Wanna know what Bush has given his corporate backers? This Public Citizen report (available at the excellent misleader.org site) will tell you.
10.28.2004
From Maureen Dowd:
"President Bush is like one of the blissfully ignorant teenagers in "Friday the 13th'' movies, spouting slogans like "Freedom is on the march'' while Freddy Krueger is in the closet, ready to claw his skin off."
We should be so lucky.
"President Bush is like one of the blissfully ignorant teenagers in "Friday the 13th'' movies, spouting slogans like "Freedom is on the march'' while Freddy Krueger is in the closet, ready to claw his skin off."
We should be so lucky.
I've never loved Tom Friedman, but I like this. Specifically, this:
"How do we begin to repair this jagged hole [the lack of a moderate center in politics]? There is no cure-all, but three big things would help. One is a different U.S. approach to the world. The Bush-Cheney team bears a big responsibility for this hole because it nakedly exploited 9/11 to push a far-right Republican agenda, domestically and globally, for which it had no mandate. When U.S. policy makes such a profound lurch to the right, when we start exporting fear instead of hope, the whole center of gravity of the world is affected. Countries reposition themselves in relation to us.
...When the world liked Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, America had more power in the world. When much of the world detests George Bush, America has less power. People do not want to be seen standing next to us. It doesn't mean we should run our foreign policy as a popularity contest, but it does mean that leading is not just about making decisions - it's also the ability to communicate, follow through and persuade."
Now that baseball is over, I can get back to obsessing about the election.
"How do we begin to repair this jagged hole [the lack of a moderate center in politics]? There is no cure-all, but three big things would help. One is a different U.S. approach to the world. The Bush-Cheney team bears a big responsibility for this hole because it nakedly exploited 9/11 to push a far-right Republican agenda, domestically and globally, for which it had no mandate. When U.S. policy makes such a profound lurch to the right, when we start exporting fear instead of hope, the whole center of gravity of the world is affected. Countries reposition themselves in relation to us.
...When the world liked Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, America had more power in the world. When much of the world detests George Bush, America has less power. People do not want to be seen standing next to us. It doesn't mean we should run our foreign policy as a popularity contest, but it does mean that leading is not just about making decisions - it's also the ability to communicate, follow through and persuade."
Now that baseball is over, I can get back to obsessing about the election.
10.07.2004
"The number of flipflops and missteps committed by the Bush administration in Iraq far exceeds anything John Kerry can be accused of. First we dissolved the Iraqi army, then we tried to reconstitute it. First we tried to eliminate the Baathists, then we turned to them for help. First we installed General Jay Garner to run the country, then we gave it to Paul Bremer and when the insurgency became intractable, we installed an Iraqi government. The man we chose was a protégé of the CIA with the reputation of a strong man - a far cry from democracy. First we attacked Falluja over the objections of the Marine commander on the ground, then pulled them out when the assault was half-way through, again over his objections. "Once you commit, you got to stay committed," he said publicly. More recently, we started bombing Falluja again. " - George Soros
(I think it's freakin' hilarious that Cheney inadvertently directed people to Soros's website during the debate.)
(I think it's freakin' hilarious that Cheney inadvertently directed people to Soros's website during the debate.)
Saying it does not make it so. The Bush administration can continue to claim it was necessary and right to go to Iraq, but they are liars. Bush says, "He retained the knowledge, the materials, the means and the intent to produce weapons of mass destruction." This is blatantly untrue. It is exactly the opposite of what Duelfer's reports said, which is that Iraq no longer had the knowledge, materials, means, or, really, intent to produce weapons of mass destruction.
Why can't I get away with that?
Why can't I get away with that?
What a surprise!
More in fundamental, ideological differences between me and the Bush administration:
Tax cuts for big businesses don't automatically equal new (well-paying) jobs. Sometimes they only equal bigger paychecks for CEOs. Capitalism isn't an inherently moral economic system. I don't think I really need to give proof of this. Making America a "good place to do business" doesn't necessarily make America a good place to work.
Wasn't the trickle-down theory already proved a failure?
More in fundamental, ideological differences between me and the Bush administration:
Tax cuts for big businesses don't automatically equal new (well-paying) jobs. Sometimes they only equal bigger paychecks for CEOs. Capitalism isn't an inherently moral economic system. I don't think I really need to give proof of this. Making America a "good place to do business" doesn't necessarily make America a good place to work.
Wasn't the trickle-down theory already proved a failure?
Liars.
Sanctions were working. The UN was doing its job just fine.
Why did we really go to war in Iraq, Mr. President?
Sanctions were working. The UN was doing its job just fine.
Why did we really go to war in Iraq, Mr. President?
10.05.2004
More in TWPWEH files:
There is increasing evidence that Bush's No Child Properly Educated, ahem, I'm sorry, I mean No Child Left Behind education initiative is a monumental failure. Here's more, pointing out that testing data is insufficient in most states, and that little to no guidance was ever given for implementing these plans. Yay!
Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose dedicate a chapter of Bushwhacked to the educational failures in Texas under Bush's "leadership," including (and most damning, in my opinion) the method of encouraging students to drop out in order to raise test scores. It reminds me a little of "Pump Up the Volume." Is that terrible? The point is Bush took a bunch of bad policies and made them national. Brilliant.
Testing is not educating.
There is increasing evidence that Bush's No Child Properly Educated, ahem, I'm sorry, I mean No Child Left Behind education initiative is a monumental failure. Here's more, pointing out that testing data is insufficient in most states, and that little to no guidance was ever given for implementing these plans. Yay!
Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose dedicate a chapter of Bushwhacked to the educational failures in Texas under Bush's "leadership," including (and most damning, in my opinion) the method of encouraging students to drop out in order to raise test scores. It reminds me a little of "Pump Up the Volume." Is that terrible? The point is Bush took a bunch of bad policies and made them national. Brilliant.
Testing is not educating.
"Panders to voters."
An interesting to phrase to apply to a presidential candidate, or anyone running for public office in a representational democracy. How does someone whose job it is to represent voters "pander" to them? He is SUPPOSED to do what they want. That's his job. "Panders to large corporate donors," ok, I understand that. "Panders to international opinion," alright, I can see that. "Panders to voters"?
That that phrase can make sense in election season shows that we have greatly lost perspective on what a representational democracy is meant to be.
An interesting to phrase to apply to a presidential candidate, or anyone running for public office in a representational democracy. How does someone whose job it is to represent voters "pander" to them? He is SUPPOSED to do what they want. That's his job. "Panders to large corporate donors," ok, I understand that. "Panders to international opinion," alright, I can see that. "Panders to voters"?
That that phrase can make sense in election season shows that we have greatly lost perspective on what a representational democracy is meant to be.
You know what I think I'd like to see? Kerry and Cheney debate. It would be much more equal in terms of policy knowledge and history in Washington, and they might actually be able to discuss real, important policy-related things. It's not as if Bush actually makes policy. Yes, a Kerry-Cheney debate might actually be meaningful.
I watched "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" last night. If you can stomach the Capra cheesiness, it's a good election-season movie, all about one idealist uncovering graft and corruption in Washington, and initiating an epic (kind of silly) battle on the Senate floor against it. I think they should show it on network television some Sunday night before the elections. Maybe it would get people fired up to throw out the corrupt, corporate-owned politics currently dominating Washington. Ok, probably not. But I can dream, right?
I watched "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" last night. If you can stomach the Capra cheesiness, it's a good election-season movie, all about one idealist uncovering graft and corruption in Washington, and initiating an epic (kind of silly) battle on the Senate floor against it. I think they should show it on network television some Sunday night before the elections. Maybe it would get people fired up to throw out the corrupt, corporate-owned politics currently dominating Washington. Ok, probably not. But I can dream, right?
I think it's a bit nauseating that the Republican party constantly tries to paint Edwards as beholden to trial lawyers, claiming he uses his influence for their benefit. "Kettle! Kettle! Black! Kettle!"
In frenzy for tort reform, we seem to have overlooked a very important thing about the American judicial system--the courts are the main tool the American people have to exert some regulatory authority over business. If we could not sue corporations and professional service providers for providing bad services and products, they would have no reason not to do so. We'd be driving cars with malfunctioning seatbelts, our children would be playing with dangerous toys, we'd be eating poisonous food on a regular basis, and there would be nothing we could do about it.
Trial lawyers are not evil creatures. They do a very important job. Yes, there are some frivolous, meaningless lawsuits happening. But reform shouldn't mean eliminating civil suits altogether. Balance, people. Balance.
In frenzy for tort reform, we seem to have overlooked a very important thing about the American judicial system--the courts are the main tool the American people have to exert some regulatory authority over business. If we could not sue corporations and professional service providers for providing bad services and products, they would have no reason not to do so. We'd be driving cars with malfunctioning seatbelts, our children would be playing with dangerous toys, we'd be eating poisonous food on a regular basis, and there would be nothing we could do about it.
Trial lawyers are not evil creatures. They do a very important job. Yes, there are some frivolous, meaningless lawsuits happening. But reform shouldn't mean eliminating civil suits altogether. Balance, people. Balance.
10.01.2004
Misunderstanding the War on Terror:
Naomi Klein in The Nation:
"Most alarming, the attacks [on Sadr in Iraq] appear to be boosting support not only for Sadr personally but for theocracy generally. In February, the month before Paul Bremer closed down Sadr's newspaper, an Oxford Research International survey found that a majority of Iraqis wanted a secular government: Only 21 percent of respondents said their favored political system was "an Islamic state" and only 14 percent ranked "religious politicians" as their preferred political actors. Fast-forward to August, with Najaf under siege by US forces: The International Republican Institute reported that a staggering 70 percent of Iraqis want Islam and Shariah as the basis of the state."
We went into a secular-Islamic country, in order to "spread democracy" and "liberate the Iraqis," and have inspired instead an increasingly fundamentalist populace and a breeding ground for potential terrorists.
Sweet.
Naomi Klein in The Nation:
"Most alarming, the attacks [on Sadr in Iraq] appear to be boosting support not only for Sadr personally but for theocracy generally. In February, the month before Paul Bremer closed down Sadr's newspaper, an Oxford Research International survey found that a majority of Iraqis wanted a secular government: Only 21 percent of respondents said their favored political system was "an Islamic state" and only 14 percent ranked "religious politicians" as their preferred political actors. Fast-forward to August, with Najaf under siege by US forces: The International Republican Institute reported that a staggering 70 percent of Iraqis want Islam and Shariah as the basis of the state."
We went into a secular-Islamic country, in order to "spread democracy" and "liberate the Iraqis," and have inspired instead an increasingly fundamentalist populace and a breeding ground for potential terrorists.
Sweet.
It comes down to there being two fundamentally different views on America's place in the world, and what kinds of international actions will best keep us safer, and those views were on display clearly last night.
Our current administration has pursued a course of action defined by an America that is bellicose, headstrong, and independent to a fault. An America defined by the cold war, and cold war policies. They have consistenly mistaken resolution for leadership. From this perspective, America is meant to rule the world. We don't have to co-operate, we don't have to answer to anyone, and our national security depends on offensive action.
Kerry and the Democratic party think America should be a more equal player in the world. They value negotiation, communication, building alliances, working with others, and not just for our own advantage.
I think this is what it comes down to, at least on the foreign policy front. So the question is, are there two kinds of people in America? Do people even have an opinion about our role internationally? Can people who perhaps have supported Bush, for various other reasons, recognize that "stubborn bully" is not necessarily the personality America wants to have internationally?
Our current administration has pursued a course of action defined by an America that is bellicose, headstrong, and independent to a fault. An America defined by the cold war, and cold war policies. They have consistenly mistaken resolution for leadership. From this perspective, America is meant to rule the world. We don't have to co-operate, we don't have to answer to anyone, and our national security depends on offensive action.
Kerry and the Democratic party think America should be a more equal player in the world. They value negotiation, communication, building alliances, working with others, and not just for our own advantage.
I think this is what it comes down to, at least on the foreign policy front. So the question is, are there two kinds of people in America? Do people even have an opinion about our role internationally? Can people who perhaps have supported Bush, for various other reasons, recognize that "stubborn bully" is not necessarily the personality America wants to have internationally?
9.30.2004
A very good article from the Washingtonpost.com, comparing Bush and Kerry statements (and mis-statements) on Iraq, the economy, and healthcare.
Of course, they've both emphasized different statistics, and used language selectively to tell the stories they want to tell. But Bush is the only one who has out and out lied.
Not a surprise.
Of course, they've both emphasized different statistics, and used language selectively to tell the stories they want to tell. But Bush is the only one who has out and out lied.
Not a surprise.
On a slightly lighter and, somehow, more uplifting note.
At House Hearing, Quips, Insults and Some Official Business
"So, Mr. Menendez asked Mr. Armitage, "did you fail to give the president a briefing that the Taliban is still in existence?"
Mr. Armitage said the president meant that the Taliban "is not shackling 28 million people anymore," not that it had literally vanished.
The reply did not entirely satisfy Mr. Menendez, who said, "I think we have to stop sugar-coating the realities of what is happening in Afghanistan and in our other conflicts and be honest with the American people."
Mr. Armitage did not respond directly to Mr. Menendez's "sugar-coating" metaphor, choosing instead to use one of his own. "The Taliban is very much running from hidey hole to hidey hole," he said.
Moments later, Representative Dana Rohrabacher, Republican of California, opined that "nitpicking the president of the United States' words is not really constructive in this type of situation." Mr. Rohrabacher said Mr. Bush had driven the Taliban out instead of unwisely tolerating it, as he said President Bill Clinton had.
A bit later, emotions warmed even more as Representative Donald M. Payne, Democrat of New Jersey, asserted that Mr. Bush had misled the American people by taking the country to war against Iraq ("It wasn't difficult, because many people have a difficult time getting the details straight"), while the main mission was still Afghanistan.
"And I have never seen such a misuse of our power," Mr. Payne observed.
That was too much for Representative Henry J. Hyde, the Illinois Republican who heads the committee. He said that "calling the commander in chief a liar by every hour on the hour" was simply wrong, and was helpful to "the other side," by which he appeared to mean America's terrorist enemies.
Moments later, Representative Gary Ackerman, Democrat of New York, said he and his colleagues were "sick and tired" of hearing their patriotism questioned whenever they exercised their responsibilities and rights, as citizens as well as members of Congress.
Mr. Hyde did not mollify Mr. Ackerman a bit. "Nobody questions your patriotism," Mr. Hyde said. "It's your judgment that's under question."
The two lawmakers interrupted each other a few more times, until Mr. Ackerman said, "What's obvious, Mr. Chairman, is that you are a rather vicious partisan."
"Now you're really getting personal," Mr. Hyde observed.
"Well," Mr. Ackerman countered, "I think that willful ignorance is kind of personal also, Mr. Chairman."
"Just remember," Mr. Hyde shot back, "ignorance is salvageable, but stupid is forever."
"I know that," Mr. Ackerman said, "and I'm glad that you've memorized that." He went on to say that Mr. Hyde's insults notwithstanding, he had never called the president a liar.
If nothing else, the session underlined the importance of specificity in language, especially on the eve of President Bush's foreign-policy debate with Senator John Kerry, and the dangers of hyperbole.
"The time has expired, happily," Mr. Hyde said on adjournment."
--If nothing else, the session underlined that Republicans really had nothing good to counter with. Nitpicking the president is helpful to "the other side"? "Ignorance is salvageable, but stupid is forever"? Wow...
Or maybe it simply underlines the fact that Congress often resembles a playground.
At House Hearing, Quips, Insults and Some Official Business
"So, Mr. Menendez asked Mr. Armitage, "did you fail to give the president a briefing that the Taliban is still in existence?"
Mr. Armitage said the president meant that the Taliban "is not shackling 28 million people anymore," not that it had literally vanished.
The reply did not entirely satisfy Mr. Menendez, who said, "I think we have to stop sugar-coating the realities of what is happening in Afghanistan and in our other conflicts and be honest with the American people."
Mr. Armitage did not respond directly to Mr. Menendez's "sugar-coating" metaphor, choosing instead to use one of his own. "The Taliban is very much running from hidey hole to hidey hole," he said.
Moments later, Representative Dana Rohrabacher, Republican of California, opined that "nitpicking the president of the United States' words is not really constructive in this type of situation." Mr. Rohrabacher said Mr. Bush had driven the Taliban out instead of unwisely tolerating it, as he said President Bill Clinton had.
A bit later, emotions warmed even more as Representative Donald M. Payne, Democrat of New Jersey, asserted that Mr. Bush had misled the American people by taking the country to war against Iraq ("It wasn't difficult, because many people have a difficult time getting the details straight"), while the main mission was still Afghanistan.
"And I have never seen such a misuse of our power," Mr. Payne observed.
That was too much for Representative Henry J. Hyde, the Illinois Republican who heads the committee. He said that "calling the commander in chief a liar by every hour on the hour" was simply wrong, and was helpful to "the other side," by which he appeared to mean America's terrorist enemies.
Moments later, Representative Gary Ackerman, Democrat of New York, said he and his colleagues were "sick and tired" of hearing their patriotism questioned whenever they exercised their responsibilities and rights, as citizens as well as members of Congress.
Mr. Hyde did not mollify Mr. Ackerman a bit. "Nobody questions your patriotism," Mr. Hyde said. "It's your judgment that's under question."
The two lawmakers interrupted each other a few more times, until Mr. Ackerman said, "What's obvious, Mr. Chairman, is that you are a rather vicious partisan."
"Now you're really getting personal," Mr. Hyde observed.
"Well," Mr. Ackerman countered, "I think that willful ignorance is kind of personal also, Mr. Chairman."
"Just remember," Mr. Hyde shot back, "ignorance is salvageable, but stupid is forever."
"I know that," Mr. Ackerman said, "and I'm glad that you've memorized that." He went on to say that Mr. Hyde's insults notwithstanding, he had never called the president a liar.
If nothing else, the session underlined the importance of specificity in language, especially on the eve of President Bush's foreign-policy debate with Senator John Kerry, and the dangers of hyperbole.
"The time has expired, happily," Mr. Hyde said on adjournment."
--If nothing else, the session underlined that Republicans really had nothing good to counter with. Nitpicking the president is helpful to "the other side"? "Ignorance is salvageable, but stupid is forever"? Wow...
Or maybe it simply underlines the fact that Congress often resembles a playground.
From the NYTimes.com:
"Brian Jones, a spokesman for the Bush campaign, suggested that Mr. Cheney had a different view [of Iraq] now, linking the Iraq war to the fight against terrorism.
"The Kerry campaign has continually displayed a misunderstanding of the war on terror," he said. "When America was attacked, the fundamental nature of the conflict changed, but John Kerry continues to approach the war on terror as if 9/11 never occurred."
But Mr. Edwards portrayed Mr. Cheney's remarks as an inconsistency on Iraq and said the beheadings of civilian contract workers, more than 1,000 American military deaths and insurgency in Iraq were proof the Bush administration had failed in the occupation."
Can they really be serious? I keep coming back to the same phrase, over and over: Willful Ignorance. This is just too much. Going to war in Iraq displays a very serious misunderstanding of the war on terror. Why couldn't Mr. Edwards have said that? Why didn't he say that the growing insurgency in Iraq, the increasing number of terrorist-group recruits in Iraq, which are the direct outcomes of our invasion and occupation, display a far greater misunderstanding than any Kerry has ever displayed. Why are they not coming right out and attacking the outright lies?
"Brian Jones, a spokesman for the Bush campaign, suggested that Mr. Cheney had a different view [of Iraq] now, linking the Iraq war to the fight against terrorism.
"The Kerry campaign has continually displayed a misunderstanding of the war on terror," he said. "When America was attacked, the fundamental nature of the conflict changed, but John Kerry continues to approach the war on terror as if 9/11 never occurred."
But Mr. Edwards portrayed Mr. Cheney's remarks as an inconsistency on Iraq and said the beheadings of civilian contract workers, more than 1,000 American military deaths and insurgency in Iraq were proof the Bush administration had failed in the occupation."
Can they really be serious? I keep coming back to the same phrase, over and over: Willful Ignorance. This is just too much. Going to war in Iraq displays a very serious misunderstanding of the war on terror. Why couldn't Mr. Edwards have said that? Why didn't he say that the growing insurgency in Iraq, the increasing number of terrorist-group recruits in Iraq, which are the direct outcomes of our invasion and occupation, display a far greater misunderstanding than any Kerry has ever displayed. Why are they not coming right out and attacking the outright lies?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)