked to the attack of 9-11. A moral center tends to generate more humility than arrogance. I don't see such a center at work in this man.

A


01 May 04 - 01:54 PM (#1175967)
Subject: RE: BS: Bush a Dry Drunk?
From: Amos

11 Hard Questions For Bush


Nush as Dry Drunk

Enjoy....


01 May 04 - 02:52 PM (#1176020)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

(If there's a clone out there who could change "Nush" to "Bush" in the above I would be grateful).

A


10 May 04 - 11:04 AM (#1182241)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From Slate

George W. Bush has governed, for the most part, the way any airhead might, undermining the fiscal condition of the nation, squandering the goodwill of the world after Sept. 11, and allowing huge problems (global warming, entitlement spending, AIDS) to metastasize toward catastrophe through a combination of ideology, incomprehension, and indifference. If Bush isn't exactly the moron he sounds, his synaptic misfirings offer a plausible proxy for the idiocy of his presidency.

Continued on this page...

A


10 May 04 - 11:21 AM (#1182257)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction."—Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003

AN insensitivity to irony? This is a quote from W last October, leading a nation which possessed weapons of mass destruction and has used them to attack another nation, beginning war.

For a collection of Bush's best remarks see Bushisms.

A


10 May 04 - 12:56 PM (#1182379)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Ebbie

Ah, you can't trust even the most conservative people not to eventually stab you in the back:

"Conservatives have become unusually restive. Last Tuesday, columnist George F. Will sharply criticized the administration's Iraq policy, writing: "This administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot be counted on to think and, having thought, to have second thoughts." Two days earlier, Robert Kagan, a neoconservative supporter of the Iraq war, wrote: "All but the most blindly devoted Bush supporters can see that Bush administration officials have no clue about what to do in Iraq tomorrow, much less a month from now."

I've lost the URL on this.


11 May 04 - 11:43 AM (#1182932)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,noddy

By now I thoght there was not a popular view of Bush possible.

well I know what I mean!


20 May 04 - 09:14 PM (#1190329)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The system is crashing


21 May 04 - 01:46 AM (#1190476)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: dianavan

Thanks, Amos - I wish I had written that!


23 May 04 - 01:20 PM (#1192033)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

In other news, the Guardian includes:

Terry Jones
Saturday May 22, 2004
The Guardian

Tony Blair tells us that we should do everything
we can to support America. And I agree. I think
we should repudiate those who inflict harm on
Americans, we should shun those who bring
America itself into disrepute and we should
denounce those who threaten the freedom and
democracy that are synonymous with being
American.

That is why Tony's recent announcement that he
wishes to stand shoulder to shoulder with George
Bush is so puzzling. It's difficult to think of
anyone who has inflicted more harm on Americans
than their current president.
...
If Tony Blair really were concerned about
helping Americans, he would surely be helping
them to reclaim their country and institutions
from this catastrophic presidency.
Terry Jones is a writer, film director, actor and Python

Full story at:

Guardian UK

Regards,

A


23 May 04 - 08:42 PM (#1192326)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

President quietly toasts 2 graduations


24 May 04 - 08:45 PM (#1193268)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

One sunny day in 2005 an old man approached the White House from
across Pennsylvania Avenue, where he'd been sitting on a park bench.
He spoke to the U.S. Marine standing guard and said, "I would like to
go in and meet with President Bush."

The Marine looked at the man and said, "Sir, Mr. Bush is no longer
president and no longer resides here."

The old man said, "Okay" and walked away.

The following day, the same man approached the White House and said
to the same Marine, "I would like to go in and meet with President
Bush." The Marine again told the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr.
Bush is no longer president and no longer resides here." The man
thanked him and, again, just walked away.

The third day, the same man approached the White House and spoke to
the very same U. S. Marine, saying "I would like to go in and meet
with President Bush."

The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man
and said, "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here
asking to speak to Mr. Bush. I've told you already that Mr. Bush is
no longer the president and no longer resides here. Don't you
understand?"

The old man looked at the Marine and said, "Oh, I understand. I just
love hearing it."

The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, "See you tomorrow."


24 May 04 - 08:49 PM (#1193270)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

May 12, 2004   (letter to the editor, as appeared in the Boston Globe)

THE BUSH administration seems to have a serious problem with reality. The most recent reality challenge is the policy of torture in both Iraq and Afghanistan, which the administration is frantically redefining as "abuse," "excesses," and "humiliation." We even have Secretary Rumsfeld describing footage of several American soldiers "having sex" with a female Iraqi prisoner. Let's have a little plain English here. "Having sex" with a prisoner is known as "rape." Systematic beatings are called "torture." Excesses that lead to death are called "murder." The hundreds of women and children in mass graves in Fallujah are the product of a "massacre." Taken together, all of these add up to "atrocities."

The dissemination of "incomplete information" from "imperfect intelligence" is called "lies." The billions of dollars that Halliburton and Bechtel have reaped in profits are called "war profiteering." The invasion of Iraq is called "illegal." The destruction of America's international standing is called "permanent." And Texaco/Phillips's high bid for Iraqi oil is called "why we are in Iraq."

ERICA VERRILLO Williamsburg



Did you notice when he spoke to the nation the slimeball had the nerve to say that the offenses committed at Abu Ghraib (which he could not pronounce) were the fault of "a few Americans who ignored American values" while sending troops in to blow up wedding parties, and unilateral invasions of foreign lands is obviosuly consistent with American values, I suppose? I spit!

A


24 May 04 - 09:40 PM (#1193285)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: dianavan

Amos - It helps so much to know that there are still a few 'real' Americans left. Its so hard being in another country where the common belief is that most Americans support Bush. How will there ever be justice. Will the U.N. have the courage to push Bush out or will they wait until the reigns of power are transferred to the puppets.

And how will the American people ever redeem their reputation? I want America to be a beacon of hope for the world. How and when will Bush be held accountable? Will there ever be a way to try him for war crimes or crimes against humanity?


25 May 04 - 01:33 AM (#1193373)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Metchosin

The Devil Made Me Do It


27 May 04 - 04:52 PM (#1195348)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Yesterday, former Vice President Al Gore called for accountability for the Bush team in light of the fiasco in Iraq.   In the speech, Mr. Gore took on the Bush administration, arguing that the "abuse of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib flowed directly from the abuse of the truth that characterized the Administration's march to war and the abuse of the trust that had been placed in President Bush by the American people in the aftermath of September 11th." To sustained applause, he then called for the architects of the Bush foreign policy – Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, George Tenet, Paul Wolfowitz, and others -- to resign, arguing that "the current team is making things worse with each passing day."

You can read a full transcript of the speech and watch a great five-minute video of the highlights at:
this page

Mr. Gore began the speech by focusing on the policy of domination which pervades the Bush Administration:


"An American policy of dominance is as repugnant to the rest of the world as the ugly dominance of the helpless, naked Iraqi prisoners has been to the American people. Dominance is as dominance does."

"Dominance is not really a strategic policy or political philosophy at all. It is a seductive illusion that tempts the powerful to satiate their hunger for more power still by striking a Faustian bargain. And as always happens -- sooner or later -- to those who shake hands with the devil, they find out too late that what they have given up in the bargain is their soul."

This policy, he explained, is making us less safe as a country:


"The unpleasant truth is that President Bush's utter incompetence has made the world a far more dangerous place and dramatically increased the threat of terrorism against the United States. Just yesterday, the International Institute of Strategic Studies reported that the Iraq conflict " has arguable focused the energies and resources of Al Qaeda and its followers while diluting those of the global counterterrorism coalition." The ISS said that in the wake of the war in Iraq Al Qaeda now has more than 18,000 potential terrorists scattered around the world and the war in Iraq is swelling its ranks."

To sustained applause, he then called for the resignation of the Bush foreign policy team:

"One of the strengths of democracy is the ability of the people to regularly demand changes in leadership and to fire a failing leader and hire a new one with the promise of hopeful change. That is the real solution to America's quagmire in Iraq. But, I am keenly aware that we have seven months and twenty five days remaining in this president's current term of office and that represents a time of dangerous vulnerability for our country because of the demonstrated incompetence and recklessness of the current administration."

"It is therefore essential that even as we focus on the fateful choice, the voters must make this November that we simultaneously search for ways to sharply reduce the extraordinary danger that we face with the current leadership team in place. It is for that reason that I am calling today for Republicans as well as Democrats to join me in asking for the immediate resignations of those immediately below George Bush and Dick Cheney who are most responsible for creating the catastrophe that we are facing in Iraq."

"We desperately need a national security team with at least minimal competence because the current team is making things worse with each passing day. They are endangering the lives of our soldiers, and sharply increasing the danger faced by American citizens everywhere in the world, including here at home. They are enraging hundreds of millions of people and embittering an entire generation of anti-Americans whose rage is already near the boiling point."

"We simply cannot afford to further increase the risk to our country with more blunders by this team. Donald Rumsfeld, as the chief architect of the war plan, should resign today. His deputies Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and his intelligence chief Stephen Cambone should also resign. The nation is especially at risk every single day that Rumsfeld remains as Secretary of Defense. Condoleezza Rice, who has badly mishandled the coordination of national security policy, should also resign immediately."

And, at the end, he called for us to hold Bush accountable in November:


"I want to speak on behalf of those Americans who feel that President Bush has betrayed our nation's trust, those who are horrified at what has been done in our name, and all those who want the rest of the world to know that we Americans see the abuses that occurred in the prisons of Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo and secret locations as yet undisclosed as completely out of keeping with the character and basic nature of the American people and at odds with the principles on which America stands."

"I believe we have a duty to hold President Bush accountable -- and I believe we will. As Lincoln said at our time of greatest trial, 'We -- even we here -- hold the power, and bear the responsibility.'"

To read the whole speech and watch video highlights of the best moments, go to:
http://www.moveonpac.org/gore/

Here are the first few paragraphs of a good write-up in the Washington Post:

GORE CALLS FOR TOP OFFICIALS TO RESIGN
DEMOCRAT ASSAILS BUSH'S WAR CABINET
By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 27, 2004; Page A03

Former vice president Al Gore accused President Bush's war cabinet of reckless incompetence yesterday and called for the resignations of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and CIA Director George J. Tenet.

"George W. Bush promised us a foreign policy with humility. Instead, he has brought us humiliation in the eyes of the world," Gore said at a speech in New York sponsored by the liberal MoveOn PAC. "We simply cannot afford to further increase the risk to our country with more blunders by this team."

Gore, jabbing his fingers and raising his voice to a shout, called the horrors of the Abu Ghraib prison "the predictable consequence of policy choices that flowed directly from this administration's contempt for the rule of law." His broad critique of that policy ranged from its aims to its vocabulary, and he complained about Bush aides' "frequent use of the word 'dominance' to describe their strategic goal."




Regards,

Amos


27 May 04 - 05:18 PM (#1195365)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth

Channel-surfing last night, I ran into the speech on CSPAN. Worst luck, I only heard part of it, but that was one helluva speech!! Who says Gore is "stiff and dull!???"

I wish Kerry would take a few vitamins and come on that strong!

Don Firth


27 May 04 - 06:39 PM (#1195429)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Extreme times bring out the extremes of character. Gore is suddenly exhibiting a capcity for articulate passion, while Bush is showing his for inarticulate destruction.

A


09 Jun 04 - 10:35 AM (#1203565)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

David Corn discusses Rumsfeld's falsifications about the Iraqi police status in this scathing article. These guys are such a bushel of crooks...I don't mean the Iraqis, be that as it may, but the fat Anglo warlords.

A


09 Jun 04 - 02:27 PM (#1203748)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Ebbie

Thanks, Amos. I'm forwarding that article to a number of people.


09 Jun 04 - 04:07 PM (#1203821)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Wired magazine summarizes how the Bush Administration has begun the process of undermining America's repute in scientific matters in this over view article examining the administration's policy on pseudoscience.

A


09 Jun 04 - 09:46 PM (#1204056)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: dianavan

Amos - Thanks again for the links. It is amazing to me that America and as a result, Americans have shrunk in stature in such a short space of time. Its like watching the fall of the Roman Empire.

I am wondering, however, if the propensity for forging ahead with new ideas without looking at previous examples, isn't happening everywhere in our fast paced world. It certainly happens alot in my career. I have taken part in many 'pilot projects' in education and have kept careful records of the results. I am almost never asked for the data or my conclusions. The next thing I know, someone has put the program in a glitzy package and is marketing the program world wide as the latest and greatest. Seems that everything is marketable with or without a rationale.

It is especially frightening when governments start messing with science to further their political agenda. Yes, Korea and China, too, will soon outflank the U.S. when it comes to scientific breakthroughs. Why? Because they are unencumbered by religious dogma. It is especially destructive when religious dogma and political conviction become a single force.


13 Jun 04 - 12:25 PM (#1206258)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Documents recently obtained by the press reveal White House anxiety
about how to protect President George W. Bush and members of his cabinet from
going to prison
for ordering, authorizing or deliberately permitting
systematic torture of persons in their control, but technically outside
formal American legal jurisdiction. The question put to lawyers was how
the president and the others could commit war crimes and get away with
it.

This may be a much deeper scandal than originally thought. See this article from the International Herald Tribune.

A


13 Jun 04 - 12:51 PM (#1206284)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: dianavan

Amos - good link, thanks. Yes, if Bush gets away with this, it will change the face of America forever. The American people must see to it that he and his pals are punished or the scar on the face of America will remain. The question is, how will America redeem itself?


13 Jun 04 - 01:22 PM (#1206294)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

And for a lighter note, review ALL the Jon Styewart reports at Comedy Central. The man is a powerhouse!!

Thanks to Donuel for the original pointer!




A


14 Jun 04 - 09:57 AM (#1206891)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From a recent column in Slate on the incompetence of Richard Feith of the Bush administration, a reader makes incisive comment:

Remarks from the Fray:

…The neoconservatives deliberately cherry-picked intelligence that would help them make a case for a war that they just assumed was necessary. They didn't care if any of the reasons they cited were true or not; only that they'd be believed.

They deliberately avoided submitting the Iraq problem to the United Nations Security Council out of fear that they might solve it, peacefully, without the need for an invasion.

Feith emphasized the WMD justification because he obviously thought that the Army would find SOMETHING connected to a WMD program that could then be used to justify the war retroactively.

After the war, when no weapons and no links to al-Qaida were found, the emphasis shifted to "building democracy," and all the good America was supposedly doing for the American people.

Was any of this actually thought out? No.

The Administration decided, for no clear reason, that it wanted to invade Iraq, and did so.

The failure to come up with a post-facto rational justification for an inherently irrational action isn't a sign of stupidity or brilliance.

It's just what happens when insanity paints you into a corner.

--Thrasymachus


Somehow I just have to love that last line.

A


17 Jun 04 - 11:56 PM (#1209636)
Subject: A Report Card for Wee Georgie...
From: Amos

United States Grammar School Interim Report to Parents


18 Jun 04 - 10:41 AM (#1209893)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Bush behaving like Saddam, says Madonna


20 Jun 04 - 02:24 PM (#1211017)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Writing for the on-line edition of The Atlantic, Jack Beatty characterizes the Bush administration as the miserable failure it is. Click to read.

A


20 Jun 04 - 02:57 PM (#1211031)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth

Pretty damned depressing. But let's hope that there's a glimmer of intelligence somewhere amoung a sufficient number of voters. Otherwise, fasten your seatbelt and hold your breath, because it's going to be a messy ride as we head down the drain.

Don Firth


20 Jun 04 - 08:19 PM (#1211158)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

An excerpt from the above:


"The Founders feared that the republic would succumb to corruption without republican citizenship—without citizens who could transcend privatism and hold elected officials to account, demanding probity and competence, and judging their performance against both the clamorous necessities of the time and the mute claims of posterity. They made property a criterion for voting because it secured a measure of economic independence. Property-less wage laborers, they feared, would vote as their employers instructed them to. The extension of democracy to those who could not rise to the responsibilities of republican freedom would corrupt the republic—hasten its decay into oligarchy or mob rule.

For all their worldliness the Founders were naïve to regard property as a shield of incorruptibility or the property-less as inherently corruptible. Their core insight, however, remains valid. A republic can be corrupted at the top and bottom, by leaders and led. The re-election of George W. Bush would signal that a kind of corruption had set in among the led. Our miserable failure as republican citizens would match his as President."

A


26 Jun 04 - 09:48 PM (#1214830)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

An interesting perspective distributed by "From the Wilderness", a commentary of the inside of Washington. It appears there may be some serious explosions over the plame expose, with serious legal impact on Bush and his core courtlings. An excerpt:

>The June 3rd issue of Capitol Hill Blue, the newspaper published for members
>of Congress, bore the headline "Bush Knew About Leak of CIA Operative's
>Name" .
>That article virtually guaranteed that the Plame investigation had enough to
>pursue Bush criminally. The story's lead sentence described a criminal,
>prosecutable offense: "Witnesses told a federal grand jury President George
>W. Bush knew about, and took no action to stop, the release of a covert CIA
>operative's name to a journalist in an attempt to discredit her husband, a
>critic of administration policy in Iraq."
>
>A day later, on June 4th Capitol Hill Blue took another hard shot at the
>administration. Titled "Bush's Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides"
> , the
>story's first four paragraphs say everything.
>
>President George W. Bush's increasingly erratic behavior and wide mood
>swings has the halls of the West Wing buzzing lately as aides privately
>express growing concern over their leader's state of mind.
>
>In meetings with top aides and administration officials, the President goes
>from quoting the Bible in one breath to obscene tantrums against the media,
>Democrats and others that he classifies as "enemies of the state."
>
>Worried White House aides paint a portrait of a man on the edge,
>increasingly wary of those who disagree with him and paranoid of a public
>that no longer trusts his policies in Iraq or at home.
>
>"It reminds me of the Nixon days," says a longtime GOP political consultant
>with contacts in the White House. "Everybody is an enemy; everybody is out
>to get him. That's the mood over there."
>
>The attacks have not stopped. On June 8th, the same paper followed with
>another story headlined, "Lawyers Told Bush He Could Order Suspects
>Tortured"
>.
>
>Journalist Wayne Madsen, a Washington veteran with excellent access to many
>sources has indicated for this story that the Neocons have few remaining
>friends anywhere. All of this is consistent with a CIA-led coup.
>

A


27 Jun 04 - 10:18 AM (#1214969)
Subject: Suppression of Science by the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From the Times:

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration has ordered that government
scientists must be approved by a senior political appointee before they
can participate in meetings convened by the World Health Organization,
the leading international health and science agency.

A top official from the Health and Human Services Department in April
asked the WHO to begin routing requests for participation in its
meetings to the department's secretary for review, rather than directly
invite individual scientists, as has long been the case.

Officials at the WHO, based in Geneva, Switzerland, have refused to
implement the request thusfar, saying it could compromise the
independence of international scientific deliberations. Denis G.
Aitken, WHO assistant director-general, said Friday that he had been
negotiating with Washington in an effort to reach a compromise.

The request is the latest instance in which the Bush administration has
been accused of allowing politics to intrude into once-sacrosanct areas
of scientific deliberation. It has been criticized for replacing highly
regarded scientists with industry and political allies on advisory
panels. A biologist who was at odds with the administration's position
on stem-cell research was dismissed from a presidential advisory
commission. This year, 60 prominent scientists accused the
administration of "misrepresenting and suppressing scientific knowledge
for political purposes."


27 Jun 04 - 11:58 AM (#1215009)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Metchosin

Whoa, I was going to comment "Sieg Heil!", but that directive could have just as easily eminated from the former USSR.... odd thing about totalitarian orders.


29 Jun 04 - 11:47 PM (#1216721)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

If you want a brief overview of the blatant stupidity of the US "plan" in dealing with the settling of Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam's military, look over this historical recapby an NBC correspondent. It shows up how uncoordinated and short on thoughtfuil analysis we have been overall.

A


30 Jun 04 - 12:35 AM (#1216740)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Iraq doubts keep Bush's popularity on the slide



George Bush's popularity fell to a new low yesterday in a poll which suggests that there is an increasing level of scepticism about the motives for the Iraq invasion and rising concern about its consequences.

Nearly 80% of the Americans questioned in the poll for the New York Times and CBS news thought he had been either "hiding something" or "mostly lying" in his statements on Iraq.

From The Guardian.

Regards,

A


06 Jul 04 - 07:00 PM (#1220237)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The OpEd page of the New York Times contains a scathing indictment, for two reasons.

One is the embarrassing things it says about the similarities between George today and the then-George of 1776 against whom the Declaration of Independence was written. It tries to be kind to our present George.

The other is because of the many direct things it pussyfoots around, as though it would be a shame to name his madness for what it is. And I am not referring to Hanover, here.

A


07 Jul 04 - 09:20 AM (#1220613)
Subject: Ashcroft Wins Villainy Award
From: Amos

John Ashcroft has been named Villain of the month for yet further incursions into ordinary rights of privacy.

Somehow, his little face reminds me of certain 20-th century generals from Europe.


A


07 Jul 04 - 06:44 PM (#1220982)
Subject: Ashcroft As Fascist
From: Amos

A New Angle onSuppressing Information: Do It Retroactively!


A.



WASHINGTON -- Sifting through old classified materials in the days after
the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, FBI translator Sibel Edmonds said, she made
an alarming discovery: Intercepts relevant to the terrorist plot,
including references to skyscrapers, had been overlooked because they
were badly translated into English.

Edmonds, 34, who is fluent in Turkish and Farsi, said she quickly
reported the mistake to an FBI superior. Five months later, after
flagging what she said were several other security lapses in her
division, she was fired. Now, after more than two years of
investigations and congressional inquiries, Edmonds is at the center of an
extraordinary storm over US classification rules that sheds new light on the secrecy
imperative supported by members of the Bush administration.

In a rare maneuver, Attorney General John Ashcroft has ordered that
information about the Edmonds case be retroactively classified, even
basic facts that have been posted on websites and discussed openly in
meetings with members of Congress for two years. The Department of
Justice also invoked the seldom-used ''state secrets" privilege to
silence Edmonds in court. She has been blocked from testifying in a
lawsuit brought by victims of the Sept. 11 attacks and was allowed to
speak to the panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks only behind closed
doors.

Meanwhile, the FBI has yet to release its internal investigation into
her charges. And the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees the bureau,
has been stymied in its attempt to get to the bottom of her allegations.
Now that the case has been retroactively classified, lawmakers are wary
of discussing the details, for fear of overstepping legal bounds.



See http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/07/05/


07 Jul 04 - 06:55 PM (#1220985)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Further on the above case:

"There's a great deal more info on this at
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Sibel_Edmonds
including a link to a lengthy, detailed, and coherent interview
from July 1: http://antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2920

Some of this may sound fantastic but see
(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/60minutes/main526954.shtml)


"She's credible," says Sen. Grassley. "And the reason I feel she's very
credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of
her story."

Regards,

A


08 Jul 04 - 05:07 PM (#1221674)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: jack halyard

I just heard a news analysis of the military tribunal process being used to try David Hicks. It is the most Stalinist show trial since the end of the Soviet Union. Hicks has no chance of being cleared and no chance of liberty unless Bush and Howard agree on a pre-election act of mercy. Truth, Justice and the American way! I say Bush needs to be up before an international court himself. He's a bully, a thug and a proven liar.   Jack Halyard.


08 Jul 04 - 06:21 PM (#1221718)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: TIA

For this bunch, EVERYTHING is politics. The latest - the Bush Admin is pressuring Pakistan to kill or capture "high value targets" on July 26, 27, or 28 in order to upstage the Dem. convention.   Here is the story.


08 Jul 04 - 06:53 PM (#1221738)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

An excerpt:
PAKISTAN FOR BUSH.
July Surprise?
by John B. Judis, Spencer Ackerman & Massoud Ansari
Post date: 07.07.04
Issue date: 07.19.04

ate last month, President Bush lost his greatest advantage in his bid for reelection. A poll conducted by ABC News and The Washington Post discovered that challenger John Kerry was running even with the president on the critical question of whom voters trust to handle the war on terrorism. Largely as a result of the deteriorating occupation of Iraq, Bush lost what was, in April, a seemingly prohibitive 21-point advantage on his signature issue. But, even as the president's poll numbers were sliding, his administration was implementing a plan to insure the public's confidence in his hunt for Al Qaeda.


This spring, the administration significantly increased its pressure on Pakistan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman Al Zawahiri, or the Taliban's Mullah Mohammed Omar, all of whom are believed to be hiding in the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan. A succession of high-level American officials--from outgoing CIA Director George Tenet to Secretary of State Colin Powell to Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca to State Department counterterrorism chief Cofer Black to a top CIA South Asia official--have visited Pakistan in recent months to urge General Pervez Musharraf's government to do more in the war on terrorism. In April, Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador to Afghanistan, publicly chided the Pakistanis for providing a "sanctuary" for Al Qaeda and Taliban forces crossing the Afghan border. "The problem has not been solved and needs to be solved, the sooner the better," he said.


09 Jul 04 - 07:29 AM (#1222086)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,TIA

and what follows Amos' excerpt is...

This public pressure would be appropriate, even laudable, had it not been accompanied by an unseemly private insistence that the Pakistanis deliver these high-value targets (HVTs) before Americans go to the polls in November. The Bush administration denies it has geared the war on terrorism to the electoral calendar. "Our attitude and actions have been the same since September 11 in terms of getting high-value targets off the street, and that doesn't change because of an election," says National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack. But The New Republic has learned that Pakistani security officials have been told they must produce HVTs by the election. According to one source in Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), "The Pakistani government is really desperate and wants to flush out bin Laden and his associates after the latest pressures from the U.S. administration to deliver before the [upcoming] U.S. elections." Introducing target dates for Al Qaeda captures is a new twist in U.S.-Pakistani counterterrorism relations--according to a recently departed intelligence official, "no timetable[s]" were discussed in 2002 or 2003--but the November election is apparently bringing a new deadline pressure to the hunt. Another official, this one from the Pakistani Interior Ministry, which is responsible for internal security, explains, "The Musharraf government has a history of rescuing the Bush administration. They now want Musharraf to bail them out when they are facing hard times in the coming elections." (These sources insisted on remaining anonymous. Under Pakistan's Official Secrets Act, an official leaking information to the press can be imprisoned for up to ten years.)

A third source, an official who works under ISI's director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed tnr that the Pakistanis "have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of HVTs before [the] election is [an] absolute must." What's more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: "The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq's] meetings in Washington." Says McCormack: "I'm aware of no such comment." But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.


09 Jul 04 - 05:53 PM (#1222585)
Subject: More Ashcroft Crimes
From: Amos

CHARLESTON, W.Va. - Two Corpus Christi residents were arrested during
President Bush's visit to the West Virginia Capitol to honor the
country's veterans and gather support for invading Iraq.

Nicole and Jeffery Rank were taken out from among the crowd of about
6,500 packed into the Capitol's north courtyard in restraints by
police.
They were issued citations for trespassing and released, said Jay
Smithers, acting director of the Capitol police force.

"We were told we couldn't be here because we were wearing these shirts
that said we were against Bush," Nicole Rank shouted as police rushed
her out.

Smithers said the pair had tickets to the event and wore clothing over
their anti-Bush T-shirts. Once through the security checkpoint, they
removed their outer layers and mingled in the crowd.

"We asked them to go out to the designated protest area but they
refused," Smithers said. "They told our people they would not leave and
sat down on their hands. We didn't have any choice."




How about it folks? An appropriate response by a well-managed Administration? Or an effort to suppress dissent, quell free speech, and create false impressions of unanamity in a manner akin top Saddam's "election"

A


10 Jul 04 - 07:41 AM (#1222805)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,TIA

The latter, the latter...


10 Jul 04 - 10:44 AM (#1222866)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The LA Times excoriates the Bush administrations long-term dedication to defrauding the US populace.

A


10 Jul 04 - 09:23 PM (#1223084)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

"WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush says legalizing gay marriage would redefine the most fundamental institution of civilization and that a constitutional amendment is needed to protect it.

A few activist judges and local officials have taken it on themselves to change the meaning of marriage, Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address.

Leading the chorus of support for an amendment, Bush said, "If courts create their own arbitrary definition of marriage as a mere legal contract, and cut marriage off from its cultural, religious and natural roots, then the meaning of marriage is lost and the institution is weakened."

His remarks follow the opening of Senate debate Friday on a constitutional amendment effectively banning gay marriage.

Reflecting the election-year sensitivity of the issue, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said Republicans are using the constitutional amendment as a bulletin board for campaign sloganeering."


Has anyone pointed out to this lame-brained sack of sorry stupidity that the United States Consittiution is an ARCHITECTURE, and not a handbook of moral knee-jerk platitudes? Does he have any IDEA how he is degrading the most inspired social experiment ever designed, and dooming it to sorry desuetude by undermining it this way? He wants to take the moral value-judgements of a minority and make them boss by messing with the Consittution of the United States. The man is psychotic, I tell ya!!

A


10 Jul 04 - 10:08 PM (#1223098)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

So, ahhhhh, what's new, Amos.....

Heck, when his lawyers and goon squads hyjacked the 2000 Election it was purdy danged apparent what these nazis had in mind...

And now you are surprised?

A few of us have been trying to tell folks what has gone down in America and it ain't too purdy...

BTW, great article by Robert Scheer in the LA Times...

And as fir the supposed 2004 Election? It's gonna take at least a 5% point win by Kerry to get rid of these crooks since the crooks have Diebold, the ballot counters on their side. Heck, make it 6%, maybe 7% just to win a friggin' election....

Like you said, these folks don't mind one bit messin' with the Constitution or any other law... fir that matter.

Bobert


11 Jul 04 - 12:44 PM (#1223327)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From the Washington Post:

ALBUQUERQUE, July 10 -- President Bush has governed in a dishonest fashion, trampling values on every issue except fighting terrorism and leaving voters "clamoring for restoration of credibility and trust in the White House again," John F. Kerry and John Edwards said in an interview.






"The value of truth is one of the most central values in America, and this administration has violated" it, Kerry said in an interview with The Washington Post aboard the Democrats' campaign plane Friday. "Their values system is distorted and not based on truth."


The Democratic nominee and his running mate said it was that kind of anger toward the president that prompted entertainers at Thursday's Democratic fundraising concert in New York to attack Bush as a "cheap thug" and a killer. "Obviously some performers, in my judgment and John's, stepped over a line neither of us believes appropriate, but we can't control that," Kerry said. "On the other hand, we understand the anger, we understand the frustration."

Wow!! Even hearing a politician TALK about such a thing gets me all wet.

A


11 Jul 04 - 06:51 PM (#1223459)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Terry Allan Hall

Time to re-decorate the White House...throw out some bushes and install some johns...


11 Jul 04 - 07:57 PM (#1223491)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

I read that article, Amos, and I am warming up to Kerry one step at a time...

When he says that restoring honesty to the executive branch he's saying stuff that needs to be said. I'm glad he's steppin' to the plate.

Bobert


12 Jul 04 - 01:02 PM (#1223973)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Give it back, George (Greg Palast GregPalast.com )

Give it back, George


Bush and Republicans should give up ill-gotten Lay loot that bought the White House


When the feds swoop down and cuff racketeers, they also load the vans with all the perp's ill-gotten gains: stacks of cash, BMWs, whatever. Their associates have to cough up the goodies too: lady friends must give up their diamond rocks. Under the racketeering law, RICO, even before a verdict, anything bought with the proceeds of the crime goes into the public treasury.

But there seems to be special treatment afforded those who loaded up on the 'bennies' of Ken Lay's crimes. If the G-men don't know where the tainted loot is cached, try this address: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Ask for George or Dick.

Ken Lay and his Enron team are the ! Number One political career donors to George W. Bush. Mr. Lay and his Mrs., with no money to pay back bilked creditors, still managed to personally put up $100,000 for George's inaugural Ball plus $793,110 for personal donations to Republicans. Lay's Enron team dropped $4.2 million into the party that let Enron party.

OK now, Mr. President, give it back -- the millions stuffed in the pockets of the Republican campaign kitty stolen from Enron retirees. And what else did Ken Lay buy with the money stolen from California electricity customers? Answer: the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Just before George Bush moved to Washington, Kenny-Boy handed his hand-picked president-to-be the name of the man Ken wanted as Chairman of the commission charged with investigating Enron's thievery. In a heartbeat, George Bush appointed Ken's boy,! Pat Wood.

Think about that: the criminal gets to pick the police chief. Well, George, give it back. Dump Wood and end the de-criminalization of electricity price-gouging that you and Cheney and Wood laughably call "de-regulation." Give us back the government Lay bought with crime cash.

And while we're gathering up the ill-gotten loot, let's stop by Brother Jeb's. The Governor of Florida picked up a cool $2 million from a Houston fundraiser at the home of Enron's former president long AFTER the company went bankrupt. Enron, not incidentally, obtained half a billion of Florida state pension money -- which has now disappeared down the Enron rat-hole.

And Mr. Vice-President, don't you also have something to give back? In secret meetings with Dick Cheney in the Veep's bunker prior to the inauguration and after, you let Ken and his cohorts secretly draft the nation's energy plan -- taking a short break to eye oilfield maps of Iraq. Let us remember that the President's sticky-fingered brothers Neil and Marvin were on Enron's payroll, hired to sell pipelines to the Saudis. The Saudis didn't bite, but maybe a captive Iraq would be more pliant. So, Mr. Law and Order President, please follow the law and give up the Energy Plan that Mr. Lay bought with other people's money.

When I worked as a racketeering investigator for government, nothing was spared, including houses bought with purloined loot. Let there be no exception here. It's time to tape up the White House gate and hang the sign: "Crime Scene: Property to be Confiscated. Vacate Premises Immediately."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


12 Jul 04 - 03:10 PM (#1224048)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Subject: Please help right away -- we've got to stick together

Dear Mudcatter,

Congress is about to vote on amending the U.S. Constitution to deny marriage equality to same-sex couples.

Never before has our Constitution been amended to take away anyone's rights. Yet our Senators will vote on this amendment in the next 48 hours.

It's urgent that we speak up now. This hateful divisiveness has no place in America. Please join me in saying so, at:

http://www.moveon.org/unitednotdivided/

Equality in marriage is the civil rights issue of our generation. We can't let anyone, or any group, be singled out for discrimination based on who they are or who they love.

Thank you.


12 Jul 04 - 03:19 PM (#1224051)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce

Hear, hear.

There is no place in the Constitution for such an amendment. If there is a problem with the religious definition of marriage being threatened by same-sex unions, then the use of marriage by the US government (taxing status, for example)is an unlawful incursion of religion into state.

Bruce


12 Jul 04 - 04:23 PM (#1224084)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

I'll be goddamned!! Bruce, a post after my own heart!!

A


12 Jul 04 - 04:40 PM (#1224093)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Peace

When bad people are allowed to chip away at a cherished document, soon the words thereon will be perverted to other ends. The Constitution of the United States of America is looked up to world wide. I wish Canada had such a document. I think Americans should not allow this to happen. I hope they don't. The issue is NOT gay marriage. The issue is human freedom. Stop the bastards. Please.


12 Jul 04 - 04:43 PM (#1224096)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Bobert:

From Wired News today:

Critics of electronic voting are suing Diebold under a whistleblower law, alleging that the company's shoddy balloting equipment exposed California elections to hackers and software bugs.

California's attorney general unsealed the lawsuit Friday. It was filed in November but sealed under a provision that keeps such actions secret until the government decides whether to join the plaintiffs.

Lawmakers from Maryland to California are expressing doubts about the integrity of paperless voting terminals made by several large manufacturers, which up to 50 million Americans will use in November.


12 Jul 04 - 10:25 PM (#1224254)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Refraichir pour le Bobert....


12 Jul 04 - 10:40 PM (#1224264)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

Sorry, Amos, but I'm not too sure if I took French in college but if I did I was too stoned to remember any of it....

Hey, who kidnapped beardedbruce? The one who posted above obviously ain't the one postin' under that handle on them I-rack threads....

Ahhhhh, back to you, Amos.... Yeah, I know that there's lots of states who ain't all that happy with Diebold. It's obvious 'er Bush wouldn't even bother to pull this sleeze politcial crap about the Constituional Ammendment. They are desperate. The prize is in sight. Four more years and they'll not only turn back the clock to pre-Emancipation Proclaimation days but have the entire working class, back, white, red and green, picking Boss Hog's cotton...

Glory days....

I'm beginning to agree with Dreaded GUEST. Buy guns!!!...

Bobert


12 Jul 04 - 11:09 PM (#1224272)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

World-Class Doublespeak

If you want a real world class example of doublespeak, read the release from the Gummint on changing the rules about logging. The Times' version is here. Requires a free subscription/cookie.

These guys flip flop and say their new policies are providing conservational guidelines as though this was an improvement. Look a little closer and lo!! Thousands of acres open to logging that were previously closed. So GLAD they're taking care of things,.


A


12 Jul 04 - 11:17 PM (#1224284)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

Shoot, all they are doing is creating more fuel for forest fires by cuttin' old growth timber and leavin' everything but the "log" to sit there jus' dryin' out and gettin' ready to burn, baby, burn...

Then, of course, they'll blame Clinton for the forest fire... Man, them cigars will get you in a heap o' trouble...

I am convinced that given truth over lieing they will pick the lie 101 times out of a 100...

Bobert


12 Jul 04 - 11:59 PM (#1224306)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

It seems to be what they have the most practice at.


A


13 Jul 04 - 08:31 AM (#1224492)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST

"Wow!! Even hearing a politician TALK about such a thing gets me all wet."

(Amos on a Washington Post article)

What a weird expression to use. Wet with what?


13 Jul 04 - 08:45 AM (#1224498)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce

Bobert,

I happen to believe that the Constitution should be kept as it is- I object to liberals trying to remove the second amendment, and conservatives trying to weaken the separation of church and state.

I object to changing the Electoral College- the states have always had the right to make their Electoral College votes proportional to the votes recieved, but very few have. ANd that has been under the control of both parties, so no blaming the neocons there.

And I object to people here who deny that the Supreme Court is the deciding legal authority of the land. Face it, Bush was elected legally. You may not like it, and even I will admit it may have made better political sense to have a recount ( of the ENTIRE state, not just the ones where the Dems expected to pick up votes, which is what Gore asked for) in the 2000 election, but the Constitution allows the Supreme Court to make the decision it did.

If one allows changes to the bill of rights for trivial reasons, the intent of the founding fathers ( see the Federalist Papers) will not be preserved. So far, I think we can agree that that intent has stood the test of time.


13 Jul 04 - 08:47 AM (#1224500)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

So I hear this familiar voice last night on the news saying, "So I had a choice to make: either take the word of a madman or defend America. Given that choice I will defend America".

Well I was thinkin' there fir a second, "Hmmmm, why would the new choose to air someone talking that mean about Bush? I mean calling him a mad man, and all?"

So I look up to see who it is on the TV and it *IS* Bush... Imean, go figure???

Well, I think I'll take his advice and "defend America" against a "madman" by voting for someone other than Bush...

Bobert


13 Jul 04 - 08:54 AM (#1224505)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

That was not an election, but an appointment.

In addition, it violated provisions of the Constitution concerning the authority of the Florida Supreme Court.

So it wasn't as perfectly legal as all that,. But we abided by the decision of the Supreme Court thinking that was the honorable thing to do. Despite all the appearances of impropriety within the Court itself.

A


13 Jul 04 - 08:54 AM (#1224506)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce

Voting for the candidate that you feel will represent your views the best is the appropriate thing to do.


13 Jul 04 - 09:01 AM (#1224509)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce

Amos,

"That was not an election, but an appointment."

This is a statement of your opinion. If you intend to present it as a statement of fact, please show me the legal rulings you are drawing upon. In MY opinion, the attempt by the Gore campaign to recount ontly the precincts that they felt would give them an advantage, and denial of both recounts and absentee ballots in areas where they expected to have Bush win was a blatent attempt to steal the election.
In my opinion.


13 Jul 04 - 09:10 AM (#1224514)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

Fir all the un-Gorey details, Greg Palist's book, "The Best Denocracy Money Can Buy" has them all. Photocopies of documents, the connectin' of dots, and enough evidence to warrent 5 members of the Supreme Court, as well and Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris resiging from public office...

Bobert


13 Jul 04 - 09:17 AM (#1224521)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce

If it was evidence, why has there been no court case? Sounds like even the Dems do not think that they have a case.


I csn only go by the reports that I got during the election, from the radio and tv- that presented the press liasons of both campaigns. I HEARD the Dems asking that only the three districts that they thought should have had a higher vote for them be recounted, and that there was no reason to consider counting any others, especially those in the ( conservative) panhandle.



Anyway, by the SRS rule, No one needs to look at any evidence that you present from an obviously partisan source. Sorry.


13 Jul 04 - 10:20 AM (#1224577)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

First of all, the Dems are caught between a rock and hard place. If they cry "foul" then the "Repubs" jump up an down and cry "bad loosers".

Actually a case was brought in a Florida court by I believe the NAACP but the Repub. lawyers and Repub, appointed judges squashed it...

As fir partisanship, since you haven't been around here long, I have been a Green Party mamber going back since the Bush I, so I have no particular love for the Democratic Party...

Both the Repubs and Dems. are fully capable of stinking up the joint. With that said, I may (but may not) hold my nose and gvote for Kerry only to derail what even lots of us Greens see as a very, very dangerous Bush administartion...

This ain't partisanship. Just reality...

The checks and balances are way too out of wack and these current Repubs are making a push for complete and centralized control. Historically, this as been a bad combination and is one early warning that a system is ripe for implosion...

But back to the book...

I'll make you the same deal that I've made other Bushites. If you read Palist's book, I'll read any neo-con book you want me to. But I'm going to quiz you on it and expect the same from you...

Bobert


13 Jul 04 - 01:27 PM (#1224702)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Chris Green

George Bush is an incompetent halfwit who isn't fit to run a knocking shop. Tony Blair is a marginally less incompetent halfwit who is probably just about fit to run a knocking shop but on being given the responsibility would instantly turn to George Bush for advice (or 'orders' as the rest of the world likes to call them).


13 Jul 04 - 01:32 PM (#1224704)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

George Bush is an incompetent halfwit who isn't fit to run a knocking shop.

I have no idea what gets done in a knocking shop, but I am sympathetic to the first half of your proposition.

A


13 Jul 04 - 05:38 PM (#1224874)
Subject: More Criminality From our Esteemed Congress
From: Amos

---| From the Editor |--------------------------------------

    Last year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) proposed an
    amendment that would criminalize war profiteering. The
    Republican leadership not only removed it, but raised
    the limit on no-bid contracts from $7.5 million to $200
    million. At home, pork spending has enjoyed a stunning
    renaissance, from the creation of a $225 million African
    rainforest in Iowa, to a subsidy, procured by Rep. Billy
    Tauzin (R-La.), to help build a Hooters restaurant. Tom
    Delay, meanwhile, browbeat a D.C. restaurant manager to
    let him smoke a cigar at his table. Told that federal
    this would be against the law of the federal government,
    DeLay thundered back, "I am the federal government!"
    The 108th Congress, writes Jack Hitt, has been one of
    the most profligate - and least principled - in nearly a
    century. No shortage of candidates, then, for this year's
    Diddly Awards, Mother Jones' tribute to the most
    pork-happy, prejudiced, and pigheaded members of Congress.
    Writes Hitt, "[E]ven as they have scoffed at the rules the
    rest of us plebs must live by and spent like drunken
    sailors," members of the 108th Congress "still found myriad
    opportunities to, once again, do diddly."
   
See >http://ga3.org/ct/Z1affE61iaGn/

    Julian Brookes
    Assistant Editor, MotherJones.com


13 Jul 04 - 08:09 PM (#1225001)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The corruption of Tom Delay and his connection with the Enron debacle is discussed in the NY Times Op Ed piece by Paul Krugman.

This administration is so tangled up with big company bucks it is shameful. Not because of the profit motive but because they have done it at the expense of people all over the country who weren't even aware they were being scammed.

A


13 Jul 04 - 09:51 PM (#1225041)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

The Wsahington Post also ran a story on the Delay scandal but its 12 pages long (printed off the pudder) and my lexdexia keeps kickin' in around page 6 'er seven...

Man, geeze o pete. This guy is not only a crook but he may end up sharin' a cell with his buddy, Ken Lay...

More later on this story as it prolly deserves its own thread...

Bobert


14 Jul 04 - 03:38 PM (#1225470)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Fishpicker

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

This is more timely today than ever before, just fill in the examples with contemporary ones.

                         FP


14 Jul 04 - 05:34 PM (#1225565)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

And will ya look at the ignoramouses waitin' in line to sign up for their brown shirts?!!!?... Dumbed down so called Christains who wouldn't know Jesus if He walked up to them across the water.... Being led by a heathenous group of thugs, liars, crooks and cheats.

Hmmmmm. Guest is right. It is time to start buying guns so when they do come for the progressives and moderates at least it won't be cake walk...

And sho nuff... they are coming... don't take a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows...

Non-violent Bobert
(but will defend myself and my family...)


14 Jul 04 - 07:32 PM (#1225646)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Fishpicker

Fighting for freedom are we? I wonder why our freedom is being systematically taken away from us if that is the case. The real *terror* is being slowly and surely ushered into a martial law police state with no protection from the high handed government neo-con overlords. This is one time I'm glad to be an old man! I truly am worried for what kind of future my kids will have in this country.

                         FP


14 Jul 04 - 08:36 PM (#1225680)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth

And Tom DeLay proudly proclaims himself to be a "Born Again Christian." Sheesh!!

Maybe that should be "convenience 'Christian.'"

Don Firth


14 Jul 04 - 11:27 PM (#1225750)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

Where's Tom DeLay's mama? He may think he's born again but his de*mean*or and actions show that he needs to be stuffed back in. He ain't half ready to be born again...

((((((((((((((((((((Judge thee not, Bobert!)))))))))))))))))))))

Nevermind, ol' Tom's got somethin' serious comin' down the road...

Bobert


16 Jul 04 - 01:33 PM (#1227053)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

This New York Times editorial apologizes for not having had more sense about the fraudulent claims concerning WMD and the drum-beating in favor of war which it did not do enough to analyze.

If a newspaper can take responsibility for its follies, surely a President should be able to.

A


16 Jul 04 - 05:26 PM (#1227231)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Whoopi Goldberg has defended her choice to attack US president George W Bush which led to her being dropped as a spokeswoman for diet aid company Slim-Fast.

Bosses at Slim-Fast dropped the star from their ad campaign, after admitting they were disappointed in her remarks at last Thursday's star-studded fundraiser for presidential hopeful John Kerry at Radio City Music Hall in New York.

Goldberg caused offence at the event, when, according to the New York Post she "fired off a stream of vulgar sexual wordplays on Bush's name in a riff about female genitalia".

An unrepentant Goldberg hit back in a written statement. "Just because I'm no longer in those (commercial) spots, it doesn't mean I will stop talking.

"While I can appreciate what the Slim-Fast people need to do in order to protect their business, I must also do what I need to do as an artist, as a writer and as an American - not to mention as a comic."

"I only wish that the Republican re-election committee would spend as much time working on the economy as they seem to be spending trying to harm my pocketbook."


Get it said, you San Diego gal, you!! Get it SAAIIIID!!! Yeehaw. Go, Whoopi.



A


16 Jul 04 - 07:20 PM (#1227323)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth

Guinan is centuries old and very wise. When those who cruise the gaxaly find themselves in a state of bewilderment, a few moments in 10-Forward chatting with Guinan usually puts them back on course.

Make it so.

Don Firth


16 Jul 04 - 08:08 PM (#1227346)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth

Man, do I have a dislexic keyboard! That should be "galaxy"!

(Maybe I'd better head for 10-Forward and have a snort of synthahol and a long chat with the bartender.)

Don (Sheesh!) Firth


17 Jul 04 - 11:11 AM (#1227634)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The details on the snookering of law by the Republicans who used technical procedural manuvers to prevent the rollback of the Patriot Act are covered on this web page.

A


17 Jul 04 - 11:13 AM (#1227636)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

NEW YORK - Cartoonist Garry Trudeau, who has skewered politicians for
decades in his comic strip "Doonesbury," tells Rolling Stone magazine he
remembers Yale classmate George W. Bush as "just another sarcastic preppy
who gave people nicknames and arranged for keg deliveries."

Trudeau attended Yale University with Bush in the late 1960s and served with
him on a dormitory social committee.

"Even then he had clearly awesome social skills," Trudeau said. "He could
also make you feel extremely uncomfortable ... He was extremely skilled at
controlling people and outcomes in that way. Little bits of perfectly placed
humiliation."

Trudeau said he penned his very first cartoon to illustrate an article in
the Yale Daily News on Bush and allegations that his fraternity, DKE, had
hazed incoming pledges by branding them with an iron.

The article in the campus paper prompted The New York Times to interview
Bush, who was a senior that year. Trudeau recalled that Bush told the Times
"it was just a coat hanger, and ... it didn't hurt any more than a cigarette
burn."

"It does put one in mind of what his views on torture might be today,"
Trudeau said.

Having mocked presidents of both parties in the "Doonesbury" strip since
1971, Trudeau said Bush has been, "tragically, the best target" he's worked
with yet.

"Bush has created more harm to this country's standing and security than any
president in history," Trudeau said. "What a shame the world has to suffer
the consequences of Dubya not getting enough approval from Dad."

Rolling Stone was publishing the interview Friday.


19 Jul 04 - 03:40 PM (#1229176)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Washington Post editorial stresses the need for accountability for the deaths of hundreds in Iraq, inter alia.

"The toll on America is all the more galling because of how the country went to war. We now know we were told a great many things that turned out to be untrue. Bush administration officials, relying on unfounded, distorted and exaggerated intelligence concerning weapons threats, took the country down a path that has led to a catastrophic waste of human lives as well as billions of dollars.

Let's consider just a few of the things that were conveyed as the gospel truth:

• "The Iraq regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . [I]t has developed weapons of mass destruction." President Bush, Oct. 2, 2002.

• "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." Vice President Cheney, Aug. 26, 2002.

• "We said they had a nuclear program. That was never any debate." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, July 13, 2003.

...

Martha Stewart was convicted for, among several offenses, lying to the government. What's the penalty when the government misleads the people?"



Regards,

A


20 Jul 04 - 09:31 PM (#1230337)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

A popular downtown bar installed a robotic bartender.


One evening shortly after, a fellow came into the bar for a drink and
the robot asked him, "What's your IQ?"

The guy replied, "150."

The robot proceeded to make conversation about quantum physics,
string theory, atomic chemistry, and other esoteric topics.

The fellow listened intently and thought, "Hey, this is great!"




He decided to test the robot, so he walked out of the bar, turned
around, and came back in.

Again, the robot asked him, "What's your IQ?"

He responded, "100," and the robot held forth on about football,
baseball, and a variety of other sports.

Again, the customer thought, "Wow, this is really cool!"




He went out and came into the bar for a third time.

As before, the robot asked him, "What's your IQ?"

This time he replied, "50."

And the robot said, "So, you gonna vote for Bush again?"


20 Jul 04 - 10:12 PM (#1230361)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

As to what the candidates actually represent:

http://cdn.moveonpac.org/data/debate.mov

A


20 Jul 04 - 11:09 PM (#1230393)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

You try that blue clicky thing, Amos???.... Don't want load fir me....

Bobert


21 Jul 04 - 11:36 AM (#1230723)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Try:

http://cdn.moveonpac.org/data/debate.mov

A


25 Jul 04 - 01:24 AM (#1233236)
Subject: Rock Stars Say No More Bushwah
From: Amos

Opinion-leaders in the rock-star constellation are joining forces to speak out with music against Bush in 2004 according to this article in the LA Times.

A


26 Jul 04 - 05:49 PM (#1234240)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Saddam's People Are Winning the War
By Scott Ritter
International Herald Tribune
http://www.iht.com/articles/530608.html


    Thursday 22 July 2004
Misunderstanding Iraq


Mister Ritter makes some telling points about the failure of the Bush administration among others to understand the real dynamics of the Iraq situation.

A


26 Jul 04 - 10:24 PM (#1234402)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

FEEL-GOOD SPEAK
Cheney this

BY CONGRESSMAN BARNEY FRANK, FOURTH DISTRICT, MASSACHUSETTS

With increasing pressure on the FCC to step up its role as censor, finding
language that appropriately communicates the depths of one's feeling
(especially when speaking on the record or within earshot of the press)
while remaining within the bounds of propriety has become difficult. As a
public-spirited move, I am recommending to my fellow elected officials - and
to others engaged in public controversies - a semantic solution to this
dilemma: use the word "Cheney" where discretion is required in the
expression of frustration, anger, or extreme derision.

Here are some examples of how this would work.

* Go Cheney yourself.

* How the Cheney would I know?

* Cheney you.

* I don't give a flying Cheney.

* Who the Cheney do you think you are?

In some cases, substitution of Cheney for its synonym would be particularly
appropriate. For example:

* George Bush sure has Cheneyed up the situation in Iraq.

* The Bush administration's position is that it is none of our Cheneying
business who helped formulate its pro-oil energy policy.

* In some cases, Halliburton seems to be Cheneying the American taxpayer.

Vice-President Cheney himself said after using the blunter word that it made
him feel better. It makes me feel better to suggest a way of expressing the
same sentiments while paying appropriate tribute to the vice-president's
role in our society.

(Recvd via email -- source not verified. A.)


27 Jul 04 - 11:15 PM (#1235267)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

An Excuse-Spouting Bush Is Busted

 

July 27, 2004



Robert Scheer


Busted! Like a teenager whose beer bash is interrupted by his parents' early return home, President Bush's nearly three years of bragging about his "war on terror" credentials has been exposed by the bipartisan 9/11 commission as nothing more than empty posturing.


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-scheer27jul27,1,7719764.column?coll=la-home-utilities


27 Jul 04 - 11:44 PM (#1235283)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST

Why don't we just rename this thread 'Amos's View of the Bush Administration'?


28 Jul 04 - 12:05 AM (#1235292)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Because all of the reports in this thread are taken from amongst the population at large, not me. I do choose ones that I agree with. I can count on Bush' s Juggernaut machinery to take care of itself in a Fair and Balanced way.

A


28 Jul 04 - 02:32 AM (#1235337)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Clint Keller

it's ok, GUEST, if you want to stick in a view that you agree with. Honest.

clint


31 Jul 04 - 02:47 PM (#1237935)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Deda

Amos, as everyone knows, is a very articulate and intelligent guy. If he wanted to maintain a thread about his own political judgments, he could do that. This thread is a service AFAIC, disseminating material from the general press that I would otherwise have missed. Thanks, bro!


31 Jul 04 - 03:08 PM (#1237946)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Aw shucks...thanks, Deda!


A


31 Jul 04 - 03:35 PM (#1237958)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

An interesting example of Republican misappropriation of public spaces (school auditoriums) paid for by common taxes. Tsk, tsk. Arrogance cometh before a fall...


A


31 Jul 04 - 04:50 PM (#1238026)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Teresa Hampton, writing for the "Capitol Hill Blue" Website, raises the possibility that Bush is on psychopharmaceuticals big time in this article.

How depressed is he? "One long-time GOP political consultant who - for obvious reasons -asked not to be identified said he is advising his Republican
Congressional candidates to keep their distance from Bush.

"We have to face the very real possibility that the President of the
United States is loony tunes," he says sadly. "That's not good for my
candidates, it's not good for the party and it's certainly not good
for the country.""

A


01 Aug 04 - 12:54 AM (#1238117)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Ron Reagan's son, writing in Esquire Magazine summarizes the case against Mister Bush and the barbarism he has sponsored.

A


02 Aug 04 - 07:42 PM (#1239262)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Al Sharpton responds to Mister Bush's questions with vigor at the Democratic national Convention. Thanks, Al.


A


02 Aug 04 - 07:51 PM (#1239268)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

John Perry Barlow proposes a civil insurgency -- dancing in the streets as an act of civil protestation!

Ya gotta love this guy.


A


04 Aug 04 - 09:53 AM (#1240161)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Eric Umanski of Slate magazine describing the Wall Street Journal of August 4, 2004:

"The Journal goes high with word the Kerry campaign's impending release of endorsements from 200 big businessmen. Many of them supported President Bush in 2000. "George is a really good guy personally," said one. "He had an opportunity to bring the country together--which was his MO in Texas. But for reasons only his psychiatrist would know, he's chosen to do just the opposite as president. He's turning out to be the worst president since Millard Fillmore--and that's probably an insult to Millard Fillmore."" (Emphasis added).

A


04 Aug 04 - 12:59 PM (#1240255)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Dr Howard Dean, addressing the charges against Tom Delay for rigging undue influence machinery in the sacrosanct halls of governmnet:

"Representative Tom DeLay of Texas needs to be stopped. He is at the
center of machine that launders corporate influence in our political
process. And now his machine is at the center of investigations by a
grand jury in Texas and the House Ethics Committee in Washington into
ethics violations and criminal activity.

But the DeLay racket reaches even into the Ethics Committee itself. We must act now to make sure the job gets done right.

The House Ethics Committee must appoint an outside counsel to lead the investigation. Add your name to the call for accountability:

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/stoptomdelay

Four of the five Republicans on the House Ethics Committee, which will review the charges against DeLay next month, have received over $35,000 from an arm of the DeLay operation. They are in no position to conduct an independent investigation.

The examination of Tom DeLay's political money machine should be free
from the influence of that machine. That can only happen with an
independent, outside counsel leading the probe.

We will deliver your petition to the House Ethics Committee. And we will take your messages to Texas to give DeLay's constituents your thoughts about the man they will have the chance to vote out of office in November. Sign the petition now:

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/stoptomdelay

The charges against DeLay filed in the Ethics Committee include trading favors for contributions, laundering illegal corporate contributions to influence Texas legislative races, and improperly directing the Department of Homeland Security to conduct a political witch hunt against Texas Democrats.

Tom DeLay has done more than any other person to construct a system
where our representatives sell the privilege of writing legislation to the highest bidder. His contempt for his opponents and win-at-all-costs approach pollute our political life -- and may have broken the law.

Join the call for a proper investigation of Tom DeLay:

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/stoptomdelay

Please forward this message to your friends and spread the word -- we
are tired of business as usual and we demand a real investigation into the man who has been called the "chief enforcer of company contributions
to Republicans."

Thank you.

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

P.S. - Be sure to attend the DFA Meetup tonight at 7 PM in your
community: http://dfa.meetup.com


04 Aug 04 - 11:13 PM (#1240584)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The New York Times reviews an off-Broadway Bush-bashing dramatic piece of merit.

A


05 Aug 04 - 03:15 PM (#1240795)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush told a roomful of top Pentagon brass on Thursday that his administration would never stop looking for ways to harm the United States.
The latest installment of misspeak from a president long known for his malapropisms came during a signing ceremony for a new $417 billion defense appropriations bill that includes $25 billion in emergency funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we," Bush said.

The Republican incumbent, who is in a tight race for reelection against Democrat John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, used the 11-minute presentation to underscore his commitment to U.S. troops.


07 Aug 04 - 01:49 PM (#1241879)
Subject: Dildos and the Constitution
From: Amos

How deeply involved does the Federal Government need to be in individual lives and personal decisions?

Here's one article chastising excessive intrusive reach by the guvvy sector into civvy street.

A


09 Aug 04 - 07:06 PM (#1243582)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

An excerpt from a Mother Jones article excoriating the Bush administration ofr manufacturing false intell on Iraq intentionally:

"Kwiatkowski, 43, a now-retired Air Force officer who served in the Pentagon's Near East and South Asia (NESA) unit in the year before the invasion of Iraq, observed how the Pentagon's Iraq war-planning unit manufactured scare stories about Iraq's weapons and ties to terrorists. "It wasn't intelligence-it was propaganda," she says. "They'd take a little bit of intelligence, cherry-pick it, make it sound much more exciting, usually by taking it out of context, often by juxtaposition of two pieces of information that don't belong together." It was by turning such bogus intelligence into talking points for U.S. officials-including ominous lines in speeches by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell's testimony at the U.N. Security Council last February-that the administration pushed American public opinion into supporting an unnecessary war.


Until now, the story of how the Bush administration produced its wildly exaggerated estimates of the threat posed by Iraq has never been revealed in full. But, for the first time, a detailed investigation by Mother Jones, based on dozens of interviews-some on the record, some with officials who insisted on anonymity-exposes the workings of a secret Pentagon intelligence unit and of the Defense Department's war-planning task force, the Office of Special Plans. It's the story of a close-knit team of ideologues who spent a decade or more hammering out plans for an attack on Iraq and who used the events of September 11, 2001, to set it into motion.


SIX MONTHS AFTER THE END of major combat in Iraq, the United States had spent $300 million trying to find banned weapons in Iraq, and President Bush was seeking $600 million more to extend the search. Not found were Iraq's Scuds and other long-range missiles, thousands of barrels and tons of anthrax and botulism stock, sarin and VX nerve agents, mustard gas, biological and chemical munitions, mobile labs for producing biological weapons, and any and all evidence of a reconstituted nuclear-arms program, all of which had been repeatedly cited as justification for the war. Also missing was evidence of Iraqi collaboration with Al Qaeda.


The reports, virtually all false, of Iraqi weapons and terrorism ties emanated from an apparatus that began to gestate almost as soon as the Bush administration took power. In the very first meeting of the Bush national-security team, one day after President Bush took the oath of office in January 2001, the issue of invading Iraq was raised, according to one of the participants in the meeting-and officials all the way down the line started to get the message, long before 9/11. Indeed, the Bush team at the Pentagon hadn't even been formally installed before Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of Defense, and Douglas J. Feith, undersecretary of Defense for policy, began putting together what would become the vanguard for regime change in Iraq."

Rest of article can be found in the February 04 edition of Mother Jones: The Lie Factory

Regards,

A


10 Aug 04 - 12:10 AM (#1243776)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

MoveOn PAC asked their members who voted for Bush in 2000 to talk about why they are voting for Kerry in 2004. Academy award-winning documentary film director Errol Morris interviewed these former Bush voters on camera, and cut seventeen ads that tell their stories. These stories of disaffection are powerful statements about the failed Bush presidency.

http://www.moveonpac.org/morris/

Go to the link above to vote on the ads you like the best. The highest-rated ads will be aired during the Republican convention


10 Aug 04 - 04:12 PM (#1244426)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Jim Dixon

This irony was pointed out by Maureen Dowd, a columnist for the New York Times, when she was being interviewed on The Al Franken Show: (She has a new book out: "Bushworld: Enter at Your Own Risk")

Bush #1 went to war to prove that you can't unilaterally invade another country.
Bush #2 went to war to prove that you CAN unilaterally invade another country.


12 Aug 04 - 07:55 PM (#1246294)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Washington Post, August 12, 2004

Of course it would never happen like this, but it should: President Bush and political guru Karl Rove are enjoying a quiet evening together in the private quarters of the White House. Suddenly, Rove looks up in horror from his computer printouts and asks:

"George . . . where are the kids?"

Where, indeed. And we're not talking about Jenna Bush or her sister Barbara, but millions of other younger voters who supported Bush in 2000 but currently plan to vote for Democratic nominee John Kerry.

Surveys suggest that Bush's popularity has plummeted among 18- to 29-year-olds in the past four months, posing a new obstacle to the president's bid to win reelection and an immediate challenge to Republicans seeking to win over impressionable and lightly committed young people during their upcoming convention.

Four years ago, network exit polls found that Bush and Democrat Al Gore split the vote of 18- to 29-year-olds, with Gore claiming 48 percent and Bush getting 46 percent -- the best showing by a Republican presidential candidate in more than a decade.

But that was then. In the latest Post-ABC News poll taken immediately after the Democratic convention, Kerry led Bush 2-1 among registered voters younger than 30. Among older voters, the race was virtually tied.

Bush's problems with younger voters began months before the Democratic convention, Post-ABC polls suggest. The last time Bush and Kerry were tied among the under-30 crowd was back in April. In the five surveys conducted since then, Bush has trailed Kerry by an average of 18 percentage points.


15 Aug 04 - 09:56 PM (#1248302)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

WASHINGTON, D.C. (August 1, 2004) Praised by the members of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, Newt Gingrich's testimony yesterday was serious, thought-provoking, and entertaining.

Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, testified yesterday before the House Select Intelligence Committee, and blew away representatives of both political parties with his radical proposals for what to do about our systems of intelligence. Here's the video of that session (be sure to watch the Q&A that follows the testimony).


See the rest of this interesting article about radical restructuring of our Intel community on this page.

A


16 Aug 04 - 10:21 PM (#1249065)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Another stunning victory for secrecy and Ashcroft's New World:

On the 16th of August 2004, the 9th Circuit Court of   Appeals begins work on the Gilmore vs. Ashcroft case. At stake is nothing less   than the right of Americans to travel freely in their own country -- and the   exposure of 'secret law' for what it is: an abomination.   

The man who is fighting the good fight is named John   Gilmore. John made his fortune as a programmer and entrepreneur in the software   industry.   Whereas most people in his position would have moved to a tropical   island and lived a life of luxury, John chose to use his wealth to protect   and defend the US Constitution.   

On the 4th of July 2002, John Gilmore, American citizen,   decided to take a trip from one part of the United States of America to   another. At the airport, he was told he had to produce his ID if he wanted to travel.   He asked to see the law demanding he show his 'papers' and was told after a time that the law was secret and no, he   wouldn't be allowed to read it.    He hasn't flown in has own country since.   

http://www.gilmorevsashcroft.com   


17 Aug 04 - 11:36 PM (#1249982)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

President Bush has unveiled his first campaign commercial, highlighting all of his accomplishments in office.  That's why it's a 60-second spot."
-- Jay Leno

"President Bush says he has just one question for the American voters,'Is the rich person you're working for better off now than they were four years ago?'"
-- Jay Leno

"The election is in full-swing.  Republicans have taken out round-the-clock ads promoting George Bush. Don't we already have that?   It's called Fox News."
-- Craig Kilborn

"Kerry is well on his way to reaching his magic number of 2,162. That's the total number of delegates he needs to win the Democratic nomination. See for President Bush it's different, his magic number is 5. That's the number of Supreme Court judges needed to win."
-- Jay Leno

"There was a scare inWashingtonwhen a man climbed over the White House wall and was arrested.  This marks the first time a person has gotten into the White House unlawfully since President Bush."
-- David Letterman

"A new poll says that if ! the election were held today, John Kerry would  beat President Bush by a double digit margin. The White House is so worried about this, they're now thinking of moving up the capture of Osama Bin Laden to next month."
-- Jay Leno

"The White House is now backtracking from its prediction that 2.6 million new jobs will be created in theU.S. this year.  They say
they were off by roughly 2.6 million jobs."
-- Jay Leno

"InLouisiana, President Bush met with over 15,000 National Guard troops.  Here's the weird part: nobody remembers seeing him there."
-- Craig Kilborn

"President Bush said he was 'troubled' by gay people getting married in  San Francisco.  He said on important issues like this the people should make the decision, not judges. Unl! ess of course we're choosing a president. Then  he prefers judges."
-- Jay Leno

"The White House has now released military documents that they say prove George Bush met his requirements for the National Guard.  Big deal. We've got documents that prove Al Gore won the election."
-- Jay Leno

"There was an embarrassing moment in the White House earlier today. They were looking around while searching for George Bush's military records.  They actually found some old Al Gore ballots."
-- David Letterman

"The big story now is that President Bush is coming under attack for his service in the National Guard.  The commanding officers can't remember seeing Bush between May and October of '72.  President Bush said, 'Remember me?  I was the drunk guy!'"
! -- Jay Leno

"On 'Meet the Press' yesterday President Bush was asked what he would do if he lost the election and Bush said, 'You mean like last time?''"
  -- Jay Leno

"This week, both John Kerry and Wesley Clark are making campaign appearance with the guys who saved their lives inVietnam.  Meanwhile President Bush is campaigning with a guy that once took a math test for him."
-- Conan O'Brien

"President Bush released his new $2.4 trillion federal budget.  It has two parts: smoke and mirrors."
-- Jay Leno

"Bush admitted that his pre-war intelligence wasn't what it should have been. But we knew that when we elected him!"
-- Jay Leno

"As you know President Bush gave his State of the Union Address, interrupted 70 times by applause and 45 times by really big words."
-- Jay Leno

"President Bush said that American workers will need new skills to get the new jobs in the 21st century.  Some of the skills they're going to need are Spanish, Chinese, Korean, because that's where the jobs went."
-- Jay Leno

The new Prime Minister ofSpainhas called the war inIraqa disaster, and plans to bring his troops home as soon as possible.  In
fact, President Bush is so upset atSpainthat he is now threatening to close down the border betweenSpainand theU.S.
-- Jay Leno

"The U.S. army confirmed that it gave a lucrative contract in Iraq to the firm once run by the Vice President Dick Cheney without
any competitive bidding.  When asked if this could be conceived as Cheney's friends profiting from the war, the spokesman said  "Yes.'"
-- Conan O'Brien


"Dick Cheney finally responded today to demands that he reveal the details of the Enron meetings.  This is what he said.  He met with unnamed people, from unspecified companies, for an indeterminate amount of time at an undisclosed location.  Thank God he cleared that up."
-- Jay Leno

"Plans are being discussed as to who will replace Dick Cheney if he has to resign for health reasons.  It's not easy for President Bush, he can't just name a replacement.  He would first have to be confirmed by the oil, gas and power companies"
-- Jay Leno

"President Bush spoke briefly to reporters before playing a round of golf in Crawford, Texas earlier today.  ...  This raises the question: Shouldn't the guy who is really running the country and who has had like 20 heart attacks be taking the vacation?"
-- Craig Kilborn


19 Aug 04 - 09:03 PM (#1251520)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Dahlia Lithwick -- a senior editor at Slate -- warns us against portraying Bush as a juvenile in this insightful piece in the NY Times. In doing so she manages to castigate his Administration for the right reasons en passant.

A


25 Aug 04 - 02:42 PM (#1256562)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The chances are good that the Florida Presidential votye this year will be totally without credibility and tainted with multiple angles of corruption.

This article in Slate describes why.

A


25 Aug 04 - 10:45 PM (#1257018)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: robomatic

This thread is just so far into Bush hate that I think it is missing most of the important points that we need to pay attention to in the world of today, and yes, it harkens back to my point that if you want the world and the US to get better, you start with the leader you have.

Getting rid of Saddam was a good thing. If Iraq can be stabilized, that will be a good thing. I think Tony Blair has vocalized very well the reasons for prosecuting the war.

Bush may have many annoying characteristics. He is NOT a halfwit. I am aware of plenty of assertions that he and his administration lied. I am unaware of any proof. It's just like the Swift Boat veterans, a lot of accusation with no real tissue.

Bush may have connections to the religious right in the United States. He is not the same creature as a religious mullah who sends minions to their deaths with the assurance that they will be rewarded with virgins in heaven. If you want to assert parity here we aren't on the same planet.

This is not the Vietnam of a new decade. The strategic situation is different, the background is different, the weapons are different.

Things that are genuinely dangerous to the United States:

Not finishing what we start.

Government money being spent with no income increasing national debt.
Long term balance of trade against the U.S.
Heavy military expenditures which are mostly waste, such as missile defense system even now being installed in Alaska.
I agree with the observations above about flawed science policy.

We experienced terrorism under Democratic watch, and it proved no more effective than under this administration.

We have some real nuclear proliferationi problems with Pakistan, N. Korea, Iran. We NEED to solve these and we NEED to involve the world in solving it. I don't care who is leading the country, I want the problems addressed and a constant watch across party lines for this.

So go to town all you like on this thread, if it makes ya happy. But it's just like listening to Rush's twin brother on the left side of the dial.


25 Aug 04 - 10:58 PM (#1257024)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Wel, Robo, you and I are a bit apart on a number of points.

I think GWB IS a half-wit and a murderous one at that. He had all the opportunity in the world to define and resolve the very issues you are speaking of with the world's blessing. Many of us here raised alarums about how he proceeded after 9-11 to disspate and ruin that good-will.

By not finishing what we start, what do you mean? Killing Iraqis in sufficient numbers?

Additionally, there are a lot of very specific charges of falsification which you seem to be dodging -- not that I blame you.

The simple fact in my view is that there are far too few people telling the truth about this jerk.

As for my going to town, I don't write these articles -- I just post links to them.

A


26 Aug 04 - 08:58 PM (#1257759)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Clint Keller

"Getting rid of Saddam was a good thing." Was it good enough to be worth killing your kids? Or just good enough to be worth killing Iraqi kids? Please don't explain to me that kind of thing always happens in war; I know it does. That's why I don't like war as a solution to anything.

But we finished what we started with Iraq. I saw the "Mission Accomplished" sign right behind our War President. That can't be a lie or Mr Bush wouldn't have participated in it.

clint


31 Aug 04 - 07:53 PM (#1261166)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Garrison Keillor reports his view of the Bsuh Administration in this telling piece called We're Not in Lake Wobegone Anymore, which I think is one of the funniest rebuttals of our current tragedy I have seen yet.
Garrison concludes:

"The Union is what needs defending this year. Government of Enron and by Halliburton and for the Southern Baptists is not the same as what Lincoln spoke of. This gang of Pithecanthropus Republicanii has humbugged us to death on terrorism and tax cuts for the comfy and school prayer and flag burning and claimed the right to know what books we read and to dump their sewage upstream from the town and clear-cut the forests and gut the IRS and mark up the constitution on behalf of intolerance and promote the corporate takeover of the public airwaves and to hell with anybody who opposes them.

This is a great country, and it wasn't made so by angry people. We have a sacred duty to bequeath it to our grandchildren in better shape than however we found it. We have a long way to go and we're not getting any younger.

Dante said that the hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who in time of crisis remain neutral, so I have spoken my piece, and thank you, dear reader. It's a beautiful world, rain or shine, and there is more to life than winning."

Get the vote out.

A


31 Aug 04 - 08:06 PM (#1261177)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Charles Rangel, congressman from the 15th Congressional District of New York State, has introduced into Congress H.Res. 629 IH. "Resolved that Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense is impeached for High crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the Senate."

There are nine articles listed in this bill, and the last sentence of the last article reads, "Wherefore, Donald M. Rumsfeld, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification for any further office of profit or trust under the United States." This bill is currently in the subcommittee on the Constitution (under the House Judiciary Committee), and may be read here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery. (Use the search foirm to find H.Res.629.

It is co-sponsored by:

Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 7/21/2004
Rep Owens, Major R. [NY-11] - 7/9/2004
Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [NY-28] - 7/9/2004
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 6/18/2004


A


01 Sep 04 - 05:20 PM (#1261956)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

A stunning description of the use of Secret Sevrice Agents to prevent members of the press from interviewing an author of unpopular material about Bush can be found on this page for Monday, August 30.

Sorry times indeed.

A


01 Sep 04 - 09:40 PM (#1262156)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Zogby International reports on this web page that a surprisingly large number of New Yorkers believe the Administration had foreknowledge of 9-11 and failed to act.

A


01 Sep 04 - 09:44 PM (#1262160)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

On this page, Amelia Gruber comments on failing respect for Da Gov in the eyes of American citizens nationwide.

Poll finds government falling in public's esteem
By Amelia Gruber

The public views the federal government less favorably this year than
last, Gallup poll results published Tuesday indicate.

Slightly more than a third of respondents to an early August survey by
The Gallup Organization expressed a "positive" or "somewhat positive"
view of the government. This represents a drop of seven percentage
points from a year ago, when 41 percent of Americans surveyed said
they looked favorably upon the government.


02 Sep 04 - 05:23 PM (#1262901)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: freda underhill

i'm staying with my daughter and her husband to be in southern austria. during my stay i've met his extended family and friends from austria, the netherlands, and italy. on each occasion of having dinner with a bunch of people from a different country, they all raised the topic of how much they dislike george bush, his government, and the war in Iraq. today i spoke to a dutch man who told me his son is in Iraq. he and his wife are very distressed and are praying for a change of government in the US in november.


03 Sep 04 - 10:29 AM (#1263446)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The Columbia School Of Journalism's Review pans the desperate complaisance of AMerican journalism in failing to report the truth about distortions pronounced at tthe RNC, in this article

A


03 Sep 04 - 02:45 PM (#1263641)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST

HE WAS RIGHT AFTER THE RUSSIAN CHILDREN
WHERE TAKEN INTO HELL

FIDDLE


03 Sep 04 - 06:54 PM (#1263807)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Articles of impeachment being promoted to remove the Bush Administration from office can be found at this web site.

A


04 Sep 04 - 06:35 PM (#1264402)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,GROK

Like law will remove Bush, Cheney and the most powerful military organization in the world.


04 Sep 04 - 06:57 PM (#1264413)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The connection between the National Socialist Party of Germany in the 30's, which elevated Adolf Hitler to power, and George Bush Sr., Karl Rove, et alia, is discussed in this article in Counterpunch magazine. If you believed in power-structure conspiracies it would be enough to make you nervous.

A


04 Sep 04 - 07:11 PM (#1264415)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,GROK

Amos, I don't think there can be any doubt that a power structure is in place to control the world through economic means. MJ-12 and the secrecy to do with international banking demonstrate that 'money' is power. It can make or break whole countries, and with the USA nearing bankruptcy, the US government has to make its grab soon. IMO, we are looking at another decade, tops. The grab will have to occur before depleted oil supplies make it impossible--before debt makes it impossible. Hence the tremendous build up of the military. IMO, this has been in the works for at least a century now. Conspiracy?

Even paranoids have enemies.


07 Sep 04 - 06:55 PM (#1266311)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

An organization called Texans for Truth has come forward with an indictment of George's attack against Kerry on service-related grounds, the advertisement of which can be seen on this page.

A


08 Sep 04 - 08:33 PM (#1267226)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
How to Watch the Watchers
By RICHARD BEN-VENISTE and LANCE COLE

The president's new civil liberties oversight board falls short of the
recommendations made by the 9/11 commission.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/07/opinion/07benveniste.html?th

--


"A free society is one where it is safe to be unpopular."
    --Adlai Stevenson


08 Sep 04 - 09:03 PM (#1267242)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

This article discusses the Bush administrations falsification, censoring and manipulation of science.

A


09 Sep 04 - 01:13 AM (#1267357)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Ebbie

Jimmy Carter wrote Zell Miller, keynote Democrat speaker at the GOP convention, ending it this way:

"Zell, I have known you for 42 years and have, in the past, respected you as a trustworthy political leader and a personal friend. But now, there are many of us loyal Democrats who feel uncomfortable in seeing that you have chosen the rich over the poor, unilateral pre-emptive war over a strong nation united with others for peace, lies and obfuscation over the truth, and the political technique of personal character assassination as a way to win elections or to garner a few moments of applause. These are not the characteristics of great Democrats whose legacy you and I have inherited."

    Sincerely, and with deepest regrets,
    Jimmy Carter

Read more at http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/090904C.shtml


09 Sep 04 - 08:53 AM (#1267526)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Internationally, a poll of 35000 people reveal a very strong   edge for Kerry -- in factm if the world could vote Kerry would win by a landslide.

A


09 Sep 04 - 11:01 AM (#1267618)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The New Republic reports on the growing scandal of Bush' actual manuvering in the Air National Guard, and his failure to perform as he promised.


A


16 Sep 04 - 11:02 PM (#1273691)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Sept. 16, 2004  |  "Bring them on!" President Bush challenged the early Iraqi insurgency in July of last year. Since then 812 American soldiers have been killed and 6,290 wounded, according to the Pentagon. Almost every day in campaign speeches, Bush speaks with bravado about how we are "winning" in Iraq. "Our strategy is succeeding," he boasted to the National Guard convention on Tuesday.

But according to the U.S. military's leading strategists and prominent retired generals, Bush's war is already lost.

Retired Gen. William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency, told me: "Bush hasn't found the WMD. Al-Qaida, it's worse -- he's lost on that front. That he's going to achieve a democracy there? That goal is lost, too. It's lost." He added: "Right now, the course we're on, we're achieving [Osama] bin Laden's ends."

(Excerpt from Salon.com, subscription required)


16 Sep 04 - 11:27 PM (#1273705)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Maureen Down writes in A Dazzling Display to Mislead:

"...the administration has been so dazzling in misleading the public with audacious, mendacious malarkey that the Democrats fear the Bushies are capable of any level of deceit.

Iraq is a vision of hell, and the Republicans act as if it's a model kitchen. The president and vice president brag about liberating Iraqis and reassure us that they are stopping terrorist violence at its source and inspiring democracy in the region by bringing it to blood-drenched Iraq.

But what they haven't mentioned is that they have known since July that their rosy scenarios are as bogus as their WMD. That's when the president received a national intelligence estimate that spelled out "a dark assessment of prospects for Iraq" in the next 18 months, as Douglas Jehl wrote in yesterday's New York Times. Worst-case estimates include civil war or anarchy.


Unlike the president, the young men and women trying to stay alive in the unraveling chaos of Iraq can't count on their daddies to get them out of the line of fire."





I think she has summed up the Republican Zeitgeist in a single fell phrase: Go forth,and be audacious and mendacious.

The Great American Moral Code: Brass in all things and Lies when convenient. Sure saves a lot of thinking, doesn't it, George?


A


17 Sep 04 - 06:36 PM (#1274536)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Urgent: Please read George Bush's Plea for a Second Chance in which he finally comes clean while asking for your benevolent indulgence.

A


17 Sep 04 - 10:02 PM (#1274691)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: dianavan

That just about sums it up.

d


18 Sep 04 - 10:14 AM (#1274923)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The Guardian bemoans the complete mess the Bush administration has made of Iraq in this article.

A


19 Sep 04 - 09:01 PM (#1276020)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

This editorial discusses the poisonous impact of the Bush administration on democratic representative government.

"n a democracy -- a fully functioning one -- none of this would happen. We simply would not allow one man -- any man -- to diminish our country as we stood idly by. But we have. In large numbers we have fallen for Bush's hat trick. One by one, all across America, we have decided it was not important enough to find the truth, to vote for the good of us all.
"


A


20 Sep 04 - 04:54 PM (#1276694)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The respected on-line science journal Nature accuses the Bush administration of distorting science.


A


20 Sep 04 - 08:42 PM (#1276860)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

A detailed timeline of known facvts about the Bush AWOL timeline can be found in this chart.


21 Sep 04 - 03:20 PM (#1277564)
Subject: Doctorow Writes of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

GUESTWORDS: By E.L. Doctorow

    The Unfeeling President

    September 9, 2004 - Easthampton Star

    I fault this president for not knowing what death is. He does not
suffer the death of our 21-year-olds who
    wanted to be what they could be. On the eve of D-Day in 1944 General
Eisenhower prayed to God for the lives
    of the young soldiers he knew were going to die. He knew what death
was. Even in a justifiable war, a war not
    of choice but of necessity, a war of survival, the cost was almost
more than Eisenhower could bear.

    But this president does not know what death is. He hasn't the mind
for it. You see him joking with the press,
    peering under the table for the weapons of mass destruction he can't
seem to find, you see him at rallies
    strutting up to the stage in shirt sleeves to the roar of the
carefully screened crowd, smiling and waving,
    triumphal, a he-man.

    He does not mourn. He doesn't understand why he should mourn. He is
satisfied during the course of a speech
    written for him to look solemn for a moment and speak of the brave
young Americans who made the ultimate
    sacrifice for their country.

    But you study him, you look into his eyes and know he dissembles an
emotion which he does not feel in the
    depths of his being because he has no capacity for it. He does not
feel a personal responsibility for the 1,000
    dead young men and women who wanted to be what they could be.

    They come to his desk not as youngsters with mothers and fathers or
wives and children who will suffer to
    the end of their days a terribly torn fabric of familial
relationships and the inconsolable remembrance of
    aborted life . . . they come to his desk as a political liability,
which is why the press is not permitted to
    photograph the arrival of their coffins from Iraq.

    How then can he mourn? To mourn is to express regret and he regrets
nothing. He does not regret that his
    reason for going to war was, as he knew, unsubstantiated by the
facts. He does not regret that his bungled
    plan for the war's aftermath has made of his mission-accomplished a
disaster. He does not regret that,
    rather than controlling terrorism, his war in Iraq has licensed it.
So he never mourns for the dead and crippled
    youngsters who have fought this war of his choice.

    He wanted to go to war and he did. He had not the mind to perceive
the costs of war, or to listen to those who
    knew those costs. He did not understand that you do not go to war
when it is one of the options but when it is
    the only option; you go not because you want to but because you have
to.

    Yet this president knew it would be difficult for Americans not to
cheer the overthrow of a foreign dictator.
    He knew that much. This president and his supporters would seem to
have a mind for only one thing -- to take
    power, to remain in power, and to use that power for the sake of
themselves and their friends.

    A war will do that as well as anything. You become a wartime leader.
The country gets behind you. Dissent
    becomes inappropriate. And so he does not drop to his knees, he is
not contrite, he does not sit in the church
    with the grieving parents and wives and children. He is the
president who does not feel. He does not feel for
    the families of the dead, he does not feel for the 35 million of us
who live in poverty, he does not feel for the
    40 percent who cannot afford health insurance, he does not feel for
the miners whose lungs are turning black
    or for the working people he has deprived of the chance to work
overtime at time-and-a-half to pay their bills
    - it is amazing for how many people in this country this president
does not feel.

    But he will dissemble feeling. He will say in all sincerity he is
relieving the wealthiest 1 percent of the
    population of their tax burden for the sake of the rest of us, and
that he is polluting the air we breathe for
    the sake of our economy, and that he is decreasing the quality of
air in coal mines to save the coal miners'
    jobs, and that he is depriving workers of their time-and-a-half
benefits for overtime because this is actually a
    way to honor them by raising them into the professional class.

    And this litany of lies he will versify with reverences for God and
the flag and democracy, when just what he
    and his party are doing to our democracy is choking the life out of
it.

    But there is one more terribly sad thing about all of this. I
remember the millions of people here and around
    the world who marched against the war. It was extraordinary, that
spontaneous aroused oversoul of alarm and
    protest that transcended national borders. Why did it happen? After
all, this was not the only war anyone had
    ever seen coming. There are little wars all over he world most of
the time.

    But the cry of protest was the appalled understanding of millions of
people that America was ceding its role as
    the last best hope of mankind. It was their perception that the
classic archetype of democracy was morphing
    into a rogue nation. The greatest democratic republic in history was
turning its back on the future, using its
    extraordinary power and standing not to advance the ideal of a
concordance of civilizations but to endorse the
    kind of tribal combat that originated with the Neanderthals, a
people, now extinct, who could imagine ensuring
    their survival by no other means than pre-emptive war.

    The president we get is the country we get. With each president the
nation is conformed spiritually. He is the
    artificer of our malleable national soul. He proposes not only the
laws but the kinds of lawlessness that govern
    our lives and invoke our responses. The people he appoints are cast
in his image. The trouble they get into and
    get us into, is his characteristic trouble.

    Finally, the media amplify his character into our moral weather
report. He becomes the face of our sky, the
    conditions that prevail. How can we sustain ourselves as the United
States of America given the stupid and
    ineffective warmaking, the constitutionally insensitive lawgiving,
and the monarchal economics of this
    president? He cannot mourn but is a figure of such moral vacancy as
to make us mourn for ourselves.

# # #


With warm thanks to Nancy for pointing this piece out to me.

A


21 Sep 04 - 09:46 PM (#1277860)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: freda underhill

RESUME : GEORGE W. BUSH

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20520

EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:
Law Enforcement:
I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under the
influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver's
license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has been "lost"
and
is not available.

Military:
I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to take
a
drug test or answer any questions about my drug use. By joining the
Texas
Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam.

College:
I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. I was a
cheerleader.

PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:
I ran for U.S. Congress and lost. I began my career in the oil business
in
Midland, Texas, in 1975. I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any
oil
in Texas. The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
I
bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took
land
using taxpayer money. With the help of my father and our friends in the
oil
industry
(including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected governor of Texas.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS:
- I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies,
making
Texas the most polluted state in the Union. During my tenure, Houston
replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in America.

- I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions
in
borrowed money.

- I set the record for the most executions by any governor in American
history.

- With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida, and my father's
appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President after losing by
over
500,000 votes.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:
- I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a
criminal
record.

- I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one
billion dollars per week.

- I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S.
Treasury.

- I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S.
history.

- I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any
12-month period.

- I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.

- I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the
U.S.
stock market. In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost
their jobs and that trend continues every month.

- I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any
administration in U.S. history. My "poorest millionaire," Condoleeza
Rice,
has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.

- I set the record for most campaign fundraising trips by a U.S.
President.

- I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most
corporate campaign donations.

- My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends,
Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in
U.S.
History, Enron.

- My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to
assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election
decision.

- I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against
investigation or prosecution. More time and money was spent
investigating
the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the
biggest corporate rip-offs in history. I presided over the biggest
energy
crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption
involving
the oil industry was revealed.

- I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history.

- I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded
government contracts.

- I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any
President
in U.S. history.

- I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy
in
the history of the United States government.

- I've broken more international treaties than any President in U.S.
history.

- I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations
remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.

- I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.

- I refused to allow inspector's access to U.S. "prisoners of war"
detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.

- I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election
inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).

- I set the record for fewest numbers of press conferences of any
President
since the advent of television.

- I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year
period. After taking off the entire month of August, I presided over
the
worst security failure in U.S. history.

- I garnered the most sympathy ever for the U.S. after the World Trade
Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most hated
country in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world
history.

- I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to
simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people),
shattering
the record for protests against any person in the history of mankind.

- I am the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked,
preemptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I
did
so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S.
citizens,
and the world community.

- I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in
duty benefits for active duty troops and their families in wartime.

- In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for
attacking
Iraq and then blamed the lies on our British friends.

- I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans
(71%)
view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.

- I am supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical Bunker Buster," a
WMD.

- I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden to
justice.

RECORDS AND REFERENCES:
-All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my father's
library, sealed and unavailable for public view.

- All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my
bankrupt
companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

- All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-president,
attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and
unavailable for public review.

PLEASE CONSIDER MY EXPERIENCE WHEN VOTING IN 2004!


21 Sep 04 - 11:22 PM (#1277913)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: dianavan

Thank-you Freda - Absolutely to the point. Who can argue with this? Who can defend this criminal? Is there any justice or will he just walk away laughing?

d


21 Sep 04 - 11:36 PM (#1277921)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Regarding Rather's embarassment for CBS:

What Is Bush Hiding?


By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Tuesday, September 21, 2004; Page A21

It is to be welcomed that President Bush wants to clear up questions about
his National Guard service. He wants more details out there, and good for
him. This story should be laid to rest, and the one person who can do it is
named George W. Bush.

Up to now, Bush has been interested in a rather narrow aspect of the story.
He wanted Dan Rather and CBS News to come clean about whether they used fake
documents in reporting on the president's Guard service back in the 1970s.

"There are a lot of questions and they need to be answered," Bush told the
Union Leader in Manchester, N.H., last week. "I think what needs to happen
is people need to take a look at the documents, how they were created, and
let the truth come out."

I couldn't agree more. And apparently CBS came to the same view. CBS messed
up, and yesterday, Rather fessed up. He said the network could no longer
stand behind the documents. There will be much hand-wringing about the media
in the coming days, and properly so.

But what's good for Dan Rather, who is not running for president, ought to
be good for George Bush, who is. "There are a lot of questions and they need
to be answered." Surely that presidential sentiment applies as much to
Bush's Guard service as to Rather's journalistic methods.

The New York Times put the relevant questions on the table yesterday in a
lengthy review of Bush's life in 1972, "the year George W. Bush dropped off
the radar screen," as the Times called it. The issues about Bush's National
Guard service, the Times wrote, include "why he failed to take his pilot's
physical and whether he fulfilled his commitment to the guard."

Oh, I can hear the groaning: "But why are we still talking about Vietnam?"
A fair question that has several compelling answers.

First, except for John McCain, Republicans were conspicuously happy to have
a front group spread untruths about John Kerry's Vietnam service in August
and watch as the misleading claims were amplified by the supposedly liberal
media. The Vietnam era was relevant as long as it could be used to raise
character questions about Kerry. But as soon as the questioning turned to
Bush's character, we were supposed to call the whole thing off. Why? Because
the media were supposed to question Kerry's character but not Bush's.

And, please, none of this nonsense about how Kerry "opened the door" to the
assault on his Vietnam years by highlighting his service at the Democratic
National Convention. Nothing any candidate does should ever be seen as
"opening the door" to lies about his past. Besides, Vietnam veterans with
Republican ties were going after Kerry's war record long before the
Democratic convention.

But, most important, there is only one reason the story about Bush's
choices during the Vietnam years persists. It's because the president won't
give detailed answers to the direct questions posed by the Times story and
other responsible media organizations, including the Boston Globe. Their
questions never depended on the discredited CBS documents.

Bush could end this story now so we could get to the real issues of 2004.
It would require only that the president take an hour or so with reporters
to make clear what he did and did not do in the Guard. He may have had good
reasons for ducking that physical exam. Surely he can explain the gaps in
his service and tell us honestly whether any pull was used to get him into
the Guard.

But a guy who is supposed to be so frank and direct turns remarkably
Clintonian where the National Guard issue is concerned. "I met my
requirements and was honorably discharged" is Bush's stock answer, which
does old Bill proud. And am I the only person exasperated by a double
standard that treated everything Bill Clinton ever did in his life ("I
didn't inhale") as fair game but now insists that we shouldn't sully
ourselves with any inconvenient questions about Bush's past?

I'm as weary as you are that our politics veer away from what matters --
Iraq, terrorism, health care, jobs -- and get sidetracked into personal
issues manufactured by political consultants and ideological zealots. But
the Bush campaign has made clear it wants this election to focus on
character and leadership. If character is the issue, the president's life,
past and present, matters just as much as John Kerry's.

Dan Rather has answered his critics. Now it is Bush's turn.

postchat@aol.com

© 2004 The Washington Post Company


22 Sep 04 - 09:19 AM (#1278188)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Regarding Bush's latest address to the United Nations in defense of hius adventures in Iraq, the New York times concludes:

"Mr. Bush might have done better at wooing broader international support if he had spent less time on self-justification and scolding and more on praising the importance of international cooperation and a strengthened United Nations. Instead, his tone-deaf speechwriters achieved a perverse kind of alchemy, transforming a golden opportunity into a lead balloon."

This man is a fucking MAROOOON!

A


23 Sep 04 - 01:00 PM (#1279210)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Bush Attacks Kerry While Cozying Up To Dictators


President Bush earlier this week attacked his opponent, saying "It's hard to imagine a candidate running for President prefers the stability of a dictatorship to the hope and security of democracy."1 Yet, it is President Bush who regularly declares his personal friendship and gratitude to some of the world's most oppressive dictators, often wining and dining them at his ranch in Texas.

In June of 2004, Bush referred to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia as "my friend,"2 even though the Saudi Arabian government has been investigated for its financial ties to the 9/11 terrorists3 and is listed by the U.S. State Department as one of the world's most oppressive regimes on the planet.4

In April, he referred to the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak as "my friend" and welcomed him to the Crawford ranch by saying "I always look forward to visiting with him."5 Bush gave this praise to a dictator, even though Human Rights Watch notes that government "torture in Egypt is widespread and systemic"6 and the State Department says Mubarak has passed a Constitution in which the electorate is barred from being "presented with a choice among competing presidential candidates."7

In 2002, it was Bush who said "I want to welcome the President of China to our ranch, and to Texas."8 Bush was inviting into his home a dictator who, according to the U.S. State Department, presides over a government that regularly engages in the "arbitrary or unlawful" murder of its own citizens, kidnappings of political dissidents, and repression of religious minorities.9

Footnoted sources listed on this page.

A


23 Sep 04 - 03:32 PM (#1279301)
Subject: RE: BS: The Question Laura Bush Could Not Answer
From: Amos

The Question Laura Bush Could Not Answer: When Are Yours Going to Serve?

This moment of confrontation, between George Bush's wife and the heart-broken mother of a dead Marine, deserves more national attention that this brief article. But even by itself, it is a heartbreaker and it shows something of the panic that must regn in the hearts of the Bushes, who ride the powder keg of hbottled up truth and hidden mismanagement every day of thier lives.

A


23 Sep 04 - 05:42 PM (#1279380)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Scores ofr Americans have expressed thoughtful views in Letters to George W. Bush on this website.

Most of them are disappointed in him. All of them are articulate and well worth reading.

A


25 Sep 04 - 01:07 AM (#1280560)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

London's Financial Times writes an analysis of the really bozo collapse of terrorism prosecutions in a number of ridiculous cases in this article.

The Bush administration in its anxiety and haste has been unable to obtain any convictions and has built cases on whimsy in several cases.

A


25 Sep 04 - 11:04 AM (#1280733)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Jaze

I find the flap over Dan Rather's story kind of amusing. But let's take it to another level. Did not George Bush launch and unprovoked attack against a sovereign nation based on informnation HE received and deemed reliable? Seems to me Bush should be most understanding of Rather's position. Yet we were all supposed to just accept that his information wasn't reliabe.


25 Sep 04 - 11:52 AM (#1280757)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Well, attacking a nation... with lead and bombs, killing civilians, destroying homes buildings and lives, snuffing out daughters and sons... is one thing -- but Rather, armed with merely false DOCUMENTS but correct facts, has been categorized as far more heinous an offender for attacking a reigning President for misconduct which he actually did commit!!

Bush has repeatedly demonstrated that logic is not part of this.

A


25 Sep 04 - 04:24 PM (#1280955)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Michael Moore details and excoriates President Bush & Co.'s history of flipflopping on policy regarding the Middle East and Iraq.

Makes Kerry look a steady-on as Gibraltar.

A


26 Sep 04 - 10:27 AM (#1281408)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST

great stuff. Keep it coming!


26 Sep 04 - 11:41 AM (#1281457)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Maureen Dowd, the bright light lady warrior of the New York Times, makes some telling remarks about the recent press show by Bush and Alawi.

Whole article found at this page.



Dance of the Marionettes
By MAUREEN DOWD

Published: September 26, 2004



It's heartwarming, really.

President Bush has his own Mini-Me now, someone to echo his every word and mimic his every action.

For so long, Mr. Bush has put up with caricatures of a wee W. sitting in the vice president's lap, Charlie McCarthy style, as big Dick Cheney calls the shots. But now the president has his own puppet to play with.

All last week in New York and Washington, Prime Minister Ayad Allawi of Iraq parroted Mr. Bush's absurd claims that the fighting in Iraq was an essential part of the U.S. battle against terrorists that started on 9/11, that the neocons' utopian dream of turning Iraq into a modern democracy was going swimmingly, and that the worse things got over there, the better they really were.


28 Sep 04 - 10:31 AM (#1283170)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From Today's Papers for September 28, 2004, concerning Iraq civilian security forces:

"Meanwhile, contrary to the president's statements about "nearly 100,000 fully trained and equipped" security forces, the military has acknowledged that only 8,200 have been fully trained. (Reuters flagged the discrepancy on Friday.) Finally, the Post mentions that a respected analyst released a report recently concluding that the number of security forces is actually dropping "in part because of desertions and purging of low-grade personnel." "

Mister Bush again discovers that what he says and what is real are sometimes leagues apart.

A


28 Sep 04 - 04:08 PM (#1283445)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,peedeecee

Here's a LOVELY bit of news that should be posted on various threads -- the newspaper in Crawford, Texas, which is Bush's home town, is coming out strongly in favour of Kerry. The editorial at the link is extremely good, especially considering that the Iconoclast (!) is a small, weekly newspaper.

The link below reports the story, but provides another link directly to the editorial.

CrawfordHatesBush


28 Sep 04 - 07:44 PM (#1283570)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The New York Times excoriates the sleazy extremes of the Bush campaign tactics as beyond the pale of decency. What else is new?

Story on this page .

Slimeballs.

A


29 Sep 04 - 09:16 AM (#1283969)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The Washington Post provides an analysis that indicates the ground-truth situiation in Iraq is nearly FUBAR, and much worse off than President "Tell 'Em What They Want to Hear" Bush is indicating with his staged presentation by Alawi. Story on this page.


29 Sep 04 - 04:39 PM (#1284295)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From the interesting link provided just below by Peedeecee, and excerpt from the editoria of the "Bush hometown paper":

"Four items trouble us the most about the Bush administration: his initiatives to disable the Social Security system, the deteriorating state of the American economy, a dangerous shift away from the basic freedoms established by our founding fathers, and his continuous mistakes regarding Iraq," the editorial said.


The Iconoclast, established in 2000, said it editorialized in support of the invasion of Iraq and publisher W. Leon Smith promoted Bush and the invasion in a BBC interview, believing Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.


"Instead we were duped into following yet another privileged agenda," the editorial said.


The newspaper praised Kerry for "30 years of experience looking out for the American people" and lauded his background as "a highly decorated Vietnam veteran

A


30 Sep 04 - 08:27 AM (#1284818)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The actual editorial from the Crawford, Texas Iconoclast is well worth reading.

Iconclast endorses Kerry.

A


30 Sep 04 - 11:29 PM (#1285567)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Why We Must Not Re-elect President Bush
    By George Soros
    George Soros.com

Definitely worth the read. http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/093004D.shtml

A


03 Oct 04 - 09:48 AM (#1287362)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The New York Times discusses the President as Agent of God Almighty hypothesis which appears to be more wide-spread than just a few asylums, and also appears to agree with Bush's self-image.

A


03 Oct 04 - 06:49 PM (#1287685)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

In a fascinating article from tomorrow's New York Times, David Barstow analyzes false claims made by the Bush administration concerning nuclear capabilities in Iran:

An excerpt:

In 2002, at a crucial juncture on the path to war, senior members of
the Bush administration gave a series of speeches and interviews in which they asserted that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program. In a speech to veterans that August, Vice President Dick Cheney said Mr.Hussein could have an atomic bomb "fairly soon." President Bush, addressing the United Nations the next month, said there was "little doubt" about Mr. Hussein's appetite for nuclear arms.

The United States intelligence community had not yet concluded that
Iraq was rebuilding its nuclear weapons program. But as the vice president told a group of Wyoming Republicans that September, the United States had "irrefutable evidence" - thousands of tubes made of high-strength aluminum, tubes that the Bush administration said were destined for clandestine Iraqi uranium centrifuges, before some were seized at the behest of the United States.

The tubes quickly became a critical exhibit in t he administration's
brief against Iraq. As the only physical evidence the United States of Mr. Hussein's revived nuclear ambitions, they gave credibility to the apocalyptic imagery invoked by President Bush and his advisers. The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, asserted on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

But before Ms. Rice made those remarks, she was aware that the
government's foremost nuclear experts had concluded that the tubes were most likely not for nuclear weapons at all, an examination by The New York Times has found. As early as 2001, her staff had been told that these experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were probably intended for small artillery rockets, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and a senior administration official, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the information.

The article is on this page.

A


03 Oct 04 - 07:18 PM (#1287709)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Ebbie

Dr. Rice Today


03 Oct 04 - 07:20 PM (#1287710)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Ebbie

Huzza! My first blicky.


03 Oct 04 - 08:06 PM (#1287743)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Leadfingers

Wish I could do Blickies !


03 Oct 04 - 08:07 PM (#1287744)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Leadfingers

But I will do post 300 just to stop El Ted doing it.


03 Oct 04 - 08:13 PM (#1287750)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Terry:

How very disappointing.

A


04 Oct 04 - 12:35 AM (#1287970)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

In a well-written editorial, Bob Herbert of the New York Times discusses Mister Bush's problem connecting to reality, with specifics, and offers an explanation as to why he lost the first debate.



A


04 Oct 04 - 02:59 PM (#1288476)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From the Editors of The New Republic, a subscription only magazine:

Fool Me Once
by the Editors



All politicians stretch truth to present accomplishments in the most appealing light. What President Bush has told the country over the past week about the deeply troubled Iraq occupation, however, is different. While an increasingly strong insurgency murdered 250 Iraqis last week, he portrayed the occupation as gliding to success. Last week, Bush told the Manchester Union-Leader, "I'm pleased with the progress." The template the administration is using for its portrayal of Iraq is the one the Johnson administration perfected during Vietnam: To win reelection, Bush is lying.

Not only has there been no recent progress in Iraq, there has been much backsliding over the past six months. Two weeks ago, a research team from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (csis) released the most comprehensive study about events on the ground. Originally invited to study Iraq at the behest of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, csis said, "In every sector we looked at, we saw backward movement in recent months." This is the opposite of "progress," and the administration knows it. In a July National Intelligence Estimate (nie), its own analysts reported that the best outcome in Iraq is a barely contained insurgency and tenuous stability. In other words, what last year was among the worst-case scenarios is now the best.

The president has a response to those who honestly depict the situation in Iraq: dismissal. "Just guessing," Bush shrugged at the NIE. The Iraqis "are defying the dire predictions of a lot of people by moving toward democracy," he said last week. In fact, the only predictions Iraqis have defied are his own. First they defied his prediction that they would accept instantaneous post-Saddam rule by expatriates. Then they defied his prediction that they would accept an open-ended occupation. Then they defied his prediction that they would accept an interim government chosen by convoluted caucuses. Then they defied his prediction that the U.S. military could rely on poorly trained Iraqi forces to combat the insurgency. Then they defied his prediction that the transfer of notional sovereignty to the interim government would destroy the insurgency's popular support.

And now it is dawning on observers that the latest prediction Iraqis will defy is that they are "moving toward democracy." "The Americans have created a series of fictional [election] dates and events in order to delude themselves," Ghassan Atiyya, director of the Iraq Foundation for Development and Democracy, recently told Newsweek. Even American ground commander Thomas Metz, commenting on the fact that most of Al Anbar Province is controlled by the insurgency, admitted, "I don't think today you could hold elections."

In response, the administration is telegraphing that, should it win reelection, it will insist on Iraqi elections nonetheless and call them legitimate, even if they are unfree and unfair. In a recent address to the National Press Club, Rumsfeld shrugged, "I've never seen an election anywhere that's perfect," as if Iraq were West Palm Beach. Iraqis are more honest. Interim President Ghazi Al Yawer declared last week, "We do not want to have elections for the sake of elections. It's the outcome of the elections that's most important." By which he surely means an outcome that will preserve his power. For that reason, the Association of Muslim Scholars, which represents about 3,000 Sunni mosques, has announced it will boycott the vote. Sheik Abdul Satar Abdul Jabbar of the Association told The New York Times, "If the election goes forward anyway, the body that will be elected will not represent the country." This decision virtually ensures that elections could move Iraq closer to civil war. With most Sunnis refusing to cast ballots, the new government would lack legitimacy and take on a sectarian character, fostering even greater factional conflict. As Atiyya recently warned, "Badly prepared elections, rather than healing wounds, will open them."

There are brave Republicans who understand how disastrous the Bush administration's Iraq policy has proved. Referring to Bush's predictions, the GOP chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar, remarked, "The nonsense of all that is apparent." But the nonsense has continued. Bush has enlisted Iyad Allawi to travel to Washington this week and claim the administration is delivering victory in Iraq. Unless more Republicans join Lugar and put truth above party, the lies will continue through Election Day and beyond.

the Editors


05 Oct 04 - 08:22 AM (#1289079)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

This CapitolHill Blue article reports negatively on Rumsfeld for flip-flopping on the Al Quaeda-Iraq issue.


A


06 Oct 04 - 09:30 AM (#1290159)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

"The proliferation of war, of weapons of mass destruction, of divisive fundamentalism (east and west), of aggressive unilateralism as opposed to a binding multilateralism. The end game on this Grand Chessboard is not a Pax Americana (an American Empire) as envisioned first by Zbigniew Brzezinski and now by PNAC (the Project for the New American Century), but a world in shambles, pocked by pocket wars, decimated by regional and national poverty and disease, a world of haves and have-nots, walled in or walled out by mutual fear and disrespect. Rather than crossing the human divides, we are widening them, like so many tribes stranded on ice floes in a roiling ocean. If we are to survive as a species we need to reach a common higher ground. The right choice, like voting or not, like which candidate is the sane one to vote for, is ours, and at this point not just a privilege, but an existential necessity. "

Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer who resides in New York City. Contact him at gvmaz@verizon.net.


06 Oct 04 - 01:39 PM (#1290415)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

George Soros argues clearly why it is important to evict Bush from the White House in this article on his website.

A


12 Oct 04 - 11:54 PM (#1295843)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

One of the most interesting questions for this thread is what Saddam Hussein thought the Bush Administration and its predecessors were really doing.

An interesting compilation of what he thought and how he bluffed (and why it backfired on him) can be found in this article in the LA Times.

It is possible that much of what I have thought of as sheer malice on the part of Bush and his administration is actually attributable to the sad fact that no-one with enough edge was around to help them figure out what the hell was really going on with this guy.

A


13 Oct 04 - 12:34 AM (#1295856)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Scientists on Bush's Policies


"Across a broad range of issues—from childhood lead poisoning and mercury emissions to climate change, reproductive health, and nuclear weapons—the administration is distorting and censoring scientific findings that contradict its policies; manipulating the underlying science to align results with predetermined political decisions; and undermining the independence of science advisory panels by subjecting panel nominees to political litmus tests that have little or no bearing on their expertise; nominating non-experts or underqualified individuals from outside the scientific mainstream or with industry ties; as well as disbanding science advisory committees altogether." - Union of Concerned Scientists, a group that includes 20 Nobel Prize laureates and 19 National Medal of Science honorees, in its statement "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking." [Union of Concerned Scientists]


"The administration plan would hurt public health and help big polluters by weakening, delaying and diluting cuts in power plants' sulfur, nitrogen and mercury pollution compared to timely enforcement of current law. The administration plan would roll back the current law's public health safeguards to protect local air quality, curb pollution from upwind states, and protect our national parks. Tens of millions of people would be denied clean air, even as late as 2020 and beyond." - The American Lung Association, in its "State of the Air 2004" report [American Lung Association]


17 Oct 04 - 11:39 AM (#1299029)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Excerpted from the NY Times editorial coming out in support of Kerry


John Kerry for President

Published: October 17, 2004



Senator John Kerry goes toward the election with a base that is built more on opposition to George W. Bush than loyalty to his own candidacy. But over the last year we have come to know Mr. Kerry as more than just an alternative to the status quo. We like what we've seen. He has qualities that could be the basis for a great chief executive, not just a modest improvement on the incumbent.

We have been impressed with Mr. Kerry's wide knowledge and clear thinking - something that became more apparent once he was reined in by that two-minute debate light. He is blessedly willing to re-evaluate decisions when conditions change. And while Mr. Kerry's service in Vietnam was first over-promoted and then over-pilloried, his entire life has been devoted to public service, from the war to a series of elected offices. He strikes us, above all, as a man with a strong moral core.



There is no denying that this race is mainly about Mr. Bush's disastrous tenure. Nearly four years ago, after the Supreme Court awarded him the presidency, Mr. Bush came into office amid popular expectation that he would acknowledge his lack of a mandate by sticking close to the center. Instead, he turned the government over to the radical right.

Mr. Bush installed John Ashcroft, a favorite of the far right with a history of insensitivity to civil liberties, as attorney general. He sent the Senate one ideological, activist judicial nominee after another. He moved quickly to implement a far-reaching anti-choice agenda including censorship of government Web sites and a clampdown on embryonic stem cell research. He threw the government's weight against efforts by the University of Michigan to give minority students an edge in admission, as it did for students from rural areas or the offspring of alumni.

When the nation fell into recession, the president remained fixated not on generating jobs but rather on fighting the right wing's war against taxing the wealthy. As a result, money that could have been used to strengthen Social Security evaporated, as did the chance to provide adequate funding for programs the president himself had backed. No Child Left Behind, his signature domestic program, imposed higher standards on local school systems without providing enough money to meet them.

If Mr. Bush had wanted to make a mark on an issue on which Republicans and Democrats have long made common cause, he could have picked the environment. Christie Whitman, the former New Jersey governor chosen to run the Environmental Protection Agency, came from that bipartisan tradition. Yet she left after three years of futile struggle against the ideologues and industry lobbyists Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney had installed in every other important environmental post. The result has been a systematic weakening of regulatory safeguards across the entire spectrum of environmental issues, from clean air to wilderness protection.



The president who lost the popular vote got a real mandate on Sept. 11, 2001. With the grieving country united behind him, Mr. Bush had an unparalleled opportunity to ask for almost any shared sacrifice. The only limit was his imagination.

He asked for another tax cut and the war against Iraq.

The president's refusal to drop his tax-cutting agenda when the nation was gearing up for war is perhaps the most shocking example of his inability to change his priorities in the face of drastically altered circumstances. Mr. Bush did not just starve the government of the money it needed for his own education initiative or the Medicare drug bill. He also made tax cuts a higher priority than doing what was needed for America's security; 90 percent of the cargo unloaded every day in the nation's ports still goes uninspected.

Along with the invasion of Afghanistan, which had near unanimous international and domestic support, Mr. Bush and his attorney general put in place a strategy for a domestic antiterror war that had all the hallmarks of the administration's normal method of doing business: a Nixonian obsession with secrecy, disrespect for civil liberties and inept management.


17 Oct 04 - 12:34 PM (#1299062)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Iconoclast is in Clifton TX not Crawford.

The Lone Star Iconoclast, P.O. Box 420, Crawford, TX 76638

Has a po box in crawford so you woun't know that it is actually published by left wing extremists in Clifton Texas, in another county 25 miles away.

For inquiries, call (254) 675-3336 or write to:
The Clifton Record
P.O. Box 353
Clifton, TX 76634

http://www.cliftonrecord.com/about.asp

Hmmm. The Clifton paper has the same phone number as the Iconoclast:


The Lone Star Iconoclast
P.O. Box 420
Crawford, TX 76638
We accept money orders, checks or cash with mail-in orders.
YOU CAN ALSO CALL US
WITH YOUR CREDIT CARD AT
(254) 675-3336

http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/subscribe.htm

I smell the pungent aroma of male cow feces.

Kerry edwards wil lower the cost of health care?
"Edwards' [1997] campaign rhetoric included a vow not to accept money from lobbyists or PACs. However, 86 percent of his Senate campaign was ultimately funded by the nation's most powerful special-interest group: personal-injury lawyers."

"In spite of his vocal opposition to PAC money, Edwards himself established a PAC in 2001: the New American Optimists (NAO). Nearly 70 percent (more than $4.1 million) of the NAO PAC's receipts have come from trial lawyers."

"Tab Turner, a fellow trial lawyer, donated a total of $200,000 to Edwards' campaign and PAC. Some contributions allegedly were in the name of several clerks in his law office. However, when investigations were made into the donations, more than one clerk revealed that they had made contributions to Edwards' campaign after Turner himself had assured them that they would be reimbursed—a practice that is forbidden by federal law. As a result, Edwards had to return $10,000 to employees of Turner & Associates. In spite of his legal background, Turner claimed that he was not aware that reimbursing his employees for their contributions was illegal."

"One of the leading asbestos litigation firms in the country—New York City-based Weitz & Luxenberg—contributed $34,250 in questionably raised employee donations to Edwards' presidential campaign."
http://www.thetruthabouttriallawyers.com/courtroom_roots.asp

Edwards blames Bush for the vaccine shortage but:
"Liability law appears to be a critical factor behind the vaccine shortage:
    As legal liabilities have chased many vaccine-makers out of the market, there are fewer manufacturers. This means less overall ability to produce additional doses, and less investment on new, faster ways to make vaccines.

    In the US about 185m people risk serious flu-related illness each year.

    At one time the US had 20 flu vaccine manufacturers. Today there are just four: Aventis, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck and Wyeth.

    After the second world war the science of cell cultures led a boom in vaccine production. But gradually profit margins thinned on vaccines, as the government became a big buyer of them. Increasing legal liability drove many makers out of the vaccine business.

    Today smaller biotech companies have entered the game. But they lack the capacity and the distribution to solve near-term shortages, experts say.

    "One of the problems with vaccines is you put them in healthy people," says Louis Galambos, history professor at Johns Hopkins University and an expert on vaccine manufacturing. "Now we're in a situation where we have too few producers."

    Congress passed a law in 1986 to limit liability on vaccines for children. There are no such liability limits for adults, however.

    Pharmaceuticals companies are inhibited by the particular structure of the US vaccine market, experts say. The US government is a large buyer of vaccines, leaving relatively poor profit margins on vaccines."
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2003/12/liability_and_f.html


Do you agree Amos?

Old Guy


17 Oct 04 - 01:10 PM (#1299083)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce

OG,

you are supposed to let Amos be the voice of the Pop. The rest of us are all partisan extremists- HE has the only correct view of reality.


17 Oct 04 - 02:07 PM (#1299117)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Maureen Dowd does her nation proud by calling a spade a spade vis-a-vis the hypocrisy of th4e Catholic church in politics.

A


17 Oct 04 - 02:59 PM (#1299163)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

In an article about Being Addicted to 9-11, columnist THomas Friedman says it like it is with regard to the Administrations bizarre mindset.

A


17 Oct 04 - 03:03 PM (#1299165)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

OG:

Thanks for the hads up. I will be alert for future misstatements by that scurrilous young charmer. And he had such a nice smile, too!

A


18 Oct 04 - 02:42 AM (#1299472)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Old Guy

Just as I thought 254 675 phome numbers are in Bosque County and Clifton Texas.

Crawford is in McLennan County and the phone numbers start with 254 486

So whoever says the Iconoclast newspaper is in Crawford is deceiving the American public with lies and distortions.

And my post above about the flu vaccine: that was written in 2003, long before Edwards blamed it on Bush

Old Guy


18 Oct 04 - 04:27 AM (#1299519)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: dianavan

Old Guy - I'm not sure if he blamed Bush or not but I do know this...

Supply is not the problem. The problem is the FDA. We have the same drug regulations in Canada and should be able to sell our extra million doses to the U.S. Its hung up in the FDA.

Bush said he was workin' on it with Canada in the last debate. Maybe he should be workin on the FDA. Even if he starts workin' on it today it will take three weeks to ready the shipment for delivery.

Do you really think Bush cares about you old guy? I think he cares more about securing the middle east for exploitation and controlling the world's food supply through biotechnology. I hate to disappoint you but he doesn't really care about your health.

d


18 Oct 04 - 04:22 PM (#1299969)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Bill O'Reilly, one of the unofficial loudspoeakers for the militant right, had a few choice words to offer female staffer about his fantasies concerning the use of felafel in the shower.

Talk about a sordid bunch!


A


19 Oct 04 - 09:26 AM (#1300614)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Old Guy

O'Reily is guilty as charged. A BANG the gavel.

Now fork over the $60 million.

Next case please.

Old Guy


19 Oct 04 - 11:22 AM (#1300684)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

HEy, hey, OG!! Now you're getting into the swing of it!! LOL!

The irony is that he has, himself, pilloried so many with such excoriating rhetoric, on so little evidence, so ruthlessly, that a dose of the same medicine is not inappropriate!!

A


20 Oct 04 - 11:18 AM (#1301806)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Summary of Bush accomplishments:

http://www.monkeydyne.com/bushresume/resume.html


A


20 Oct 04 - 11:36 AM (#1301830)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Earlier historical examples of Georgie's ravenous but underhanded duplicity -- wonder how the Mathes family feels about their ex-governor?

A


20 Oct 04 - 03:16 PM (#1302045)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

TEHRAN, Iran

Axis member backs Bush

"Iran is endorsing President George W. Bush. The head of Iran's security council said Tuesday that Bush's re-election was in Tehran's best interests, despite the administration's "axis of evil" label, accusations that Iran harbors Al Qaeda terrorists and threats of sanctions over the country's nuclear ambitions.


Historically, Democrats have harmed Iran more than Republicans, said Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top security decision-making body.


Though Iran generally does not publicly wade into U.S. presidential politics, it has a history of preferring Republicans over Democrats, who tend to press human rights issues."

http://www.freep.com/news/politics/pols20e_20041020.htm


21 Oct 04 - 09:57 AM (#1302852)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Richard Cohen of the Washington Post describes in wincing insight the fact that the Old Bush has vanished, and Kerry may well win the election. Full column here.

A


21 Oct 04 - 03:19 PM (#1303144)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Old Guy

Youngstown's mayor endorses Bush
Amos 24x7

Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Associated Press

Youngstown, Ohio - The mayor of this Democratic stronghold known for its steel industry job losses endorsed President Bush's re-election on Monday.

"Although I have never publicly endorsed a presidential candidate, the significance of this election, an election which I view as the most important of my lifetime, has motivated me to acknowledge my support for President Bush," said Mayor George McKelvey, a Democrat in his second term.
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1093344920264290.xml

Old Guy


21 Oct 04 - 04:47 PM (#1303215)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Great -- the Youngstown mayor and the PResident of the United States and the Prime Minister of Iran all agree on something.

Seven Florida newspapers come out for John Kerry

Major papers endorse John Kerry

28 More Papers Endorse Kerry for President

Gold-MEdalist Olympians ENdorse Kerry

Newspapers Across Country Endorse Kerry

Regards,

A


21 Oct 04 - 05:00 PM (#1303223)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Similar rejections of the Bush Administration's ham-handed charade can be found from the Boston Police, the Boston Globe, the Kansas City Star, Mrs. Christopher Reeves, the Navajo people's national Council, the New York Times, the Philadelphia Enquirer, the ex-Governor of Michigan, Milliken, the Saint-Louis Post-Dispatch,200 New Hampshire Republicans, the Oregonian, the Charlotte Observer, the Columbia Daily Tribune, John Eisenhower, (note spelling), Senator McCain's senior aide,and many others -- all referenced on this page for the day.

A


21 Oct 04 - 09:56 PM (#1303449)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Old Guy

Amos:

You forgot the head honcho if the biggest country in the world, Pooty-poot Putin, endorses Bush. Was it Texas Barbeque, or Beslan?

Old Guy


21 Oct 04 - 11:13 PM (#1303486)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Premier Putin, The Master of Democratic Process? You sure that's a point for your side?

A


22 Oct 04 - 05:00 PM (#1304169)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Hunter S. Thompson's passion is almost metaphysically inspiring. Following excerpt is from this article in Rolling Stone.

Fear and Loathing, Campaign 2004



Dr. Hunter S. Thompson sounds off on the fun-hogs in the passing lane

By DR. HUNTER S. THOMPSON


Armageddon came early for George Bush this year, and he was not ready for it. His long-awaited showdowns with my man John Kerry turned into a series of horrible embarrassments that cracked his nerve and demoralized his closest campaign advisers. They knew he would never recover, no matter how many votes they could steal for him in Florida, where the presidential debates were closely watched and widely celebrated by millions of Kerry supporters who suddenly had reason to feel like winners.

Kerry came into October as a five-point underdog with almost no chance of winning three out of three rigged confrontations with a treacherous little freak like George Bush. But the debates are over now, and the victor was clearly John Kerry every time. He steamrollered Bush and left him for roadkill.


Did you see Bush on TV, trying to debate? Jesus, he talked like a donkey with no brains at all. The tide turned early, in Coral Gables, when Bush went belly up less than halfway through his first bout with Kerry, who hammered poor George into jelly. It was pitiful. . . . I almost felt sorry for him, until I heard someone call him "Mister President," and then I felt ashamed.


Karl Rove, the president's political wizard, felt even worse. There is angst in the heart of Texas today, and panic in the bowels of the White House. Rove has a nasty little problem, and its name is George Bush. The president failed miserably from the instant he got onstage with John Kerry. He looked weak and dumb. Kerry beat him like a gong in Coral Gables, then again in St. Louis and Tempe -- and that is Rove's problem: His candidate is a weak-minded frat boy who cracks under pressure in front of 60 million voters.


That is an unacceptable failure for hardballers like Rove and Dick Cheney. On the undercard in Cleveland against John Edwards, Cheney came across as the cruel and sinister uberboss of Halliburton. In his only honest moment during the entire debate, he vowed, "We have to make America the best place in the world to do business."


Bush signed his own death warrant in the opening round, when he finally had to speak without his TelePrompTer. It was a Cinderella story brought up to date in Florida that night -- except this time the false prince turned back into a frog.


Immediately after the first debate ended I called Muhammad Ali at his home in Michigan, but whoever answered said the champ was laughing so hard that he couldn't come to the phone. "The debate really cracked him up," he chuckled. "The champ loves a good ass-whuppin'. He says Bush looked so scared to fight, he finally just quit and laid down."


22 Oct 04 - 05:02 PM (#1304170)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

"War is an option whose time has passed. Peace is the only option for the future. At present we occupy a treacherous no-man's-land between peace and war, a time of growing fear that our military might has expanded beyond our capacity to control it and our political differences widened beyond our ability to bridge them. . . .


Short of changing human nature, therefore, the only way to achieve a practical, livable peace in a world of competing nations is to take the profit out of war.
--RICHARD M. NIXON, "REAL PEACE" (1983)



Richard Nixon looks like a flaming liberal today, compared to a golem like George Bush. Indeed. Where is Richard Nixon now that we finally need him?"

--Ibid


22 Oct 04 - 08:24 PM (#1304335)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: dianavan

First time I heard Bush referred to as a Golem. Right you are!

d


23 Oct 04 - 12:02 AM (#1304494)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Old Guy

Amos:

Please strike anyone from a non democratic nation from the list of Kerry supporters, you know like N Vietnam. See here

"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged."
President Abraham Lincoln

You know him? The Republican that freed the slaves and people wer trying to oust him from office.

I'll opt for hanging.

Old Guy


23 Oct 04 - 01:26 AM (#1304519)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

OG:

The Union side, of the Civil War, I have always been taught, was the just side, the enlightened side, and the necessary side.

Kerry understood from first-hand experience that the Vietnam War was not just, nor necessary, and certainly not enlightened, and he had the guts to stand up in the face of mass counter-opinion and say so.

Opt as you will, I don't much care. Your chauvinism and jingoism are not entertaining, and (in my own opinion) unhealthy. You can take the actions of a decent human being and slander them and falsify them until the day looks like night.   Good for you, and may you have the joy of it, somewhere.

A


23 Oct 04 - 01:39 AM (#1304525)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Old Guy

Amos:

Which person do you claim I am slandering?

If you mean Lincoln, I am honoring him. His quotation should be taken to heart today. People are claiming it is patriotic to undermine the military in a time of war. I say they are saboteurs and should be hanged like Ol' Abe said.

He was on the just side and freed the slaves.

Most amazingly he was a Republican.

If you say I am slandering Kerry, I am only saying he is an arrogant asshole.

Maybe you should come over to the just side.

Old Guy


23 Oct 04 - 01:39 AM (#1304526)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce

Amos,

When you do not seem to be able to realize is, that to people who have opinions that are not the same as yours, you are equally guilty of what you accuse OG of. It is a pity that you are so absolutely sure of your opinion that you are incapable of realizing that others may not agree with you and still be well-meaning, thoughtful individuals.



"You can take the actions of a decent human being and slander them and falsify them until the day looks like night. "


23 Oct 04 - 01:55 AM (#1304536)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Al Gore describes the problem well in this speech.

"It appears to be an important element in Bush's ideology to never admit a mistake or even a doubt. It also has become common for Bush to rely on special interests for information about the policies important to them and he trusts what they tell him over any contrary view that emerges from public debate. He has, in effect, outsourced the truth. Most disturbing of all, his contempt for the rule of reason and his early successes in persuading the nation that his ideologically based views accurately described the world have tempted him to the hubristic and genuinely dangerous illusion that reality is itself a commodity that can be created with clever public relations and propaganda skills, and where specific controversies are concerned, simply purchased as a turnkey operation from the industries most affected.

George Orwell said, "The point is that we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield." "

OG, BB -- John Kerry is not arrogant, or at least he is a lot less arrogant than our half-mad Resident. As for being an asshole, you are simply incorrect in your opinion. He is more of a gentleman, and a LOT more of a scholar, and a more experienced diplomat and a more skilled manager than W has ever dreamed of being. He's simply a better human being.

If you weren't completely locked in to the past and its serious errors, you could see it a lot more clearly. The merits on present time comparison of the two men and what they stand for are overwhelmingly in Kerry's favor.

A


23 Oct 04 - 02:01 AM (#1304540)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce

Amos,

You are willing to accept Gore defining Bush as the definition of truth, but not Bush defining Kerry? It seems to me that you are showing an obvious bias. You make statements based on one-sided, partisan statements, and expect those who disagree with them to accept what you say as the Amos-given WORD. You do make valid comments, sometimes: BUT your use of obviously biased sources makes your general conclusion at least suspect, if not worthless.


23 Oct 04 - 02:13 AM (#1304548)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

I am biased, no question. I am not open minded and even handed about George Bush. You want to know why?

Because he has lied to me, lied to my representatives, mismanaged my nation, ruined our reputation abroad and wasted our treasure domestically. He has unleashed the forces of war unnecessarily and cost American lives and the slaughter of innocents in a wildly mis-estimated effort to act powerful. He has spilled innocent blood when he did not have to do so. He has consistently misrepresented the truth, and in the current campaign he has again and again misrepresented the efforts of others and the views of others, distorting them to serve his own interests by twisting their words. He has worsened my nation's economy and in every way displayed favoritism, arrogance, blatant and intentional illiteracy and ineptitude, a refusal to communicate openly, and an unrelenting willingness to suborn his office to the benefit of business associates.

Given this and his other offences, I am not even-minded about him. I have seen the deaths, and heard the testimony, and I don't think there is much room for appeal or redemption in this case.

Bummer.

The man is a danger to the nation. He should go home as quickly as possible before he kills again.

A


23 Oct 04 - 02:31 AM (#1304556)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce

Amos,

"Because he has lied to me, lied to my representatives, mismanaged my nation, ruined our reputation abroad and wasted our treasure domestically. He has unleashed the forces of war unnecessarily and cost American lives and the slaughter of innocents in a wildly mis-estimated effort to act powerful. He has spilled innocent blood when he did not have to do so. He has consistently misrepresented the truth, and in the current campaign he has again and again misrepresented the efforts of others and the views of others, distorting them to serve his own interests by twisting their words. "



This is your opinion- given that, you are certainly entitled to your vote against him. But there are people out here who will say the same thing, with as much conviction and depth of feeling, about Clinton.



You are not entitled to make personnal attacks on those who hold other opinions. You can, and SHOULD, attack the facts presented when you feel them to be false: But to attack the person because they disagree with you makes you a worse type of person than you claim Bush is.


23 Oct 04 - 02:37 AM (#1304559)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

I attack lies, and I tend to be hard on liars. I have been on both sides of that street. You are backing a slimeball. That's your choice. I think less of you for exercising poor judgment in human affairs. That's mine. I do not attack you because you disagree with me, for goodness' sake!! That would really be dull. I just think you're making a sad mistake, and don't mind saying so.

The list of charges in my diatribe, above, which you so kindly excerpted, is not just my opinion, but an abstraction based on facts. We've been over this over nad over and over. The man is a liar, Brucie. You are back a forked-tongue liar who drove us into a lethal war we did not need, under false data. He's not a genuine guy, sorry.   

A


23 Oct 04 - 02:49 AM (#1304566)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce

Amos,

Bruce, not Brucie...

I read the British Report. I looked at the ongoing violations of UN resolutions by Iraq. I looked at the available information, and I have read the Russian warnings. IMO, in the post 9/11 situation, the Bush administration would have been negligent to NOT demand that the UN act, and when effective action was not forthcoming, take action on it's own. I do NOT say that the conduct of the was has been perfect- No was ever is. Do I wish that Saddam had complied, in November of 2001? YES- But he chose not to. I consider that the lives lost by the mistakes made are far fewer than the lives that would have been lost if the threat had been as it looked to be, and nothing effective was done. Should we have listened to the French, who were major violators of the UN sanctions with Iraq, or other nations that had a vested interest in seeing harm come to the US/ I do not think so.

I think that a reasonable person could see the need to eliminate Iraq as a potential source of WMD to terrorists. You seem to see something else. If I am wrong, thousands die- If you are wrong, millions. I pray to God that if your viewpoint prevails, you are willing to take the same blame for those millions that you place upon Bush for his thousands.


23 Oct 04 - 03:03 AM (#1304572)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

If I was right, Bruce, and the leader of the nation acted reasonably, no-one would have died, aside from those who fell to Saddam's continued aggressions against his own people. I am glad those lives were saved, sure, but they were saved in the most wasteful possible way.

The leader of the nation was unqualified. And he intended to target Saddam Hussein from the first days he was in office, long before 9-11.


I don't see the logic in that.

A


23 Oct 04 - 03:09 AM (#1304575)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce

Amos,

You continue to make statements of YOUR opinion, and then act as if they are fact. When you do not see logic in a set of things that YOU have created, for whatever reason, perhaps it is because the person MAKING the statements is not logical...


23 Oct 04 - 09:21 AM (#1304714)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

I created Bush's poor qualifications? I suppose I did, but that's a metaphysic I would have not thought you capable of articulating so neatly!! Congratulations! I should stop contributing my energy to his being the conundrum that he is.

A


23 Oct 04 - 02:02 PM (#1304910)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Old Guy

To Amos:

Amos in the morning Amos in the evening Amos at suppertime.
Be my little Amos And fight me all the time.


Old Guy


23 Oct 04 - 03:24 PM (#1304977)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

OG:

I am not fighting you.

I am fighting that insufferable asshole you are promoting. For one reason, really, only: he is damaging the nation and undermining the fiber of its pride and morale.

That's what I see. Call it opinion, call it viewpoint, call it intelligent extrapolation from data. It doesn't go away.

A


23 Oct 04 - 03:58 PM (#1305010)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Viewpoints from hither and yon:

charles from shelbyville tn says "BUSH, IT THINK ITS TIME 4 U 2 LEAVE U HAVE BEEN PUTTING OUR TROOPS MORE IN DANGER I ALSO DONT THINK U SHOULD KEEP RAISING OUR TAXES ALSO WE NEED A LEADER 4 A PRESIDENT AND THAT WOULD BE PRESIDENT KERRY U R SO WORRIED ABOUT WATCHING IRAC THAT U NEED 2 PROTECT THE U.S THE LAST THING 2 SAY IS GOOOOOOOO KERRY U GOT MY VOTE" (Sat, Oct 23rd, 12:51pm PDT)


Robert Brennan from Long Island NY says "Free America from King George! Elect Kerry!The Emperor Has no cloths! Bush Lies, America Dies! Stop the Bush Dynasty before it's too late. Remember Bush was never elected in the first place, dont let him steal this election from the people again." (Sat, Oct 23rd, 12:50pm PDT)


diana from maryland says "Thanks for nothing!" (Sat, Oct 23rd, 12:48pm PDT)


priscilla from miami says "bush sucks and i'd vote for any one other than him. he one his first election only because he cheated;he put road blocks oin societies that where mostly middle and low class so that they wouldn't be able to vote on election day." (Sat, Oct 23rd, 12:47pm PDT)


Steve from New Zealand says "If Bush is re-elected the World is in big trouble. The man is a facist with no respect for human life at home or abroad." (Sat, Oct 23rd, 12:44pm PDT)


Charlie from Dallas says "Because your a liar and a crook, and seeing you sit in that class room while america was under a terroist attack on 9/11 and sing 'old macdonald' was the scariest god damn thing ive ever seen. GEORGE BUSH MUST BE STOPPED." (Sat, Oct 23rd, 12:44pm PDT)


Military Mother from USA says ""How do you think it feels for a grieving mother to hear Charles Duelfer, the top CIA weapons inspector for Iraq, state last week that Iraq destroyed its weapons of mass destruction years ago and had no ability to produce more, under sanctions? How do you think it feels to hear White House officials now admit that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11? I want to know: did Michael die for a lie?" asked Lila Lipscomb, the military mother from Flint, Michigan, who is featured in Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" reading from the last letter her son, Michael, sent home from Iraq before he died." (Sat, Oct 23rd, 12:43pm PDT)



Henry from Canada says "A president is not a cowboy" (Sat, Oct 23rd, 12:39pm PDT)


Mari Lippi from Michigan says "GW was not ready to lead this country the first time he was given this job by the Supreme Court and is not ready to lead it now. He's lost track of the economy, our respect in the world, and if he can't protect the citizens of this country against the flu, how can he protect us against a terrorist attack? Homeland Security does not even check the cargo in the largest port in the world in L.A. for W.M.D. Instead he rushes to the Middle East chasing a fairy tale of W.M.D. when they could be sitting in our backyard. I'm more afraid of GW in office than not. We're not protected in this country, our borders are open to anyone who can sneak in. GW will run and hide as he did on 9/11. John Kerry will stand up and fight like a man and protect this country with intelligence and strength. GW will only face what he is comfortable with, just as his campaign functions. No one is allowed into his protected world unless they are a registered Republican, what a coward!" (Sat, Oct 23rd, 12:38pm PDT)


Mardi from Germany says "See ya Later, Bush, because a demagogue, liar and warmonger like you is simply unacceptable for our world!" (Sat, Oct 23rd, 12:36pm PDT)


nanna from ca,san jose says "you've put so much people in jeopardy!" (Sat, Oct 23rd, 12:35pm PDT)


Robert Hanshew from Las vegas says "the only thing that can save the world from president bush is for him to see welcome to washington, dc in his rear view mirror." (Sat, Oct 23rd, 12:34pm PDT)

Tim from East Hartford, Ct says "I would vote for Bush, if I could invest in the National Debt. Go to http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ and see how rich he can make you." (Sat, Oct 23rd, 12:31pm PDT)

Mos from California says "A lot of damage under your belt, King George. About time you got ousted hard, and let us get on with genuine principles instead of your brand of righteous fanaticism!" (Sat, Oct 23rd, 12:29pm PDT)


Ken Nicholson, LTC USArmy (Ret) from Virginia says "Bush just gave $10 Billion to Big Tobacco! On Friday Bush signed a bill that provides a $10 Billion handout to tobacco farmers, using our tax money to prop up the most destructive,harmful, odious business in this country. I give the government a third of my income so that they can do that? This is as outrageous as causing 1200 young soldiers to die in Iraq because Saddam Hussein once threatened Bush's father. Bush could send his twins to serve in the Army over there and then he'd finally understand just what the cost of his war is to the thousands of families that have been devastated by his impulsive behavior - but we will never see that - it will always be other people's children, spouses and parents who will be sent - what does he care? He didn't go to war himself when so many were dying in Vietnam - Daddy pulled strings to get him out of it. This jerk wasn't even elected by most voters. Hopefully the vote this time will be so overwhelming that even the Bush cronies controlling the elections in Florida won't be able to thwart the will of the American voters like they did so unabashedly last time." (Sat, Oct 23rd, 12:28pm PDT)


richard falco from new york says "so long bush.you homo" (Sat, Oct 23rd, 12:27pm PDT)

http://laterbush.com/


23 Oct 04 - 04:24 PM (#1305032)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Old Guy

Amos:

This might sound flippant but I am fighting that insufferable asshole you are promoting.

Remeber I was the first to say Kerry is an arrogant asshole and someone pretending to be related to me started a counter thread later.

May the best asshole win.

Old Guy


23 Oct 04 - 07:17 PM (#1305158)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Seems to me, OG, that you are oblivious to the harm this man is doing.

But, as you say, may the best asshole win. *bg**

A


23 Oct 04 - 07:44 PM (#1305179)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From a dear friend:


GUESTWORDS: By E.L. Doctorow

    The Unfeeling President

    September 9, 2004 - Easthampton Star

    I fault this president for not knowing what death is. He does not
suffer the death of our 21-year-olds who
    wanted to be what they could be. On the eve of D-Day in 1944 General
Eisenhower prayed to God for the lives
    of the young soldiers he knew were going to die. He knew what death
was. Even in a justifiable war, a war not
    of choice but of necessity, a war of survival, the cost was almost
more than Eisenhower could bear.

    But this president does not know what death is. He hasn't the mind
for it. You see him joking with the press,
    peering under the table for the weapons of mass destruction he can't
seem to find, you see him at rallies
    strutting up to the stage in shirt sleeves to the roar of the
carefully screened crowd, smiling and waving,
    triumphal, a he-man.

    He does not mourn. He doesn't understand why he should mourn. He is
satisfied during the course of a speech
    written for him to look solemn for a moment and speak of the brave
young Americans who made the ultimate
    sacrifice for their country.

    But you study him, you look into his eyes and know he dissembles an
emotion which he does not feel in the
    depths of his being because he has no capacity for it. He does not
feel a personal responsibility for the 1,000
    dead young men and women who wanted to be what they could be.

    They come to his desk not as youngsters with mothers and fathers or
wives and children who will suffer to
    the end of their days a terribly torn fabric of familial
relationships and the inconsolable remembrance of
    aborted life . . . they come to his desk as a political liability,
which is why the press is not permitted to
    photograph the arrival of their coffins from Iraq.

    How then can he mourn? To mourn is to express regret and he regrets
nothing. He does not regret that his
    reason for going to war was, as he knew, unsubstantiated by the
facts. He does not regret that his bungled
    plan for the war's aftermath has made of his mission-accomplished a
disaster. He does not regret that,
    rather than controlling terrorism, his war in Iraq has licensed it.
So he never mourns for the dead and crippled
    youngsters who have fought this war of his choice.

    He wanted to go to war and he did. He had not the mind to perceive
the costs of war, or to listen to those who
    knew those costs. He did not understand that you do not go to war
when it is one of the options but when it is
    the only option; you go not because you want to but because you have
to.

    Yet this president knew it would be difficult for Americans not to
cheer the overthrow of a foreign dictator.
    He knew that much. This president and his supporters would seem to
have a mind for only one thing -- to take
    power, to remain in power, and to use that power for the sake of
themselves and their friends.

    A war will do that as well as anything. You become a wartime leader.
The country gets behind you. Dissent
    becomes inappropriate. And so he does not drop to his knees, he is
not contrite, he does not sit in the church
    with the grieving parents and wives and children. He is the
president who does not feel. He does not feel for
    the families of the dead, he does not feel for the 35 million of us
who live in poverty, he does not feel for the
    40 percent who cannot afford health insurance, he does not feel for
the miners whose lungs are turning black
    or for the working people he has deprived of the chance to work
overtime at time-and-a-half to pay their bills
    - it is amazing for how many people in this country this president
does not feel.

    But he will dissemble feeling. He will say in all sincerity he is
relieving the wealthiest 1 percent of the
    population of their tax burden for the sake of the rest of us, and
that he is polluting the air we breathe for
    the sake of our economy, and that he is decreasing the quality of
air in coal mines to save the coal miners'
    jobs, and that he is depriving workers of their time-and-a-half
benefits for overtime because this is actually a
    way to honor them by raising them into the professional class.

    And this litany of lies he will versify with reverences for God and
the flag and democracy, when just what he
    and his party are doing to our democracy is choking the life out of
it.

    But there is one more terribly sad thing about all of this. I
remember the millions of people here and around
    the world who marched against the war. It was extraordinary, that
spontaneous aroused oversoul of alarm and
    protest that transcended national borders. Why did it happen? After
all, this was not the only war anyone had
    ever seen coming. There are little wars all over he world most of
the time.

    But the cry of protest was the appalled understanding of millions of
people that America was ceding its role as
    the last best hope of mankind. It was their perception that the
classic archetype of democracy was morphing
    into a rogue nation. The greatest democratic republic in history was
turning its back on the future, using its
    extraordinary power and standing not to advance the ideal of a
concordance of civilizations but to endorse the
    kind of tribal combat that originated with the Neanderthals, a
people, now extinct, who could imagine ensuring
    their survival by no other means than pre-emptive war.

    The president we get is the country we get. With each president the
nation is conformed spiritually. He is the
    artificer of our malleable national soul. He proposes not only the
laws but the kinds of lawlessness that govern
    our lives and invoke our responses. The people he appoints are cast
in his image. The trouble they get into and
    get us into, is his characteristic trouble.

    Finally, the media amplify his character into our moral weather
report. He becomes the face of our sky, the
    conditions that prevail. How can we sustain ourselves as the United
States of America given the stupid and
    ineffective warmaking, the constitutionally insensitive lawgiving,
and the monarchal economics of this
    president? He cannot mourn but is a figure of such moral vacancy as
to make us mourn for ourselves.



Sums it up beautifully.

A


23 Oct 04 - 07:53 PM (#1305186)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Quote for the day :

"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.

To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day"

Theodore Roosevelt, April 19, 1906


23 Oct 04 - 11:09 PM (#1305323)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Old Guy

Amos Amos Amos:

Why didn't you name this thread "Popular views of the Amos"?

Old Guy


23 Oct 04 - 11:19 PM (#1305329)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

I don't write these references, is why. I just thought it would be good to have a place where the suppressed and stifled voices of dissidence could be pointed out, because Bushie gets really hard on those who disagree with him. Never before in the history of this nation has any President felt obliged to resort to the use of barriered enclosures called "free speech areas" where dissidents must confine themselves, so the public news casts don't see them. Never before has so much suppression of information been imposed by so few on so many. The Bill of Rights has never been so vigorously constrained and attacked as under the current administration.

Orwell must be spinning in his damned grave.

A


23 Oct 04 - 11:47 PM (#1305356)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

America, A Country on the Brink of Destruction; a summary of the Bush presidency,
by Lonna Gooden VanHorn, can be found on this page.

A


24 Oct 04 - 12:00 AM (#1305366)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: dianavan

beardedbruce - I take exception to the remark, "Should we have listened to the French, who were major violators of the UN sanctions with Iraq, or other nations that had a vested interest in seeing harm come to the US/ I do not think so."

What did Canada have to gain?

And why didn't the U.S. let the U.N. inspectors finish their job?

d


24 Oct 04 - 12:41 AM (#1305381)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Old Guy

Amos:

The democrats and thier supporters do all the spinning. Orwell is dead.

Who the hell is Lonna Gooden VanHorn? Is she a stiffled dissident?

Are you searching through a dumpster somewhere?


Old Guy


24 Oct 04 - 12:47 AM (#1305385)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Clint Keller

Orwell is dead, but Big Brother lives.

clint


24 Oct 04 - 12:59 AM (#1305388)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce

dianavan,

I have stated in past threads, which generated no end of ire that I dare have my own opinion, that the inspectors stated that they were not getting the required level of cooperation- for a number of years. IMHO, I feel that Saddam was given more than enough chances to comply, and continued to refuse. In the post 9/11 world , and with the information that was available at the time, to NOT take forceful action would have been to risk millions, or tens of millions of lives.

I still wonder why, in all the demonstrations against the US taking action against Iraq, NOONE ever just asked Saddam to comply. Not a single poster, placard, or sign. AT least, none that I know of, from any reports here or on the TV.

There had been a low level of actual fighting between the US and Iraq ever since 1991- but to most of the world it was business as usual, with numerous attempts to violate sanctions, and help Saddam misuse the Oil for Food money. WHy is it that noone ever asks HOW saddam had even the forces he dis, after the Gulf war and the sanctions? For country that the UN was preventing from rearming, Iraq had a lot of firepower....


24 Oct 04 - 01:02 AM (#1305389)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Ebbie

The link that Amos gives on 21 October, 9:57, is essential reading, imo.


24 Oct 04 - 01:15 AM (#1305397)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Old Guy

Are the enlightened people here keeping abreast of the oil for food corruption investigation?

Old Guy


25 Oct 04 - 12:59 AM (#1306320)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Old Guy

this thread is dying Anus I mean Amos.

Old guy


25 Oct 04 - 01:10 AM (#1306325)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

I think I can see why, Old Guy.

A


26 Oct 04 - 09:10 AM (#1307506)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The LA Times paints an accurate and deadly picture of the Bush Administrations Machiavellian philosophy, "Rovism" yclept. This editorial describes the Administration as "The Sopramos in the White House". Apt.

Click here for article

A


26 Oct 04 - 09:21 AM (#1307517)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Bush administration has decided that some non-Iraqi prisoners captured by American forces in Iraq are not entitled to the protection of the Geneva Conventions, the New York Times reported Tuesday.

According to unnamed administration officials who spoke with the newspaper, the opinion reached in recent months holds that there are exceptions to previous U.S. assertions that the Geneva Conventions apply to all prisoners taken in the Iraq war.

Reuters article



How handy for the Bush Administration to have the power to set aside the Geneva Convention at will, re-define human rights in times of war, and claim freedom of speech and freedom of assembly is protected by providing "free speech areas" out back during political events.

These guys really are fascistic.

A


26 Oct 04 - 09:28 AM (#1307522)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The London Financial Times endorses Kerry, stating among other things:

The bursting of the Bush bubble
The US presidential election is the most closely watched since at least
1980. Now as then, the choice is between two candidates with sharply
different governing philosophies and views on the exercise of American
power in the world. The outcome will determine whether the radical,
faith-based politics of President George W. Bush triumphs, or whether
Americans opt for the shift in course represented by Senator John
Kerry.

Mr Bush entered the White House in January 2001, having won a narrow
election victory, courtesy of the US Supreme Court. He pledged to be a
conciliator. He talked about uniting Democrats and Republicans at home.
He promised to pursue a humble foreign policy abroad. His record shows
that he has done neither. He has been a polariser, exploiting the War
on Terror to cow domestic opposition and divide the world into Them and
Us.




http://tinyurl.com/67wod


26 Oct 04 - 10:25 AM (#1307584)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The Washington Post describes the same ham-handed indifference to the Geneva Convention:

"While blaming the crimes at Abu Ghraib on a small group of low-ranking soldiers, the White House, the Pentagon and the CIA have fought to preserve the exceptional and sometimes secret policies that allow U.S. personnel to violate the Geneva Conventions and other laws governing the handling and interrogation of foreign detainees. Under those policies, practices at odds with basic American values continue--even if there are no sensational photos to document them."

What a team!! What a group!! We have a government fit to make Americans PROUD!!


I spit.


A


26 Oct 04 - 10:33 AM (#1307590)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The New York Times reports on NASA's feelings about Bushies bad attityudes on global warming and their failure to act thereon.

"Dr. Hansen stood by his assertions and said the administration risked disaster by discouraging scientists from discussing unwelcome findings."


A


26 Oct 04 - 12:43 PM (#1307737)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

THe Washington Post examines the Bush adminitration's tepid series of accomplishments on nmuclear proliferation in this article. The Today's Papers summary:


In another impressive assessment, the Post looks at President Bush's record on counter-proliferation. The paper says Libya has been a success--albeit with a big assist by Britain--while the policies, or lack thereof, on North Korea and Iran have been disastrous. Iran has marked by paralyzing disputes within the administration, while the administration essentially put off Pyongyang, a policy one "participant" in decisions called "no carrot, no stick and no talk." The Post also says the U.S. had solid info about A.Q. Khan's order-nukes-by-mail business in early 2001 but waited a year and a half to deal, and then only after the strong urging of the British. "They made no attempt to get a handle on his activities abroad," said one former Bush assistant secretary of state.




It is interesting to note that Bush's fixation on Iraq may have been instrumental in allowing nuclear build up to occur in several more dangerous places.

A


26 Oct 04 - 01:07 PM (#1307768)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

A speech by Al Gore contained the following noteworthy phrases:

"The essential cruelty of Bush's game is that he takes an astonishingly selfish and greedy collection of economic and political proposals then cloaks it with a phony moral authority, thus misleading many Americans who have a deep and genuine desire to do good in the world. And in the process he convinces them to lend unquestioning support for proposals that actually hurt their families and their communities. Bush has stolen the symbolism and body language of religion and used it to disguise the most radical effort in American history to take what rightfully belongs to the citizenry of America and give as much as possible to the already wealthy and privileged, who look at his agenda and say, as Dick Cheney said to Paul O'Neill, "this is our due."

The central elements of Bush's political – as opposed to religious -- belief system are plain to see: The "public interest" is a dangerous myth according to Bush's ideology – a fiction created by the hated "liberals" who use the notion of "public interest" as an excuse to take away from the wealthy and powerful what they believe is their due. Therefore, government of by and for the people, is bad – except when government can help members of his coalition. Laws and regulations are therefore bad – again, except when they can be used to help members of his coalition.

Therefore, whenever laws must be enforced and regulations administered, it is important to assign those responsibilities to individuals who can be depended upon not to fall prey to this dangerous illusion that there is a public interest, and will instead reliably serve the narrow and specific interests of industries or interest groups. This is the reason, for example, that President Bush put the chairman of Enron, Ken Lay, in charge of vetting any appointees to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Enron had already helped the Bush team with such favors as ferrying their rent-a-mob to Florida in 2000 to permanently halt the counting of legally cast ballots. And then Enron went on to bilk the electric rate-payers of California, without the inconvenience of federal regulators protecting citizens against their criminal behavior. Or to take another example, this is why all of the important EPA positions have been filled by lawyers and lobbyists representing the worst polluters in their respective industries in order to make sure that they're not inconvenienced by the actual enforcement of the laws against excessive pollution. In Bush's ideology, there is an interweaving of the agendas of large corporations that support him and his own ostensibly public agenda for the government he leads. Their preferences become his policies, and his politics become their business
"


26 Oct 04 - 01:58 PM (#1307817)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Paul Krugman writing for the New York Times provides an excoriating analysis of the Bush administrations "Culture of Coverups"

Excerpts:

"Although President Bush's campaign is based almost entirely on his self-proclaimed leadership in that war, his officials have thrown a shroud of secrecy over any information that might let voters assess his performance.

Yesterday we got two peeks under that shroud. One was The Times's report about what the International Atomic Energy Agency calls "the greatest explosives bonanza in history." Ignoring the agency's warnings, administration officials failed to secure the weapons site, Al Qaqaa, in Iraq, allowing 377 tons of deadly high explosives to be looted, presumably by insurgents.

The administration is trying to play down the importance of this loss, arguing that because Iraq was awash in munitions, a few hundred more tons don't make much difference. But aside from their potential use in nuclear weapons - the reason they were under seal before the war - these particular explosives, unlike standard munitions, are exactly what a terrorist needs.

Informed sources quoted by the influential Nelson Report say explosives from Al Qaqaa are the "primary source" of the roadside and car bombs that have killed and wounded so many U.S. soldiers. And thanks to the huge amount looted - "in a highly organized operation using heavy equipment" - the insurgents and whoever else have access to the Qaqaa material have enough explosives for tens of thousands of future bombs.

If the administration had had its way, the public would never have heard anything about this. Administration officials have known about the looting of Al Qaqaa for at least six months, and probably much longer. But they didn't let the I.A.E.A. inspect the site after the war, and pressured the Iraqis not to inform the agency about the loss. They now say that they didn't want our enemies - that is, the people who stole the stuff - to know it was missing. The real reason, obviously, was that they wanted the news kept under wraps until after Nov. 2.

The story of the looted explosives has overshadowed another report that Bush officials tried to suppress - this one about how the Bush administration let Abu Musab al-Zarqawi get away. An article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal confirmed and expanded on an "NBC Nightly News" report from March that asserted that before the Iraq war, administration officials called off a planned attack that might have killed Mr. Zarqawi, the terrorist now blamed for much of the mayhem in that country, in his camp.

Citing "military officials," the original NBC report explained that the failure to go after Mr. Zarqawi was based on domestic politics: "the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq" - a part of Iraq not controlled by Saddam Hussein - "could undermine its case for war against Saddam." The Journal doesn't comment on this explanation, but it does say that when NBC reported, correctly, that Mr. Zarqawi had been targeted before the war, administration officials denied it.

What other mistakes did the administration make? If partisan appointees like Mr. Goss continue to control the intelligence agencies, we may never know."




A


26 Oct 04 - 02:13 PM (#1307830)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From the NY Times, again:

Making Things Worse

Published: October 26, 2004

President Bush's misbegotten invasion of Iraq appears to have achieved what Saddam Hussein did not: putting dangerous weapons in the hands of terrorists and creating an offshoot of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

The murder of dozens of Iraqi Army recruits over the weekend is being attributed to the forces of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who has been identified by the Bush administration as a leading terrorist and a supposed link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. That was not true before the war - as multiple investigations have shown. But the breakdown of order since the invasion has changed all that. This terrorist, who has claimed many attacks on occupation forces and the barbaric murder of hostages, recently swore allegiance to Osama bin Laden and renamed his group Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

The hideous murder of the recruits was a reminder of the Bush administration's dangerously inflated claims about training an Iraqi security force. The officials responsible for these inexperienced young men sent them home for leave without weapons or guards, at a time when police and army recruits are constantly attacked. The men who killed them wore Iraqi National Guard uniforms.

A particularly horrific case of irony involves weapons of mass destruction. It's been obvious for months that American forces were not going to find the chemical or biological armaments that Mr. Bush said were stockpiled in Iraq. What we didn't know is that while they were looking for weapons that did not exist, they lost weapons that did.

James Glanz, William J. Broad and David E. Sanger reported in The Times yesterday that some 380 tons of the kinds of powerful explosives used to destroy airplanes, demolish buildings, make missile warheads and trigger nuclear weapons have disappeared from one of the many places in Iraq that the United States failed to secure. The United Nations inspectors disdained by the Bush administration had managed to monitor the explosives for years. But they vanished soon after the United States took over the job. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was so bent on proving his theory of lightning warfare that he ignored the generals who said an understaffed and underarmed invasion force could rush to Baghdad, but couldn't hold the rest of the country, much less guard things like the ammunition dump.

Iraqi and American officials cannot explain how some 760,000 pounds of explosives were spirited away from a well-known site just 30 miles from Baghdad. But they were warned. Within weeks of the invasion, international weapons inspectors told Washington that the explosives depot was in danger and that terrorists could help themselves "to the greatest explosives bonanza in history."

The disastrous theft was revealed in a recent letter to an international agency in Vienna. It was signed by the general director of Iraq's Planning and Following Up Directorate. It's too bad the Bush administration doesn't have one of those.


26 Oct 04 - 04:33 PM (#1307945)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From the New Yorker Magazine's assessment endorsing John Kerry for President of the United States:

As a variety of memoirs and journalistic accounts have made plain, Bush seldom entertains contrary opinion. He boasts that he listens to no outside advisers, and inside advisers who dare to express unwelcome views are met with anger or disdain. He lives and works within a self-created bubble of faith-based affirmation. Nowhere has his solipsism been more damaging than in the case of Iraq. The arguments and warnings of analysts in the State Department, in the Central Intelligence Agency, in the uniformed military services, and in the chanceries of sympathetic foreign governments had no more effect than the chants of millions of marchers.

The decision to invade and occupy Iraq was made on the basis of four assumptions: first, that Saddam's regime was on the verge of acquiring nuclear explosives and had already amassed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons; second, that the regime had meaningful links with Al Qaeda and (as was repeatedly suggested by the Vice-President and others) might have had something to do with 9/11; third, that within Iraq the regime's fall would be followed by prolonged celebration and rapid and peaceful democratization; and, fourth, that a similar democratic transformation would be precipitated elsewhere in the region, accompanied by a new eagerness among Arab governments and publics to make peace between Israel and a presumptive Palestinian state. The first two of these assumptions have been shown to be entirely baseless. As for the second two, if the wishes behind them do someday come true, it may not be clear that the invasion of Iraq was a help rather than a hindrance.

In Bush's rhetoric, the Iraq war began on March 20, 2003, with precision bombings of government buildings in Baghdad, and ended exactly three weeks later, with the iconic statue pulldown. That military operation was indeed a success. But the cakewalk led over a cliff, to a succession of heedless and disastrous mistakes that leave one wondering, at the very least, how the Pentagon's civilian leadership remains intact and the President's sense of infallibility undisturbed.

The failure, against the advice of such leaders as General Eric Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, to deploy an adequate protective force led to unchallenged looting of government buildings, hospitals, museums, and—most inexcusable of all—arms depots. ("Stuff happens," Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld explained, though no stuff happened to the oil ministry.) The Pentagon all but ignored the State Department's postwar plans, compiled by its Future of Iraq project, which warned not only of looting but also of the potential for insurgencies and the folly of relying on exiles such as Ahmad Chalabi; the project's head, Thomas Warrick, was sidelined. The White House counsel's disparagement of the Geneva Conventions and of prohibitions on torture as "quaint" opened the way to systematic and spectacular abuses at Abu Ghraib and other American-run prisons--a moral and political catastrophe for which, in a pattern characteristic of the Administration's management style, no one in a policymaking position has been held accountable.

And, no matter how Bush may cleave to his arguments about a grand coalition ("What's he say to Tony Blair?" "He forgot Poland!"), the coalition he assembled was anything but grand, and it has been steadily melting away in Iraq's cauldron of violence.


26 Oct 04 - 07:58 PM (#1308134)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Allawi charge is boost for Kerry
By Tim Reid in Washington and James Hider in Baghdad






IRAQ'S interim Prime Minister yesterday delivered another blow to President Bush just a week before the US election when he blamed American-led forces for failing to prevent last weekend's massacre of 49 Iraqi Army recruits.

Mr Allawi, who only last month lavished praise on Mr Bush during a White House visit, said that "gross negligence" on the part of the US and its coalition partners was to blame for the massacre of the recruits, 95 miles north of Baghdad.




Mr Kerry had already moved onto the attack against Mr Bush over Monday's news that hundreds of tons of explosives were stolen from an Iraqi military facility after the US-led invasion, and reports yesterday of an imminent White House request for another $70 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan.


27 Oct 04 - 12:19 PM (#1308745)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Amos JR

Bush is both arrogant and an asshole. But that's enough of this.

AJ


27 Oct 04 - 12:25 PM (#1308750)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

OG, I liked it better when you used your original handle instead of this sort of back-door insult. For an Old Guy you are acting immature.

A


27 Oct 04 - 12:44 PM (#1308773)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From Richard Cohen writing in the Washiongton Post a week ago:

"Historians may someday say that the beginning of the end for Bush came last April when Time magazine's John Dickerson asked the president at a televised news conference, "What would your biggest mistake be . . . and what lessons have you learned from it?" Bush, who said the question took him by surprise, said he could not come up with one.

Essentially the same question was asked by Linda Grabel, an ordinary voter, at the St. Louis debate. This time, it could not have been a surprise. But this time, too, Bush could offer not a single substantive example. Aside from making "some mistakes in appointing people," everything had gone swimmingly.

This was a preposterous, dishonest answer. It was either the response of someone who is vastly deluded or sticking to a political strategy conceived by people who do not value truth. Either way, it harkens back to that "learning curve" Stewart mentioned and it demolishes Bush's pose as a regular guy, someone approachable -- someone you could like. It is not possible to like someone who cannot admit a mistake. Iraq is the crazy aunt in the attic that Bush will not acknowledge. When she throws the furniture, Bush says you're just hearing things. Yeah, sure."

Charming metaphor. But "conceived by people who do not value truth" is a ringing, categorical, recognizable and resonant condemnation of Bush's team, IMNSHO.



A


27 Oct 04 - 08:28 PM (#1309139)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

American Conservastive Magazine, endorsing Kerry mainly because Bush is too unacceptable for them to endorse:

" George W. Bush has come to embody a politics that is antithetical to
> almost any kind of thoughtful conservatism. His international
> policies have been based on the hopelessly naïve belief that foreign
> peoples are eager to be liberated by American armies-a notion more
> grounded in Leon Trotsky's concept of global revolution than any sort
> of conservative statecraft. His immigration policies-temporarily put
> on hold while he runs for re-election-are just as extreme. A
> re-elected President Bush would be committed to bringing in millions
> of low-wage immigrants to do jobs Americans "won't do." This election
> is all about George W. Bush, and those issues are enough to render
> him unworthy of any conservative support. "

A


29 Oct 04 - 01:16 PM (#1310689)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

In Closing of the Presidential Mind Franklin Foer shows that while Conservatives have long distrusted experts, inside the Bush administration, that distrust has grown into a war against scientists, economists, intelligence analysts--and the very idea of objective truth.

In Power from the People , Jonathan Chait argues that President Bush isn't an aspiring dictator, and he's not planning to rig the election. But, with his love of secrecy, his penchant for misinformation, and his use of the machinery of government for partisan ends, he has made America less democratic.

In Hero Worship , Noam Scheiber writes that while President Bush styles himself as a man of deep principle, in fact, he switches principles all the time. What he abides by are story lines--especially ones that cast him as the hero.

ALl from the New Republic.

A


29 Oct 04 - 01:42 PM (#1310721)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Amos JR

The Crawford Iconoclast

AJ


29 Oct 04 - 01:46 PM (#1310728)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

"Smith started the Iconoclast after Bush bought his ranch in Crawford. He began publishing the paper in late 2000, offering school news and plenty of pictures of Crawford Pirate sporting events. As the 2000 election's outcome was battled out in the courts, the new paper endorsed Bush.

But in the recent editorial, the Iconoclast said it supports Kerry and accused the president of having a "smoke-screened agenda" and leading the United States into a "quagmire" in Iraq on flimsy pretenses.

Smith, who co-wrote the editorial, said it gave a voice to a minority of Crawford residents who do not feel they can speak their minds without being "pounced upon."

"People are telling us that they read the editorial and that it reflects the way they feel," Smith said. "They felt like we had stepped out and done that in a very bold way right in the heart of where the problem is."

To many in Crawford, though, the editorial was a slap in the face on the same week as the town's biggest event of the year -- the annual Tonkawa Traditions Festival, which features a parade, a street dance and lawnmower races. "

(From the wise-guy link offered above. It demonstrates a certain interesting contrast in priorities, wouldn't you say?) (And just to set the record straight there is no such person as Amos Jr. except for some anonymous yahoo's impulse to commit identity theft.)


A


29 Oct 04 - 01:51 PM (#1310731)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

TNR's description of the Medicare Flim-FLam:

"Last summer, President Bush and the Republican congressional leadership had a problem. The legislative linchpin of the president's reelection effort, a bill to add prescription-drug coverage to Medicare, lacked the votes in Congress, where conservative Republicans were chafing at the expense. GOP leaders finally secured a bare majority by consenting to the demands of 13 Republican House members, who agreed to vote yes if the cost would not exceed $400 billion over ten years. But that created another problem: The administration knew the bill would cost considerably more--$534 billion, to be exact.

The only non-loyalist who seems to have known the real number was Richard Foster, a 31-year veteran of the bureaucracy who was serving as chief actuary of the Department of Health and Human Services. The job of putting a lid on Foster fell to his boss, Thomas Scully, appointed by Bush to run Medicare. Scully instructed Foster not to reveal the number, or even to answer queries from Democrats, without his approval. Foster later said he understood Scully to be operating at the White House's direction. In one e-mail obtained by The Wall Street Journal, Foster asked Scully for permission to answer congressional queries that "strike me as straightforward requests for technical information." No, replied Scully's assistant, who then warned, "The consequences for insubordination are extremely severe." (Scully, by the way, later admitted to having negotiated a job with lobbying firms while he helped craft the bill, in which they had a massive interest.)

The Medicare bill was therefore widely understood to cost $400 billion when, at three o'clock in the morning on November 23, the House of Representatives assembled to vote on it. Surprisingly, a majority voted no. In response, the GOP leadership violated the customary time limit on votes, holding the vote open for nearly three hours and twisting enough arms to reverse the result shortly before dawn. (A hint as to their methods of persuasion came from retiring Republican Representative Nick Smith, who offhandedly revealed a few days later that certain "members and groups" had offered to contribute $100,000 to the congressional campaign of his son Brad, who was running for Smith's seat, if he voted yes.) When Democrats controlled Congress, they had extended a vote once, in 1987, for 15 minutes, after a member inadvertently caused a budget bill's defeat and then left town--provoking spasms of indignation from Republicans. The three-hour Medicare vote, congressional scholar Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute later wrote, was "the ugliest and most outrageous breach of standards in the modern history of the House." (...)

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040726&s=chait072604


29 Oct 04 - 02:37 PM (#1310769)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Johnjohn

"The governments of France, Russia, China and Syria blocked U.S. efforts within the United Nations to stop Saddam Hussein from misusing the oil-for-food program, a State Department official told Congress yesterday.
    Patrick F. Kennedy, a State official who is a representative to the United Nations for management and reform, told a House hearing that other U.N. member states "resisted" U.S. efforts to end bribery and contracting corruption under the program aimed at providing humanitarian relief from anti-Saddam sanctions. ..
France, Russia, China and Syria were among the members of a special committee overseeing the oil-for-food program that opposed U.S. efforts to stop corruption that led to more than $10 billion being stolen by Saddam and his regime, Mr. Kennedy said."
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041006-012159-1086r.htm
JJ


29 Oct 04 - 03:12 PM (#1310799)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Johnjohn:

I think the Washington Times might be ummmmm....a somewhat slanted source of news. I am not sure what the facts (if they are facts) in your post have to do with the purpose of this thread.

A


29 Oct 04 - 03:37 PM (#1310820)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Johnjohn

"Saddam's U.N. Payroll
Oil for Food bribery means sanctions against Iraq were doomed to fail.

Thursday, October 28, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

Out on the campaign trail, John Kerry continues to diminish our allies in Iraq and decry President Bush for "rushing" to war without U.N. Security Council approval. But we hope his would-be Secretaries of State, Biden and Holbrooke, are paying attention in private to revelations about the crumbling sanctions regime they would have had us continue and the related corruption in the U.N.'s Oil for Food program.

These folks are in for a rude awakening if they really think Old Europe will be rushing to help a President Kerry in Iraq, or that the United Nations is competent and trustworthy enough to manage their foreign policy projects.

The latest pieces of news are last week's data dump from Paul Volcker's U.N.-blessed investigation of Oil for Food, and U.S. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer's report to Congress earlier this month. Everybody is still digesting these massive documents. But the most important conclusion is already clear: Saddam Hussein exploited the program to run the largest bribery scheme in the history of the world.

Yes, we mean that literally. Total turnover between 1996 and 2003 was about $97 billion, or $64.2 billion in oil sales and $32.9 billion worth of food and other "humanitarian" goods. Crucially, Saddam was able to manipulate the program largely because U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan--who was given more or less complete discretion to design Oil for Food by the Security Council resolution that created it--allowed him to pick and choose the buyers of his oil and the sellers of the humanitarian goods.

This meant the Iraq dictator could reward his friends and political allies with oil at below market prices and goods contracts at inflated ones. In the middle of the program, he also started demanding kickbacks on the contracts to add to the stream of unmonitored revenue he was already getting from oil smuggling.

It can't be stressed enough that both the Duelfer and Volcker investigations confirm that this global web of corruption is no mere allegation trumped up by Ahmed Chalabi and "neoconservatives," as U.N. officials tried to pretend in January when Iraq's al Mada newspaper published a list of the oil voucher recipients.

Mr. Duelfer's list of recipients--which more or less confirms al Mada's--was compiled based on information from current and former Iraqi officials and lists maintained by former Iraqi Vice President Taha Yasin Ramadan (now in U.S. custody) and the former Iraqi Oil Minister. Mr. Volcker's lists--which include the 248 companies that bought Iraqi oil under the program and the 3,545 companies supplying humanitarian goods--are compiled from the U.N.'s own records and cross-checked against Iraqi and other sources, including the French bank BNP Paribas that administered program revenues.

High-level officials of Saddam's regime have told investigators that oil and goods contracts were always awarded with an eye to helping Saddam politically, particularly to promote the lifting of the sanctions. The Volcker data bears this out. Iraq's top customer was Russia, whose firms bought $19.2 billion worth of Iraq oil and exported $3.3 billion in humanitarian goods. Fellow Security Council member France was a distant but significant second, at $4.4 billion and $2.9 billion respectively. China is also high on the list.

Oil voucher recipients are alleged to include the Russian presidential office, former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua, and even former Oil for Food program director Benon Sevan of the U.N. Just this week our news side colleagues reported that French authorities have placed under formal investigation a top official of French oil giant Total, for possible misuse of funds including payment of the Iraqi kickbacks. Before the war Total was also openly courting Baghdad for the rights to develop two large Iraqi oil fields."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005818

JJ


30 Oct 04 - 02:14 PM (#1311532)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

JohnJohn:

What is the title of this thread?

A

Four Years of Lost Liberties
posted by Dan Gillmor 08:02 AM
http://weblog.siliconvalley.com/column/dangillmor/archives/010960.shtml
(This is also my column today in the San Jose Mercury News.)

If you believe that political and social liberty go hand in hand
with economic freedom -- and that they form an underpinning of a
vibrant free market -- you should be worried about another four
years like the four we've just had.


Let's grant that George W. Bush plainly believes in a free
market, largely unconstrained by government intervention. But he
has made it clear that he doesn't have the same devotion to
other kinds of liberty.

He and his allies have used terrorism to launch a massive
assault on civil liberties. They are not just indifferent to
liberty, they are actively hostile to it.

Bush's first term has been a catalog of encroachments. He has
expanded surveillance -- electronic and otherwise -- without
adequate safeguards. He has had a mania for secrecy, shielding
more and more government information from public view. This
amounts to telling Americans they have no right in many cases to
know how our money is being used or what government is doing in
our names.

This president has curbed dissent through intimidation. His
attorney general practically labeled as traitors people who
questioned the outrageously named ``Patriot Act,'' for
example. More recently, the Bush forces have excluded anyone who
is not a declared supporter from being even in the vicinity of
campaign events, and have even fenced off protesters in
Orwellian ``free speech zones'' far from the scenes.

The Bush years have emboldened rights and privacy invaders
everywhere. A national ID card is making a back-door entrance
via a scheme by the state agencies that issue driver's licenses,
for example.

He has given corporate interests carte blanche to buy, sell,
massage and trade our most personal information -- mocking his
vows in the 2000 campaign to be a president who would protect
privacy.

The federal government now encourages (and buys) all kinds of
data collection and ways to manipulate it, and offers barely a
hint of safeguards. Do you imagine for even a second that the
radio-chip ID implants being sold to track patients inside
hospitals won't be used for much broader kinds of surveillance
someday? Ditto the radio tags the government says it wants to
put into our passports (and soon, no doubt, our driver's
licenses). Surveillance is big business now.

Insidiously, the Bush administration has turned the corporate
data mongers into partners in the dawning surveillance
state. Evading even the most trivial safeguards, including
federal laws protecting privacy, it buys or uses data collected
by private companies that are under no such restrictions.

An intrusive airline passenger screening system, relying on
commercial data and other information, was officially scrapped
after protests. But as the Washington Post reported earlier this
month, one of the former government officials behind that
project has launched a private company that will collect and
provide data for the project's new incarnation -- and
established the company offshore in Bermuda, ``outside the reach
of U.S. regulators.''

The most frightening assault on liberty has had nothing to do
with the Patriot Act, surveillance or privacy. Bush has
systematically ignored the law when it suited his purpose,
treating the Constitution as a suggestion box, not the bedrock
of liberty. He asserted the right to declare American citizens
as enemy combatants here at home and to jail them indefinitely,
with no right even to see a lawyer.

The Supreme Court, thankfully, rejected Bush's dictatorial views
in two pivotal decisions earlier this year. But presidents
nominate justices, and this one means to nominate the kind who
will let the government do pretty much what it pleases.

Early last week, William Rehnquist, chief justice of the
U.S. Supreme Court, had surgery for thyroid cancer. His
condition reminded people that whoever is president during the
next four years will probably nominate three or four justices to
the highest court.

A court with two, three or four judges of Bush's preference
would not be friendly, on balance, to our rights as
individuals. The president has made clear his intention to
appoint judges who would overturn abortion rights. That, too, is
a question of liberty.

Is John Kerry any better? He voted for the ``Patriot'' law,
after all.

But while Bush vows to expand that law's reach over our lives,
Kerry has said he would work to repeal some of the more odious
provisions, such as the one that lets government agents rifle
through our lives -- including what library books we read --
with few safeguards.

I believe that a free economy rests in large part on people's
willingness to feel free -- to take chances, to be different
from others. The surveillance state is a conformist state, where
a fog of fear deadens initiative and the willingness to take
risks.

No sane person wants to make law enforcement impotent. But risk
is part of a free culture, and the more we clamp down on things
that have any element of risk the more we clamp down on freedom
itself.

--
Robert J. Berger - Internet Bandwidth Development, LLC.
Voice: 408-882-4755 eFax: +1-408-490-2868
http://www.ibd.com


30 Oct 04 - 02:29 PM (#1311544)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

HEADLINE: Public Opinion Poll Indicates Iraqis Favor Kerry over Bush in U.S. Presidential Race


INTRO: A new public opinion poll shows more Iraqis favor Democratic challenger John Kerry than President Bush, who launched the invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein. But as VOA's Greg Lamotte reports from Baghdad, more than half of the two-thousand peopled polled throughout Iraq don't care who wins the U.S. presidency in next week's election.


TEXT: The new survey of Iraqi public opinion was conducted last week by Iraq's Center for Research and Strategic Studies in Baghdad. The group, which has been operating in Iraq for about a year, says its latest survey indicates that among Iraqis with a preference, Mr. Kerry leads President Bush by six-and-a-half percentage points. The poll has a margin of error of four percent.

But the director of the center, former Iraqi exile Sadoun al-Dulame, says 58-percent of the respondents said they don't care who wins the U.S. presidential election.


(From the VOA website)

A


31 Oct 04 - 01:16 AM (#1311943)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Dan Gillmore posts a weblog editorial in the Silicon Valley Press concerning the reduction in liberty that has occurred int he last four years.

"Bush's first term has been a catalog of encroachments. He has
expanded surveillance -- electronic and otherwise -- without
adequate safeguards. He has had a mania for secrecy, shielding
more and more government information from public view. This
amounts to telling Americans they have no right in many cases to
know how our money is being used or what government is doing in
our names.

This president has curbed dissent through intimidation. His
attorney general practically labeled as traitors people who
questioned the outrageously named ``Patriot Act,'' for
example. More recently, the Bush forces have excluded anyone who
is not a declared supporter from being even in the vicinity of
campaign events, and have even fenced off protesters in
Orwellian ``free speech zones'' far from the scenes."

...

But while Bush vows to expand that law's reach over our lives,
Kerry has said he would work to repeal some of the more odious
provisions, such as the one that lets government agents rifle
through our lives -- including what library books we read --
with few safeguards.

I believe that a free economy rests in large part on people's
willingness to feel free -- to take chances, to be different
from others. The surveillance state is a conformist state, where
a fog of fear deadens initiative and the willingness to take
risks.

No sane person wants to make law enforcement impotent. But risk
is part of a free culture, and the more we clamp down on things
that have any element of risk the more we clamp down on freedom
itself.


31 Oct 04 - 09:27 AM (#1312131)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Johnjohn

"Measure Number:H.R. 3162 (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001 )Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea"

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313

JJ


31 Oct 04 - 10:20 AM (#1312154)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

JJ:

Your point, sir?


A


31 Oct 04 - 10:52 AM (#1312189)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

A poignant testimony from one heartbroken sister. Requires Quicktime.

A


31 Oct 04 - 10:56 AM (#1312193)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST

There once was a campaigner named Amos
On Mudcat he become very famous
He trys beyond hope
Still his candidate's a dope
If we disagree with him he will flame us!!


31 Oct 04 - 12:00 PM (#1312233)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Really on topic, and the scansion is inspired.

A


31 Oct 04 - 05:27 PM (#1312474)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From the Op Ed section of the Times:

"Taking Bush at His Word
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Published: October 30, 2004

I often criticize statements by President Bush, so today let me praise some of his real wisdom:

• Oct. 11, 2000: "If we're an arrogant nation, [foreigners] will resent us. If we're a humble nation but strong, they'll welcome us. ... We've got to be humble."

It's a good thing Mr. Bush tried to be humble, or the U.S. would have an approval rating even lower than 5 percent in Jordan, and Osama bin Laden's approval rating in Pakistan would be higher than 65 percent.

• Feb. 27, 2001: "I hope you will join me to pay down $2 trillion in debt during the next 10 years. ... We should approach our nation's budget as any prudent family would."

But Mr. Bush, with the help of a weak economy, has transformed the Clinton budget surpluses into huge deficits. Since Mr. Bush took office, the federal debt has increased by $2.1 trillion, or 40 percent.

• Sept. 25, 2000: "It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of our imports come from overseas."

Hmm. And many of our exports go abroad. Meanwhile, despite the lackluster economy, oil imports are 1.3 million barrels per day higher than in Mr. Clinton's last year in office.

• June 11, 2001: "My administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change."

Great! Because America's carbon dioxide emissions, associated with global warming, have risen 1.7 percent since then.

• June 26, 2003: "Notorious human rights abusers, including, among others, Burma, Cuba, North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe, have long sought to shield their abuses from the eyes of the world by staging elaborate deceptions and denying access to international human rights monitors."

It takes a big man to admit mistakes, like his administration's practice of hiding certain Arab prisoners from Red Cross and other inspectors.

• Nov. 5, 2003: "In the debate about the rights of the unborn, we are asked to broaden the circle of our moral concern. ... We're asked by our convictions and tradition and compassion to build a culture of life, and make this a more just and welcoming society."

Abortions declined in the U.S. in the Clinton years; the abortion rate dropped by 22 percent in the 1990's. But while data are incomplete, abortions appear to have increased sharply since Mr. Bush took office. Glen H. Stassen, a Christian pro-life theologian, estimates that 52,000 more abortions occurred in 2002 than would have been expected based on the previous trend. Professor Stassen attributes the rise in abortions in part to the troubled economy and concerns among pregnant women that they cannot afford to have babies.

• May 25, 2004: "One of the challenges we face is to make sure the health care system responds to the needs of the citizens."

But five million more Americans don't have health insurance, compared with when Mr. Bush took office.

• Sept. 9, 2003: "We must focus early to make sure every child can read and write and add and subtract."

But Mr. Bush's budget guidelines translate into inflation-adjusted reductions in 2006 alone of more than $900 million for Head Start and childhood education.

• May 24, 2003: "We will not tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea."

On Mr. Bush's watch, North Korea is generally believed to have gone from two nuclear weapons to about eight.

• 2001: "Not on my watch."

Scrawled note by Mr. Bush on a report to him about the 1994 genocide in Rwanda that had occurred under President Clinton.

That's reassuring to the 100,000 or more people in Darfur who have died in a spasm of murder and rape that Mr. Bush acknowledges as genocide.

• Sept. 30, 2004: "The biggest threat facing this country is weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist network."

But the single most important step to reducing the risk that a nuclear weapon will destroy New York is to secure loose nukes abroad, and Mr. Bush has been lackadaisical about that. Only 135 out of 600 metric tons of Russian nuclear materials have been given comprehensive upgrades, and Mr. Bush initially proposed cutting funds for that program.

• Sept. 2, 1999: "Effective reform requires accountability. ... It is a sad story. High hopes, low achievement. Grand plans, unmet goals. My administration will do things differently."

Oh?




Hmmmmmm....



A


31 Oct 04 - 05:42 PM (#1312485)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Rosencranz & Guildenstern

:Employment Growth Accelerated in October: US Economy Preview

US employers probably added 175,000 workers to payrolls in October, the most in five months, while the unemployment rate held at a three-year low of 5.4 percent, the median forecast in a Bloomberg News survey of economists shows."

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=avn64.gOLNdI&refer=home
RG


31 Oct 04 - 07:07 PM (#1312547)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Rosencranz & Guildenstern

"Nancy Reagan Strongly Endorses President Bush"

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/8/2/161745.shtml

RG


31 Oct 04 - 08:37 PM (#1312605)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The New York TImes Dowd column puts the issue of Osama's new tape versus Bush's eligibility into its best and most natural perspective.

That Dowd gal is hotter than a Saturday night special.

A


31 Oct 04 - 09:47 PM (#1312650)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

AN INTERESTING ASSESSMENT BY THE Christian Science Monitor discusses the view of Bush held by various nations around the world, where his pockets of support are, and who sees him which way, and more interestingly, why.


A


01 Nov 04 - 09:50 AM (#1313048)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Paco Rabanne


03 Nov 04 - 05:31 AM (#1314969)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Paco Rabanne

399


03 Nov 04 - 05:32 AM (#1314970)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Paco Rabanne

400. I thank you. God that felt good!


03 Nov 04 - 09:49 AM (#1315177)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Super Ted:

You are a jerk.

A


03 Nov 04 - 10:23 AM (#1315212)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Paco Rabanne

Look, I gave you every chance to reach 400, you can't said I didn't! Don't take it out on me just because you were too slow to catch a cold! I bet I get the 500th too! Shape up other there will you?


05 Nov 04 - 10:58 PM (#1318541)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Captain America

New York Times discusses Bush post-election.   Not pretty. Rated R.

Captain America


05 Nov 04 - 11:04 PM (#1318546)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Gumby

Amos:

Are you still beating on that horse that died Tuesday.

G


06 Nov 04 - 12:17 PM (#1318851)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Inspiration by Clarissa Pinkola Estes

My friends, do not lose heart. We were made for these times.
I have heard from so many recently who are deeply and properly bewildered.
They are concerned about the state of affairs in our world right now.  Ours
is a time of almost daily astonishment and often righteous rage over the
latest degradations of what matters most to civilized, visionary people.

You are right in your assessments. The lustre and hubris some have aspired
to while endorsing acts so heinous against children, elders, everyday
people, the poor, the unguarded, the helpless, is breathtaking. Yet, I urge
you,  ask you, gentle you, to please not spend your spirit dry by bewailing
these difficult times. Especially do not lose hope. Most particularly
because, the fact is that we were made for these times.

Yes. For years, we have been learning, practicing, been in training for and
just waiting to meet on this exact plain of engagement... I grew up on the
Great Lakes and recognize a seaworthy vessel when I see one. Regarding
awakened souls, there have never been more able vessels in the waters than
there are right now across the world. And they are fully provisioned  and
able to signal one another as never before in the history of humankind...
Look out over the prow; there are millions of boats of righteous souls on
the waters with you. Even though your veneers may shiver from every wave in
this stormy
world, I assure you that the long timbers composing your prow and rudder
come from a greater forest. That long-grained lumber is known to withstand
storms, to hold together, to hold its own, and to advance, regardless.



In any dark time, there is a tendency to veer toward fainting over how much
is wrong or unmended in the world. Do not focus on that. There is a tendency
too to fall into being weakened by dwelling on what is outside your reach,
by what cannot yet be. Do not focus there. That is spending the wind without
raising the sails. We are needed, that is all we can know. And though we
meet resistance, we more so will meet great souls who will hail us, love us
and guide us, and we will know them when they appear. Didn't you say you
were a believer? Didn't you say you pledged to listen to a voice greater?
Didn't you ask for grace? Don't you remember that to be in grace means to
submit to the voice greater?...

Ours is not the task of fixing the entire world all at once, but of
stretching out to mend the part of the world that is within our reach. Any
small, calm thing that one soul can do to help another soul, to assist some
portion of this poor suffering world, will help immensely. It is not given
to us to know which acts or by whom, will cause the critical mass to tip
toward an enduring good. What is needed for dramatic change is an
accumulation of acts, adding, adding to, adding more, continuing.

We know that it does not take "everyone on Earth" to bring justice and
peace, but only a small, determined group who will not give up during the
first, second, or hundredth gale. One of the most calming and powerful
actions you can do to intervene in a stormy world is to stand up and show
your
soul.  Soul on deck shines like gold in dark times. The light of the soul
throws sparks, can send up flares, builds signal fires, causes proper
matters to catch fire.  To display the lantern of soul in shadowy times like
these - to be fierce and to show mercy toward others, both, are acts of
immense bravery and
greatest necessity. Struggling souls catch light from other souls who are
fully lit and willing to show it. If you would help to calm the tumult, this
is one of the strongest things you can do.

There will always be times when you feel discouraged. I too have felt
despair many times in my life, but I do not keep a chair for it; I will not
entertain it. It is not allowed to eat from my plate. The reason is this: In
my uttermost bones I know something, as do you. It is that there can be  no
despair when you remember why you came to Earth, who you serve, and   who
sent you here. The good words we say and the good deeds we do are not ours:
They are the words and deeds of the One who brought us here. In that
spirit, I hope you will write this on your wall:

When a great ship is in harbor and moored, it is safe, there can be no
doubt.  But that is not what great ships are built for.

This comes with much love and a prayer that you remember who you came from,
and why you came to this beautiful, needful Earth.

Clarissa Pinkola Estes, Ph.D Author of Women Who Run with the Wolves


08 Nov 04 - 07:23 PM (#1320860)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

An Election That Will Live In Infamy


By Paul Craig Roberts


The following excerpt is from an essay called

An Election That Will Live In Infamy

which can be found at http://www.vdare.com/roberts/041105_infamy.htm.

The writer is Paul Craig Roberts, a senior fellow in Stanford's
[notoriously conservative!] Hoover Institution, the John M. Olin Fellow
at the Institute for Political Economy, and research fellow at the
Independent Institute.

A former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal and columnist
for Business Week and the Scripps Howard News Service, he is a
nationally syndicated columnist and a columnist for Investor's Business
Daily. In 1993, the Forbes Media Guide ranked him as one of its top
seven journalists.

Roberts was a distinguished fellow at the Cato Institute from 1993 to
1996. From 1982 through 1993, he held the William E. Simon Chair in
Political Economy at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies.

During 1981-82, he served as assistant secretary of the Treasury for
economic policy. President Ronald Reagan and Treasury secretary Donald
Regan credited him with a major role in the Economic Recovery Tax Act
of 1981, and he was awarded the Treasury Department's Meritorious
Service Award for "his outstanding contributions to the formulation of
United States economic policy."



An Election That Will Live In Infamy



On November 2 Americans blew their only chance to redeem themselves in the eyes of the world.

The entire world is stunned by the Bush administration's abandonment of a half century of US diplomacy in favor of misguided, unilateralist, "preemptive" naked aggression on totally false pretenses against Iraq.  America's allies are amazed at the ignorance manifested by the Bush administration. They are resentful of Bush's "in-your-eye" attitude toward friends who warned Bush against leading America into a quagmire and giving Osama bin Laden the war he wanted.

The world was waiting hopefully for the sensible American people to rectify the ill-advised actions of a rogue neoconservative administration. Instead, Americans placed the stamp of approval on the least justifiable military action since Hitler invaded Poland.
In the eyes of the world, Bush's reelection is proof that Ariel Sharon's neoconservative allies in the Bush administration speak for America after all.

The world's sympathy for America that followed the September 11 attacks has been squandered. If the US suffers terrorist attacks in the future, the world will say that America invited the attacks and got what it asked for.

Europeans and Asians will never be able to comprehend that Bush was reelected because Americans were voting against homosexual marriage and abortion.

The world is simply unable to believe that Americans, so enamored of family values, would vote to send their sons, fathers, husbands, and brothers to unprovoked war unless Americans valued empire and control over oil as more important than their family members.

The crude propagandistic Republican campaign against John Kerry is shocking to Europeans. The childishness of American conservatives scares them.


08 Nov 04 - 07:27 PM (#1320864)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Calhoun

Amos will tilt at his windmill for the next four years.


08 Nov 04 - 08:21 PM (#1320918)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Calhoun:

Get stuffed, shortbread. In case you can't read words of more than one syllable, the foregoing article was written by a re-SPEC-ted Re-PUB-lican.

I calls 'em like I sees 'em, pal, and if you feel I shouldn't have that right, step up and say so, instead of being a sarcastic passive-aggressive puke.

A


08 Nov 04 - 09:35 PM (#1320992)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Sancho

What does it take for a sore looser to get over it and get on with life?


08 Nov 04 - 11:19 PM (#1321073)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

>www.filmstripinternational.com kinda sums it up.

You who insist "Dems just don't get it" are the ones who aren't. It is not about who won or lost the election. We are losing a lot more than some scrabble-ass election, fellas. I think what upsets people and produces films like the one linked above is losing a whoe standard of life, of justice and right action.

Oh, and Sancho, in English we say "loser". We try to spell our words well because we appreciate that we are trying to communicate, not just bloviate or make others wrong. That's cheap and easy.

A


08 Nov 04 - 11:35 PM (#1321079)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce

Amos,

SRS refuses to allow anything from the Hoover Institute to be used for any purpose on this thread. You better watch out, or you will be in real trouble.....


09 Nov 04 - 02:26 AM (#1321183)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

WASHINGTON -- A federal judge shut down the first American military commission since World War II yesterday, ruling that the Bush administration violated the Geneva Conventions in its handling of prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay prison.

The ruling, the first test of a US Supreme Court decision in June granting legal recourse in civilian court to the 550 or so ''enemy combatants" being held at Guantanamo, delivered a new legal blow to President Bush's unorthodox war on terrorism policies.


09 Nov 04 - 09:28 AM (#1321385)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Johnjohn

Bush and Kerry walk into a barber shop not knowing the other is there. Both get a haircut and a shave.

After the shave, the barber ask's "Would you like aftershave, Mr. Kerry?", too which he replies, "Oh no, I don't want my wife to think I was in a whorehouse!".

So the barber ask's the President "Would you like aftershave sir?", too which he replies, "Sure, put it on good! My wife has never been to a whorehouse!"

JJ


09 Nov 04 - 09:30 PM (#1322139)
Subject: An Open Letter from Ramsey Clark: Impeach!
From: Amos

President Bush can run, but he cannot hide from the Constitution of the United States. The election does not pardon the President for past, or future "high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Impeachment is not a partisan political issue. The House of Representatives, possessed of the "sole power of impeachment," is required to consider a bill of impeachment on the facts even if every Member were of the same party, or political persuasion, as the President. The seven specific provisions of the Constitution setting forth the powers and duties of the Congress in considering impeachment intend that any President or other civil officer of the United States who has committed a high Crime or Misdemeanor "...shall be removed from Office."

The power of impeachment assures the people against criminal acts and despotic ambitions by government officials.

We, the People have the power to require the House of Representatives to do its duty and act on a bill of impeachment after full investigation and consideration. If it fails to do so those House members who failed to perform this Constitutional duty can and should be voted from office. Remember that President Nixon resigned under threat of impeachment for Watergate less than two years after his landslide reelection in 1972.

IMPEACHMENT IS IMPERATIVE

For the American people who support and defend the Constitution of the United States, who want to prevent further crimes by a lawless administration, who believe we can redeem our country in the eyes of those we have assaulted and those who have witnessed this brutality and who dare to demand of future government leadership, NEVER AGAIN, Impeachment is Imperative. A decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that we Americans should declare the causes which impel us to impeach.

President George W. Bush chose to wage a war of aggression against Iraq, which had not attacked the United States and presented no imminent threat to our people, or legitimate interests. A small cabal, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby and Rove wrested decision making processes from established institutions of government to reinforce President Bush's desire to seize Iraq, defying international institutions, the opinions of humankind and the rule of law to commence a disastrous criminal military adventure.

A CAMPAIGN OF DECEIT AND FALSE PROPAGANDA

War of aggression is the first offense listed in the Nuremberg Charter as a Crime against Peace. The Nuremberg Tribunal after hearing evidence of Nazi crimes in World War II convicted the leaders of waging wars of aggression, which it called "the supreme international crime."

At Nuremberg, the Chief U.S. Prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, promised posterity that in the future all nations, including our own, would be held accountable for such crimes.

President Bush and key administration officials engaged in a lengthy campaign of deceit, concealment and false propaganda to create support for, and acceptance of, its war of aggression by claiming Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, harbored terrorists, had close ties with and supported Al Qaeda and intended to attack the U.S., U.S. citizens and U.S. interests. A free society, democratic institutions and constitutional government cannot survive such deceit by its own government.

The U.S. has made civilians and civilian facilities its direct object of attack. It has pursued assassination and summary executions as official policy. President Bush boasted of summary executions in his State of the Union message in 2003. Excessive and indiscriminate force and illegal weapons have been used. Many thousands of Iraqi citizens, whole families, women, children, elderly Iraqis have been killed as a result.

U.S. military casualties exceed 10,000 including more than 1,100 deaths with many additional thousands returned to the United States for physical and mental illnesses.

The U.S. has employed torture, including torture to death, rape and sexual assault and humiliation, as approved and ordered policy from Afghanistan and Guantanamo to Iraq, inflicted on thousands of prisoners, many, if not most, without any evidence of wrongful conduct. An admitted 37 human beings have been murdered while being held in captivity by the United States under these conditions. We know not how many more. All the mounting evidence makes clear that this program of torture and death is not aberrational conduct of rogue or undisciplined soldiers but is rather the policy adopted at the highest levels of the Bush/Rumsfeld chain of command. All this in violation of the Geneva Conventions, the International Convention Against Torture, the laws of all nations and common human decency.

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States provides: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, Shall Be Removed From Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

MORE THAN 100,000 DEAD BASED ON A LIE

We learn from the prominent medical journal Lancet of the report by researchers at John Hopkins University, Columbia University and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad that the U.S. war of aggression against Iraq and military occupation has cost "at least" 100,000 Iraqi lives already must civilian, women and children. Already President Bush has launched a massive aerial and ground assault on Falluja which may kill thousands of defenseless civilians.

Haiti, where President Bush forced the elected President Jean Bertrand Aristide from office, is in chaos with many thousands killed by widespread daily violence committed by U.S. supported paramilitaries against Aristide supporters.

Nearly 500,000 have voted to impeach. Help us increase that number into millions the Congress cannot ignore.

Every American should choose whether to vote for impeachment entirely on the facts, straight up, or down, without political, or partisan fear, or favor. We owe this to the country, its future, the Constitution and our common heritage. Impeachment is Required Now.

Impeachment now is the only way we, the American people, can promise ourselves and the world that we will not tolerate crimes against peace and humanity by our government. Knowing what we know, to wait longer is to condone what has been done and risk more.

Sincerely,

Ramsey Clark


09 Nov 04 - 10:20 PM (#1322179)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Ten U.S. troops and two Iraqi troops fighting alongside them have died in the assault to take control of rebel-held Falluja, but senior insurgency leaders probably escaped the city, the U.S. military said on Tuesday.

"I think we are looking at several more days of tough urban fighting," Lt. Gen. Thomas Metz, in charge of day-to-day U.S.-led military operations in Iraq, told reporters at the Pentagon, as thousands of U.S. and allied Iraqi forces pressed their assault to gain control of Iraq's most rebellious city.


10 Nov 04 - 12:34 AM (#1322243)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

In all fairness it is only meet that some views from the far corners of Iraq, such as Kurdistan, be included here even if they don't reflect my point of view.   This is a blog focused on Kurd viewepoints. http://kurdo.blogspot.com/

It is amusing what the translation problem does for CARE and Kerry!

A


10 Nov 04 - 12:48 AM (#1322248)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Then there's humorous perspectives such as this one from the Borowitz Report:

BUSH CANCELS AGREEMENT BETWEEN NOUN AND VERBS


'I Has a Mandate, and I Intends to Use it,' Says President


President George W. Bush announced the first major initiative of his second term in office today, canceling the agreement between nouns and verbs.

The president, who had been widely expected to announce a series of faith-based initiatives, surprised Washington insiders by kicking off his second term with a grammar-based one.

Mr. Bush left little doubt that he intended to consign the agreement between nouns and verbs to the dustbin of history, telling reporters, "I has a mandate, and I intends to use it."

In world capitals, heads of state responded with a mixture of shock and dismay to the president's decision to back out of the noun-verb agreement, long considered a cornerstone of human communication.

"It was one thing to back out of the Kyoto Protocol and the Geneva Conventions, but if Mr. Bush intends to break the agreement between nouns and verbs he is going it alone," said French president Jacques Chirac.

But President Bush was quick to correct Mr. Chirac, responding, "I think what my good friend Jacques Chirac means is, I 'are' going it alone."

The president noted that his proposal had received a vote of confidence from British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who earlier in the day said, "He have my full support."

Mr. Bush went on to announce a series of other bold initiatives, such as imposing a moratorium on complete sentences and eliminating the letter "g" from the end of most words.

Elsewhere, the Pentagon announced that U.S. fighter jets missed a target in southern Iraq today, strafing a middle school in New Jersey.


10 Nov 04 - 11:32 PM (#1323069)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST

AMOS


11 Nov 04 - 01:19 PM (#1323453)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

"Everything about the election results - and about American culture itself - confirms an inescapable reality: John Kerry's defeat notwithstanding, it's blue America, not red, that is inexorably winning the culture war, and by a landslide. "

So writes Frank Rich in the Times.

Interesting perspective on the groundswell in progress.

A


11 Nov 04 - 05:12 PM (#1323812)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST

"Morality justifies Bush policy"
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/198265_sanchez05.html

"Bush policy is reason bin Laden didn't attack"
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/columnists/view.bg?articleid=82288

"Bush's economic vision is better suited to modern times"
http://www.suntimes.com/output/otherviews/cst-edt-barone19.html


11 Nov 04 - 06:35 PM (#1323916)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Ashcroft's dismal legacy: Attorney general put his beliefs above the law

A Register-Guard Editorial (From this Oregon paper_)  



 




Tuesday's resignation of John Ashcroft, one of the most divisive attorneys general in U.S. history, briefly opened a door for President Bush. He had a chance to reach out to the nation's political center and name a replacement who would put enforcement of the law and respect for civil rights above ideology.

Bush closed that door one day later by appointing White House counsel Alberto Gonzales as Ashcroft's successor, passing over less controversial candidates such as C. Boyden Gray, a White House counsel to the first President Bush, and Larry Thompson, who served as Ashcroft's deputy until last year.

While Gonzales is not nearly as polarizing a figure as Ashcroft, the Senate should think long and hard before confirming the longtime Bush ally. Gonzales played a pivotal role in developing the administration's relentless post-Sept. 11 push to curb civil liberties with the justification of enhancing national security.


11 Nov 04 - 10:19 PM (#1324138)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The highly intelligent Maureen Dowd discusses the current developments in the strutcure of the Administration in this piece entitled Moveable Feast of Terrorism which remarks how much safer we ar enow that the election is over, despite missing half of the insurgent forces in Fallujah.


A


12 Nov 04 - 04:45 AM (#1324352)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Ellenpoly

Lots of great stuff here, Amos, keep it rolling.

And though it might feel at times as though you're either preaching to the choir, or casting pearls before swine...

Both are well worth the effort to get the truth out.

Thank you.

..xx..e


12 Nov 04 - 11:42 AM (#1324652)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Bush continues to polarize the nation
By Heidi A. De Vries
UCF News
Thursday, November 11, 2004

John Ashcroft, the gospel-singing son of a preacher, is leaving the White House. No longer will the most vocal champion of the Patriot Act be the attorney general of the Bush administration.

Detractors have said that Ashcroft, who encouraged his staff to participate in daily prayer meetings, blurred the line between religion and the government. In particular, Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York told the Associated Press that he hopes "the president will choose a less polarizing attorney general as his successor."

If the president's acceptance speech on Nov. 3 is any indication, Bush has a desire to do precisely that.

He seemed to express a genuine desire to bring the two nations together: to marry the red states and the blue states into the United States yet again.

It could be construed that even Ashcroft was thinking that a more moderate man should be his replacement.

"The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved," he wrote in a five-page, handwritten letter to Bush dated Nov. 2, Election Day. "Yet I believe that the Department of Justice would be well served by new leadership and fresh inspiration."

After Bush's announcement yesterday nominating Alberto Gonzales as Ashcroft's replacement, it would seen he has done a bad job in trying to unite the nation.

Gonzales, a former White House counsel, is one of the most prominent Hispanics in the administration.

Gonzales has been linked with Bush for the past 10 years. He was a Bush-appointed justice on the Texas Supreme Court and a Texas secretary of state. The organization Texans for Public Justice also reports that Gonzales has accepted contributions from Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, Halliburton.

He was once a partner in a Houston law firm that represented Enron.

While serving as a general counsel for then-Texas Gov. Bush, Gonzales wrote 57 memos to Bush about the death penalty. The counsel that Gonzales provided "repeatedly failed to apprise the governor of crucial issues in the cases at hand: ineffective counsel, conflict of interest, mitigating evidence, even actual evidence of innocence," wrote reporter Alan Berlow in The Atlantic Monthly.   (Continued on original site).


Thanks, EP, for your kind post.

A


12 Nov 04 - 10:06 PM (#1325225)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Harpo

"Legitimate victory makes for peaceful election"
http://www.orion-online.net/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/11/09/41919d24bb95d

"President Bush said Friday that there was now a "great chance" to establish a Palestinian state and that he would invest the authority of the United States to try to accomplish that goal during his second term."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/13/international/13prexy.html

"Democrats need to overcome bitterness to win"
http://www.desertdispatch.com/2004/110026967876168.html

"Bush's approval up in post-election survey"
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041112-120611-2229r.htm


13 Nov 04 - 11:48 PM (#1326193)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

An Associated Press writer takes a dim view of Ashcrofts condemnation of checks and balances applied to the Bush administration.

I hope the fallacy inherent in Ashcroft's rationale does not need to be spelled out.

A


14 Nov 04 - 12:29 AM (#1326210)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Slapping the Other Cheek
By MAUREEN DOWD


Maureen is her usual sharp and articulate self tearing a strip off the unforgiving un-Christian right, and their brutal politics as usual. With specifics.

An excerpt:



You'd think the one good thing about merging church and state would be that politics would be suffused with glistening Christian sentiments like "love thy neighbor," "turn the other cheek," "good will toward men," "blessed be the peacemakers" and "judge not lest you be judged."

Yet somehow I'm not getting a peace, charity, tolerance and forgiveness vibe from the conservatives and evangelicals who claim to have put their prodigal son back in office.

I'm getting more the feel of a vengeful mob - revved up by rectitude - running around with torches and hatchets after heathens and pagans and infidels.


14 Nov 04 - 08:39 AM (#1326328)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Johnjohn

AP - US President George W Bush, honouring Allied sacrifices of World War II, has appealed to a new generation of Europeans and Americans to pull together on Iraq and said the war against terror "is the challenge of our time."

Putin: Bush Must Win or Terrorists Will Triumph

Putin: Bush Win Shows US Voters Not Scared

JJ


14 Nov 04 - 08:55 AM (#1326335)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Opie

George Bush`s America: Moral Beacon in a Dark World

O
14 Nov 04 - 09:58 AM (#1326364)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

How come the Counterpoint Singers are afraid to be identified? Opie's link just above seems to be broken when I click on it, but to call Bush a moral beacon is about a wild as I have heard. There's nothing moral about unilateral aggression.

A


14 Nov 04 - 11:03 AM (#1326393)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Several comments on the Fallujah battle currently (I hope) beingbrought to a successful end, from a BBC survey:

"War is the ultimate expression of temporary insanity. But it happens nevertheless. Had the UN settled this more than 10 years ago, things would not be as they are. Nothing good comes without sacrifice and dedication."
Eduardo, Menorca, Spain

"As a US citizen I feel the weight of this type of action heavily on my mind. To me it is a barbaric action that leaves the United States looking like no more than a muscled bound bully in the world playground. I send my apologies and regrets to those who suffered greatly in this unjust assault on the city of Falluja."
Stephen Hauskins, Santa Cruz, California, USA


"I don't hear any outrage about the innocent civilians that have been killed or wounded, and the devastation that has resulted from this senseless assault. It looks like the rebel leaders have run away, to fight another day. We are alienating the Iraqi people by prolonging their suffering."
Roseanne, NJ, USA

"I spoke with an Iraqi woman in Ireland yesterday who was no lover of Saddam Hussein and who lost a sister in a bomb attack in August. She said that what is going on is international bullying and the needless ruin of a beautiful country. Not for one second does she see what is happening as being in any way for the good of her people. What can we do to rid the world of this soul-less imperialism with its "kick ass" culture and philosophy?"
Brian Smyth, Meath, Ireland

(It is probably inaccurate to describe what we are doing as imperialism. We are certainly not retaining colonized sub-nations nor requiring citizenship of them as both Rome and England did in their empires. And it is always going to be laid at the feet of "necessity", when failures of sanity produce concatenations of violence. My vehement disagreement with the process is when we begin to exalt rather than vilify those whose internal dramatizations lead to external destruction and shame.)

A


14 Nov 04 - 11:56 AM (#1326446)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From t he New York Times:

The Department of Defense has identified 1,150 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the deaths of the following Americans this week:

BABBIT, Travis A., 24, Specialist, Army; Uvalde, Tex.; First Cavalry Division.

CORNELL, Todd R., 39, Staff Sgt., Army Reserve; West Bend, Wis., 339th Infantry Regiment.

JAMES, William C., 24, Cpl., Marines; Huntington Beach, Calif.; First Marine Division.

LARSON, Nicholas D., 19, Lance Cpl., Marines; Wheaton, Ill.; First Marine Division.

SEGURA, Juan E., 26, Lance Cpl., Marines; Homestead, Fla.; First Marine Division.

SLAY, Russell L., 28, Staff Sgt., Marines; Humble, Tex.; Second Marine Division,

TROTTER, John B., 25, Sgt., Army; Marble Falls, Tex.; Second Infantry Division.

WELLS, Lonny D., 29, Sgt., Marines; Vandergrift, Pa.; Second Marine Division.

WOOD, Nathan R., 19, Lance Cpl., Marines; Kirkland, Wash.; First Marine Division.

SLAY, Russell L., 28, Staff Sgt., Marines; Humble, Tex.; Second Marine Division.


14 Nov 04 - 12:05 PM (#1326461)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The LA Times offers a heart-breaking survey of the mental damage done to veterans in Iraq, and the lack of preparedness of the administration to deal with it.

It is a deeper and more important question as to why the Bush administration ignored this known factor in its decision to initiate a brutal, violent war in the first place.

The insanity bred by an insane decision, arguably made by an insane man, will be taking its toll from the nation for decades in lost lives, broken families, scarred children, and disabled men and women.

A


14 Nov 04 - 12:53 PM (#1326512)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The Alameda times laments the atmosphere of fear surrounding the refusal to air Saving Private Ryan, and attributes it to the rampant conservatism espoused by the President and the Congress. They suggest Saving the First Amendment.

A


14 Nov 04 - 01:09 PM (#1326520)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The International Herald Tribune calls for a spirited public debate on the US Commission on Human Rights report on the Bush Administrations record on civil rights in this editorial.

Excerpt:"The report, which is still available online, is a scathing 166-page assessment of an administration that has, at best, neglected core civil rights issues. It cites numerous examples of administration attempts to replace affirmative action with "race neutral" alternatives, or to recast taxpayers' support for religious institutions as a civil right for people of faith, rather than as a constitutional issue involving the separation of church and state."

"In telling research into the way that Bush uses talk of civil rights to promote his own agenda, the report says that of Bush's public statements on civil rights, only 17 percent have outlined plans of action. It criticizes the president for using the See more of the world that matters - click here for home delivery of the International Herald Tribune.
< < Back to Start of Article


In a rare gesture of transparency, a majority of the eight commissioners on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights voted in 2002 to put the agency's staff reports on the Internet as soon as they are completed (www.usccr.gov). That way, the public can read them before the commissioners hold public hearings to discuss the staff's findings.
.
The latest report - an assessment of President George W. Bush's civil rights record - was put on the agency's Web site in September. But at their October meeting, the commissioners declined to discuss it. The four commissioners appointed by Bush and the congressional Republican leadership managed to put off any discussion until the postelection meeting, scheduled for Friday.
.
Now, the commission owes the public a spirited debate, especially if, as the report indicates, the apparent aim of the Bush administration is to break with long-established civil rights tactics and priorities.
.
This question takes on a new urgency with the appointment of the White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales, as the next attorney general because he was deeply involved in the formulation of administration policy on these issues in the first term.
.
The report, which is still available online, is a scathing 166-page assessment of an administration that has, at best, neglected core civil rights issues. It cites numerous examples of administration attempts to replace affirmative action with "race neutral" alternatives, or to recast taxpayers' support for religious institutions as a civil right for people of faith, rather than as a constitutional issue involving the separation of church and state.
.
In telling research into the way that Bush uses talk of civil rights to promote his own agenda, the report says that of Bush's public statements on civil rights, only 17 percent have outlined plans of action. It criticizes the president for using the language of civil rights - terms like "remove barriers" and "equal access" - to frame his case.



A


15 Nov 04 - 02:21 AM (#1327037)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Harpo

Why Democrats got boost from sex offenders
By John Patterson Daily Herald State Government Editor
Posted April 07, 2003
SPRINGFIELD - A former state worker with Democratic ties at a Joliet treatment center for the state's most dangerous sex offenders registered more than 125 of them to vote last fall.
Voting patterns show the child molesters, rapists and other sexual deviants overwhelmingly supported Democrats.


15 Nov 04 - 02:25 AM (#1327038)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Opie

J F Kerry Divorced.

G W Bush not divorced.

"George Bush`s America: Moral Beacon in a Dark World
Posted 11/10/2004
By Rabbi Shmuley Boteach
The American people have once again demonstrated that they are the most glorious on earth.

The entire world ganged up on them to dump a moral president whose signature issue was a belief that people have a right to be free. Europe mobilized its millions in the streets to show their hatred of this man and his ideals. The UN frowned at his speeches and treated him with contempt. Hollywood and the recording industry unleashed its superstars to prevail upon the American people that they dare not reelect a monster. And Osama bin Laden released a video tape informing individual states that if they voted against Bush they would be free from terrorist attack.

In the end, even American Jews abandoned this steadfast friend of Israel and gave John Kerry 75 percent of their votes.

Never in the history of the United States has more pressure been brought to bear on the American electorate to dump a leader whose values the world so loathed. But in the end, not the glamour of Hollywood, nor the threats of terrorists, nor the alienation of Europe, nor the condescension of the UN, could break the American people̓s commitment to a moral presidency.

With all the pressure in the world to become like the rest of the world — overlooking genocide and making deals with tyrants — the American people voted to retain a faith-based presidency, even if it meant going it alone. Exit polls showed that morality, even more than security, was the single biggest issue animating American voters.

The rise of the moral voter is an earthquake that has forever changed the American political landscape. Who would ever have seriously believed that morality would be the single biggest consideration for politicians? But there it is. Gone are the days when politicians can seek office merely by pandering to voters by promising them jobs, health care, and pork. Now, politicians who want to connect with the electorate will be forced to articulate a powerful moral vision of something worth fighting for. Bush did this with his constant focus on the fight for human freedom and his pledge to protect the family.

This election was never really about Bush, Kerry, or even Iraq. Nor was it a referendum on conservative verses liberal. Rather, it was a challenge to the very notion of whether faith-as-policy had any place in a modern, technologically-advanced republic. And the victory was not for a man and his followers but for a belief in right and wrong and how religious conviction must be first translated into protecting human life through a fight against tyranny and state-sponsored murder.

Those Bush supporters who gloat over the blow inflicted on Bush̓s opponents betray an arrogance which in turn betrays a lack of commitment to moral principles, thereby eroding the cause for which the victory was sought. Michael Moore and Al Gore can rant all they like that Bush is a religious fraud, that he went into Iraq for oil and power rather than security and humanitarian concerns. Why vindicate their meanspiritedness with a meanspiritedness of our own? Why trivialize a moral victory by making it a personal victory?

Right and wrong does not belong to President Bush or any of the people who voted for him, but is rather the eternal inheritance of all of God̓s children, and in that sense, even those who voted against Bushshare in his victory.

I am well aware that many Americans approach the increasing religiosity and moral commitment of the body politic with foreboding. They fear a theocracy that will be oppressive and infringe upon their rights. It is for Bush supporters to refute this unjust fear by demonstrating not only magnanimity in victory but a deep commitment to harmony and unity.

In behaving modestly in victory, Bush̓s supporters have no better example than President Bush himself. Many things have impressed me about this president over the past few years, but perhaps none more so than his refusal to respond in kind to those who called him a liar and compared him to Hitler. Here was the most powerful man on earth who consistently ignored the savage attacks on his character and instead went humbly on with his work. The American people have rewarded this humility with a considerable mandate which I trust he will continue to use over the next four years to fight evil and pursue justice.

Israel Can Learn From America

Although they have become the most hated nation on earth for doing so, Americans chose another four years of a faith-based presidency and were happy to continue with their pariah president, even if that meant being rejected by the international community for their commitment to a moral foreign policy.

If only Israelis would follow their close ally̓s example and behave more like a chosen nation themselves. Unfortunately, the United States and Israel could not be headed in more different directions.

President Bush̓s stunning victory was a mandate from the people for a more moral nation. The contrast with Israel could not be more stark; an Israeli prime minister speaking about God is the certain kiss of electoral death.

Most Americans would find it shocking that the political leaders of the Jewish nation, who gifted the Creator to the world, would never consider mentioning G-d for fear of alienating a majority secular electorate who are deeply distrustful of faith. In this respect, Israeli leaders are more like European leaders who are about as likely to invoke the name of God as they are the name of Zeus.

Then there is the fact that the majority of Americans just don̓t care about being cut off from the rest of the world. In this election the American people made a resounding judgment: If America is right and the world is wrong, we will show them our contempt.

John Kerry̓s central campaign platform was the need to rebuild frayed alliances with Europe and the UN that he said were damaged by Bush administration "arrogance." In the end, Americans decided that their strength lay not in being popular but in being moral. An America that finds Europe and the UN arrogant, dishonorable, and condescending is content to live in splendid isolation. Kofi Annan can stick up for Saddam, and Jacques Chirac can visit Arafat in the hospital. We̓d rather not be invited to that party.

Yet Israel continues to grovel before the Europeans for acceptance and has always been a supplicant for UN approval. I am well aware of the old argument, that America is a superpower that can go it alone but Israel is a tiny country in need of friends.

But that argument is unpersuasive, first because Israel has a phenomenal friend in the United States and can easily be strong and secure with that friendship alone. And second, because Israelis should have learned by now that no matter how many concessions they make to the Arabs, they will forever be rejected by the international community in favor of the Palestinians.

Since that is the case, better to build your walls, protect your people, and proclaim your contempt for the world̓s amorality, just as Americans have.

Finally, there is the colossal discrepancy between how the United States and Israel have decided to deal with a terrorist insurgency. American soldiers are being attacked and killed in greater number in Iraq than even Israeli soldiers in Gaza. The pundits were convinced for this eason that the American people would choose John Kerry̓s "wrong war" philosophy over George Bush̓s "no retreat" pledge. In the end, the American people decided they would not be pushed out of Iraq by a bunch of murderous thugs, because that would only produce more murderous thugs.

But Sharon̓s withdrawal from Gaza under fire is sure to vastly increase terrorist pressure on Israel in every corner of its land. Any terrorist leader who sees the shrinking borders of Israel that began with the Camp David accords twenty-five years ago can only conclude that the goal of pushing Israel into the sea is slowly becoming a reality.

Nobody wants to see Israeli soldiers die in Gaza, just as no one wants to see American soldiers die in Iraq. But while the Americans understand that withdrawing the troops will lead to more American deaths at home, Sharon mistakenly believes that withdrawing the troops will lead to international acceptance of Israel̓s claim to most of the West Bank and partial pacification of the Palestinians.

By retreating under fire, Sharon has proven himself to be the John Kerry of Israeli politics when what Israel really needs is its own George Bush.

From the earliest days of the American republic, the patriots who built this nation drew upon the biblical idea of a chosen nation as the inspiration behind the struggle against British tyranny. Yet, since its founding, Israel̓s leaders have totally missed the universality of Israel̓s chosenness to the rest of the world. Ever week hundreds of American Christians write to me about how much they love Israel and see in its founding the fulfillment of a biblical prophecy for the Jews to bring blessing to the world from their ancient homeland.

How ironic that while 70 million born-again Christians believe that with all their heart, the average secular Israeli would scoff at such a notion.

Why I Love Evangelical Christians

The impact the American evangelical voting block has had on world affairs is incalculable and explains why there has been a revolution in the way the world does business. The staunch support of evangelical Christians has enabled George W. Bush to pursue a foreign policy based not on expediency or realpolitik, but on a deep-seated morality wherein tyrants are punished and the oppressed liberated. These policies would have been unthinkable without the steadfast support of Bush̓s die-hard constituency of evangelical Christians who comprise one-quarter of the American electorate.

I am a Jew who is deeply in love with evangelical Christians. Although I am at odds with them on various issues, they today constitute the most potent force for good in America, and the most influential constituency who consistently demands that America be a nation of justice, standing up for the persecuted and living up to its founding ideals of serving as a global beacon of freedom.

To be sure, I am devoted to Judaism. Wild horses and iron combs could never pry me away from my Jewish identity and I have devoted my life to the dissemination of Jewish ideas in the mainstream culture and to bringing wayward Jews back to their heritage. But I must give credit where credit is due. And evangelical Christians, more than any other group today, are responsible for America being a godly country.

Whenever I am in the company of evangelical Christians, I feel completely at home, among true brothers and sisters of faith. More so, I feel inspired. When evangelical Christians talk to me about God, they speak with an immediacy and sense of intimacy which is both inspiring and impressive. To the evangelicals, God is a loving father rather than a distant relative. And unlike secularists who love making up their own morality, evangelical Christians humbly submit to the Divine will. The potency of evangelical faith is manifest in their being at the forefront of feeding the hungry, curing the sick, and giving clothing to the poor.

Unlike so many Americans, evangelical Christians utterly reject materialism. They raise godl children who are open-hearted and uncorrupted. Evangelical Christian parents protect their children from a corrosive culture that is so harmful to America̓s youth. The evangelicals have created their own music, TV and film industries which promote values-based entertainment as opposed to crude sexual exploitation. Their women are taught to value themselves and would never contemplate surrendering their bodies to a man who has not committed to them in marriage. And their men are taught to value women and to work to be worthy of them.

This is not to say I don̓t have serious disagreements with evangelicals. It is on the subject of Jesus, especially, and other related theological questions, that I am, of course, most distant from my evangelical brothers and sisters. I have had many televised debates against leading evangelicals forcefully rejecting Jesus as the Jewish messiah. But for all that, I have never felt any emotional distance from the evangelicals.

Many of my Jewish brethren reject evangelical Christians as dogmatic and intolerant. In so doing they are guilty of themselves of rejecting one of Judaism̓s most seminal teachings: to judge a man by his actions rather than his beliefs. Just try to find kinder, more compassionate people who are more willing to assist their fellow man in a time of crisis, than the evangelicals. And this is especially true of the evangelical love for Israel.

As an American Jew, I have two great loves: the United States and Israel. The Talmud says that what makes Israel unique is that God̓s presence is a tangible reality in the Holy Land. In Israel, one can sense and feel God̓s holy presence. Thanks largely to evangelical Christians, the same is true today of the United States. God is alive and well in America. And it is primarily for that reason that this great country is so blessed.

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is a nationally syndicated radio host daily from 2-5 p.m. EST on the Liberty Broadcasting Network, and was named by Talkers magazine as one of America̓s 100 most important talk-radio hosts. A bestselling author of 14 books, his latest work is "The Private Adam: Becoming a Hero in a Selfish Age" (HarperCollins)."

O


15 Nov 04 - 04:15 AM (#1327076)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Oy, vey!! Wot kinda shmuck would do such a thing as cut and paste so much stuff?

Better HTML you should learn.

A


15 Nov 04 - 07:54 PM (#1327907)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

According to Knut Royce of Newsday the White House is ordering the CIA to purge anyone not loyal to Bush from its ranks.

Well, that's only fair, seeing as how he has such a compelling mandate from the nation.

A


15 Nov 04 - 07:59 PM (#1327917)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

In The Ultimate Felony Against Democracy Thom Hartman cries out against the corruption of a sacrosanct basic public process: voting. And for good reason.

A


15 Nov 04 - 08:39 PM (#1327986)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST

The cut and paste was for whining idiots who cannot reach the URL on their own and then complain.

"In his first trip abroad since winning a second term, US President George W. Bush heads to an Asia-Pacific summit in Chile hoping to revive global trade talks and kill off North Korea's nuclear program."

O


15 Nov 04 - 09:06 PM (#1328015)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

"WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) has selected Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites), his national security adviser and trusted confidant, to replace Colin Powell (news - web sites) as secretary of state, officials said Monday, in a major shakeup of the president's national security team. Three other Cabinet secretaries also resigned.


Powell, a retired four-star general who often clashed on Iraq (news - web sites) and other foreign policy issues with more hawkish members of Bush's administration, said he was returning to private life once his successor was in place."


HOLY MOLY!! No wonder Condi did such a dumbass job -- she was in the wrong position!! She was diplomacy, not security!! Wow -- isn't it great we got that cleared up?? Now we'll see international relations fly!!!

A


15 Nov 04 - 09:14 PM (#1328029)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Opie

"President Bush is aiming to use his second term to work with other countries to secure and dismantle nuclear weapons and halt the black market in nuclear materials to prevent startups by other countries."

O


15 Nov 04 - 09:50 PM (#1328071)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Once Famous

Amos

You are a complete sick in the head idiot and if you say that you are not obsessive, just count how many times you posted to this thread.


16 Nov 04 - 12:03 AM (#1328128)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Thanks, Martin, for your usual helpful and insightful post.

I am persistent, but only a one-eyed fool would confuse that with obsession.

A


16 Nov 04 - 12:45 AM (#1328157)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Some interesting background on the intermingled roles of Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, George H. W. Bush, and Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction can be found at this site which documents some little-known aspects of American support for Saddam Hussein.

A


16 Nov 04 - 12:46 AM (#1328158)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: The Fooles Troupe

?


16 Nov 04 - 09:07 AM (#1328483)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

President Chirac makes a series of subtle Gallic observations that essentialy call the Bush boys a bunch of banderlogues not to be trusted.

But he does it in classically indirect French style. Interview and report in the London Times

A


16 Nov 04 - 09:32 AM (#1328508)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST

Holy shit Batman! Amos is in meltdown mode!

Robin


16 Nov 04 - 10:02 AM (#1328548)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Siggy

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is defined as a disorder that compels a person to commit ritualistic actions that prevent them from functioning in normal society. Though many speculate about the origin of such a disorder, the most prominent of "arguers," namely Sigmund Freud and Judith Rapoport, claim two such distinct theories for the cause of such a disorder. Comparatively, though Freud's theory of "psychological trauma" shows many examples and probable answers to the origins of OCD, Rapoport's "physiological stimulus" also gives compelling information.

-----Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, or Obsessive Neurosis (as Sigmund Freud refers to it), is seen (by Freud) as an effect of past traumatic experiences. According to him, a person with such a past is then liable to go through unexplainable ritualistic motion often times unconsciously which then debilitate the person from functioning in a normal society.

S. Freud


16 Nov 04 - 11:31 AM (#1328679)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST

You are mistaken, Guest. I am in the mode of persisting toward truth in the presence of great and redundant and multiplexed falsehoods.

I appreciate the Freudian definitions, Siggy, but I assure you I am as capable or more than the average bear at discriminating between Now and Then.

A


16 Nov 04 - 02:16 PM (#1328865)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Amos

Mark Geibert raves about corruption in high places in an article entitled George W. Bush Is The Most Corrupt President In History .

He feels the country has gone a bit mad, and I certainly sympathize.

A


16 Nov 04 - 07:31 PM (#1329226)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Once Famous

It is time to hijack this thread, or at least send it to the FBI so they can see one man's obsessivness with a hate of a president.

Amos, you could frighten a lot of people, nore than half of the voters in this country with this obsessive ranting.

I am going to contribute something useful to this thread and that is whether the Cubs will or will not trade Sammy Sosa.

Sosa, the Cubs all-time home run leader is now very unpopular with the fans.

Do you think any team would be interested in him?


16 Nov 04 - 07:51 PM (#1329247)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Martin:

The majority of the posts on this thread are pointers to articles in the public media, you half-witted sociopath.

A


16 Nov 04 - 08:00 PM (#1329260)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Opie

US President George W. Bush urged both President Omar el-Bashir of Sudan and that country's main rebel leader to reach a peace deal when negotiations resume in late November, the White House said.


O


16 Nov 04 - 08:48 PM (#1329312)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Werner

US President George W. Bush has invited his Sudanese counterpart Omar al-Beshir to sign an expected peace accord with the country's southern rebels in Washington

WVB


16 Nov 04 - 10:16 PM (#1329413)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The Guardian offers a rather pessimistic view of Bush's record of broken promises contrasted with Blair's optimism regarding same and Middle East peace.

A


16 Nov 04 - 10:48 PM (#1329446)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Robert Scheer writing for the Los Angeles Timers in an article called

The Peter Principle and the Neocon Coup
discusses " the wholesale political revenge campaign being waged by the hard-liners in the Bush administration against anybody and everybody inside the government who challenged the way the second Persian Gulf war in a decade was marketed and run".

Excerpt:

Out: Secretary of State Colin Powell, whose political epitaph should now read, "You break it, you own it" for his prescient but unwanted warning to the president on the danger of imperial overreach in Iraq.

Out: Top CIA officials who dared challenge, behind the scenes, the White House's unprecedented exploitation of raw intelligence data in order to sell a war to a Congress and a public hungry for revenge after 9/11.

Out: Veteran CIA counterterrorism expert and Osama bin Laden hunter Michael Scheuer, better known as the best-selling author "Anonymous," whose balanced and devastating critiques of the Iraq war, the CIA and the way President Bush is handling the war on terror have been a welcome counterpoint to the "it's true if we say it's true" idiocy of the White House PR machine.



A


16 Nov 04 - 11:57 PM (#1329498)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

It would appear from this piece that Tony Blair is (a) distancing himself a bit from the US and (b)encouraging the US to adapt Kerry's platform.

Hmmmm. Why?

"London, England, Nov. 16 (UPI) -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair urged the United States to reach out to the rest of the world and adopt a more multilateral approach to international affairs."

(Washington Times/UPI)

A


17 Nov 04 - 04:46 PM (#1330351)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: RichM

American taxpayers-even bushitters- are soon going to start getting uneasy about the cost of all these foreign expeditions!

Wave goodbye to your dollars


17 Nov 04 - 06:02 PM (#1330417)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The War in Iraq Cost the United States
$145,626,209,182 as of 14:58 PST today.

Robert Scheer discusses the moral profile of Dick Cheney in this article entitled The Man Behind the Oval Office Curtain. He says, inter alia:

"Lately, as the war has become an unmitigated disaster for the United States and Iraq, Cheney and the President have been on the defensive against charges by numerous terrorism experts--and presidential candidate John F. Kerry--that the invasion of Iraq was a dangerous distraction from the fight against Al Qaeda and its affiliates.


Undaunted, Cheney tells us the Jordanian-born terrorist Abu Musab Zarqawi, who has been blamed for many anti-American attacks in Iraq, originally entered Iraq with Hussein's permission; thus Cheney tries to post facto justify the invasion as a legitimate pillar of the war on terror. But it's just another lie, with the CIA stating the opposite: The fundamentalist Zarqawi first sneaked into Hussein's secular and nationalist dictatorship using a false identity.


That Cheney clearly has a huge personal interest in the war makes all of this that much more sickening."

A


17 Nov 04 - 06:05 PM (#1330419)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

In A Little Education Can Be a Dangerous Thing John Nichols reports that a respected Yale
professor    is embarassed by Dick Cheney. As well he should be!


A


17 Nov 04 - 07:17 PM (#1330504)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

In a special report Representative Waxman examines the extent of secrecy in the Bush White House.

"It finds that there has been a consistent pattern in the Administration's actions: laws that are designed to promote public access to information have been undermined, while laws that authorize the government to withhold information or to operate in secret have repeatedly been expanded. The cumulative result is an unprecedented assault on the principle of open government."



This website offers 100 Facts (possibly uncomfortable but irrefutable) leading to one unavoidable opinion, supporting the many views against the Bush administration between 2000 and 2004. It also offers a handy PDF download of the whole list of facts. Click here to download.

A


17 Nov 04 - 08:16 PM (#1330566)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The BBC has posted a survey of world-wide responses to Bush's election. They are representative of both sides of the schism, but on the whole seem to weigh heavily n the side of being disappointed in the intellectual poverty being shown by American voters.

A


17 Nov 04 - 09:11 PM (#1330612)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

In an article called If at First You Don't Secede, Michelle Goldberg talks about the polarization that Bush's administration has built throughout the nation, and howe it could lead to a virtual secession, pinning the hopes of liberal-minded people on State's rights and local freedoms. She writes:

"These sentiments were so pronounced that they migrated into the
mainstream. Speaking on "The McLaughlin Group" the weekend after
George W. Bush's victory, panelist Lawrence O'Donnell, a former
Democratic Senate staffer, noted that blue states subsidize the
red ones with their tax dollars, and said, "The big problem the
country now has, which is going to produce a serious discussion
of secession over the next 20 years, is that the segment of the
country that pays for the federal government is now being
governed by the people who don't pay for the federal
government."

A shocked Tony Blankley asked him, "Are you calling for civil
war?" To which O'Donnell replied, "You can secede without firing
a shot.""

A


18 Nov 04 - 12:43 AM (#1330769)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The irascible and ineluctable Maureen Dowd speaks up on the issue of excessive emphasis on loyalty in this New York Times column. She says:

"Now, in the 21st-century reign of King George II, flattery is mandatory, dissent is forbidden, and erring without admitting error is the best way to get ahead. President Bush is purging the naysayers who tried to temper crusted-nut-bar Dick Cheney and the neocon crazies on Iraq.

First, faith trumped facts. Now, loyalty trumps competence. W., who was the loyalty enforcer for his father's administration, is now the loyalty enforcer for his own.

Those promoted to be in charge of our security, diplomacy and civil liberties were rewarded for being more loyal to Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney than to the truth."



She makes a telling case. Why should the leader of the free world depend on sycophants and butt-boys? Personal instability? Low self-esteem? Artificial intelligence?

You decide.

A


18 Nov 04 - 09:03 PM (#1331730)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

>http://slate.msn.com/id/2108995/

This article describes the dynamics of Iraq and why we are in for a long
haul that we cannot now afford to abandon. The complexities of the
interactions between Kurds, Sunni and Shiite and Hammabi Iraqis and the once
power-holding Sunni Baathists, are the woof and warp of what George W. Bush
never thought about when he went after the token entity he knew (after his
father) as "Sadamn". The facile goal of "regime change" has been sliced and
diced into an explosive and corrosive blend of hatreds on the ground of
Mesopotamia.

It is obvious from the aftermath that these factors were not understood,
just as it is obvious that the intricate planning of the war was not
extended to plan for the peace.

One bad decision of an important magnitude can have a tearing floodtide of bad
consequences; nothing demonstrates this more clearly than the situation in
Iraq. And it is clear this was a strategic, not a tactical error. The
Marines and Army units and their officers, who have largely beens uccessful
in tactical purusits, cannot afford to worry about where they would like to
be, but are obliged by life-or-death considerations to move forward from
what is. The irrationality of the current situation must be plainly placed
on the doorstep of George Bush, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and
Condi Rice. While it may be modern to say these people are not stupid, and
it may even be true, what is also certainly true is that they made some very
stupid decisions at the strategic level, with some very painful and
expensive consequences. It is hard to understand why this gang wa shired int
he first place, given their demonstrations of managerial callousness. It is
even harder to understand why they were considered for rehiring.


18 Nov 04 - 09:12 PM (#1331741)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Once Famous

Can you believe that the Chicago Bulls are 0 and 6?

This once great dynasty is now the piece of crap of the NBA.

Perhaps John Kerry should become the head coach.

What do you think, Amos?


18 Nov 04 - 09:21 PM (#1331751)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Once Famous

Is anyone following the hit new series "Desparate Housewives?"

Some cute ladies on the show.


18 Nov 04 - 11:18 PM (#1331875)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

I believe that the important questions of human life on earth will not be answered by the Chicago Bulls.

A


18 Nov 04 - 11:29 PM (#1331884)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Werner

Innocence Protection Act Signed Into Law
11/10/2004 3:05 PM

On November 1st, 2004 President Bush signed into law the Justice for All Act


WVB


18 Nov 04 - 11:56 PM (#1331912)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Ellenpoly

Amos, I just need to tell you again, that what you are posting here is of great value. I have sent many of the blue clicky websites and articles to appreciative friends who are all amazed at how much important information you've garnered in one place.

I know I don't have to tell you to ignore Martin Gibson. Why he comes here to taunt you says far more about him than you, as usual.

Just please KEEP IT UP! My respect for you grows by the day.


..xx..e


19 Nov 04 - 12:04 AM (#1331920)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Werner's somewhat mute post points to one of the few positive actions I have seen coming out of the Bush administration. Here is a description of the fancifully-titled act known as "Justice for All". Considering the number of corpses Mister Bush has prodyuced in his short lifetime, it is wonderful fine he should care so much.

Ellen, thank you very much for the kind remarks. Really, they do help!

A


19 Nov 04 - 09:12 AM (#1332257)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Bush's Echo Chamber (NY Times Op Ed)
By BOB HERBERT

Published: November 19, 2004

Excerpt:

Colin Powell, who urged the president to think more deeply about the consequences of invading Iraq, is being shoved toward the exit. And Condoleezza Rice, who blithely told America, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," is being ushered in to take his place.

Competence has never been highly regarded by the fantasists of the George W. Bush administration. In the Bush circle, no less than in your average youth gang, loyalty is everything. The big difference, of course, is that the administration is far more dangerous than any gang. History will show that the Bush crowd of incompetents brought tremendous amounts of suffering to enormous numbers of people. The amount of blood being shed is sickening, and there is no end to the grief in sight.


19 Nov 04 - 09:20 AM (#1332265)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Over in the House of Representatives, the Righties are doing the Ethical Sleight of Hand Polka:


Regressive Ethics in the House

Published: November 19, 2004

Having picked up a handful of seats in this month's election, House Republicans seem to think they have a mandate to eradicate Congressional ethics standards.

On Tuesday, House Republicans unanimously elected Tom DeLay to serve another term as House majority leader, despite his unsavory record when it comes to abiding by accepted Congressional standards of conduct. He received two separate bipartisan rebukes from the normally timid ethics committee this fall.

Just in case Mr. DeLay gets into more trouble, G.O.P. lawmakers have followed up by repealing their wise party rule that barred indicted members from holding leadership positions. Only a handful of Republicans had the moral compass to object.

The Republican conference's worry about Mr. DeLay's relationship with the forces of justice stems from the same events that nailed down his current popularity. He muscled an egregiously partisan redistricting plan into Texas, and that helped Republican candidates pick up five Congressional seats there.

(Excerpted from the New York Times Op Ed Section)


A


19 Nov 04 - 07:07 PM (#1332912)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

This is only indirectly germane but itis vitally important to our political and social well-being.

A reporter is facing imprisonment because he declined to reveal a confidential source to a state court. See link for full story.
 
If anyone in the Bush administration had the brains of a wet hen, they'd be pushing for a constitutional amendment to support a national shield policy, instead of caring about marital conventions.

A


19 Nov 04 - 07:31 PM (#1332942)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Just a repeat from that Op Ed article two up, for the sake of emphasizing an important line:

History will show that the Bush crowd of incompetents brought tremendous amounts of suffering to enormous numbers of people. The amount of blood being shed is sickening, and there is no end to the grief in sight.




A


19 Nov 04 - 07:41 PM (#1332953)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

In Partisan Spooks the Los Angeles Times speaks sharply about the risks Mister Bush took in appointing Mister Goss to the head position over at Langley.

A


19 Nov 04 - 11:38 PM (#1333153)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From the Arizona Republic:

Afraid you'll lose? Just change the rules

Nov. 20, 2004 12:00 AM

So Tom DeLay, the Republican House majority leader, has three ethics violations, may soon be indicted, and could face felony charges.

Not to worry! Just change the party rules so he can remain the House leader.

President Bush gets the majority of his judges approved but comes up short on a few. No problem. Change the filibuster rules. Some Republicans want to run Arnold Schwarzenegger for president but he is not a U.S.-born citizen. No problem. Amend the Constitution.

Do you see an erosive pattern here? So much for the "values" of the Republican Party. - Kevin Horan, Flagstaff


19 Nov 04 - 11:45 PM (#1333162)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Werner

US President George W. Bush plans to seek support from China and other key allies at the Asia-Pacific summit to help resurrect talks with North Korea over its nuclear weapons program

WVB


19 Nov 04 - 11:53 PM (#1333189)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Gee....a flip flopper!!! Oooooh!


Glad to see he is taking Kerry's advise seriously at least on the face of things. We know where the proof of the pudding will be, now, don't we?

A


20 Nov 04 - 04:51 PM (#1333891)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Armed and Dangerous

At least, to some. Every cult and circle of initiates has its little resistive corners, the ones who get in by mistake or who have genuine aspirations but some how fall short of experiencing the big E. The core truth of all these truths seems to be that belief can be manipulated, and that belief brings about experience. It is kind of funny to hear someone say, "I have to believe it. I experienced it." And testimonial experiential data is used as an appeal for persuasion. But the simplicity of it all is that belief brings about experience. In the manipulations of con men or gurus, the first target is always belief, not experience. When belief is manipulated whether by advertising, psychic bombardment, persuasion, love and hugs, or strong arm and terror tactics as often used by the Feds -- then we can experience the reality being pointed out. The simple truth is humans don't experience what they don't believe. This can be quibbled with, because a belief in a house will bring about an experience of rooms, but the specifics are peculiar to the individual's belief structures.

AJ


20 Nov 04 - 04:57 PM (#1333898)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The violence and chaos into which Bush's decisions have plummeted the USMC is frightening. It is well portrayed in detail in this NY Times article.

A


20 Nov 04 - 05:24 PM (#1333924)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Siggy

Nervous breakdown:
A period of mental illness, usually without a physical cause, which results in anxiety, difficulty in sleeping and thinking clearly, a lack of confidence and hope, and a feeling of great sadness.

Freud


21 Nov 04 - 08:02 AM (#1334364)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

As reported in the Washington Post for November 19, more than 20,000 people marched in Chile to vent their anger at Pacific Rim leaders, particularly President Bush.

While some protesters said they oppose the APEC summit, which they likened to a rich man's club that does nothing for the poor, much of the rage was aimed at Bush and the U.S.-led war in Iraq.


A


21 Nov 04 - 08:14 AM (#1334375)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The FCC Chairman Has No Clothes
Washington Post, Sunday, November 21, 2004; Page N01



Oops. They got rid of the wrong Powell. The father unfortunately is going, but the son, even more unfortunately, remains behind.... Staying in office, however, and capable of wreaking havoc in American broadcasting until 2007, is Colin's son Michael Powell, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission and definitely not a force for good in America.


His father is stepping down as secretary of state, but Michael Powell could remain in power until 2007.

Pompous and imperious, an ideologue who believes unfailingly in his own philosophy of how TV and radio should work (the FCC also has domain over telephone and emerging broadband technologies), Powell ignores or condemns anyone who opposes him.


21 Nov 04 - 08:19 AM (#1334377)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

THe Washington Post examines the dubious competence of Mister Bush's selected Attorney General for the nation in a well-reasoned article.

A


21 Nov 04 - 08:39 AM (#1334383)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Kathryn Graham, writing for the Sierra Times, discusses the cred8ibility of the Administration in an article entitled The Bush Administration and Freedom. She makes this reassuring observation:

"The rest of the world watched in horrified fascination as George W. Bush handily won reelection to the office of President of the United States a couple of weeks ago. Many who had deep moral issues with the Bush administration, but not with the American people, now believe that this election proves that the American people are as morally bankrupt as their leaders.

That is not necessarily true."


A


21 Nov 04 - 01:42 PM (#1334540)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The Philadelphia Enquirer's editorial on The Bush Cabinet casts a skeptical eye on the insulated and robotic crew surrounding the Bush.

A


21 Nov 04 - 08:03 PM (#1334788)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Once Famous

This obsession is killing you, Amos.

I believe that you think that this is your life's work.

What a shame and a waste.

I am considering a request that this thread be closed, already.


21 Nov 04 - 11:00 PM (#1334913)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Thanks for the concern, Martin, Request away. I am more concerned with keeping the truth about the corruption you support so loyally in plain view.

Of course I am sure suppressing such things is old hat to you, but I don't know that I am causing anyone any discomfort except you and a few of your nameless borgs. And since you have a reputation as such an unmitigated anti-social troublemaker, I see no reason to expect that your request will weigh very much.

The nature of this thread is very consistent and obvious, such that no-one need visit it twice who does not intentionally choose to. You obviously find it of compelling interest.

A


21 Nov 04 - 11:06 PM (#1334915)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Maureen Dowd rides again with a shap-edged piece call Absolute Power Erupts

She says: "The White House says it wants greater harmony, but it's acting like the thought police. Having run into resistance in their bid for global domination, the president and vice president are going for federal domination, pushing out anyone with independent judgment who puts democracy above ideology.

It's a paradoxical game plan: imposing democracy abroad while impeding it here."

(Of course the ground truth is that it is not truly being imposed there, either.)

A


21 Nov 04 - 11:13 PM (#1334919)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Quoting Colin Powell in remembering Viet Nam, Mark Danner writing for the NY Times:

" ' Our senior officers knew the war was going badly. Yet they bowed to groupthink pressure and kept up pretenses. ...Many of my generation, the career captains, majors, and lieutenant colonels seasoned in that war, vowed that when our turn came to call the shots, we would not quietly acquiesce in halfhearted warfare for half-baked reasons that the American people could not understand.'

Those plain words about Vietnam stand out with refreshing immediacy today, in this age of the destruction of the fact, when incontrovertible but unwelcome information is dismissed as partisan argument. What might the Colin Powell who wrote those words, or the younger officer in Vietnam who envisaged his future as a man who could never "quietly acquiesce," have said about our present war?"

From Danner's current Op Ed, "A Doctrine Left Behind" which describes indirectly why we may be losing the war in Iraq: "If the old rule of thumb about counterinsurgency warfare holds true - that the guerrilla wins by not losing and the government loses by not winning - then America is losing the Iraq war. "


This is a question that needs to be honestly asked and honestly answered. The latter is improbable.

A


21 Nov 04 - 11:18 PM (#1334923)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Thomas Friedman also poses the question and offers a way to answer it:

Excerpted from his worth-reading Postcards From Iraq:

" Readers regularly ask me when I will throw in the towel on Iraq. I will be guided by the U.S. Army and Marine grunts on the ground. They see Iraq close up. Most of those you talk to are so uncynical - so convinced that we are doing good and doing right, even though they too are unsure it will work. When a majority of those grunts tell us that they are no longer willing to risk their lives to go out and fix the sewers in Sadr City or teach democracy at a local school, then you can stick a fork in this one. But so far, we ain't there yet. The troops are still pretty positive.

So let's thank God for what's in our drinking water, hope that maybe some of it washes over Iraq, and pay attention to the grunts. They'll tell us if it's time to go or stay."


21 Nov 04 - 11:23 PM (#1334927)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

In the Times Editorial called Groundhog Day the hawkish assertions of the administration concerning Iran and their nuclear capabilities, and the similarity to the war drums heard before the invasion of Iraq, are examined plainly.

Is it possible that once a warmonger, always a warmonger? Do you suppose that is why Hitler went and attacked the USSR and kept on going? The taste of human blood is said to make maneaters out of tigers. Perhaps it does something similar to leaders.

Interesting question.


A


22 Nov 04 - 12:13 PM (#1335355)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: DougR

Amos, no one can accuse you of not being tenatious. I do wonder, though, why you persist in continuing to promote this skewed view of what the popular views are of the Bush Administration. That issue was clearly settled on November 2, 2004 when Bush got both the Electoral and Popular vote majorities.

Perhaps it is therapy for you. If so, I guess it does have a purpose.

Maybe a change in title might be in order for this thread. Something like, "Amos's view of the Bush Administration" or "The Minority's View of the Bush Administration."
DougR


22 Nov 04 - 01:21 PM (#1335429)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Werner

Armed & Dangerous:

Did you write that weird shit? Man, you are a sicko.

WVB


22 Nov 04 - 03:56 PM (#1335610)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Johnjohn

Hispanics for Jorge

JJ


22 Nov 04 - 06:05 PM (#1335808)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

One of the side effects of invading Iraq that could have been anticipated, but was not, is the doubling of the starvation of children in the country.

Meanwhile, with the dance of War costing the nation billions, the state of affairs at home among those in the poverty bracket is not improving. The NY Times Editorial on the subject is telling, and is entitled, SHHH--Don't Say 'Poverty".


A


22 Nov 04 - 06:21 PM (#1335841)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

John Kenneth Galbraith, the world renowned Harvard economist, had a few succinct phrases to describe his disappointment in the voters on November 2d, and his view of some of the Administrations accomplishments.


A


22 Nov 04 - 06:31 PM (#1335850)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Werner

The Lessons of Fallujah
Killing terrorists doesn't make them stronger.

Another point in the Zarqawi recording bears attention: "This war is very long, and always think of this as the beginning, and always make the enemy think that yesterday was better than today." In Israel, this is known as the question of the barrel: Is there a bottom to it or not? Beyond whatever tactics the Iraqi insurgents may employ, their strategy is to convince Americans that there is no bottom; that their cause enjoys huge popular support; that it feeds off the resentments that "occupation" inevitably engenders; and that it can go on undeterred by whatever damage U.S. forces inflict.

Sadly, there are plenty of Westerners willing to buy into this hypothesis, since it sits so well with those who think the war was a mistake and thus can't imagine that we can still win. Yet apart from the military success, the big news of the Fallujah campaign is that most Iraqis quietly supported it. The protests from nationalist politicians was far more muted than in April, perhaps because they have seen from the car bombings and beheadings what the Zarqawis also intend for them.


WVB


22 Nov 04 - 06:35 PM (#1335859)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Sorry, Doug; the title is correct. Remember that your butt-boy Bush won by one of the slimmest margins ever. A large percentage were sorry to see him win, just within the United States. Take the population of the world into account and you would find that a significant majority were revolted by it. Repeat: revolted, not just slightly disappointed.

Bear in mind, too, that almost all these references come from leading media outlets such as the International Herald Tribune, The Arizona Sun, the New York Times, and others. So it absolutely correct to call these popular views.

This has nothing to do with therapy for me, thanks. It has to do with adhering to a line of truth, not buying a coverup and not pretending that the murderous chaos of Iraqw is a normal state of affairs when you are at war.

Your bad Bush boy walked this nation into bloody chaos through mismanagement and myopia on his own part and on the part of his team. The result: humans dead in the sand. Babies, women, innocent bystanders, Marines, US Army men and girls, businessmen, as well as rebels, insurgents, and terrorists. Don't ask the administration to give you a count of which is which, cuz they won't except for the US armed forces. But they are very high numbers of deaths and uncounted other suffering all of which did not need to occur.

Your boy did that, DougR. Face it like a man.

A


22 Nov 04 - 07:39 PM (#1335906)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Here's the link Werner meant to post which seems to originally come from the Wall Street Journal. It argues that a recent tape from Zarqawi sounds tired and desperate, and asserts that we are winning the war.

Well, if we are winning it, it is not too surprising, given the resources we are spending. For half of what we spent taking the nation by force, we probably could have bought it.

That we win it, if we do, does not mean that it was the right course of action, because even if we win it, we have won a foothold in the Middle East at an incredible cost that we could have had much more cheaply. Not only that but we have demonstrated our willingness to act as unrelenting bullies and killers of the innocent, as well as the guilty. No matter how righteous our cause in Iraq was, we have unilaterally invaded a foreign nation, and that will never be forgotten. We were always known by some as aggressors, but we kept it covert, and balanced it with acts in defense of freedom. Those excuses are still being voiced, of course, but will they hold any water in the affairs of the world and command any decent price in the marketplace of ideas?

Or will they be seen as   cheap bully-ragger's plastic imitations of once strongly built notions?



A


22 Nov 04 - 08:19 PM (#1335917)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Werner

Here is the link that anus wanted to post but he is afraid it makes him look even more like an anus.

Smoking is more likely to kill
I was shocked to see the large photograph on Nov. 10. A tired, dirty and brave Marine rests after a battle — but with a cigarette dangling from his mouth! Lots of children, particularly boys, play "army" and like to imitate this young man. The clear message of the photo is that the way to relax after a battle is with a cigarette.

The truth is very different from that message. Most of our troops don't smoke. And most importantly, this young man is far more likely to die a horrible death from his tobacco addiction than from his tour of duty in Iraq.

DR. DANIEL MALONEY


WVB


22 Nov 04 - 08:27 PM (#1335925)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Johnjohn

This suggests that Amos has become the enemy:

"For now, I suggest that the best way to support our troops on the battlefield is to not become our "enemy" here at home."

STEPHEN T. PHILLIPS

Sugarland Texas


22 Nov 04 - 08:28 PM (#1335926)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

TruthOut.org covers a report that was reported by both 60 Minutes and CBS which indicates there is serious minimizing being done by the DoD in reporting the numbers of people whose lives have been seriously ruined by the war. In this article they state the number of casualties wounded in operations in Iraq is on the order of up to 30,000, not reported because their injuries were not in direct battle.

The DoD denies the estimate and says you have to understand the normal rate of injuries in other situations, which is a reasonable statement but an evasive response tot he question.

A


22 Nov 04 - 08:37 PM (#1335935)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

You two need to find something genuine to do. Puerile natter doesn't cut it, especially when it is out of context and makes no sense. Werner, I was trying to help you out when you posted a bad link. Sorry if I misestimated you -- I thought you were trying to make a point, so I addressed it.




A


22 Nov 04 - 10:00 PM (#1335988)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Once Famous

This













































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































SUCKS!






































































































































































IT REALLY
































































































































































































































































































































SUCKS































































































































































































































































































































































































RIGHT, AMOS?


























































































































































































































































































































































































































































HUH?


22 Nov 04 - 10:10 PM (#1336004)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Once Famous

AMOS,


SEE BELOW

V
V
V
V




































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































PSSSSSSSSSSSSST. KERRY LOST
























































































































































































































































































!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


22 Nov 04 - 10:12 PM (#1336008)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Zack

Amos You need to add your name to the list of people whose lives have been seriously ruined by the war.

Z


22 Nov 04 - 10:22 PM (#1336016)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Once Famous

1. Amos
2. Saddam


22 Nov 04 - 10:39 PM (#1336030)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Johnjohn

This quotation explains why people like Amos defeat their own purposes:

"For the first time in my life I voted for a Republican president. Maureen Dowd's Nov. 6 column, "Don't look for healing, reconciliation from this bunch," was offensive to me. I have two sons-in-law who are on active duty (one in Afghanistan) facing the reality of jihad every day, and her casual use of the term demeans their service.

Dowd should realize that one of the reasons many former "blues" went "red" is the result of her (and others like her) over-the-top inflammatory remarks. Never have I read such disrespect directed toward our leaders. Four years of "stupid, liar, cuckoo clock, deserter" was all this former blue voter could stand. Somehow, there must be a standard of decency applied to disagreement."

DIANE WOODARD
Houston Texas

Civil discourse needs a layer of grace
"Maureen Dowd's Nov. 6 column, "The red zone, a blue puddle," insulted anyone who values balanced journalism. Before Ms. Dowd next sits at her keyboard she should avail herself of a sense of proportion and a cold shower.
    Cape Codders gave 43 percent of their votes to George Bush, and the conservatives I know are neither "imbeciles" nor right-wing vulgarians trying to hijack the republic. We hope to hold the line on taxes, trim the bureaucracy, protect the homeland with a muscular foreign policy and restore a whiff of morality to the public square without imposing a faith-based doctrine on our fellow citizens.
    Most of us are civic-minded souls who pay our taxes, attend church and rake our leaves like everyone else. Some of us even hold some liberal views such as supporting gun control, a safety net for the disadvantaged and equity for women in the workplace. We do not demonize John Kerry or his supporters. And we wish both sides would provide a layer of grace over our civic discourse.
    We applaud the "Healing the Body Politic" session sponsored by the Cape Cod Interfaith Alliance but think it sad that our civic life has come to that."

    FRANK TIVNAN
    East Dennis

JJ


22 Nov 04 - 11:13 PM (#1336064)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Johnjohn:

I commend you for at least offering a partially coherent assertion that might have some substance to it. Your colleagues could profit from a study of the difference.

But let me point out that each of the voices that seem to come out of the woodwork on this thread are asserting singular opinions. No-one has offered me any facts to counter the various points that have been made in the links I have provided.

Martin, your contributions are so frivolous and so irrelevant and meaningless that by rights they ought to be deleted, as they are obviously only there to make the thread hard to read. Your conclusions about my attitudes and so on are even worse -- groundless, ill-formed, ill-mannered and boorish, obviously the deep thoughts of a brutish mindset.

Stay well, it may be all you have going for you.

A


22 Nov 04 - 11:52 PM (#1336107)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Here is a lovely list of excerpts from all over the world of writers viewing various aspects of the Bush administration. The Toronto Star, The Guardian, The Irish Review, The Boston Globe, the Economic Policy Institute, the New York Times, Yahoo News, and many others. I would say "popular views" is a fair description.

Have a look and decide for yourself.

A


23 Nov 04 - 12:23 AM (#1336145)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Johnjohn

Case for Iraq War Stronger Than Ever

U.S. satellite photos confirming the existence of a Boeing 707 fuselage that Khodada and his partner say was used as a hijacking classroom. U.N. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer, who was tapped on Friday to succeed David Kay, corroborated their account.

A May 7, 2003, decision by Manhattan U.S.
District Judge Harold Baer, . . . The account of former CIA Director Woolsey, whose testimony was summarized by Judge Baer thusly:

"Director Woolsey described the existence of a highly secure military facility in Iraq where non-Iraqi fundamentalists [e.g., Egyptians and Saudis] are trained in airplane hijacking and other forms of terrorism. Through satellite imagery and the testimony of three Iraqi defectors, plaintiffs demonstrated the existence of this facility, called Salman Pak, which has an airplane but no runway."


JJ


23 Nov 04 - 12:29 AM (#1336152)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Zack

Here is a perfectly adorable article that proves Amos is a totally deranged sick little puppy:

The investigator picked by the CIA to replace David Kay as head of the U.S. team in Iraq hunting for weapons of mass destruction has told British reporters that he saw terrorists training near Baghdad in airplane hijack techniques resembling those used in the 9/11 attacks.

In a November 2001 account to the London Observer, Charles Duelfer, the former No. 2 United Nations weapons inspector who was appointed Thursday to head the U.S.'s Iraq Survey Group, corroborated the testimony of Iraqi military defectors who said they helped train radical Muslim recruits to hijack U.S. airliners aboard a Boeing 707 fuselage parked at the terrorist training camp Salman Pak.

At the time the London Observer reported:

"Duelfer said he visited Salman Pak several times, landing by helicopter. He saw the 707, in exactly the place described by the defectors. The Iraqis, he said, told Unscom it was used by police for counter-terrorist training."

"Of course we automatically took out the word 'counter,'" Duelfer told the Observer.

"I'm surprised that people seem to be shocked that there should be terror camps in Iraq," he added.

A month later Duelfer told USA Today, "We reported [the Salman Pak hijacking drills] at the time, but they've obviously taken on new significance" after the 9/11 attacks.

It's not clear whether part of Duelfer's new mandate as head of the ISG will be to pursue evidence tying Iraq to 9/11.

Duelfer told the Associated Press that CIA Director George Tenet assured him he wanted one thing: "That is the truth, wherever that lay."


Z


23 Nov 04 - 12:41 AM (#1336163)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: DougR

Amos: "The Arizona Sun." What's that? Mainstream media? I don't think so.

If your refrences include those with the reputation of the "Arizona Sun" I fear they are still suspect.

But if spending the next four years dwelling on the loss makes your day, so be it. Enjoy!

DougR


23 Nov 04 - 03:14 AM (#1336247)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Paco Rabanne

Who got the 500th post then? I missed it!


23 Nov 04 - 04:12 AM (#1336266)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Boab

Amos---retire my friend. The piss pedlars are ganging up on you, and all others have decided that you're valiantly trying to swim in molasses.


23 Nov 04 - 08:15 AM (#1336377)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Thanks for the kind thought, Boab. Given the analytical level and the irrational site appearing from some of the militantly minecephalic sorts in this part of the jungle, it is tempting.

The presence of Salman Pak has never been definitive, although it is the only indirect evidence that Iraq may have trained someone to hijack an airliner. When and where that hijacking occurred is not something anyone has been able to say. I don't understand why more was not made of Salman Pak amongst the Bushites during the rampup, when Bush was steering the nation deliberately into war while lying about his intentions and pretending no such decision had been made. Remember that?

There was a wonderful radio humorist who used to pretend he was a super-illiterate redneck and deliver diatribes against anything that crossed his sights. He ended every rant with the invocation, delivered in a heavy Georgian accent, "Whake Up, Amurrica!". He was just kidding of course. The death toll in Iraq, the creep corrosion undermining free speech, the insidiious contravention of free assembly, the invasive overtones of a fascistic reign, all prove that it is possible to get used to anything, as long as it doesn't disturb your peanut butter.

Some of us, anyway.

According to recent polls a small but clear majority of Americans believe that the Administration falsified the case for going in to Iraq and that their conduct of the invasion has harmed the war on terrorism.

Maybe "Whake Up Amurica" isn't too far off. You can't put all the people to sleep all the time.

A


23 Nov 04 - 12:06 PM (#1336589)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Zack

Where is the terrorist raining camp in Afghanistan with the aircraft to practice a hijacking in? Is there one anywhere in the middle east besides Iraq?

There are satellite photos of the aircraft to prove that it was and still is there. Did Saddam let Al Qaeda train there? While not conclusive, the majority of the evidence indicates he did.

If you conspiracy aficionados want to get really torqued up, there are people in the US and Canaduh that claim the US government flew the jet liners into the towers and the Pentagon to create an excuse to attack Iraq for the oil. You can join that group of "enlightened" individuals.

Zack


23 Nov 04 - 12:34 PM (#1336621)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: DougR

Amos, your post of 22 Nov. 11:52: Again, you offer "evidence" based on news stories or editorials or columns from newspapers who clearly detest Bush. That's hardly an argument to offer without bias.

DougR


23 Nov 04 - 06:07 PM (#1336960)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

DougR:

Don't put words in my mouth, young feller. I said they were popular views, not evidence. The only thing they evidence is what people are thinking. First the people who are writing them, and second, an indeterminate percentage of their readers.

I finds it curious that so many qualify as detesting Bush. Maybe he's despicable?


A


23 Nov 04 - 07:19 PM (#1337035)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From a posting to a Democratic site:

"Here's your ethical superiority


Today, House Republicans decided that since their ethics-challenged leader Tom Delay stands a real chance of being caught by their own ethics rules, it would probably be best to change them before they actually had to abide by them. So they did. Republican members of the House changed a rule put in place to show their "ethical superiority" in the early 1990's that forbade Republicans from serving in leadership positions if indicted for a crime that could put them in jail for more than two years.


Delay is at the center of a campaign finance scandal that has already led to the indictment of three people, so Republicans certainly had reason to worry. But instead of standing up and truly showing some type of ethical conscience, Republicans changed the definition of what they felt a leader should embody. No longer is a Republican leader held to a standard that says: "if you're indicted, you're not qualified to lead us." They're now held to a standard that says: "if you're indicted, we'll take thirty days to decide if the indictment was warranted, and even then we'll probably let you stay around."


It's amazing what happens when the ethically bankrupt are in control of their own ethical standards."

Posted by Josh McConaha @ 08:52 PM


23 Nov 04 - 07:24 PM (#1337042)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The International Herald Tribune has some thoughtful comments by Ed Morris on the Bush Administration's current war.

A


23 Nov 04 - 08:13 PM (#1337105)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/23/opinion/23tue2.html

A nEw York Times Editorial:

Dispensing with legislative niceties like holding hearings or full and open
debate, President Bush and the Republican Congress have used the cover of a
must-pass spending bill to mount a disgraceful sneak attack on women's
health and freedom.

Tucked into the $388 billion budget measure just approved by the House and
Senate is a sweeping provision that has nothing to do with the task Congress
had at hand - providing money for the government. In essence, it tells
health care companies, hospitals and insurance companies they are free to
ignore Roe v. Wade and state and local laws and regulations currently on the
books to make certain that women's access to reproductive health services
includes access to abortion.




Slimy, huh?:

A


23 Nov 04 - 08:54 PM (#1337145)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Zack


23 Nov 04 - 08:58 PM (#1337147)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Zack

Amos will surely fall for this one:

Arafat is alive, the only question is where

Z


23 Nov 04 - 09:09 PM (#1337154)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Poindexter

Amos and this old fart are like two peas in a pod:

There's no question they wanted to run it because it was negative towards Bush.


23 Nov 04 - 09:16 PM (#1337160)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Spending Bill Held Up by Tax Provision


Measure Lets Panels Examine Returns; Repeal Is Planned

By Dan Morgan and Helen Dewar
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, November 23, 2004; Page A01

A $388 billion government-wide spending bill, passed by Congress on Saturday, was stranded on Capitol Hill yesterday, its trip to the White House on hold as embarrassed Republicans prepared to repeal a provision that could give the Appropriations committees the right to examine the tax returns of Americans.

Top GOP lawmakers disavowed the provision, expressed surprise that it was in the bill, and blamed both the Internal Revenue Service and congressional staffs for incorporating it into the omnibus spending package funding domestic departments in 2005.

(From the Washington Post)

My, how embarassing!! How do you suppose that got in there?!

A


23 Nov 04 - 09:19 PM (#1337162)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Andy Rooney? You do me great honor - a very funny man:




"Second year Fletcher student Jeremy Harrington asked Rooney to "skewer people outside our borders," to which Rooney deadpanned, "There's bound to be a conservative in every crowd."


Rooney responded by referring to the American failure to win the support of Iraqis and the world community in the Iraq war. He said the United States started the war "for good reasons," but he did not think the rest of the world agreed.


"We are in such a leadership position and I just don't feel we are leading as well as we could," he said. "We should try and sell ourselves, and try to convince the Iraqi people - with something other than guns - that we are here to help."


Rooney said he thought Iraq was "an ignorant society, not to be critical of them," a remark which was questioned later in his speech. Rooney defended the comment, saying that it is difficult to sell democracy in a country where few have access to the media and illiteracy is high, but acknowledged that "my attitude of the Iraqis is typical of the America I am complaining about."

He said Christian fundamentalism is a result of "a lack of education. They haven't been exposed to what the world has to offer."


Rooney said he also could not understand how "men who work with their hands voted for George Bush," and again attributing the phenomenon to a lack of education. "The labor force is conservative," he said. "How in the world did that happen?"


Rooney said that he hoped Bush's re-election would give him the "confidence" to end the war in Iraq. "I think if George Bush said tomorrow, 'I was wrong, I ask for an apology,' I bet the American people would thank him, and they would like him," he said.




Thanks, man.

As for old fart, hey, you came to the right website! The place is crawlin' with 'em!


A


23 Nov 04 - 09:31 PM (#1337178)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Once Famous

Amos

It's just that I find this all so frivilous. While you are looking for ways to detest a president who will be around 4 more years at the will of the people, I am just going to continue to have fun with the whole concept of how an intelligent person like yourself can waste his life.

So here we go again...............



























































































































































































































































































































































































































I love pussy.


23 Nov 04 - 09:31 PM (#1337180)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Werner

Amos will shit his britches over this one:

The Yellowcake Con

the Butler report vindicates President Bush on the allegedly misleading "16 words" regarding uranium from Africa


WVB


23 Nov 04 - 09:38 PM (#1337188)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Arnie

Amos needs to spew his bush hatred on NPR. They welcome propagandists there.

NPR Paints Fullujah as "Holy Resistance" Against U.S. "Genocide"

WVB


23 Nov 04 - 09:47 PM (#1337201)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Johnjohn

Amos feels a certain kinship to this Bush hater:

An Exchange on HBO's On the Record with Bob Costas, May 9, 2003.

Michael Moore: "What happened to the search for Osama bin Laden?"
Bob Costas: "Obviously they're pursuing Osama bin Laden as we speak."
Moore: "Really? You believe that?"
Costas: "Yes."
Moore: "You do believe that?"
Costas: "Sure. And if they could find him, and perhaps they eventually will, they'd be gratified by that."
Moore: "You don't think they [the U.S. government] know where he is, huh?"
Bob Costas (astonished): "You think they know where Osama bin Laden is and it's hands off?"
Moore: "Absolutely, absolutely."
Costas: "Why?"
Moore: "Because he's funded by their friends in Saudi Arabia! He's back living with his sponsors, his benefactors. Do you think that Osama bin Laden planned 9/11 from a cave in Afghanistan? I can't get a cell signal from here to Queens! Alright, I mean, come on, let's get real about this. The guy has been on dialysis for two years. He's got failing kidneys. He wasn't in a cave in Afghanistan-"
Costas: "You think he's in Saudi Arabia?"
Moore: "Absolutely."
Costas: "Not Afghanistan, not Pakistan?"
Moore: "Well, could be Pakistan but it's, he's under the protective watch of those who have said put stop to this because-"
Costas: "Including, at least by extension, the United States? He's under the protective watch of the United States?"
Moore: "I think no, I think the United States, I think our government knows where he is and I don't think we're going to be capturing him or killing him any time soon."

JJ


23 Nov 04 - 10:05 PM (#1337221)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Opie

Amos in it up to his neck:

Liberal War against Conservatives a Quagmire

O


24 Nov 04 - 09:28 AM (#1337594)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Curious what a personal stance you lot seem to take. Why is that?

Perhaps you approve of bloodletting in various forms. I dunno. In any case look for more biased lying left wing pinko liberal swill from this pinko commie punk America hater in the near future.


A


24 Nov 04 - 11:25 AM (#1337722)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Harpo

This great article proves that it's time for Amos to jump on the bandwagon with the normal people:

November 23, 2004 -- WASHINGTON — President Bush is heading into his second term, with his job approval rising to 55 percent, a new poll shows.

Bush's post-election bounce and growing public support come at a time when 72 percent of Americans say the country is deeply divided, according to the nationwide Gallup/CNN/USA Today poll.

Bush has been seen as a polarizing president, but his job approval is at 55 percent while disapproval is down to 42 percent — his best job rating since last January, when he was still riding the boost from Saddam Hussein's capture.

In one noteworthy finding, Americans oppose, by more than 2 to 1, a constitutional amendment to let a foreign-born U.S. citizen like California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger run for president.


Harpo


24 Nov 04 - 12:08 PM (#1337783)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Poindexter

Is Amos as biggoted as John Sylvester?

The Faith Based Leadership Council (FBLC), a coalition of more than 200 black clergy and members of the faith-based community, wants the Mid-West Family Broadcasting Group to dump the WTDY-AM host for last week referring to Rice as "Aunt Jemima" and Powell as "Uncle Tom.


24 Nov 04 - 04:35 PM (#1338058)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

It is evident from the similarity in your HTML constructs and your spelling that one of you feels it necessary to use multiple identities, perhaps in order to hide from a two-way communication. Tsk, tsk. That's self-defeating.

I am not "biggoted" in any way I know of. I am definitely opposed to many of the things President Bush stands for. But that's a matter of rational policy. I think he may be mentally unsound, but that is merely a hypothesis. Comparing me to a person accused of Klan-like racist remarks is quite unfair, but not surprising -- it is the kind of inaccuracy that typifies your contributions to this thread, often inserted solely for the purpose of insult or abuse.

The purpose of this thread is to gather for viewing salient perspectives concerning Bush and his administration from others, wherever they may be found.

If you would like to start a separate threat to call me names in, feel free to give that a shot.

A


24 Nov 04 - 06:15 PM (#1338170)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Homey

Amos who puts his personal digs onto his posts, objects to the practice.

A 14 year old boy died on Thursday, November 11th, after having received 85 lashes; according to the ruling of the Mullah judge of the public circuit court in the town of Sanandadj he was guilty of breaking his fast during the month of Ramadan.

HTC


24 Nov 04 - 07:31 PM (#1338245)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Well, obviously the flaws of fanatic Muslim practices are just the same as various perspectives on the current American government, right? There must be a link anywhere -- and if anyone can find a link that isn't there, it's a fanatic Bushian.

I take it your purpose in posting the above was to create hatred toward Muslims, Homey?

A


24 Nov 04 - 08:29 PM (#1338286)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Homey

Just pointing out the things that Bush is trying to eliminate by declaring Iran, Iraq and N Korea the Axis of Evil.

Other people bitch about everything he does and try to discredit him at every turn, therefore supporting such evil things.

If he does anything about Iran he is wrong. If he does not do anything about Iran he is wrong.

This has been orchestrated by Iran and others with the unwitting help of Bush haters:

The re-election of U.S. President George W. Bush significantly affects the entire strategic balance in the Middle East, and particularly with regard to Iran.

The Iranian and Syrian governments, in particular, plus many nominally non-state, transnational players � such as al-Qaida, HizbAllah, and the like � geared much of their strategic posturing over the past few years to removing the Bush Administration in the U.S. This created its own dynamic, but, having failed, the positions and policies of these entities will now evolve.


HTC


24 Nov 04 - 09:26 PM (#1338321)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

HTC:

Thanks for a most interesting article. Assad Homayoun is an interesting feller, a man who was succeeding under the Pahlavi regime and would therefore like nothing more than to resurrect a similarly secular regime that took pride in its Persian legacy. Who can blame him for that?

I understand that those who do not approve of the war may seem to you to be supporting the evil of fanatacism, but from my point of view our fanatacism has rushed us into a war chosen at the wrong time, fought in the wrong place, and started for unclear and in some ways misguided reasons. Above all, my objection is to the violence that the decision to go to war has suddenly brought down on innocent heads, especially those crippled and killed and ruined by calamity directly caused by war fighting. What we support is not the extremes of Msulim fanatacism -- who do you think we are? -- but the ineluctable advanced of reason and communication among reasoning people as the ultimate power of any social deal.

As for Bush's position about Iran, it is tricky, but I think his best bet is to inspire the community of nations to send Iran to Coventry if she acts anti-social.

A


24 Nov 04 - 09:37 PM (#1338328)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

World Tribune.com, the site linked to above, has some very interesting things to say about Bush's overall position. An excerpt:

"In the eyes of the establishment, the Bush tactics, the Bush agenda, and Mr. Bush himself are over the top. The president is girding for battle. He's aiming to consolidate control of his administration, drive out recalcitrant (read: establishment) elements, and make the permanent government heel, especially at the CIA and State Department. He's kept his White House staff intact, from political adviser Karl Rove to speechwriter Mike Gerson to budget chief Josh Bolten, as a kind of headquarters cadre. The White House aides who've departed, such as national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and counsel Alberto Gonzales, were dispatched to take over Cabinet agencies.

Mr. Bush's agenda is post-Reagan in its conservatism, which means it's more far-reaching and thus more threatening to the establishment. Mr. Bush would not only reform Social Security and allow individuals to invest a portion of their payroll taxes in financial markets, he would also revamp the entire federal tax code and fill the Supreme Court with judicial conservatives. And those are only his domestic plans. In foreign affairs, Mr. Bush would make aggressive efforts to spread democracy around the world the centerpiece. The foreign policy élite s aghast."




The balance of the article, which is strongly conservative, can be found on this page. It essentially describes Bush as a bold insurgent, an unusual piece of positioning. I do not support the viewpoint of the author, myself, but I think he is intelligent and is doing a good job of saying what he sees. I don't understand, given the departure six cabinet members, how he can say that Bush has kept his cadre intact. But I'll cut him some slack on that issue.



A


25 Nov 04 - 03:34 AM (#1338529)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Paco Rabanne

Homey,
    Thank you for those somewhat shocking links. A good attempt at balancing this extremely lopsided thread.
      Most of the students at the school of Architecture that I went to in England in the late 1970's were Persian. They were similar to me in most respects, they drank, smoked, we played chess together, cards, I even taught two of them to drive in my trusty VW beetle.
      When the Shah was deposed, and Persia became Iran, some of the lads failed their exams deliberately, so that they could spend another year in England. THEY knew what was coming! God knows what became of them when they went home!


25 Nov 04 - 08:02 AM (#1338671)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Poindexter

Why do they call Bush a liar?

Clinton says Saddam's ouster essential


25 Nov 04 - 08:10 AM (#1338678)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Homey

Ted:

This is indeed a lopsided thread by a former Kerrydriod with a braincase made of Kryptonite.

HTC


25 Nov 04 - 08:15 AM (#1338679)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Poindexter

The CIA's secret war in Iraq - ABC News Report
Peter Jennings Reporting
Showdown with Saddam
Feb. 7, 1998

PETER JENNINGS (VO)
             These are some of the
             Iraqis Bob, Tom, John, Ted and other CIA
             officers recruited in their secret campaign to
             overthrow Saddam Hussein. The CIA went after
             Saddam Hussein, because the US military didn't
             get him during the Gulf War-not that they
             didn't try. (interviewing) Do you want him
             killed?


25 Nov 04 - 08:22 AM (#1338684)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Werner

The independent Iraqi weekly Al-Yawm Al-Aakher reveals details on the training of Al-Qa'ida members operating under the orders of Saddam's Presidential Palace two months before the September 11 attacks. The following are excerpts from the article:

WVB


25 Nov 04 - 10:11 AM (#1338766)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Dear Guest:

You don't have to paste the whole excerpt into a link. You can limit the amount of text that becomes clickable, which is the text between the first ">" and the second "<" -- see the HTML FAQ.

It is interesting to realize that we had spent a million dollars encouraging the anti-Saddam factions in Iraq under Clinton. Bush's version is a much richer and bloodier stew indeed. I can hear the answer now -- "Yeah, but we got Saddam!". And in exchange we have the mother of all insurgencies on our hands.

The ground truth is that we did not have the courage to take Saddam down by other means. One fanatic suicide bomber in the right place would have done the job much more neatly than this stupid invasion, even if we grant that his oppressive regime was wortht hat risk, which is possibly true.

A


25 Nov 04 - 10:42 AM (#1338798)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Werner:

An interesting document, but one I think has to be taken with some salt. I am mindful of the fact that the belief that Saddam had large installations of weapons of mass destruction was primarily generated by one ex-pat Iraqi. It is also unlikely that such inflammatory intelligence would not be used by the Bush faction in widely publicized justifications for the invasion.

So it seems a little inconsistent. But interesting! Thanks.


A


26 Nov 04 - 11:48 AM (#1339776)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The New York Times discusses the international convention on the future of Iraq recently held, and the nature of the Bush administration's role in it, on the op Ed page:

Still Worlds Apart on Iraq.


A


26 Nov 04 - 01:46 PM (#1339868)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: DougR

Werner: thanks for posting the article, but EVERBODY knows Saddam had nothing what-so-ever to do with terrorists.

DougR


26 Nov 04 - 03:00 PM (#1339934)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Once Famous

Everybody but Amos.

Getting to the point where he is embarrasses me as an American.

Amos, the revolution will not be televised.

It's entertaining to watch you make a douche bag of yourself.

You are one for the obsessive nut-case books.


26 Nov 04 - 03:02 PM (#1339936)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

BUSH 'TOOK COCAINE AT CAMP DAVID'
And wife Laura liked dope, says book
By Emma Pryer

GEORGE W Bush snorted cocaine at Camp David, a new book claims.

His wife Laura also allegedly tried cannabis in her youth.

Author Kitty Kelley says in her biography The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty, that the US President first used coke at university in the mid-1960s.

She quotes his former sister-in-law Sharon Bush who claims: "Bush did coke at Camp David when his father was President, and not just once either."

Other acquaintances allege that as a 26-year-old National Guard, Bush "liked to sneak out back for a joint or into the bathroom for a line of cocaine".

Bush has admitted being an alcoholic but, asked during the 1999 election if he did drugs, he said: "I've told the American people that years ago I made some mistakes.

"I've learned from my mistakes and should I be fortunate enough to become president I will bring dignity and honour to the office."

Later an aide clarified his remarks saying Bush hadn't taken illegal drugs in the past 25 years.

Kelley says that the Bush family covered up scandals because of their wealth and influence. She claims George W started drinking at school and continued at Yale university to overcome shyness.

Former student Torbery George says in the book: "Poor Georgie. He couldn't relate to women unless he was loaded."

Another says: "He went out of his way to act crude. It's amazing someone you held in such low esteem later became president."


26 Nov 04 - 03:11 PM (#1339943)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

In related news:

The Bush family saga

By Nicholas M. Horrock and Richard Tomkins
Published 11/26/2003 4:14 PM


WASHINGTON, Nov. 26 (UPI) -- A Texas court has been asked to order the younger brother of President George W. Bush to give a new sample for DNA testing in a paternity-related defamation suit, sources told United Press International Wednesday.

The request for the new sample from Neil Bush, filed on behalf of Sharon Bush, was slated to be heard in Houston's Harris County Civil Court on Dec. 9.

"We require he be forced to give a sample under court supervision," David Berg, attorney for Sharon Bush, told United Press International. "He voluntarily did it before we got to court but not under court supervision. It was a good first step, but we want it under court supervised conditions."

Sharon Bush is being sued for defamation by Robert Andrews, a business associate of Neil Bush, who claims she defamed his 2-year-old son by publicly saying the boy was fathered by Neil Bush.

Maria Andrews, now divorced from her husband, is currently living in Paris with the child. Bush has said he intends to marry the woman following his divorce from Sharon Bush last spring. It was unclear if Neil would join her for the Thanksgiving holiday or remain in the United States.

Neil Bush did not return UPI's calls for comment by publication time Wednesday.

In a deposition given in the divorce case in March, a month before his divorce from Sharon, the president's 48-year-old sibling detailed financial relationships with firms in Taiwan and China and admitted to having had sex on several occasions in years past with unidentified women who simply came to his hotel door in Thailand and Hong Kong.

"It is dead on," said a source who read the leaked transcript, which has not been made public record.

Under the divorce settlement with Sharon, Bush reportedly pays about $1,500 per month in child support payments to Sharon and gives her $30,000 a year in alimony for four years.

The Bushes have three children.

Sharon bought the family home, valued at $850,000, from Neil the exact sum Andrews is suing her for.



(From UPI feed: http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20031126-033621-2133r)


A


26 Nov 04 - 03:22 PM (#1339949)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

 " Iraq was not a threat to the United States, or to any of their neighbors. The sanctions put into effect after the first Gulf War had turned that regime's conventional military into a large collection of paperweights. There are no weapons of mass destruction of any kind in Iraq. There were no connections whatsoever between Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and the attacks of September 11.

    The men and women whose faces fill the page below were not told this. They were, in fact, told the exact opposite. They raised their hands and took the oath, they donned their uniform and picked up their weapon, they boarded a plane and flew far from home, and they died. They were doing their duty, and they believed their President.

    George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Colin Powell and the members of this administration have much to answer for. (...)"

From Faces of 1000 Dead -- in case you want to know just whom we have lost because of our President's mismanagement. Just the first 1,000 men and women.

A


 


26 Nov 04 - 04:21 PM (#1339978)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The New York Times offers an analysis of statistics from Iraq. Motor fuel is more available, the number of insurgents is way up, the per centage of Iraqis wanting US forces to stay incountry is way down, indigenous optimism is down slightly, and the stats on casualties, although mounting, are probably false.

A


26 Nov 04 - 07:11 PM (#1340109)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: DougR

Geeze, Amos, I really am getting concerned about you. Did you have a good Thanksgiving? Are you depressed or something? Considering the books you have been reading, searching diligently for crap to relay to us about Bush that other "authors" have written would depress anyone. Maybe you should check with your physician to see if a good dose of Prozac might help your condition.

We (conservatives) survived eight years of Clinton. I'm sure you can survive eight of Bush. If you were to put the same energy into trying to get a candidate that thinks as you do elected in 2008, that you have put into whining about GWB winning the 2004 election, you might be a much more satisfied man in eight years!

DougR


26 Nov 04 - 09:48 PM (#1340211)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

DougR:

I can't do anything about the election -- I suppose we just want stupid people. But I can draw to public attention facts that are often painted out of the public view or buried by administration machinations.

Bush's decision to combat terrorism by invading Iraq was foolish, ill advised and expensive in life and treasure. As a manager, he would drive a corporation in to bankruptcy, judging by his effects on the nations reserves, economy and public repute.

This is profitable for a minority.

But that does not make it wise, a good course of action, just or even viable.

A


26 Nov 04 - 10:19 PM (#1340225)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=54767&d=21&m=11&y=2004

"Reagan Years May Give a Clue to Bush's Future Actions
Abdulrahman Al-Rashid, a.alrashed@asharqalawsat.com


Following the 1991 American-led war to liberate Kuwait from Iraq, people in the Gulf used to joke about George Bush the father. They said if Bush was nearby, you could sleep soundly in your house. Now, in light of what is going on in the region, people are saying if Bush the son is near, you had better flee your house. The departure of Colin Powell, the only rational voice in the administration, and the naming by Bush of his iron-lady national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, to replace him, is a clear message to every one that Bush is not afraid of engaging in new wars."

Balance of this Arabic editorial can be found >here.

A


27 Nov 04 - 09:40 AM (#1340432)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Validity of Ukraine election in doubt, Bush says


By Scott Lindlaw
Associated Press

Crawford, Texas — President Bush declared Friday that charges of voter fraud have cast doubt on the Ukrainian election.

"The only good deal is one that's verifiable," the president told reporters.(Emphasis added. AHJ)

The United States and other Western nations contend that massive fraud marred the presidential runoff election Sunday in Ukraine, and the country's highest court has ordered election officials not to publish the results until an appeal is heard next week. Earlier this week, Secretary of State Colin Powell cited reports of fraud in the election in saying the United States cannot accept the results.





Hmmmmmmm.



A


27 Nov 04 - 09:58 AM (#1340440)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/23/opinion/23tue2.html:

Dispensing with legislative niceties like holding hearings or full and open
debate, President Bush and the Republican Congress have used the cover of a
must-pass spending bill to mount a disgraceful sneak attack on women's
health and freedom.

Tucked into the $388 billion budget measure just approved by the House and
Senate is a sweeping provision that has nothing to do with the task Congress
had at hand - providing money for the government. In essence, it tells
health care companies, hospitals and insurance companies they are free to
ignore Roe v. Wade and state and local laws and regulations currently on the
books to make certain that women's access to reproductive health services
includes access to abortion.





Underhanded, huh?


A


27 Nov 04 - 06:22 PM (#1340766)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

In this interesting essay on the influence of Bernard Lewis, Michael Hirsh asks a pointed question about the faltering Bush vision for Iraq: What if Islam isn't an obstacle to democracy in the Middle East but the secret to achieving it?

Interesting backgrounder on current colisions.


A


27 Nov 04 - 08:00 PM (#1340838)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Exerpted from: Vast Borrowing Seen in Altering Social Security
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON for the New York Times



WASHINGTON, Nov. 27 - The White House and Republicans in Congress are all but certain to embrace large-scale government borrowing to help finance President Bush's plan to create personal investment accounts in Social Security, according to administration officials, members of Congress and independent analysts. ...

...Mr. Bush has vowed to push hard to remake Social Security. Republicans in Congress say the White House has signaled to them that Mr. Bush will put the issue at the top of his domestic agenda in the coming year.

But the White House has never answered fundamental questions about Mr. Bush's plan. In particular, it has not explained how it would deal with the financial quandary created by its call for personal accounts.



The problem with this approach is that the full faith and confidence of the United States government has been dramatically adulterated in the eyes of the world, and the dollar is no longer seen by those in distant countries as the refuge of sane investment in troubled times. Without the reputation for probity and viability of the nation behind it, borrowing will be extremely expensive. Which in turn will accelerate our decline toward national insolvency and enforced reevaluation. If only we had a few billion dollars to spare to straighten all this out!! Unfortunately all our spare billions were needed to invade Iraq.

A


27 Nov 04 - 08:09 PM (#1340844)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

In A Foreboding Thaw the New York Times editorial page says:

Like many studies of global warming, this one notes some possible benefits, like longer growing seasons. But these few pluses have to be weighed against the destruction of an entire ecosystem. The life patterns of native people and native species in the Arctic have shifted drastically over the past half-century. Warming on the scale projected by this study could well mean the extinction of some species of seals and polar bears, and a certain end to traditional ways of life.

These are sobering thoughts. Ice cores show that over history the polar climate has fluctuated, often severely. But this fluctuation is caused by human activity. Even if we were to sharply and immediately reduce carbon dioxide emissions, some arctic warming would continue.

The solution to this problem rests on our ability to imagine and purposefully shape the future. One obvious way is to create international agreements and recognize that immediate restraint on our part may make the difference. The Bush administration has denied the severity of global warming and the science behind it. On this vital matter, the president needs to look a painful reality squarely in the face.



Anyone giving odds that's going to happen?

A


27 Nov 04 - 09:54 PM (#1340886)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST

This is the Enemy Names list, Flag ED 2830RB, 25 July 1992, Suppressive Persons and Groups.


27 Nov 04 - 10:18 PM (#1340894)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST

Amos Jessup, a philosophy major from Connecticut. The son of a senior editor on *Life* magazine, Jessup had gone to Saint Hill in 1966, while he was studying in Oxford, to try and get his young brother out of Scientology and instead had become converted himself. `I was soon convinced', he said, `that instead of being some dangerous cult it was an important advance in philosophy.


27 Nov 04 - 11:06 PM (#1340912)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The Sources of American Legitimacy
Robert W. Tucker and David C. Hendrickson
From Foreign Affairs, November/December 2004

Excerpted from Foreign Affairs

Summary: The 18 months since the launch of the Iraq war have left the country's hard-earned respect and credibility in tatters. In going to war without a legal basis or the backing of traditional U.S. allies, the Bush administration brazenly undermined Washington's long-held commitment to international law, its acceptance of consensual decision-making, its reputation for moderation, and its identification with the preservation of peace. The road back will be a long and hard one.

Robert W. Tucker is Professor Emeritus of American Foreign Policy at Johns Hopkins University. David C. Hendrickson is Robert J. Fox Distinguished Service Professor at Colorado College.

AN ERODED IDEAL

The 18 months since the launching of the second Iraq war have brought home, even to its advocates, that the United States has a serious legitimacy problem. The pattern of the first Iraq war, in which an overwhelming victory set aside the reservations of most skeptics, has failed to emerge in the aftermath of the second. If anything, skepticism has deepened. The United States' approval ratings have plunged, especially in Europe-the cooperation of which Washington needs for a broad array of purposes-and in the Muslim world, where the United States must win over "hearts and minds" if it is to lessen the appeal of terrorism. In both areas, confidence in the propriety and purposes of U.S. power has dropped precipitously and shows little sign of recovery.

Legitimacy arises from the conviction that state action proceeds within the ambit of law, in two senses: first, that action issues from rightful authority, that is, from the political institution authorized to take it; and second, that it does not violate a legal or moral norm. Ultimately, however, legitimacy is rooted in opinion, and thus actions that are unlawful in either of these senses may, in principle, still be deemed legitimate. That is why it is an elusive quality. Despite these vagaries, there can be no doubt that legitimacy is a vital thing to have, and illegitimacy a condition devoutly to be avoided.

How to restore legitimacy has thus become a central question for U.S. foreign policy, although the difficulty of doing so is manifest. At a minimum, restoring international confidence in the United States will take time. The erosion of the nation's legitimacy is not something that occurred overnight. Washington is unlikely to succeed at renewing it simply by conducting better "public diplomacy" to "make the American case" to the world, for world public opinion already rejects the case that has been made. If the United States is going to be successful in recapturing legitimacy, it will have to abandon the doctrines and practices that brought it to this pass.


This is brainy stuff, but of great interest. It i s not particularly pro- or anti-Bush.

A


28 Nov 04 - 09:20 AM (#1341094)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From Thomas Friedman's editorial, "The Last Mile".

"Indeed, I have never understood how an administration that wanted a war so badly and will be judged on it by history so profoundly, could manage it so sloppily. Right now we need an "intelligent czar" for Iraq much more than we need an "intelligence czar" for America.

Consider one small example. Last week, The Times's defense correspondent, Thom Shanker, wrote about a study conducted by the Defense Science Board, which found that nearly two years into the war in Iraq, America's institutions charged with "strategic communications" - about what we are doing in the world and why - are broken. The study found that "the United States today is without a working channel of communication to the world of Muslims and of Islam."




If we can't coordinate one little war, maybe we're not really qualified to hunt down and kill terrorists wherever they may be found regardless of charges, evidence, due process and other such civilized niceties.

A


28 Nov 04 - 10:13 AM (#1341122)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Greg Palast, Blueblood troublemaker from the git-go, discusses how New Mexico and Ohio spoiled themselves rotten in implementing racial prejudice in the democratic process.

A


28 Nov 04 - 04:59 PM (#1341387)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

In The President's Goal in Iraq, Jay Bookman tries to figure the real rationale behind the war in Iraq.

A


28 Nov 04 - 05:16 PM (#1341396)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Sheila Samples, a writer from Oklahoma, discusses Stinky and the Vulcans, and how an 8-year old can sometimes see readily things that a 48-year old cannot. Her essay is entitled, Stinky and the Vulcans. Among other thoughtful remarks, she writes:

"It is a mystery to me why Americans would vote for four more years of war crimes against humanity. However, while watching a C-Span program on the subject shortly after the election, I was struck by the answer given by a sweet-sounding woman from Missouri -- "I had no choice but to vote for Bush," she said almost regretfully. "I was obliged to vote for him because he was endorsed by God..."

Has there ever been a more glaring example of the chasm that grows wider every day under this administration between "religion" and "Christianity"? Religious "believers" who cast their votes were instructed by their leaders to cast a "vote for God" or for a man who would "ban" the Bible, support not only gay marriage, but drive-through abortions and killing babies for stem cell research. Verily, this deeply religious woman, and millions like her, had no choice but to vote for Bush. 

Perhaps that is why so many Christians are weeping...

So, as Stinky and the Vulcans head for that fantastical midway and begin rehearsing for their next number entitled, "To Iran -- and Beyond!" just remember even an 8-year-old knows instinctively that the coming attraction transcends comic-book horror. It's the real thing. And it's e-e-e-e-v-u-l...

Later, we cannot say we didn't know."

See the link for the whole article, which clarifies where the name comes from.

A


28 Nov 04 - 09:07 PM (#1341572)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Munchausen

Amos:

Don't piss your pants but this is just what you have been hoping to find.

USA staged 9/11 Attacks

The Baron


28 Nov 04 - 09:28 PM (#1341583)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Thanks, Baron. While I sympathize with the idea that the 9-11 attacks might have been just too too convenient for Bushlandia, I can't quite buy Andreas von Bulow's argument. I think the plain, prima facie evidence is enough to convict the Bushcorps of criminality and the sort of insanity usually accompanying megalomaniac destructive acts.

A


28 Nov 04 - 11:06 PM (#1341637)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From the current edition of the Cairo Al-Ahram:

"A conference of this magnitude of Sharm El-Sheikh certainly indicates a desire to find a solution that restores stability to Iraq through the implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1546. The resolution calls for the formation of a transitional government to run the country until general elections are held in January 2005. The transitional government was formed in June 2004, with help from the UN. Resolution 1546 calls for the withdrawal of the occupation forces once the transitional government requests it, or after 12 months. Six months have already passed -- something for the Sharm El-Sheikh conference to think about.


The conference is a final chance to address the humanitarian crisis that one Iraqi city after another is facing.


Events in Iraq have violated all international norms. They undermine the credibility and universality of human values. International norms are not the exclusive preserve of the West. People are suffering and dying, their wealth squandered, their sovereignty trampled underfoot, all for the benefit of the US and its allies.


UN participation in the formation of the transitional government in June is something worth repeating until Iraq is rid of occupation. Initiatives and conferences are not enough to end the tension in the region. The tragedy in Iraq will not be over until the occupation is over.


This is a chance for the UN to repair its damaged legitimacy and assume the rightful leadership of the international community. This is a chance for Europe, Japan and the US to reclaim their democratic values. This is a chance for countries such as China and Russia to help their past and future allies in the region. This is a chance for Iraq's neighbours to prove their goodwill regarding Iraq's security and stability. It is a chance for the Arab League and its members to stand up for Iraq's rights, alone or alongside the international community.


Will anyone take these chances, for they may well be the last?"

A


28 Nov 04 - 11:17 PM (#1341640)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Munchausen

Amos:

I thought you would fall for that conspiracy bullshit the way you fell for the Scientology bullshit.

The Baron


28 Nov 04 - 11:26 PM (#1341644)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Baron:

Your perspicacity is clearly below par, then.

A


29 Nov 04 - 05:53 PM (#1342484)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From writings by Ben Franklin, criticized for including inappropriate infoprmation in his publishings:

http://www.uark.edu/depts/comminfo/cambridge/apology.html


"A certain well-meaning Man and his Son, were traveling towards a Market
Town, with an Ass which they had to sell. The Road was bad; and the old Man
therefore rid, but the Son went a-foot. The first Passenger they met, asked
the Father if he was not ashamed to ride by himself, and suffer the poor Lad
to wade along thro' the Mire; this induced him to take up his Son behind
him: He had not travelled far when he met other, who said, they were two
unmerciful Lubbers to get both on the Back of that poor Ass, in such a deep
Road. Upon this the old Man gets off, and let fis Son ride alone. The next
they met called the Lad a graceless, rascally young Jackanapes, to ride in
that Manner thro' the Dirt, while his aged Father trudged along on Foot; and
they said the old Man was a Fool, for suffering it. He then bid his Son come
down, and walk with him, and they travell'd on leading the Ass by the
Halter; 'till they met another Company, who called them a Couple of sensless
Blockheads, for going both on Foot in such a dirty Way, when they had an
empty Ass with them, which they might ride upon. The old Man could bear no
longer; My Son, said he, it grieves me much that we cannot please all these
People: Let us throw the Ass over the next Brisge, and be no farther
troubled with him."

Had the old Man been seen acting this last Resolution, he would probably
have been call'd a Fool for troubling himself about the different Opinions
of all that were pleas'd to find Fault with him: Therefore, tho' I have a
Temper almost as complying as his, I intend not to imitate him in this last
Particular. I consider the Variety of Humours among Men, and despair of
pleasing every Body; yet I shall not therefore leave off Printing. I shall
continue my Business. I shall not burn my Press and melt my Letters."

For you whom the shoe fits,


A


29 Nov 04 - 06:16 PM (#1342512)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

To the Editor:

I was saddened to read in "In My Next Life" (column, Nov. 25) that Thomas L.
Friedman is thankful that "the public schools still manage to produce young
men and women ready to voluntarily risk their lives in places like Iraq and
Afghanistan to spread the opportunity of freedom and to protect my own."

Isn't that an example of gravely diminished expectations? I would much
prefer a situation where adequately financed public schools produced leaders
bent on making peace through diplomacy than war fraught with
self-righteousness.

Robert Wagner
New York, Nov. 25, 2004
(From the New York Times)


29 Nov 04 - 06:18 PM (#1342516)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Siggy

Scientology:

      STANFORD, Calif. - For decades, scientists have known that eminently creative individuals have a much higher rate of manic depression, or bipolar disorder, than does the general population. But few controlled studies have been done to build the link between mental illness and creativity. Now, Stanford researchers Connie Strong and Terence Ketter, MD, have taken the first steps toward exploring the relationship.

      Using personality and temperament tests, they found healthy artists to be more similar in personality to individuals with manic depression than to healthy people in the general population. "My hunch is that emotional range, having an emotional broadband, is the bipolar patient's advantage," said Strong. "It isn't the only thing going on, but something gives people with manic depression an edge, and I think it's emotional range."

      Strong is a research manager in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science's bipolar disorders clinic and a doctoral candidate at the Pacific Graduate School. She is presenting preliminary results during a poster presentation today (May 21) at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association Meeting in Philadelphia.

      The current study is groundbreaking for psychiatric research in that it used separate control groups made up of both healthy, creative people and people from the general population.

      Researchers administered standard personality, temperament and creativity tests to 47 people in the healthy control group, 48 patients with successfully treated bipolar disorder and 25 patients successfully treated for depression. She also tested 32 people in a healthy, creative control group. This group was comprised of Stanford graduate students enrolled in prestigious product design, creative writing and fine arts programs, including Stegner Fellows in writing, students in the interdisciplinary Joint Program in Design from the Department of Mechanical Engineering and studio arts master's students from the Department of Art & Art History. All subjects were matched for age, gender, education and socioeconomic status.

      Preliminary analysis showed that people in the control group and recovered manic depressives were more open and likely to be moody and neurotic than healthy controls. Moodiness and neuroticism are part of a group of characteristics researchers are calling "negative-affective traits" which also include mild, nonclinical forms of depression and bipolar disorder.

      Though the data are preliminary, they provide a roadmap for psychiatric researchers looking to solve the genius/madness paradox depicted in the movie A Beautiful Mind, which tells the story of Nobel Laureate John Nash. The existing data need further review, Strong said. "And, we need to expand this to other groups," he said. How mood influences the performance of artists and genius scientists will be the subject of future research at Stanford. "We need to better understand the emotional side of what they do," Strong said.


Freud


29 Nov 04 - 06:23 PM (#1342525)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

You Can't Get Here From There
By JOSEPH S. NYE Jr.

Published: November 29, 2004


Cambridge, Mass. — Last year, the number of foreign students at American colleges and universities fell for the first time since 1971. Recent reports show that total foreign student enrollment in our 2,700 colleges and universities dropped 2.4 percent, with a much sharper loss at large research institutions. Two-thirds of the 25 universities with the most foreign students reported major enrollment declines.




While Nye discusses primarily the impact on our economy and repute resulting from this sorry decline, he only slightly indicates the actual cause of the situation: the paranoid responses by the Ashcroft and Bush crowd in improving security.

A


29 Nov 04 - 06:26 PM (#1342528)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

A Charming Review of Bush's life in the White House


A


29 Nov 04 - 06:58 PM (#1342571)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Poindexter

A darling article about why Amos is mentally ill:

Post-Scientology Behavioral Patterns

Given that the Scientology world view is very rigidl defined, in both cases, the departure is traumatic to the individual. The degree of trauma varies according to the intensity of the circumstances surrounding the departure, how long the person was in, and how deeply involved they were, and the personality of the individual. As with any trauma, the individual experiences depression, dislocation with the world they suddenly find themselves in, rage, anger, sometimes a desire for revenge. This paper is not intended to be an "exit counselling", since there are experts who specialise in this, and the literature listed at the conclusion adequately identifies these aspects, and suggests strategies for dealing with them.

Rather, what is being highlighted here is the often undetected behavioral patterns, learned while in Scientology, that manifest in an individual long after they have left, even when they feel that they have fully recovered from Scientology. These behavioral patterns can be traced back to specific aspects of Scientology teaching, and what will be outlined is intended as a starting point, and guide, which can be modified, or added to, depending on the reader's own experience and perception.
1. POLARISED THINKING:

By polarised thinking, I am referring to extremist thought patterns, which could even be compared to totalitarian rigidity. Things are either ALL good, or ALL bad, a person is either TOTALLY evil, or TOTALLY good. The individual can unconsciously re-act to life, people and information with this rigid and uncompromising approach. They either love a person, or hate them. A piece of information is either perfectly true, or all lies.


29 Nov 04 - 08:13 PM (#1342642)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Dear Guest:

In addition to refusing to speak to the actual issues raised in this thread; in addition to refusing to sign your name to your communications; in addition to refusing to learn how to do simple HTML, thus distorting the appearance of your own slimy posts;in addition to insisting on distorting everything you write into an ad hominem attack; in addition to accusing me of the ordinary curiosity of a healthy mind, as though it were some defect, when the only mental defect in evidence here is your own hidden and underhanded hate; you now pretend to know a thing or two about Scientology, a subject in which you have no reading nor any experience.

If you did, you would know that one of their principals is that bi-valued logic is primitive and inadequate for most purposes. If you would like to start a discussion about the tenets of the subject, which I did in fact study some forty years ago (a fact which you seem to think is condemnatory rather than merely minimally interesting) by all means start a thread on the subject. But it has nothing to do with this thread or its subject, which is the atrocious inhumanity of a gang of thieves in Washington operating a different and more rabid cult, that of neoconserrvative imperialism. You want to talk about bi-polar logic? Whooeeee! But in any case it pains me to the extreme to think that in a time when children and women are being riddled with shrapnel and lead and bleeding to death, all you can do is raise rhetorical questions about whether it should be pointed out or not. I suppose if you heard someone screaming murder outside your window you would take notes on their grammar -- that's the kind of pusillanimous little shit you are.

Anyway, please crawl back in to your gutter, or under your rock, or wherever it was you thought you should crawl out from. Your constant irrelevance and underhanded droolery is vaguely nauseating, and below the standards of normal discourse.

In other news, Osama's right hand man has released a tape asserting that the United States is not treating Muslims with respect and thereby is causing all its own troubles.

Hmmmmm......

A


29 Nov 04 - 08:31 PM (#1342658)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

You be da' man, Amos... Rant on and know as long as yer posting stuff that tells the truth about what jerks Bush and thugs are, I am in total agreement...

Bobert


30 Nov 04 - 01:09 AM (#1342885)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: DougR

I think I have it now. Amos is shooting for the record of writing more posts to a thread he/she has started than any other poster. Uh, Amos, I think you have done it already with this one. Congratulations!

DougR


30 Nov 04 - 05:39 AM (#1342992)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

I am mostly adding in the general views I find in various places, Doug. I don't expect all these folks to seek out the Mudcat and post to it, naturally. Even you can understand that.

A


30 Nov 04 - 09:04 AM (#1343138)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

I trust you are reading all these links, aren't you, Doug? That's what I like about you. Though you are a knothead their is hope. You don't stay glued to Fox TV all day...

Bobert


30 Nov 04 - 09:57 AM (#1343185)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Poindexter

According to Amos:

"Things are either ALL good, or ALL bad, a person is either TOTALLY evil, or TOTALLY good. The individual can unconsciously re-act to life, people and information with this rigid and uncompromising approach. They either love a person, or hate them. A piece of information is either perfectly true, or all lies."

Everything has good and bad points. Amos can see only one or the other. Kerry was all good and Bush is all bad. Quite a defective thought pattern.

Yesterday Bush picked a new cabinet member. Is he all bad or all good Amos? Why don't you start a rant on him and attack him the way you accuse others of attacking you?

Why don't you rant about Rice and the others? The must be ALL BAD if Bush wants them.

Never mind looking for or mentioning anything good that might be happening, just dwell on anything that you perceive as wrong and never acknowledge anything positive.


30 Nov 04 - 06:19 PM (#1343713)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Poindexter,

Your eyes are brown, right?

Things are not all bad. In fact many things are very good.

The President, however, is not one of those things.

And I am sure he is not all bad. But he is a liar and an incompetent leader, which is bad enough. If he were running a used flower stand on the roadside in Central Texas, I would find him praiseworthy, I assure you. As President of my country he is a mockery.

When you grow up all this will make more sense to you.


A


30 Nov 04 - 06:32 PM (#1343718)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

Heck, if I were gonna throw a big fraternity party, I'd want Bush in on the planning... Hey, he's likable nuff guy... Just has these personality disorders so he ain't the guy you're gonna trust to drive yer wife home 'er invest yer money...

Bobert


30 Nov 04 - 07:39 PM (#1343787)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Poindexter

Amos:

He did get elected. He won by a comfortable margin. Are you going to impeach Bush or knock him off or just keep whining because you are in the minority?

If you want to keep covering the same ground, here is a real story: Kerry's Victim


30 Nov 04 - 08:49 PM (#1343832)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

http://deargeorgeletters.blogspot.com/

Siamese twins
Dear George,

You are the worst president of my lifetime, and probably of this country's
history. You led us into war under false pretenses. You have taken us from a
record budget surplus to a record deficit. Your policies have cost us jobs.
Access to health-care has not improved under your administration, and
probably worsened. You have pandered to the elite, the super-wealthy, and
the large corporations. You have turned your back on the environmental
standards and treaties. You have offered up give-aways to the energy and
timber industries with Orwellian names like "Clear Skies" and "Healthy
Forests." You have ham-strung AIDS work around the world by tying funding to
the promotion of abstinence at the exclusion of condom distribution. You
have played the politics of divisiveness, using the constitution as a wedge.
I could go on and on, but you know what you have done. And so do we.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who seem to be asleep at the wheel.


America is like a pair of Siamese twins, where one of the twins has a
genetic defect resulting in low IQ and a mean disposition. We can't kill our
mongoloid brother, or we kill ourselves. There was the opportunity for
separation, back in the 1800's, and perhaps, we should have taken it, but
its too late now. So, we are doomed to life with an idiot appendage dragging
around next to us, picking fights, drooling and spouting biblical passages.
In the end, our idiot brother will be our undoing. We are stuck.

So, what is the answer? Let the healing begin? No, I don't think so. This is
war. But you already knew that also.

I hope you choke on a pretzel, you pampered, inbred, dimwit.

Glenn
Age 39
Somerville, MA



A little harsh, I agree, but you can understand how he feels.


A

As for Gardner, I feel sorry for him. I don't trust his recollections, though. But again this thread is about the current administration.


30 Nov 04 - 09:05 PM (#1343843)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

In three FLorida counties, an unofficial recount has confirmed the voting that gave the state to George Bush in 2004. Full story in the New York Times.

A


30 Nov 04 - 09:14 PM (#1343853)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From UPI:

Washington, DC, Nov. 30 (UPI) -- A major Hispanic interests group praised U.S. President George Bush Tuesday for picking Kellogg's chief executive Carlos Gutierrez for commerce secretary.


The Latino Coalition, a non-partisan group formed to address issues affecting the well-being of Hispanics, said Bush's choice "sends a clear message" the president is "serious about expanding economic opportunities for all Americans."

...


A


30 Nov 04 - 09:52 PM (#1343876)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth

Keep 'em comin', Amos!

A famous man once said, "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

But it seems that for some people, it works out as, "You shall hear the truth, and the truth shall piss you off!"

Too bad. So sad. If the truth hurts that bad, you sort of wonder what their values are.

Don Firth


30 Nov 04 - 10:40 PM (#1343925)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

To the Editor:

Since the election, hardly a day seems to go by without someone in the Bush administration claiming that the mandate it received indisputably vindicates one of its policies ("The Real Environmental Mandate," editorial, Nov. 26).

President Bush won with only 51 percent of the vote, not by some overwhelming landslide. On many key individual issues, including the environment, polls repeatedly show that the public doesn't support his policies. Certainly, his victory does not mean that his administration now has a mandate for invading foreign countries based upon erroneous justifications, presiding over a continued rise in people without health insurance, or increasing the federal deficit to record new heights.

I would hope that the president and his advisers start recognizing how limited is the depth of Mr. Bush's mandate. Otherwise, this nation faces the prospect of becoming even further divided.

Russ Weiss
Princeton, N.J., Nov. 26, 2004


30 Nov 04 - 10:44 PM (#1343927)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Opie

By Zell Miller
Cox News Service
Friday, November 05, 2004

America's faith in freedom has been reaffirmed. With the re-election of President Bush, America recommitted itself once again to expanding freedom and promoting liberty. Only the 1864 re-election of Abraham Lincoln, the 1944 re-election of Franklin Roosevelt and the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan rival this victory as milestones in the preservation of our security by the advancement of freedom.


this thread is about the current administration
I thought it was about poetic bullshite from Pinkola Estes and other airheads.

O


30 Nov 04 - 10:48 PM (#1343930)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

A German Journalist named Dirk Laabs, writing for the Los Angeles Times in an editorial entitled "A Dwarf Known as Al Qaeda" suggests that the far-reaching and terrifying arm of organized militant Muslimism founded by Osama Bin Laden may be something of a bogeyman, or a paper tiger.


A


30 Nov 04 - 10:53 PM (#1343936)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

In spite of this so called mandate only 44% of the American people think we're on the right course with 52% saying the wrong course...

No, I ain't into polls all that much but lets just set this mandate crap aside fir now. Okay?....

Bobert


30 Nov 04 - 10:59 PM (#1343941)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Opie:

You're a piece of work, for sure. The title of the thread and my repeated posts over and over and over have made it clear what this thread is about. Read the title at the head of every post in it. And get yer darned ole meds adjusted, wouldja? Yer putting out slime again.

A


30 Nov 04 - 11:00 PM (#1343944)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Calhoun

Bush begins another push for intel reform


30 Nov 04 - 11:19 PM (#1343958)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Andy

Bush's job approval rating has now inched up to 51 percent, the highest it has been since March, the New York Times/CBS poll found.


30 Nov 04 - 11:27 PM (#1343963)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

Yeah, but polls are also saying that 52% think America is on the wrong track??? Only 44% say it's on the right track...

Sooner or later, being liked will be trumped by policy...

Bush cannot continue to think that he can continue stupid policy can be covered by his life-of-the-frat-party-likabaility...

Remember that prior to 9/11 he had the lowest approval ratings in the last 50 years...

The American working class is getting a royal scrwing from Bush and will figure it out sometime in the nest 4 years and then it will be the end of Repub *rule*.....

Bobert


30 Nov 04 - 11:33 PM (#1343967)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Werner

Polling Data

Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?

        
          Nov. 2004 Oct. 2004

Approve      51%          45%

Disapprove   43%          47%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the economy?

           Nov. 2004 Oct. 2004

Approve      45%         40%

Disapprove   50%         53%


WVB


01 Dec 04 - 12:11 AM (#1343992)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Canadians Authorities Arrest U.S. President Bush On War Charges
By Paul K. J.
Nov 30, 2004, 19:22


(Excerpted from Axis of Logic)

Canadian authorities have arrested US president George W. Bush in Ottawa. He has been charged with several offences under Canada's War Crimes Act. Vice-President Dick Cheney has mobilized the American military and all border crossings between the two nations have closed. Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin has urged for calm in a short radio and television broadcast to the Canadian people immediately after the arrest. Part of the Prime Minister's broadcast is included here: 

"This decision was not made lightly. But, it was also a decision that was impossible not to make. The United States is not outside the rule of law, and cannot expect to get an unlimited "free pass". This decision puts a grave strain upon both our nations, and I urge calm and restraint from our American neighbours, as well as from Canadians. I have met with the cabinet, and with our colleagues in the House. This is a time of great crisis for us as a nation. But as people, we will survive this test. Earlier I enacted the Emergency War Powers Act. This is necessary to guarantee our domestic security. This is not a time for panic, for lawlessness, for anything other than a responsible and sobre focus on what lies immediately ahead." 

Prime Minister Martin also said, "President Bush has been arrested under the Canadian War Crimes Act and the charges against him are being processed. He is being treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention and he will be treated fairly." 

(Click link for a picture of Dumbya in a penal jumpsuit!)

A


01 Dec 04 - 01:09 AM (#1344024)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Ellenpoly

Ah Amos, if only.


..xx..e


01 Dec 04 - 01:17 AM (#1344026)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Peace

Thought Wernher von Braun passed away in the late 1970s.


01 Dec 04 - 08:22 AM (#1344239)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Poindexter

This guy has the same opinions as Amos:

"Despite entering the fourth year after September 11, Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you and therefore the reasons are still there to repeat what happened"


01 Dec 04 - 12:15 PM (#1344471)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: DougR

So, Bobert, you BELIEVE polls when they reflect what YOU believe. Interesting.

Werner: don't bother these folks with facts, they are followers of fantasy.

DougR


01 Dec 04 - 04:16 PM (#1344718)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

While we still can ....


1. Drink a nice clean glass of water.

2. Cash your social security check.

3. See a doctor of your own choosing.

4. Spend quality time with your draft age child/grandchild.

5. Visit Syria, or any foreign country for that matter.

6. Get that gas mask you've been putting off buying.

7. Hoard gasoline.

8. Borrow books from library before they're banned - Constitutional law
books, Catcher in the Rye, Harry Potter, Tropic of Cancer, etc.

9. If you have an idea for an art piece involving a crucifix - do it now.

10. Come out - then go back in - HURRY!

11. Jam in all the Alzheimer's stem cell research you can.

12. Stay out late before the curfews start.

13. Go see Bruce Springsteen before he has his "accident."

14. Go see Mount Rushmore before the Reagan addition.

15. Use the phrase -- "you can't do that -- this is America."

16. If you're white -- marry a black person, if you're black -- marry a
white person.

17. Take a walk in Yosemite, without being hit by a snowmobile or a
base-jumper.

18. Enroll your kid in an accelerated art or music class.

19. Start your school day without a prayer.

20. Pass on the secrets of evolution to future generations.

21. Learn French.

22. Attend a commitment ceremony with your gay friends.

23. Take a factory tour anywhere in the US.

24. Try to take photographs of animals on the endangered species list.

25. Visit Florida before the polar ice caps melt.

26. Visit Nevada before it becomes radioactive.

27. Visit Alaska before "The Big Spill."

28. Visit Massachusetts while it is still a State.




"It is only the savage, whether of the African bush or the American gospel tent, who pretends to know the will and intent of God exactly and completely." H.L. Mencken


01 Dec 04 - 04:31 PM (#1344731)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Al-Ahram Weekly (Cairo) argues that events in Iraq have violated all
international norms.

Asahi Shimbun (Tokyo) says the Japanese public wants its
troops removed from Iraq.


01 Dec 04 - 06:44 PM (#1344841)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From the Seattle Times:

Bush to dramatically reduce areas protected for salmon

By Craig Welch
Seattle Times staff reporter


Critical habitat for West Coast salmon and steelhead


The Bush administration plans to reduce by more than 80 percent the miles of rivers and streams it designates as critical to the recovery of troubled Northwest runs of salmon and steelhead, and plans to cut such habitat protections at the region's military bases.

The administration also will study whether it should scale back similar protections on thousands of additional miles of streams protected under the Northwest Forest Plan, which imposed logging restrictions on federal land to help bring back spotted owls.


01 Dec 04 - 08:55 PM (#1344951)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The NY Times reports: Congress Trims Money for Science Agency

November 30, 2004
By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON, Nov. 29 - Congress has cut the budget for the
National Science Foundation, an engine for research in
science and technology, just two years after endorsing a
plan to double the amount given to the agency.
Supporters of scientific research, in government and at
universities, noted that the cut came as lawmakers
earmarked more money for local projects like the Rock and
Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland and the Punxsutawney Weather
Museum in Pennsylvania.
David M. Stonner, director of Congressional affairs at the
science foundation, said on Monday that the reduction might
be just the beginning of a period of austerity. Congress,
Mr. Stonner said, told the agency to expect "a series of
flat or slightly declining budgets for the next several
years." (...)


01 Dec 04 - 09:40 PM (#1344990)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From the New York Times opinions section:

To the Editor:

Re "Flush With Victory, Grass-Roots Crusader Against Same-Sex Marriage Thinks Big" (news article, Nov. 26):

Phil Burress, whose support is viewed as having been crucial to President Bush's narrow victory in Ohio, claims that he is "building an army" in his grass-roots crusade against same-sex marriages. Yet he clearly underestimates the millions upon millions of Americans who oppose his medieval, narrow-minded definition of morality.

As an American who cherishes the existence of individual rights, I would gladly sacrifice all I have to fight Mr. Burress's army every step of the way on principle alone.

Defeating such political campaigns is critical to America's sacraments of freedom of thought, choice and, yes, lifestyle.

Patrick Prince
Stratford, Conn., Nov. 27, 2004


01 Dec 04 - 09:53 PM (#1344998)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

Nah, Dougie, I really don't put a lot of faith in polls but since folks seem so poll driven, I'll throw one into the mix now and then...But, nah, they don't mean a lot becuase they can be so skillfully manipulated...

But, not so skillfully manipulated, tomorrrow the United Nations is going to release a report that is the work of a 16 member panel that is very critical of the Bush invasion of Iraq saying that Bush didn't hold war as the last resort and rushed into the invasion wreaklessly....

Stay tuned for that report...

Oh, Btw, a British health orgainization, Medact, has alsoissues a report that states becuase of the invasion very serious health issues are now facing the Iraqi population... Ohter than bullets and depleted uranium...

Bobert


01 Dec 04 - 10:24 PM (#1345021)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Zack

Bush Picks Up Minority Visibility

CBS NEWS NEW YORK, Nov. 29, 2004

former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, D- Ill., the second of only three popularly elected black U.S. senators:

President Bush has empowered minorities as never before with his Cabinet picks.


01 Dec 04 - 10:32 PM (#1345024)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

A rose by any other name is still a rose... Not too sure who penned that but the converse is also true...

Picking minority folks who don't in anyway represent their minorities is a slap in the face to minorities...

Uncle Tom by any other name is still Uncle Tom...

Bobert


01 Dec 04 - 10:55 PM (#1345032)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Kingfish

Jerusalem Post
Dec. 1, 2004 22:31

President Bush to meet King Abdullah in Washington
Bush will meet Jordan's King Abdullah on Monday in Washington to discuss Middle East developments and bilateral issues, the White House announced.

"The President looks forward to the opportunity to review regional and bilateral issues with the King of Jordan, who plays a key role in the search for stability in Iraq and for Middle East peace, and has been a staunch ally in the international fight against terrorism.

Da Kingfish


01 Dec 04 - 11:15 PM (#1345052)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

An excerpt from the sloppy link above:

Continuing Republican efforts to reshape the face of the GOP, President Bush tapped the only Hispanic head of a Fortune 500 company on Monday as the new commerce secretary.

Mr. Bush is hoping to reach out to demographic groups long in the Democratic camp by appointing minorities to key Cabinet posts, according to political analysts.

So far, the three most visible vacancies in the administration have gone to non-whites. Kellogg Company Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Carlos Gutierrez would join National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales in what is becoming a minority-led Cabinet.

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice would replace Colin Powell as America's chief diplomat. Gonzales would replace John Ashcroft as attorney general. And Gutierrez would replace Donald Evans in the Commerce Department.



I don't believe leopards change their spots; I am skeptical about stupid people suddenly getting smart, although they can get better managed. But regardless of those reservations, I am all in favor of having a Cabinet with a dominant portion of minorities in it. So well done on that token representation. Now if he could just stop killing Arabs at such a mad rate.....


A


01 Dec 04 - 11:52 PM (#1345076)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Lightnin'

Ise tryin' Amos

Bush Signs Bill for Nev. Wilderness Area

President Bush has signed into law a measure creating what conservationists say will be the largest piece of federally protected wilderness in Nevada - an area about half the size of the state of Delaware.


02 Dec 04 - 07:14 PM (#1345819)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From the New York Review of Books:

The American Press and Iraq


By Michael Massing
Preface by Orville Schell



Michael Massing describes the American press coverage of the war in Iraq as "the unseen war," an ironic reference given the number of reporters in Iraq and in Doha, Qatar, the location of the Coalition Media Center with its $250,000 stage set. He argues that a combination of self-censorship, lack of real information given by the military at briefings, boosterism, and a small number of reporters familiar with Iraq and fluent in Arabic deprived the American public of reliable information while the war was going on.


Massing also is highly critical of American press coverage of the Bush administration's case for war prior to the invasion of Iraq:


US journalists were far too reliant on sources sympathetic to the administration. Those with dissenting views—and there were more than a few—were shut out. Reflecting this, the coverage was highly deferential to the White House. This was especially apparent on the issue of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction .... Despite abundant evidence of the administration's brazen misuse of intelligence in this matter, the press repeatedly let officials get away with it.


Once Iraq was occupied and no WMDs were found, the press was quick to report on the flaws of pre-war intelligence. But as Massing's detailed analysis demonstrates, pre-war journalism was also deeply flawed, as too many reporters failed to independently evaluate administration claims about Saddam's weapons programs or the inspection process. The press's postwar "feistiness" stands in sharp contrast to its "submissiveness" and "meekness" before the war—when it might have made a difference.


02 Dec 04 - 07:30 PM (#1345835)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From the New Tork Times Editorial Section:

This is a time when we really need a strong Treasury secretary capable of
speaking up for fiscal sanity. We are about to embark on a 10-year period in
which recent tax cuts and runaway spending are expected to add $5 trillion
to the cumulative deficit. In my lifetime we will have gone from the
Greatest Generation to the Profligate Generation to the Bankrupt Generation.
Yes, I'm talking to you 20-year-olds. President Bush has called for
sacrifice - but not by his generation. He's passing the bill onto your
generation.

"The 9/11 crisis has been used as a license to spend and cut taxes rather
than to set priorities and focus our resources on what is critically
important to our nation's security," said Robert Hormats, vice chairman of
Goldman Sachs International.

And Congress has played right along, as have people like Josh Bolton,
Stephen Friedman and Gregory Mankiw - Mr. Bush's key White House economic
advisers. "You know that all these guys know better," said Clyde Prestowicz,
head of the Economic Strategy Institute.

There have been lots of strong Republican and Democratic Treasury
secretaries in recent years: George Shultz, Nick Brady, Jim Baker, Bob
Rubin, Larry Summers. But right when we really need one with common sense
and the will to set priorities, all indications are that this White House is
looking for someone even weaker than Mr. Snow.

David Rothkopf, a former Clinton Commerce Department official who just wrote
a history of the National Security Council, said that President Bush is
obviously "seeking consensus and homogeneity. But the system works better
when the president gets choices. If everyone is on the same page and it
turns out to be the wrong page - you're really up a creek."

The very reason Mr. Bush had the luxury of launching a war of necessity in
Afghanistan and a war of choice in Iraq, without a second thought, was
because of the surpluses built up by the previous administration and
Congress. Since then, the Bush team has been slashing taxes in the middle of
two wars, weakening the dollar and amassing a huge debt burden - on the
implicit assumption that nothing will go wrong in the future.

But what if there is another 9/11 or war of necessity? We're cooked.


02 Dec 04 - 07:31 PM (#1345837)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Letters to the Times:

To the Editor:

Thomas L. Friedman is right that it is now "crunch time" in Iraq ("The Last
Mile," column, Nov. 28). Sadly, it's unlikely that the Bush administration
will undergo an 11th-hour humility transplant and finally get it.

President Bush's entire Iraq policy, such as it is, has been based on
wishful thinking at best, coupled with an utter inability to accept
responsibility for or even admit the most obvious mistakes.

Our credibility is well and truly shot in Iraq. Our soldiers are under
attack almost everywhere. American troops, brave and well meaning as most of
them are, contribute to the instability that they are seeking to reduce by
their very presence as unwelcome occupiers.

If we actually care about Iraq, we will approach the international community
and admit the obvious - we don't know what to do - and ask the United
Nations, as unappealing as that may be, to direct the security and
nation-building in Iraq. It's the only way out.

Ross Jennings
Redmond, Wash., Nov. 28, 2004


02 Dec 04 - 07:32 PM (#1345840)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Speaking of the Weimar Republic, here's a commenrtary from the Washington, D.C., depiddy bureau chief for Slate:

The question the Post asked in 1993-what in the world is political capital,
anyway?-still hasn't been answered satisfactorily. Why, for example, didn't
Bill Clinton have capital to spend on health care, in Bush's view, but he
had some to spend elsewhere, apparently? Does any other kind of capital have
restrictions on where and how it can be used? Edward J. López, an economist
at the University of North Texas, delineated two types of political capital
in a 2002 paper for the Review of Austrian Economics: "reputational"
capital, a politician's "standing with voters and other unorganized
interests," and "representative" capital, which includes the powers that
stem from a politician's office. But Bush doesn't mean anything that
rigorous. In fact, he'd probably scoff at the idea. He just uses it as a
substitute for the goodwill that an election gives an executive with the
legislature, and he probably likes the way it paints him as a CEO-president.

The president doesn't have any capital, and he knows it. Like a citizen of
Weimar Germany, he has a wheelbarrow full of hyper-inflating cash that has
to be spent before it becomes worthless. "Political Confederate dollars"
doesn't have quite the ring of "political capital," but it's a better
metaphor. Any takers?


Chris Suellentrop is Slate's deputy Washington bureau chief. You can e-mail
him at suellentrop@slate.com


03 Dec 04 - 01:26 AM (#1346014)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Homey

Bush Picks Kerik for Homeland Security Job
Thu Dec 2, 2004 09:54 PM ET


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush has picked as his homeland security secretary former New York City police commissioner Bernard Kerik, who helped the city respond to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and trained Iraqi police, administration officials said.

HTC


03 Dec 04 - 07:25 AM (#1346194)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

This is presented as a real story at this site:

Rumsfeld, et. al. Charged with War Crimes in Germany
By Special Report
Dec 1, 2004, 01:16

Rumsfeld Charged with War Crimes
by DowneastDem
Mon Nov 29th, 2004 at 11:48:53 PST

Reuters in Germany is reporting that Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenant and eight other unnamed US officials will be charge with war crimes in connection with the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal.  The charges are being filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights.

"German law in this area is leading the world," Peter Weiss, vice president of the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), a human rights group, was quoted as saying in Frankfurter Rundschau newspaper's Tuesday edition.

German law allows for individuals charged with war crimes to be investigated whereever they may be living.

Evidently the complaint is over 100 pages, and the Frankfuter Rundschau will be reporting on it in its Tuesday edition. More info should be available shortly.

Diaries :: DowneastDem's diary ::

Update: The newspaper has some documentation on the charges (for German Readers). Besides Rumsfeld the following individuals have been charged with war crimes: 1. George Tenant 2. Ricard Sanchez 3.Major General Walter Wojdakowski 4. Brigadier General Janis Karpinski 5. Lt. Jerry L. Phillabaum 6. Thomas Pappas 7. Stephen L. Jordan 8. Maj. General Geoffrey Miller 9. and Undersec'y of State Stephen Cambone (this last name is especially welcome).

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/29/144853/38


03 Dec 04 - 07:28 AM (#1346195)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Nat Hentoff on the appointment of Alberto Gonzales to replace John Ashcroft:

Worse Than Ashcroft
By Nat Hentoff
Dec 1, 2004, 22:00




His sharp intellect and sound judgment have helped shape our policies on the war on terror, policies designed to protect the security of all Americans while protecting the rights of all Americans. —George W. Bush, announcing the appointment of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general, The New York Times, November 11






The American people expect and deserve a Department of Justice guided by the rule of law. —Alberto Gonzales, accepting the nomination, The New York Sun, November 11






When you encounter a person who is willing to twist the law . . . even though for perhaps good reasons, you have to say you're really undermining the law itself. —Jim Cullen, retired chief judge of the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals, referring to Alberto Gonzales, National Public Radio, November 11






I do not approve of filibustering presidential nominees, no matter who is president, because the Constitution, along with the Federalist Papers, makes clear that the whole Senate is to give advice and consent to these presidential nominees. But if I were a senator, I would be sorely tempted to filibuster Alberto Gonzales. The Democrats, still shell-shocked by their second loss to Bush, and by the size of the Hispanic vote for the president, are not likely to filibuster Gonzales. But since Gonzales will be more dangerous to our liberties than Ashcroft, I will begin here to show how low the standards have become for the chief law enforcement officer of the nation. Maybe at least the American Bar Association and the Association of the Bar of the City of New York will stand up against Gonzales.


I must credit National Public Radio's Nina Totenberg, an experienced analyst of constitutional law and a reporter who never stops digging to get to the core of Gonzales's ominous record as White House counsel. On November 11, she pointed out: "Gonzales was responsible for developing the administration's policies on the treatment of prisoners; for developing a new definition of torture to allow more aggressive questioning of prisoners. He developed the policy that allowed the indefinite detention of American citizens deemed to be enemy combatants without [being charged] or [having] access to counsel. . . . The Supreme Court, though, rejected that [Gonzales] theory . . .

"Top legal brass in the army, air force, and navy say that Gonzales deliberately left them out of developing policy on the treatment of prisoners because he knew they would oppose."

On November 10, Totenberg quoted retired general Jim Cullen of the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals, who says Gonzales directly contradicted established military and international law. He added that Gonzales realized that "the Judge Advocate Generals Corps would never sanction departures from the Geneva Conventions or engaging in practices that the common man would regard as torture." (Emphasis added.)

Says the Senate Judiciary Committee's clueless attack dog in these matters, Charles Schumer, about Gonzales: "I can tell you already he's a better candidate than John Ashcroft."

There's a lot more about Alberto Gonzales that will prepare you for what to expect for the next four years from the Justice Department. In a January 2002 memorandum to George W. Bush, he emphasized that this new war on terror "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."

Gonzales also told George W. Bush that in denying these "detainees"—many of them now held at Guantánamo for nearly three years without charges—prisoner of war status under the Geneva Conventions, the president didn't have to worry about being held accountable by the courts. As commander in chief, his actions were unreviewable.

Said the Supreme Court, in June, concerning the accuracy of the advice from the next attorney general of the United States about deep-sixing U.S. citizens, "We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of [American] citizens." And the Court also ruled he was wrong about the noncitizen prisoners at Guantánamo.

Alberto Gonzales, moreover, will not in the least disturb John Aschroft's beloved USA Patriot Act, because Gonzales helped write it, and he wholly agrees with his patron, the president, that nothing in it should be changed despite the act's "sunset clause" that allows Congress to review sections of the act by December 2005.

As the February 11 Financial Times reports, Gonzales, as counsel to the president, worked "to bar top White House officials from testifying before the commission that investigated the September 11 attacks." Nor has Gonzales shown any interest in an investigation of the accountability of leading administration officials, including their compliant lawyers, for the egregious abuses of the Abu Ghraib prisoners, to which Gonzales contributed.

Bluntly, an editorial in Financial Times (not a notably radical newspaper) says of Gonzales: "As well as being a longtime personal friend of the president, he is publicly associated with discussion within the administration of how to sidestep national as well as international constraints on the use of torture in interrogation in the prison camp at Guantánamo."

If there ever is an honest investigation of who is ultimately responsible for what happened there and at Abu Ghraib, Mr. Gonzales might well be in the dock, along with Donald Rumsfeld and a number of the defense secretary's closest aides.


03 Dec 04 - 07:30 AM (#1346197)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Activists Crawl Through Web to Untangle US Secrecy
By William Fisher
Nov 30, 2004, 20:22

NEW YORK - To combat the Bush administration's penchant for secrecy, U.S. citizens have been forced to unearth new sources for information they once read in their daily newspapers. But thanks to a few dedicated individuals and not-for-profit groups – and the Internet – such material is easier to come by than ever before.

(Detailed story on this page


A


03 Dec 04 - 07:34 AM (#1346200)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From Robert Schier writing for the LA Times, some insight into our hypocritical couch-bound "moral values" as they are sometimes called:

Robert Scheer:
The Invisible Hand Holds the Remote


What does it mean that a whopping 70% of Americans, according to a recent New York Times-CBS News poll, believe that mass culture is responsible for debasing our moral values? It means, if the poll is accurate, that we are a nation of lascivious hypocrites. In fact, the lure of sin, as represented by Hollywood and the entertainment industry, is as tempting to Americans today as apples ever were to Adam and Eve.

Whether in Utah, Georgia or New York, the TV ratings show that we are choosing the equivalent of fast-food entertainment over quality programming. Sex and violence sell well everywhere; high culture does not. So the entertainment titans keep dishing up more of the same.

The top two shows in the nation right now are a grisly crime serial and a cynical and sex-soaked demolition of life in the suburbs, and both are beloved in both red states and blue.(...)


03 Dec 04 - 07:39 AM (#1346204)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Mister Scheer has a number of other lucid essays on file at the LA Times, including this one on the peculiar results the Bush policies in Afghanistan have achieved:

"The fear that Afghanistan might degenerate into a narco-state is slowly becoming a reality," said the executive director of the United Nations' Office on Drugs and Crime, Antonio Maria Costa. "Opium cultivation, which has spread like wildfire … could ultimately incinerate everything: democracy, reconstruction and stability."

Costa's office has just released a slew of discouraging numbers that lay out in numbing detail how Afghanistan's opium production has soared in the last year to an all-time high. The raw form of heroin is now the staple crop in every province, while in just one year the area under poppy cultivation has increased 64%. The country produces 87% of the world's opium, and one out of 10 Afghans is employed by the illicit industry, according to the alarming U.N. report.

Of course, brandishing quotes from the U.N. doesn't sit well with isolationist yahoos. So, for them, here are highlights from the White House's own Office of National Drug Control Policy report, which Friday painted an even darker picture: "Current [Afghan opium] cultivation levels equate to a … 239% increase in the poppy crop and a 73% increase in potential opium production over 2003 estimates" — a sixfold increase in the three years since the Taliban was driven from Kabul.

No matter whom you listen to, then, the drug war in Afghanistan is a bust. Unfortunately, both the U.N. and the White House have repeatedly said the drug war and the war on terror are nearly synonymous, especially in Afghanistan, where drug money has long directly and indirectly aided and abetted extremists such as Al Qaeda.


03 Dec 04 - 08:22 AM (#1346231)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The Center for Constitutional Rights, based in NYC, is behind the filing of charges with the German government, against Donald Rumsfeld and five others for war crimes.

The CCR's website is here. An interesting group with a lot of courage.

A


03 Dec 04 - 08:25 AM (#1346237)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

In Response to Federal Judge's Hypothetical Questions U.S. Says Wide Range of
Innocents Could Be Enemy Combatants under Government's Definition



Washington, D.C. December 1, 2004 – In a remarkable and revealing answer to a hypothetical question from Federal District Court Judge Joyce H. Greene, a U.S. attorney today said that people ranging from a Swiss Grandmother who unknowingly gave funds to an Afghan charity that passed the money on to Al-Qaeda, to a man who thinks his brother might be associated with terrorists and doesn't' turn him in, could be jailed indefinitely as enemy combatants at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. 

The question came in the context of today's arguments before Judge Greene on whether ten Habeas Corpus petitions brought on behalf of men detained at Guantánamo should be dismissed.  The U.S. argues that the Combatant Review Status Tribunals (CRST) initiated by the Government provide the detainees with sufficient due process to fulfill the mandate of the Supreme Court's ruling last spring. Lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) say that the Supreme Court made clear those detainees have a right to proper judicial review of their status and that the CRST do not even come close to meeting the standard set.

CCR Associate Legal Director for Litigation, Barbara Olshansky, who argued a portion of the case before Judge Greene said, "The Government showed its true colors today: if under this definition of enemy combatant a Swiss granny who gave money to charity can be detained indefinitely at Guantánamo, then anyone who unintentionally acts in a way the government finds suspicious is in danger of losing their freedom.  The Administration's position gives too much power to the government to lock people up without having to justify its actions.  It's an affront to a free and democratic society and another example of just how far they will try to overstep their authority. We sincerely hope their views do not prevail."


03 Dec 04 - 11:27 AM (#1346428)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Ellenpoly

Just how bad is this going to get? And why wasn't I even shocked when I read this?


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20041203/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/guantanamo_detainees


03 Dec 04 - 04:35 PM (#1346702)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Also of note: Never seen such a dramatic ratio of resignations. WHat is really going
on???

Ashcroft (Justice) Resigned
Powell (State) Resigned
Veneman (Agriculture) Resigned
Don Evans (Commerce) Resigned
Paige (Education) Resigned
Spencer Abraham (Energy) Resigned
Ridge (Homeland Security) Resigned
Mel Martinez (HUD) Resigned last December
John Danforth, AMbassador to the UNited Nations Resigned
Tommy Thompson (Health and Human Services) Resigned.

That's a significant portion of the Bush cadre.

A


03 Dec 04 - 05:48 PM (#1346757)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: DougR

Anybody got a good recipe for Corn Pone? I know that's a bit off the subject of the thread, but since it appears Amos is bound and determined to dig up every negative item he can locate about Bush, and make that the centerpiece of the BS threads on Mudcat, it occurred to me that whilst not looking up refrences to cut and paste into the Mudcat, somebody might have a good recipe for Corn Porn.

DougR


03 Dec 04 - 06:36 PM (#1346784)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

"Corn Porn", Dougie???...

I've heard of kinky things some folks do with animinals but now the plant kingdom better beware...

Needl4ess to say, I can't help you with a recipe...

Bobert


03 Dec 04 - 07:05 PM (#1346805)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Gee, Doug, I had no idea anyone thought this thread was a centerpiece! Thanks so much for the honor--perhaps your conscience is more awake than I suspected, I apologize!

Mollie Ivins, who is syndcated among other places to the Scarament Bee writes in an article called"So Much for Moral Values", about the brave Republicans in our Congress:

AUSTIN, Texas -- My, my, gonna be a long four years.
House Republicans have rewritten the ethics rules so Tom DeLay won't have to
resign if indicted after all. Let's hear it for moral values. DeLay is one
of the leading forces in making "Republican ethics" into an oxymoron.


The rule was passed in 1993, when Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, chairman of the
powerful Ways and Means Committee, was being investigated for ethics
violations. And who helped lead the floor fight to force him to resign his
powerful position? Why, Tom DeLay, of course. (Actually, it's sort of a
funny story. The D's already had a caucus rule that you had to resign from
any leadership position if indicted. The R's changed their rules to match
the D's, except they deliberately did not make their rule retroactive, so
the highly indicted Rep. Joseph McDade, senior Republican on the House
Appropriations Committee, could, unlike Rostenkowski, retain his seat.)
DeLay has already been admonished by the House ethics committee three times
on separate violations of ethics rules. Please note, that is the
Republican-dominated ethics committee. The hilarious rationale offered by
the R's for the new rule to exempt DeLay is that no one can accuse them of
taking the moral low road here because, "That line of reasoning accepts that
exercise of the prosecutor in Texas is legitimate."

Uh, that would Ronnie Earle of Austin, who is a known Democrat. One the
other hand, Earle is quite noted for having indicted more Democratic
officeholders than Republicans, so it's a little hard to argue that this is
a partisan political probe. Or it would be, if facts made any difference
these days to talk-show screamers.

Showing his usual keen sense of ethics, DeLay has already started a legal
defense fund and raised $310,000 since last summer. According to the Austin
American-Statesman, half the money has come from Republican House members,
who are all dependent on the Republican Steering Committee for their
committee assignments and chairmanships.


A


03 Dec 04 - 07:09 PM (#1346810)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

She (Molly Ivins) also has some very incisive and telling things to point out concerning the hypocrisy and general slime being practiced by our elected representatives, in this story also from the Bee.

A


03 Dec 04 - 07:30 PM (#1346830)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

"On January 20, thousands of people will be lining the inaugural parade route with signs and banners calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush. That is a fitting way to start the first day of the next term. Members of ImpeachBush.org/VoteToImpeach.org are supporting this effort by direct organizing or by helping defray the enormous expenses for the demonstration. But we don't have to wait to get the word out.

Many people are using the Impeach Bush Resource Center to give friends, families, neighbors, and loved ones socially meaningful holiday gifts while spreading the word about the growing impeachment movement. Click here to check out the Impeach Bush Resource Center site. By making your holiday selections at the Resource Center, you can know that your purchases go to support the impeachment movement.

Available are baseball caps, t-shirts, sweatshirts, bumper stickers and lawn signs calling to Impeach Bush and reading "Bush Lied. Thousands Died." "Save the Bill of Rights" and more."

http://www.ImpeachBush.org


04 Dec 04 - 12:09 AM (#1346962)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Kingfish

Bush still tops Kerry in Ohio
John Seewer, Associated Press
December 4, 2004

"Bush's margin of victory in Ohio was about 2 percent; an automatic recount takes place only when the margin is 0.25 percent or less.

Bush beat Kerry nationally by 3 percentage points."


Da Kingfish


04 Dec 04 - 12:37 AM (#1346968)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Siggy

Herr Amos: Did you go to a shrink or did you heal your self with Dianetics?

3 December 2004
Suffering the Democrat blues


"Within days, therapists and psychiatrists confirmed that in many areas of the country - in both red and blue states - there had been a surge in patients suffering from stress and depression.

Newspapers, radio stations and TV channels inundated us with reports of Kerry supporters rushing to the couch exhibiting signs of 'hopelessness' and 'helplessness'. As Susan Brooks, a clinical social worker in Wisconsin, explained: 'Patients who I've had for a long time have come in absolutely devastated over the fact that the election went the way it did. They were just terribly distraught and continue to be terribly distraught.'

Many long-time therapists say they have never seen anything like it, and it wasn't long before the disorder got a name. Kerry supporters are apparently suffering from Post-Election Selection Trauma - or PEST, an acronym coined by the Florida-based American Health Association, a charitable group that is now offering free counselling to PEST sufferers until the end of 2004."

Freud


04 Dec 04 - 01:46 AM (#1346984)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Siggy:

Get off it.

The issues you are trying to bury will not go away.
No matter how much irrelevance you sling around.

A


04 Dec 04 - 07:40 AM (#1347129)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: freda underhill

A satirical article about Canada arresting US President George W. Bush in Ottawa and charging him with war crimes appeared as the top story on Google News without the editor's note that identified it as satire. The article was up on Google's US news page on November 30, according to Zone-H.org, a website that tracks web defacements.

The story, from a site called Axis of Logic, had a heading "Political Satire" plus this disclaimer: "Yes folks, this story is political satire, not fact." It was apparently inspired by a Reuters story that a group called Center for Constitutional Rights filing war crimes charges against Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenant and others in the Bush administration.

Google News appears to have missed the disclaimer while posting the site.

Canadian authorities arrest US president George W. Bush


04 Dec 04 - 09:33 AM (#1347167)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

http://homepage.mac.com/duffyb/nobush/iMovieTheater269.html


04 Dec 04 - 09:39 AM (#1347172)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

E-Mail This Article

Printer-Friendly Format

Most E-Mailed Articles












TIMES NEWS TRACKER



  Topics

Alerts


Bush, George W





Summit Conferences






Track news that interests you.









To the Editor:

One wonders if President Bush has it in him to understand that an extravagant inaugural celebration ("Bush's Money Men Pass the Hats One More Time," White House Letter, Nov. 29) is not appropriate in 2005. For one thing, there's a war on and American soldiers are dying. Also, a large percentage of the population is suffering deprivation - worse now that winter is approaching.

The president could assert his authority and ask that the inauguration be scaled down, and that the money not spent be given to agencies trying to help the "other" Americans. Think how the image of "compassionate conservative" would be enhanced. This action could give him his first block in building the legacy he so wants to leave behind.

Jeanne B. Dillon
Summit, N.J., Nov. 29, 2004


04 Dec 04 - 01:56 PM (#1347324)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Siggy

Amos refuses to answer because he has been traumatized because his Hero lost the election and his subconcious mind is blocking the memory.

Freud:
The Beginning


"Sigmund Freud more-or-less started the whole issue about repressed memories when his clinical case studies in the late nineteenth century inspired him to develop his psychological theories Sigmund Freud about the nature of unconscious mental processes. He used the term repression to describe the way emotionally painful events could be blocked out of conscious awareness so that their painful effects would not have to be experienced.

Note that this repression process is a completely automatic psychological defense against emotional trauma and does not involve conscious intent. In contrast, deliberately pushing something out of awareness because you want to avoid any responsibility for it is called suppression.

Freud's theories all came together in his technique and philosophy of psychoanalysis, and repression has been a key concept within that philosophy ever since."

Freud


04 Dec 04 - 02:04 PM (#1347332)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

In The Note: White House Rules MARK HALPERIN, MARY HOOD, and BROOKE BROWER discuss large factors in current politics and their relationship with the reigning Administration.

One excerpted quopte out of many of interest:

"This red-ink reality was one of the budgetary horror stories brandished at a conference Thursday sponsored by the Government Accountability Office. Comptroller General David Walker, who heads the GAO, assembled more than 60 experts (including former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, former Commerce secretary Pete Peterson and Josh Bolten, the director of the Office of Management and Budget) for a discussion of the gathering threat caused by the government's fiscal irresponsibility."


"With the election over and no participant quoted without permission, this GAO forum featured a candid bipartisan dialogue that would be impossible in a more politicized environment. The dominant theme, expressed by Republicans and Democrats, was a sense of fatalism that the debt problem would grow much worse before politicians are galvanized to take action."


A


04 Dec 04 - 02:08 PM (#1347338)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The New York Times Editor is not happy with the fiscal soundness of the nation under the present crew of deficit hawks:

A False Start on Social Security




Published: December 3, 2004


Even before the debate has truly begun over the centerpiece of President Bush's second-term domestic agenda - creating private retirement accounts within Social Security - White House and Congressional budget leaders have been floating the idea that it won't require a major increase in the federal budget deficit. This is dangerously misguided. Unwilling to raise taxes, Congress and the administration will have to borrow well over $1 trillion to turn the president's wish into reality.

For a country that already needs to borrow $2 billion a day just to stay afloat, that gargantuan price tag for privatization is one reason it's a bad idea. It is far from the only reason, and arguably not even the main one. Yesterday, for instance, the president's top economist said privatization would very likely lead to major benefit cuts, which could be devastating for people who lost money in their private accounts. For now, however, the cost issue is moving to center stage in Washington. It is imperative to refute the suggestion that private accounts would somehow, magically, pay for themselves.

The issue is how to pay full benefits to people at or near retirement if Social Security money starts going into private accounts. Since current wage earners cover the benefits for current retirees, every dollar workers invest elsewhere has to be replaced. This is the so-called transition cost, estimated at $1 trillion to $5 trillion.


04 Dec 04 - 02:20 PM (#1347348)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: DougR

Molly Ivins? Amos, if you are going to use someone to drive home your point(s), why not pick someone who has credibility with conservatives? If you point is only to preach to the choir, I'm afraid that your rants are merely a waste of your time. Your quoting someone like Molly Ivins as a creible source would be equal to my offering Ann Coulter as a credible source to liberals.

I guess centerpiece did go a bit too far.

DougR


04 Dec 04 - 02:40 PM (#1347359)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

DougR:

Dang, here I thought you were gonna pay me a compliment and you withdraw it!! Damn. Just for that, four more years of Mollie Ivins.

A


04 Dec 04 - 09:06 PM (#1347693)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Putin Accuses U.S. of Double Standard

Fri Dec 3, 6:27 PM ET

By RAJESH MAHAPATRA, Associated Press Writer

NEW DELHI - Russian President Vladimir Putin (news - web sites) sharply criticized the United States on Friday, accusing it of a double-standard in fighting terrorism and questioning whether any election in Iraq (news - web sites) can be democratic when fighting is raging in the country.

Putin, who has been angered by U.S. and European denunciations of the Ukraine election as rigged unacceptable, began a three-day visit to the Cold-War era ally with continued criticism of Washington, saying it seeks a "dictatorship of international affairs."

"Even if dictatorship is wrapped up in a beautiful package of pseuo-democratic phraseology, it will not be in a position to solve systemic problems," Russia's Itar-Tass news agency quoted him as saying in a speech Friday night in New Delhi.

Putin, who has been critical of the United States for going to war without international approval, warned that the fighting in Iraq was threatening the possibility of a democratic vote slated for Jan. 30.

"All this will definitely call in question the possibility of holding honest and democratic elections in Iraq early next year," he said.

Putin and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh signed a joint declaration that called for ending "political expediency" in the global fight against terrorism. The declaration made no reference to any country.

But in an interview in a Hindu newspaper, Putin said the United States and European nations practiced double standards by allowing into their countries some Chechen rebels whom Moscow considers to be terrorists.

(From Yahoo News)


04 Dec 04 - 11:12 PM (#1347742)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Siggy

Sanity


05 Dec 04 - 10:10 AM (#1347960)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Thomas Friedman takes the Administration to task for slighting the National Science Foundation and offers President Bush a transcendant opportunity to make good:

Fly Me to the Moon

...

If President Bush is looking for a legacy, I have just the one for him - a national science project that would be our generation's moon shot: a crash science initiative for alternative energy and conservation to make America energy-independent in 10 years. Imagine if every American kid, in every school, were galvanized around such a vision. Ah, you say, nice idea, Friedman, but what does it have to do with your subject - foreign policy?

Everything! You give me an America that is energy-independent and I will give you sharply reduced oil revenues for the worst governments in the world. I will give you political reform from Moscow to Riyadh to Tehran. Yes, deprive these regimes of the huge oil windfalls on which they depend and you will force them to reform by having to tap their people instead of oil wells. These regimes won't change when we tell them they should. They will change only when they tell themselves they must. ...


05 Dec 04 - 10:32 AM (#1347976)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

In A Soldier's Story a poignant and electrifying insight into the difference made when the war connects with you directly.


A


05 Dec 04 - 05:06 PM (#1348215)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From CNN on John McCain on military sufficiency:

McCain said the problems in Iraq go deeper than troop numbers.

"The problem we have here is that the Pentagon has been reacting to initiatives of the enemy rather than taking initiatives from which the enemy has to react to," he said.

"And the problem, when you react, you have to extend people on duty there, which is terrible for morale. There's a terrific strain on Guard and reservists. If you plan ahead, then you don't have to do some of these things.

"The military," he said, "is too small."

Sen. Joe Biden, D-Delaware, said U.S. forces in Iraq are "still paying an awesome price for the initial failures on policy and refusal to change them of this administration, of going in with too little power and too little legitimacy."

Biden, who recently returned from a trip to Iraq, told ABC's "This Week," "We've won everything we've tried to do, including Falluja, but then we've lacked the resources to secure what we've won."

Biden said that, after his trip to Iraq, he was "less concerned about an outbreak of civil war than I am about the outbreak of civil chaos."

Biden also predicted that the Pentagon would keep troops in place until an objective has been reached, in this case the elections, "and then you're going to see them draw down again."



Looks like a bad plan, badly executed by inept management to me. Those who were there will remember that this is what cost us the Vietnam fiasco, on two sides: one, we failed to understand the hunger for self-determination of the North Vietnamese, who saw US forces as invaders; and two, we pretended to be there to win, but we compromised on our resources and degree of intent. There is no such thing as half a war. If there are not sufficient moral grounds for going and overwhelming the insurgents flat out, taking tactical and strategic initiative and providing completely adequate numbers to do so, then we should have no war at all. Playing half the game will lose another thousand lives just because the CiC doesn't know whether he is coming or going. I wouldn't take a bullet for those reasons, myself, but then I am not a good hypnotic subject, either.



A


06 Dec 04 - 08:42 AM (#1348743)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: freda underhill

The United Nations Children's Fund, UNICEF, warned today that the number of young Iraqi children suffering from acute malnutrition has nearly doubled since the March 2003 invasion, as health and living conditions have deteriorated. Almost eight per cent of Iraqi children younger than five suffer from chronic diarrhoea and protein deficiency, the agency's latest reports said.

"This means that hundreds of thousands of children are today suffering the severe effects of diarrhoea and nutrient deficiencies," UNICEF executive director Carol Bellamy said.
Diarrhoea, caused mainly by unsafe water and in some areas lack of clean supplies, is responsible for 70 per cent of child deaths in Iraq, the agency said.

Water treatment plants, already in poor condition, have suffered more damage since the invasion. In Baghdad, 40 per cent of the water system has been damaged, with water lines either broken or contaminated. Sewage treatment plants no longer work because of problems with the electrical supply, poor maintenance, and damage caused since the invasion.

Malnutrition doubled since US invasion: UNICEF; December 6, 2004 ; Sydney morning herald


06 Dec 04 - 09:15 AM (#1348762)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The G.O.P. vs. President Bush

Published: December 6, 2004 (NY Times)


It seems surreal that after winning a majority of voters on the point that he is the strongest anti-terrorism leader, President Bush must fairly beg House Republicans not to embarrass him any further by bottling up the badly needed reform of the intelligence agencies. Yet this is the ludicrous scenario as Congress returns for a two-day session with the president's political clout on the line and the intelligence overhaul bill blocked from a floor vote by a few G.O.P. committee chairmen. Voters are entitled to wonder who really won in November. Mr. Bush with a pressing national agenda? Or a few House lions determined to pander to Pentagon power eddies and fire up anti-immigrant animosities?


06 Dec 04 - 09:18 AM (#1348764)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Talk About Scrooge
Published: December 6, 2004


In November, wages grew a whopping 1 cent an hour. But that was clawed back by a six-minute decline in the average workweek, producing a $1.25 drop in weekly earnings. Coming on the heels of a sluggish start to the holiday shopping season, the Labor Department's latest employment report, released Friday, doesn't presage a particularly merry Christmas or happy New Year for millions of working Americans.

In what is becoming a dismally predictable occurrence, the economy produced far fewer jobs than expected last month - 112,000 new slots versus an expectation of 200,000 - for the worst new-job total since last July, which was widely characterized as an economic "soft patch." Moreover, job growth in October and September was not as good as once believed. Those monthly numbers, disappointing on their own, reinforce what is now an unmistakable pattern in which the economy grows at a decent pace and corporate profits surge, while wages lag inflation and job creation barely keeps pace with the growth in the labor market.

We know how we got here. Tax cuts were misdirected at investment rather than consumption, resulting in an economic recovery weaker than it might have been.


06 Dec 04 - 06:31 PM (#1349300)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

When did the Soviet Union collapse? When did reform take off in Iran? When
did the Oslo peace process begin? When did economic reform become a hot
topic in the Arab world? In the late 1980's and early 1990's. And what was
also happening then? Oil prices were collapsing.

In November 1985, oil was $30 a barrel, recalled the noted oil economist
Philip Verleger. By July of 1986, oil had fallen to $10 a barrel, and it did
not climb back to $20 until April 1989. "Everyone thinks Ronald Reagan
brought down the Soviets," said Mr. Verleger. "That is wrong. It was the
collapse of their oil rents." It's no accident that the 1990's was the
decade of falling oil prices and falling walls.

If President Bush made energy independence his moon shot, he would dry up
revenue for terrorism; force Iran, Russia, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia to
take the path of reform - which they will never do with $45-a-barrel oil -
strengthen the dollar; and improve his own standing in Europe, by doing
something huge to reduce global warming. He would also create a magnet to
inspire young people to contribute to the war on terrorism and America's
future by becoming scientists, engineers and mathematicians. "This is not
just a win-win," said the Johns Hopkins foreign policy expert Michael
Mandelbaum. "This is a win-win-win-win-win."

Or, Mr. Bush can ignore this challenge and spend the next four years in an
utterly futile effort to persuade Russia to be restrained, Saudi Arabia to
be moderate, Iran to be cautious and Europe to be nice.

Sure, it would require some sacrifice. But remember J.F.K.'s words when he
summoned us to go to the moon on Sept. 12, 1962: "We choose to go to the
moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but
because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure
the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we
are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we
intend to win."

Summoning all our energies and skills to produce a 21st-century fuel is
George W. Bush's opportunity to be both Nixon to China and J.F.K. to the
moon - in one move.

(From the NY Times Editorial section -- Friedman)



A


06 Dec 04 - 07:12 PM (#1349328)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Paul Roberts, who served under Reagan as Treasury Secretary, has a very dim view of the current posture of the Bush Administration.

In a piece entitled Is The Bush Administration Certifiable? he asks seriously, "Has President Bush lost his grip on reality?", and goes on to say:


'In his December 1 speech in Halifax, Nova Scotia, President Bush again declared his intention to pre-emptively attack "enemies who plot in secret and set out to murder the innocent and the unsuspecting." Freedom from terrorism, Bush declared, will come only through pre-emptive war against enemies of democracy.

How does Bush know who and where these secret enemies are? How many more times will his guesses be wrong like he was about Iraq?

What world does Bush live in? The US cannot control Iraq, much less battle the rest of the Muslim world and beyond. While Bush threatened the world with US aggression, headlines revealed the futility of preemptively invading countries: "Pentagon to Boost Iraq Force by 12,000," "US Death Toll in Iraq at Highest Monthly Level," "Wounded Disabled Soldiers Kept on Active Duty." ...Bush's insane doctrine of pre-emptive war promises a 21st century more bloody than the 20th.' See link for whole article.

A


06 Dec 04 - 07:18 PM (#1349338)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

A site called "WhyWeHateBush" (which I saw for the first time today I believe) is upset about the Republican assault on Kofi Annan, in an essay entitled Once again, it's the Bush Administration vs. the World. Part of their thesis:


Bush Republicans Attack United Nations, Deflecting Attention from Cheney Corruption

 Commentary ~ December 4, 2004: George Bush and his minion Republican attack dogs launched a vicious assault this week on United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan because, they say, his son received $125,000 in payments from Cotecna, a Swiss contractor in the oil-for-food program. This accusation conveniently overlooks the fact that Dick Cheney continues to get $1 million a year from Halliburton, the company that received billions in uncontested contracts from the U.S. Government through Cheney's influence.


The New York Times reported that Mr. Annan's son, Kojo Annan, was employed from December 1995 until the end of 1998 by Cotecna Inspection Services, a company based in Geneva. On Monday, the United Nations confirmed that Kojo Annan received nearly $2,500 a month after leaving the company, payments that did not cease until February 2004.

Seth Goldschlager, a spokesman for Cotecna in Paris, told the International Herald Tribune that the $2,500 a month in health care compensation was part of the noncompete agreement that is required by Swiss law.

$2,500 a month for an official's son vs. $1 million a month for an actual official? Realistically speaking, if there was any corruption, wouldn't Kojo have asked for ten times that amount?

For all this so-called "corruption," Cotecna won a $4.8 million contract to monitor the import of aid items to Iraq under the oil-for-food program, which permitted Iraq to sell oil to buy goods to offset the effects of sanctions between 1996 and 2003. Halliburton, far and away the largest recipient of Iraq reconstruction dollars with about $18 billion in contracts, has seen revenues increase by 80 percent in the first quarter of 2004, compared with the same quarter of 2003, according to the Financial Times. Next in line is the Bechtel Group of San Francisco, with nearly $3 billion in Iraq reconstruction contracts. USA Today has reported that Bechtel executives gave thousands of dollars to both Bush presidential campaigns, and two of the company's top executives serve on advisory boards for the White House and Pentagon.
A


06 Dec 04 - 07:22 PM (#1349340)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

A paper called the New York Tribune has written a condemnatory article on the Bush Administrations "managing the news flow out of Iraq". An excerpt:

US media uncover Bush administration's managing the flow of news from Iraq
By New York Tribune Dec 3, 2004, 11:57


Allawi's recent visit to the United States was part of an intensive campaign by the Bush administration to manage the flow of news out of Iraq. As a matter of policy, any journalist wanting to visit the Green Zone, had to be escorted at all times; one could not simply wander around and chat with people in bars and cafés, says the latest issue of the New York Review.
The vast world of civilian contractors-of Halliburton's Kellogg, Brown & Root, of Bechtel, and of all the other private companies responsible for rebuilding Iraq-was completely off-limits; employees of these companies were informed that they would be fired if they were caught talking to the press. During the days of the Coalition Provisional Authority, its administrator, L. Paul Bremer, and the top military commander, Ricardo Sanchez, gave very few interviews to US correspondents in Baghdad.
They did, however, speak often via satellite with small newspapers and local TV stations, which were seen as more open and sympathetic. "The administration has been extremely successful in going around the filters, of getting their message directly to the American people without giving interviews to the Baghdad press corps," one correspondent said.


06 Dec 04 - 10:51 PM (#1349528)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,siggy

Mental Health 101 by Amos

Freud


06 Dec 04 - 10:55 PM (#1349531)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Peace

GUEST, Siggy--your post was number 666.


07 Dec 04 - 09:34 AM (#1349849)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Founding principles under siege by Bush administration




By SCOTT ELLIOT

"Karl Rove has all but succeeded in reversing the outcome of the Civil War and the Scopes trial in one masterstroke. The founding principles of this country have been under siege by the Bush administration for the last four years. In our schools, biology is being edged out by Bible studies, the pursuit of happiness has become the private reserve of the most affluent, and America the Beautiful is falling prey to the oil drill and the chain saw.


I'm surprised that we Democrats lost, but in retrospect, I'm not surprised that we lost on "moral values." After all, everyone knows, or should know by now, that it is more moral to take up swords against "infidels" than to beat them into plowshares. Osama bin Laden taught us that, only he had to make do with box cutters.


Bearing false witness not only appears to be acceptable to Bush supporters; it is the common thread between the campaigns of father and son. Bush I gained office with the aid of Lee Atwater's infamous Willie Horton ads. Bush II used Atwater protégé Karl Rove's attacks on the patriotism of true war heroes, John McCain, Max Clelland and John Kerry. Attacks were made against Bush, to be sure, but so far, none have been proven untrue.


Followers of U.S. Rep. Fred Upton, R-St. Joseph, Attorney General John Ashcroft and Bush apparently believe that the mere sight of a woman's breast is a grave threat to our national morality, but they have no problem with peeking into people's bedrooms and then finding ways to punish them if they don't like the way they make love.


While Kerry dreams of someday reducing terrorism to the level of a nuisance, Rove already considers the poor, the sick and the elderly little more than a nuisance. Dismantling Social Security and Medicare, protecting profits for health insurance and pharmaceutical companies, rolling back environmental standards and slashing housing programs are the cornerstones of the new morality.


While Bush enlists the working class in making a heaven on earth for the rich, Rove is no doubt busily at work trying to figure out how to expand the eye of a needle."

See link for rest of article.


A


07 Dec 04 - 09:40 AM (#1349851)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Bush Administration Facing Failure On Every Front


By Paul Craig Roberts


Is the Bush administration competent? There is enough information at hand on which to base an objective opinion.

On the eve of President Bush's second term, the US economy has fewer jobs than when Bush was inaugurated four years ago.

During Bush's first term, the US economy was unable to create jobs in both export and import-competitive sectors. The formerly powerful US jobs machine has been allowed to run down to the point that jobs can only be created in nontradable domestic services.

The service jobs that have been created are too few in number to offset the loss of manufacturing and knowledge jobs. Unemployed manufacturing workers, US software engineers, computer programmers, and IT workers number in the hundreds of thousands.

During Bush's first term, the value of the US dollar declined dramatically in relation to other traded currencies. The extraordinary diminution in the dollar's exchange value threatens its role as the world's reserve currency. If the dollar loses its role as reserve currency, there will be catastrophic consequences for US living standards and superpower status.(...)



Click link for rest of article.

A


07 Dec 04 - 06:26 PM (#1350397)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From The Boston Globe:

Afraid to look in the moral abyss


By James Carroll  |  December 7, 2004

Excerpt:

WHY DON'T we Americans look directly at the war? We avert our gaze, knowing that the situation in Iraq grows more desperate by the day. Vaunted "coalition" efforts to "break the back" of the "insurgency" have only strengthened it. The violence among Iraqis would surely qualify as civil war -- except that only one side is fighting. The structures of relief and repair are gone. Whole cities are destroyed, populations displaced. The hope of Iraqi elections is mortally compromised. "Coalition" members are dropping out. The mission of American force is to secure the country, but it can't secure itself. The performance of US intelligence has been consistent: Its strategic failures caused the war, and its tactical ignorance of the enemy is losing the war.


07 Dec 04 - 06:29 PM (#1350399)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Bush sets out plan to dismantle 30 years of environmental laws

By Geoffrey Lean in Washington

05 December 2004

Excerpt:

George Bush's new administration, and its supporters controlling Congress, are setting out to dismantle three decades of US environmental protection.

In little over a month since his re-election, they have announced that they will comprehensively rewrite three of the country's most important environmental laws, open up vast new areas for oil and gas drilling, and reshape the official Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

They say that the election gave them a mandate for the measures - which, ironically, will overturn a legislative system originally established by the Republican Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford - even though Mr Bush went out of his way to avoid emphasising his environmental plans during his campaign.

"The election was a validation of the philosophy and the agenda," said Mike Leavitt, the Bush-appointed head of the EPA. He points out that over a third of the agency's staff will become eligible for retirement over the President's four-year term, enabling him to fill it with people lenient to polluters.


07 Dec 04 - 06:31 PM (#1350401)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Years from now, the mistreatment of Afghan war detainees at Guantánamo and
Iraqi war detainees at Abu Ghraib is likely to rank with the internment of
Japanese-American civilians in World War II as a blot on the history of the
United States. But the Bush administration remains deaf to criticism of its
actions, whether it comes from U.S. courts or the International Red Cross.
Congress must act to steer America back toward compliance with the Geneva
conventions and U.S. law.

From The International herald Tribune editorial section.

A


07 Dec 04 - 11:50 PM (#1350596)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Johnjohn

New York Times
WASHINGTON, Dec. 7 -
The House voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to approve the sweeping intelligence-overhaul bill sought by President Bush and the independent Sept. 11 commission


JJ


07 Dec 04 - 11:59 PM (#1350603)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST

Afghanistan swears in first democratic leader
Declan Walsh in Kabul
Wednesday December 8, 2004
The Guardian UK

"For 30 years coups, assassinations and invasions were the usual means of power transfer in Kabul. But yesterday Hamid Karzai broke with bloody tradition and assumed office with a simple formula of words.

Laying a hand on the Qur'an, Afghanistan's first democratic president swore his allegiance inside the former royal palace that was once the scene of thunderous gunbattles but has since been renovated to welcome 600 guests."


08 Dec 04 - 12:14 AM (#1350614)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Calhoun

Bloomberg
Representative Allen Boyd became the leading Democrat to endorse President George W. Bush's plan to create private Social Security accounts ...


08 Dec 04 - 12:23 AM (#1350618)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Kingfish

New US team reflects Bush's world-view


08 Dec 04 - 12:38 AM (#1350625)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Dear John-John Guest Kingfish Calhoun:

What I don't get is why you feel you have to be secretive and pretend to be three different people.

Why is that?

A


08 Dec 04 - 04:57 PM (#1351282)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Couldn't help but be bemused by these two news stories which appeared side by side in a newsfeed this morning:


Huge no-fishing zones 'offer only hope' of saving marine ecosystem from
disaster
Michael McCarthy | December 8
The Independent -

It has been invisible, so it has gone largely unheeded,
but the wrecking of the seas is now the world's gravest environmental
problem after climate change, British scientists said yesterday.

Such destruction has been caused by over-fishing in the marine environment
and only massive protected zones, where all fishing is banned, will allow
the sea's damaged areas to recover, members of the Royal Commission on
Environmental Pollution said.




US rules out joining Kyoto treaty

The US has told a UN conference on global warming that it has no
intention of re-joining international efforts to cut greenhouse gas
emissions.

The chief American negotiator at the conference in Argentina's capital
Buenos Aires ruled out any move to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol for years.

He told reporters that efforts to cut emissions were based on bad science.
The US was focused instead, he said, on implementing President George W
Bush's plans to promote energy efficiency.



08 Dec 04 - 05:33 PM (#1351323)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: DougR

Amos: I don't recall the Democrat's idol, Bill Clinton, waving the flag for the Kyoto Treaty either. Do you? He and the Democrat controlled congress had ample opportunity to sign it if they wanted to. Why didn't they? For the very reason the U. S. representative pointed out. A division of opinion, even in the scientific community, whether or not global warming is a real threat.

DougR


08 Dec 04 - 08:17 PM (#1351470)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,TIA

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

The "scientific community" believes with unanimity that global warm is a threat. Oh yeah, the Bush administration can always find a quack whom they can pay to say otherwise, but "the scientific community" (consisting of liberal, conservative, American, European, Asian, black, yellow, brown, christian, hindu, WHATEVER...) agrees that it is happening and that it may have cataclysmic consequences. The only real question is how much human activity is implicated. Note that it IS implicated, but we don't know for sure how much.

The notion that there is any debate whether global warming is really occuring or not is a myth propagated by Rush Limbaugh and his ilk, who are either scientifically illiterate, or lying through their teeth (you choose). On September 14, 2004, Rush Limbaugh actually said "come on think about it folks...if the ice caps were melting, the oceans would be getting cooler." If you follow this logic, and believe this BS, the same two choices apply for you.

Sorry to jump on anybody, but I've got three kids who may have kids themselves, and this shit matters! Drop the political crap. Where and how are my kids and their kids going to live? I've seen the world environment change in my lifetime. Seventy percent of the world's coral reefs have died in the last 10 years (go look it up if you don't believe it).

If Rush Limbaugh were a coal miner, he'd be saying "big deal, it's just a dead canary."

Idiot.

"Winning" politically matters more than our progeny's future?

Idiots all.


08 Dec 04 - 09:53 PM (#1351540)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

Voodoo, science?


08 Dec 04 - 10:48 PM (#1351569)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Jeb Shwarzeneggar

Kyoto will not work, warns climate expert
By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor

09 December 2004.


"The West's approach to fighting global warming, enshrined in the Kyoto protocol, will not work, a leading climate scientist said yesterday."


08 Dec 04 - 11:03 PM (#1351584)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

Yeah, fir every scientist who seems to make sense there's another who doesn't have a clue...

Even Bush's clue-less scientists agree that the planet seems to be warming. Where the disageement crops up is in the area of solutions. Bush's scientist think that we just need to figure ways of eating up the carbon monoxide short of protecting forests. But they don't seem to have any real ideas on how that might happen???

And these are scientists???

B~


08 Dec 04 - 11:09 PM (#1351590)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Anyone notice the incredible calving that is going on at bopth poles, with segments falling of icebergs as big as Greenwich Village? Unprecedented decomposition of centuries-old ice-masses?

Hmmmmmm?


There are some pictures out there of these blocks of ice falling apart...fskinatin'


A


08 Dec 04 - 11:26 PM (#1351607)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Crawford Iconoclast

Letters to the EditorDear Editor:
I want to congratulate George Bush on his victory in the 2004 presidential election! An impressive win was accomplished with 52% of the 60 per cent of eligible voters casting a Republican ballot!
He will have a very tough job ahead given the record of the previous administration and I, for one, don't envy him the task! George Bush will now have to oversee a federal bureaucracy that has mushroomed more than any other in history with a 300 plus trillion dollar deficit to get down. He will have to get those health care savings accounts in place for the 45 million uninsured and see if those drugs that people want from Canada are safe to buy more cheaply. I am looking forward to investing my 2% in my social security account (and am looking closely at Smith&Wesson/Remington Gun stock) though I know he will have to fight tooth and nail with those "liberals" who wanted to keep the trust intact!.

But most difficult of all is that he will inherit a war from a previous administration with no clear exit strategy, waning moral support from battle weary reservists and national guard and worsening insurgency that have killed more Americans every month ....But I know this moral president can do the job! Again Congratulations and Best of Luck!

G.D.
Jonesboro, Ark


What an embarrassment you are to Crawford, Texas!! What an embarrassment you are to the State of Texas!! We live in Indiana now and it was amazing how people here were making fun of you for what you wrote about Bush. Of course, Indiana voted 61% for President Bush. I guess that's one of the reasons alot of people here thought you should be run out of Crawford.

As small as your little town is, I would think you would have a one way ticket to California or New York by now. My question to you-----how can someone so out of touch with Texas be able to run a newspaper in the town where the President of the United States lives??? I guess you have trouble with subscriptions at least in your area. Do you personally know President Bush??? I wondered about that. And I guess you know that John Kerry's hometown newspaper endorsed President Bush. Go figure-----Maybe you two were just trying to get some publicity for yourselves.......

We hope to move back to Texas soon. We miss the Lone Star State. We are also proud of the President and proud that he has Texas roots.

Sincerely
S.H.
Ft. Wayne, Indiana


After spending 33 years writing for and editing newspapers, I am well aware of how easy it is to be stupid.
Your editorial for Kerry proves anew that being stupid is our occupational hazard.
D.B.
Lake Placid, Fla.


Go cry in your cow manure. This is a rag for nitwits.
K.S.


Hurray! Hurray!
Four More years of:
Dick Cheney, Halliburton and their
top assistant George W. Bush.
D.M.


I am very grateful that your endorsement of John Kerry fell on deaf ears. The breakdown of counties throughout the United Sates shows a shift away from the Democratic Party. The era of Ted Kennedy and his "gang of liberals" is now over. Ain't life grand?? Now the hard part for this newspaper is to make amends with the local town folk for your endorsement. Your need for fifteen minutes of fame didn't set well did it??
J.M.
Fort Worth, Texas


Eat your hearts out you lying liberal jackasses!
M.H.

WELL MR SMITH,
I WANT TO THANK YOU AND YOUR TWIN, AND SOUL-MATE MICHAEL MOORE.
YOUR PROFOUND IGNORANCE HELPED TO ENERGIZE A NATION TO GET OFF IT'S BUTT AND GO OUT AND VOTE AGAINST THOSE LIKE YOU AND THE COMMUNIST PARTY, RE WWW.CPUSA.ORG THEY TOO ENDORSED JOHN KERRY.
YOUR ENDORSEMENT WAS NOT BORN OUT OF TRUTH, BUT A PACK OF LIES GENERATED BY THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL PARTY.
I COULD RESPECT A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION HAD YOU SIMPLY SAID IN YOUR DISGUSTING EDITORIAL THAT BASED ON A DISAGREEMENT IN POLICY YOU WERE ENDORSING KERRY . BUT YOU WENT OUT OF YOUR WAY TO EDITORIALIZE THE UNTRUE ALLEGATIONS YOU DID .
GEORGE BUSH WENT TO WAR IN IRAQ BASED ON INFORMATION FURNISHED BY AN INTEL REPORT PROVIDED BY AN AGENCY IN POWER DURING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, ANY AMERICAN WITH ANY GUTS WOULD DO THE SAME.YET YOU LITTERLY CALLED A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY FROM WHICH YOU EARN A LIVING CRAWFORD TEXAS . A LIAR. YOU MAY CALLTHAT 1ST AMMENDMENT FREEDOM? OF COURSE IT IS. BUT THERE IS ALSO A THING CALLED "TASTE" SOMETHING YOUR INFLATED EGO IS DEVOID OF, BUT SINCE I PLAN TO EXERCISE MY FIRST AMMENDMENT RIGHTS ALSO , BASED OF YOUR EXAMPLE .I PLAN ON INFORMING ANYONE WHO ADVERTISES IN YOUR PAPER THAT I'LL BE DRIVING TO WACO OR CLEBURNE TO SHOP, AND SINCE YOU DONT LIKE BUSH I WONT OFFEND YOU BY ADVERTISING IN YOUR PAPER ANY MORE, AFTER-ALL YOU WOULDNT WANT TO GET GERMS FROM MY MONEY, SURELY ALL US BUSH FANS ARE BOUND TO HAVE GOTTEN A KICK-BACK FROM HALLIBURTON?
SO EVEN THOUGH I'VE NEVER SPENT A GREAT DEAL WITH YOU, SO YOU WONT MISS THIS "BUSHIE" GUESS I'LL JUST "TATOO" MY ADS ON A JACKASS'S BEHIND AND LEAD IT AROUND TOWN.
THAT MAY BE JUST AS RESPECTED.AS YOUR PAPER NOW IS.

J.V.


GUESS YOUR CANDIDATE LOST. WHY DON'T YOU MOVE TO BOSTON. YOU MUST BE A BUNCH OF IDIOTS! GO GEORGE W!!
Unsigned

It is clear you do not represent Texas. Please get into your car, pick up that lesbian Marxist named Molly Ivins and head north, way north.
Like that line in that old John Wayne movie-"We just don't need your kind around here".
The sooner the better.

J.M.
A real Texan, born in Texas.



Dear Texans:
Today, all of America has received a wonderful gift from the great state of Texas. I want to let you know that Americans appreciate the fact that Texas has lent him to us for the next four years. In four years time he will return to Texas and most likely go down in history as one of the greatest presidents of all time. Some may not like his policies but all should respect his convictions and desire to serve this great country.
E.V.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand, you lose. - K.R.


Dear Mr. Smith,
Well, I hope you aren't shocked, appalled or surprised at the outcome. You decided to open your mouth and back Kerry, in Bush's hometown. Fun, isn't it, being on the outside looking in?
Are you going to whine about it? Are you going to just emphasize the "hate" mail and NOT focus on your arrogance?
The big articles just put out by Time and Newsweek magazines, delayed, according to the editors, because they were so negative for Kerry, are very interesting and informative. Too bad you didn't have a chance to know some of that stuff before you editorialized for Kerry....in Bush's home town.
These two editors were on the O'Reilly Factor yesterday. VERY interesting.
What a colossal dose of Smith-arrogance. You called it "principle." Another load of arrogance. You tried to rub the noses of your local readers in your liberal point of view. Endorsing Kerry in Bush's hometown? Unbelieveable arrogance. I won't call it stupid because you KNEW exactly what you were doing.
You must win some kind of Darwin award for it—the "Mother of all Arrogance" award perhaps?
My guess is that you will be a guest columnist on the syndicated liberal rags in blue states. I look forward to reading some more of your gems. I DO read both sides.
Come on out to Kaleeeeforneeyah! We love our Governator and his lovely Democrat wife! He's no girlie man; he will PUMP YOU UP!
You DO have a future with the left, er, progressive side of the Democrat party.
I was a Democrat until 1994. Became an independent as a shock reaction to Clinton's admission of his gargantuan lie about Gennifer Flowers. Then, I became a Republican when my Democrat party put up Clinton for re-election in 1996. One of the "seven dwarves," "a third rate governor from a second rate state"....the DEM'S own words. "What has happened to mah party?" —
Zel Miller.
Y.B.A.
San Francisco

To The Editor:
Well, it looks like you really stepped in it NOW. You may want to just shut it down and move to the 'LEFT COAST'. No one of any common sense shares your liberal bias. Hey I've got an idea. MOVE TO FRANCE! They'd love you there.
S.M.
Omaha, Neb.

The Editor of your newspaper should move to Boston. That's where the Queers are but not many steers.
J.B., Minn.

To The Editor:
Concerning Stem Cell Research
As Homo-sapiens we are different and have risen above all other creatures. Every life is valuable, but human life is more so. Humans should not be treated by the scientific community as "cattle", ripe and ready for experimentation without ethical checks and balances. No other human endeavor has carte blanche like the science community is not only asking, but DEMANDING of the world.
Life is precious and so very, very short. I don't know when it starts. I don't really care. If I'm to make a decision concerning stem cell research, I see it this way: I refuse to even risk the possibility of taking an innocent life to save mine, but I am very willing to give mine to save yours. And it would be my greatest honor to do so.
J.G., Katy, Texas

To The Editor:
You are what my dad used to refer to as being "penny wise and dollar dumb."
Bush may be bad for "the" economy....but your dumbass actions are responsible for "your" economy, and that of your paper, taking a rather serious dive, huh?
R.

To The Editor:
Adding fuel to the fire. There are some people who are too stupid to understand how they have messed up; are you? You primarily earned your income from local matters......... It appears to most that you took the chance for greater notoriety with your only partially accurate opinion. Now 'tis time to pay for your folly. I wish you no bad cess (guru net that), only hope that you have learned not to bite the hand that feeds you, even if it is the "right" hand. Ha, ha - good pun -did you get it?
Sincerely,
P.Z.
Robbinsville, N.C.

Thank you Amos for informing us about this fine bottom of the birdcage class newspaper.


08 Dec 04 - 11:29 PM (#1351609)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Greg F.

And these are scientists???

In a word, Bobert: No. They're not. They're Bush propagandists, bought and paid for.

Since about a week after Bush took office, REAL scientists & scientific organizations have pointed out time and time again how the BuShites use junk "science" to support their ideaology.

Just Google "Bush" and "junk science" or do a news.google.com search for the same- you'll be reading for weeks.


08 Dec 04 - 11:31 PM (#1351611)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Dear Bratwurst-Brain:

More anonymous hatred, huh? Y'ever wish you could just come out and say what you had to say under your own name and own your own point of view?

Terror is ugly whether high or low. Spewing this kind of venomous crap is just sad.

A


08 Dec 04 - 11:40 PM (#1351619)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Once Famous

Flash: This Just in.

Amos is really an Arab.

I heard the CIA is interested in him.


08 Dec 04 - 11:54 PM (#1351624)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Fat Albert

Amos is the Mr Universe of spewing venimous crap. It looks like those letters were from ordinary people that did not like the bulshit spewed by Leon Smith, the Democratic candidate two time loser and owner of the newspaper.

Are Asian countrys in violation of the Kyoto Treaty? Maybe those glaciers calve because of them.

Massive air pollution casts Asian haze over global climate

Wed Dec 8, 2:58 PM ET

"AGRA, India (AFP) - A cloud of pollution which has been identified in the skies across Asia travels long distances across the Indian ocean and is now threatening to make the entire planet a drier place, experts warned."

Hey Hey Hey


09 Dec 04 - 12:43 AM (#1351657)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

If you bother to rub your brain dwells together, Albert, you will see a slight difference. Once in a great while I go off the handle about the murderous cretin in charge of the country, because I think his rampant galloping idiocy has done serious harm to the world. But MOSTLY I offer various views from different people on this thread, and try to speak to issues, reserving my ad hominem stuff for the President.

The people who wrote most of those letters, though, were just so full of hatred all they could do was froth at the mouth. And by the way the word you are thinking of is venomous, meaning rich in venom.


09 Dec 04 - 02:25 PM (#1352191)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Fat Albert

The positive facts that others post here are usually from news articles. The things you post here are from Bush haters. You always ad you personal spin to it to emphasize the negative and degrade anything positive. Do you also hear voices?

I picture you as Joe Bfstplk in Lil' Abner. The guy with the raincloud over his head all the time.

If you are allways looking for shit you will find it. If you want to be miserable you can find a way. The opposite is also true. Forget Dianetics and see a professional.

Hey Hey Hey


10 Dec 04 - 03:45 AM (#1352687)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Paco Rabanne

Hey Amos, I'm an Arab too!


10 Dec 04 - 03:48 AM (#1352689)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull

Robert Kilroy Silk reckons Arabs are rubbish.


10 Dec 04 - 05:22 AM (#1352735)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Paco Rabanne

Hi jOhn, fancy meeting you down here in Intellectual land! Robert Silk has an orange face, never trust a man with an orange face!


10 Dec 04 - 05:49 AM (#1352762)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Sttaw Legend

He is OK Robert Silk but he doesn't Bush his teeth.


10 Dec 04 - 05:52 AM (#1352763)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull

That Anique bloke off telly {david Dickson] has got an orange face as well, he's a right weirdo, he wears womens dresses, i saw a programme about him.


10 Dec 04 - 05:53 AM (#1352764)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Paco Rabanne

Morning Dave, Now THAT'S the kind of link we like to see!


10 Dec 04 - 05:57 AM (#1352766)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull

Is that really a photo of Robert Kilroy Silk?
he looks a bit different on telly, must be all the make up etc.


10 Dec 04 - 05:58 AM (#1352767)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Paco Rabanne

699


10 Dec 04 - 06:01 AM (#1352768)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Paco Rabanne

700!!!! Thanks chaps, a good team effort!


12 Dec 04 - 06:12 PM (#1355019)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Much has been made of the large U.S. budget and trade deficits in explaining the U.S. dollar's recent weakness. But is the sinking U.S. dollar mostly a reflection of global dissatisfaction with recent U.S. foreign policy? Joseph Quinlan — chief market strategist at Banc of America — argues that the dollar will continue to drop until U.S. legitimacy is restored.

Behind the Sinking Dollar: America's Image as a "Rogue Nation?" has the whole article.

Albert, while it may seem I am putting out some osrt of flow of hatred, in my view I am simply insisting on the clear and simple repetition of the fundamental facts of the case, especially the facts concerning unnecessary warmongering, economic malfeasance and incompetence as a manager or executive. You may recall in his first campaign Mister Bush asserting that his most telling qualification was that he knows how to lead. If you examine where he has lead the nation to you may want to add this to his list of inaccurate and misleading assertions.

A


12 Dec 04 - 06:34 PM (#1355048)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Bunky

Would the fact that he was re-elected for a second term in spite of all the propaganda and dirty tricks by the Democrats have any bearing on his leadership?

You Bush haters simply refuse to acknowledge those facts and continue your rant.

You will not acknowledge that the terrorist attack of 9/11 was an economic blow that could have ruined the country and lead to a much higher deficit and a depression. Why did it not?

If the great Gore had been in charge on 9/11, you would be selling apples on the street corner and holding out a tin cup.



B


12 Dec 04 - 07:09 PM (#1355074)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Rumsfeld under fire for 'hillbilly armour' used to defend army

By Rupert Cornwell in Washington


11 December 2004



The row over America's failure to send enough military vehicles to Iraq took a new twist yesterday when the company that manufactures them said it could deliver 1,200 more a year, but has had no request from the Pentagon.


Two days earlier, Donald Rumsfeld, was bluntly confronted by an Iraq-bound National Guardsman at what was meant to be a pep rally with the Defence Secretary at a US staging base in Kuwait. Instead, Mr Rumsfeld was hit by a barrage of pointed questions, first about the extended tours of duty driving down the morale of service personnel in Iraq, then over the lack of properly armoured Humvees to protect them from the roadside bombs that are the insurgents' weapon of choice.


"We don't have proper vehicles," said Thomas Wilson of the Tennessee Nation Guard, who claimed he and his men were forced to rummage in landfills for metal scrap and ballistic glass to use as makeshift shielding, known by soldiers in Iraq as "hillbilly armour".


Mr Rumsfeld, insisting everything possible was being done, and said: "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want." That forthright response only made matters worse. Senior Demo-crats, led by Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, said the episode only proved the Pentagon's incompetence, and the refusal of Mr Rumsfeld and his colleagues to face reality.

(From the UK Independent)


A


12 Dec 04 - 07:52 PM (#1355117)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

Yo, Bunko...

9/11 *did* ruin the US economy... Prior to Bush's cousin Osoma's strike Bush had the lowest approval rates in like four or five hundred years... Like it was preceeded with a - (minus)... Then Cousin Osoma conviently blows up some stuff and yer guy become the *Second Coming*.... Go figure?

Well, Iz all fir the Second Coming but it ain't Bush. No, what 9/11 did was open the flood gates for Bush and his boys to raid the treasury and raid, pilliage and plunder they have done. And then along came this past election, with Diebold's CEO promising to deliver the good to tyhe plunderers and deliver he did. Yup, lotta pollsters scrathing their heads even to this day on how, for the first time in the history of exit polls, voters decided this year, like some big voter conspiracy, to lie to the pollsters? And then the 51% to 48% split when the exit polls were the opposite??? Like, can I get a big, "hmmmmmmmmmm"?

No Bunko, you got it wrong. We don't hate Bush. Heck, he doesn't have a clue he lost in both 2000 or 2004. Buyt what we do hate is his anti-American policies that are Hell bent on bankrupting the federal governemnt so that his thugs can do what every Repub has tried to do for the last 60 years: kill the New Deal and restore Boss Hog to his birth-right dominance over the working man...

Just that simple... No reason to complicate it beyond this... Everywhere you look Boss Hog has more on the table than he can possibly eat and the working man is just hoping to get a scrap... 1 in 5 kids in America live in poeverty... Oh yeah, Bunko, they screwed up in not chosing to be born into the ruling class...

Bobert


12 Dec 04 - 08:43 PM (#1355164)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

In and of themselves the 9-11 attacks would have had no serious negative impact on the economy, especially if we had stayed focussed on the correct targets and prosecuted the actuaL perps successfully. As Bobert says, what has been far more damaging to the economy is the blind panicked leverage the attack gave Bush. The notion that had Gore been in charge the economy would have worsened is groundless, and without content as an argument -- unless Mister Bunker has some irrefutable rationalization for his assertion.

A


13 Dec 04 - 08:59 AM (#1355526)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The dreams of Rummy and the neocons were bound to collide. But it's immoral to trap our troops in a guerrilla war without the essential, lifesaving support and materiel just so a bunch of officials who have never been in a war can test their theories.

How did this dangerous chucklehead keep his job? He must have argued that because of the president's re-election campaign, the military was constrained from doing what it is trained to do and flattening Fallujah and other insurgent strongholds. He must have told W. he deserved a chance to try again after the election.
Excerpt from a Maureen Dowd column on Rumsfeld's recent embarassment (Click for article):


...He had a willing audience. W. likes officials who feed him swaggering fictions instead of uncomfortable facts.

The president loves dressing up to play soldier. To rally Camp Pendleton Marines facing extended deployments in Iraq, he got gussied up in an Ike D-Day-style jacket with epaulets and a big presidential seal on one lapel and his name and "Commander in Chief" on the other.

When he really had a chance to put on a uniform and go someplace where the enemy was invisible and there was no exit strategy and our government was not leveling with us about how bad it was, W. wasn't so high on the idea. But now that it's just a masquerade -- giving a morale boost to troops heading off someplace where the enemy's invisible and there's no exit strategy and the government's not leveling with us about how bad it is -- hey, man, it's cool.

...


13 Dec 04 - 04:26 PM (#1355910)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From the Washington Post, by Neely Tuckerconsidering the Second Bush Inaugural Address planned in January:


...Further, Bush faces a challenge in that second inaugurations are by nature
less giddy affairs. When Lincoln stood to give that landmark second
inaugural address during the Civil War, even he began by saying: "At this
second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less
occasion for an extended address than there was at the first."

But what he went on to say, particularly considering it came during the
nation's bloodiest war, is striking for its humility. Though the end of the
war was at hand, he did not boast or even promise victory.

He allowed that the war even might be God's punishment for slavery. If it
continued "until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be repaid by
another drawn with the sword," then so it must be.

He said that soldiers on both sides read the same Bible, prayed to the same
God, and each invoked His aid against the other. "It may seem strange that
any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread
from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not
judged," he said. "The prayers of both could not be answered. That of
neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes."

What faith! What dignity! What honesty!

Lincoln was assassinated a month later in Ford's Theatre, less than a mile
away from where he gave his inaugural address.

His own purposes, indeed.


13 Dec 04 - 04:51 PM (#1355937)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

HOENIX Dec 13, 2004 — U.S. Sen. John McCain said Monday that he has "no confidence" in Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, citing Rumsfeld's handling of the war in Iraq and the failure to send more troops.

McCain, speaking to The Associated Press in an hourlong interview, said his comments were not a call for Rumsfeld's resignation, explaining that President Bush "can have the team that he wants around him."

"I have strenuously argued for larger troop numbers in Iraq, including the right kind of troops linguists, special forces, civil affairs, etc.," said McCain, R-Ariz. "There are very strong differences of opinion between myself and Secretary Rumsfeld on that issue."




You have to wonder why he is NOT calling for Rumsfeld's resignation.

I am.

A


13 Dec 04 - 09:47 PM (#1356164)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Torture and Truth
By Mark Danner Interviewed By Dave Gilson
Dec 11, 2004, 21:37



Tracing the origins -- and the aftermath -- of what happened at Abu Ghraib.  It's a lesson for every American to see how a democracy can arrive at the point where it commits these kinds of crimes.


When the Abu Ghraib scandal boiled over last spring, it looked, briefly, as if it would cause a major shakeup -- if not in how the Bush administration was fighting the war in Iraq, then at least within the administration itself. But soon enough, election season arrived, and the issue all but faded into the background. That doesn't mean we've heard the last of Abu Ghraib. Far from it, says journalist Mark Danner. "I don't think this thing is over by any means."


In his new book, Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib and the War On Terror, Danner explores the origins and aftermath of the administration's post-9/11 decision to "take the gloves off." The book collects several articles written for the New York Review of Books over the past year, offering a mix of reportage -- Danner was one of the first reporters to arrive on the scene of the bombing of the Red Cross headquarters in Baghdad in October 2003 -- and a close reading of the nearly 500 pages of official documents related to the Abu Ghraib scandal that make up its bulk. The documents, some of which are published for the first time in Torture and Truth, make for gripping, if disturbing, reading. Danner admits that most Americans are unlikely to delve into these papers with the seriousness they did another official account of terror-fighting gone wrong, the best-selling 9/11 Commission report. "These are difficult issues," says Danner. "They make people uncomfortable."


The documents illustrate how the Bush administration constructed its rationale for ignoring prisoners' rights, and how that decision played out, with appalling consequences, in Iraq. "I think it's a lesson for every American to see how a democracy can arrive at the point where it commits these kinds of crimes," Danner says. "It's there in the documentary history." Exhibit A is the "torture memo" issued by the Justice Department in early 2002 at the request of President Bush's legal adviser (and nominee for attorney general) Alberto Gonzales, which concluded that "under the current circumstances, necessity or self-defense may justify interrogation methods that might violate" U.S. laws prohibiting torture. A few pages later, Iraqi prisoners give hair-raising depositions of their time in American captivity. Such first-hand accounts, says Danner, reveal how the "euphemistic world" of the Bush bureaucracy translated into "real pain and real suffering on the ground." As some of the Abu Ghraib guards go on trial, and fresh stories of abuses in Guantanamo and Iraq come out, it remains to be seen whether any of this will trickle up the chain of command.


14 Dec 04 - 01:19 AM (#1356247)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Truth Fairy

The futile efforts of a minority to terrorize a majority now risen to power. The Sunni insurgency is attempting to play its last card by starting a civil war in Iraq without success.

Sunni Arab antigovernment and al Qaeda gunmen now make no secret of their desire to trigger a religious and ethnic based civil war in Iraq. Attacks on Kurds (who are not Arabs) and Shia Arabs (who practice the form of Islam prevalent in neighboring Iran) are increasing. ... There are two reasons why the civil war has not broken out yet. First, the Sunni Arab gunmen represent a minority in the Sunni Arab community. ... One thing that makes the current situation different than the Lebanese civil war of 1975-90, is that the Sunni Arabs are not united to fight anyone. The antigovernment forces represent several factions, and many other larger factions want no part of a civil war.

This illuminates the second reason for no civil war; the Sunni Arabs are vastly outnumbered and likely to get quickly smashed. This is made worse by the fact that 80 percent of the population (the Kurds and Shia Arabs) would like to see the Sunni Arabs "punished" for generations of tyranny. Most Sunni Arabs understand this, but the minority who continue to murder and molest Shia Arabs and Kurds spend most of their efforts on terrorizing their fellow Sunni Arabs.

What the insurgency has done is remove the old Sunni chieftains from the field leaving it clear for those they formerly terrorized. An MSNBC article describes that while Sunni insurgents have forbidden participation in the elections their voice no longer carries the power of command.

As Iraq's first nationwide elections in more than a generation near, Hamra and other Shiite clergy, perhaps the country's most powerful institution, have led an unprecedented mobilization of the Shiite majority population through a vast array of mosques, community centers, foundations and networks of hundreds of prayer leaders, students and allied laypeople. The campaign has become so pitched that many Iraqis may have a better idea of Sistani's view of the election than what the election itself will decide. The momentum they have created has made a delay in the ballot difficult, if not impossible. Voters will choose a 275-member National Assembly, but powerful groups within Iraq's Sunni Muslim minority are boycotting the election or have called for a postponement so that they can bring calm to restive Sunni regions where insurgents have threatened to attack those taking part. ...

"Who wants to boycott, let them boycott, but the elections will happen regardless," said Hamra, sitting in an office with white walls bare but for a portrait of Sistani reading the Koran.

On December 3 a suicide car bomb blew up a Shi'ite mosque in Baghdad in an effort to reassert dominance but it merely increased scorn for the insurgents. The Financial Times found a curiously passive way to say the unsayable: that maybe some Shi'ites are joining forces with the government and America against the insurgents. For now at least when bombers -- accused of being Sunni insurgents -- struck at Shia holy sites in August 2003 and February 2004, many Shia clerics saved their strongest criticism for the coalition authorities, who they said had failed to protect them from attack. However, insurgent threats against forthcoming elections, which have been strongly endorsed by senior Shia scholars such as Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, may be breaking down the clergy's resolve to stay aloof. ...

A black-turbaned Shia cleric drove through the streets of the southern Baghdad district of al-Amel on Saturday, carrying a loudspeaker and mocking the insurgents who scrawled anti-election slogans on the neighbourhood's walls. "Let those who wrote this show their faces, if they are men," residents quoted him as saying, as two dozen armed supporters followed his motorcade on foot, painting over graffiti that threatened to "cut off the heads" of voters. "Come and vote," the cleric said to passersby. "We will protect you." ...

Dozens of Shia, from clergy to army and National Guard recruits, have been killed by Sunni ultra-puritans while driving through Latifiya. Two weeks ago, a delegation of tribesmen from Basra calling themselves the "Brigades of Anger" approached Mr Sistani, asking him for permission to launch reprisals in Latifiya, says Sheikh Musa al-Musawy, a representative of the Grand Ayatollah in Baghdad. Mr Sistani refused them his blessing. "The government will deal with this problem, and the law will take its course," he reportedly said.

The Iraqi Government found the strongest possible terms, borrowing unconsciously from a cult horror classic, to assure the nation that they would not waver nor yield in the face of terror -- and those words were spoken by a Sunni.

As the powerful, mainly Sunni tribe led by Iraqi President Ghazi al-Yawar's uncle rallied behind an electoral bloc formed by leaders of the long oppressed Shi'ite majority, Yawar urged people not to identify the insurgency with the Sunni cause. Speaking after a particularly bloody few days in which more than 70 people have been killed, Yawar said: "Right now, we're faced with the armies of darkness, who have no objective but to undermine the political process and incite civil war in Iraq."

"But I want to assure the whole world that this will never, ever happen... After all these sacrifices, there's no way on earth that we will let it go in vain," said Yawar, who holds a largely figurehead position in the administration set up in June to take over responsibility from the U.S.-led occupation forces.


14 Dec 04 - 02:04 AM (#1356267)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Tucker



"December 13, 2004: There about 115,000 Iraqi security forces on duty. This includes police, troops and security forces that basically guard things like power plants and oil facilities. Journalists over there tend to concentrate on those incidents where Sunni Arab soldiers or police run away. But the majority of the Iraqi armed forces and police are doing their job. The jails are filling up with criminals again, and the Sunni Arab gangs in central Iraq often attack Iraqi police and soldiers, only to find that they are Kurds or Shia Arabs, who are eager to shoot right back.

The Sunni Arab terrorism is giving rise to an increasing amount of similar actions by Shia Arab groups. The Shia Arabs, unlike the Sunni Arabs, are not trying to take over the government. Once elections are held next month, the Shia Arabs will be the largest block in parliament. What the Shia gunmen are looking for now is revenge. What outsiders often forget is that decades of terrorism and violence by Saddam was done most often by Sunni Arabs who did not hide their identities. The Shia took names, and some are not waiting for trials. They have lists, and are out looking for Sunni Arabs to kill. It is personal. And the police are not bothering much with these vigilantes.
NATO has agreed to help Iraq train police commanders and army officers, but few NATO members will actually send trainers. Most Iraqis (the Kurds and Shia Arabs) believe that the violence in central Iraq is supported by Saddam Hussein's many friends. This in includes Iraq's Sunni Arab neighbors, and many European countries (Russia and France were major weapons suppliers to Saddam). So NATO's reluctance to help them makes sense. Conspiracy theories are popular in Iraq, the one about France and Russia wanting to put Saddam back in power has gained some traction.
Shia Moslems have long been persecuted by the majority Sunni. While the Kurds are Sunni, they are not very religious. At least most of them. A small minority of Kurds support Ansar al Islam, an Islamic radical group in league with al Qaeda, and supported by Iran. While Iran is mostly Shia, there are some in the Iranian government who support anyone who will help kill American soldiers. A principal belief of Iranian Islamic radicals is that the United States is the major enemy of Islam and must be destroyed, or at least weakened, by any means available. This attitude is a bit much for Iraqi Shia Arabs, who were never fond of the Iranian government anyway. Arabs are a minority in Iran, and even though these Iranian Arabs are Shia, they have suffered persecution from the majority, non-Arab, Iranians.
Iraqi Shia Arabs have lived in fear, and domination by Sunni Arabs or Iranians, for over a thousand years. Now it is their turn to rule, and they are not eager to let their chance slip away.


December 11, 2004: Iraqis believe that their Arab neighbors are using Iraq as a way to get rid of their Islamic radicals. Syria, in particular, does little to stop Islamic radicals from entering Iraq. The Syrians know that most of these men will get killed. Those that survive and return, can be arrested, questioned to see if they are still willing to die to establish an Islamic state, and release them if they have mellowed out. Saudi Arabia and the other Arab Gulf States are accused of doing the same thing. These countries remember what happened during the 1980s, when eager young men went off to fight for Islam in Afghanistan, and the survivors came back eager to start an Islamic revolution in their home countries.
Actually, very few of the Arabs who went to Afghanistan got killed there. The Afghans were reluctant to take, into combat, inexperienced Arab volunteers who didn't even speak the local languages. But the Arab volunteers, like Osama bin Laden, stayed in Pakistan working with Afghan refugees and helping out as they could. Then these fellows went home full of enthusiasm for establishing Islamic republics. This resulted in the formation of Islamic rebellions in many Arab countries. In Iraq, many of the volunteers, even though they speak the local language (although with an accent that gives away their foreign origin), were also shunned by the more experienced Sunni Arab gunmen leading the fight against the government and coalition forces. Many of the foreigners are used as suicide bombers, as all this requires is driving a few miles, then pushing a button.
The Arab volunteers, in effect, identify themselves as Islamic radicals by going to Iraq. Frequently, even their families are surprised when they discover a son has gone off to Iraq. This is often considered a tragedy, because if the kid doesn't get killed in Iraq, he will be on a police list of usual suspects when he comes back.
It's thought that several hundred foreign volunteers died in Fallujah, a city that many volunteers headed for when they entered Iraq. Fallujah was the center of suicide bomb operations, and an area where foreign volunteers were prepared for suicide missions, or given training to make them useful as gunmen or for planting roadside bombs. But many of these volunteers never left Fallujah, as it was easier to use locals (who knew the neighborhood) to plant roadside bombs, or make attacks on local police. So when the battle for Fallujah happened, many foreign volunteers for a chance to fight. They were pretty inept, and many of those who got caught by bombs, and didn't leave behind enough information to identify nationality, were believed to be foreign Arabs. Interrogations of over a thousand captured gunmen in Fallujah indicated that lots of foreigners were there, and had been encouraged to stay there and fight. Most apparently did, and died. Only a few dozen were captured.
Iraqis are angry with their neighbors for allowing these bloodthirsty men to come to Iraq to kill people. Most of the casualties inflicted by the foreign Arabs are Iraqi. The government is increasingly vocal in demanding that their neighbors crack down on these "volunteers," but little is actually being done. Getting rid of your local Islamic radicals is too good an opportunity to pass up.
December 9, 2004: Most of the suicide bombers in Iraq are foreigners. The volunteers are numerous, but they come prepared to die. The Sunni Arab Iraqi antigovernment organizations that come across these foreigners, pass them on to al Qaeda groups, who get the volunteer ready for the mission. Sunni Arab groups have been helping with getting cars (bought or stolen) and equipping them with bombs (usually artillery and mortar shells wired to explode when the driver pushes a button.) But most of the suicide car bombs have been al Qaeda operations. Few Iraqis have volunteered to be suicide bombers, but the concept is popular in other Arab countries, where Palestinian suicide bombers have been turned into folk heroes. Many of the volunteers don't want to kill Iraqis. These are often told to go home. Others are convinced that they will be killing Kurds (who aren't Arabs, and are ethnically related to Iranians, who are much hated by Arabs) or Shia Arabs (al Qaeda is a Sunni movement that preaches death to Shia for not being Sunni enough.) Some of the suicide volunteers, the ones who aren't too bright to begin with, are simply deceived and sent out on their mission. It's not like the guy is likely to come back and complain that he was tricked.

The foreign volunteers are eager to kill coalition, especially American, troops. Some of the suicide car bombers are still directed against American troops, and sometimes they succeed. But most of the time they either can't get into position, or American troops shoot them. So the volunteers are given secondary targets, and these are the ones that are usually hit. The volunteers drive off with a non-suicidal guide/minder, who plays navigator until they are within sight of a target. The guide then arms the explosives, bales, and the volunteers drives off to do his best.

There have been 100-150 suicide car bomb attacks so far, with many more aborted, or the drivers arrested or killed before they could set off their explosives. Over 500 people, mostly Iraqis, have been killed by suicide bomb attacks so far. The attacks have made al Qaeda, foreign volunteers and Sunni Arab rebels very unpopular with most Iraqis. This is what al Qaeda wants (the better to start a Sunni/Shia civil war), although it is not exactly working out according to plan. Over a third of the Iraqi dead are Sunni Arabs, and Shia Arabs and Kurds are increasing their own security (with volunteer guards, or simply more civilians willing to point out attackers to police or coalition troops.) This forces the suicide bombers to increasingly hit targets in Sunni Arab neighborhoods. This is one of the reasons there have been so many attacks on police stations in Sunni Arab areas. While this demoralizes the police, it infuriates the Sunni Arabs because of all the Sunni Arabs killed in these attacks.

Seven suicide car workshops were found in Fallujah, and several more have been found in and around Baghdad. There are obviously more out there, and they will only be found when enough Sunni Arabs get fed up with the bombings and let the police know where the workshops are.


December 7, 2004: The fighting in Iraq is a continuation of the war that began in March, 2003. While Saddam's army and government was quickly demolished, his supporters in Sunni Arab areas of central Iraq were still there. Saddam didn't rule Iraq with the army, but with a force of skilled and ruthless terrorists. With a strength of over 100,000 men (and a few women), the work was often done at night. Real, or suspected, opponents of Saddam were kidnapped, beaten or killed in the dark. Broad daylight executions, or mutilations, in public places, were also used. Terror is fueled by frightening images, either mental or visual. Day and night, Saddam's terrorists frightened the Iraqi people into submission. The work of these terrorists continues, but the victims are fighting back. Saddam's thugs were chased out of northern Iraq ten years ago, with the U.S and Britain providing backup for the Kurds doing the chasing. In southern Iraq, Shia Arab gangs have been forming to go after Saddam's men in mixed Shia/Sunni areas of central Iraq. Saddam's thugs have been terrorizing and killing Shia Arabs. This is done mainly gain dominance and control in towns and neighborhoods with mixed populations. The thugs want everyone to know who the real boss is. The main target of the Sunni Arab gangs are the police and security forces. But these are increasingly staffed with Shia Arabs and Kurds. Saddam's men cannot threaten the families of Kurdish cops, and are having a harder time reaching the kin of Shia Arab police and soldiers. Western journalists have a hard enough time covering the battle involving American troops, but they are almost completely cut out of this other war. All you hear reported is the occasional killing of a prominent Sunni Arab (usually a clergyman). But the body count on both sides is quite high, and trending against the Sunni Arabs. If the Sunnis gather together in large groups, to overwhelm local police, they risk getting caught, and demolished by American troops. Operating in smaller groups, and there is increasing danger from Shia Arab (and even Kurdish) death squads. This is a very dirty war, which will eventually get reported as such. But for the moment, it's a dangerous beat for reporters, because neither side wants journalists along, and will kill any who get too close.
December 5, 2004: Sunni Arab antigovernment and al Qaeda gunmen now make no secret of their desire to trigger a religious and ethnic based civil war in Iraq. Attacks on Kurds (who are not Arabs) and Shia Arabs (who practice the form of Islam prevalent in neighboring Iran) are increasing. Only a minority of Kurds and Shia Arabs are affected, because most of those populations live in parts of Iraq where there are no Sunni Arabs, or where the local Sunni Arab leaders have kept the gunmen out. The major battlegrounds are cities like Mosul and Kirkuk. Saddam Hussein had, for over a decade, forced Kurdish families out of these cities, and moved in Sunni Arabs. It was ethnic cleansing at its most blunt. But large Kurdish minorities remain, and more Kurds, and their guns, are returning. In central Iraq, Sunni Arab gunmen roam the roads that Shia Arabs use to travel between the majority of Shia Arabs in the south, and the large minority of Shia Arabs in Baghdad. "


14 Dec 04 - 07:51 PM (#1357077)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/12/14/news/edgiscard.html


Letter from Europe:

Dear President Bush...
Giuliano Amato, Ralf Dahrendorf and Valéry Giscard d'Estaing
International Herald Tribune
Wednesday, December 15, 2004

As the political dust settles in your country after a long campaign season,
we urge you to engage promptly in a reassessment of relations with
Europeans. However powerful your country may be, experience has already
demonstrated that you will need allies and functioning global institutions
to preserve your fundamental interests.
.
Your best potential partners remain the Europeans. For all our current
shortcomings, we share basic values, we are committed to democracy and
market economics, and we are strong believers in making multilateral
institutions effective.
.
The hard lessons of the past two years are clear for us as well: If we are
split, we are unable to exercise any significant international influence.
.
There are five important points to make:
.
Be multilateral and effective. The case for working multilaterally is bound
to grow in coming decades. The rise of China and India as economic, military
and diplomatic heavyweights seems certain, and Russia may be heading down
the same path. Only a solid Euro-American core can make international
institutions more effective.
.
A strong Europe makes for a strong alliance. Mr. President, a more
integrated Europe is in America's long-term interests, even though there
will be times when it opposes you.
.
In order to encourage Europeans to rise to the major challenges of our era,
you could offer a series of tradeoffs. For example, you could promise that
if Europeans deliver on our pledges, you will loosen your protectionist
rules on the transfer of military technology. You could offer more of the
top command slots within NATO to Europeans. And you could share more
intelligence with your key allies.
.
Work jointly on the Middle East. Mr. President, in the next four years you
will probably spend more time and energy on the greater Middle East than on
any other international region.
.
Offer the Europeans a quid pro quo: If Europe supports common efforts in
Iraq (some with troops, others by increasing support of the buildup of Iraqi
forces) and commits more financial resources to the reconstruction, America
will uphold its promise of promoting a Palestinian state by 2006. You need
to demonstrate, in deeds not just words, that the United States is serious
about a two-state solution. You should propose to the Europeans that
together we assist and train Palestinian security and police forces and that
NATO play a role in delivering security, together with Arab countries like
Egypt. We Europeans will have to focus our efforts on assisting the rise of
a responsible and accountable Palestinian leadership.
.
On Iran, Europe and America should partly switch sides. You should encourage
the Europeans to consider using sticks, as long as the provisional agreement
with Iran is not implemented; in turn, America should set out what
incentives it is willing to offer Tehran in return for a verifiable end to
Iran's nuclear program.
.
It's also the economy, Mr. President! We have to devise an economic new
deal. The European and American economies remain tightly interdependent and
represent the keystone of the global trading system.
.
The single most relevant action of your first administration as far as
impact on the world economy is concerned was the reversal of the federal
budget from a surplus of almost $250 billion in 2000 to a deficit of more
than $400 billion in 2004. This has provided a powerful stimulus to the U.S.
and world economies, but has also increased the instability of the
international financial system.
.
What we need is a commitment by the United States to gradual fiscal
consolidation, a commitment in Europe to accelerated reform so as to raise
potential growth, and a commitment by China to abandon the dollar peg and to
replace it with a peg to a basket of currencies including the dollar and the
euro. To further this goal, we should encourage growing links between the
G-7 and China.
.
Think of a new strategic forum. To cooperate effectively, the Western allies
have to share decisions. On the American side, this means real consultation
- not just setting the line and expecting us to follow. On the European
side, this means creating a better decision-making mechanism, which has to
be collective.
.
We suggest creating a Contact Group, which would serve as a much more
functional forum between the European Union and the United States than
anything we currently have. NATO is now too large and too reactive to allow
a real strategic discussion.
.
Mr. President, we believe that a new trans-Atlantic deal should be part of
our future. On the basis of our historical roots, it is natural, and even
healthy, for both Americans and Europeans to define our respective
identities in terms of our differences.
.
But we still share bounds of civility and interests in the world that will
be more effectively protected if we do it together. They are equally crucial
to a new trans-Atlantic deal.
.
.
(Giuliano Amato is a former prime minister of Italy. Ralf Dahrendorf, a
member of the British House of Lords, was director of the London School of
Economics. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing is a former president of France. This
article was drafted under the auspices of the Aspen Institute Italia in Rome
and distributed by Global Viewpoint for Tribune Media Services
International.)
.



See more of the world that matters - click here for home delivery of the
International Herald Tribune.
< < Back to Start of Article As the political dust settles in your country
after a long campaign season, we urge you to engage promptly in a
reassessment of relations with Europeans. However powerful your country may
be, experience has already demonstrated that you will need allies and
functioning global institutions to preserve your fundamental interests.
.
Your best potential partners remain the Europeans. For all our current
shortcomings, we share basic values, we are committed to democracy and
market economics, and we are strong believers in making multilateral
institutions effective.
.
The hard lessons of the past two years are clear for us as well: If we are
split, we are unable to exercise any significant international influence.
.
There are five important points to make:
.
Be multilateral and effective. The case for working multilaterally is bound
to grow in coming decades. The rise of China and India as economic, military
and diplomatic heavyweights seems certain, and Russia may be heading down
the same path. Only a solid Euro-American core can make international
institutions more effective.
.
A strong Europe makes for a strong alliance. Mr. President, a more
integrated Europe is in America's long-term interests, even though there
will be times when it opposes you.
.
In order to encourage Europeans to rise to the major challenges of our era,
you could offer a series of tradeoffs. For example, you could promise that
if Europeans deliver on our pledges, you will loosen your protectionist
rules on the transfer of military technology. You could offer more of the
top command slots within NATO to Europeans. And you could share more
intelligence with your key allies.
.
Work jointly on the Middle East. Mr. President, in the next four years you
will probably spend more time and energy on the greater Middle East than on
any other international region.
.
Offer the Europeans a quid pro quo: If Europe supports common efforts in
Iraq (some with troops, others by increasing support of the buildup of Iraqi
forces) and commits more financial resources to the reconstruction, America
will uphold its promise of promoting a Palestinian state by 2006. You need
to demonstrate, in deeds not just words, that the United States is serious
about a two-state solution. You should propose to the Europeans that
together we assist and train Palestinian security and police forces and that
NATO play a role in delivering security, together with Arab countries like
Egypt. We Europeans will have to focus our efforts on assisting the rise of
a responsible and accountable Palestinian leadership.
.
On Iran, Europe and America should partly switch sides. You should encourage
the Europeans to consider using sticks, as long as the provisional agreement
with Iran is not implemented; in turn, America should set out what
incentives it is willing to offer Tehran in return for a verifiable end to
Iran's nuclear program.
.
It's also the economy, Mr. President! We have to devise an economic new
deal. The European and American economies remain tightly interdependent and
represent the keystone of the global trading system.
.
The single most relevant action of your first administration as far as
impact on the world economy is concerned was the reversal of the federal
budget from a surplus of almost $250 billion in 2000 to a deficit of more
than $400 billion in 2004. This has provided a powerful stimulus to the U.S.
and world economies, but has also increased the instability of the
international financial system.
.
What we need is a commitment by the United States to gradual fiscal
consolidation, a commitment in Europe to accelerated reform so as to raise
potential growth, and a commitment by China to abandon the dollar peg and to
replace it with a peg to a basket of currencies including the dollar and the
euro. To further this goal, we should encourage growing links between the
G-7 and China.
.
Think of a new strategic forum. To cooperate effectively, the Western allies
have to share decisions. On the American side, this means real consultation
- not just setting the line and expecting us to follow. On the European
side, this means creating a better decision-making mechanism, which has to
be collective.
.
We suggest creating a Contact Group, which would serve as a much more
functional forum between the European Union and the United States than
anything we currently have. NATO is now too large and too reactive to allow
a real strategic discussion.
.
Mr. President, we believe that a new trans-Atlantic deal should be part of
our future. On the basis of our historical roots, it is natural, and even
healthy, for both Americans and Europeans to define our respective
identities in terms of our differences.
.
But we still share bounds of civility and interests in the world that will
be more effectively protected if we do it together. They are equally crucial
to a new trans-Atlantic deal.


14 Dec 04 - 07:52 PM (#1357079)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

This excerpt from Lancet says much about the dubiosu successes in Iraq:

Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey


Les Roberts, Riyadh Lafta, Richard Garfield, Jamal Khudhairi, Gilbert
Burnham



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Lancet 2004; 364: 1857-64


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Published online October 29, 2004 http://image.thelancet.com/
extras/04art10342web.pdf

SUMMARY:

Background In March, 2003, military forces, mainly from the USA and the UK,
invaded Iraq. We did a survey to compare mortality during the period of 14·6
months before the invasion with the 17·8 months after it.

Methods A cluster sample survey was undertaken throughout Iraq during
September, 2004. 33 clusters of 30 households each were interviewed about
household composition, births, and deaths since January, 2002. In those
households reporting deaths, the date, cause, and circumstances of violent
deaths were recorded. We assessed the relative risk of death associated with
the 2003 invasion and occupation by comparing mortality in the 17·8 months
after the invasion with the 14·6-month period preceding it.

Findings The risk of death was estimated to be 2·5-fold (95% CI 1·6-4·2)
higher after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period.
Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of
Falluja. If we exclude the Falluja data, the risk of death is 1·5-fold
(1·1-2·3) higher after the invasion. We estimate that 98000 more deaths than
expected (8000-194000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and
far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included. The major causes of
death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular
accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence
was the primary cause of death. Violent deaths were widespread, reported in
15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most
individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children.
The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58
times higher (95% CI 8·1-419) than in the period before the war.

Interpretation Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000
excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from
coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths. We have shown that
collection of public-health information is possible even during periods of
extreme violence. Our results need further verification and should lead to
changes to reduce non-combatant deaths from air strikes.


14 Dec 04 - 07:53 PM (#1357080)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Excerpted from Bob Koehler's column at
http://www.commonwonders.com/archives/col267.htm regarding a report
developed by field research in Iraq and published in Lancet magazine, quoted above:


Based on the findings, the researchers were able to estimate a death rate
before and after the invasion. The after rate - excluding the data from the
shattered city of Fallujah, which would have skewed the overall results, so
much greater was the death toll there - was 1.5 times higher than the before
rate, which extrapolates to about 100,000 "excess" dead.

Furthermore, most of the pre-invasion deaths were from heart attacks,
strokes and the like, whereas afterward, according to the Lancet article,
"violence was the primary cause of death. Violent deaths were widespread . .
. and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals
reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The risk of
death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher . .
. than in the period before the war."

And most of the deaths were the result of coalition air strikes, leading the
study's authors to conclude that "Civility and enlightened self-interest
demand a re-evaluation of the consequences of weaponry now used by coalition
forces in populated areas."

I'm inclined to word that conclusion just a tad more hysterically: This is
slaughter, Mr. President! In the name of God, in the name of Allah, call it
off. What strategic end is worth what we're doing to the Iraqi people? What
consequences do you think will flow from it?

Your mandate for this war, sir, is based on gross ignorance - that the
collateral carnage we're churning up is minimal, that Iraqi deaths matter
less than American, that because we don't do beheadings we aren't barbaric.

A hundred thousand dead, sir. And counting. When does a conscience kick in?
When do we become worse than Saddam Hussein?


15 Dec 04 - 07:44 PM (#1358107)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From MSNBC:

Debasing the Medal of Freedom (David Shuster)



I don't have a problem with Paul Bremer (former US administrator in Iraq),
George Tenet (former CIA director), or General Tommy Franks (led the
invasion of Iraq.)   And I'm convinced that all three did their jobs as best
they could under exceptionally trying circumstances.

However, I couldn't help but get sick to my stomach today as I watched
President Bush award Bremer, Tenet, and Franks the Presidential medal of
freedom. Maybe it was because I spent most of yesterday at Walter Reed Army
hospital, interviewing United States soldiers who are learning how to use
prosthetic legs and arms because their own got blown off in Iraq.   (More on
these courageous young men/women tomorrow on Hardblogger and Thursday night
on Hardball.) Or maybe I just couldn't get over the apparent contradictions
between the record of today's medal of freedom recipients and the
qualifications listed on the web site. According to the medal of freedom
web site, "this great honor is reserved for individuals the President deems
to have made especially meritorious contributions to the security or
national interests of the United States, to world peace, or to cultural or
other significant public or private endeavors." The award is "given only
after careful thought, always sparingly so as not to debase its currency."

"Debase its currency." Hmmm. The 9-11 commission blames the CIA and Tenet
for some of the crucial intelligence failures that prevented us from
stopping the terrorist attacks. On Iraq, before the invasion, it was Tenet
who described the existence of WMD as a "slam dunk." Paul Bremer guided
the postwar Iraq effort into chaos and insurgency. And General Tommy
Franks, while leading US troops brilliantly to Baghdad, had no plan once US
troops got there to secure any part of the nation and prevent looting or
sabotage.

Once upon a time, the Presidential medal of freedom was awarded to spies who
quietly risked their life for our nation. And in previous years, the medal
of freedom has been given President Gerald Ford, President Jimmy Carter,
Thurgood Marshall, Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt, civil rights leader Rosa Parks,
educator Albert Shanker, former Senator and GOP Presidential candidate Bob
Dole, philanthropist David Rockefeller, and etc. and etc.

My point is that it is a shame to see a meaningful award turned into the
latest political photo-op. I'm glad to hear that George Tenet, Paul Bremer,
and Tommy Franks are doing so well in private life.    But if the Bush
administration wants to review the record of these three, let's have an
honest discussion instead of the historical revisionism and political
theater that was on center stage today.


15 Dec 04 - 07:54 PM (#1358114)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

NYTimes.com > Opinion



   

EDITORIAL
No Bang for Our Cheap Buck


Published: December 15, 2004




The Bush administration's de facto weak-dollar policy - its preferred
"cure" for the American trade deficit - is not working. Yesterday's trade
deficit report shows that imports outpaced exports by a record $55.5 billion
in October. The huge imbalance was worse than the gloomiest expectations.

So far, the administration has been hoping that the weaker dollar will raise
the price of imports, leading American consumers to buy less from abroad,
and will at the same time make our exports cheaper so foreigners will buy
more American goods. That's supposed to shrink the trade deficit and, with
it, America's need to attract nearly $2 billion each day from abroad to
balance its books.

But the dollar has been declining since February 2002 - it's down by 55
percent against the euro and 22 percent against the yen - and the trade
deficit has stubbornly refused to shrink along with it. The falling dollar
has done nothing to diminish America's appetite for foreign goods - such
imports continue to rise at a faster rate than exports. According to
yesterday's report, imports were some 50 percent greater than exports in
October. Much of October's import growth was caused by high oil prices,
which have since subsided. But that's no reason to shrug off the disturbing
evidence of the weak dollar's failure to fix the trade gap. The United
States is now on track for a trade deficit of more than $60 billion next
June.


16 Dec 04 - 08:10 AM (#1358544)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Excerpt from the Washington Post:

Presidential Medals of Failure



By Richard Cohen
Thursday, December 16, 2004; Page A37

Where's Kerik?


This is the question I asked myself as, one by one, the pictures of the latest Presidential Medal of Freedom awardees flashed by on my computer screen. First came George Tenet, the former CIA director and the man who had assured President Bush that it was a "slam-dunk" that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Then came L. Paul Bremer, the former viceroy of Iraq, who disbanded the Iraqi army and ousted Baathists from government jobs, therefore contributing mightily to the current chaos in that country. Finally came retired Gen. Tommy Franks, the architect of the plan whereby the United States sent too few troops to Iraq.


One by one these images flicked by me, each man wearing the royal-blue velvet ribbon with the ornate medal -- one failure after another, each now on the lecture circuit, telling insurance agents and other good people what really happened when they were in office, but withholding such wisdom from the American people until, for even more money, their book deals are negotiated. (Franks has already completed this stage of his life. His book, "American Soldier," was a bestseller.)


I braced myself. Could Bernard Kerik be next? Would we skip the entire process of maladministration, misjudgments in office and sycophantic admiration of the current president and go straight to the celebrated failure?


16 Dec 04 - 08:22 AM (#1358557)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

According to the Sun Herald:

Lott: Replace defense chief

By MELISSA M. SCALLAN




BILOXI - U.S. Sen. Trent Lott doesn't believe Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should resign immediately, but he does think Rumsfeld should be replaced sometime in the next year.


"I'm not a fan of Secretary Rumsfeld," Lott, R-Mississippi, told the Biloxi Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday morning. "I don't think he listens enough to his uniformed officers."


Rumsfeld has been criticized since a soldier asked him last week why the combat vehicles used in the war in Iraq don't have the proper armor. Both Rumsfeld and President Bush have said more vehicle armor will be shipped to Iraq.


Lott said the United States needs more troops to help with the war. The country also needs a plan to leave Iraq once elections are over at the end of January.


16 Dec 04 - 08:28 AM (#1358562)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Donuel

Amos - debasing the medal of honor was right on.

We need new medals, I just happen to have one here...

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/metalofdishonor3.jpg


16 Dec 04 - 05:59 PM (#1359137)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

A New York Times editorial reveals that the bloody consequences of Bush's war-mongering are beginning to be appraised -- not the cost in limbs and lives snuffed out, but in the ruthless destruction of sanity caused by participating in psychotic, institutionalized violence and the destruction of others..


16 Dec 04 - 08:14 PM (#1359228)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Ex-Military Lawyers Object to Bush Cabinet Nominee
By NEIL A. LEWIS

Published: December 16, 2004


WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - Several former high-ranking military lawyers say they
are discussing ways to oppose President Bush's nomination of Alberto R.
Gonzales to be attorney general, asserting that Mr. Gonzales's supervision
of legal memorandums that appeared to sanction harsh treatment of detainees,
even torture, showed unsound legal judgment.

Hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the nomination are
expected to begin next month. While Mr. Gonzales is expected to be
confirmed, objections from former generals and admirals would be a setback
and an embarrassment for him and the White House.

Rear Adm. John D. Hutson, who served as the Navy's judge advocate general
from 1997 to 2000 before he retired, said that while Mr. Gonzales might be a
lawyer of some stature, "I think the role that he played in the one thing
that I am familiar with is tremendously shortsighted."


16 Dec 04 - 08:17 PM (#1359230)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Bush Administration and Oil Companies Want Arctic Meltdown

by
Wayne Madsen

[Petroleum elites are benefiting from oil scarcity, because it raises
prices. But they also fear oil scarcity, because it raises costs and
eventually makes business impossible. And since the oil industry is also
impeding the large-scale development of alternatives while continuing to
encourage rampant consumption, scarcity of fossil fuels may eventually kill
them. They don't seem to mind. Maybe the pursuit of world-destroying
policies is some kind of compensation for their own mortality --- you know,
if I can't live forever, I think I'll take the rest of you down with me.
Such a policy is neither government nor business; it's the melodrama of a
big dysfunctional family whose patriarchs are finally going crazy - just
when their power is at its height.

Here's another metaphor: the Petro-Administration of Cheney-Rice-Bush is
like a psychotic who tries to play chess: indifferent to the rules, he
simply steals the opponent's king off the board, claims victory, and burns
the whole chess-set in the fireplace.

In the following shocker by Wayne Madsen, we learn that there are people
high up in Washington who regard the apocalyptic melting of the polar ice
caps as a good thing. Why? It will clear new shipping lanes for the
exploitation of Arctic oil and gas.

About six years ago I published an essay in the Massachusetts Review called
"Scarcity and Compensation in Herman Melville's Moby-Dick." I learned that
the American whaling industry did not end because petroleum replaced whale
oil; whaling stopped because the animals had been "harvested" almost to
extinction, and the only place left to catch them was in the perilous ice
floes of the Arctic Ocean. In 1873 thirty-three out of forty whaling ships
cruising in the Arctic were destroyed by ice. 1

Today the American oil industry finds itself back up in the Arctic, chasing
petroleum (not whale blubber). But this time, pollutants from its own
product have warmed the globe, and instead of destroying our ships, the ice
is just melting out of the way! What a wonderful way to settle an old score.
- JAH]

November 11, 2004 0900 PDT (FTW) -- Washington, DC. Speaking off the record,
scientists studying the current warming of the Arctic region intimated that
some officials in the Bush administration saw the loss of Arctic ice and the
resultant opening of sea channels such as the Northwest Passage of Canada as
a good thing for the exploration and retrieval of oil and natural gas from
the endangered region.

Over 300 international scientists have just completed an extensive 1200-page
report documenting their exhaustive 4-year Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
study on the rapid warming of the Arctic. The study was commissioned by the
Arctic Council and the International Arctic Science Committee at a
ministerial meeting of the Arctic Council in Point Barrow, Alaska in 2000.
On November 8, the scientists released a 144-page summary of their findings
at a press conference in Washington, DC.

As if out of a scene from the Roland Emmerich's climate disaster movie, "The
Day After Tomorrow," the U.S. State Department is criticizing the
international panel's call to slow down Arctic warming by curbing greenhouse
emissions into the atmosphere. The State Department, according to some
scientists, is echoing the positions of oil companies and
anti-environmentalist pressure groups like the Cato Institute and Heritage
Foundation, in dismissing the recent report on Arctic warming. In fact,
President Bush has repeatedly referred to previous scientific studies
pointing to the effects of global warming as "silly science" based on "fuzzy
math."


17 Dec 04 - 04:28 PM (#1359954)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

ush's economic summit
The Boston Globe Saturday, December 18, 2004
President George W. Bush's two-day economic summit was an exercise in
political propaganda that attempted to hide the underlying economic problem
for the administration over the next four years: The government is spending
far more than it is taking in and needs to raise taxes to make up at least
part of the difference.
.
Instead, participants in the summit - dominated by the president's
supporters - focused on proposals to block anti-business lawsuits (a
perennial issue for Republicans) and allow partial privatization of Social
Security (a new favorite of the party). The budget turnaround, from a $236.4
billion surplus to a $413 billion deficit over the last five years, was
mentioned in passing, but only as a way for participants to praise Bush for
pushing tax cuts that supposedly revived the economy.
.
A strong case could have been made for a quick stimulus package to pre-empt
a deep recession following the stock market collapse and the 9/11 attacks.
But nobody at the conference made the point that Bush used his narrow
victory in 2000 to destroy the bipartisan consensus of the 1990's that
balanced the budget. His tax cuts, if kept in place, will reduce federal
revenues far into the future without regard to their impact on the
government or the economy as a whole.
.
The Congressional Budget Office notes that federal spending, growing at a
3.5 percent rate in the 90's, has soared to a 6 to 7 percent growth rate
under Bush. Much of that can be attributed to the war against terrorism, but
it made no sense to embark on the invasion of Iraq while simultaneously
cutting taxes, as Bush continued to advocate throughout his first term. And
the Medicare drug benefit, which Bush pushed through Congress last year,
will put more pressure on the budget when it takes effect in 2006. The
program lacks the price restraints necessary to keep it under control.
.
Instead, the summit participants talked about Social Security as if it were
in crisis, rather than a long-term manageable problem. The president and
Joshua Bolton, his budget director, did suggest that tough spending choices
would be necessarily to reduce the deficit, but no one was ready to offer
specifics. Even if all unnecessary spending were eliminated, essential
federal programs would require more funding than is possible when revenues
shrink to an unreasonably low percentage of the gross domestic product -
16.5 percent, according to the CBO.
.
Participants at the summit also barely focused on the decline of the dollar,
but foreign investors' tendency to put their money elsewhere is a sign that
the Bush administration and Congress are pursuing polices that threaten
American economic leadership. Despite Republican rhetoric, Americans are far
from overtaxed. The Bush administration is underperforming in its essential
role as guardian of the U.S. economy.


17 Dec 04 - 04:29 PM (#1359955)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

How To Talk About the Deficit
A lesson in the art of avoidance from the Bush economic conference.
ByTimothy Noah
Posted Thursday, Dec. 16, 2004, at 2:24 PM PT
http://slate.msn.com/id/2111173/

President Bush is holding an economic conference this week at the White
House. The whole thing is about as spontaneous as a wrestling match; even
David Brooks called it a "pseudo-event." So I'm not particularly surprised
that, at today's session on the budget deficit, nobody suggested that taxes
be raised. Republicans always oppose raising taxes. It did surprise me,
however, that even a staged conversation about the deficit could take place
without anyone proposing a specific budget cut.

Conservatives in general, and the Bush administration in particular, favor
budget cuts. At the conference, President Bush said there were going to be
"some tough choices on the spending side," and he boasted that "non-defense,
non-homeland discretionary spending" had increased at a rate of less than 1
percent over last year. But "non-defense, non-homeland discretionary
spending" is a tiny sliver of all the money that the government spends.
Overall, the federal government this year spent an estimated 5 percent more
than it spent last year, and that's only counting expenditures through
November. Bush doesn't like to cut spending; he likes to say he likes to cut
spending. In truth, Bush spends just as freely as a Democratic president
would, if not more. The only significant difference is that Bush is bleeding
domestic programs in order to increase spending on the military and homeland
defense. Bush's hypocrisy about government spending is so naked that a whole
new ideology, "big government conservatism," had to be invented in order to
explain it away.


17 Dec 04 - 06:41 PM (#1360041)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

Well, gol danged...

Looks as if Bush is so good at starting wars that he's gone a started another one without even knowing it?

Huh, you say...

That's right. Goergie Porg has started *Cold War II*!!!!! Looks as if Russia and China have agreed to hold military manouvers together signaling an alliance that can't be viewed as anything but Cold War tactics...

Now, throw in China bankrollin' Bush's spending spree, the outcome of this Cold War certainly looks to be different than the last one...

Funny thing. Both Bush and Reagan held power by decreasing taxes, driving unprecidented debt yet Reagan spent it on a military that wasn't used and that, among other factors, helped the US win Cold War I. Bush has also spent heavily on the military but has used it (quite unwisely) and cranked up the War that purdy much ended under Reagan...

How much more Bush America can survive???

Everything he touches turns to sh*t...

Bobert


17 Dec 04 - 06:52 PM (#1360050)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp

Hitler had exactly the same problem.


17 Dec 04 - 07:30 PM (#1360076)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

ANd look how he solved it!!

A


18 Dec 04 - 10:53 AM (#1360382)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Kris Kristofferson, urging action to stop the genocide underway in Darfur:

"Mr. Bush bemoaned Mr. Clinton's use of the White House for sex with an intern, and he was right to do so. But it's incomparably more immoral, and certainly a greater betrayal of American values, for Mr. Bush to sit placidly in the White House and watch a genocide from the sidelines."

Read the whole excellent piece here.

A


18 Dec 04 - 12:26 PM (#1360454)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From The Washington Post:

...Because of the incompetence or indifference of this nation's civilian leadership of the war, Americans in Iraq are living with an increased risk of death.


All the official transcripts of White House signing ceremonies for every defense spending bill, all the presidential proclamations for Veterans Day and every prepared statement by the secretary of defense before a congressional committee include the same stock phrase. U.S. troops are invariably referred to as "the best trained, best equipped" ever. Best equipped? To call today's American troops in Iraq the "best equipped" is more than an exaggeration; it is bilge, baloney and cruel.


An America coming out of the Great Depression somehow found the leadership and the will to build and deploy around the globe 2.5 million trucks in the same period of time that the incumbent U.S. government has failed to get 30,000 fully armored vehicles to Iraq.


The Bush administration has appropriated $34.3 billion on a theoretical missile defense system -- which proved again this week to be an expensive dud in its first test in two years, when the "kill vehicle" never got off the ground to intercept the target missile carrying a mock warhead -- but has been able up to now, according to congressional budget authorities, to spend just $2 billion to armor the vehicles of Americans under fire.


18 Dec 04 - 05:49 PM (#1360724)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats on Saturday said U.S. soldiers in Iraq lacked adequate body armor and plated vehicles because of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's flawed leadership.

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, in the Democrats' weekly radio address, blasted the Pentagon under Rumsfeld for "a litany of serious miscalculations" including underestimating the Iraqis resistance and failing to give troops enough protective equipment even though Congress gave it all the money it requested.

"The Pentagon says the lack of protective equipment is a matter of 'logistics.' No it's not. It's a matter of leadership," Durbin said.

"Those responsible for planning this war were not prepared for the reality on the ground, and many of our soldiers have paid the price," he said, citing nearly 1,300 U.S. service members who have died in Iraq and more than 10,000 injured.


19 Dec 04 - 10:15 AM (#1361110)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Portland, Maine's Herald opines in this piece:

The White House must love 'opposite day'

Copyright © 2004 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.
 
It is a favored tactic in the Bush White House to take on tough criticism by boldly asserting the opposite.


Keeping clean air regulations from forcing further cuts in emissions is labeled a "clear skies" initiative. Judicial nominees who would bring the government into our bedrooms are defenders of liberty. And a scheme to gut Social Security and turn it into a money machine for the securities industry is a plan to "strengthen" that same system.

The latest in this series of 180-degree misdirections - reminiscent of when kids play "opposite day" - was Bush's assertion at a White House conference last week that moving forward with his proposals on Social Security would send positive signals to financial markets.

Say what?

Let's be clear about the what the president wants to do. He wants to put the nation another $2 trillion in debt so that, over time, he and his conservative supporters can eliminate the Social Security system as we know it.

Follow link for balance of editorial.

A


19 Dec 04 - 09:25 PM (#1361531)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

In Defense of Chevy Chase's Right to Call Bush a Dumb Fuck



 By Jackson Thoreau

 Excerpted from this page

I've long liked Chevy Chase , but now I like him even more. He joins Jon Stewart and Bill Maher as my favorite comedians.


 To stand up and call Bush a dumb fuck at a hoity-toity event like one hosted by the People for the American Way in mid-December [see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3216-2004Dec15.html ], takes some guts. Chase just said what most of us want to say, but doubt we would if we had a national stage like Chase has and had to worry about pissing off fans who pay to see our movies and acts.


And I don't know why Democrats and liberal-types have to apologize for, and distance themselves from, Chase, such as some with the People for the American Way and others on Fox shows like Hannity's did. They come off sounding like wimps, and maybe a lot of liberals are wimps [as are a lot of conservatives, especially those who talk tough but don't act on the talk, such as the chicken hawks who wimped out on going to Vietnam ].


Don't call Chase's remarks offensive and act like Bush is a legitimate U.S. president. Just say Chase's opinions are his own and leave it at that. I mean, if Cheney, who is supposedly a moral statesman, can use the f-word on the floor of Congress, a comedian can surely use it at an awards ceremony.


Bill O'Reilly, that purveyor of morality who paid millions to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit by an employee after transcripts revealed he admitted to having extramarital affairs amid phone sex with her, was indignant at Chase daring to "disrespect" the president this way.


O'Reilly and others overlook how Bush & co. have desecrated the office with the way they lied and cheated to get there, and the way they have lied and cheated since. Bush disrespected the Constitution, including in violating the part about the president and vice president living in separate states. He said he supported the will of the people, then worked to stop the legal counting of votes. He is among the most dirtiest campaigners in American history. History will show that his campaign engaged in high-tech cheating and intimidation tactics in 2004. He doesn't deserve respect. And Chase reminds us of this in an effective way.


 O'Reilly asked on his recent show for examples of Republicans who have publicly cussed at or called Democrats or opponents profanities. Bush and Cheney themselves have done that numerous times, including last June when Cheney told Sen. Patrick Leahy [D-Vt.] on the god-damned SENATE FLOOR to go "fuck yourself." Right-wingers like Joe Scarborough, who allegedly had an affair with a female employee who died in his office in a weird way, continue to gloat about that.


 How about Bush calling a reporter a major-league asshole in public in 2000? Did Cheney or Bush apologize for those statements? HELL, NO! Other examples are in a column I wrote a few months back for numerous sites, including the Moderate Independent at http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i19thoreau.htm .


 And journalist Jeanne Wolf said on O'Reilly's show that no one will defend Chevy Chase . So I am doing so in this column.


Instead of Dems apologizing and sucking up to Republicanazis, we need to stand up to the bullies like Chase did. We need more national celebrities to call Bush a dumb fuck. Some people say Bush is not so dumb, that he may not read books or position papers or even the Cliff Notes his staff prepares, but he does run campaigns that win, even if he cheats.


 That's not the point. The point is Bush doesn't deserve respect. He's not in the White House legitimately - even if you don't think he cheated in 2004, which he did, there is the more widely acknowledged cheating to take the White House in 2000. He shouldn't have even been in the position to run in 2004. Calling him a dumb fuck is reminding people that Bush is illegitimate. He's a presidential bastard, besides being a dumb fuck. I don't care if you think I'm unpatriotic for defending Chase and calling Bush a dumb fuck myself.


20 Dec 04 - 08:56 PM (#1361976)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

An excellent chuckle at the SECDEF's expense can be found in Maureen Dowd's latest column.

God grant we can still laugh.

A


21 Dec 04 - 12:20 AM (#1362056)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

An excerpt from the Washington Post's article describing Chevy Chase's original speech:

After actors Alec Baldwin and Susan Sarandon delivered speeches accepting their Defender of Democracy awards, Chase took the stage a final time and unleashed a rant against President Bush that stunned the crowd. He deployed the four-letter word that got Vice President Cheney in hot water, using it as a noun. Chase called the prez a "dumb [expletive]." He also used it as an adjective, assuring the audience, "I'm no [expletive] clown either. . . . This guy started a jihad."


Chase also said: "This guy in office is an uneducated, real lying schmuck . . . and we still couldn't beat him with a bore like Kerry."



My sympathies to Mister Chase. I suspect he may have laid his pearls before swine again...


A


21 Dec 04 - 08:00 PM (#1362618)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

In this editorial, the New York Times credits Bush with deeper insght than average on the Palestinian-Israeli evolution and with wisely disregarding "received wisdom".

This is unusually fulsome praise for the Times for Mister Bush, whom they usually excoriate.

At least they had the courage to change their minds this once.

A


22 Dec 04 - 02:25 PM (#1363391)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

An excerpt from a highly vocal individual of the Liberal perusasion, concerning the gentle drift of the United States towward National Socialism:

12/22/04 "ICH" -- When the thunderous clouds of fascists past and corporatists present finally dissipate over the vast lands of the United States, leaving in its wake a nation recovering from the violent downpours of mass lunacy, fear and collective schizophrenia that have caused a dustbowl-style drought of humanity in the nation of gluttonous undertakings, it will finally be seen, beyond the enveloping haze of post 9/11 hypnosis hindering American visibility, the devastation of what was done to us and what has been done to the world in our name, oftentimes with our willing consent and through our complicit guilt through silence and acquiescence.

The shock and awe storm of the Amerikan Nazis will inevitably one day pass, as all tyrannies eventually do, yet what will remain to haunt us, what will tug at our conscious for years to come, will be the dishonor and shame upon our society for the human malice spawned in the minds of so many millions of Americans. For the Amerikan Nazi phenomenon has with the passing of each sunset grown and mutated beyond the small cabal of criminal corporatists, power hungry warmongering fascists, military-industrial complex elites, delusional Zionist-first neocons, religious Bible-Belt fundamentalists and profit over people capitalists. Today, the cancer is spreading far and wide, infecting those residing inside the belly of the beast, afflicting first and foremost the most unenlightened and ignorant among us.

Tens of millions of Americans are being transformed into conduits of barbarism and catalysts of violence, regenerating the evil of racism against an entire population of purposefully scapegoated innocents whose only crime is belonging to a group the Amerikan Nazis have chosen as the necessary enemy from which to unleash perpetual war for perpetual profit. The deliberate conditioning of tens of millions of citizens by the Amerikan Nazis into purveyors of mass murder and violence accepting and indeed deriving pleasure from the death of 100,000 innocent Iraqis should send shockwaves throughout the world that perhaps a communal lunacy has infiltrated a large segment of the American people.


28 Dec 04 - 08:20 AM (#1365816)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

In The Cabinet of Incuriosities (N.Y. Times) Ron Suskind discusses the necessary qualities of a Bush cabinet member -- first and above all, compliancy.

A


28 Dec 04 - 08:27 AM (#1365822)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Excerpt from The Sociopathic Bush Administration

- by Mary Shaw

When Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was recently questioned by a U.S. soldier regarding the shortage of armor to protect our troops in Iraq, his insensitive response seemed to suggest that armor is for sissies, because even armored humvees can explode. The lack of compassion and lack of empathy exemplified by his response reinforced my belief that the Bush administration consistently displays clear signs of collective sociopathic behavior.

Let's take a look at some of the characteristics of sociopathic behavior, as defined by the American Psychiatric Association, and see how they fit:

1. Callousness, lack of empathy, irresponsibility, and reckless disregard for the safety of others: In addition to Rumsfeld's most recent display of callousness and reckless disregard, President Bush routinely exhibits these symptoms.
Childhood friends have described how the young George W. Bush would attach firecrackers to frogs and blow them up. Decades later, as Governor of Texas, Bush mocked and ridiculed convicted murderer Karla Fae Tucker's desperate plea for her life. Today, President Bush sends our young people to Iraq to fight an out-of-control war based on lies, ships American workers' jobs overseas, runs up the budget deficit, and sets out to put Social Security into the hands (and pockets) of Wall Street brokers, with apparently no consideration for how this reckless behavior will affect average Americans. He and those closest to him remain safe in their money-padded cocoons, far removed from the reality that their actions create.

2. Glibness and superficial charm: George W. Bush won votes with his casual, down-home style. He won the support of the heartland's cupcake moms and NASCAR dads by coming across as a regular guy. At the height of the 2004 campaign season, when asked which candidate they would rather have a beer with, 43 percent responded that they would rather have a beer with President Bush, compared with 25.1 percent for John Kerry. But Bush's frozen smirk betrays a glibness that tells us that his underlying agenda does not include buying a round at the local saloon for the common folks.

3. Deceitfulness: George H. W. Bush deceived the nation when he said, "Read my lips: no new taxes." But that lie did not cost thousands of innocent lives. George W. sent our young men and women into Iraq to fight a war based on false
allegations: Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, ties to al- Qaeda, and a grave and gathering threat to America. Vice President Cheney still clings to some of these stories, and National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice herself tapdanced around the truth in her testimony before the 9/11 Commission.
This administration does not let facts get in the way of their agenda.

4. Grandiose sense of self: Having won reelection with 51 percent of the vote (hardly a landslide), George W. Bush described his victory as a "mandate." He claimed to have earned "political capital" during the campaign, which he now intends to spend. The other 49 percent of the voting public will just have to accept it. After all, as Bush told an Amish group in July of 2004, "God speaks through me."


28 Dec 04 - 04:43 PM (#1366178)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: DougR

Sigh. And I thought we had seen the last of your very own private thread Amos. Well, I guess a few days is better than ...what? Nothing?

DougR


28 Dec 04 - 06:06 PM (#1366261)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

I know. I am sure the innocent Germans got tired of hearing about their problems too, but those who stand and do nothing do not serve.

I do not enjoy being led by a sociopath. Nor do I think it very well for the planet.

A


28 Dec 04 - 07:29 PM (#1366342)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Shopping for War
By BOB HERBERT

Published: December 27, 2004


You might think that the debacle in Iraq would be enough for the Pentagon, that it would not be in the mood to seek out new routes to unnecessary wars for the United States to fight. But with Donald Rumsfeld at the apex of the defense establishment, enough is never enough.

So, as detailed in an article in The Times on Dec. 19, Mr. Rumsfeld's minions are concocting yet another grandiose and potentially disastrous scheme. Pentagon officials are putting together a plan that would give the military a more prominent role in intelligence gathering operations that traditionally have been handled by the Central Intelligence Agency. They envision the military doing more spying with humans, as opposed, for example, to surveillance with satellites.

Further encroachment by the military into intelligence matters better handled by civilians is bad enough. Now hold your breath. According to the article, "Among the ideas cited by Defense Department officials is the idea of 'fighting for intelligence,' or commencing combat operations chiefly to obtain intelligence."

That is utter madness. The geniuses in Washington have already launched one bogus war, which has cost tens of thousands of lives and provoked levels of suffering that are impossible to quantify. We don't need to be contemplating new forms of warfare waged for the sole purpose of gathering intelligence.


28 Dec 04 - 08:15 PM (#1366376)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

This is waht I was talkin' about on another thread... Seems the Pentagon has a 25 year stategy and has wars planned up the wazoo...

And the beat goes on...

And, fir the record here? Amos is my hero for his vigilence. If I weren't so gtol danged busy trying to make a sanged living and pay my fair sahre of taxes that I'd like to think went toward HUD or the Dept. of Ed, I'd be here shoulder to shoulder with him but...sniff... I can't be..

Keep hammerin', Amos, keep a hammerin'...

Bobert


28 Dec 04 - 09:00 PM (#1366419)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Typical insightful and constructive remark, Martin. Let us know if you decide to mature, although I know it is late.

A


28 Dec 04 - 11:44 PM (#1366502)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: DougR

Whatever.

DougR


29 Dec 04 - 08:54 AM (#1366687)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The New York Times Op Ed from December 24th -- excerpt:


It's like watching your son playing in traffic, and there's nothing you can do." - Janet Bellows, mother of a soldier who has been assigned to a second tour in Iraq.

Back in the 1960's, when it seemed as if every other draftee in the Army was being sent to Vietnam, I was sent off to Korea, where I was assigned to the intelligence office of an engineer battalion.

Twenty years old and half a world away from home, I looked forward to mail call the way junkies craved their next fix. My teenage sister, Sandy, got all of her high school girlfriends to write to me, which led some of the guys in my unit to think I was some kind of Don Juan. I considered it impolite to correct any misconceptions they might have had.

You could depend on the mail for an emotional lift - most of the time. But there were times when I would open an envelope and read, in the inky handwriting of my mother or father or sister, that a friend of mine, someone I had grown up with or gone to school with, or a new friend I had met in the Army, had been killed in Vietnam. Just like that. Gone. Life over at 18, 19, 20.

I can still remember the weird feelings that would come over me in those surreal moments, including the irrational idea that I was somehow responsible for the death. In the twisted logic of grief, I would feel that if I had never opened the envelope, the person would still be alive. I remember being overwhelmed with the desire to reseal the letter in the envelope and bring my dead friend back to life.

This week's hideous attack in Mosul reminded me of those long ago days. Once again American troops sent on a fool's errand are coming home in coffins, or without their right arms or left legs, or paralyzed, or so messed up mentally they'll never be the same. Troops are being shoved two or three times into the furnace of Iraq by astonishingly incompetent leaders who have been unable or unwilling to provide them with the proper training, adequate equipment or even a clearly defined mission.

It is a mind-boggling tragedy. And the suffering goes far beyond the men and women targeted by the insurgents. Each death in Iraq blows a hole in a family and sets off concentric circles of grief that touch everyone else who knew and cared for the fallen soldier. If the human stakes were understood well enough by the political leaders of this country, it might make them a little more reluctant to launch foolish, unnecessary and ultimately unwinnable wars.

Lisa Hoffman and Annette Rainville of the Scripps Howard News Service have reported, in an extremely moving article, that nearly 900 American children have lost a parent to the war in Iraq. More than 40 fathers died without seeing their babies.

The article begins with a description of a deeply sad 4-year-old named Jack Shanaberger, whose father was killed in an ambush in March. Jack told his mother he didn't want to be a father when he grew up. "I don't want to be a daddy," he said, "because daddies die."

Six female soldiers who died in the war left a total of 10 children. This is a new form of wartime heartbreak for the U.S.

We have completely lost our way with this fiasco in Iraq. The president seems almost perversely out of touch. "The idea of democracy taking hold in what was a place of tyranny and hatred and destruction is such a hopeful moment in the history of the world," he said this week.

The truth, of course, is that we can't even secure the road to the Baghdad airport, or protect our own troops lining up for lunch inside a military compound. The coming elections are a slapstick version of democracy. International observers won't even go to Iraq to monitor the elections because it's too dangerous. They'll be watching, as if through binoculars, from Jordan.

Nobody has a plan. We don't have enough troops to secure the country, and the Iraqi forces have shown neither the strength nor the will to do it themselves. Election officials are being murdered in the streets. The insurgency is growing in both strength and sophistication. At least three more marines and one soldier were killed yesterday, ensuring the grimmest of holidays for their families and loved ones.

One of the things that President Bush might consider while on his current vacation is whether there are any limits to the price our troops should be prepared to pay for his misadventure in Iraq, or whether the suffering and dying will simply go on indefinitely.


31 Dec 04 - 01:56 PM (#1368318)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Washington's New Year War Cry: Party On!


By FRANK RICH

Published: January 1, 2005



ON the fourth day 'til Christmas, the day that news of the slaughter at the mess tent in Mosul slammed into the evening news, CBS had scheduled a special treat. That evening brought the annual broadcast of "The Kennedy Center Honors," the carefree variety show in which Washington's top dogs mingle with visitors from that mysterious land known as the Arts and do a passing (if fashion-challenged) imitation of revelers at the Oscars. This year, like any other, the show was handing out medals to those representing "the very best in American culture," as exemplified by honorees like Australia's Dame Joan Sutherland and Britain's Sir Elton John. Festive bipartisanship reigned. Though Sir Elton had said just three weeks earlier that "Bush and this administration are the worst thing that has ever happened to America," he and his boyfriend joined the president and Mrs. Bush in their box. John Kerry held forth in an orchestra seat below.

Advertisement


"The Kennedy Center Honors" is no ratings powerhouse; this year more adults under 50 elected to watch "The Real Gilligan's Island" on cable instead. But I tuned in, curious to see how this gathering of the capital's finest might be affected by the war. The honors had actually been staged and taped earlier in the month, on Dec. 5. That day the morning newspapers told of more deadly strikes by suicide bombers in Mosul and Baghdad, killing at least 26 Iraqi security officers, including 8 in a police station near the capital's protected Green Zone. There were also reports of at least four American casualties in other firefights.

But if anyone at the Kennedy Center so much as acknowledged this reality unfolding beyond the opera house, it was not to be found in the show presented on television. The only wars evoked were those scored by another honoree, John Williams, whose soundtrack music for "Saving Private Ryan" and "Star Wars" was merrily belted out by a military band. (Our delicate sensibilities were spared the sight of an actual "Private Ryan" battle scene, however, lest the broadcast risk being shut down for "indecency.") The razzle-dazzle Hollywood martial music, the what-me-worry Washington establishment, the glow of money and red plush: everything about the tableau reeked of the disconnect between the war in Iraq and the comfort of all of us at home, starting with those in government who had conceived, planned, rubber-stamped and managed our excellent adventure in spreading democracy.

Ordinary people beyond Washington, red and blue Americans alike, are feeling that disconnect more and more. On the same day that CBS broadcast the Kennedy Center special, an ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 70 percent of Americans believed that any gains in Iraq had come at the cost of "unacceptable" losses in casualties and that 56 percent believed the war wasn't "worth fighting" - up 8 percent since the summer. In other words, most Americans believe that our troops are dying for no good reason, even as a similar majority (58 percent) believes, contradictorily enough, that we should keep them in Iraq.

So the soldiers soldier on, and we party on. As James Dao wrote in The New York Times, "support our troops" became a verbal touchstone in 2004, yet "only for a minuscule portion of the populace, mainly those with loved ones overseas, does it have anything to do with sacrifice." Quite the contrary: we have our tax cuts, and a president who promises to make them permanent. Such is the disconnect between the country and the war that there is no national outrage when the president awards the Medal of Freedom to the clowns who undermined the troops by bungling intelligence (George Tenet) and Iraqi support (Paul Bremer). Such is the disconnect that Washington and the news media react with slack-jawed shock when one of those good soldiers we support so much speaks up at a town hall meeting in Kuwait and asks the secretary of defense why vehicles that take him and his brothers into battle lack proper armor."


From An editorial in the Times

A


31 Dec 04 - 02:05 PM (#1368327)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

DUBYA IS BAD. HIS FATHER WAS WORSE.

(Excerpted from the New Republic on-line edition of Dec 27)

Sins of the Father
by Tom Frank

Only at TNR Online | Post date 12.27.04
 E-mail this article


In the late 1990s, as Americans found themselves learning more than they cared to know about Arkansas courtship rituals, the name Bush began to inspire sentimental feelings. Bill Clinton's predecessor, it was said, had at least shown respect for the office. If he'd never managed to achieve the common touch, neither had he been accused of disrobing and offering suggestions such as "Kiss it" within minutes of making someone's acquaintance. In 1999, The New York Times noted that Bush I was now "basking in the glow of a surprisingly early, and positive, reassessment of his stewardship."


Oddly enough, the arrival of George W. Bush didn't quell the longing for George H.W. Bush; in fact, for some Americans, it only intensified it. Just six months into the younger Bush's presidency, Fareed Zakaria was already writing in Time that Dubya should "embrace his own family values" and emulate his father, who was, in fact, "a pretty good president." Once Dubya began to anger much of the world, others chimed in. The elder Bush was "a master of personal diplomacy," reminisced columnist Maureen Dowd, an "old-school internationalist who ceaselessly tried to charm allies as U.N. ambassador and in the White House." Her colleague Thomas Friedman took Bush nostalgia even further. Days before the 2004 election, Friedman wrote, "The more I look back on the elder Bush ... the more I find to admire." He concluded: "Yes, next Tuesday, vote for the real political heir to George H.W. Bush. I'm sure you know who that is." (Friedman meant John Kerry.)


This was, really, going a bit far. Even in a world where the spectrum of political belief is bounded by the poles of Bush I and Bush II--a world in which, evidently, Friedman and others are now dwelling--surely some norms, such as avoiding nostalgia for our worst chief executives, must be respected. True, whatever your political beliefs--liberal, conservative, libertarian, other--Dubya has done something to bother you. Anyone who invades Afghanistan, occupies Iraq, expands Medicare, passes No Child Left Behind, flouts the Kyoto Protocol, pushes a Constitutional amendment on marriage, sinks the dollar, cuts taxes, and proposes dynamiting the New Deal is bound to step on a toe every so often. But is our current president bad enough to warrant something as drastic as the rehabilitation of Bush I?


Perhaps we should cheer up. In reality, there's something worse than the mix of ideological belligerence and lack of scruples that characterizes Dubya's administration. That would be the mix of cynicism, demagoguery, and ineffectiveness that characterized the presidency of his father


31 Dec 04 - 04:03 PM (#1368416)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Excerpted from Counterbias:

The Arrogant Administration


December 31 2004
Counterbias.com
Scott C. Smith


I'm beginning to think that a prerequisite exists before one assumes a position with the Bush administration: applicant must be arrogant. Just like George W. Bush.

We've seen many examples over the last four years of Bush administration arrogance. Take Attorney General John Ashcroft's remarks to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Dec. 7, 2001 as an example. Ashcroft said, referring to critics of the Patriot Act, "To those who pit Americans against immigrants, citizens against non-citizens, to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve…they give ammunition to America's enemies and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil." (...)


31 Dec 04 - 04:06 PM (#1368418)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Friday 24th December 2004 (02h06) :
Hold the Bush Administration accountable for its use of torture
2 comment(s).

We must hold the Bush Administration accountable for its use of torture

By Angie Pratt

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=4863

You want to know why when news of prisoner torture percolated up the channels of the government nothing was done? The answer is quite simple. They condoned the actions. In fact, we now know that they were following an executive order from George W. Bush. This isn't based on hearsay. This isn't a figment of some Massachusetts liberal's imagination. This allegation is based on an internal FBI document obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The document, a two-page FBI internal e-mail, references an Executive Order that states the President directly authorized interrogation techniques including sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and "sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc." The FBI e-mail, which was sent in May 2004 from "On Scene Commander--Baghdad" to a handful of senior FBI officials, notes that the FBI has prohibited its agents from employing the techniques that the President is said to have authorized.

Now. do you think the government released this e-mail freely? Nope. It took a federal judge in response to a freedom of information request lawsuit brought by the ACLU to force the release of this information. Why? Because the Bush Administration knows it is guilty of sponsoring the use of inhumane interrogation methods against Moslem detainees.

The Bush Administration has slipped down the slippery slope and fallen into Satan's den. The God that George Bush claims to speak to is not the one that Jesus speaks about. Torturing prisoners is not an activity that Christ would approve of. Christians around the world need to stand up and declare these actions immoral.


31 Dec 04 - 07:30 PM (#1368526)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: DougR

Wow, Amos, this should make it a whopping 750 posts! Looks, too, it's down now to just you and me.

Happy New Year Amos!

DougR


31 Dec 04 - 08:05 PM (#1368546)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

And me, Big Guy...

751...

And Happy New Year to both of you...

Bobert


31 Dec 04 - 08:32 PM (#1368566)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth

Hangin' in. Happy New Year to all three of you!

Don Firth


01 Jan 05 - 06:59 PM (#1369021)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Miracles Are Unlikely in Bush's Middle East Gospel

by Charles V. Peña

Charles V. Peña is director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute.

A week after the U.S. presidential election, Secretary of State Colin Powell - often considered the moderate and realist in the Bush administration's first term - defended President George W. Bush's foreign policy record and said he "is not going to ... trim his sails or pull back. It's going to be a continuation of his principles, his policies, his beliefs." At the beginning of December, in Canada, Bush declared that the election was an endorsement of his foreign policy, especially the doctrine of preemption against gathering threats. He also reiterated his vision of spreading democracy in the Middle East. So what should we expect there during the next four years?

In Iraq, more than 18 months have passed since Bush declared "mission accomplished," but the conflict is still unfinished business. Re-taking Fallujah in November was more about real estate than realizing military or political-strategic objectives. Public enemy number one in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was not captured or killed. And it would seem that the vast majority of the 5,000-6,000 insurgents alleged to be in Fallujah simply ran away to fight another day. Indeed, even as victory was being declared, insurgents struck in Mosul and Samarra. More recently, there were back-to-back suicide bombings inside Baghdad's Green Zone.

Iraq has come to resemble the arcade game Whack-A-Mole, where every time you hit a mole as it pops out of a hole another one pops up out of a different hole.

Despite the inability of the American military to put down the insurgency, the Iraqi elections in January are still likely to take place. In fact, the U.S. has almost no choice but to hold elections - even if many Sunnis boycott them and if some segments of the population are unable to vote because of the violence. If elections are not held as promised, the majority Shiites will have every reason to more actively oppose the U.S. occupation and the interim Iraqi government, this time also using violence. Of course, elections are no guarantee of peace and stability either.

Excerpted from The Cato Institute.


A


01 Jan 05 - 07:09 PM (#1369024)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Some commentary on the Administration from -- of all papers -- the Quad City Times:

Bush administration creates its own reality and leaves ours behind



"The aide (a senior adviser to President Bush) said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"

Ron Suskind, New York Times Magazine,

Oct. 17, 2004.

This is the quote that now has some noted bloggers identifying themselves as, "Proud Member of the Reality-Based Community."


Of all the problems that arise from having an administration that chooses not to believe in reality, the one most likely to have irretrievably disastrous consequences is environmental.

The Bush solution to global warming is to declare it does not exist. While this solves the problem for him in the short term, global warming is highly unlikely to be impressed by the news that we are now an empire and can change history.

Just lately, "history's actors" have made a couple of singular contributions to our future that we in the reality-based community will doubtless be studying for some time to come.

The first allows sewer operators to dump inadequately treated sewage into the nation's waterways. The Environmental Protection Agency (a name that becomes more ironic daily) currently requires sewer operators to fully treat their waste in all but the most extreme circumstances, like during a hurricane. The new plan will allow operators to dump sewage routinely any time it rains.

According to the Natural Resources Defense Council: "For the last 50 years, standard sewage treatment has involved a two-step process: solids removal, and biological treatment to kill bacteria, viruses and parasites. The new policy allows facilities to routinely bypass the second step and to 'blend' partially treated sewage with fully treated wastewater before discharging it into the waterways."
...


01 Jan 05 - 07:15 PM (#1369029)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Predictions for George Bush's Second Term (Excerpted from One Thousand Reasons)

Predictions are rarely accurate, but sometimes history gives us such a clear indication of the future that predictions rise to the level of fate. Such is the case with the second term of George Bush. Now that he claims all that "political capital," he will surely try to spend it, and this is where we expect him to shop:

Social Security. He tipped his hand on this one as soon as the election was over, so this is not even a prediction. Bush will do his best to dismantle it, taking away the guaranteed payments most of us have worked a lifetime for, substituting a gambler's nightmare called privatization. Given the choice, he would simply do away with Social Security -- as part of the New Deal, it represents the kind of government hard-core (and hard-right) conservatives loathe -- but his thin "mandate" failed to deliver enough "capital" for a complete dismantling. He and his kind will take what they can get, which means extra profits for investment bankers, insurance executives, and Wall Street, while the rest of us hand over a portion of our paycheck to be entrusted to private investments.

War: We don't expect him to start another one, but the sound of his saber will be heard worldwide. Meanwhile, the war in Afghanistan continues at a slow boil, and Iraq is spinning out of control, not toward democracy, but toward chaos. Bush will likely send more troops, construct more bases, spend tens of billions more than he claimed, and continue the occupation while claiming that Iraq is now "free."


01 Jan 05 - 07:22 PM (#1369037)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

S simple but sincere web-site editor named Huck whose website is called "What the Huck", offers some thoughts on the two waves of death we have recently endured:


"A Tsunami hit Asia like George Bush on steroids. The Tsunami killed over 52,000 in one swoop. The George Bush Tsunami of lies has resulted in 1,326 American deaths. Which Tsunami is worse? The George Bush Tsunami that was a cold calculated lie for political and economical gains. Or the Tsunami which hits without warning that is a random act of nature. When you take a look at George Bush and what he did regarding Iraq as it relates to the Tsunami of life. Maybe George Bush is just a destructive Tsunami of life that we can't control as it causes great destruction to anything or anyone that crosses his path. As we approach the New Year I can't stop thinking of those Americans that continue to die in Iraq for the lies of George W. Bush. As we approach the New Year I can't help but think how hard these holidays have to be on the families that lost their loved ones because of the Tsunami like lies, political agendas, and economic reasons George W. Bush used to initiate this war in Iraq.

    I literally grind my teeth when I see an image of George Bush as I remember the lies he told that have resulted in families losing people they cared about. It seems the more I think about it, the more frustrated I become. Every day that another American life is reported lost I reflect on what resulted in their life being lost. It always comes back to one person, George W. Bush. Yes, one Tsunami was an act of nature that killed over 52,000 people with our warning. But the Tsunami-like act of George W. Bush who intentionally lied about the facts that resulted in the avoidable deaths of 1,326 Americans is far worse.

Click here for your " Ask Huck " comments or questions.

Current Number of Americans Killed or Wounded In Iraq.
Number of Dead is 1,326. Number of Wounded is 9,981.

    I know that talking about this is not going to bring back the 1,326 American Lives lost to date. I know complaining about this won't change the election or anything else George Bush has done to date. Worst of all I now realize that no matter what you or I say, as Americans, is not going to prevent George Bush from doing what ever he pleases regardless of the consequences or continued loss of American lives. The reason is, George W. Bush doesn't care about anyone except George Bush, and the rich that his entire presidency and agenda has been based upon.

    The truth of the matter is you and I don't matter to George Bush. The only things that matter to George W. Bush are those that none of us will ever relate to. Yes President Bush is like an out of control Tsunami. For the next four years we can only sit back and wait for the next Bush Tsunami to rise up, hit, and destroy more of the fabric this country was built upon. With every day that passes. With every American Life that is lost in Iraq. I look at George Bush and ask why. Why would anyone who really cared about this country do everything they could to destroy it.

   

    Why would George Bush allow any American to be killed based on the lies he told you and the world. How can half of this country still sit back and support a man that, if you're going to be honest with yourself, lied to you for the sole benefit of a very small group of his friends and family. It's not lost on me what this was all about from the very beginning.

    I remember back when the polls showed that approximately 10% of you were against going to war in Iraq. That meant that 90% of America supported going to war in Iraq based on the lies of George W. Bush. Now a couple of years later it's fewer than 50% of America that supports this war in Iraq. But at the same time the lies and manipulation by George Bush and the Bush Administration of the American People continues.

    At what point do you admit that George Bush is wrong, he lied, and those dying in Iraq needs to stop today. Is it going to take someone in each and every one of your families to be killed in Iraq before you can relate to the needless and senseless deaths of Americans as a result of George Bush's actions?

    Is it because for most of you that continue to support this war the dead are nothing but numbers you read in the papers and don't have any affect on you. What would your opinion be of this war if it was your son, daughter, mother, or father who wasn't there to pick up your call next time because they were killed in Iraq as the result of a war based on lies?

    It's always easy to go with the flow and not question the answers in life. Less friction results in limited resistance. At what point to you stop taking the "me" approach, and start taking the "we" as a country approach. Do you need to wait until it's too late and someone you care about is among the dead?

    I personally refuse to let George Bush or anyone else intimidate me into supporting what I know is wrong. This doesn't begin or end with the war in Iraq either. The problem with George Bush goes well beyond that. It has to do with the environment, Social Security, tax cuts, healthcare, and a host of other issues that directly affect you.

    I hope if nothing else you learn from your mistakes. I hope you learned that George Bush is not the person to trust and that he doesn't care for you beyond your vote. I hope you realize that things are going to have to change in this country before it's too late, otherwise your next home might have four cardboard walls and flaps on each end.

    Learn from history. Learn from our mistakes. But most of all take a hard look at what your life has deteriorated into since George W. Bush has become president. Now you tell me how Americans died needlessly in wars based on lies before President Bush took office.

    Was your life and economic standing better before 2000 or after? Do you really see anything positive happening for you in the next four years? Don't you think it's time to start caring again?

    You know you really can make a difference if you try. But if you don't try, then George Bush and his rich friends will win. And in the end that means you lose.

    It starts in 2006 when YOU vote Republican control of the House and Senate out. If not, it won't be getting any better for you. That's not a Tsunami like George Bush lie.

    That's the truth.

Ask Huck

    Ask Huck can be found on the s5000 home page next to the What The Huck article. If you have any questions or comments about s5000 just click on the Ask Huck link and fill out the form. Ask Huck questions and comments will be responded to in upcoming What The Huck articles. s5000 provides the What The Huck articles as part of its many features.

    So if you have any Ask Huck questions or comments go to the s5000 homepage and click on the link next to What the Huck. s5000 will also publish photos of interest in the What The Huck article that you can upload through the Ask Huck link. By using the Ask Huck link on the s5000 home page you can have your responses featured in a future What The Huck article.


Iraq

    No additional American lives were reported lost as of Tuesday. The number of reported wounded soldiers has remained the same. We wish that every day in Iraq ended with no additional losses or wounded.

    The current total dead Americans killed in Iraq remained at 1,326. The total number of wounded reported remained at 9,981. Why have so many died for the Bush lies?

    Don't just make a difference, Be The Difference.



~ Huck"


01 Jan 05 - 07:53 PM (#1369052)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Price of Bush Inauguration Party Is Too Rich for Some
By GLEN JUSTICE

Published: December 31, 2004 in the New York Times

WASHINGTON, Dec. 30 - Planners for President Bush's inauguration next month have scheduled a full lineup of exclusive parties and receptions for top Republican fund-raisers. But some of those V.I.P.'s say the perks come with a price tag they cannot afford.

Attending the entire slate of events during the three days of inauguration festivities could easily top $10,000 in tickets and other expenses for a fund-raiser bringing a spouse or guest. Some who helped bankroll the president's campaign, particularly young fund-raisers or those participating for the first time, are looking for ways to economize or are just planning to skip official events entirely.

...The inauguration package being offered to top Bush and Republican Party fund-raisers asks for up to $2,500 per person, though both the fee and the events vary depending on how much people raised, according to a Web page run by LogiCom Project Management, the company handling the events and travel arrangements.

The money covers admission to the Jan. 20 swearing-in, the parade, a black-tie ball and special events in Washington landmarks like the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, the Willard InterContinental Hotel and the Corcoran Gallery of Art. Another $2,500 per person is required for admission to one of three candlelight dinners at which the president and vice president will appear the evening before the inauguration. And, of course, there are airfare, hotel and other travel expenses.


01 Jan 05 - 07:59 PM (#1369056)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From the Politics1 Weblog:

"Contrast these two news stories: (1) The US has pledged $35 million in cash relief for the tsunami ravaged nations. (2) The AP reported this item. "Planned are nine official [inaugural] balls, a youth concert, a parade, a fireworks display and, of course, Bush's second swearing-in ceremony at noon on Jan. 20. The cost will be between $30 million and $40 million, an amount that does not include expenses for security." Do the math: $35 million for humanitarian assistance to a catastrophe that killed over 130,000 people and left over one million people homeless ... and $40 million for a party for rich folks in DC. Good thing to see we've got our priorities right as a "compassionate conservative" nation."


01 Jan 05 - 08:12 PM (#1369070)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From the New York Review of Books, discussing the writing of Stephen Flynn in America the Vulnerable, Harper Collins, 234 pp

In America the Vulnerable, it is not just the movements of American commercial goods that are vulnerable; the Bush administration has failed to safeguard the democratic system, which is its most precious and fragile charge. On one hand, it jiggers with the color-coded alert system, rigs cities with spy cameras, and speaks darkly of secret intelligence that more often than not turns out to have been no real intelligence at all. On the other, it assures us that we are safe in its hands, and that, in Flynn's words, "our marching orders as citizens are to keep shopping and traveling." Government is most to be feared when it treats its people as babies, the way the administration does now.

Flynn is no alarmist. His writing is even-toned to a fault, his manner still that of the unflappable captain on the bridge of the Coast Guard patrol ship, but his warning is explicit: if the war on terror continues to be waged in its present form, it's likely to put democracy itself in peril.

    The secretive, top-down, us-versus-them culture that is pervasive in government security circles must give way to more inclusive processes.... Rather than working assiduously to keep the details of terrorism and our vulnerabilities out of the public domain, the federal government should adopt a new imperative that recognizes that Americans have to be far better informed about the dangers that they face.... How much security is enough? We have done enough when the American people can conclude that a future attack on US soil will be an exceptional event that does not require wholesale changes to how we go about our lives.... We must continue to remind the world that it is not military might that is the source of our strength but our belief that mankind can govern itself in such a way as to secure the blessings of liberty.

These are temperate, wise, and practical thoughts. What is potentially to be feared more, even, than the prospect of another major attack of 9/11 proportions or worse is that, in the second Bush administration now beginning, voices like Flynn's will go unheard, while those of such intemperate terror warriors as Podhoretz and Pipes will be listened to with a respectful attention they in no way deserve.


01 Jan 05 - 08:36 PM (#1369091)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Excerpted from an editorial in the Los Angeles Time entitled

Washington Outlook
Bush Sending the Wrong Message as Chaos Smolders in Iraq




Bush's presidency marks the first time the U.S. has significantly cut taxes while at war. Since the federal budget is already in deficit, that means we are effectively passing the bill for this war onto our children through an increased national debt.

The war's political consequences are unfolding in a comparable spirit of buck passing. Wars always surprise their planners. But even setting aside the debate over whether the threat from Saddam Hussein merited the invasion of Iraq, it's clear this war has been complicated by an unusual concentration of mistakes and misjudgments.

The weapons of mass destruction that provided the central justification for the invasion have never been found, and by the best calculation of the CIA, no longer existed. Foreign countries the Bush administration assumed would fall into line after the U.S. moved against Iraq instead refused to provide meaningful help. And after a brilliant campaign against the conventional Iraqi military, the Pentagon has appeared to be blindsided by the persistence and ferocity of the unconventional resistance that followed the fall of Baghdad.

In June 2003, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld dismissed the Iraqi insurgency as mere "pockets of dead-enders." Eighteen months later, U.S. soldiers and Iraqi citizens are still dying in large numbers at the hands of those "dead-enders." And the failure to fully plan for the insurgency is still being felt in what many experts consider shortages of combat troops and appropriate supplies (such as armored vehicles).

Yet the only senior administration official who faced any consequences over the Iraq war has been the most prominent skeptic, outgoing Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who was politely but firmly shown the door after Bush's reelection.


01 Jan 05 - 08:43 PM (#1369098)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

On 9/11 Bush had a choice to make. Protrect America or protect the priviledged... Everything he has done we later see has done nuthing but take resources from the working class and divert them to the rich...

That's why 9/11 looks so fishy to me...

Especially the invasion of Iraq...

Bobert


01 Jan 05 - 08:51 PM (#1369104)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Rep Henry Waxman maintains a website providing some oversight of the state of science under the current administration. Here's a link: Politics and Science. A rather unsettling post appeared there today:

Saturday, January 1, 2005
HHS Restricts Communications between U.S. Scientists and WHO Officials

A new HHS policy requires the World Health Organization to submit all requests for expert scientific advice to political officials at HHS who pick which federal scientists will be permitted to respond. The new policy and two recent Administration decisions to withdraw federal scientists from major international health conferences are part of a disturbing pattern of political interference in global health issues.


01 Jan 05 - 09:33 PM (#1369116)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

On Native Ground
A DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN CREATED THE SOCIAL SECURITY 'CRISIS'
by Randolph T. Holhut
American Reporter Correspondent
Dummerston, Vt.

DUMMERSTON, Vt. -- I look at how the Bush administration is trying to manufacture a Social Security "crisis," and it looks much like what was done to manufacture the rationale for invading Iraq.

Certainly the steps are the same. Invent a crisis where none currently exists. State only the information (real or not) that benefits your argument, and repeat it often. Ignore all information that might undermine your argument and attack anyone who might disagree. Then, after convincing everyone that there is a crisis and marginalizing your opponents, you come up with the solution to the crisis you manufactured.

Through constant repetition and taking full advantage of the limitations of journalism's objectivity fetish, the Bush administration can bend reality to fit its policy schemes.

As journalism is now practiced, to state the facts is considered an act of bias. In the case of the Iraq war, even though there was abundant evidence that the Bush administration was overstating its case at best and flat-out lying at worst, the cult of objectivity required giving the Bush administration's lies as much weight (and often times, more weight) as the opposing views. Pointing out discrepancies between the facts and the spin is sacrificed in the name of balance.

The Social Security debate has followed the same path. News reports dutifully repeat the claim that the program will go bankrupt in 2042. The reality is that, if nothing is done, Social Security will be taking in more revenue than it pays out until 2018. After 2018, current obligations can be met until 2042. After 2042, there would still be enough money to pay at least 73 percent of benefits. These figures aren't wishful thinking from a liberal think tank, they are the government's own calculations.

Excerpted from The American Reporter.

A


01 Jan 05 - 09:55 PM (#1369126)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From the same magazine:

        On Native Ground
HOW FUNDAMENTALISM FAILS AMERICA
by Randolph T. Holhut
American Reporter Correspondent
Dummerston, Vt.

DUMMERSTON, Vt. -- Can a country where more people believe in the Devil than in evolution maintain its leadership in the sciences?

That's a question that David Baltimore, Nobel laureate and president of the California Institute of Technology, asked in a recent op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times.

Baltimore believes that "Asia has the potential to blow us out of the water" because their scientists and engineers "are as good as ours, as imaginative as ours - they work longer hours and are more dedicated."

The numbers bear him out. India's colleges and universities are turning out more than 40,000 computer science graduates each year, and the enrollments in those programs are rising while U.S. colleges struggle to fill their science programs. And China produces more 325,000 engineers each year, or five times more than the United States.

By contrast, Baltimore wrote that our nation has a "lack of federal leadership in funding schooling that emphasizes math and science" with a "fragmented educational system that leaves much to local control" and an attitude of "general anti-intellectualism."


01 Jan 05 - 10:22 PM (#1369136)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Two stories from Bush Watch for January

BAREFOOT AND PREGNANT: BUSH PLANS TO LEAVE WOMEN BEHIND BY ELIMINATING THEIR EQUAL RIGHTS TO ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS "Colleges and universities would be allowed to limit the number of scholarships awarded to female athletes without regard to enrollment under the most controversial recommendation being considered by a national commission studying reform of Title IX, the landmark law that bans sex discrimination in collegiate sports....The proposals, obtained by The Washington Post, are the first indication of the Bush administration's plans for changing Title IX, which is widely credited with increasing female participation in collegiate sports over the past three decades. " 01.24.03
wp | related stories

WAG THE BUSH Someone went to great lengths to ensure the backdrop for President Bush's sales pitch Wednesday on his economic stimulus plan sent all the right messages -- and none of the wrong. Bush delivered his remarks from a warehouse floor at JS Logistics, a trucking, courier and warehouse business that provided a visual image for his argument that his proposal carries economy-boosting benefits for small businesses. The audience was flanked on all sides by piles of cardboard boxes -- with additional piles in front of and behind his podium. Each one of the hundreds of boxes had a piece of paper obscuring its "Made in China" label....A backdrop made-to-order for the White House filled the space directly behind Bush, which is most likely to show up on TV news clips of the event. Blaring a logo of "Strengthening America's Economy," it exactly mimicked the real-life box piles, down to perfectly aligned shelves. Except the boxes on the backdrop were labeled, "Made in the USA." --AP, 01.22.03


01 Jan 05 - 10:35 PM (#1369145)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Coal Position


Bush admin isn't putting money where its mouth is on "clean coal"
By Amanda Griscom Little writing in GRIST magazine

When pressed on climate change, the Bush administration is fond of citing "clean coal" technology as the wave of the energy future. Even some enviros are starting to grudgingly acknowledge the technology's potential for good.

Coal: Can you dig it?

But all Bush's talk doesn't appear to be translating into the funding needed to really get clean coal rolling.

Given that coal accounts for a whopping 50 percent of U.S. electricity production, it can't realistically be phased out overnight -- or even in the next half-century -- which means that transition technologies are critical. Such technologies are in development, and they could make coal-powered generation almost completely smog-free and easily conducive to capturing and storing carbon-dioxide emissions.

The business community, for its part, is atwitter with excitement over clean-coal developments, particularly given the rising prices of oil and natural gas. Last month, The New York Times published a cover story in its business section titled "Fuel of the Future? Some Say Coal," reporting a huge increase in coal-generation investments. Likewise, a leading business newsletter, Platts, published a report last week on the ballooning demand for clean-coal facilities.


02 Jan 05 - 10:58 AM (#1369364)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Could some kind clone close the HREF container in the above post right after the word "magazine"?? Thanks.

A


03 Jan 05 - 12:18 AM (#1369809)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: DougR

Alright Mudcatters, time to fess up. Is anyone actually reading all the crap Amos is posting on this thread? Be truthful now, or your nose will begin growing! :>)

DougR


03 Jan 05 - 12:31 AM (#1369812)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Metchosin

yes


03 Jan 05 - 05:32 AM (#1369884)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Ellenpoly

I read this all the time. I also copy and send a lot of it to friends. It is a GREAT thread, and I only hope that nothing and NO ONE ever puts off Amos from continuing it.

Happy New Year, Amos.

..xx..e


03 Jan 05 - 08:13 AM (#1369928)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Perhaps you are out of touch, Doug R! Thanks, EllenP!!

A


03 Jan 05 - 08:33 AM (#1369943)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

Okay, maybe not all of it... But I scan it...

Bobert


03 Jan 05 - 01:22 PM (#1370164)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: DougR

Perhaps I am Amos. It appears you have one avid reader, and one scanner. Impressive.

DougR


03 Jan 05 - 01:35 PM (#1370171)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Metchosin

TWO avid readers, one scanner and one who doesn't even have the ability to scan a thread.


03 Jan 05 - 01:46 PM (#1370177)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Clint Keller

I read it, or at least scan it. I don't post to it hardly because I look on it as an information source and I imagine others do too. Amos always gives his sources.

clint


03 Jan 05 - 05:46 PM (#1370380)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Bush administration unveils 2005 pay raise
By Tanya N. Ballard
tballard@govexec.com

President Bush issued an executive order Thursday evening formally
implementing a 3.5 percent average pay raise in 2005 for General Schedule employees.

The pay increase, which will take effect on Jan. 9, will be divided between a 2.5 percent base pay increase for all employees and an average 1 percent locality pay adjustment that varies according to where employees work.

From http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1204/123004t1.htm


03 Jan 05 - 06:28 PM (#1370431)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

In defense of this thread, Bushites. Would you rather have one place for them our have 15 or 20 threads going at any given time about yet another Bush administaration screw up?

Count your blessings...

Amos oughtta take a Bush screw up a day and throw it out there... Heck, that alone would keep him busy for a life time...

Like I said, count yer blessing...

Bobert


03 Jan 05 - 08:00 PM (#1370494)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth

Definitely. I'm doing pretty much what Ellen is doing (read, copy, send to friends, etc), so it's not just the people checking in here who are reading this. It's getting around. I think that's Amos's point. Amos is providing a service, for which I thank him wholeheartedly.

Mid-term elections in 2006, and 2008 is not that far off.

Don Firth


03 Jan 05 - 09:36 PM (#1370556)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

I appreciate the occasional support, guys -- it is just what I need.

If you get too bewildered to sleep over what the right-wing dialogue sounds like, here is a vivid representation of mass-think being born and blossoming large.

A


03 Jan 05 - 09:43 PM (#1370561)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

Brownshirts....


03 Jan 05 - 10:04 PM (#1370569)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Once Famous

Once there was a guy name Amos
Who thought he knew enough politics
To make him famous

But no one was there
to read or to care
So he went back to picking his anus.


03 Jan 05 - 10:28 PM (#1370581)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

C-...

Nah, make that a solid D+...

"Amos" to "anus" is a stretch...

Come on, Martin, you can do better...

Sorry, pal, we was jus' starting to get along...

But, hey, it's gotta a nice little rythum thing going...

Meanwhile, what do ya get when ya cross a possum with George Bush?

Opps, sorry, but we couldn't find any possums willing to have sex with the guy...

Bobert


03 Jan 05 - 11:19 PM (#1370603)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Jeeze, Martin....if you're gonna dedicate limericks to me, at least make them scan and rhyme!! This is insulting in its poetic ineptitude!!

A


03 Jan 05 - 11:31 PM (#1370612)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

House G.O.P. Voids Rule It Adopted Shielding Leader
By CARL HULSE

Published: January 4, 2005

WASHINGTON, Jan. 3 - Stung by criticism that they were lowering ethical standards, House Republicans on Monday night reversed a rule change that would have allowed a party leader to retain his position even if indicted.

Lawmakers and House officials said Republicans, meeting behind the closed doors of the House chamber, acted at the request of the majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay, who had been the intended beneficiary of the rule change.
        
Advertisement
Free IQ Test

When they adopted the change in their party rules in November, Republicans said they feared that Mr. DeLay could be subjected to a politically motivated indictment as part of a campaign finance investigation in Texas that has resulted in charges against three of his associates. The decision, coupled with other Republican proposals to rewrite the ethics rules, drew fierce criticism from Democrats and watchdogs outside the government, who said the Republican majority was subverting ethics enforcement.

Those attending the Republican meeting, which was held on the eve of the opening of the 109th Congress, said Republicans unanimously agreed to restore the old rule after Mr. DeLay told them that the move would clear the air and deny Democrats a potent political issue. In the past year, he has been admonished by the ethics panel three times: for his tactics in trying to persuade a colleague to support the Medicare drug bill, for appearing to link political donations to support for legislation and for involving a federal agency in a political matter in Texas.

Some Republicans who originally opposed the rules change greeted the decision not to go through with it enthusiastically.

"It allows the Republicans to focus on the issues, the agenda that is before us and not to have Tom DeLay be the issue," Representative Zach Wamp, Republican of Tennessee, said. "I feel like we have just taken a shower."

Excerpted from the NY Times:http://nytimes.com/2005/01/04/politics/04cong.html?hp&ex=1104814800&en=8190025ec1760a93&ei=5094&partner=homepage




Of course, to really notice that you have taken a shower, you have to have been carrying some heavy dirt around beforehand...

A


03 Jan 05 - 11:41 PM (#1370617)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Lieberman says he won't join Bush administration

From CongressDaily via http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0105/010305cdpm3.htm

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., said Sunday that he is not interested in becoming President Bush's national intelligence director or Homeland Security secretary -- saying he feels he can be more effective staying in the Senate.

Asked on ABC's This Week whether he is interested in a Cabinet post, Lieberman responded: " I'm not. I appreciate the floating. It's a quadrennial game here in Washington when a new administration takes shape."

The possibility of Lieberman -- a centrist who was his party's 2000 vice-presidential nominee -- leaving the Senate has turned into something of a political parlor game in his home state in recent weeks.


03 Jan 05 - 11:44 PM (#1370619)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From MSNBC:

Social Security formula weighed

Bush plan would cut promised benefits

By Jonathan Weisman and Mike Allen
Updated: 11:11 p.m. ET Jan. 3, 2005

The Bush administration has signaled that it will propose changing the formula that sets initial Social Security benefit levels, cutting promised benefits by nearly a third in the coming decades, according to several Republicans close to the White House.

advertisement
Click Here!
Under the proposal, the first-year benefits for retirees would be calculated using inflation rates rather than the rise in wages over a worker's lifetime. Because wages tend to rise considerably faster than inflation, the new formula would stunt the growth of benefits, slowly at first but more quickly by the middle of the century. The White House hopes that some, if not all, of those benefit cuts would be made up by gains in newly created personal investment accounts that would harness returns on stocks and bonds.

But by embracing "price indexing," the president would for the first time detail the painful costs involved in closing the gap between the Social Security benefits promised to future retirees and the taxes available to fund them. In late February or March, the administration plans to produce its proposed overhaul of the system, including creation of personal investment accounts and the new benefit calculation.


03 Jan 05 - 11:51 PM (#1370626)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The Guantanamo Gulag

by Mike Whitney

Excerpted from The Progressive Trail


"The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."

Winston Churchill

"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

U.N. Convention Against Torture; Article 2, Section 2

The prison facility at Guantanamo Bay is the brightest star in the Bush firmament. It towers over the political landscape like a monument to human cruelty. That's why the administration chose to slap it up in full view of the world. It's their way of announcing that the fundamental rules of the game have changed.

There's no need for Guantanamo. The United States has plenty of experience concealing political prisoners from the public. The CIA has been transporting enemy suspects to hidden locations since its inception. Certainly, an increase of 600 prisoners or so wouldn't have caused much of a stir if they were tucked away in some remote corner of the earth. But, that's not the purpose of Guantanamo. Guantanamo is intended to send a message that the internationally accepted norms of justice have been rescinded. From now on, all law proceeds from Washington.

The world seems oddly bewildered by this development. Individuals have protested the particularly heinous aspects of the new system, like the use of torture, or detention without charges. But, these are just the trimmings and don't get to the heart of the matter. Guantanamo is a deliberate effort to overturn every legal protection that safeguards the individual from the arbitrary actions of the state. Simply put, it is the end of the law.

What is it that we fail to grasp about Guantanamo? Are we so blinded by the assuring narrative of democracy and personal freedom that we don't recognize the symbols of tyranny when we see them? The reality of Guantanamo is quite stark; a dull-gray world of cinder-block and wire situated beyond the reach of any law or regulation. Is their some doubt about what this really means?

Just yesterday the Washington Post reported that the "Bush administration is preparing plans for possible lifetime detention of suspected terrorists, including hundreds whom the government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts." Isn't this conspicuous power grab by the president enough to awaken even the most blasé observer? Remember, these prisoners have never been charged with a crime and, yet, the administration is paving the way for permanent incarceration.

The Washington Post report comes on the heels of last week's article by the ACLU which confirmed that "President Bush issued an Executive Order authorizing the use of inhumane interrogation methods against detainees in Iraq."

So, now there's a paper trail connecting the President directly to the torture that was "systematically" conducted at Guantanamo.

Torture? Permanent imprisonment without charges? These are the most fundamental violations of the law. How can we continue to ignore the gravity of this situation?(...)



By the way, do you recall how strange and alien the concept of a "gulag" was when you first read about it? Was it Nabokov's writing, or some other amazed observation by an American reporter, perhaps, who was incredulous at ther bestiality and feudalism embraced by those thick-skulled Commies. Remember?   That was so different than the way we handled things in our proud country, where we had principles....


A


04 Jan 05 - 12:04 AM (#1370631)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

A short protest from the New Tork Times Editorial Page:

        EDITORIAL

Leave No Sales Pitch Behind


Published: January 4, 2005

The fine print in President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act is slowly dawning on the parents of high school students across the country as the war in Iraq drags on: military recruiters can blitz youngsters with uninvited phone calls to their homes and on-campus pitches replete with video war games. This is all possible under a little noted part of the law that requires schools to provide the names, addresses (campus addresses, too) and phone numbers of students or risk losing federal aid. The law provides an option to block the hard-sell recruitment - but only if parents demand in writing that the school deny this information to the military.

Hard-pressed recruiters have stepped up the sales pitch to meet wartime manpower shortages. One sergeant filmed by the NewsHour on PBS recently sounded like a salesman from David Mamet's Glengarry Glen Ross as he exhorted a campus group: "I mean, where else can you get paid to jump out of airplanes, shoot cool guns, blow stuff up and travel, seeing all kinds of different countries?"

The Pentagon insists that it enjoys the same entree to high school students as college and corporate recruiters. But clearly, No Child Left Behind has given the military a thumb on the scale with the threat of lost money. Some students on the cusp of adulthood describe the recruiters as merely offering another option in life; others complain of outright pestering.

Recruiters have learned to focus on the most promising markets - typically lower-middle-class schools. No one can complain of unfairness in a draft-free society where many have found fine careers in the military, with recruitment part of the process. But it is objectionable when the government tucks a decided advantage for its wartime armies' salesmanship into a law invoked in the name of children.


04 Jan 05 - 12:11 AM (#1370633)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

This is part of another essay uncovering an important mathematical distortion in Bushies' mathematics.

The Social Security Fear Factor


Published: January 3, 2005

        
If you've lent even one ear to the administration's recent comments on Social Security, you have no doubt heard President Bush and his aides asserting that a $10 trillion shortfall threatens the retirement system - and the economy itself. That $10 trillion hole is the basis of the president's claim last month that "the [Social Security] crisis is now." It's also the basis of the administration's claim that the cost of doing nothing to reform the system would be far greater than the cost of acting now.

Well, the $10 trillion figure is the closest you can get to pulling a number out of the air. Make that the ether. Starting last year, as the groundwork was being set for the emerging debate, the Social Security trustees took the liberty of projecting the system's solvency over infinity, rather than sticking to the traditional 75-year time horizon. That world-without-end assumption generates the scary $10 trillion estimate, and with it, Mr. Bush's putative rationale for dismantling Social Security in favor of a system centered on private savings accounts. The American Academy of Actuaries, the profession's premier trade association, objected to the change. In a letter to the trustees, the actuaries wrote that infinite projections provide "little if any useful information about the program's long-range finances and indeed are likely to mislead any [nonexpert] into believing that the program is in far worse financial condition than is actually indicated."

As it often does with dissenting professional opinion, the administration is ignoring the actuaries. But that doesn't alter the facts or common sense. If the $10 trillion figure is essentially bogus, so is the claim that Social Security is in crisis. The assertion that doing nothing would be costlier than enacting a privatization plan also turns out to be wrong, by the estimates of Congress's own budget agency.

Over a 75-year time frame, Social Security's shortfall is estimated by the Congressional Budget Office at $2 trillion and by the Social Security trustees at $3.7 trillion, a manageable sliver of the economy in each case. If the shortfall is on the low side, Social Security will be in the black until 2052, when it will be able to pay out 80 percent of the promised benefits. If it is on the high side, the system will pay full benefits until 2042, when it will cover 70 percent.

Contrary to Mr. Bush's frequent assertion that Social Security is constantly imperiled by political meddling, it has in fact been preserved and improved by political intervention throughout its 70-year history, most significantly in 1983. The system could - and should - be strengthened again by a modest package of benefit cuts and tax increases phased in over decades.

Instead, the administration wants workers to divert some of the payroll taxes that currently pay for Social Security into private investment accounts, in exchange for a much-reduced government benefit. To replace the taxes it would otherwise have collected - money it needs to pay benefits to current and near retirees - the government would borrow an estimated $2 trillion over the next 10 years or so and even more thereafter.

In effect, the administration's plan would get rid of the financial burden of Social Security by getting rid of Social Security. The plan shifts the financial risk of growing old onto each individual and off of the government - where it is dispersed among a very large population, as with any sensible insurance policy. In a privatized system, you may do fine, but your fellow retirees may not, or vice versa.


04 Jan 05 - 12:17 AM (#1370636)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Metchosin

It is my belief that US law was built upon the fundamentals of the Magna Carta and as such The Guantanamo Gulag is in violation of the very basis of law as we understand it and "the good sense of mankind".

The Magna Carta and American Law


04 Jan 05 - 07:36 AM (#1370758)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Gonzales Nomination Draws Military Criticism

Retired Officers Cite His Role in Shaping Policies on Torture

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 4, 2005; Page A02

A dozen high-ranking retired military officers took the unusual step yesterday of signing a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee expressing "deep concern" over the nomination of White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales as attorney general, marking a rare military foray into the debate over a civilian post. ...

Although the GOP-controlled Senate is expected to confirm Gonzales to succeed Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, some Democrats have vowed to question him aggressively amid continuing revelations of abuses of military detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The letter signed by the retired officers, compiled by the group Human Rights First and sent to the committee's leadership last night, criticizes Gonzales for his role in reviewing and approving a series of memorandums arguing, among other things, that the United States could lawfully ignore portions of the Geneva Conventions and that some forms of torture "may be justified" in the war on terror. ...


04 Jan 05 - 05:56 PM (#1371407)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

MARGINS OF VICTORY
Republican Presidents Reelected During the Last Hundred Years
        President        Popular Vote        Electoral Vote
1904        Theodore Roosevelt        17%        196
1956        Dwight D. Eisenhower 16%        384
1972        Richard M. Nixon        23%        503
1984        Ronald Reagan               18%        512
2004        George Bush               2%        34

          Source: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17690

This article in the New York Review of Books is an interesting study on the ebb and flow of beliefs behind Bushie's re-election. I recommend it as a good read.

A


04 Jan 05 - 06:00 PM (#1371414)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Dad, Don't Go to Work for the Bush Administration
by Hal Cranmer


http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/cranmer1.html   

My father called me a couple of nights ago with an announcement. The US government has asked him to go to Iraq for six months to manage their oil sector. He has an extensive background in the oil industry, having worked as an executive for a major multinational oil company for approximately 30 years. He seemed excited about the position, for reasons that I just cannot understand.

So I am writing this article to try to convince him to turn down the
position....


04 Jan 05 - 06:03 PM (#1371418)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The Chief Justice Speaks


Published: January 4, 2005




Fighting thyroid cancer, Chief Justice William Rehnquist used the occasion last week of his 19th, and potentially final, report on the state of the federal courts to extend his proud record of defending the independence of the federal judiciary against intrusive attacks by politicians.

Without naming names, Chief Justice Rehnquist spoke of a troubling "new turn" in recent years that has seen some conservative Republicans in Congress cross the line from ordinary criticism of judicial decisions they do not like to trying to intimidate individual judges. In the process, they show disrespect to the constitutional separation of powers and threaten the essential role of an independent judiciary in protecting American rights.

Without singling out the House majority leader Tom DeLay and others, Chief Justice Rehnquist expressed appropriate concern over recent calls by some members of the last Congress for laws limiting the jurisdiction of federal courts to decide constitutional challenges on matters like the use of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. He was also duly critical of threats to impeach so-called "activist" judges for their interpretations of the Constitution.

"A judge's judicial acts may not serve as a basis for impeachment," the chief justice, author of a 1992 book on this theme, stated in a timely reminder to the reconvening Congress. "Any other rule would destroy judicial independence. Instead of trying to apply the law fairly, regardless of public opinion, judges would be concerned about inflaming any group that might be able to muster the votes in Congress to impeach and convict them."

This is a message that Chief Justice Rehnquist, much to his credit, has delivered time and again as head of the nation's court system, even at the risk of offending fellow conservatives. But given current political tensions over the future direction of the federal courts, it has special resonance right now.

(See link for rest of this NYT article.)


04 Jan 05 - 06:46 PM (#1371468)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Stopping the Bum's Rush

The people who hustled America into a tax cut to eliminate an imaginary budget surplus and a war to eliminate imaginary weapons are now trying another bum's rush. If they succeed, we will do nothing about the real fiscal threat and will instead dismantle Social Security, a program that is in much better financial shape than the rest of the federal government.

In the next few weeks, I'll explain why privatization will fatally undermine Social Security, and suggest steps to strengthen the program. I'll also talk about the much more urgent fiscal problems the administration hopes you won't notice while it scares you about Social Security.

Today let's focus on one piece of those scare tactics: the claim that Social Security faces an imminent crisis.

That claim is simply false. Yet much of the press has reported the falsehood as a fact. For example, The Washington Post recently described 2018, when benefit payments are projected to exceed payroll tax revenues, as a "day of reckoning."

Here's the truth: by law, Social Security has a budget independent of the rest of the U.S. government. That budget is currently running a surplus, thanks to an increase in the payroll tax two decades ago. As a result, Social Security has a large and growing trust fund.

(Paul Krugman in the NY Times)


04 Jan 05 - 07:05 PM (#1371491)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Iraq Vs. Tsunami: The Duplicity Of The Media
By Mike Whitney
Jan 2, 2005, 11:47

The American media has descended on the Asian tsunami with all the fervor of feral animals in a meat locker. The newspapers and TV's are plastered with bodies drifting out to sea, battered carcasses strewn along the beach and bloated babies lying in rows. Every aspect of the suffering is being scrutinized with microscopic intensity by the predatory lens of the media.

This is where the western press really excels: in the celebratory atmosphere of human catastrophe. Their penchant for misery is only surpassed by their appetite for profits.

Where was this "free press" in Iraq when the death toll was skyrocketing towards 100,000? So far, we've seen nothing of the devastation in Falluja where more than 6,000 were killed and where corpses were lined along the city's streets for weeks on end. Is death less photogenic in Iraq? Or, are there political motives behind the coverage?

Wasn't Ted Koppel commenting just days ago, that the media was restricting its coverage of Iraq to show sensitivity for the squeamishness of its audience? He reiterated the mantra that filming dead Iraqis was "in bad taste" and that his American audience would be repelled by such images? How many times have we heard the same rubbish from Brokaw, Jennings and the rest of their ilk?

Well, it looks like Koppel and the others have quickly switched directions. The tsunami has turned into a 24 hour-a-day media frenzy of carnage and ruin, exploring every facet of human misery in agonizing detail.

The festival of bloodshed is chugging ahead at full-throttle and it's bumping up ratings in the process.

Corporate media never fails to astound even the most jaded viewer. Just when it appears that they've hit rock-bottom, they manage to slip even deeper into the morass of sensationalism. The manipulation of calamity is particularly disturbing, especially when disaster is translated into a revenue windfall. Koppel may disparage "bad taste", but his boardroom bosses are more focused on the bottom line. Simply put, tragedy is good for business.

When it comes to Iraq, however, the whole paradigm shifts to the right. The dead and maimed are faithfully hidden from view. No station would dare show a dead Marine or even an Iraqi national mutilated by an errant American bomb. That might undermine the patriotic objectives of our mission: to democratize the natives and enter them into the global economic system. Besides, if Iraq was covered like the tsunami, public support would erode extremely quickly, and Americans would have to buy their oil rather than extracting it at gunpoint. What good would that do?

Looks like the media's got it right: carnage IS different in Iraq than Thailand, Indonesia or India. The Iraqi butchery is part of a much grander scheme: a plan for conquest, subjugation and the theft of vital resources, the foundation blocks for maintaining white privilege into the next century. (....).


04 Jan 05 - 07:37 PM (#1371525)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The crime of war: from Nuremberg to Fallujah
By Nicolas J S Davies
Jan 3, 2005, 22:16


A review of current international law regarding wars of aggression, and its implications for U.S. policy in Iraq and elsewhere

In September, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan told the BBC that the U.S./British invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law [1]. The following week, he dedicated his entire annual address to the U.N. General Assembly to the subject of international law, saying, "We must start from the principle that no one is above the law, and no one should be denied its protection." So, how was the invasion of Iraq illegal? How does that affect the situation there today? And what are the practical implications of this for U.S. policy going forward, in Iraq and elsewhere?

The Secretary General presumed what the world generally accepts, that international law is legally binding upon all countries. In the United States however, international law is spoken of differently, as a tool that our government can use selectively to enforce its will on other nations, or else circumvent when it conflicts with sufficiently important U.S. interests. For the benefit of readers in the U.S., I therefore feel obliged to preface a review of war crime in Iraq with a look at the actual legal status of international law, both in international terms and in terms of our own national framework of constitutional law.

When the president of the United States signs a treaty and it is ratified by the U.S. Senate, our country is making a solemn undertaking. The seriousness of such commitments is exemplified by the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials and subsequent international trials, in which individual national leaders have been held criminally responsible for treaty violations and, when convicted, have been sentenced to long terms of imprisonment or even death by hanging. In our own constitutional system, Article VI Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the "Supremacy Clause," grants international treaties the same "supreme" status as federal law and the Constitution itself. It reads:

    "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."




The balance of this article can be found here.

A


04 Jan 05 - 10:27 PM (#1371631)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Leadfingers

Isnt 'Bush' 'Administration' a contradiction in terms ?


04 Jan 05 - 10:28 PM (#1371633)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Leadfingers

Or even an Oxy moron ?


04 Jan 05 - 10:30 PM (#1371635)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Leadfingers

Oh - By The Way - Eight Hundred !


04 Jan 05 - 10:35 PM (#1371638)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

801 and yer on to somethin' with the moron thing, Leadfingers... Might explain a lot...

But keep on firing, Amos...

Bobert


04 Jan 05 - 10:37 PM (#1371644)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: DougR

It's ALIVE! ALIVE, I say! :>)

DougR


04 Jan 05 - 10:56 PM (#1371654)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: robomatic

Just to chime in and maybe learn something I'll opine thusly:

Does the Geneva convention apply when only one side is concerned with complying with it and the other side probably can't even read it? (And by other side, I'm talking about the Iraqi resistance).

I still think that the US, Europe and especially the Arab world have a lot at stake in stabilizing and democratizing Iraq. I may think it could have been done better but the US could also have used a little help from our European Allies and we didn't get it, except for the English under Tony Blair, who I believe has been eloquent in expressing our reasons for being there. You can bitch all you want to about Bush, but expressing himself in words that suit you is not very likely.

I agree with a lot of what you say about Tom DeLay and his ilk. To quote the BBC's version of "I Claudius" these people are reason enough to keep mankind from totally losing its sense of smell."

I think there is a real lack of leadership in preparing us for the coming higher cost of energy, and fiscal irresponsibility in the amount of money being spent on useless items (missile defense shield) and the growing national debt.

The war, however, is another matter. Extreme Islamic terrorism is a valid threat, and in recognizing that threat and doing something to deal with it, especially in the face of Democratic indecisiveness, Bush ends up being the guy we've got, and in that if in nothing else he is ahead of most of Europe.


04 Jan 05 - 11:33 PM (#1371673)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

I have only recently come to agree with you, robomatic about the scope of the fanatacism of the small faction of extremist Msulims who would like to restore the fla g of Mohammed from SPain to Israel and back. I think they are about as many as the fanatic right-wing Christians in this country. But they have fanatic extremist visions and they are ruthless in pursuing them.

I think it is quite arguable that it was the blundering of the Bush administration in dealing with Iraq that opened up this Pandora's box, and that prior tot hat time there were many options which should have bene pursued in defusing the potential of these extremists. Unfortunately, pugilism was irresistible to the Cowboy.

A


05 Jan 05 - 12:38 AM (#1371713)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: robomatic

Amos, after I posted I felt I should have phrased it: Extremists using the name of Islam but I think my meaning was clear. Yes there are extremists of every persuasion, but Christianity is so great and powerful that to a great extent it has 'mellowed' and the extremists are miniscule in numbers. Islam is a much younger religion, and has not gone through an 'Enlightenment'.

I appreciate your thoroughness, but I will stand by my position that in a Democratic society you stand by a flawed leader on the big stuff, and fight the good fight with the irreducible minions.

But I guess that to an extent is what you're doing.

Hoping for a better '05

Robo


05 Jan 05 - 08:11 AM (#1371918)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Acts of God Versus Acts of George W. Bush

Commentary by David Rozelle in the Washington Dispatch
January 4, 2005

"All I know is what I see on TV."

          ‑‑ Will Rogers



George W. Bush sleeps like a baby these days. Never much of a thinker, our president's freeze-dried ideology has spared him the task of thinking up and writing down New Year's resolutions. His goals stand as propounded – deep-rooted in his fallow mind by November's shallow election victory.

And so it is that on the eve of 2005, in the highest office of the mightiest nation in human history, there will be no reflection on, no reconsideration, no revision of policy. George W. Bush claims he has been crowned with a "mandate," albeit by barely fifty-percent of his subjects. And that's that, as far as the Great Mandater is concerned.

But what about the "lesser" half of this president's fellow citizens -- those of us who didn't vote for the man's coronation?   It appears that we can either go along with George II or go to hell. There will be no calling Bush to account for his policies. The late Flip Wilson, a popular comedian, used to duck accountability by quipping, "The Devil made me do it." Everyone laughed. George Bush, an Evangelical Christian, declares, "God made me do it," and at least half of us quake.

Not even during the aftermath of devastating tidal waves does George W. break his clueless, dogmatic stride. The media reports, for instance, that the president first had announced he'll set aside a Scroogian 30 million dollars for victims' relief -- this on the heels of an announced 40 million "donated" by corporations to pay for his inaugural balls in January. (Let the good times roll in tie-and-tails D.C., while a tsunami rolls over Asia's poor.) Where's the moral balance in all this? Where's the "compassion," neoconservative or otherwise. Where's the sense of decency?


05 Jan 05 - 08:13 AM (#1371920)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Tuesday 4th January 2005 (18h34) :
George Bush and the return of Little Black Sambo
3 comment(s).

by Jane Stillwater writing for Bella Ciao

Remember Goodman, Schwerner and Cheney -- and the Civil Rights Summer of 1964? How brave we all were back then as we worked hand in hand for a new world of hope and justice and harmony where "colored people" would be allowed to vote.

It's 40 years later and "colored people" are still being systematically deprived of their right to vote -- only this time on such a grand scale that it would cause even Martin Luther King's jaw to drop.

I marched in Montgomery.

I was at Malcolm X's funeral.

I taught in freedom schools, I picketed, I marched. And for every white person like me out on the line, there were at least five "Negroes" risking their lives to have the right to vote.

Now, 40 years later, George Bush is doing every single thing he can think of to resurrect Jim Crow, Stephen Fetchet and Little Black Sambo.

In predominantly African-American precincts in Florida and Ohio in November 2004, absentee ballots were lost, people were intimidated, voting machines were not provided, legitimate voters were "purged" from voting lists, people were instructed to vote on the wrong day, provisional ballots were "lost," votes disappeared and even dead people were allowed to vote as long as they voted for George W. Bush.

I don't know how African-Americans feel about being placed once again at the back of the bus but I know how I feel. I am totally pissed off!

...


05 Jan 05 - 08:19 AM (#1371926)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Tuesday 4th January 2005 (03h58) :
Imagine if Bush -- instead of Eisenhower -- had supervised D-Day
1 comment(s).

Jane Stillwater in Bella Ciao

I'm laughing so hard as I write this, I don't even know where to start! I'm sorry but it IS funny. Can you even BEGIN to imagine Dubya ever replacing Ike?

First, let's go back to before World War II even started (This part is NOT funny): Like Rumsfeld selling missiles to Saddam Hussein, Bush would have kept Hitler supplied with American-made WMDs for over a decade before even Dunkirk.

Like when North Korea BROADCAST far and wide that it had nuclear capabilities and knew how to use them but Bush invaded Iraq instead, our Dubya would have forgotten about Germany and invaded Argentina! "Hey, we need their beef."

"Hitler, is our target, boy," General Eisenhower told him. "H-I-T-L-E-R." But you couldn't tell GWB anything. Instead of Dresden, he fire-bombed New York City.

"Okay, okay." Ike drew a really BIG map with a big X on Normandy. "You pronounce this place EU-ROPE," he told young George.

"I knew that. Karl Rove told me."

FINALLY, George bombed the hell out of Omaha Beach. But then he got bad information from the CIA, forgot to chase the Nazis and started killing off the French. "Hey, they looked like terrorists to me!" After 50,000 French women were blown up, however, the GIs mutinied.

"Ike, the soldiers hate me," Bush whined. "They wanna fight Nazis -- not the French Resistance. They're all mad because we blew up Ingrid Bergman and Charles Boyer."

How did the D-Day invasion finally turn out? Guess.

Due to voting machine glitches, George Bush was still "Commander in Chief" 50 years later and US troops were still fighting in France. They never even got to Germany.


06 Jan 05 - 12:56 AM (#1372771)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

January 5, 2005
American Gothic

By Tom Engelhardt, writing for Mother Jones magazine .

Excerpt:

Here we are, because time has some of the qualities of a tsunami, deposited in 2005, whether we like it or not. As the year changed, nature trumped the Bush administration in an appropriately, if horrifyingly Biblical way, with a preemptive strike against shorelines jammed with rich tourists and poor peasants alike. And even in the midst of the collective horror, much of what the Bush administration is, much of whom we now are becoming, showed through unbecomingly.

Only one small spot in the vast Indian Ocean basin "seems to have received full advanced warning of the waves to come -- the ostensibly British island of Diego Garcia, which is actually a sizeable U.S. military base, a stationary "aircraft carrier" for the war in Iraq. It also houses "Camp Justice," one of the secret little hideaway resorts the administration has set up, or contracted out for, on prime global real estate to hold "high value" prisoners in the war on terror. The camp, named by someone who must have had a yen for the Orwellian, is part of an offshore Bermuda Triangle of injustice set up by the Bush administration -- two interlinked prison systems, in fact; one run by the Pentagon and the other by the CIA, both meant to keep prisoners and practices far from the prying eyes of the American public and its court system; both, as it now turns out, anchored in that jewel-in-the-crown, Guantanamo (or Gitmo to devotees) -- a grim prison camp set up on territory in Cuba that is close at hand, U.S.-controlled, and yet -- or so Bush officials hoped until the Supreme Court ruled otherwise last year -- beyond the reach of our courts.


06 Jan 05 - 01:14 AM (#1372791)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Lynching Social Security

To eliminate nation's safety net, Bush first has to convince us it's bad

Molly Ivins, Syndicated Columnist

AUSTIN, Texas -- In the Texas legislature, they are called "prior-roarities," such a happy coinage. What should come prior?

When the pitter-patter of falling year-end columns comes again, not necessarily next year, but certainly four years from now, I fearlessly forecast a dismal unanimity: that the Bush Administration II suffers from bad and dumb prior-roarities.

Actually, the passage of time is not required for proof -- look around. The Bushies are about to launch a $50 million to $100 million dollar propaganda campaign to convince us the Social Security system is in crisis. Actually, it's not. It's quite robust and has astonishingly low administrative costs, less than 1 percent.

According to President Bush's own Commission to "Strengthen Social Security," the administrative costs of keeping track of private accounts will be 10 to 30 times the cost of administering the current system.

The Social Security System is in no danger whatsoever of going broke, or even of having to pay out less than full compensation for at least 50 years. There are any number of statistical models and premises one can argue about here, but when the administration begins with a premise that requires fixing Social Security based on an extrapolation to infinity, you know you are not dealing with people who argue in good faith. (See link above for rest of article).


06 Jan 05 - 01:17 AM (#1372793)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk

Thought I'd add this to your thread, Amos:

Bush is not known as a "peacemaker" anywhere in the World, Doug, except within the utterly deluded confines of the USA. You're already living in the Fourth Reich, you just haven't become aware of it yet. Don't feel bad, because most Germans weren't aware of their real situation either, until about 1943 or '44. Then it was way too late.

Germans are essentially good people in the vast majority. So are Americans. Good people can be very badly led.

It is not necessary for people who want to strike at America to come TO America now. They have a whole army to shoot at now on their own home ground, in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have 150,000 live targets now. That's a very good situation for Al Queda, and just what Bin Laden wanted. He wanted a holy war between Islam and America. He's got it, and it will continue until it destroys the Bush administration, and possibly another administration after that. It's rather like Vietnam in that respect. It's a war that cannot be won, because its objectives are unrealistic and unattainable.


06 Jan 05 - 06:12 PM (#1373238)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Thanks, LH. Meanwhile, it is nice to see the acid and accurate wit of Maureen Dowd resurfacing at the NY Times:


Don't Torture Yourself (That's His Job)


By MAUREEN DOWD

Published: January 6, 2005


Washington

The Associated Press headline that came over the wire yesterday said it all: "Gonzales Will Follow Non-Torture Policies."

You know how bad the situation is when the president's choice for attorney general has to formally pledge not to support torture anymore.

Alberto Gonzales may have been willing to legally justify something that was abhorrent to everything America stands for, but it's all relative. Given that Mr. Gonzales is replacing the odious John Ashcroft, Democrats didn't seem inclined to try to derail the Hispanic nominee, even though his memo fostered the atmosphere that led to disgusting scandals in Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo.

Just to get things started on the right foot, though, Mr. Gonzales planned to go the extra mile and offer the quaint, obsolete Senate Democrats a more nuanced explanation of why he called the Geneva Conventions "quaint" and "obsolete."

Before he helped President Bush circumvent the accords and reserve the right to do so "in this or future conflicts," you had to tune in to an old movie with Nazi generals or Vietcong guards if you wanted to see someone sneeringly shrug off the international treaty protecting prisoners from abuse. ("You worthless running dog Chuck Norris! What do we care about your silly Geneva Conventions?")

How are you to believe Mr. Gonzales when he says he's through with torture? His mission is clearly to do whatever he thinks Mr. Bush wants.

All gall is divided into parts, so what's next?

The Commerce Department nominee promising that giveaways to big business will be done with subtlety?

The Environmental Protection Agency nominee promising that the toxin content in water will never rise to Yushchenko level?

It's comforting to start the new year in the hands of a party that cares so much about morals and values... (Follow link for rest...)


06 Jan 05 - 06:16 PM (#1373242)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Perhaps equally deserving of scrutiny and even sarcasm is the notion being pushed by Bush about privatizing your Social Security so it follows the rise and fall of the Dow Jones average. Here is an excerpt from another New York Times editorial, this one by Barry Scwarz, defining some of the flaws in the Bush administration reasoning:

Choose and Lose


By BARRY SCHWARTZ

Published: January 5, 2005

Swarthmore, Pa.

THERE are three arguments being made in favor of privatizing part of Social Security. First, the Social Security Trust Fund needs money and privatization will, in the long run, increase the amount of money available to retirees. Second, privatization will give people choice, and choice is good. And third, "it's your money," and you ought to be able to do with it as you wish.

Each of these arguments is dubious, or disingenuous, or both.

Though experts differ on the urgency and the severity of the problem, most everyone agrees that the trust fund will eventually run out of money unless we do something. Two obvious and painful things we can do are decrease benefits or increase payroll taxes. Privatization, it is argued, solves the problem without the pain. Equity investments return about twice as much, historically, as Treasury bills. So by allowing people to put some of their payroll taxes into equity investments, we will increase the value of that part of their retirement account so we can then decrease the benefits paid out by the standard Social Security program and still leave retirees better off.

There are several problems with this argument, however. For starters, there is no guarantee that equities will return more than Treasury bills. One of the reasons that equities have a higher rate of return than other types of investments is that investors have to be compensated for taking risks. Perhaps equities will outperform Treasury bills in the long term but that doesn't mean that they will be outperforming Treasury bills at the specific moment you retire.


06 Jan 05 - 11:10 PM (#1373574)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Dear Editor: I read that our president vows to overhaul Social Security. He claims it is on verge of going bankrupt. I also read that that is not the case at all. I tend to believe the latter after all the lies George Bush has told us so far.

It is estimated the Bush plan would cost the taxpayers $75 billion a year. Of course Bush never met a debt he didn't like. To me a simpler solution would be to raise the ceiling on taxable income, which is now at $87,900.

To quote Jim Hightower: "He has a $10,000 hat on a 10-cent brain." Of course he has to carry water for his buddies and contributors on Wall Street.

I also believe in a quote by William Brenner Jr.: "Debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open, and that may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."

James Hamer Montello

(Madison, WI, "The Capital Times")


07 Jan 05 - 01:34 PM (#1373803)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: DougR

Amos: admittedly, I have not read all of the drivel you have been posting in this thread but I noted one by Maureen Dowd of the New York Times. Ms. Dowd is an avowed Bush Basher, as you probably know. I'm writing this post to remind you that there is another writer of Maureen's ilk, and I certainly hope you have posted some of her drivel. Molly Ivens or perhaps it's Ivans. Wouldn't want to neglect her.

DougR


07 Jan 05 - 01:38 PM (#1373809)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Most of what I post here is not, as you so rhetorically characterize it, "drivel", DougR. Maureen and Molly both get pretty sarcastic, but then Bush is an ideal target for sarcasm, being a half-wit of little brain and less ethical fiber.

A


07 Jan 05 - 02:36 PM (#1373878)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Memo reveals Bush OKd torture

by Tim Wheeler


WASHINGTON During confirmation hearings on Alberto Gonzales nomination as Attorney General, senators should question him about a recently uncovered memo that George W. Bush ordered the torture of detainees at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and other military prisons around the world, several human rights groups suggested last month.

The groups, who joined in an ACLU Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit, which won release of the memo and other incriminating documents, are describing it as the smoking gun implicating Bush in the torture scandal.

ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero released the memo Dec. 20 in New York. That document, a December 2003 FBI internal e-mail, suggests that Bush issued a secret Executive Order authorizing the use of extreme coercive measures in interrogation, including sleep deprivation, stress positions, attack dogs, and use of hoods to intimidate prisoners. The Geneva Convention Against Torture bans all of these practices.

These documents raise grave questions about where the blame for widespread detainee abuse ultimately rests, Romero said. Top government officials can no longer hide from public scrutiny by pointing the finger at a few low-ranking soldiers.

The human rights groups statement called on the Senate to scrutinize Gonzales, the White House Legal Counsel, on a Jan. 25, 2002, memo he wrote to Bush arguing that the Geneva Conventions outlawing torture did not apply to the war in Afghanistan. Gonzales described the conventions as quaint and obsolete.

In August 2002, Gonzales, without consulting military and State Department experts in the laws of torture and war, according to the Washington Post, approved a memo from the Justice Department claiming that unlawful enemy combatants could be detained indefinitely without criminal charges or the right of due process. The memo, the Post said, gave CIA interrogators the legal blessings they sought.

Physicians for Human Rights, winner of the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize, is one of the groups in the ACLU lawsuit. PHR sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee signed by 150 doctors with expertise in the treatment of torture. There should be no place in the U.S. government for any official who condones the crime of torture, the letter stated.

Gretchen Borchelt, a PHR spokesperson, joined in the call for probing Bushs role in the torture scandal. It would be great to question Gonzales about that memo, she said. There are a number of documents the senators have asked for and have not received yet. We think this is a hugely important issue not just because of the nomination of Gonzales but also because the questions about torture have not been resolved. There has been no accountability.

Gonzales asserted Bushs right to order the torture of detainees, a position that violates U.S. treaty obligations under the Convention Against Torture and other international agreements, PHR said.

Wilson Woody Powell, executive director of St. Louis-based Veterans For Peace, another group in the lawsuit, told the World in a telephone interview that they are now examining the documents, which they recently received.

Since Gonzales was Bushs legal adviser at the time, it would make sense to ask him about that memo, Powell said. It would be a good question: what was Bushs role in the torture?

If our nations highest law enforcement officer is known for abrogating international law in the treatment of detainees, we are just confirming to the world that we dont care about human rights. We would be confirming a criminal, a scofflaw, to be the nations chief prosecutor.

Powell pointed out that the U.S. is a signatory to the Convention Against Torture as a matter of self-protection. I fully anticipate someone is going to capture some American soldiers and do unto them what we have done unto others. We have a deep concern for how our soldiers are going to be treated if they are captured given the record of torture at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and other detention centers, Powell said. Thousands of detainees have been held without trial because the administration lacks evidence to try them or even bring criminal charges.


07 Jan 05 - 05:13 PM (#1374018)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Excerpt from Shayne Corey's commentary column in The Washington Dispatch. For the whole column, click here.

Political Ronin in George Bush's America   



Commentary by Shane Cory
January 7, 2005

"Regardless of his words, the animus of a leader will eventually bleed onto the canvas of history through his own actions."

Since the lead up to the war in Iraq, I have admittedly been suffering from a bit of an identity crisis. Actually, it is more of a branding issue more than an identity crisis.

In 2000, I was a reluctant supporter of George W. Bush. Although I believed that there had to be someone in America who was better qualified than the privileged son of a former president, I had no confidence in the competition.

My support of the president grew after 9/11. Not many can argue that in those trying days, Bush provided comfort and leadership in the face of fear and deep anguish. Little did we know that those attacks may have been prevented had the administration acted upon a single memo titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within U.S." Hindsight is always 20/20 when lives are at stake.

The invasion of Afghanistan and routing of the Taliban was just and served as a signal to the world that we would seek out those responsible for terrorism at any cost. However, when Bush and his troubled team set their sights upon Iraq, while admitting no connection with 9/11, I was left scratching my head.

While it seems that a majority of Americans bought the WMD fantasy without question, I remained skeptical. Even if Saddam had possessed nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, he had no delivery methods capable of striking far beyond the borders of Iraq. This was widely known and accepted. Essentially the only way that Saddam's Iraq posed a threat to the U.S. is if he Fed-Ex'd over a dirty bomb or two. Any nation or group in the world had those same capabilities. Why would we invade a nation based on a false threat?

I expressed my concern in March of 2003 on these pages and, as a result, I was called ignorant, unpatriotic, un-American and even a traitor for even expressing such thoughts. However, as it turns out, I was right. There was no threat. Instead of owning up to their horrid mistake, the Bush administration attempted to re-write history by changing the reasoning for war. Instead of WMD, it was now the desire to "liberate" the people of Iraq from a brutal dictator. Today, those same people we supposedly went into liberate are killing Americans. So why are we there again?

Over the past two years, George W. Bush and much of his staff have painted their true colors on that canvas of history and their masterpiece is a grim picture of ignorance, arrogance, fraud, pain and death.

As it is obvious that I am no fan of Bush or his apologists, it is automatically assumed by many who do not know me that I am a liberal. However my belief system is ruled by a handful of undeniable absolutes (as a close friend refers to them) that defy a liberal label: the right to life; the right to bear arms; the right to free thought and expression; and a desire for integrity as the cornerstone to life and government.


07 Jan 05 - 05:18 PM (#1374022)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Some views of the Bush Administration are more extreme than others. COnsider Devvy Kidd, writing for World Net Daily...:

President Bush supporting global communist domination

Posted: January 7, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Why are so many informed Americans demanding the United States get out of the United Nations? Isn't the United Nations a benevolent organization that establishes "peace keepers" in troubled spots around the world and has so many programs "for the children"? Nothing could be further from the truth.

The United Nations and it's barbaric butchery is thoroughly documented in G. Edward Griffin's superb work, "The Fearful Master â€" A Second Look at the U.N." Their atrocities have continued over the decades. The United Nations was birthed by communists and its only purpose is to propagate communism.

Alger Hiss was convicted as a communist spy and was a key player in sucking America into the communist-controlled United Nations. At the time, Hiss was the director of the State Department's Office of Special Political Affairs who appointed members of the U.S. delegation to the United Nations. There is a long history there as well as with historical figures like John Foster Dulles.

In 1950, during hearings of the Committee on Foreign Relations regarding Revision of the U.N. Charter, page 494, the following statement was made by James P. Warburg:

    We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent ... I am here to testify in favor (of Resolution 56), if concurrently enacted with the House, would make the peaceful transformation of the United Nations into a world federation the avowed aim of United States policy.

In the same year, the Senate held hearings on Senate Concurrent Resolution 66 for the U.N. Charter. Sen. Thomas stated, among other things:

    Whereas, in order to achieve universal peace and justice, the present Charter of the United Nations should be changed to provide a true world government constitution.

Less than a decade after the United States partnered with this communist organization, members of Congress were already warning the American people of the real agenda of this anti-American organization:

    What can this country, the United States, do to prevent the United Nations from destroying the Constitution of the United States of America and the constitution and laws of the various States of the Union?

    â€" Congressman Burdick, Congressional Record, 1953, pg 797

Another equally important speech is found in the Congressional Record, April 22, 1953, pages A2080-A2087, by members of Congress warning that our participation in the United Nations represents the greatest threat to our freedom, our right to own private property and the danger of treaties. [snip...]



I guess it takes all kinds. I allus thought the UN was a pretty good idea...


A


07 Jan 05 - 05:31 PM (#1374029)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

January 7, 2005

George Bush, Using Your Money to Sell His Programs



(Editorial from the Thousand and One Reasons website

I had never heard of Armstrong Williams before USA Today broke the story about his contract with the Bush administration to sell the No Child Left Behind Act. He must be famous, though, to justify the quarter million he earned by pushing it, surreptitiously, to his audience. And he must have worked hard to earn that kind of money, although USA Today only reported that he had to "regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts" and "encourage the producers to periodically address" NCLB. Williams, whose television show is nationally syndicated, "does not recall disclosing the contract to audiences on the air." Such a trivial thing; no wonder he can't remember

Whether or not such contracts are legal -- and it seems doubtful that they are -- they certainly fail to meet the ethical standards American citizens expect of their government, even the ethically-challenged Bush administration. Remember, these are your tax dollars being spent to promote a government program many educators believe is misguided at best. Obviously, the NCLB program will not sell itself, any more than the Social Security privatization that is also being sold to us now. Any more than the war against Iraq could sell itself: Bush and his hawkish supporters spent months selling that one. That sales job, however, used a different tactic: fear. And the Social Security sales job borrows that idea, scaring us with the threat of lost benefits. Never mind that the proposal being sold will cut our benefits.

I suppose it's the background of the Bushies -- the elite, corporate world was their playground -- that leads them to such tactics. Perhaps they don't understand that people are convinced by reason and logic, with the sheer power of good ideas. On the other hand, perhaps they understand it all too well. If they understood that logic and reason would not support the unnecessary and illegal war against Iraq, then they would have to sell it. And sell it hard, with threats of dirty bombs, mushroom clouds, and biological warfare. If logic and reason would not support the restrictive and punitive aspects of NCLB, nor the unfunded mandate it became, then they would have to sell it. Mr. Williams, we have a deal for you.

I had never heard of Armstrong Williams in part because I watch little television. Too many commercials for me, too much selling. But I wonder about his audience. Did they believe he was giving an honest opinion about a government program? Didn't they think it odd that he would be so high on a program that he would "comment on it regularly"? And did they buy? Did the quarter million lead them to demand NCLB from the local school districts? Did it make them more likely to vote for people like Bush who backed such a program? Of course it did. Karl Rove knows exactly how to spend your money and what it will buy him: more power.

The war in Iraq is a disaster. The No Child Left Behind Act has left millions of children behind and has arbitrarily set standards and then punished schools that failed to meet them. Social Security, if we also buy Bush's "fix" for that, will see a similar fate: it, too, will be degraded. On the horizon are other sales opportunities. But they will come at a high price, much higher than you will be led to believe. Call it deceptive advertising. And demand a refund.


07 Jan 05 - 05:33 PM (#1374036)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From The Mercury News:

Observers: Bush administration plagued by missteps



By KENNETH R. BAZINET

New York Daily News

WASHINGTON - Honeymoon? What honeymoon?

The victory lap is long over for President Bush, tripped up by a series of gaffes since Election Day that were either self-inflicted or made by his own allies, both aides and critics said.

"It's been sloppy. ... People are off message," conceded a senior administration official, who said Team Bush's trademark discipline had crumbled since winning a second term.

"It's the worst I've ever seen it," the official conceded.

In the view of former GOP strategist Marshall Wittman, now a senior fellow at the Democratic Leadership Council, "The honeymoon blew over quicker than a Texas thunderstorm on a hot July day." (...)


07 Jan 05 - 05:38 PM (#1374040)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

A satire entry from Unconfirmed Sources -- News You Just Can't Use:

George W. Bush at APEC Summit: A Bruising Experience
Mexican President Vicente Fox beat the crap of American President George W. Bush on the opening day of the APEC Summit. The altercation took place after George Bush, apparently mistaking President Fox for a waiter, asked him for a plate of Arroz con Pollo and a bottle of water, "Real American water, not that South of the Boarder shit."

President Fox inflicted numerous body blows on Bush as well a well placed kick to the groin. " Madre Mio," Fox was quoted as saying, " I just couldn't take it anymore. This is the second time that bastard has done this to me. Once, he asked me if I wanted to sell him my sister."

The Presidents trip to Santiago, Chile was supposed to be a fence mending exercise, but things got off to a rocky start minutes after Air Force one landed. As he stood at the planes cabin door President Bush made a statement that said in part, " I'd like to thank all my little brown brothers south of border for inviting me to your shitty little country. Let's Fiesta!"

Unnamed Administration source Wegman "Pudgy" Waterhouse said, " I guess you could say it was all my fault for not correctly identifying President Fox to President Bush, but man, these guys all look alike."

Several other APEC members were equally insulted by the President. Japans Prime Minister, Junichiro Koizumi was mistaken by Mr. Bush for a gardener and stood by in shock while Mr. Bush berated him for using the wrong type of fertilizer on the roses.
Russian President Vladimir Putin sported a pair of mirrored sunglasses in a effort to stop the American President from looking into his soul.

As soon as he realized his mistake President Bush, by way of apology, offered President Fox a temporary Green Card so that he could, in the Presidents words, " Come north of the Rio Grande and find himself a real job, one that pays Americano dinero." President Fox had to be pulled away from Mr. Bush again after he then tried to strangle the US President.


08 Jan 05 - 10:32 AM (#1374439)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Bush Paints His Goals As 'Crises'
President Reprises A First-Term Tactic

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 8, 2005; Page A01

President Bush had great success in his first term by defining crises that demanded decisive responses. Now, as he begins a second term, Bush is returning to the same tactic to accomplish three longtime conservative goals.

Warning of the need for urgent action on his Social Security plan, Bush says the "crisis is now" for a system even the most pessimistic observers say will take in more in taxes than it pays out in benefits well into the next decade.

Sen. Harry M. Reid (D): The White House has "made an art of creating crisis where a crisis does not exist." (Melina Mara -- The Washington Post)


He calls the proliferation of medical liability lawsuits a "crisis in America" that can be fixed only by limiting a patient's right to sue for large damages. And Bush has repeatedly accused Senate Democrats of creating a "vacancy crisis" on the federal bench by refusing to confirm a small percentage of his judicial nominees.

This strategy helped Bush win support for the war in Iraq, tax cuts and education policies, as well as reclaim the White House. What is unclear is whether the same approach will work, given the battering to the administration's credibility over its Iraq claims and a new Democratic campaign accusing Bush of crying wolf.

"This White House had made an art of creating crisis where a crisis does not exist," said Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.)....


08 Jan 05 - 11:21 AM (#1374444)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Promoting Torture's Promoter
By BOB HERBERT
( New York TImes Op-Ed)
Published: January 7, 2005

        


If the United States were to look into a mirror right now, it wouldn't recognize itself.

The administration that thumbed its nose at the Geneva Conventions seems equally dismissive of such grand American values as honor, justice, integrity, due process and the truth. So there was Alberto Gonzales, counselor to the president and enabler in chief of the pro-torture lobby, interviewing on Capitol Hill yesterday for the post of attorney general, which just happens to be the highest law enforcement office in the land.

Mr. Gonzales shouldn't be allowed anywhere near that office. His judgments regarding the detention and treatment of prisoners rounded up in Iraq and the so-called war on terror have been both unsound and shameful. Some of the practices that evolved from his judgments were appalling, gruesome, medieval.

But this is the Bush administration, where incompetence and outright failure are rewarded with the nation's highest honors. (Remember the Presidential Medal of Freedom awarded last month to George Tenet et al.?) So not only is Mr. Gonzales's name being stenciled onto the attorney general's door, but a plush judicial seat is being readied for his anticipated elevation to the Supreme Court.

It's a measure of the irrelevance of the Democratic Party that a man who played such a significant role in the policies that led to the still-unfolding prisoner abuse and torture scandals is expected to win easy Senate confirmation and become attorney general. The Democrats have become the 98-pound weaklings of the 21st century.

The Bush administration and Mr. Gonzales are trying to sell the fiction that they've seen the light. In answer to a setup question at his Judiciary Committee hearing, Mr. Gonzales said he is against torture. And the Justice Department issued a legal opinion last week that said "torture is abhorrent both to American law and values and international norms."


08 Jan 05 - 11:24 AM (#1374445)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Worse Than Fiction


By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: January 7, 2005
Excerpted from the New York Times


I've been thinking of writing a political novel. It will be a bad novel because there won't be any nuance: the villains won't just espouse an ideology I disagree with - they'll be hypocrites, cranks and scoundrels.

In my bad novel, a famous moralist who demanded national outrage over an affair and writes best-selling books about virtue will turn out to be hiding an expensive gambling habit. A talk radio host who advocates harsh penalties for drug violators will turn out to be hiding his own drug addiction.

In my bad novel, crusaders for moral values will be driven by strange obsessions. One senator's diatribe against gay marriage will link it to "man on dog" sex. Another will rant about the dangers of lesbians in high school bathrooms.

In my bad novel, the president will choose as head of homeland security a "good man" who turns out to have been the subject of an arrest warrant, who turned an apartment set aside for rescue workers into his personal love nest and who stalked at least one of his ex-lovers.

In my bad novel, a TV personality who claims to stand up for regular Americans against the elite will pay a large settlement in a sexual harassment case, in which he used his position of power to - on second thought, that story is too embarrassing even for a bad novel.

In my bad novel, apologists for the administration will charge foreign policy critics with anti-Semitism. But they will be silent when a prominent conservative declares that "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular."

In my bad novel the administration will use the slogan "support the troops" to suppress criticism of its war policy. But it will ignore repeated complaints that the troops lack armor.

The secretary of defense - another "good man," according to the president - won't even bother signing letters to the families of soldiers killed in action.

Last but not least, in my bad novel the president, who portrays himself as the defender of good against evil, will preside over the widespread use of torture.

How did we find ourselves living in a bad novel? It was not ever thus. Hypocrites, cranks and scoundrels have always been with us, on both sides of the aisle. But 9/11 created an environment some liberals summarize with the acronym Iokiyar: it's O.K. if you're a Republican.

The public became unwilling to believe bad things about those who claim to be defending the nation against terrorism. And the hypocrites, cranks and scoundrels of the right, empowered by the public's credulity, have come out in unprecedented force.


08 Jan 05 - 01:01 PM (#1374512)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Stilly River Sage

Oh, wow, this thread is long. I hadn't read it at all until now (I don't think). Do I have to start at the very beginning or can I skip a dozen pages?

SRS


08 Jan 05 - 01:16 PM (#1374529)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: DougR

Since it totally consists of articles and opinions, all declaring that GWB is a feeble-minded, war monger who delights in killing innocent people, and hasn't the good sense to come in out of the rain, SRS, I doubt you would learn much by reading every post. I think you share Amos' opinion of the President anyway, so what's to learn?

DougR


08 Jan 05 - 02:29 PM (#1374594)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

DougR, in his usual style of nullification and denigration, has mischaracterized many of the posts in these threads in an effort to just make nothing out of the whole thing.

And Doug, the reason Bush gets associated with murder is because he took decision s that immediately and directly result4ed in the predictable extermination of innocent people by violent force thjat was not justified.

SRS, feel free to scan as many or as few as you find of interest. They are not tied to each other except by a general theme of being observations and thoughts about the Bush adminitration.

A


08 Jan 05 - 11:55 PM (#1374962)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Tax-Funded White House PR Effort Questioned

A news commentator was paid to promote education policy, which critics call propaganda.



By Tom Hamburger, Nick Anderson and T. Christian Miller, Times Staff Writers

Los Angeles Times


WASHINGTON — A bipartisan group of lawmakers called for an investigation Friday into whether the Bush administration misused taxpayer funds by paying a prominent media pundit $240,000 to promote the president's controversial new education policy.

The Education Department on Friday defended its payments to conservative commentator Armstrong Williams as part of a million-dollar contract with the Ketchum public relations firm to promote the No Child Left Behind Act with minority groups.


 
Williams, who is African American, was hired by Ketchum in late 2003 to build support among minorities for the president's education plan. He praised the program in columns and on television without disclosing the payments.

His case is the latest and perhaps most striking example of the Bush administration using government funds to market its agenda to the American public under the guise of journalism. It is also a fresh blow for the media following recent scandals that have raised questions about credibility. (...)


09 Jan 05 - 12:07 AM (#1374971)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The horrible costs of the war in financial terms.


09 Jan 05 - 12:11 AM (#1374972)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

President Dwight D. Eisenhower
April 16, 1953


09 Jan 05 - 11:06 AM (#1375054)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Volume 52, Number 1 · January 13, 2005

email icon Email to a friend
Review


The Truth About Terrorism by Jonathan Raban, is a long piece, but wortht he read for the insights it offers into the actual, versus the promoted, nature of terrorism.

The article reviews several important books on modern issues of terrorism. One of the quotes is from a recent book by Stephen Flynn, "America the Vulnerable". Flynn offers these thoughts:

"The secretive, top-down, us-versus-them culture that is pervasive in government security circles must give way to more inclusive processes.... Rather than working assiduously to keep the details of terrorism and our vulnerabilities out of the public domain, the federal government should adopt a new imperative that recognizes that Americans have to be far better informed about the dangers that they face.... How much security is enough? We have done enough when the American people can conclude that a future attack on US soil will be an exceptional event that does not require wholesale changes to how we go about our lives.... We must continue to remind the world that it is not military might that is the source of our strength but our belief that mankind can govern itself in such a way as to secure the blessings of liberty."

I recommend the whole of the article.

Especially to Martin.

A


09 Jan 05 - 06:26 PM (#1375388)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From Maureen Dowd, of the New York Times:

Defining Victory Down (Click for complete essay)
By MAUREEN DOWD

Published: January 9, 2005

        


The president prides himself on being a pig-headed guy. He is determined to win in Iraq even if he is not winning in Iraq.

So get ready for a Mohammedan mountain of spin defining victory down. Come what may - civil war over oil, Iranian-style fatwas du jour or men on prayer rugs reciting the Koran all day on the Iraqi TV network our own geniuses created - this administration will call it a triumph.

Even for a White House steeped in hooey, it's a challenge. President Bush will have to emulate the parsing and prevaricating he disdained in his predecessor: It depends on what the meaning of the word "win" is.

The president's still got a paper bag over his head, claiming that the daily horrors out of Iraq reflect just a few soreheads standing in the way of a glorious democracy, even though his commander of ground forces there concedes that the areas where more than half of Iraqis live are not secure enough for them to vote - an acknowledgment that the insurgency is resilient and growing. It's like saying Montana and North Dakota are safe to vote, but New York, Philadelphia and L.A. are not. What's a little disenfranchisement among friends?

"I know it's hard, but it's hard for a reason," Mr. Bush said on Friday, a day after seven G.I.'s and two marines died. "And the reason it's hard is because there are a handful of folks who fear freedom." If it's just a handful, how come it's so hard?

Then the president added: "And I look at the elections as a - as a - you know, as a - as - as a historical marker for our Iraq policy."

Well, that's clear. Mr. Bush is huddled in his bubble, but he's in a pickle. The administration that had no plan for what to do with Iraq when it got it, now has no plan for getting out.

The mood in Washington about our misadventure seemed to grow darker last week, maybe because lawmakers were back after visiting with their increasingly worried constituents and - even more alarming - visiting Iraq, where you still can't drive from the Baghdad airport to the Green Zone without fearing for your life.


09 Jan 05 - 06:47 PM (#1375403)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

I've said it all along. When the US has had enuff of loosing a war it cannot win and leaves, Iraq will slip into a civil war... This is un preventable...

Rhe more I look at Bush's decision to invade Iraq, for political gain only, the more I am seeing this decision as maybe the worst decision that a president has made since Lincoln pushed the Southern Man's buttons some 145 years ago.

In terms of cost in lives it may not compare with Vietnam (yet) but with his ever changing motives for the invasion, one has to wonder just what the Hell the boy was thinking?

Or better put, not........

Bobert


10 Jan 05 - 09:49 AM (#1375761)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST

Charles Holland of Nebo, NC, offers these thoughts:

True Christians aren't deceived by the Bush administration


SPECIAL TO CITIZEN-TIMES
Jan. 8, 2005 10:09 a.m.

I am writing in conjunction with the letter, "Non-Republicans need not apply to run for office," (AC-T, Jan. 3): This letter points out that Republicans see themselves as good and everyone else as evil. The article quoted the Asheville Citizen-Times as President Bush winning a second term (largely by efforts of) the evangelical Christians. Well, those Christians who put Bush back in office need to read their Bible more and find out who the evil ones are. Bush and the Republicans, according to my Bible, are the evil ones. This is what the Bible says in Proverbs 6:16-19: "These six things doeth the Lord hate: yea seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, an heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, a false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren." All this the Republicans have done. People see who the deceivers are. They divided the nation, and the blood of thousands are on their hands. All this God hates and is an abomination unto him. People should read their Bible and get understanding from it, and not be deceived by the Bushes of this world.

Charles Holland,

Nebo


10 Jan 05 - 10:06 AM (#1375763)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Amos

Armstrong Williams Is A Shill For The Bush Administration

By Robert Paul Reyes
Jan. 9, 2005

As a columnist for a small town newspaper, my readers expect me to express my opinion on various and sundry subjects. My editorials are sometimes lauded, sometimes reviled, but everyone knows that I write from my heart.

If it turned out that the Chamber of Commerce was paying me to write essays extolling the virtues of living in Lynchburg, I would expect my newspaper to fire me. As an editorialist if I don't have my integrity -- I don't have anything.

The Education Department paid conservative commentator Armstrong Williams $250,000 to help promote President Bush's "No Child Left Behind" law on his radio show, TV program and newspaper column.

In pocketing the money, funneled through a public- relations firm, the conservative pundit aired a commercial on his syndicated television and radio shows featuring Education Secretary Rod Paige, praised Bush's education policy and urged other talkmeisters to interview Paige. Williams neglected to disclose the contract when talking about "No Child Left Behind" during cable- television appearances or writing about it in his syndicated newspaper column. (....)


10 Jan 05 - 10:16 AM (#1375767)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Isaac Peon de Tallywhacker

As DougR has placed a request, amidst his scurrilous slurs, for some words from that Belle of Southern Letters, Molly Ivins, some are provided herewith.

I.P de T


Molly Ivins: The Bush Administration II's 'prior-roarities'

By MOLLY IVINS, Creators Syndicate
January 7, 2005

pictureAUSTIN, Texas — In the Texas legislature, they are called "prior-roarities," such a happy coinage. What should come prior?

When the pitter-patter of falling year-end columns comes again, not necessarily next year, but certainly four years from now, I fearlessly forecast a dismal unanimity: that the Bush Administration II suffers from bad and dumb prior-roarities.

Actually, the passage of time is not required for proof — look around. The Bushies are about to launch a $50 million to $100 million dollar propaganda campaign to convince us the Social Security system is in crisis. Actually, it's not. It's quite robust and has astonishingly low administrative costs, less than 1 percent.

According to President Bush's own Commission to "Strengthen Social Security," the administrative costs of keeping track of private accounts will be 10 to 30 times the cost of administering the current system.

The Socialy Security System is in no danger whatsoever of going broke or even of having to pay out less than full compensation for at least 50 years. There are any number of statistical models and premises one can argue about here, but when the administration begins with a premise that requires fixing Social Security based on an extrapolation to infinity, you know you are not dealing with people who argue in good faith.

Even if Social Security were in full-fledged crisis, none of the sensible, cheap, effective ways to fix it would involve the massive trillion-dollar boondoggle this administration contemplates.

Let's get this straight. The Republicans do not want to fix Social Security, they want to kill it. Period. They don't want to "partially privatize" Social Security, they want to end it. What they want is a private pension system like the one their pointy-headed heroes at the University of Chicago dreamed up for Chile, the poster child of why we should not do this.

This same rigid, inflexible, impractical the-market-is-always-best ideology is like a form of mania with these folks. As Paul Krugman patiently points out, "Claims that stocks will always yield high, low-risk returns are just bad economics."

In fact, it's more than passingly reminiscent of another rigid, inflexible, politico-economic orthodoxy: communism. And just as capable of robustly ignoring reality.

And for robustly ignoring reality, you can't hardly beat spending $50 million to $100 million on a propaganda campaign to convince America there's something seriously wrong with Social Security while you ignore the collapse of the American health care system. It is common to begin all discussions of American health care with a complete lie, uttered in this example by President Bush: "We live in a great country that has got the best health care system in the world, and we need to keep it that way."


10 Jan 05 - 01:03 PM (#1375954)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: DougR

And I DO thank you, Guest Isaac. Wouldn't want the Queen of liberals to be left out in the cold would we?

Slurs? What slurs?

DougR


10 Jan 05 - 07:24 PM (#1376257)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

Yep, Molly Irvans certainly has a handle on the Bushites... They are a bunch of heathens who are out to screw the working class... Ain't a drop of Christainity in that camp... Not a drop...

And they are out to kill off Social Security, no doubt. The only fix they have in mind is reading about it in the history books...

Bobert


10 Jan 05 - 08:01 PM (#1376275)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

BBC News Reports:


Tanzanians pack George Bush bar
Owner George Charles Mgina (l) and Joseph Haule (R) underneath the bar's sign
Mr Mgina (l) shares his first name with the former US leader
Tanzanian beer drinkers are flocking to the George Bush Social Club, south-east of Dar es Salaam.

Owner George Charles Mgina was nicknamed George Bush by his friends because of his strong support for the first Gulf War in 1991.

Inside, patrons drink beer, play pool and eat roast meat.

The BBC's Vicky Ntetema says that most Tanzanians oppose Mr Bush's son, the current US president, and his war in Iraq but business remains strong.

With the new President Bush, Mr Mgina changed the name of his company to George W Bush Investments Ltd and says he is also planning to venture into new areas, so there could soon be a George W Bush farm or mine.


10 Jan 05 - 08:08 PM (#1376278)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From Rhodesia's Cape Times:

Striking similarity between McCarthyism and George Bush's USA Patriot Act


January 10, 2005

By Leslie Liddell

The United States is said to be a free country. Its constitution has amendments (Bill of Rights) which, among other things, uphold free speech, the right of people to assemble peacefully, the right to be secure in your person, house, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right to a speedy and fair trial by an impartial jury if you are accused of a crime.

It also states that "all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people". This is the received and perceived truth that many people who live both inside and outside of the US adhere to.

However, during the period from about 1947-1957, McCarthyism, given its name from Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy, maintained that communists had infiltrated the US State Department.

Repressive measures against people labelled as communists were rife. Many Americans had their civil liberties and rights undermined.

Professor Ellen Schrecker, a well-known historian and expert on McCarthyism, has written extensively on the era. She says that through "part myth and part reality, the notion that domestic communists threatened national security... based on a primarily ideological conception of the nature of the communist movement... came... the government's attempt to mobilise public opinion for the Cold War".

During this repressive period, about 150 people were imprisoned, and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were put to death. Most of the major punishments were of an economic nature, however.

Schrecker notes: "People lost their jobs. The official manifestations of McCarthyism... the public hearings, FBI investigations, and criminal prosecutions... would not have been as effective had they not been reinforced by the private sector." Targeted people were blacklisted, which meant that they were unable to find employment.

This economic punishment extended to universities, colleges, the media, labour and the entertainment industry.

In all sectors of society, the state got civil society to do its dirty work by firing and blacklisting people. It is estimated that 10 000 people may have lost their jobs during McCarthyism.

The legacy of this period of political repression in the US was extensive. "There were social reforms which were never adopted, some diplomatic initiatives which were never pursued, workers were not organised into unions, some books were not written and some movies were never made."

In addition, the American left was negatively affected and the public space for alternatives to the status quo disappeared. The nation's cultural and intellectual life suffered.

Finally, Schrecker maintains that the anti-democratic practices associated with McCarthyism continued through the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s: "McCarthyism alone did not cause these outrages; but the assault on democracy that began during the 1940s and 1950s with the collaboration of private institutions and public agencies in suppressing the alleged threat of domestic communism was an important early contribution."
Click here


More recently, legislative proposals in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were introduced - less than a week after the attacks.

President George Bush signed the final bill, the United States Patriot Act, into law on October 26, 2001. It was introduced with great haste and passed with little debate and without a House, Senate or conference report.

As a result, it lacks background legislative history that often retrospectively provides necessary statutory interpretation. It also doesn't provide for the system of checks and balances that traditionally safeguards civil liberties in the face of such legislation.

The USA Patriot Act introduced a number of legislative changes which significantly increased the surveillance and investigative powers of law enforcement agencies in the US.

The implications for online internet privacy are considerable. For example, the act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to authorise the installation of pen registers and trap and trace devices, and to authorise the installation of such devices to record all computer routing, addressing and signalling of information.

The act also extends the government's ability to gain access to personal financial information and student information without any suspicion of wrongdoing, simply by certifying that the information likely to be obtained is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.

Many of the foundations of American democracy are violated by the Patriot Act.

It also defines "domestic terrorism" so broadly that political organisations could be subjected to the seizure of property for engaging in civil disobedience, for example.

Non-citizens can be imprisoned without charges, simply on the attorney-general's injunction, without showing a court that they are dangerous or a flight risk.

Once again, the violations against the basic constitutional rights of Americans are being carried out in the name of national security and in the defence of waging a war. During McCarthyism, it was the Cold War. This time, it is the war on terror.


10 Jan 05 - 08:16 PM (#1376281)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

January 11, 2005:

    The current total dead Americans killed in Iraq increased to 1,352. The total number of wounded reported remained at 10,252.

A


10 Jan 05 - 09:01 PM (#1376314)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The following, a different perspective, is from the Washington Post
(Full article found here.

Iraqi Bloggers, In the News And Critiquing It

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 20, 2004; Page C01

Omar Fadhil says the media are painting far too dark a portrait of Iraq.

Outsiders "think there is fighting at every corner, people can't walk the streets, the economy is devastated and people are starving," he says. "No one is showing the good news coming from Iraq. That's usually ignored. Things are difficult, but life is going on."


Fadhil, 24, is a dentist in Baghdad. He and his two brothers are doing more than just griping about the coverage; they are at the forefront of the first wave of Iraqi Internet bloggers, engaging in a form of expression that was impossible under Saddam Hussein.

On a visit to Washington earlier this month, Omar and his sibling Mohammed, 35, who is also a dentist, found themselves ushered into the Oval Office for a meeting with President Bush after a last-minute invitation. The president asked their views on Iraqi politics and assured them that the United States will not leave until the job is done.

Pretty heady stuff for two men who had never before been outside their country.

In an interview, Omar and Mohammed described their excitement at being able to say what they think and reach about 7,000 people each day. Their English-language blog, IraqtheModel, is part journal, part travelogue and part political soapbox.

"In 35 years under the Saddam regime, we learned to protect ourselves" by not speaking out in public, says Mohammed. In fact, he hid from authorities for six years after refusing to join the Iraqi army. "Now we want to say in a loud and clear voice that we welcome American troops and consider this a liberation, not an occupation."


11 Jan 05 - 02:33 AM (#1376458)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Rustic Rebel

Holy shit!!!
I have reached the end!! (thus far)
I finally decided I would read this thread since I have read other comments about it in somewhere-else land.
Amos my brother, I sat down today and read through the entirety of this thread (admittedly not going into every link),(( I thank you for the portions of articles to get the idea of where they were going)).
Amos, I gotta tell you, after reading this thread all day,... I am bushed.


11 Jan 05 - 04:52 AM (#1376489)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Jeeze, RR, I am more impressed stil with your reading it end to end. A Lot of it is history -- I yam surprised you didn't turn into salt or something!!

A


11 Jan 05 - 09:02 AM (#1376523)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

IN other news:

Moore is the people's choice
11/01/2005

Michael Moore has won the best film prize at the US People's Choice Awards for Fahrenheit 9/11.

The awards are voted for by the American public, representing a popular win among the masses for the director renowned for his anti-Bush, anti-corporate messages.

A total of 21 million American voters picked the winners over the internet, marking what Moore called "an historic occasion".

"This country is still all of ours, not right or left or Democrat or Republican," he told the award ceremony in California, dedicating his win to the soldiers fighting in Iraq.


11 Jan 05 - 09:35 AM (#1376533)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The Iceberg Cometh
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: January 11, 2005

        (From the New York Times)

Last week someone leaked a memo written by Peter Wehner, an aide to Karl Rove, about how to sell Social Security privatization. The public, says Mr. Wehner, must be convinced that "the current system is heading for an iceberg."

It's the standard Bush administration tactic: invent a fake crisis to bully people into doing what you want. "For the first time in six decades," the memo says, "the Social Security battle is one we can win." One thing I haven't seen pointed out, however, is the extent to which the White House expects the public and the media to believe two contradictory things.

The administration expects us to believe that drastic change is needed, and needed right away, because of the looming cost of paying for the baby boomers' retirement.

The administration expects us not to notice, however, that the supposed solution would do nothing to reduce that cost. Even with the most favorable assumptions, the benefits of privatization wouldn't kick in until most of the baby boomers were long gone. For the next 45 years, privatization would cost much more money than it saved.

Advocates of privatization almost always pretend that all we have to do is borrow a bit of money up front, and then the system will become self-sustaining. The Wehner memo talks of borrowing $1 trillion to $2 trillion "to cover transition costs." Similar numbers have been widely reported in the news media.

But that's just the borrowing over the next decade. Privatization would cost an additional $3 trillion in its second decade, $5 trillion in the decade after that and another $5 trillion in the decade after that. By the time privatization started to save money, if it ever did, the federal government would have run up around $15 trillion in extra debt.


11 Jan 05 - 09:40 AM (#1376534)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

In an interesting summary of possible future paths in Iraq,
David Brooks says there is a disitinct undercurrent of possibility and hope.

"Can We Save Iraq? No, but the Iraqis Can"
By DAVID BROOKS

Published: January 11, 2005


E-mail: dabrooks@nytimes.com



Is there any way this can still work? Is there any plausible scenario for how Iraq can turn into a functioning society?

These are the questions I've been throwing at government officials, military analysts and other wise heads over the past few weeks. Their answers, both uplifting and depressing, suggest that if we are lucky, the near future in Iraq will come in three phases.


11 Jan 05 - 09:44 AM (#1376535)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Bob Herbert, also writing for the Times, takes a grimmer point of view:


The Scent of Fear
By BOB HERBERT

Published: January 10, 2005

        


The assembly line of carnage in George W. Bush's war in Iraq continues unabated. Nightmares don't last this long, so the death and destruction must be real. You know you're in serious trouble when the politicians and the military brass don't even bother suggesting that there's light at the end of the tunnel. The only thing ahead is a deep and murderous darkness.

With the insurgency becoming both stronger and bolder, and the chances of conducting a legitimate election growing grimmer by the day, a genuine sense of alarm can actually be detected in the reality-resistant hierarchy of the Bush administration.

The unthinkable is getting a tentative purchase in the minds of the staunchest supporters of the war: that under the current circumstances, and given existing troop strengths, the U.S. and its Iraqi allies may not be able to prevail. Military officials are routinely talking about a major U.S. presence in Iraq that will last, at a minimum, into the next decade. That is not what most Americans believed when the Bush crowd so enthusiastically sold this war as a noble adventure that would be short and sweet, and would end with Iraqis tossing garlands of flowers at American troops.

The reality, of course, is that this war is like all wars - fearsomely brutal and tragic. The administration was jolted into the realization of just how badly the war was going by the brazen suicide bombing just a few days before Christmas inside a mess tent of a large and supposedly heavily fortified military base in Mosul. Fourteen American soldiers and four American contractors were among the dead.


11 Jan 05 - 09:49 AM (#1376537)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The New York Times also debunks some of Bush's legerdemain concerning his terickery with the SOcial Security system:

For the Record on Social Security





Late February is now the time frame mentioned by the White House for unveiling President Bush's plan to privatize Social Security. The timing is no accident. By waiting until then, the president will conveniently avoid having to include the cost of privatization - as much as $2 trillion in new government borrowing over the next 10 years - in his 2006 budget, expected in early February.

In this and other ways, the administration is manipulating information - a tacit, yet devastating, acknowledgement, we believe, that an informed public would reject privatizing Social Security. For the record:

The administration has suggested that it would be justified in borrowing some $2 trillion to establish private accounts because doing so would head off $10 trillion in future Social Security liabilities. It's bad enough that the $10 trillion is a highly inflated figure, intended to overstate a problem that is reasonably estimated at $3.7 trillion or even considerably less. Worse are the true dimensions of the administration's proposed ploy, which were made painfully clear in a memo that was leaked to the press last week. Written in early January by Peter Wehner, the president's director of strategic initiatives and a top aide to Karl Rove, the president's political strategist, the memo states unequivocally that under a privatized system, only drastic benefit cuts - not borrowing - would relieve Social Security's financial problem. "If we borrow $1-2 trillion to cover transition costs for personal savings accounts" without making benefit cuts, Mr. Wehner wrote, "we will have borrowed trillions and will still confront more than $10 trillion in unfunded liabilities. This could easily cause an economic chain reaction: the markets go south, interest rates go up, and the economy stalls out."

At a recent press conference, Mr. Bush exaggerated the timing of the system's shortfall by saying that Social Security would cross the "line into red" in 2018. According to Congress's budget agency, the system comes up short in 2052; according to the system's trustees, the date is 2042. The year 2018 is when the system's trustees expect they will have to begin dipping into the Social Security trust fund to pay full benefits. If you had a trust fund to pay your bills when your income fell short, would you consider yourself insolvent?

In suggesting that 2018 is doomsyear, the president is reinforcing a false impression that the trust fund is a worthless pile of I.O.U.'s - as detractors of Social Security so often claim. The facts are different: since 1983, payroll taxes have exceeded benefits, with the excess tax revenue invested in interest-bearing Treasury securities. (An alternative would be to, say, put the money in a mattress.) That accumulating interest and the securities themselves make up the Social Security trust fund. If the trust fund's Treasury securities are worthless, someone better tell investors throughout the world, who currently hold $4.3 trillion in Treasury debt that carries the exact same government obligation to pay as the trust fund securities. The president is irresponsible to even imply that the United States might not honor its debt obligations. Click for remainder of article


11 Jan 05 - 10:50 AM (#1376577)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

While in other news:

"Drinking Water: How Much Rocket Fuel is Safe for Humans?
Get over 10,000 Screensavers FREE!

The Bush Administration appears to be making an attempt to allow more percholorate, a type of chemical found in rocket fuel, in our drinking water. The goal: to prevent a costly cleanup for military and aerospace companies.

The Pentagon has asked the National Academy of Sciences to create a panal to review how much percholorate is safe in drinking water. The Environmental Protection Agency had previously ruled that there should be no more than 1 part per billion of percholorate in drinking water to protect public safety. The Academy is trying to have that number increased to 20 times that amount.

Percholorate affects the hormone level in the thyroid gland. According to some studies, even small amounts of the substance can affect the brain development of small children. The affect is even greater if the water is ingested by pregnant women."


11 Jan 05 - 04:41 PM (#1376946)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From the Los Angeles Times (excerpt):
January 11, 2005         
        
Robert Scheer:



Is Al Qaeda Just a Bush Boogeyman?






        
        
Is it conceivable that Al Qaeda, as defined by President Bush as the center of a vast and well-organized international terrorist conspiracy, does not exist?

To even raise the question amid all the officially inspired hysteria is heretical, especially in the context of the U.S. media's supine acceptance of administration claims relating to national security. Yet a brilliant new BBC film produced by one of Britain's leading documentary filmmakers systematically challenges this and many other accepted articles of faith in the so-called war on terror.

"The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear," a three-hour historical film by Adam Curtis recently aired by the British Broadcasting Corp., argues coherently that much of what we have been told about the threat of international terrorism "is a fantasy that has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It is a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services and the international media."

Stern stuff, indeed. But consider just a few of the many questions the program poses along the way:

• If Osama bin Laden does, in fact, head a vast international terrorist organization with trained operatives in more than 40 countries, as claimed by Bush, why, despite torture of prisoners, has this administration failed to produce hard evidence of it?

• How can it be that in Britain since 9/11, 664 people have been detained on suspicion of terrorism but only 17 have been found guilty, most of them with no connection to Islamist groups and none who were proven members of Al Qaeda?

• Why have we heard so much frightening talk about "dirty bombs" when experts say it is panic rather than radioactivity that would kill people?

• Why did Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claim on "Meet the Press" in 2001 that Al Qaeda controlled massive high-tech cave complexes in Afghanistan, when British and U.S. military forces later found no such thing?


11 Jan 05 - 08:39 PM (#1377115)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.


11 Jan 05 - 08:54 PM (#1377128)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

Not to change the subject too much but what really has me mad today is the Bushites arrogance in "ordering" the DC government, in direct conflict with tradition going back forever, to pay for setting up grandstands, closing streets, providing police and fire protection, along with all the Homeland Security concerns...

Yup, these things have always been paid for by the US. Not this year as cheapskake, crook Bush is forcing folks, who have NO REPRESENTATION in Congress yet are forced to pay Federal income taxes to pay for the Repubs $17M celebartion.

What a crock!

Not only that but should a DC resident show up with a sign protesting this theft this resident will be turned away from the big ol' Repub circle jerk...

This is about the most arrogant and f**ked up thing that the Bushites have ever thought up to do to a people who have less democratic rights than they *say* they want for the average Iraqi...

If you are reading this, Mr. Bush: Screw you, you crook...

Bobert


11 Jan 05 - 09:05 PM (#1377137)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk

It is typical of extreme fascist regimes (whether they be capitalist fascists or socialist fascists) to invent terrifying, shadowy, and largely fictional enemies with which to terrorize their own public into supporting an extremist government which then employs extremist policies and worldwide aggression to further its ends.

That is precisely what the Bush administration has done. They have inflated (and quite possible invented) this Al Queda monster in the public's imagination, when in fact they themselves are the real monster. Terrorism is not a centralized force, it is a collection of scattered, disconnected people in many places, people embittered by the world-affecting policies of an aggressive superpower.

Bin Laden is probably connected intimately with the very neo-Conservative forces which wanted and needed a crisis of some kind in order to launch foreign wars. They got their Reichstage fire when 911 happened. They may have themselves been complicit in organizing it...or letting it happen...because for them it was a dream come true.

They need Bin Laden. He needs them. If they had not had Bin Laden, they would have invented him.

The war is about oil, it's about establishing a gradually extending police state in the USA (and elsewhere if possible), it's about strategic positioning to dominate and control the Middle East and the World, it's about creating an endless conflict that will continue in a variety of locations.

It is not about destroying Al Queda. If Al Queda ceased to exist altogether, the people running American policy would just invent another Al Queda, because it is through fear that they maintain and enlarge their power.

Hitler needed scapegoats. He picked Communists, Jews, and Gypsies...people whom he knew were unpopular already. Easy targets.

Bush's administration needed the same. They picked Islamic fundamentalists. They had to pick someone. The Cold War was over,so there were no more Communists to fight (except Castro and the Chinese). Castro doesn't matter that much. The Chinese are too big and offer too much business to America. A new enemy had to be found.

The new enemy is the Arabs, the Palestinians, the Muslims in general. This is a very dirty game, it's a phony game, it's a lie and a fraud. And it is open aggression by a superpower. Just like Hitler in 1939. No different, in my opinion. Same old routine, new set of faces, that's all.

The "Jew" of today is the Muslim. The Wehrmacht of today is the US Marines, and Tony Blair is their Mussolini, tagging along for the spoils.


11 Jan 05 - 11:14 PM (#1377214)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: DougR

Uh, "not to change the subject too much", Bobert? You've started a whole new thread on your subject already. That's not enough?

DougR


11 Jan 05 - 11:21 PM (#1377218)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

Nope, Dougie. It isn't...

Now how do you really feel about this situation?

Bobert


12 Jan 05 - 09:05 AM (#1377332)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Amos

The polarized incompatabilities of Shiites and Sunni in Iraq have made for a deep-rooted failure in nation-building. Our own blundering attempt to bypass and impose ourexpertise on how it should be done, engineered in the great republican spirit of ineptitude and informed by the very best of American know-nothingism, has done little to improve thigs. The greatest hurdle, though, has been the armed insurgency and their (suspiciously) deep supplies of armaments and explosives.

The NY Times discusses the situation in an interesting editorial on this page. Excerpt:

Facing Facts About Iraq's Election



Published: January 12, 2005


When the United States was debating whether to invade Iraq, there was one outcome that everyone agreed had to be avoided at all costs: a civil war between Sunni and Shiite Muslims that would create instability throughout the Middle East and give terrorists a new, ungoverned region that they could use as a base of operations. The coming elections - long touted as the beginning of a new, democratic Iraq - are looking more and more like the beginning of that worst-case scenario.

It's time to talk about postponing the elections.


12 Jan 05 - 09:16 AM (#1377337)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST

And in the back pages of the Washington Post, this choice milestone of incompetence made manifest:


Search for Banned Arms In Iraq Ended Last Month
Critical September Report to Be Final Word

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 12, 2005; Page A01

The hunt for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in Iraq has come to an end nearly two years after President Bush ordered U.S. troops to disarm Saddam Hussein. The top CIA weapons hunter is home, and analysts are back at Langley.

In interviews, officials who served with the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) said the violence in Iraq, coupled with a lack of new information, led them to fold up the effort shortly before Christmas.

Four months after Charles A. Duelfer, who led the weapons hunt in 2004, submitted an interim report to Congress that contradicted nearly every prewar assertion about Iraq made by top Bush administration officials, a senior intelligence official said the findings will stand as the ISG's final conclusions and will be published this spring.

President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials asserted before the U.S. invasion in March 2003 that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, had chemical and biological weapons, and maintained links to al Qaeda affiliates to whom it might give such weapons to use against the United States.

Bush has expressed disappointment that no weapons or weapons programs were found, but the White House has been reluctant to call off the hunt, holding out the possibility that weapons were moved out of Iraq before the war or are well hidden somewhere inside the country. But the intelligence official said that possibility is very small.


12 Jan 05 - 03:30 PM (#1377592)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Little Hawk

Hitler was seriously disappointed also, no doubt, when he failed to find massive threats to the survival of the German nation in the ruins of Poland! After all, he only attacked the Poles because they were "raping Aryan women", "committing atrocities on East Prussian Aryans", and "planning to attack Germany". Yes indeed! Well, they had to be stopped, by golly. So the Luftwaffe and the Wehrmacht did the only decent thing a superpower can do when it is menaced by a small, weak country with an outdated military that ain't got a chance...they kicked the shit out of those dangerous Polish fanatics!!! Yup. Everything would have been just jimdandy if Britain and France hadn't declared war over it. Too bad, eh?

Well, by golly, the World has now been "saved" from the terrible danger posed by Iraq, just like Hitler saved us from Poland back in '39. I can't wait till George Bush finds someone else to save us from...maybe Syria or Iran? Maybe Korea? Where is there more oil? Maybe Venezuela?

Hail to the Chief! (Heil der Fuehrer!)


12 Jan 05 - 08:54 PM (#1377829)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

U.S. Trade Deficit Hit Highest Figure Ever in November
By ELIZABETH BECKER

Published: January 12, 2005



WASHINGTON, Jan. 12 - The United States trade deficit soared to a new high of $60.3 billion in November, the Commerce Department reported today. The figure breaks all previous monthly records and confounds predictions that the deficit would diminish now that the dollar has weakened and the price of oil has eased.


Instead the trade gap has now reached the size of the Grand Canyon, in the words of one analyst, and is putting increased pressure on the dollar to drop even further, pressure that could continue unabated.

The dollar fell sharply on news of the unexpectedly wide trade deficit, dropping to 102.42 Japanese yen by this afternoon, from 103.25 yen late Tuesday. The euro climbed to $1.3266, from $1.3123.

The jump in the trade deficit showed a surprising weakening in American exports across the board, from agricultural products to capital goods like aircraft and semiconductors. The figures released by the Commerce Department showed that the trade deficit is on pace to exceed $600 billion for 2004, up from $496.5 billion last year.

The United States is too deeply in debt, economists said, and several things would have to be changed if the trend was to be reversed. American savings would have to increase. The administration would have to make tough choices to balance the budget. And China would have to make its currency exchange rate flexible rather than tied to the dollar.


12 Jan 05 - 08:58 PM (#1377834)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Laura Bush has made her choice. Ending weeks of speculation on Seventh Avenue about what she would wear on Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, Mrs. Bush said Monday that Oscar de la Renta would design her inaugural ball gown, a dress that for a time at least will be the most scrutinized in the country.

The silver-blue tulle gown, embroidered with bugle beads and outlined in Austrian crystals, is the stately if conventional centerpiece in a wardrobe Mrs. Bush will wear during four days of festivities in Washington, including 10 balls, candlelight dinners, a parade and fireworks.

In addition to Mr. de la Renta, a longtime couturier to the fashionable elite, designers for Mrs. Bush's wardrobe include Carolina Herrera, who fills a similar niche, and Peggy Jennings, a little-known designer who has been quietly wardrobing Mrs. Bush from her apartment at the Waldorf Towers in Manhattan for two years.

The president's daughters, Jenna and Barbara, will be dressed by Badgley Mischka, Lela Rose, Derek Lam and Mr. de la Renta for the inaugural festivities.

The first lady's wardrobe is sure to be studied for clues about her evolving personal style and even for hints about the overall tone of the White House in the next four years. "The first lady is certainly a reflection as to the man holding the office," Mr. de la Renta said. He was reluctant to ascribe special significance to Mrs. Bush's sartorial choices, which are more glamorous than anything the White House has seen since the Reagan years.

But another observer, Catherine Allgor, a historian of first lady style, suggested that in anointing Mr. de la Renta and Mrs. Herrera, mainstays of taste among wealthy women, Mrs. Bush appears to be displaying a growing awareness that "her power is entrenched." "She has gone from being just folks to being a bit imperial, assuming a bit more of a queenly role," said Ms. Allgor, the author of "Parlor Politics: In Which the Ladies of Washington Help Build a City and a Government" (University Press of Virginia, 2002).


12 Jan 05 - 09:08 PM (#1377842)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

Subject: Dear Abby


Dear Abby,

My husband has a long record of money problems. He runs up huge credit card bills and at the end of the month, if I try to pay them off, he shouts at me, saying I am stealing his money. He says pay the minimum and let our kids worry about the rest, but already we can hardly keep up with the interest.

Also he has been so arrogant and abusive toward our neighbors that most of them no longer speak to us. The few that do are an odd bunch, to whom he has been giving a lot of expensive gifts, running up our bills even more. Also, he has gotten religious in a big way, although I don't quite understand it.

One week he hangs out with Catholics and the next with people who say the Pope is the Anti-Christ. And now he has been going to the gym an awful lot and is into wearing uniforms and cowboy outfits, and I hate to think what that means.

Finally, the last straw. He's demanding that before anyone can be in the same room with him, they must sign a loyalty oath. It's just so horribly creepy! Can you help?

Signed, Lost in DC

Dear Lost:

Stop whining, Laura. You can divorce the jerk any time you want. The rest of us are stuck with the asshole for four more years!


12 Jan 05 - 09:11 PM (#1377843)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

Gol dangit, Amos... I don't care what she wears long as it ain't no crown... That's where I draw the line...

B~


13 Jan 05 - 07:07 PM (#1378583)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From The New Republic, excerpt (subscritpion):

CANNING GAY LINGUISTS.

Stonewalled
by Nathaniel Frank
        

When Ian Finkenbinder served an eight-month combat tour with the Army's 3rd Infantry Division in Iraq in 2003, he was tasked with human intelligence-gathering, one of the most critical ingredients in the Army's effort to battle the deadly Iraqi insurgency. It is also essential to the U.S. goal of winning support from the Iraqi street. Finkenbinder's job as a cryptologic linguist was to translate radio transmissions, to interview Iraqi citizens who had information to volunteer, and to screen native speakers for possible employment in translation units.

Finkenbinder was a rare and coveted commodity. Having attended the Army's elite Defense Language Institute (DLI) at the Presidio of Monterey, he graduated in the fall of 2002 with proficiency in Arabic at a time when the United States was scrambling to remedy a dire shortage of linguists specializing in Arabic, Farsi, and other tongues critical to the war on terrorism.

So it's not surprising that, according to Finkenbinder, his company commander was "distraught" last month at the prospect of having to start discharge proceedings against him just before the 3rd Infantry, which spearheaded the Iraqi invasion with its "thunder run" to Baghdad, was scheduled to redeploy for a second tour. But he had no choice. The Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gay troops makes no exceptions for linguists, and Finkenbinder had revealed he is gay.
        
advertisement

In November 2002, I reported in The New Republic that--despite the importance of trained Arabic speakers to waging the war against terrorism and the critical shortage of these skilled translators in the U.S. military and intelligence agencies--the military fired seven Arabic language specialists from DLI earlier that fall for being gay or lesbian ("Perverse," November 18, 2002). It also booted speakers of Farsi, Korean, and other languages critical to combating the emerging global threats facing the United States.

As Finkenbinder's story illustrates, the Pentagon continues to dismiss trained linguists--people whose skills are desperately needed in Iraq and elsewhere around the world--for being gay. In fact, newly obtained data from the Department of Defense reveals that these firings were far more widespread than previously known. Between 1998 and 2004, the military discharged 20 Arabic and six Farsi language speakers under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The new data are not broken down by year, but additional figures from other reports suggest that about half the Arabic discharges came after September 11. The data were obtained from the Pentagon following a Freedom of Information Act request by the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military, a think tank at the University of California, Santa Barbara, where I work, and the office of Massachusetts Democratic Representative Marty Meehan, a vocal critic of the ban on gays in the military, who sits on the House Armed Services Committee. (...)



I should think the very thought of canning linguists would make Bush blanche. AHJ


13 Jan 05 - 08:15 PM (#1378638)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

WMD Hunt Ends; Bush's Spin Goes On


01/13/2005 @ 11:43am

David Corn, writing in The Nation



When White House spokesman Scott McClellan opened up his daily press briefing yesterday, he said, "This will be the only question of the briefing." He was joking. But it turned out that the first question--a response to the news the Iraq Survey Group had ended its hunt for weapons of mass destruction after finding absolutely nothing--was practically the only question of the day. Here's that first query:


The fact that the Iraq Survey Group has now folded up its field operations, can you explain to us if there is any sense of embarrassment or lack of comfort about the fact that after two years of looking, these people found nothing that the President and others assured us they would find?


McClellan did the usual. He did not answer the query.


McClellan: I think the President already talked about this last October in response to the comprehensive report that was released by Charles Duelfer [the Iraq Survey Group chief] at that point. Charles Duelfer came to the White House in December; the President took that opportunity to thank him for all the work that he had done. The two discussed how Saddam Hussein's regime retained the intent and capability to produce weapons of mass destruction, and they also discussed how he was systematically gaming the system to undermine the sanctions that were in place, so that once those sanctions were eliminated -- which was something he was trying to do through the U.N. oil-for-food program -- then he could begin his weapons programs once again. And I think the President talked about the other issues back in October. Nothing has changed from that time period.


And nothing has changed in terms of the White House's response to the absence of WMDs. Bush refuses to address the consequences of having misled the nation and the world. Before the war, he stated that there was "no doubt" that Iraq was loaded to the gills with WMDs. It was Saddam Hussein's possession of these deadly weapons, Bush argued, that rendered him a "direct" threat that had to be neutralized immediately. Bush and his aides repeatedly asserted there was no if about Iraq's WMDs. The International Atomic Energy Agency reported it had found no evidence of a revived nuclear weapons program in Iraq, yet Bush and Dick Cheney insisted Hussein had reconstituted such a program. The UN's chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, said he was concerned about the possibility that Iraq might have kept WMDs hidden from inspectors, but he also stated that discrepancies in Iraq's accounting of its previous WMD material did not mean that Iraq actually possessed such dangerous goods.


But the Bush gang said it knew better. Secretary of State Colin Powell made that now-infamous presentation to the UN; everything he declared as a fact turned out to be wrong. Bush left himself no wiggle room on the subject of Iraq and WMDs. He declared, "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more, and according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stated, "There's no debate in the world as to whether they have those weapons....We all know that. A trained ape knows that." (Paging that trained ape.) White House mouthpiece Ari Fleischer said, "The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it."


Really? Well, it was not true. (...)


13 Jan 05 - 10:44 PM (#1378732)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

From the Borowitz Report:

   

Winner of the First-ever National Press Club Award for Humor January 12, 2005

Breaking News

BUSH ACCUSES SADDAM OF TELLING TRUTH



Evildoer Knowingly Came Clean on WMD's, President Charges


Just hours after confirming that the search for weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq was over, President George W. Bush leveled his
harshest charge ever at Saddam Hussein, accusing the former Iraqi
dictator of "knowingly telling the truth" about not possessing WMD
in the months leading up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

"After years of lying about his weapons, Saddam Hussein willfully
decided to tell the truth about them," Mr. Bush said. "His
treachery knows no bounds."

After Mr. Bush excoriated Saddam for his "wanton truth-telling," he
added that "thanks to the work of our coalition, Mr. Saddam Hussein
will never be free to tell the truth again."

Mr. Bush argued that even though the stated reason for invading
Iraq no longer applied, preventing the former Iraqi strongman from
telling the truth in the future was "reason enough" to go to war.

"In the wrong hands, the truth can destabilize regions and even
destroy entire civilizations," Mr. Bush said. "In that respect, the
truth itself is a weapon of mass destruction - one that Mr. Saddam
Hussein will never be able to use again."

The president concluded his remarks with tough words for North
Korea's Kim Jong-Il, whom Mr. Bush accused of telling the truth
about his own weapons program.

Naming Mr. Kim a member of what he called "The Axis of Veracity,"
Mr. Bush urged the North Korean madman to cease and desist telling
the truth and to "join the community of truth-fearing nations."

Elsewhere, organizers of this weekend's tsunami telethon confirmed
that Fox's Bill O'Reilly would participate but would not be allowed
anywhere near the telephones.


13 Jan 05 - 10:58 PM (#1378739)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert

LOL, Amos....

Maybe Bush will get caught telling the truth during the next 4 years?



























Nah

Bobert


14 Jan 05 - 09:39 AM (#1378885)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Amos

NYT commentator Frank Rich excoriates the Bushies for corrupt practices and buying sleazy journalistic influence. An excerpt:


"But we now know that there have been at least three other cases in which federal agencies have succeeded in placing fake news reports on television during the Bush presidency. The Department of Health and Human Services, the Census Bureau and the Office of National Drug Control Policy have all sent out news "reports" in which, to take one example, fake newsmen purport to be "reporting" why the administration's Medicare prescription-drug policy is the best thing to come our way since the Salk vaccine. So far two Government Accountability Office investigations have found that these Orwellian stunts violated federal law that prohibits "covert propaganda" purchased with taxpayers' money. But the Williams case is the first one in which a well-known talking head has been recruited as the public face for the fake news instead of bogus correspondents (recruited from p.r. companies) with generic eyewitness-news team names like Karen Ryan and Mike Morris.

Or is Mr. Williams merely the first one of his ilk to be exposed? Every time this administration puts out fiction through the news media - the "Rambo" exploits of Jessica Lynch, the initial cover-up of Pat Tillman's death by friendly fire - it's assumed that a credulous and excessively deferential press was duped. But might there be more paid agents at loose in the media machine? In response to questions at the White House, Mr. McClellan has said that he is "not aware" of any other such case and that he hasn't "heard" whether the administration's senior staff knew of the Williams contract - nondenial denials with miles of wiggle room. Mr. Williams, meanwhile, has told both James Rainey of The Los Angeles Times and David Corn of The Nation that he has "no doubt" that there are "others" like him being paid for purveying administration propaganda and that "this happens all the time." So far he is refusing to name names - a vow of omertà all too reminiscent of that taken by the low-level operatives first apprehended in that "third-rate burglary" during the Nixon administration.

If CNN, just under new management, wants to make amends for the sins of "Crossfire," it might dispatch some real reporters to find out just which "others" Mr. Williams is talking about and to follow his money all the way back to its source"


14 Jan 05 - 09:44 AM (#1378887)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Amos

On the stupidity of Bush's privatization campaign:

The British Evasion
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: January 14, 2005


We must end Social Security as we know it, the Bush administration says, to meet the fiscal burden of paying benefits to the baby boomers. But the most likely privatization scheme would actually increase the budget deficit until 2050. By then the youngest surviving baby boomer will be 86 years old.

Even then, would we have a sustainable retirement system? Not bloody likely.

Pardon my Britishism, but Britain's 20-year experience with privatization is a cautionary tale Americans should know about.

The U.S. news media have provided readers and viewers with little information about how privatization has worked in other countries. Now my colleagues have even fewer excuses: there's an illuminating article on the British experience in The American Prospect, www.prospect.org, by Norma Cohen, a senior corporate reporter at The Financial Times who covers pension issues.

Her verdict is summed up in her title: "A Bloody Mess." Strong words, but her conclusions match those expressed more discreetly in a recent report by Britain's Pensions Commission, which warns that at least 75 percent of those with private investment accounts will not have enough savings to provide "adequate pensions."

The details of British privatization differ from the likely Bush administration plan because the starting point was different. But there are basic similarities. Guaranteed benefits were cut; workers were expected to make up for these benefit cuts by earning high returns on their private accounts.

The selling of privatization also bore a striking resemblance to President Bush's crisis-mongering. Britain had a retirement system that was working quite well, but conservative politicians issued grim warnings about the distant future, insisting that privatization was the only answer.

The main difference from the current U.S. situation was that Britain was better prepared for the transition. Britain's system was backed by extensive assets, so the government didn't have to engage in a four-decade borrowing spree to finance the creation of private accounts. And the Thatcher government hadn't already driven the budget deep into deficit before privatization even began.

Even so, it all went wrong. "Britain's experiment with substituting private savings accounts for a portion of state benefits has been a failure," Ms. Cohen writes. "A shorthand explanation for what has gone wrong is that the costs and risks of running private investment accounts outweigh the value of the returns they are likely to earn."

From here.


14 Jan 05 - 03:36 PM (#1379175)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

On the unintended consequences of words not meant:

WASHINGTON Jan 14, 2005 — President Bush says he now sees that tough talk can have an "unintended consequence."

During a round-table interview with reporters from 14 newspapers, the president, who not long ago declined to identify any mistakes he'd made during his first term, expressed misgivings for two of his most famous expressions: "Bring 'em on," in reference to Iraqis attacking U.S. troops, and his vow to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive."

"Sometimes, words have consequences you don't intend them to mean," Bush said Thursday. "'Bring 'em on' is the classic example, when I was really trying to rally the troops and make it clear to them that I fully understood, you know, what a great job they were doing. And those words had an unintended consequence. It kind of, some interpreted it to be defiance in the face of danger. That certainly wasn't the case."

On July 2, 2003, two months after he had declared an end to major combat in Iraq, Bush promised U.S. forces would stay until the creation of a free government there. To those who would attack U.S. forces in an attempt to deter that mission, Bush said, "My answer is, Bring 'em on."

In the week after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush was asked if he wanted bin Laden, the terrorist leader blamed for the attacks, dead.

"I want justice," Bush said. "And there's an old poster out West, that I recall, that said, 'Wanted, Dead or Alive.'"

Recalling that remark, Bush told the reporters: "I can remember getting back to the White House, and Laura said, 'Why did you do that for?' I said, 'Well, it was just an expression that came out. I didn't rehearse it.'

"I don't know if you'd call it a regret, but it certainly is a lesson that a president must be mindful of, that the words that you sometimes say. … I speak plainly sometimes, but you've got to be mindful of the consequences of the words. So put that down. I don't know if you'd call that a confession, a regret, something."

During his second debate last year with presidential challenger Sen. John Kerry, Bush was asked to name three instances in which he had made a wrong decision. At the time he declined to identify any specific mistakes.

Reporters at Thursday's round-table also asked Bush about the high price tag for his second inaugural celebration and suggestions the $40 million gala, which is being paid for by private donations much of it coming from lobbyists and corporations be scaled down.

"The inauguration is a great festival of democracy," he said. "People are going to come from all over the country who are celebrating democracy and celebrating my victory, and I'm glad to celebrate with them."



Yep -- it helps to know that words have meanings. As for inaugaural balls being events of democracy...Doesn't that strike you as a bit twisted? And, last but not least...the lesson that words mean things is supposed to have been fully assimilated by the time you learn to use an opposable thumb, or perhaps a fork -- or at latest, by the time you learn to write an essay. Does anyone else think that learning "lessons of ordinary life" using $6 billion forces of war is a bit late and dangerous?

A


14 Jan 05 - 04:12 PM (#1379215)
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos

The Ghost of Machiavelli, The WMD Hunt Ends



Excerpted from the OpEd News

By Anthony Wade

 

January 14, 2005

 
Did you see it happen yesterday? Did you catch the news? It was probably buried as the fourth item, or maybe on page 17 of your local paper. The search is over. After two years and thousands of dead bodies, the search is over. What did we find? Nothing. Yesterday, the White House confirmed that the search for weapons of mass destruction was officially over, without finding as much as a used slingshot.

You remember weapons