Fighting Back

2004-04-02T11:00:00.000-08:00

Click here for all the gory details.

1. Department of Homeland Security

BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]

2. Weapons of Mass Destruction

BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories…for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]

...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons. And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]

3. Free Trade

BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03]

4. Osama Bin Laden

BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]

...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important." [President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

5. The Environment

BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to…establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]

...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]

6. WMD Commission

BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE... "The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE "Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04]

7. Creation of the 9/11 Commission

BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]

8. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission

BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION "The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work." [CNN, 2/4/04]

9. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony

BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR... "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04]

...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]

10. Gay Marriage

BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]

11. Nation Building

BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]

12. Saddam/al Qaeda Link

BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]

...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]

13. U.N. Resolution

BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03]

...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03]

14. Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict

BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03]

15. Campaign Finance

BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]

...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold singing ceremony, 03/27/02]

Bush's solution to the low job numbers?

2004-02-20T09:22:00.000-08:00

Reclassify some jobs so it looks like there are more of them. An economic report by the White House considers reclassifying fast food restaurants as manufacturers instead of service, which would boost lagging manufacturing job numbers without actually have to create new jobs.

Now why didn't I think of that?

My War

2004-02-14T22:33:00.000-08:00

Larry David is a genius.

I couldn't be happier that President Bush has stood up for having served in the National Guard, because I can finally put an end to all those who questioned my motives for enlisting in the Army Reserve at the height of the Vietnam War. I can't tell you how many people thought I had signed up just to avoid going to Vietnam. Nothing could be further from the truth. If anything, I was itching to go over there. I was just out of college and, let's face it, you can't buy that kind of adventure. More important, I wanted to do my part in saving that tiny country from the scourge of Communism. We had to draw the line somewhere, and if not me, then who?

But I also knew that our country was being torn asunder by opposition to the war. Who would be here to defend the homeland against civil unrest? Or what if some national emergency should arise? We needed well-trained men on the ready to deal with any situation. It began to dawn on me that perhaps my country needed me more at home than overseas. Sure, being a reservist wasn't as glamorous, but I was the one who had to look at myself in the mirror.

Even though the National Guard and Army Reserve see combat today, it rankles me that people assume it was some kind of waltz in the park back then. If only. Once a month, for an entire weekend — I'm talking eight hours Saturday and Sunday — we would meet in a dank, cold airplane hangar. The temperature in that hangar would sometimes get down to 40 degrees, and very often I had to put on long underwear, which was so restrictive I suffered from an acute vascular disorder for days afterward. Our captain was a strict disciplinarian who wouldn't think twice about not letting us wear sneakers or breaking up a poker game if he was in ill humor. Once, they took us into the woods and dropped us off with nothing but compasses and our wits. One wrong move and I could've wound up on Queens Boulevard. Fortunately, I had the presence of mind to find my way out of there and back to the hangar. Some of my buddies did not fare as well and had to call their parents to come and get them.

Then in the summer we would go away to camp for two weeks. It felt more like three. I wondered if I'd ever see my parakeet again. We slept on cots and ate in the International House of Pancakes. I learned the first night that IHOP's not the place to order fish. When the two weeks were up, I came home a changed man. I would often burst into tears for no apparent reason and suffered recurring nightmares about drowning in blueberry syrup. If I hadn't been so strapped for cash, I would've sought the aid of a psychiatrist.

In those days, reserve duty lasted for six years, which, I might add, was three times as long as service in the regular army, although to be perfectly honest, I was unable to fulfill my entire obligation because I was taking acting classes and they said I could skip my last year. I'll always be eternally grateful to the Pentagon for allowing me to pursue my dreams.

Still, after all this time, whenever I've mentioned my service in the Reserve during Vietnam, it's been met with sneers and derision. But now, thanks to President Bush, I can stand up proudly alongside him and all the other guys who guarded the home front. Finally, we no longer have to be embarrassed about our contribution during those very trying years.

Larry David, who served in the Army Reserve in the 1970's, appears in the HBO series "Curb Your Enthusiasm."

What most of us already knew.

2004-01-25T23:28:00.000-08:00

No WMDs.

Big shock.

The Daily Show - Perfect

2004-01-11T10:26:00.000-08:00

These guys are geniuses.

On long term planning...

2003-12-12T18:24:00.000-08:00

"There's nothing I am worse at than long-term planning. I have never run my life that way. I believe that serendipity or fate or divine intervention has led me to a series of wholly implausible steps in my life. And I've been open to those twists and turns because I didn't have a long-term plan."

-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice

Bush's head-up-his-ass disease manifests another symptom

2003-12-10T23:49:00.000-08:00

In yet another collosal blunder, Bush today sought help from the very allies he had slapped in the face just yesterday.

Jeebus, what an idiot.

President Bush found himself in the awkward position on Wednesday of calling the leaders of France, Germany and Russia to ask them to forgive Iraq's debts, just a day after the Pentagon excluded those countries and others from $18 billion in American-financed Iraqi reconstruction projects.

White House officials were fuming about the timing and the tone of the Pentagon's directive, even while conceding that they had approved the Pentagon policy of limiting contracts to 63 countries that have given the United States political or military aid in Iraq.

Many countries excluded from the list, including close allies like Canada, reacted angrily on Wednesday to the Pentagon action. They were incensed, in part, by the Pentagon's explanation in a memorandum that the restrictions were required "for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States."

The Russian defense minister, Sergei Ivanov, when asked about the Pentagon decision, responded by ruling out any debt write-off for Iraq.

The Canadian deputy prime minister, John Manley, suggested crisply that "it would be difficult" to add to the $190 million already given for reconstruction in Iraq.

White House officials said Mr. Bush and his aides had been surprised by both the timing and the blunt wording of the Pentagon's declaration. But they said the White House had signed off on the policy, after a committee of deputies from a number of departments and the National Security Council agreed that the most lucrative contracts must be reserved for political or military supporters.

Those officials apparently did not realize that the memorandum, signed by Paul D. Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense, would appear on a Defense Department Web site hours before Mr. Bush was scheduled to ask world leaders to receive James A. Baker III, the former treasury secretary and secretary of state, who is heading up the effort to wipe out Iraq's debt. Mr. Baker met with the president on Wednesday.

Several of Mr. Bush's aides said they feared that the memorandum would undercut White House efforts to repair relations with allies who had opposed the invasion of Iraq.

White House officials declined to say how Mr. Bush explained the Pentagon policy to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, President Jacques Chirac of France and Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany. France and Russia were two of the largest creditors of Saddam Hussein's government. But officials hinted, by the end of the day, that Mr. Baker might be able to show flexibility to countries that write down Iraqi debt.

"I can't imagine that if you are asking to do stuff for Iraq that this is going to help," a senior State Department official said late Wednesday.

A senior administration official described Mr. Bush as "distinctly unhappy" about dealing with foreign leaders who had just learned of their exclusion from the contracts.

Under the Pentagon rules, only companies whose countries are on the American list of "coalition nations" are eligible to compete for the prime contracts, though they could act as subcontractors. The result is that the Solomon Islands, Uganda and Samoa may compete for the contracts, but China, whose premier just left the White House with promises of an expanded trade relationship, is excluded, along with Israel.

Several of Mr. Bush's aides wondered why the administration had not simply adopted a policy of giving preference to prime contracts to members of the coalition, without barring any countries outright.

"What we did was toss away our leverage," one senior American diplomat said. "We could have put together a policy that said, `The more you help, the more contracts you may be able to gain.' " Instead, the official said, "we found a new way to alienate them."

A senior official at the State Department was asked during an internal meeting on Wednesday how he expected the move to affect the responses of Russia, France and Germany to the American request. He responded, "Go ask Jim Baker," according another senior official, who said of Mr. Baker, "He's the one who's going to be carrying the water, and he's going to be the one who finds out."

State of the Union Redux

2003-12-10T01:14:00.000-08:00

Hilarious.

Bush caught lying to his own base

2003-12-06T19:11:00.000-08:00

Bush's constant lies and overall lack of any principles whatsoever are starting to catch up with him.

MSNBC has the article.

The issue came to a boil this week, when White House economic aides summoned conservative economists to allow them to vent their rage. But according to participants, the session did little to dampen their anger. Joel D. Kaplan, the deputy director of the White House budget office, displayed a chart showing that, outside homeland security and defense, spending was falling. But under tough questioning, one participant recounted, Kaplan conceded that his figures did not include the series of “emergency” supplemental measures requested by Bush each year.

....

“In the last three years we’ve had the biggest farm bill, the biggest education bill, the biggest foreign aid bill and now the biggest health care bill in 30 years,” said Moore of the free-market Club for Growth. “There’s now not any pretense that Bush is committed to smaller government.”

Has Arnold broken yet another promise?

2003-12-06T12:46:00.000-08:00

I'm from Los Angeles. I work in Hollywood. I like people from Hollywood. Even Republican celebrities aren't all the conservative. Arnold is practically a liberal. So I wasn't thrilled he was running but I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. What worried me was not his conservatism, but his incredibly unrealistic promises based on incredibly unrealistic and naive ideas.

So it comes as little surprise that the budget battle, the whole reason Arnold was elected in the first place, is proving more difficult than he though.

Governor OKs borrowing plan

Published 5:34 p.m. PST Friday, December 5, 2003
After saying for weeks there would be no option for putting a big bond measure on the spring ballot, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger quietly gave the green light Friday to a plan to borrow $10.7 billion without voter approval.

Last summer, the Legislature authorized the bond sale as part of the budget agreement signed by former Gov. Gray Davis. But taxpayer groups, as well as many Republican lawmakers, criticized the deal, saying borrowing of that magnitude should be approved by voters.

One group, the Pacific Legal Foundation, filed a lawsuit in September, arguing the proposal to sell $10.7 billion of deficit-financing bonds should be ruled invalid because of provisions in the California Constitution that prevents the Legislature from taking on more than $300,000 in long-term debt without approval of the voters.

Shortly after being elected in the Oct. 7 recall election, Schwarzenegger said voters should approve the bonds; he's since proposed a $15 billion bond measure as part of his budget package now being debated in the Legislature.

Schwarzenegger also said repeatedly he had no backup plan if lawmakers did not agree to put his bond measure or an alternative he approved on the ballot.

But Friday, members of the California Fiscal Recovery Financing Authority voted to move forward with the Davis bonds. The governor controls five of the seven members of the board.

Arthur Mark, attorney for the legal foundation, said that he was surprised that Schwarzenegger allowed the authority to move forward given his apparent commitment to putting the bonds to a vote.

"I really don't want to comment on the governor's policy decision here," Mark said. "But it did take us by surprise. We heard the same things you have from the administration about their plans for bond financing."

If Schwarzenegger and the Legislature push the $10.7 billion bond deal ahead, his group will maintain its legal challenge, Mark said.

Vince Sollitto, a spokesman for Schwarzenegger, said the governor remains committed to his budget package, especially the call to put the bond package before voters.

"The governor has said repeatedly that if we don't put the bond package on the ballot and the bonds are not sold, the state will be out of money in June," said Sollitto. "He is pushing hard to get his measure on the ballot."

Schwarzenegger doesn't consider the authority's action as providing the state with a backup to an agreement on the governor's budget package, Sollitto said. "The action today merely continues the bond portion of the existing budget."

Lawmakers have been locked in a tough fight over the governor's budget package since he called them back into special session two weeks ago. Both Democrats and Republicans seem to agree the $15 billion in bonds should go before voters, but the two sides are hung up over a spending cap.

--The Associated Press

As if it were at all possible, Repubs sink to new lows

2003-11-15T00:59:00.000-08:00

Now they are fronting convention donations with a children's charity. Leave it to Tom Delay to come up with something this detestable and scummy.

Imminent threats

2003-11-10T00:33:00.000-08:00

Admistration apologists have come up with a particularly asinine defense of Bush lately, arguing that Bush never actually used the words "imminent threat" and therefore never made such a claim about Iraq.

Sure, he used the words "urgent" and "grave" to describe the threat, and said that the smoking gun might come in the form of a "mushroom cloud." But never the words "imminent threat."

Maybe he didn't, but certainly others in his administration did.

Seven White Men Celebrate New Restrictions on Your Uterus

2003-11-08T20:12:00.000-08:00

See the photo at NARAL.

Victory for education

2003-11-07T00:33:00.000-08:00

Texas votes to keep evolution in textbooks as is.

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- The State Board of Education voted Thursday to approve biology textbooks, despite criticism from religious activists who say the books as written fail to present the anti-evolution point of view.

The vote was preliminary and the board was expected to give final approval Friday.

Some religious and alternative science groups had argued that weaknesses in the theory of evolution weren't adequately presented in the books. But scientists and educators argued that the theory of evolution is widely believed and is a cornerstone of modern scientific research.

Anti-profiteering measure is anti-American!

2003-11-06T00:57:00.000-08:00

Good lord.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The final version of the $87 billion spending bill for Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites) is missing provisions the Senate had passed to penalize war profiteers who defraud American taxpayers. House negotiators on the package refused to accept the Senate provisions.

The Senate provision was authored by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), and Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.). It was one of the last major sticking points this week as negotiators worked through the compromise appropriations bill. The conferees narrowly defeated the amendment after lengthy debate, with House negotiators offering no substitute and no willingness to compromise, despite repeated offers from Senate conferees to negotiate the language. Republican and Democratic Senate conferees consistently supported the provision, which had been unanimously accepted during Senate Appropriations Committee markup of the bill. Leahy, Feinstein and Durbin are members of the Appropriations Committee and also of the Judiciary Committee (news - web sites), which has jurisdiction over the criminal justice system.

"Congress is about to send billions and billions of dollars to a place where there is no functioning government, under a plan with too little accountability and too few financial controls," said Leahy. "That's a formula for mischief. We need strong disincentives for those who would defraud taxpayers, and removing this protection is another major blot on this bill."

"We are about to spend a lot of money in Iraq, quickly and with few real controls on how it is spent," said Feinstein. "The least we can do is prevent private companies from taking advantage of the American Government, its people, and the men and women who are risking their lives every day to make Iraq, and the world, a better, safer place to live. It was a mistake to strip the anti-profiteering provision from the conference report, and restoring it through this bill would send a clear signal that this kind of activity will not be tolerated."

"When the Senate Appropriations Committee considered this supplemental request, Senators Leahy, Feinstein, and I joined together to criminalize war profiteering -- price gouging and fraud -- with the same law that was passed during World War II. Yet this amendment, was stripped out of the final bill," said Durbin. "I fail to understand how anyone can be opposed to prosecuting those who want to defraud and overcharge the United States government and the American taxpayers."

U.S. fraud statutes protect against waste of tax dollars at home, but none expressly prohibit war profiteering and none expressly confer extraterritorial jurisdiction overseas. The Leahy-Feinstein-Durbin amendment would criminalize "war profiteering" -- overcharging taxpayers for any good or service with the specific intent to excessively profit from the war or reconstruction efforts in Iraq. The bill also prohibits fraud and false statements in any matter involving a contract or the provision of goods or services in Iraq. These new crimes would be felonies, subject to criminal penalties of up to 20 years in prison and fines of up to $1 million or twice the illegal gross profits of the crime. Leahy described it as "strong and focused sanctions" that are narrowly tailored to criminalize and create tough criminal penalties for fraud or excessive profiteering in contracts, here and abroad, related to the war or reconstruction efforts in Iraq.

Leahy, Feinstein and Durbin will re-introduce the legislation again as a separate bill and will work to win its passage. But because criminal penalties cannot be made retroactive, the absence of penalties in this supplemental appropriations bill will hamper efforts to crack down on war profiteering that involves funds from this bill.

RNC wants to vet Reagan drama before it airs

2003-10-31T19:17:00.000-08:00

This kind of crap just boils my water.

Two things:

1. Why is this any of the RNC's business?

2. Since when does the RNC give a flying pig-fu-ck about "accuracy"?

The Republican National Committee Friday asked CBS to allow a team of historians and friends of former President Ronald Reagan and his wife to review a miniseries about the couple before it airs.

Republicans have expressed concern that the miniseries, titled "The Reagans," may inaccurately portray the couple.

In a conference call with reporters, RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie said he sent the request to CBS Television President Leslie Moonves.

Gillespie said that if CBS denies the request, he will ask the network to run a note across the bottom of the screen every 10 minutes during the program's presentation informing viewers that the miniseries is not accurate.

CBS spokeswoman Dana McClintock said Moonves received the letter, but neither he nor CBS had any comment on it or the miniseries.

Gillespie said that if CBS rejects both requests, the RNC would to sell tapes and DVDs on its Web site that would present "the real Reagan record."

"It's not the kind of thing we'll make money on -- I'm trying not to lose money on it," Gillespie said. "I want to publicize Reagan's record."

Gillespie added that print and TV ads are being prepared to rebut the miniseries and that Republicans may try to buy time to run the ads during the miniseries.

While Gillespie -- who acknowledged that he has not seen "The Reagans" and has formed his opinion of it based solely on news reports -- had a number of complaints, he said he was most concerned about a comment attributed to Reagan in one episode. There is no evidence that the president told his wife during a conversation about AIDS patients, "They that live in sin shall die in sin," Gillespie said.

The author of the screenplay, Elizabeth Egloff, has acknowledged that there is no evidence Reagan ever uttered those words, but she told the New York Times that "we know he ducked the issue over and over again, and we know she was the one who got him to deal with that."

The miniseries is scheduled to air November 16 and 18.

Bush: Up is down, down is up, and suicide bombings are good news

2003-10-27T15:49:00.000-08:00

I'm sure Wolfowitz will be glad to hear that the rocket attack that almost killed him was a GOOD thing.

President Bush this morning said the increasing attacks on U.S. personnel and supporters in Iraq are a sign of progress because the attacks indicate Iraqi opponents are getting increasingly desperate.

Meeting with the U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, in the Oval Office, Bush spoke after attacks on several police stations and a Red Cross facility killed at least 34 today in Iraq, following yesterday's attack on a hotel occupied by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz. Bush said terrorists in Iraq are reacting to American successes. "The more successful we are on the ground, the more these killers will react," Bush said.

Later, he expanded on that theme. "The more progress we make on the ground, the more free the Iraqis become, the more electricity is available, the more jobs are available, the more kids that are going to school, the more desperate these killers become, because they can't stand the thought of a free society."
[...]
In arguing that increasingly violent or brazen attacks are a sign of U.S. progress, Bush repeated an assertion that White House officials began to make back in August, when U.N. headquarters and a major mosque were attacked.

At his morning briefing, White House press secretary Scott McClellan sought to emphasize Bush's link between progress and heightened attacks. "We've always said the more progress we make, the more desperate the killers will become," the spokesman said. Asked how it could be determined that the attacks signaled desperation rather than sophistication, McClellan repeated: "The more progress we make toward a free and prosperous Iraq, the more desperate they will become."

So by inference, a LACK of suicide bombings and dead civilians would be a BAD thing? Why do some people continue to defend this ass-clown?

Support for the troops - Bush style

2003-10-25T16:57:00.000-07:00

This is what passes for support for the troops in this administration.

Shot through both legs and held prisoner in Iraq for 22 days, Shoshana Johnson returned home to a difficult convalescence that lacked the media fury and official hype that attended her friend and comrade in arms Jessica Lynch.

Depressed, scarred, haunted by the trauma of her captivity and at times unable to sleep, Specialist Johnson walks with a limp and has difficulty standing for long. Now that she is on the verge of her discharge, the US Army is aggravating her injury, her parents say.

While Private Lynch was discharged in August with an 80 per cent disability benefit, Specialist Johnson learnt last week she will receive a 30 per cent disability benefit from the army for her injuries.

The difference, which amounts to $US700 ($1000) a month in payments, has infuriated Specialist Johnson and her family. They have enlisted the help of the Reverend Jesse Jackson to take their case to the news media, accusing the army of double standards, insensitivity and racism - Private Lynch is white; Specialist Johnson is black.

Republicans in Kentucky target black voters for intimidation

2003-10-23T12:28:00.000-07:00

The thirst for power is making them more brazen than ever.

Jefferson County Republicans intend to place Election Day challengers at 59 voting precincts in predominantly black neighborhoods, a move that NAACP leaders yesterday called blatant intimidation.

The GOP election workers, most of whom live outside the targeted precincts in western and central Louisville, Portland and Newburg, will be on hand to challenge voters who they suspect aren't eligible.
...

Raoul Cunningham, former state NAACP voting-empowerment coordinator, and former state Sen. Georgia Powers called the use of GOP challengers "an assault by voter intimidation and an effort to suppress the African-American community."

Among this year's challengers is Rita Seum, wife of Republican state Sen. Dan Seum. She lives in Fairdale and is assigned to the M-107 precinct near 28th and West Kentucky streets.

"My role is to be there, if anything comes up," she said. She said she plans to monitor the sign-in flow Nov. 4 and report to party officials instances in which improperly registered voters try to cast ballots.

Joann Gammon, who lives on Zorn Avenue, has been assigned to precinct N-110 at Christ the King Church on 44th Street. She said she will be at the voting site to report to party officials any voting irregularities, although she acknowledges she doesn't know anyone in her assigned precinct.

Gladys Bailey, who works at King Solomon Missionary Baptist Church in western Louisville and plans to vote Nov. 4, said she wouldn't be intimidated by challengers, although she worries that older residents might be deterred.

"I don't understand why they (challengers) would be there," she said.

MOST OF the 59 precincts where Republicans plan to assign challengers are heavily Democratic in voter registration.

The 2003 George Bush Award for Excellence goes to....Ted Kennedy

2003-10-19T12:37:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON -- IT'S NOT AS THOUGH Osama bin Laden gave a Jihad Award to Ariel Sharon, or Donald Rumsfeld gave his Good Pal Award to Condoleezza Rice. It's not even as though Dick Cheney gave his Favorite Foreigners Citation to the French.

But the news from College Station, Texas, this week -- that the First Father, former President George H.W. Bush, has given his own most treasured award to Senator Edward Kennedy -- is nearly as astonishing.

When it was announced (with amazingly little fanfare) that the pugnaciously anti-Iraq war Democrat Kennedy had been awarded the 2003 George Bush Award for Excellence in Public Service, so many jaws dropped all over Washington that usually voluble politicians were only heard swallowing their real thoughts.

Since the current President Bush veered away from the real war against terrorism in Afghanistan and went a'venturing in Iraq, much to his father's dismay, just about everybody close to Washington politics has known of the policy schism between father and son.

It was politically and philosophically obvious. But people around Father Bush, a coterie of traditional internationalist conservatives who protect him like a wolf mother does her cubs, would heatedly deny any family rift -- and nobody spoke publicly about it.

Now it's all out. Father Bush has done it in his own preferred nuanced way -- the way Establishment gentlemen operate -- but he has revealed the depth of his disagreement with his impetuously uninformed son.

And won't it be interesting to analyze the speeches citing Teddy, who is surely one of W's primary political nemeses, for his public service and principles at the Bush Library Center on the Texas A&M campus on Nov. 7? One can bet they will be subtle -- but also very clear.

The ideological rift between father and son has been growing ever since George W. began focusing on Iraq and, with that obsession, proposed "theories" of unilateralism (America needs room in the world) and preemption (kill even your perceived enemy before he kills you).

But while family friends say Father Bush has made his disagreements known to his son, they clearly have not found fertile soil in this White House.

More curious, and in many ways depressing, is the fact that this President Bush has embarked upon a policy designed to counter, or even to wipe out, his father's entire political legacy.

The father lived his life in the service of moderate and intelligent internationalism. His manners were always meticulously courteous, as he wooed even critics overseas to see the American position. He was even-handed in the Middle East and thus brought the area to the verge of peace for the first time in history; he was capable of using force but preferred to do it supported by coalitions of friendly states, thus cementing international cooperation.

The son seems to have made posturing against his father's accomplishments and beliefs his life's work.

W has given way to a radical right that abhors international coalitions and manners; he mocks the world and denies any need for its help. He has led the Middle East to the nadir of its hope and possibilities, and he has led the United States to a moment in history in which we face asymmetric warfare from one end of the globe to another.

And above all, he has replaced his father's courtesy and good graces with an almost proud rudeness and scorn for others.

Why? I'll leave the question of "killing the father" to the psychiatric thinkers. Meanwhile, the tension between these two men reveals itself daily.

November 7 will give us a chance to see how this tension, which is crucial to the public and political lives of all Americans, plays out. In the Bush Library announcement of the award to Teddy Kennedy, the spokesman praised the liberal senator as a man who "consistently and courageously fought for his principles," and as an "inspiration to all Americans."

You know what I wish (besides being able to read the president's mind)? I wish Father Bush would drop his polite reticence and tell us what he and the team of his presidency really think about what is happening in America today. I think, as responsible citizens, we deserve that.

Georgie Anne Geyer is a syndicated columnist.

Faux News: Fair and balanced disinformation

2003-10-15T14:06:00.000-07:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27061-2003Oct14.html

Researchers from the Program on International Policy Attitudes (a joint project of several academic centers, some of them based at the University of Maryland) and Knowledge Networks, a California-based polling firm, have spent the better part of the year tracking the public's misperceptions of major news events and polling people to find out just where they go to get things so balled up. This month they released their findings, which go a long way toward explaining why there's so little common ground in American politics today: People are proceeding from radically different sets of facts, some so different that they're altogether fiction.

In a series of polls from May through September, the researchers discovered that large minorities of Americans entertained some highly fanciful beliefs about the facts of the Iraqi war. Fully 48 percent of Americans believed that the United States had uncovered evidence demonstrating a close working relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Another 22 percent thought that we had found the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And 25 percent said that most people in other countries had backed the U.S. war against Saddam Hussein. Sixty percent of all respondents entertained at least one of these bits of dubious knowledge; 8 percent believed all three.

The researchers then asked where the respondents most commonly went to get their news. The fair and balanced folks at Fox, the survey concludes, were "the news source whose viewers had the most misperceptions." Eighty percent of Fox viewers believed at least one of these un-facts; 45 percent believed all three. Over at CBS, 71 percent of viewers fell for one of these mistakes, but just 15 percent bought into the full trifecta. And in the daintier precincts of PBS viewers and NPR listeners, just 23 percent adhered to one of these misperceptions, while a scant 4 percent entertained all three.

Bush propaganda machine at work

2003-10-12T12:45:00.000-07:00

From The Olympian:

Letters from hometown soldiers describing their successes rebuilding Iraq have been appearing in newspapers across the country as U.S. public opinion on the mission sours.

And all the letters are the same.

A Gannett News Service search found identical letters from different soldiers with the 2nd Battalion of the 503rd Airborne Infantry Regiment, also known as "The Rock," in 11 newspapers, including Snohomish, Wash.

The Olympian received two identical letters signed by different hometown soldiers: Spc. Joshua Ackler and Spc. Alex Marois, who is now a sergeant. The paper declined to run either because of a policy not to publish form letters.

The five-paragraph letter talks about the soldiers' efforts to re-establish police and fire departments, and build water and sewer plants in the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk, where the unit is based.

"The quality of life and security for the citizens has been largely restored, and we are a large part of why that has happened," the letter reads.

It describes people waving at passing troops and children running up to shake their hands and say thank you.

It's not clear who wrote the letter or organized sending it to soldiers' hometown papers.

Six soldiers reached by GNS directly or through their families said they agreed with the letter's thrust. But none of the soldiers said he wrote it, and one said he didn't even sign it.

Marois, 23, told his family he signed the letter, said Moya Marois, his stepmother. But she said he was puzzled why it was sent to the newspaper in Olympia. He attended high school in Olympia but no longer considers the city home, she said. Moya Marois and Alex's father, Les, now live near Kooskia, Idaho.

A seventh soldier didn't know about the letter until his father congratulated him for getting it published in the local newspaper in Beckley, W.Va.

"When I told him he wrote such a good letter, he said: 'What letter?' " Timothy Deaconson said Friday, recalling the phone conversation he had with his son, Nick. "This is just not his (writing) style."

He spoke to his son, Pfc. Nick Deaconson, at a hospital where he was recovering from a grenade explosion that left shrapnel in both his legs.

Sgt. Christopher Shelton, who signed a letter that ran in the Snohomish Herald, said Friday that his platoon sergeant had distributed the letter and asked soldiers for the names of their hometown newspapers. Soldiers were asked to sign the letter if they agreed with it, said Shelton, whose shoulder was wounded during an ambush earlier this year.

"Everything it said is dead accurate. We've done a really good job," he said by phone from Italy, where he was preparing to return to Iraq.

Sgt. Todd Oliver, a spokesman for the 173rd Airborne Brigade, which counts the 503rd as one of its units, said he was told a soldier wrote the letter, but he didn't know who. He said the brigade's public affairs unit was not involved.

"When he asked other soldiers in his unit to sign it, they did," Oliver explained in an e-mail response to a GNS inquiry. "Someone, somewhere along the way, took it upon themselves to mail it to the various editors of newspapers across the country."

Lt. Col. Bill MacDonald, a spokesman for the 4th infantry Division that is heading operations in north-central Iraq, said he had not heard about the letter-writing campaign.

Neither had Lt. Cmdr. Nick Balice, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Fla.

A recent poll suggests that Americans are increasingly skeptical of America's prolonged involvement in Iraq. A USA Today-CNN-Gallup Poll released Sept. 23 found 50 percent believe that the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over, down from 73 percent in April.

The letter talks about the soldiers' mission, saying, "one thousand of my fellow soldiers and I parachuted from ten jumbo jets." It describes Kirkuk as "a hot and dusty city of just over a million people." It tells about the progress they have made.

"The fruits of all our soldiers' efforts are clearly visible in the streets of Kirkuk today. There is very little trash in the streets, many more people in the markets and shops, and children have returned to school," the letter reads. "I am proud of the work we are doing here in Iraq and I hope all of your readers are as well."

Sgt. Shawn Grueser of Poca, W.Va., said he spoke to a military public affairs officer whose name he couldn't remember about his accomplishments in Iraq for what he thought was a news release to be sent to his hometown paper in Charleston, W.Va. But the 2nd Battalion soldier said he did not sign any letter.

Although Grueser said he agrees with the letter's sentiments, he was uncomfortable that a letter with his signature did not contain his own words or spell out his own accomplishments.

"It makes it look like you cheated on a test, and everybody got the same grade," Grueser said by phone from a base in Italy where he had just arrived from Iraq.

Moya Marois said she is proud of her stepson Alex, the former Olympia resident. But she worries that the letter tries to give legitimacy to a war she doesn't think was justified.

"We're going to support our son," she said. But "there are a lot of Americans that are not in support of this war that would like to see them returned home, and think it's going to get worse."

Rush - on Friday's Show

2003-10-11T11:55:00.000-07:00

It’s often been said that we rehab these people and find out what it is that makes them do what they do. But a criminal’s a criminal. There are bad people. There are bad people. There are good people too, but there are bad people.

For once, I couldn't agree more.

Lessons in Civility - by Paul Krugman

2003-10-09T23:02:00.000-07:00

This is terrific.

It's the season of the angry liberal. Books like Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," Joe Conason's "Big Lies" and Molly Ivins's "Bushwhacked" have become best sellers. (Yes, I've got one out there, too.) But conservatives are distressed because those liberals are so angry and rude. O.K., they admit, they themselves were a bit rude during the Clinton years — that seven-year, $70 million investigation of a tiny money-losing land deal, all that fuss about the president's private life — but they're sorry, and now it's time for everyone to be civil.

Indeed, angry liberals can take some lessons in civility from today's right.

Consider, for example, Fox News's genteel response to Christiane Amanpour, the CNN correspondent. Ms. Amanpour recently expressed some regret over CNN's prewar reporting: "Perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News." A Fox spokeswoman replied, "It's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than as a spokeswoman for Al Qaeda."

And liberal pundits who may be tempted to cast personal aspersions can take lessons in courtesy from conservatives like Charles Krauthammer, who last December reminded TV viewers of his previous career as a psychiatrist, then said of Al Gore, "He could use a little help."

What's really important, of course, is that political figures stick to the issues, like the Bush adviser who told The New York Times that the problem with Senator John Kerry is that "he looks French."

Some say that the right, having engaged in name-calling and smear tactics when Bill Clinton was president, now wants to change the rules so such behavior is no longer allowed. In fact, the right is still calling names and smearing; it wants to prohibit rude behavior only by liberals.

Wanna read some scary stuff?

2003-10-09T21:47:00.000-07:00

It's called the Texas Republican party platform.

Liberals Dominate Bestsellers List

2003-10-07T22:25:00.000-07:00

I don't want to make too much of this (the list could be dominated by conservatives six months from now), but after today's California election, it's nice to see.

Bookstore display tables give the distinct impression there is a lot of lying going on in America these days, with President George W. Bush and his top advisers portrayed as the main culprits.

Bristling with indignation at the conservative Republican president and his policies, the books by liberal commentators include: "The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception" by David Corn, "Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth" by Joe Conason and "Bushwhacked" by Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose.

Michael Moore's new book, "Dude, Where's My Country?", is due Tuesday. The filmmaker and gadfly's last work, "Stupid White Men," was the bestselling nonfiction book of 2002.

And if readers can't figure out who is lying about whom and about what in these books, they can turn to "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right" by acerbic political humorist Al Franken.

In various ways, these authors and others accuse Bush and his right-wing backers of telling big whoppers since winning the White House for the Republican Party almost three years ago by virtue of the razor-thin Florida vote.

Washington literary agent Jeff Kleinman, who said he receives one anti-Bush book "pitch" a week, said that in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, hijacked plane attacks on America, publishers tended to turn them down.

"Anything that was seen as anti-American was almost impossible to sell and I think the publishers' feelings were reflecting the marketplace, that people were not going to buy," Kleinman said.

But that has changed. Industry publications and best-seller lists show that some anti-Bush books are now selling well as the former Texas governor prepares to run for a second term in November 2004 and 10 Democrats vie for the challenger's mantle.

Ah those loving and forgiving southern Baptists

2003-10-05T23:38:00.000-07:00

It seems the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina has expelled a member church. For blaspheming Jesus? For cursing the Lord? For ordaining gay priests? For molesting young boys? Nope.

For accepting two gay men as members and later baptising them.

The Baptist State Convention of North Carolina has expelled a Cabarrus County church for accepting two gay men as members and later baptizing them.

The action by the state's largest religious group represents the first time the convention has gone after a church for having openly gay members.

The 3,969-church convention previously kicked out three churches that ordained gays or blessed their relationships, based on a 1992 policy that forbids churches from showing "public approval, promotion or blessing of homosexuality."

Novak is a fucking asshole

2003-10-05T02:05:00.000-07:00

In his continual bid to outdo his own sliminess, Novak added to his revelations by giving up the name of a CIA business front used by some of its covert operatives.

The leak of a CIA operative's name has also exposed the identity of a CIA front company, potentially expanding the damage caused by the original disclosure, Bush administration officials said yesterday.

The company's identity, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, became public because it appeared in Federal Election Commission records on a form filled out in 1999 by Valerie Plame, the case officer at the center of the controversy, when she contributed $1,000 to Al Gore's presidential primary campaign.

After the name of the company was broadcast yesterday, administration officials confirmed that it was a CIA front. They said the obscure and possibly defunct firm was listed as Plame's employer on her W-2 tax forms in 1999 when she was working undercover for the CIA. Plame's name was first published July 14 in a newspaper column by Robert D. Novak that quoted two senior administration officials. They were critical of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, for his handling of a CIA mission that undercut President Bush's claim that Iraq had sought uranium from the African nation of Niger for possible use in developing nuclear weapons.

Slime and Defend

2003-10-02T12:19:00.001-07:00

The White House strategy, as reported in the NY Times.

The Bush administration pursued a two-track political strategy on Wednesday to minimize the damage from the criminal investigation into the disclosure of a C.I.A. officer's identity.

The White House encouraged Republicans to portray the former diplomat at the center of the case, Joseph C. Wilson IV, as a partisan Democrat with an agenda and the Democratic Party as scandalmongering. At the same time, the administration and the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill worked to ensure that no Republicans in Congress break ranks and call for an independent inquiry outside the direct control of the Justice Department.

"It's slime and defend," said one Republican aide on Capitol Hill, describing the White House's effort to raise questions about Mr. Wilson's motivations and its simultaneous effort to shore up support in the Republican ranks.

Why the confusion?

2003-10-02T02:13:00.000-07:00

This MSNBC article seems to illustrate top Washington pundits, politicians scrathing their heads about what the WH could possibly gain by exposing Wilson's wife as an undercover CIA operative.

Is it really that hard to figure out? The administration was smearing Wilson, the way they smear everyone who disagrees with them. They used Wilson's wife, not to out her, but to taint Wilson's qualifications as a WMD expert. Had Novak simply done that, there would be no story, just typical sliminess from the WH.

But Novak got ahead of himself and did something stupid. Now the WH tactic of intimidation and smears is catching up with them.

Serves them right.

Will they smear Larry Johnson next?

2003-10-01T00:53:00.000-07:00

Larry Johnson is a Republican CIA analyst and former trainee with Plame. He has some interesting (damning) things to say about the leak.

LARRY JOHNSON: Let's be very clear about what happened. This is not an alleged abuse. This is a confirmed abuse. I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on September 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.

So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that has been divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain reasons. One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people who innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could be compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal and if I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was just an analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and let's out them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the heat.

I say this as a registered Republican. I'm on record giving contributions to the George Bush campaign. This is not about partisan politics. This is about a betrayal, a political smear of an individual with no relevance to the story. Publishing her name in that story added nothing to it. His entire intent was correctly as Ambassador Wilson noted: to intimidate, to suggest that there was some impropriety that somehow his wife was in a decision making position to influence his ability to go over and savage a stupid policy, an erroneous policy and frankly, what was a false policy of suggesting that there were nuclear material in Iraq that required this war. This was about a political attack. To pretend that it's something else and to get into this parsing of words, I tell you, it sickens me to be a Republican to see this.

Zero tolerance

2003-09-30T20:49:00.000-07:00

Bush today said that he has "zero tolerance" for leaking from his administration staff. But obviously he has SOME tolerance for it, since Robert Novak's admission that he had been told by senior administration officials that Joseph Wilson's wife was an undercover CIA operative was made in July.

This is all over the blogs...

2003-09-28T10:39:00.000-07:00

It seems the vindictiveness, arogance, and utter sliminess of the Bush administration may have finally caught up with it.

"Senior administration officials" illegally leaked the name of a CIA operative, the wife of a man who was critical of Bush's claims that Iraq was buying yellowcake in Africa. The CIA has urged the Justice Department to investigate and the JD has agreed to look into the matter.

This has caused quite the firestorm around the blogs and it seems the internet media do not want to let this one die.

Read about it here.

Socializing Iraq

2003-09-26T01:43:00.000-07:00

Take a look at what our administration is spending that $87 billion on. This makes the $700 hammer look like a wise investment.

Even Republicans are starting to sit up and take notice.

Those details include $100 million to build seven planned communities with a total of 3,258 houses, plus roads, an elementary school, two high schools, a clinic, a place of worship and a market for each; $10 million to finance 100 prison-building experts for six months, at $100,000 an expert; 40 garbage trucks at $50,000 each; $900 million to import petroleum products such as kerosene and diesel to a country with the world's second-largest oil reserves; and $20 million for a four-week business course, at $10,000 per student.

"If those are what the costs are, I'm glad Congress is asking questions," said Brian Reidl, a budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "If the White House wants to be portrayed as spending tax dollars in Iraq as cost-effectively as they spend [money] anywhere else, they're going to have to explain this."

Already, the administration's request for $400 million to build two 4,000-bed prisons at $50,000 a bed has raised enough questions in Congress to force Provisional Authority Administrator L. Paul Bremer to explain that cement must be imported to make concrete.

"We're not talking sanity here," Dyer said. "The world's second-largest oil country is importing oil, and a country full of concrete is importing concrete."

Bush's Bad Karma

2003-09-24T12:44:00.000-07:00

This comes from the Washington Post, courtesy of Kicking Ass.

When Bush was stumping for his "jobs and growth" tax cut proposal in April, he went to Timken Co., a maker of steel bearings in Canton, Ohio. "The greatest strength of the American economy is found right here," Bush said then, predicting the tax cut would bring "more money for investment, more money for growth, and more money for jobs."

A month later, Bush signed a $350 billion tax cut, less than he wanted but still what he called "a bold package." And Timken? The company announced last week that it is cutting 900 jobs and lowering its earnings forecasts.

Republicans admit total failure of tax cut to create jobs, propose new package

2003-09-24T12:19:00.000-07:00

The Hill.

The dissatisfaction with the job they're doing is finally catching up with Republicans, who have proposed a new jobs creation package. That's certainly something they didn't think they'd need. According to them, we should be swimming in jobs by now, what with Bush's THREE gigantic tax cuts for the rich.

But the economy continues to hemmorage jobs, causing concern among Republicans who know they have no one to blame but themselves (although that won't stop them from trying).

Issa confirms Republican power grab

2003-09-22T22:56:00.000-07:00

Issa today said that the recall should be about installing a Republican governor or he would urge voters to reject the recall that he personally bank-rolled.

Also on Monday Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista, who bankrolled the effort to get the recall on the ballot with $1.7 million, said he was adamant that either McClintock or Schwarzenegger drop out of the race. If not, he said he would urge voters to reject the recall because it would assure a Bustamante victory.

In other words, it isn't about removing Davis or the best interests of the state. It's about grabbing power for Republicans.

Issa confirms Republican power-grab

2003-09-22T22:53:00.000-07:00

Even when Bush tries to tell the truth, he gets it wrong

2003-09-22T19:54:00.000-07:00

But who can really blame him? He's just not that used to it.

From the Star Tribune via DNC:

Even in acknowledging the lack of a link [between Iraq and the September 11 attacks], Bush didn't get everything right. Referring to Vice President Dick Cheney's appearance on "Meet the Press" last Sunday, the president said Cheney was referring only to links between Al-Qaida and Iraq, not links between Iraq and Sept. 11.

Bush is wrong. He's trying to spin what Cheney said. It's true that the vice president didn't come right out and say the Iraq-Sept. 11 link exists. But he certainly implied it in ever so many ways. He said he wasn't surprised that 70 percent of the American people believe the link exists. He said, "We don't know" if there is a link, when he could and should have said, "We have no evidence of such a link." That would have been so much more honest.

Bush attacks the "discourse," but not the charges

2003-09-21T18:30:00.000-07:00

Bush responded to Kennedy's charges of fraud today by attacking the commentator, but not the comment.

"I don't mind people trying to pick apart my policies, and that's fine and that's fair game," Bush said in the interview that will air Monday night. "But, you know, I don't think we're serving our nation well by allowing the discourse to become so uncivil that people say — use words that they shouldn't be using."

"Words they shouldn't be using." Does this remind anyone of Ari Fleischer's "People had better watch what they say" comments in Sept. 2001? Why didn't Bush deny the charges that Kennedy was leveling against the administration. The attack on Kennedy's bluntness seems like a shoot-the-messenger defense Bush has employed many times before.

Clark's Views

2003-09-20T11:57:00.000-07:00

Thanks to The Yin Blog.

Forget the sound bites and the incompetent (or non-existent) media reporting. This guy actually met the man and had a nice long talk with him.

* On social security, he seems to think that the solution to the anticipated deficit was to raise the cap on the Social Security taxes (i.e., currently, only the first $87,000 or so of income is subject to the payroll tax). He is against raising the retirement age, because that is the same as a cut in benefits. At the same time, he recognizes that the "lockbox" concept is nonsense, because the government has a "unified" budget.

* On the kinds of judicial nominees he would aim for, he said that he would look for ones who bring balance and no ideological agenda; he identified Justices Breyer and Souter as examples.

* On terrorism, he favors focusing on the terrorists and funding, as opposed to countries. However, in probably the most controversial part of his speech, he singled out Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt as the "central fronts" -- Saudi Arabia because of "hatred spewing out of" the country, Pakistan because of its madrassas, and Egypt to a lesser extent.

* On whether U.S. soldiers should serve in U.N. missions led by non-Americans, he was skeptical. The U.N. was fine for observer or peacekeeping missions, but for missions with the serious potential for military conflict, the U.N. had no military command capability. He prefers a NATO command, because "we trust NATO commanders." But he emphasized the need for the U.N. imprimatur because around the rest of the world, what the U.N. says is law.

* He did realize that aspects of the U.N. were less than perfect. He refused to defend the fact that Syria is chairing the U.N. Disarmament Commission and that Libya is chairing the U.N. Humans Rights Commission, labeling those as "absurd."

He impressed many of my colleagues and me. Of course, considering that many (most?) of my colleagues are Democrats, perhaps that's not unexpected. But I have to say that given the breadth of questions he was getting, he showed remarkable command of factual matters and political issues. What I was most impressed with was his willingness to accept reality and to state clear opinions. The Social Security question was probably the best indication of this. You might disagree with raising the cap on the amount of income subject to the payroll tax, but the reality is that there are only four things that can be done: (1) raise the retirement age; (2) cut benefits; (3) raise the payroll tax (either the rate or the amount of income taxed); or (4) some combination of two or all three. Some people might think it is better to cut benefits, say, to the wealthy elderly by means-testing. Some might think we should all suffer a little and cut benefits across the board. But I give Gen. Clark immense credit for being, as far as I can tell, the first of the major candidates to select from that unpalatable menu.

What does $87 billion buy?

2003-09-20T02:31:00.000-07:00

From Tom Paine.com:

$87b Is More Than The Combined Total Of All State Budget Deficits In The United States

The Bush administration proposed absolutely zero funds to help states deal with these deficits, despite the fact that their tax cuts drove down state revenues. [Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities]

$87b Is Rougly The Total Of Two Years Worth Of All U.S. Unemployment Benefits

The U.S. spends about $50 billion a year on unemployment insurance. At least 1.1 million people have exhausted all of their unemployment benefits without finding a job, and yet Congress has refused to extend benefits. [Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities]

$87b Is Enough To Pay The 3.3 Million People Who Have Lost Jobs $26,363 Each

The unemployment benefits extension passed by Congress at the beginning of this year provides zero benefits to "workers who exhausted their regular, state unemployment benefits and cannot find work." All told, two thirds of unemployed workers have exhausted their benefits. [Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities]

.........................................

$87b Is Enough To Give Every Man, Woman And Child In America $300

"[We] want to control spending. And I hope Congress lives up to their words. When they talk about deficits, they can join us in making sure we don't overspend. They can join us and make sure that [they are] focused those items that are absolutely necessary to the American people." - President Bush, Jan. 6, 2003

Iraqi governing council member shot

2003-09-20T01:13:00.000-07:00

There are few details, like who shot her or her condition. In any case, that can't have very good political ramifications.

Oh Really Factor

2003-09-19T13:55:00.000-07:00

Tom Tomorrow recommends a new book from FAIR called "The Oh Really Factor." Here are some excerpts:

O'REILLY: Commenting on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that forcing students to say the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional: "The reason they're even sitting there is because they were appointed by liberal politicians. Conservative politicians would never appoint the pinheads sitting on the Ninth Circuit" (3/4/03).

OH REALLY: The opinion in the Pledge of Allegiance case was drafted by Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, who was appointed by Richard Nixon.

* * *

O'REILLY: Explaining free speech rights to a high school student, who backed the establishment of a Satanic club at school: "They don't have any First Amendment rights. As soon as they walk in the door . . . Yes, they don't have any. Joe, do you realize that, as soon as you walk in the San Mateo High School door, you don't have any rights, that you have to do what the teachers tell you to do?" (10/2/02)

OH REALLY: "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech . . . at the schoolhouse gates" (U.S. Supreme Court, Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969).

For the record, O'Reilly already knows this. When a high school student was suspended by his school for putting up pro-war flyers, he sued the school and won. O'Reilly had him on the show to cheer his legal victory: "A federal judge has ruled the school violated the boy's freedom of speech rights. The school administrators were ordered by the judge to undergo constitutional rights training, and the school board has been ordered to pay Aaron and his parents $3,000" (11/30/01). Maybe O'Reilly could get some of the same training.

* * *

O'REILLY: "The Founders were not concerned with the minority rights, they were concerned with everybody's rights."

OH REALLY: "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression" (Thomas Jefferson, "First Inaugural Address," March 4, 1801).

* * *

O'REILLY: "I never heard Mr. Clinton once say, come out and say, we need more discipline in the schools, we need tougher standards, we need alternative schools because we don't want the student body to be diverted by just a few. I never heard any of that" (3/27/01).

OH REALLY: "I have laid before the Congress a number of proposals that will make education our number-one priority and result in dramatic improvements of our schools: smaller classes, better teaching, higher standards, expanded choice, more discipline, greater accountability" (Bill Clinton, speech, 5/7/98).

* * *

O'REILLY: "On Tuesday, we presented a story that said Senator Hillary Clinton has not attended any of the funerals of everyday victims of 9/11. The critical mail poured in. 'You don't like Hillary,' they wailed, 'leave her alone.' Nobody challenged the accuracy of the story" (11/29/01).

OH REALLY: Clinton attended the funeral of Sonia Morales Puopolo, who died at the World Trade Center (Associated Press, 10/6/01), and a memorial service at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine for seventy-nine workers missing from the Windows on the World restaurant (New York Daily News, 10/2/01).

* * *

O'REILLY: When Kathleen Willey came forward and accused Bill Clinton of having made an unwanted sexual advance towards her in 1993, O'Reilly suggested that the incident had led to her husband's suicide: "I believe Kathleen Willey when she says that private detectives hounded her, that they tried to break her, that they tried to threaten her, and her husband committed suicide. This is another example of all of it emanating from Bill Clinton" (1/15/01).

OH REALLY: Willey's husband killed himself the day that the alleged incident took place. According to Willey, an investigation suggesting that her husband had embezzled from clients at his law firm were what contributed to his suicide-not pressure from Clinton's "private detectives."

America's Rich Geting Richer

2003-09-19T11:24:00.000-07:00

At least someone is doing well under the Bush administration.

After two years of declining wealth, the aggregate net worth of the wealthiest 400 U.S. citizens climbed 10 percent in the past year to $955 billion, thanks largely to a recovering stock market, according to the annual list released by Forbes magazine.

The wealth also runs in tight circles. Among the top 25 richest, 12 are related, with members of the Walton family of Wal-Mart fame taking spots 4 through 8.

Bush's Lies

2003-09-19T11:05:00.000-07:00

Calpundit has an excellent analysis of the Bush administration MO and how it approaches its lying.

Kennedy calls the war a "fraud."

2003-09-19T10:52:00.000-07:00

In the most direct accusations yet against this administration by a prominent politician, Sen. Kennedy called the war a fraud and questioned the allocation of funds to Iraq, saying that $1.5 billion is unaccounted for.

“There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud,” Kennedy said.

Boycotting the debate?

2003-09-19T00:42:00.000-07:00

Four of the top California recall candidates have found some common ground. They've all threatened to boycott a debate with AH-nuld, complaining that the format is too scripted.

Gotta love this freakin' monkey circus!

Another Vietnam?

2003-09-18T23:32:00.000-07:00

Unlike Bush (and Saxby Chambliss, the scumbag who attacked Cleland's patriotism), Max Cleland was actually there. He compares the current administration war against Iraq to that other debacle.

The war is started with an air and ground attack. Initially there is optimism. The president says we are winning. The cocky, self-assured secretary of defense says we are winning. As a matter of fact, the secretary of defense promises the troops will be home soon.

However, the truth on the ground that the soldiers face in the war is different than the political policy that sent them there. They face increased opposition from a determined enemy. They are surprised by terrorist attacks, village assassinations, increasing casualties and growing anti-American sentiment. They find themselves bogged down in a guerrilla land war, unable to move forward and unable to disengage because there are no allies to turn the war over to.

There is no plan B. There is no exit strategy. Military morale declines. The president's popularity sinks and the American people are increasingly frustrated by the cost of blood and treasure poured into a never-ending war.

Sound familiar? It does to me.

The president was Lyndon Johnson. The cocky, self-assured secretary of defense was Robert McNamara. The congressional resolution was the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. The war was the war that I, U.S. Sens. John Kerry, Chuck Hagel and John McCain and 3 1/2 million other Americans of our generation were caught up in. It was the scene of America's longest war. It was also the locale of the most frustrating outcome of any war this nation has ever fought.

They Smear Because They Fear

2003-09-17T22:58:00.000-07:00

Joe Conason's editorial is just too good to pass up.

What is coming already -- as my friend Hesiod points out in a fascinating, thorough post on Counterspin Central -- is the predictable sliming of Clark by his moral inferiors, descending from Rush Limbaugh to David Horowitz. Hesiod lists the first tranche of right-wing accusations against Clark, which of course contradict each other (he was too tough, he's not tough enough, and so on). Logic, fact, relevance and decency will in no instance be permitted to intrude on the smearing that is about to begin. The radio gabblers and the Internet nutcases will smear Clark because they and their master Karl Rove fear him.

No one will be surprised by any of this, of course. It's par for the course for this rotten administration and its bag of unscrupulous cronies.

It's all France's fault.

2003-09-17T22:47:00.000-07:00

How creative.

A Soldier's Doubt

2003-09-17T14:28:00.000-07:00

This editorial appeared in the LA Times today and was previously pulished in the Peoria Star Journal.

Thankfully I have not been a personal witness to any atrocities, unless of course you consider, as I do, this war to be the ultimate atrocity.

So then, what is our purpose here?

Was this invasion because of weapons of mass destruction, as we so often have heard? If so, where are they? Did we invade to dispose of a leader and his regime because they were closely associated with Osama bin Laden? If so, where is the proof? Or is it that our incursion is a result of our own economic advantage? Iraq's oil can be refined at the lowest cost of any in the world. Coincidence?

This looks like a modern-day crusade not to free an oppressed people or to rid the world of a demonic dictator relentless in his pursuit of conquest and domination but a crusade to control another nation's natural resource. At least to me, oil seems to be the reason for our presence.

Tim Predmore is on active duty with the 101st Airborne Division near Mosul, Iraq.

Too Little Truth on Iraq

2003-09-17T13:55:00.000-07:00

The Star Tribune catches Dick Cheney in a couple of big lies on Iraq.

In his appearance on "Meet the Press" Sunday, Cheney fell woefully short of truth. On the subject of Iraq, the same can be said for President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz. But Cheney is the latest example of administration mendacity, and therefore a good place to start in holding the administration accountable.

• Cheney said that "we don't know" if there is a connection between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States. He's right only in the sense that "we don't know" if the sun will come up tomorrow. But all the evidence available says it will -- and that Iraq was not involved in Sept. 11.

Cheney offered stuff, but it wasn't evidence. He said that one of those involved in planning the attack, an Iraqi-American, had returned to Iraq after the attack and had been protected, perhaps even supported, by Saddam Hussein. That proves exactly nothing about Iraq's links to the attack itself.

Cheney also cited a supposed meeting in Prague between hijacker Mohamed Atta and a senior Iraqi intelligence officer -- but the FBI concluded that Atta was in Florida at the time of the supposed meeting. The CIA always doubted the story. And according to a New York Times article on Oct. 21, 2002, Czech President Vaclav Havel "quietly told the White House he has concluded that there is no evidence to confirm earlier reports" of such a meeting.

Moreover, the United States now has in custody the agent accused of meeting with Atta. Even though he must know how much he would benefit by simply saying, "Yes, I met Atta in Prague," there has been no announcement by the administration trumpeting that vindication of its belief in an Iraq-Sept. 11 link.

• In trying to make that link, Cheney baldly asserted that Iraq is the "geographic base" for those who struck the United States on Sept. 11. No, that would be Afghanistan.

What's especially interesting about Cheney's comments is how they directly contradict a couple of recent administration positions on these issues, namely Rumsfeld's recent denial of any connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Update: Bush himself just denied any connection between Saddam and 9-11.

Welcome to Fighting Back

2003-09-17T13:04:00.000-07:00

Welcome to Fighting Back, the political site for progressive Democrats and independents tired of the lying Bush administration machine.

You can visit some of my old posts at http://fightingback.blog-city.com. I've posted articles and comments that I hope will go some small way to bringing down the dangerous Bush regime and replace it with something more sensible (which, at this point, includes everything from jellyfish to blind monkeys).

Thanks.