In an expensive but embarassing TV ad for his gubenatorial campaign, Ahnold explains that he will fix California's economy by first "opening the books" and discovering what is really going on. I have heard him repeat this many times. Won't someone please explain to this dolt that the State's books are a matter of public record; that they are - and have been - open from the time the budget was set. There is no mystery hidden in the books (one thinks of Ross Perot's promise to "get under the hood" to fix the U. S. economy - as if it were a broken down Chevy). The problem is pretty simple in one sense - more money is going out than is coming in. The problem ceases to be simple as soon as one asks how to fix this obvious flaw. In the ad in question the candidate "sincerely" proclaims that he will not have to cut education to fix the problem. But this is total balony. Education has already been cut and is in need of a dramatic infusion of funds. If it needs more - and too much is currently being spent total - that only leaves two options:
(1) increase revenue (taxes anyone?), or
(2) cut spending for other programs.
Whose pain are we willing to bear? Chances are some combination of both tax increases and spending cuts will be required to get the State's ecomony back on track. Who is brave enough to lay this out honestly? Certainly not Schwarzenegger. In fact, whatever happended to his "financial advisor", investment guru Warren Buffet? Remember his observation that California property taxes seemed artificially low compared to the rest of the country? Have you heard another word from him? Nope, and not likely to either. Honesty is just the last thing we are likely to see from any candidate in a situation like this - where the truth is just too politically harsh to sell.
If all California voters are willing to buy in this recall election is more snake oil, what will the effort mean? As Paul Krugman famously said, after all the smoke and mirrors, "someone still has to pay the bills." I don't see anyone stepping up to the plate.
Monday, September 22, 2003
Blogging on Hold
SOB will be in travel mode for the next week or so. Thus, no - or few - new posts can be expected. Having fled the west coast after Hurricane Isabel's wind and rain I am now in normally temporate San Francisco where temperatures yesterday topped 103 degrees. Since POTUS has assured us that global warming isn't real - despite 3000 year old Arctic ice shelves melting and that the studies predicting it are "flawed" science, I have to assume that something else is afoot here. Maybe hot air from the California recall election? Who knows?
Everyone pay attention now. I just saw on CNN that today's polling numbers show Bush's approval ratings have fallen from 60% last month to 50% this month and that in a hypothetical race between Bush and Clark, Clark wins by 3%. Since every time Bush's numbers drop dramatically we have some crisis, I fully expect that over the next week some really "interesting" thing is going to happen. What, I can only guess. Don't be surprised if Syria suddenly becomes such a hot threat that we can't wait to do something about it - or the scary color index has to be raised, or . . . well, use your imagination. I'm sure Karl Rove is.
Everyone pay attention now. I just saw on CNN that today's polling numbers show Bush's approval ratings have fallen from 60% last month to 50% this month and that in a hypothetical race between Bush and Clark, Clark wins by 3%. Since every time Bush's numbers drop dramatically we have some crisis, I fully expect that over the next week some really "interesting" thing is going to happen. What, I can only guess. Don't be surprised if Syria suddenly becomes such a hot threat that we can't wait to do something about it - or the scary color index has to be raised, or . . . well, use your imagination. I'm sure Karl Rove is.
Friday, September 19, 2003
Riding Out The Storm
It looks like Hurricane Isabel has been largely a fizzle as far as the District of Columbia is concerned. After the federal government shut down today and tomorrow, and all museums and public transportation closed as well, we had expected a real blow. Instead, after a few hours of rain and wind and with the storm just West of us, it is strangly calm and the bulk of the storm seems to have suddenly died out. Can't say I'm disappointed but I do feel a bit foolish after having spent the morning bringing everything on the balcony inside the flat.
Wednesday, September 17, 2003
U. S. Economy "Seriously Out of Whack"
The L. A. Times reports that "a senior congressional figure will declare the federal budget, in effect, a disaster area — and official Washington will probably react with a shrug." David M. Walker, head of the General Accounting Office, Congress' investigative arm, is giving a speech today warning that the nation's long-term fiscal outlook is "seriously out of whack". And he challenges the assumption that economic recovery will solve the problem painlessly.
"Nobody is prepared to make any trade-offs," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a budget watchdog group. "No one is prepared to give up anything important to them to bring the budget under control."
The deficit has cast an increasingly long shadow over Congress with each upward revision. In August, the Congressional Budget Office said the deficit in 2004 would reach $480 billion — and that did not include the cost of the conflict in Iraq or pending legislation to expand Medicare. Now, in light of its Iraq budget request, the administration projects that next year's deficit will reach at least $525 billion.
"Nobody is prepared to make any trade-offs," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a budget watchdog group. "No one is prepared to give up anything important to them to bring the budget under control."
The deficit has cast an increasingly long shadow over Congress with each upward revision. In August, the Congressional Budget Office said the deficit in 2004 would reach $480 billion — and that did not include the cost of the conflict in Iraq or pending legislation to expand Medicare. Now, in light of its Iraq budget request, the administration projects that next year's deficit will reach at least $525 billion.
Your Tax Dollars At Work - Or Not
The threat of Hurricane Isabel, not due here until tomorrow night, has caused the various levels of government in our nation's capitol to call off normal work both Thursday and Friday. City and Federal offices will be closed. This may make sense, but what doesn't is that bus and subway service will also be shut down. So, those of you who don't have a car will be immobilized for the next couple of days. Proving once again that you simply don't count.
Something to Think About
Just thougt I'd mention this, since it has some inate interest. Bush senior in Gulf War I, with 425,000 U. S. troops and 118,000 troops from other countries, decided, after defeating the Iraqi army, that he didn't have enough men to attempt to subdue and occupy all of Iraq. Interesting, since his dim son thinks that he can do the job with less than a quarter of that number. And now it has become a peculiar pissing match with congressmen saying they want to provide more men and Bush spokesmen (such as Rumsfield) claiming they are not needed.
Does any of this make sense to you? If so, please explain it to me.
Does any of this make sense to you? If so, please explain it to me.
Tuesday, September 16, 2003
Republican Follies
Having spent a little time looking at Republican and Democratic approaches to the support of national security and defense in the 20th century, I also came across a few interesting examples of self serving stupidity that seem really relavant today.
After Woodrow Wilson helped win World War I and presented the League of Nations as a way of avoiding future wars, the rest of the world embraced the idea, but Wilson's Republican successor, Warren G. Harding, fought against it so that the U. S. never ratified it even though it was the creation of an American President.
Calvin Cooliege, the Republican who succeeded Harding, vetoed farm relief and worked for more tax cuts - the basis for a strong economy!
Herbert Hoover, who succeeded Coolidge, was confronted with the stock market collapse and the onset of the Great Depression. His response - cut taxes! As he said at the time "We in America are nearer to the final triumph over poverty than ever before in the history of this land."
Well, at least it's good to know that the Republican comedy routine is not anything new.
After Woodrow Wilson helped win World War I and presented the League of Nations as a way of avoiding future wars, the rest of the world embraced the idea, but Wilson's Republican successor, Warren G. Harding, fought against it so that the U. S. never ratified it even though it was the creation of an American President.
Calvin Cooliege, the Republican who succeeded Harding, vetoed farm relief and worked for more tax cuts - the basis for a strong economy!
Herbert Hoover, who succeeded Coolidge, was confronted with the stock market collapse and the onset of the Great Depression. His response - cut taxes! As he said at the time "We in America are nearer to the final triumph over poverty than ever before in the history of this land."
Well, at least it's good to know that the Republican comedy routine is not anything new.
Who Is Strong On Defense?
Lot's of excitement today about Wesley Clark declaring his candidacy for president, because, as the very strange "common wisdom" has it, Democrats are perceived as weak on defense. This has to be one of the strangest misperceptions to ever influence political decisions. What is it based on? Have Republicans been clearly stronger and more effective on defense issues? Well, NO. Quite the contrary. And if one balances defense issues against public welfare and common good issues, there is simply no contest. The Democrats have an unassailable record and the Republicans are not even in the running. The truth is, over the entire period of the 20th century, Republican presidents have consistently sacrificed the public good and the national security for the sake of placating big business.
OK, the main issue - the national defense. America has had six substantial military experiences in the 20th century. Significantly, we were attacked in only one of these; the others we opted in or were functinally the aggressors. Consider, in order of significance,
(1) World War II (we were attacked by Japan and then Germany declared war on us - FDR - a Democrat - carried the day in that conflict despite constant opposition from the Republicans, including Prescott Bush, George's grandfather, who continued to do business with Nazi Germany even after they declared war on the U. S.),
(2) World War I (we opted into this one in support of England and France and Woodrow Wilson - a Democrat - saw us through to victory, again, being fought every step of the way by Republican congressmen),
(3) Korea, a situation complicated by the anti-communist ideology that made realistic thinking impossible, so that we wound up facing the entire Red Chinese army as well as the Koreans - Truman (a Democrat) persued the war vigorously while Eisenhower (a Republican) ended it with a truce at the 38th parallel that resulted in no meaningful gain or loss for all the sacrifice of life and treasure that had been involved,
(4) Viet Nam, a bi-partisan war, picked up by Eisenhower from the French, carried on by JFK, escalated by LBJ, and extended needlessly by Nixon who dramatically expanded the war into Cambodia with a secret bombing campaign that he lied about and then managed to conclude it by basically running away (remember U. S. soldiers pushing our Vietnamese allies off the last helicopters to depart from Hanoi?),
(5) the Spanish-American War, the first military adventure of the 20th century, created pretty much out of whole clothe by a Republican administration that used a combination of prejudice and ignorance to justify an attack on Spanish colonial outposts - notably Cuba (that we sort of "freed" and the Philippines and Puerto Rico that we very much annexed), and finally,
(6) The Gulf War, where George Herbert Walker Bush (a Republican) sacrificed the lives of American servicemen and women to defend a small Muslim dictatorship against a large Muslim dictatorship, presumably because there was oil involved - and Bush (and all his closest friends and advisors) are oil men. So, where in the history of the twentieth century is the story of Republican strength on national defense and Democratic weakness therein? One can't find it because it isn't there.
What one finds is that when Americans really need to fight back against a common foe, Democrats are ready and willing to rise to the occasion. On the other hand, when we have a colonial war to fight for the benefit of some special interest (as was the case with the Gulf War and the Spanish-American War) it is Republicans and their special business interest friends that are in the forefront of supporting the fight - while it is the poorest of Americans who actually do the fighting.
When I push my Republican friends for examples of Republican superiority in matters of national defense, they almost always bring up Ronald Reagan. This is very puzzling. Reagan served in the "military" in Hollywood and never saw any action (though he sometimes spoke as if he had, confusing movies he made with the reality of their stories) and his one adventure as "commander in chief" was to attack a small island that didn't even have an army. The dramatic increases in defense spending during his administration was almost totally for the Rube Goldberg "Starwars" missle defense system that proved totally worthless - except to a handful of defense contractors who made billions of dollars on this boondoggle.
Again and again this is the reality - Republicans support expensive military programs that benefit their friends and supporters, but they have NEVER been involved in responding to any real threat to American security. I'm sorry, but Grenada, Panama, and Iraq (especially Iraq after 12 years of severe sanctions) were never any threat to the greatest military power on the planet. Please. Let's all take a deep breath and try to get a grip on reality. It is the Democrats and their mass of ordinary American supporters who are the defenders of America - not the Republicans and their very limited elite collection of business interests and religious fanatics. Our current president could have broken this pattern - since the security of America was very much challenged on his watch on 9/11. But he blew it by using 9/11 for partisan gains rather than trying for a legitimate response. Instead of responding to what actually happened in a realistic way, Bush elected to use the 9/11 attack as an excuse for a host of right wing political moves - including attacks on civil liberties, collective bargaining rights, freedom of information, enviromental protection regulations, and the FCC. I mean, why worry about terrorists when you can use the occassion to roll back regulations that your business friends find inconvenient and expensive? And then, on top of everything else, Bush attacked the wrong country. Forget that the 9/11 attackers were mostly Saudis who were supported by Saudis. Let's attack Iraq - because we already have the plans and because it's personal. Besides, the Saudis are rich and long term business associates of Bush and company, so we have the peculiar spectacle of our government even preventing an honest investigation of Saudi involvement in 9/11.
So really, tell me again, who is the example you want to use for Republican superiority on national defense? McKinley, who pretty much created the war with Spain? Eisenhower who negotiated a stalemate in Korea after tens of thousands of American deaths? Nixon who negotiated an even worse stalemate in Viet Nam that was really a capitulation - since the North Vietnamese wiped out the South before we could safely run away? Reagan, who spent billions of dollars on a missle defense system that enriched a few defense contractors but never came close to working? Or Bush Senior, who managed to get half the world involved in coming to the aid of the disgusting Kuwait Royal family - none of whom bothered to come to their own defense?
The rich are not like you and me.
OK, the main issue - the national defense. America has had six substantial military experiences in the 20th century. Significantly, we were attacked in only one of these; the others we opted in or were functinally the aggressors. Consider, in order of significance,
(1) World War II (we were attacked by Japan and then Germany declared war on us - FDR - a Democrat - carried the day in that conflict despite constant opposition from the Republicans, including Prescott Bush, George's grandfather, who continued to do business with Nazi Germany even after they declared war on the U. S.),
(2) World War I (we opted into this one in support of England and France and Woodrow Wilson - a Democrat - saw us through to victory, again, being fought every step of the way by Republican congressmen),
(3) Korea, a situation complicated by the anti-communist ideology that made realistic thinking impossible, so that we wound up facing the entire Red Chinese army as well as the Koreans - Truman (a Democrat) persued the war vigorously while Eisenhower (a Republican) ended it with a truce at the 38th parallel that resulted in no meaningful gain or loss for all the sacrifice of life and treasure that had been involved,
(4) Viet Nam, a bi-partisan war, picked up by Eisenhower from the French, carried on by JFK, escalated by LBJ, and extended needlessly by Nixon who dramatically expanded the war into Cambodia with a secret bombing campaign that he lied about and then managed to conclude it by basically running away (remember U. S. soldiers pushing our Vietnamese allies off the last helicopters to depart from Hanoi?),
(5) the Spanish-American War, the first military adventure of the 20th century, created pretty much out of whole clothe by a Republican administration that used a combination of prejudice and ignorance to justify an attack on Spanish colonial outposts - notably Cuba (that we sort of "freed" and the Philippines and Puerto Rico that we very much annexed), and finally,
(6) The Gulf War, where George Herbert Walker Bush (a Republican) sacrificed the lives of American servicemen and women to defend a small Muslim dictatorship against a large Muslim dictatorship, presumably because there was oil involved - and Bush (and all his closest friends and advisors) are oil men. So, where in the history of the twentieth century is the story of Republican strength on national defense and Democratic weakness therein? One can't find it because it isn't there.
What one finds is that when Americans really need to fight back against a common foe, Democrats are ready and willing to rise to the occasion. On the other hand, when we have a colonial war to fight for the benefit of some special interest (as was the case with the Gulf War and the Spanish-American War) it is Republicans and their special business interest friends that are in the forefront of supporting the fight - while it is the poorest of Americans who actually do the fighting.
When I push my Republican friends for examples of Republican superiority in matters of national defense, they almost always bring up Ronald Reagan. This is very puzzling. Reagan served in the "military" in Hollywood and never saw any action (though he sometimes spoke as if he had, confusing movies he made with the reality of their stories) and his one adventure as "commander in chief" was to attack a small island that didn't even have an army. The dramatic increases in defense spending during his administration was almost totally for the Rube Goldberg "Starwars" missle defense system that proved totally worthless - except to a handful of defense contractors who made billions of dollars on this boondoggle.
Again and again this is the reality - Republicans support expensive military programs that benefit their friends and supporters, but they have NEVER been involved in responding to any real threat to American security. I'm sorry, but Grenada, Panama, and Iraq (especially Iraq after 12 years of severe sanctions) were never any threat to the greatest military power on the planet. Please. Let's all take a deep breath and try to get a grip on reality. It is the Democrats and their mass of ordinary American supporters who are the defenders of America - not the Republicans and their very limited elite collection of business interests and religious fanatics. Our current president could have broken this pattern - since the security of America was very much challenged on his watch on 9/11. But he blew it by using 9/11 for partisan gains rather than trying for a legitimate response. Instead of responding to what actually happened in a realistic way, Bush elected to use the 9/11 attack as an excuse for a host of right wing political moves - including attacks on civil liberties, collective bargaining rights, freedom of information, enviromental protection regulations, and the FCC. I mean, why worry about terrorists when you can use the occassion to roll back regulations that your business friends find inconvenient and expensive? And then, on top of everything else, Bush attacked the wrong country. Forget that the 9/11 attackers were mostly Saudis who were supported by Saudis. Let's attack Iraq - because we already have the plans and because it's personal. Besides, the Saudis are rich and long term business associates of Bush and company, so we have the peculiar spectacle of our government even preventing an honest investigation of Saudi involvement in 9/11.
So really, tell me again, who is the example you want to use for Republican superiority on national defense? McKinley, who pretty much created the war with Spain? Eisenhower who negotiated a stalemate in Korea after tens of thousands of American deaths? Nixon who negotiated an even worse stalemate in Viet Nam that was really a capitulation - since the North Vietnamese wiped out the South before we could safely run away? Reagan, who spent billions of dollars on a missle defense system that enriched a few defense contractors but never came close to working? Or Bush Senior, who managed to get half the world involved in coming to the aid of the disgusting Kuwait Royal family - none of whom bothered to come to their own defense?
The rich are not like you and me.
More Bush Deception
The good folks at MoveON.org have started a daily update of Bush deceptions. Called the "Daily Mislead", this is their first regular email update:
President Bush Shortchanges Funding for His Own Emergency AIDS Program
The President heavily promoted his emergency relief for AIDS after
announcing it at this year's State of the Union speech, signing a $15
billion law to be spent over five years. But while the President is
publicly calling for full funding, he's actively seeking to underfund his
own program.
The President said in Africa this July that "The House of Representatives
and the United States Senate must fully fund this initiative, for the good
of the people on this continent of Africa," Less than a week later, he sent
a letter to Congress asking for 1/3rd less than full funding.
The law that Bush signed authorized $3 billion a year, but President Bush
has requested only $2 billion in his 2004 budget. Despite the claim to
fully fund the program in the State of the Union, the Bush Administration
is now claiming that AIDS service organizations cannot absorb full funding
immediately. The service organizations themselves disagree with the White
House's position.
The Republican-led Foreign Operations subcommittee also disagreed when it
approved a doubling of the commitment for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS
from $200 million to $400 million, despite a letter from the White House
requesting the lower figure. It was later scrapped by the full committee
under White House pressure.
And the bottom line? The president's push for $1 billion less than
authorized by Congress (and promoted by the President himself) blocks 1
million people from treatment and nearly 2.5 million new HIV infections
that could be avoided.
President Bush Shortchanges Funding for His Own Emergency AIDS Program
The President heavily promoted his emergency relief for AIDS after
announcing it at this year's State of the Union speech, signing a $15
billion law to be spent over five years. But while the President is
publicly calling for full funding, he's actively seeking to underfund his
own program.
The President said in Africa this July that "The House of Representatives
and the United States Senate must fully fund this initiative, for the good
of the people on this continent of Africa," Less than a week later, he sent
a letter to Congress asking for 1/3rd less than full funding.
The law that Bush signed authorized $3 billion a year, but President Bush
has requested only $2 billion in his 2004 budget. Despite the claim to
fully fund the program in the State of the Union, the Bush Administration
is now claiming that AIDS service organizations cannot absorb full funding
immediately. The service organizations themselves disagree with the White
House's position.
The Republican-led Foreign Operations subcommittee also disagreed when it
approved a doubling of the commitment for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS
from $200 million to $400 million, despite a letter from the White House
requesting the lower figure. It was later scrapped by the full committee
under White House pressure.
And the bottom line? The president's push for $1 billion less than
authorized by Congress (and promoted by the President himself) blocks 1
million people from treatment and nearly 2.5 million new HIV infections
that could be avoided.
Monday, September 15, 2003
More Bush Revisionist History
Bush then:
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- George Bush 9/13/01
"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- George Bush, 3/13/02
And now? Osama who?
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- George Bush 9/13/01
"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- George Bush, 3/13/02
And now? Osama who?
Of Course, Bush Can't Help Lying Either
Cal Pundit refers to David Corn pointing out that Bush can't seem to avoid lying either. Reviewing a speech Duyah made in Nashville at an elementary school about his "support" for education, which is really all smoke and mirrors:
September is back-to-school time, and Bush hit the road to promote his education policies. During a speech at a Nashville elementary school, he hailed his education record by noting that "the budget for next year boosts funding for elementary and secondary education to $53.1 billion. That's a 26-percent increase since I took office. In other words, we understand that resources need to flow to help solve the problems."
A few things were untrue in these remarks. Bush's proposed elementary and secondary education budget for next year is $34.9 billion, not $53.1 billion, according to his own Department of Education. It's his total proposed education budget that is $53.1 billion. More importantly, there is no next-year "boost" in this budget. Elementary and secondary education received $35.8 billion in 2003. Bush's 2004 budget cuts that back nearly a billion dollars, and the overall education spending in his budget is the same as the 2003 level
Cal Pundit points out that since these were prepared remarks and not off the cuff comments "this was a deliberate lie, not a casual mistake". And goes on to note:
At long last, the anti-Bush forces seem to have finally settled on a single theme: He lies. His advisors lie. A lot. About everything.
And this is true. In some sense, the remarkable thing about the Bush administration is not what they do — after all, other administrations have cut taxes, busted unions, and gone to war — but the fact that they tell so many baldfaced lies about what they do. Thanks to yeoman work from the likes of Al Franken, Joe Conason, Paul Krugman, David Corn, and others, this storyline is starting to become conventional wisdom, and I think the Democratic candidates should start picking up on it and hammering it home. If they repeat it often enough, the Bushies are going to end up on the ropes. Americans don't like liars.
I note - in a new email from the great folks at MoveOn.org, that they are planning on a daily "misleader" email that will point out a Bush lie of the day - every day. An idea whose time has come.
September is back-to-school time, and Bush hit the road to promote his education policies. During a speech at a Nashville elementary school, he hailed his education record by noting that "the budget for next year boosts funding for elementary and secondary education to $53.1 billion. That's a 26-percent increase since I took office. In other words, we understand that resources need to flow to help solve the problems."
A few things were untrue in these remarks. Bush's proposed elementary and secondary education budget for next year is $34.9 billion, not $53.1 billion, according to his own Department of Education. It's his total proposed education budget that is $53.1 billion. More importantly, there is no next-year "boost" in this budget. Elementary and secondary education received $35.8 billion in 2003. Bush's 2004 budget cuts that back nearly a billion dollars, and the overall education spending in his budget is the same as the 2003 level
Cal Pundit points out that since these were prepared remarks and not off the cuff comments "this was a deliberate lie, not a casual mistake". And goes on to note:
At long last, the anti-Bush forces seem to have finally settled on a single theme: He lies. His advisors lie. A lot. About everything.
And this is true. In some sense, the remarkable thing about the Bush administration is not what they do — after all, other administrations have cut taxes, busted unions, and gone to war — but the fact that they tell so many baldfaced lies about what they do. Thanks to yeoman work from the likes of Al Franken, Joe Conason, Paul Krugman, David Corn, and others, this storyline is starting to become conventional wisdom, and I think the Democratic candidates should start picking up on it and hammering it home. If they repeat it often enough, the Bushies are going to end up on the ropes. Americans don't like liars.
I note - in a new email from the great folks at MoveOn.org, that they are planning on a daily "misleader" email that will point out a Bush lie of the day - every day. An idea whose time has come.
Dick Cheney Just Can't Help Lying
According to Talking Points Memo:
Apparently the Vice-President of the United States can't help lying to and deceiving the people he was elected to serve.
This charge follows from the Veep's verbal smokescreen offered up in response to Tim Russert's question about whether there is any evidence of an Iraqi connection to 9/11. Cheney dances all over the issue and never says either yes or no but offers many maybes and could bes and we don't really have all the evidence kind of thing, to which Joshua Mica Marshall concludes:
The point is that there is simply no evidence whatsoever connecting the Iraqi regime with the 9/11 attacks. What's more, it's not as though we don't know quite a lot about how the attacks were carried out. We know who the perpetrators were -- both those in the planes and many in support roles. We know where the money came from. We know about their ties with al Qaida and bin Laden. We know a great many details about how this horrific attack happened. And none of them have led us back to Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi regime.
Even applying so low a standard as that by which we judge incidents with four-year-olds and cookie jars, Cheney's statement that "we just don't know" whether Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks is a lie.
Why do 69% of Americans continue to believe that Iraq may have been involved in 9/11? Many reasons. But one of the most important is that their leaders keep lying to them.
Amen.
Apparently the Vice-President of the United States can't help lying to and deceiving the people he was elected to serve.
This charge follows from the Veep's verbal smokescreen offered up in response to Tim Russert's question about whether there is any evidence of an Iraqi connection to 9/11. Cheney dances all over the issue and never says either yes or no but offers many maybes and could bes and we don't really have all the evidence kind of thing, to which Joshua Mica Marshall concludes:
The point is that there is simply no evidence whatsoever connecting the Iraqi regime with the 9/11 attacks. What's more, it's not as though we don't know quite a lot about how the attacks were carried out. We know who the perpetrators were -- both those in the planes and many in support roles. We know where the money came from. We know about their ties with al Qaida and bin Laden. We know a great many details about how this horrific attack happened. And none of them have led us back to Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi regime.
Even applying so low a standard as that by which we judge incidents with four-year-olds and cookie jars, Cheney's statement that "we just don't know" whether Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks is a lie.
Why do 69% of Americans continue to believe that Iraq may have been involved in 9/11? Many reasons. But one of the most important is that their leaders keep lying to them.
Amen.
Dissing Dean - and Missing the Point
Now that the other Democratic candidates are starting to strike out at their main immediate threat, Howard Dean, it is well to hear these words from The Nation:
What Dean's opponents fail to understand, however, is that no candidate will overtake Dean merely by pointing out his inconsistencies. His supporters are not blind to their man's weaknesses; rather, they are awed by his strengths: a willingness to blister Bush, and a campaign that seems fluid and flexible on the surface but that is in fact exceptionally disciplined, with plenty of money and even more momentum. If Dean is to be displaced, it will be by a candidate who does a better job of convincing grassroots Democrats he or she will give Bush no quarter and, when the opportunity comes, deliver the knockout blow.
I am one of many thousands who have been sending this man money for more than a year - not because I think he is perfect but because I think he is a fighter - and Democrats haven't had that in a long while:
More than anything else, those two words--"can win"--set the standard for a Democratic base. Stung by the tepid campaigns mounted by their party in 2000 and 2002, activists started looking for a candidate who was ready to fight in 2004, and Howard Dean made himself that candidate. Critics keep trying to say he has peaked too soon, but so far he's gone from strength to strength. And that ability to keep coming out on top has given him a mystique that seems to matter more to a lot of Democrats than ideological consistency. At the late-August Communications Workers of America convention in Chicago, Dean drew the sort of thunderous applause usually reserved for endorsed candidates. "I know we disagree with Dean on some things, but you just get a sense that this guy has a plan to win the nomination and beat Bush," said a top CWA official. "And, when you get down to it, beating Bush is what this is all about."
I think it is well to mention that Bush and his supporters, by their very greed and overreaching, have convinced a majority of vulnerable Americans that they are a danger and have to go. They are their own worst enemies, but their discipline and consistent pushiness means that only a real scrapper is going to have any success against them.
What Dean's opponents fail to understand, however, is that no candidate will overtake Dean merely by pointing out his inconsistencies. His supporters are not blind to their man's weaknesses; rather, they are awed by his strengths: a willingness to blister Bush, and a campaign that seems fluid and flexible on the surface but that is in fact exceptionally disciplined, with plenty of money and even more momentum. If Dean is to be displaced, it will be by a candidate who does a better job of convincing grassroots Democrats he or she will give Bush no quarter and, when the opportunity comes, deliver the knockout blow.
I am one of many thousands who have been sending this man money for more than a year - not because I think he is perfect but because I think he is a fighter - and Democrats haven't had that in a long while:
More than anything else, those two words--"can win"--set the standard for a Democratic base. Stung by the tepid campaigns mounted by their party in 2000 and 2002, activists started looking for a candidate who was ready to fight in 2004, and Howard Dean made himself that candidate. Critics keep trying to say he has peaked too soon, but so far he's gone from strength to strength. And that ability to keep coming out on top has given him a mystique that seems to matter more to a lot of Democrats than ideological consistency. At the late-August Communications Workers of America convention in Chicago, Dean drew the sort of thunderous applause usually reserved for endorsed candidates. "I know we disagree with Dean on some things, but you just get a sense that this guy has a plan to win the nomination and beat Bush," said a top CWA official. "And, when you get down to it, beating Bush is what this is all about."
I think it is well to mention that Bush and his supporters, by their very greed and overreaching, have convinced a majority of vulnerable Americans that they are a danger and have to go. They are their own worst enemies, but their discipline and consistent pushiness means that only a real scrapper is going to have any success against them.
Grover Norquist - the Sick Puppy of the Bush Administration
The Washington Post, for reasons that defy ordinary understanding, has published yet another idiotic non-thought piece by tax phobic agitator Grover Norquist, "Don't Even Think About Raising Taxes". For a quarter of a century, this extremely neurotic idealog has fought passionately against all taxes - as if taxes were the greatest evil in the world. We know what he is against, but we don't know what he is for. Does he really think that any kind of civil society could be maintained without taxes? Are police going to work for free? Does the money he so strongly believes should never be given to government just, well, grow on trees? Where does it come from? Who prints and guarantees the currency? Who makes and enforces law? Who provides the infrastructure of schools, defense, law enforcement, paved roads, sidewalks, streetlights, bridges, ports, etc? Can any of this be done for free? If not, where does the revenue come from if not from taxes?
When these crazies talk about tax "relief" they are painting a false picture. It isn't as if Americans have been suffering under a painful tax burden. We have, for decades, paid less than those in other developed countries and less than has been common here earlier in the century. The real question about taxes should always be (1) what kind of country do we want to live in, and (2) what taxes do we need in order to pay for it? There is no way of talking about taxes without considering them in relation to what they are for.
For decades conservatives have railed about "tax and spend" Liberals. But what do we have with the Bush administration? No-tax and spend Conservatives. See, here's the thing. If you're going to spend you have to have revenue. That comes from taxes. So, what sense does it make that the Bush administration has passed the largest series of tax cuts ever while simultaneoulsy presiding over one of the largest increases in spending?
IT-DOES-NOT-COMPUTE!
When these crazies talk about tax "relief" they are painting a false picture. It isn't as if Americans have been suffering under a painful tax burden. We have, for decades, paid less than those in other developed countries and less than has been common here earlier in the century. The real question about taxes should always be (1) what kind of country do we want to live in, and (2) what taxes do we need in order to pay for it? There is no way of talking about taxes without considering them in relation to what they are for.
For decades conservatives have railed about "tax and spend" Liberals. But what do we have with the Bush administration? No-tax and spend Conservatives. See, here's the thing. If you're going to spend you have to have revenue. That comes from taxes. So, what sense does it make that the Bush administration has passed the largest series of tax cuts ever while simultaneoulsy presiding over one of the largest increases in spending?
IT-DOES-NOT-COMPUTE!
Sunday, September 14, 2003
Bush Administration Hires Author of Whitewater Charges
Just to prove that no lie told against Democrats goes unrewarded:
Sept. 22 issue — The Bush Administration has quietly installed a surprising figure in a high-level Pentagon post: L. Jean Lewis, the former federal fraud investigator who kicked up major controversy in the ’90s over her allegations about the Clintons’ Whitewater dealings.
ALTHOUGH THERE’S BEEN no public announcement of her return to government, Lewis has been given a $118,000-a-year job as chief of staff in the traditionally nonpartisan Defense Department’s inspector general office. With 1,240 employees and a budget of $160 million, this office is the largest of its kind in the government.
It investigates fraud and audits Pentagon contracts, including the billions of dollars being awarded in Iraq to companies like Halliburton and Bechtel.
Gee, do you suppose she will find anything wrong in billions of dollars being awarded in no bid contracts to close friends and supporters of the Bush Administration? Certainly there is nothing there as horrible as a few thousand involved in a legal - and failed - land deal.
Sept. 22 issue — The Bush Administration has quietly installed a surprising figure in a high-level Pentagon post: L. Jean Lewis, the former federal fraud investigator who kicked up major controversy in the ’90s over her allegations about the Clintons’ Whitewater dealings.
ALTHOUGH THERE’S BEEN no public announcement of her return to government, Lewis has been given a $118,000-a-year job as chief of staff in the traditionally nonpartisan Defense Department’s inspector general office. With 1,240 employees and a budget of $160 million, this office is the largest of its kind in the government.
It investigates fraud and audits Pentagon contracts, including the billions of dollars being awarded in Iraq to companies like Halliburton and Bechtel.
Gee, do you suppose she will find anything wrong in billions of dollars being awarded in no bid contracts to close friends and supporters of the Bush Administration? Certainly there is nothing there as horrible as a few thousand involved in a legal - and failed - land deal.
Bush's Tax-Cut Con Game
Paul Krugman has a really tremendous piece in the current New York Times Magazine. It is probably the best summing up of the last 25 years of the anti-tax crusade" that I have ever read. What is most impressive in this article is his highlighting the two conflicting rationales for tax cuts - (1) that cuts will stimulate revenue so that no cuts in spending will be needed (the ridiculous "supply side" arguement) and (2) that cuts in taxes will starve the government and force dramatic cuts in spending that will further reduce government and its power (Grover Norquist's "drown it in the bath" fantasy). What Krugman demonstrates very clearly is the hypocracy of Republican stratagists who recognized that supply side theory was nonsense but elected to employ it as a "positive" face to mask the "negative" social implications of starving the government of the revenue necessary to pay for popular social programs. In his own words:
The astonishing political success of the antitax crusade has, more or less deliberately, set the United States up for a fiscal crisis. How we respond to that crisis will determine what kind of country we become.
If Grover Norquist is right -- and he has been right about a lot -- the coming crisis will allow conservatives to move the nation a long way back toward the kind of limited government we had before Franklin Roosevelt. Lack of revenue, he says, will make it possible for conservative politicians -- in the name of fiscal necessity -- to dismantle immensely popular government programs that would otherwise have been untouchable.
In Norquist's vision, America a couple of decades from now will be a place in which elderly people make up a disproportionate share of the poor, as they did before Social Security. It will also be a country in which even middle-class elderly Americans are, in many cases, unable to afford expensive medical procedures or prescription drugs and in which poor Americans generally go without even basic health care. And it may well be a place in which only those who can afford expensive private schools can give their children a decent education.
The commercial news media reacted in shock and dismay when Howard Dean said that he favored rolling back all of Bush's tax cuts in favor of providing some form of guaranteed universal health care. Maybe if enough people clearly see what has been happening and where it is taking us, such a rollback may seem like the only reasonable thing to do.
The astonishing political success of the antitax crusade has, more or less deliberately, set the United States up for a fiscal crisis. How we respond to that crisis will determine what kind of country we become.
If Grover Norquist is right -- and he has been right about a lot -- the coming crisis will allow conservatives to move the nation a long way back toward the kind of limited government we had before Franklin Roosevelt. Lack of revenue, he says, will make it possible for conservative politicians -- in the name of fiscal necessity -- to dismantle immensely popular government programs that would otherwise have been untouchable.
In Norquist's vision, America a couple of decades from now will be a place in which elderly people make up a disproportionate share of the poor, as they did before Social Security. It will also be a country in which even middle-class elderly Americans are, in many cases, unable to afford expensive medical procedures or prescription drugs and in which poor Americans generally go without even basic health care. And it may well be a place in which only those who can afford expensive private schools can give their children a decent education.
The commercial news media reacted in shock and dismay when Howard Dean said that he favored rolling back all of Bush's tax cuts in favor of providing some form of guaranteed universal health care. Maybe if enough people clearly see what has been happening and where it is taking us, such a rollback may seem like the only reasonable thing to do.
Tucker Carlson Bites the Hand that Feeds Him
Daily KOS reports that in a recent Q&A on Salon about Tucker Carlson's new book, he says that the Bush camp's response to his 1999 profile of Bush was surprisingly hostile:
It was very, very hostile. The reaction was: You betrayed us. Well, I was never there as a partisan to begin with.
Then I heard that [on the campaign bus, Bush communications director] Karen Hughes accused me of lying. And so I called Karen and asked her why she was saying this, and she had this almost Orwellian rap that she laid on me about how things she'd heard -- that I watched her hear -- she in fact had never heard, and she'd never heard Bush use profanity ever. It was insane.
I've obviously been lied to a lot by campaign operatives, but the striking thing about the way she lied was she knew I knew she was lying, and she did it anyway. There is no word in English that captures that. It almost crosses over from bravado into mental illness.
"Mental illness." What a great description of the entire syndrome evinced by this administration in it's ability to say one thing, do another, and then blame the negative consequences on someone else. And Tucker Carlson said this. Wow. As much as I don't like him, I have to give him credit for at least not pretending to see things that aren't there - an affliction most of the conservative pack suffer from.
It was very, very hostile. The reaction was: You betrayed us. Well, I was never there as a partisan to begin with.
Then I heard that [on the campaign bus, Bush communications director] Karen Hughes accused me of lying. And so I called Karen and asked her why she was saying this, and she had this almost Orwellian rap that she laid on me about how things she'd heard -- that I watched her hear -- she in fact had never heard, and she'd never heard Bush use profanity ever. It was insane.
I've obviously been lied to a lot by campaign operatives, but the striking thing about the way she lied was she knew I knew she was lying, and she did it anyway. There is no word in English that captures that. It almost crosses over from bravado into mental illness.
"Mental illness." What a great description of the entire syndrome evinced by this administration in it's ability to say one thing, do another, and then blame the negative consequences on someone else. And Tucker Carlson said this. Wow. As much as I don't like him, I have to give him credit for at least not pretending to see things that aren't there - an affliction most of the conservative pack suffer from.
Saturday, September 13, 2003
So Many Books, So Little Time
I just received Paul Krugman's new book, _The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way In The New Century_. I have been looking forward to this. The problem is that I am in the middle of George Grile's great book, _Charlie Wilson's War: The Extraordinary Story of the Largest Covert Operation in History_, an extremely readable account of the American intervention in Afghanistan to counter the Soviet invasion.
The real impact of the Grile book is the subtext it offers for understanding where Osama bin Laden and Al Queda came from and how much we are complicit in their creation. So far as I can remember, George Bush has never once made clear who these people are or what they are about. His continued blather about "the terrorists" - as if all terrorists were members of the same evil fraternity - makes it impossible for Americans to meaningfully discuss one terrorist group as opposed to another. The fact that Osama declared war on America because of Bush's father's policies is no doubt something that we are unlikely to hear from Dubyah. That 9/11 was, in many ways, "blowback" from our policies in Afghanistan through the first Gulf War, is clear. That it will go unacknowledged is equally clear. This is a situation that will be spun and spun but that no Republican will address realistically. There is simply too much damage to control. Best to divert attention elsewhere. Look, over there, weapons of mass destruction! Duck before it's too late . . .
The real impact of the Grile book is the subtext it offers for understanding where Osama bin Laden and Al Queda came from and how much we are complicit in their creation. So far as I can remember, George Bush has never once made clear who these people are or what they are about. His continued blather about "the terrorists" - as if all terrorists were members of the same evil fraternity - makes it impossible for Americans to meaningfully discuss one terrorist group as opposed to another. The fact that Osama declared war on America because of Bush's father's policies is no doubt something that we are unlikely to hear from Dubyah. That 9/11 was, in many ways, "blowback" from our policies in Afghanistan through the first Gulf War, is clear. That it will go unacknowledged is equally clear. This is a situation that will be spun and spun but that no Republican will address realistically. There is simply too much damage to control. Best to divert attention elsewhere. Look, over there, weapons of mass destruction! Duck before it's too late . . .
Let The Record Show
Remember two years ago when Bush said that our number one priority was finding Osama bin Laden and that we "wouldn't rest" until that was done? Then how come this year he is say that is "not a priority"? Take a look at this.
How Long Will the "War on Terror" Last?
Capitol Hill Blue asks "How goes the war on terrorism?", and speculates about how long we should expect it to last:
As the third year of the War on Terror begins, we've heard that it's more like the War on Drugs than a traditional war. The enemy is scattered, dedicated and worldwide.
This is scant encouragement to anyone who wants to really define what is going on here. As you may have noticed, every year we are told that we are winning the "war" on drugs, even as the amount of illegal drugs increases and prices fall. The cost is astronomical, with the U. S. having the highest proportion of its citizens behind bars of any time in its history , and a higher proportion than almost any other country in the world.
Is this what we have to look forward to in the war on terrorism - more and larger prison camps? Billions of dollars spent on increasingly intrusive police powers? Creating large, ongoing interest groups and power blocks that profit from the "war" and don't want it to end? In the case of the war on drugs, law enforcement, prison guards, rent-a-cop outfits like Dyncorp, companies that build and run prisons, and a host of self appointed experts, all reap a great annual profit from this pseudo war - as do all those who on the other side who would have no employement if drugs were legal.
It doesn't take much imagination to transfer this way of looking at things to the "war" on terrorism - another largely rhetorical "war" in that there is not a clear enemy and whatever the government chooses to do can be justified by some verbal spin without ever having to present any clear evidence. After all, probing too deeply into what we are doing in our "war" is to pose a risk to our national security. Thus billions of dollars can be spent with absolutely no accountability - and no end in sight.
Do you feel more secure?
As the third year of the War on Terror begins, we've heard that it's more like the War on Drugs than a traditional war. The enemy is scattered, dedicated and worldwide.
This is scant encouragement to anyone who wants to really define what is going on here. As you may have noticed, every year we are told that we are winning the "war" on drugs, even as the amount of illegal drugs increases and prices fall. The cost is astronomical, with the U. S. having the highest proportion of its citizens behind bars of any time in its history , and a higher proportion than almost any other country in the world.
Is this what we have to look forward to in the war on terrorism - more and larger prison camps? Billions of dollars spent on increasingly intrusive police powers? Creating large, ongoing interest groups and power blocks that profit from the "war" and don't want it to end? In the case of the war on drugs, law enforcement, prison guards, rent-a-cop outfits like Dyncorp, companies that build and run prisons, and a host of self appointed experts, all reap a great annual profit from this pseudo war - as do all those who on the other side who would have no employement if drugs were legal.
It doesn't take much imagination to transfer this way of looking at things to the "war" on terrorism - another largely rhetorical "war" in that there is not a clear enemy and whatever the government chooses to do can be justified by some verbal spin without ever having to present any clear evidence. After all, probing too deeply into what we are doing in our "war" is to pose a risk to our national security. Thus billions of dollars can be spent with absolutely no accountability - and no end in sight.
Do you feel more secure?
Wolfowitz Backtracking on Iraq-al Qaida Link
In what is becoming a tradition of having to back off on unsupportable claims, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is now saying that he didn't really mean to claim that "associates of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden are trying to link up with Saddam Hussein loyalists to attack Americans". Wolfowitz - a key architect of U.S. policy in Iraq - said Friday in an interview with The Associated Press that he had misspoken:
He said he was referring to only one man - bin Laden supporter Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of the few names that Bush administration officials previously have cited to assert pre-war links between al-Qaida and Iraq.
Yeah, let's just keep muddying the waters in hopes that no one can really pin us down here. This is like Bush's claim that we had found the weapons of mass destruction - referring to two tractor trailers later identified as harmless sources of gas for weather ballons.
And so it goes.
He said he was referring to only one man - bin Laden supporter Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of the few names that Bush administration officials previously have cited to assert pre-war links between al-Qaida and Iraq.
Yeah, let's just keep muddying the waters in hopes that no one can really pin us down here. This is like Bush's claim that we had found the weapons of mass destruction - referring to two tractor trailers later identified as harmless sources of gas for weather ballons.
And so it goes.
Friday, September 12, 2003
Dangerous to be a Cop in Iraq
According to the Christian Science Monitor:
US soldiers mistakenly killed 11 Iraqi police officers Friday as they chased a car full of highway bandits toward an American checkpoint in a small town west of Fallujah, witnesses said.
Between Iraqis blowing up police stations in protest and police being killed by mistake by U. S. troops, it's no wonder that it is hard to get a new police force up and running successfully.
US soldiers mistakenly killed 11 Iraqi police officers Friday as they chased a car full of highway bandits toward an American checkpoint in a small town west of Fallujah, witnesses said.
Between Iraqis blowing up police stations in protest and police being killed by mistake by U. S. troops, it's no wonder that it is hard to get a new police force up and running successfully.
The Worst Is Yet To Come
According to Krugman's new column reflecting on the anniversary of 9/11, we all better fasten our seatbelts:
Now it has all gone wrong. The deficit is about to go above half a trillion dollars, the economy is still losing jobs, the triumph in Iraq has turned to dust and ashes, and Mr. Bush's poll numbers are at or below their pre-9/11 levels.
Nor can the members of this administration simply lose like gentlemen. For one thing, that's not how they operate. Furthermore, everything suggests that there are major scandals - involving energy policy, environmental policy, Iraq contracts and cooked intelligence - that would burst into the light of day if the current management lost its grip on power. So these people must win, at any cost.
The result, clearly, will be an ugly, bitter campaign - probably the nastiest of modern American history. Four months ago it seemed that the 2004 campaign would be all slow-mo films of Mr. Bush in his flight suit. But at this point, it's likely to be pictures of Howard Dean or Wesley Clark that morph into Saddam Hussein. And Donald Rumsfeld has already rolled out the stab-in-the-back argument: if you criticize the administration, you're lending aid and comfort to the enemy.
This political ugliness will take its toll on policy, too. The administration's infallibility complex - its inability to admit ever making a mistake - will get even worse. And I disagree with those who think the administration can claim infallibility even while practicing policy flexibility: on major issues, such as taxes or Iraq, any sensible policy would too obviously be an implicit admission that previous policies had failed.
In other words, if you thought the last two years were bad, just wait: it's about to get worse. A lot worse.
Just a quick review of the blogsphere reveals more than a little paranoia brewing, and predictions of ugly conspiracies to prevent a Bush loss of power can be found everywhere. Given the history of the Bush camp, these conspiracy predictions have more credibility than the silly "conspiracies" attributed to the Clintons. The Bush family has a long tradition of involvement in questionable situations. As early as the Warren Commission investigation of the Kennedy assassination one finds references to "George Bush of the CIA" - many years before any actual connection between Bush and the CIA was supposed to exist. This is a family that depends on behind the scenes forces to get what it wants. We still haven't had an honest public review of the means used to install Bush as president. Gore was accused of trying to steal the election because he was asking for a hand recount, while the Republicans were flying in paid congressional staffers to pretend to be outraged Florida citizens. These guys are great on staged incidents.
Something to look forward to. More drama - but Comedy or Tragedy?
Now it has all gone wrong. The deficit is about to go above half a trillion dollars, the economy is still losing jobs, the triumph in Iraq has turned to dust and ashes, and Mr. Bush's poll numbers are at or below their pre-9/11 levels.
Nor can the members of this administration simply lose like gentlemen. For one thing, that's not how they operate. Furthermore, everything suggests that there are major scandals - involving energy policy, environmental policy, Iraq contracts and cooked intelligence - that would burst into the light of day if the current management lost its grip on power. So these people must win, at any cost.
The result, clearly, will be an ugly, bitter campaign - probably the nastiest of modern American history. Four months ago it seemed that the 2004 campaign would be all slow-mo films of Mr. Bush in his flight suit. But at this point, it's likely to be pictures of Howard Dean or Wesley Clark that morph into Saddam Hussein. And Donald Rumsfeld has already rolled out the stab-in-the-back argument: if you criticize the administration, you're lending aid and comfort to the enemy.
This political ugliness will take its toll on policy, too. The administration's infallibility complex - its inability to admit ever making a mistake - will get even worse. And I disagree with those who think the administration can claim infallibility even while practicing policy flexibility: on major issues, such as taxes or Iraq, any sensible policy would too obviously be an implicit admission that previous policies had failed.
In other words, if you thought the last two years were bad, just wait: it's about to get worse. A lot worse.
Just a quick review of the blogsphere reveals more than a little paranoia brewing, and predictions of ugly conspiracies to prevent a Bush loss of power can be found everywhere. Given the history of the Bush camp, these conspiracy predictions have more credibility than the silly "conspiracies" attributed to the Clintons. The Bush family has a long tradition of involvement in questionable situations. As early as the Warren Commission investigation of the Kennedy assassination one finds references to "George Bush of the CIA" - many years before any actual connection between Bush and the CIA was supposed to exist. This is a family that depends on behind the scenes forces to get what it wants. We still haven't had an honest public review of the means used to install Bush as president. Gore was accused of trying to steal the election because he was asking for a hand recount, while the Republicans were flying in paid congressional staffers to pretend to be outraged Florida citizens. These guys are great on staged incidents.
Something to look forward to. More drama - but Comedy or Tragedy?
Thursday, September 11, 2003
1.4 Million Viewers Watch O'Reilly
According to Atrios, 1.4 million viewers watch the Bill O'Reilly show. To put that in perspective, that means only five and a half persons out of every 1000 Americans watch this shit. It does me good to realize that so few of our citizens participate in this propagandistic nonsense. On the other hand, since this is one of the most popular shows on cable television, it makes one wonder what all the other folks are watching - or doing? I mean, wouldn't it be good to know what the other 246 million people were watching/listening to/doing?
Or is it better that they are beneath the radar?
Or is it better that they are beneath the radar?
Ken Starr
Jeezzz. In channel surfing I just came upon Ken Starr on CNN. Why, I don't know, but really, this is so disgusting that I can't believe I'm really seeing him. And he's talking up "freedom of speech." I may vomit.
Wednesday, September 10, 2003
Fire Bush
By way of The Agonist:
Notice of Termination
To Employee George W. Bush
This is to inform you that your services as President of the United States are no longer needed. Reasons for termination: (1) Conducted illegal wars - violated UN Charter and US Law; (2) Violated oath of office - ignored US Constitution; (3) Disobeyed employers - referred to superiors as "a focus group".
Please vacate your office within 24 hours. (Signed) The People of the United States.
We can dream.
Notice of Termination
To Employee George W. Bush
This is to inform you that your services as President of the United States are no longer needed. Reasons for termination: (1) Conducted illegal wars - violated UN Charter and US Law; (2) Violated oath of office - ignored US Constitution; (3) Disobeyed employers - referred to superiors as "a focus group".
Please vacate your office within 24 hours. (Signed) The People of the United States.
We can dream.
Real Dr. Strangelove Dies
The man many believe to be the model for the fictional Dr. Strangelove died yesterday. Edward Teller, a fierce partisan in support of nuclear weapons, died at home at the age of 95. According to the New York Times:
Few, if any, physicists of this century have generated such heated debate as Edward Teller. Much of it centered on his decade-long effort to produce the hydrogen bomb, his ardent promotion of nuclear weapons in general, his deep suspicion of Soviet intentions and his opposition to curtailment of nuclear testing.
His frustrations in seeking to win support for development of the hydrogen bomb led to his testimony that helped deprive J. Robert Oppenheimer, who directed the development of the first atomic bomb, of his security clearance. The result in much of the scientific community was a backlash against Dr. Teller that clouded the rest of his life.
Gee, now he won't get to see the "new generation" of nuclear weapons that Bush plans to develop. Teller would have been so pleased.
Few, if any, physicists of this century have generated such heated debate as Edward Teller. Much of it centered on his decade-long effort to produce the hydrogen bomb, his ardent promotion of nuclear weapons in general, his deep suspicion of Soviet intentions and his opposition to curtailment of nuclear testing.
His frustrations in seeking to win support for development of the hydrogen bomb led to his testimony that helped deprive J. Robert Oppenheimer, who directed the development of the first atomic bomb, of his security clearance. The result in much of the scientific community was a backlash against Dr. Teller that clouded the rest of his life.
Gee, now he won't get to see the "new generation" of nuclear weapons that Bush plans to develop. Teller would have been so pleased.
Tuesday, September 09, 2003
The Dems on FOX
Just watched the democratic debate on FOX sponsered by the Congressional Black Caucus. It is such fun to watch the FOX talking heads complain that no matter what the topic was all the Dems did was attack Bush! Well DUH!!! What the hell do they think this is all about? It's a political campaign and Bush is the incumbant - therefore he is the target. PLEASE. Daily I hear such stupid stuff in the national media that it makes me wonder if everyone else has completely lost their senses.
Oh god - speaking of losing one's senses, now we have Sean Hannity commenting on the debate. What an idiot. An empty suit with attitude. Jeezzz. The one common theme so far is to use hecklers from Lyndon LaRouche's organization as a way of trashing Democrats generally as racist crackpots. I love the concept that conservative bigots can try to gain points by painting Democrats as closet racists. Oh here we go, who does Hannity choose to interview first? - Al Sharpton! Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Nuff said.
Ooops. Too soon. Now Hannity is complaining that he feels none of the Dem candidates is qualified to be "Commander in Chief" (ON YOUR KNEES!) because he heard no "Tony Blair."
Uh, because he didn't hear any lying self-serving sonofabitch exaggerations and distortions he doesn't think these guys are qualified to be president. That says a lot about what he thinks is required for the office, doesn't it?
Oh shit! Now we have Hypocrite in Chief Bill Bennett complaining that there was not much "gravitas" in the debate. Oooohhh! A classical education. I prostrate myself before you. DO THESE PEOPLE HAVE NO SENSE OF SHAME? Why in hell should any of us give a shit about anything Bill Bennett, a discredited, bloated, sack of shit, has to say about his betters? I am reminded rather strongly of why I almost NEVER watch FOX (non) News.
Oh god - speaking of losing one's senses, now we have Sean Hannity commenting on the debate. What an idiot. An empty suit with attitude. Jeezzz. The one common theme so far is to use hecklers from Lyndon LaRouche's organization as a way of trashing Democrats generally as racist crackpots. I love the concept that conservative bigots can try to gain points by painting Democrats as closet racists. Oh here we go, who does Hannity choose to interview first? - Al Sharpton! Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Nuff said.
Ooops. Too soon. Now Hannity is complaining that he feels none of the Dem candidates is qualified to be "Commander in Chief" (ON YOUR KNEES!) because he heard no "Tony Blair."
Uh, because he didn't hear any lying self-serving sonofabitch exaggerations and distortions he doesn't think these guys are qualified to be president. That says a lot about what he thinks is required for the office, doesn't it?
Oh shit! Now we have Hypocrite in Chief Bill Bennett complaining that there was not much "gravitas" in the debate. Oooohhh! A classical education. I prostrate myself before you. DO THESE PEOPLE HAVE NO SENSE OF SHAME? Why in hell should any of us give a shit about anything Bill Bennett, a discredited, bloated, sack of shit, has to say about his betters? I am reminded rather strongly of why I almost NEVER watch FOX (non) News.
War on terrorism may find few supporters, Annan says
Remember the $ 87 Billion and what it could mean to the "basic human needs of every impoverished person on Earth"? Well, UN General Secretary Kofi Annan does:
UNITED NATIONS - Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, questioned yesterday whether Washington will succeed in convincing other countries to make the war on terrorism an international priority, saying most believe pervasive poverty poses a bigger threat to global stability.
"The United States has decided that terrorism is the key, which is fair," Mr. Annan said, but tackling the problems of the Third World are more important to people who live there.
He also asked whether the "hard threat" of terrorism is caused by the "soft threat" of poverty.
"Soft threats ... have an impact on stability and security around the world," Mr. Annan said. "And if you were to deal with the soft threats ... you might be able to make the world a safer place."
Ahh, but it's not nearly as satisfying to help a starving family as it is to bomb the shit out of a city like Baghdad that we don't know anything about but hate because our wonderful president has told us to. Yes sir, Jesus is his favorite "moral philospher", meaning, I guess, that my reading of the New Testiment is all wrong. I just don't remember the part about dropping high explosives on densly populated urban areas because we are pissed that the leader of that place had tried to kill POTUS's dad. Gee, morality is much more complex than I thought.
UNITED NATIONS - Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, questioned yesterday whether Washington will succeed in convincing other countries to make the war on terrorism an international priority, saying most believe pervasive poverty poses a bigger threat to global stability.
"The United States has decided that terrorism is the key, which is fair," Mr. Annan said, but tackling the problems of the Third World are more important to people who live there.
He also asked whether the "hard threat" of terrorism is caused by the "soft threat" of poverty.
"Soft threats ... have an impact on stability and security around the world," Mr. Annan said. "And if you were to deal with the soft threats ... you might be able to make the world a safer place."
Ahh, but it's not nearly as satisfying to help a starving family as it is to bomb the shit out of a city like Baghdad that we don't know anything about but hate because our wonderful president has told us to. Yes sir, Jesus is his favorite "moral philospher", meaning, I guess, that my reading of the New Testiment is all wrong. I just don't remember the part about dropping high explosives on densly populated urban areas because we are pissed that the leader of that place had tried to kill POTUS's dad. Gee, morality is much more complex than I thought.
Bush Revisionist Historians
The Washington Post has an interesting piece contrasting what members of the Bush administration are saying now versus what they were saying 'then'.
A Deadbeat President Hawks His Dead-end War
Alternet has this take on Bush's recent begging bowl speech:
it was hard to decide what was more appalling about Bush's address: The shamelessness with which he appealed for more deficit spending or the divorced-from-reality conviction with which he parroted his speechwriter's spin. The Pentagon source who called me moments after the speech, however, was unimpressed. "The gall," he seethed. "I'd like to give that son-of-a-bitch an eighty-seven billion dollar enema.
I couldn't agree more.
it was hard to decide what was more appalling about Bush's address: The shamelessness with which he appealed for more deficit spending or the divorced-from-reality conviction with which he parroted his speechwriter's spin. The Pentagon source who called me moments after the speech, however, was unimpressed. "The gall," he seethed. "I'd like to give that son-of-a-bitch an eighty-seven billion dollar enema.
I couldn't agree more.
What Could $ 87 Billion Buy?
President Bush went on television this weekend to report our ongoing "success" in the "War on Terror" and ask for an additional $ 87 Billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. As spending in this spurious "war" approaches what we were once spending in Viet Nam it is well to consider what else we might be doing with this sum - especially since our states are facing bankrupcy and numerous programs that support the common good are being either cut or discontinued. The Capitol Times has this to say:
In the name of a war on terror that has failed to achieve its stated goals, and that wise analysts suggest has actually made the United States and the world less secure, the president signaled his willingness to empty the federal treasury to pay for precisely the sort of foreign entanglements against which George Washington and Thomas Jefferson warned in their farewell addresses.
Bush told the nation he would spend whatever it takes to maintain these military adventures abroad, even as rising death tolls, bombings and threats raise doubts about whether they are making America more secure. The United States already has a military budget that costs this country roughly $400 billion annually, but Bush wants U.S. taxpayers to spend more on his war games.
The $87 billion figure is far greater than Bush let on before Iraq was attacked last spring, yet it is undoubtedly another deception. Serious military analysts suggest that the true cost of the war will be much more.
. . .
What the president did not mention in his speech is that the $87 billion more he seeks to fund his occupations abroad could pay for 1.4 million new teachers at home. It could help 11 million low-income families meet housing needs. It could provide health care coverage for 30 million children.
. . .
Overseas, the United States should begin to address the conditions that create the frustration and resentments that lead to terrorism. The president's $87 billion could, according to UNICEF, meet the basic human needs of every impoverished person on Earth.
OK, I guess it just isn't really a contest - the "basic human needs of every impoverished peron on Earth" - or regular payments to Bush's friends at Halliburton and all the other contractors selected (behind the scenes and with no competition) to rebuild a country we had no business breaking.
I'm sorry, I'm really angry about this. This administration is SCUM. I can't even pretend to respect them because of their various offices. There is not a single one of them - including the faux president - that I would allow in my livingroom.
In the name of a war on terror that has failed to achieve its stated goals, and that wise analysts suggest has actually made the United States and the world less secure, the president signaled his willingness to empty the federal treasury to pay for precisely the sort of foreign entanglements against which George Washington and Thomas Jefferson warned in their farewell addresses.
Bush told the nation he would spend whatever it takes to maintain these military adventures abroad, even as rising death tolls, bombings and threats raise doubts about whether they are making America more secure. The United States already has a military budget that costs this country roughly $400 billion annually, but Bush wants U.S. taxpayers to spend more on his war games.
The $87 billion figure is far greater than Bush let on before Iraq was attacked last spring, yet it is undoubtedly another deception. Serious military analysts suggest that the true cost of the war will be much more.
. . .
What the president did not mention in his speech is that the $87 billion more he seeks to fund his occupations abroad could pay for 1.4 million new teachers at home. It could help 11 million low-income families meet housing needs. It could provide health care coverage for 30 million children.
. . .
Overseas, the United States should begin to address the conditions that create the frustration and resentments that lead to terrorism. The president's $87 billion could, according to UNICEF, meet the basic human needs of every impoverished person on Earth.
OK, I guess it just isn't really a contest - the "basic human needs of every impoverished peron on Earth" - or regular payments to Bush's friends at Halliburton and all the other contractors selected (behind the scenes and with no competition) to rebuild a country we had no business breaking.
I'm sorry, I'm really angry about this. This administration is SCUM. I can't even pretend to respect them because of their various offices. There is not a single one of them - including the faux president - that I would allow in my livingroom.
Monday, September 08, 2003
We'll Meet Again - Don't Know Where, Don't Know When . . .
Still in a channel surfing mode I stumbled onto Stanley Kubrick's brilliant "Dr Strangelove: or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb." How appropriate. In an age when we are saddled with a president that takes pride in his "C" student status and thinks that what the military really needs is a new generation of "small" nuclear weapons that can be actually used on the battlefield, what seemed in the 60's to be arch satire now seems deadly serious. Mine shaft gap indeed!
I'm sure that Dubyah thinks that if he could just have unleashed a nuke of two we wouldn't be having this ongoing problem with a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, much less the instability in Iraq. That's the problem, we just couldn't really shock and awe em' with conventional weapons.
Nor can they continue to Shuck and Jive us with this "War on Terrorism" nonsense. THERE IS NO WAR ON TERRORISM! Like the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs - it is simply a rhetorical exercise that nevertheless costs billions of dollars, has very real casualties, but has nothing to do with its supposed purpose. You can make war on a country, but not on an abstraction. Just consider, how would you know you had won (or lost) the "war" on terrorism? If we can't answer that question we have no business pretending that we are fighting such a "war."
I'm sure that Dubyah thinks that if he could just have unleashed a nuke of two we wouldn't be having this ongoing problem with a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, much less the instability in Iraq. That's the problem, we just couldn't really shock and awe em' with conventional weapons.
Nor can they continue to Shuck and Jive us with this "War on Terrorism" nonsense. THERE IS NO WAR ON TERRORISM! Like the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs - it is simply a rhetorical exercise that nevertheless costs billions of dollars, has very real casualties, but has nothing to do with its supposed purpose. You can make war on a country, but not on an abstraction. Just consider, how would you know you had won (or lost) the "war" on terrorism? If we can't answer that question we have no business pretending that we are fighting such a "war."
CNN Nausea
I just did a few minutes of channel surfing and hit on Lou Dobbs "Moneyline", a pitifull echo of those intoxicating days of stock market highs - now primarily a knee jerk right wing spot that seeks to justify the unjustifiable. I see they are augmenting the basically unreliable business forecasts by having them mouthed by yet another peculiar looking blonde - sort of a charicature of Rees Witherspoon on speed.
No thanks.
No thanks.
Blinded By the Right
I just finished reading David Brock's _Blinded By The Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative_. I didn't read it when it first came out because I'm not big on mea culpas, and I'm still really pissed at the ugly hachet job Brock did on Anita Hill. In a very real sense we not only owe him for Clarence Thomas, but for Geroge W. Bush as well - since Thomas can be construed as casting the deciding vote.
All that aside, it has to be said that the picture of the right wing propaganda machine Brock paints is uglier than anything I could have imagined. Though he does make it clear, as many of us must have suspected, that prominent nut cases like Ann Coulter are not motivated by any intellectual position but rather by some unaccounted for depth of hatred and anger that transcends both intelligence and common sense. They are, as Brock says, "bumper sticker conservatives."
What is really clear after reading this book is that what the left really needs is a group of the super-rich who are willing to spend millions on "research", books, periodicals, think tanks, investigations, polls, active interventions, and propaganda. The idiot right has them. We don't.
All that aside, it has to be said that the picture of the right wing propaganda machine Brock paints is uglier than anything I could have imagined. Though he does make it clear, as many of us must have suspected, that prominent nut cases like Ann Coulter are not motivated by any intellectual position but rather by some unaccounted for depth of hatred and anger that transcends both intelligence and common sense. They are, as Brock says, "bumper sticker conservatives."
What is really clear after reading this book is that what the left really needs is a group of the super-rich who are willing to spend millions on "research", books, periodicals, think tanks, investigations, polls, active interventions, and propaganda. The idiot right has them. We don't.
Sunday, September 07, 2003
WMDs Found In Iraq - Ours
The use of depleted uranium shells and armor in Iraq has created areas of extreme radiation danger:
Has U.S. use of depleted-uranium weapons turned Iraq into a radioactive danger area for both Iraqis and occupation troops?
This question has already had serious consequences. In hot spots in downtown Baghdad, reporters have measured radiation levels that are 1,000 to 1,900 times higher than normal background radiation levels.
Of course, the army says there is no danger. This is what they said to the soldiers exposed to radiation in tests after WWII - now acknowledged to have been extremely dangerous. What does this mean for the "Support Our Troops" crowd? If they are serious they have to realize how dangerous our own side is to our guys:
In this year's war on Iraq, the Pentagon used its radioactive arsenal mainly in the urban centers, rather than in desert battlefields as in 1991. Many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people and U.S. soldiers, along with British, Polish, Japanese and Dutch soldiers sent to join the occupation, will suffer the consequences. The real extent of injuries, chronic illness, long-term disabilities and genetic birth defects won't be apparent for five to 10 years.
By now, half of all the 697,000 U.S. soldiers involved in the 1991 war have reported serious illnesses. According to the American Gulf War Veterans Association, more than 30 percent of these soldiers are chronically ill and are receiving disability benefits from the Veterans Administration. Such a high occurrence of various symptoms has led to the illnesses being named Gulf War Syndrome.
This number of disabled veterans is shockingly high. Most are in their mid-thirties and should be in the prime of health. Before sending troops to the Gulf region, the military had already sifted out those with disabilities or chronic health problems from asthma, diabetes, heart conditions, cancers and birth defects.
A long-term problem
And this administration is hot to actually develop new atomic weapons with the intent of actually planning for their use on the battlefield. The Bush White House is once again thinking the unthinkable and demanding that the public accept it as normal. For my entire life we have worked to eliminate the threat of nuclear war only to have the current president argue that since we have the most nukes we should plan to use them.
This man calls himself a Christian.
Has U.S. use of depleted-uranium weapons turned Iraq into a radioactive danger area for both Iraqis and occupation troops?
This question has already had serious consequences. In hot spots in downtown Baghdad, reporters have measured radiation levels that are 1,000 to 1,900 times higher than normal background radiation levels.
Of course, the army says there is no danger. This is what they said to the soldiers exposed to radiation in tests after WWII - now acknowledged to have been extremely dangerous. What does this mean for the "Support Our Troops" crowd? If they are serious they have to realize how dangerous our own side is to our guys:
In this year's war on Iraq, the Pentagon used its radioactive arsenal mainly in the urban centers, rather than in desert battlefields as in 1991. Many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people and U.S. soldiers, along with British, Polish, Japanese and Dutch soldiers sent to join the occupation, will suffer the consequences. The real extent of injuries, chronic illness, long-term disabilities and genetic birth defects won't be apparent for five to 10 years.
By now, half of all the 697,000 U.S. soldiers involved in the 1991 war have reported serious illnesses. According to the American Gulf War Veterans Association, more than 30 percent of these soldiers are chronically ill and are receiving disability benefits from the Veterans Administration. Such a high occurrence of various symptoms has led to the illnesses being named Gulf War Syndrome.
This number of disabled veterans is shockingly high. Most are in their mid-thirties and should be in the prime of health. Before sending troops to the Gulf region, the military had already sifted out those with disabilities or chronic health problems from asthma, diabetes, heart conditions, cancers and birth defects.
A long-term problem
And this administration is hot to actually develop new atomic weapons with the intent of actually planning for their use on the battlefield. The Bush White House is once again thinking the unthinkable and demanding that the public accept it as normal. For my entire life we have worked to eliminate the threat of nuclear war only to have the current president argue that since we have the most nukes we should plan to use them.
This man calls himself a Christian.
Bush's Job Rating Hits New Low
ZOGBY - President George W. Bush's job performance ratings have reached the lowest point since his pre-Inauguration days, continuing a steady decline since a post-9/11 peak, according to a new Zogby America poll. 45% of the respondents said they rated his job performance good or excellent, while 54% said it was fair or poor. 52% said it's time for someone new in the White House, while just 40% said the president deserves to be re-elected.
Friday, September 05, 2003
A disgusting waste of taxpayer dollars
Capitol Hill Blue's current "rant" takes issue with allowing the NFL to use the National Mall for commercial purposes:
Who, we have to wonder, was the idiot who approved use of the Mall in Washington for a three-and-a-half hour commercial for the National Football League?
If some bureaucrat in the National Park Service allowed this travesty, then fire his or her butt before they do any more damage.
Or if Interior Secretary Gail Norton authorized this shameless commercialization of federal land, then ship her back to Colorado because she obviously suffers from too many Rocky Mountain highs.
Since when does the NFL deserve this special treatment? Professional football is a business, driven by greedy owners who control teams of overpaid, muscle-bound clowns who most likely would be flipping burgers, gang-banging or selling real estate if the sport did not pay them millions to bash their brains into mush.
The NFL contributed a measly $10 million towards staging the three days of events that led up to Thursday night's kickoff of the new football season but what it paid did not begin to cover the cost of staging or security from 1,000 police officers from 35 local, state and federal agencies.
And meanwhile, D.C. politicians are busy trying to figure out how to get the taxpayers of the District to help fund a new stadium for a proposed professional baseball team. Our tax dollars at work.
Who, we have to wonder, was the idiot who approved use of the Mall in Washington for a three-and-a-half hour commercial for the National Football League?
If some bureaucrat in the National Park Service allowed this travesty, then fire his or her butt before they do any more damage.
Or if Interior Secretary Gail Norton authorized this shameless commercialization of federal land, then ship her back to Colorado because she obviously suffers from too many Rocky Mountain highs.
Since when does the NFL deserve this special treatment? Professional football is a business, driven by greedy owners who control teams of overpaid, muscle-bound clowns who most likely would be flipping burgers, gang-banging or selling real estate if the sport did not pay them millions to bash their brains into mush.
The NFL contributed a measly $10 million towards staging the three days of events that led up to Thursday night's kickoff of the new football season but what it paid did not begin to cover the cost of staging or security from 1,000 police officers from 35 local, state and federal agencies.
And meanwhile, D.C. politicians are busy trying to figure out how to get the taxpayers of the District to help fund a new stadium for a proposed professional baseball team. Our tax dollars at work.
Bad News for Bush
According to a report from the Federal Reserve, the 2.7 million jobs that have been lost during the Bush administration are not temporary:
The vast majority of the 2.7 million job losses since the 2001 recession began were the result of permanent changes in the U.S. economy and are not coming back, which means the labor market will not regain strength until new positions are created in novel and dynamic economic sectors, a Federal Reserve Bank of New York study has concluded.
The findings by Erica L. Groshen, an assistant vice president at the New York Fed, and Simon Potter, a senior economist, will be sobering news to policymakers scrambling to reverse the longest hiring downturn since the Depression. The conclusions of the study, which was published last week, were underscored yesterday by two Labor Department reports showing a surge in corporate productivity even as work hours are plunging.
No president in U. S. history has ever presided over this level of sustained job loss.
The vast majority of the 2.7 million job losses since the 2001 recession began were the result of permanent changes in the U.S. economy and are not coming back, which means the labor market will not regain strength until new positions are created in novel and dynamic economic sectors, a Federal Reserve Bank of New York study has concluded.
The findings by Erica L. Groshen, an assistant vice president at the New York Fed, and Simon Potter, a senior economist, will be sobering news to policymakers scrambling to reverse the longest hiring downturn since the Depression. The conclusions of the study, which was published last week, were underscored yesterday by two Labor Department reports showing a surge in corporate productivity even as work hours are plunging.
No president in U. S. history has ever presided over this level of sustained job loss.
Krugman
As usual, dead on target:
Just four months after Operation Flight Suit, the superpower has become a supplicant to nations it used to insult. Mission accomplished!
Just four months after Operation Flight Suit, the superpower has become a supplicant to nations it used to insult. Mission accomplished!
Thursday, September 04, 2003
The Bushies and the Saudis
The New York Times reports that the White House approved the special evacuation of select Saudis following 9/11 while commercial aircraft were still grounded:
WASHINGTON, Sept. 3 — Top White House officials personally approved the evacuation of dozens of influential Saudis, including relatives of Osama bin Laden, from the United States in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks when most flights were still grounded, a former White House adviser said today.
The adviser, Richard Clarke, who ran the White House crisis team after the attacks but has since left the Bush administration, said he agreed to the extraordinary plan because the Federal Bureau of Investigation assured him that the departing Saudis were not linked to terrorism. The White House feared that the Saudis could face "retribution" for the hijackings if they remained in the United States, Mr. Clarke said.
The fact that relatives of Mr. bin Laden and other Saudis had been rushed out of the country became public soon after the Sept. 11 attacks. But questions have lingered about the circumstances of their departure, and Mr. Clarke's statements provided the first acknowledgment that the White House had any direct involvement in the plan and that senior administration officials personally signed off on it.
Mr. Clarke first made his remarks about the plan in an article in Vanity Fair due out Thursday, and he expanded on those remarks today in an interview and in Congressional testimony. The White House said today that it had no comment on Mr. Clarke's statements.
Proving yet again that for the Bushies wealth trumps any other concern. And isn't that FBI amazing? It only took a few hours for them investigate and clear all these "influential" Saudis. Who knew they were so swift and certain?
WASHINGTON, Sept. 3 — Top White House officials personally approved the evacuation of dozens of influential Saudis, including relatives of Osama bin Laden, from the United States in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks when most flights were still grounded, a former White House adviser said today.
The adviser, Richard Clarke, who ran the White House crisis team after the attacks but has since left the Bush administration, said he agreed to the extraordinary plan because the Federal Bureau of Investigation assured him that the departing Saudis were not linked to terrorism. The White House feared that the Saudis could face "retribution" for the hijackings if they remained in the United States, Mr. Clarke said.
The fact that relatives of Mr. bin Laden and other Saudis had been rushed out of the country became public soon after the Sept. 11 attacks. But questions have lingered about the circumstances of their departure, and Mr. Clarke's statements provided the first acknowledgment that the White House had any direct involvement in the plan and that senior administration officials personally signed off on it.
Mr. Clarke first made his remarks about the plan in an article in Vanity Fair due out Thursday, and he expanded on those remarks today in an interview and in Congressional testimony. The White House said today that it had no comment on Mr. Clarke's statements.
Proving yet again that for the Bushies wealth trumps any other concern. And isn't that FBI amazing? It only took a few hours for them investigate and clear all these "influential" Saudis. Who knew they were so swift and certain?
Wednesday, September 03, 2003
Schwarzenegger avoids debate
What a surprise. But then, he can't really speak the English language, can he? So, of course, this is just the guy we want as Governor of California - someone who has no experience of government, who can hardly speak the language, whose values and connections are with the hyper-rich, who is all image with no substance, and who is trying to pretend that all his seventies over-the-top gang-bang interviews and photos are just so much publicity that he has nothing really to do with.
What a piece of shit.
What a piece of shit.
John Hinckley Jr. Wants Unsupervised Visits Out of St. Elizabeth's
The committed attempted assassin of President Ronald Reagan has petitioned a U. S. District judge to allow him to have unsupervised visits outside the hospital where he has been confined since 1981, after being found not guilty by reason of insanity. This could be a potential embarrassment for President Bush if people take this story as an opportunity to revisit the very strange "coincidence" of the relationship between the Bush and the Hinckley families:
What is more dangerous for the future of our country than a conspiracy to assassinate a president? It is a conspiracy to manipulate and control what the American people are told by the national news media. There are scores of unanswered questions surrounding the event of the afternoon of March 30, 1981. For instance, John Chancellor, eyebrows raised, informed the viewers of NBC Nightly News that the brother of the man who tried to kill the president was acquainted with the son of the man who would have become president if the attack had been successful. As a matter of fact, Chancellor said in a bewildered tone, Scott Hinckley and Neil Bush had been scheduled to have dinner together at the home of the vice president's son the very next night.
And, of course, the engagement had been canceled. . . Then a peculiar thing happened: The story vanished. To this day, it has never been reported in the New York Times, Washington Post or many other metropolitan newspapers, never again mentioned by any of the television news networks, and never noted in news magazines except for a brief mention in Newsweek, which lumped it with two ludicrous conspiracy scenarios as if the Bush-Hinckley connection didn't deserve some sort of explanation.
But many other significant facts concerning the Bush and Hinckley families have remained unexplored and unexplained, in addition to other matters related to the assassination. For example:
Neil Bush, a landman for Amoco Oil, told Denver reporters he had met Scott Hinckley at a surprise party at the Bush home January 23, 1981, which was approximately three weeks after the U.S. Department of Energy had begun what was termed a "routine audit" of the books of the Vanderbilt Energy Corporation, the Hinckley oil company.
In an incredible coincidence, on the morning of March 30, three representatives of the U.S. Department of Energy told Scott Hinckley, Vanderbilt's vice president of operations, that auditors had uncovered evidence of pricing violations on crude oil sold by the company from 1977 through 1980. The auditors announced that the federal government was considering a penalty of two million dollars. Scott Hinckley reportedly requested "several hours to come up with an explanation" of the serious overcharges. The meeting ended a little more than an hour before John Hinckley Jr. shot President Reagan.
For those who remember this whole strange tale (read more news stories from the time that simpley disappeared), there was never really any investigation. Bush pulled the plug. Since Hinckley was captured "red handed" there was no need for any real inquiry. Right? If he had been successful, Bush would have been president in 1981. Who would have gained from that? The Hinckleys? Certainly their family friends the Bushes.
Anyone curious about the connections between the Bush and Hinckley families can simply do a Google search of Bush+Hinckley and select among the over 20,000 hits.
Who really believes that it could be a coincidence that the Bush family has a long relationship with both the Hinckleys and the bin Ladens? Even a fan of Dicken's novels can only take so much coincidence before crying foul!
What is more dangerous for the future of our country than a conspiracy to assassinate a president? It is a conspiracy to manipulate and control what the American people are told by the national news media. There are scores of unanswered questions surrounding the event of the afternoon of March 30, 1981. For instance, John Chancellor, eyebrows raised, informed the viewers of NBC Nightly News that the brother of the man who tried to kill the president was acquainted with the son of the man who would have become president if the attack had been successful. As a matter of fact, Chancellor said in a bewildered tone, Scott Hinckley and Neil Bush had been scheduled to have dinner together at the home of the vice president's son the very next night.
And, of course, the engagement had been canceled. . . Then a peculiar thing happened: The story vanished. To this day, it has never been reported in the New York Times, Washington Post or many other metropolitan newspapers, never again mentioned by any of the television news networks, and never noted in news magazines except for a brief mention in Newsweek, which lumped it with two ludicrous conspiracy scenarios as if the Bush-Hinckley connection didn't deserve some sort of explanation.
But many other significant facts concerning the Bush and Hinckley families have remained unexplored and unexplained, in addition to other matters related to the assassination. For example:
Neil Bush, a landman for Amoco Oil, told Denver reporters he had met Scott Hinckley at a surprise party at the Bush home January 23, 1981, which was approximately three weeks after the U.S. Department of Energy had begun what was termed a "routine audit" of the books of the Vanderbilt Energy Corporation, the Hinckley oil company.
In an incredible coincidence, on the morning of March 30, three representatives of the U.S. Department of Energy told Scott Hinckley, Vanderbilt's vice president of operations, that auditors had uncovered evidence of pricing violations on crude oil sold by the company from 1977 through 1980. The auditors announced that the federal government was considering a penalty of two million dollars. Scott Hinckley reportedly requested "several hours to come up with an explanation" of the serious overcharges. The meeting ended a little more than an hour before John Hinckley Jr. shot President Reagan.
For those who remember this whole strange tale (read more news stories from the time that simpley disappeared), there was never really any investigation. Bush pulled the plug. Since Hinckley was captured "red handed" there was no need for any real inquiry. Right? If he had been successful, Bush would have been president in 1981. Who would have gained from that? The Hinckleys? Certainly their family friends the Bushes.
Anyone curious about the connections between the Bush and Hinckley families can simply do a Google search of Bush+Hinckley and select among the over 20,000 hits.
Who really believes that it could be a coincidence that the Bush family has a long relationship with both the Hinckleys and the bin Ladens? Even a fan of Dicken's novels can only take so much coincidence before crying foul!
Monday, September 01, 2003
Why Doesn't Bill O'Reilly Just Shut Up?
Bill O'Reilly apparently doesn't listen to what he says. Accoring to Slate:
"Paula Evans, Winston-Salem, N.C. [writes]: 'Bill, if you are so concerned about public figures being bad role models for children, please stop interrupting your guests and telling them to shut up!' "
"Well, the 'shut up' line has happened only once in six years, Ms. Evans, and that's because the editor from Pittsburgh was filibustering, after accusing me of exploiting the families of the murder victims. The no-spin zone is a tough place, and lies and unreasonable discourse will be stopped in their tracks."
—Nov. 15, 2002
"Only once in six years"? Take a look at this series of incidents.
"Paula Evans, Winston-Salem, N.C. [writes]: 'Bill, if you are so concerned about public figures being bad role models for children, please stop interrupting your guests and telling them to shut up!' "
"Well, the 'shut up' line has happened only once in six years, Ms. Evans, and that's because the editor from Pittsburgh was filibustering, after accusing me of exploiting the families of the murder victims. The no-spin zone is a tough place, and lies and unreasonable discourse will be stopped in their tracks."
—Nov. 15, 2002
"Only once in six years"? Take a look at this series of incidents.
Thieves in High Places
I am reading Jim Hightower's new book, _Theives in High Places_. As I've said elsewhere, the Bushies have provided so much great material that their critics hardly have to dig for any of it. It's amazing how many books have been written criticising the Clintons by heaping page after page of innuendo and suggestion but not a single uncontested fact in support of hyper exaggerated claims of universal corruption or treasonous activity, while Bush and his administration openly and clearly engage in war profiteering, lying, trading public health for private profit, sabatoging educational funding, rolling back environmental safeguards, dismantaling safeguards for working people,and greedy transfers of wealth from ordinary citizens to the wealthiest and least deserving. And there is no general outrage! The mainstream media hardly reports on any of it, and when they do, spin it to Bush's advantage.
Has there ever been a less competent, more transparently ideological president propped up by such a supportive and protective propaganda network? Truely amazing.
Has there ever been a less competent, more transparently ideological president propped up by such a supportive and protective propaganda network? Truely amazing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
