How Bush Works.POWER GRAB


Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#1
Quote:

Scholar says Bush has used obscure doctrine to extend power 95 times
Jennifer Van Bergen



The Bush administration has been using an extreme version of an obscure doctrine called the Unitary Executive Theory to justify executive actions that far exceed past presidents' power, RAW STORY has learned.

The doctrine assumes, in its extreme form, nearly absolute deference to the Executive branch from Congress and the Judiciary.

According to Dr. Christopher Kelley, a professor in the Department of Political Sciences at Miami University, as of April 2005, President Bush had used the doctrine 95 times when signing legislation into law, issuing an executive order, or responding to a congressional resolution.

Advertisement


The President announced in these signings that he would construe provisions in a manner consistent with his “constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch.” While the President clearly has the authority to supervise the executive branch, it is unclear how far he might construe this authority under the unitary executive theory.

In fact, according to professors Steven J. Calabresi and Christopher S. Yoo, “a veritable all-star list of constitutional scholars” has rejected judicial supremacy, considering it inconsistent with the idea of checks and balances among the three branches of the federal government.

The President announced in these signings that he would construe provisions in a manner consistent with his "constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch." While the President clearly has the authority to supervise the executive branch, it is unclear how far he might construe this authority under the unitary executive theory.

The Administration’s actions under this doctrine have become so prevalent that even conservatives on the Supreme Court who are sympathetic to the unitary executive theory have felt compelled to reject them. Last year, for example, the Court ruled that the President does not have absolute authority to detain enemy combatants without due process.

Unitarian vs. Non-Unitarian theoreticians

The unitary executive doctrine, in its mildest form, claims only that the President has the power to appoint, control, and remove executive officers, as well as the duty to interpret the law as it applies to his office.

The doctrine is being used by the Bush Administration, however, to claim the authority to decide what is and what is not the law in areas that some legal experts view as suspect. Michael A. Froomkin, professor at University of Miami Law School, told RAW STORY that some of Bush’s applications of the doctrine are “highly dubious.”

Under the Constitution, the president’s role is to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Congress has the power to make the laws and the judiciary interprets the law.

For over 200 years, the United States Supreme Court has been viewed as the final arbiter of what is and what is not the law. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,” declared Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803. “This is the very essence of judicial duty.”

But unitary executive theoreticians claim that judicial supremacy over interpretation of the laws is not and never has been exclusive. Professors Calabresi and Yoo have noted that “the suggestion that the Supreme Court may not have the last word on matters of constitutional interpretation seems at first to be quite jarring to modern lawyers” but Marshall’s famous opinion “never claimed that interpretation of the law was the exclusive province of the courts.”

Froomkin, who has debated this issue on the law review circuit, is a non-Unitarian who acknowledged to RAW STORY that the president has not only the power -- but the duty -- to interpret the Constitution in certain instances, as when he vetoes a bill.

“The President has a duty not to undermine his own office,” he says.

According to Froomkin, a problem arises when the president views himself as completely above the law or is so secretive that no checks and balances can work. The greatest danger is when Congress doesn’t adequately assert itself, he asserts.

The Miami professor noted that Congress did not react to the legality of the Guantanamo detentions. Nor did they respond when the CIA used an unmanned plane fitted with a five-foot-long Hellfire missile to kill a senior al Qaeda leader as he was riding in a car in the Yemeni desert, also killing a naturalized U.S. citizen.

Congress has never questioned the order to assassinate these individuals, even though the CIA has been banned from conducting or participating in assassinations since 1976.

The major difference between Unitarians and non-Unitarians, according to Froomkin, is that Unitarians believe the President can do what he likes and non-Unitarians believe there are boundaries and limits to executive power.

The Geneva Convention

Froomkin also sees the selective nonapplication of the Geneva Conventions to certain designated enemy combatants and the military tribunals as legally dubious.

The Administration’s claim that it has the authority to decide what is or is not the law is most manifest in its decision not to apply the Geneva Conventions to certain persons. A 2003 memo on torture written by Department of Defense lawyers stated that “criminal statutes are not read as infringing on the president’s ultimate authority” as commander-in-chief, and prohibitions on torture “must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations.”

“Congress may no more regulate the president’s ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield,” said the memo.

White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales wrote in 2002 that the Geneva Conventions were “obsolete” and “quaint” and argued that Bush had the constitutional authority to determine that Geneva did not apply to al Qaeda or the Taliban.

Several mainstream legal scholars have declared that the President’s claim of unlimited executive power turns the Constitution on its head. University of Texas law professor Douglas Laycock told the L.A. Times that “It is just wrong to say the president can do whatever he wants, even if it is against the law.”

Charles Gittings, founder of the Project to Enforce the Geneva Conventions, asserts that the President’s decision not to apply Geneva, or to apply it selectively, is a grave breach of the Convention and thus a violation of the War Crimes Act of 1996.

“The President has no Constitutional authority to commit crimes,” he said.[/b]

 
Jo Canadian
#2
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#3
He looks like he might be about to trip on a pretzel or choke on a pretzel, or whatever he did.....
 
Reverend Blair
#4
Quote:

He looks like he might be about to trip on a pretzel or choke on a pretzel, or whatever he did.

What he did was to drink too much Jack and almost get caught doing a Bonzo Bonham impression, but we're supposed to be too stupid to figure that out.
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Jo Canadian

Very Good !!
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#6
Quote:

Bush Is Cooking Up Two More Wars
by Paul Craig Roberts
by Paul Craig Roberts



Mired in interminable conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush administration is moving toward initiating two more wars, one with Iran and one with North Korea. With no US troops available, the Bush administration is revamping US war doctrine to allow for "preventative nuclear attack." In short, the Bush administration is planning to make the US the first country in history to initiate war with nuclear weapons. The Pentagon document, "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations," calls for the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear adversaries in order "to ensure success of US and multinational operations."

In the case of Iran and North Korea, the Bush administration is using diplomacy not for diplomatic purposes of reaching agreements, but in order to set the two countries up for nuclear attack. In the case of Iran, the Bush administration’s plan is now obvious. The Bush administration is leveling false charges against Iran, just as it did against Iraq, of conspiring to make nuclear weapons. These charges are known to be false by the Bush administration and by the entire world.

For the past two years the International Atomic Energy Agency has had unfettered access to inspect Iran for any sign of a nuclear weapons program. The head of the IAEA has announced that there is no sign of a weapons program. The Bush administration nevertheless insists that Iran is making weapons, but can produce no evidence. As in the case of Iraq, the Bush administration substitutes allegations for facts.

Gordon Prather, an expert on the subject, has reported the straight facts in fine detail. Readers can become familiar with them by consulting his archive at LewRockwell.com.

By bullying the 35 members of the IAEA, the Bush administration last week managed to get 22 votes that could lead to the referral of Iran to the UN Security Council. The Bush administration will now lobby for the referral. Once it has the referral, even if the Security Council does not act on it, the Bush administration can use it as an excuse to attack Iran. The Bush administration knows that few Americans have any knowledge of international law and procedures and will simply believe whatever President Bush says. The highly concentrated US media is a proven walkover for the war-mongering Bush administration.

As Dr. Prather has shown, Iran has gone beyond compliance to propose that new additional safeguards be established to monitor its nuclear energy program. The bad intentions are on the part of the Bush administration.

The Bush administration’s plan is to create Iranian intransigence in place of cooperation by forcing the Iranian government to stand up to the bullying by reducing its cooperation. The goal of the Bush administration is to attack Iran, not to create cooperative relationships.

Needless to say, Iranians are angry at the Bush administration’s manipulation of the IAEA members. Last Wednesday protesters in Tehran attacked the British embassy, which serves as a proxy for the non-existent US embassy, and legislation was introduced that, if it passes, will scale back Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA. Iran has also threatened to cut off oil deliveries to some of the countries that caved in to US pressure, thereby permitting the US to increase tensions and escalate the conflict.

The Bush administration is betting that it can demonize Iran the way it did Iraq. As both Congress and the American public have failed to hold Bush accountable for deceiving them about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the administration assumes that its tactics will work a second time.

However, a nuclear attack on Iran would leave the Bush administration isolated. The US would instantly become a pariah nation, loathed and hated everywhere else.

Moreover, it would leave our battered troops in Iraq in a perilous situation. The only reason our army in Iraq has not been destroyed is that the Shi’ites, who comprise the vast majority of the population, have not taken up arms against us, expecting the US to turn over Iraq to them. As the Iraqi Shi’ites are allied with the Iranians, who also are Shi’ite, the US cannot attack Iran without destroying its position in Iraq.

The Bush administration, filled with hubris and delusion, is too stupid to know this.

The American people need to ask themselves why of all the countries in the world, only the US and Israel believe that it is imperative to attack Iran. If Iran is such a threat to the world, why isn’t Russia, for example, concerned and ready to invade?

Americans need to ask themselves the same question about North Korea. Why is the US, half a world away, so concerned about North Korea? If North Korea is such a threat, would not China, sitting on its border, know it? Wouldn’t Japan know it? South Korea? Wouldn’t some other country besides the US see the problem and take action? According to the Voice of America (August 11, 2005), "Senior South Korean officials on Thursday defended what they say is North Korea’s ‘natural right’ to pursue civilian nuclear power. The move may cause friction with the United States, which has expressed firm opposition to the North having any nuclear facilities whatsoever."

If the US doesn’t want other countries to develop nuclear weapons, the US must stop bombing, invading and threatening invasions and nuclear attacks. How does President Bush serve the cause of peace by making countries paranoid by declaring them to be our enemies?

For there to be peace, the US must drop its belligerent role. The proper function of diplomacy is to build trust by drawing countries into economic and cultural relationships, not to isolate them for attack. It is past time for the US to give up its quarter century feud with Iran. US interference in Iranian internal affairs was the source of the feud. We need to acknowledge it and get over it.

The Korean war ended a half century ago. Isn’t it time the US acknowledged the war’s end and signed a treaty with North Korea? The Korean war was essentially a war between the US and China. It was Chinese troops that prevented American victory. Yet we are getting on with China, a much greater potential threat to the US than North Korea or Iran could ever be.

By creating instability in the Middle East, the US undermines Israel’s security. As a few thousand Iraqi insurgents have proven, American armies are not going to be able to sit over the oil in the Middle East. If we can’t produce enough valuable goods or maintain a strong currency, we won’t have access to the oil. There is no possibility whatsoever of the US pushing around powers like China, India, or Russia.

Bush’s hubris makes him unrealistic. He greatly overestimates America’s power. Congress and the American people must find a way to supply the judgment that is missing in the executive branch.

There would be no terrorism if the US would stop interfering in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern countries and if Israel stopped stealing the West Bank from the Palestinians. The Bush administration knows this, and that is why the administration spreads the propagandistic lie that "they" (Muslims) hate us and our way of life. This lie is the excuse for American aggression.

wonder if bush can be contained...... he is a bloody menace to society /the world / humanity and any possibility of real peace.
 
JomZ
#7
The U.S. warmachine will keep on going, its veins pumping with oil, armed with the most advanced arsenal on the planet, and misguided by a dissallusional leadership and a corporate puppemaster.

I don't know about this whole "Nuclear" strikes. When more conventional airstrikes will be just as effective without so much collateral damage. Im thinking a joint strike by America and Israel on Iran.
 
GL Schmitt
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean Breeze

I wonder if bush can be contained......

I always try to look on the bright side.

America is just one regime change away from democracy.
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by GL Schmitt

Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean Breeze

I wonder if bush can be contained......

I always try to look on the bright side.

America is just one regime change away from democracy.

a truism , GL.
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#10
How "bush works".......as in buying the news.

[quote]Buying of News by Bush's Aides Is Ruled Illegal

Sign In to E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly
Single-Page
Reprints
Save Article
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: October 1, 2005
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 - Federal auditors said on Friday that the Bush administration violated the law by buying favorable news coverage of President Bush's education policies, by making payments to the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and by hiring a public relations company to analyze media perceptions of the Republican Party.

In a blistering report, the investigators, from the Government Accountability Office, said the administration had disseminated "covert propaganda" in the United States, in violation of a statutory ban.

The contract with Mr. Williams and the general contours of the public relations campaign had been known for months. The report Friday provided the first definitive ruling on the legality of the activities.

Lawyers from the accountability office, an independent nonpartisan arm of Congress, found that the administration systematically analyzed news articles to see if they carried the message, "The Bush administration/the G.O.P. is committed to education."

The auditors declared: "We see no use for such information except for partisan political purposes. Engaging in a purely political activity such as this is not a proper use of appropriated funds."

The report also sharply criticized the Education Department for telling Ketchum Inc., a public relations company, to pay Mr. Williams for newspaper columns and television appearances praising Mr. Bush's education initiative, the No Child Left Behind Act.

When that arrangement became public, it set off widespread criticism. At a news conference in January, Mr. Bush said: "We will not be paying commentators to advance our agenda. Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet."

But the Education Department has since defended its payments to Mr. Williams, saying his commentaries were "no more than the legitimate dissemination of information to the public."

The G.A.O. said the Education Department had no money or authority to "procure favorable commentary in violation of the publicity or propaganda prohibition" in federal law.

The ruling comes with no penalty, but under federal law the department is supposed to report the violations to the White House and Congress.

In the course of its work, the accountability office discovered a previously undisclosed instance in which the Education Department had commissioned a newspaper article. The article, on the "declining science literacy of students," was distributed by the North American Precis Syndicate and appeared in numerous small newspapers around the country. Readers were not informed of the government's role in the writing of the article, which praised the department's role in promoting science education.

The auditors denounced a prepackaged television story disseminated by the Education Department. The segment, a "video news release" narrated by a woman named Karen Ryan, said that President Bush's program for providing remedial instruction and tutoring to children "gets an A-plus."

Ms. Ryan also narrated two videos praising the new Medicare drug benefit last year. In those segments, as in the education video, the narrator ended by saying, "In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting."

The television news segments on education and on Medicare did not state that they had been prepared and distributed by the government. The G.A.O. did not say how many stations carried the reports.

The public relations efforts came to light weeks before Margaret Spellings became education secretary in January. Susan Aspey, a spokeswoman for the secretary, said on Friday that Ms. Spellings regarded the efforts as "stupid, wrong and ill-advised." She said Ms. Spellings had taken steps "to ensure these types of missteps don't happen again."

The investigation by the accountability office was requested by Senators Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, both Democrats. Mr. Lautenberg expressed concern about a section of the report in which investigators said they could not find records to confirm that Mr. Williams had performed all the activities for which he billed the government.

The Education Department said it had paid Ketchum $186,000 for services performed by Mr. Williams's company. But it could not provide transcripts of speeches, articles or records of other services invoiced by Mr. Williams, the report said.

 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#11
Quote:

A Government of War Criminals
A Press of Agents Provocateurs
A Bureaucracy of Foreign Spies
Juan Cole, Informed Comment



October 1, 2005


Just reading ordinary press reports on the state of government and the press in Washington is like stepping into Orwell's 1984

The Attorney General authorizes torture, the president orders it with weasel words, and the press acquiesces, mostly not even bothering with even a feeble protest. Colin Powell's objections to tossing the Geneva Conventions in the waste basket (because he knew that doing so opened US soldiers to being tortured with impunity by our foes) were brushed aside by comfortable liars-- I mean lawyers-- in cushy Washington offices. When the practice of torture becomes incontrovertibly public via pictures from Abu Ghraib, they punish a few privates and corporals. I guess the order by a federal judge that more Abu Ghraib photos and videos be released is bad news for . . . privates and corporals. The worst thing is that the American public knew all this, and they reelected the team responsible, which makes us all complicit in torture; it is national policy approved in a national referendum.

Then we have the revelation that New York Times reporter Judith Miller went to jail to protect her source, arch-Neocon Lewis Libby, Dick Cheney's Brain. Miller has behaved suspiciously for years, uncritically reporting the WMD charges of Chalabi and Libby against Iraq in the run-up to the war. Since Libby had already told her he did not need protecting, and again intervened to release her from her duty of confidentiality, we may presume she did not actually go to jail to protect Libby's anonymity. Did she know something specific that required time for Libby to shred the documents about?

Justin Raimundo's analysis of the espionage case against senior Defense Department Iran Desk Officer Larry Franklin and his contacts in AIPAC, through which he leaked secret US documents to the Israeli embassy, is worth considering precisely because it makes the maximalist case for the significance of the scandal. I wish the argument were more nuanced, and there are many things in it with which I disagree (David Satterfield is likely to have been a relatively innocent bystander in this train wreck, e.g.). But because Raimundo pulls no punches, he forces us to consider the degree to which Congressional foreign policy on the Middle East in particular has become virtually captive to the Zionist lobby (just as US policy toward Cuba is captive to the Cuban-American community and its lobby). He clearly goes too far, but how far should an analyst of this case go? Billmon is almost equally scathing.

One thing must be said, which is that there is no sinister cabal, that all this is just single-interest politics. The American system is one of checks and balances, and takes it for granted that there will be lobbies on both sides of an issue. But because there are no wealthy, organized, well-connected lobbies on the other side of AIPAC or the Cuban-American National Foundation (e.g.), US government policy ends up being unbalanced and often irrational on those issues. And, AIPAC functions as a foreign agent in the US without having to register as such, and some of its major officers clearly have been deeply involved in espionage for Israel for years. The last two points are uncontestable. Is this really a situation that serves the American people? Franklin, the "go-to" man at the Pentagon for then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, was trying to get up a US war against Iran, and was soliciting AIPAC's help. We already know that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has tried as hard as he could to get the US into a war against Tehran. Do the rest of us, who already have one military occupation of a Middle Eastern country we're not comfortable with, have any say at all in this? Don't we need a PAC for Middle East Peace that could begin offsetting AIPAC, the War PAC? If the pro-Israeli lobby or the Israeli prime minister want wars in the Middle East, why don't they fight them themselves? By the way, AIPAC has for several years been attempting to get Congress to pass a law that would put it in charge of the Middle East professors, like myself, and in a position to punish our universities financially if any of us criticize it or Israeli policy. The most dangerous thing about key elements of the Zionist lobby is that they really do want to gut the US First Amendment when it comes to Israeli interests.

I hope everyone who reads this will consider writing their Congressional representatives and senators and asking them to work to see that AIPAC is made to register as the agent of a foreign power, given the repeated pattern whereby it acts as such.

 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#12
Quote:

George W. Bush came on hard. He waited impatiently in the wings while his brother and the hired guns and goons stole the Florida election, then barreled into the White House with both guns blazing. His first act was to cut off US funding for clinics all over the world that provided abortions or even gave abortion counseling. Soon thereafter, he lifted the lid on energy prices in California, allowing his friends at Enron to steal billions.

Bush came on to America and to the world with shock and awe. He comes from a long line of Nazis, and stated early on that it would be much easier to be a dictator. In fact, he has extended executive power many times to override or circumvent Congress. He came into power with an agenda- to get rid the ABM treaty, invade Iraq, and put in place draconian laws that would gut the Bill of Rights, while giving tax cuts to the rich and sweetheart no bid contracts to his corporate cronies.

A few months into 2001, the country was beginning to collect itself and oppose his more egregious proposals, such as raising the ceiling on arsenic in drinking water. Strong support of the ABM treaty was building.

Of course, 9-11, Bush's "trifecta", stopped all opposition for a while. The ABM treaty was rescinded a couple of months later, during the Christmas holiday, while no one was looking. This opened the door to the massive boondoggle called "missile defense", which benefits no one except the Bush-friendly corporations, who reap hundreds of billions of dollars.

Then came the buildup to the Iraq invasion. Bush wanted to invade during the winter, without bothering with approval from Congress or the UN, and ONLY THE WORLDWIDE PEACE MOVEMENT delayed him until the following May. He twisted intelligence, bugged UN diplomats, lied to Congress, and finally got his war. Proudly, he calls himself "the war president".

Bush is still coming on hard, thrusting the legal architect of his 2000 Florida election theft into the chair of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, pushing mininukes, razing poor neighborhoods in Iraq. But what goes up, must come down. What goes around, comes around. He's cruisin'...

Indictments are being handed out to top aides and key cronies like Tom DeLay, Karl Rove- perhaps, Jack Abramoff. The FAO calls Bush a lawbreaker for spending tax dollars to promote his educational plan. His generals announce that his Iraq policy has failed. The impeachment movement is gathering momentum. It's only a matter of time, now.

Jimmy Cliff- "The harder they come, the harder they fall, one and all."

 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#13
Bush's stay out of jail card??

Quote:

Bush's Stay out of Jail Card
In the high stakes game of Supreme Court Hold 'Em, Dubya has made a decisive and bold, yet defensive move. Has has gone "all in" and nominated his former personal lawyer, Harriet Miers, for the Supreme Court. What better way to avoid jail for war crimes, profiteering and conspiracy. Appoint your own lawyer to the bench. A truly brilliant maneouver even if Alberto's really disappointed. Bush's cronies can stop sweating now.

ABC News: Who Is Harriet Miers?
Harriet Ellan Miers is White House counsel and was formerly President Bush's personal lawyer in Texas. She first served in the White House as staff secretary and was deputy chief of staff before she was named counsel upon Alberto Gonzales' transition to attorney general.
Having learned an important lesson from the Roberts nomination - that your judicial record can come back to bite you in the ass if anyone is able to actually uncover what that record is - Miers has no judicial (or legislative) record to peruse and scrutinize.

Miers could sail through a no questions asked confirmation process. The Democrats, having already approved many incompetent and unqualified Bush nominees, will have a real challenge finding a way to opposed this tabala rasa (blank slate). They might as well fold their hands now.

As an added bonus, Dubya has appeased his wife First Lady Laura by nominating a woman, which means that little Georgie's got a big surprise waiting for him tonight when he gets into bed.

 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#14
Quote:

BUSH'S 'HOLY' CRONIES HAVE FEET OF CLAY
Bill Gallagher



October 4, 2005

DETROIT -- Deception, arrogance, greed, hubris, corruption, incompetence and isolation -- the seven deadly sins of political life -- snared President George W. Bush and his cronies long ago. That's how they gained and maintain power.

While praying and thumbing their Bibles, loudly proclaiming their virtue and righteousness, the faith-based Busheviks claim to be the chosen and anointed, carrying out God's work on earth. In fact and in deed, they behave like the devil's disciples.

Now, with inspired irony, the sins they've served so well are their undoing. George W. Bush and his servants are being singed with the fires of political damnation, and they know an inferno is coming. Alone and naked in their sinfulness, they shiver in fear in the face of truth and justice. The evil empire is crumbling. Praise the Lord!

Bush's speechwriters use apocalyptic incantations all the time. Words like "evil" and "hate" roll off his smirking lips with relish. Forgive me, the style is contagious.

Bush's war in Iraq, his supreme deception, is a certain failure and the only uncertainty is how much more blood will be shed before the inevitable withdrawal. Now, polls show, only one-third of the American people support the war and most recognize the great lie Bush sold when he conflated Saddam Hussein's Iraq with al-Qaeda terrorism and the Sept. 11 attacks.

Bush's plan to march into the heart of Islam with our British allies and then expect democracy to blossom in the Middle East has proven to be one of the most monstrously bad ideas in our nation's history. That aggression has made us despised around the world.

An advisory panel to the State Department has concluded, "America's image and reputation abroad could hardly be worse." Bush's old friend and former flack, Karen Hughes, just returned from a mission to improve the U.S. image in the Muslim world and show them what swell folks we really are.

Hughes, who is now undersecretary of state and responsible for public diplomacy, made her first venture into the Middle East, with disastrous results.

Hughes, with no foreign policy experience, made a feeble attempt to cozy up to our critics. She told women activists in Istanbul how wrenching it was for Bush to decide to invade Iraq.

Hughes told the gathering that "no one likes war," but "to preserve peace sometimes my country believes war is necessary." Unlike the handpicked town meetings the White House typically arranges, the Turkish women didn't smile and cheer on cue.

Feray Salman, a human rights advocate, stood up and told Hughes, "War is not necessary for peace." Salman scoffed at the notion of imposing democracy through war: "We can never, ever export democracy and freedom from one country to another."

This week, Bush plans yet another speech to explain how well his arrogant vision for Iraq is working and how much safer our nation is.

Hughes began her diplomatic road show in Cairo, where she tried to sell Bush's pipe dreams for the Middle East. Her amateurism showed as she told the Egyptians, "Many people around the world do not understand the important role that faith plays in Americans' lives." That must have been reassuring for the Muslim audience.

Hughes said, "Terrorists, their policies force young people, other people's daughters and sons, to strap on bombs and blow themselves up."

Robert Pape, a University of Chicago political scientist who's done extensive research on the motives of suicide terrorists, says Hughes is way off the mark and that her trip actually comforts terrorists. Pape told the Guardian's Sidney Blumenthal, "If you set out to help bin Laden, you could not have done it better than Hughes."

Pape rejects the view that suicide terrorism naturally flows from Islamic fundamentalism. He argues that outside intervention and specific circumstances set the stage. Pape told Blumenthal, "Of the key conditions that lead to suicide terrorism in particular, there must be, first, the presence of foreign combat forces on the territory that the terrorists prize. The second condition is a religious difference between the combat forces and local community. The religious difference matters in that it enables terrorist leaders to paint foreign forces as being driven by religious goals. If you read Osama's speeches, they begin with descriptions of the U.S. occupation of the Arabian Peninsula, driven by our religious goals, and that it is our religious purpose that must be confronted. That argument is incredibly powerful, not only to religious Muslims, but secular Muslims. Everything Hughes says makes their case."

Not to be outdone by the State Department, Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Department continues to aid and abet terrorists and provide them with young recruits. More evidence of prisoner torture in Iraq is emerging, showing the horrors of Abu Ghraib were not isolated.

Army Capt. Ian Fishback of the 82nd Airborne Division and two sergeants have come forward to report that members of their unit routinely beat, abused and tortured Iraqi detainees. Fishback, a West Point graduate, says he tried for more than a year to get his superiors to listen, but only got their attention when he brought his complaints to Human Rights Watch and members of Congress.

More photos of the abuses at Abu Ghraib may soon be made public after a federal judge ruled the Pentagon could no longer censor them. Gen. Richard Myers, the freshly departed chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had argued in court papers that releasing the photographs would aid al-Qaeda recruitment, weaken the shaky governments in Afghanistan and Iraq and incite riots against American troops. The judge correctly ruled the photos are the best evidence of what happened at the notorious prison.

Myers was a shameless toady who would parrot any lines the Busheviks fed him. He did great and lasting harm to the U.S. military. He will be remembered as the most thoroughly compromised and politicized commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He should expect a big medal from Bush and a job with some military contractor.

Vice President Dick Cheney is worried about more than his health problems these days. His chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, has now been named as the source New York Times reporter Judith Miller went to prison to protect. Miller got out of the slammer last Thursday after doing a 12-week stretch.

"I was a journalist doing my job protecting my source until my source freed me to perform my civic duty to testify," Miller said after testifying before a federal grand jury.

Put aside for a moment the arguments about the need for a federal shield law to protect reporters from being compelled to reveal their sources. That's a First Amendment issue that merits another column. But let's focus for now on why Cheney and his henchmen sought out Judy Miller to share their information about undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame. The Busheviks outed Plame to retaliate against her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson. He blew the lid off the Bush administration's infamous deception that Iraq was shopping for enriched uranium in Niger, Africa. Cheney loved that big lie and repeated it often. Bush used it in a State of the Union address.

Wilson found the truth and had the guts to tell the world. Retaliation came in an act of treason.

Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, masters in treachery -- another cardinal political sin -- leaked to reporters Plame's CIA connection and the suggestion that she engineered her husband's assignment to check out the Niger story. Rove and Libby may soon be indicted. Condi Rice is also up to her designer boot tops in the scandal.

Libby and Rove believed Judy Miller, a faithful lapdog, would help their cause. They threw her the Plame-CIA bone, expecting she'd use it. Since Miller had been so reliable in peddling a bundle of Bush administration lies to make the case for war with Iraq, they expected her continued loyalty.

Miller's pre-invasion reporting -- largely based on leaks from Cheney's office and the word of Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi expatriate and notorious liar -- described Iraq as having huge arsenals of deadly weapons.

Miller's "exclusives" were spattered all over the front pages of the Times. The inflammatory reports led the march to war. They were also horribly wrong. The paper has since apologized for some of that coverage. Miller never has.

Others in the mainstream corporate media picked up on Miller's dead-wrong stories. NBC's chief foreign affairs correspondent, Andrea Mitchell, would pounce on Miller's crap and, night after night, repeat the lies Cheney's boys had crafted. From Chalabi to Cheney to Libby to Miller to Mitchell and on to a huge television audience, the great deceptions echoed.

In a recent interview on "Real Time with Bill Maher," Mitchell admitted reporters did little to question Bush's rush to war. "And since 9/11 and after 9/11, there was a sort of rallying around -- an understandable sort of patriotic effect -- and I think reporters were less challenging," Mitchell said. No kidding.

When Bush's people couldn't co-opt reporters, they did it the old-fashioned way -- they bribed them. Federal auditors say the administration broke the law when it paid conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and others to churn out favorable news coverage about Bush's education policies and the No Child Left Behind Act.

I'm sure House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who's on a leadership sabbatical following his indictment on charges of conspiring to violate Texas election laws, would see no problem in using public funds for political propaganda. DeLay looks up at the gutter. For years, he has literally sold his radical Republicans in the House to the highest corporate bidders.

Over in the Senate, Majority Leader Dr. Bill "Dirty Hands" Frist keeps lying about his blind trust that managed to have 20/20 vision when it came to unloading his stock that was about to tank.

Frist is a fraud, a Martha Stewart in drag, a greedy manipulator who should have had his medical license yanked for the public health policies he's fostered that leave 45 million Americans without health insurance. He uses his public position to protect private hospitals -- shocking as that is -- and the usual suspect drug and insurance companies.

In these trying, sin-laced times, Bush and his crowd usually would turn to the holy trinity of radical Republican (RR) virtue for grace and salvation -- Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and Bill Bennett. But alas, the liberals have done them wrong and caused great consternation.

Rush is frantically fighting prosecutors seeking his medical records and the sources of his illegal drugs.

Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, whose phone sex aggression caused great harm to a female subordinate and cost Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.'s shareholders millions of dollars, is dueling with another demon. Media Matters for America, a Web site that reviews media accuracy, has found Mr. O'Reilly spins lies, deceptions and distortions at the pace of a 9-year-old in Bangladesh making shirts for Wal-Mart. O'Reilly is a serial liar, plain and simple. Those who listen to him expecting the truth don't get it.

Bill Bennett -- the RR's chief custodian of virtue, Ronald Reagan's secretary of education and Bush the Elder's drug czar -- is on a new high after revelations about his gambling addiction. Bennett admits he had a long-term affair with the one-armed bandits in Vegas, dropping millions in coins, pumping and stroking the machines for fleeting gratification. It's my money, he said, money made preaching virtue.

But now Bennett, our vicar of virtue, has a new theory, which he preached on his radio show. He sees abortion as reprehensible, but says it might have some societal benefits.

"I do know that it's true if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose -- you could abort every black baby in the country, and your crime rate would go down," Bennett said.

When the heat followed, the flip-lipped Bennett whined he was quoted out of context and what he said was only a "thought experiment."

My thought experiment is that Bennett, George W. Bush and their ilk reflect on their own sins and leave public virtue to others.


 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#15
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/100405.html


How rotten are these guys??? Difficult to separate the bush shenanegans from organized crime.


Amazing who the amerikans will elect into power...

did anyone do a background check on the bushes before voting for the bloke??

Imagine how much different .........and peaceful (i suspect) things would have been if Gore had been running the oval office. At least there would have been some brains , and eloquence .....
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#16
Quote:

BUSH AMONG BIGGEST SPENDING PRESIDENTS





By Pastor Chuck Baldwin

October 14, 2005

NewsWithViews.com

After nearly five years in office, the record is clear: President George W. Bush ranks among the biggest spending presidents in American history! With such a record, no person can honestly categorize G.W. Bush as a fiscal conservative. By comparison, Dubya's spending habits make Bill Clinton look like a conservative!

Writing for the Financial Times (7/15/05), Jim Cooper stated, "President George W. Bush has failed to impose discipline on congressional spending. His Republican Congress has, unsurprisingly, become headstrong and spendthrift as a result."

Cooper continued by saying, "Mr. Bush is the first US president since James Garfield in 1881 to accept every bill that Congress sends him as if it were perfect. And Garfield only served six months in office."

Again, Cooper wrote, "Most of the strong presidents in American history vetoed dozens, sometimes hundreds, of bills. Mr. Bush has vetoed none."

Beyond that, according to Stephen Slivinski of the libertarian Cato Institute, "[President] Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Mr. Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years." However, the story is even worse than that.

Jim Cooper notes that "Not only has Mr. Bush failed to veto any legislation, he has not rescinded any outlays. This lesser-known power has been used by every president since Richard Nixon except, again, for George W. Bush. Rescissions allow presidents to cut any spending programmes within larger bills as long as simple majorities in both Houses of Congress agree.

"Although this White House pretends it is powerless, former president Bill Clinton sought to rescind 163 spending items totaling $6.6 billion, and won 111 from a divided Congress, saving $3.6 billion. Mr. Bush's father tried to rescind 169 items totaling $13.3 billion, winning 34 from a divided Congress, saving $2.3 billion. The champion is Ronald Reagan, who tried to cut 602 spending items costing $43.4 billion and won 214, again from a divided Congress, thus saving $15.6 billion."



Cooper summarized by saying, "Mr. Bush has rescinded no programmes, saving no dollars, despite complete Republican control of Congress. The fiscal consequences of one-party government are dire. Today, there is no adult supervision of Congress. No wonder congressional 'earmarks'-pork-barrel spending in a member's own state or district-have multiplied to almost $24 billion annually. Mr. Bush is aiding and abetting the most expensive political logrolling in American history."



There can now be no argument on the subject. Anyone attempting to claim that G.W. Bush and the Republicans in Congress believe in limiting government spending is pixilated! George Bush consumes tax dollars the way he once consumed booze! And, on the whole, his Republican buddies in Congress are perhaps even bigger spending sops than he is! They don't belong in Washington; they belong in SA (Spenders Anonymous).

 
edwarda
#17
How is it that the International Media Suppressed this Story:
Germany--September 22, 2005--TomFlocco.com--French and American
intelligence agents have arrested Barbara Olson, the wife of a former
Bush administration official, a few days ago on the Polish-German
border, according to agents close to and with knowledge of the incident.

The alleged 9.11 Pentagon crash victim was found to be in possession of
millions in fake interbank Italian lyra currency, according to the
agents.

Olson was also reportedly in possession of a fraudulent Vatican passport
and was held on charges of counterfeiting.


Barbara K. Olson
The former Fox News TV commentator and Independent Women's Forum
activist was said to have called her husband Theodore Olson from her
plane to seek help in countering hijackers who had allegedly taken over
American flight 77 which the Bush administration said was crashed into
the Pentagon- although the impact only left an opening approximately 16
feet across.

Ted Olson is the former Bush 43 Solicitor General who had previously
argued the President's legal interests in the controversial Bush-Gore
2000 election recount case before the U.S. Supreme Court.


Theodore (Ted) B. Olson

Mrs. Olson's alleged cell phone call to her husband was employed by the
administration and the 9.11 Commission as partial proof that American 77
crashed into the Pentagon, despite physical evidence to the contrary.

The Pentagon crash evidence was ignored and obstructed by both the
Commission and previously by the Joint Congressional Intelligence
Committee in its own separate probe.

Due to the ongoing sensitive nature of the arrest, investigation and
questioning, one source who declined to be named for this story, told
TomFlocco.com that Olson's call to her husband was a fraud and that
another projectile impacted the Pentagon other than Olson's plane.

The agents were said to have closed in to arrest the former television
pundit because the evidence of counterfeiting and passport violations
was obvious and that the timing was right.

According to the agents, Barbara Olson is reportedly considered to be a
conspirator to the obstruction of justice in the mass murders of 3,000
individuals on September 11, 2001 in the attacks on the World Trade
Center, the Pentagon and the alleged crash in southwestern Pennsylvania.

Olson's arrest and potential appearance at trial in the United States
would undoubtedly have a profound impact upon current "Able Danger"
hearings in the Senate and past probes by both the Joint Congressional
Intelligence Committee and the 9.11 Commission.



[ We have changed the location of this report to the Polish-German
border to correct the original phoned-in intelligence report we
received.
When we went back and questioned this location, We were given the
Polish-German border as the correct location.
The spelling of Olson’s name was corrected within 60 minutes after the
story was posted. TF]

http://www.tomflocco.com


~Absolute power corrupts absolutely
Back to top

<img>