BUSHISM of the Day

"For a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of the great enduring alliances of modern times." ---in Tokyo, Japan; February 18, 2002

Well, yes...except of course for that whole Pearl Harbor/World War 2 thing...but other than that...okay, okay...as long as Japan has NOT been an Empire...does that work? Hmmmm...

Rewards for the Incompetent

Well, according to the WashPost, the two key analysts for the Army's NGIC (National Ground Intelligence Center) who argued that the aluminum tubes the Iraqis were buying in 2000 could NOT have been used for rockets were rewarded with monetary payments in 2002, 2003, and 2004. It was largely due to the findings of these two individuals that the push for war in Iraq continued throughout late 2001 and early 2002. The analysts determined that no rockets the Iraqis might produce would require such robust tubing; this could only mean that the tubing would be for nuclear centrifuges (for developing usuable nuclear material). This analysis was made by the two NGIC Army officers in spite of reports by both the U.S. Energy Department and the Internation Atomic Energy Agency that showed the Iraqis had used similar tubes in the past for rockets and that the tubes in question were not adequate for nuclear centrifuges.

In fact, we now learn that at least one analyst in the CIA suggested that the Iraqis were reverse-engineering an old Italian rocket that used the very aluminum tubes in question. This analyst requested that the CIA get the blueprints for the Italian design, but that suggestion was ignored along the chain of command because the CIA had already determined the tubes were NOT for rockets.

The real question here, however, is why the two analysts were rewarded monetarily even after it was determined their intelligence analysis was wrong, and in fact VERY BAD. The Pentagon claims the monetary supplements were for outstanding performance throughout the year, but could the rewards not just have easily have been given to them for 'finding' the 'correct' analysis?

To me, this seems especially likely coming on the heels of the "Downing Street Memo" that I discussed last week. If the U.S. intended to create the analysis that would make an invasion of Iraq most likely, then would the administration not want to reward those analysts who came up with the appropriate information, whether that information and analysis was flawed or not?

BUSHISM of the Day

"The ambassador and the general were briefing me on the -- the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice." ---October 28, 2003

BUSHISM of the Day

"The only thing I know about Slovakia is what I learned firsthand from your foreign minister, who came to Texas." ---speaking to a Slovak journalist, quoted by Knight-Ridder, June 22, 1999.

Interestingly, Bush's meeting in Texas was with Janez Drnovsek, the prime minister of Slovenia!! Slovenia/Slovakia---potato/potatoe....whoops, wrong Republican son of privilege....sorry...

Newsweek's Retraction

Newsweek has joined the ranks of the news media who play fast and loose with the facts in order to break the story. For those of you who haven't followed the saga--two weeks ago, Newsweek reported that it had obtained information from a reliable Washington source that Marines in Guantanamo Bay's detainee camp had flushed a Qur'an in a toilet during an interrogation. (The Qur'an is the Muslim holy book--a compilation of the writings of Mohammed.) After the story was released, there was rioting in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere in the Muslim world--outrage (yet again) against the evil actions of America.

Well, it turns out that Newsweek had no confirmation on the story before they ran with it. Government officials have repeatedly denied the allegation, and Newsweek has been forced to retract its story--AFTER all the damage to America's reputation has once again occurred.

I am not suggesting that the story was not true--that, I do not know. It may well have been accurate. However, to go to print with a story that has no corroboration seems irresponsible at best, and stupid at worst. Did the editors see this as an opportunity to make a splash? to break the story ahead of their competitors? I do not know, but I hope someone at Newsweek is finding answers to those questions.

We have become a society in which the news media is so afraid of being one-upped that they are unwilling to go the extra mile to verify their facts. I love the story of All the President's Men (about the Watergate scandal and how Woodward and Bernstein broke the story for the Washington Post). In that story, Ben Bradlee (long-time news editor of the Post) refused to let anything go to print that did not have TWO confirmations...that means THREE people had to tell the reporters the same story before it could be reported. Today, one person in a position of semi-responsibility can whisper in a reporter's ear that he/she MIGHT have heard something about a Qur'an and a toilet, and the next day the story leads television newscasts, appears on the front pages of national newspapers, and shows up in newsmagazines. How have we gotten from there to here?

Newsweek should be ashamed and remorseful. Similar events have cost respected journalists their jobs. Will Newsweek punish those responsible for this fiasco? Much remains to be seen, but one thing is certain--the news media refuse to learn the lesson!

BUSHISM of the Day

"We want our teachers to be trained so they can meet the obligations, their obligations as teachers. We want them to know how to teach the science of reading. In order to make sure there's not this kind of federal -- federal cufflink." ---March 30, 2000


Does anyone else ever get the feeling that GW often loses his train of thought while he is speaking and just starts throwing words together -- almost randomly -- until he can get to another topic or another question? Maybe it's just me...

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, DUDE!! (FEELING OLD YET?)

Women in Combat

Congress is currently discussing whether to make permanent some Pentagon regulations governing the place of women in combat support units in the U.S. military. Current regulations forbid women from serving on the front lines of battle, and restrict their place among support units that serve the front lines. The big political problem now for Congress and the Pentagon is the issue of women serving in Iraq against a terrorist/insurgency force operating with guerrilla tactics--there is no front line to distinguish where women may serve and where they may not.

Some members of Congress (MCs) want to remove all female military personnel from Iraq while others just want to limit the regions in Iraq where women may serve. One problem cited for removing all women from Iraq is the already short supply of military personnel, with recruitment for the armed forces continuing to plummet.

It is my personal belief that women should be allowed to serve anywhere that men are allowed to serve. Our armed forces is an ALL VOLUNTEER service (as the Bush administration continually likes to point out). As long as women are volunteering along side men, why should they be denied the opportunity to serve their country in the same way?

As of September 30, 2003, women accounted for around 15% of Navy personnel, 15% of Army, 6% of Marine Corps, 20% of Air Force, 11% of Coast Guard, and 15% of DoD personnel. According to 1990 figures, 38% of military women were racial minorities, as compared to 28% of military men. Additionally, the percentage of jobs available to women varied substantially from service to service: Coast Guard women could serve in 100% of jobs, Air Force women could serve in 97% of jobs, Navy women could serve in 59% of jobs, Army women could serve in 52% of jobs, and Marine women could serve in only 20% of jobs. (Obviously, these numbers relate to the types of positions that require combat or close-combat support.)

If the United States were conscripting soldiers, I could understand the relunctance to place drafted women into harm's way. However, as long as the U.S. military operates a volunteer force, women should be allowed --no, REQUIRED-- to serve in the same capacities as their male counterparts. Why should this country deny equal rights and equal access to women who CHOOSE to serve their country? If this change to an equitable policy means that fewer women enlist, then the military remains a fair and volunteer force. Who is to say that a more equitable policy would not INCREASE female enlistments? At least we would distinguish ourselves from our Arab 'friends' who even refuse to let women drive cars, and we would place ourselves more in line with our Israeli 'friends' who require military service of their women as well as their men.

My two cents, anyway...

BUSHISM of the Day

"It's going to require numerous IRA agents." ---responding to a question about Gore's tax plan during the 2000 Presidential election campaign

BUSHISM of the Day

"The public education system in America is one of the most important foundations of our democracy. After all, it is where children from all over America learn to be responsible citizens, and learn to have the skills necessary to take advantage of our fantastic opportunistic society." ---May 1, 2002

BUSHISM of the Day

"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." ---October 3, 2003


Uh....hello, President Bush, this is reality calling. We think you have no clue what you are talking about on most days, but this comment....come on!!! Isn't the United States a free nation? Haven't we attacked other nations? Aren't WE the number one producer of weapons of mass destruction in the ENTIRE WORLD? Wasn't it weapons of mass destruction that were produced in the United States that Saddam Hussein originally stockpiled during his eight year war against Iran in the 1980s? Are we not currently supporting Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan, who has one of the worst human rights records in the world (as reported by our own State Department document)? Isn't the United States a free nation?

America Sleeps Through Revelation of 'Downing Street Memo'

The Sunday Times of London revealed in its May 1 edition a secret memo prepared by a British national security aide from notes made during a July 2002 meeting between Tony Blair and his national security team. Included in the memo were possible plans for dealing with the 'threat' of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. The memo discusses the likelihood that Saddam had WMDs (less likely, according to the memo, than the capabilities of Libya, North Korea, or Iran), likely scenarios for attack plans, the expected response by Saddam and what type of attack he was most likely expecting, and a brief notation about the intelligence-gathering process.

According to the memo, the United States believed that "military action was now...inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD." Apparently, though, the U.S. was experiencing difficulty in finding the justification demanded by Bush to satisfy his plans. As a result, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Uh, EXCUSE ME??????? Let's repeat that last bit..."the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Could someone please explain to me why this information has not been flooding the 'liberal media' for the last two weeks? Why did it take the Washington Post nearly two weeks to run a follow-up story with their own reporting? The Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times have barely mentioned it. Has the New York Times published anything related to the story? The executive branch of our government planned NINE months prior to the beginning of the Iraq War to FIX intelligence and facts to fit its pre-existing policy, and this country sits idly trusting the president and his closest advisors to do what is right for this country. WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO WAKE PEOPLE UP???

As Helen Thomas writes in her syndicated column--

I am not surprised at the duplicity. But I am astonished at the acceptance of this deception by voters in the United States and the United Kingdom.

I've seen two US presidents go down the drain – Lyndon B. Johnson on Vietnam and Richard Nixon in the Watergate scandal – because they were no longer believed. But times change – and I guess our values do, too.

"Times change and...our values do, too." We don't care that our leaders lie to us, make lucrative deals to benefit themselves, and take vast sums of money from special interest groups in violation of ethics regulations--just as long as they stop abortions and keep gay people from gettin' married!! (Oh, and by the way...conservative Republicans have controlled the White House, both Houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court for the last nine, five, and fifteen(?) years, respectively--have they ended abortion or stopped gay marriages yet? NO...and they aren't likely too, either. If they did, then what would they use to make sure you continue to re-elect them?) What has happened to our nation? Grrrrrr....

BUSHISM of the Day

"I have a different vision of leadership. A leadership is someone who brings people together." ---August 18, 2000

And wouldn't you agree that he has done just that...or is it THIS president who has been one of the most divisive 'leaderships' in the history of the United States? I forget...

Uzbekistan's Karimov--the next Saddam?

The London Telegraph calls Uzbekistan president Islam Karimov the "tyrant of Tashkent" and opposition leaders in the country refer to him as making Saddam Hussein look like "a choir boy." Is the U.S. really supporting this regime? Apparently so.

Over the weekend, some rioting broke out near the Kyrgystan border in the city of Andijan. The CBC has reported that nearly 700 people have been killed by security forces, including civilians--even women and children. While the British have forcefully condemned the actions taken by Karimov's security forces as human rights violations, the United States has been reluctant to speak out against what the Bush administration considers an ally in the fight against terrorism. The U.S. reluctance has been so great, in fact, says the London Telegraph in an editorial, that events in Uzbekistan undercut the Bush administration's call for democratization in other parts of the world.

Some comparison is being made between the U.S. support of Saddam Hussein in the 1980s and the support given to Karimov now. British Foreign Minister Jack Straw has spoken out against Karimov in the strongest words, and former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, has said that the U.S. is looking for ways to dismiss Karimov's actions. Murray was removed from his post in 2004 largely for criticizing the human rights abuses of the Karimov regime. The Times of London reports that there may be as many as 6,000 political prisoners in Uzbek jails.

The U.S. State Department's most recent report of human rights abuses apparently does criticize Karimov for his actions over the last year, and State Department spokesman Richard Boucher spoke out against Karimov's history; however, very little has been said about the recent violence except that the U.S. is "'deeply disturbed' by reports that troops in Uzbekistan fired on civilians during protests in the east of the country," as reported by the BBC. Further, SecState Condi Rice has called for political reform in the country following this weekend's rioting.

It remains to be seen whether the Bush administration will push its doctrine of 'democratization' even against such a 'valuable ally' as the "tyrant of Tashkent."

BUSHISM of the Day

"I'm hopeful. I know there is a lot of ambition in Washington, obviously. But I hope the ambitious realize that they are more likely to succeed with success as opposed to failure." ---Associated Press, January 18, 2001

There he is...the master of the understatement, the obvious, and the unintended...

JLo-ISM of the Day

"If you ask me, I'd like to become the first female president. That would be really cool ... The first thing I would do is redecorate [the White House] ... It doesn't look very cozy." --Jennifer Lopez on where her ambitious career might head in the future, quoted in the May 16, 2005 Newsweek

Exactly what we need our first female president to focus on--forget women's issues, or child care, or universal health care. We need a woman who knows something about fixin' up the place!! Give me a freakin' BREAK!! Read my other post for today to see what characteristics a REAL contender for first female president should have...

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Recently the former first lady and current junior U.S. Senator from New York has taken a great deal of criticism from the right for nearly every public statement she has made. Of course the right wants to do everything it can to defeat Clinton in her 2006 race for re-election, and to do everything it can to forestall any chance the Senator might have at the Democratic nomination in 2008 (even if she doesn't run, apparently).

With approval ratings in New York (which includes not only liberal New York City, but also conservative up state New York) at nearly 70%, it is unlikely that Sen. Clinton will not receive re-election next year. In her most recent political conversion, Hillary even has former House Speaker Newt Gingrich singing her praises as a viable presidential contender in 2008. Could it be that he is looking forward to '08 himself?

Incredibly, the far right wants to portray Clinton as performing a makeover of gigantic proportions on herself. As she discusses issues from a moderate perspective, the right wants America to believe that the Senator is re-inventing herself. Those of us who better understand the Clintons (read that as those who are not part of the 'right wing conspiracy') know that both Clintons have a history of moderation that leans to the left--they are not the extreme radicals that Rush Limbaugh, Gary Bauer, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, and their ilk want us to believe that they are. The Clinton's greatest sin, in the eyes of the right wing reactionaries, is that they believe in the Great Society--that they believe in the principals of democracy and equity for all. This above all is ideologically anathema to the neo-conservative mindset--only the wealthy should receive equal treatment, and only the Republican agenda deserves creedance from the 'religious community.'

Here are the words of Hillary Rodham Clinton, a lifelong Methodist, from a speech delivered twelve years ago and quoted in the May 16, 2005 Newsweek by Anna Quindlen--

"Our ancestors did not have to think about many of the issues we are now confronted with. When does life start, when does life end? Who makes those decisions? How do we dare to infringe upon these areas of such delicate, difficult questions? And yet, every day in hospitals and homes and hospices all over this country, people are struggling with those very profound issues."

As Ms. Quindlen wrote, "If the senator had made those comments last week, every story about them would suggest positioning for the presidency." In the same speech, Clinton spoke about "a 'spiritual vacuum' that government cannot begin to answer, of the thirst to 'feel that we are part of something bigger than ourselves.'

"Like most complex and intelligent people, the senator is difficult to categorize neatly: idealist and pragmatist both, a person who believes in personal freedom and personal responsibility, a moderate described as a liberal and reviled as a radical. This makes her like so many who reject either/or, who believe in both strong families and good day care, both prenatal care and the morning-after pill. It has also made it easy to demonize her by those who prefer black and white to gray (and any man to a strong woman)."

Regardless of the demonization campaign by the right wing pundits and hatchet men, shouldn't we judge Ms. Clinton (and Mr. Clinton for that matter) based on what she believes, the truths she espouses, and her plans for the future rather than what is said about her? Personally, I believe in the possibilities...

BUSHISM of the Day

"But I also made it clear to [Russian president Vladimir Putin] that it's important to think beyond the old days of when we had the concept that if we blew each other up, the world would be safe." ---May 1, 2001

I'm not sure, but I think several countries (and ethnic groups) around the world would still agree with that assessment...

BUSHISM of the Day

"It's negative to think about blowing each other up. That's not a positive thought. That's a Cold War thought. That's a thought when people were enemies with each other." ---Wall Street Journal, June 25, 2001

BUSHISM of the Day

"They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some kind of federal program." ---November 2, 2000

Uh...okay; so now it all makes sense. Bush wants the federal government to get out of federal programs. If we eliminate the intrusion of government into these programs, then eventually we won't need the programs at all. And maybe we won't even need the federal government; after all, it's not like Bush has INCREASED the size of the federal bureaucracy or anything....he's trying to cut the size of government, right?

BUSHISM of the Day

"Recession means that people's incomes, at the employer level, are going down, basically, relative to costs, people are getting laid off." ---February 19, 2004

From FactCheck.org---

Are Democrats Causing Delays in Court?

A new pro-Bush TV ad claims that Democrats are solely responsible for blocking judicial nominees and holding up confirmation proceedings on Bush appointees. As a result, says the ad, delays in courtroom appearances are growing longer for litigants as they wait for new judges to be confirmed. According to FactCheck.org, the truth is that Republicans share the blame for "empty courtrooms," and delays are shorter now than they were before Bush.

FactCheck's Summary of the Facts (emphasis is mine)

A multimillion-dollar ad campaign blames Democrats for the fact that "courtrooms sit empty." In fact, there are now half as many judicial vacancies as when Bush took office. And of the 46 federal judgeships that remain vacant, Bush has named only 16 replacements.

The ad also says cases are being delayed in federal courts for "thousands of Americans." Actually, official statistics show cases typically being decided more quickly now than they were in 1999, when it was Republicans opposing Clinton's judicial nominees.

Click the link for the full article: http://www.factcheck.org/article324m.html

My Take--

This is just another example of the Republican spin machine attempting to turn lies into facts. They've tried to do it with Social Security also, but the American people are not buying those lies and exaggerations. Let's hope the TRUTH about judicial nominees gets to the public as well. The biggest problem with the Republican lie machine is that major news media have begun to take up the Republican spin as fact rather than finding the truth before doing their reporting! Personally, I am tired of the conservative agenda at so many major news organizations (Fox 'News', CNN, and CNBC most especially). The conservative media needs to move back to the center and stop spouting this far-right political propaganda!

BUSHISM of the Day

"It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of our imports come from overseas." ---September 25, 2000

This quote could have come from GW's most recent 'energy speech' just a few days ago, but it was actually nearly five years ago. We, as a nation, continue to 'be fooled' (see previous BUSHISM of the day).

BUSHISM of the Day

"There's an old saying in Tennessee--I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee--that says, fool me once, shame on--shame on you. Fool me--you can't get fooled again." ---September 17, 2002 in Nashville, TN