Monday, December 19, 2005

Fair and Balanced Isn't

Continual conservatives complaints about the media are paying important dividends for Republicans as the media has become too frightened to give context for events and instead look to report on stories on a "fair and balanced" manner.

Instead of pointing out that in event after event that Republicans are more guilty, or push the envelope to a greater level than Democrats, the media has slunk to supplying muddled mush to the public.

Unfortunately only a few in the media have noticed. In 2004 ABC's political director Mark Halperin complained about the press pursuing an artificial balance in truth-squadding the claims and charges of the Bush and Kerry campaigns, saying that the media would usually run through an equal list of questionable statements by each candidate, giving the impression that both candidates were equally stretching the truth. Instead Halperin said that although both President Bush and Kerry distorted the truth, the Bush team has gone way beyond what Kerry has done.

The New York Review of Books outlined a similar case involving the LA Times. Ken Silverstein sent a memo to an editor on a story he wrote on voting irregularities in Missouri saying the "insistence on 'balance' is totally misleading, adding there was "a real effort on the part of the GOP...to suppress pro-Dem constituencies." The GOP complaints, by contrast, "concern isolated cases that are not going to impact the outcome of the election."

In "The Republican War on Science" (reviewed in the New York Times) author Chris Mooney wrote that "politicized fights involving science, it is rare to find liberals entirely innocent of abuses, but they are almost never as guilty as the Right."

Recently stories on Jack Abramoff seem to try to mention he gave money to members of both parties, implying equal guilt yet the money and numbers of legislators involved were vastly different.

As Silverstein said, "Balanced" is not fair, it's just an easy way of avoiding real reporting and shirking our responsibility to inform readers." Not to be cynical, but Conservatives apparently figured out how to game the "fair and balanced" approach.

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

FOX News, Bushes join war on Christmas

With sinking poll numbers, scandals enveloping key members of the Republican Party, and the public realizing what a mistake it made in November 2004, conservatives knew there was only one thing to do - change the subject.

So it should come as no surprise that conservatives are pushing the "war on Christmas" story. John Gibson, Fox News host, wrote The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought, which of course was heavily publicized on Fox News. Bill O'Reilly didn't blame it on liberals rather "It's the far left. It's the loony left, the Kool-Aid secular progressive ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union] America-haters. That's who's doing this."

A funny thing happened on the way the war on Christmas. Apparently some of the foot soldiers are Fox News employees and the President and Mrs. Bush. You see the FOX News store decided to sell "holiday ornaments" and the Bushes sent out a card with "generic season's greetings," just the type of things that conservatives blame the left. Realizing the ridiculous nature, FOX quickly changed their store description to read holiday rather than Christmas, figuring they can fool most of their readers.

One can wonder why this is all going on. Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank on Countdown suggested that it merely reflected the ability of groups to raise funds by riling up their followers. Instead it is a way to change the subject. This so called war really got its first publicity last year, right during the discussion on whether the Ohio vote was on the level. This year the news returned as Bush's approval fell to record low levels.

Surprise, Surprise. With a war over Christmas easier to fight than a fight on his record, administration, or party, expect a lot more stories.

Thursday, December 01, 2005

Using the Media

The recent reports that the U.S. military was paying to plant positive stories in the Iraqi media in order to promote the war efforts highlights the debate the White House and conservatives face about whether role of the media is to report the news or promote the aims of those controlling the media.

While the White House may say they are looking to build a democracy in Iraq, one has to wonder, what type of democracy? Rather than a western style democracy it looks more like a Eastern European approach where the government takes an active role in the media, no more different than what the White House attempted with PBS.

One of the amazing things about the Bush's dislike of the media is that they owe so much of their "success" to their ability to press to act as their agents. Throughout their campaign their goal was to buddy up to the press in order to generate positive stories. On the otherhand Democrats such as Al Gore and John Kerry were viewed as aloof because they weren't buddy-buddy. One only has to look at the booing by the press core of Al Gore during an early 2000 debate to show the media's true view.

So from the recount of 2000 to the media's lack of interest in the Bush National Guard story, the media was Bush's friend, yet conservatives always yelled that the media was liberal, which ended up to be a good strategy. By confusing the public and labeling the media as liberal, when the media finally woke up in 2005 conservatives bought the lie that the resulting negative stories were just more of the same from the so called liberal media.

The only thing preventing this strategy from working is that the White House lost control of the press. One might say the turning point came when the Daily Show (a comedy show) had the gall to show tape of Vice President Dick Cheney denying he said "it was pretty well confirmed" that terrorist Mohammed Atta had met with an Iraqi official in Prague, then show Cheney saying it. Perhaps many the media figured out that one, they were being lied to, and two, a "fake news" show was doing a better job reporting the news then they were.

So slowly the media beast has risen to look into a few stories, upsetting conservatives. Perhaps conservatives just don't understand the media. Afterall if you've grown up reading the Wall Street Journal editorial page or watching FOX News, one might think that objectivity, fairness, and accuracy play minor roles in journalism and when those traits are employed and bright lights are shown on the adminstration the resulting picture isn't pretty.

Thursday, November 17, 2005

Cheney calls Americans dishonest

A recent poll of Americans show that nearly 60% of Americans do not believe George Bush is honest, which after everything that has come out regarding the run-up to the war in Iraq it is no surprise, yet he and Dick Cheney are the ones complaining about others being dishonest.

One has to wonder if Republicans have figured it out that by criticizing those against the war they are now criticizing the majority of Americans. Not that they care. Throughout their term they have strived to be the 51% party, just enough support among voters to stay in power, but not enough support among the public to have to care about the wishes of the majority.

However polls now show Bush's support in the mid-thirties which may mean that members of Congress aren't as willing to support anti-America policies. Even Sen. Rick Santorum found a way not to be seen with Bush at a recent event.

With a growing lack of support, Bush and Cheney are attempting to fight back. Their main claim is that the Democrats saw the same information that they did and that other countries shared the same views. Former Sen. Bob Graham disputes this, but the administration's argument also assumes the relationship between Congress and the president is that among friends. "Hey, I think we should invade Iraq, what you think." "Sounds good to me."

As part of their imperial presidency the Bushes wanted submission and blank checks from Congress, but now that those deferrals are coming back to haunt them and the administration wants people to believe it the policies were developed among equals, rather than forced down their throats. Maybe in theory this is how it works, but in practice Congress gave Bush wide latitude, which apparently they couldn't handle.

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Rewriting History

After hearing George Bush's remarks criticizing Democrats for "rewriting history," the word that comes to mind is Chutzpah. This from an administration that is all about lying and rewriting history, from aluminum tubes, to yellowcake, to Jessica Lynch, to the death of Pat Tillman. In each instance the Administration pushed the limits of being able to say they didn't lie in order to further their agenda or score political points.

Anyone who questions their need to score political points only has to remember that Bush pushed for a vote on the authority to go to war prior, not after, the 2002 election. During the same 2002 election the GOP used images of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein to defeat Democratic Senator Max Cleland.

In 2004 this manipulation added up to just enough votes to stay in the White House, but as Abraham Lincoln said "You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time."

And that's the problem Bush is facing. Too many people feel fooled. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll found that 57 percent of Americans agree that Bush "deliberately misled people to make the case for war with Iraq."

So in reality, what Bush is concerned about is not that the Democrats are rewriting history falsely, but rather that the Democrats are informing the public about the actual events that transpired, thereby rewriting the White House's questionable version of history.

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Buyer's Remorse

Looking at the election returns in Virginia, New Jersey and Minnesota, one has to wonder if they are reflective of more than just local politics and instead an indication that the public has turned on the Bush White House.

While poll after poll has showed Bush's approval drop to levels associated with a failed presidency, many in the public have also given Democrats low ratings.

So is the public just mad at both sides and politicians in general; made a bargain with themselves that they can admit they have lost faith in Republican if they say the same about Democrats; or have the Republicans lost their base because the public has figured out they lied and Democrats have lost the middle because they lost their chance to get rid of Bush last year?

After four years of mismanagement the public was just about ready to vote against him until a despicable campaign managed to shift the campaign from a referendum on Bush to a referendum on a distorted view of Kerry.

However it one thing for voters to voice dissatisfaction, it is another thing for voters to actually step up and be willing to admit they made a mistake and vote against a sitting president.

Today they may be able to admit that they made a mistake and say today they would vote for Kerry, but as the Bush White House knows full well, it's a year too late.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Did the Coverup work?

With the announcement in October 2005 of an indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff it became clear that the effort to delay the investigation worked, stretching out the release of the findings until after the 2004 election.

As Fitzgerald said of the lack of cooperation "we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005" if people had cooperated.

Or as E.J. Dionne, Jr. in the Washington Post pointed out "Note the significance of the two dates: October 2004, before President Bush was reelected, and October 2005, after the president was reelected. Those dates make clear why Libby threw sand in the eyes of prosecutors, in the special counsel's apt metaphor, and helped drag out the investigation."

Does this really surprise anyone? No. Could anything have been done? Yes. The members of the media who were approached by Karl Rove and Libby could have decided either that they weren't bound by confidentiality as the story being pitched was an attack and not a news story or one of them could have told another reporter the details of the story and informed the public.

Instead Time and the rest of the media's inaction impacted the election. As MediaMatters pointed out, the issue of Time's actions over the past two years was revived by an August 25 Los Angeles Times article stating that the magazine did not pursue a waiver from Rove allowing Cooper to testify in part because "Time editors were concerned about becoming part of such an explosive story in an election year."

Perhaps the press was in a no win situation. The press could have sat on the story and deceived the public. Or they could have told the public and be accused of playing sides. Gee which side is worse? Inform the public and get criticized or keep the public in the dark to support a cover-up?

Too media in the media went with the cover-up, just as the White House probably guessed, and the bet paid off. Big time.

Friday, October 28, 2005

A Year Too Late

Conservatives who complain that Patrick Fitzgerald's indictment of I. Scooter Libby is unfair, that what happened was little more than rough politics and that this should be left be to the realm of the public arena, know they don't have to worry about "being careful about what you wish for."

For while the public might get a chance a to evaluate all of the evidence in this case and then in the future make a decision on who they want to be their leaders, unfortunately for America this information release has come one year too late.

Fitzgerald's almost two year quest to investigate who exposed and wasted a CIA resource started in plenty of time to investigate and inform the public prior to the 2004 elections. The GOP knew this would be bad for their chances and so they had to drag out the investigation past November 2004, and they succeeded.

If the information that the White House went after someone who disproved their reasons for going to war in Iraq had been released in 2004 then John Kerry would be president today. Instead they ran the clock and Bush narrowly won the 2004 election. All it would have taken was for approximately 60,000 of the 2.85 million (about 2%) Ohioans who voted for Bush to vote for Kerry.

For anyone who doubts this scenario one only has to look at a recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll that today by a 55-39 vote people would vote for the Democratic candidate if Bush were again running.

Instead the public only got a half a story to base their vote and the result was a tiny victory. Perhaps rather than indictments last year the White House could have just told the truth. Right.

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Kay Bailey Hypocrite

Hearing the comments by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas trying to downplay potential upcoming indictments against White House officials in the Valerie Plame outing case brings out the hypocritical nature of conservatives and it was so hypocritical that even the press had to cover it.

"I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment . . . that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars," Hutchinson said in 2005.

Gee, does that mean Hutchison disagreed with Ken Starr when he was doing something just to show his years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayers dollars.

"I do think . . . that something needs to be said that is a clear message that our rule of law is intact and the standards for perjury and obstruction of justice are not gray,"Hutchison said in 1999.

Her comments were so bad that she had to clarify them, having her spokesman say "She was expressing her general concern that perjury traps have become too common when investigators are unable to indict on any underlying crime."

That a conservative is a hypocrite should not be surprising. In 2000, afraid that Al Gore might win the electoral college while getting less votes than Bush, some in the GOP prepared talking points about the Electoral College's essential unfairness -- a massive talk-radio operation would be encouraged."

The goal would be to challenge the Electoral College and Gore's election. Instead Gore won the popular vote and was ahead in the electoral college until the Bush brothers worked out Florida and all of a sudden it was fine to lose the popular vote but win the electoral college.

So basically there are two sets of rules. One for Democrats (play fair) and one for Republicans (anything goes) and don't you dare suggest that Republicans play by the Democrats rules.

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Media Blinders

One of the points "fake" journalist Stephen Colbert told the Washington Post recently about the passiveness of the press is that "there's a sense that if they engaged in what we do at 'The Daily Show,' they'd be accused of being too aggressive."

Carole Coleman would probably agree with that. In an article in the Sunday Times Review, Coleman (the Irish Journalist from RTE who had the gumption to ask Bush tough questions during an interview in 2004 resulting in the White House complaining to the Irish Embassy) relives the interview and the reaction she received from the White House.

Coleman was criticized for actually asking tough questions, as opposed to the "On Bended Knee" approach used too often in America. However Coleman said filmmaker Michael Moore was among those who noted her work.

"In the end, doesn't it always take the Irish to speak up?" he said. "She's my hero. Where are the Carole Colemans in the US press?"

Possibly only on the Daily Show but unfortunately they are dismissed too easily by the establishment press. When
Washington Post executive editor Leonard Downie Jr. was asked why more reporters aren't aggressive like Colbert, Downie dismissively, and cluelessly responded "The Daily Show is entertainment and satire, not news, and Colbert's comments are part of the entertainment."

However the Post's own Media Critic admitted that the Daily Show does makes news and that the methods they use, well, the non-fake journalists ought to be doing the same thing.

But too many haven't and it's the reason it has taken nearly five years for the public to figure out Bush and are now watching the White House implode. Perhaps if there were more reporters like Carole Coleman and Stephen Colbert the American people would have wised up long ago.

Monday, October 10, 2005

What Liberal Media?

If anyone still believes in the myth of the liberal media, one only has to look at two recent stories to show the limits of the mainstream media and how they are anything but liberal.

On October 6 Salon reported that George Bush's 2004 election may have been made possible by a Toledo Blade chief political columnist sitting on a story. The columnist reportedly knew that the chair of the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign for Lucas County's had potential campaign violations in early 2004 but suppressed the story.

Salon reported that according to several knowledgeable sources, the Blade's chief political columnist was told of the potential campaign violations as early as January 2004. But according to Blade editors, never gave the paper the all-important tip in early 2004. The reporter, who later went to work for a Republican congressional candidate, said he told his editors about the story.

The publisher and editor in chief of the Blade said that had the story blown up before the 2004 election "that most Republicans I know agree that Kerry would have won Ohio and won the presidency."

On October 10 Washington Post Media Critic Howard Kurtz noted in a story on Stephen Colbert of the "fake news show" the Daily Show on Comedy Central that Colbert said "The most common thing that real reporters say to me is, 'I wish I could say what you say.' I don't understand is, why can't they say what I say, even in their own way."

As an example, Colbert reviews how the Daily Show was the media that showed that Vice President Cheney's denial that he said it was "pretty well confirmed" that terrorist Mohammed Atta had met with an Iraqi official in Prague was false, showing both Cheney's denial and his original statement. Colbert was left wondering why it was left to the Daily Show to show it.

"That's not advocacy journalism. That's objectivity in its most raw form," Colbert said, adding the reason many reporters won't do that type of reporting is "that there's a sense that if they engaged in what we do at 'The Daily Show,' they'd be accused of being too aggressive."

Kurtz is a prime example of those accusers. In June Arianna Huffington of the Huffington Post said following a weak effort by Tim Russert on Meet the Press in questioning RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman that "Russert is fast becoming journalism's answer to the 'E-ZPass,' those electronic tags that allow drivers to go through toll booths without having to stop. Kurtz snidely commented "How dare Russert not act as a Democratic debater!

So in both cases it looks like some, possibly many, in the media aren't doing its job. So if the media can't even go so far as to report the truth, how can it be liberal?

Sunday, October 09, 2005

Bush Believes in Cronyism, Not Conservatism

The appointment of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court has annoyed conservatives because George W. Bush didn't appoint one of "them" to the Court and now they are wondering about the conservative credentials of the "president."

According to David Broder of the Washington Post, Republican activists angry over his nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court confronted the president's envoys during a pair of tense closed-door meetings.

Trent Lott, R-Miss., formerly the Senate Majority leader told CBS "it's not enough for the president to say "trust me," when it comes to the Supreme Court. I don't just automatically salute or take a deep bow anytime a nominee is sent up."

What conservatives never understood was that Bush only appeared to be one of them in order to win elections. Rather than believing in conservatism Bush believes in cronyism. One only has to look at his personal history to understand that.

Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post, has suggested that Bush to withdraw her nomination, saying that if Harriet Miers were not a crony of the president of the United States, her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a joke, as it would have occurred to no one else to nominate her.

But just as true is that if George W. Bush was not the son of a president and crony of high ranking Republicans, it is unconceivable that he ever would have gotten into the Texas Air National Guard, been invited to be in a group to own a major league baseball team, successfully run for Governor of Texas, and most of all would not have the crony connections that helped "win" the 2000 election.

Looking at his appointments and his interests one is left believing that Bush is a Cronyista and not a Conservative and to believe otherwise is to be foolish.

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Extremist Nation

Listening to the reaction of the right regarding the nomination of Harriet Miers to the United States Supreme Court and how that she basically isn't Attila the Hun (i.e. constitutionalist) and how wrong that is just magnifies the extremist nature of conservatives.

This has forced the White House to work hard to sell the nomination not to Democrats, but to Republicans as many on the Right have questioned the nomination.

"Surely this is a pick from weakness," Bill Kristol wailed in the Weekly Standard. "Is the administration more broadly so weak?"

George Will said First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be...The president's "argument" for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons.

Based on his earlier choices for his "Heck of A Job" groupies, trusting Bush is a poor option. One could hope that Bush has figured out that he no longer needs the extremists to get reelected and that it's time to work on his legacy and right now that legacy (stolen election, massive debt, ill advised war in Iraq, poor response to Hurricane Katrina) is moving toward being among the worst presidents in history.

With three years to make up for five bad ones, Bush may be trying to restore his legacy and put the needs of Americans above the needs of his contributors. However, based on past actions one has to wonder if Miers is an extremist also and Bush is tricking the country into thinking that she is a moderate.

One can dream that Bush has put the interests of the nation first but the idea that Bush made a bad appointment or is screwing the country would be nothing new. The only difference is that this may disappoint most of the country.

Saturday, October 01, 2005

Miller's Sentence Should Have Been for WMD Stories

After reading the reasons New York Times reporter Judith Miller gave in deciding to get out of jail, one has to wonder if instead of spending time in jail because she refused to testify about her role in the leak of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative, Miller actually was doing time for her faulty stories on Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

The Washington Post reported that Miller said she "served 85 days in jail because of my belief in the importance of upholding the confidential relationship journalists have with their sources."

Yet Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby gave her permission to talk and Libby's lawyer apparently told Miller's lawyer more than a year ago that she was free to talk, as well.

In addition, U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan had told Miller that "she was mistaken in her belief that she was defending a free press, stressing that the government source she alleges she is protecting had already released her from her promise of confidentiality."

Perhaps as the Post's Dan Froomkin offered as one explanation, that going to jail was Miller's way of transforming herself from a journalistic outcast (based on her gullible pre-war reporting) into a much-celebrated hero of press freedom.

Even her colleagues at the Times had to ask Was this a charade on her part for martyrdom, or a real principle?

Arriana Huffington in a Huffington Post column suggested that Miller was the source who gave the information to the White House in retribution for the New York Times running Joe Wilson's column that helped expose her faulty, administration friendly, reporting on WMD.

So why did Miller go to jail? Perhaps in a moment of enlightenment Miller decided she needed to as penance for her stories and damage to America.

Thursday, September 29, 2005

America Figures Out Where It Went Wrong

Following the "re-election" of George W. Bush to be president, the Daily Mirror in England had a cover that asked "How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?"

With the recent indictment of Tom DeLay, questions regarding Bill Frist's questionable HCA stock sale, the continuing disaster in Iraq, and the disaster in New Orleans, one has to again wonder why so many people voted for Bush.

While his approval rating is dropping towards 40 percent, one wonders what changed the mind of the other 11 percent. Iraq was a disaster last year, the only shocking news about Tom DeLay is that he was actually indicted, there were questions about Frist and HCA before, and Bush has continually pulled resources from the states to send to Iraq, sacrificing the needs of people in America.

But none of that seemed to matter to too many voters last fall, and the Bush administration figured that out. Rather than worry about whether what they were doing was right, the administration followed their beliefs, no matter if they were based on facts or not.

Many voters followed that path. Rather than take a close look at issues, they accepted generalized statements which matched what they wanted to believe, no matter if it was accurate or not. The result was a Bush win.

So the Daily Mirror asked how could so many Americans be so dumb? Easy, the public voted beliefs rather than facts. It's great to have strongly held beliefs but if at the end of the day they are harmful then they need to be examined.

Perhaps the examination has begun.

Monday, September 26, 2005

Bushes Hit Trifecta

With the request by the Louisiana Senators for $250 billion to rebuild the state following Hurricane Katrina, George Bush joins his brothers in being involved in among the most expensive and most appalling events in recent memory.

In 1990 Neil Bush paid a $50,000 fine and was banned from banking activities for his role in taking down Silverado, which cost taxpayers $1.3 billion. As a director of a failing thrift in Denver, Bush voted to approve $100 million in what were ultimately bad loans to two of his business partners. And in voting for the loans, he failed to inform fellow board members at Silverado Savings & Loan that the loan applicants were his business partners. Over all the crisis cost the public $175 billion.

In 2000 Jeb Bush as Governor helped override the public's choice for president, allowing his brother, who prior to Florida was in second place in both the electoral and popular vote, to turn (or some say steal) a disputed vote count in a win for his brother.

In 2005 George Bush, after working to transfer needed funds from homeland programs to an ill advised war in Iraq, faces a bill of $250 billion to rebuild New Orleans. Building the levees to withstand a category 5 hurricane would have cost $2.5 billion and repairs that were denied might have been enough to keep them intact. Unfortunately the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at the same time as federal tax cuts, federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a trickle.

Looking back at their accomplishments in savings and loans, election theft, and a national disgrace in government reaction, George and Barbara must be so proud of their sons.

Thursday, September 22, 2005

What Might Have Been

Looking at the lack of leadership coming out of the White House and the Republican Party and looking at the issues Sen. John Kerry promoted during his 2004 presidential campaign one can wonder what might have been.

With Iraq moving closer to civil war, the American public growing more concerned and many advocating a pullout of troops, and the British feeling pressured to withdraw troops, the need for assistance from other countries is painfully obvious.

Unfortunately the only hope for such a coalition is, as Washington Post intelligence reporter Dana Priest put it, if the cost of failure is probably so firmly evident that maybe, just maybe, those same allies might see the wisdom of jumping in---but only if it were to become a genuine coalition that shares risks and benefits.

And as Americans see gas prices rise and the administration view drilling as a response one wonders why Kerry's support for a plan to innovate our way out of dependence didn't get more support.

Bush and Cheney said they were the party who could protect Americans and that a Kerry win would put the United States at risk of another "devastating" terrorist attack.

Instead the U.S. again has faced a disaster and early results are not looking good. As Sen. Kerry said recently at a speech at Brown University, Katrina stripped away any image of competence and exposed to all the true heart and nature of this administration.

As a President who has only been able to get support by scaring people, recent events showed that wasn't going to work anymore and Bush now has pledged to take responsibility.

As Kerry said The President finally acted on Katrina and admitted a mistake only because he was held accountable by the press, cornered by events, and compelled by the outrage of the American people, who with their own eyes could see a failure of leadership and its consequences. As they say, the first step towards recovery is to get out of denial. But don't hold your breath hoping acceptance of responsibility will become a habit for this administration.

Another administration would have acted differently. Unfortunately Americans can wonder what might have been.

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

Looking for Leadership (in all the wrong places)

Watching the continued drop in the public's approval of "President" George Bush one has to wonder what took Americans so long to figure out that he is "all hat and no cattle," as they say in Texas.

Did a tiny majority of Americans so want to believe in Bush that they overlooked his faults and voted to give him a second chance? Or did they not want to have to admit that a mistake was made in 2000 and that someone should have stood up and said something? Or was it the unchallenged photos from New Orleans and Iraq that finally exposed the administration and that no amount of wordsmithing can overcome those images?

Whatever the cause, apparently the glow around Bush has melted away and the public isn't liking what it is seeing. At 40%, Bush's approval rating is comparable to Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam or Jimmy Carter during the hostage crisis, hardly an encouraging scenario.

At this point it appears that Bush has basically lost any Democratic support and most independent support, relying only on his hard core supporters. The questions is, when will his base start to abandon him? Or are they starting to do so.

According to a recent Zogby poll, the number of people thinking Bush is doing an excellent (or heckuva) job has dropped from 24 percent to 15 percent over the past seven months. No longer being able to survive on a minimal majority Bush may find he has to listen the public. And reason.

Thursday, September 08, 2005

William Rehnquist and New Orleans

While it may be in poor judgment to speak ill of the dead, in reviewing the events that led up to the tragic events in New Orleans one has to take into consideration the activities of former Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

For those who haven't followed the news with a magnifying glass over the past dozen years one might wonder what Rehnquist had to do with New Orleans. Actually a lot. His actions set in motion a number of events that enabled Republicans to turn a close, but apparently lost election, into a disputed election, and eventually one that Rehnquist helped determine.

With his personal choice of President in office, Rehnquist watched as the new Commander in Chief set about on a policy of that damaged the United States, and of which New Orleans may be just one chapter.

Rehnquist's actions started in 1994 when Special Prosecutor Robert Fiske indicated that he would likely end the inquiry [Whitewater] without taking any action against Clinton, Rehnquist used his authority under the Independent Counsel Act to appoint Court of Appeals Judge David Sentelle, a close associate of the extreme right-wing senator from North Carolina, Jesse Helms, and a well-known Republican Party operative, to head the three-judge panel overseeing the independent counsel. There were 11 more senior judges in line for the appointment. Sentelle's panel terminated Fiske and replaced him with Kenneth W. Starr, another longtime operative of the Republican right.

With Starr in charge he led about a reckless charade of a prosecution that was culminated by impeachment hearings, overseen by Rehnquist. The hearings may not have removed Clinton from office but they may have had enough of an impact on the country to allow Bush & Co. to steal Florida and deny Al Gore his elected position as President.

Installing Bush into the White House led to the downgrading of FEMA, which led to the disastrous early response in New Orleans. Until Clinton/Gore, FEMA head James Lee Witt revitalized the agency so much that even Bush had to praise him in during the 2000 debates.

I have to pay the administration a compliment. James Lee Witt of FEMA has done a really good job of working with governors during times of crisis, Bush said.

However, as Slate pointed out to compound the irony, FEMA was actually a poster child of Gore's reinventing government crusade.

Perhaps unhappy with good government, Bush packed FEMA with people who ran horse shows and were advance men for the White House. As a result, the predictable disastrous events happened.

One has to wonder if Rehnquist's heart gave out last week when he pieced the above together and figured out his responsibility for it all.

Thursday, September 01, 2005

Some Culture of Life

For an administration that was willing to rush back to the White House in order to sign a bill to help one comatose individual from dying, the apparent lack of concern about possibly hundreds dying in New Orleans makes one wonder how serious the administration is about believing in a culture of life.

On Tuesday desperate reports started coming out of New Orleans yet many believe the administration was slow to act. In the meantime, many more people may die in New Orleans. By Thursday night the situation had degenerated into chaos.

Whether its in Iraq or New Orleans, one has to question the administration's concern for American life. Why is it OK when some die, but others deserve the full attention of the President?

What kind of culture of life is that?

Wednesday, August 31, 2005

Grover Norquist and the Battle of New Orleans

Anyone watching the tragedy resulting from Hurricane Katrina unfold in the New Orleans area and wondering why more wasn't done to prevent, or limit such tragic events, one only has to look at the people in the White House and those who helped get them there to get an answer.

Among the leaders on the right are Grover Norquist, who once said of government "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

As a result of such anti-tax movement, and a folly of a war in Iraq, too little effort was put forward in preparing America for such disasters that befell the southeast. And just as the Administration was warned that Osama Bin Laden was determined to attack America, there were also warnings that additional funds were needed in the New Orleans area.

Editor & Publisher pointed out that "In early 2004, as the cost of the conflict in Iraq soared, President Bush proposed spending less than 20 percent of what the Corps said was needed for Lake Pontchartrain, according to a Feb. 16, 2004, article, in New Orleans CityBusiness."

E&P added that "The Newhouse News Service article published Tuesday night observed, "The Louisiana congressional delegation urged Congress earlier this year to dedicate a stream of federal money to Louisiana's coast, only to be opposed by the White House. ... In its budget, the Bush administration proposed a significant reduction in funding for southeast Louisiana's chief hurricane protection project. Bush proposed $10.4 million, a sixth of what local officials say they need."

What did they think? That the "private" sector would protect the city? So now instead of spending tens of millions the government and insurers will have to spend hundreds of millions or billions.

Yet another brilliant achievement for the gang who can't shoot straight.

Thursday, August 11, 2005

NARAL's Nader Strategy

Based on the recent ads, one has to wonder if Ralph Nader is working for NARAL (formerly known as the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League).

In an effort to derail, or at least muddy up, Supreme Court Justice Nominee John Roberts, NARAL is running controversial ads about a legal interpretation. There is little or not chance this will change enough votes to derail Roberts, just as Nader's quest had no chance to win the presidency.

However, NARAL, like Nader, may end up hurting its cause. One can only wonder if distaste from ads like these will hurt liberals in upcoming battles on nominees or in elections, just as Nader helped put George Bush in the White House.

NARAL can claim what they want about the reasons they are taking this approach, just as Nader did for his candidacy, but it's doubtful NARAL will win many votes in the Senate or from the public, but they might do a lot of damage on other issues which will only advance Republican causes.

Tuesday, August 09, 2005

Peter Jennings, 1938-2005

Peter Jennings, the face many would say of ABC News, passed away this week following a battle with lung cancer.

Jennings had been off the air since early April but in late October 2004, in what must have been his last news trips on the road, Jennings was among those covering a John Kerry presidential campaign rally at the statehouse in Des Moines, Iowa.

While many on the right viewed Jennings as a liberal, to many others he was a reporter who developed a keen insight into the news. And in today's era of turning everything into a black or white issue it was refreshing to know that a few people still knew there could be many sides to an issues.

The last of the big three (Jennings, Rather & Brokaw) to retire he may be the one most missed.

Saturday, August 06, 2005

The Other 2001 Anniversary

The Republican like to wave the anniversary of September 11, 2001 as a bloody flag against anyone who challenges them but there is another important 2001 date that will go down in history, but one George W. Bush would like to forget.

On August 6, 2001, Bush supposedly was briefed on a presidential daily brief entitled Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.

The memo stated FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

Just over a month later Al Qaeda did strike and Bush, who was watching his popularity fall as one would expect of an illegitimate president, saw the public disregard their concerns and support him.

But rather than go after an enemy who attacked the United States, Bush tried to go to war on the cheap so he could pursue his policy of going after Iraq. Democrats missed a chance to say "Finish Afghanistan First" and instead saw Bush be "re-elected."

So today, four years later, one has to wonder if the Bush White House is marking this anniversary, for it possibly was just as important as September 11. If they had acted and stopped the attacks they might not have been given credit and lost the 2004 election. Instead thousands in New York, Washington, D.C. and soldiers from across the country might be alive today.

An anniversary to remember indeed.

Monday, August 01, 2005

Mr. Horrible Goes to the UN

Rather than give Congress a few documents to evaluate United Nations Ambassador nominee John Bolton, George W. Bush decided to wait until Congress left town so he could weakly appoint possibly the worst person in his administration to be ambassador to the United Nations.

Bolton, who even many Republicans believe is a bad appointment, will now be able to "represent" the U.S. at the United Nations. One has to wonder if the people at the United Nations will give Mr. Bolton the amount of respect he deserves.

Afterall, REPUBLICAN Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio said of Bolton "It is my opinion that John Bolton is the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be."

The committed Republicans believe that he is just the sort of person the U.N. needs to lead the reforms. While that kind of talk may keep the Right in line it's doubtful it has any basis in reality. But then this past four years has been an unreal experience.

Sunday, July 24, 2005

Did the Press Corp Visit Emerald City?

After watching the White House Press Corp stop accepting lies and half-truths from the Administration and actually show a backbone one has to wonder what happened.

Jon Stewart of the Daily Show, to the roar of approval from his audience, suggested "We've secretly replaced the White House press corps with actual reporters."

For too, too long members of the Washington typists suggested that to ask actual questions and not accept dishonest statements from the White House. And when someone had the audacity to question the people like Tim Russert for not asking tough questions, alleged media watchdogs like Howard Kurtz would say How dare Russert not act as a Democratic debater!

So what happened? Perhaps the WH Press Corps was replaced by actual reporters, or perhaps the media just got tired of being lied to. But my favorite is that they went to the emerald City and picked up courage, a brain, and heart.

Maybe so and maybe this will be the start of the press acting like journalists instead of watchdogs.

Thursday, July 14, 2005

Blame the Victim

In an attempt to move the focus of the discussion around Karl Rove's potential role in outing a CIA operatives, the Republican Party has gone on attack, figuring a good offense is the best defense.

In doing so the GOP have decided to attack Joe Wilson, Matt Cooper of Time Magazine for their role in the story. Afterall, all Karl Rove was trying to do was alert the media to questionable story. It will be interesting if that strategy works.

The thing those on the left find interesting about Rove is that in 2004 he was involved in an election campaign that played heavily on security issues, yet he, or someone else at the White House outed a CIA operative.

Because the investigation was underway the press didn't push the story too much (afterall they were much too busy with attacking Kerry based on faulty right wing claims) and the public didn't have an opportunity, in an election that was about security issues, to decide if they wanted to vote for a group that hurt American security.

While the White House is currently facing some unpleasantness, many cynics believe that in the end the most anyone involved will get a slap on the wrist, secure in the knowledge that this came out after the election and well after it could have been an issue.

Thursday, June 30, 2005

Deny, Deny, Deny

In a dishonest and disingenuous speech before the New York Conservative Party, Karl Rove attacked liberals and democrats for their response to 9/11. Faced with a torrent of criticism, Rove and conservatives tried to revise what he said and thanks to a compliant media they have succeeded.

According to the Daily Howler, Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday toed the party line, saying "Rove did go after in his speech liberals, not Democrats. But a lot of Democrats on Capitol Hill reacted as if they personally had been attacked and insulted, and demanded that Rove apologize or be fired."

Because Rove's speech received limited attention, many may have relied on transcripts of the event to decide if Rove was over the line. In a perfect world that would be no problem as, for example, a White House supplied transcript would provide accurate reflection of what was said.

However, in this case, the White House has apparently decided not to supply a transcript, yet there are supposed "transcripts" out there.

In the text of the speech on the Washington Post, Rove allegedly said "Moderation and restraint is not what was called for. It was a moment to summon our national will - and to brandish steel. MoveOn.Org, Michael Moore and Howard Dean may not have agreed with this, but the American people did."

See, the word Democrat wasn't used, conservatives say. Right. Except that wasn't what Rove said. During an interview with Howard Dean on Hardball, Chris Matthews played the actual tape of what Rove said. Unfortunately, the transcript of the show did not include Rove's remarks, but this is what Rove said.

MoveOn.Org, and Michael Moore and Howard Dean may dominate the Democratic party and liberalism, but their moderation and restraint is not what America felt needed to be done and moderation and restraint was not what was called for and acted upon. It was a time to summon our national will and to brandish steel.

Without a true transcript, people at places like Redstate.org can claim "Rove did not say Democrat. Rove said "liberal." Rove did not say progressive. Rove said liberal."

Now some may split hairs and still say Rove was talking about liberals but it's pretty clear, that with Bush's popularity plummeting, conservatives have decided to go into attack mode. The galling thing is that Bush has been so eager to go to war when he avoided one, yet he and his administration feel free to criticize others lack of eagerness to enter into a war unconnected to the 9/11 attacks on America.

Monday, June 27, 2005

Red stater wins in Iran

One of the strangest things about watching and listening to all of the news coming out of Iraq was how much their recent election, in a sense, followed the recent US elections. In Iran a religious conservative defeated an intellectual politician, in part by going after value voters.

(Of course the other comparison is that there was funny business going on in the election balloting, matching our own problems back in the state.)

In Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the conservative mayor of Tehran, beat his relatively moderate rival Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani and was declared Iran's next president.

In a sense, Ahmadinejad has George Bush to thank as it was Bush's election eve criticisms of the Iranian election that push people to vote for Ahmadinejad. Bush denounced Tehran's theocracy for manipulating the vote by eliminating candidates and ignoring the "basic requirements" of democracy.

One has to wonder if Bush did that on purpose with the expectation that a hardliner would be elected and that would either lead to the people working to overturn the system or if he is just plain stupid and didn't realize the impact his words would have on the Iranian people.

While Bush may say he is not happy with the election, he may find a soul mate in Ahmadinejad as they both share religious conservative views, won elections by appealing thanks to negative campaigns, and an interest in seeing issues only in black or white. The problem may be that they are too much alike, stubborn and uninterested in the wishes of the electorate.

Thursday, June 16, 2005

Missing the Point of the Downing St. Memo

In an effort to prove that they didn't blow off reporting on the Downing Street memo, the media has attempted to say that the memo doesn't saying anything that the press hadn't previously reported, i.e. that the Bush Administration was planning for war against Saddam Hussein.

And if that wasn't enough, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post added that Critics, however, note that the memo by Richard Dearlove, then head of British intelligence, offered no specifics about any cooking of the intelligence books and could easily have been drawn from ongoing news accounts about the administration gearing up for war.

That the facts were being fixed was only one part of the memo. As Slate pointed out there were three points to the memo, that the Bush administration:
  • Knew Saddam Hussein didn't pose a threat
  • Decided to overthrow him by force anyway; and
  • Was "fixing" intelligence to sell the impending invasion to a duped American public.
The media and Republicans have decided that the first two points are unimportant and that the third was false. Yet here is a memo describing minutes of British intelligence meeting and as Michael Smith, reporter for the Sunday Times of London, whose coverage broke the story, said It is one thing for the New York Times or The Washington Post to say that we were being told that the intelligence was being fixed by sources inside the CIA or Pentagon or the NSC and quite another to have documentary confirmation in the form of the minutes of a key meeting with the Prime Minister's office.

When faced with this truth, conservatives argue that "fixed" doesn't mean fixed, it means focused. Unfortunately, that also is false, Smith pointed out. This is a real joke. I do not know anyone in the UK who took it to mean anything other than fixed as in fixed a race, fixed an election, fixed the intelligence. If you fix something, you make it the way you want it.

But how was the public to know they were lying? If only someone in the U.S. had actually pointed out the lies in real time surely the media would have looked into it. Wouldn't they?
-------
These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group of people I've ever seen," John Kerry - March 10, 2004.

Wednesday, June 08, 2005

Media's E-ZPass Double Standard

One of the major reasons for the "successes" of the Bush Administration, and the difficulty facing Democrats, is the disparate treatment they receive from the media.

Republican's have been able to institute policies, which a majority of Americans don't support, without serious questioning by the media while anytime a Democrat says anything questionable a full front attack is undertaken by the media.

One only has to look at the latest Beat The Press incident on Sunday, June 5, to see how host Tim Russert and his lack of follow-up allowed RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman to escape serious questioning.

But when Arianna Huffington of the Huffington Post commented that host Tim Russert is fast becoming journalism’s answer to the “E-ZPass,” those electronic tags that allow drivers to go through toll booths without having to stop, Media Critic Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post snidely commented How dare Russert not act as a Democratic debater!

Kurtz apparently believes in the E-ZPass treatment for GOP guests, however when journalists actually do their job and ask intelligent questions of Democrats and liberals, he thinks that's just great. On Wednesday Kurtz highlighted the thorough questioning on "Fox News Sunday" by Chris Wallace of Amnesty's U.S. chief, William Schulz and called the resulting answers "quite revealing."

See Wallace kept asking Schulz questions until he got to the bottom of the story, providing comments that were "quite revealing." This is the very type of journalism liberals are begging people like Russert and Kurtz to engage in. Instead Russert, just like he gives his GOP guests, received the E-ZPass treatment from Kurtz.

Apparently asking pointed follow-up questions of Democrats is expected but to do so with Republicans means you are a "Democratic debater."

Is it really any wonder with this type of double standard that Democrats face obstacles in getting their message out while the GOP gets an E-ZPass on questioning on their policies.

Sunday, June 05, 2005

Beat the Press

George Bush must throw good parties because the way the press treats him and his groupies one must think that they are worried that if they ask too many questions they will be crossed off future guest lists.

On Sunday Tim Russert of NBC NEWS' MEET THE PRESS interviewed Ken Mehlman, Chairman of the Republican Party and time after time Russert had Mehlman on the ropes, only to let him go without deep questioning, you know, the type he went on the offensive with when Howard Dean was running for president.

First, Russert pointed out that John Danforth, former Republican senator, and Bush's man.. at the United Nations had written in The New York Times that By a series of recent initiatives, Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christian...By a series of recent initiatives, Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians.

Mehlman waived it off, like he would do so many other questions this morning. The problem is that Russert didn't treat Mehlman like Dean. Some have said that Russert was correct to go after a possible future president. Fine, but why roll over once in office?

Mehlman got away it time after time. Russert would ask a probing question, Mehlman would respond with a stupid or ridiculous answer and Russert would move along to the next question, like a police officer moving people away from a crime scene. "Move along, nothing to see here."

One can only assume when Mehlman got back to his office he was received congratulations for "Beating the Press."

Friday, June 03, 2005

Bush's real plan for Social Security

In his efforts to change Social Security from a social insurance program to an investment program George Bush has said he wants to give people more control over their money.

In reality he wants to give Wall Street more control over American's money, with limited oversight. This was made clear on Thursday with the appointment of Rep. Christopher Cox as head of the Security and Exchange Commission.

Cox will replace William Donaldson, a moderate who worked to restore the integrity to the SEC after the short, but turbulent term of Harvey Pitt, who may be best remembered for not telling other commissioners that former FBI director William Webster, who had been selected to head a new five-member panel charged with overseeing the accounting industry, had served on the board of directors of a company accused of fraud.

Pitt decided that the allegations about the firm, U.S. Technologies, were not worth relaying to other commissioners, or to the White House, before Webster's selection, according to USA Today. Hey, why should fraud allegations be important on someone named to oversee an industry facing numerous ethical clouds.

While Donaldson worked to restore integrity to the SEC, the problem was that as the New York Times pointed out, in Republican and business circles, William H. Donaldson has been viewed as the David Souter of the Securities and Exchange Commission, a disappointingly independent choice who sided too frequently with the Democrats. (i.e. the people's voices were heard.)

On the other had Cox is view as GOP lackey, who helped to steer through the House a bill making investor lawsuits more difficult.

That measure, the Times pointed out, which Congress adopted over President Bill Clinton's veto, was hailed by business groups, which say it has reduced costly and frivolous cases. It has also been criticized by consumer and investor organizations. They say its adoption in 1995 contributed to an unaccountable climate that fostered the big accounting scandals at companies like Enron and WorldCom a few years later.

So what does this have to do with Social Security? With a flood of money potentially available to the investment community, one should expect new scandals, however those scandals won't be investigated. William Lerach, a prominent shareholder lawyer in San Diego, told the Times not to expect Cox to be an investor's friend.

"I would expect that Cox will use his authority for an across-the-board assault on investor protection," Mr. Lerach said. "In my experience with him, I found him to be virulently anti-investor and unrestrained in his desire to gut the securities laws. It's hard to think of a worse choice for the S.E.C. This is a world-class payback to the corporate world."

Guess whose going to win? Wall Street and the rich. And who will lose? Everyone else. I guess we can thank the 51% of Americans who voted for Bush for making the U.S. a worse place to live.

Thursday, June 02, 2005

Watergate vs. Whitewater

One of the interesting aspects to the unmasking of Mark Felt as Deep Throat is that well after 30 years a great deal of the public still views Watergate as an important historical event and probably one where there was an abuse of power.

The Watergate investigations led to the resignation of Richard Nixon as president, in part because of fears that he would not survive impeachment procedings. Fast forward approximately 25 years and there was another set of impeachment hearings, except this had little to do with governmental actions by a president, rather personal activities.

So it was with no surprise that barely five years after the hearings that were started by the investigation of Whitewater, a long ago failed real estate venture, few people remembered or cared. In fact, most people were probably just as embarrassed by the impeachment hearings as they were with President Clinton.

In the midst of the hearings, the Democrats uncharacteristically regained seats in Congress, a slap in the face to Republicans, which lead to Newt Gingrich resignation as Majority Leader.

The long term legacy of Whitewater is one that few will talk about. While the investigations were a failure, they may have played enough of a role in making the 2000 election close enough to allow George Bush to steal the presidency.

And in the end that may have been the sole purpose, putting a Republican back in the White House, fairly or not.

Thursday, May 19, 2005

Filibustering President Gore's Judges

Before Republicans get too upset about a tiny number of George Bush's judges not getting a confirmation vote perhaps they should look at the record of judges appointed by President Al Gore.

What judges, you might ask. Exactly. In 2000, despite what one reads in the papers, Al Gore won the presidency of the United States, it's just that activists judges, and a compliant senate, took it away from him.

Going into Florida, which by all accounts was basically a tie, Gore lead Bush by around 500,000 votes overall and by a count of 267-245 in the electoral college. It was only by throwing out hundreds of thousands of votes in Florida were the Republicans able to rewrite the election.

As a result Bush got to appoint 218 judges and had 208 confirmed, which is quite a record of compliance by the Democrats. And President Gore, well he got to appoint 0 judges and 0 were confirmed.

So before Sen. Bill Frist, Mitch McConnell and Sam Brownback complain too much about what the Democrats have done, they need to look at their own action. Since Bush had no moral right to appoint judges, the fact that he got ANY approved is an accomplishment.

What the Democrats should have done is to not recognize the election, nor allow any hearings on judges. Unfortunately the Democrats listened to Republicans mantra of "Act like an American, not like a Republican" and tried to work for the common good.

Look what good it did them.

Monday, May 16, 2005

White House outrage little more than CYA

In an amazing, but predictable, turn of events, the Bush administration is criticizing the publication of questionable information because it could lead people to action and result in deaths.

No, the White House didn't decide to be honest about falsifying the reasons they went to war in Iraq. No, it was about Newsweek magazine formally retracting a story published last week that said U.S. interrogators of Muslim prisoners at Guantanamo Bay desecrated the Koran, according to USA Today.

"The report had serious consequences. People have lost their lives," White House Spokesman Scott McClellan said.

Again, McClellan wasn't talking about the questionable information the White House put out that led to war in Iraq and the deaths of more than 1,500 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis. No, apparently that kind of falsification is OK.

Instead he was talking about Newsweek issuing a retraction of the story that sparked deadly riots in Afghanistan and other countries.

However, the problem is that just as the GOP Schiavo memo was true, the desecration allegations may be accurate as this was not the first time that charges that US soldiers had desecrated a Koran during interrogations at Guantanamo Bay. The Daily Kos reported that several sources, including the Philadelphia Inquirer, had earlier reported such abuse.

Also blaming Newsweek may be attempt to divert Muslim anger. Originally the US government originally said that the riots were not caused by the Newsweek report. The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff says a report from Afghanistan suggests that rioting in Jalalabad on May 11 was not necessarily connected to press reports that the Quran might have been desecrated in the presence of Muslim prisoners held in U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

So in the end the White House actions may be little more than an attempt to cover their ass over behavior the world finds appalling.

Sunday, May 15, 2005

Who is the most dishonest of them all?

A few days after the America media finally dug its head out of the sand and reported on the secret United Kingdom memo that stated that the UK decided to go along with the U.S. to war in Iraq despite a lack of evidence, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Iraq and lied about the U.S. involvement.

"You see, this war came to us, not the other way around," the Australian Broadcasting Company quoted Rice as lying to Iraqi government leaders.

This after CNN reported that 89 Democratic members of the U.S. Congress last week sent George Bush a letter asking for explanation about the secret British memo that said "intelligence and facts were being fixed" to support the Iraq
war in mid-2002.

The White House had not yet responded to queries about the congressional letter, which was released on May 6, but perhaps Rice's statement was the response.

CNN showed Rice making the statement but a Google search of the phrase shows only Radio Australia
and one other site using the comment. Perhaps the media were so incredulous that she would make such a bald faced lie that they couldn't bring themselves to report it.

After all they have the image of the administration to keep up. Now if John Kerry had made such a stupid statement the airwaves would have been full of criticisms by both Republicans and media.

Welcome to the world of new media.

Thursday, May 12, 2005

John Bolton - We Can Do Better

On Wednesday, by a 10-8 vote, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee forwarded the nomination of John Bolton to the full Senate for review, although Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio said there were better candidates.

"This United States can do better than John Bolton," Voinovich said, according to ABC News. He also called Bolton "the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be." He said Bolton would be fired if he was in the private sector.

So it's come down to this, the United States may have as one of its top diplomats someone who would be fired in the private sector. (And I thought that the GOP praised the private sector for these types of decisions.)

ABC News reported that Voinovich told reporters he would vote against Bolton in the full Senate. Will Bolton win eventual confirmation? "I have every faith in my colleagues. No one really is excited about him. We'll see what happens," he said.

For all the GOP's complaints about filibustering appointments, Bolton will get a vote, which is more than what could be said for William Weld, former Republican Governor of Massachusetts appointed by President Bill Clinton as Ambassador to Mexico but who was never even allowed a committee hearing by Sen. Jesse Helms. Weld eventually withdrew his nomination.

Bolton got more than a hearing, he got a vote, and now will go to the full senate where his prospects are uncertain. Voinovich said he hoped the full Senate, where Republicans hold a 55-45 majority, would reject the nomination.

"What message are we sending to the world community?" Voinovich asked.

Perhaps "Who cares what you think"?

Wednesday, May 11, 2005

Laura Bush: Truth Teller

First Lady Laura Bush's performance at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner on April 30 earned her rave reviews (Laura Bush big hit at press corps dinner) from most quarters but few people have taken the time to understand why she was such a hit.

I am a desperate housewife. I mean, if those women on that show think they're desperate, they oughta be with George

Well the whole country lives with the consequences of George and there are a lot of desperate people out here, possibly enough to elect John Kerry President last November, but that's another story. For many of us, Laura was only stating what many of us feel.

But George and I are complete opposites - I'm quiet, he's talkative, I'm introverted, he's extroverted, I can pronounce nuclear...

One has to wonder if that was an inside joke. In the Jib Jab pre-election cartoon, one the lines the John Kerry character said to Bush was "You can't say nuclear - that really scares me."

George's answer to any problem at the ranch is to cut it down with a chainsaw, which I think is why he and Cheney and Rumsfeld get along so well.

Recently the UK was rocked by the release of a pre-Iraq war memo that said "Britain and America had to "create" conditions to justify a war." Maybe that's another example of Bush's chainsaw behavior she was referring to.

"George, if you really want to end tyranny in the world, you're going to have to stay up later."

Perhaps that's been the problem with Russia, Moscow is eight hours ahead of the US so Bush is never awake when the Russians are so it's difficult to get around to talking to Putin regarding democracy.

Laura was a hit alright, she hit a bullseye in describing her husband.

Tuesday, May 10, 2005

Turning PBS into GOPTV

Dissatisfied with control over the White House, the U.S. House of Representatives, Senate, and Supreme Court, talk radio and most cable news programs, the Republican Party has set its site on the lone holdout of moderate expression, the Public Broadcasting Service.

As the NewYork Times pointed out on May 1, the Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is aggressively pressing public television to correct what he and other conservatives consider liberal bias, prompting some public broadcasting leaders - including the chief executive of PBS - to object that his actions pose a threat to editorial independence.

Long a symbol of liberal propaganda to the right for uncovering stories that the right would prefer not be told, chairman Kenneth Y. Tomlinson is putting the squeeze on the few liberal programs on television. Without the knowledge of his board, the chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, contracted last year with an outside consultant to keep track of the guests' political leanings on one program, "Now With Bill Moyers" and encouraged corporation and public broadcasting officials to broadcast "The Journal Editorial Report," whose host, Paul Gigot, is editor of the conservative editorial page of The Wall Street Journal.

While this might seem small, what Tomlinson is doing is putting a microscope on a program that includes guests from all political persuasions while placing the extremist Wall Street Journal editorial board under the same microscope.

Should anyone really be surprised? No. But the questions is what should be done. Jonathan Chait of the Los Angeles Times suggests Cut the strings of government funding before right-wingers can destroy public broadcasting pointing out that while Newt Gingrich sought to slash or eliminate programs he considered wasteful, Bush turns those programs into arms of his political machine.

While many people think of Bush as an idiot, perhaps he is a genius, actually an evil genius. Bush takes a program like PBS and gives people the choice - either it will be run his way or get rid of it. So in order to save PBS it will have survive in the marketplace, not sustained like defense contractors with public money.

Yet there already are a number of cable networks that offer children's programming and nature shows, just few that offer real, in-depth analysis of the news, although anyone who watched PBS' Once Upon A Time in Arkansas investigation into whitewater must have thought it a FOX News production.

While those on the right may be drawn to support networks running questionable stories about Christmas under siege or trashing American war heroes, those on the left may not be as willing to support investigative stories on stolen elections or politicians shirking their military duties. So at the end of the day the right has figured out another way to get their message out, now it will be at the public expense.

Tuesday, May 03, 2005

Bush's Trillion Dollar Tax Increase

One of the points George Bush makes about the Social Security System is that the trust fund to which Americans have paid $1.5 trillion into over the past 20 plus years is basically empty, spent by a series of mostly Republican Presidents.

Yet by making that claim Bush is treating the $429 Billion collected in his first three fiscal years and the $963 billion expected to be collected in the coming five fiscal years as tax receipts that don't have to be paid back, which in effect makes it a Trillion Dollar tax increase.

During Bush's first three years in office the administration has racked up $1,571 trillion in deficits (compared to $1.4 trillion in eight years for Clinton, $1.5 trillion in four years for Bush I and $1.9 trillion in eight years for Reagan).

While the Bureau of the Public Debt shows the annual deficit for the Bush Administration to range from $420 in 2002 to $595 Billion in 2004, the White House uses the excess Social Security receipts to bring the figure to a more "manageable" $413 Billion.

If Social Security wasn't running a surplus then the government would be forced to sell Treasury notes to fund the deficit, which would be required to be paid back. Instead the Social Security trust fund annually covers a large part of the deficit spending.

The Social Security Trust Fund was set up for the government to eventually pay back what it borrows but when Bush says "there is no "trust fund,'" one has to ask whether he is indicating the government will default on those obligations?

Get it? If there's no surplus then the government has to really borrow money which it really has to pay back. But with the surplus it can take the money and run by saying it's gone In effect, by operating this way, Bush was able to enact a $145 billion tax increase in 2004 and $429 billion over his presidency.

Apparently Bush is the one with "fuzzy math." The only question is, is anyone listening?

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Did Kerry win afterall?

Last year, in response to the 2000 presidential election debacle, Sen. John Kerry and John Edwards promised supporters that they would work to count every vote and make sure every vote counts.

On election day, early exit polls seemed to indicate that was happening and that Kerry/Edwards would be elected. However later in the day, in several key battleground states, the exit polls were said be wrong, leading to a victory for George Bush.

To many there was always a question of "how could the exit polls be so wrong?" Now there is a study by the US Counts Votes that shows that possibly the polls weren't wrong. In Monday's Washington Post, Terry Neal writes that the USCV study "suggests the early exit polls that showed Kerry beating Bush may have been accurate after all."

While very exciting, reading the charts in the back of the study it appears that if the exit polls were correct, Kerry would have picked up votes in many states but only Iowa (7 electoral college votes), New Mexico (5) and Nevada (5) clearly voted for Kerry rather than Bush. If Kerry had received those three states, the 17 electoral vote change would meant a 269-269 tie rather than a 286-252 Bush win.

That leaves Ohio, for which the study showed two exit polls, an early one showing Kerry winning 52.1% to 47.9% and a late one showing Bushing winning 50.9% - 48.6%. Florida had three exit poll results and while the race was basically even Kerry was not ahead in any of the exit polls.

So was Ohio accurately counted? In 2000 the media tried to determine that regarding Florida and perhaps came up with a mixed result. (Although assuming Florida was basically a tie, how does the guy who otherwise was in second place in both the electoral college and popular vote end up President?)

If Kerry had only won Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico, the election would have gone to the House of Representatives. Could Kerry have won in the House? Maybe not since the GOP has the majority, but maybe Ohio would have been examined closer, eliminating the need for the House vote.

One comment heard a lot last fall was something along the line of "whoever wins I hope it's not close." While there might not have been a conspiracy, individually many voting officials may have repeatedly gave Bush the benefit of the doubt, increasing his vote total. After all, didn't this kind of behavior take place in Florida in 2000? (Did Florida Secrtary of State Katherine Harris do anything that hurt Bush?)

Kerry may well have won Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico AND Ohio, which would have been a 289-249 win, and based on what the Bush people believe, this would have been quite a mandate. That also might have meant the GOP lost the Presidential election four times in a row.