Advertisement

dufus on the prowl again

topic posted Mon, May 7, 2007 - 3:33 PM by  Maude'Dib
Share/Save/Bookmark
posted by:
Maude'Dib
SF Bay Area
Advertisement
  • yep.
    • Unsu...
       
      >>>>>>>smarmy, stupid, bastard <<<<<<

      Bush used to be called dumb a lot---and still is. Meanwhile Gore was called ever so smart, perhaps even "too smart to be president." Yet when someone got hold of Gore's college transcripts and posted his Harvard grades on the web, it turned out that Gore made worse grades than Bush did in college. (Gore failed several classes in grad school and dropped out.) Given that Gore's father was a Senator when Al entered Harvard while Bush's father was running for election as a Congressman in Texas when George entered Yale, if special favors were needed to gain entry, it would seem that Gore was in greater need of them than Bush.
      Bush mangles his sentences sometimes, but given that every time he opens his mouth a camera is on him, saying something unintentionally silly once a month or so is no disgrace.
      • "saying something unintentionally silly once a month or so is no disgrace"

        I have done public speaking and I agree with you for the most part. My point is that I don't think this man has ANY redeeming qualities as a president. I keep waiting for there to be SOMETHING....ANYTHING... but nope.

        Great tactician- nope
        Great at foreign affairs- nope
        Great at public speaking- nope
        Compassionate politician- nope
        Socially adept- nope
        Great at navigating party politics- nope
        • .
          .
          offline 9
          Seriously, thats just ridiculous.

          Our economy is larger and more robust than it has ever been in our entire history.

          India and Pakistan are no longer on the verge of nuking eachother

          al Qaeda is no longer attacking us with impunity, the way they did for the 8 years prior, hitting us once every 1.5 years

          Israel turned over occcupied territories to the PA for the first time

          Democracy *is* in fact spreading in the Middle East - Saudi Arabia had municipal elections, the PA had elections, Egypt, Mauritania - Algeria's political process exists again

          Libya rolled over and joined the rest of the world

          Just admit it, you hate him.
          • just admit it.
            you are a bottom feeding bush lover and a doublethink trapped fool.
            ----
            Our economy is larger and more robust than it has ever been in our entire history.
            ----
            only if you manipulate numbers and definitions in order to skew the results; which is what the administration does.
            ---

            India and Pakistan are no longer on the verge of nuking eachother
            ----
            thats good news, but it has nothing to do with Bush.
            ---

            al Qaeda is no longer attacking us with impunity, the way they did for the 8 years prior, hitting us once every 1.5 years
            -----
            now they are just killing off our soldiers a few hundred each month. No big deal.
            p----

            Israel turned over occcupied territories to the PA for the first time
            ----
            nothing to do with bush.
            ----

            Democracy *is* in fact spreading in the Middle East - Saudi Arabia had municipal elections, the PA had elections, Egypt, Mauritania - Algeria's political process exists again
            ----
            again, nothing to do with bush.
            ---

            Libya rolled over and joined the rest of the world
            ----
            you'd like to think so.
            ----

            Just admit it, you hate him.
            -----
            No, i know that hes evil. Theres a difference.
            hating him would be giving him an emotional energy.
            He doesn't even deserve my spit.



            • .
              .
              offline 9
              <only if you manipulate numbers and definitions in order to skew the results; which is what the administration does. >

              Um, except not? I love how you guys just make things up and pretends its true. The Bureau of Labor and Statistics is doing what its been doing for decades.

              <thats good news, but it has nothing to do with Bush. >

              Wow, that's funny, because India and Pakistan, along with EVERY OTHER PERSON PAYING ATTENTION, credits the Bush admin's shuttle diplomacy and military incentives to resolving the conflict.

              <now they are just killing off our soldiers a few hundred each month. No big deal>

              Another crock - the rate of US troop death in Iraq since 2003 is 810 per year. Can you do the math and see how that's not a "few hundred"?

              <nothing to do with bush. >

              Wow, you really are an ingoramus, eh? web.israelinsider.com/views/6235.htm

              seriously, just keep your mouth shut, you don't have a clue.

              <again, nothing to do with bush. > (re:democracy)

              hahahahaha, oh, boy, nice one. Bush's stated foreign policy is to force the spread of democracy in the middle east, the middle east sees an unprecidented increase in the amount of democratic initiatives in the region, the only significant change regionally is US policy, and it has nothing to do with Bush?

              Wow.

              It must be nice to live in your world of delusion.

              <you'd like to think so. >

              Right, I'd like to think so, but you on the other hand know that Ghaddaffi is actually just misleading the UN and all those inspector people, right?

              <No, i know that hes evil>

              ah ha! And thats a great paradigm from which to analyze his policy.

              genius.
              • only if you manipulate numbers and definitions in order to skew the results; which is what the administration does. >

                Um, except not? I love how you guys just make things up and pretends its true. The Bureau of Labor and Statistics is doing what its been doing for decades.
                ----
                no, they have orders to do things quite differently.
                ----

                <thats good news, but it has nothing to do with Bush. >

                Wow, that's funny, because India and Pakistan, along with EVERY OTHER PERSON PAYING ATTENTION, credits the Bush admin's shuttle diplomacy and military incentives to resolving the conflict.
                ----
                those situations were ripe to resolve allready in some senses. its actually very clear that bushes influence has been to destablize the middle east.
                ----

                <now they are just killing off our soldiers a few hundred each month. No big deal>

                Another crock - the rate of US troop death in Iraq since 2003 is 810 per year. Can you do the math and see how that's not a "few hundred"?
                ----
                oh, well, if its only just under 70 a month, that makes it okay.

                ----

                <nothing to do with bush. >

                Wow, you really are an ingoramus, eh? web.israelinsider.com/views/6235.htm

                seriously, just keep your mouth shut, you don't have a clue.
                ------
                thats a great projection and good advice for you to give yourself.
                ----

                <again, nothing to do with bush. > (re:democracy)

                hahahahaha, oh, boy, nice one. Bush's stated foreign policy is to force the spread of democracy in the middle east, the middle east sees an unprecidented increase in the amount of democratic initiatives in the region, the only significant change regionally is US policy, and it has nothing to do with Bush?
                ----
                your unprecedented increase was happening without bush and was actually hurt by his taking office.
                Follow the acctual clock, not what you ascribe to it, and actual cause and effect, not what you'd like to spin it.
                -----


                Wow.

                It must be nice to live in your world of delusion.
                ----
                another tidy projection.
                ----

                <you'd like to think so. >

                Right, I'd like to think so, but you on the other hand know that Ghaddaffi is actually just misleading the UN and all those inspector people, right?

                <No, i know that hes evil>

                ah ha! And thats a great paradigm from which to analyze his policy.

                genius.
                ----
                glad you like it.
                • .
                  .
                  offline 9
                  I love how you substantiate your position with 'nuh-uh'. You clearly don't keep up with these issues, because pretty much every single one of your claims runs contrary to the academic and professional opinions of people who know what they're talking about.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    I love how you substantiate your position with 'nuh-uh'. You clearly don't keep up with these issues, because pretty much every single one of your claims runs contrary to the academic and professional opinions of people who know what they're talking about.
                    ---
                    give a single example and make an argument.

                    but wait, you can't.

                    you are in over your head, your an idiot,
                    and i have more than enough information to bury you in it.
                    • .
                      .
                      offline 9
                      No, you have enough DISINFORMATION to bury me in it.

                      I've given you examples, you've just shaken your head and said "nu-uh"

                      India/Pakistan - they were on the verge of a nuclear exchange, and the Bush admin is credited with reversing the hostilities and promoting good will between the two countries.


                      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001...n_standoff
                      transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI...m.16.html
                      english.people.com.cn/200201/...47.shtml
                      www.whitehouse.gov/news/rel...30-1.html
                      www.whitehouse.gov/news/rel...0605.html

                      and lo and behold, the US signs some agreements with both sides, and India/Pakistan relations are moving towards normalization, not conflict.

                      Now, whats the next specific issue you'd like for me to shut you down with?
                      • No, you have enough DISINFORMATION to bury me in it.

                        I've given you examples, you've just shaken your head and said "nu-uh"

                        India/Pakistan - they were on the verge of a nuclear exchange, and the Bush admin is credited
                        ---
                        by whom and why?
                        ----


                        with reversing the hostilities and promoting good will between the two countries.


                        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001...n_standoff
                        ----
                        a propaganda mill?
                        ----

                        www.whitehouse.gov/news/rel...30-1.html
                        www.whitehouse.gov/news/rel...0605.html
                        ----
                        the white houses own propaganda tripe?
                        you expect me to take any of that seriously?
                        ----

                        and lo and behold, the US signs some agreements with both sides, and India/Pakistan relations are moving towards normalization, not conflict.
                        ----
                        India and pakistan have been on a long road towards chill, bush ust happened to be there at the right time.
                        This is as ludicrous as saying reagan ended Russia. No, Russia was under its own impetus on the road to its own
                        ruin with or without but mostly without Reagan.
                        -----

                        Now, whats the next specific issue you'd like for me to shut you down with?
                        ----
                        Go for it, pick anything you like.
                        • This "widening gap" nonsense needs to stop.

                          Yes, rich people are getting richer, so are poor people, just not at the same rate as the rich people.
                          ----
                          thats simply a lie and rhetorical nonsense.
                          ----


                          This "gap" in no way indicates how many poor people are getting rich, or how many rich people are going broke - ir social mobility. All it shows is that the upper eschelon on wealth is farther away from the lowest eschelons of wealth than it used to be - it in no way indicates that "poverty" in America is any worse
                          ----
                          Poverty by percentile is getting worse. there are almost 5 times as many homeless people now as there was when bush took office.
                          ----

                          <Bush has increased terrorism, terrorist recruitment, and sympathy for terrorists all over the world with his war of choice in Iraq. Globalism has changed everything, we can no longer measure success only by what happens in the microcosm of our country.
                          ----
                          great, so whats going on in other countries is they are going to sheit in a hand basket due to our feudalism merchantilist corporate
                          fascism oligarchy corporatism, which bush supports and whom bush has empowered.
                          ----

                          The Iraq war also emboldened and empowered Iran. Even if we are successful and leave behind a somewhat stable Iraq, we are only creating a strong ally for Iran. >

                          Ah right, of course. Bush saying he wasnt going to let AQ hit America any more, and doing what it took to make that happen, is rendered moot because they have become more active outside of America. Uh, no Jeff.
                          ----
                          ah yes ronnie.
                          ----

                          We're fighting AQ across the globe, that polarizes people - we've been through this so many times before. You know by now that saying 'terrorist recruitment is up' does not imply a bad thing. Counter Terrorism 101 - increased recruitment = ease of penetration.
                          ----
                          lol. okay, there are ten times as many people who want to blow themselves up in our vacinity, and you spin that into a good thing?
                          ----

                          We WANT these groups to become more porous, we WANT increased recruitment, because it allows us to gain access to them, and shut them down from the inside, the way we've been doing since 9/11
                          ----
                          We haven't shut down anything more than the upper leadership. duh.
                          ----

                          You never thought Bush had anything to do with Libya disarming? Are you kidding? Is was direct diplomacy and pressure from the Bush administration that caused it. Even people critical of the Bush admin recognize this: www.usnews.com/usnews/new...5/5evil.htm
                          ----
                          sounds nice. Of course, it also sounds just like Iraq 15 years ago.
                        • .
                          .
                          offline 9
                          You're obviously willfuly obtuse, and completely ignorant.

                          <India and pakistan have been on a long road towards chill, >

                          This is the most patently ridiculous statement you've said yet, because its the exact opposite of true. As I have shown, India and Pakistan reached the peak of tension in 2001-2002


                          <This is as ludicrous as saying reagan ended Russia. No, Russia was under its own impetus on the road to its own
                          ruin with or without but mostly without Reagan.>

                          How can anyone take you seriously when you just dig yourself deeper and deeper?

                          No one ever said Reagan ended Russia, Russia still exists today, you moron.

                          You mean the USSR, totally different thing. Utterly tangential and distractive, and utterly wrong.

                          Only partisan hacks make this revisionist claim. The rest of us know that Reagan's massive defense expenditures forced Gorby to bankrupt the state.

                          No, Reagan didn't win it all by himself, Gorby had to surrender.

                          And clearly you really are
                          • No one ever said Reagan ended Russia, Russia still exists today, you moron.

                            You mean the USSR, totally different thing
                            ----
                            i see your not above using mere semantics to take advantage of an opportunity to launch an ad hominem.

                            www.cnn.com/WORLD/9708/India97/
                            www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NS...B6/index.html
                            www.historyteacher.net/indiap...sis.htm

                            the resolution to the conflict had almost nothing to do with
                            bush and everything to do with nuclear weapons and the kind of
                            MAD problems and issues that arise.
                            • .
                              .
                              offline 9
                              mere semantics? Right, because confusing Russia and the USSR is something someone with a real grasp of the issue does all the time.

                              Um, none of your links in any way support your argument.

                              The peace negotiations between india and pakistan were brokered by the Bush administration, I dont see how you can keep pretending to refute this

                              transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI...t.08.html

                              These two countries were on the brink of war - the Bush administration was crucial in preventing this, even Bush critics in Pakistan concede this:

                              www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp


                              In no respected publication will you find the argument that MAD is what de-escalated the situation.

                              Anyway, MAD isn't even a feasable nuclear strategy for this conflict, because there's not nuclear parity, and the US showed the world, a long time ago, that MAD was an outdated theory, and that nuclear exchanges could be "won"
                          • Only partisan hacks make this revisionist claim. The rest of us know that Reagan's massive defense expenditures forced Gorby to bankrupt the state.
                            ----
                            only partisan hacks make your silly claim.

                            the rest of us know that Russia was on a long road of its own karma and karmic return and that
                            it was in deep trouble long before reagan took office.

                            After years of stagnation, the "new thinking" of younger Communist apparatchiks began to emerge. Following the death of the elderly Konstantin Chernenko, the Politburo elected Mikhail Gorbachev to the position of General Secretary of the Soviet Union in March 1985, marking the rise of a new generation of leadership. Under Gorbachev, relatively young, reform−oriented technocrats, who had begun their careers in the heyday of "de−Stalinization" under Nikita Khrushchev (1953–1964), rapidly consolidated power within the CPSU, providing new momentum for political and economic liberalization, and the impetus for cultivating warmer relations and trade with the West.

                            By the time Gorbachev ushered in the process that would lead to the dismantling of the Soviet administrative command economy through his programs of glasnost (political openness), perestroika (economic restructuring), and uskoreniye (speed−up of economic development) announced in 1986, the Soviet economy suffered from both hidden inflation and pervasive supply shortages aggravated by an increasingly open black market that undermined the official economy.

                            -----
                            you see, the fall of the soviet union was an incredibly complicated event that was predestined by its own bad form
                            of government. Reagans economics may have had some impact, but if so, they only increased the entropy
                            and the timeline of the inevitable.

                            • .
                              .
                              offline 9
                              quit calling it Russia.

                              And your thesis is not supported by your argument.

                              Reagan won the cold war, whether the USSR was doomed to eventually collapse is irrelevant, the fact is Reagan is the one who brought the USSR down.

                              And there is a bipartisan consensus on this issue: www.slate.com/id/2102081/

                              Before Gorbachev even came to office, Reagan was funding the Solidarity movement in Poland, which cracked the USSR's hull.

                              Walesa, Thatcher, and Havel have all nodded to Reagan's primary influence on the dissolution of the USSR's stranglehold on eastern europe, and once Poland fell, there was no way for the center to hold.

                              but I guess people who actually analyze this stuff know less than you do:

                              www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004...UG04.asp

                              • Reagan won the cold war, whether the USSR was doomed to eventually collapse is irrelevant, the fact is Reagan is the one who brought the USSR down.
                                ----
                                \no, sociological cause and effrect wonj the cold war.
                                ----

                                And there is a bipartisan consensus on this issue: www.slate.com/id/2102081/
                                ------
                                thats not consensus and so what if it was?
                                a nbunch of people want to think magickal reagan did magick and the soviet union fell apart.
                                baloney, the soviet union fell apart because it was falling apart. end of story.
                                reagan just happened to be there to take credit.
                                ----

                                Before Gorbachev even came to office, Reagan was funding the Solidarity movement in Poland, which cracked the USSR's hull.
                                ----
                                what part of sociological cause and effect do you not understand? the soviet union came to peices because its society was inherantly
                                flawed.
                                ----

                                Walesa, Thatcher, and Havel have all nodded to Reagan's primary influence on the dissolution of the USSR's stranglehold on eastern europe, and once Poland fell, there was no way for the center to hold.
                                ----
                                It makes a nice fairy tale, but thats all it is.
                                ----

                                but I guess people who actually analyze this stuff know less than you do:
                                ----
                                people who actually analyze this stuff agree with me, its only a small minority of very vocal repugnicons that
                                has a different take than mine.
                                They have repeated thne propaganda meme enough that some fools actually buy it.
                                but that doesn't make it true.
                                • www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/8253-11.cfm
                                  www.stanford.edu/group/wai...reagan.htm

                                  Did Ronald Reagan Win the Cold War?
                                  Sorry, Reagan loyalists: the answer is no.

                                  by Jonathan Weiler, Contributor
                                  6.16.04

                                  In the ten days since his passing, no claim has been made more often or with more certitude than that Ronald Reagan won the cold war. The standard narrative asserts that his confrontational approach to communism, both in word ("evil empire") and in deed (record military buildups and the introduction of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), known as Star Wars), forced the Soviet Union to cry uncle. This strategy, so the story goes, resulted first in the breakthrough arms reduction treaties between Gorbachev and Reagan in the late 1980s, and then in the collapse of the Soviet system itself.

                                  The problem with this narrative is that it gets most of the story wrong, and it glosses over a less comfortable legacy of Reagan's policies.

                                  The first erroneous piece of the narrative concerns the effectiveness of Reagan's confrontational first term in undermining the Soviet economy. It is true that defense spending comprised an excessively large share of the overall Soviet economy, but this fact well pre-dated the Reagan presidency. And virtually all observers agree that the Soviet economy had begun to stagnate by about 1975. By the time of Leonid Brezhnev's death in 1982, many in the Soviet leadership knew that their economy was beset by long term problems, including eroding worker discipline, rising alcoholism, wasteful investment and the Soviets' striking failure to integrate computer technology into their economy. None of these factors owed anything to the Reagan military buildup, which began only a year before Brezhnev's death and several years after Soviet growth rates began to sputter.

                                  A second misplaced claim is that Reagan's policies prompted beleaguered Soviet hardliners to promote the reformist Gorbachev as Communist party leader. Gorbachev's rise to power had nothing to do with the Reagan administration's hostility to the Soviets. In fact, Brezhnev's two successors – Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko – each died within fifteen months of attaining power. If not for this relative fluke, there most likely would have been no progress in easing tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union during Reagan's second term. Only Gorbachev's premature ascension to power and extraordinary departure from prior Soviet leadership patterns allowed for the stunning breakthroughs of the late 1980s. Furthermore, Gorbachev's ideas, including his belief in the need to fundamentally reform the Soviet economy and to pull the superpowers away from the nuclear brink were not influenced by Reagan's stridency. Instead, it is clear that Gorbachev and his key ideological ally, Alexander Yakovlev, had recognized the fundamental weaknesses in the Soviet system years before Gorbachev came to power. European social democratic ideas and universal humanism, the latter embodied by dissident physicist Andrei Sakharov, most influenced Gorbachev's "new thinking." Gorbachev's political mentor, Yuri Andropov, also influenced Gorbachev's understanding of the need for significant internal change.

                                  A third misconception involves Star Wars itself. The standard account is that once Reagan announced SDI in 1983, the Soviets realized that they could not compete with the Americans in an arms race centered around computer-based technology. The Soviet leadership was initially nervous about SDI. However, under Andropov, Star Wars merely prompted a further chill in US-Soviet relations. Only when Gorbachev came to power did the two sides decisively alter their relationship. This happened first at Reyjkavik in 1986, when Reagan and Gorbachev nearly agreed to scrap their entire nuclear stockpiles. The sticking point, it turns out, was Gorbachev's insistence that Reagan confine Star Wars research to the laboratory. When Reagan refused, the deal fell apart.

                                  In fact, it is clear that the first major arms reduction agreement between the two sides – the 1987 treaty eliminating Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) in Europe, became possible once Gorbachev dropped his objection to Reagan's continued pursuit of SDI. When Gorbachev's key scientific advisor told him that SDI was not viable, Gorbachev saw no point in making it a bone of contention. In other words, when the Soviets took SDI seriously, as Reagan had hoped, it only caused Gorbachev to be less willing to engage in serious arms reduction agreements. Once Gorbachev stopped worrying about SDI, significant arms reduction resulted.

                                  Reagan is rightly credited with having recognized, despite his own instincts, that Gorbachev was "someone we can do business with," in the famous words of Margaret Thatcher. However, the policies that have most come to define his leadership, especially in the eyes of worshipful conservatives – a massive military build up (quick question: how did $640 toilet seats help win the cold war?) and a determination to pursue SDI – played no meaningful role in Gorbachev's rise to power or his subsequent decisions to reform the Soviet system. Furthermore, many of Reagan's conservative allies at home blasted him for selling out the American cause after Reagan signed the INF treaty. In other words, only Reagan's pragmatic repudiation of the conservative anti-communist dogma that characterized his first five years in office, plus the felicitous rise to power of a real global visionary as Soviet leader, allowed for the breakthroughs that characterized Reagan's final two years in office.

                                  The subsequent Soviet collapse was almost entirely an internal affair. Gorbachev's reforms were a response to an era of stagnation that began long before Reagan was president. Gorbachev's glasnost unleashed long-suppressed nationalist currents in the Soviet Union and he dismantled the communist party's oversight functions before any meaningful market-based institutions were in place. These factors led to chaos and implosion. The end of the Soviet empire does not owe itself to Reagan's tough anti-communism. Rather, it owes itself substantially to Mikhail Gorbachev's arrival on the world scene.

                                  Tell us what we've won, Johnny

                                  One by-product of Reaganism, though, has been the mess in Afghanistan. Reagan directed the CIA to funnel enormous material support to Islamist rebels fighting the Soviet army in Afghanistan in the mid 1980s. Among the aid we gave Afghan Mujahideen were shoulder-held Stinger missiles, which wreaked havoc on Soviet helicopter gunships and are now a primary source of concern for our counter-terrorism efforts. It is well known that Osama Bin Laden cut his teeth as a guerilla fighter during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Once Gorbachev withdrew Soviet forces in 1989, the resulting power vacuum ensured the eventual emergence of the Taliban, as Gorbachev feared would happen. In other words, in pursuit of ratcheting up conflict with the Soviet Union, Reagan helped sow the seeds of our greatest existing menace.

                                  Ronald Reagan became a star in the world of make believe. His hagiographers appear determined to carry on that legacy by crediting him with bringing about the exctinction of the Evil Empire. Their hope is that we won't remember the much more sobering legacy he actually left us.

                                  Jonathan Weiler is an adjunct assistant professor of Russian and East European Studies at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. His book, Human Rights in Russia: A Darker Side of Reform, has just been published by Lynne Rienner Publishers.

                                  gadflyer.com/articles/
                                • www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/8253-11.cfm
                                  www.stanford.edu/group/wai...reagan.htm

                                  Did Ronald Reagan Win the Cold War?
                                  Sorry, Reagan loyalists: the answer is no.

                                  by Jonathan Weiler, Contributor
                                  6.16.04

                                  In the ten days since his passing, no claim has been made more often or with more certitude than that Ronald Reagan won the cold war. The standard narrative asserts that his confrontational approach to communism, both in word ("evil empire") and in deed (record military buildups and the introduction of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), known as Star Wars), forced the Soviet Union to cry uncle. This strategy, so the story goes, resulted first in the breakthrough arms reduction treaties between Gorbachev and Reagan in the late 1980s, and then in the collapse of the Soviet system itself.

                                  The problem with this narrative is that it gets most of the story wrong, and it glosses over a less comfortable legacy of Reagan's policies.

                                  The first erroneous piece of the narrative concerns the effectiveness of Reagan's confrontational first term in undermining the Soviet economy. It is true that defense spending comprised an excessively large share of the overall Soviet economy, but this fact well pre-dated the Reagan presidency. And virtually all observers agree that the Soviet economy had begun to stagnate by about 1975. By the time of Leonid Brezhnev's death in 1982, many in the Soviet leadership knew that their economy was beset by long term problems, including eroding worker discipline, rising alcoholism, wasteful investment and the Soviets' striking failure to integrate computer technology into their economy. None of these factors owed anything to the Reagan military buildup, which began only a year before Brezhnev's death and several years after Soviet growth rates began to sputter.

                                  A second misplaced claim is that Reagan's policies prompted beleaguered Soviet hardliners to promote the reformist Gorbachev as Communist party leader. Gorbachev's rise to power had nothing to do with the Reagan administration's hostility to the Soviets. In fact, Brezhnev's two successors – Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko – each died within fifteen months of attaining power. If not for this relative fluke, there most likely would have been no progress in easing tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union during Reagan's second term. Only Gorbachev's premature ascension to power and extraordinary departure from prior Soviet leadership patterns allowed for the stunning breakthroughs of the late 1980s. Furthermore, Gorbachev's ideas, including his belief in the need to fundamentally reform the Soviet economy and to pull the superpowers away from the nuclear brink were not influenced by Reagan's stridency. Instead, it is clear that Gorbachev and his key ideological ally, Alexander Yakovlev, had recognized the fundamental weaknesses in the Soviet system years before Gorbachev came to power. European social democratic ideas and universal humanism, the latter embodied by dissident physicist Andrei Sakharov, most influenced Gorbachev's "new thinking." Gorbachev's political mentor, Yuri Andropov, also influenced Gorbachev's understanding of the need for significant internal change.

                                  A third misconception involves Star Wars itself. The standard account is that once Reagan announced SDI in 1983, the Soviets realized that they could not compete with the Americans in an arms race centered around computer-based technology. The Soviet leadership was initially nervous about SDI. However, under Andropov, Star Wars merely prompted a further chill in US-Soviet relations. Only when Gorbachev came to power did the two sides decisively alter their relationship. This happened first at Reyjkavik in 1986, when Reagan and Gorbachev nearly agreed to scrap their entire nuclear stockpiles. The sticking point, it turns out, was Gorbachev's insistence that Reagan confine Star Wars research to the laboratory. When Reagan refused, the deal fell apart.

                                  In fact, it is clear that the first major arms reduction agreement between the two sides – the 1987 treaty eliminating Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) in Europe, became possible once Gorbachev dropped his objection to Reagan's continued pursuit of SDI. When Gorbachev's key scientific advisor told him that SDI was not viable, Gorbachev saw no point in making it a bone of contention. In other words, when the Soviets took SDI seriously, as Reagan had hoped, it only caused Gorbachev to be less willing to engage in serious arms reduction agreements. Once Gorbachev stopped worrying about SDI, significant arms reduction resulted.

                                  Reagan is rightly credited with having recognized, despite his own instincts, that Gorbachev was "someone we can do business with," in the famous words of Margaret Thatcher. However, the policies that have most come to define his leadership, especially in the eyes of worshipful conservatives – a massive military build up (quick question: how did $640 toilet seats help win the cold war?) and a determination to pursue SDI – played no meaningful role in Gorbachev's rise to power or his subsequent decisions to reform the Soviet system. Furthermore, many of Reagan's conservative allies at home blasted him for selling out the American cause after Reagan signed the INF treaty. In other words, only Reagan's pragmatic repudiation of the conservative anti-communist dogma that characterized his first five years in office, plus the felicitous rise to power of a real global visionary as Soviet leader, allowed for the breakthroughs that characterized Reagan's final two years in office.

                                  The subsequent Soviet collapse was almost entirely an internal affair. Gorbachev's reforms were a response to an era of stagnation that began long before Reagan was president. Gorbachev's glasnost unleashed long-suppressed nationalist currents in the Soviet Union and he dismantled the communist party's oversight functions before any meaningful market-based institutions were in place. These factors led to chaos and implosion. The end of the Soviet empire does not owe itself to Reagan's tough anti-communism. Rather, it owes itself substantially to Mikhail Gorbachev's arrival on the world scene.

                                  Tell us what we've won, Johnny

                                  One by-product of Reaganism, though, has been the mess in Afghanistan. Reagan directed the CIA to funnel enormous material support to Islamist rebels fighting the Soviet army in Afghanistan in the mid 1980s. Among the aid we gave Afghan Mujahideen were shoulder-held Stinger missiles, which wreaked havoc on Soviet helicopter gunships and are now a primary source of concern for our counter-terrorism efforts. It is well known that Osama Bin Laden cut his teeth as a guerilla fighter during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Once Gorbachev withdrew Soviet forces in 1989, the resulting power vacuum ensured the eventual emergence of the Taliban, as Gorbachev feared would happen. In other words, in pursuit of ratcheting up conflict with the Soviet Union, Reagan helped sow the seeds of our greatest existing menace.

                                  Ronald Reagan became a star in the world of make believe. His hagiographers appear determined to carry on that legacy by crediting him with bringing about the exctinction of the Evil Empire. Their hope is that we won't remember the much more sobering legacy he actually left us.

                                  Jonathan Weiler is an adjunct assistant professor of Russian and East European Studies at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. His book, Human Rights in Russia: A Darker Side of Reform, has just been published by Lynne Rienner Publishers.

                                  gadflyer.com/articles/
                                  • Viewable With ANY Browser

                                    Note: My Web pages are best viewed with style sheets enabled.
                                    Unrated
                                    Remembering a Governor and a President
                                    Copyright © 2004 by David E. Ross

                                    Do not speak ill of the dead.

                                    Ancient Greek saying

                                    Ronald Reagan — former Governor of California and former President of the United States — died this past weekend. Eulogies dominate the newspapers, magazines, and TV. The Greeks were correct in many ways, but the outpouring of praise for Reagan is just too much. It is similar to pouring too much sugar into a cup of coffee, sweet but sickening.

                                    *** Begin Right Sidebar ***
                                    To a very large extent, the uprising of college students that began in the mid-1960s can be traced to the "Free Speech Movement" at UC Berkeley, which had nothing to do with the war in Vietnam.

                                    Along one edge of the UC Berkeley campus, a wall near the campus's Sather Gate curved inward. Outside the wall and the gate, the public sidewalk formed a large semi-circle within the bay of that curve. This was a place where students would setup small tables to hand out literature advocating various causes. Because of the bay in the wall, this activity did not block the sidewalk. Thus, the city of Berkeley did not have cause to remove the students and their tables.

                                    In the mid-1960s — before Ronald Reagan was elected Governor of California — the cause promoted at one table was support for workers striking against the Oakland Tribune newspaper. Literature was being handed out calling for a demonstration at the newspaper offices. The Oakland Tribune was owned by Bill Knowland, former U.S. Senator from California.

                                    Knowland called his friend Dorothy Chandler (who not only was a part-owner of the Los Angeles Times but was also a member of the University of California Board of Regents). What Knowland and Chandler knew — but the students did not know — was that UC Berkeley had recently become the owner of the semi-circle of sidewalk just outside Sather Gate in a land-swap with the city of Berkeley. Knowland told Chandler that he felt it was wrong that her university was allowing its property to be used to plan a demonstration against his newspaper. Chandler, being a newspaper person, fully sympathized with Knowland and had the chancellor at UC Berkeley call out the University Police to close what had been a "free speech area" for many years. The students rioted, destroying a police squad car.

                                    Thus began the unrest among college students that evolved into the anti-war movement.

                                    *** End Right Sidebar ***

                                    In 1966, when Ronald Reagan was first elected Governor of California, I was a computer programmer at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). Reagan came into office with a promise to clean up the mess in the state colleges and universities. What he meant was that he would end the student unrest that began here and then spread across the nation. While much of that unrest focused on the war in Vietnam, the underlying cause was how voting adults (many of the students being over 21) were being treated as children. The legal expression in loco parentis (in place of the parent) was repeatedly cited by university administrators for their rules governing student behavior despite the fact that the law said the students were already too old to be treated that way by their own parents. Heavy-handed action backed by the Governor only further inflamed the students. The unrest did not end until the war ended. In the meantime, the Legislature lowered the age of majority to 18, making almost all college students adults and rules for them based on in loco parentis unenforceable.

                                    Shortly after Reagan's election, I left UCLA to work in private industry, where salaries for programmers were much higher. Under Reagan, that disparity increased significantly, impairing the ability of professors (including several Nobel laureates) to conduct any research that required the use of computers. When I worked at UCLA before Reagan's election, the mere mention of a labor union there caused great laughter. By the time Reagan left office, labor unions were strongly entrenched in the University of California system, a response both to attempts to impose abusive labor practices on non-teaching employees and to holding to salary, wage, and benefit structures that failed to compete with private industry.

                                    By the end of Reagan's final term as Governor, my wife and I had bought a house in Oak Park. At that time, Oak Park was in the Simi Valley Unified School District, a quirk caused by local government boundaries that followed old rancho boundaries drawn some 200 years earlier by the King of Spain on a map of his colony of California that did not show any mountains. High school students in Oak Park had to travel 20 miles one-way by bus to Royal High School in Simi Valley, past three other high schools in two other school districts. The Legislature passed a bill that would have allowed Oak Park students to attend Agoura High School, only 2 miles away in the Las Virgenes Unified School District. Governor Reagan vetoed the bill!

                                    Many remember how, under President Reagan, weapons were sold to Iran so that funds from that sale could be diverted to Central American causes for which Congress had prohibited any funding. However, the one issue of Reagan's administration that sticks most strongly in my mind is how he attempted to cut funding for school lunches for children living in poverty. After all, the schools all had ketchup; and, according to Reagan, ketchup is a vegetable. Therefore, funding to ensure school lunches were balanced by including vegetables was unnecessary.

                                    *** Begin Left Sidebar ***
                                    My daughter Heather read what I wrote about Ronald Reagan and contributed the following.

                                    How about the fact that under Reagan the U.S. helped train Osama Bin Laden? How about the fact that under Reagan the U.S. supplied intelligence to Saddam?

                                    How about the fact that Reagan ignored the AIDS crisis?

                                    How about the fact that he thought that funding enough weapons to blow up the world several times over was better than funding programs that would have saved lives?

                                    What about Grenada or his support for the Botha administration in South Africa? When Congress passed the Anti-Apartheid Act in 1986 Reagan vetoed it.

                                    How about the fact that he was the Hollywood insider for McCarthy?

                                    Note: When Reagan's term as President ended, Heather was 17 years old.

                                    8 June 2004

                                    *** End Left Sidebar ***

                                    Speaking of Central America, the Reuters news service reports that eulogies for our ex-President are rare in that part of the world. Too many people there remember how the Reagan administration backed repressive, reactionary governments against popular uprisings and also backed the reactionary uprising by the Contras in Nicaragua against that nation's elected left-wing government. An estimated 150,000 people died in Central America's civil wars during Reagan's two terms in office. Many were civilians tortured and murdered by army troops or death squads linked to armed forces that received heavy U.S. support.

                                    President Reagan's "supply side" economics led to the worst federal deficit in our nation's history (until the deficit of the current Bush administration). "Trickle down economics" led to the trickle up recession that cost the current President's father his re-election. While many blame the Bush-the-father, they fail to recognize that economic trends sometimes take a while to become established. In other words, the recession that led to the election of Bill Clinton as President had its roots in the Reagan administration. (Similarly, the latest recession resulted from a failure by President Clinton to notice that an economic expansion had evolved into a dangerous bubble.)

                                    Of course, Reagan seems to be remembered most for being our President during the collapse of the Soviet Union, of his "evil empire". But Reagan did not bring down the Soviet Union. He — and the rest of the "western world" — merely watched from the sidelines as a nation collapsed because of the failure of its own decayed economic and political systems. The Soviet Union was doomed regardless of who was President of the United States at that time.

                                    President Reagan is being given credit for everything good that happened during his administration, whether he was responsible or not. Some even seem to credit him with creating good weather. On the other hand, wrong-doing by his immediate subordinates has been ignored — even when those individuals were convicted of crimes — because Reagan claimed he did not know (or did not remember) what was happening.

                                    Was Ronald Reagan a great President? I don't think so!

                                    7 June 2004

                                    Link to David Ross's home page
                                    David Ross home

                                    Valid HTML 4.01
                                    • Roundup: Talking About History
                                      James Hershberg: Reagan Should Not be Given Credit for Defeating the Soviet Union--It's More Complicated than that

                                      James Hershberg, associate professor of history and international affairs at George Washington University, in the Wash Post (June 27, 2004):

                                      ... Ronald Reagan's policies surely contributed to the dissolution of the Kremlin's empire, culminating in the 1989 anti-communist revolutions in Eastern Europe and the breakup of the Soviet Union two years later. But for the media and Reagan's hagiographers to give the 40th president all the credit is like saying a late-inning relief pitcher had "won" a baseball game without mentioning the starting pitcher, the closer or the teammates who scored the runs that gave the team its lead.

                                      Historians abhor the idea of attributing a vast, complex phenomenon to a single cause. No one person brought down the Soviet Union, but if I had to choose the one who mattered most, that person would not be Reagan, most of whose policies fit comfortably in the Cold War tradition of containment followed dutifully by presidents from Truman to Carter.

                                      Rather, the historical wild card was Mikhail Gorbachev, who followed a well-worn path up the ladder of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union -- and then turned out to be a radical reformer. Influenced by Nikita Khrushchev's short-lived "thaw" in the 1950s, Gorbachev grasped long before Reagan's election that the stultifying Soviet system required renovation. Gorbachev also committed the heresy of abandoning the aim of world revolution and the class struggle in international affairs in favor of amorphous, but much nicer, "universal human values." Above all, he refused to use the massive armed forces at his disposal to retain his party's grip on captive nations in Eastern Europe, restive nationalist republics or Russia itself -- something his predecessors Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko might have readily done had they not conked out first.

                                      But Gorbachev cannot claim all the credit, either. The factors that doomed the Soviet Union were largely innate, not external. In his seminal 1947 "X" article in Foreign Affairs, George F. Kennan argued "that Soviet power, like the capitalist world of its conception, bears within it the seeds of its own decay, and that the sprouting of these seeds is well advanced." In early 1950, despite anxiety over the first Soviet atomic explosion, the communist victory in China and the rise of McCarthyism, Harvard University President James B. Conant predicted that by 1980 the Soviets' "absurdities and static system would cause them to grind to a stop." He wasn't far off.

                                      Reagan essentially followed a bipartisan legacy of containment. Sure, he offered arms to anti-communist insurgencies in the Third World and fervently articulated his beliefs in freedom and democracy, but so had other presidents. In the crunch, Reagan was (understandably) no more willing to risk World War III by directly challenging Kremlin repression in Central Europe than his predecessors had been. For all the claims of clandestine aid to the banned Solidarity movement in Poland, Reagan's reaction -- rhetoric, sympathy and half-hearted sanctions -- to the Warsaw regime's imposition of martial law in December 1981 was no less tepid than Eisenhower's to Soviets' violent suppression of revolts in East Germany (1953) and Hungary (1956), Kennedy's to the construction of the Berlin Wall (1961), or Johnson's to the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia (1968).

                                      "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" -- Reagan's iconic 1987 challenge in Berlin -- made a nice sound bite. But however stirring his words, Europeans living under communist rule knew from bitter experience that neither the American cavalry nor American presidential rhetoric was going to liberate them....

                                      Reagan admirers assert that the 1980s U.S. military buildup bankrupted the Kremlin. "By building our defenses -- rather than unleashing aggression -- Ronald Reagan brought down the Soviet Union," former Republican senator and presidential candidate Bob Dole declared in the New York Times. Politburo minutes indicate a genuine (albeit unfounded) concern about the "Star Wars" missile defense program, and sharper Soviet leaders grasped the growing disparity between the military and technological sophistication of the West, especially the United States, and that of the U.S.S.R. This intensified Gorbachev's desire to ease Cold War enmity, gain greater access to Western goods and know-how, and reallocate resources from the military to the civilian economy.

                                      But Gorbachev also saw the absurdity of a nuclear arms race that, by the mid-1980s, had led the superpowers to hoard more than 70,000 warheads. He understood that he could make appealing offers to jump-start talks -- allowing on-site inspections or trading away intermediate range missiles -- without sacrificing the Soviet nuclear deterrent.

                                      Thus the 1980s arms race did not cause the Kremlin's collapse. The Soviet economy was rotting from within for many other reasons. The Kremlin's warped priorities -- maintaining a cumbersome military machine while its economy and living standards lagged behind the West's -- helped implode the Soviet empire. But those priorities had been set for decades. The turning point was not Reagan's rise but Stalin's chutzpah after World War II. With his country devastated, the vozhd (boss) opted to seek nuclear weapons ("on a Russian scale") and coequal superpower status. From then on, the military consumed the "best and brightest" of Soviet science and distorted the economy.

                                      The focus on the military also shortchanges the role that soft power played in the Soviet realm's demise. The trillions of dollars the West spent on weapons and containment ultimately proved less significant than aspects of Western life that had nothing to do with government policies -- music, movies, fashion (blue jeans!), consumer goods, "Coca-Colonization," and the prospect of a freer, tastier and more affluent life....

                                      Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 at 11:05 AM | Comments (2) | Return
                                      News
                                  • .
                                    .
                                    offline 9
                                    Yes, of course you can find partisan hacks that make the argument you're making based on outdated and outmoded information. The domuments that came to light recently, as highlighted in the Slate piece, remove all doubt. But again, you know more than Lech Walesa apparently.
                                • .
                                  .
                                  offline 9
                                  Ah right, ok, so the people who were there, the people who study what happened academically and politically should bow to your more thorough understanding.

                                  Like I said, you're delusional.

                                  Whether or not Communism could have sustained itself is widely debated, and people who have analyzed the Soviet economy have determined, quite universally, that defense expenditures drastically reduced the Soviet lifespan. Saying it "eventually would have collapsed" is a totally irrelevant counter factual.
                                  • you want to trade ad hominems you nitwit peice of propagada trash talking sheiet for brains?

                                    i'll bet you would, because your a troll and an idiot, and an ignorant arroagant sheeple, and thats all you have.

                                    i'd bet you'd like nothing more than for me to play your noxious, vile, stupid, little tit for tat pissing contest.

                                    instead, from now on, i'll just count your ad hominems, cognitive distortions, and other assorted logical fallacies.
                                    --------
                                    Ah right, ok, so the people who were there, the people who study what happened academically and politically should bow to your more thorough understanding.
                                    ----
                                    straw man, ad hominem, red herring, hyperbole.
                                    I was there, i did enough research, and i know my facts. Thats what is important, whbuich you should know, since you don't have any facts.
                                    -----

                                    Like I said, you're delusional.
                                    ----
                                    ad hominem.
                                    projection. Classic propaganda tactic.
                                    ----

                                    Whether or not Communism could have sustained itself is widely debated,
                                    ---
                                    Not by any serious sociologists.
                                    ----


                                    and people who have analyzed the Soviet economy have determined, quite universally, that defense expenditures drastically reduced the Soviet lifespan.
                                    ----
                                    Yes, it added to the entropy. No it was not a primary or even main ring tertiary causal factor.

                                    it had an effect which was probably equal to a tenth of a percent increase or multiplier of theentropic causes allready present
                                    in the system.

                                    If reagan had real brains, there are much better things he could have done to topple the soviet union
                                    without causing my great grand children to go into debt over it.

                                    the fact is reagan was one of the worst things that ever happened to this country,
                                    and the soviet union would have fallen apart plus or minus a sijngle decade no matter what reagan did.
                                    ----------


                                    Saying it "eventually would have collapsed" is a totally irrelevant counter factual.
                                    --
                                    cognitive dissonance, and more bs.
                                    • .
                                      .
                                      offline 9
                                      you don't even know the meanings of those fallacies you're throwing around, and are clearly not qualified to use the term "cognitive dissonance" because you're using it completely innapropriately.

                                      how do I know? Because along with degrees in Poli Sci, History, and Middle Eastern Studies, I have one in Psychology. I'm guessing you don't.

                                      And youve completley abandoned your contra-fatual account of the Indian-Pakistani detente

                                      You have yet to actually address a single source I've presented. All you do is dismiss them, and then provide some radical left partisan citation reeking with bias as if it in any way addresses my assertion.

                                      Reagan and Gorbachev ended the cold war, Reagan won. Was it just the arms race? No, I didn't claim that, but Soviet defense expenditures *IN A STAGNANT ECONOMY* were siginificantly crippling. Soviet DEfense spending did remain primarily static thru the 80's, yes, but that in no way supports your argument. The US was spending about 5% of its GDP on Defense, the USSR as high as 40%. FORTY PERCENT. If the USSR cut their defense spending to 5% their economy would have nearly doubled its buying power.

                                      findarticles.com/p/article...i_n9282127

                                      Perestroika NEVER would have happened without the Solidarity movement, and the subsequent growing independence of the Soviet satellites.

                                      news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4142268.stm
                                      www.rferl.org/featuresart...d1f986d.html
                                      findarticles.com/p/article...3226/pg_13

                                      Your assertions to the contrary simply don't compare to the assertions of people like Havel, Walesa, Thatcher, and even Ted Kennedy.

                                      www.bostonreview.net/BR25.2/zubok.html
                                      www.slate.com/id/2102081/
                                      www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004...UG04.asp
                                      www.nationalreview.com/flashb...619.asp

                                      And there is simply no evidence that the USSR would have crumbled within a decade, that's simply a preposterous and unfounded assertion engineered to promote your agenda.
                                      • you don't even know the meanings of those fallacies you're throwing around,
                                        ----
                                        No, your a spin doctoring propaganda artist, and you don't want those fallacies to mean what they mean, because then
                                        your game and the entire house of cards of the republican party falls.
                                        ----


                                        and are clearly not qualified to use the term "cognitive dissonance" because you're using it completely innapropriately.
                                        -----
                                        no, i am using it quite appropriately.
                                        ----

                                        how do I know? Because along with degrees in Poli Sci, History, and Middle Eastern Studies, I have one in Psychology. I'm guessing you don't.
                                        -----
                                        i think your a liar. And i do have the equivalent knowledge of a degree in psychology, i am an aspie speedreader, and in fact
                                        know more about psychology than any mere mortal could, since i can read a textbook in a single sitting, and since psychology was
                                        my number one interest for many years.
                                        ----


                                        You have yet to actually address a single source I've presented.
                                        ---
                                        Again, cognitive dissonance, i did in fact adress the sources you presented, and absolute proof of that exists on this thread.
                                        ---

                                        All you do is dismiss them, and then provide some radical left partisan citation reeking with bias as if it in any way addresses my assertion.
                                        ----
                                        Actually, i provide many different references, some of which even come from republican sources.
                                        ---

                                        Reagan and Gorbachev ended the cold war, Reagan won.
                                        ----
                                        no, thats crackpotery spin, and thats all it is. repugnicons would like it to be true, but its not based in sound social science,
                                        its a repugnicon history rewrite and spun propaganda, and thats all it is.
                                        ----



                                        Your assertions to the contrary simply don't compare to the assertions of people like Havel, Walesa, Thatcher, and even Ted Kennedy.
                                        ----
                                        My assertions are backed by real social science, yours are just nbacked by politically motivated right wing hacks, or,
                                        by materials taken out of context and spun.
                                        ----


                                        And there is simply no evidence that the USSR would have crumbled within a decade,
                                        ----
                                        Again, clearly, you don't know anything about sociology. the USSR was doomed, and every legit social scientist can tell you that.
                                        In fact, despite the spin that "nobody would have guessed" there were social scientists predicting the fall of the soviet union as
                                        early as the mid seventies.
                                        ----


                                        that's simply a preposterous and unfounded assertion engineered to promote your agenda.
                                        ----
                                        thats a projection; you are the one with assorted
                                        preposterous and unfounded assertion(s) engineered to promote your agenda.
          • <<Our economy is larger and more robust than it has ever been in our entire history.

            That is great for wallstreet. But what about the widening gap between the rich and poor?

            <<al Qaeda is no longer attacking us with impunity, the way they did for the 8 years prior, hitting us once every 1.5 years

            Bush has increased terrorism, terrorist recruitment, and sympathy for terrorists all over the world with his war of choice in Iraq. Globalism has changed everything, we can no longer measure success only by what happens in the microcosm of our country. The Iraq war also emboldened and empowered Iran. Even if we are successful and leave behind a somewhat stable Iraq, we are only creating a strong ally for Iran.


            <<Democracy *is* in fact spreading in the Middle East

            Do you think this is going to lead to real Democracies in these countries? Or could they have just been surface measures to placate the Bush administration?

            <<Libya rolled over and joined the rest of the world

            I have never thought that was Bush's doing.

            <<Just admit it, you hate him.

            We can always name a few positives about any president, even the most vile. But in the long run I think Bush has been bad for America.
            • .
              .
              offline 9
              This "widening gap" nonsense needs to stop.

              Yes, rich people are getting richer, so are poor people, just not at the same rate as the rich people. This "gap" in no way indicates how many poor people are getting rich, or how many rich people are going broke - ir social mobility. All it shows is that the upper eschelon on wealth is farther away from the lowest eschelons of wealth than it used to be - it in no way indicates that "poverty" in America is any worse

              <Bush has increased terrorism, terrorist recruitment, and sympathy for terrorists all over the world with his war of choice in Iraq. Globalism has changed everything, we can no longer measure success only by what happens in the microcosm of our country. The Iraq war also emboldened and empowered Iran. Even if we are successful and leave behind a somewhat stable Iraq, we are only creating a strong ally for Iran. >

              Ah right, of course. Bush saying he wasnt going to let AQ hit America any more, and doing what it took to make that happen, is rendered moot because they have become more active outside of America. Uh, no Jeff.

              We're fighting AQ across the globe, that polarizes people - we've been through this so many times before. You know by now that saying 'terrorist recruitment is up' does not imply a bad thing. Counter Terrorism 101 - increased recruitment = ease of penetration.

              We WANT these groups to become more porous, we WANT increased recruitment, because it allows us to gain access to them, and shut them down from the inside, the way we've been doing since 9/11

              <Do you think this is going to lead to real Democracies in these countries? Or could they have just been surface measures to placate the Bush administration? >

              Uh, UN observers at all these elections have given them thumbs ups, and in Mauritania the Arab world saw a true indignenous liberalization movement

              news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6165662.stm

              elections in Palestine are not surface measures - the Islamists won in Palestine, and now they have to deal with the responsiblity

              HAMAS realized that they need coalition and co-operation, so boom: www.usatoday.com/news/wash...amas_x.htm

              Saudi Arabia has been under the authoritarian rule in the Ibn Saud clan for decades, and now they're experimenting with municipal democracy and gender equality

              news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...4485308.stm

              This is a country that when the King tried to give women a public education saw rioting in the streets. Now they're electing women to local government posts.

              There is a functioning democracy in Afghanistan - no, it isn't a strong government, but no democracies are when they start. Iraq isn't perfect, no, but with only one province, Anbar, and one major city, Baghdad, in serious trouble, everyone is ignoring the leaps and bounds we're seeing in North and South Iraq. For crying out we're building a SKI RESORT in Kurdistan.

              You never thought Bush had anything to do with Libya disarming? Are you kidding? Is was direct diplomacy and pressure from the Bush administration that caused it. Even people critical of the Bush admin recognize this: www.usnews.com/usnews/new...5/5evil.htm
              • <,All it shows is that the upper eschelon on wealth is farther away from the lowest eschelons of wealth than it used to be - it in no way indicates that "poverty" in America is any worse

                The people I see trying to live on minimum wage is an indication to me. It used to be that minimum wage was livable and that is no longer the case. Poverty by percentage has gone up since Bush took office Salil. www.census.gov/hhes/www/p...stpov2.html

                <<Ah right, of course. Bush saying he wasnt going to let AQ hit America any more, and doing what it took to make that happen, is rendered moot because they have become more active outside of America. Uh, no Jeff.

                Uh yes Salil, more active and more dangerous in the long run. The Iraq war and Bush's bumbling actions are just creating new generations of terrorists and it will come back to haunt us. It is not just that they are more active in terrorist activities and recruitment outside the US, both recruitment and terrorist activities are up overall. The Iraq debacle in particular is what has increased overall terrorism, terrorist recruitment, and terrorist sympathy. And yet the Iraq war was not necessary to keeping terrorists from striking us in the US. We got the short-term gain from vigilance here at home, but have only increased our long-term problems with the unnecessary Iraq war.

                <<We WANT these groups to become more porous, we WANT increased recruitment, because it allows us to gain access to them, and shut them down from the inside, the way we've been doing since 9/11

                This would be more applicable if A.Q. and other terrorist organizations had not morphed in to an even less centrally ran organization.... Terrorist and A.Q. cells are much more autonomous and won't really have information on other cells or leaders to pass on. The nature of the beast is changing.
                • .
                  .
                  offline 9
                  Minimum wage is most certainly "liveable" for a single person, it was never meant to support a family of 4. Anyone on minimum wage supporting 4 dependents gets all sorts of other subsidies.

                  <Poverty by percentage has gone up since Bush took office Salil>

                  What a completely misleading statement.

                  Do the math yourself - the average poverty rate under Clinton? 13.3%
                  Average Poverty rate under Bush? About 12.5%

                  Stop misleading your audience.

                  Also, compare it year by year, or term by term - 4 years into the Clinton presidency, 13.8%, 4 years into the Bush admin - 12.7%

                  Save for a TWO YEAR blip at the end of the Clinton era, the poverty rate is lower than its been since the LBJ, Nixon, and Carter years.

                  <Uh yes Salil, more active and more dangerous in the long run. The Iraq war and Bush's bumbling actions are just creating new generations of terrorists and it will come back to haunt us>

                  This is pure supposition on your part. You are making a prediction about the future, not about whats going on now.

                  Overall terrorism is not the Bush admin's primary concern, protecting unsuspecting Americans and American assets is. I'm not addressing the affect of a singular policy like the Iraq war, you are - I'm addressing the policies in tota.

                  <This would be more applicable if A.Q. and other terrorist organizations had not morphed in to an even less centrally ran organization.... Terrorist and A.Q. cells are much more autonomous and won't really have information on other cells or leaders to pass on. The nature of the beast is changing. >

                  Dude, don't lecture me on CT, I know way more about it than you do, and you know that. First off, the nature of the beast changed a long time ago. Secondly, claiming that these groups are working independently of eachother is just wrong. They are cross training and and working together, which gives us more traction and increases our visibility. Ansar al Islam works with Hamas now, they work with AQ in Iraq, AQ works with Chechyn rebels, we penetrate one group, we suddenly have avenues of penetration into others.

                  A common misconception is that only vertical networks are susceptable to US infiltration and neutralization - that's simply not the case. Horizontal networks are just as vulnerable. I suggest you go spend some time at NDU and learn about these matters if you're going to talk about them.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    <<Minimum wage is most certainly "liveable" for a single person, it was never meant to support a family of 4. Anyone on minimum wage supporting 4 dependents gets all sorts of other subsidies.

                    The cost of housing has become such that minimum wage is not liveable for even a single person. I know single people trying to live on min. wage and it is definately not liveable. And even one dependent sends it in to the realm of impossible. The minimum wage has fell about 29% in real terms. The poverty rate in the United States is one of the highest among the post-industrialized developed world.

                    "While in any given year 12 to 15 percent of the population is poor, over a ten-year period 40 percent experience poverty in at least one year because most poor people cycle in and out of poverty; they don't stay poor for long periods. Poverty is something that happens to the working class, not some marginal 'other' on the fringes of society." - Michael Zweig, What's Class Got to do With It, American Society in the Twenty-first Century, 2004

                    "The official poverty rate in the U.S. has increased for four consecutive years, from a 26-year low of 11.3% in 2000 to 12.7% in 2004. This means that 37.0 million people were below the official poverty thresholds in 2004. This is 5.4 million more than in 2000. The poverty rate for children under 18 years old increased from 16.2% to 17.8% over that period."
                    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pove...ted_States

                    here's some staggering statistics:

                    Distribution of Income and Wealth, 2004:
                    www.stateofworkingamerica.org/tab....jpg

                    Distribution of Net Financial Assets:

                    Top 1% households owned 42.2% of Net Financial Assets

                    Bottom 90% households owned 19.1% of Net Financial Assets

                    ****************************************************************************************************

                    SHARE OF NATIONAL INCOME GOING TO WAGES AND SALARIES AT RECORD LOW IN 2006: Share of Income Going to Corporate Profits at Record High

                    Commerce Department data released today show that the share of national income going to wages and salaries in 2006 was at its lowest level on record, with data going back to 1929. The share of national income captured by corporate profits, in contrast, was at its highest level on record.

                    See Report: www.cbpp.org/8-31-06inc.htm

                    ****************************************************************************************************

                    The Great Wealth Transfer:

                    It's the biggest untold economic story of our time: more of the nation's bounty held in fewer and fewer hands. And Bush's tax cuts are only making the problem worse

                    According to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, the hourly wage of the average American non-supervisory worker is actually lower, adjusted for inflation, than it was in 1970. Meanwhile, CEO pay has soared -- from less than thirty times the average wage to almost 300 times the typical worker's pay.

                    Under Bush, the economy has been growing at a reasonable pace for the past three years. But most Americans have failed to benefit from that growth. All indicators of the economic status of ordinary Americans -- poverty rates, family incomes, the number of people without health insurance -- show that most of us were worse off in 2005 than we were in 2000, and there's little reason to think that 2006 was much better.

                    So where did all the economic growth go? It went to a relative handful of people at the top. The earnings of the typical full-time worker, adjusted for inflation, have actually fallen since Bush took office. Pay for CEOs, meanwhile, has soared -- from 185 times that of average workers in 2003 to 279 times in 2005. And after-tax corporate profits have also skyrocketed, more than doubling since Bush took office. Those profits will eventually be reflected in dividends and capital gains, which accrue mainly to the very well-off: More than three-quarters of all stocks are owned by the richest ten percent of the population.

                    Source: PAUL KRUGMAN
                    www.rollingstone.com/politic...transfer

                    ****************************************************************************************************
                    Oil and Defense CEOs Pocket the Spoils

                    CEOs in the defense and oil industries have been able to translate war and rising oil prices into personal jackpots, according to a new report from the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy, Executive Excess 2006:

                    www.faireconomy.org/reports/...s2006.pdf

                    Key Findings

                    1. Ratio of CEO pay to average worker pay now 411-to-1

                    Since we first started tracking the CEO-worker pay gap in 1990,
                    it has grown from 107-to-1 to 411-to-1 in 2005.

                    Today’s gap is nearly 10 times as large as the 1980 ratio of 42-to-1,
                    calculated by Business Week.

                    If the minimum wage had risen at the same pace as CEO pay since 1990,
                    it would be worth $22.61 today, rather than the actual $5.15.


                    2. OIL BARONS Cash in on Conflict

                    With Americans now paying over $3 per gallon, petroleum profiteers are raking in nearly three times the pay of CEOs in comparably sized businesses. In 2005, the top 15 U.S. oil CEOs got a 50% raise since 2004. They now average $32.7 million, compared with $11.6 million for all CEOs of large U.S. firms.

                    These top 15 Pump Profiteers are paid 518 times the average worker
                    in the oil and gas industry. The disparity between U.S. CEOs as a
                    whole and average U.S. workers is 411-to-1.

                    The top 15 Petroleum Profiteers got an average raise of 50.2 percent
                    of their 2004 pay packages. Meanwhile, the annualized average hourly
                    wage of production workers in the oil and gas industry increased by
                    only 4.1 percent from their 2004 levels.

                    Top three highest paid U.S. oil chieftains in 2005:

                    #1 William Greehey (Valero Energy) = $95.2 million
                    #2 Ray R. Irani (Occidential Petroleum) = $84.0 million
                    #3 Lee Raymond (outgoing CEO of ExxonMobil) = $69.7 million

                    And the lowest paid: Chad Deaton, CEO of Baker Hughes = $6.6 million

                    The second- and third-largest oil companies in the world are both foreign
                    firms, British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell. Both pay their
                    CEOs considerably less than comparable U.S. oil companies. While
                    they operate in the same global marketplace, their average pay was
                    $4.8 million, compared to the average of $39.2 million for the top 2 U.S. oil CEOs.

                    CEO William Greehey of Valero Energy took home the oil industry’s biggest executive pay rewards in 2005, pocketing $95.2 million. Construction laborers, who are among the lowest paid workers in the oil and gas industry, are paid an average of $22,240 per year. It would take one of these workers 4,279 years to earn what CEO William Greehey of Valero Energy earns in a year.

                    The average annual pay for a rotary drill operator is $43,450. Ray Irani’s 2005 compensation at Occidental Petroleum would cover the wage bill for 1,932 rotary drill operators.

                    The average annual pay for a petroleum engineer is $107,990. It would take 645 engineers to earn the amount that ExxonMobil’s Lee Raymond got paid in 2005.



                    3. DEFENSE CONTRACTORS: CEOs of the biggest defense contractors continue to profit from a privatized war

                    Since the “War on Terror” began, CEOs at the top 34 military contractors have enjoyed average paychecks that are double the compensation they received in the four years leading up to 9/11.

                    Their average compensation jumped from $3.6 million during the pre-9/11
                    period of 1998-2001 to $7.2 million during the post-9/11 period of 2002-2005.

                    Defense CEO pay was 108 percent higher on average in 2005 compared
                    to 2001, whereas pay for their counterparts at other large U.S.
                    companies increased only 6 percent during this period.

                    Since 9/11, the 34 defense CEOs in our sample have pocketed a combined
                    total of $984 million, enough to cover the entire wage bill for
                    more than a million Iraqis for a year.

                    In 2005, defense industry CEOs walked off with 44 times more pay than military generals with 20 years experience, and 308 times more than Army privates.

                    (Defense CEO pay was 44 times that of a military general with 20 years of experience and 308 times that of an Army private in 2005.
                    Generals made $174,452 and Army privates made $25,085, while average defense CEO pay was $7.7 million.)

                    United Technologies CEO George David led the pack with over $200 million in pay since 9/11, despite investigations into the quality of the company’s Black Hawk helicopters.

                    CEO Jay Gellert of Health Net saw the biggest personal pay raise after 9/11, a 1,134% leap over the preceding four years. The company owes its earnings growth to American taxpayers, who may not realize they pick up a hefty share of cost overruns in the privatized military health care system.

                    Halliburton CEO David Lesar made $26.6 million last year, despite
                    a continuing stream of scandals related to the company’s work in Iraq, the latest being reports that the contractor infected soldiers with contaminated wastewater. While Halliburton’s future Iraq work is uncertain, Lesar will enjoy the nearly $50 million he has made since the “War on Terror” began.
                    • And if you look at the statistics, poverty decreased under Clinton, remember that he inherited a high poverty rate from Bush Sr. which increased his average. Clinton significantly decreased the poverty levels. Bush Jr. inherited these lower poverty levels and has steadily increased them since taking office. It is currently at about 13%.
                    • .
                      .
                      offline 9
                      boy, you're tangentalizing ALL over the place, and bringing up all sorts of irrelevant issues:

                      <The cost of housing has become such that minimum wage is not liveable for even a single person. I know single people trying to live on min. wage and it is definately not liveable>

                      horse crap. This is simply ridiculous. millions of people live on FAR LESS than the minimum wage.

                      <The poverty rate in the United States is one of the highest among the post-industrialized developed world. >

                      irrelevant - thats not what we're discussing. Additionally, different countries set their poverty rates at different levels, and pretty muh ever post-industrialized world relies on US defense subsidies that allow them to employ their socialist programs that keep their populations shackled to just above the poverty line

                      <The official poverty rate in the U.S. has increased for four consecutive years, from a 26-year low of 11.3% in 2000 to 12.7% in 2004. This means that 37.0 million people were below the official poverty thresholds in 2004. This is 5.4 million more than in 2000. The poverty rate for children under 18 years old increased from 16.2% to 17.8% over that period." >

                      So what? Poverty rate fluctuations can easily be seen in the chart you provided. It has never had a steady downward trend. The two year blip at the end of the Clinton admin, which coincided with a TERRIBLY bloated market bubble - Bush inherited an rotten economy that was already entering a recession. THe fact is, if you are going to compare presidencies, you have to compare presidencies, and sorry Jeff, Bush has a lower average Poverty rate than Clinton.

                      as for the rest of your 'staggering' statistics - theyre unrelated and frankly irrelevant to the specific issue at hand. They're out of context distractions.
                      • d sorry Jeff, Bush has a lower average Poverty rate than Clinton.
                        ---
                        the cognitive dissonance required to make that statement is astounding.


                        the fact is that clinton was good for the economy and good for the poverty rate,
                        whereas bush has driven the poverty rate up at an unprecedented level;

                        it hasn't been this bad since the 1920s.

                        • >> the fact is that clinton was good for the economy and good for the poverty rate, <<
                          debatable. there are business cycles and extraneous factors at work. I'm not saying that Clinton was bad for the economy, but it is easy to ride a wave of good luck.

                          >> whereas bush has driven the poverty rate up at an unprecedented level; <<
                          incorrect. see below.

                          >> it hasn't been this bad since the 1920s. <<
                          that is not correct. I've provided a link to a wikipedia graph that plots the poverty rate. the claim is that the current poverty rate is around 13% which is well below rates seen in the mid-sixties for instance.

                          en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imag..._to_05.png


                          • Updated June 12, 2006 | EPI Policy Memorandum

                            What's wrong with the economy?

                            by EPI President Lawrence Mishel and Policy Director Ross Eisenbrey

                            1. Profits are up, but the wages and incomes of average Americans are down.

                            * Inflation-adjusted hourly and weekly wages are below where they were at the start of the recovery in November 2001. Yet, productivity—the growth of the economic pie—is up by 14.7%.1 (Figure A)
                            * Wage growth has been shortchanged because 46% of the growth of total income in the corporate sector has been distributed as corporate profits, far more than the 20% in previous periods.2
                            * Consequently, median household income (inflation-adjusted) has fallen five years in a row and was 4% lower in 2004 than in 1999, falling from $46,129 to $44,389.3

                            Figure A. Wages have not kept pace with productivity growth

                            2. More and more people are deeper and deeper in debt.

                            * The indebtedness of U.S. households, after adjusting for inflation, has risen 42.0% over the last five years. 4
                            * The level of debt as a percent of after-tax income is the highest ever measured in our history. Mortgage and consumer debt is now 120% of after-tax income, more than twice the level of 30 years ago.5
                            * The debt-service ratio (the percent of after-tax income that goes to pay off debts) is at an all-time high of 13.9%.6
                            * The personal savings rate is negative for the first time since the Depression.7

                            3. Job creation has not kept up with population growth, and the employment rate has fallen sharply.

                            * The United States has only 1.9% more jobs today than in March 2001 (the start of the last recession). Private sector jobs are up only 1.5%. At this stage of previous business cycles, jobs had grown by an average of 8.8% and never less than 6.0%.8
                            * The unemployment rate is relatively low at 4.6%. But the percent of the population that has a job has never recovered since the recession and is still 1.3% lower than in March 2001. If the employment rate had returned to pre-recession levels, almost 4 million more people would be employed.9
                            * More than 3 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since 2000.10

                            4. Poverty is on the rise.

                            * The poverty rate rose from 11.3% in 2000 to 12.7% in 2004.11
                            * The number of people living in poverty has increased by 5.4 million since 2000.12
                            * More children are living in poverty: the child poverty rate increased from 16.2% in 2000 to 17.8% in 2004.13

                            5. Rising health care costs are eroding families' already declining income.

                            * Households are spending more on health care. Family health costs rose 43-45% for married couples with children, single mothers, and young singles from 2000 to 2003.14
                            * Employers are cutting back on health insurance. Last year, the percent of people with employer-provided health insurance fell for the fourth year in a row. Nearly 3.7 million fewer people had employer-provided insurance in 2004 than in 2000. Taking population growth into account, 11 million more people would have had employer-provided health insurance in 2004 if the coverage rate had remained at the 2000 level.15



                            SOURCES

                            1. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics Survey. 2006 www.bls.gov/ces/home.htm. BLS, Labor Productivity and Costs. 2006. www.bls.gov/lpc/home.htm. Productivity is non-farm business output per hour.

                            2. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2006. NIPA Table 1.14. www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/index.asp.

                            3. U.S. Census Bureau. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States. 2004. www.census.gov/hhes/www/i...ncome.html.

                            4. Federal Reserve. 2006. Flow of Funds Accounts, balance sheet tables: total household liabilities. www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/. Deflated using CPI-U from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

                            5. For disposable income: Bureau of Economic Analysis, NIPA Table 2.1. 2006. For mortgage and consumer debt: Federal Reserve Flow of Funds Accounts, balance sheet tables. 2006. www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/.

                            6. Federal Reserve. 2006. www.federalreserve.gov/releas...lt.htm.

                            7. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2006. NIPA Table 2.1. www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/index.asp.

                            8. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics Survey. 2006. (total nonfarm employees and total private employees data.) See also Price, Lee. 2005. The Boom That Wasn't. EPI Briefing Paper #168. www.epi.org/content.cfm/bp168.

                            9. Analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data. See also Bernstein, Jared and Lee Price. 2005. An Off-Kilter Expansion. EPI Briefing Paper #164. www.epi.org/content.cfm/bp164.

                            10. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics Survey. 2006. www.bls.gov/ces/home.htm. See also Bivens, Josh. 2005. "Trade deficits and manufacturing employment." Economic Snapshot. Nov. 20. www.epi.org/content.cfm/...ots_20051130.

                            11. U.S. Census Bureau. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004. www.census.gov/hhes/www/i...ncome.html.

                            12. U.S. Census Bureau. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004. www.census.gov/hhes/www/i...ncome.html.

                            13. U.S. Census Bureau. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004. www.census.gov/hhes/www/i...ncome.html.

                            14. Mishel, Lawrence et al. 2004. Less Cash in Their Pockets. EPI Briefing Paper #154. www.epi.org/content.cfm/bp154.

                            15. Mishel, Lawrence et al. 2004. Less Cash in Their Pockets. EPI Briefing Paper #154. www.epi.org/content.cfm/bp154.



                            Read what bloggers have written about this report

                            www.epi.org/content.cfm/pm110
                      • <<horse crap. This is simply ridiculous. millions of people live on FAR LESS than the minimum wage.

                        Now that depends on where you live and what you define as "living".

                        <<irrelevant - thats not what we're discussing.

                        It most certainly is part of what we are discussing.

                        <<Additionally, different countries set their poverty rates at different levels,

                        Do you have a demonstration of these different levels and how these countries define poverty?

                        <<pretty muh ever post-industrialized world relies on US defense subsidies that allow them to employ their socialist programs that keep their populations shackled to just above the poverty line

                        Every? How do defense subsidies allow them to employ socialist programs and thereby keep their populations above poverty?

                        <<Bush inherited an rotten economy that was already entering a recession. THe fact is, if you are going to compare presidencies, you have to compare presidencies, and sorry Jeff, Bush has a lower average Poverty rate than Clinton.

                        How convenient of you to come up with an excuse to ignore the actual trend and only want to compare the average. Again, Clinton's average was high because of what he inherited from Bush Sr.


                        <<as for the rest of your 'staggering' statistics - theyre unrelated and frankly irrelevant to the specific issue at hand. They're out of context distractions.

                        how are they out of context in regards to the economy? That is what we are discussing is it not?
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    <<This is pure supposition on your part. You are making a prediction about the future, not about whats going on now.

                    Increased terrorism, increased terrorist recruitment, and increased terrorist sympathy is happening NOW. The conclusion that this would be more dangerous for the US in the future is logical.

                    <<Overall terrorism is not the Bush admin's primary concern, protecting unsuspecting Americans and American assets is.

                    Guess what, he has done a poor job in protecting our assets being that he is spending billions on a war that really has done nothing to Protect America. He wasted American lives and American assets on a war of choice against a country that was no real threat to us let alone its neighbors.

                    Bush has subsequently CREATED the conditions that we supposedly went to war in Iraq for. A.Q. had no operational ties to Iraq and there were no WMD in Iraq. Now A.Q. is operating freely in Iraq and using Chlorine chemical weapons.

                    <<Secondly, claiming that these groups are working independently of eachother is just wrong.

                    They are working MORE indpendently of each other than before and are much more autonomous. More are becoming inspired by A.Q. and don't need connections or directive from above. apnews.myway.com/article/2...6FSG0.html

                    "Although we cannot measure the extent of the spread with precision, a large body
                    of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists,
                    although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and
                    geographic dispersion.

                    "We assess that the global jihadist movement is decentralized, lacks a coherent global
                    strategy, and is becoming more diffuse. New jihadist networks and cells, with anti-
                    American agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge. The confluence of shared purpose
                    and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups.

                    We assess that the operational threat from self-radicalized cells will grow in
                    importance to US counterterrorism efforts, particularly abroad but also in the
                    Homeland. "

                    • The Iraq conflict has become the “cause celebre” for jihadists, breeding a deep
                    resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for
                    the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves,
                    and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry
                    on the fight.


                    http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&fr=slv8-msgr&p=Terrorist+groups+become+more+indpendent&u=www.fas.org/irp/dni/trends...&icp=1&.intl=us


                    • one of the defining characteristics of great leaders is the ability to inspire people with words. Churchill, Roosevelt, Lincoln lead us through hard times by instilling confidence in their leadership through confident and forceful speeches. When a leader stands before the American people and "ums" and "aws" it creates doubt. It allows his enemies, our collective enemies to paint us as ignorant, mean people. anyone that honestly believes that our President's lack of eloquence is excusable must be blinded by faith.
  • ELCOME TO BUSHLIES.NET!
    2006 ELECTION EDITION

    Since January 2003, this site has been dedicated to holding George W. Bush accountable for his countless lies and deceptions. This page list the biggest lies and a more detailed list follows on the remainder of this page and pages focused on Iraq and 9/11. Your comments and suggestions are appreciated. Please spread the word and share this site with others.

    BUSHLIES.NET TOP 10 20+ LIES



    LATEST ADDITIONS

    PRE-ELECTION TRIFECTA #1: IRAQ

    Stay the Course. During an October 22, 2006 interview on ABC’s This Week, President Bush tried to distance himself from what has been his core strategy in Iraq for the last three years. George Stephanopoulos asked about James Baker’s plan to develop a strategy for Iraq that is “between ’stay the course’ and ‘cut and run.’”

    Bush responded, ‘We’ve never been stay the course, George!’





    Stay the Course.

    BUSH: We will stay the course. [8/30/06]

    BUSH: We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq. [8/4/05]

    BUSH: We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We’re just going to stay the course. [12/15/03]

    BUSH: And my message today to those in Iraq is: We’ll stay the course. [4/13/04]

    BUSH: And that’s why we’re going to stay the course in Iraq. And that’s why when we say something in Iraq, we’re going to do it. [4/16/04]

    BUSH: And so we’ve got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course. [4/5/04]



    Insurgents and the Midterm Elections

    STEPHANOPOULOS: And for the first time the President acknowledged parallels to Vietnam. It came when I asked for his response to ‘New York Times” columnist Tom Friedman’s contention that we’re now seeing an Iraqi version of the Vietcong’s 1968 Tet offensive that turned American public opinion decisively against the war.

    BUSH: He could be right. There’s certainly a stepped up level of violence and we’re heading into an election.

    STEPHANOPOULOS: So they’re trying to influence the elections?

    BUSH: It could be. I don’t know. I haven’t - I don’t have any intelligence that says that.

    Cheney and Iraq/al Qaeda Connection.

    Cheney’s statement is a lie. Here’s precisely what the Senate Intelligence Committee found:

    Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and…the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi. [p. 109]

    Insurgents and the Midterm Elections.

    Vice President Cheney, 10/17/06:

    I was reading something today that a writer — I don’t remember who — was speculating on increased terrorist attacks in Iraq attempting to demoralize the American people as we get up to the election. And when I read that, it made sense to me. And I interpreted this as that the terrorists are actually involved and want to involve themselves in our electoral process, which must mean they want a change.

    President Bush, 10/18/06:

    There’s certainly a stepped up level of violence, and we’re heading into an election. … They are trying to not only kill American troops, but they’re trying to foment sectarian violence. They [Al Qaeda] believe that if they can create enough chaos, the American people will grow sick and tired of the Iraqi effort and will cause government to withdraw.

    White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, 10/19/06:

    [I]t is possible, although we don’t have a clear pathway into the minds of terrorists, it is possible that they are trying to use violence right now as a way of influencing the elections.

    Cheney's Continued Assertion of an Iraq/al-Qaeda Connection

    Q: Are you saying that you believe fighting in Iraq has prevented terrorist attacks on American soil? And if so, why, since there has not been a direct connection between al Qaeda and Iraq established?

    CHENEY: Well, the fact of the matter is there are connections. Mr. Zarqawi, who was the lead terrorist in Iraq for three years, fled there after we went into Afghanistan. He was there before we ever went into Iraq. The sectarian violence that we see now, in part, has been stimulated by the fact of al Qaeda attacks intended to try to create conflict between Shia and Sunni.

    Watch the entire interview HERE

    PRE-ELECTION TRIFECTA #2: 9/11 AND WAR ON TERRORISM

    Bush Straw Man Arguments - Part 1

    Mr. Bush claimed, quote, "177 of the opposition party said, 'You know, we don't think we ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists.'"

    Tuesday, at another fundraiser in California, he had said, "Democrats take a law enforcement approach to terrorism. That means America will wait until we're attacked again before we respond."

    "If you listen closely to some of the leaders of the Democratic Party," the president said at another fundraiser Monday in Nevada, "it sounds like they think the best way to protect the American people is -- wait until we're attacked again."


    Bush Straw Man Arguments

    "One hundred and seventy-seven of the opposition party said, 'You know, we don't think we ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists,' " Bush said at a fundraiser for Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) before heading to Colorado for gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez.

    Asked about the president's statement, White House aides could not name any Democrat who has said that the government should not listen in on terrorists. Democrats who voted against the legislation had complained that it would hand too much power to the president and had said that they wanted more checks in the bill to protect civil liberties. (Washington Post)

    Bush's language, though, characterizes Democratic positions through his own prism. Critics of the surveillance program have not argued against listening to terrorist phone calls but say the government should get warrants from a secret intelligence court. Likewise, many critics of the tribunal measure did not oppose interrogating prisoners generally, as Bush said, but specific provisions of the bill, such as denying the right of habeas corpus or giving the president freedom to authorize what they consider torture. (Washington Post)

    See also "Bush's Imaginary Foes" , "The President and the Straw Man" and "Bush Lies and Knows He's Lying"
    , "" and "Bush Lies and Knows He's Lying"



    Rice July 2001 Warning

    Here’s how the briefing was described by the officials who prepared it, according to McClatchy:

    One official who helped to prepare the briefing, which included a PowerPoint presentation, described it as a “10 on a scale of 1 to 10″ that “connected the dots” in earlier intelligence reports to present a stark warning that al-Qaida, which had already killed Americans in Yemen, Saudi Arabia and East Africa, was poised to strike again…

    “The briefing was intended to `connect the dots’ contained in other intelligence reports and paint a very clear picture of the threat posed by bin Laden,” said the official, who described the tone of the report as “scary.”

    Bush Straw Man - Part II

    Tuesday, at another fundraiser in California, he had said, "Democrats take a law enforcement approach to terrorism. That means America will wait until we're attacked again before we respond."

    "If you listen closely to some of the leaders of the Democratic Party," the president said at another fundraiser Monday in Nevada, "it sounds like they think the best way to protect the American people is -- wait until we're attacked again."

    Rice Ignores 9/11 Warning

    Condoleezza Rice describes her briefing with CIA officials George Tenet and Cofer Black on July 10, 2001 as relatively unremarkable. Here’s how her spokesman Sean McCormack described it yesterday:

    State Department spokesman Sean McCormack [said]… the information Rice got “was not new'’ and didn’t amount to an urgent warning. “Rather, it was a good summary from the threat-reporting from the previous several weeks,'’ McCormack said in a statement from Saudi Arabia where Rice is traveling.

    Earlier in the day, Rice questioned whether the meeting even happened and said that it was “incomprehensible” the meeting included a warning that U.S. interests faced an imminent threat from al-Qaeda.

    September 11th, War on Terror and Torture

    FOILED TERRORIST PLOTS

    In his October 6th speech on the War on Terror at National Endowment for Democracy, President Bush said”The United States and our partners have disrupted at least ten serious al Qaeda terrorist plots since September the 11th, including three al Qaeda plots to attack inside the United States.

    The West Coast Airliner Plot: In mid-2002 the U.S. disrupted a plot to attack targets on the West Coast of the United States using hijacked airplanes. The plotters included at least one major operational planner involved in planning the events of 9/11.

    The East Coast Airliner Plot: In mid-2003 the U.S. and a partner disrupted a plot to attack targets on the East Coast of the United States using hijacked commercial airplanes.

    The Jose Padilla Plot: In May 2002 the U.S. disrupted a plot that involved blowing up apartment buildings in the United States. One of the plotters, Jose Padilla, also discussed the possibility of using a "dirty bomb" in the U.S.

    Most recently, Bush has claimed that "aggressive interrogation techniques" have thwarted terrorist attacks. In his September 6 speech, Bush announced that 14 high-level suspected terrorists had been transferred from CIA prisons to the Pentagon's detention facility at Guantánamo Bay. Bush talked at length about the information gleaned from one of the prisoners, Abu Zubaydah, whom the United States captured in March 2002. Bush described him as a "senior terrorist leader and a trusted associate of Osama bin Laden" and declared that Zubaydah had given the United States information that "turned out to be quite important." From the speech:

    BUSH: After he recovered, Zubaydah was defiant and evasive. He declared his hatred of America. During questioning, he at first disclosed what he thought was nominal information -- and then stopped all cooperation. Well, in fact, the "nominal" information he gave us turned out to be quite important. For example, Zubaydah disclosed Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- or KSM -- was the mastermind behind the 9-11 attacks and used the alias "Mukhtar." This was a vital piece of the puzzle that helped our intelligence community pursue KSM.

    The claim that Zubaydah identified KSM's moniker also appeared in a document summarizing the CIA's "High Value Detention Program" released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) on September 6. Bush further claimed in the speech that Zubaydah "provided information that helped in the planning and execution of the operation that captured" KSM.

    In the September 6 speech, Bush similarly claimed that the CIA's interrogation of Zubaydah led to the arrest of Al Qaeda lieutenant Ramzi bin al-Shibh:

    BUSH: Zubaydah was questioned using these procedures, and soon he began to provide information on key al Qaeda operatives, including information that helped us find and capture more of those responsible for the attacks on September the 11th. For example, Zubaydah identified one of KSM's accomplices in the 9/11 attacks -- a terrorist named Ramzi bin al Shibh. The information Zubaydah provided helped lead to the capture of bin al Shibh.

    In his speech, Bush presented the information extracted from Zubaydah as evidence that the CIA interrogation program "has saved lives; of why it remains vital to the security of the United States, and our friends and allies; and why it deserves the support of the United States Congress and the American people." Bush claimed that when the CIA interrogated Zubaydah using these "tough" procedures, "he began to provide information on key al Qaeda operatives."


    THE FACTS

    The plots that Bush claimed his administration disrupted actually had already been abandoned by the time they were discovered.

    1. West Coast Airliner Plot. When the plot was disclosed last year, authorities said publicly that they had viewed the claims by captured Al Qaeda chieftain Khalid Shaikh Mohammed with skepticism. They said that, at best, the alleged plot was something that had been discussed but never put into action. By the time anybody knew about it, the threat — if there had been one — had passed, federal counter-terrorism officials said Friday. To take that and make it into a disrupted plot is just ludicrous," said one senior FBI official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in accordance with departmental guidelines. [LA Times 10/7/05]
    2. East Coast Airliner Plot - Lyman Faris. Faris was an Ohio truck driver who pleaded guilty in June 2003 to two felony charges of supporting a foreign terrorist organization. He was charged with plotting to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, but U.S. officials admitted that Faris had abandoned the plot because he deemed it unlikely to succeed. “After scouting the bridge and deciding its security and structure meant the plot was unlikely to succeed, he passed along a message to al Qaeda in early 2003 that said ‘the weather is too hot.’” [CNN, 6/19/03]

    3. Jose Padilla. “Paul Wolfowitz, Mr. Rumsfeld’s deputy, stressed on Monday that ‘there was not an actual plan’ to set off a radioactive device in America and Padilla had not begun trying to acquire materials. Intelligence officials said his research had not gone beyond surfing the internet.” Since being detained in O’Hare airport in 2002, Padilla has not been charged with any crime or permitted to talk to a lawyer. [Daily Telegraph, 12/06/02; Washington Post, 9/10/05]

    Media Matters disects Bush's September 6th speech in detail. A September 7 article by Post staff writers Dan Eggen and Dafna Linzer noted that the CIA had, in fact, learned KSM's alias as early as August 2001:
    A September 7 by staff writers Dan Eggen and Dafna Linzer noted that the CIA had, in fact, learned KSM's alias as early as August 2001:

    What the DNI documents also do not mention is that the CIA had identified Mohammed's nickname in August 2001, according to the Sept. 11 commission report. The commission found that the agency failed to connect the information with previous intelligence identifying Mukhtar as an al-Qaeda associate plotting terrorist attacks, and identified that failure as one of the crucial missed opportunities before Sept. 11.

    Indeed, the 9-11 Commission report disclosed that the CIA unit tasked with finding bin Laden had connected KSM to the alias "Mukhtar" on August 28, 2001:

    The final piece of the puzzle arrived at the CIA's Bin Ladin unit on August 28 in a cable reporting that KSM's nickname was Mukhtar. No one made the connection to the reports about Mukhtar that had been circulated in the spring. This connection might also have underscored concern about the June reporting that KSM was recruiting terrorists to travel, including to the United States.

    Ron Suskind documents in his new book, The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11 (Simon & Schuster, June 2006), how the CIA was in the dark regarding KSM's location until a $25 million reward led an Al Qaeda operative to tip them off. At the end of February 2003 that changed. The CIA got what various officials at Langley called a "walk-in." He was a man who was moving through the al Qaeda ranks, moving in and out of various operations in Islamabad, Pakistan's capital, and Rawalpindi, an old Silk Road trading post that is now a city of 3 million. He contacted CIA, which has one of its largest stations -- with nearly fifty agents -- in Islamabad. Suskind goes on to detail KSM's capture the following morning.

    A September 8 article, New York Times reporter Mark Mazzetti took issue with Bush's assertion that Zubaydah "identified" bin al-Shibh. Mazzetti noted that U.S. authorities had been aware of bin al-Shibh's involvement in the 9-11 attacks by December 2001:

    American officials had identified Mr. bin al-Shibh's role in the attacks months before Mr. Zubaydah's capture. A December 2001 federal grand jury indictment of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker, said that Mr. Moussaoui had received money from Mr. bin al-Shibh and that Mr. bin al-Shibh had shared an apartment with Mohamed Atta, the ringleader of the plot.

    Indeed, the indictment states that bin al-Shibh "shared an apartment" with Atta in 1998 and 1999, and that he repeatedly wired money to the 9-11 hijackers in 2000 and 2001. Further, Bush's claim that Zubaydah "helped lead to the capture" of bin al-Shibh is contradicted by Suskind's reporting. In The One Percent Doctrine, Suskind describes how information gleaned from an Al Jazeera reporter and the Emir of Qatar provided crucial leads regarding his location. The reporter, Yosri Fouda, had interviewed KSM and bin al-Shibh in a safe house in Karachi, Pakistan, on April 19, 2002, and subsequently informed the Emir of the likely whereabouts of the two Al Qaeda lieutenants. The Emir in turn disclosed this information to then-CIA director George Tenet and, on September 11, 2002, the CIA stormed the safe house and captured bin al-Shibh. In a September 6 interview on Salon.com regarding Bush's speech, Suskind noted that the Emir -- not Zubaydah -- had provided the "key break" that led the CIA to bin al-Shibh:

    That was the key break in getting those guys. KSM slipped away; in June of 2002, the Emir of Qatar passed along information to the CIA as to something that an Al Jazeera reporter had discovered as to the safehouse where KSM and bin al Shibh were hiding in Karachi slums. He passed that on to the CIA, and that was the key break. Whether Zubaydah provided some supporting information is not clear, but the key to capturing those guys was the help of the Emir.

    But Suskind reports in The One Percent Doctrine that the CIA's harsh techniques -- Zubaydah was "water-boarded," "beaten," "repeatedly threatened," "bombarded with deafening, continuous noise," and deprived of his medication -- only led him to disclose a variety of apparently nonexistent plots. Suskind went on to note that the only valuable information gleaned from Zubaydah came when the CIA switched to non-physical tactics. When asked about Bush's characterization of the interrogation of Zubaydah during the Salon.com interview, Suskind confirmed that "we got the stuff of value" through milder tactics.

    9-11 WARNINGS

    In her public testimony before the 9-11 commission, Dr. Rice stated: “I do not remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning, that planes might be used as weapons.”

    After the attacks, Ari Fleischer stated that the President had no warnings of an attack and President Bush explained

    “[n]ever [in] anybody’s thought processes . . . did we ever think that the evil doers would fly not one but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets . . . never.”

    In May 2002, Condoleezza Rice claimed, “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.” (05.16.02)

    Dr. Rice: “[W]e received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts speculated that terrorists might hijack airplanes to try to free U.S.-held terrorists.” (03.22.04)

    President Bush: “Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike America, to attack us. I would have used very resource, every asset, every power of this government to protect the American people.” (03.25.04)

    Surprisingly, Bush reiterated this comment at an April 13 press conference. “[T]here was nobody in our government, at least, and I don’t think the prior government that could envision flying airplanes into buildings.”


    THE FACTS

    Dr. Rice admitted privately to the 9-11 panel that she had “misspoken” when she said there were no prior warnings, but then proceeded to repeat this claim in public.

    The warnings received (see below) were sufficient for Attorney General Ashcroft to begin “traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines” because of what the Justice Department called “a threat assessment.” The Justice Department has yet to release this “threat assessment.”

    Sibel Edmonds, a translator with the FBI, indicates "that it was clear there was sufficient information during the spring and summer of 2001 to indicate terrorists were planning an attack."

    “President Bush said they had no specific information about 11 September and that is accurate but only because he said 11 September," she said. There was, however, general information about the use of airplanes and that an attack was just months away. (22)

    Condoleezza Rice was the top National Security official with President Bush at the July 2001 G-8 summit in Genoa. There, "U.S. officials were warned that Islamic terrorists might attempt to crash an airliner" into the summit, prompting officials to "close the airspace over Genoa and station antiaircraft guns at the city's airport."

    Bush received an August 6, 2001 memo entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” which mentioned bin Laden’s desire and capability to strike the US possibly using hijacked airplanes. The CIA warned that bin Laden will launch an attack against the US and/or Israel in the coming weeks that “will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against US facilities or interests.”

    The Bush administration prevented the release of details of the August 6th briefing in the report issued by the Joint Congressional Committee investigating the 9-11 attack.

    Also that spring and summer intelligence reports indicated that

    (i) Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack “American and Israeli symbols which stand out”;

    (ii) there was a threat to assassinate Bush at the July 2001 G-8 summit using an airplane stuffed with explosives;

    (iii) al-Qaeda was planning an attack using multiple airplane hijackings; and

    (iv) that bin Laden was in advanced stages of executing a significant operation within the US.

    This was included in reports entitled “Bin Laden planning multiple operations,” “Bin Laden’s network’s plan advancing,” and “Bin Laden threats are real” which warned of catastrophic damage.

    The CIA’s National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise in which a small corporate jet would crash into an office tower following equipment failure for the morning of September 11th.

    In February 2001, the Hart-Rudman report warned that “mass-casualty terrorism directed against the U.S. homeland was of serious and growing concern” and that the US was woefully unprepared for a “catastrophic” domestic terrorist attack.

    President Bush refused to act on this report, preferring to await the findings of Cheney’s terrorist task force which failed to even meet before 9-11. The Bush administration prevented the release of details of the August 6 briefing in the report issued by the Joint Congressional Committee investigating the 9-11 attack.
    Sources: (1) The Left Coaster 07.14.03, Waterman – UPI 07.23.03, Priest – Washington Post 07.25.03, Dean – Findlaw.com 07.29.03, Ridgeway – Village Voice 07.31.03, Franken – Lies And The Liars Who Tell Them, Daily Mis-Lead 03.11.04, Center for American Progress Fact Sheet 03.22.04, Progress Report 03.26.04, Rice – Washington Post 03.22.04, Progress Report 03.26.04, Daily Mis-Lead 04.14.04; Lumpkin – Associated Press 10.28.03; CAP Fact Sheets 04.08.04

    TORTURE

    We are finding terrorists and bringing them to justice. We are gathering information about where the terrorists may be hiding. We are trying to disrupt their plots and plans. Anything we do ... to that end in this effort, any activity we conduct, is within the law. We do not torture." - President Bush (Nov. 7, 2005).


    THE FACTS

    The State Department's annual report on human rights practices worldwide has condemned countries such as Burma and North Korea for the disappearance and indefinite detention of political prisoners without trial; while also condemning Libya, Syria and other countries for engaging in acts of torture that include hooding, stripping detainees naked, sleep deprivation, subjecting detainees to extremes of heat, cold, noise and light, threatening them with dogs, submerging them in water to simulate drowning — which is known as water-boarding — and other acts of physical abuse all of which have occured at U.S. detention facilities. See State Dept. Study Cites Torture of Prisoners: Rumself Approved Similar Practices (Washington Post March 10, 2005).
    Rumsfeld Approved Similar Practices

    In addition, post-World War II Japanese war crimes tribunals found that both the Japanese soldiers engaging in water-boarding and the officers who approved it were guilty of war crimes.

    GUANTANAMO DETAINEES & ABUSE

    These are people picked up off the battlefield in Afghanistan. They weren't wearing uniforms . . . but were there to kill. (President Bush 06/20/05)

    These detainees are dangerous enemy combatants . . . They were picked up on the battlefield, fighting American forces, trying to kill American forces. (Scott McClellan 06/21/05)

    The people that are there are people we picked up on the battlefield, primarily in Afghanistan. They're terrorists. They're bomb makers. They're facilitators of terror. They're members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban....We've let go those that we've deemed not to be a continuing threat. But the 520-some that are there now are serious, deadly threats to the United States. (Vice President Cheney 06/23/05)

    These are people, all of whom were captured on a battlefield. They're terrorists, trainers, bomb makers, recruiters, financiers, [Osama bin Laden's] bodyguards, would-be suicide bombers, probably the 20th 9/11 hijacker. (Defense Secretary Rumsfeld 06/27/05)

    Concerns about abuse at Guantanamo are based on allegations made by "people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people that had been trained in some instances to disassemble [sic]." President Bush (05/31/05)





    THE FACTS
    Defense Department Data. Counsel for the detainees released a report based entirely on the Defense Department's own data which found:

    1.

    Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.
    2.

    Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.

    The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably. Eight percent are detained because they are deemed "fighters for;" 30% considered "members of;" a large majority - 60% -- are detained merely because they are "associated with" a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist group is unidentified.
    3. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies.

    National Journal Review of Defense Department Filings in Habeas Petitions. National Journal reviewed the transcripts for 314 Gitmo prisoners and found the following:

    1. A high percentage, perhaps the majority, of the 500-odd men now held at Guantanamo were not captured on any battlefield, let alone on "the battlefield in Afghanistan" (as Bush asserted) while "trying to kill American forces" (as McClellan claimed).
    2. Fewer than 20 percent of the Guantanamo detainees, the best available evidence suggests, have ever been Qaeda members.
    3. Many scores, and perhaps hundreds, of the detainees were not even Taliban foot soldiers, let alone Qaeda terrorists. They were innocent, wrongly seized noncombatants with no intention of joining the Qaeda campaign to murder Americans.
    4. The majority were not captured by U.S. forces but rather handed over by reward-seeking Pakistanis and Afghan warlords and by villagers of highly doubtful reliability.
    5. Seventy-five of the 132 men, or more than half the group, are -- like -- not accused of taking part in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. (The 75 include 10 detainees whom the U.S. government "no longer" considers enemy combatants, although at least eight of the 10 are still being held at Guantanamo.) Typically, documents describe these men as "associated" with the Taliban or with Al Qaeda -- sometimes directly so, and sometimes through only weak or distant connections. Several men worked for charities that had some ties to Al Qaeda; one detainee lived in a house associated with the Taliban.
    6. Some of the "associated" men are said to have attended jihadist training camps before September 11, an accusation admitted by some and denied by others. The U.S. government says that some of the suspected jihadists trained in Afghanistan, even though other records show that they had not yet entered the country at the time of the training camps. Just 57 of the 132 men, or 43 percent, are accused of being on a battlefield in post-9/11 Afghanistan.
    7. The government's documents tie only eight of the 132 men directly to plans for terrorist attacks outside of Afghanistan.
    8. At least eight prisoners at Guantanamo are there even though they are no longer designated as enemy combatants. One perplexed attorney, whose client does not want public attention, learned that the man was no longer considered an enemy combatant only by reading a footnote in a Justice Department motion asking a federal judge to put a slew of habeas corpus cases on hold. The attorney doesn't know why the man is still in Cuba.

    The reports of abuse are not based on allegations by detainees but "accounts by agents for the Federal Bureau of Investigation." The FBI agents wrote in memorandum that "they had seen female interrogators forcibly squeeze male prisoners' genitals, and that they had witnessed other detainees stripped and shackled low to the floor for many hours." Nevertheless, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said military interrogators know "that any detainees [should] be treated in a humane way, and they have been." (Center for American Progress 6/10/05)

    DOMESTIC SPYING

    During the 2004 campaign, Bush claimed “Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.” See video.
    The Bush administration has offered the following justifications for its spying on U.S. citizens:

    No Time for Warrants It could not wait to get a warrant because it needed ”to move quickly to detect" plotting of terrorism between people in the United States and abroad. (President Bush 12/19/05)

    Congress Gave Authority: “authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes . . . authorization. . . to engage in this kind of signals intelligence. (Attorney General Gonzales 12/19/05)

    Eavesdropping Key To Thwarting Terrorist Attacks: "This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists," Bush said in December. "It is critical to saving American lives." Vice President Cheney claimed wiretapping Americans had "saved thousands of lives." "It is, I'm convinced, one of the reasons we haven't been attacked in the past four years," he added.

    - A Program "Very Limited In Nature": The NSA program is one that listens to a few numbers, called from the outside of the United States and of known al Qaeda or affiliate people," Bush has said. "[O]bviously I had to make the difficult decision between balancing civil liberties and, on a limited basis -- and I mean limited basis -- try to find out the intention of the enemy." "It is very limited in nature," Scott McClellan claimed

    - Could Have Prevented 9-11. During his State of the Union Address (SOU), Bush claimed "We now know that two of the hijackers in the United States placed telephone calls to al Qaeda operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late. So to prevent another attack –- based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute -- I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from America.

    -- Previous Presidents Have Used Same Authority. Bush also argued in the (SOU) that "[p]revious Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority."


    THE FACTS
    Campaign Statement: Bush’s statement is false, since he was conducting wiretaps without warrants.

    No Time for Warrants: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act allows the President to seek a warrant up to 3 days AFTER initiating the wiretap. The President never sought any such authority after the fact for this program.

    Congress Gave Authority: The administration requested the ability to conduct warrantless searches as part of the September 11th resolution, but Congress rejected this. In fact, Gonzales admitted that he was told by "certain members of Congress" that "that would be difficult if not impossible.”

    Eavesdropping Key To Thwarting Terrorist Attacks. A New York Times report debunks the administration's claim that the program is vital to America's national security. In fact, the flood of "unfiltered information" from the NSA program "was swamping [FBI] investigators" in the months after 9/11. "There were no imminent plots - not inside the United States," a former F.B.I. official said. "The information was so thin," one prosecutor said, "and the connections were so remote, that they never led to anything, and I never heard any follow-up." Additionally, "some F.B.I. officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans' privacy."

    A Program "Very Limited In Nature. "The truth is that after 9/11, the "stream" of information from the NSA to the FBI "soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month." Investigators were overwhelmed by the amount of information pouring into their offices. "After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration," said one former FBI official. Today's revelations support a previous New York Times report that found the "volume of information harvested from telecommunication data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged." NSA whistleblower Russell Tice recently told ABC News "the number of Americans subject to eavesdropping by the NSA could be in the millions."

    Could Have Prevented 9-11. As Media Matters explains "the 9-11 Commission and congressional investigators reportedly reached a very different conclusion: that the Bush administration had information on two of the 9-11 hijackers well over a year before the attacks occurred, and it was primarily bureaucratic problems -- rather than a lack of information -- that were responsible for the security breakdown.

    According to a January 24 Washington Post article, Cheney and Hayden "did not mention that the NSA, CIA and FBI had significant information about two of the leading hijackers as early as January 2000 but failed to keep track of them or capitalize on the information, according to the Sept. 11 commission and others." The article went on to note that Hayden "also did not mention NSA intercepts warning of the attacks the day before, but not translated until Sept. 12, 2001."

    Other Presidents Had The Authority. FISA was only enacted in 1978, so what prior Presidents did is irrelevant since after 1978 the President had to comply with FISA.

    See ACLU, NSA Spying on Americans is Illegal (12/29/2005); Media Matters for America, Top 12 media myths and falsehoods on the Bush administration's spying scandal (12/23/05); The Progress Report (1/17/06)



    IRAQ

    In the September/October Columbia Journalism Review, David Greenberg cited BushLies.net as among the few columnists and Web sites that "framed the [Niger] uranium deceptions as part of the President's familiar M.O., which was to utter untruths with such nonchalance that no one could possibly believe he was deliberately lying.”

    Below are just the biggest or most aggregious lies. See the Iraq Lies section for a complete list.





    Iraq & 9/11

    The Bush administration repeatedly has constantly tried to link Iraq to the September 11th attacks. In fact, Bush submitted the following certification to Congress to authorize the use of force against Iraq:

    I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area. I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. United States objectives also support a transition to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).



    Mo Jones Interactive Lie by Lie

    THE FACTS:
    Both the Senate Intelligence Committee and the 9-11 Commission found “no credible evidence of a collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.” The Commission stressed that “it had access to the same information [that Vice President Cheney] has seen regarding contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq prior to the 9/11 attacks.” This finding led Jon Stewart to quip, “Mr. Vice President, it’s my duty to inform you that your pants are on fire.” (63)

    At the same time as the release of the 9-11 Report, a former Bush intelligence official revealed that the White House knew there was no basis for the link. Former State Dept. intelligence official Greg Thielman stated that the intelligence agencies agreed on the “lack of a meaningful connection to Al Qaeda” and reported this to the White House.” The CIA, FBI and British intelligence have found no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. One FBI official stated that “[w]e’ve been looking at this hard for more than a year and . . . we just don’t think its there.” British intelligence reports that Hussein and fundamentalist Bin Laden are ideological enemies. (6) The director of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence & Research dismissed the alleged link, claiming that the Bush administration “has had a faith based intelligence attitude.” (20)



    In September 2003, Bush finally admitted that there was “no evidence” linking Iraq to 9-11. (36).


    Links to Congressional Reports on Iraq Lies


    Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments
    Senate Intelligence Committee

    Iraq on the Record
    The Bush Administration's Public Statements About Iraq
    House Government Reform Committee Minority Staff



    IRAQ WMD’s



    The Bush administration religiously chanted the contention that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction as its basis for a war.

    For example, in his address to the nation Bush said the intelligence “leaves no doubt that . . . Iraq . . . continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” Vice President Cheney also was part of the chorus and declared that “there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”

    THE FACTS

    The 2006 Senate Intelligence Committee report found that:

    *
    Findings do not support the 2002 NIE judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.
    *
    Findings do not support the 2002 NIE assessment that Iraq's acquisition of high-strength aluminum tubes was intended for an Iraqi nuclear program.
    *
    Findings do not support the 2002 NIE assessment that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake" from Africa.
    *
    Findings do not support the 2002 NIE assessment that "Iraq has biological weapons.
    *
    Findings do not support the 2002 NIE assessment that Iraq possessed, or ever developed, mobile facilities for producing biological warfare agents.
    *
    Findings do not support the 2002 NIE assessment that Iraq "has chemical weapons" or "is expanding its chemical industry to support chemical weapons."
    *
    Findings do not support the 2002 NIE assessment that Iraq likely retained covert SCUD SRBMs.
    *
    Findings do not support the 2002 NIE assessment that Iraq and developed a program for an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle to deliver biological agents.

    Similarly, the CIA’s Duelfer’s Report Iraq concluded that Iraq:

    *
    HAD NO WMD’s.
    *
    “had no . . . strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions” ended
    *
    Iraq failed “to acquire long range Iraq’s nuclear program ended in 1991 following the Gulf War.”
    *
    “Iraq unilaterally destroyed is undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter.”
    *
    In spite of exhaustive investigation, ISG found no evidence that Iraq possessed, or was developing BW agent product systems mounted on road vehicles or railway wagons.”



    This is consistent with pre-war findings:

    Former Treasury Secretary O’Neil, who was a member of the National Security Council, indicated that “[i]n the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction.”

    In January 2004, The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report on WMDS in Iraq concluded that the evidence prior to the war indicated that Iraq’s nuclear program had been dismantled and its chemical weapons had lost most of their lethality. In addition, the report concluded that the administration “systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq’s WMD and ballistic missile programs”.

    This is consistent with other pre-war reports. For example, in September 2002, the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency concluded “there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or whether Iraq has – or will – establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.”

    Sources: Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD; Ruben Bannerjee – Al Jazeera 04.06.03, NOW Update 05.22.03, Scheer – AlterNet.org 06.10.03; WMD in Iraq – Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; 60 Minutes 01.11.14; Dreyfus & Vest – Mother Jones Jan-Feb 04; Suskind – The Price of Loyalty.

    WITHDRAWING TROOPS FROM IRAQ

    (a) Will Withdraw if Asked

    President Bush said in an interview on Thursday that he would withdraw American forces from Iraq if the new government that is elected on Sunday asked him to do so, but that he expected Iraq's first democratically elected leaders would want the troops to remain as helpers, not as occupiers. . . . But asked if, as a matter of principle, the United States would pull out of Iraq at the request of a new government, he said: "Absolutely. This is a sovereign government. They're on their feet."

    (b) Iraqi's Oppose Withdrawal Timetable

    Q Thank you, Mr. President. Could you characterize the worry you heard from Iraqi leaders about U.S. troop levels that you first mentioned on the flight home from Iraq? And here in the Rose Garden a week ago, you said that Zarqawi's death is an opportunity for Iraq's new government to turn the tide in this struggle. After your visit, do you truly believe that the tide is turning in Iraq?

    THE PRESIDENT: First part of the question? I'm sorry.

    Q About the worry that you --

    THE PRESIDENT: Yes. No question, there are concerns about whether or not the United States will stand with this government. And I can understand why. You know, ours is a society that encourages debate and people are free to express themselves. And they do so; they say, look, this is my view of how we ought to go forward, this is what I think. And the willingness of some to say that if we're in power we'll withdraw on a set timetable concerns people in Iraq, because they understand our coalition forces provide a sense of stability, so they can address old wrongs and develop their strategy and plan to move forward. They need our help and they recognize that. And so they are concerned about that.

    Rose Garden Press Conference (June 14, 2006)


    THE FACTS

    The Bush administration has ignored repeated requests to set a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops.

    June 2005: Eighty two Iraqi lawmakers from across the political spectrum have pressed for the withdrawal of the US-led occupation troops from their country. The Shiite, Kurdish, Sunni Arab, Christian and communist legislators made the call in a letter sent by Falah Hassan Shanshal of the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), the largest bloc in parliament, to speaker Hajem Al-Hassani, reported Agence France-Presse (AFP). “We have asked in several sessions for occupation troops to withdraw. Our request was ignored,” read the latter, made public on Sunday, June 19.

    November 2005: Leaders of Iraq's Shiite and Kurdish majority and Sunni minority call for the withdrawal of foreign troops "according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces ... control the borders and the security situation" and end terror attacks

    June 2006: When George Bush visited Baghdad on June 13, Iraq's vice president, Tariq al-Hashimi, asked him for a timeline for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq. The following day, President Jalal Talabani released a statement expressing his support for the vice-president’s request. Then in an op-ed in the Washington Post on June 20, Mowaffak al-Rubbaie, the Iraqi national security adviser, called for a significant reduction in US troops this year, with most leaving next year. “We envisage the US troop presence by year’s end to be under 100,000, with most of the remaining troops to return home by the end of 2007,” wrote Dr. Al-Rubbaie. Al-Rubaie said that Iraqis now see foreign troops as occupiers rather than the liberators, and that their removal will strengthen the fledgling government by legitimizing it in the eyes of the Iraqi people.

    Asked about the article by the Financial Times, the State Department official reaffirmed the US position that withdrawal would be based on conditions, not timelines. The Bush administration’s refusal to set a timeline for withdrawal puts it on a collision course with the Iraqi government, which is increasing trying to “gain its independence from the United States,” as Dr. Al-Rubbaie said in his op-ed.

    FINDING WMDs

    BUSH: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. [Bush on Polish TV, 5/29/03]

    POWELL: We have already discovered mobile biological factories of the kind that I described to the Security Council on the 5th of February. We have now found them. There is no question in our mind that that’s what their purpose was. Nobody has come up with an alternate purpose that makes sense. [Powell, 6/2/03]

    WOLFOWITZ: We — as the whole world knows — have in fact found some significant evidence to confirm exactly what Secretary Powell said when he spoke to the United Nations about the development of mobile biological weapons production facilities that would seem to confirm fairly precisely the information we received from several defectors, one in particular who described the program in some detail. [Wolfowitz, 6/3/03]

    RICE: But let’s remember what we’ve already found. Secretary Powell on February 5th talked about a mobile, biological weapons capability. That has now been found and this is a weapons laboratory trailers capable of making a lot of agent that–dry agent, dry biological agent that can kill a lot of people. So we are finding these pieces that were described. … This was a program that was built for deceit and concealment. [CNBC, 6/3/03]

    JOHN BOLTON: And I think the presentation that Secretary Powell made to the Security Council some months ago, which he worked on day and night for four or five days before going up to New York, is actually standing up very well to the test of reality as we learn more about what was going on inside Iraq. He explained to the Security Council and, indeed, showed diagrams of mobile biological weapons production facilities. We have already found two such laboratories. [Testimony before House International Relations Committee, 6/4/03]

    BUSH: We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents. [Bush, 6/5/03]
    POWELL: I reviewed that presentation that I made on the 5th of February a number of times, as you might imagine, over recent weeks, and it holds up very well. It was the solid, coordinated judgment of the intelligence community. Some of the things that I talked about that day we have now seen in reality. We have found the mobile biological weapons labs that I could only show cartoons of that day. We now have them. [NBC Today Show, 6/30/03]

    CHENEY: We had intelligence reporting before the war that there were at least seven of these mobile labs that he had gone out and acquired. We’ve, since the war, found two of them. They’re in our possession today, mobile biological facilities that can be used to produce anthrax or smallpox or whatever else you wanted to use during the course of developing the capacity for an attack. [Meet the Press, 9/14/03]

    (Center for American Progress)



    THE FACTS

    The Washington Post reported an explosive story that a secret, fact-finding team of scientists and engineers sponsored by the Pentagon determined in May 2003 that two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops were not evidence of an Iraqi biological weapons program. The nine-member team “transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003.”

    Despite having authoritative evidence that the biological laboratories claim was false, the administration continued to peddle the myth over the next four months.

    (Center for American Progress)

    IRAQ AS IMMINENT THREAT

    The Bush administration repeatedly claimed that Iraq presented an imminent threat to the US and its allies, although it would later claim:

    On January 27, 2004, White House spokesman Scot McClellan claimed that the administration never said Iraq was an imminent threat. "the media have chose to use the word imminent" to describe the Iraqi threat. In a February 2004 speech at Georgetown University, CIA Director Tenet revealed that CIA "analysts never said there was an imminent threat" from Iraq before the war.

    In terms of the administration claims it never said or suggested an imminent threat, below are a sample of such comments:

    "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (09.19.02)

    "This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined." President Bush (09.26.02)

    "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . It has developed weapons of mass death" President Bush (10.02.02)

    "There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is." President Bush (10.02.03)

    "There are many dangers in the world; the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. President Bush (10.07.02)

    "The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace." President Bush (10.16.02)

    "There is a real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to America in the form of Saddam Hussein." President Bush (10.28.02)

    "I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq." President Bush (11.01.02)

    "Today the world is...uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq." President Bush (11.01.02)

    "The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands." President Bush (11.23.02)

    In January 2003, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett, when asked “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests”; he replied “Well, of course he is.”

    In February 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said “[t]his is about [an] imminent threat.”

    In May 2003, Ari Fleisher was asked “Didn’t we go to war because we said WMD’s were a direct and imminent threat to the U.S?” He responded, “Absolutely.”




    THE FACTS

    The director of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence & Research stated that "Iraq possessed no imminent threat to either its neighbors or to the United States."

    A January 2004 report by the Army War College concluded that Iraq was not an imminent threat and characterized the war as "an unnecessary preventive war of choice against a deferred Iraq."

    The Carnegie Endowment for Peace's report on WMD's in Iraq also concluded that Iraq did not pose an immediate threat to the United States or to global security.

    Sources: Daily Mis-Lead 02.05.04; Rivers-Pitt – Truthout.org 07.11.03, McGovern –AlterNet 06.30.03, NBC News 07.21.03, Krugman – New York Times 07.22.03; WMD in Iraq – Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Bounding the Global War on Terror – Army War College.Daily Mis-Lead 01.28.04, CAP Daily Progress Report 01.29.04

    CONGRESS HAD SAME PRE-WAR INTELLIGENCE

    During his Veteran’s Day 2005 address, Bush charged that “ . . more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. "


    THE FACTS

    The Washington Post extensively analyzed this claim, concluding that: “Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were ependent on the administration to provide the material…Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence community's views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country. In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not included in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used publicly by members of Congress because the classified information had not been cleared for release.” (Washington Post, 11/13/05) See democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm

    This was confirmed by a Congressional Research Service report which found that the “President, and a small number of presidentially-designated Cabinet-level officials, including the Vice President (3) - in contrast to Members of Congress (4) - have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information, including information regarding intelligence sources and methods.”

    TROOP LEVELS IN IRAQ

    Defense Donald Rumsfeld claimed that the number of troops in Iraq is not a decision I make. This is a decision that's made by the military commanders. [Retired] Gen. [Tommy R.] Franks, Gen. [John P.] Abizaid, Gen. [George W.] Casey [Jr.] have decided what those numbers are.

    And I have yet to hear from our commanders on the ground that they need more troops. President Bush (11/04/04)






    THE FACTS

    In fact, substantial evidence suggests that in developing the war plan Rumsfeld rejected the advice of top military commanders who warned that more troops would be necessary to secure postwar Iraq. And even after the end of "major combat operations," Rumsfeld reportedly squelched requests from military commanders -- as well as L. Paul Bremer III, who headed the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority until the transfer of sovereignty to Iraq in June 2004 -- for more troops.

    Tommy Franks, the former commander-in-chief of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), has acknowledged that he felt more troops were needed in Iraq. He wrote in his recent book American Soldier (Regan, 2004) that he projected that 250,000 troops would be required to secure postwar Iraq, as he acknowledged in an August 16, 2004, appearance on CNN's Paula Zahn Now.

    In an October 17, 2004, article on the Bush administration's Iraq policy, Knight Ridder reported that Rumsfeld successfully opposed higher troop levels that military planners thought were necessary. The article found that "[t]he administration also failed to provide some 100,000 additional U.S. troops that American military commanders originally wanted to help restore order and reconstruct a country." The article explained: Central Command originally proposed a force of 380,000 to attack and occupy Iraq. Rumsfeld's opening bid was about 40,000, "a division-plus," said three senior military officials who participated in the discussions. Bush and his top advisers finally approved the 250,000 troops the commanders requested to launch the invasion. But the additional troops that the military wanted to secure Iraq after Saddam's regime fell were either delayed or never sent.

    Most famously, in February 2003, a few weeks before the invasion began, then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki, now retired, told Congress that "[s]omething on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers ... would be required" to stabilize postwar Iraq. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz rejected this claim, insisting that he was "reasonably certain that they [the Iraqis] will greet us as liberators, and that will help us to keep [troop] requirements down." Rumsfeld shared Wolfowitz's optimism. "Rumsfeld said the post-war troop commitment would be less than the number of troops required to win the war. He also said 'the idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces, I think, is far from the mark,' " [CNN, 3/3/03].

    Similarly, though he is not a military commander, Bremer, who headed the Coalition Provisional Authority, stated in October 2004 that "We never had enough troops on the ground." Rumsfeld maintained lower troop levels than commanders wanted during the post-invasion period. According to a February 7 article in Newsweek, Rumsfeld has effectively rejected at least one postwar appeal already, from Abizaid and other military commanders.

    The April 12, 2004, New York Daily News reported that Abizaid "has been repeatedly discouraged from asking for more soldiers," according to a "senior military official." The article further quoted that official: "Rumsfeld has made it clear to the whole building that he wasn't interested in getting any requests for more troops."

    Following the death of 19 Marines from the same unit in an ambush attack, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer Editors commented: There may be a lesson as well as sorrow in the tragic deaths of 19 Marines from the same Ohio unit last week. Their Marine regiment had been asking for more troops for months, . . . . President Bush said June 28, "If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them." The generals reporting to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld apparently cater to his desire to hold down troop numbers. So, if the generals don't ask, Rumsfeld doesn't tell the president, giving Bush a kind of plausible fiction. It's no wonder Americans have grown more skeptical of Bush's words

    (Media Matters 06/28/05, Seattle Post Intelligencer (08/09/05)

    Katrina, Taxes & Domestic Policy

    KATRINA LEVEES

    I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. President Bush (09/01/05)

    It really caught everybody by surprise" and was a major reason for the delay in the government's emergency response. Michael Chertoff (09/04/05)

    That 'perfect storm' of a combination of catastrophes exceeded the foresight of the planners, and maybe anybody's foresight. Michael Chertoff (09/05/05)




    THE FACTS

    Two Days Warning. The White House situation room received a report at 1:47 a.m. the day Katrina hit, predicting that Katrina would likely lead to severe flooding and/or levee breaching. Two days before Katrina hit FEMA predicted that Hurricane Katrina could be worse than Hurricane Pam. [MSNBC 1/24/06]

    Hurricane Pam? Responding to Bush’s comments on Meet the Press, Dr. Ivor Van Heerden of the LSU Hurricane Center “I didn’t buy that because, you know, we had discussed on numerous occasions that a worst-case scenario would be if we had one of these major hurricanes and then we lost the levee systems.” A White House advisor sat in on the “Hurricane Pam Exercise,” a computer simulation of the possible effects of a Category 3 hurricane on New Orleans. The exercise found that “…a storm like Hurricane Pam would: cause flooding that would leave 300,000 people trapped in New Orleans, many of whom would not have private transportation for evacuation.” [Meet the Press, 9/11/05]
    CNN.com noted that "officials have warned for years that a Category 4 [hurricane] could cause the levees to fail." The CNN.com article added that in an August 31 interview on CNN's Larry King Live, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) director Michael Brown said, "That Category 4 hurricane caused the same kind of damage that we anticipated. So we planned for it two years ago. Last year, we exercised it. And unfortunately this year, we're implementing it."

    On Meet the Press, Tim Russert pointed out that the Times-Picayune published a five-part series in June 2002, in which it warned that if a large hurricane hit New Orleans, the city's levees would likely be topped or broken -- resulting in catastrophic flooding and thousands of deaths. Russert added that "last summer FEMA, who reports to you, and the LSU Hurricane Center, and local and state officials did a simulated Hurricane Pam in which the levees broke. ... Thousands drowned." (Media Matters for America 09/08/05)

    Additionally, as journalist Joshua Micah Marshall noted on Talking Points Memo, National Hurricane Center director Max Mayfield "talked about the force of Katrina during a video conference call to President Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas" on August 28 [St. Petersburg Times, 8/30/05]. The Washington Post quoted Mayfield on September 6: "They knew that this one was different. ... I don't think Mike Brown or anyone else in FEMA could have any reason to have any problem with our calls. ... They were told ... We said the levees could be topped."

    A transcript of this video conference reveals that Mayfield indicated that this was "obviously a very, very grave concern."




    KATRINA EXCUSES

    “What I said was not that we didn't anticipate that there's a possibility the levees will break. What I said was, in this storm, what happened is, the storm passed and passed without the levees breaking on Monday. Tuesday morning, I opened newspapers and saw headlines that said 'New Orleans Dodged the Bullet,' which surprised people. What surprised them was that the levee broke overnight and the next day and, in fact, collapsed. That was a surprise." Michael Chertoff (09/04/05)





    What I was referring to is this: When that storm came by, a lot of people said we dodged a bullet. When that storm came through at first, people said, "Whew." There was a sense of relaxation. And that's what I was referring to. And I myself thought we had dodged a bullet. You know why? Because I was listening to people probably over the airwaves say, "The bullet has been dodged." And that was what I was referring to. Of course, there were plans in case the levee had been breached. There was a sense of relaxation at a critical moment. And thank you for giving me a chance to clarify that...” President Bush (09/12/05)





    THE FACTS

    Even accepting as true Chertoff's incredible suggestion that he -- the secretary of Homeland Security -- and the president of the United States relied on the print media for their information on the situation in New Orleans, as Think Progress points out, had administration officials "bothered to read the full text of the three articles they found with favorable headlines, they would have realized that federal government help was needed immediately." Moreover, while Chertoff did not indicate which headlines he was referring to, many newspapers -- in addition to the Times-Picayune -- did report on broken levees and significant flooding. For example, on August 30, the Los Angeles Times reported that a levee break had occurred by late morning August 29, with water from the break "spill[ing] through the area, flooding the town's two main shelters and swamping the local National Guard armory, leaving even public safety officials homeless."

    Or Chertoff could have turned on the television. On the August 30 broadcast of NBC's Today, NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams reported at 7:05 a.m. ET, "There has been a huge development overnight ... the historic French Quarter, dry last night and it is now filling with water. This is water from nearby Lake Pontchartrain; the levees failed overnight."

    Indeed, Chertoff's and Bush's professed ignorance notwithstanding, the federal government was well aware of the continuing threat of the levees breaking. Just hours after the storm passed on Monday, August 29, FEMA director Brown confirmed that the potential for catastrophic flooding remained. In an interview with Brown, NBC Today co-host Matt Lauer noted, "In New Orleans, in particular, they're worried about the levees giving way or the canals not holding, and they're worried about toxic runoff." Brown responded that even though the storm had weakened, there was still a 15- to 20-foot storm surge causing "the water out of Lake Pontchartrain and the Gulf and the Mississippi continue to converge upon Louisiana." Brown added, "So we're still ready for a major disaster."

    The National Weather Service issued a detailed message a day before the strike, saying buildings would be leveled, high-rises crippled and most of the area will be uninhabitable for weeks, perhaps longer. In addition, and again contrary to Chertoff's claims, FEMA was most certainly warned that the levees could collapse, although even well after the levees failed, FEMA officials continued to downplay how bad the flooding might be. One said, "I don't want to alarm everybody that, you know, New Orleans is filling up like a soup bowl. That's just not happening." But in fact, it was happening. (Media Matters 09/08/05, 09/13/05)
    SOCIAL SECURITY “CRISIS”

    "Thirteen years from now, in 2018, Social Security will be paying out more than it takes in. And every year afterward will bring a new shortfall, bigger than the year before. For example, in the year 2027, the government will somehow have to come up with an extra $200 billion to keep the system afloat -- and by 2033, the annual shortfall would be more than $300 billion. By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt. If steps are not taken to avert that outcome, the only solutions would be dramatically higher taxes, massive new borrowing, or sudden and severe cuts in Social Security benefits or other government programs."
    -- 2005 State of the Union Address





    THE FACTS

    “This passage contains three statements worth scrutiny. First, the statement that starting in 2018 the government "will somehow have to come up with" extra billions to stay afloat ignores the fact that there exists a substantial trust fund now invested in US treasury bonds and will make up the shortfall for several decades. Second, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has projected the trust fund will be exhausted in 2052; the year 2042 is an older figure that came from the Social Security Trustees, who used a different set of economic assumptions. Finally, even after 2052, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has noted the system could still pay out 80 percent of normal benefits without new taxes or borrowing.”

    In addition, the head of the non-partisan General Accounting Office testified before Congress that Social Security “does not face an immediate crisis”.

    Source: Savage, Boston Globe (02/03/05), Associated Press, Los Angeles Times (03/10/05)

    BUDGET DEFICIT TRIFECTA
    LIE: As the budget deficit emerged; Bush assured us that the deficits would be “small and temporary”.

    He also stated “I remember campaigning in Chicago and one of the reporters said, ‘Would you ever deficit spend?’ I said, ‘Only – only – in times of war, in times of economy insecurity as a result of a recession or in times of national emergency.’ Never did I dream we’d have a trifecta.’” The White House repeated this trifecta claim throughout 2002.

    FACTS: Bush never made such a statement in Chicago nor anywhere else during the 2000 campaign. In fact, these three caveats on deficits were stated on several occasions by Vice President Gore. Bush’s attempt to pin the deficit on the war also is a misstatement, since the cost of the Bush tax cuts is three times the cost of the response to 9-11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Source: New Republic 07.01.02
    “MIDDLE-CLASS” TAX CUTS

    LIE: Most of the tax cuts went to low and middle income Americans, and now the tax code is more fair, 20 percent of the upper income people pay about 80 percent of the taxes in America today because of how we structured the tax cuts.

    FACTS: The top 1/5th of earners receive 2/3rds of all benefits and the bill excluded extending the child tax credit to 4 million low income families who do not qualify. Middle class earners will receive an average cut of $162 in 2005.

    Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 04.14.04

    PRESCRIPTION DRUG BILL COST ESTIMATES

    LIE:The Bush administration sold its Medicare prescription drug plan to conservatives in Congress as having a cost of $400 billion over ten years, enabling it to narrowly win passage in December 2003.

    FACTS: The White House knew the costs were $551 billion - more than 25 percent higher. The administration threatened to fire Medicare’s top financial analyst (Richard Foster) if he released the information. Two months after the President signed the law, the administration revised its costs estimates to $534 billion.

    One month after passage of the bill, the White House revealed that the program costs actually were $534 billion - more than 25 percent higher. AARP, which worked with the administration in drafting the bill, revealed that these higher estimates were "well known in the fall" but is only now being made public. Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based budget watchdog group claim Congress got "suckered by a classic financial bait-and-switch by the administration."

    Source: Kemper & Simon - Los Angeles Times 01.31.04, Pugh - Knight Ridder 03.11.04, Kemper - Los Angeles Times 03.14.04, CAP Progress Report 03.15.04.
    CLEAN AIR CLAIMS

    LIE: The Bush administration claims it has imposed “stringent new rules on power plant emissions”.

    FACTS: The new Bush rules gutted Clean Air Act restrictions to allow utilities to avoid having to install expensive new anti-pollution equipment when they modernize their plants. The EPA’s civil enforcement chief resigned in protest, while another senior EPA lawyer wrote to Christie Whitman that the administration “seems determined to weaken the rules we are trying to enforce. A study commissioned by the administration demonstrated that current policies on power plant emissions led to the death of 24,000 people each year.

    Source: Center for American Progress 12.13.03, New York Times 06.10.04

    BUSH’S PATTERN OF HIDING THE TRUTH

    Just as bad as lying has been the administration’s efforts to suppress the truth to further its political purposes.

    FACTS: SEE BELOW.

    Part 1: BUSH'S PATTERN OF
    HIDING THE TRUTH



    The administration's fabrication's and attempts to bury the truth are not limited to its zealous pursuit of war with Iraq. Below is just a sample of recent items the administration has tried to conceal from the American people:



    * HIDING THE TOLL OF THE IRAQ WAR. The The Bush administration has (i) banned the media from Dover Air Force Base where the bodies of troops killed in Iraq are returned, (ii) under-reported figures for those officially wounded to only include those directly wounded in combat, and (iii) restricted access to military hospitals for professionally trained counselors of the Disabled American Veterans Association – access that the DAV has had for more than 60 years – to only permit closely monitored visits with pre-selected patients; and (iv) failed to attend a single funeral for an Iraq war veteran. (Tom Paine.common sense 03.08.04)



    * SUPPRESSING PRESCRIPTION DRUG COST DATA BEFORE CONGRESSIONAL VOTE: The White House provided Congress with a cost estimate for the Medicare prescription drug plan of $400 billion even though it knew at that time the costs of were $551 billion - more than 25% higher. The administration threatened to fire Medicare's top financial analyst (Richard Foster) if he released the information. Two months after the President signed the law, the administration increased its costs estimates to $524 billion. AARP, which worked with the administration in drafting the bill, revealed that these higher estimates were "well known in the fall" but is only now being made public. Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based budget watchdog group claim Congress got "suckered by a classic financial bait-and-switch by the administration."

    In May, the Congressional Research Service issued a report that the Bush administration violated federal law by ordering Mr. Foster to withhold information from Congress. The report stressed that “the right to receive truthful information from federal agencies to assist in its legislative functions is clear and unassailable.” (Kemper & Simon - Los Angeles Times 01.31.04, Pugh- Knight Ridder Los Angeles Times 03.11.04, Kemper - Los Angeles Times 03.14.04, Progress Report 03.15.04, Pear – New York Times 05.04.04)





    * SUPPRESSING EVIDENCE OF MERCURY POISONING: Administration officials “suppressed and sought to manipulate government information on mercury contained in an EPA report on children’s health and the environment.” The report, which found that 8 percent of women between the ages of 16-49 have mercury levels in their blood that could impair their children, was buried by the White House for nine months and was only released after it was leaked to the media by EPA.

    In addition, in issuing regulations on mercury emissions, the administration told EPA staffers “not to undertake the normal scientific and economic studies called for under a standing executive order” to prevent production of evidence that would undermine its weakening of mercury emissions regulation. (Union of Concerned Scientists – Scientific Integrity in Policy Making February 2004, Krugman – New York Times 04.06.04).



    * CENSORED AND DELAYED 9-11 REPORT: The Bush administration purposefully delayed the release of the report of the Joint Congressional Committee on 9-11 until after the conclusion of the Iraq war to hide facts such as the absence of an Iraq0AlQaeda link. Once released, the administration censored portions of the report that demonstrated that Bush was briefed on August 6, 2001 about Al Qaeda plans for a possible hijacking in the US and the Saudi role in funding Al Qaeda. (Waterman - UPI 07.23.03, Priest - Washington Post (07.25.03).



    * SUPPRESSING, ALTERING OR MANIPULATING EMPERICAL DATA UNDERMINING THEIR IDEOLOGICAL POSITIONS: More than 4,000 scientists – including 48 Nobel Prize winners and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences – have accused the Bush administration of distorting and suppressing science to suit its political goals. (Shogren – Los Angeles Times 07.09.04)

    A report by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that this administration has:



    o a well-established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific finding by high-ranking Bush administration political appointees across numerous federal agencies. These actions have consequences for human health, public safety and community well being. Incidents involve air pollutants, heat-trapping emissions, reproductive health, drug resistant bacteria, endangered species, forest health, and military intelligence



    o The report also found that:



    o there is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression, and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented.



    READ THE REPORT! www.ucsusa.org/documents/...lreport.pdf



    A report by the House Committee on Government Reform – Minority Staff reaches the same conclusion, revealing examples such as the administration:



    o Changing education performance measures to make “abstinence-only” programs appear effect; deleting information on the efficacy and use of condoms from the Center for Disease Control web site; withholding findings on global warming and other negative impacts on wetlands and preventing any analyses on alterative environmental proposals;



    o using misleading data to suggest that a functioning missile defense system could be deployed quickly;



    o including information on the National Cancer Institute’s web site suggesting conflicting evidence on whether abortion leads to breast cancer when the scientific community has determined no such link exists; and



    o preventing research on agricultural practices having a “negative health [or] environmental consequences.

    READ THE REPORT! www.house.gov/reform/min/...ence_rep.pdf

    * ERASING EVIDENCE OF RACIAL DISPARITIES IN REPORT ON ACCESS TO QUALITY HEALTH CARE: After a National Academy Sciences panel conducted a Congressionally mandated comprehensive study on racial disparities in access to quality health care and concluded that racial and socioeconomic disparities were “pervasive in our health care system”; that minorities received poorer care and were more likely to die from avoidable deaths (e.g., cancer, cardiac illness) – HHS Secretary Thompson refused to approve the findings and ordered that the report be rewritten. The report released by HHS in December 2003 omitted all findings of racial disparities and instead asserted that claims of minority groups receiving worse care than whites were unproved. (Bloche – Los Angeles Times 02.15.04)





    * REMOVING INFORMATION ON PRIVATE SCHOOL TUITION: Under the No Child Left Behind Act Administration, if a school is deemed a failing school for three years in a row, students would get vouchers to go to a new school based on their share of federal funding (approximately $2,400 per child). The Department of Education website used to list the private school tuition ($28,500) on its website, but the Bush administration has removed this to hide the disparity between the cost of private school and vouchers offered. (Carville – Had Enough?)



    * KILLED TREASURY DEFICIT STUDY: The administration “deep-sixed” a 2003 Treasury Department study that projected that “the equivalent of an immediate and permanent 66 percent across-the-board income tax increase” would be required to eliminate a projected $44.2 trillion budget deficit due to Bush’s tax cuts. The study found that the future health care and retirement costs of the baby boomers would overwhelm the treasury. “Sharp tax increases and massive spending cuts are unavoidable if the U.S. is to meet benefit promises to future generations.” The report added that the current financial challenge facing Washington is approximately “10 times the publicly held national debt, four years of U.S. economic output, or more than 94 percent of all U.S. household assets.” (Hollings – Washington Post 06.19.03, Baker – Slate 07.11.03, Ferdinand - Utne Reader 05.2003, Malveaux & McCaughan - CNN.com 05.29.03)



    * SUPPRESSING EVIDENCE OF RACIAL HARASSMENT WITHIN THE ASHCROFT JUSTICE DEPARTMENT: For over a year, the Justice Department has delayed the release of a KPMG Consulting report on diversity in DOJ. All that DOJ would release is a redacted version that deletes more than half the report including its summary. It is reported that the redacted portions include findings that DOJ faces “significant diversity issues” and that “minorities are significantly more likely than whites to cite stereotyping, harassment, and racial tensions as characteristics of the work climate.” (New York Times 11.04.03)



    * DELETED FORECAST OF TAX PLAN AS “JOB KILLER”: A Council of Economic Advisors’ forecast showing that the Bush “stimulus” plan would only create 170,000 jobs per year and would be a “job killer” after 2007 was removed from its website. (Baker – Slate 07.11.03)



    * DELETED FINDINGS OF GLOBAL WARMING: Prior to release of the EPA’s 2003 Environmental Overview, the White deleted a detailed chapter of global warming that found that global warming was due to human factors and that “climate changes has global consequences for human health and the environment”. (CBS News.com 06.19.03)







    * CONCEALED "CLEAR SKIES" ANALYSIS: An EPA assessment of Bush’s “Clear Skies” plan concealed the fact that a proposal by Senator Carper (D-Del.) would provide greater long term benefits at only slightly higher costs. In June 2004, a research firm hired by the Bush administration concluded that current policies on power plant emissions lead to the death of 24,000 people each year. While the Clear Skies program would reduce this by as many as 14,000 lives, competing proposals would save up to 22,000 lives. (Gugliotta & Pianin – Washington Post 07.02.03, Janofsky – New York Times 06.10.04)





    * KILLED LAYOFF REPORTS: The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ monthly Mass Layoff Statistics report was killed by the administration in December 2002 and only noted in a footnote in the final report. (President Bush I did the same thing to hide his dismal performance.) After this was discovered by the Washington Post, the reports were reinstated. (Baker – Slate 07.11.03)





    * DELETED DECLINING MIN. WAGE: A Labor Department report showing the real value of the minimum wage over time (which would show the workers losing ground under Bush since there has been no increase since 1997) was removed from its website. (Baker – Slate 07.11.03)







    * FORCED SCIENTISTS TO ALTER FINDINGS ON KLAMATH RIVER WATER LEVELS: Karl Rove and Interior Secretary Norton forced National Marine Fisheries scientists to alter findings on the amount of water required for the survival of salmon in Oregon’s Klamath River to enable farms to use a bigger share of the river water. “As a result, more than 33,000 Chinook and Coho salmon died – the largest fish kill in American history.” (Kennedy – Rolling Stone 12.11.03)







    * RESTRICTING DEMOCRATS ABILITY TO QUESTION ADMINISTRATION: In an unprecedented move, the administration is requiring Democrats to submit all requests for information to Republican chairman of the relevant committee, thereby requiring Republican approval of any such requests. (Milbank – Washington Post 11.08.03)







    * HIDING BAD NEWS: The Bush administration moved up the release of census data showing increases in poverty and the uninsured for the third year in a row from September to August while Congress was in recess and many reporters and other Americans were on vacation. The administration has a history of releasing bad news late on Friday to minimize press coverage. (The Daily-Mis-Lead 08.26.04).









    * FUNDING ABSTINENCE-ONLY PROGRAMS – 80% OF WHICH PRESENT FALSE, MISLEADING OR DISTORTED INFORMATION ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH. The programs contain false claims on the effectiveness of condoms, the risks associated with abortion and exposure to HIV. Bush administration has used “sensitive but unclassified”, “sensitive security information” (Report: The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs.)

    Read the report - www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Do...pdf











    * USING SECURITY CLASSIFICATIONS TO SUPRRESS DAMAGING INFORMATION. The Bush administration has used “sensitive but unclassified”, “sensitive security information” or “for official use only” designations to block the release of information showing that (1) the CIA “was involved in preparing a grossly inaccurate global terrorism report”; (2) UN Ambassador nominee was involved in the creation of a fact sheet that falsely claimed Iraq sought uranium from Niger; and (3) the names of US companies that did business with Saddam Hussein under the Oil for Food program. (Letter from Congressman Waxman to Congress Shays dated March 1, 2005.)





    MIS-LEADER SPECIAL REPORT: HIDING THE TRUTH: BUSH'S NEED TO KNOW DEMOCRACY www.misleader.com/pdf/speci...ecrecy.pdf





    Part 2: BUSH LIES FROM A - Z

    ABORTION


    LIE: Bush justified re-imposing the Reagan era gag order prohibiting funding to overseas family planning groups that provide abortion services or counseling on the grounds that “taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions”.



    FACT: The US funds that Bush cut off were only used for non-abortion activities. (David Corn 02.05.01)



    LIE: Bush withheld $34 million approved by Congress for the United Nations Population Fund Agency (UNPFA) claiming that the program supported China’s one-child policy.



    FACT: Bush’s own State Department conducted an investigation and found “no evidence that UNFPA has supported or participated in the management of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization” in China. Bush suppressed the report and withheld the funds anyway. Bush continues to withhold these funds despite no evidence of claimed forced abortions in China. (NOW Report – The Truth About George, Richter – Los Angeles Times 07.17.04)



    LIE: During the debates, Bush claimed he would not seek to overturn the FDA’s approval of RU-486.



    FACT: Bush stated he would not accept the FDA’s decision and would seek to appoint an FDA commissioner who would “make sure the FDA considered the risk”. (ABC News.com 10.4.02)

    CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM



    LIE: After initially opposing McCain-Feingold, Bush jumped on the bandwagon once it was a fait accompli. In July 2002, he cut a deal with Senator McCain to appoint a pro-reform candidate (Ellen Weintraub) backed by McCain to the Federal Election Commission.



    FACT: As Senator McCain plainly stated, while “the administration wanted to share in the widespread public approval of campaign finance reform by . . . signing the legislation . . . he’s cooperating behind the scenes with opponents of the law in Congress and on the [Federal Election] Commission to weaken it as much as possible.” Bush sat on the Weintraub nomination until the Bush FEC issued regulations creating huge loopholes contrary to the express language of the law to permit (i) party committees to raise soft money through independent committees, (ii) federal officials to engage in fundraising, and (iii) permitting candidates to raise soft money through independent committees. In the words of Senator McCain, “[t]hey flat-out broke their word.” (Arianna Online 12.09.02, Public Citizen Analysis of How FEC Is Undermining the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002)



    CIVIL RIGHTS & PATRIOT ACT



    LIE: The Bush administration repeatedly argued that it could not release the names of detainees – even those who had not been charged or accused of terrorism – because doing so would harm national security.” The Justice Department in a sworn affidavit contended that when detainees are publicly identified “terrorist organizations with whom they have a connection may refuse to deal further with them.”



    FACT: That rule does not apply when the administration needs to make disclosures for political purposes. When forced to come up some justification for its elevation of the threat level immediately after the Democratic convention based on information that was three years old, National Security Advisor Rice stated that the alert was due to the capture of Al Qaeda operative Mohammed Khan. The Justice Department’s affidavit was correct; however, since Rice’s disclosure of Khan harmed ongoing investigations. Once again, politics triumphs over security in the Bush White House. (Daily Mis-Lead 08.08.04)





    LIE: "By the way, the reason I bring up the Patriot Act, it's set to expire next year. I'm starting a campaign to make it clear to members of Congress that it shouldn't expire. It shouldn't expire for the security of our country." President Bush.



    FACT: Less that 10 percent of the Patriot Act expires; most of the law is permanent and those portions that do sunset will not do so until December 31, 2005. (Cassel – Counterpunch 04.26.04)



    LIE: "And that changed, the law changed on- roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren't available for chasing down terrorists, see?"



    FACT: Roving wiretaps were available prior to 9/11 against drug lords and terrorists. Prior to the law, the FBI could get a roving wiretap against both when it had probable cause of crime for a wiretap eligible offense. What the Patriot Act did is make roving wiretaps available in intelligence investigations supervised by the secret intelligence court without the judicial safeguards of the criminal wiretap statute. (Cassel – Counterpunch 04.26.04)



    LIE: "... see, I'm not a lawyer, so it's kind of hard for me to kind of get bogged down in the law. I'm not going to play like one, either. (Laughter.) The way I viewed it, if I can just put it in simple terms, is that one part of the FBI couldn't tell the other part of the FBI vital information because of the law. And the CIA and the FBI couldn't talk."



    FACT: The CIA and the FBI could talk and did. As Janet Reno wrote in prepared testimony before the 9/11 commission, "There are simply no walls or restrictions on sharing the vast majority of counterterrorism information. There are no legal restrictions at all on the ability of the members of the intelligence community to share intelligence information with each other.



    "With respect to sharing between intelligence investigators and criminal investigators, information learned as a result of a physical surveillance or from a confidential informant can be legally shared without restriction. While there were restrictions placed on information gathered by criminal investigators as a result of grand jury investigations or Title III wire taps, in practice they did not prove to be a serious impediment since there was very little significant information that could not be shared." (Cassel – Counterpunch 04.26.04)



    LIE: "Thirdly, to give you an example of what we're talking about, there's something called delayed-notification search warrants. ... We couldn't use these against terrorists [before the Patriot Act], but we could use against gangs."



    FACT: Delayed-notification - or so-called sneak-and-peek search warrants - were never limited to gangs. The circuit courts that had authorized them in limited circumstances prior to the Patriot Act did not limit the warrants to the investigation of gangs. In fact, terrorism or espionage investigators did not necessarily have to go through the criminal courts for a covert search - they could do so with even fewer safeguards against abuse by going to a top secret foreign intelligence court in Washington.



    For criminal sneak-and-peek warrants, the Patriot Act added a catch-all argument for prosecutors - if notice would delay prosecution or jeopardize an investigation - which makes these secret search warrants much easier to obtain. The president's sneak-and-peek misstatement clearly demonstrates that the Patriot Act is not limited to terrorism. In fact, many of the law's expanded authorities can clearly be used outside the war on terrorism. (Cassel – Counterpunch 04.26.04)



    LIE: In announcing his support for the Defense of Marriage Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage, Bush said he was reversing his previous position because of the actions in Massachusetts, New Mexico and San Francisco.



    FACT: President Bush told the amendment sponsor, Rep. Marilyn Musgrave that he would support the amendment several months prior – before any state actions. (Daily Mis-Lead 03.02.04)



    LIE: When asked by David Frost about the demonstrators protesting his visit to the UK, Bush responded that “Freedom is a beautiful thing, I would first say, and aren’t you lucky to be in a country that encourages people to speak their mind. And I value going to a country where people are free to say anything they want to say”.



    FACT: Under Bush, the FBI has been monitoring political demonstrations and other legal activities such as using the Internet for fundraising for the first time since the Nixon-Hoover era. In addition, after 9-11 then White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said that Americans “need to watch what they say, watch what they do.” Similarly, Attorney General Ashcroft labeled any criticism of the Patriot Act as aiding terrorists. (Daily Mis-Lead 11.24.03)



    LIE: Attorney General Ashcroft told there “is no evidence of racial bias in the administration of the federal death penalty”.



    FACT: A September 2000 Justice Department report concluded there was racial bias in the administration of the federal death penalty. (People For the American Way – Report on Attorney General Ashcroft’s First Year)



    CLINTON BASHING



    LIE: At the 2000 Republican National Convention, Bush claimed that if ‘called on by the commander in chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report, ‘Not ready for duty, sir.’”



    FACT: This claim was contradicted by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Defense Secretary Cohen and Bush’s own foreign policy advisor Richard Armitage. (Franken – Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them)



    LIE: The Bush administration spread stories that the outgoing Clinton administration vandalized the White House with obscene graffiti, file cabinets glued shut, phone wires cut and pornography left on fax machines.



    FACT: The General Accounting Office found no evidence of vandalism, wires slashed, equipment damaged or other evidence to match the allegations. (Boston Globe 05.28.01)



    LIE: The Bush administration claimed that regulations issued during the final weeks of the Clinton administration were “ill-considered” and “ill-intentioned”.



    FACT: Virtually all regulations issued during the final weeks of the Clinton administration had been developed over a period of years and are consistent with practices of prior administrations. (Washington Post 06.09.01).


    DEFENSE & VETERANS AFFAIRS

    LIE: Bush has lauded the “great courage” of those serving in Iraq and has proclaimed that “[o]ur men and women in uniform give America their best and we owe them our support.”

    FACT: Bush’s support has been in words only, as he has requested major cuts in the Impact Aid program providing funds for the schooling of 900,000 children of military families. (The Daily Mis-Lead 10.13.03)

    In addition, one million children living in military and veteran families are denied child tax credit help in the President’s tax cut, including 260,000 of children with parents in active duty. (Center for American Progress 12.13.03)


    LIE: Bush told the VFW that “Veterans are a priority of this administration . . . and that priority is reflected in my budget.”

    FACT: In 2003, Bush killed an emergency funding request that included $275 million for Veterans’ medical care, while his 2004 budget requests falls $1.9 billion short of maintaining what the American Legion called “an inadequate status quo.” Bush’s FY2005 budget cuts funding by $13.5 billion over 5 years. (The Daily Mis-Lead 10.21.03, The Center for American Progress 02.04.03)


    LIE: In June 2001 Bush stated that the US would not deploy a missile defense system “that doesn’t work.”

    FACT: Bush then proceeded to deploy the missile defense system even though a General Accounting Office report found only “limited data for determining whether the system will work as intended.” (Corn – The Nation 10.13.03)




    EDUCATION


    LIE: On a three-state education tour, Bush claimed they the administration has seriously increased funding for education, saying “we’re doing our duty; we understand that people need extra help, and the federal government is responding.”

    FACT: There is a $72 billion gap between what Bush promised to spend and what he actually sought. Of the states visited, he promised $176MM for Arkansas for disadvantaged children, but only sought $117MM. Bush is seeking to reduce funding for almost one-third of Arkansas school districts. In Maryland, Bush is only seeking $171MM after promising $264MM and in West Virginia he is seeking $106MM after promising $163MM. (The Daily Mis-Lead 05.12.04)



    LIE: In signing the No Child Left Behind Act, Bush declared “We’re going to spend more on our schools and we’re going to spend it more wisely.” In his 2004 State of the Union speech, he claimed “I refuse to give up on any child and the No Child Left Behind Act is opening the door of opportunity to all of America’s children.”

    FACT: Bush’s FY2005 budget under-funds the No Child Left Behind (“NCLB”) program by $9.4 billion – or 27 percent less than authorized by Congress. Bush has under funded the NCLB program by $15 billion over his first three years. Most of the under funding is in the area of Title I of the Act which provided funds to schools with low income or disadvantaged students. (The Daily Distortion 10.24.03, New Democratic Network 12.02.03, Center for American Progress 02.03.04)


    LIE: “I propose larger Pell Grants for students who prepare for college with demanding courses in high school.” (2004 SOU)



    FACT: The Bush administration has eliminated 84,000 students from the Pell Grants program and reduced grants to another 1.5 million students. Its FY2005 budget freezes Pell Grant awards. (Center for American Progress 02.03.04)



    LIE: “I’ve always felt that the community college system provides a great opportunity for job training. . . . So we’ve got the money in our budget to help invigorate the community college system.”



    FACT: The Bush administration has proposed modest increases in job training funds for community colleges but this is offset by over $1 billion cut out of job training programs over the last three years. (Center for American Progress 02.23.04)

    LIE: In a September 2003 speech, Bush claimed that his budget boosted spending for elementary and secondary education to $53.1 billion -- a 26 percent increase.

    FACT: Bush’s budget for elementary and secondary education is only $34.9 billion (his entire education budget is $53.1 billion) and the boost he refers to is actually a $900 million cut. (Corn – The Nation 09.15.03)

    ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT

    CLEAN AIR


    LIE: The Bush administration claims it has imposed “stringent new rules on power plant emissions”.



    FACT: The new Bush rules gutted Clean Air Act restrictions to allow utilities to avoid having to install expensive new anti-pollution equipment when they modernize their plants. The EPA’s civil enforcement chief resigned in protest, while another senior EPA lawyer wrote to Christie Whitman that the administration “seems determined to weaken the rules we are trying to enforce. A study commissioned by the administration demonstrated that current policies on power plant emissions led to the death of 24,000 people each year. (Center for American Progress 12.13.03, New York Times 06.10.04)



    LIE: The Bush administration claimed its new air pollution standards for plywood manufacturers, which are about “10,000 times less stringent than the level previously used by EPA”, were consistent with public health needs and available science.



    FACT: In issuing the new rules, the administration relied on studies prepared by the chemical industry and ignored by the National Cancer Institute and National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health that showed exposure to formaldehyde used in manufacturing plywood caused leukemia in humans. (Miller & Hamburger – Los Angeles Times 05.21.04)



    LIE: I’m a big proponent of clean coal technology to make sure we can use coal in a clean way. (2nd Debate)



    FACT: In 2000, Bush promised he would increase jobs and spend $2BB over 10 years on clean coal technologies. Bush abandoned this pledge and his FY05 budget substantially cuts funds for basic coal research (30%) and the Clean Coal Power Initiative (70%). (The Herald Dispatch 10/3/00, Department of Energy Budget Request FY2002-2005).


    LIE: On her final day as EPA administrator, Christine Todd Whitman assured members of Congress that EPA would do required economic and technical studies before proposing a rule to reduce mercury emissions from power plants. After her departure she denied any knowledge that the analysis was not being conducted.

    FACT: Whitman had knowledge that EPA was not doing the required analysis, as her assurances came in letter to lawmakers concerned about reports that the studies had been tabled by the White House. When the pro-industry rule weakening Clean Air Act requirements for mercury emissions came out, it was discovered that the analyses was not done and, instead, EPA only studied options that would support the White House’s desired outcome. (Miller & Hamburger – Los Angeles Times 03.19.04)



    LIE: The administration claims that it has offered stringent new rules that will result in dramatic reductions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury.

    FACT: The administration’s new rules weaken Clean Air Act requirements for mercury emissions by requiring that plants reduce such emissions by only 1/3 of what is required by the Clean Air Act – reducing current emissions from 48 tons to 34 tons by 2010 instead of a reduction to 5 tons by year 2007. The rules also will result in 1.4 million tons more of air pollution. (Daily Mis-Lead 12.05.03, Center for American Progress 12.13.03)



    LIE: In 2002, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Air Quality Holmstead told two Senate committees that the proposed rule changes gutting the Clean Air will not “have a negative impact on enforcement cases.” In response to questioning as to whether discussed the impact of the proposed rule changes with EPA and Justice Department enforcement officials, he replied, “Yes, that was one of the primary issues that was discussed. What I can say is, based on numerous meetings that I have had, which included staff attorneys from [the Justice Department’s environmental division) as well as attorneys from our enforcement office, is we do not believe these changes will have a negative impact on the enforcement cases.”



    FACT: At that time, EPA enforcement agents repeatedly told Holmstead and others that the proposed rule changes would inevitably undermine ongoing clean air enforcement cases, possibly by prompting courts to accept a more lenient standard. EPA’s former chief of enforcement stated that the new rules “substantially complicate current litigation and act as a disincentive for companies to settle.” A General Accounting Report also concluded that the policy will hinder current enforcement actions (Pianin – Washington Post 10.10.03, Shogren – Los Angeles Times 10.24.03)



    LIE: In promoting his New Source Review rule, which rewrites the Clean Air Act to permit older power plants to upgrade without installing pollution control devices, President Bush stood outside Detroit Edison Monroe Power Plant claiming that existing EPA rules were too complicated to permit the plant to implement upgrades quickly.



    FACT: The Edison Monroe plant, which is the 8th largest emitter of sulfur dioxide in the US, had received the go-ahead from the EPA to proceed so long as it adhered to its stated intention of not increasing emissions as a result of the project. Under the new Bush rule, Edison Monroe can increase its emissions by 30,000 tons per year or 56 percent. (The Daily Mis-Lead 09.17.03)





    LIE: A 2003 EPA ad campaign targeted at Hispanics claimed the administrations “Clear Skies” initiative would “create purer air, better health and a more brilliant future for the United States.”



    FACT: The Bush initiative would allow power plants to discharge additional levels of sulfur dioxide, mercury and nitrogen then currently permitted under the Clean Air Act. Sulfur dioxide and other pollutants are associated with diseases such as emphysema and asthma that disproportionately afflict minority populations (The Daily Mis-Lead 10.20.03)





    LIE: In August 2003, the EPA denied a petition from environmental groups asking the agency to regulate carbon dioxide and other emissions from new vehicles, claiming that EPA lacked the authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

    FACT: The claim that EPA lacks this authority is contradicted by case law and the opinion of two prior EPA general counsels. (Zitner, Polakovic and Shogren – Los Angeles Times 08.29.03, Lee – New York Times 08.29.03)



    LIE: During the 2000 campaign, Bush pledged to impose mandatory emission reductions for carbon dioxide.



    FACT: Bush abandoned this pledge once elected. (CNN 03.13.01, Washington Post 03.25.02)



    CLEAN WATER & MARINE LIFE




    LIE: Bush claimed he is working to “restore, improve and protect at least 3 million wetland acres over the next five years.”



    FACT: A study revealed that the Bush administration has “allowed developers to drain thousands of acres of wetlands” under new EPA rules. (Daily Mis-Lead 08.12.04)



    LIE: In 2002, the administration claimed that 94 percent of Americans were served by drinking water that met EPA standards, exceeding the EPA’s performance standard of 91 percent.



    FACT: The EPA failed to meet its performance standard, since its data failed to include 35 percent of known health standards violations. Instead, it is estimated that only 81 percent of Americans have safe drinking water under Bush in part because inspections have been cut by 50 percent. In contrast, the Clinton administration met the EPA performance standard. (Greenwatch Today 03.22.04)



    LIE: In 2001, Bush reversed a Clinton administration regulation reducing the arsenic levels in drinking levels from 50 ppb to 10 ppb claiming that the regulation was a last minute decision, with EPA administrator Todd-Whitman claiming the 10 ppb standard was not based on “the best available science.”

    FACT: The new EPA standard was the result of a decade of work. After the Bush administration reversed the 10 ppb, the National Academy of Sciences found that the 10 ppb standard was not only scientifically justified but that the standard could be less than 10 ppb. Under pressure, the Bush administration reinstated the 10 ppb standard even though the “best available science” suggested a lower standard was warranted. (Corn – The Nation 10.13.03)


    LIE: President Bush stood before a Snake River dam and claimed credit for an increase in salmon populations in the Pacific Northwest.



    FACT: Experts stated that he increased salmon was due to weather and tidal patterns in the Pacific Ocean. The increase happened in spite of the Bush administration which has fallen short of court mandated targets to improve salmon habitats and water quality. Wild salmon are still below the levels necessary to ensure their long term survival. In the summer of 2003, the water levels for the Snake and Columbia River violated the targets 93% and 100% of the days, while also violating the Clean Water Act temperature standards 77.5% and 77.4%. (American Rivers 2003 Salmon Migration Report Card 10.03.03, New York Times 10.14.03, Geranios – AP 10.16.03, New York Times.)


    GLOBAL WARMING


    LIE: President Bush claimed there is insufficient scientific evidence of global warming as part of his justification for withdrawing from the Kyoto Treaty.



    FACT: The National Academy of Science’s 2001 report stated that there is general agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years” and that most of the warming “observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.” Similarly, an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that global temperatures were rising dramatically and this was due in part to human-induced emissions.



    Most recently, a Pentagon study stated the threat posed by global warming “vastly eclipses that of terrorism.” The study said that climate change should be considered immediately as a top political and military issue and warned catastrophic results between 2007 and 2020. (Revkin – New York Times 01.12.03, Corn – The Nation 10.13.03; Al Jazeera 02.22.04 )

    ENERGY CONSERVATION & ELECTRIC POWER


    LIE: Bush promised to fund research on hydrogen-powered cars so that we will be “less dependent on foreign sources of energy” and “improve the environment.”



    FACT: The Bush administration has “been working quietly to ensure that the system used to produce hydrogen will be fossil fuel dependent – and as potential dirty – as the one that fuels today’s SUV’s.” Up to 90% of all hydrogen will come from oil, nature gas and other fossil fuels. Bush also is paying for this program by stripping funding for programs that help automakers develop high-mileage cars and other energy conservation programs. (Daily Mis-Lead 04.28.04)



    LIE: As a candidate, Bush criticized the Clinton administration for not making a greater investment in the nation’s electricity grids and promised he would seek modernization of the grids.



    FACT: While the Bush White House initially called for steps to modernize the electricity grids, it did nothing to implement them. Even worse, it allowed House Republicans to defeat Democratic efforts to spend $350 million on grid modernization and played an active role in derailing $2 billion in low-interest loans for expanding transmission capacity in the Pacific Northwest. (American Politics Journal 08.16.03; Allen – Washington Post 08.23.03, The Daily Mis-Lead 10.15.03)



    LIE: Bush claimed that conservation would be part of his national energy policy.



    FACT: The White House spokesman indicates “that’s a big ‘no.’ The President believes that [unrestrained energy use] is an American way of life.” (ABC 05.07.01)



    FOREST & NATIONAL PARKS


    LIE: The Bush administration claims that its Healthy Forest Initiatives will “improve forest health and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires while upholding environmental laws [and] restoring our nation’s forest”.


    FACT: Congressional Research Service reported that the initiative may increase the risk of fire since “[t]imber harvesting removes the relatively large diameter wood that can be converted into wood product but leaves behind the small material, especially twigs and needles” that contributes to such fires. The impetus behind the bill was not to prevent fires, but because the timber industry wanted to “increase commercial logging with less environmental oversight.” (Center for American Progress 12.13.03)


    LIE: Bush campaigned that he would expand the “aims of the Tropical Forest Conservation Act [and] ask Congress to provide $100 million to support the exchange of debt relief for protection of tropical forests.”



    FACT: Bush has provided no new funding for the program. (Boston Globe 04.10.01)







    DRILLING & MINING


    LIE: Secretary Norton told Congress that drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge would not harm the region’s caribou population. She also reissued a scientific report as a two page paper that claimed drilling would not result in a negative impact to wildlife.



    FACT: Secretary Norton “altered or omitted” key scientific conclusions prepared by federal biologists that contradicted her view. Biologists also found that drilling would harm must oxen, snow geese and polar-bear populations and would violate an international treaty protection bears, but these findings were suppressed. In the words of one Fish and Wildlife Service Official, “to pass along facts that are false, well, that’s obviously inappropriate.” (Politics and Science in the Bush Administration, Kennedy – Rolling Stone 12.11.03)



    LIE: Vice President Cheney argued that ANWR drilling would only affect 2000, acres of Dulles Airport out of a total 19 million acres.

    FACT: The 2000 acres Cheney cities are not contiguous. In fact, the oil is located in 35 discrete sites spread across the reserve and to extract oil it would be necessary to have roads and a pipeline covering 135 miles of wildlife habitat. (David Corn 4.13.01)


    LIE: The Bush administration claimed that drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) was necessary to “secure America’s energy needs.”



    FACT: A US Geological Survey concluded that drilling at ANWR would yield only approximately two years worth of oil consumption. (Corn – The Nation 10.13.03)



    LIE: The Bush administration claimed that its regulation of mountaintop removal mining (i.e., leveling mountain peaks to extract coal) would improve environmental protections.



    FACT: The Bush administration rejected a tougher Clinton administration proposal and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) determined that the administration’s proposals “cannot be interpreted as ensuring any improved environmental protection.” The FWS also found the Bush proposals “belie four years of work and accumulated evidence of environmental harm, and would substitute permit process tinkering for meaningful and measurable change.” In the two decades since the practice began, 724 miles of streams have been buried and 7 percent of the Appalachian forest cut down. (Shogren – Los Angeles Times 01.07.04).


    LIE: Bush sought to justify oil drilling in Montana’s Lewis and Clark National Forest on the grounds that the people of Montana support it.



    FACT: The plan is opposed by Montana residents, but supported by outside oil companies. (Missoula Independent 4.26.01)


    OTHER



    LIE: Vice President Cheney wrote to Congress requesting that they rein in the GAO’s investigation of his Energy Task Force meetings claiming “documents responsive to the [GAO’s] inquiry concerning the cost associated with the [task force’s] work” have already been provided.



    FACT: The GAO was forced to go to court to obtain the documents and lost. Cheney only produced 77 pages of useless documents which was not a complete production in response to the GAO’s request. Cheney stonewalled the GAO to hide the cozy deliberations the task force had with energy industry representatives. (Dean – Findlaw.com 08.29.03)





    LIE: Bush asked Congress to exempt the military from environmental laws protecting endangered species and migratory birds on the grounds that compliance hampered military training.



    FACT: A General Accounting Office report found little evidence to support this claim. (New York Times 07.09.02)



    LIE: In 2002 Bush promised Nevada residents that “sound science, and not politics, must prevail” in the selection of a nuclear waste dump.



    FACT: The Bush administration is proceeding with creating a nuclear waste dump in Nevada despite a GAO report that scientific testing to determine the facility’s viability would not be complete before 2006. (Washington Post 03.25.02, Christian Science Monitor 03.05.02)



    LIE: During the tight 2002 South Dakota Senate race, Bush appeared at a South Dakotan ethanol plant and pledge that he supported ethanol “because not only do I know it’s important for the ag sector of our economy, it’s an important part of making sure we become less reliant on foreign sources of energy.”

    FACT: Bush’s FY2004 budget eliminates funding for the bioenergy program at the South Dakota plant. (Caught On Film: The Bush Credibility Gap)



    ENRONGATE & SEC



    LIE: Bush attempted to distance himself from Enron’s Kenneth Lay by claiming Lay supported his opponent (Governor Richards) in 1994 and he first got to know Lay only after elected.



    FACT: Lay gave $37,500 to the Bush 1994 campaign and Lay claims he was “very close” to Bush at that time. (Slate 01.17.02) The Bush-Lay connection goes back much further, as in 1988, Bush lobbied the Argentinean government to award a contract to Enron. (Mother Jones March-April 2000)



    LIE: Bush pledged to increase SEC enforcement in signing the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate reform legislation.



    FACT: Bush’s FY2003 budget cuts SEC enforcement by $209 million. (Boston Globe 12.29.02)



    LIE: In the Enron aftermath, Bush pledged “to do more to protect worker pensions”.



    FACT: Four month’s later the Bush administration announced plans to permit employers to convert traditional pension plans into “cash balance” plans that lower benefits for long-serving workers. (Caught On Film: The Bush Credibility Gap)



    FAITH-BASED INITIATIVES



    LIE: In 2001 the Bush administration promised to create a $700 million “Federal Compassion Fund”.



    FACT: The President did not allocate a single penny for the fund in his 2001 budget. (Green – The American Prospect 07.30.01).



    LIE: The Bush administration claims there exists a “widespread bias against faith-based organization’s (FBOs) in Federal service programs” and that complying with federal anti-discrimination employment laws in a major obstacle to FBO participation.



    FACT: Recent studies have found no barriers to FBOs participation in government programs and “no hard evidence that hiring requirements are keeping [FBOs from applying for government contracts.” (Hudson Institute – Fruitful Collaborations, The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy – Government Partnerships with Faith-Based Service Providers).



    FOREIGN POLICY


    LIE: Condoleezza Rice claimed “[The President has been] very supportive of the Nunn-Lugar program [which helps secure Russian nuclear materials]. The funding was not cut. . . . All the way back in the campaign, the president talked about perhaps even increasing funding for programs of this kind." --Meet the Press, November 11, 2001.



    FACT: "The administration's budget request cut the Department of Energy part of the Nunn-Lugar program from $872 million to $774 million and the Department of Defense portion by another $40 million. The "materials protection and accounting" program that safeguards and monitors Russian nuclear materials was cut $35 million; the program to subsidize research facilities for jobless Russian nuclear scientists and keep them from working for terrorists, another $10 million. (Center for American Progress, Claim v. Fact Database)




    LIE: In his October 28, 2003 press conference, Bush claimed that I was the first president ever to have advocated a Palestinian state."



    FACT: On January 7, 2001, President Bill Clinton said, "There can be no genuine resolution to the [Middle East] conflict without a sovereign, viable Palestinian state that accommodates Israel's security requirements and demographic realities." (Corn – BushLies.com 10.28.03)


    LIE: During his Asian tour, President Bush told Indonesian news that Congress has dropped opposition to military training programs for Indonesia and that the US was ready to “go forward with” a new package of training programs.


    FACT: Congressional opposition to the training programs has increased due to concerns that the Indonesian military may have been involved in the killing of two Americans in Papua. In addition, no new programs have been planned or approved. (Priest – The Washington Post 10.20.03)



    LIE: White House spokesman Ari Fleischer denied tacitly endorsing the Venezuelan coup by stating that the coup was the “result of a message of the Venezuelan people.”



    FACT: That is exactly what he said as the White House foolishly backed the overthrow of a democratically elected government and was the only democracy in the western hemisphere that failed to condemn the coup. In addition, the Venezuela government claims to have a videotape of US officials discussing coup preparations with dissident soldiers. (Jonathan Chait 06.04.02, AP 10.22.03)



    LIE: During the campaign, Bush promised Armenian groups that he would “ensure that our nation properly recognizes the tragic suffering of the Armenian people” who were victims of a “genocidal campaign.”



    FACT: The Bush administration has refused to recognize the Armenian genocide. (Redding Record Searchlight 04.24.01)



    LIE: Bush promised Jewish leaders “[a]s soon as I take office I will begin the process of moving the U.S. ambassador to” Jerusalem.



    FACT: Bush has suspended any action to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. (Washington Post 06.13.01)



    LIE: President Bush denied blaming the Clinton Administration’s Camp David Middle East peace summit for the Palestinian intifada.



    FACT: The day before issuing this denial, Bush stated “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.” (Slate 4.18.02)



    FOREIGN TRADE



    LIE: During the campaign, Bush stated he opposed “import fees” and would “work to end tariffs and break down barriers everywhere, entirely”.



    FACT: As President, Bush has imposed tariffs on steel and softwood lumber increasing costs to U.S. businesses and consumers and risking retaliatory sanctions. (Washington Post 03.25.02, Business Week 03.25.02)



    HARKEN & HALLIBURTON




    LIE: In September 2003, when asked by Tim Hussert whether he was “involved in any way in the awarding of [Iraq] contracts” to Halliburton, Cheney replied “Of course not, Tim. . . . And as Vice President, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts led by the [Army] Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the Federal Government."



    FACT: Internal Pentagon documents reveal that the awarding of the Halliburton contracts “has been coordinate [with] VP’s office.” An internal Pentagon email reveals that the award of no-bid Halliburton contracts “has been coordinated with the VP’s office.” (Burger & Zagorin, Time Magazine 05.30.04, CAP Daily Report 06.01.04 and 06.15.04).




    LIE: Bush claims that he “absolutely had no idea [about Harken’s liquidity problems] and would not have sold [his stock] had I known."



    FACT: Harken’s president warned board members of liquidity problems that would “drastically affect” operations two months before Bush’s stock sale. Harken’s lawyers also circulated a memo warning executives and directors not to sell any stock. Bush sold his stock for $4/share and it quickly dropped to $1.25. (San Francisco Chronicle 07.05.02, Guardian 11.02.02, Washington Monthly 12.02)



    LIE: Bush claims to have cooperated with an SEC investigation of his Harken transactions.



    FACT: Bush quashed evidence that Harken’s lawyers advised Bush and other executives against selling their stock and only provided it to the SEC after it had ended its investigation. (Guardian 11.02.02)



    LIE: Bush signed an agreement in which he promised to hold the Harken stock at issue for six months.



    FACT: Bush sold the Harken stock two months later. (The Dubya Report 07.18.02)



    LIE: Bush claimed he timely filed the required SEC disclosure form after selling his Harken stock and asserted that the SEC must have lost it.



    FACT: Bush did not file until eight months after the deadline for doing so. (Washington Post 07.04.02)



    LIE: Cheney claimed that while at Halliburton he imposed a “firm policy” against trading with Iraq. “[W]e’ve not done any business in Iraq since the sanctions [were] imposed, and I had a standing policy that I wouldn’t do that.”



    FACT: Senior Halliburton executives claim there was no such policy. Halliburton’s affiliates signed contracts with Iraq to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment during Cheney’s tenure, helping Iraq increase crude exports by 450% between 1997 and 2000. Senior Halliburton executives were certain Cheney was aware of this business. Cheney also defended circumvention of a Clinton executive order banning US trade and investment in Iran. (Financial Times 10.05.00, Washington Post 06.23.01)





    HEALTH CARE &
    PRESCRIPTION DRUGS



    LIE: When asked about the flu vaccine crisis, Bush claimed: we relied upon a company out of England [and that] we took the right action and didn't allow contaminated medicine into our country.



    FACT: That isn't true. Chiron Corp., the company whose vaccine plant was contaminated, is a California company - subject to regulation by the U.S. government - that operates a factory in England. It was the British authorities who, after inspecting the plant, revoked the factory's license on October 5th. [Daily Mis-Lead 10.18.04]



    LIE: President Bush assured seniors that under his Medicare prescription drug program corporations would not “dump retirees from their existing prescription drug coverage.”



    FACT: Under a little noticed provision quietly added by the administration, companies providing coverage to retirees are given a new subsidy and retain the subsidy even if they almost completely eliminate coverage for retirees. As a result, 3.8 million retirees are projected to have their coverage reduced or nearly eliminated. (Daily Mis-Lead 07.14.04).



    LIE: The Bush administration claims its Medicare prescription drug cards will provide “significant price reductions off typical retail prices” for seniors.



    FACT: A Congressional report found that the drug prices available to beneficiaries using the “discount cards” are no lower than existing prices and even higher than prices available in Canada, under the US Federal Supply Schedule and through discount pharmacies such as Drugstore.com. Moreover drug companies raised their prices by 3 times the rate of inflation immediately prior to the release of the “discount cards.” (Daily Mis-Lead 05.04.04, “New Medicare Drug Cards Offer Few Discounts, House Committee on Government Reform – Minority Staff April 2004, AP – 07.01.04)



    LIE: During the October 17, 2000 debate, Bush promised a patients’ bill of rights like the one in his own state which included a right to sue managed-care companies for wrongfully refusing to cover needed treatments. “If I’m the president . . . people will be able to take their HMO insurance company to court.



    FACT: The patients’ bill of rights bill has long been dead and the Bush administration argued before the Supreme Court against the Texas law’s provision permitting such suits



    LIE: The Bush administration sold its Medicare prescription drug plan to conservatives in Congress as having a cost of $400 billion over ten years, enabling it to narrowly win passage in December 2003.



    FACT: The White House knew the costs were $551 billion - more than 25 percent higher. The administration threatened to fire Medicare’s top financial analyst (Richard Foster) if he released the information. Two months after the President signed the law, the administration revised its costs estimates to $534 billion.

    One month after passage of the bill, the White House revealed that the program costs actually were $534 billion - more than 25 percent higher. AARP, which worked with the administration in drafting the bill, revealed that these higher estimates were "well known in the fall" but is only now being made public. Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based budget watchdog group claim Congress got "suckered by a classic financial bait-and-switch by the administration." (Kemper & Simon - Los Angeles Times 01.31.04, Pugh - Knight Ridder 03.11.04, Kemper - Los Angeles Times 03.14.04, CAP Progress Report 03.15.04.



    LIE: I haven't yet [decided to ban importation of Canadian drugs.]. I just want to make sure they're safe. When a drug comes in from Canada, I want to make sure it cures you and doesn't kill you.



    FACT: White House Strongly Opposed Drug Re-Importation Despite Congressional Research Service Reports Concluding Canadian Drugs Are Just as Safe as Those in the US. . In a Statement of Administration Principals issued by the White House Office of Management and Budget on July 23, 2003, Bush stated his strong opposition to drug re-importation. The SAP states, “H.R. 2427 [to allow the re-importation of prescription drugs] is dangerous legislation. It would expose Americans to greater potential risk of harm from unsafe or ineffective drugs, would be extremely costly to implement, and would overwhelm FDA's already heavily burdened regulatory system.” This despite the fact that the Congressional Research Service, a branch of the Library of Congress, issued reports in 2001 and 2003, concluding both times that the Canadian drug supply was safe for importation to the US. The 2003 report stated, "The statutory requirements for approving and marketing pharmaceutical products in the United States and Canada are, in general, quite similar." It found that medications manufactured and distributed in Canada meet or surpass quality control guidelines set by the FDA. [Office of Management and Budget, SAP on HR 2472, 7/23/03, www.whitehouse.gov/omb; New York Times, 6/21/03; Knight Ridder, 11/27/03; USA Today, 8/12/03]



    LIE: The Bush administration is fighting importation of cheaper prescription drugs from Canada by claiming they are unsafe and thereby protecting pharmaceutical companies who have given over $74 billion (or $2,033 per hour) since 2000.

    FACT: HHS and FDA officials cannot identify a single American injured as a result drugs purchased from licensed Canadian pharmacies. One of the nation’s leading health experts stated the administration’s argument was “hogwash” since “drugs purchased through the Canadian health care system are every bit as safe as those available in the United States.” (Daily Mis-Lead 02.25.04)


    LIE: In signing the bill, Bush declared that "some older Americans spend much of their Social Security checks just on their medications. This new law will ease the burden on seniors and will give them the extra help they need.”

    FACT: Most Medicare beneficiaries will end up paying MORE for their prescriptions. The average beneficiary out-of-pocket expenses would rise from $2,318 in 2003 to $2,911 in 2007 (in 2003 dollars), since the law prohibits the government from negotiating for lower prices (unlike the VA which uses its negotiating power to save billions on drug prices). (Campaign for America’s Future Fact Sheet)

    LIE: “My drug plan helps those who need it most. The new benefit provides comprehensive drug coverage for people with low incomes.”

    FACT: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that “several million of the nation’s poorest elderly and disabled beneficiaries will be made worse off by the new legislation, because they will have to pay more for drugs than they currently pay under Medicaid, will be denied coverage for some drugs they currently receive through Medicaid, or both.” The $600 "transitional" drug benefit that starts in June is not available to the 6.4 million lowest income Medicare beneficiaries who are also enrolled in Medicaid, nor to the 11.7 million seniors who have retiree coverage.

    In addition, currently millions of Medicare beneficiaries have private insurance to fill the gaps in their Medicare coverage (“Medigap” policies), but the new law prohibits the sale of Medigap policies. According to the Congressional Budget Office approximately 2.7 million seniors could lose benefits more generous than provided under Medicare. (Campaign for America’s Future Fact Sheet; Center for American Progress 02.05.04)

    The Bush’s Administration’s Medicare Ads

    LIE: "It's the same Medicare you've always counted on, plus more benefits like prescription drug coverage."

    FACT: Millions of Medicare beneficiaries will have fewer benefits due to this law. Seniors who have supplemental drug coverage through Medigap must drop it if they want to join the new drug benefit. Employers will drop drug coverage for 2.7 million retirees due to the new drug benefit. Employers will reduce drug coverage for up to 9 million additional retirees due to flawed employer subsidies in the law. 6.4 million seniors who have drug coverage through Medicaid now will be forced to enroll in the Medicare drug benefit. As a result, they will have higher cost sharing and be denied coverage entirely for some drugs. (Center for American Progress 02.05.04)

    LIE: "You can save with Medicare drug discount cards this June. And save more with new prescription drug coverage in 2006."

    FACT: Savings are elusive and erode over time. Drug discount cards are not guaranteed to provide any meaningful discounts, may not cover the drugs seniors need, and may change discounts and covered drugs at any time. Medicare is prohibited from maximizing savings by negotiating lower drug prices. Under the drug benefit, some beneficiaries will not save and in fact will spend more than they do now. Seniors will still have to pay up to 100% of drug costs due to the gap in coverage ("donut hole") and ability for private plans to impose strict drug formularies, prior authorization requirements, etc. The value of the drug benefit shrinks much faster than inflation, meaning seniors will have to spend an ever-increasing share of their income on prescription drugs. (Center for American Progress 02.05.04)



    LIE: "So, my Medicare isn't different, it's just more?"

    FACT: Less Medicare benefits for higher premiums. Higher Part B deductible beginning in 2005 and each year thereafter. Higher Part B premiums for all beginning in 2005 as a result of overpayments to private plans. Higher Part B premiums for those with incomes above $80,000 beginning in 2007. (Center for American Progress 02.05.04)

    The Bush’s Administration’s Medicare Mailer

    LIE: "This new law preserves and strengthens the current Medicare program.”

    FACT: The bill weakens Medicare by privatizing it, at great cost to beneficiaries and taxpayers. The President estimates the new law will result in an extra $46 billion going to private plans. The Congressional Budget Office agrees with the President that the cost of covering seniors through private plans is "substantially higher" than the cost of covering them through traditional Medicare. (Center for American Progress 02.05.04)



    LIE: "You will choose a prescription drug plan and pay a premium of about $35 a month."



    FACT: Premiums will vary and are not limited to $35 or any other amount. Private plans get to decide what premium they want to charge. The premium will vary plan by plan, area by area, and year by year. Over time, the premium rises faster than seniors' income. (Center for American Progress 02.05.04)

    LIE: "Medicare then will pay 75% of costs between $250 and $2,250 in drug spending. You will pay only 25% of these costs."

    FACT: There is no guarantee that any senior will get this benefit: Private plans decide which drugs to cover and under what circumstances. Beneficiaries have to pay 100% of the costs for drugs that don't fit the plan's rules. Private plans are required to pay 75% of the costs of covered drugs on average. Actual cost sharing amounts on any particular drug may be much different. (Center for American Progress 02.05.04)

    LIE: "You will pay 100% of the drug costs above $2,250 until you reach $3,600 in out-of-pocket spending."

    FACT: The actual size of the gap in coverage ("donut hole") is more than twice the amount this implies. The actual gap in coverage is $2,850, not $1,350. In addition, the gap in each private plan will be set by the plan and not Medicare. Thus, the gap could be even larger. (Center for American Progress 02.05.04)



    The Bush’s Administration’s Medicare 800-Line

    LIE: "Extra help will also be available for people with lower incomes."

    FACT: Many low-income people will be left out or lose coverage. The $600 "transitional" drug benefit that starts in June is not available to the 6.4 million lowest income Medicare beneficiaries who are also enrolled in Medicaid, nor to the 11.7 million seniors who have retiree coverage. Millions of low-income seniors may not get assistance due to eligibility restrictions for those with certain assets. Those seniors who have drug coverage through Medicaid now will be forced to enroll in the Medicare drug benefit in 2006. As a result, they will have higher cost sharing and be denied coverage entirely for some drugs. (Center for American Progress 02.05.04)



    LIE: "These cards offer a discount off the full retail price of prescriptions. Savings are estimated to be 10 to 25% on many drugs."

    FACT: None of these things is actually required. The discount cards do not have to offer discounts off all drugs. There is no guarantee of any discount, let alone a discount of any particular amount. Discounts and the drugs that are covered may change at any time. (Center for American Progress 02.05.04)



    LIE: "Almost everyone with Medicare can choose to join a Medicare-approved drug discount card."

    FACT: The 6.4 million Medicare beneficiaries who are also enrolled in Medicaid are ineligible for the discount card. (Center for American Progress 02.05.04)



    LIE: "Plans might vary, but in general, all people with Medicare will have access to a voluntary prescription drug benefit, which will provide significant savings for seniors and people living with disabilities."

    FACT: Plans will vary. Each private plan gets to decide which drugs it covers, with what cost-sharing, and at what premium. Also, The benefit isn't voluntary. Anyone who misses the initial enrollment period for the new drug benefit may have to wait months to enroll and face significant financial penalties. Finally, the savings are not significant. As the Center for Economic and Policy Research notes, "seniors in the middle income quintile will pay an average of $1,650 a year in out-of-pocket expenses for prescription drugs in 2006 - a figure nearly 60% more than they paid in 2000." (Center for American Progress 02.05.04)



    LIE: The Bush administration touted the Medicare prescription drug expansion as creating a modern Medicare system that provides “seniors with prescription drug benefits” and establishing Health Savings Account (“HSA’s") which will allow more Americans to save for health care needs and more small businesses to help workers secure health coverage.


    FACT: The Congressional Budget Office projects that 2.7 million retirees will lose their current drug coverage through their former employer since employers will drop such coverage once the Medicare benefit becomes available. The plan provides little relief for low income seniors and would cost seniors with drug expenses under $835 per year more than they currently spend. Finally, according to studies, premiums for employer-based coverage “could more than double” if HSA’s became widespread. (Center for American Progress 12.13.03)



    LIE: During the debates, Bush claimed that “all seniors” and not just poor would be covered under his plan.



    FACT: Only seniors at or below 135% of the poverty level would be covered in full. (ABC News.com 10.4.02)



    LIE: President Bush has argued that medical malpractice reform and allowing small business to buy group insurance would make “a big difference” in reducing the 43.6 million Americans without health insurance. Vice President Cheney has argued that “medical liability reform” is the key to control health costs.


    FACT: According to the Congressional Budget Office, malpractice costs account for a very small fraction of total health care spending and even radical reform ‘would have a relatively small effect on total health plan premiums”. In addition, the CBO found that allowing small businesses to buy at group rates would only add coverage for 0.6 million people, as one-third of the nation’s uninsured are employed by large companies. (The Daily Mis-Lead 10.23.03 and 07.06.04)



    LIE: In banning research on embryonic stem cells, Bush claimed that the ban still would permit research on “more than 60” existing lines cells which “could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures.”



    FACT: Only 11 cell lines are now available for research, all of which were grown mouse cells making them inappropriate for treating people. (Politics and Science in the Bush Administration)



    LIE: Bush claimed he “brought Republicans and Democrats together” to enact a Patients Bill of Rights in Texas.



    FACT: Governor Bush vetoed such a bill in 1995 and when a veto proof majority passed it, Bush allowed it to become law but refused to sign it. (Washington Post 10.18.00, Salon 10.05.02)



    LIE: Bush bragged about a Texas Children’s Health Insurance Program extending coverage to 500,000 children passed while he was Governor.



    FACT: Bush fought the program and tried to limit its reach to nearly half its current level. (Salon 10.05.02)



    LIE: Bush stressed the need to support children’s hospitals at a 2001 appearance at an Atlanta children’s hospital.



    FACT: Bush’s first budget proposed cutting grants to children’s hospitals by 15% and his FY2004 budget proposes to cut these grants by 30%. (Caught on Film: The Bush Credibility Gap)


    HOUSING


    LIE: Campaigning in New Mexico, Bush praised the Indian Housing and Guarantee Fund program, saying it makes “sense to have public policy aimed at helping people own their own home. I can’t think of a better use of resources.”


    FACT: Apparently he can, because his budget calls for an 80 percent reduction in funding. (Associated Press 8.14.04)




    JOBS


    LIE: Bush has bragged about job growth in “high-growth, high-paying industries” to support his administration’s economic policies.


    FACT: According to USA Today job in lower-wage industries and regions are growing at a faster pace than higher-wage jobs and this “is less potent for the economy because the majority of the new work isn’t accompanies by fat paychecks. . (Daily Mis-Lead 03.09.04)





    LIE: In March 2004, Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao told Congress that the President did not sign administration’s annual economic report to Congress which promised that the President’s economic plan would create 2.6 million jobs by 2004.


    FACT: In February 2004, President Bush released a personally signed copy of this report, but the administration has quickly distanced itself from the projections. (Daily Mis-Lead 03.09.04)



    LIE: “Jobs are on the rise.” (SOU 2004)



    FACT: While the unemployment rate dropped in December, this was due to the fact that “the economy was so bleak that 255,000 of the jobless simply stopped looking for work”. (State of the Union Response – Center for American Progress 01.20.04)



    LIE: Bush claimed “I want people to understand that when somebody wants to work and can’t find a job, it says we've got a problem we’re going to deal with.”



    FACT: When faced with increased out-sourcing of US job overseas, the administration’s approach to dealing with the problem was to praise outsourcing “as a good thing” for international trade.



    In addition, the Bush administration actively sponsors and participates in conferences and workshops to help American companies put operations and jobs in china. (The Daily Mis-Lead 02.10.04, Center for American Progress 02.10.04)



    LIE: The White House has made the following claims on job growth:

    2002 – projected 3.4 million jobs for 2001-03
    2004 – projected 2.6 million jobs in 2004

    FACT: The White House has “repeatedly and significantly overstated . . . the number of jobs the economy would create”. Instead of creating 3.4 million jobs in their first three years, the Bush administration lost 1.7 million jobs. The Bush administration already is distancing itself from its February 9th projection of 2.6 million jobs in 2004. (The Daily Mis-Lead 02.18.04; Milbank – Washington Post 02.24.04)



    LIE: The White House proposed reclassifying low-paid fast food jobs as “manufacturing jobs”.


    FACT: This is an attempt by the White House to obscure the fact that 2.7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost on his watch. Fast food preparation is not value added manufacturing and fast food jobs pay approximately 21 percent less than manufacturing jobs. (The Daily Mis-Lead 02.24.04)



    POLLING

    LIE: At his April 13, 2004 press conference, Bush explained "And as to whether or not I make decisions based upon polls, I don't. I just don't make decisions that way...If I tried to fine-tune my messages based upon polls; I think I'd be pretty ineffective."

    FACT: "One [White House] adviser said the White House had examined polling and focus group studies in determining that it would be a mistake for Mr. Bush to appear to yield" and apologize for mistakes during the April 13 press conference. (Center for American Progress, Claim v. Fact Database)



    THE RECESSION

    LIE: In his December 28th radio address, Bush claimed that the recession began before he took office. Both he and Vice President Cheney have repeated this claim during the reelection campaign. The Administration also unilaterally changed the method for calculating a recession to move the starting date of the Bush recession to 2000. This is even after President Bush is on record that “our economy has been in recession since March [2001]”. (Daily Mis-Lead 09.01.04, Center for American Progress Report 09.02.04)
    /





    FACT: The economy was still growing at the end of 2000, despite the incoming administration’s attempt to talk it down. The recession began in March 2001 during the first year of the Bush administration. This is even after President Bush is on record that “our economy has been in recession since March [2001]”. (Slate 12.30.02, Progress Report 03.03.04, Daily Mis-Lead 09.01.04, Center for American Progress Report 09.02.04)




    SOCIAL SECURITY

    LIE: I understand that they need to get better rates of return than the rates of return being given in the current Social Security trust, and the compounding rate of interest effect will make it more likely that the social security system is solvent for our children and our grandchildren. (3RD Debate)



    FACT: CBO: Bush Plan Will Force Benefit Cuts. According to CBO, the President’s plan “would reduce expected retirement benefits relative to scheduled benefits, even when the benefits paid from IAs [individual accounts] under CSSS Plan 2 are included… For example, benefits for the 1980s birth cohort would be 30 percent lower, and benefits for the 2000s cohort would be 45 percent lower.” [CBO, “Long-term Analysis of Plan 2 of the President’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security,” 7/21/2004, page 15 and Table 2]



    LIE: Thirteen years from now, in 2018, Social Security will be paying out more than it takes in. And every year afterward will bring a new shortfall, bigger than the year before. For example, in the year 2027, the government will somehow have to come up with an extra $200 billion to keep the system afloat -- and by 2033, the annual shortfall would be more than $300 billion. By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt. If steps are not taken to avert that outcome, the only solutions would be dramatically higher taxes, massive new borrowing, or sudden and severe cuts in Social Security benefits or other government programs. -- 2005 State of the Union Address





    FACT: “This passage contains three statements worth scrutiny. First, the statement that starting in 2018 the government "will somehow have to come up with" extra billions to stay afloat ignores the fact that there exists a substantial trust fund now invested in US treasury bonds and will make up the shortfall for several decades. Second, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has projected the trust fund will be exhausted in 2052; the year 2042 is an older figure that came from the Social Security Trustees, who used a different set of economic assumptions. Finally, even after 2052, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has noted the system could still pay out 80 percent of normal benefits without new taxes or borrowing.”



    In addition, the head of the non-partisan General Accounting Office testified before Congress that Social Security “does not face an immediate crisis”. (Savage, Boston Globe (02.03.05), Associated Press, Los Angeles Times (03.10.05))





    LIE: The administration wants people to believe that private accounts will save Social Security.



    FACT: The administration has acknowledged that the creation of private accounts would have “no effect whatsoever on the solvency issue.” In addition, private accounts would provide no gain to workers unless their Rate of return was three percent above inflation. (Center on Budget Priorities, “An Overview of Issues Raised By the Administration’s Social Security Plan)



    LIE: Social Security was a great moral success of the 20th century and we must honor its purposes in this new century.. – White House website.



    FACT: "Conservatives have been trying to gut Social Security since its inception. Both Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan endorsed privatization in 1964. In 1983, the Cato Institute laid out a privatization plan similar to President Bush’s, stating, We will meet the next financial crisis in Social Security with a private alternative ready in the wings.” - Miami Herald, 2/7/05".” (Center for American Progress Claim vs. Fact Database)



    LIE: As we fix Social Security, we also have the responsibility to make the system a better deal for younger workers. And the best way to reach that goal is through voluntary personal retirement accounts. – White House website.



    FACT: Analysis of the plan so far does not prove the accounts would be a better deal for anyone not working on Wall Street. Workers who opt for the private accounts would recover forfeited benefits through their accounts only if their investments realized a return equal to or greater than the 3 percent earned by Treasury bonds currently held by the Social Security system.” But CBO factors out stock market risks to assume a 3.3 percent rate of return. With 0.3 percent subtracted for expected administrative costs on the account, the full amount in a worker’s account would be reduced dollar for dollar from his Social Security checks, for a net gain of zero.” - Washington Post, 2/4/05 (Center for American Progress Claim vs. Fact Database)



    LIE: You’ll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children or grandchildren. – White House website.



    FACT: "Most lower-income workers will be required to purchase government lifetime annuities, financial instruments that provide a guaranteed monthly payment for life but that expire at death. Money in these annuities cannot be passed on to heirs. - NY Times, 2/3/05" (Center for American Progress Claim vs. Fact Database)



    LIE: In the year 2018, for the first time ever, Social Security will pay out more in benefits than the government collects in payroll taxes. – White House website.



    FACT: "In 14 of the past 47 years, including 1975 to 1983, Social Security paid out more in benefits than the government collected in payroll.” - MSNBC, 1/14/05. Under Bush’s plan, expenditures will begin to exceed revenues even earlier, in 2012. - NY Times, 2/4/05" life but that expire at death. Money in these annuities cannot be passed on to heirs. - NY Times, 2/3/05" (Center for American Progress Claim vs. Fact Database)



    Report: The Politicization of the Social Security Administration

    Using SSA to Cry Wolf Over Social Security “Crisis”

    www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Do...pdf



    Prior Language


    Current Language

    Future of Social Security Booklet.



    2000 Version

    Section: “Social Security Is an Economic Compact Among Generations”


    Will Social Security be there for your? Absolutely.




    2004 Renamed Section: Current Social Security System is Unsustainable in the Long Run

    New text: Social Security must change to meet future challenges

    2001 Press Release – “Social Security Trust Funds Gain One Additional Year of Solvency”


    By 2003, estimate of program solvency had increased four years, but press release now titled:



    Social Security Not Sustainable for the Long Term.



    2000 Powerpoint for public presentations



    “There is no immediate financial crisis” and “the baby boom generation’s pressure on the trust funds is not permanent.”


    2004 presentation deletes these statements and adds that Social Security faces a massive and growing shortfall.



    This shortfall could result in benefits being reduced by 33 percent.









    TAX AND DEFICIT LIES
    THE BIG 18


    LIES:





    FACTS:



    #1 In 2000 and 2001 Bush promised that Social Security Funds would remain in a lockbox and that “we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits even if the economy softens” since his budget projections are “cautious and conservative”.





    This is a classic case of The Big Lie and fuzzy math. The simple truth is that, due to Bush’s $1.35 trillion giveaway, a $236 billion budget surplus has been wasted and we face a projected record deficit of $307 billion in 2004. Bush’s 2004 budget will increase the national debt by $2-3 trillion and require that the government use the entire Social Security surplus to fund its deficits. (1)



    #2 President Bush claimed that he requested his 2001 tax cuts because of the recession.



    The administration also sought to justify cuts on the grounds that the US could only repay $2 trillion of its $3.2 trillion debt over the next ten years since $1.2 trillion would not mature until after that point – therefore why not use the $1.2 trillion for tax cuts.







    Bush’s 2001 tax cuts are virtually identical to the tax package he campaigned on for more than a year during the end of the Clinton boom. (11)



    Bush also misstated the limitations on debt repayment. In reality only $500 billion could not be repaid within ten years. (20)



    #3 As the budget deficit emerged; Bush assured us that the deficits would be “small and temporary”.



    He also stated “I remember campaigning in Chicago and one of the reporters said, ‘Would you ever deficit spend?’ I said, ‘Only – only – in times of war, in times of economy insecurity as a result of a recession or in times of national emergency.’ Never did I dream we’d have a trifecta.’” The White House repeated this trifecta claim throughout 2002.







    Bush never made such a statement in Chicago nor anywhere else during the 2000 campaign. In fact, these three caveats on deficits were stated on several occasions by Vice President Gore. (2)



    Bush’s attempt to pin the deficit on the war also is a misstatement, since the cost of the Bush tax cuts is three times the cost of the response to 9-11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. (2)



    #4 Faced with growing deficits, President Bush and Glenn Hubbard, the chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors, now claim that deficits do not matter and have no impact on interest rates.







    As recent as 2002 the President said, “I’m mindful of what overspending can mean to interest rates or expectations of interest rates.” As for Hubbard, the 2002 edition of his textbook “Money, the Financial System and the Economy” not only states that higher deficits increase interest rates but also provides a formula to calculate the increase in interest rates per dollar increase in spending or tax cuts.



    In fact, in July 2003 interest rates on 10-year U.S. Treasuries jumped from 3.1% to almost 4%. Leading Treasury Secretary Snow to call the deficit “worrisome” and express concern that federal borrowing would crowd out private investment.



    The International Monetary Fund concluded that Bush’s fiscal policies “will make it more difficult to cope with the aging of the baby boom generation and will eventually crowd out investment and erode US productivity growth”; and called for the US to put in place a “credible fiscal framework” with the objective of balancing the budget. (3)



    #5 In 2003, Bush offers a “stimulus package” that calls for $670 billion in additional tax cuts. Vice President Cheney argues the tax cuts are necessary to prevent a double dip recession.



    In 2004, Bush claimed “the economic stimulus plan that I passed is making a big difference.”





    Even the Bush friendly Economist rejects the notion that the $670 billion Bush plan is a “stimulus package.” “Even by the Bush team’s own numbers, this is not an efficient short-term stimulus package: it pumps only around $100 billion of the tax cuts into the economy over the next year. And most of the money goes to richer Americans, whom economists reckon are less likely to spend the additional cash than poorer ones.” (4)



    A study by Economy.com attributes on 0.9 percent out of the total 7.2 percent growth for Q3 2003 to the tax cuts. (18)







    #6 Both Bush and Ari Fleischer proclaimed that a report by Blue-Chip economist concluded that the economy would grow by 3.3 percent in 2003 if the President’s tax proposals were adopted.



    Bush also claimed that the tax cuts would create 344,000 new jobs per month and that it would result in increased incomes and living standards “for American workers”.







    No such report exists. (5)



    As of September 30, 2003, there has only been a net gain of 57,000 jobs since the 2003 tax cuts became effective, while the economy lost a net of 2.75 million jobs since passage of the 2001 tax cuts.



    The Bush campaign now claims that the tax cuts have created 1.4 million jobs, but this is at a cost of $756 billion through 2004 or $540,000 per job.


    In addition, real wages have declined 1.2% on Bush’s watch. (10)



    Canada also instituted tax cuts but which were “more modest”, targeted the breaks towards the middle class and left the top rate in place. A comparisons of the results of the Bush and Canadian tax cuts are significant:



    (1) Job Growth (Jan 01 - April 04)
    Canada – up 5.6%
    U.S. – down 1.4%



    (2) Surplus (Jan 01 - April 04)
    Canada – surplus unchanged
    U.S. – went from surplus equal to 1.9% of GDP to deficit equal to nearly 4% of GDP. (21)



    #7 Bush and the Republicans claim that the 2003 tax cut proposal benefits all Americans and that ninety-two million Americans will receive an average of almost $1,100. “My tax relief plan is a fair one, lowering the rate for all taxpayers.”

















    Even President Bush knows this is false, as he repeatedly asked his advisors “[h]aven’t we already given money to rich people? This second tax cut’s gonna do it again. . . .



    [S]houldn’t we be giving money to the middle?” His advisors instructed him to “stick to principle.” (12)



    Nearly one-third (31%) of all taxpayers, would receive nothing and 64 million taxpayers (nearly half [48%]) would get less than $100.





    The average taxpayer (i.e., taxpayers in the middle fifth 20%) would only get $289 under this proposal. In contrast, the top 1% of taxpayers would get $30,127 while those earning more than $1 million would get according nearly $90,200.(6)



    “Since 2001, President Bush’s tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families, the Congressional Budget Office has found.” [Washington Post, “Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle,” 8/13/04]



    NON-PARTISAN CBO REPORTS BUSH SHIFTED TAX BURDEN TO THE MIDDLE CLASS



    * Wealthiest taxpayers saw share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. [CBO]



    * Middle-class families saw their tax burden jump from 18.7 percent of Federal taxes to 19.5 percent of Federal taxes. [CBO]



    * Bush tax cuts are 70 times larger for top 1 percent of taxpayers than for middle-class families. [CBO]



    #8 The 2003 tax cuts will help reduce the deficit because the resulting economic growth will offset tax losses.



    When the deficit for FYE 2003 was reported below projections at $374 billion, White House aides claimed that the deficit was on a “downward path.”







    The Congressional Budget Office (headed by a former Bush White House supply-sider) found that even under the more favorable "dynamic scoring" methodology the tax cuts would result in more than $1 trillion in deficits over the next five years alone and that the economic stimulus claims asserted by the White House were "not obvious."



    The Comptroller General found the administration’s claim that the tax cuts would help reduce the federal deficit to be “flat false.” In order to balance the budget by 2013, the government would have to either:



    (i) raise income taxes by 27 percent and cutting social security spending by 60 percent and defense spending by 73 percent or



    (ii) cutting all programs except for defense, homeland security, social security and Medicare by 40 percent.

    The Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation found that the tax cuts would have minimal effects initially and then the positive effects "are eventually likely to be outweighed by a reduction in national savings due to increasing federal deficits." The Committee also predicted job growth of between 230,000 to 90,000 jobs during the first five years, with no growth or job losses in the next five years. (7)



    The $374 billion deficit does not include $87 billion for Iraq, $400 million for Medicare, $500 billion for increased defense spending and $1.8 trillion to make the “temporary” tax cuts permanent. (9)



    #9 The Bush administration repeatedly low-balled budget projections in order to persuade Congress to pass its tax cuts.



    The Bush administration’s projection for FYE 2003 have been as follows:

    April 2001: $334 billion surplus
    Feb. 2002: $80 billion deficit
    Feb. 2003: $304 billion deficit

    The projections for FYE 2004 have been:

    Feb. 2002: $14 billion deficit.
    Feb. 2003: $307 billion deficit.












    In July 2003, the Bush administration announced that the deficit will reach $455 billion for FYE 2003. Without the Bush tax cuts, however, the deficit would be $278 billion. By 2011, these tax cuts will have cost $3.7 trillion.



    The $455 billion estimate is deceptive, however, since:

    (i) it does not even include the costs of U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan which exceed $4 billion per month; but (ii) it does include the Social Security surplus. Without the Social Security surplus, the deficit would total $614 billion plus the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan operations.



    For FYE 2004, the Bush administration now projects a deficit of $521 billion. (8)



    #10 On April 24, 2003, Bush campaigned to make permanent all aspects of his 2001 tax plan stating that while Congress adopted his plan “the problem is they responded with a phased-in program. They said tax relief was important and tax relief should be robust, but they phased it in over a number of years – three years in some cases, five years in others and seven years. Listen, all I’m asking Congress to do is to take the tax relief package they’ve already passed, accelerate it to this year so that we can get this economy started and people can find work.”







    President Bush requested that the tax cuts be phased in over five year, both when he first offered the plan in 1999 and when he submitted it to Congress in February 2001, in order to minimize the total costs of the tax cuts. In essence, Bush sold a discounted version of his plan for political reasons, but now wants Americans to pay full price. (11)

    #11 The Bush administration is claiming that it is fiscally responsible. Vice President Cheney said on Meet the Press that both he and the President were “deficit hawks.”



    The Bush administration also claims it has held spending increases for non-military or homeland security matters to 6 percent for FY2002, 5 percent for FY2003 and 3 percent for FY2004.







    After Treasury Secretary O’Neil opposed the 2003 tax cuts because of its effect on the deficit and the need to address Social Security, Cheney’s response was “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due”. (12)



    The administration’s numbers are bogus. The conservative Cato Institute found increases of 6.8, 8.3 and 6.3 percent for 2002-2004, while the Heritage Foundation projected spending would increase by 9 percent in 2004. (13)



    #12 In December 2003, Bush claimed that his tax cuts were “geared toward small businesses.”



    In 2001, he claimed that more than 17.4 million small business owners would benefit from a drop in the top rate from 39.6% to 33%.



    In 2003 he claimed the second tax cut would give “23 million small business owners an average tax cut of $2,042.”







    IRS and Treasury Department data indicate that only 3.7 percent of small business owners were subject to the top rates, meaning that for every small business owner who benefits under the tax cuts there are 15 who do not. Nearly 80 percent of small businesses received less than $2,042 and 52% received $500 or less. (14)



    In addition, the administration has hiked fees for small business loans.(17)



    #13 In February 2004, President Bush claimed that “the reason we are where we are, in terms of the deficit is because we went through a recession, we were attacked, and we’re fighting a war.”



    His FY2005 budget declares that “[t]oday’s budget deficits are the unavoidable product of revenue erosion from the stock market collapse that began in early 2000, an economy recovering from recession, and a nation confronting serious national security threats.”







    In fact, the single biggest cause of the deficits is the Bush tax cuts which account for 36% of the current deficits.



    This, however, increases over time as the economy recovers. Using the Administration’s optimistic projected 2009 budget deficit of $272 billion, the tax cuts will account for 67 percent ($183 billion) of this amount. (15)

    #14 Bush’s FY2005 budget claims to half the record $521 billion budget deficit over the next five years.







    This claim is based on multiple lies, deceptions and omissions.



    (1) The administration’s budget does not include any funding for military operations or reconstruction in Iraq or Afghanistan even though it concedes our troops will be there beyond 2005. This alone easily adds nearly $50 billion to the deficit.



    (2) The administration is based on unrealistic assumptions. It assumes record revenue growth of 13.3% in 2005 something not seen since 1981 and even exceeding the growth rate in 2000 during the peak of the stock-bubble capital gains windfall. This is consistent with revenue estimates for 2002-2004 which on average were overstated by approximately 13 percent. The administration also assumes rates for unemployment, inflation and bond yields lower than consensus estimates.



    (3) The administration budget ends at 2009 when the Bush tax cuts expire. If Congress makes these tax cuts permanent as requested by the administration, the deficit will increase by $936 billion over the following five years. (16)








    #15 “We cut taxes, which basically meant people had more money in their pocket.”





    While Bush is cutting taxes for the rich he also is raising fees for government services ($5.9 billion in FYE 2004 alone) and states have been forced to do increase taxes and fees as a the impact of the tax cuts, cuts in aid to states and new unfunded mandates have added a $39 – 98 billion burden to the states. For example:



    (1) Since Bush took office states have raised taxes $20.2 billion annually (after 7 consecutive years of tax cuts)



    (2) Tuition at state colleges and universities have increased 35% since 2001 while the administration is cutting education aid.



    (3) Property tax collections rose more than 10% last year alone to pay for under-funded schools and services.



    (4) Increased fees for a variety of programs from small business loans to national parks. Under Bush, veterans’ co-payments for prescription drugs are to rise from $2 in 2002 to $15 in 2005. (17)



    #16 “If you look at the appropriations bills that were passed under my watch, in the last year of President Clinton, discretionary spending was up 15 percent and ours have steadily declined.”





    Not even close. During his eight years, President Clinton increased domestic discretionary spending by 10 percent. In his last year, discretionary spending was up only 3 percent.



    Under Bush discretionary spending has increased every single year and is now 31 percent higher than when he took office. He has increased domestic discretionary spending by 25 percent – or 2 ½ times the increase under eight years of Clinton. (19)



    #17 The Bush administration has categorized its 2004 tax cut as a “middle-class tax cut.”







    The top 1/5th of earners receive 2/3rds of all benefits and the bill excluded extending the child tax credit to 4 million low income families who do not qualify. Middle class earners will receive an average cut of $162 in 2005.





    #18 Most of the tax cuts went to low and middle income Americans, and now the tax code is more fair, 20 percent of the upper income people pay about 80 percent of the taxes in America today because of how we structured the tax cuts.







    In 2004, Top One Percent Will Receive Average Tax Cut Of $35,000; Middle Class Will Receive Average Tax Cut Of $647. The benefits of Bush’s tax cuts primarily benefit the rich. The top one percent of households will receive tax cuts averaging almost $35,000--or 54 times more than middle-class families. Households with incomes above $1 million will receive tax cuts averaging about $123,600. (23)



    Sources: (1) New York Times 02.04.03, McKenna – Globe and Mail 02.04.03, Conrad & Spratt – Washington Post 02.04.03; (2) New Republic 07.01.02, Washington Post 07.02.02, Alter – Newsweek 07.28.03, Center for American Progress 01.16.04; (3) New Republic 01.13.03, 01.20.03, Editors – Los Angeles Times 07.17.03, Harding – Financial Times 08.07.03; (4) L.A. Times 11.11.03, Economist 11.11.03, (5) Toedtman – Newsday 02.23.03, (6) Citizens for Tax Justice (www.cjt.org), The New Republic – 02.10.03, Daily MisLead 01.13.04, (7) New York Times 04.06.03, Washington Post 05.14.03, The Bush Economic Record: Will Short-Term Gain Lead to Long-Term Prosperity or Long-Term Pain; (8) Weisman – Washington Post 07.16.03, Editors - Washington Post 07.16.03, Editors – New York Times 07.17.03; Krugman – New York Times 07.18.03, Los Angeles Times 10.07.03; Milbank – Washington Post 02.24.04 (9) Minneapolis Star Tribune 10.23.03; (10) The Daily Mis-Lead 10.03.03, The Daily Mis-Lead 11.05.03, Citizens for Tax Justice 09.23.03; (11) Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, War Tax Cuts and the Deficit 07.08.03; (12)Noah – Slate 01.10.04, 60 Minutes 01.11.04; Dionne – Washington Post 09.16.03; (13) Weisman – Washington Post 12.26.03; (14) Daily MisLead 12.02.03; (15)Daily MisLead 02.03.04, Washington Post 02.03.04; (16) Gross – Washington Post 02.02.04; Center for American Progress 02.03.04; Washington Post 02.03.04; Harris – Business Week 02.03.04; (17)Center for American Progress 02.20.04, The College Board Annual Survey of Colleges, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 09.13.04; (18)Center for American Progress – Claim v Fact: The President on Meet the Press, (19) Noah – Slate 02.09.04; (20) Suskind – The Price of Loyalty; (21) Center for American Progress 04.30.04; (22) Daily Mis-Lead 09.24.04 (23) Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/14/04





    Caught on Film: The Bush Credibility Gap

    In addition, in February 2003 Congressional Democrats began to press this case, launching a campaign on the Bush "credibility gap" on budget matters.





    Click Here to View



    MORE TAX AND DEFICIT LIES



    LIE: In May 2003, President Bush signed into law tax cut legislation which excluded low and moderate income families from the expanded child tax credit. The White House promised to address this omission.

    FACT: It has been over six months since the White House’s promise and no action has been taken to date. (Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee)

    See Running Clock On Failure to Address Child Tax Credit: www.dscc.org/welcome/



    LIE: During the campaign, Bush claimed that the “vast majority” of the tax cuts go the “those at the bottom end of the economic ladder


    FACT: The bottom sixty percentile received only 12.6 percent of the proposed tax cut, while the top one percent would receive almost half. (Franken – Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, Corn – The Nation 10.13.03)



    LIE: The Bush administration reported a $158 billion deficit for 2002 by reporting expenses when paid not when incurred.



    FACT: Had the Bush administration used accrual method of accounting as recommended by Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan, the 2002 deficit would increase by 230% to $365 billion.



    LIE: The Bush administration promised in late 2002 to repeal the loophole that allows US companies who incorporate off-shore in order to avoid taxes to receive contracts from the Homeland Security Department.



    FACT: Bush has not taken any action on this issue. (Ackerman – Newsweek 07.28.03)



    LIE: In light of his promise to keep Social Security in a lock box, the Bush administration promised to preserve surpluses “at least the size of the Social Security surplus” as a “threshold condition of public finance.”



    FACT: Bush's 2004 budget requires the government to use the entire Social Security surplus to fund deficits over the next ten years. (Conrad & Spratt - Washington Post 02.04.03)



    LIE: “To keep farms in the family, we are going to get rid of the death tax.”



    FACT: The American Farm Bureau Federation could not cite a single example of a farm









    • * Administration: A Lesson for Bush Supporters

      While all politicians lie, or try to control public perception, it is the press’ job to hold them accountable and report what actually goes on. Never before in history has our press been so inaccurate and so negligent in covering an administration. There is no relatively fact checking and there is no investigative reporting, no criticism and no attention to most of the issues affecting our nation.

      The result has been that we have the most uninformed electorate in US history. While the Bush/PNAC administration has radically changed almost ever aspect of our government and policies there has been virtually no mention of the vast majority of these issues by our broadcast news services. Regardless of the media bias that exists from the left and from the right the fact that so many vital issues and actions have not been mentioned is an indication of the total failure of Americas broadcast journalists.

      Perhaps we should rename this section to “The Media Lies for Bush”. That may be more accurate in that the Bush administration is not lying about most of the issues in this section, but the media is misrepresenting them or not representing them at all. That is the problem.

      TVNL Quotes: In reference to George Bush’s (and his PNAC pals) job running (ruining) the country, we quote the famous movie The Magnificent Seven:

      Vin: Reminds me of that fellow back home that fell off a ten story building.
      Chris: What about him?
      Vin: Well, as he was falling people on each floor kept hearing him say, "So far, so good." Tch...So far, so good!

      TVNL Quotes: In reference to people who actually voted for George Bush (and his PNAC pals) we ask ‘why did you vote for him?’ and we once again quote the famous movie The Magnificent Seven:

      Vin: It's like this fellow I knew in El Paso. One day, he just took all his clothes off and jumped in a mess of cactus. I asked him that same question, "Why?"
      Calvera: And?
      Vin: He said, "It seemed like a good idea at the time."

      Nobel Peace Prize nominee: Bush re-election may end the human race - I don't think the Americans have, on the whole, the faintest idea - and I have to say also I don't think most Australians do either. But it's not just the threat from nuclear war. It's the threat of what's happening to the environment, the global warming which is occurring rapidly now, to ozone depletion, to species extinction, to deforestation - it's the whole thing," the Sydney Morning Herald quoted Caldicott as saying.

      Retired Diplomats, Military Commanders Fault Bush's Leadership - The Bush administration does not understand the world it faces and is unable to handle "in either style or substance" the responsibilities of global leadership, an eminent group of 27 retired diplomats and military commanders charged today. - "Never in the two and a quarter centuries of our history has the United States been so isolated among the nations, so broadly feared and distrusted." - The statement fit onto a single page, but the sharp public criticism of President Bush was striking, coming from a bipartisan group of respected former officials united in anger about U.S. policy. - The new group, which calls itself Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, believes Bush must be replaced for the United States to regain credibility and strengthen valuable foreign alliances.

      Livingstone says Bush is 'greatest threat to life on planet' - Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, launched a stinging attack on President George Bush - denouncing him as the "greatest threat to life on this planet that we've most probably ever seen". - Mr Livingstone recalled a visit at Easter to California, where he was denounced for an attack he had made on what he called "the most corrupt and racist American administration in over 80 years". - Well, I think what I said then was quite mild. I actually think that Bush is the greatest threat to life on this planet that we've most probably ever seen. The policies he is initiating will doom us to extinction."

      Bush's Desolate Imperium - Helen Thomas calls him "the worst president ever." A kinder, gentler Jonathan Chait ranks him "among the worst presidents in US history." No such restraint from Paul Berman, who brands him "the worst president the US has ever had." Nobel Laureate George Akerlof rates his government as the "worst ever." Even Bushie du jour, Christopher Hitchens, calls the man "unusually incurious, abnormally unintelligent, amazingly inarticulate, fantastically uncultured, extraordinarily uneducated, and apparently quite proud of all these things." Only Fidel Castro, it would appear, has had kind words for our 43rd President. "Hopefully, he is not as stupid as he seems, nor as Mafia-like as his predecessors were."
      * Pollution kills 2 million people a year - Burning fossil fuels can lead to deadly air quality around world, WHO says - Reducing the kind of pollution known as PM10 — or particulate matter with particles of smaller than 10 micrometers — could save as many as 300,000 lives every year, according to a statement issued by the WHO's regional office in Manila. - TVNL COMMENT: Is Bush addressing this? Yes; George W. Bush is INCREASING the threat to your life! Click here for details.

      Spain's PM Says Bush Acts Like an Emperor - ``The combination of being a Republican, of being an emperor, a Texan and outspoken is really a bad mix,'' Aznar said in an interview Wednesday in The Washington Post.

      Scroll down for the lies!


      Get your Loaded Deck here!

      Free Shipping on $49 non-prescription orders



      Bush Lies. These are issues that have gone completely unchallenged and virtually unreported by the TV News “Entertainment” Networks.

      “Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such manipulation of American opinion, since the War in Vietnam” - John Brady Keisling - Career US Diplomat 27-Feb-2003

      "I went back and asked my adult German friends, 'How could you let that happen?' " Reno said. "They said, 'We just stood by.' "

      Suppose that this administration did con us into war. And suppose that it is not held accountable for its deceptions, so Mr. Bush can fight what Mr. Hastings calls a "khaki election" next year. In that case, our political system has become utterly, and perhaps irrevocably, corrupted. - Paul Krugman

      The press has been terrified to use the “L” word in respect to Governor Bush (Michael Moore is right, he should not be called “President”). Let me remind my friends in the press of a little word called LIE! The press also remains deafeningly silent on issues that are not part of the Bush administration’s agenda. Very simply put; George Bush is a chronic liar and he gets away with it.

      Pronunciation: (lI), [key]
      —n., v., lied, ly•ing.
      —n.
      1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
      2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no o


      • The facts and allegations contained in this article are not disputed, are easily verified and are documented by the subjects in their own words. I am writing this not to tell you about some secret on to which I have stumbled, rather to explain the well defined and verifiable information that has been kept out of the public discourse by the American corporate news media. Perhaps this will serve as a prime example of how much media deception takes place in our nation. I ask you not to accept what you read in this article as truth, and I ask you not to dismiss it as an untruth, I ask you to research the claims for yourself. The information is out there and nobody is denying the claims made in this article. They are simply refusing to discuss them.
        Please, don’t trust me…test me. – Jesse – Editor, TvNewsLIES.org

        1. A FICTIONAL TALE OF HORROR

        If you wanted to hire a child daycare professional to look after your child, it seems reasonable that you would want to know something about that person’s background. Perhaps you would check into his or her criminal history to see if there was a record of sexual offense or violence towards children. Perhaps you would check the person’s religious background to make certain he is not involved in any bizarre religious practice such as child or animal sacrifice. You surely would conduct a thorough and painstaking pursuit of all available information about the applicant.

        By performing your due diligence, you would be acting in the best interest of your child; you would be acting as a fully responsible parent; and you would be ensuring that the person you hire is exactly what he or she purports to be.

        Now, let’s assume that during your investigation you uncover nothing really suspicious about the person at all. All you find out is that the name of the applicant’s religion is very similar to your own. In fact, because the name is “Neo-Christianity” or “Neo-Judaism,” you feel quite comfortable with the term. After all, it sounds so familiar and suggests a close connection to your own belief system.

        What if you accept this discovery and feel quite safe with the presumptions you made – even though you never took a moment to research the newly identified religion?

        And what if you made a dreadful and irreparable mistake?

        Let’s say you then are confident enough in the applicant to hire him to care for your child. But then one day your worst nightmare becomes a reality. You come home to find your child slaughtered and his blood splattered all over your home. And there, in the middle of the room is your new hired day care professional on his knees, praying to an unfamiliar God!

        You bury your child and you live with the terrible knowledge that you can never bring your child back to life. The day care worker is arrested, and during the trial you find out that the person you hired to protect your child was participating in a ritual demanded by the precepts of his religion.

        You learn that it was his religious duty to lure you into trusting him so that he could have access to your child. You discover, far too late, that your similar sounding religions are indeed nothing alike. You now deeply regret not listening to the people who warned you about the members of that particular religion. You are ashamed that you once labeled them “Neo-Christian (or Neo-Jewish) bashers” and trusted your own instincts instead. You are horrified that you refused to look at the documents about this strange religion that those “Neo-Whatever bashers” tried to share with you.

        You suddenly realize that the people who tried so hard to warn you knew something you didn’t. They were actually looking out for your best interests and you would not listen. You found that out too late; far, far too late.

        2. A REALITY BASED TALE OF HORROR

        But first, a question to the people who support the Bush administration and their policies: Have you done your due diligence to become a well informed citizen of the United States or are you simply following the advice of a handful of people who told you to trust them? Think about it.

        From here on, when I refer to “Bush” I also refer to the people who comprise his administration, the people who have defined the policies of his administration and the people who have led day to day operations and activities within his administration. For the sake of simplicity I may speak of these people by referring to the symbol of their collective deeds: George W. Bush.

        I have a great deal of experience dealing with Bush supporters and with his opponents. I find that supporters and detractors of Bush often have something very interesting in common: both groups know very little about the character, principles and philosophy of the people about whom they have formed an opinion.

        Let’s begin by taking a closer look at two groups that make up the Bush administration. Surely, some people in the Bush White House fall outside these groups and in most cases merely serve as window dressing for the administration. They yield little power and have no significant influence but often, as in the case of former Secretary of State Colin Powell, provide a convenient aura of legitimacy.

        Let us, then, concentrate on the two groups that play an active and powerful role in the Bush administration.

        Group 1: The Neocons – The Policy Makers of the Administration

        We have heard the term “Neocon” for the past five years. We have been told time and time again that the bulk of key policy makers in the Bush administration are Neo-Conservatives yet we never hear much about what Neocons believe in nor do we hear anything about their principles.

        I really believe that is in everybody’s best interest to stop using labels as a general reference to political groups unless we know what the label means. The order of the day, however, is to do just that: to label someone a ‘conservative’ or a “commie” or a “liberal” without the slightest knowledge of the basic principles of conservatism or communism or liberalism.

        Do the name callers have a specific doctrine or platform in mind when they use a political designation as a derogatory term? Most probably, they do not. Perhaps, if they looked up the words they hurled so easily, they might be very surprised to discover how ignorant they were of the principles involved.

        On the other hand, believing a name has a positive connotation can be a serious mistake as well. We hear the term ‘Neocon’ tossed around quite easily nowadays by people who have no clue as to what it means. The term is far too often embraced for its adoption of the term ‘conservative,” and presumed to share the values of the American right. However, if people on the right, - true conservatives, took the time to understand the philosophy of Neo-Conservatism, they might be terribly disappointed.

        Indeed, Neo-Conservatism bears little resemblance to traditional Conservatism. As a matter of fact the naming of the ideology may have been a strategic move intended on making Republicans and Conservatives feel comfortable with the term. It might have served to allay the suspicion or curiosity of those who should have taken a much closer look into what Neocons are all about.

        There is no question that there is a frighteningly powerful Neo-Conservative influence over American foreign policy in this administration. That is an undeniable reality. However, while members of the media such as Chris Matthews use the term on a fairly regular basis, they never explain what Neo-Conservatism is all about.

        To counter that, let’s look at some of the basic principles of Neo-Conservatism:

        The godfather of the Neocon movement was an intellectual disciple of Machiavelli named Leo Strauss. Straus was a German Zionist who immigrated to the US in the 1930s and mentored people like William Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz while advocating his philosophy of a dog-eat-dog world.

        In essence, the Straussian philosophy and teachings are now known as Neo-Conservatism. Below are some of the more interesting and perhaps surprising or even disturbing aspects of Neo-Conservatism as taught by Strauss:

        * Nations cannot consider collective action and multilateralism unless it is 100 percent in line with their own selfish interests
        * Strong leadership is required
        * Military power is essential
        * Leadership ought not be encumbered by human rights discourse or a moral conscience but nonetheless must "appear" to advocate such ideas.
        * Rulers need not observe the laws they impose on the ruled.
        * A ruler can cheat and lie and do all sorts of things but should at all time maintain the outside appearance of adherence to human rights and caring for people.
        * Leaders can use religion as one of many tools to ensure the nation keeps on course as formulated.
        * Outside threats help ensure social cohesion under domestic leadership
        * Altruism, environmental protection, justice etc, are not the concern of governments and ruling elites. They have no part to play in the equation of power
        * Strauss questioned how, and to what extent, freedom and excellence can coexist.
        * Strauss was very pre-occupied with secrecy because he was convinced that the truth is too harsh for any society to bear; and that the truth-bearers are likely to be persecuted by society, especially a liberal society because liberal democracy is about as far as one can get from the truth as Strauss understood it.
        * Secular society is the worst possible thing, because it leads to individualism, liberalism, and relativism, precisely those traits that may promote dissent that in turn could dangerously weaken society's ability to cope with external threats
        * Nazism was a nihilistic reaction to the ungodly and liberal nature of the Weimar Republic.
        * Religion should impose moral law on the masses who would otherwise be out of control.

        Machiavelli’s political doctrine serves as the foundation of Neo-Conservatism and it denies the relevance of morality in political affairs. It states that that craft and deceit are justified in pursuing and maintaining political power. It implies that when it comes to achieving or maintaining power the end justifies the means. This is essentially the core of Machiavellianism and serves as the foundation for Neo-Conservatism: The priority for the power holder is to keep the security of the state regardless of the morality of the means. Machiavelli discusses frankly, the necessity of cruel actions to keep power. He was in the business of power preservation not piety. According to the originator of Neo-Conservative ideology the leader of the state must stick to the good so long as he can, but, being compelled by necessity, he must be ready to take the way of the evil.

        Let me repeat this last principle of Neo-Conservatism because it plays into the “believability factor” when considering claims made by people who accuse the Bush administration of unconscionable actions: “The leader of the state must stick to the good so long as he can, but, being compelled by necessity, he must be ready to take the way of the evil.” These people believe that evil is acceptable and necessary at times!

        A question for Bush backers: Are these the principles and ideals that you chose to support when you aligned yourself with the Bush administration? I am not discussing a conspiracy theory here. We have established clearly and undeniably that George W. Bush has assembled an administration founded on Neo-Conservative principles and a Neo-Conservative agenda. What I have outlined here are the beliefs and philosophies of the Neo-Conservatives within the administration. You can verify this on your own. I implore you to do so and I wish you had done so several years ago, prior to September 11th 2001.

        Let’s move on.

        Group 2: The Operatives

        Fact: While Congress absconded into its many periods of recess, and under the cooperative cloak of the American corporate media, George W. Bush welcomed back into government an alarming array of individuals who have had decades of experience in undermining the democratic processes of government at its highest levels.

        I am not simply talking about people who have been associated with political actions with which I strongly disagree. I am talking about people involved in serious criminal conspiracies conducted at the top echelons of our government. I am talking about convicted felons who have been personally appointed by George W. Bush to important and powerful positions without Congressional consent. I am talking about a laundry list of people who were at some time convicted of, tried for or associated with one of the biggest criminal operations ever conducted by an American administration.

        While well meaning and decent Bush supporters rejoiced in the fact that they no longer had as president a man who would lie about his sex life, they did not know that their current leader was filling high level positions with people who had decades of experience subverting the democratic process and running criminal operations as part of a huge, criminal, government-operated conspiracy. Yes, the Iran-Contra gang came back to Washington and our corporate media did not have time to share this information with the American people.

        The line-up is pretty impressive: John Poindexter, Elliot Abrams, Otto Reich, John Negroponte, and Rogelio Pardo-Maurer. These men were all rewarded with powerful jobs in the Bush government for their felonious and murderous backgrounds. You don’t remember what they did or why they were convicted of anything? Look them up folks; don’t trust me to fill in the blanks. Look them up and wonder why these appointments didn’t make the morning headlines when they occurred.

        Ask yourself why you didn’t know that your president appointed felons and their associates to very high level positions within your government? Does this bother you at all? Is this what you thought you voted for…twice?

        In Perspective

        Let’s put this information into perspective. We have an administration that is largely controlled by a group that uses a fairly benign sounding name. Neo-Conservatism sounds very much like an acceptable and ethical political ideology. The principles involved in this group, however are the architects and power brokers of the failed and war mongering foreign policy of the Bush administration: the policy that has us now mired in Iraq, poised to strike Iran and Syria, and dead broke to boot.

        Make no mistake. This is not a conservative group of politicos with an upgraded title. This is, in fact, a group that is extremely, not slightly reactionary. They are, also extremely, not slightly, dangerous. They contradict almost every concepts Americans associate with a democratic republic and they do not adhere to the restrictions and boundaries defined by the US Constitution.

        The philosophy of the current administration, as defined by the doctrine of the Neocons themselves and those of their mentors, has much more in common with Fascist dictators such as Adolph Hitler and Josef Stalin. This is not a liberal rant, it is an accurate assessment based on the undisputed, fully documented and openly admitted principles of the people who currently comprise the George W. Bush administration. It is not in their best interest to let you know this, but at the same time they do not hide this information from you. Look it up. The media have done a yeoman’s job of hiding this information from you. It’s your turn to do the work.

        Keep in mind that the Neo-Con philosophy states that no rules apply when it comes to achieving power, even lying and cheating. And then consider the actions of the Bush administration in every single policy it has pursued – from election results to war, from the environment to the economy. They set the rules, they do as they please. Anything goes.

        Look around at all the lies, the deception and the fraud and welcome in the New World order that answers to no one – no one at all.

        At this very minute, the people who are in charge of the government of the United States of America believe that no rules apply to them. They believe that religion can be used to control society and that human rights do not apply to them. They do not have to follow the laws that all other citizens must respect, and they openly believe that evil is acceptable if deemed necessary to achieve their goals.

        Add to the mix the extraordinary power now in the hands of people with decades of experience in subverting the law and the democratic process, and in conducting massive criminal conspiracies from inside the government.

        Put it all together and you have an administration operating at the greatest levels of secrecy of any government in history, and run by people whose goals and beliefs have never been explained to the public whose interests they are supposedly serving.

        I have yet to come across a Bush supporter who is aware of the underlying philosophy of the Neocons who direct the policies of the current administration. I have yet to meet one supporter who has any clue as to the extent that our democracy and Constitution have been compromised by these powerful and ruthless ideologues.

        Still I believe that if they did their homework and examined the information that is NOT reported by our broadcast media but is nonetheless available, even present day Bush supporters would be very disturbed and most probably horrified.

        And if they are, there is still time to take back the nation. There is still time for all Americans to take their patriotic responsibilities seriously. There is still time for all Americans who still back this President to understand what they have been supporting.
        It is not possible for anyone to defend the goals of Neo-Conservatives and still claim to be an American. It is a contradiction of terms.

        The fictional parents in the introduction to this article made a tragic mistake. They assumed it was not necessary to fully investigate the person to whom they entrusted the welfare of their child. Similarly, many real people in this nation have made a terrible and irretrievable error.

        Millions of Americans entrusted their well being and the well being of their nation to an administration they accepted at face value. They bought into the promotions and the mantras, and the lies and the deceits. They did not ask the questions and they believed what they were told.

        As in the fictional story, the damage is done and there is no going back. But, in real life there is always a tomorrow. There has to be a moment in which each and every person who has refused to do so in the past takes the time to find out who is running this country, and to understand where these totally evil men are taking us all.

        For your own sake, look them up. For your own sake, understand who is at the helm of this sinking ship. For your own sake, believe what the Neocons in power proudly and openly admit on their own web site.

        For your own sake, wake up before they take us all into their distorted fantasy world of military global domination. Or, sit back and watch the end of the world as we know it. It’s your choice. Go for it.

        Click here for printable pdf version of this article.

        Written as a patriot by Jesse, Editor, TvNewsLIES.org
        Press inquiries welcomed.
        Available for speaking engagements: Jesse@tvnewslies.org

        • ielielielielie

          "President Bush had business ties with Enron and its predecessor companies, and first met Kenneth Lay, its chairman, sometime in the late 1980s, according to public records and interviews. Previously, the president had not mentioned his business dealings with Enron and had said that he got to know Lay after he was elected governor of Texas in 1994. On Tuesday, White House communications director Dan Bartlett told the Tribune that Bush's relationship with Lay probably started when Bush was in Washington in 1987 and 1988, working on his father's presidential campaign. It could have started earlier, he said. "He does not recall specifics" of the first time he met Lay, Bartlett said. 'He met him through his father and through his father's political activity.'" --Chicago Tribune, 03.06.02.

          lielielielielie

          "About three weeks ago, I received a tip. The attorney general was fed up with having his picture taken during events in the Great Hall in front of semi-nude statues. [One statue has a breast exposed, the other has a cloth over his loins.] He had ordered massive draperies to conceal the offending figures. But initially not only could the story not be confirmed � it was strongly denied....According to my original tipster, [a November photo of the Attorney-General with one of the nude statues in the background] was the final straw for Ashcroft, and he ordered that the statues henceforth be draped.

          "Public affairs people however denied any such thing. They stoutly maintained that the attorney general had never complained and that no draperies had been ordered....The draperies have in fact been ordered....[and] installed last week at a cost of just over $8,000.*

          "And it turns out that they were indeed ordered by someone in the attorney general's office, who delivered the request to the Justice Management Division and asserted it was the attorney general's desire. I'm told she was the only person in the attorney general's office who knew about it. She's his advance person, and she said it was done for "aesthetic purposes" � she just thought it would look better when staging events in the Great Hall. --Beverley Lumpkin, ABC News, 01.25.02

          *Public Affairs "noted that former spokeswoman Mindy Tucker always hated the statues; Mindy told me Thursday it was her view that half the women in the department were offended by them and the other half considered them art. [Mindy Tucker was a secondary press spokesperson for Governor Bush and was given the post of spokeswoman for Justice when Bush came to Washington. In that position she made some controversial announcements to the press on free speech matters, and has since been replaced and moved to a similar position for the Republican National Committee. --Politex].

          lielielielielie

          Bush's visit to West Virginia last week included a chat with Bob Kiss, Democratic speaker of the West Virginia House of Delegates....Kiss told Bush that if he wasn't doing anything the next morning, he could come by for [his infant twins'] 3 a.m. feeding. Kiss said Bush joked, "I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go to war." --CNN, 01.27.02

          Bush was a member of the Texas Air National Guards between May 1968 and October 1973 and never left the country in relation to his duties. He was discharged 8 months before his six year term expired. "During his fifth year as a guardsman, Bush's records show no sign he appeared for duty." (Boston Globe, 05.23.00) According to a 06.18.02 story in the Sunday Times (UK),"Documents obtained by The Sunday Times [UK] reveal that in August 1972, as a 26-year-old subaltern in the Air National Guard, Bush was grounded for failing to "accomplish" an annual medical that would have indicated whether he was taking drugs...." The Boston Globe story on Bush's military service adds, Bush "refused for months last year [1999] to say whether he had ever used illegal drugs. Subsequently, however, Bush amended his stance, saying that he had not done so since 1974." According to the Boston Globe, "In his final 18 months of military service in 1972 and 1973, Bush did not fly at all." --Politex, 01.28.02MORE Here and Here

          lielielielielie

          "Wasn't that the best?" said a laughing Ann Richards this week, when I asked her reaction to President Bush's effort to hide behind her skirt when questioned about Enron. "It was so silly. Why didn't he just say Ken Lay was a strong supporter and gave him a half-million dollars and is a good friend, and he's really sorry Ken's in these terrible circumstances?"

          Good question. As the world knows now, George W. Bush told two lies when first asked about his ties to the top guy in what may prove the largest corporate flimflam in history. The president said (1) that he only "got to know" Mr. Lay in 1994, when in fact their relationship goes back at least to 1992; and (2) that Mr. Lay "was a supporter" of Governor Richards, when in fact Mr. Lay told TV's "Frontline" last year that he "did support" Mr. Bush over Ms. Richards in their Texas race.

          This is the president who promised to usher America into "a new era of personal responsibility"?

          What makes the dissembling so strange is that there is no evidence of any administration illegality in the Enron affair. And yet each day brings a new half-truth or seeming cover-up. Appearing on CNN last Saturday, Lawrence Lindsey, the top Bush economic adviser and a former Enron consultant, seconded the president's effort to pin Ken Lay on Ann Richards, but somehow forgot to say what would become public four days later � that he had overseen an administration study of the impact of Enron's travails in October. Earlier, Mary Matalin had visited the Imus show to defend her boss, Dick Cheney, but instead of vowing to open the books on the secret meetings between Enron and the vice president's clandestine energy task force, she asserted that Enron got "not one thing" from the administration's energy plan (actually it got plenty) and tried desperately to dismiss the entire ruckus as lacking an intern's "blue dress."

          Hard as it is to believe, it was only 10 days ago that Ari Fleischer declared, "I'm not aware of anybody in the White House who discussed Enron's financial situation." Now we're painfully aware that the only White House inhabitants who may not have discussed it are the president, Barney and Spot � or so we must believe until future investigators turn up a smoking pretzel. --Frank Rich

          lielielielielie

          "After Sept. 11, says Laura Bush, divorce is down, weddings are up and ``families have come together.'' In fact, fewer folks are taking vows and more are splitting up, says the available data, and hounds are twice as likely as husbands to get wifely attention....``Divorce cases have been withdrawn at higher rates, and more people are buying engagement rings and planning weddings,'' the first lady told a group of New York women. Mrs. Bush was referring to a news report out of Houston that was retracted four days before her talk. In fact, the federal government hasn't tracked divorce and marriage on a monthly basis since 1995. The only information is on the county level." --AP, 01.16.02

          lielielielielie

          Despite President's Denials, Enron & Lay Were Early Backers of Bush

          Enron PAC & Executives Gave $146,500 to 1994 Gubernatorial Campaign

          Austin--President George W. Bush revised history yesterday when he said that Enron CEO Ken Lay "was a supporter of Ann Richards in my [gubernatorial] run in 1994." While Richards reportedly received $12,500 from Enron sources in that campaign, Bush received far more Lay and Enron money.

          In fact, in an interview with PBS�s "Frontline" taped on March 27, 2001, Lay said, �When Governor Bush, now President Bush, decided to run for the governor�s spot, [there was] a little difficult situation. I�d worked very closely with Ann Richards also, the four years she was governor. But I was very close to George W. and had a lot of respect for him, had watched him over the years, particularly with reference to dealing with his father when his father was in the White House and some of the things he did to work for his father, and so did support him.�

          Mr. Lay and Enron's PAC were early donors to Bush�s 1994 race, contributing $30,000 to Bush's gubernatorial committee as early as November 1993. All told, Enron's PAC and executives contributed $146,500 to Bush's first gubernatorial war chest in 1993 and 1994.

          "President Bush's explanation of his relationship to Enron is at best a half truth. He was in bed with Enron before he ever held a political office," said Craig McDonald, Director of Texans for Public Justice.

          Total Enron Money To Bush�s 1994 Gubernatorial Campaign Committee:

          Contributions from Ken and Linda Lay���. $47,500
          Contributions from the Enron PAC ����.. $20,000
          Contributions from Other Enron Executives �$79,000
          Total�� $146,500

          Total Enron Money to Bush�s 1998 gubernatorial campaign = $166,000.
          Total Enron Money to Bush�s two Gubernatorial Campaigns = $312,500.

          Source: Texans for Public Justice and the Texas Ethics Commission.

          Texans for Public Justice is a non-partisan, non-profit policy & research organization that tracks money in Texas politics.

          ***
          As Enrongate Closes In, Bush Misleads Reporters About Relationship With Lay

          "The president said he first met Lay in 1994, when the businessman worked for Democratic Gov. Ann Richards." --AP, Jan. 10, 2002.

          "In addition to being one of the single largest financial backers of George W. Bush's political career, Ken Lay can count himself among the president's closest friends. Letters written while Bush was governor of Texas and obtained by Mother Jones reveal that the Enron Corp. chairman regularly wrote Bush and called upon the governor for favors. Lay recommended appointments to state boards and asked Bush to meet with visiting dignitaries from countries with whom Enron was hoping to do business. In fact, the relationship between the men dates back to the first Bush administration, when George W. used his family name to promote Enron ventures in Argentina ("Don't Cry for Bush, Argentina")." --Mother Jones.

          "A few weeks after the U.S. presidential election in 1988, [Argentina's Minister Of Public Works Rodolfo] Terragno received a phone call from a failed Texas oilman named George W. Bush, who happened to be the son of the president-elect. "He told me he had recently returned from a campaign tour with his father," the Argentine minister recalls. The purpose of the call was clear: to push Terragno to accept the bid from Enron." --Mother Jones.

          lielielielielie

          Bush "said yesterday: "I saw an airplane hit the tower - the TV was obviously on - and I used to fly myself, and I said, 'There's one terrible pilot.' And I said, 'It must have been a horrible accident.'" Of the second strike, Mr Bush told the youngster [,third grader, Jordan,]: "I wasn't sure what to think at first."...The story that he was watching TV contradicts reports from correspondents at the time that he got the news in a phone call from his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice. It also adds further puzzles: why he was being made to wait; why he did not at least delay his entry into the classroom; and why is it obvious that an elementary school would have a TV set in the corridor?" --Guardian, 12.5.01

          EXCERPT FROM TRANSCRIPT..."Well, Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident." But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack." --CNN, 12.04.01

          "Mr. Bush was informed that a plane had hit the World Trade Center in a telephone conversation with Ms. Rice shortly before walking into a second-grade classroom at the Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Fla. White House officials said he knew only that it was a single aircraft and not necessarily a terrorist attack. The president did not appear preoccupied until a few moments later, around 9:05 a.m., when his chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., entered the room and whispered into the president's ear about the second plane attack. At that moment Mr. Bush's face became visibly tense and serious." --NYT, 9/12/01.

          I was watching the major news channels right after the first plane struck the first tower at around 8:45. My recollection is that footage of that accident was not made available until sometime after the sceond tower was hit by the second plane. That's because any shot of the first plane hit would have been happenstance and probably recorded by an amateur, which turned out to be the case with the footage shown at around 10:00 on network TV. If that's correct, Bush's thought when he saw the footage, "There's one terrible pilot," would be stunningly inappropriate, since it could only have come after phone conversations with Rice at around 8:55 (first plane), after seeing the first tower on fire at around 9:00, and after getting Card's whispered message about the second plane crash at around 9:05. Given that scenario, Bush's viewing of the second plane hitting the second tower could only have taken place after his classroom visit, which ended before 9:15. At around 9:15 he addressed the nation. The only way Bush could have seen the first plane crash prior to seeing the second plan crash would have been to have seen it on a non-public Secret Service TV transmission, which he didn't say had happened, but then, where did the secret service immediately get the pictures and send them to Bush within ten minutes of the crash? None were available to the public until around 10:00, if memory serves, and those weren't reported to have been supplied by the government, but by an amateur. By 10:00 Bush was leaving Saarasota. Given the available facts, the most benign conclusion, then, is that Bush was not telling the truth when he told Jordan that he saw the first plane hit the first tower prior to his going into the classroom. He actually could have seen the tower on fire, heard the reporter say that a plane hit it, and concluded, "There's one terrible pilot," making his remark too typically inappropriate, but not stunningly so. This would be just one more example of Bush's problems with his use of language and facts, which we have beem calling to our readers' attention for quite some time. --Politex, 12.09.01

          lielielielielie

          The entire public rationale for the tax cut was not merely wrong or reckless, but outright dishonest. When Bush took office, remember, most people wanted to pay off the national debt and spend money on things like education and prescription drugs far more than they wanted tax cuts. Bush was only able to make his tax cuts acceptable by convincing the public that he first planned to take care of popular priorities and only cut taxes with all the leftover money. So, last week a reporter asked Fleischer what, given projected deficits, Bush planned to do about his promise to enact a prescription drug benefit. He replied that "anything dealing with large spending increases, particularly creation of new entitlements, has to be done with an eye toward what is achievable." In other words, it turns out we can't afford a drug plan, so too bad. If Bush's you-can-have-it-all budgeting was merely a miscalculation, he could scale back the tax cut to make way for more debt reduction or spending. But the truth�which subsequent developments now expose�is that Bush always placed his tax cut ahead of debt reduction or the various government policies he endorsed as a "compassionate conservative." It wasn't just some giant miscalculation. It was a lie. --Jonathan Chait, 12/4/01

          lielielielielie

          "In an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on Friday, Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel, defended the {Bush tribunals], saying they would be fair. Mr. Gonzales continued with an assertion that appeared to liken the commissions to courts-martial. "The American military justice system is the finest in the world," he wrote, "with longstanding traditions of forbidding command influence on proceedings, of providing zealous advocacy by competent defense counsel and of procedural fairness." Some critics say the administration appears to be fostering the confusion to blunt criticism of the tribunals. "The confusion benefits the administration," said Eric M. Freedman, a professor of constitutional law at Hofstra University School of Law in Hempstead, N.Y. "If the government can spread the impression that the tribunals are like the courts- martial, that would allay many fears." In the battle of perception, both sides have been making statements that may not be accurate. Critics have said tribunals will conduct "secret trials." Mr. Gonzalez wrote that the commissions "will be as open as possible," though the president's order permits closed proceedings. --NYT.

          lielielielielie

          "Those who watched NBC's "Meet the Press" Nov. 18 heard national security adviser Condoleezza Rice say that President Bush has been "very supportive of the Nunn-Lugar program." She said, "The funding was not cut. . . . All the way back in the campaign, the president talked about perhaps even increasing funding for programs of this kind." Rice said Bush has asked for as "much money as is actually needed." Perhaps the usually well-informed security adviser was misinformed, but what she said was wrong. The administration's budget request cut the Department of Energy part of the Nunn-Lugar program from $872 million to $774 million and the Department of Defense portion by another $40 million. The "materials protection and accounting" program that safeguards and monitors Russian nuclear materials was cut $35 million; the program to subsidize research facilities for jobless Russian nuclear scientists and keep them from working for terrorists, another $10 million. Nor is it true, as Rice claimed, that no more money could usefully be spent. Veteran professional staff people in Congress and the administration tell me the Russians have never been more receptive to American help in locking up or disposing of these materials. On Sept. 26 the Russians agreed to give U.S. inspectors access to nuclear sites never before opened. The window is open, but money is short. The program for disposing of plutonium -- a basic ingredient of nuclear weapons -- is essentially bankrupt. Some in the Bush administration argue that current disposal methods -- burning it in nuclear power reactors or storing it in glassified form -- are too expensive. I cannot judge. But last week, 20 senators wrote Bush "strongly urging" him to give "full and adequate funding" to the plutonium disposal program. Among the signers were 10 Republicans, including the party's senior defense and budget spokesmen, Sens. John Warner and Pete Domenici. This is a stupid place to try to save money." --David Broder, 11/25/01

          lielielielielie

          About the White House proposal to drill in Alaska in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, page 5-9 of the Bush-Cheney "National Energy Policy" at www.whitehouse.gov/energy tells Americans that:
          "Estimates indicate that no more than 2,000 acres will be DISTURBED if the 1002 Area of ANWR is developed...the developed area is estimated to be less than one-fifth the size of Washington D.C.'s Dulles International Airport."
          In August, the House passed an energy bill (H.R. 4) allowing drilling in Area 1002, but limiting certain oil production activities to 2,000 acres. However, the 2,000 acre (non-contiguous) limit only applies to the area where "oil facilities" actually "touch" the ground. This is the kind of lie politicians tell all the time. It's factually correct, but totally misleading. It's like saying a bullet through your head will only "touch" 1% of your body, implying that the rest of your body will be just fine. As you can see by looking at the map and explanation of proposed activities on our Alaskan Drilling page, the proposed Bush-Cheney plan will render over 1,000 square miles of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge pretty much useless for anything other than drilling and support activities, causing grave and permanent damage to the environment. --Politex, 11/21/01

          lielielielielie

          "Hiding behind a bogus claim of expanding openness, Bush issued new rules that will greatly complicate the Presidential Records Act, a post-Watergate law intended to ensure the release of administration records 12 years after a president leaves office � in this case, those of the Reagan administration. Under the law, Reagan documents were due for public release this year. Instead, Bush chose to stack the deck against disclosure, abolishing rules the Reagan administration itself wrote and replacing them with new roadblocks....Both Bush and his staff pretend they're increasing access to the documents. In introducing the rules, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that under existing law and procedures a former president has the right to withhold any documents for any reason. "But thanks to the executive order more information will be forthcoming," he said. That's true only if you pretend that the 1978 law isn't already in effect, implemented through Reagan's executive order. --USA, 11/11/01

          lielielielielie

          On ABC News this evening a report reminded us that Bush's Sec. of Health, Tommy Thompson, said two weeks ago that his department would be able to respond to any threat of bioterrorism. When challenged about his statement today in the face of the Anthrax crisis and the limited availablility of both anthrax vaccine and Cipro, he reiterated his statment with a stress on the word "respond": "Yes, I said we would be able to RESPOND." You're in a car that crashes at an intersection. Those who see you crash would be sure to RESPOND, but in what way and to what end? --Politex, 10/17/01

          lielielielielie

          Bush lied. About the cost of his tax cut. About who benefits. About his budget. He lied when he claimed he could throw money at the military, fund a prescription drug benefit, pass his tax cut and still not touch the Social Security surplus. And he's lying now as his budget office cooks the books to mask the fact that he's already dipping into the Social Security surplus--without counting the full cost of his military fantasies, or a decent drug benefit, or the inevitable tax and spending adjustments yet to come. Democrats have every reason to rail about Bush's lies and to condemn his irresponsible tax cut--about a third of which will go to the wealthiest 1 percent (and for which, it should be noted, twelve Democratic senators voted)....Democrats should be indicting Bush for turning his back on working families by enforcing austerity in a time of need. They should be making the case for extending unemployment insurance, aiding poor mothers (the first to be laid off), making investments in housing, schools and mass transit that can help jump-start the economy. And they should be taking credit for the tax rebate that people are getting--that was a Democratic idea that wasn't even in the Bush plan. Instead, Democrats are whistling Calvin Coolidge and ceding the growth argument to Bush. Bush says his tax cuts are needed to help the economy revive; that's right--only he's lying about his tax cut. Most of it doesn't kick in for years and goes to the already rich. Those cuts should be reversed, particularly the ones in the estate tax, which is paid only by the wealthiest families. Now we have a dishonest debate: Bush lies.... --Robert L. Borosage, 9/7/01

          lielielielielie

          "This was supposed to be the administration that was going to "restore honor and integrity to the White House." Two days after taking office, George W. gave his troops their marching orders on ethics: "I expect every member of this administration to stay well within the boundaries that define legal and ethical conduct," said W. "This means avoiding even the appearance of improper conduct."

          "Maybe Cheney and Rove just weren't paying attention. That could, at least partly, account for Rove's penchant for attending meetings on issues involving companies in which he owned stock. He took part in multiple energy policy meetings while owning stock in energy companies such as Enron. And in March, he met at the White House with the chairman of Intel and a pair of lobbyists who were pushing for approval of a high-tech merger the White House endorsed shortly thereafter. Three months later, Rove sold his Intel stock for $110,000. But when congressional Democrats questioned whether Rove had violated federal conflict-of-interest laws, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales defended him by claiming that the meetings fell outside the scope of government ethics rules because they were of a "general" nature. And what Rove's defense really means, of course, is that there was "no controlling legal authority." So much for "avoiding even the appearance of improper conduct."

          "The tasty tidbits go on and on, such as how [the White House task force on energy] included a Bush appointee whose wife was raking in $60,000 lobbying for electricity companies at the same time her hubby was helping craft the energy plan. And how the only time Cheney deviated from his refusal to reveal the names of those helping him shape the plan was when he met with representatives from solar, wind and geothermal power, and then proudly trotted them out to meet the press.We also learn that a section of the task force's final report dealing with global warming was lifted almost verbatim from a policy paper put out by an energy industry trade group. I say almost, because in one sentence, the industry group used the phrase "both for" while the task force went with "for both." A complete syntactical reversal -- now that's some independent thinking! The fresh air that W promised to bring to the White House has grown so foul that...it's time for a refresher course on ethics and conflict-of-interest issues." --Arianna Huffington, 8/31/01

          lielielielielie

          Bush Lied About The Effect Of His Tax Cuts On The Economy During The Campaign, And He's Lying Now... "Dishonesty in the pursuit of tax cuts is no vice. That, in the end, will be the only way to defend George W. Bush's deceptions. Let's remember the way the debate ran during the spring. Back in May, The New Republic's cover showed a picture of Mr. Bush, with the headline "He's Lying." Inside were two articles about the tax cut. One, by Jonathan Chait, showed that -- contrary to administration claims -- the tax cut would mainly go to the richest few percent of the population. The other was an excerpt from my own book "Fuzzy Math," refuting the administration's claims that it could cut taxes, increase military spending, provide prescription drug coverage and still avoid dipping into the Social Security surplus. The New Republic cover caused much tut-tutting; the magazine's editors were accused of hyperbole, of rabble-rousing. But the headline was a simple statement of fact. Mr. Bush was lying. It was obvious from the start that the administration's numbers didn't add up. And in case you were wondering, the administration is still lying. I could explain at length how the Office of Management and Budget has cooked the books so that it can still claim a surplus outside of Social Security over the next two years. But here's an easy way to see that the numbers are bogus: O.M.B. claims that the budget will show a surplus of $1 billion this year, and another $1 billion next year. Ask yourself how likely it is that revenues and outlays in a $2 trillion budget would line up that exactly. Then ask yourself how likely it is that they would line up that exactly two years in a row. The O.M.B. numbers are the result of desperate backing and filling -- shift some revenue from this year to next year, then move some of it back, then change accounting rules that have been in place for 65 years, then bump up the estimate of economic growth -- all so that the administration can pretend that it is keeping its promise." --Paul Krugman, 8/28/01

          lielielielielie

          Though President Bush campaigned for election by promising the military "help was on the way" after what he called years of neglect, his administration is now finalizing proposals this week for making big cuts in the armed forces.... The Pentagon has been laying the groundwork for these changes by saying it is essential to cut forces if the United States is going to realistically meet overseas commitments. But as the services themselves fight the proposed cuts, bitter opposition is anticipated on Capitol Hill, even from the president's own party. "They did take the president as a campaigner at his word that 'help is on the way' and to find out that help is now on the wane is not a good thing for them," said Daniel Goure, senior fellow at the Lexington Institute. The cuts are needed to pay for the administration's proposed missile defense system....Though Bush came into office promising to help restore the military, economic reality has overtaken campaign rhetoric." --ABC, 8/21/01

          lielielielielie

          "The Great Stem Cell Compromise. "This is way beyond politics," said George W. Bush while pondering his verdict. What's more, he told the nation, he had found a solution to please everyone. His plan will at once "lead to breakthrough therapies and cures" and do so "without crossing a fundamental moral line." In fact, everything Mr. Bush said is false. His decision was completely about politics. It will slow the progress to breakthrough therapies and cures. It did force the pro-life movement he ostensibly endorses to cross a fundamental moral line. And yet the politics were so brilliantly handled � and exquisitely timed, for the August dog days � that few vacationing Americans bothered to examine the fine print, which didn't arrive until the final seconds of an 11- minute speech. Few have noticed, at least not yet, that the only certain beneficiary of this compromise is George W. Bush. --Frank Rich, 8/18/01

          lielielielielie

          "Recently Mr. Bush was asked about the decision of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to reduce output by a million barrels a day. That's about as much as the Department of Energy's estimate of peak daily production if we drill in the Alaskan tundra � a peak that won't come until the middle of the next decade. And OPEC cut production in order to keep oil prices high despite slumping world demand, which would seem to be against U.S. interests. Yet Mr. Bush was remarkably sympathetic to OPEC's cause; it seems that he feels the oil exporters' pain. "It's very important for there to be stability in a marketplace. I've read some comments from the OPEC ministers who said this was just a matter to make sure the market remains stable and predictable," he declared. Just in case you wonder whether this was really an endorsement of price-fixing, or whether Mr. Bush was just being polite, his spokesman, Ari Fleischer, left no doubt: "The president thinks it's important to have stability, and stability can come in the form of low prices, stability can come in the form of moderate prices." This is the same man who boasted during last year's campaign that he would force OPEC to "open the spigot." Did OPEC take Mr. Bush's remarks as a green light for further cuts? According to one oil analyst interviewed by Reuters, Mr. Bush's apparent expression of support for their efforts to keep prices high "excited a lot of OPEC ministers." Funny, isn't it? When California complains about high electricity prices, it gets a lecture about how you can't defy the laws of supply and demand. But when foreign producers collude to prevent prices from falling in the face of an oil glut, the administration not only signals its approval but endorses the old, discredited theory that cartels are in consumers' interest." --Paul Krugman, 8/4/01

          lielielielielie

          "DURING the final presidential debate last fall, Al Gore accused George W. Bush of opposing a patients' bill of rights. "Actually, Mr. Vice President, it's not true," Mr. Bush instantly replied. "I do support a national patients' bill of rights. As a matter of fact, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to do just that in the state of Texas, to get a patients' bill of rights through. It requires a different kind of leadership style to do it, though." Texas, he added, was "one of the first states that said you can sue an H.M.O. for denying you proper coverage." ...Mr. Bush in 1995 vetoed the first version of the patients' rights bill that the Legislature sent him....two years later he let the section of the bill granting the right to sue go into effect without his signature." --NYT, 7/29/01

          lielielielielie

          "The past few days have featured an extreme version of the [Bush] equivocation strategy. At the weekend summit of industrialized nations in Genoa, Italy, President Bush gave his fellow leaders the impression that he would come up with a global-warming proposal by October, in time for the next international meeting on the issue. But administration officials have since accused the Canadian and French leaders of making up the October target out of "thin air," and have even quibbled about whether U.S. ideas on the subject will amount to a 'proposal.'" --WP Ed, 7/26/01

          lielielielielie

          "Washington is awash these days with avowals of concern for children, especially on the Republican side. Whatever the issue, it's really about the kids they say. President Bush referred to children 11 times in a single speech-on tax cuts no less. In a speech on federal money for churches-excuse us, "faith-based initiatives"-the count was up to 35 (not counting "kids" and the like). "The values of our children must be a priority of our nation," Bush said in a budget speech in March. But exactly what values was the President referring to? He gave the impression it was the traditional ones of hard work, abstemiousness and the rest. But look more closely at the administration, and a different meaning emerges. Whenever an issue pits kids against corporate agendas and big money in Bush's Washington, it is the kids who lose. And that means pretty much all the time. Corporate leaders in the U.S. are bent on reducing children to free-floating appetites for stuff, and the new crowd in Washington is cheering them on-often because it's the same people. Speechifying about "values" notwithstanding, no previous administration has so embodied the aggressive commercialism that has parents feeling under siege. If the administration really was serious about standing up for kids, it would go at this commercialism like a shark at blood. It is a direct assault on everything Republicans claim to hold dear. It subverts both the sanctity of the home and the authority of parents; and it turns the entire culture into a nemesis for parents rather than a support for them. Corporations approach kids not as potential moral beings, but as bundles of inchoate desire whose inclinations to self gratification are to be stoked and magnified-the amorality of the Sixties in corporate drag. But since the perps wear suits, the administration calls it the American Way. --Boulder Weekly, 7/15/01

          lielielielielie

          "Karl Rove, President Bush's senior adviser, was the Salvation Army's first White House contact in its effort to win approval of a regulation allowing religious charities to practice anti-gay workplace bias, administration officials said yesterday. The revelation contrasts sharply with the administration's initial insistence that senior officials were not involved with the charity's request, which was hastily rejected Tuesday evening after a news account about the proposed regulation. An internal Salvation Army document obtained by The Washington Post said the White House had made a "firm commitment" to issue a regulation protecting religious charities from state and city efforts to prevent discrimination against gays in hiring and providing benefits. To secure this commitment, the charity proposed spending nearly $1 million on lobbyists and strategists, and those it retained included a key player in the Bush presidential campaign and one of the campaign's top fundraisers. The White House has denied that it promised the charity anything. But a White House official involved in the matter said yesterday that there was "an implied quid pro quo." This official said that Don E. Eberly, the deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, had given the Salvation Army "an implicit understanding" that the administration would seriously consider the change....

          "A White House official close to the matter...said, "Rove was intimately involved in courting the Salvation Army." A second administration official close to the matter confirmed that account. Both officials said Rove knew all about the regulatory request. "Literally nothing occurs around here without his blessing," the first official said. "He's the air traffic controller. He says, 'Here's your problem. Here's your answer.' " Officials involved in the decision to drop consideration of the regulation said it was reached at about 4 p.m. Tuesday after a strong consensus was reached among the half dozen or so officials who were reviewing the request. Bush had traveled to New York that day. The issue and the way to handle the public relations crisis were hotly debated in meetings and calls to Air Force One as Bush traveled back from New York. As the White House worked to calm the furor over the Salvation Army flap, the House Ways and Means Committee yesterday approved a component of Bush's faith-based plan, a proposal to allow those who don't itemize their taxes to deduct charitable contributions. The committee scaled back the plan to just $6.3 billion over 10 years from the $84 billion Bush proposed. The White House nevertheless hailed the passage by the committee as a major victory. "This legislation will stimulate more charitable giving and support faith-based and community organizations in their efforts to help those in need," Bush said in a statment. --WP, 7/12/01

          lielielielielie

          "George W. Bush ran for president pledging not just a change in policies but a change in the way those policies are made. There was no mistaking whom Bush had in mind when he denounced decision-making by poll and promised an end to the "permanent campaign." Five months into his administration comes a surprise: Bush's White House at times bears a striking resemblance to Bill Clinton's. The signature of Clinton's White House -- and a key to his survival during impeachment and a host of other crises -- was the way policy and politics were routinely interwoven in his decision-making process. Clinton's top political and policy aides met weekly to pore over polling and to plot strategy. Senior Bush aides acknowledge they convene weekly to do precisely the same thing." --WP, 6/26/01

          lielielielielie

          "Bush, playing an active role in targeting vulnerable Democratic senators in next year's election, aimed his latest criticisms toward Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.). Calling for greater authority to set U.S. trade policy during a speech Wednesday to the Business Roundtable, [Bush] said: "There are some who want to put codicils on the trade protection authority for one reason -- they don't like free trade. They're protectionists and they're isolationists." The remarks came as Baucus was chairing hearings in which several senators questioned the wisdom of granting Bush "fast track" authority to negotiate trade deals. Baucus spokesman Michael Siegel said Friday that the senator "just couldn't figure out what was meant by [Bush's] comments." Baucus has a "progressive" record on trade policy, including calls for normalized trade with Cuba, Siegel said. "Certainly the Senate is not isolationist or protectionist," he said. --WP, 6/25/01

          lielielielielie

          "The European Commission's anti-trust chief has ordered politicians to quit meddling in his affairs, following criticism by chiefs including US president George Bush of his probe into the General Electric/Honeywell merger. EU competition commissioner Mario Monti has condemned as "entirely out of place" comments over the tough line he has said to have taken over the $42bn deal, between two of America's biggest companies.... "This is a matter of law and economics, not politics," he said...." I deplore attempts to misinform the public and to trigger political intervention."... Last week Mr Bush said he was "concerned that the Europeans have rejected" the merger....Mr Bush's office on Monday appeared to be attempting to calm US/EC tension, denying that the president had sought to interfere with Mr Monti's anti-trust procedures. "[Mr Bush] reiterated the American position, which [was that] the American government already cleared the merger so, of course, the president said that," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. --BBC, 6?20/01

          lielielielielie

          "'Something will happen when I'm president,' Bush told a Jewish lobbying group a year ago. 'As soon as I take office I will begin the process of moving the U.S. ambassador to the city Israel has chosen as its capital.' The Bush campaign in October slammed Vice President Al Gore for backsliding on the move."

          --Al Kamen's June 13 "In the Loop" column in the Washington Post.

          "Pursuant to the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 7(a) of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-45) (the 'Act'), I hereby determine that it is necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States to suspend for a period of six months the limitations set forth in sections 3(b) and 7(b) of the Act."

          --June 11 presidential memorandum delaying the congressionally mandated relocation of the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Timothy Noah, 6/19/01

          lielielielielie

          CLINTON'S NIGHT DEPOSIT..."As the Bush administration has moved ambitiously during its first months to reshape the government according to its conservative values, the president and his aides have explained their decision to reopen dozens of federal rules by saying they were deluged by President Bill Clinton with controversial, last-minute regulations. "The night deposit" is how Office of Management and Budget Director Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. refers to Clinton's final regulatory work, spanning drinking water and medical records, workers' safety and national parks. "Actions like this, undertaken at the very end of an administration, carry . . . the risk that they were ill-considered or ill-intentioned or both," Daniels said. An examination of the rules that the new administration has begun to rethink -- and, in some instances, recast -- suggests that Clinton did complete a large number of regulations near the end of his second term. But there is little evidence any of them were new ideas that sprang up in the weeks and months before the White House changed hands. In fact, virtually all the regulations finished by federal agencies shortly before Clinton left office had been developed over years, according to government documents, outside policy analysts, and officials of the Bush and Clinton administrations. Some had been delayed by lawsuits or because Republican-led Congresses of the mid- to late-1990s had explicitly forbidden federal agencies to work on them. Moreover, the regulations completed during Clinton's final weeks in office were in step with a brisk pace of regulatory work throughout his two terms -- and with a longstanding practice in which presidents of both political parties have issued many regulations just before they departed." --Washington Post, 6/9/01

          lielielielielie

          "As OPEC meets, it has become apparent that President Bush is breaking his campaign pledge to "jawbone OPEC," to increase production. Last year Bush said OPEC was the "main reason," for high gas prices, but this year, as gas price have reached $2 a gallon in some regions, his Administration is rejecting "begging or publicly bashing to get more oil," with a "gentler approach" to OPEC. --Grand Old Petroleum, 6/6/01

          lielielielielie

          ARI FLEISCHER PURPOSELY DECEIVED HIS PRESS COLLEAGUES RE CLINTON WHITE HOUSE BEHAVIOR

          "NOT LONG after George W. Bush was sworn in as president, many were aghast to read in newspapers and hear on television that in the final days of the Clinton administration, employees had trashed the White House. Democrats were embarrassed, and Republicans, stroking their wallets, gloated that they knew all along the Clintons were hillbillies. The story began as a gossip item in The Washington Post that the letter ''W,'' Bush's middle initial, had been removed from keyboards, and within days it had mushroomed to a scandal reported prominently on TV and the front page of the Post. The details were startling: Walls had been desecrated with obscene graffiti, file cabinets glued shut, telephone wires cut, presidential seals steamed off doors and pornography left on fax machines. So extensive was the damage that a communications worker was said to have been reduced to tears and a national magazine hinted that the White House was spending $10,000 a day to repair phone systems damaged by departing Democrats. Talk-show hosts from the nutty right, like Jay Severin in Boston and his audience of dumb and dumbest, all congratulated themselves on having been proved right that the Clintons were trailer-park trash.

          "And what of the Globe? At a time when Bush aides were privately promoting the story, Anne E. Kornblut of the Globe's Washington Bureau was filing stories that were skeptical. For example, at a briefing Jan. 25, Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer deceptively encouraged reporters' suspicions while refusing to confirm or deny reports of damage. The next day, in a 620-word account, Kornblut wrote: ''No public evidence exists that Clinton and Gore staff members vandalized the White House or Old Executive Office Building.'' For that statement, she was denounced by some for political bias and for not reporting in greater detail what one reader said was further evidence that under Clinton, America had seen the greatest moral decay since the founding of the nation. ''Kornblut either knows the truth and she wrote a blatantly dishonest, biased story,'' wrote Lee Vincent of Groton, Conn., ''or she is incompetent or inexcusably clueless about a widely known set of facts.'' Now, three months later, buried in the national briefs column in the Globe a few days ago was an AP story four sentences long that said an investigation by the General Accounting Office found no evidence of vandalism, no evidence of wires slashed, no evidence of equipment damaged, and no evidence or anything to match the allegations.

          "Knowing how difficult it is to write against the current and risk the wrath of readers, not to mention the censure of editors, I called Kornblut to congratulate her for having covered the story with temperance and, above all, for having gotten it right. 'Just basic reporting,' she said. 'What made me suspicious was the fact that the White House wouldn't give specific examples and wouldn't say, on the record, that this happened here or that happened there. I made phone calls to people who told me it just wasn't true. Also, there were no pictures, and they never seemed to be able to say on the record, in public or at a press conference, here is what happened.'" --Boston Globe,5/28/01

          lielielielielie

          The General Services Administration has found that the White House vandalism flap earlier this year was a flop. The agency concluded that departing members of the Clinton administration had not trashed the place during the presidential transition, as unidentified aides to President Bush and other critics had insisted. Responding to a request from Rep. Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican, who asked for an investigation, the GSA found that nothing out of the ordinary had occurred. "The condition of the real property was consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy," according to a GSA statement. No wholesale slashing of cords to computers, copiers and telephones, no evidence of lewd graffiti or pornographic images. GSA didn't bother to nail down reports of pranks, which were more puckish than destructive. Among those pranks was the apparent removal, by aides to former President Bill Clinton, of the "w" key from some computer keyboards and the placing of official-looking signs on doors, saying things like "Office of Strategery," after a popular "Saturday Night Live" spoof on Bush. But the vandal scandal, tales of torn up offices and items stolen from the presidential jet, was the hottest story in town during the early days of the Bush administration until White House furniture and last-minute pardons pushed it off the front page. "I think it was this calculated effort to plant a damaging story," said Alex S. Jones, director of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University. "There was a sort of fertile ground for believing anything bad." Typical was Tony Snow, a syndicated columnist and former presidential speech writer for President Bush's father, who wrote that the White House "was a wreck." He also said that Air Force One, after taking Clinton and some aides to New York following the inauguration, "looked as if it had been stripped by a skilled band of thieves -- or perhaps wrecked by a trailer park twister." He went on to list all manner of missing items, including silverware, porcelain dishes with the presidential seal and even candy. "It makes one feel grateful that the seats and carpets are bolted down," Snow fumed. Except none of it happened. An official at Andrews Air Force Base, which maintains the presidential jets, told The Kansas City Star at the height of the controversy that nothing was missing. Bush himself acknowledged the same a few days later. And now GSA has made it official. --Kansas City Star, 5/17/01

          lielielielielie

          "During testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last month, Theodore B. Olson, President Bush's nominee to become solicitor general, sought to dissociate himself from the "Arkansas Project," the effort by the conservative magazine American Spectator to uncover scandals linked to President Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton," the Washington Post reports. Olson told the committee that he belatedly became aware of the undertaking, but that he was not involved in the project's origin or management. But "former Spectator staff writer David Brock has told the Judiciary Committee that Olson was directly involved in the Arkansas Project." Brock said that he told Olson that a piece about Vince Foster was unsubstantiated, and that Olson told him "while he didn't place any stock in the piece, it was worth publishing because the role of the Spectator was to write Clinton scandal stories in hopes of 'shaking scandals loose.' " The Post piece is a follow-up to a piece Jake Tapper wrote in Salon. MSNBC,5/10/01

          lielielielielie

          "W promised the world a "humble" [foreign policy], leading by example. It was, surprise, a lie. There is nothing humble about declaring that we don't give a damn about global warming, and that we are, in fact, going to boost our use of fossil fuels and to hell with the rest of the world. There is nothing humble about declaring the right to waste energy to be a central tenet of the "'Murican way of life." Like everything else about W, the "humility" was a ruse, and the "leadership" is a joke. Americans were supposed to feel confident that an experienced hand like Colin Powell was at the wheel at the State Department. From day one, Bush and Cheney have belittled Powell, contradicted him in front of the world, and left him swinging in the wind to be battered like a big Pinata by every foreign minister he deals with: "America will work to see the Rio protocols and the Kyoto Agreement changed so they can be adopted." WHAP! "Uh, no we won't Colin." "America will continue to seek dialogue with North Korea." WHAP! 'Nope, sorry big fella.'" --BuzzFlash, 5/11/01

          lielielielielie

          "Wrapping up a meeting with the emir of Bahrain today, President Bush said conservation would be part of the national energy policy Vice President Dick Cheney will propose next week. "We'll have a strong conservation statement," Bush said. But White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was adamant today when asked whether the president would ask Americans to stop using so much energy. "That's a big 'no,'" Fleischer said. "The president believes that it's an American way of life, that it should be the goal of policy-makers to protect the American way of life. The American way of life is a blessed one." The president, he said, considers Americans' heavy use of energy a "reflection of the strength of our economy, of the way of life that the American people have come to enjoy." --ABC, 5/7/01

          lielielielielie

          "Q: Admiral, how [are] the Chinese reading those memos from the secretary as far as the military-to-military relations with China? Is this kind of a warning to the Chinese from the U.S. that you better behave in the future?

          "Quigley: No, I wouldn't interpret it that way at all. What you've got is a misinterpretation of the secretary's intentions yesterday by a member of the OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] staff, and it simply misinterpreted the secretary's intentions and his guidance. So this was an honest misinterpretation, nothing more, nothing less.

          "Q: But how did it come to the secretary's attention that his guidance had been misinterpreted?

          "Quigley: Reporters started calling yesterday afternoon. Somebody had gotten a hold of the original memo. And we started taking queries here on the news desk from reporters, and then that brought it to our attention, and we started working it here internally and --

          "Q: But it was not complaints from the White House or the State Department?

          "Quigley: No, not at all. Not at all. "

          --May 3 Defense Department press briefing concerning a Pentagon directive banning all military-to-military contacts between the U.S. and China. The policy was hastily altered to require such contacts be approved on a case-by-case basis.

          "White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said yesterday that after seeing the reports about the suspension of military relations, White House officials he would not identify had called the Pentagon and said: 'This seems inconsistent with what we know the secretary's policy is. Can you look into this?'"

          --"Calls Led To Pentagon Reversal" by Mike Allen in the May 4 Washington Post.
          • Bush Administration Lies Archives

            May 6, 2007 - GOP Leadership Nervous About Mr. 28% by Steve Soto
            May 3, 2007 - It's Your Turn Monica by Steve Soto
            May 1, 2007 - Morning Grab Bag by Steve Soto
            April 30, 2007 - Iraqi Parliament AWOL This July-August by Steve Soto
            April 26, 2007 - Suppressing The Truth Until Now by Steve Soto
            April 26, 2007 - Bombing Victims Don't Count by Steve Soto
            April 25, 2007 - Condi Gets Her Subpoena by Steve Soto
            April 25, 2007 - Time To Come To Jesus, Monica by Steve Soto
            April 24, 2007 - Dick Cheney: Serial Liar by Steve Soto
            April 24, 2007 - A Preemptive Internal Inquiry To Control The Story by Steve Soto
            April 23, 2007 - Slouching Through Denial And Isolation by Steve Soto
            April 20, 2007 - Staying In The Bunker by Steve Soto
            April 19, 2007 - Bush's Consigliere by Steve Soto
            April 17, 2007 - Goodling May Get Immunity This Week by Steve Soto
            April 16, 2007 - Gonzales Caught In Another Lie Before Testimony by Steve Soto
            April 16, 2007 - Afternoon Grab Bag by Steve Soto
            April 16, 2007 - Another "They Were Warned" Story by Steve Soto
            April 14, 2007 - Clearing the Decks by Mary
            April 13, 2007 - Latest Attorney Document Dump Undercuts Sampson and Gonzales by Steve Soto
            April 13, 2007 - Friday Morning Grab Bag by Steve Soto
            April 11, 2007 - Surging To Destruction by Steve Soto
            April 10, 2007 - Stonewalling Gets You A Subpoena by Steve Soto
            April 9, 2007 - The White House's Cheap Political Stunt On Pelosi's Syria Trip by Steve Soto
            April 3, 2007 - Open Thread - Replay The Last Game Edition by Steve Soto
            April 2, 2007 - Chalabi Works Against Political Reconciliation by Steve Soto
            April 2, 2007 - Filling The Prosecutor Slots With Gonzales And Rove Hacks by Steve Soto
            April 2, 2007 - Supreme Court Rules Against Bush Administration On Regulating Auto Emissions by Steve Soto
            March 30, 2007 - Week Of April 16th Will Be Momentous by Steve Soto
            March 29, 2007 - GOP Ordered Clinton Out Of Somalia And Haiti by Steve Soto
            March 29, 2007 - Bringing You Safe Neighborhoods by Steve Soto
            March 29, 2007 - Sampson Contradicts Alberto by Steve Soto
            March 29, 2007 - Laughing Through Disaster by Steve Soto
            March 29, 2007 - Sampson Clarifies That Politicizing US Attorneys Is OK by Steve Soto
            March 28, 2007 - Why Is This Woman Running Anything? by Steve Soto
            March 28, 2007 - Kerry Defeats Swifties Ambassador Bid by Steve Soto
            March 27, 2007 - GOP Hypocrisy Runs Amok by Steve Soto
            March 26, 2007 - GOP Tipping Points Near On Iraq And Gonzales? by Steve Soto
            March 26, 2007 - Gonzales Aide Will Plead 5th Amendment by Steve Soto
            March 26, 2007 - Bush Administration Covering Up MZM Connections As Waxman Zeroes In by Steve Soto
            March 26, 2007 - Undermining The Executive Privilege Defense by Steve Soto
            March 26, 2007 - The Post-50 Monday Grab Bag by Steve Soto
            March 24, 2007 - Gonzales Lied - Big Surprise by Steve Soto
            March 23, 2007 - Bush Tries To Shut Down Damage From Abramoff by Steve Soto
            March 23, 2007 - New Emails Show USA Purge Clearly Political by Steve Soto
            March 22, 2007 - Federal Prosecutor Firings - Update by Steve Soto
            March 21, 2007 - Alberto Tanked Landmark Tobacco Case by Steve Soto
            March 21, 2007 - Try Another One Tony by Steve Soto
            March 21, 2007 - House Committee Votes To Issue Subpoenas by Steve Soto
            March 20, 2007 - It's Time To Draw That Line by Steve Soto
            March 20, 2007 - The Man Who Got Caught Attempting Partisan Fishing Expeditions by Steve Soto
            March 19, 2007 - Fourth Anniversary Of The GOP's Illegal War by Steve Soto
            March 18, 2007 - Lam Was Fired To Shut Down Foggo Inquiry by Steve Soto
            March 17, 2007 - More Smoke From White House On Attorney Firings by Steve Soto
            March 15, 2007 - Rove And Gonzales Planned Attorney Purge In January 2005 by Steve Soto
            March 15, 2007 - Bush And Gonzales Are Joined At The Hip by Steve Soto
            March 15, 2007 - Amidst Lies, Leahy Issues Subpoenas Today by Steve Soto
            March 14, 2007 - At Least We Can Argue About The Pace Of Change by Steve Soto
            March 13, 2007 - Voting Fraud? Really? by Steve Soto
            March 12, 2007 - Subpoena Them Both by Steve Soto
            March 11, 2007 - White House Involved In Sacking Federal Prosecutors by Steve Soto
            March 9, 2007 - Bush Lies About Latin American Aid by Steve Soto
            March 7, 2007 - Afternoon Update by Steve Soto
            March 5, 2007 - Republicans Just Don't Care by Steve Soto
            March 2, 2007 - The "Denver Three" Get The Truth by Steve Soto
            March 1, 2007 - Open Thread - The Cheney Poison Continues by Steve Soto
            February 28, 2007 - Bush/Cheney And Big Oil Win The Real War by Steve Soto
            February 27, 2007 - Evidence, Who Needs Evidence? by Steve Soto
            February 27, 2007 - Taliban Attack Against Cheney Says It All by Steve Soto
            February 26, 2007 - Media Is Missing The Story by Steve Soto
            February 23, 2007 - What About Your Judgment Shooter? by Steve Soto
            February 21, 2007 - Good News for Bush: The WOT is a failure by soccerdad
            February 14, 2007 - Tell Me Another One Skippy by Steve Soto
            February 13, 2007 - Too Limp To Be In Congress by Steve Soto
            February 11, 2007 - Catapulting the Propaganda by Mary
            February 9, 2007 - Justice Department Lied About Fired Prosecutors by Steve Soto
            February 8, 2007 - Morning Update by Steve Soto
            February 7, 2007 - Hang The Monday Vote Around The GOP's Neck by Steve Soto
            February 6, 2007 - Gates: Surge Is Only The Start by Steve Soto
            February 1, 2007 - Bush Misled America About Iraq Before 2006 Midterms by Steve Soto
            January 26, 2007 - Robert Gates Plays The Treason Card by Steve Soto
            January 25, 2007 - Afternoon Quick Hits by Steve Soto
            January 24, 2007 - Afternoon Quick Hits by Steve Soto
            January 11, 2007 - Morning Update by Steve Soto
            January 10, 2007 - Bush Just Sunk The GOP by Steve Soto
            January 10, 2007 - It Really Is About Oil by Steve Soto
            January 3, 2007 - Morning Update by Steve Soto
            January 2, 2007 - Bush Stands Ready To Isolate Himself by Steve Soto
            December 29, 2006 - More Aid For Iraq? Show Us The Money by Steve Soto
            December 27, 2006 - More Popcorn Please by Steve Soto
            December 21, 2006 - Scarborough Introduces The I-word by Steve Soto
            December 21, 2006 - Bush Flip-Flops On Listening To Military Leaders by Steve Soto
            December 20, 2006 - Still Wrong - And Way Too Late by Steve Soto
            December 19, 2006 - Bush Wants To Change The Subject by Steve Soto
            December 17, 2006 - Vast Majority Of Guantanamo Detainees Set Free And Never Tried by Steve Soto
            December 11, 2006 - Mid-Day Update - Gore In The Spotlight by Steve Soto
            December 11, 2006 - Strong Public Support For Medicare Drug Benefit Changes by Steve Soto
            December 6, 2006 - With Report Out, Bush Can Now Move On And Ignore It by Steve Soto
            December 2, 2006 - Rummy Touted Change In Course Two Days Before He Was Sacked by Steve Soto
            November 30, 2006 - Baker Supports A Time-Certain Withdrawal After All by Steve Soto
            November 29, 2006 - It's Time For Bush's Base To Pay The Bill For Bush's War by Steve Soto
            November 9, 2006 - With Rummy Gone, Does Everything Change? by Steve Soto
            November 9, 2006 - It's All About Politics by Steve Soto
            November 6, 2006 - NRCC Robo-Calls Attack 46 Democrats by Steve Soto
            November 3, 2006 - More Lies From White House On Website Story by Steve Soto
            November 3, 2006 - Mid-Morning Update by Steve Soto
            November 1, 2006 - Look In The Mirror For Apologies Mr. Bush by Steve Soto
            October 31, 2006 - Kerry v2.0 Is Much Better by Steve Soto
            October 31, 2006 - Bush Peddles The Kool Aid To The Cultists by Steve Soto
            October 29, 2006 - Post And NYT Ignore Iraq's Leverage Against Bush Administration by Steve Soto
            October 28, 2006 - CQ's House Prediction And A "November Surprise" by Steve Soto
            October 27, 2006 - Al-Maliki Separates Himself From Bush by Steve Soto
            October 24, 2006 - Morning Update by Steve Soto
            October 23, 2006 - Bush Retreats On "Stay The Course" by Steve Soto
            October 22, 2006 - Bush Flip-Flops On Timelines; Denies His Central Policy by Steve Soto
            October 20, 2006 - The Job Is Too Tough For The Poor Baby by Steve Soto
            October 19, 2006 - Evening Quick Hits by Steve Soto
            October 19, 2006 - The Delusion Continues by Steve Soto
            October 16, 2006 - What Exactly Is The Mission? by Steve Soto
            October 13, 2006 - Will The GOP Implode As The Wingers Desert Them? by Steve Soto
            October 12, 2006 - Warner To Pass On 2008 Run? by Steve Soto
            October 9, 2006 - Mid-Day Update by Steve Soto
            October 7, 2006 - Newsweek Poll Gives GOP More Bad News by Steve Soto
            October 6, 2006 - GOP Wants To Change The Subject - Pelosi Says "Drain The Swamp" by Steve Soto
            October 5, 2006 - Dead Man Party Walking by Steve Soto
            October 4, 2006 - A Failed GOP Storyline Peddled By A Clueless Salesman by Steve Soto
            October 3, 2006 - Nearly 60% Think Bush Misleads The Public On Iraq by Steve Soto
            October 2, 2006 - White House Throws Condi Under The Bus by Steve Soto
            October 2, 2006 - Nothing More Than "Simply Naughty Emails?" by Steve Soto
            October 2, 2006 - Condi Trots Out The "I Don't Remember" Defense Once Again by Steve Soto
            September 30, 2006 - Woodward Book Reveals Potholes For White House by Steve Soto
            September 27, 2006 - Open Thread - "Please Leave Now" Edition by Steve Soto
            September 26, 2006 - Declassified NIE Released, Undercutting Bush's Argument by Steve Soto
            September 26, 2006 - The Iraq Document Bush Is Hiding by Steve Soto
            September 26, 2006 - Madame "Mushroom Cloud" Challenges Clinton's Credibility by Steve Soto
            September 25, 2006 - Bush Helps Create "Jihadistan" by Steve Soto
            September 24, 2006 - Bush's Own NIE Gives Democrats The Fuel To Beat The GOP This Fall by Steve Soto
            September 16, 2006 - Security Was Secondary To Politics In Iraq by Steve Soto
            September 15, 2006 - Open Thread - GOP Rebellion Edition by Steve Soto
            September 9, 2006 - Bush Administration Doctors Iraqi Civilian Death Counts by Steve Soto
            September 8, 2006 - Blowing Smoke To Save One's ... by pessimist
            September 8, 2006 - No More "Speeches" To Nation Without Rebuttal, Mr. Bush by Steve Soto
            September 6, 2006 - The Book Bush Doesn't Want Anyone To Read Before November by Steve Soto
            September 3, 2006 - Thanks For Noticing The Obvious by Steve Soto
            September 3, 2006 - Playing The Game Well by Steve Soto
            September 2, 2006 - Iraqiranian Confusion by Duckman GR
            August 31, 2006 - Democrats Should Not Shy Away From This Debate by Steve Soto
            August 30, 2006 - Tell Me Another Lie Mr. President by Steve Soto
            August 28, 2006 - Avoiding The Scene Of His Crimes by Steve Soto
            August 25, 2006 - Here We Go Again by Steve Soto
            August 2, 2006 - 9/11 Commission Suspected Pentagon Deception by Steve Soto
            July 18, 2006 - Filling Ari's Shoes by pessimist
            July 7, 2006 - "Buff Guy" Visited White House At Least 8 Times . . In 2001 by Steve Soto
            July 7, 2006 - Who Inside The Administration Leaked The New York Subway Story? by Steve Soto
            July 2, 2006 - Bush's Spying On Domestic Calls Pre-Dated 9/11 by Steve Soto
            June 27, 2006 - Hypocrite-In-Chief Wants Another Crack At Privatization - So Does McCain by Steve Soto
            June 22, 2006 - White House "Stay The Course" Demand Dooms Vulnerable GOP Incumbents by Steve Soto
            June 21, 2006 - Mid-Morning Update: NSA Is Spying On Domestic Internet Traffic Without Warrants by Steve Soto
            June 20, 2006 - Re-Framing The Iraq Debate: Why Does The GOP Want Iraq To Be The 51st State? by Steve Soto
            June 7, 2006 - Afternoon Update - "Single Bullet" Arlen Caves Again by Steve Soto
            May 30, 2006 - Bush Foreign Policy Runs Aground - Ditched By NeoCon Supporters by Steve Soto
            May 28, 2006 - Murtha Says Haditha Worse Than Abu Ghraib; Alleges Cover-Up by Steve Soto
            May 27, 2006 - Jefferson Seizure Leads To Internal GOP Fissures by Steve Soto
            May 26, 2006 - Mid-Day Update: Italy Runs For The Doors In Iraq by Steve Soto
            May 26, 2006 - Open Thread – Staged “Mea Culpa” Edition by Steve Soto
            May 24, 2006 - Congress Upset About FBI On Capitol Hill? You Reap What You Sow by Steve Soto
            May 24, 2006 - It's Getting So Much Better All The Time! by pessimist
            May 22, 2006 - Egads! Bush Lied About Not Listening In On Phone Calls by Steve Soto
            May 18, 2006 - Mid-Day Update: Judy Miller Seeks Redemption by Steve Soto
            May 18, 2006 - Mike Hayden: Pot, Meet Kettle by Steve Soto
            May 16, 2006 - Bush Still Insists NSA Wiretapping Legal; Specter Caves Once Again by Steve Soto
            May 15, 2006 - Bush Ditched Additional Border Agent Positions Last Year by Steve Soto
            May 8, 2006 - Mid-Day Update by Steve Soto
            May 5, 2006 - Party On, Porter - Why Are You Leaving So Suddenly? by Steve Soto
            May 4, 2006 - Pot, Meet Kettle, Mr. Cheney by Steve Soto
            May 2, 2006 - Is Anyone Tracking All White House Visitors? by Steve Soto
            April 30, 2006 - Powell Puts Some Distance Between Himself And Bush by Steve Soto
            April 26, 2006 - Clearing The Pretty Party Tables by pessimist
            April 25, 2006 - Mid-Day Update: al-Zarqawi Emerges by Steve Soto
            April 24, 2006 - Was McCarthy's "Firing" Another Bush Administration Political Hit? by Steve Soto
            April 24, 2006 - Bush's Double Standard On Leaks by Steve Soto
            April 19, 2006 - Tweety Hearts Cheap Gas by Steve Soto
            April 19, 2006 - Stories I'd Like To See - Chapter One by Steve Soto
            April 18, 2006 - Carl Bernstein's Vanity Fair Piece Gives The GOP Too Much Credit by Steve Soto
            April 17, 2006 - State Department Warned White House About Niger Forgeries Before 2003 State of the Union Message by Steve Soto
            April 17, 2006 - Mid-Day Update: Bush Will Take The GOP Down With Him This Year by Steve Soto
            April 14, 2006 - Are Bush/Rove Ready To Throw Cheney Under The Bus On Plame? by Steve Soto
            April 14, 2006 - It's Time For Congress To Pull Tighter The Purse Strings For Iraq Money by Steve Soto
            April 13, 2006 - In INC Replay, Cheney Outsources Iran Intel-Gathering To Known Terrorist Group by Steve Soto
            April 11, 2006 - Bush Lied About Mobile Trailers For A Year, And Powell Now Fingers Cheney by Steve Soto
            April 10, 2006 - Despite Best Efforts At Spin, Bush Is Up To His Neck In Leak Mess by Steve Soto
            April 10, 2006 - Iraq/Iran Update by Steve Soto
            April 7, 2006 - Mid-Day Update: McCain The Hypocrite by Steve Soto
            April 7, 2006 - White House Doesn't Challenge Fitzgerald's Court Filing by Steve Soto
            April 7, 2006 - America Can't Afford An Untrustworthy President Working With A Rubber-Stamp Congress by Steve Soto
            April 6, 2006 - Condi Didn't Get The Memo; Nor Did Sensenbrenner by Steve Soto
            April 3, 2006 - Mid-Day Quick Hits by Steve Soto
            April 1, 2006 - Condi Should Enter The Right Contest - She'd Win! by pessimist
            March 28, 2006 - Mid-Day Quick Hits by Steve Soto
            March 27, 2006 - Mid-Day Quick Hits - Is Rove Leading Fitz To Cheney? by Steve Soto
            March 27, 2006 - Bush Downplayed Post-Saddam Concerns To Blair by Steve Soto
            March 24, 2006 - More Katrina Lies by Steve Soto
            March 22, 2006 - Display Your Faith, Hypocrite! by pessimist
            March 22, 2006 - I Love Helen Thomas! by pessimist
            March 21, 2006 - Oops, They Had Tapes And Transcripts? by Steve Soto
            March 21, 2006 - Bush Shows His Pinocchio Side by Steve Soto
            March 18, 2006 - Liar, Liar by pessimist
            March 16, 2006 - Despite Rice and Bolton's Stupidity, Administration Ready To Talk To Iran by Steve Soto
            March 15, 2006 - The Medium Is The Bu$hCo Messenger by pessimist
            March 13, 2006 - Mid Morning Quick Hits by Steve Soto
            March 8, 2006 - Iraqi Government Hiding Execution-Style Civilian Deaths by Steve Soto
            March 8, 2006 - More Abramoff Revelations Imminent by Steve Soto
            March 7, 2006 - Rummy's Alternate Universe On Display Again by Steve Soto
            March 5, 2006 - State Department Knew About Hamas' Strength Before Election by Steve Soto
            March 2, 2006 - Bush Was Told Before 2003 SOTU That Saddam Was Not An Imminent Threat To US by Steve Soto
            March 1, 2006 - Ramdom Thoughts And Updates by Steve Soto
            February 28, 2006 - Is There A Disconnect Between What The Public Now Knows, And What Troops Think About Iraq? by Steve Soto
            February 27, 2006 - Snowed In On Broke Strikeback Mountain by pessimist
            February 17, 2006 - Quick Hits - China Rushes To Undermine Any Iran Sanctions by Steve Soto
            February 10, 2006 - Surprise – Bush Knows Jack, Pretty Well It Turns Out by Steve Soto
            February 7, 2006 - Tuesday Night Shorts - GOP Starts Breaking Ranks Over NSA Mess by Steve Soto
            February 5, 2006 - Following The Same Losing Script, Dems Will Flop This Week On NSA Spying Hearings by Steve Soto
            February 1, 2006 - Double-Dealing Gas-A-Ho by pessimist
            January 31, 2006 - The Mis-State Of The Union by pessimist
            January 30, 2006 - Moving Ahead By Learning From The Recent Past by Steve Soto
            January 30, 2006 - Despite Media Cheerleading, Bush's Numbers Aren't Rebounding by Steve Soto
            January 29, 2006 - Bush's Lack Of Solutions And Failings Are His Own by Steve Soto
            January 27, 2006 - Abramoff Steered Tribes Away From Giving To Democrats by Steve Soto
            January 26, 2006 - Bush Doesn't Know Jack? by Steve Soto
            January 25, 2006 - Bush's State of the Union Message: More Lies And Empty Rhetoric Await Us by Steve Soto
            January 24, 2006 - Another Bush Lie: White House Was Told In Advance How Bad Katrina Would Be by Steve Soto
            January 21, 2006 - Abramoff? Who's He? by Steve Soto
            January 21, 2006 - Open Thread by Steve Soto
            January 17, 2006 - McClellan And Abu Gonzales Attack Gore By Lying About Clinton Administration And FISA by Steve Soto
            January 16, 2006 - Momentum? by Steve Soto
            January 14, 2006 - Open Thread - Lyin' To The People Edition by Steve Soto
            January 6, 2006 - Friday Night Quick Hits by Steve Soto
            January 6, 2006 - Lies, Damn Lies, And Red State Fairy Tales by pessimist
            January 2, 2006 - Abramoff Bloodletting May Start Tomorrow by Steve Soto
            January 1, 2006 - Did Bush's Justice Department Object To NSA Spying Program? by Steve Soto
            December 30, 2005 - Bush Wants To Investigate Who Leaked NSA Story Over A Year Ago by Steve Soto
            December 29, 2005 - Kurds Ready To Make Their Move? by Steve Soto
            December 27, 2005 - Busting The Retirement Balloon by pessimist
            December 26, 2005 - Post Editorial Page Smacks Down Bush On Global Warming by Steve Soto
            December 24, 2005 - What Legal Exposure Does A Company Face From Data Mining? by Steve Soto
            December 24, 2005 - Bush Broke the Law by Mary
            December 22, 2005 - Morning Update: Allawi Whines; Frist Bumbles; Fitz On The Hunt by Steve Soto
            December 21, 2005 - Abramoff Ready To Name Names by Steve Soto
            December 21, 2005 - Bush Lied About Osama Satellite Phone Leak by Steve Soto
            December 21, 2005 - ANWR Gamble Fails - GOP Can't Get 60 Votes To Stop Democrat Filibuster by Steve Soto
            December 17, 2005 - Mental Breakfast Of Champions by pessimist
            December 16, 2005 - There Goes The Glowing Purple Finger Coverage This Weekend by Steve Soto
            December 15, 2005 - So Much For That Congressional Authorization by Steve Soto
            December 13, 2005 - Gee, I Think McCain Might Be Mad About This by Steve Soto
            December 13, 2005 - Tuesday Merry-Go-Round: Ronnie Earle Links Up With Duke Cunningham? by Steve Soto
            December 9, 2005 - Torture Are U.S. by Mary
            December 8, 2005 - Condi Continues The "All Bark, No Bite" Tour by Steve Soto
            December 8, 2005 - Bush, Speaking To Empty Chairs, Tries To Talk Rosy About Iraq And The Economy by Steve Soto
            December 6, 2005 - Who You Talkin’ To, Bitch? by paradox
            December 5, 2005 - Rummy The Pollster by Steve Soto
            December 5, 2005 - Man Who Wanted To Bomb Al-Jazeera "Disturbed" About Pentagon Propaganda Campaign by Steve Soto
            November 30, 2005 - No Measurable Benchmarks In Bush Iraq Strategy by Steve Soto
            November 30, 2005 - The Stupidity Game by larre
            November 30, 2005 - Pentagon Buying Good News Coverage From Iraqi Media by Steve Soto
            November 28, 2005 - Why The Bush White House Likes Woodward by Steve Soto
            November 21, 2005 - See Dick Lie (Again, and Again, and Again....) by Steve Soto
            November 20, 2005 - Bush Now Backing Away From Pushback Strategy, Praises Murtha by Steve Soto
            November 20, 2005 - Rummy And Bush Knew "Curveball" Had Lied Before The War by Steve Soto
            November 18, 2005 - Hadley Refuses To Directly Deny That He Was Woodward's Source by Steve Soto
            November 17, 2005 - White House Promises "Sustained Attack" Against Democrats Challenging Iraq Lies by Steve Soto
            November 17, 2005 - People Who Live In Glass Houses..... by Steve Soto
            November 15, 2005 - If White House Wants A Firefight On Its Credibility, Democrats Should Give Them One by Steve Soto
            November 15, 2005 - Tuesday Morning Update by Steve Soto
            November 14, 2005 - Monday Update by Steve Soto
            November 13, 2005 - While Hadley Keeps At The "We Didn't Lie" Defense, Pat Roberts Will Be More Skeptical Next Time by Steve Soto
            November 11, 2005 - Bush Continues The "Lying Bastards" Campaign On Veteran's Day by Steve Soto
            November 10, 2005 - Newsweek: Both CIA and DIA Doubted Saddam-Al Qaeda Cooperation Claims Months Before War by Steve Soto
            November 8, 2005 - Catastrophic Conservatism by larre
            November 8, 2005 - Push for the truth by Duckman GR
            November 5, 2005 - The Everyone Believed Saddam Had an Active WMD Program Canard by Mary
            November 2, 2005 - Bush = Failure by Steve Soto
            October 30, 2005 - As Bush Is Trapped By Ethics, His Base Will Trap Him by Steve Soto
            October 28, 2005 - A Note for Steve Soto by larre
            October 13, 2005 - AN OPEN LETTER TO RICHARD COHEN, HIS READERS, AND HIS EMPLOYER by larre
            October 9, 2005 - Hey Look! It's Joe Wilson! by pessimist
            October 8, 2005 - STOP THE PRESSES! by pessimist
            October 7, 2005 - Tea For The Tillman by pessimist
            October 7, 2005 - The Wolf Patrolling The Chicken Ranch by pessimist
            October 7, 2005 - Terror Warning Withheld Until Yesterday By Washington by Steve Soto
            October 7, 2005 - Dodging The Lightning Bolts by pessimist
            September 25, 2005 - Voting The Plough Shares by pessimist
            September 21, 2005 - Deja Vu All Over Again by pessimist
            September 18, 2005 - Bush Administration Hires Winston Smith to Work at the Ministry of Truth by Mary
            September 13, 2005 - Media Tries To Spin GOP Lies On Katrina Into A Poll Bump For Bush by Steve Soto
            September 13, 2005 - Only The Echoes Of His Beautiful Mind by pessimist
            September 6, 2005 - Bush Will Investigate Himself Over Katrina Negligence by Steve Soto
            September 2, 2005 - Is Tenet About To Blow The Lid Off 9/11? by Steve Soto
            September 1, 2005 - The "Nobody Could Have Anticipated" Defense Returns by Steve Soto
            August 29, 2005 - Praising Arizona by pessimist
            August 22, 2005 - Bolton And Bush Lose Face Over Iran Nuke Claims by Steve Soto
            August 12, 2005 - When It's Time To Shoot The Horse by pessimist
            August 11, 2005 - Raw Story Claims Pat Roberts Engaged In White House Cover-Up Over Iraq WMDs And Plame by Steve Soto
            August 6, 2005 - The Atomic Lesson by larre
            August 4, 2005 - This Dog Hunts by pessimist
            August 3, 2005 - The Premature End of That Global Struggle Thingie by Steve Soto
            July 27, 2005 - Bush Walks Away From War On Terror - Now Wants To Fight A "Struggle" Against Extremism by Steve Soto
            July 18, 2005 - White House's Iraq Myths Continue To Fall By The Wayside by Steve Soto
            July 16, 2005 - Saturday Rove-Plame Update by Steve Soto
            July 15, 2005 - Rove Now Claims It Was Novak Who Told Him About Plame by Steve Soto
            July 13, 2005 - Bush's Honesty Rating Drops 9 Points Since January, Down To Only 41% by Steve Soto
            July 12, 2005 - As Bush Clams Up On Rove, Smears Against Wilson's Credibility Weren't Supported By Agency by Steve Soto
            July 11, 2005 - White House Media Corps Goes On Attack Against McClellan Today by Steve Soto
            July 8, 2005 - Once "MemoGate" Blew Up, Did CBS News Ever Run Its Story On The Bush/Niger Yellowcake Con? by Steve Soto
            July 5, 2005 - Pro-Impeachment Group and Website Hit The Ground Running by Steve Soto
            June 30, 2005 - Shall We Use A New Rope? by pessimist
            June 30, 2005 - Zogby Says 42% Support Bush's Impeachment If He Lied About Iraq by Steve Soto
            June 23, 2005 - Karl Rove - king of the shills by eriposte
            June 21, 2005 - With The Fighting Over For Decades, Bush Now Feels Safe Going To Vietnam by Steve Soto
            June 18, 2005 - The Downing Street Conspiracy by Marie
            June 17, 2005 - Gonzales and McCallum Wanted Only $6 Billion From Big Tobacco, Not $10 Billion by Steve Soto
            June 14, 2005 - Bonfires By the Vanities by larre
            June 13, 2005 - 46% In New Pew Center Poll Say Bring Troops Home As Soon As Possible by Steve Soto
            June 12, 2005 - Another Bush Lie - Success In The War On Terror by Steve Soto
            June 12, 2005 - The Worm Turns - New British Cabinet Document Leaked, And The Post Covers The DSM by Steve Soto
            June 11, 2005 - Here Comes The Sun by pessimist
            June 11, 2005 - Critical Issues For Conyers To Explore At Next Week's DSM Hearing by Steve Soto
            June 10, 2005 - Even If Robin Wright Ignores It, White House Is Readying The Next Diversion Campaigns Into Iran And Syria by Steve Soto
            June 8, 2005 - Why Is The White House Stonewalling GOP Senators On Boeing Air Tanker Lease Deal? by Steve Soto
            June 6, 2005 - Monday Afternoon Grab Bag by Steve Soto
            June 3, 2005 - Bush Waits Until Late Friday News Dump To Admit Some Koran "Mishandling" by Steve Soto
            May 31, 2005 - Would You Buy A Used Car From Dick Cheney? by Steve Soto
            May 28, 2005 - Condi Plays The Race Card In Trashing Founding Fathers To Prop Up Iraqis by Steve Soto
            May 26, 2005 - After Laura Leaves Town, Mubarak Thugs Attack Pro-Democracy Demonstrators Including Women by Steve Soto
            May 25, 2005 - Bush Administration Has Known About Koran Desecration Stories Since Early 2002 by Steve Soto
            May 23, 2005 - Karzai Now Says Newsweek Wasn't The Cause Of The Riots - And Neal Figures Out The Rove Media Playbook by Steve Soto
            May 22, 2005 - Washington Post Uses Downing Street Memo To Undercut Bush Claims That He Was Victim Of Bad WMD Intelligence by Steve Soto
            May 20, 2005 - More Proof That Scotty Lied Earlier In The Week by Steve Soto
            May 18, 2005 - Chuck Schumer Nails Mullah Frist With A Gross Inconsistency IN GOP's Filibuster Attack by Steve Soto
            May 17, 2005 - McClellan Lied At Press Gaggle Yesterday by Steve Soto
            May 17, 2005 - White House And Condi's Lies About Newsweek Story by Steve Soto
            May 15, 2005 - While Rove Misdirects Once Again, Krugman Stays On The Real Issues by Steve Soto
            May 14, 2005 - I'm Impressed With Bu$hCo'$ Military Impressment Method - NOT! by pessimist
            May 14, 2005 - Harris Poll Shows That Voters Don't Trust Bush's Motives On Social Security by Steve Soto
            May 10, 2005 - Tuesday Morning Quick Hits by Steve Soto
            May 8, 2005 - Sunday Night Quick Hits by Steve Soto
            May 2, 2005 - Italians Debunk US Version Of Sgrena Car Attack - "Stress" and "Inexperience" Of Our Troops Cited. by Steve Soto
            May 2, 2005 - Secret Blair Cabinet Memo: Bush Decided To Invade Iraq In Mid-2002 by Steve Soto
            April 30, 2005 - Fooled Him Once, Shame On Saddam! Fooled Him Twice, ... by pessimist
            April 25, 2005 - Secret Service Security Records On Jeff Gannon Cause Even More Questions by Steve Soto
            April 17, 2005 - The Candle In The Conservative Wind by pessimist
            April 15, 2005 - Armstrong Williams Report Shows Spellings And Bush Lied by Steve Soto
            April 15, 2005 - Education Secretary Spellings Blames Armstrong Williams Propaganda Fiasco All on Her Predecessor by Steve Soto
            April 11, 2005 - Blindsided By A Bu$hWacker At Tax Collection Gulch by pessimist
            April 11, 2005 - Tax Reform Means Everything Is On The Table by Steve Soto
            April 11, 2005 - Monday Morning Quick Hits by Steve Soto
            April 6, 2005 - Gallup Says Bush Failing on Social Security - 50% Now Think Bush Lied About Iraq by Steve Soto
            March 24, 2005 - While Bush Ignores Medicare, Right Wingers Want Even More Political Hari Kari on Private Accounts by Steve Soto
            March 23, 2005 - Spotting Lies by larre
            March 10, 2005 - Italian Government, In Essence, Says Pentagon Is Lying About Giuliani Sgrena Attack by Steve Soto
            March 9, 2005 - Mid-Day Quick Hits by Steve Soto
            February 19, 2005 - Today's Gannon/Guckert Update by Steve Soto
            February 17, 2005 - With War On Terror Failing, At Least Bush Has His Boys Around Him by Steve Soto
            February 7, 2005 - The Bush Budget Reflects The GOP's True Moral Values - Or Lack Of Them by Steve Soto
            February 4, 2005 - In An Alleged Booming Economy, January Jobs Reports Misses Expectations Again by Steve Soto
            February 3, 2005 - Everyday Iraqi Actually A Right-Wing Supported Associate of Allawi and Chalabi by Steve Soto
            February 2, 2005 - Another Bush State of the Union, Another Set Of Lies by Steve Soto
            January 24, 2005 - Zogby: No Support For Iran Attack - But 31% Of Americans Ashamed To Have Bush President by Steve Soto
            January 21, 2005 - George Lakoff Decodes Inaugural Speech To Be All About Money by Steve Soto
            January 21, 2005 - Despite Contrived Images Yesterday, Bush Is On Shaky Political Ground by Steve Soto
            January 19, 2005 - Bush Walks Away From Pushing Gay Marriage Ban by Steve Soto
            January 17, 2005 - Pentagon Pushes Back Against Hersh Story on Iran - Without Denying It by Steve Soto
            January 5, 2005 - Unproven Missile Defense Already Obsolete by soccerdad
            December 30, 2004 - Neocons Firmly in Charge by soccerdad
            December 27, 2004 - Freedom And Liberty? For Whom? by pessimist
            December 20, 2004 - Scamming Ponzi's Pyramid Scheme by pessimist
            December 18, 2004 - The Military and Intelligence by soccerdad
            December 5, 2004 - We Got It Wrong About Bu$h by pessimist
            December 3, 2004 - Where Are The Jobs Bush Promised? by Steve Soto
            December 2, 2004 - War Is An Oil Racket by pessimist
            November 24, 2004 - Science Is Good For Intelligence, But "Junk" When Talking About The Environment by Steve Soto
            November 19, 2004 - Shades of Chalabi - Powell Uses Intelligence From Walk-In Source On Iran by Steve Soto
            November 10, 2004 - Remember When Ashcroft Got In? by Steve Soto
            November 7, 2004 - Provisional Open Thread by rayman
            October 28, 2004 - FBI Launches Investigation Of Bush Administration Halliburton Contracting by Steve Soto
            October 27, 2004 - Despite The White House Rhetoric, US About To Lose Control Of Ramadi by Steve Soto
            October 27, 2004 - Bush: Open Mouth, Insert Foot by Steve Soto
            October 27, 2004 - Bush Ignoring Media On Iraq Explosives Disappearance by Steve Soto
            October 25, 2004 - Bush Administration WILL Push Iraq/Afghan Costs Well Over $200 Billion - After The Election by Steve Soto
            October 25, 2004 - The Middle Class Isn't Better Off Than It Was Four Years Ago by Steve Soto
            October 25, 2004 - Explosives are no matter by Duckman GR
            October 23, 2004 - No Evidence Found Of Election-Related Terrorist Attack by Steve Soto
            October 23, 2004 - Bush And Rummy DID Let Bin Laden Get Away At Tora Bora by Steve Soto
            October 21, 2004 - Bush's Cult by Steve Soto
            October 21, 2004 - Beware Of The Saturday Trip To Crawford by Steve Soto
            October 17, 2004 - Two Stories More Important In This Election Than The Mary Cheney NonStory by Steve Soto
            October 15, 2004 - International Experts Say Bush Is Wrong About Afghan Successes by Steve Soto
            October 15, 2004 - Slate Shines a Light on Bush's Big Lie by Mary
            October 10, 2004 - Kerry Campaign Notes Bush's Latest Reason (#24) For Invading Iraq by Steve Soto
            October 8, 2004 - One Who Would Know by pessimist
            October 7, 2004 - Bush Passed Up An Offer For French Assistance by Steve Soto
            October 7, 2004 - It's The WMDs, No Wait, It's The Oil For Food Program... by Steve Soto
            October 7, 2004 - As Kerry Takes Lead In Another National Poll, Bush/Cheney Show Signs of Delusion And Desperation by Steve Soto
            October 7, 2004 - The Cheney Translator by Duckman GR
            October 7, 2004 - Duelfer Report Finds No WMD Threat by Steve Soto
            October 6, 2004 - Newsweek Says That Cheney Is Re-Writing History by Steve Soto
            October 6, 2004 - Did Bremer Ask For More Troops, And Did The White House Say No? by Steve Soto
            October 6, 2004 - As Final Iraq Survey Group Report Undercuts White House Again, Bush Continues To Lose Grip by Steve Soto
            October 5, 2004 - Bush support among Evangelicals by soccerdad
            October 5, 2004 - Rummy Now Accepts CIA Assessments As Accurate? by Steve Soto
            October 4, 2004 - Bush's Iraqi Deception by Mary
            October 1, 2004 - Powell Ignores Truth About Tora Bora by Steve Soto
            September 29, 2004 - Dick Cheney, Flip-Flopper by Steve Soto
            September 29, 2004 - Bush Hasn't Exactly Been As Consistent On Iraq As He Claims by Steve Soto
            September 28, 2004 - Bush Administration At War With Itself Over Iraq by Steve Soto
            September 28, 2004 - Despite GOP Firestorm, Majority Feel CBS Made "Honest Mistake" On Memos by Steve Soto
            September 27, 2004 - Bush Lies About How Things Are Going In Iraq While His Administration Confronts Reality by Steve Soto
            September 22, 2004 - Clueless In New York by Steve Soto
            September 20, 2004 - Novak Says That Bush Will Cut And Run In 2005 by Steve Soto
            September 20, 2004 - GOP Senators Undercut Bush Happy Talk On Iraq At Interesting Time by Steve Soto
            September 16, 2004 - Now It's The CIA That Says Civil War Is Possible In Iraq By End Of 2005 by Steve Soto
            September 14, 2004 - Kerry Needs To Put Iraq Back Into The Campaign by Steve Soto
            September 14, 2004 - Who's Really Pathetic Now, Mr. Bush? by Steve Soto
            September 13, 2004 - Uncle Jester by pessimist
            September 10, 2004 - If Bush Is A Liberator, What About Sudan? by Steve Soto
            September 9, 2004 - Bush's Iraq Survey Group Final Report: No WMDs by Steve Soto
            September 8, 2004 - Boston Globe: Bush Broke Written Guard Commitments by Steve Soto
            September 8, 2004 - Bush Flip-Flops On Intelligence Czar Powers by Steve Soto
            September 7, 2004 - Bush Breaks The Bank With His Budget Deficits by Steve Soto
            September 5, 2004 - The Truth That Dares Not Speak Its Name by larre
            September 3, 2004 - The Owner-Serf Society by larre
            September 2, 2004 - The Post Does A Page One On The GOP Lies About Kerry by Steve Soto
            September 1, 2004 - Convention Notes: The Usual GOP Liars, Hypocrites, And Flip-Floppers by Steve Soto
            August 31, 2004 - Those old protest songs still make sense by Duckman GR
            August 28, 2004 - The Duke of Deception by larre
            August 25, 2004 - More Swifty Lies Debunked: There Goes The Cambodia Smear by Steve Soto
            August 25, 2004 - Bush Lied About His Military Record by Steve Soto
            August 21, 2004 - Spike the Swift Story. It is Hogwash by larre
            August 20, 2004 - Oops, Florida GOP Is Caught Promoting Swifties Campaign by Steve Soto
            August 16, 2004 - Has The Media Finally Caught Up To Bush's "Stepford" Crowds? by Steve Soto
            August 10, 2004 - It's the Coverup, Not the Crime by larre
            August 8, 2004 - Bush Has Known About Al Qaeda East Coast Surveillance Since At Least March 2003 by Steve Soto
            August 5, 2004 - Saudi Royal Family Showers Bush With Expensive Gifts by Steve Soto
            August 5, 2004 - That "Backdoor Draft": What's Bush Have In Store for America? by larre
            August 5, 2004 - McCain Wants Bush To Condemn Kerry Service Smears - Bush Declines by Steve Soto
            August 5, 2004 - GOP Begins Attempt To Smear Kerry's War Record With Usual Suspects by Steve Soto
            August 3, 2004 - More On The Phony Terror Alert by Steve Soto
            August 2, 2004 - George "Armstrong Custer" Bush by soccerdad
            August 1, 2004 - Bush and the nuclear threat by soccerdad
            July 19, 2004 - As Blair Loses Trust Of Britons, Cleland Says Bush "Flat Out Lied" by Steve Soto
            July 18, 2004 - While We Are Tied Down In Iraq, True Supporters Of 9/11 Get Away With It by Steve Soto
            July 15, 2004 - Powell's Own Staff Discredited The "Evidence" Before His Speech by Steve Soto
            July 10, 2004 - Guess Whose Guard Records Have Been "Destroyed" - Seven Years Ago by Steve Soto
            July 9, 2004 - Bush Administration's Miserable Record On Securing WMD In Iraq by Mary
            July 8, 2004 - Senator Saxby Chambliss lies about the Intelligence Failures by Mary
            July 6, 2004 - 9/11 Commission Once Again Slaps Down Cheney Claim Of Saddam-Al Qaeda Link by Steve Soto
            July 5, 2004 - The Saddam Statue Con Job by Steve Soto
            July 2, 2004 - Another Iraqi WMD Find Turns Up Empty by Steve Soto
            July 2, 2004 - Saddam Quickly Faces Trial With No Laws In Place For Months by Steve Soto
            June 22, 2004 - Quality and Quantity of Bush Job Creation In Doubt by Steve Soto
            June 22, 2004 - Recent Bush/Cheney Claims On Saddam-Al Qaeda Link Fall Apart Once Again Under Scrutiny by Steve Soto
            June 19, 2004 - 9/11 Commission Calls Cheney's Bluff - Asks Him To Put Up Or Shut Up on Saddam/Al Qaeda Claims by Steve Soto
            June 18, 2004 - Cheney, Still Without Proof Of A Saddam-Al Qaeda Connection, Blames The Media by Steve Soto
            June 17, 2004 - You Cap It by Steve Soto
            June 16, 2004 - Business In-Justice, Texas Style by Duckman GR
            June 16, 2004 - Bush Can't Even Sell His Medicare Drug Fiasco Without A Script by Steve Soto
            June 15, 2004 - 55% Of Iraqis Would Feel Safer If We Left by Steve Soto
            June 15, 2004 - Expect More Gas Price Reductions, Like Magic? by Steve Soto
            June 9, 2004 - After Denying It For Three Years, Bush Administration Quietly Admits Allowing Saudi Flight To Leave Country Post-9/11 by Steve Soto
            June 4, 2004 - In Search Of ... Competence by pessimist
            June 3, 2004 - Open Thread - Kerry Slams Bush Misuse of Military, GOP Responds With Usual Moronic Drivel by Steve Soto
            June 1, 2004 - Bush: The Failed Delegator And Manager by Steve Soto
            May 26, 2004 - Consumer Confidence Slipping by Steve Soto
            May 26, 2004 - GOP Myths About Cause of Our Gas Shortage by Steve Soto
            May 25, 2004 - Bad News For Bush? Time For Another Terror Warning by Steve Soto
            May 24, 2004 - Bush's BS Speech Tonight On Hope And Tragedy by Steve Soto
            May 23, 2004 - Time For General Kimmitt To Be Reassigned - Wedding Video Surfaces by Steve Soto
            May 23, 2004 - The Neocon Circle Closes by Mary
            May 22, 2004 - Lugar Says Bush Failing While Military Still Denies Bombing A Wedding by Steve Soto
            May 22, 2004 - Is The Chalabi Downfall The Revenge Of The Spooks? by Steve Soto
            May 22, 2004 - Iraqis Say Saddam's Family, Not Al-Zaqawi, Are Responsible For Nick Berg's Killing by Steve Soto
            May 20, 2004 - Chalabi's Corruption Catches Up To Him by Steve Soto
            May 20, 2004 - As We Unite Iraqis Against Us, White House Credibility Falls Over Abuse Scandal by Steve Soto
            May 16, 2004 - As The Lies Pile Up Over Iraqi Prisoner Abuses, Rummy And Cambone Become Short-Timers by Steve Soto
            May 13, 2004 - Berg's Family Has Documentation Of Son's Detention By US Forces by Steve Soto
            May 6, 2004 - The Dysfunction Continues by Steve Soto
            May 5, 2004 - Another Example Of The Hands-Off Presidency by Steve Soto
            May 5, 2004 - Campaigning in Ohio by Mary
            April 30, 2004 - Mission Accomplished - One Year Later by Steve Soto
            April 29, 2004 - Bremer Didn't Think Much Of Bush's Attention Towards Terrorism Either by Steve Soto
            April 29, 2004 - Kerry Tags Bush For Putting Industry Ahead Of Protecting Chemical Plant And Ports From Terrorism by Steve Soto
            April 28, 2004 - The Bush-Cheney Roadshow Hits the Big Time by Mary
            April 28, 2004 - Center For American Progress Launches Truth Corps Data Base by Steve Soto
            April 27, 2004 - Westminster College Extends Invite To Kerry For Response to Cheney Attack Speech by Steve Soto
            April 27, 2004 - Kerry's Need To Deal With The Attack Campaign by Steve Soto
            April 26, 2004 - Rough Ridin' To The Rescue - Mission, That Is by pessimist
            April 26, 2004 - Kerry Finally Begins To Fight Back Against The Bush Military Record Smears - Challenges Bush To Release All His Guard Records by Steve Soto
            April 26, 2004 - Israelis Drag Out "Saddam Had WMD Drones" Story Once Again by Steve Soto
            April 26, 2004 - Kerry's Challenge In Showing He Is Different From Bush On Foreign Policy by Steve Soto
            April 20, 2004 - Unconvinced Conservatives by pessimist
            April 19, 2004 - Powell And White House Defenses To Woodward Allegations Fall Apart by Steve Soto
            April 19, 2004 - Kerry Drills Bush Over Woodward's Claim Of A Saudi Fix On Gas Prices by Steve Soto
            April 18, 2004 - Why Aren't The "60 Minutes" Revelations Getting Attention Yet? by Steve Soto
            April 16, 2004 - Woodward's Book Release Will Chill Next Bush Cabinet Meeting by Steve Soto
            April 15, 2004 - Just Who Exactly Presented The August 6, 2001 PDB To Bush? by Steve Soto
            April 13, 2004 - Bush Withheld Recent Al Qaeda Threat Info From His Senior Executives by Steve Soto
            April 12, 2004 - Time Is Now For Kerry To Talk About Terrorism And National Security by Steve Soto
            April 10, 2004 - Rice's Testimony Begins To Unravel by Steve Soto
            April 8, 2004 - Administration May Now Declassify the August 6, 2001 PDB After All by Steve Soto
            April 8, 2004 - Saudi Embassy Financed Flight School Training For Saudi Nationals In July-August 2001 by Steve Soto
            April 8, 2004 - Initial Media Reactions To Condi by Steve Soto
            April 8, 2004 - Comments on Rice's Testimony by Steve Soto
            April 8, 2004 - John Kerry's Advice to Condi by Mary
            April 7, 2004 - Bush Counter-Terrorism Office Suffers High Turnover Due To Fixation On Iraq, Lack of Attention to Real Threats by Steve Soto
            April 7, 2004 - Bush's Slipstream by Mary
            April 6, 2004 - The Miserable Failure That Is Colin Powell by Steve Soto
            April 6, 2004 - Another Bush Hypocrisy: He Attacks Kerry's Credibility On Taxes And Spending by Steve Soto
            April 5, 2004 - Bush Says Once Again He Had No Indication Of Al Qaeda Strike With Aircraft At Our Buildings by Steve Soto
            April 5, 2004 - Bush Is AWOL On His Own Agenda by Steve Soto
            April 4, 2004 - Death Count Of US Troops Now Up To As Many As Ten by Steve Soto
            April 4, 2004 - Three More US Soldiers Die Today - Now Over 600 by Steve Soto
            April 4, 2004 - Are Both The Agency and Powell Backing Clarke And Fingering The PNAC Cabal For 9/11 And Iraq Intel Problems? by Steve Soto
            April 4, 2004 - Questions for Bush & Cheney by Mary
            April 3, 2004 - More On Powell's CYA Against the CIA Yesterday by Steve Soto
            April 3, 2004 - Vast Majority Of Yesterday's Job Growth Came From Full-Time Unemployed Giving Up And Taking Part Time Jobs by Steve Soto
            April 2, 2004 - Plame Investigators May Have Evidence Of White House Lying To FBI by Steve Soto
            March 26, 2004 - White House Says Condi Can Speak Again, But Not Under Oath by Steve Soto
            March 25, 2004 - Lis Bumiller Catches Condi Contradicting Cheney by Steve Soto
            March 25, 2004 - Medicare Actuary Testifies He Was Ordered To Withhold Higher Drug Bill Cost Figures From Congress by Steve Soto
            March 23, 2004 - Powell and Rummy Trot Out A Pathetic Misdirection Defense As Well by Steve Soto
            March 23, 2004 - Bush Lies Once Again About Kerry And Taxes by Steve Soto
            March 23, 2004 - Now Even The NYT Goes On The Hunt In The Clarke Story by Steve Soto
            March 22, 2004 - Are The Pakistanis Aiding Al Qaeda? by Steve Soto
            March 22, 2004 - Clarke Book and Upcoming 9/11 Hearings Prompting New Look At Bush Claims by Steve Soto
            March 22, 2004 - More On Clarke by Steve Soto
            March 21, 2004 - This Week's Bush Whopper - He Plans To Criticize Kerry Over Fiscal Responsibility by Steve Soto
            March 21, 2004 - Mike Isikoff and Newsweek Go To Bat Against Clarke For The White House by Steve Soto
            March 21, 2004 - Afghanistan On The Brink? by Steve Soto
            March 21, 2004 - Why Richard Clarke Will Do Damage To Bush by Steve Soto
            March 20, 2004 - Making The Grade - Or Not by pessimist
            March 20, 2004 - Forget Getting Al Qaeda's Number Two - Musharraf Is Gaming Us by Steve Soto
            March 20, 2004 - Clinton Administration Finally Gets To Set The Record Straight This Week At 9/11 Commission by Steve Soto
            March 18, 2004 - Poland Now Says It Was "Misled" Over Iraq WMDs Claims by Steve Soto
            March 13, 2004 - Another Story On GOP Concerns With Administration Failings, Which Misses The Point by Steve Soto
            March 12, 2004 - Media Shows Signs Of Doing Its Job This Time by Steve Soto
            March 10, 2004 - Bush Uses Lincoln Bedroom As Perk Like Clinton by Steve Soto
            March 10, 2004 - White House Press Corps Bludgeons McClellan Over Bush 9/11 Testimony by Steve Soto
            March 9, 2004 - George Tenet Continues In A State Of Denial by Steve Soto
            March 9, 2004 - There He Goes Again: Bush Lies About Kerry's Record On Intelligence Support by Steve Soto
            March 8, 2004 - Bush Welcomes Willie Horton Ad Creator To Anti-Kerry Campaign by Steve Soto
            March 7, 2004 - McCain Pressures White House Again Over Intelligence Commission Subpoena Power by Steve Soto
            March 6, 2004 - John McCain Sponsors ANOTHER Investigation into the Bush Administration by Mary
            March 5, 2004 - How The Plame Investigation Ruined The White House's Day Today by Steve Soto
            March 4, 2004 - Why Is McCain Demanding More Accountability on Iraq WMD Commission Than Chuck Robb? by Steve Soto
            March 1, 2004 - Senate And House GOP Willing To Scale Back The Bush Tax Cuts by Steve Soto
            February 28, 2004 - Bush And The RNC Lie About Kerry's Alleged Defense Cuts by Steve Soto
            February 28, 2004 - Bush Tax Package Has Led To Average Refund Increases Of Less Than $100 by Steve Soto
            February 26, 2004 - Unemployment Claims Up, Durable Goods Orders Down - 760,000 Jobless Lose Benefits by Steve Soto
            February 24, 2004 - Consumer Confidence Plummets - Time For Constitutional Ban On Gay Marriage by Steve Soto
            February 19, 2004 - Reagan Navy Secretary Tags Bush Over Guard, Iraq by Steve Soto
            February 18, 2004 - Bush Formally Backs Away From Job Estimate - "I'm Not A Statistician" by Steve Soto
            February 14, 2004 - Bush: I've got good news... by dj moonbat
            February 13, 2004 - Consumer Confidence Plunges - Time To Challenge Bush's (Lack Of) Credibility On Economy Also by Steve Soto
            February 12, 2004 - Rove Starts The Misdirection Ploy With Kerry Infidelity Rumor by Steve Soto
            February 12, 2004 - Bush National Guard Story Begins To Spin Away From White House Control by Steve Soto
            February 12, 2004 - CIA Plants An Interesting Story by Steve Soto
            February 11, 2004 - Powell's Blood Pressure Going Up by Steve Soto
            February 11, 2004 - Bush's Role In Khan's Proliferation Activities by Steve Soto
            February 10, 2004 - Rummy AWOL When 45-Minute Claim Made? by Steve Soto
            February 10, 2004 - Bush's Detached From Reality Claim On Jobs This Year by Steve Soto
            February 7, 2004 - Cheney Picked The Iraqi WMD Commission Membership by Steve Soto
            February 6, 2004 - Bush Names Most Of Iraq WMD Commission by Steve Soto
            February 5, 2004 - How Secure Is Tenet? by Steve Soto
            February 5, 2004 - McCain To Provide Cover For Bush? by Steve Soto
            February 5, 2004 - Tenet: CIA Never Said Iraq Was An Imminent Threat by Steve Soto
            February 4, 2004 - Bush's Backtracks, His National Guard Lame Defenses, And Blair's New WMD Problems by Steve Soto
            February 3, 2004 - Another 117,000 Planned Layoffs In January by Steve Soto
            February 2, 2004 - Bush's "Dead On Arrival" Budget by Steve Soto
            February 1, 2004 - Bush Agrees To Independent Inquiry On His WMD Lies - Big Deal by Steve Soto
            February 1, 2004 - White House Now Wants To Blame Congress For Medicare Drug Bill Deceit by Steve Soto
            February 1, 2004 - Why Bush's "Blame The CIA" Defense Implicates The White House by Steve Soto
            January 31, 2004 - Bush Supposedly Now Agrees To Independent WMD Intel Inquiry - We'll See by Steve Soto
            January 30, 2004 - How The Medicare Drug Bill Cost Increase Can Help Dems by Steve Soto
            January 28, 2004 - Listing of Ignored WMD Warnings And Neglected Intelligence by Steve Soto
            January 28, 2004 - As Bush Tries To Walk Away From WMD Rationale, Watch The Spooks by Steve Soto
            January 26, 2004 - CBO's Estimate of the Bush Fiscal Train Wreck - Greenspan About To Yell "Fire" by Steve Soto
            January 23, 2004 - David Kay Leaves Iraq WMD Search - Sees No Sign Of Iraqi WMD Production Since '91 by Steve Soto
            January 23, 2004 - It's Time To Hold Media Accountable For Bush "Deserter" Coverup by Steve Soto
            January 22, 2004 - CNN: Plame Investigation Goes To Federal Grand Jury by Steve Soto
            January 18, 2004 - Latest CBS News/New York Times Poll Shows Problems For Bush Over Iraq and Domestic Issues by Steve Soto
            January 16, 2004 - Guess Who Had Major Role In Bush Space Initiative? by Steve Soto
            January 13, 2004 - Another Bush Claim On Iraq Debunked - Hussein Warned Followers Away From Al Qaeda by Steve Soto
            January 13, 2004 - The Space Initiative And Other Rove Misdirection Plays by Steve Soto
            January 13, 2004 - Bush Retaliation Against O�Neill: Treasury Chief Counsel Approved Documents Release by Steve Soto
            January 12, 2004 - Army War College Study Trashes Bush and PNAC War on Terror by Steve Soto
            January 11, 2004 - Why The O'Neill Revelations Matter by Steve Soto
            January 10, 2004 - Paul O'Neill Confirms Your Worst Fears About Bush Tomorrow On "60 Minutes" by Steve Soto
            January 7, 2004 - New Report Asserts Bush "Systematically Misrepresented" Iraq WMD Threat To Sell War by Steve Soto
            January 7, 2004 - Iraq WMD Program Existed Only On Paper by Steve Soto
            January 5, 2004 - As Bush Walks Away From Iraq, Remind Voters Of Last Year's SOTU by Steve Soto
            December 30, 2003 - Ashcroft Recuses Himself From Valerie Plame Investigation by Steve Soto
            December 19, 2003 - Our Friend Saddam by Steve Soto
            December 18, 2003 - After Nine Months, Iraq WMD Search Flops - Kay Is Leaving by Steve Soto
            December 16, 2003 - Food For Thought: Saddam's Capture by Steve Soto
            December 15, 2003 - Overconfidence Sets In At 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue by Steve Soto
            December 12, 2003 - Troops Used In Baghdad Turkey Day Stunt Were PreSelected by Steve Soto
            December 9, 2003 - Pentagon Ensures That Bush Campaign Contributors Have No Competitors For Iraqi Business by Steve Soto
            December 7, 2003 - Bin Laden Ramps Up In Iraq by Steve Soto
            December 5, 2003 - White House Tries Again, and Fails Again, to Spin Baghdad Thanksgiving/Air Force One Story by Steve Soto
            December 4, 2003 - Kurtz Reports: Two More Fallacies About Baghdad Trip by Steve Soto
            December 1, 2003 - Show us the Bodies by paradox
            November 27, 2003 - You Cap It by Steve Soto
            November 27, 2003 - White House Scams Media Again Over Bush Surprise Trip to Baghdad by Steve Soto
            November 27, 2003 - Political Pawns In Iraq by Steve Soto
            November 17, 2003 - More on Bush, Polls and 2004 by Steve Soto
            November 17, 2003 - Another Lie in Iraq War Justification Exposed by Steve Soto
            November 17, 2003 - Condi's Smear Job Against GOP Congressman by Steve Soto
            November 16, 2003 - Exposing the Bush/GOP Energy and Medicare Drug Bill Shams by Steve Soto
            November 13, 2003 - CIA, White House Actions Indicate We're Losing Our Grip In Iraq by Steve Soto
            November 8, 2003 - Jessica Lynch Confirms the Lies by Steve Soto
            October 31, 2003 - Earth To Tom Friedman, Earth to Tom. Come In Tom by Steve Soto
            October 28, 2003 - Tuesday Morning Update by Steve Soto
            October 27, 2003 - Did Bush Really Rebuke Malaysian Prime Minister? by Steve Soto
            October 26, 2003 - 9/11 Stonewalling About To Blow Up In Bush's Face As Well by Steve Soto
            October 26, 2003 - Washington Post Further Discredits Bush's Iraq Nuclear Weapons Claims by Steve Soto
            October 25, 2003 - Has The Intelligence Community Declared War Against the Administration? by Steve Soto
            October 24, 2003 - CIA Starts Its Counteroffensive: NIE Was a "Cut and Paste" Job by Steve Soto
            October 23, 2003 - Senate GOP Predictably Blames CIA, Not White House For Iraq Intelligence Lies by Steve Soto
            October 17, 2003 - What Happened to Improved Airline Security? by Steve Soto
            October 13, 2003 - Bush Fights Perception That He's Lost Control by Steve Soto
            October 10, 2003 - Bush Continues to Screw Iraq and US too. by Mary
            October 9, 2003 - Condi, Bush, and the Rest Revise History Again by Steve Soto
            October 7, 2003 - Rice's New Responsibilities Won't Change Her Shortcomings to Date by Steve Soto
            October 7, 2003 - Exactly How Much Does Bush Really Want to Find the Leaker? by Steve Soto
            October 6, 2003 - Rove Did Talk to Media About Plame-Focus on Rice's NSC by Steve Soto
            October 2, 2003 - Guess What? No WMDs by Steve Soto
            October 1, 2003 - Bush Already Losing Public Opinion Battle Over Special Counsel by Steve Soto
            September 30, 2003 - Dems Know Somehow It Was Rove by Steve Soto
            September 29, 2003 - Discredited WMD Intel and Outed CIA Operative Cause More Damage for Bush by Steve Soto
            September 28, 2003 - Outrage Overload by Mary
            September 19, 2003 - His Survival In Doubt, Bush Questions the Cabal by Steve Soto
            September 19, 2003 - A Soldier On Duty In Iraq Speaks Out Against the Occupation by Steve Soto
            September 18, 2003 - Bush's Iraq Headaches Continue by Steve Soto
            September 17, 2003 - Bush Backtrack on Saddam/9-11 Link Creates Legal Problem by Steve Soto
            September 16, 2003 - Cheney In a "Time Warp" While GOP Frets Over Bush Job Record by Steve Soto
            September 15, 2003 - Monday Quick Hits by Steve Soto
            September 11, 2003 - The Next Redirection Ploy: The North Korean Missile Crisis by Steve Soto
            September 11, 2003 - Bush Call For Expanded Patriot Act Covers His Failures by Steve Soto
            September 9, 2003 - Bush's Speech Highlights the Many Victims of This War of Choice by Steve Soto
            September 7, 2003 - Skippy Preaches: More Sacrifice, But No Endgame in Sight by Steve Soto
            September 6, 2003 - Saturday Morning Bush Hypocrisy by Steve Soto
            September 5, 2003 - Bush: Poll Numbers Tanking, Grab the Flight Suit! by Steve Soto
            September 5, 2003 - Friday Update by Steve Soto
            September 1, 2003 - Time to Nail Bush on the Deficit and Tax Cut Lies by Steve Soto
            September 1, 2003 - Bush’s Empty Rhetoric on Labor Day by Steve Soto
            August 28, 2003 - Condi Wants More Friends by Mary
            August 26, 2003 - GAO Final Report on Cheney Energy Task Force Rips Administration for Obstructionism by Steve Soto
            August 24, 2003 - Bush and Arnie Head South by Steve Soto
            August 11, 2003 - Bush Should Shut Up On Iraq by Steve Soto
            August 10, 2003 - With Bush, Ideology Replaces Facts by Mary
            August 9, 2003 - Rummy/Cheney/Rice Take Foreign Policy Back To The Iran/Contra Days by Steve Soto
            August 4, 2003 - Bush Caved On North Korea by Steve Soto
            July 31, 2003 - Iraqi Scientists Fail to Corroborate Bush WMD Claims by Steve Soto
            July 31, 2003 - After CIA Told The Brits The 45-Minute Claim Was Bogus, Bush Used It Anyway Three Times In A Week by Steve Soto
            July 29, 2003 - Will Bush's Efforts to Cover for the Saudis Cause Problems with the Right? by Steve Soto
            July 29, 2003 - The Saudis' Alleged Concern Over the Redacted 9/11 Report by Steve Soto
            July 28, 2003 - Wolfowitz Still Thinks Saddam Was Responsible for 9/11 by Mary
            July 25, 2003 - Why Americans Believe There Was an Al Qaeda/Iraq Link by Mary
            July 25, 2003 - 9/11 Report: The Saudis? But they're our friends! by Mary
            July 24, 2003 - The 9/11 Report is [-------]! by Mary
            July 24, 2003 - The Post Keeps Up Attacks on Bush by Steve Soto
            July 22, 2003 - Hadley Came Clean After CIA Memos Surfaced by Steve Soto
            July 22, 2003 - Hadley�s Defense: Sorry, I Forgot by Steve Soto
            July 20, 2003 - Bush’s Iraq Vulnerability: GOP Criticism, Ongoing Media Attention, and Questions of Competence by Steve Soto
            July 19, 2003 - New Republic Articles - the Condensed Version by Mary
            July 18, 2003 - White House Starts War With CIA by Steve Soto
            July 17, 2003 - More Credibility Challenges for Rice and McClellan by Steve Soto
            July 17, 2003 - So Much for Rumsfeld Denying Guerrilla War In Iraq by Steve Soto
            July 17, 2003 - Durbin Says Tenet Fingered White House Official Yesterday-McClellan Overreacts by Steve Soto
            July 17, 2003 - Crude Forgeries, Gross Lies by Mary
            July 15, 2003 - Tenet Claims His Revenge by Steve Soto
            July 14, 2003 - 9/11 and the Evolution of Lies by Mary
            July 14, 2003 - The Post Nails Rice and Fleischer in Lies and Contradictions by Steve Soto
            July 14, 2003 - The "We Had Other Intelligence Sources" Defense Begins to Fall Apart by Steve Soto
            July 13, 2003 - Rice Lies Again This Morning on Fox by Steve Soto
            July 13, 2003 - Mysterious Evidence Proves British Intelligence Was Right by Mary
            July 12, 2003 - So Much For Letting Tenet Take the Fall by Steve Soto
            July 12, 2003 - 2000 Campaign Quotes Good Source of Misery for Bush by Steve Soto
            July 12, 2003 - What Did Tenet Really Say? by Steve Soto
            July 11, 2003 - Tenet Falls on Sword for Bush on SOTU by Steve Soto
            July 11, 2003 - Timeline Leading to Iraq War by Mary
            July 10, 2003 - Thursday Night “Bush Lied About Niger” Update by Steve Soto
            July 10, 2003 - For Karl Rove, the Bad News Keeps Coming by Steve Soto
            July 9, 2003 - Wednesday Night Bush Administration Niger Lie Update by Steve Soto
            July 9, 2003 - What's Really Behind Our Sudden Interest in Liberia? by Steve Soto
            July 9, 2003 - Wednesday Morning "Bush Knowingly Lied About Niger" Update by Steve Soto
            July 9, 2003 - 9/11 Commission Blasts Administration for Stonewalling by Steve Soto
            July 8, 2003 - The Niger Lies on Both Sides of the Pond Begin to Unravel by Steve Soto
            July 8, 2003 - Bush Takes a Political Bullet on the Niger Lie by Steve Soto
            July 7, 2003 - Bush WMD Lies Exposed by Hand-Picked Ambassador on Niger Story by Steve Soto
            July 5, 2003 - Bush Asks For Accountability And So Should We by Mary
            July 4, 2003 - Happy Independence Day, But a Troubling Weekend for Bush by Steve Soto
            July 1, 2003 - Forget the DNC; The Blogosphere Can Be the Truth Squad by Steve Soto
            July 1, 2003 - Rummy's Effort at Spin Leads to Laughter at the Pentagon Briefing by Steve Soto
            July 1, 2003 - Bush Resumes Pathetic Lies Blaming Clinton For His Poor Economy by Steve Soto
            June 24, 2003 - Let’s Be Honest About It: Bush Is An Ignorant Liar-And Likes It That Way by Steve Soto
            June 23, 2003 - AOL Snapshot Poll Bodes Poorly for Bush in Iraq by Steve Soto
            June 23, 2003 - Bush Readies His Attack on Democratic Plans to Repeal Tax Cuts-By Distortion Of Course by Steve Soto
            June 16, 2003 - Bush’s Domestic Security Failings are Ready-Made Campaign Issue by Steve Soto
            June 15, 2003 - Iraq and National Security Foibles by Steve Soto
            June 14, 2003 - More Inconsistencies From the Bushies on WMDs by Steve Soto
            June 14, 2003 - Voters Still Have No Clue About Iraq And 9/11 by Steve Soto
            June 12, 2003 - Condi Gets Caught in a Big Lie - Bush Knew There Was No Factual Basis for His Niger Uranium Story in the 2003 SOTU by Steve Soto
            June 12, 2003 - Military and Intel Sources Tell the Post of More WMD Failures by Steve Soto
            June 11, 2003 - Wednesday Morning "Bush Lied About WMDs" Update by Steve Soto
            June 9, 2003 - The Media Is Getting Wise to Bush and His WMD Dodge by Steve Soto
            June 9, 2003 - Bush's WMD Inspectors Have Nothing To Do by Steve Soto
            June 9, 2003 - Bush Parses His WMD Claims by Steve Soto
            June 8, 2003 - Colin and Condi Dance Without Addressing the Imminent Threat Rationale by Steve Soto
            June 7, 2003 - Your Neighbors May Really Care About the Bush WMD Lies After All by Steve Soto
            June 7, 2003 - Even Judith Miller Begins The Walk Backward on WMDs by Steve Soto
            June 6, 2003 - The Bush WMD Lies: The Media Sticks With It, and John Dean Brings Up the “I” Word by Steve Soto
            June 4, 2003 - Wolfie Admits It Was Really All About the Oil-Or Did He? by Steve Soto
            June 4, 2003 - Some of the Media Is Noticing the Deceptions.... by Steve Soto
            June 3, 2003 - Rove Forces Bush to Backtrack on "Screw the Poor" Tax Cut Exclusion by Steve Soto
            June 3, 2003 - GOP Thinks the Poor Should Pay For Government Services, But Not Corporations by Steve Soto
            June 3, 2003 - The Senate Will Hold Televised Hearings in June on Possible WMD Deceptions by Steve Soto
            June 2, 2003 - US Senate Will Now Investigate WMD Claims by Administration by Steve Soto
            May 30, 2003 - Is Congress About to Declassify Its 9/11 Report Over Bush’s Stonewalling Objections? by Steve Soto
            May 30, 2003 - White House Confirms the Lie: It Wasn’t a Stimulus Bill After All by Steve Soto
            May 29, 2003 - Wolfie Basically Admits It Was All a Lie, and Then Blames it on the Intel Community by Steve Soto
            May 29, 2003 - The News May Not Be Good for Bush, GOP by Steve Soto
            May 27, 2003 - French Reveal That US Predetermined Iraqi Invasion Course by Steve Soto
            May 27, 2003 - Krugman Does Once Again What Dem Candidates Should be Doing All the Time by Steve Soto
            May 27, 2003 - BushCo Contracts with Tax Avoiders by Steve Soto
            May 23, 2003 - Washington Post Editorial Blasts Tax Cut by Steve Soto
            May 23, 2003 - Friday Morning Quick Hits by Steve Soto
            May 22, 2003 - Rummy’s Complaint About Iraqi Intelligence Comes Back to Bite Him In the Ass by Steve Soto
            May 19, 2003 - Why Ari Will Not Be Missed by Steve Soto
            May 16, 2003 - Bush Continues to Lie About the Recession and His Tax Package by Steve Soto
            May 15, 2003 - More “Hyperbole” From Rummy’s Minions by Steve Soto
            May 13, 2003 - Lying as Policy by Steve Soto
            May 10, 2003 - Senate Committee Passes “Richard Perle Rule” by Steve Soto
            May 7, 2003 - Daniels Target of Insider Trading Investigation by Steve Soto
            May 1, 2003 - Bush the Deserter Wrapping Himself in the Military by Steve Soto
            April 30, 2003 - Bush and Powell Get Caught Lying About North Korea by Steve Soto
            April 14, 2003 - How Does Bush Measure Success in Iraq? by Steve Soto
            April 6, 2003 - Now Rummy Is Lying About Syria by Steve Soto
            April 4, 2003 - Cheney and Perle’s Conflicts of Interest Are the Norm For Bush Administration by Steve Soto
            March 25, 2003 - Now Even the Washington Post Laughs at Coalition of the Microscopic by Steve Soto
            March 21, 2003 - A Reaganite Republican Takes on Bush by Steve Soto
            March 20, 2003 - Debunking Some of the Lies That Got Us Here by Steve Soto
            March 19, 2003 - If You Repeat a Lie Often Enough.... by Steve Soto
            March 19, 2003 - Spilling Blood to Reward Your Friends by Steve Soto
            March 13, 2003 - Cheney and His Halliburton Conflict of Interest by Steve Soto
            March 13, 2003 - FBI Looks Into Phony Evidence of Iraqi Nuclear Materials Procurement-Rummy Involved? by Steve Soto
            March 11, 2003 - Bush Lies to Governors and Now Witholds Data by Steve Soto
            March 9, 2003 - Bush Reneges on Promises to Produce Middle East Peace Plan by Steve Soto
            March 8, 2003 - E. J. Dionne Points Out Bush’s Lie on After School Funding by Steve Soto
            March 8, 2003 - GOP Congressman Nails Bush for Lying About Security Funding by Steve Soto
            March 8, 2003 - We Are a Long Way From Adlai Stevenson Here by Steve Soto
            March 6, 2003 - The Bush Lie of the Day: I Have Not Decided to Invade by Steve Soto
            March 2, 2003 - Fleischer Caught In Another Lie (This is News?) by Steve Soto
            February 26, 2003 - Bush Lies-Chapter 2 by Steve Soto
            February 24, 2003 - Bush and His Credibility Problem by Steve Soto


            • so, you want to quit our stupid noise and spin and propaganda dance now, or shall i continue?

              it gets worse.

              www.theleftcoaster.com/archiv...ies.php
              www.bushlies.net/
              www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.june.htm
              www.tvnewslies.org/html/bush_lies.html

              1 - 10 of about 2,520,000 for bush changes lies economy -
              • www.rationalrevolution.net/arti...s.htm
                www.tvnewslies.org/html/iraq_lies.html
                ventana.sierraclub.org/back_i...s.shtml
                www.pnews.org/PhpWiki/ind...hp/WebOfLies
                www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Econ....html

                Almost nine million people are unemployed. Many millions more are underemployed, and most of all, underpaid. Millions more lack health insurance. States are cutting basic public services everywhere, while the taxes (property and sales, mainly) to pay for those that remain are rising. And the gates of opportunity-for instance, to attend college-are closing on millions more.
                George Bush did not entirely create this problem. The bubble and the bust of high technology, the obsession with a strong dollar, the debt build-up of American households-these existed before we got George Bush. The late 1 990s were a moment of prosperity and that rarest of economic achievements- full employment. But the boom was based on dreams, illusions, and mortgages. These set the stage for a slump that began in late 2000, from which we have not recovered and will not recover soon.
                But Bush has done nothing to make our economic problem better and much to make it worse. We have lost around 2.6 million jobs since he took office, and about 650,000 just since the 2002 election. In the face of this, the bulk of the Bush tax cuts went, notoriously, to the very wealthy, whose spending is little affected. Many middle class Americans will get hit by rising property and sales taxes-at the state and local level. And meanwhile, Bush is bent on eroding pay and working conditions, with the most recent outrage being the assault on fair labor standards affecting overtime. As for the minimum wage? Forget about it.
                In the near term, it is true that new tax cuts and more military spending may bring another false dawn. The second quarter GDP growth of 3.1 percent was a sign of this. Meanwhile Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan is doing his best to keep the housing bubble aloft. Greenspan knows about blowing bubbles, but not even he can forever prevent them from popping. Short-term fiscal expansion and continued low interest rates may prevent an early renewal of recession. They will not, however, bring us back to full employment.
                The reason for this lies in the financial position of the private sector. American households in the late 1990s embarked on an unprecedented period of sustained spending above their incomes, financed by borrowing that was supported by rising home equity and the stock bubble. This was a remarkable event: For fifty years following World War II, Americans had always spent a little less than they earned. Never before on record here-and rarely anywhere-did an entire population go into a position of dissaving. But it happened. And it could not last.
                The collapse of stocks in 2000 started an effort to get consumption and incomes back into line by cutting the growth rate of spending. But the continuing reduction of interest rates has kept that adjustment from completing. The potential therefore remains for a substantial future deceleration in household spending, something that would be much aggravated if interest rates go up. Since household spending is well over 60 percent of national expenditures, the further depressing effect of this, when it eventually occurs, will be substantial. It hasn't happened yet, but that doesn't mean it won't.
                The other big problem is our weak position in foreign trade. We have a propensity, now deeply entrenched, to run huge foreign deficits at full employment. Given that propensity, the economy needs a huge net stimulus to reach full employment in the first place. In the late 1990s, the impulse came from the tech boom and the willingness of households to borrow. But the investment boom is over, and the debt capacity of households seems to be nearing exhaustion. Even the mortgage-refinancing boom, brought on by successive cuts in interest rates, is now evidently nearing an end.
                So long as households, businesses, and also state and local governments are still retrenching, one of two things must happen to support a sustained expansion and return to full employment. Either federal budget deficits must rise by a phenomenal further amount- probably to somewhere between $800 billion and $1 trillion-or the United States must find a way to increase exports and reduce imports relative to GDP, thus making it possible for a smaller budget deficit to do the job on domestic employment.
                If a budget deficit double its current size is unfathomable, and the trade regime inviolate (as one must suppose they are, for political reasons), then the implication is plain. We face a long period of economic stagnation, in which a return to full employment cannot be obtained-until the household and business sectors make a full financial adjustment on their own. For that, we would have to wait.
                Can the falling dollar square this circle, giving us lower foreign deficits and so reducing the need for fiscal expansion? This appears unlikely. On one side, estimates of the price elasticity of American exports suggest that a lower dollar will not increase foreign demand for American products by leaps and bounds. On the other side, the imports of U.S. consumer goods come substantially from countries (such as Mexico and China) against whose currencies the dollar has not declined, and who are prepared to suffer considerable hardship to prevent such a decline in order to maintain their present access to the U.S. market. Therefore these imports are not becoming markedly more expensive, and the demand for them is unlikely to be choked off by considerations of cost. Things could change on their own: American households might tire of cheap clothing, fancy athletic shoes, and electronic toys. But given how much these items contribute to the modest comforts of American life, this also seems very unlikely.
                Finally, one may doubt the willingness of the Treasury and Federal Reserve to tolerate a declining dollar-even one that is falling only against the euro- for an indefinite period. At some point, speculators will kick in, considerations of national pride will be raised, some Latin American debtors may default, and U.S. banks may begin to object to the erosion of their international position. A dollar defense, effected by raising interest rates, could quickly throw the internal economy into deep recession.
                The baseline outlook, then, is not one where a return to full employment prosperity might be achieved by modest changes in policy. A little "stimulus"-pushing a few well-chosen buttons in the tax code-will not do it. Nor can Greenspan be counted on; the Federal Reserve has largely run out of tricks. An Administration committed to changing this situation will have to be prepared with strong measures.
                No such measures are coming from George Bush. The men in charge under Bush talk about growth, of course. One might think that they must be disappointed by this dilemma if they understand it. They do, after all, face an election next year.
                But, in fact, we are seeing an interesting departure from the normal pattern of Republican election-year populism. Richard Nixon in 1972 and Ronald Reagan in 1984 ran strong-growth policies that reduced unemployment and produced whopping election margins. (Nixon even imposed price-wage controls, which drove real wages through the roof) Under Bush-despite the seemingly large fiscal deficits brought about by recession, tax cuts, and war-the expansionary impetus is weaker. And Administration policymakers are making no concessions in their war on labor rights.
                Why not? It may be that economic stagnation is to their taste. They don't want a new recession, obviously, and they look set to avoid that. But do they really want full employment and strong labor unions and rising wages? Probably not. The oil, mining, defense, media, and pharmaceutical firms who form the core of their constituency rely on monopoly power, patents, and the control of public resources for their profits. They do not depend, very much, on strong consumer demand.
                As for the election, there are no Bush Democrats. The Nixon Democrats in the South long ago turned Republican, while the Reagan Democrats up North seem to have largely returned to the fold. (Michigan, for instance, went comfortably for Gore.) In a weaker economy, too, it may be that turnout will decline, helping Bush. The calculation is therefore plain: A strong economy won't help that much, and a weak economy won't hurt that much, either. And if it does, the effect can be drowned in a sea of grateful campaign money-or perhaps by some new national security crisis.
                Stagnation, moreover, helps to justify more tax cuts. The Administration's core policy objective in this area is to shield financial wealth from all taxation. Two years ago, estate and income taxes were cut. This year, it was capital gains, dividends, and again the top tax rate. Next year, the sunset provisions in these measures will probably be removed. As things are going, quite soon, taxes will fall mainly on real estate, payrolls, and consumption. This is to say that taxes will be paid mostly by the middle class, by the working class, and by the poor. That is what the Administration wants, and what-if not defeated-it is exceedingly likely to get.
                Finally, stagnation and the Bush tax policy promote rightwing plans to cut and privatize essential services, including health, education, and pensions. As financial wealth escapes tax, neither states nor cities nor the federal government can provide vital services-except by taxing sales and property at rates that will provoke tax rebellions, especially when middle class incomes are not rising. Every public service will fall between the hammer of tax cuts and the anvil of deficits in state, local, and federal budgets. The streets will be dirtier, as also the air and the water. Emergency rooms will back up even more than they have; more doctors will refuse public patients. More fire houses and swimming pools and libraries will be dosed. Public universities will cost more; the public schools will lose the middle class. Eventually, federal budget deficits will collide with Social Security and Medicare, putting privatization back on the agenda.
                I am from Texas, where you can see this future happening now.
                Say what you will, the leaders of the Bush team are plainly not pandering after votes. They are pursuing a governing agenda that favors the factions they represent: tax cuts for the misanthropic wealthy; tax increases for the middle class; imperial control over oil; deregulation, privatization, and cuts in public services at all levels; defiance of international agreements; a systematic spoilage of the environment; an all-out offensive against labor rights; and the placement of rightwingers in government, most insidiously in the courts.
                In the face of this reality, full economic recovery is going to be hard, even if a Democrat wins the next election. It cannot be done, certainly, by a return to policies of the Clinton era. Nor can it be done by stimulus alone-a simple matter of spending more and finding the right taxes to cut. We will need to rewrite-once again-the tax code. We will need a revenue-sharing program to stabilize the states and cities. We will need to reestablish the rule of law in the corporate world. We will need to help labor reset minimum fair standards. We will need a new energy and environmental strategy consistent with geophysical realities and the dangers of, among other things, climate change, and including, as we just learned, a public initiative to re-regulate power and rebuild the electricity grid. We will need a new international financial structure and possibly a new trade regime. Along the way, there will be the hard economic challenge of overcoming the financial obstacles left over from the late 1 990s-compounded as they are by the indifference and corruption of the Bush gang.
                It would be good if the Democrats were to begin, fairly soon, to think seriously about these issues. It is, of course, possible that Bush has miscalculated. The election next year may turn out to matter after all. If so, some poor Democrat could end up in very deep trouble, come January 2005.

                James K Galbraith teaches at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. He is also Senior Scholar at the Levy Economics Institute
                • .
                  .
                  offline 9
                  Keep pushing the propaganda, its really funny! Anyone who took class in rhetoric at any point in their entire lives can see the flaws in these arguments - mostly straw men, but also some completely out dated claims. Like this Galbraith piece that was written in 2003.

                  We're at "full employment" now, you purblind buffoon. "Full Employment" for the US is between 4-5% unemployment - and we're at 4.5% right now, the same as lowest number during the Clinton years.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Keep pushing the propaganda, its really funny!
                    ---
                    no, your the propaganda pusher.
                    ---

                    Anyone who took class in rhetoric at any point in their entire lives can see the flaws in these arguments -
                    ----
                    yours, yes. mine, no.
                    ---


                    mostly straw men, but also some completely out dated claims. Like this Galbraith piece that was written in 2003.

                    We're at "full employment" now, you purblind buffoon. "Full Employment" for the US is between 4-5% unemployment - and we're at 4.5%
                    ----
                    sure, but thats only if you do as the admin did and reclassify all sorts of people as employed who are say for instance, self employed,
                    or employed part time.

                    The grim reality of most peoples actual lives is that the middle class is being snuffed out.

                    As long as we are talking about ONLY unemployment, you almost have something to tout. But then lets talk about DEFICITS.
                    Lets talk about QUALITY of life for the middle class who now has to pick up the tax burden from those richie rich tax cuts.
                    Lets talk about millions of americans dropping nbelow the poverty line.
                    Lets talk about an immense upswell in homelessness.
                    ---------


                    right now, the same as lowest number during the Clinton years.
                    ----
                    but, only by manipulating and lying about numbers and how things are counted.
                    • .
                      .
                      offline 9
                      you just keep lying and presenting it as truth - the admin did not reclassify self employment as employment, self employment has ALWAYS been considered employment. You're arguing the the BL&S changed their statistical methods, they didn't, thats an outright lie perpetrated by propagandists such as yourself.

                      <As long as we are talking about ONLY unemployment, you almost have something to tout. But then lets talk about DEFICITS.
                      Lets talk about QUALITY of life for the middle class who now has to pick up the tax burden from those richie rich tax cuts.
                      Lets talk about millions of americans dropping nbelow the poverty line.
                      Lets talk about an immense upswell in homelessness. >

                      Deficits dont affect you in any way shape or form. Deficits are good - read Keynes sometime. The BUDGET deficit has zero affect on you - its been argued that it will affect the following generation, but we didn't see that happen after the defecit spending of WW2 or the late cold war.

                      Quality of life is better now than it ever has been, what are you talking about?

                      As I just illustrated for Jeff, the poverty rate is much lower than it was for the vast majority of the 80's and 90's, additionally, our "impoverished" are not considered poor by worldwide standards

                      Uh, yeah, lets talk about homelessness, and how more americans own houses now than in all of american history, and home ownership shot up under Bush.

                      Keep spininng.
                      • Complaining about 1976/1776 is just adding to the perception by the right that the left doesn't have anything better to complain about.

                        When Bush makes slips like this, it makes more sense to me to laugh it off and quickly get back to the real issues.

                        It's not Bush's verbal slips that have killed a million people abroad.
                        • >>The British government recently certified as "sound" the methodologies used by the study published in the medical journal The Lancet which estimates the number of deaths (as of 2006) that can be directly attributed to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and its aftermath at 655,000. If anything, this number has grown by leaps and bounds since the study was conducted.<<

                          Tack on Afghanistan, for fun

                          www.truthdig.com/report/it..._american/
                          • the Lancet study resulted in a confidence interval between 393,000 and 943,000. this interval has a confidence coefficient of 95%. this means that the interval has a 19 in 20 chance of including the true death toll. this also means that one in twenty times the interval will not contain the true value. the press is failing to grasp that if you were to simulate a study like this under perfect conditions (i.e. no bias), 1 in 20 times you would end up with an estimate that completely fails to include the true value.

                            many of the assumptions necessary to arrive at an estimate of 655000 are violated. the study assumes there is no bias. but the results are based on home interviews as opposed to body counts. so the possibility of systematic interviewee error has to be factored into the result. secondly, the death rate in different locations and times is not normally distributed. this means that the clustering method used to make this estimate is suspicious and the distribution is most likely skewed. this matters because if the assumption of normality is violated the middle value (655,000) is no longer the most likely estimate.
                            • * What number is acceptable?

                              * What's your preferred figure / the one you consider most likely?
                              • >> * What number is acceptable? <<
                                I'm not qualified to answer that question. however, I don't think we should be in Iraq in the first place.

                                >> * What's your preferred figure / <<
                                0

                                >> the one you consider most likely? <<
                                haven't the slightest idea. I just think it is important to keep politics out of scientific inquiry. in this case, people are throwing themselves behind speculative methods and finding certainty where it doesn't exist.
                                • --Yes, of course you can find partisan hacks that make the argument you're making based on outdated and outmoded information.--

                                  With that logic then anyone who doesn't agree with you is a partisan HACK. Based on outdated information or modified lies.

                                  Regan was a "do boy" for the rich and nothing more. High interest rates allowed the wealthy to invest in the banking system instead of gold which the USSR sold internationally for there economy. No matter what system you live under Communist or not, its all based on the buck and capitalism. Communism is nothing more than a system to control the capital. We have. since the beginning of time lived under Capitalism. Barter is one form. Economic change was needed in the USSR in order to progress and compete. The fall of the smaller states (eastern Europe) crushed there economy.

                                  --Whether or not Communism could have sustained itself is widely debated,--

                                  The Chinese are doing quite well at it. As a matter of fact they have a system of slavery that we are trying to create over here. The head of the Chinese system has no opposition, there progress is amazing and will in time take over the economic conditions of the planet. You cannot compete with slavery against freedom. In freedom we believe we have rights. A slave has none. What I find funny is that the Chinese are communist and so is Cuba, how come you don't deal with Cuba. Are they bad commies and Chinese good commies.


                                  --Yes, rich people are getting richer, so are poor people, just not at the same rate as the rich people.--

                                  Obviously someone does not understand that in order for someone to become richer, they have to get that money from somewhere, and in that somewhere someone else is losing out. So for a rich person to become richer they will put a hundred people in the poor house. You can do the math. Rich means Rich, poor means poor. To be rich, you must have more than the group or no one is rich and we are all the same.


                                  --We're fighting AQ across the globe, that polarizes people--

                                  A global war on terrorism. Terrorism cannot be fought with armies, thats why they are called terrorist. They act in secret in a society. You could live next door to a terrorist and not even know it. So the logic of a global war on terrorist is nothing more than Fear Propaganda. Giving you the idea that there is an army of terrorist. If its an army they cannot be terrorist, if its an organization it is. Theres only one way to fight terrorism and thats intelligence and investigation of your own society not Iraq or Iran. What in effect is happening is the punishment of a people who are innocent in Iraq as those who where innocent in the WTC. Children do not create policies and children are dying in there innocence. You are not fighting a war on terrorism, you are creating a war on terrorism.


                                  --We WANT these groups to become more porous, we WANT increased recruitment, because it allows us to gain access to them, and shut them down from the inside, the way we've been doing since 9/11 --

                                  I think the opposite is happening, they are gaining momentum and you are losing. How many times have you wittnessed on the news of a slaughter of Iraqi police by a terrorist. An infiltrator. How many times have you infiltrated the Al Qieda. Your on a witch hunt in the US for terrorism is a front. Sited examples of people who have been investigated have been blown out of proportion, if one person gets arrested for being a sympathizer of the Muslim cause, hes a terrorist and a member of Al Qieda, with no proof. As a matter of fact what physical proof does anyone have that Al Qieda took out the WTC at all. It was all conjecture and speculation that Al Qieda did it. After that the truth kind of got lost.

                                  --Do the math yourself - the average poverty rate under Clinton? 13.3%
                                  Average Poverty rate under Bush? About 12.5% --

                                  With the job loss do you really believe that statistic. And futher more, government doctors statistics to suite there intentions. Plus the fact that all statistics are based on what they can observe and who is on welfare or unemployment. All that statistic is saying to me that there are more people unemployed that are no longer on the books. They live in an underground economy and are forced to crime or labour to the point that they cannot pay taxes on what little they earn. You got to live in it to know, and I feel that you have not, and thats why you lean towards these stupid statistics.

                                  ---Also, compare it year by year, or term by term - 4 years into the Clinton presidency, 13.8%, 4 years into the Bush admin - 12.7%---

                                  Apples to organges again, Clinton inherited the first free trade agreement, companies moved to China in scores, unemployment flurished due to the movement of ofshore investments. Cheap labour to be precise. With this a new economy of service jobs came into existence, for evey 4 manufacturing jobs service related industries employed 1 person, the ratio has chanced in the opposite direction, now we have 4 service related jobs at a less pay then to 1 manufacturing job. Trades are getting a beating because employers are hiring illegal immigrants at a fraction of the cost giving the concept more people are working, unfortunately there illegals. If for a moment you think all illegals are picking fruit I think you should understand the basic concept of Capitlism and cost effective production. Cheap labour and no unions.

                                  --Save for a TWO YEAR blip at the end of the Clinton era, the poverty rate is lower than its been since the LBJ, Nixon, and Carter years.--

                                  A funny think happened after the 2nd WW. America and Canada boomed. Industry in Europe and Japan where demolished because of the war. With our help. So North America boomed in supplying and retooling these nations, at a cost. The baby boom began and with the birth certificate and SS number the government could now borrow money at a level that cannot be compared in any generation previous. With this manufacturing boomed and unemployment was a choice not an epidemic. Canada was used at this time because of laws in the US that prohibited trade with a communist country. So industry was set up here to trade with China, Russia, Cuba and so on. Unfortunately Canadians where branded Socialist because of this yet we have never had a socialist government in power. More misinformation.

                                  A poverty rate is based on the actual value of the buck in consumer spending. We earn less money in spending today then we ever had in history. Our actual spending ability compared to the LBJ, Nixon, or Carter days has dropped by over a $100 a wk and with the rising price of oil, you can count on more. So the statistics stated by this post above is not complete. I made more money in 1980 than I do today, and the cost of living was way lower.

                                  --boy, you're tangentalizing ALL over the place, and bringing up all sorts of irrelevant issues:--

                                  Not knockiny anyone hear but the irrelevant issue is the government statistics. Its a front and misleading. How can you create a statistic in a generalisation, in order to be specific you would have to interview every single person to get a proper and factual statistic, this is not done. They are generalizations. All these statistic are simply there to promote whomever is in power. The truth will be known when another administration is elected and there propoganda comes out. I know that some will not believe the Dems and some will not believe the Rep. Its all so silly when you consider the split the people are experiencing with the left and right to the point that both should be working together to make a society strong. There is such a split to day that people are not working together to better the situation. There looking for fall guys and the media has been bombarded with these people bailing out of a sinking ship.

                                  --We're at "full employment" now, you purblind buffoon. "Full Employment" for the US is between 4-5% unemployment - and we're at 4.5% right now, the same as lowest number during the Clinton years.--

                                  Again another statistic that does not count in the hidden economy, why do you think your jails are so full. You simply cannot believe these statistics as accurate, they are based on what is documented, what about undocumented people and labour. You cannot tell me that some employers are not paying there workers under the table and writing off the expenses as losses.


                                  --the Lancet study resulted in a confidence interval between 393,000 and 943,000. this interval has a confidence coefficient of 95%. this means that the interval has a 19 in 20 chance of including the true death toll.--

                                  -->> * What number is acceptable? <<
                                  I'm not qualified to answer that question.--


                                  No one is, what is missing is the massive criminal element that is also in part a cause in the statistic. How does one estimate crime to survival. Thousand have been killed but not because of the conflicting war but because of crime also. How does one create a statistic from that. The thing is that too many innocent people have been killed for no reason. When ever a society becomes unstable, the criminal element becomes intense. It is not possible to create accurate statistics and generalize them as all part of one event. Even thou, the war is the cause and that kind of element is part of the overall death rate. But there is no real way of knowing.

                                  I don't believe nothing the governments says in any country.
                                  • great post brian!

                                    • Seconded.
                                      • Great interactive function. Let's hear it for the GOP, and it's monopoly on morality.

                                        www.slate.com/id/2165783/nav/tap1/
                                        • Fuck. Even Ashcroft new it was un-Constitutional.

                                          edition.cnn.com/2007/POLIT.../index.html

                                          How fucked up is that?
                                          • >>Comey refused to say publicly that the White House officials came to the hospital to discuss the NSA program. However, government officials previously confirmed to CNN that Comey had "vigorously opposed" aspects of the surveillance program and refused to sign off on its continued use, prompting Card and Gonzales to make the hospital visit.<<

                                            Yeesh. "Fuck the kid; let's go wake up Ashcroft; he knows how to play ball".
                                            • "The Whitehouse went ahead and reauthorized a controversial, presidential-power-grabbing program deemed illegal by the Justice Department, after trying to extract permission from a critically sick John Ashcroft who didn't quite know what day it was."

                                              www.slate.com/id/2166213

                                              Hmmmm. What do you all think? High crime or misdemeanour?
                                              • definitely high crime.
                                                • More "high crimes."

                                                  "Former U.S. Chief Justice William Rehnquist suffered paranoid delusions in 1981 during withdrawal from a dependence on prescription painkillers, according to his recently-released FBI file.

                                                  The late head of the U.S.'s top court began taking the drug Placidyl in the early 1970s for insomnia and back pain while he was an associate Supreme Court justice. His dependence on the drug was first made public when he was hospitalized for symptoms related to it in 1981, but the delusions were only revealed in the release of the file this week.
                                                  A doctor who treated Rehnquist told an FBI investigator the justice had "bizarre ideas and outrageous thoughts. He imagined, for example, that there was a CIA plot against him." Another doctor said Rehnquist "had also gone to the lobby in his pajamas in order to try to escape."

                                                  Rehnquist had been taking nearly three times the recommended maximum daily dosage of the drug. His delusions came when doctors at George Washington University Hospital took him off it. Eventually, they put him back on Placidyl and weaned him off slowly until he was cured of his dependence."

Recent topics in "Intelligent Political Discussion"