The PCTC Blog

Pro Left Insult Obama Every Chance They Get: Case Study #2: Huffington, Michael Moore

If you want to quibble with President Obama’s State of the Union address last night, feel free. This is a free country, after all, even if the right wing would like for everyone to be less free. But the speech was masterful for two reasons. First, it laid out a bold vision for the future that every progressive should be excited about. But just as importantly, it used the Republican Party’s own rhetoric to frame the issues, which means they'll have to abandon the few principles they have left, to attack Obama. This should make progressives downright giddy.

Yet, my Twitter feed has been chock full of naysayers this morning; mostly, they’re self-professed “progressives” who are managing to twist themselves into something of a pretzel shape in order to backhand President Obama for not being perfect. The professional left have been particularly harsh.

Arianna Huffington, for example, Tweeted the following first thing this morning:

 

Anybody Wanna Buy Our "Mansion"? Politifact Surrenders Its Credibility

As those who have been following this blog for a while know, it’s about uncovering lies and encouraging the use of facts to move the progressive movement forward. The problem with saying things that are provably false is, eventually someone will discover the falsehood, and will tend to not believe anything you say afterward. We need a majority on our side, which means we must invest ourselves in truth. 

I’ve always had a problem with “fact checking” web sites run my major news or propaganda organizations. Media Matters, I love, because they don't actually interpret. They simply say whatever was said, then show whatever caused a contradiction, and let the readers decide what they should believe. They do lean left when it comes to choosing which lies they discuss, but their discussion of falsehoods is rarely, if ever, actually biased. Too many "fact checking" organizations, however, have a tendency to assert their own biases in their analyses. 

Some will recall that I had a major row with Factcheck a couple of years ago, when they tried to claim the Affordable Care Act would allow for government funding of abortions. It was bad enough that they made a mistake, but after I uncovered the mistake and corrected them using language in both the ACA and the Hyde Amendment, the director of Factcheck, Brooks Jackson, insisted he was right because, well, he was, that’s all. They lost a lot of credibility with me, and many of my readers, and I still fact check Factcheck as a result. 

Investigation and Due Process of the Bushies: Are we Americans or are We Mice?

I am excited at the prospects offered by the Obama Administration, and I am looking forward to a future that is much brighter than anything we've seen since we ceded the government to the neocons 28 years ago, culminating in the last eight years of pure hell on earth.

The Obama Administration is like a breath of fresh air, when compared to the governments of our recent past. There is already an air of openness and transparency that we haven't seen in many years, even when Clinton was president. Even when a mistake is made, there is an easiness about admitting it and moving on with a solution.

But while I do agree with them on most issues, there is one issue on which we seem to stand on different sides of the fence.I say "seem," because I have a feeling we can find ourselves on the same side of the fence with a little prodding. But for now, the Obama Administration seems to be far too willing to let bygones be bygones, and let the previous administration slide on its sins.

That's just a crock, and we cannot be allow that attitude to stand.

I don't care who does the investigation, as long as the people involved are impartial, but a complete investigation of the last eight years has to be conducted. And if we care at all about the concept of justice for all, we simply cannot allow anyone responsible for the crimes committed in our name to slide, without prosecution, and a payment for their crimes. If that means we have to watch a former president and vice president and/or a bunch of their underlings be frog marched to jail for the cameras, and repeatedly interviewed from a jail cell by Fox News and Inside Edition, then so be it.

Why the Bailout Plan Was Destined to Fail

A couple of months back, it seemed quite obvious that the economy was on the verge of collapse, and something drastic was necessary, immediately, to forestall an absolute disaster akin to the Great Depression. On this  very blog, I recommended the bailout plan be passed, albeit with many restrictions, and a much slower rollout than actually occurred, so that the bulk of it could be handled by the new president.  I had deep concerns with the fact that the Bushies would be running the bailout.  But I felt as though something had to be done, because the economy was falling apart.

 

I was wrong about the need for a bailout, apparently, although I was right about the Bushies. And given that pretty much nothing serious has been done with regard to the bailout, and the economy hasn't completely fallen apart quite yet, you have to wonder about the

 

Seriously, is there anything these people can't screw up?

Congress is Back! Impeach Bush NOW! It's Absolutely Necessary!

Over the weekend, I received the following very naive and shocking e-mail from Democrats.com, which I am re-posting in its entirety:

------------------------------

Dear Milt,

Congratulations on the fabulous and historic election of President Barack Obama!!!

As we celebrate our new President-elect and all the changes he will bring to our nation, we must not turn a blind eye to the final actions of George Bush.

Incredibly, Washington is already buzzing with Bush's plans to block all investigations of his crimes and even to pardon everyone involved - including Cheney and himself. Chris Matthews is even counting down the days .

Does Bush have the power to pardon everyone in his administration? Yes.

Will he abuse that power to stay out of jail? Only if we let him.

We must create a groundswell of opposition to any pardons by George Bush, so he understands that he will be impeached and prosecuted for issuing corrupt pardons.

Please help us launch a massive movement against pardons by signing our petition to Congress and telling your friends: (link removed)

We will announce additional plans to stop Bush's pardons in the coming days. Read more about our efforts and join our discussion here: (link removed)

Thanks for all you do!

Bob Fertik

----------------------

Isn't that cute, folks?

Doesn't that just tug at the heartstrings? I mean, if we all make our voices heard, perhaps George W Bush will decide to forego his pending abuse of the executive power of the pardon, because he's afraid we might impeach and prosecute him. They have the right idea, but getting a bunch of signatures on a petition simply won't do.

Look; if there is one thing we know about Bush and Cheney, it's that they don't care what we think about them at all.

Therefore, with Congress coming back to the Capitol from recess today, there is no reason to wait 65 more days; it's time to put forth articles of impeachment TODAY! It's not time to THREATEN impeachment; it's time to IMPEACH! And there is no time to waste.

There are stories all over the press regarding the petitions being sent to Bush regarding pardons for all sorts of criminals, all over the country, and even the world. But the criminals we need to be worried about are sitting in the White House, or have had access to the White House over the last eight years. We have to investigate these people; they have chosen to be secretive about everything they've done for the entire Bush Administration, and we need to get to the bottom of it. It's not just about possible war crimes; it's about everything. Even if we choose not to frog march the lot of them, if we're to get at the information we need, we'll need leverage, and if Bush pardons everyone who has ever worked for his administration, we'll have to wait for the flood of books to come out, because investigators will never be able to get to the bottom of any of it.

Even if we don't hold an impeachment trial, or remove his sorry ass, Congress must pass at least one article of impeachment against George W. Bush. It's time to call your member of Congress, and demand that at least one article of impeachment be passed against George W. Bush, immediately.

Democrats.com has the right idea, but come on; you can't threaten the Bushies; you have to act against them. Congress must impeach Bush TODAY, and prevent the mass of pardons that are absolutely certain, should they fail to act, and act immediately. We don't have 64 days; for all we know, Bush has already signed pardons for all of these people. We need to impeach him, to make sure they can't become valid.

The time to impeach was yesterday. But better late than never.

Cutting the Crap: Conservative, My Ass!

You know, I rarely agree with David Frum on anything, but much of his assessment of the McCain campaign in  this morning's Washington Post hits the nail pretty much on the head. Here's an excerpt:

There are many ways to lose a presidential election. John McCain is losing in a way that threatens to take the entire Republican Party down with him.

A year ago, the Arizona senator's team made a crucial strategic decision. McCain would run on his (impressive) personal biography. On policy, he'd hew mostly to conservative orthodoxy, with a few deviations -- most notably, his support for legalization for illegal immigrants. But this strategy wasn't yielding results in the general election. So in August, McCain tried a bold new gambit: He would reach out to independents and women with an exciting and unexpected vice presidential choice.

That didn't work out so well either. Gov. Sarah Palin connected with neither independents nor women. She did, however, ignite the Republican base, which has come to support her passionately. And so, in this last month, the McCain campaign has Palinized itself to make the most of its last asset. To fire up the Republican base, the McCain team has hit at Barack Obama as an alien, a radical and a socialist.

Sure enough, the base has responded. After months and months of wan enthusiasm among Republicans, these last weeks have at last energized the core of the party. But there's a downside: The very same campaign strategy that has belatedly mobilized the Republican core has alienated and offended the great national middle, which was the only place where the 2008 election could have been won.

Like I said; it's difficult to argue with that sentiment. John McCain will likely lose this election, because he played to the Republican base, and not to the real strength in this election, which is the middle of the ideological spectrum.

But there's something in the above that really bothers me, and has bothered me for a while, and that is the concept that the Republican "base" represents anything resembling what Frum calls "conservative orthodoxy."

Why McCain Was Always Going to Lose: Bye Bye Right Wing!

The Republican Party is truly screwed, and I think they're just beginning to realize it.

 

See, the one basic truism of politics is that every election cycle is different. It's really not possible to compare 2008 with 2006, or 2004 to 2000, etc. I know, the pundits try, but if you actually pay attention, very few of them ever get anything right. There are a few who are less wrong than others, but for then most part, let's be real; they're wrong more often than they're right.

 

One of the reasons the Republicans are screwed is because they're trying to run the same campaign against Barack Obama that they ran against John Kerry, and that they've been running since 1980, and it's never going to work, for many reasons.

 

For the record, I would be saying this no matter who won the Democratic nomination, although Obama won the nomination largely because Hillary Clinton chose to run the same campaign Bill Clinton ran in 1992. You see, the Clintons have been way too beholden to the Democratic Leadership Council, which is the most Republican Democratic organization anywhere, and as such, they have absolutely zero political skills. If you doubt me on that, think about this: from 1994 to 2004, with the DLC running the Democratic Party, Democrats couldn't beat the pants off a party with a platform of essentially bankrupting the country and handing all tax money to the rich, and who have been bound and determined to prove the government absolutely incompetent.

Failing to Bail

My feelings are so mixed after this bailout bill failed today.

 

I read the bill last night, and again this morning, and I have to tell you; it was a pretty good bill. Instead of handing $700 billion over to the Bush Administration in a lump sum, it put the money out there far more slowly and deliberately, and required accountability all the way down the line. Given the intransigence of the Republicans on the issue of oversight (they want none), and their inability to admit they have ever done anything wrong, it was a pleasant surprise to see a bill, crafted by both parties that limited the sales of mortgage securities and closely monitored the market, to make sure taxpayers weren't being ripped off. More impressive still was the provision that prohibited anyone from "unfair enrichment." Okay, so that idea is open to interpretation, but at least it's there.

 

So, I was a little disappointed that it didn't pass.

 

Let's make something clear. There needs to be a bailout. Yes, the markets have acted irrationally, and a lot of crooks have been allowed to rape the market under the Republicans' watch. And yes, the rampant deregulation of pretty much everything financial ended up screwing us royally.

Keep an Eagle Eye on Condi

There's been a lot of press about the fact that the Bushies sent an envoy to Iran this week to begin talks regarding Iran's nuclear program. Most of the press has been glowing, either praising the Bushies for finally holding talks with someone they don't like, or pointing out, quite rightly, that Barack Obama turns out to be correct more often than not, and once again, a suggestion he was ridiculed for early in the campaign -- you know, for daring to talk to regimes not totally friendly to the United States -- was eventually embraced by the Bush Administration in a last-ditch attempt to save what little "legacy" they may have left.

But we should look at another aspect of this, folks.

This is from an AP article  this morning, in which the worst Secretary of State in US history, Condi Rice, suggests that Iran isn't "serious" about the talks:

"We are in the strongest possible position to demonstrate that if Iran does not act then it is time to go back to that (sanctions) track," Rice said.

Moreover, Britain's newest Prime Minister, who seems to be less of a lapdog than Tony Blair said:

"Iran has a clear choice to make: suspend its nuclear program and accept our offer of negotiations or face growing isolation and the collective response not just of one nation but of all nations around the world," Brown said.

Sounds like sanctions, right?

Well, listen some more...

The U.S. government was "indecisive about whether to lean on diplomacy or the military option," said Deputy Foreign Minister Alireza Sheikh-Attar, according to the student news agency ISNA on Monday.

Rice said Iran's envoy to Saturday's talks, attended by senior U.S. diplomat William Burns, engaged in small talk rather than address the central issue of the sextet offer.

"I understand that it was at times meandering," Rice said.

She said EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana "clarified" Iran's choices at the talks.

"It was also a very strong message to the Iranians that they can't go and stall and make small talk and talk about culture and that they have to make a decision," said Rice.

This is troubling, to be sure. Forget the fact that such talks always start on a "small talk" note (forgive her, she wouldn't know, she doesn't usually talk to anyone about anything, right?); doesn't she seem a bit too dismissive after having sent one envoy one time?

Am I the only one feeling a bit of  déjà vu here?

Is Condi setting Iran up for an attack? Is this part of an overall strategy to make it look like we're engaged with Iran diplomatically, but they've chosen to force us into war?

Stay tuned...

Today's Condi Moment

The current administration is nothing short of evil incarnate. I don't know how else to say it.

But then, look at its ideological base; the neocons. Neocons are to government what Streptococcus pyogenes is to human flesh. You see, their main premise is that government is incompetent to do anything, except "defend" the country. Of course, to a neocon, "defense" means having your rich friends build a bunch of weapons systems that are completely impractical and will never be used. Nothing goes to the soldiers, or to provide practica; defensive weapons that might actually protect someone; no, it all goes toward planning and building newer and more efficient ways to kill because, apparently, the only way to protect the United States is to obliterate everyone else on the planet. Well, that, and because their largest contributors make a bunch of money building this useless shit.

Well, the Bush Administration is like the uber Neocon Administration. They're not just carrying on the neocon tradition of idiocy on "defense," they're trying to make sure the United States is like that bully you had in sixth grade that everyone was afraid to piss off. We're the globe's version of "Butch."

And at the heart of all of this administration's idiocy is the biggest moron in the history of the United States.

You think I mean Bush, don't you? Well, you would be wrong.

Gee, You Mean Bushies are Liars? Who Knew?

Why is everyone going ga-ga over Scott McClellan's revelations that George W. Bush and his administration suck? Are the rest of us becoming like the right wingers, where we have so little faith in our opinions that we need validation from others to even have them?

McClellan has written a book and, of course, his publisher needs to sell a ton of them in order to rationalize the overpayment they made to him in securing the book deal in the first place. You know, because every reader is chomping at the bit for a book by a guy who was arguably the worst and most inarticulate press secretary in US history. So, they release some details designed to get the book a lot more publicity than it would normally get, and everyone oohs and aahs and talks about how stunning all of this is.

So, what did McClellan's book reveal, after all?

Journalists Bought and Paid for With Your Tax Dollars

There is an excellent but ultimately very disturbing article in this morning's New York Times which deserves a look. It demonstrates two things; it shows that the Bush Administration has been actively propagandizing to its very own people, which is disturbing enough. But it also demonstrates the extent to which the press, which is supposed to be our advocate to the government, actively pushes the Bush propaganda line. Here are a few excerpts;

Behind Analysts, the Pentagon’s Hidden Hand - New York Times.

In the summer of 2005, the Bush administration confronted a fresh wave of criticism over Guantánamo Bay. The detention center had just been branded “the gulag of our times” by Amnesty International, there were new allegations of abuse from United Nations human rights experts and calls were mounting for its closure.

The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo.

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.

If the mainstream press wants to know why it's losing money and having to lay people off this is it. The reason people go to blogs for their information is because traditional journalism has let them down. Can you say "unethical"? There is nothing ethical in the above practice, journalistically speaking.

George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson are but a tip of the iceberg, folks, as are their main apologists, including the hack, David Brooks. This is a systemic problem, whereby the entire journalistic profession has completely forgotten what their purpose is. Their purpose is to keep public officials honest, by watching what they do.

Let me engage you in a little Journalism 101. First off, actual journalism should be hard. A good, investigative piece of journalism can take months, or even years, to complete. It requires a lot of very arduous research, and often, the information can be difficult to impossible to come by.  But that's your job. If you want to just repeat whatever bullshit the president's people dictate to you, then go work in his press office.

The fact that journalists today value "inside information and easy access to senior officials" demonstrates the biggest problem with journalism today; reporters are lazy and slothful, by and large. They all want to be millionaire anchors; they don't give a rat's ass about journalistic integrity, and the thrill of working their asses off to get the "good story." It shouldn't come as a shock that many of the best journalists in this country have foreign accents. Christiane Amanpour, for example. And has anyone done a better job of reporting on Iraq than Australian reporter Michael Ware?

Here's a clue, reporters; "easy access to senior officials" is usually a sign that you're NOT doing your job. If someone inside the Bush Administration is offering you "easy access" to any information, you should assume that the information is bullshit. Actually, if anyone in government from either side of the aisle offers you information without you having to dig for it, you should treat it as if it was a piece of moldy cheese, and be very  suspicious of it.

And why doesn't it piss off more people that they are using our tax dollars to feed us this crap? (Okay, in the interest of accuracy, they're using your grandchild's tax money, but still...) We are being soaked for the whole enchilada, folks; they're making us pay for the war, they're making us line the pockets of Bush cronies who are profiteering on the overpriced contracts in Iraq, and they're even making us pay for the lies that are designed to hide the facts that they screwed up an occupation, and that they're stealing from us.

I don't understand why people aren't more pissed off at this stuff.

 

More Bush Cronyism: New HUD Secretary Unqualified -- Shocked and Awed!

While everyone was wringing their hands over whether or not small town Pennsylvanians were bitter, or whether or not Barack Obama may have been one hell of a radical when he was eight years old, George W. Bush was meeting with the Pope and nominating yet another crony to his Cabinet, this time as HUD Secretary, at a time when the entire housing market is facing an unprecedented crisis.

Quietly, and almost without fanfare, Bush nominated Steve Preston as HUD Secretary, after spending one year at the Small Business Administration, where he had been appointed last year to replace yet another Bush crony, Hector Barreto, who had been forced to resign due to -- wait for it -- mismanagement. The SBA under Barreto had been slammed by the GSA for poor performance, especially when it came to disaster loans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

See, here's the funny (okay, it's not funny, really, but I do find myself laughing anyway) part. You see, old Hector wasn't up to the job, because his only qualifications were being a fundraiser and loyal supporter of Bush. So, when he screwed up, and was pretty much forced out due to mismanagement, who better to replace him than Steve Preston, right? After all, Steve Preston had raised even MORE money for Bush, and was MORE loyal than Hector.

That should have fixed the problems at the SBA (he said sarcastically) but alas, it didn't. In the two year s, almost to the day, since Preston took over the SBA, nothing has changed. It is still being slammed for mismanagement, especially when it comes to disaster relief. It's puzzling, though, because no one could have imagined such a thing. Well, all except the American Small Business League, who put out the following statement just before the Republican Senate rubber stamped him as head of the SBA:

“We don’t need another unqualified SBA Administrator. Hector Barreto’s dismal track record is a clear indication of what happens when you appoint someone that has no qualifications to run an important Federal agency. I’m afraid this nomination signals a continuation of the Bush administration’s intention to continue to dismantle the agency."

This time, Preston will be replacing the illustrious Alphonso Jackson, who is being forced to resign because of -- wait for it -- political favoritism and a criminal investigation. In the Bush Administration? Perish the thought. 

Steve Preston's qualifications to be HUD Secretary are, um, let's see... I think he's owned a house before.

No, seriously; Preston was a CFO at ServiceMaster, and once served as senior vice president and treasurer at First Data Corporation, where he created a $1.2 billion hedging program. Before that, he was an investment banker at the Lehman Brothers. Okay, well, at least that's a heftier resume than old Hector, his predecessor at SBA. Hector's work experience prior to running SBA into the ground consisted of running his family's restaurant. No, I'm not making that up.

Folks, is it too much to ask that the president, in his last eight months in office, nominate someone to be Secretary of Housing and Urban Development who has at least some knowledge of either Housing OR Urban Development?

It's kind of late, but can't the Senate please put an and to the cronyism for these last months?

And I don't think it's too much to ask that the presidential candidates promise to only hire people for Cabinet positions who are experts in the field, and who have at least tried to represent the public interest.

"Compassionate Conservative" Bush Tells Poor Kids to Go to Hell!

So, check out this bit of hubris from George W. Bush, the worst president in US History. This was from the beginning of his press conference yesterday...

Good morning.  In just 10 days the State Children's Health Insurance Program, known as S-CHIP, is set to expire.  This important program helps children whose families cannot afford private health insurance, but do not qualify for Medicaid to get coverage they need.

I have strongly supported S-CHIP as a governor, and I have done so as President.  My 2008 budget proposed to increase S-CHIP funding by $5 billion over five years.  It's a 20 percent increase over current levels of funding.  Unfortunately, instead of working with the administration to enact this funding increase for children's health, Democrats in Congress have decided to pass a bill they know that will be vetoed.  One of their leaders has even said such a veto would be, "a political victory."

Let's stop there for a moment.

Bush is referring to Rep. Rahm Emanuel, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, who, when asked by the New York Times about the political implications, said, “If the president signs the bill we present to him, it’s a major accomplishment.... If he vetoes the bill, it’s a political victory for us. Public opinion polls show strong support for expanding kids’ health coverage.”

You know, as much as we would like to think politics is somehow a dirty business, and that we are all above it, we live in a constitutional democratic republic, and politics is how things get done. The problem is, Bush pretends he's not a politician. After 13 years in political office, more than half of that as president, George W. Bush hasn't figured out that he is a politician. Actually, that's not true; he knows he's a politician; he's just hoping we won't notice.

As we continue with this crap fest, please make note of the fact that the "Outsider Decider" Bush himself announced a threatened veto of the bill, which in itself is a "political act;" one that he wouldn't do, were he not expecting some sort of "political victory" himself.

As if this weren't irresponsible enough, Congress is waiting until the S-CHIP program is just about to expire before getting a final bill passed.  In other words, members of Congress are putting health coverage for poor children at risk so they can score political points in Washington.  The legislation would raise taxes on working people, and would raise spending by between $35 billion and $50 billion.  Their proposal would result in taking a program meant to help poor children and turning it into one that covers children in households with incomes of up to $83,000 a year.

Check out his use of the word "irresponsible" above. Isn't that funny, coming from him? After all, this is a guy who only vetoed one bill in his first six years in office -- against stem cell research -- while the Republicans in Congress were leading the country off the edge of the cliff.

Here are the facts of the matter here; you tell us who's being "irresponsible."

The S-CHIP bill, as proposed, would increase from $25 billion now, to $60 billion OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. Yes, folks, that's $1 billion per month to make sure that all children have health care. And the best part? Every dime of it will be paid for with an increase in the cigarette tax.

This is a guy who gets nearly $500 billion every year in defense money, and then STILL asks for more money, just to pay for the Iraq Occupation. Oh, but not for body armor for the troops; that would suck. And that money he keeps asking for to keep the occupation going will be paid by our grandchildren. Right now, it's being financed by the Chinese.

The proposal would move millions of American children who now have private health insurance into government-run health care.  Our goals should be for children who have no health insurance to be able to get private coverage, not for children who already have private health insurance to be able to get government coverage.

What I'm describing here is a philosophical divide that exists in Washington over the best approach for health care.  Democratic leaders in Congress want to put more power in the hands of government by expanding federal health care programs.  Their S-CHIP plan is an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American.

This is the sign of an absolutely irresponsible politician, and a leading indicator as to why he's so incredibly incompetent. The issue isn't what might happen down the road; you have to deal with the problem as it exists now. And the fact of the matter is, there are millions of children in this country, who don't get proper health care because the system as it is currently simply doesn't allow it. The current S-CHIP program doesn't cover enough people, and Bush's suggested $5 billion increase over 5 years still won't cover all children.

If every politician took this approach to every issue, no bill would ever be passed, because there are always  potential consequences to every law. That's why many laws -- like this one -- only extend the program for five years. If it doesn't work, you have room to adjust it.

But think of the unmitigated balls it takes to call a bill that provides money for children's health care -- one that is fully funded by cigarette taxes, by the way, while he's asking for hundreds of billions of dollars in money that we don't actually have, to keep throwing down the rat hole that is the Iraq Occupation.

But beyond that, there is a lie here, and that is the bullshit story that imagines a whole slew of people dropping their kids from their health insurance and putting them on this health plan, because it's "free." I won't do that, and I can't imagine very many others will do that. For one thing, while it more than doubles the amount of money in the S-CHIP system, right now that program has barely enough money to cover those who are below the poverty line. It would be up to the states as to who it covers, so his assumption that it will cover kids in families making up to $83,000 a year is, to put it mildly, pulled straight out of his bicycling ass.

But even if a few states or metro areas did cover that much, so what? If both parents in a family are working and making $83,000 a year, and no other health insurance is available to them, I say their kids' health is too important. Not only that, but the kids who would need a lot of health care are going to get it anyway, and someone will have to pay for it.

The fact is, though, that there are places in this country where $83,000 for a family with more than two children doesn't really stretch very far. And he doesn't say how much assistance they'll get, anyway. You know why? Because the states determine the details in the S-CHIP program. He has no way of knowing how they'll spend the money, or to whom they will offer benefits, because the guidelines haven't been set yet.

 

Oh, but his diatribe gets better...

I have a different view.  I believe the best approach is to put more power in the hands of individuals by empowering people and their doctors to make health care decisions that are right for them. Instead of expanding S-CHIP beyond its original purpose, we should return it to its original focus, and that is helping poor children, those who are most in need.  And instead of encouraging people to drop private coverage in favor of government plans, we should work to make basic private health insurance affordable and accessible for all Americans.

Here we are with the Social Security privatization argument once again. It's crap, people; there are simply some things that should not be dependent on how much money you happen to have, and one of those is health care. You shouldn't be forced to stay sick just because you or your parents are poor. And if he's so concerned about making sure everyone GETS all of this so-called power, then what the hell have he and the Republicans been doing for the last 14 years, since they killed Hillary Clinton's original plan? Oh, by the way, that plan? It wasn't "socialized medicine." All of the power was in the hands of individuals and insurance companies were in the loop. Her original plan -- and the one she put forth this past week -- kept the insurance companies in the loop, and put all decisions in the hands of doctors and patients. And everyone in the country paid into it; imagine that.

Do you know the last Republican who even put forth a health insurance plan for the country? Richard Nixon. And you can thank him for those HMOs we all love so much. But since our health care system has been in crisis -- and the crisis is ongoing and getting worse -- the Republicans have done nothing to fix it. Think about it this way; Bush is vetoing a plan fashioned by Democrats to get more people insured. What else has he proposed to fix the problem?

Oh wait... there's more...

My administration will continue working with Congress to pass a responsible S-CHIP bill.  In the meantime, Congress has an obligation to make sure health insurance for poor children does not lapse.  If they fail to do so, more than a million children could lose health coverage. Health coverage for these children should not be held hostage while political ads are being made and new polls are being taken.  Congress must pass a clean, temporary extension of the current S-CHIP program that I can sign by September the 30th. And that's the date when the program expires.

I've instructed Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt, who has joined us today, to work with states on ways to mitigate the damage that would result if Congress allows this program to lapse.  Our goal in passing legislation should be getting something done for those in need, not getting nothing done so politicians in Washington can claim a political victory.

See, this is Bush's "the buck stops somewhere else" approach, once again. It's not his responsibility for vetoing the bill; it's Congress' fault for making him veto it.

And then there are the usual scare tactics. Don't fret, parents of poor children; this program won't lapse, unless Republicans filibuster the bill to extend it for a few months while they work things out.

The bottom line is, how many more people will George W. Bush, self-proclaimed "Christian" sacrifice, based on his stubborn insistence that all taxes are wrong, and that his ideology is more important than poor children and the men and women in our armed forces?

I do understand why impeaching this crew will be difficult, but we have to try, if for no other reason than to give people the sense that the government still works...

 

Gonzo Resigns to spend More Time With Jeff Gannon

Well, we finally got rid of this twit... but will we really be better off?

From: Embattled Attorney General Resigns - New York Times.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, whose tenure has been marred by controversy and accusations of perjury before Congress, has resigned. A senior administration official said he would announce the decision later this morning in Washington.

Mr. Gonzales, who had rebuffed calls for his resignation, submitted his to President Bush by telephone on Friday, the official said. His decision was not immediately announced, the official added, until after the president invited him and his wife to lunch at his ranch near here.

Mr. Bush has not yet chosen a replacement but will not leave the position open long, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the resignation had not yet been made public.

That's according to the New York Times. According to CNN:

President Bush will likely nominate Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to replace Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General, senior administration officials told CNN Monday.

Chertoff, 53, previously sat on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which handles appeals from New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania and the Virgin Islands.

Good Lord...

Two things come to mind. The first one is "be careful what you wish for..." Gonzo was bad, but is "Skeletor" Chertoff any better? Think of the doubletalk after Katrina for a clue...

The second thing is, does George W. Bush know anyone? Has any administration in history recycled the same people more often than this Bush Administration?

We have to get rid of these people... we have to...

 

Tenet Goes Under the Bus; Bush Comes Out Unscathed

You know, I don't normally do the conspiracy thing, and i am no huge fan of George Tenet, but doesn't it seem as if it's at least possible that Tenet was a patsy in some sort of master plan to create a scenario in which Bush wold have to take no responsibility, should there be a security failure after taking office?

Think about it. Even if they didn't plan 9/11 (and I truly doubt that they did), they did plan to invade Iraq, and they would need an "intelligence failure" of some sort to use as a rationale for the invasion. So, they kept Tenet on, as one of the very few holdovers from the Clinton Administration, with a plan to blame him when the intelligence failed.

Of course, then came 9/11, which was the worst intelligence failure in US history, and Bush was responsible. No, you can hem and haw and piss and moan all you want. Bush should have known something was up, he had graphic warnings, and he did nothing but stay on vacation, and then proceed to pee his pants when the first plane hit the World Trade Center.

So, fast forward six years, and who gets thrown under the bus, so that Bush can avoid all accountability for his major f*** up?

From: The Blotter: CIA Report Blames Tenet for 9/ll Failure.

Former CIA director George Tenet "bears ultimate responsibility" for failing to create a strategic plan to stop al Qaeda prior to 9/ll, according to a review by the CIA's inspector general that was made public today, more than two years after it was written.

The report says that while Tenet wrote he wanted "no resources or people spared" in going after al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, neither he, nor his deputy, "followed up these warnings and admonitions by creating a documented, comprehensive plan to guide the counterterrorism effort."

"I know now why Tenet worked so hard to kill this report," said former White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke, now an ABC News consultant.

In a written statement, Tenet, who received the Medal of Freedom from President Bush, said the report was "flat wrong." Tenet said the inspector general failed to interview him. "He fails to understand how intensely I pushed the counterterrorism issue," Tenet said.

Now, I don't think anyone can absolve Tenet of responsibility altogether. But to place all of the blame on him, when the CIA and other Intelligence agencies -- and the outgoing Clinton Administration, for that matter -- warned the Bushies that terrorism was job one, and that al Qaeda and bin Laden were major problems, is, to put it mildly, disingenuous. The Bushies never took terrorism seriously, until it was laid bare on our doorstep (and for at least 7 minutes after).

Tenet's responsible on some level, but the release of this report is obviously a calculated attempt by the Bushies to avoid accountability. Put it this way; Bush gave Tenet the Medal of Freedom after 9/11. Think about it...

 

Karl Rove is a Liar -- Here's proof...

First, you have Karl Rove laying a load of crap on David Gregory on Meet the Press:

Then, you have Matt Cooper come on and prove, once and for all, that karl Rove is a bald-faced liar:

These videos came from Crooks & Liars, and they prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Karl Rove is both a crook and a liar. Can't wait to see how Fox Noise spins this one... expect Sean Hannity's head to fly off and Bill O'Reilly to run to Geraldo or Dennis for a big hug...

Spy Satellites -- They Can Find Us, But Not Osama

So, the real reason we spent so much of our kids' tax money on spy satellites was not so that we cold use them to track the enemy when we're at war. The real purpose of such satellites, apparently, was so that our nanny state can spy on us remotely, from another room, while they sit there with their feet propped up, eating ice cream.

From: BBC NEWS | World | Americas | US agencies boost satellite use.

The US is giving its domestic agencies greater access to images from spy satellites, in a move strongly criticised by civil rights groups.

The images will be used to boost national security, disaster response and law enforcement, US officials said.

Use of the satellite imagery will be managed by a new office within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Some US agencies already had limited access to the images, but many were restricted to scientific use.

The DHS says it wants to use the imagery to improve the quality of surveillance on borders, ports, bridges and other infrastructure.

So, let's see what we have so far. We have a political party that came into office promising to reduce the size and influence of government, creating a bloated bureaucracy that has already demonstrated itself as completely ineffective, making itself even bigger and more ineffective by creating another new office within the sprawling bureaucracy.

it gets funnier, though...

Officials believe the satellites could identify and follow targets by their physical traits, and could be used to respond to disasters such as the 2001 attacks or Hurricane Katrina.

Okay, so we have technology that can identify and follow targets, but we still can't find a 6-and-a-half-foot tall Arab in the mountains of Pakistan?

As for the alleged ability to respond to disasters, um... I'm pretty sure we had pictures of those disasters, and Bush peed his pants when the WTC was attacked, and he went on a campaign swing for Republicans as pictures of people drowning in New Orleans were plastered all over the place. And both times, there were plenty of warnings, and the warnings weren't heeded. Having pictures of things didn't create a political will on the part of the Bushies before, and it won't create one if the pictures come from a really nifty satellite.

No, the problem isn't being

The Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for intelligence analysis, Charles Allen, told the Washington Post the programme would be particularly useful in policing land and sea borders and in disaster planning.

Officials say use of the images for domestic law enforcement will be allowed only in limited cases, and a general ban on domestic spying by the CIA and the Pentagon will remain in force.

"This is not a system for tracking Americans," Mr Allen said.

Remember, this is a top official in the Bush Administration. Do YOU believe him?

Karl Rove -- Now That He's Leaving the White House, Let's Find Him an Orange Jumpsuit

I've never understood why anyone would consider Karl Rove a "genius." He's a bully and a sneak and an asshole, but there's no way he's a "genius." George W. Bush has never actually won a presidential election, not even as an incumbent running for reelection. I'm not just talking about the thefts in several states both in 2000 and 2004; I'm talking about Al Gore and John Kerry throwing away those two elections, and making them close enough for the Republicans to steal.

Basically, Rove has one talent, and that is as "enforcer." He's the guy who does the dirty work; the guy who makes the decisions to smear the hell out of people, and carries it out, daring people to stop him. if Dick Cheney is the Don Corleone of the current Bush Administration (you didn't think it was Bush, did you?), Karl Rove is the Luca Brasi. Everyone's afraid of this guy, including the entire Republican Party and more than a few Democrats. A case can be made that the current crop of Democrats are afraid of their own shadows, but nothing is scarier to them than the prospect of Karl Rove revving up the scandal machine and attacking them with it.

That's absurd, of course. There is nothing fearsome about Karl Rove except for his enigmatic persona; he intimidates people because he has other people attack for him, and the fear of the unknown is a powerful tool. The reason he has other people go on the attack in his stead, however, is because he's just a big pussy, and I don't mean that in the "Sopranos" sense. The "Big Pussy" in that was named so ironically; right wingers don't even get irony. Rove attacks through surrogates, because he has no principles, and he stands by that. Though Bush referred to him at today's announcement as "friend," the term doesn't fit, at least in terms that the rest of us would understand. You see, people like Rove and Bush don't have "friends." They have "people who do things for me" and "people whom I will do things for, because they have done things for me." Oh, sure, Rove and Bush probably hang out occasionally, ripping the flesh off the bones of dead cows and pigs and saying nasty things about minorities, but that's not friendship.

When you look at Rove's life, you can see that friendship is not something Rove excels at; he's a bastard, and one gets the sense that he's a bastard even with people he refers to facetiously as "friends." He's probably not a bastard while you're doing what he wants you to do, but when you cross him, he will have no problem with ruining you. he's the epitome of the "You'll never work in this town again!" type of blowhard, which is not frightening in most professions, but for some reason politicians fear that more than anything.

Rove's first political encounter, of course, came when in 1960, when he was working on Richard Nixon's first campaign for president. He was nine years old at the time, and claims that he was beaten up by a Catholic Kennedy supporter, who just happened to be a girl.  "There was a little girl across the street who was Catholic and found out I was for Nixon, and she was avidly for Kennedy. She put me down on the pavement and whaled on me and gave me a bloody nose. I lost my first political battle," Rove told the Deseret News in 2002.

Rove was supposedly a great debater in high school, and was elected student body president, at the same time he describes himself as a "total nerd." His relationship with the Bushies began in 1973, when he ended in a virtual tie with another brownshirt as the College Republicans chair. He was then chosen by George Herbert Walker Bush as chairman over his challenger, and Bush, Sr. became his mentor.

So, one has to wonder why someone who was so skilled that he was able to go from "total nerd" who was beaten up by a girl to chairman of the College Republicans, became a behind-the-scenes hatchet man, and eventual treasonous clown?

The answer is simple, of course. Karl Rove is a classic wingnut, like Bush, Cheney, et al, who could never be accused of putting America first. To these people, Karl Rove chief among them, ideology comes first, the Republican Party is the mechanism by which they implement their ideology, and the country is little more than the "mark"; the sucker who can be taken for as much money as possible, and who will sit still while they turn the government into a state that is far more useful to the corporate oligarchy that they so favor. There is nothing to them except power. They don't care about the people of this country, they don't care about the Constitution... wait... let me restate that... they think the Constitution is a barrier to their ideology, and they have spent 6 1/2 years trying to undermine it. And through every attempt, Karl Rove's hammy fingerprints are all over it.

Rove headed the White House Iraq Group, which created the strategy that led to war with a nation that was no threat to us at the time. He was one of the masterminds of the "rotating rationales" strategy, in which various reasons were given for going to war in Iraq, and they were rotated according to the audience and the necessity of the moment. No thought was given to fighting terrorism; in fact, the WHIG made it clear that they didn't give a rat's ass about going after the people who killed 3000 Americans on 9/11. No thought was given as to the troops and their families. The only concern was how to spread the military as thin as possible, and how to distribute the billions of dollars in defense contract money, while at the same time cutting taxes, and providing cover for cutting programs they deemed "unnecessary," such as school lunches and health care for children.

In fact, Rove turned even that horrible tragedy into a political football, when he is famously quoted as saying:

“Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. (Wingnuts) saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war.”

Rove is all about the money, folks. Make no mistake; public service has never entered his mind throughout his political career. He holds lots of phramaceutical stocks and regularly meets with drug company lobbyists. When he held $100,000 in Intel stock, he helped broker a merger that benefited him financially. And just like his buddy, Dick Cheney, Rove participated in those infamous energy policy meetings that are still secret, despite the fact that he held plenty of energy stocks.

The  "faked" documents that CBS News cited regarding Bush's National Guard "service" -- you remember, the ones that contained no false information, but were simply not absolutely authentic, and which resulted in Dan Rather's firing? They probably came from Rove. Rove had a very direct connection to the source of those documents.

There is also no doubt that Rove engineered the US Attorneys firing scandal and especially the cover-up. The cover-up is pure Rove; there was technically nothing legally wrong with the firings, and Bush would have been within his rights to fire the US Attorneys. But Rove knew that such firings, especially given that all of the attorneys were apparently fired for political reasons, would be political suicide for the Republican Party and the wingnut ideology. Remember; the ideology comes first; they want to destroy the government as it is, and remake it without the commerce clause; God forbid the United States government actually perform its Constitutionally mandated duty and regulate commerce.

But the worst thing Karl Rove did while working at the White House had to be to direct the outing of the identity of a covert CIA agent, Valerie Plame, and then order its cover-up. Basically, when Bush lied during a State of the Union address, and claimed that Saddam Hussein was trying to buy yellowcake in order to build his nuclear program back, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson revealed the lie. The Bushies, led by Rove, were incensed, and they proceeded to reveal to the press that Wilson's wife was a covert CIA operative, in a show of "power" that was the most astonishing abuse of power in the history of the United States. And it was all engineered by Karl Rove.

I am glad to see Karl Rove gone from the government, but it's simply not enough. When Congress comes back from recess, they should follow through with their subpoenas, and demand that that fat little "Turdblossom" be held accountable for his actions in undermining this country.

We shouldn't be satisfied until Rove is frog-marched into Leavenworth...

Bush to Lose his "Brain" at the End of the Month

It seems that Bush's erstwhile "brain," Karl Rove, is going to leave at the end of the month, to go back to Texas and plot his next government takeover, or perhaps to begin to pen his memoir, in which he apologizes for foisting Bush, Jr. on the world.

Of course, it also means that "Executive Privilege" will no longer be a barrier to getting him to testify. Kind of makes you wonder what he really has up his sleeve.

From: Karl Rove announces exit - CNN.com.

Karl Rove, U.S. President George W. Bush's senior political adviser, is to resign at the end of August, CNN has confirmed.

Rove, who has held a top position in the White House since Bush took office in January 2001, is to stand down on August 31.

"I just think it's time," Rove told the Wall Street Journal (WSJ). "There's always something that can keep you here, and as much as I'd like to be here, I've got to do this for the sake of my family."

He told the newspaper that he would leave Washington to return to Texas and that he had first suggested the idea of leaving a year ago.

However a series of problems for the Bush administration, starting when the Democrats took control of Congress and then as immigration and the Iraq war topped the agenda, made Rove stay on.

But the hand of one of President Bush's most trusted advisors (sic) was forced when White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten announced that any senior staff that were working past Labor Day (September 3) would be expected to stay on until the end of Bush's term in January 2007.

Does anyone else think of Joshua Bolten forcing Rove's "hand" as anything but hilarious?

Bye Bye evil Karl, hello massive hearings on everything. We have to figure out what's really been going on in our White House for the last six years...

Compassionate Conservatism Writ Large!

This is a short speech given by George W Bush yesterday. It was his first mention of the tragedy in Minneapolis the evening before. How inappropriate is this?

Good morning. I just finished a Cabinet meeting. One of the things we discussed was the terrible situation there in Minneapolis. We talked about the fact that the bridge collapsed, and that we in the federal government must respond and respond robustly to help the people there not only recover, but to make sure that lifeline of activity, that bridge, gets rebuilt as quickly as possible.

To that end, Secretary Peters is in Minneapolis, as well as Federal Highway Administrator Capka. I spoke to Governor Pawlenty and Mayor Rybak this morning. I told them that the Secretary would be there. I told them we would help with rescue efforts, but I also told them how much we are in prayer for those who suffered. And I thank my fellow citizens for holding up those who are suffering right now in prayer.

Okay, so far, so good. a little phony, smarmy and insincere, but hey; this is President Bush we're talking about. But check out what comes next...

We also talked about -- in the Cabinet meeting talked about the status of important pieces of legislation before the Congress. We spent a fair amount of time talking about the fact that how disappointed we are that Congress hasn't sent any spending bills to my desk. By the end of this week, members are going to be leaving for their month-long August recess. And by the time they will return, there will be less than a month before the end of the fiscal year on September the 30th, and yet they haven't passed one of the 12 spending bills that they're required to pass. If Congress doesn't pass the spending bills by the end of the fiscal year, Cabinet Secretaries report that their departments may be unable to move forward with urgent priorities for our country.

Is this the most insensitive crap you've ever seen in your life?

Well, of course it isn't, because this is the president who also waited five days before even addressing the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina.

Not only did he use a statement on a tragedy as an opening for a political attack on Democrats, but his attack also consisted of a load of garbage. congress almost NEVER sends spending bills to the president before the end of the fiscal year. the last Republican Congress didn't even pass most of theirs before they left office in January. In fact, the only two they passed before they left office were the Defense and Homeland Security appropriations, and they passed those in late November of last year. (FYI, neither included any money for Iraq.)

So, not only does the Idiot-in-Chief use a tragedy as an opening for a partisan political attack, but the 'attack' demonstrates either a complete misunderstanding of the   appropriations process, or a willful batch of lies. Given his record, I'm thinking it's probably the latter, since he's never mentioned this before, when the GOP failed to have bills ready for him to sign "in time."

This doesn't have to be this way. The Democrats won last year's election fair and square, and now they control the calendar for bringing up bills in Congress. They need to pass each of these spending bills individually, on time, and in a fiscally responsible way.

The budget I've sent to Congress fully funds America's priorities. It increases discretionary spending by 6.9 percent. My Cabinet Secretaries assure me that this is adequate to meet the needs of our nation.

Unfortunately, Democratic leaders in Congress want to spend far more. Their budget calls for nearly $22 billion more in discretionary spending next year alone. These leaders have tried to downplay that figure. Yesterday one called this increase -- and I quote -- "a very small difference" from what I proposed. Only in Washington can $22 billion be called a very small difference. And that difference will keep getting bigger. Over the next five years it will total nearly $205 billion in additional discretionary spending. That $205 billion averages out to about $112 million per day, $4.7 million per hour, $78,000 per minute.

Put another way, that's about $1,300 in higher spending every second of every minute of every hour of every day of every year for the next five years. That's a lot of money -- even for career politicians in Washington. In fact, at that pace, Democrats in Congress would have spent an extra $300,000 since I began these remarks.

There's only one way to pay for all this new federal spending without running up the deficit, and that is to raise your taxes. A massive tax hike is the last thing the American people need. The plan I put forward would keep your taxes low and balance the budget within five years, and that is the right path for our country.

I want to thank OMB Director Rob Portman for his hard work in developing this plan. This was Rob's last Cabinet meeting. Laura and I wish him and his family well. And I call on the Senate to confirm his successor, Jim Nussle, so we can work together to keep our government running, to keep our economy growing, and to keep our nation strong. Thank you for your time.

So, let's recap for a moment, shall we?

HE and the Republican Congress reduced taxes during war time.

HE and his people went before Congress and told them Iraq would be over in six weeks and cost a total of $8 billion, which would be paid for with Iraqi oil money.

HE and the Republican Congress spent money like drunken sailors when they were in power, approving pork projects that would make the former king of pork, Robert Byrd blush.

HE and the Republican Congress  then appropriated more than $400 billion to Iraq, despite the fact that there was no plan for finishing up and getting out.

HE and the Republican Congress took us from a budget surplus situation to a record deficit situation.

HE and the Republicans oversaw the Corporate accouting scandals, prosecuted no one and recovered none of the money lost.

HE and the Republicans have been handing out tens of billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to their buddies for years now.

HE and the Republicans have BLOCKED every attempt to get spending in Iraq under control since the Democrats took over.

But if taxes go up, it's the Democrats' fault. Not the Republicans' for borrowing money from your kids to pay for their corruption and poor sense of fiscal responsibility. It's their fault, for realizing the everything costs money, and that someone has to pay for them.

This would be unbelievable if this clown hadn't been doing this for six  and a half years now...

 

Bush Has Michael Moore's Subpoenas and He's Not Letting Go...

Since the Bushies think subpoenas are pretty much unenforceable pains in the ass, does this mean Mike can skip on his and tell them to take a hike?

Not that I'm recommending that, of course. We liberals believe in the rule of law, and would never consider such a thing.

But it does indicate that the Administration doesn't think of them as "just pieces of paper" when they hand them to liberal filmmakers.  so, they shouldn't be allowed to get away with ignoring their importance when Congress issues them...

From: Mouth of the Potomac: BUSHIES WANT TO HEAR FROM MOORE ON CUBA TRIP.

Oscar-winning documentary filmmaker Michael Moore announced that the Bush Administration has subpoenaed him in the wake of his recent trip to Cuba on the July 26 episode of NBC's "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" (Monday-Friday, 11:35 p.m. - 12:37 a.m. ET). "I haven't even told my own family yet." Moore began, "I was just informed when I was back there with Jay that the Bush administration has now issued a subpoena for me."

The trip was part of his new film "Sicko" which tackles the question of affordable health care in the United States. Moore, who brought 9/11 rescue workers with him on his excursion, explains the reason for his trip, saying: "Took them to Guantanamo Bay because I heard the Al Qaeda Terrorists we have in the camps there, detained, are receiving free dental, medical, eye care, the whole deal, and our own 9/11 rescue workers can't get that in New York City."

In a continued effort to help the 9/11 rescue workers, Moore stated that on August 11, the Weinstein Company will be donating 11 percent of the box office receipts from "Sicko" to "help these workers and the other workers who need help," said Moore.

U.S. Announces Nuclear Exception for India - New York Times

On how many levels is this just wrong?

From: U.S. Announces Nuclear Exception for India - New York Times.

Three years after President Bush urged global rules to stop additional nations from making nuclear fuel, the State Department today announced that the administration is carving out an exception for India, in a last-ditch effort to seal a civilian nuclear deal between the countries.

“The United States and India have reached a historic milestone in their strategic partnership by completing negotiations on the bilateral agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation,” the department said in a statement.

The announcement follows more than a year of negotiations intended to keep an unusual arrangement between the countries from being defeated in New Delhi.

First of all, since when does the United States unilaterally decide who gets to have nukes and who doesn't? Shouldn't that be a function of global treaties, and not some bilateral agreement in which one country gives the other permission? Don't any of the countries around India, especially the ones within missile range, have a say in this?

And what sort me message does this send to those countries, anyway, especially Pakistan. Pakistan has nukes, and they seem to have formed a sort of alliance with al Qaeda; does this give de facto to Pakistan to step up its nuclear program? Do we really want someone like Musharraf stepping up his nuclear program, especially given that he was never elected, and is subject to coup at pretty much any time.

Where do we get off demanding that Iran stop its nuclear program from one side our mouths, while sanctioning India's nuclear program from the other.

Though this story is kind of flying under the radar a bit, this could end up a major foreign policy disaster, especially at a time when we're threatening other nations to the point that they really want to have a nuke, just in case.

Gonzo Might Need a Commutation, Too

From: Dems Wants Probe of Gonzales for Perjury.

Senate Democrats called Thursday for a special counsel to investigate whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales perjured himself regarding the firings of U.S. attorneys and administration dissent over President Bush's domestic surveillance program.

"It has become apparent that the attorney general has provided at a minimum half-truths and misleading statements," four members of the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote in a letter to Solictor General Paul Clement.

They asked Clement to immediately appoint an indepedent counsel from outside the Justice Department to determine whether Gonzales "may have misled Congress or perjured himself in testimony before Congress."

"We do not make this request lightly," wrote Sens. Charles E. Schumer of New York, Dianne Feinstein of California, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

A draft copy of the letter was obtained by The Associated Press shortly before a news conference planned by the senators.

Neither Gonzales nor the Justice Department had immediate comment about the letter. A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he supports the request.

The Democratic testicles are beginning to descend, folks... it took a while, but before you know it, they're be real adults!

Someone get the limbo stick!

How LOW can he go??

Link: Political Wire: Bush Hits 25% Approval.

According to a new American Research Group poll, just 25% of Americans approve of the way President Bush is handling his job as president and 71% disapprove. These are record lows for the survey.

When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 23% approve and 73% disapprove.

But... but... the economy is so... um... strong...

(I have a huge article coming on that later... stay tuned...)

 

McConnell Inadvertently Confirms Bushies' Torture Regimen

Seriously, is everyone in the Bush Administration just the dumbest form of human ever created? This is what Bush's National "Intelligence" Director (an ironic title if there ever was one!) said about the Bushies' approach to torture:

This is from an AP story, Spy Chief McConnell Defends Tactics:.

The nation's spy chief on Sunday would not identify what CIA interrogators are allowed to do in getting information from terror suspects, but tried to assure critics that torture is not condoned or used.

National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell, in a rare broadcast interview, defended a new order from President Bush that broadly outlines the limits of how suspects may be questioned in the CIA's terror interrogation program.

The executive order bans torture, cruel and inhumane treatment, sexual abuse, acts intended to denigrate a religion or other degradation "beyond the bounds of human decency." It pledges that detainees will receive adequate food, water and medical care and be protected from extreme heat and cold.

It does not, however, say what techniques are permitted during harsh questioning of suspects _ a matter of debate in the U.S. and elsewhere.

McConnell would not elaborate.

"If I announce what the specific measures are, it would aid those who want to resist those measures," McConnell said. "So I won't be too specific."

When asked if the permissible techniques would be troubling to the American people if the enemy used them against a U.S. citizen, McConnell said: "I would not want a U.S. citizen to go through the process. But it is not torture, and there would be no permanent damage to that citizen."

Which means, they use torture, just not the kind that causes permanent damage. maybe. Of course, they intend to keep the techniques secret, so who knows?

Here's what's stupid about this, folks.

First, torture doesn't work. Want proof? Well, the Bushies have been using it for at least five years now, and we're still bogged down in Iraq, we've lost most of Afghanistan, and terrorists are still plying their trade. In fact, not only have we not caught any al Qaeda using torture, but the numbers of al Qaeda are increasing, in part because of the use of torture.

Think a little. If someone is in extreme discomfort, or pain, or under severe emotional distress, he  will say anything to get it to stop.  Which means that he'll tell you anything he thinks you want to hear. The torture on the show "24" is a fantasy, folks; it simply doesn't happen that way, and especially not that fast.

I'll put it this way; ask John McCain how well it works.

But check out the double-speak from this jackass. Think of the immorality inherent in the statement that, while they will torture the hell out of people who aren't citizens, they would never, ever use the same techniques on American citizens.

I want you to think about that statement for a while, and then tell me why the terrorists want to kill us. And if you say it's "for our freedoms," I'll have to clock you.

Then, think about what they do to prisoners in federal prisons who are American citizens, and think about the fact that it's far worse than that.

They're torturing people, folks. The largest free country in the world is torturing people it doesn't like. And they're doing it in your name...

 

Bush Accelerates Contempt of Congress

See, here's the problem, folks. The Bushies simply do not believe in accountability or oversight. They believe in the "emperor' model of governance, and they are attempting to place more power in the presidency than it has ever had previously.

Earlier this week, Bush asserted that the country was in a "state of emergency" over the war in Iraq, and asserted that he had the power to simply declare someone guilty of impeding the war in Iraq (which isn't even a war) and take everything they own. Now, he's claiming that Congress has no power to order anyone in his administration to do anything.
Link: Broader Privilege Claimed In Firings - washingtonpost.com.

Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.

The position presents serious legal and political obstacles for congressional Democrats, who have begun laying the groundwork for contempt proceedings against current and former White House officials in order to pry loose information about the dismissals.

(...)

"A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," said a senior official, who said his remarks reflect a consensus within the administration. "And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen."

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly, added: "It has long been understood that, in circumstances like these, the constitutional prerogatives of the president would make it a futile and purely political act for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. attorneys."

Think about that a minute. Essentially, it has been determined that it's possible a crime was committed; if not a crime, a serious case of malfeasance. yet, the check on the Executive Branch, which IS the Congress, is being forbidden to investigate anything by the very people they're investigating.

This is the highest level of corruption ever seen in the White House, and that's saying a lot. I'm not even talking about the US Attorney firings; I'm talking about the assertion of supreme power that is not mentioned in the Constitution. These people didn't swear an oath to Dubya; they swore an oath to the Constitution. They don't work for a company run by CEO Dubya and paid by him; they work for the government and they work for and are paid by us.

It's this simple, folks; the three branches are equal, and they check each other. If someone in the Executive Branch does something wrong, Congress has a duty to investigate it. It's not optional; they have to. Congress makes the laws, the Executive Branch makes sure the laws are implemented, and the Judicial Branch makes sure the laws  are within the  parameters set out ion the Constitution. And they all check each other. That's the beauty of the system, and why it's worked so well for so long.

We have to impeach these people; it's that simple. They would certainly pull this crap during an impeachment proceeding, as well, but that would just reinforce the articles of impeachment.

How Can Anyone NOT Impeach These People?

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004.  I hereby order:

Section 1.  (a)  Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported,

withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:  any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,

(i)  to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:

(A)  threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or

(B)  undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;

(ii)  to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(iii)  to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

(b)  The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the

receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Sec. 2.  (a)  Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose

of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

(b)  Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

Sec. 3.  For purposes of this order:

(a)  the term "person" means an individual or entity;

(b)  the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and

(c)  the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.

Sec. 4.  I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.

Sec. 5.  For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets

instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual.  I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order.

Sec. 6.  The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order.  The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government, consistent with applicable law.  All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to advise the Secretary of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken.

Sec. 7.  Nothing in this order is intended to affect the continued effectiveness of any rules, regulations, orders, licenses, or other forms of administrative action issued, taken, or continued in effect heretofore or hereafter under 31 C.F.R. chapter V, except as expressly terminated, modified, or suspended by or pursuant to this order.

Sec. 8.  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

July 17, 2007.

Folks, what this means, in a nutshell, is that George W. Bush has decided that he can suspend the Constitution at will, and that there is some sort of "emergency" happening inside this country as a result of the Iraq War. Apparently, this "emergency"  is so severe, that Bush feels the need to bypass the court system, and let the Treasury Secretary, and he and Condi decide, unilaterally, who should be targeted, and who should have everything they own taken away.

No one in his or her right mind could possibly not see anything impeachable in this thing.

The Kristol Meth-od: Bush Really Does Have Clothes! No, Really, He Does!

Please cut the crap, Bill Kristol. I know you're a right wing apologist, but that doesn't mean you get to make shit up.

The horrible thing is, this looks to be a SERIES of articles, meant to assure us that george W. Bush is one hell of a president. Let's take a look at the highlights point by point, shall we?

Link: Why Bush Will Be A Winner - washingtonpost.com.

I suppose I'll merely expose myself to harmless ridicule if I make the following assertion: George W. Bush's presidency will probably be a successful one.

We'll start with this one. If Bush's term is considered "successful" by anyone, that means a future president will emulate it. If Mr. Kristol can sit there and tell me that ANYONE would want to emulate the last 6 1/2 years, he is a master at lying with a straight face.

I didn't agree with Ronald Reagan's policies or politics, but I have to admit that the public respected him, at least for the first six years. And as a politician, he had a pragmatic streak that made him realize where the line was, and that he couldn't cross it, no matter what his personal politics told him. That is the mark of a leader, whether you like him or not.

George W. Bush has no such pragmatic skills. He is not a leader; he's a de facto dictator. Almost 1000 bills have been signed, which bear a "signing statement," almost all of which attempt to carve out exceptions to the law for himself. Then there's Iraq. A successful leader would never have gone in without having a complete plan for what to do once he got there, and a plan for getting out.

This is not only not a successful president; he is the worst president in history. Of course, that doesn't stop Kristol from spinning thustly:

The economy first: After the bursting of the dot-com bubble, followed by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, we've had more than five years of steady growth, low unemployment and a stock market recovery. Did this just happen? No. Bush pushed through the tax cuts of 2001 and especially 2003 by arguing that they would produce growth. His opponents predicted dire consequences. But the president was overwhelmingly right. Even the budget deficit, the most universally criticized consequence of the tax cuts, is coming down and is lower than it was when the 2003 supply-side tax cuts were passed.

If Kristol can't see the "dire consequences," he needs his eyes checked. Unemployment is actually far higher than it was when Bush took office. It's stayed steady, but a whole lot more people are underemployed than before. More people are working for small companies at low pay and no benefits, because more and more companies are downsizing here and moving overseas. They had to tighten bankruptcy laws in order to reduce the number of bankruptcies, the foreclosure rate is skyrocketing due to a proliferation of mortgage schemes better suited to organized crime than legitimate bankers (honestly, not started under the Bushies, but encouraged by them), and the only thing keeping the economy afloat at all is an incredible amount of deficit spending, and incredible amounts of borrowing from countries that really aren't the best of friends. Hell; the only reason people invested in real estate for a while was because the stock market wasn't going anywhere. Now the stock market is inching up a little, because real estate's tanking. The fed isn't increasing interest rates because of inflation; they're raising them to attract borrowers, because more and more economies are investing in Euros.  Since most Americans don't travel overseas much, so they haven't noticed, but the dollar is tanking.

Seriously, It is only possible for puffy rich white guys to think the economy's just super. It's not at all "super." In fact, the next president will have a daunting task ahead just getting the economy back on the rails.

Bush has also (on the whole) resisted domestic protectionist pressures (remember the Democratic presidential candidates in 2004 complaining about outsourcing?), thereby helping sustain global economic growth.

Yeah, how's that working out for us?

First of all, there's little to nothing to "protect." The only thing we make anymore are Japanese cars and iPods. Okay, "make" is kind of a strong word. We actually "assemble" stuff. We've already established that apparently, even with all of those "illegal aliens" just flooding the country to "do jobs Americans won't do," it's still cheaper to outsource our manufacturing elsewhere, because American companies (who are increasingly moving their paper location offshore to avoid taxes) continue to do so. Our pets (my son's cat was one of them!) were put in danger, because we -- the "breadbasket of the world" -- can't even make our own goddamn pet food! I mean, we're even outsourcing the Iraq war, and they tried to hand over our port security to a Middle eastern company suspected to have ties to terrorists.

Seriously; he's not only avoiding "protectionism," he's avoiding protection. But we'll get back to that.

The year 2003 also featured a close congressional vote on Bush's other major first-term initiative, the Medicare prescription drug benefit. Liberals denounced it as doing nothing for the elderly; conservatives worried that it would bust the budget. Experts of all stripes foresaw great challenges in its implementation. In fact, it has all gone surprisingly smoothly, providing broad and welcome coverage for seniors and coming in under projected costs.

Is he kidding with this? It's the first year, and a significant number of seniors are so confused that they haven't signed up for it yet. And wait until they start figuring out there are limits on coverage, and their coverage runs out before the plan year. And with no cost controls, it's only a matter of time before everyone settles in, and Big Pharma starts gouging again. It's a bad plan, we were lied to, and the actual effects have only just kicked in.

Oh, Kristol's just getting warmed up...

What about terrorism? Apart from Iraq, there has been less of it, here and abroad, than many experts predicted on Sept. 12, 2001. So Bush and Vice President Cheney probably are doing some important things right. The war in Afghanistan has gone reasonably well.

I don't do drugs, and I don't drink, but if I did, I think I'd want some of whatever Kristol's ingesting.

Overall, terrorist attacks have been UP every year since Bush invaded Iraq. A report released just this last week showed that al Qaeda is stronger than ever, and we're losing soldiers and Iraqi civilians are dying in record numbers due to terrorist attacks.

I'm going to write an article on my other web site on the increase in terrorist activity in the last few years, so here, suffice it to say that William must be doing Kristol meth or something, if he thinks there is less terrorism right now.

As for Afghanistan, that war has been disastrous, as the only portion of the country the Afghan government controls is Kabul itself, and the taliban is back and running most of the rest of the country. Meanwhile, al Qaeda sits on the other side of the border, in pakistan, thumbing their noses at us, and Osama bin Laden is back to his other career, making videos.

On foreign policy:

As for foreign policy in general,  it has mostly been the usual mixed bag. We've deepened our friendships with Japan and India; we've had better outcomes than expected in the two largest Latin American countries, Mexico and Brazil; and we've gotten friendlier governments than expected in France and Germany. China is stable. There has been slippage in Russia. The situation with North Korea is bad but containable.

Jesus, does this guy even bother to read a newspaper? Our "friendships" with Japan and India are on solid ground and always have been. Have they deepened? Doubtful, unless you've been seeing some serious tongue-kissing going on between Bush and the leaders of those countries. In fact, Japan is considering repealing Article 9 of their Constitution, which forbids them from having a standing army. The reasons are many, but one of them is definitely Bush.

Mexico and Brazil are stable and friendly, why wouldn't we be friendly. Does it take some special skill to maintain relations with friendly countries? Our relationships with France and Germany were severely damaged by the Iraq occupation, however. (Not to mention Bush's fondling of Ms. Merkel.) We're lucky those two countries are capable of realizing the difference between a country and its leadership, and that all countries have occasional electoral brain farts.

Russia, however, is a problem; a huge problem, and Bush and his lame-ass Secretary of State, Ms Condi, are not up to handling it. Ironic, too, since Condi is such an expert. The situation over there has deteriorated significantly, to the point that their democracy is in greater danger than ours. Hold your breath until the next president gets in there...

And I hate to break it to Kristol, but North Korea was not only containable when Bush took office, it was contained. It was Bush that incited the latest round of threats, and activated Kim's Typodong.

It's simple, folks; Kristol's estimation of Bush's foreign policy requires him to ignore Bush's incredible failures in so many other countries. Besides Afghanistan (I'll get to Iraq in a moment), he's also screwed relations in most of the Middle East, most of Europe, Venezuela, Iran... the list is quite long. He has a Secretary of State who would rather buy shoes than do her job, and whom pretty much no one takes seriously. A lot of the crap you hear about her is that many of the countries she has to deal with don't want to deal with women, but for some reason, Madeleine Albright didn't have the same problem.

They have had two successes in 6 years; they managed to squeeze the genie back into the bottle in North Korea, although his ass is still sticking out a bit. And they made a deal with Libya; a deal that Qaddafi  himself wanted, because his people were starving to death and about to  kill him.

Then there's Iraq. Read what Kristol says about that debacle. Make sure you haven't had lunch.

But wait, wait, wait: What about Iraq? It's Iraq, stupid -- you (and 65 percent of your fellow Americans) say -- that makes Bush an unsuccessful president.

Not necessarily. (...)  Bush is a war president, and war presidents are judged by whether they win or lose their war. So to be a successful president, Bush has to win in Iraq.

Which I now think we can. Indeed, I think we will. In late 2006, I didn't think we would win, as Bush stuck with the failed Rumsfeld-Abizaid-Casey strategy of "standing down" as the Iraqis were able to "stand up," based on the mistaken theory that if we had a "small footprint" in Iraq, we'd be more successful. With the new counterinsurgency strategy announced on Jan. 10, backed up by the troop "surge," I think the odds are finally better than 50-50 that we will prevail. We are routing al-Qaeda in Iraq, we are beginning to curb the Iranian-backed sectarian Shiite militias and we are increasingly able to protect more of the Iraqi population.

If we sustain the surge for a year and continue to train Iraqi troops effectively, we can probably begin to draw down in mid- to late 2008. The fact is that military progress on the ground in Iraq in the past few months has been greater than even surge proponents like me expected, and political progress is beginning to follow. Iran is a problem, and we will have to do more to curb  Tehran's meddling -- but we can. So if we keep our nerve here at home, we have a good shot at achieving a real, though messy, victory in Iraq.

Jeez... where do you start? How about with the fact that WE can't WIN a goddamn civil war between three factions inside Iraq. That would be like the French coming over here to help us during the revolution, and still being here, because they felt like they knew democracy better than we did.

Bush won the war a long time ago. He got rid of Saddam back in 2003, and it took about 6 weeks. It's the aftermath that's complately screwed up. They've had three interim governments since then, all of which had Bushies' hands up their asses, and telling them what to say and do. There has never been a war strategy, and all the surge is going to do is increase the number of targets. A country that had never had terrorism, now has it in spades. The government will now naturally align with Iran, like it or not, because they're Shiites. And we didn't have to train an army; they had a goddamn army, and Bush ordered them disbanded, and outlawed the Baathist Party.  And do I have to mention the half TRILLION dollars he's pissed away down that rathole in four years?

Bush is a failure; an absolute failure, and revisionist history won't change that. He's incompetent, he's worthless, he's damaged America's reputation around the world, and he's done more damage to the Constitution than any single figure in our history. We'll be much better off when he leaves.

History will not be kind to George W. Bush, no matter how much revision Kristol plans .