Bush vs His Own Plans

Fallujah accord leaves US policy in disarray

So, does anyone really know what is happening in Fallujah? A year ago our faux president landed on an aircraft carrier named for a real war president - Abraham Lincoln - and, dressed in military costume, proclaimed that "major combat" was over in Iraq. In this past month alone more American service men and women have died than in the war leading up to the fall of Baghdad. And now:

THE United States' policy on Iraq was in disarray last night, as the Pentagon admitted it was unaware of a breakthrough agreement to end the siege of Fallujah announced by its troops on the ground.

While a new poll showed a majority of Iraqis want US and British troops to leave in the next few months, an American marine commander revealed that his troops were preparing to withdraw from the outskirts of Fallujah, a major U-turn in US policy.

Lieutenant Colonel Brennan Byrne said a newly created Iraqi force of 1,100 soldiers, called the Fallujah Protective Army and led by a former general from Saddam Hussein?s army, would take over security in the besieged city.

It was a deal few of his superiors seemed aware of.

Hell, why should they know anything? Decisions are being made by people who are far from the realities and don't have to suffer the consequences. As Bob Herbert says of the most recent 10 Americans to die in Iraq:

They died for a pipe dream, which the American Heritage Dictionary defines as a fantastic notion or a vain hope. "Pipe dream" originally referred to the fantasies induced by smoking a pipe of opium. The folks who led us into this hideous madness in Iraq, against the wishes of most of the world, sure seem to have been smoking something.

And that negative poll of Iraqis mentioned earlier? According to Juan Cole:

The numbers are negative for the US, and are much more negative than previous such polls. Moreover, the polling ended by April 2, just before the Shiite uprising and the worst of the Fallujah fighting, so that it is highly likely that the present attitudes of the Iraqi public toward the US are much more negative.

Amazingly, 57% of Iraqis say that US troops should leave Iraq immediately. If one subtracted the Kurds, a much higher percentage of Arabic speaking Iraqis say this. And, they say it with their eyes open. About 57% also admit that life would get harder (i.e. there would be a lot of instability) if the US suddenly withdrew. They want the US gone anyway, and will take their chances.

Since the Bush White House is all about spin, I can't wait to hear what positive twist they will try to put on this.

Bush vs the Public's Right to Know

Catch 22: Patriot Act Suppresses News Of Challenge to Patriot Act

The American Civil Liberties Union disclosed yesterday that it filed a lawsuit three weeks ago challenging the FBI's methods of obtaining many business records, but the group was barred from revealing even the existence of the case until now.

The lawsuit was filed April 6 in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, but the case was kept under seal to avoid violating secrecy rules contained in the USA Patriot Act, the ACLU said. The group was allowed to release a redacted version of the lawsuit after weeks of negotiations with the government.

"It is remarkable that a gag provision in the Patriot Act kept the public in the dark about the mere fact that a constitutional challenge had been filed in court," Ann Beeson, the ACLU's associate legal director, said in a statement. "President Bush can talk about extending the life of the Patriot Act, but the ACLU is still gagged from discussing details of our challenge to it."

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment on the case.

Is America a great country, or what?

Bush vs the Truth

Bush-Cheney 9/11 Interview Won't Be Formally Recorded

And why won't this long anticipated testimony be recorded? Because, as the White House official position has it:

"He is not testifying, he is talking to them," the adviser said. "A transcript implies testimony. This would open a Pandora's box of all sorts of precedent-setting and legal issues. We were reluctant for the president to do this, anyway."

Legal scholars said the lack of an official transcript would give the White House some deniability and make it more difficult to use the president's words as evidence in a future suit against the government.

So, it seems that Bush and Cheney are preparing to lie. Why else all these preposterous conditions, limitations, and qualifications?

Bush vs Iraq's Future

The secret Strategy tells us that, if Bush didn't go into Iraq for the oil, he sure as hell ain't leaving without it.

Investigative reporter Greg Palast explains why a high rolling lobbiest for the oil industry has been given an office in the White House. Our tax dollars at work - but not for us.

Bush's Nanny Speaks

Karen Hughes takes up for our tongue-tied president

Speaking to Wolf Blitzer on CNN, Karen Hughes recites discredited views as if nothing had happened in the last year:

But I think, at times when it seems especially hard, we need to remember what is at stake and the reason we went into Iraq in the first place, and those reasons have not changed. Saddam Hussein was a threat to the peace and stability of the world. He was a terrible tyrant, one of the worst in the history of the world, and he was fomenting terror by paying families of suicide bombers.
. . .
But at some point, we have to remember the objective, and the objective is that those who are trying to foment terror, who are killing American soldiers or who are killing innocent Iraqis, will be brought to justice.

Besides the silliness of pretending that Saddam, a two bit tyrant, was "one of the worst in the history of the world" (OK, no one in the Bush administration reads history, we know that), the real craziness here is that she suddenly is talking about killing American soldiers as if that would even be happening if we had not attacked in the first place. This is typical of these people. Just last week Paul Bremer and various generals were making pronouncments about how horrible the Iraqi insurgents are because they are trying to come to power through violence - ignoring that that is how we came to power there. Our guns - GOOD; their guns - BAD! This is worse than childish, but Bush administration propagandists must assume that childish slogans are what this public deserves. Yet again, why do the terrorists hate us?

-- we know we have people who hate America, and al Qaeda hates America.

And it's not because we went into Iraq. It's because they hate the things we stand for. They hate freedom; they hate liberty; they hate tolerance; they hate religious freedom; they hate those who respect the rights of individuals.

And so we know al Qaeda hates us and wants to go after us. And we have -- it's our obligation to do everything in our power to prevent the nightmare scenario that those terrorists who want to attack us would be able to do so with any kind of weapons or information they might be able to gain from Iraq.

This is not only silly - it's incoherent. Hughes acutally sounds as though she is losing it. We had to attack Iraq for fear that "the" terrorists (who hate Saddam as much as they hate us) might get their hands on some of those imaginary weapons. And this bit about hating us because they hate our freedom never made any sense, even though no reporter so far has had the balls to mention this. It is a common mantra of the Bushies and total nonsense. But maybe that is why John Ashcroft is waging such war on American's civil liberties; if we don't have all those freedoms any more then the terrorists won't hate us. Right? And we'll all live happily ever after - without freedom but safe in our fortified buildings, gated communities, and "undisclosed secure locations."

When Terrorism Isn't Terrorism

South Africa Marks 10 Years of Freedom

In the ongoing talk about "terrorism" and what to do about it, it is well to remember that our view of what is terrorism and who is a terrorist can change dramatically over time. South Africa, dominated by the ANC (African National Congress) is viewed as a democratic success story, yet when they were fighting for their freedom, America viewed the ANC as a terrorist organization.

Likewise, our ally Israel, frequently lauded as a modern "democracy," came into being largely through the efforts of militant Zionist organisations such as the Irgun, Haganah, and Stern Gang, that engaged in terrorist bombings and assassinations, targeting both Arabs and British soldiers.

So, who in the current world of violence in the Middle East is likely to transform themselves from "terrorist" to statesmen? It's bound to happen. It's foolish to pretend otherwise.

American Taliban

Catholic Officials Trash John Kerry

Interestingly, while Chatholic Church offials kept their own council when John Kennedy took a strongly secular stance affirming the separation of church and state, they are now striking out at presidential candidate John Kerry:

In remarks that could influence the U.S. presidential race, a top Vatican cardinal said Friday that a Roman Catholic politician who unambiguously supports abortion rights should be denied Holy Communion at Mass.

Cardinal Francis Arinze spoke amid a debate over whether Democrat John Kerry should be denied communion, which Catholics believe is the body of Christ, because he supports abortion rights.

Apart from the question of whether or not officials of any church should be intruding themselves into national political campaigns by commenting on the religious fitness of candidates, the real issue is why the news media is willing to cover this story widely while failing to cover a similar story relating to George W. Bush. As reported by Amy Sullivan:

But this is not just a throw-away point. Does Bush deviate from the teachings of the United Methodist Church? Yes he does, on some crucial political issues. Has he been reprimanded by leaders in his denomination? Yes, particularly on the issue of war in Iraq. And if you want to make this a question of who's the better Christian, then it's fair to ask why President Bush doesn't go to church. You heard me - the man worships at Camp David and every so often wanders across Lafayette Park (although the park is pretty much impassable now what with all of the security construction going on) to attend services at St. John's Episcopal Church. But the man who has staked his domestic policy on the power of civil society and of good Christian individuals to change lives isn't an active member of a congregation - the very kind of organization in which he claims to have so much faith.

NPR vs Real News

Morning Edition Non-news

SOB is listening to NPR and trying not to scream at the radio (too early to disturb my neighbors). I could have sworn there was a time when one could actually hear meaningful news on Public Radio, but no more. What is covered this morning?

A train wreck in northern North Korea, about which there is only speculation since western reporters are not allowed to cover it. We get essentially the same report we got yesterday except that the casualty figures have been estimated downward and a change is made in the report of what the trains were carrying. But in essence, this is a story about an accident half way around the world that has no impact on us.

The other "big" story - also told yesterday - is that Condi Rice appeared on Capital Hill yesterday and briefed lawmakers behind closed doors. No surprises. No new information. Rah, rah. The Republicans think her testimony is "very strong." Why are we being subjected to this shallow propaganda?

Another story, also previously reported (for the last two days) is that reconstruction efforts in Iraq have been hampered by lack of security and that some companies have either pulled out or stopped work until things improve. Again, no new information and no perspective on how this story dovetails with NPR's Market Place series this week about corruption and fraud in the Iraq business scene today.

The final "big" story is that Bush and Kerry are doing opposing photo opts trying to capitalize on Earth Day by pretending to out Green one another, when in truth neither is very Green. This story is presented in the maddening "he said, she said" form that really tells us nothing we didn't already know.

Where is the real news? Where are the stories one can't get elsewhere? Where is the information citizens need to really understand what is going on in the world that relates to them? NPR has been worried lately about redoing its image, but firing Bob Edwards is a poor first move. It shows that NPR has accepted the current world's judgment that news programming is more a matter of image than substance. As long as public radio deliberately ignores controversial - but factually proven - stories like the contamination of returning U. S. service persons with depleted uranium, it will not deserve to think of itself as a news operation.

One of SOB's brothers refers to NPR as National Pinko Radio. This only proves he doesn't listen to it. If it has a bias, it seems to be in favor of how things are. Let's not look too closely at things. Let's not rock the boat. Let's not risk harsh criticism from the conservatives in power by calling attention to what is really happening to our country and the world.

Bush vs Democracy in Iraq

White House Says Iraq Sovereignty Could Be Limited

Not that it's a surprise, but the Bush administration has finally admitted publicly that whatever it is that will be handed over to some unknown Iraqi "entity" on June 30, it won't be "sovereignty" because the U. S. plans to continue to be in charge of pretty much everything normally associated with responsibilities of government. So is anyone in the press (besides Paul Krugman) really questioning what this means? Of course not. The mainstream press continues to treat the Bush's bait and switch campaigns as if they are what the "bait" part proclaims, while either ignoring or only partially noting the essential betrayal of the "switch" part:

No child left behind which cripples an already suffering public educational system,

Clear Sky's Initiative which allows increased levels of pollution in the air,

Healthy Forests which opens public lands oldest forests to private logging operations,

Jobs and Growth Plan which shifts the tax burden from wealthier to poorer taxpayers without providing either jobs or growth, and

The Global War on Terror where very expensive military operations are used to attack countries that we don't like while doing nothing to eliminate terror (indeed, while increasing the likelihood of terrorist attacks against us).

And the Democrats have a candidate who is doing nothing to really make this clear. In contrast, he accepts much of the Republican terminology and tries to 'out Bush' Bush on issues like the misnamed Global War on Terror, rather than helping people understand it as a dangerously misguided policy that has cost us allies, increased recruiting for terrorist causes, and - if not stopped soon - will bankrupt the country and ultimately destroy the security of most Americans.

Say "Hello" to the Draft

A senior Republican lawmaker said that deteriorating security in Iraq may force the United States to reintroduce the military draft:

"There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged in today and what the prospects are for the future," Senator Chuck Hagel told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on post-occupation Iraq.

"Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?" Hagel said, arguing that restoring compulsory military service would force "our citizens to understand the intensity and depth of challenges we face."

Isn't that special? Hagel thinks that all our citizens should be asked to bear some responsibility. But that isn't what he is suggesting. If he really meant all citizens he would be suggesting that rich people give up some or all of their tax cut to help pay for this travesty. But note, he is only talking about young adults being willing to pay with their bodies and their time. Seems that the money represented by the great tax cut is off the table.

Bush vs Diplomacy in Iraq

War Criminal Named to be Ambassador to Iraq:

President Bush named John Negroponte, the United States' top diplomat at the United Nations, as the U.S. ambassador to Iraq on Monday and asserted that Iraq "will be free and democratic and peaceful."

Bush announced the nomination in an Oval Office ceremony.

At the United Nations, Negroponte, 64, was instrumental in winning unanimous approval of a Security Council resolution that demanded Saddam Hussein comply with U.N. mandates to disarm.

While the resolution helped the Bush administration make its case for invading Iraq, the Security Council eventually refused to endorse the overthrow of Saddam, opting instead to extend U.N. weapons searches.

On the surface, Negroponte has an impecable resume; a graduate of Yale, a long term (almost four decades) career in civil service, a former associate of Henry Kissinger as well as Colin Powell, and currently the "ambassador" to the United Nations. However, he is also associated with some of the most questionable policies and human rights violations ever supported by the US government:

From 1981 to 1985, Negroponte was U.S. ambassador to Honduras, where he helped prosecute the contra war against [the Sandanista government of] Nicaragua [democratically elected in 1984] and helped strengthen the military dictatorship in Honduras. Under the helm of General Gustavo Alvarez Martínez, Honduras's military government was both a close ally of the Ronald Reagan administration and was disappearing dozens of political opponents in classic death squad fashion. Negroponte's predecessor, Ambassador Jack Binns, had repeatedly warned Washington to take a stand to stop the killings. In one cable, Binns reported that General Alvarez was modeling his campaign against suspected subversives on Argentina's 'dirty war' in the 1970s. Indeed, Argentine military advisers were in Honduras, both advising Alvarez's armed forces and assembling and training a contra army to fight in Nicaragua. President Reagan responded by removing Binns and putting in Negroponte, who, writes Eric Alterman in an MSNBC.com piece, 'turned a deliberate blind eye to a murderous pattern of political killings.'

Does this sound like the man to bring 'democracy' to Iraq? Or does it sound like the kind of man who will ignore the rights of ordinary Iraqis in favor of US "interests" - regardless of the cost?

Bush vs Reason in Iraq

I think that some heads should roll over Iraq:

Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni wondered aloud yesterday how Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld could be caught off guard by the chaos in Iraq that has killed nearly 100 Americans in recent weeks and led to his announcement that 20,000 U.S. troops would be staying there instead of returning home as planned.

"I'm surprised that he is surprised because there was a lot of us who were telling him that it was going to be thus," said Zinni, a Marine for 39 years and the former commander of the U.S. Central Command. "Anyone could know the problems they were going to see. How could they not?"

At a Pentagon news briefing yesterday, Rumsfeld said he could not have estimated how many troops would be killed in the past week.

Zinni is one of the many pros that the Bush team ignored in their minimalist planning and wishful thinking strategy for dealing with Iraq. Why are those who were so completely and obviously wrong at every turn - like Tenet, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld - still on the job? Bush refuses still to acknowledge that any mistakes were made. Head in sand, ass exposed. What a sorry spectacle.

Bush is a Bad Neighbor

SOB left home early this morning to walk from the Logan Circle area in downtown Washington, DC to the Eastern Market area of Capital Hill to get a haircut. It was a glorious morning, the warmest of the Spring so far, but as I walked along I felt out of synch with the beautiful morning. The weight of the Bush assault on the life I thought I understood just can't be put aside. Everywhere I look in my hometown I see evidence of increased police presence, security cameras, barricades, fences, razor wire, and blocked off streets that only months ago were open to traffic. In the area immediately around the capital building there is massive construction going on - building an underground "visitor's center" so that tourists can be single threaded through security checkpoints and isolated far from the actual entrance to the capital building, barricades in front of the Library of Congress, and the House Office Buildings (whose side streets - like those of the Senate) have been closed to traffic, just as Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House.

That Americans are allowing this to happen - and with no real protest - is a terrible statement about our willingness to be subjected to a repressive regime as long as we are told it is for our "saftey." This is really pathetic. What kind of person would want to live this way? Is this the quality of life we aspire to? In truth, the Bush administration and its corporate supporters have caused more grievous harm to American's than terrorists ever dreamed of. Three thousand died in the 9/11 attack but many times that number die annually from industrial pollution that Bush's EPA is worsening, accidents on the job caused by unsafe working conditions that Bush's OSHA refuses to investigate, AIDS that could have been avoided with sterile needles that can't be made available for fear of seeming to encourage drug use, or condoms that can't be provided for fear of seeming to encourage extra-marital sex. But our fear is of nameless, faceless (or as Bush says, "shadowy") foreigners who wish us harm because they "hate our freedom."

It is sad, depressing, and getting worse. So, this is SOB here in George Bush's America, addressing you from the land of the no longer quite as free and home of the much less than brave, and asking "Is this how you really want to live?" - and if not, what are we willing to do about it?

Bush vs the Global Economy

IMF: U.S. Budget Deficits Threaten World :

The rest of the world is affected seriously by the U.S. fiscal deficit," IMF chief economist Raghuram Rajan told reporters in a briefing on the new report.

The IMF's forecast that the U.S. budget deficit will be a significant drag on growth reflected what will occur if there is no improvement in the deficit, which the Bush administration projects will hit $521 billion this year, a record in dollar terms, and show little improvement in coming years.

SOB has noted frequently how dangerous it is for the U.S. to be so dependent on foreiqn countries - particulary China - to prop up its economy by buying T-bills. Not only is our deficit likely to be a drag on the global economy, but we have surrendered control over our own financial well being to foreign countries. While worrying about a handfull of terrorists we have turned over the keys to the treasurey to countries that have been traditional enemies. It makes no sense.

Bush vs Nuclear Security

Probe Shows Iraq Nuke Facilities Unguarded:

Some Iraqi nuclear facilities appear to be unguarded, and radioactive materials are being taken out of the country, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency reported after reviewing satellite images and equipment that has turned up in European scrapyards.
. . .
The United Sattes has virtually cut off information-sharing with the IAEA since invading Iraq in March 2002 on the premise that the country was hiding weapons of mass destruction.

No such weapons have been found, and arms control officials now worry the war and its chaotic aftermath may have increased chances that terrorists could get their hands on materials used for unconventional weapons or that civilians may be unknowingly exposed to radioactive materials.

According to the article in The Guardian, satellite imagery shows "extensive removal of equipment and in some instances, removal of entire buildings.''

We still have thousands of soldiers hunting for phantom WMDs - presumably just so Bush can prove a point - but we can't spare enough troops to actually secure dangerous nuclear sites that we know exist. Is this responsible behavior?

Bush vs America's Safety

Evacuation Is Ordered for Most U.S. Diplomats in Saudi Arabia:

The United States yesterday ordered the evacuation of most U.S. diplomats and all U.S. family dependents from Saudi Arabia, and "strongly urged" all American citizens to leave because of "credible and specific" intelligence about terrorist attacks planned against U.S. and other Western targets, the State Department announced.

Since the main reason Ossama bin Laden declared war on America is because of the continued presence of Americans in Saudi Arabia does this mean the terrorists have won?

Bush's press conference shows just how ill-informed he is about Iraq

Hear no evil, read no evil, speak drivel

Sidney Blumenthal, a former senior adviser to President Clinton and Washington bureau chief of Salon.com, has this take on what Bush's press conference reveals:

On April 21 1961, President Kennedy held a press conference to answer questions on the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion by Cuban exiles that he had approved. "There's an old saying," he said, "that victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan ... I am the responsible officer of the government and that is quite obvious."
On Wednesday, President Bush held only his third press conference and was asked three times whether he accepted responsibility for failing to act on warning before September 11. "I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn't [sic] yet," he said. "I just haven't - you just put me under the spot here and maybe I'm not quick - as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one."
. . .
At his press conference, Bush was a confusion of absolute confidence and panic. He jumbled facts and conflated threats, redoubling the vehemence of his incoherence at every mildly sceptical question. He attempted to create a false political dichotomy between "retreat" and his own vague and evolving position on Iraq, which now appears to follow senator John Kerry's, of granting more authority to the UN and bringing in Nato.

The ultimate revelation was Bush's vision of a divinely inspired apocalyptic struggle in which he is the leader of a crusade bringing the Lord's "gift." "I also have this belief, strong belief that freedom is not this country's gift to the world. Freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in this world. And as the greatest power on the face of the earth we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom." But religious war is not part of official US military doctrine.

Does this make you feel safer?

Bush vs Peace in Israel

Bush Endorses Sharon's Withdrawal Plan: President Won't Back Palestinians' 'Right of Return' to Israel

With little fanfare, George W. Bush has decided to back the plan of the murderous Ariel Sharon to withdraw from Gaza - with conditions. So much for America's ability to act as a neutral honest broker between Israel and the Palestinians. We have now publicly taken sides on this issue, just as we have over the decades in our financial and military support for the State of Israel and against various Palestinian groups and representatives. Israel has WMDs - no problem. Israel invades its neighbors - that's OK. Israel engages in activities that international humanitarian organizations have labled as genocide - we don't mind. Israel has accumulated and ignored more UN security council resolutions than any other country - doesn't matter. To paraphrase a justly famous realpolitik view - the Israelis are important and the Palestinians aren't.

So, it's official. The roadmap to nowhere has successfully led us nowhere. Another Bush success.

Bush vs Our Best Interests

A Scary Performance, and a Signal for Slaughter

Another interesting take on Bush's phony press conference.

Bush is an Idiot

Bush Vows to Stay in Iraq But Offers No Strategy To Improve Situation

Listening to a replay of parts of Bush's press conference on "Democracy Now" I am struggling to find the right words to describe my response - revulsion? nausea? disgust? shame? depression?

Bush vs Himself

Bush contradicts himself at his own press conference:

During last night's prime time press conference, President Bush once again claimed that "there was nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government that could envision flying airplanes into buildings"1. But just minutes later at the same press conference the president proved he was not telling the truth.

Specifically, Bush said the reason he supposedly requested intelligence briefings before 9/11 "had to do with the Genoa G-8 conference I was going to attend" in 2001. Bush was referring to the fact that, prior to that conference, he was warned that "Islamic terrorists might attempt to kill him and other leaders by crashing an airliner into the summit" meetings2.

His statement that "the prior government" had not taken precautions against terrorists using planes as weapons is also contradicted by the facts. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that under President Clinton, "the federal government had on several earlier occasions taken elaborate, secret measures to protect special events from just such an attack"3 after receiving intelligence warnings4.

At the press conference, Bush also claimed to have no "inkling whatsoever"5 about an attack before 9/11. But the Washington Post today reports that newly-declassified information shows that the president did not just receive one intelligence briefing about an imminent Al Qaeda attack, but "a stream" of repeated warnings6. In April and May 2001, for example, the intelligence community titled some of those reports "Bin Laden planning multiple operations," "Bin Laden network's plans advancing" and "Bin Laden threats are real." The CIA explicitly told the Administration that upcoming attacks would "occur on a catastrophic level, indicating that they would cause the world to be in turmoil."

Orwell vs Bush

Last night the American TV audience witnessed a form of political theater
that has become standard for the Bush administration - a largely staged
"press conference" where reporters pretend to ask questions and the
president pretends to answer them. No new information was gleaned from this
exercise because none was sought. The event provided Mr. Bush with another
opportunity to repeat the select short list of empty phrases that define
his universe of discourse: "stay the course" "a free Iraq" "gathering
threat" "the lessons of 9/11" etc

No reporter, either during the news conference or afterward in commentary,
raised questions about what these phrases mean or why the president seems
unable to speak clearly to issues by using facts, examples, or language
that actually makes a point. Rather, everyone seemed focused on his
"performance" as if the act of showing up and not falling down was
something to be proud of.

Our news sources have become information aversive. Reporters have become
repeaters, endlessly quoting official sources but unwilling or unable to go
behind the quote to provide context or explanation, and official sources
are more and more likely to have a script provided by the White House party
line committee made up of Karl Rove and Frank Lutz, who devise the
acceptable words and phrases needed for the daily spin cycle. Only "facts"
that fit the acceptable story of the moment are allowed to exist in the
official version of how things are. And if no facts exist to support the
story they will be created through the magic of ritual reification -
repeating something until it is assumed to be true because everyone says
so.

This debased form of non-communication as a staple of political performance was predicted by George Orwell in his 1946 essay Politics and the English Language. While watching Bush repeat one empty cliche after another I was reminded of this statement from that essay:

When one watches some tired hack on the platform mechanically repeating the familiar phrases -- bestial, atrocities, iron heel, bloodstained tyranny, free peoples of the world, stand shoulder to shoulder -- one often has a curious feeling that one is not watching a live human being but some kind of dummy . . . this is not altogether fanciful. A speaker who uses that kind of phraseology has gone some distance toward turning himself into a machine. The appropriate noises are coming out of his larynx, but his brain is not involved as it would be if he were choosing his words for himself. If the speech he is making is one that he is accustomed to make over and over again, he may be almost unconscious of what he is saying, as one is when one utters the responses in church. And this reduced state of consciousness, if not indispensable, is at any rate favorable to political conformity.

Indeed Bush seems to be on autopilot when he speaks like this, and that is far from comforting. He genuinely seems to be out of touch with reality. This administration has approached all problems as if they are simply matters of sales and spin - PR and photo-ops - to the point that I'm not sure Bush really recognizes what a gulf there is between his blind "faith" and the physical reality being imposed on those millions in the world not fortunate enough to share his gated fantasy.

Bush vs the English Language

Bush in Translation

For those who can't quite follow our faux president's communication efforts.

Bush vs Common Sense

Bush Insults Our Intelligence

SOB is trying to watch preznit doubletalk's press conference - and it is truely painful. He has practiced his eee-nun-see-a-shun to the point where he sounds like a grammer school teacher talking to retarded third graders. It is pathetic. And the reporters present are mostly into major goveling mode. No tough questions, no follow up. What is the point of this? He isn't making any sense and no one is calling him on it.

As has been said, freedom of the press belongs to those that own one - and they are mostly wealthy Bush supporters. The rest of us are simply SOL.

Bush vs Success in Iraq

BREAKING NEWS: The Next Fallujah: U.S. Deploying 2,500 soldiers for Showdown With Cleric in Shi'a Holy City of Najaf. Close to 80 GIs dead in April, 560 wounded.


This is such a bad idea. Invading Najaf, a holy city of the Shi'ite's, will incite violent reaction way beyond the borders of Iraq. Once again, it seems that our "leaders" are intent on doing exactly what will achieve the opposite result to what they profess to want. This will SO not pacify Iraqi Shi'ites. There seems to be a great deal of spite in the decisions being made in Iraq. As if the senior military and civilian authorities are lashing out at the Iraqis for failing to live up to the unreasonable expectations that had been projected on them.

It is time that Americans start asking for real information. What is actually happening in Iraq? We are not being told, either by our government or by the so called "free press." We need to get behind the moving images and the simplistic slogans. People are dying for no good reason, and it is largely our responsibility. This is something that needs to be resolved and soon.

Bush vs Truth

The Repugs want to tar Kerry with it but who is really most likely to waffle?

Bush vs Iraq's Future

Why Iraq Is A Failure:

There are three categories of civilians in an occupied country: patriots, collaborators and opportunists. In the calculus of hearts and minds, anything short of 100 percent popularity qualifies as total failure. It's an impossible standard, which is why no nation has ever successfully invaded and occupied another in the 20th century. Even if a majority like living under foreign control, a dubious assumption at best, an occupation is nonetheless doomed. As long as one percent of the population spends its evenings blowing up enemy convoys, fence sitters will be scared to collaborate. In Iraq, that one percent--or five, or whatever--shows no sign of letting up.

SOB Returns

FUBAR

It's amazing how screwed up things are in Iraq - and elsewhere - and in how much denial the Bush administration continues to be. Case in point: the now infamous August 6, 2001 PDB (Presidential Daily Briefing) that pretty clearly suggests that Osama bin Ladin and company planned to do some really bad shit on American soil - and soon. Because the memo doesn't say exactly what was planned, for where or when, both Bush and his useless National Security Advisor Condi Rice proclaim there was nothing to be done (Bush went fishing - who knows what Rice did). But the important point is that no actual change in behavior was manifested by this continuing incompetent administration, despite the memo's claim that observed activity suggests terrorist's plotting was heating up.

Contrast this kind of passive uselessness with the approach of Amy Goodman, one of the few journalists in modern America who is both willing and able to see what is happening and report about it without fear that she will jeopardize her career. SOB picked up a fresh copy of her new book, The Exception to the Rulers: Exposing Oily Politicians, War Proiteers, and the Media that Love Them. The book reflects many of the most significant stories reported on her daily radio show, Democracy Now: the War and Peace Report. Unlike most other "journalists" who refuse to really report something that isn't dropped, fully developed, into their laps, Goodman goes - as she says - where "the Silence is." In other words, she looks for stories where the mainstream press is specifically NOT looking. She reports on what commerical media ignores. She digs in what "respectable " media glosses over. And as a consequence, she provides one scoop after another, and serves the interests of citizens generally - rather than those of the owners.

Warning: this show is addictive. It deals, daily, with significant news stories that are totally ignored by the mainstream, commercial media. For example, Goodman is the only journalist to have provided meaningful and in-depth coverage of the recent travesty in Haiti, the contamination of returning U. S. National Guard troops with depleted uranium, and the selling off of Iraq's assets to huge multinational corporations. You won't find this stuff anywhere else on the radio dial - and not many places in print. Amy Goodman, who survived a too close shave with death in East Timor reporting on one American ally's support of genocide, has taken the life that was spared and used it to expose the forces that work daily against the interests of people like you and me. We don't have a lot of allies - but she is one, and deserves our support.

She will be one of the speakers at the April 25th protest for women's rights in Washington, DC. Join us if you can. It will be a great day.

SOB takes a break from Bush

SOB plans to spend the weekend in New York City - without computer - so blogging will be on hold until Monday (4/12). Things are so crappy it's hard to imagine commenting on them anyway.

Peace.

Bush vs America's Future

Warnings are everywhere ... Americans had best wake up and do something about it:

In the April 2004 #2 issue of the INTERNATIONAL FORECASTER financial newsletter out this weekend, editor Bob Chapman writes that it is finally becoming painfully obvious that oil producers are artificially increasing the price of oil to offset the cost of the depreciating dollar.

"We are sure others that sell into the dollar market are doing the same thing. As we have said before, private investors have all but fled the dollar denominated Treasury market and other central banks have been buying over 80% of US issues."

Due to horrendous debt, obvious systemic weaknesses are now visible and those risks have caused global investors to have less confidence in the American economy then they once did. As you are well aware, were it not for the Asian countries, particularly Japan and China, the dollar would have fully corrected long ago.

The US economy is very unstable and fraught with risk and this is causing other nations to question US economic leadership.

The powers in the US, since 1989, have avoided a full recession by simply printing money, using credit and amassing huge debt. That is not responsible stewardship.
The US is on a course of economic decline because elitists and politicians, with the assistance of Wall Street, have refused to face economic reality. Furthermore, there is no end in sight to this financial profligacy. This situation is compounded by a foreign policy of preventative invasions, which is little more than a cover-up of economic problems.

We predicted this course of action four years ago based on the historical perspective that every government in financial and economic trouble had done so since the beginning of recorded history.

The economic base of America has been on the course of destruction from the period beginning almost 100 years ago. It has been one financial and economic failure after another, always followed by war.

Bush vs Iraq's Future

In Iraq, Without Options

I just heard John Kerry on NPR proclaim that the Bush plan to turn over sovereignty to Iraq on June 30th was "a fiction." Nice way of saying that Bush is a liar. Why the media keeps repeating the nonsense about us turning over "sovereignty" to Iraq, without any analysis or close inspection of what that really means, passes all understanding. Consider what is wrong with this whole thing. From Merriam-Webster Dictionary; SOVEREIGNTY:

a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY c : controlling influence.

What of this definition can be applied to what we will "hand over" to Iraq on June 30th? Clearly, nothing.

Iraq will certainly not be free from external control. The U. S. is busy building numerous permanent military bases and plans to keep over 100,000 troops in Iraq for years to come. Iraq's military will report to the American military commander. Iraq's economy will be controlled by a central bank. Its infrastructure will be controlled by U. S. corporate entities such as Halliburton and Bechtel. Its natural resources will be, under terms already authorized by Paul Bremer's decrees, literally stolen for generations to come.

And the Iraqi people? What will their response be to the reality of this situation? We won't have to wait for June 30th; I think we are seeing it already.

Bush Kidnaps Another (former) Head of State

US airlifts Saddam out of Iraq:

The United States has secretly flown Saddam Hussein out of Iraq and imprisoned him under high security at a vast American air base in the Gulf Arab state of Qatar.

And the reason for this would be?

Bush Finally Tells the Truth

He Really Is A Uniter - of Enemies:

SUNNI and Shi'ite residents of two Baghdad suburbs, once fierce enemies, said overnight they had put their differences aside to unite in their fight to oust the US occupying force from Iraq.

"All of Iraq is behind Moqtada al-Sadr, we are but one body, one people," declared Sheikh Raed al-Kazami, in charge of the radical Shi'ite cleric's offices at a mosque in the Shi'ite neighbourhood of Kazimiya, west of the Iraqi capital.
He spoke following three days of fierce clashes between militiamen loyal to Sadr that left at least 57 people dead and 236 wounded.

There has been a lot of fear about a "civil war" between Sunnis and Shi'ites, but the idea that these two age old rival religious factions would join to fight the American occupation army seems never to have been seriously considered. Today a major battle is taking place in the city of Ramadi and at least 12 U. S. Marines and over 100 Iraqis have been killed. Sky News of Britain is reporting that Pentagon sources are saying that as many as 130 (this has to be a mistake) Marines may have been killed.

Bush Lies to the Troops

Troop Rotation Canceled:

WASHINGTON - A decision by the Pentagon to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq is a reversal of its plan to steadily reduce the U.S. force level there.

Since the war began a year ago, senior military leaders have given frequent assurances to troops and their families that Iraq duty would be no longer than a year.

Now, those assurances have met the reality of Iraq, where military leaders are planning for the possibility that anti-U.S. violence will spread. U.S. troops are stretched thin around the world, and the Pentagon has few options to increase the force in Iraq if necessary.

On Monday, a senior official with U.S. Central Command said that the return home of about 24,000 U.S. troops who were scheduled to leave in the next few weeks would be delayed as their replacements arrive. Central Command's responsibility includes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

With the 24,000 remaining and others who have arrived as intended replacements, there are 134,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

Remember when Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld were telling us that troop strength in Iraq would be down to 30,000 by the end of last year? Seems that it wasn't the generals who have been "widely off the mark" in their estimates of needed troops, but the Bush administration neocon advisors. Totally clueless.

Bush vs Clean Air

Krugman Tells Us Why This Administration Pretends It Is OK to Poison the Air With Mercury:

If you want a single example that captures why so many people no longer believe in the good intentions of the Bush administration, look at the case of mercury pollution.

Mercury can damage the nervous system, especially in fetuses and infants — which is why the Food and Drug Administration warns pregnant women and nursing mothers against consuming types of fish, like albacore tuna, that often contain high mercury levels. About 8 percent of American women have more mercury in their bloodstreams than the Environmental Protection Agency considers safe.
. . .
Mercury is just a particularly vivid example of what's going on in environmental protection, and public policy in general. As a devastating article in Sunday's New York Times Magazine documented, the administration's rollback of the Clean Air Act has gone beyond the polluters' wildest dreams.

And the corruption of the policy process — in which political appointees come in with a predetermined agenda, and technical experts who might present information their superiors don't want to hear are muzzled — has infected every area I know anything about, from tax cuts to matters of war and peace.

Read the entire piece here.

Bush vs National Security

Hiding in the White House:

It's almost nine months since someone at the White House broke the law by telling columnist Robert Novak that Joseph Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. This was retaliation for Wilson's revelation that Iraq's supposed purchase of uranium from Niger was already known to be a fraud when President Bush included it in his January 2003 State of the Union.

For a long time after going to war (ostensibly) to find and destroy Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction," we were told the reason WMDs eluded discovery is that Iraq is so big: "WMDs could be hidden anywhere in a country as vast as California." But how big is the White House? Why can't the culprit of the vindictive and criminal leak of a CIA agent's identity be found? Is someone in the White House keeping secrets from the boss? What does the president know? Is the guilty party too high up? Isn't there anyone down the line willing to fall on his sword?

The reasonable answer is that the Wilson episode just happens to be the way this White House deals with critics, something now proven too often to escape notice. The messenger of bad news for the White House is personally attacked and punished. Each charge is treated in isolation from similar, corroborative revelations from independent sources. Then the formula is to allow the particular story to fade from public view.

The latest case in point is Richard Clarke. All the fury against Clarke blows a screen of smoke over truths that would seem almost impossible to hide: that the war in Iraq was an obsession that had nothing to do with a threat from WMDs or combating al Qaeda; that it expanded terrorism and heightened worldwide antagonism and distrust of the United States.

The Bush people want desperately to avoid public focus on the central part of Clarke's charge, that the war and occupation of Iraq have made us and the world far less safe. They hope that they can separate the Clarke story from the whole story -- that by going one-on-one to nullify Clarke, no one will notice the long line of corroborative insider witnesses preceding him: Scott Ritter, Joseph Wilson, Paul O'Neill and David Kay, as well as Hans Blix.

But the line of damning evidence is even longer than the line of witnesses, from the disastrous news and mounting casualties in Iraq and from the dangerous repercussions elsewhere. It might be worth reminding the non- inquisitive media that the scoundrel who broke the law to get Wilson's wife is still in hiding in the White House. He or she or they should be easier to find than Iraq's WMDs.

Bush vs the Shi'ites

Taking on the Shi'ites: How America is Creating a Powerful New Enemy:

The eruption of bloody clashes between Iraqi Shi’ites and Coalition forces, combined with a threat from Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to assassinate the head of Lebanon’s Shi’ite Hizbullah movement, raise the frightening prospect that the U.S. could soon face a powerful new enemy, with potentially disastrous consequences in Iraq and beyond.

The Shi’ites, after all, invented both modern Islamist suicide terrorism and the guerrilla tactics being used with such effectiveness against American forces in Iraq. But until now, they have sat out both the post-Saddam Iraqi insurgency and the terror war against the U.S., which have been spearheaded by members of the dominant Sunni school of Islam.

With this weekend’s events, all that could change.

Bush vs Peace in Iraq

The U.S. is Sabotaging Stability in Iraq:

BAGHDAD -- I heard the sound of freedom yesterday in Baghdad's Firdos Square, the famous plaza where the statue of Saddam Hussein was toppled one year ago. It sounds like machine-gun fire.

On Sunday, Iraqi soldiers, trained and controlled by coalition forces, opened fire on demonstrators here, forcing the emergency evacuation of the nearby Sheraton and Palestine hotels. As demonstrators returned to their homes in the poor neighborhood of Sadr City, the U.S. army followed with tanks and helicopters. As night fell, there were unconfirmed reports of dozens of casualties. In Najaf, the day was equally bloody: 19 demonstrators dead, more than 150 injured.

But make no mistake: This is not the "civil war" that Washington has been predicting will break out between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. Rather, it is a war provoked by the U.S. occupation authority and waged by its forces against the growing number of Shiites who support Muqtada al-Sadr.

Mr. al-Sadr is the younger, more radical rival of the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, portrayed by his adoring supporters as a kind of cross between Ayatollah Khomaini and Che Guevara. He blames the U.S. for attacks on civilians, compares U.S. occupation chief Paul Bremer to Saddam Hussein, aligns himself with Hamas and Hezbollah and has called for a jihad against the controversial interim constitution. His Iraq might look a lot like Iran.

Bush vs America's Best Interests

More Proof that Clarke Was Right About Bush Ignoring the Terrorist Threat:

WASHINGTON - While President Bush and his security advisers obsessed over Russia, China, Iraq and missile defense before 9/11, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his neoconspirators were just as stuck in the Cold War over at the Pentagon. Al-Qaida hardly registered on their radar screen, either.

We know this because the 9/11 Commission just told us, although few in the media have seized on it.

Turn to page 11 of the panel's report on "The Military," released March 23. There you'll find this little gem, which further confirms White House terror czar Richard Clarke's claim that Bush made fighting al-Qaida a low priority:

"Lower-level officials in the Office of the Secretary of Defense told us that they thought the new team was focused on other issues, and was not especially interested in their counterterrorism agenda."

What other issues? "Working with the Russians on agreements to dissolve the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and preparing a new nuclear arms control pact," the report said.

Counterterrorism policy, meanwhile, was on the slow track, even though al-Qaida had hit the USS Cole just months earlier. In fact, there wasn't even anyone formulating it before 9/11. The guy in charge left with the Clinton administration, and Rumsfeld didn't bother to replace him.

Bush vs the Troops

National Guard Poisoned by Depleted Uranium in Iraq

On a day after SOB was asking why the U.S. and British use of depleted uranium in ammunition was not a scandal and front page story all over the world, the "Daily News" reports that four of nine returning New York National Guard troops tested for exposure to depleted uranium show signs of radiation poisoning - and the others show clears signs of exposure:

Four soldiers from a New York Army National Guard company serving in Iraq are contaminated with radiation likely caused by dust from depleted uranium shells fired by U.S. troops, a Daily News investigation has found.
They are among several members of the same company, the 442nd Military Police, who say they have been battling persistent physical ailments that began last summer in the Iraqi town of Samawah.

"I got sick instantly in June," said Staff Sgt. Ray Ramos, a Brooklyn housing cop. "My health kept going downhill with daily headaches, constant numbness in my hands and rashes on my stomach."

A nuclear medicine expert who examined and tested nine soldiers from the company says that four "almost certainly" inhaled radioactive dust from exploded American shells manufactured with depleted uranium.

This is the tip of the iceburg for the current Iraqi war. Consider what has befallen soldiers who served in the first Gulf War.

Laboratory tests conducted at the request of The News revealed traces of two manmade forms of uranium in urine samples from four of the soldiers.

Iraq Spinning Out of Control

Shi'as Erupt: 7 Soldiers Killed, 10 Total Today Alone, 24 Wounded

This just gets worse and worse. Quick, what is George W. Bush's plan to deal with this? Don't know? Right. Neither do I. He hasn't presented one. In his limited view of reality, this simply wasn't supposed to happen. Now that it has, Dubyah and his circle of neocon nitwit advisors have nothing to say. Just as their only economic polilcy is tax cuts (for the rich); their only foreign policy is "regime change in Iraq."

OK, we've had the regime change, but things aren't peachy keen like uncles Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, and Wolfowitz promised. Instead they are a chaotic mess. So, what are the Republican's prepared to do? I, for one, can't wait to find out.

For more comprehensive information on the current situation read Juan Cole's ongoing coverage.

A Drama Critic's View of Bush

Are You Now or Have You Ever Been in the Situation Room?

In the ongoing back and forth between Richard Clarke and various members of the Bush administration about what was or was not done before and after 9/11 to actually deal with the al Qaeda threat, few commentators have looked at how this drama has played as simple TV theater. Critic Frank Rich of the New York Times has a truly inspired piece in this Sunday's Art section that has more valid political insight than anything I have read about this situation during the last couple of weeks:

In comedy, as in politics, timing is everything. You have to wonder just what George W. Bush was thinking on the night of Wednesday, March 24, when he decided to do stand-up at the end of the most gripping day of 9/11 television since 9/11 itself.

That afternoon had brought Richard Clarke's testimony before the 9/11 commission, a classic piece of Washington committee-room theater. Mr. Clarke's mea culpa Â"Your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you and I failed you" is likely to join our history's greatest-hits video reel, alongside Joseph Welch's "Have you no sense of decency, sir?," Howard Baker's "What did the president know, and when did he know it?" and Clarence Thomas's "high-tech lynching." That evening, Tom Brokaw, generally the least contentious (and most watched) of the three network anchors, took the startling step of giving Condoleezza Rice the first hard slap of her heretofore charmed life in the public eye: "Dr. Rice, with all due respect, I think a lot of people are watching this tonight, saying: `Well, she can appear on television, write commentary, but she won't appear before the commission under oath. It just doesn't seem to make sense.' " As indeed it did not, to anyone.

Was this the best night for the president to do a comedy routine touching on his administration's failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Maybe you had to be in the hall; an annual black-tie dinner for broadcast journalists in Washington; as I was not. But as Howard Dean learned in Iowa, it's only how you come across on TV that matters in America, not what it feels like in the moment. On TV, Mr. Bush's jocular slide show, in which he is seen searching for Saddam's arsenal in the Oval Office, proved an unwanted bookend to Mr. Clarke's opening act. A nation of viewers that had watched a public servant mourn the unnecessary loss of American life on 9/11 now saw the president make light of the rationale that necessitated the sacrifice of an additional 500-plus Americans (so far) in the war fought in 9/11's name.

There will be many more such whipsaw days of television to come. This drama has legs.

It is important to view this situation this way because the Bush team has made so much out of image and image alone. We all should know by now that in the Bush White House there is "no there, there" - it is all a Potemkin Village for photo ops and PR material.

Bush will not be defeated by evidence and reason. That has been against him since his run against Ann Richards for governor of Texas. He has to be defeated on the lower playing field of image and public drama. In this arena Richard Clarke has given the Democrats a leg up they hardly expected. It's up to them to not blow it. The show is a long way from over.

Read the entire essay here (long but well worth it).

Bush Thinks This Proves Things Are Getting Better

Three U.S. soldiers die in ambush:

Three U.S. soldiers were killed and at least 10 wounded in an ambush in a Baghdad neighborhood Sunday, a senior coalition official told CNN.

The killings in the Shiite majority Sadr City came on a day that saw deadly clashes between protesters and coalition forces in the holy city of Najaf, fighting in Baghdad and a car bombing in Kirkuk.

Iraqis Continue to Celebrate their "Liberation"

Violent Disturbances Rack Iraq From Baghdad to Southern Cities:

Iraq was wracked today by its most violent civil disturbances since the occupation started, with a coordinated Shiite uprising spreading across the country, from the slums of Baghdad to several cities in the south.

By day's end, witnesses said Shiite militiamen controlled the city of Kufa, south of Baghdad, with armed men loyal to a radical cleric occupying the town's police stations and checkpoints. More than eight people were killed by Spanish forces in a similar uprising in the neighboring town of Najaf.

In Baghdad, American tanks battled militiamen loyal to Moqtada Al Sadr, the radical cleric who has denounced the occupation and has an army of thousands of young followers.

At nightfall today, the Sadr City neighborhood shook with explosions and tank and machine gun fire. Black smoke choked the sky. The streets were lined with armed militiamen, dressed in all black. American tanks surrounded the area. Attack helicopters thundered overhead.

"The occupation is over!" people on the streets yelled. "We are now controlled by Sadr. The Americans should stay out."

Bush Ignores the Real Threat

Bush and Blair made secret pact for Iraq war

Not that we need to have it reaffirmed, but there is more evidence that Bush was focused on Iraq and not al Queda - even after 9/11:

President George Bush first asked Tony Blair to support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power at a private White House dinner nine days after the terror attacks of 11 September, 2001.
According to Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British Ambassador to Washington, who was at the dinner when Blair became the first foreign leader to visit America after 11 September, Blair told Bush he should not get distracted from the war on terror's initial goal - dealing with the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Bush, claims Meyer, replied by saying: 'I agree with you, Tony. We must deal with this first. But when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq.' Regime change was already US policy.

Of course. But then, there are better targets in Iraq. Right?

The Joke's On Condi Rice

Rice: Homeroom Enforcer of the Western Alliance

Readers of this site know that SOB is not a fan of "Dr" What-kind-of-name-is-Condoleezza Rice, so it was with some pleasure that I find a true put-down of the incompetent "advisor" in T.D. Allman's book, Rogue State: America at War with the World:

As she traverses the world, Condoleezza Rice, Bush's National Security Advisor, evokes a different kind of laughter - the snortling and snickering that comes when a third-rate, irredeemably conventional intellect pretends to elucidate important global complexities to an audience made up of people more intelligent, more experienced, and much better informed than she is.

Indeed. This is a person who is an expert in details of a country that ceased to exist 15 years ago. What she knows about the current world that is of value to the president is not clear. If she has any value as a "security advisor" then why did Bush invade the wrong country? It's a puzzlement.

Bush vs Himself

Who Is Really in Charge - Bush or Cheney?

Seems the Dems are finally developing a spine and are standing up to the ongoing stupidity of the Bush administration. On the insistence of Bush and Cheney appearing before the 9/11 commission together and not seperately:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says it's baffling and embarrassing that President Bush is appearing before the Sept. 11 commission with Vice President Dick Cheney at his side instead of by himself.
"I think it speaks to the lack of confidence that the administration has in the president going forth alone, period," Pelosi, D-Calif., said Friday. "It's embarrassing to the president of the United States that they won't let him go in without holding the hand of the vice president of the United States."

"I think it reinforces the idea that the president cannot go it alone," she said. "The president should stand tall, walk in the room himself and answer the questions."

Perhaps, after his disasterous appearance on Meet the Press, the Republicans simply refuse to risk having Bush face any questioning alone.

Pathetic.

Bush Press Supporters vs the Truth

SCRIPT WITHOUT END, AMEN

The Daily Howler has a truely excellent piece that defines a prominent aspect of contemporary media non-journalism - the Script. A "script" is a "story" that is the accepted truth and which all mainstream "journalists" feel they must express. We saw this played out in the 2000 election in the consistent (and very erroneous) stories that were told by the media about who exactly the two main candidates were - Bush was simple and straightforward, while Gore was devious and deceptive. The truth turned out to be nearly the perfect opposite of the official script.

Now the Howler shows how the official script is being used in reporting related to Condi Rice and Richard Clarke:

For years, we’ve said that the press corps works from “scripts.” There has never been a better time to nail down this seminal concept.

We refer to this week’s most widely-typed tale—the script about Condi Rice and al Qaeda. In his book, Against All Enemies, Richard Clarke makes a naughty suggestion. He describes the briefing given to Rice in January 2001. “As I briefed Rice on al Qaeda,” he writes, “her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before.” Result? A string of scribes have stood in line to insist that Clarke’s impression was wrong. Their evidence? An October 2000 radio interview in which Rice mentioned Osama bin Laden, but didn’t use the term “al Qaeda.” For the record, Clarke says it wasn’t just Condi. “Most senior officials in the administration did not know the term when we briefed them,” he writes in his book.

Did Condi know the term “al Qaeda?” Here at THE HOWLER, we don’t have a clue. But this utterly trivial topic has produced the press corps’ script-of-the-week. Eager scribes have stood in line to recite the refutation-of-Clarke. To see Lisa Myers recite the script, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 3/31/04.

But what exactly is a “script?” Rice-knew-al-Qaeda helps explain it. Let’s nail three crucial points:

A script can be totally trivial: Clarke’s book concerns matters of life and death—the sorts of things your “press corps” avoids. Your press corps adores the Totally Trivial, and Rice-knew-al-Qaeda clearly qualifies. Clarke devotes one sentence to the matter. Absolutely nothing turns on it. Despite that, a long string of “journalists” have flogged the topic. Pointlessness can’t stop a script.

A script can be totally wrong: Plainly, Rice’s interview doesn’t show that she knew the term “al Qaeda.” A schoolchild could see that quite well. Despite this, a string of scribes have stood in line to pretend that the interview does show such knowledge. As far as we know, no one has yet turned up a case in which Rice did use the term “al Qaeda.” But so what? The Washington press corps’ greatest scripts are almost always factually bogus! The concept of accuracy is no longer part of your press corps’ dysfunctional culture.

Everybody has to say it: A script can be trivial—and a script can be wrong. But everybody has to recite it! In the case of Rice-knew-al-Qaeda, the script began with hapless Sean Hannity, a pundit for whom no claim is too stupid. But Hannity was only the first of many to voice this inaccurate script. Comically, Myers included the script in a “Truth Squad” segment. Evan Thomas put the script right at the top of his Newsweek report. Michiko Kakutani repeated the tale in a New York Times book review. What’s the sign that everyone said it? Bill Kristol even voiced the script, on last weekend’s Fox News Sunday. Kristol always thinks for himself. Just how vital was this script? Even Kristol was willing to mouth it.

The topic was trivial. The claim was wrong. Despite that, everyone lined up to say it! The script expressed Conventional Wisdom—Darling Condi can’t be wrong. The press reached this judgment a long time ago, and they have no current plan to rethink it. So this week, they insulted your intelligence, again and again, reciting a tale that is patently bogus. We’ve tried to tell you, for many years, about your press corps’ blatant dysfunction. This week, they had a better idea. They decided to show you themselves.

Bush vs the Poor

Senate, Torn by Minimum Wage, Shelves Major Welfare Bill

In an economy where millions of people are unemployed and looking for jobs that don't exist, our compassionate conservatives in congress are wanting to increase the number of hours that mothers on welfare must work in order to qualify for benefits. Worse, they are refusing to allow votes on Democratic measures to increase the minimum wage, extend unemployment benefits, and insure that overtime pay requirements are preserved in the face of Bush administration efforts to eliminate them for thousands of workers.

Overall, it is an ugly situation and, according to Sen. Edward Kennedy:

"This is now a nonfunctioning institution," . . . "The White House and the Republican leadership refuse to permit the Senate to vote on basic issues like the minimum wage, overtime pay and unemployment insurance. But we are strongly committed to bringing those issues back time and time and time again."

Good luck.

Bush vs the 9/11 Commission

Bush Aides Block Clinton's Papers From 9/11 Panel

The Bush administration continues to do everything in its power to block efforts by the 9/11 Commission to determine what really happened prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks:

The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said on Thursday that it was pressing the White House to explain why the Bush administration had blocked thousands of pages of classified foreign policy and counterterrorism documents from former President Bill Clinton's White House files from being turned over to the panel's investigators.

The White House confirmed on Thursday that it had withheld a variety of classified documents from Mr. Clinton's files that had been gathered by the National Archives over the last two years in response to requests from the commission, which is investigating intelligence and law enforcement failures before the attacks.

Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said some Clinton administration documents had been withheld because they were "duplicative or unrelated," while others were withheld because they were "highly sensitive" and the information in them could be relayed to the commission in other ways. "We are providing the commission with access to all the information they need to do their job," Mr. McClellan said.

The commission and the White House were reacting to public complaints from former aides to Mr. Clinton, who said they had been surprised to learn in recent months that three-quarters of the nearly 11,000 pages of files the former president was ready to offer the commission had been withheld by the Bush administration. The former aides said the files contained highly classified documents about the Clinton administration's efforts against Al Qaeda.

The commission said it was awaiting a full answer from the White House on why any documents were withheld.

So - again I ask - what are these people afraid of? What do they have to hide?

Bush vs Me and You

Bush: Government 'Will Do Everything Possible' to Protect Americans

So, what does this mean? "Everything Possible"? Consider:

- increased spending for first responders? No

- increased spending to protect power plants? No

- increased spending to protect ports? No

- increased spending to protect railroads? No

- increased spending to protect bridges and tunnels? No

- increased spending to plan for evacuations? No

- increased spending to train emergency personnel? No

- increased spending to provide more translators? No

- increased spending for FBI counterterrorism agents? No

- increased spending for CIA counterterrorism analysts? No

So what spending has Bush increased? For traditional weapons. For support of marriage. For medicare "reform." For advertisments in favor of the medicare "reform" bill. etc. etc. etc. Like everything else from this White House, the spending decisions are all about politics, and their idea of politics is very narrow, and even then the spending is pretty cheap.

What does this mean to us average folks? NOTHING GOOD!

Bush vs Open Government

White House refuses to let adviser testify on Medicare drug costs:

WASHINGTON - Citing executive privilege, the White House refused to allow President Bush's chief health-policy adviser, Douglas Badger, to testify Thursday before the House Ways and Means Committee about early administration estimates that the new Medicare prescription-drug benefit would be far more costly than many lawmakers believed when they voted for it.

White House spokesman Trent Duffy said the decision not to let Badger testify was justified by the longstanding principle that exempts assistants to the president from testifying before Congress.

They won't give up trying to hide what they are doing. Read John Dean's new book on the excessive secrecy in the Bush administration, Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush. He shows that the excessive secrecy started even before Bush was elected and has only increased.

Bush keeps touting "democracy" but when the highest government decisions are made in secret and citizens are not allowed to know what has been decided, much less why, there is no true "government of the people, by the people, and for the people." It's all of, by, and for the Bush administration and their chief supporters. It's the corrupt version of the Golden Rule - he who has the gold, makes the rules.

Bush's National Security Advisor vs the Truth

Top Focus Before 9/11 Wasn't on Terrorism: Rice Speech Cited Missile Defense

Rice is shown to be a liar by her own words:

On Sept. 11, 2001, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to outline a Bush administration policy that would address "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday" -- but the focus was largely on missile defense, not terrorism from Islamic radicals.

The speech provides telling insight into the administration's thinking on the very day that the United States suffered the most devastating attack since the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor. The address was designed to promote missile defense as the cornerstone of a new national security strategy, and contained no mention of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups, according to former U.S. officials who have seen the text.

So contrary to what she - and all the other Bush administration officials - have been saying in their attacks on Richard Clarke, the Bush administration was not focused on terrorism as a priority. Indeed:

The text also implicitly challenged the Clinton administration's policy, saying it did not do enough about the real threat -- long-range missiles.

And why, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War was "missile defense" the Bush administration's top priority? Because there were billions of dollars to be made there, quickly, and without having to produce an actual working product. Whereas terrorism is a problematic area to privatize for the profit of Republican donors. Of course, with a little bait and switch one can conflate a war on Iraq with the "war on terrorism" and suddenly those billions of dollars are back on the table. And these guys don't even try to hide this blatant war profiteering. They simply trust that most of the public either doesn't care or doesn't want to look too closely at what the government does.

Every day in every way things in Iraq are getting better and better

U.S. Forces Attacked Again Near Fallujah: Latest Incident Comes Just One Day After Grisly Killing, Mutilation:

Some Fallujah residents today vowed to repel U.S. forces if they raid the city.

"We will not let any foreigner enter Fallujah," said Sameer Sami, 40. "Yesterday's attack is proof of how much we hate the Americans."

Another resident, Ahmed al-Dulaimi, 30, said: "We wish that they (U.S. forces) would try to enter Fallujah so we'd let hell break lose."

And what is the Bush spin? We know in advance - this just proves that "they" are "desperate", which of course means we are winning and therefore things must be getting better.

These people (ours as well as theirs) are nuts.

Iraqis Celebrate Their 'Liberation'

Strange Fruit

Bilmon has an excellent post about the horrible attack yesterday in Fallujah.

Bush vs the Troops

The true cost of war in Iraq

According to a UPI release yesterday:

In the first year of war in Iraq, the military has made 18,004 medical evacuations during Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Pentagon's top health official told Congress Tuesday.

The new data, through March 13, is nearly two-thirds higher than the 11,200 evacuations through Feb. 5 cited just last month to Congress by the same official, William Winkenwerder Jr., assistant secretary of defense for health affairs.

So how bad is it? According to veteran's testimony to the same Congressional committee:

Soldiers described being deployed to war with serious medical conditions and then getting poor and erratic health care upon return -- including months-long waits for doctors, surgeries or treatments. United Press International first reported that problem last October. . . The soldiers also described widespread concern about being put out of the military without fair compensation for wounds and illnesses they received during service.