Irregular Times presents|
2004 Reasons to Boot Bush
Latest Update (10/09/04): 2004 Reasons to Boot Bush
What are the reasons to boot Bush? Oh, let us count the ways:
It's not just that Bush lies; it's what he lies about. Clinton's Lies were about consensual private sex; Bush Lies about consequential policy. Bush's lies are much more serious because he lies to get people to go along with his political agenda. When Bush lies, lives are at stake.
. That goes for Fox News as well, even if they sue us. There are so many of Bush's lies to document that we'll take the time to spell them out, one by one.
- George W. Bush has lost more than one million American jobs since taking office. If the Bush economy keeps on going like it's going, George W. Bush will be the first man since Republican Herbert Hoover in 1933 under whose watch the total employment rolls in the country actually shrank. (Source: New York Times July 3, 2003)
- The Voice of Experience cries "Horror!" Cele Keeper writes: "He's the worst President with the most dangerous administration in my memory and I'm 76 years old. There were a few lousy ones before my memory kicked in, but W takes the Horror Award". (If Cele can do it, you can do it: give us a reason to boot Bush.)
- Although he couldn't wait to spend hundreds of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars to halt a fictitious WMD threat, George W. Bush took pains to prevent safer arsenic standards for our drinking water from being enacted. Bush's "radical" opponent in this instance? The National Academy of Sciences, which had endorsed the standards. (Source: The Nation September 25, 2003)
- Oh, by golly! How could we forget Bush's reliance on slick, yet strangely ham-handed public relations professionals to mislead the American public about his trade policies? We're talking about BoxGate, that photo-opportunity at which Bush's aides slapped "Made in U.S.A." labels on boxes that were really stamped "Made in China", created a fake backdrop of more boxes, and relied on an audience of workers who were forced to attend the event by their bosses. How's that for honesty and honor in the White House? (Source: Washington Post January 29, 2003)
- While presidential candidate Howard Dean gathered more than a hundred thousand Americans to participate in his neighborhood meetups, George W. Bush couldn't even muster enough grassroots support to get more than 12 Americans to sign up for a meetup on his birthday! Without popular support, how can Bush make decisions that are in line with the needs of everyday Americans?
- We agree with Al Franken, and we know better than to believe Republicans' lies and the lying liars who tell them
"He wasn't really elected -- he was appointed by the Supreme Court." These words sent in by a resident of central Florida sum up an oldie but a goodie. If you dig through the fine print of the corporate media, ignoring broad proclamations and admonishments that we should move on instead of sifting through real reporting of facts (silly things, those), you'll find this inescapable truth: If all votes had been counted, Gore would have not only won the popular vote -- he would have won Florida and hence the electoral vote, too. It's too late to cry over spilled chads, but it's not too late to make sure Bush doesn't slide into office again. (Source: Newsday November 15, 2001)
If we get rid of Bush, we get rid of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, and dozens more of his lousy appointees. Bonus!
It's worth it to get out and vote just so we won't have to look at his stupid little self-satisfied smirk on the news every night.
While we're at it, we won't have to put up with Rumsfeld's superior Ward-Cleaver-on-Acid smirk, either.
Couldn't we use a first lady with a backbone and a voice again? Theresa Heinz Kerry calls it like she sees it. Laura Bush remains largely silent and dresses like June Cleaver. Who's the better role model for American girls?
It's hasta la vista Bush or buenos dias police state--you decide Under Bush, terror "suspects" have been imprisoned indefinitely without due process of law. In 2004, let's show him that nobody is above the law.
Are you better off than you were four years ago? We didn't think so.
A president should help govern the country - not try to rule the world.
A vote against Bush will help the Dixie Chicks feel better about being from Texas.
A vote to dump Bush will let Americans travel in Europe again without fear of being snickered at.
A vote to get rid of Bush will help the French to visit America in the name of cultural exchange without fear of being pelted by rotten vegetables.
One term was good enough for the father, and it's good enough for the son.
In a democracy, the president derives power from the consent of the governed. When he lies to obtain that consent, Bush has stolen power from the people. Let's take that power back in 2004.
Moderates everywhere know that balance is a good thing in life and in politics. The American federal government is out of balance right now, with the legislative, judicial and executive branches dominated by right-wing extremists. We need someone in the White House to act as a check on the nuttiest elements of the Congress and Supreme Court.
As the likes of Fox News, MSNBC, the Wall Street Journal and US News and World Report use their corporate sponsors' deep pockets to promulgate their increasingly extremist bias in reporting, we need a moderate voice from the bully pulpit of the Oval Office to balance them out. Bush is not the man to do it.
We have to get rid of Bush before the French start referring to cowboy hats as "honest hats" and to Texas barbecue as "truth barbecue."
When Bush asked America's youth to put their lives on the line in Afghanistan and Iraq, he forgot to ask his own daughters Jenna and Barbara.
We need a president who will crack down on white collar criminals and corporate welfare bums, and Bush won't do it.
Should we be reduced to guessing whether a president is telling the truth this time?
Aside from two wars and a recession, what has Bush given us?
Wouldn't you just love to hear his concession speech?
Every man needs an episode of disappointment in his life to gain wisdom and empathy. George has been protected from the negative consequences of his actions by his parents, his party and the Supreme Court. Let's give George a disappointment they can't fix in 2004. It'll build character.
Because on the day that Hamas and Israel declared that the "road map to peace" was falling apart, Bush responded by immediately flying out to Washington State, where he took credit for improved salmon runs. (Source: Christian Science Monitor September 9, 2003)
'Cause all my exes live in Texas: ex-presidents, that is.
If you had an employee who agreed to take a few hundred dollars less in salary, then borrowed several thousand dollars that you would have to pay back, would you think that was a good deal? That's what Bush is doing with his tax cuts and record deficits, and it's a raw deal.
Because shaving and painful waxing procedures are not the only ways to get rid of Bush.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Because Dick Cheney still won't tell us who he met with in 2001 to discuss U.S. energy policy. Whoever it was, it didn't prevent thousands of shareholders from going broke in the Enron collapse, or millions of people from losing power in the worst blackout in decades. (Source: New York Times January 3, 2003)
Just after 9/11, the Bush administration pressured the EPA into declaring that the air in New York was safe. It wasn't. Then they tried to convince us that Iraq posed an imminent terrorist threat to the U.S. There's no evidence it did. First they lied and told us we were safe, then they lied and told us we were in danger. (Source: New York Newsday August 23, 2003)
Half the time Bush can't even read his cue cards without stumbling over the big words. This indicates an unfamiliarity with such words, and is a symptom of his lack of intellectual engagement. We cannot afford to have such a disengaged man in the seat of the presidency.
Bush's friends are already rich enough.
Somewhere out there, someone else is more honest, smarter, and cares more.
Bush is always trying to scare us about everything except himself and his creepy team of advisors.
Bush's environmental policy of preventing wildfires by cutting down our national forests makes about as much sense as toasting sobriety with a glass of champagne.
If we're winning the war on terrorism, why do we keep going up to orange alert?
Kicking off Iraq's program of reconstruction by blasting radioactive ammunition all over the place was a pretty dim idea.
"No child" has been "left behind," but their schools have been left without funding. $18 billion was scheduled in Mr. Bush's own legislation for the 2003-2004 fiscal year, but that year's budget only provided $12 billion. (Source: New York Times 8/26/03)
The Bush administration's habit of systematically distorting intelligence reports for selfish political reasons does not make us safer.
Just for the heck of it, let's try electing a smart president. We certainly can find a smarter one out there.
If Bush keeps invading countries at this rate, our armed forces will be occupying half a dozen conquered nations by the time he leaves office in 2009.
Nobody that calls himself "the education president" should take so much pride in his ignorance.
If Bush likes wars so much, why didn't he go to Vietnam?
The American people are not as arrogant and ignorant as Mr. Bush. Mr. Bush does not represent us in person, and he should not represent us politically.
Wasn't that whole thing with England a couple hundred years ago about overthrowing hereditary monarchy? Dethrone King George II!
It's time to restore integrity to the White House. High time.
As Jon Lovitz pointed out in 2000, George W. Bush hired Dick Cheney to find him the best vice president out there. Dick Cheney's report back to Bush: "I'm the best guy I could find." Bush bought it! Can we afford to have such a gullible president?
George W. Bush has authorized the American ruler of Iraq, Paul Bremer, to hire Saddam Hussein's Mukhabarat government agents. The Mukhabarat agents were infamous for their brutal repression of the Iraqi people during the rule of the Baath Party, administering a reign or terror that helped keep Saddam Hussein in power. Now, instead of prosecuting these goons as the criminals that they are, George W. Bush has hired them to help him put the people of Iraq in their place again. Can America trust a President who is willing to use the most cruel torturers available to keep himself in power? (That's a rhetorical question.) (Source: Reuters August 24, 2003)
George W. Bush's handlers never let him out in front of an audience without a script. Even in the handful of "news conferences" that Bush has mustered, the order and source of questions has been pre-determined by his advisors. The appearance of Bush's sponteneity, like most other aspects of Bush's presidential behavior, is micro-managed by others. Don't believe us on this: believe his own spokesman, Ari Fleischer, who admitted to setting out an assigned list of reporters for Bush. My momma calls someone like that a "puppet" -- when the strings fit.... (Source: White House Press Briefing March 7, 2003)
On the eve of war against the nation of Iraq, a war that has cost tens of thousands of lives, George W. Bush pumped his fist for the camera, smiled, and said "I Feel Good!". American news media edited this footage out. (Source: Chicago Tribune March 20, 2003)
Under Bush, the Republican Party continues to encourage its members to engage in plagiarism. The Republican National Committee has planted hundreds of letters in newspapers across the country that are actually written by staffers but are signed under the names of regular local folks, perpetuating the illusion that Bush has widespread grassroots support.
When George W. Bush entered office in 2001, he quickly moved to abandon Clinton's efforts at brokering peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Instead, the Bush Administration called for the bickering sides to sort things out "on their own." Fighting almost immediately escalated and has been going on ever since. (Source: New York Times 2/9/01)
While American soldiers put their lives on the line to purse the Bush-Rumsfeld policy of pre-emptive war, the Bush administration tried to cut those same soldiers' pay and benefits. (Source: Stars and Stripes August 23, 2003)
Bush has decided to allow thousands of the nation's dirtiest coal-belching industrial plants to renovate their facilities without upgrading to cleaner, more environmentally-friendly equipment, as previous EPA regulations require. (Source: Washington Post August 23, 2003)
George W. Bush said in 2000 that Jesus Christ is his favorite political philosopher. Last time we checked, Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." That, and "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth." God, Earth, Peacemakers, the Meek. Little details like that. Apparently, W. doesn't read the Bible much.
Breaking the only promise to protect the environment he made during his 2000 campaign, Bush decided not to do anything to reduce the level of carbon dioxide emissions. Honor and integrity, indeed. (Source: The Independent March 15, 2001)
Month-long vacations for Bush at his dude ranch while millions endure indefinite vacations from the workforce? That's not just rude: it's wrong.
The man who sits in the Oval Office sets goals that just don't match with what's going on in the real world. In August 2003, Bush says that "We've got a year and a while during my first term to make the world a more peaceful place, and we'll do it." From a man who said his war would rid the world of Evildoers, this is not too surprising. But surprising or not, it betrays a dangerous lack of connection with reality. He's had his chance. He blew it. (Source: The Guardian August 25, 2003)
Hundreds of Americans die after George W. Bush says "Bring them on!" to Iraqi attacks against Americans. In the ensuing months, hundreds more follow a course to the grave. (Sources: Associated Press July 2, 2003 and Iraq War Casualty Count at http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx)
In Fall of 2002, George W. Bush says "I am not willing to risk one American life." By the end of August 2003, 136 Americans are dead. What kind of American life was he referring to? Apparently not the lives of soldiers. And as we all know now, that was just the beginning. (Source: Cincinnati Enquirer October 8, 2002 and and Iraq War Casualty Count at http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx)
George W. Bush continues to refuse to express any apology, regret, respect toward, or even mention of the tens of thousands of Iraqis who are not Saddam Hussein and who are yet, oddly enough, dead in the war in Iraq.
$1 Billion less for AIDS than promised. George W. Bush hugged AIDS babies in Africa in the Summer of 2003 and promised $3 billion a year for 5 years. Later that summer, his budget only asked for $2 billion (Source: New York Times, August 26, 2003).
Bush Trashes the National Parks. Nearly 130 members of Concerned National Park Service Retirees say "the founders of the Park Service must be turning in their graves at what is happening to the Service and the parks" under the watch of the Bush Administration. The group decries Bush's campaign of drilling, pollution and privatization. (Source: Campaign to Protect America's Lands).
Deficit Update! The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's record-breaking deficit estimate for 2003: $401 Billion. (Source: New York Times August 26, 2003)
Deficit Update, Yet Again: The CBO's record-breaking deficit estimate for next year: nearly half a Trillion dollars. A hundred billion here on my kid's back, a hundred billion there on your kid's back, and gee, it all starts to add up. (Source: New York Times August 27, 2003)
George W. Bush is the head of the Republican Party. Absolutely none of the Republican members of the Senate or House of Representatives are Black. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. When was the last time you heard George W. Bush address this disturbing fact?
Forensic technicians have had to re-calibrate their lie-detectors to measure the magnitude of Bush's deceptions of the American people.
At the non-professional level, Bull Shit Detectors long employed by residents of Sunnyvale, Montana to ferret out cheating lovers, falsified report cards and unfortunate drinking habits will have to be completely thrown out and replaced, their sensors overwhelmed by White House fibs coming over the radio.
Just like in the stories our parents told us, we're no longer in the mood to listen to the boy who cried "Code Orange"!
We have no respect for an American President who is sending other Americans to fight and die in his place just in order to enhance his own tough-guy image.
In August 2003, 10,000 people took to the street to rally for a Bush alternative, Howard Dean, in New York City. Another 10,000 did the same in Seattle. Such large displays, previously unheard of more than a year before the election, demonstrate the depth of American discontent George W. Bush has inspired. (Source: New York Newsday August 28, 2003)
In August 2003, over at Howard Dean's website, they heard that George W. Bush had gathered another million dollars for his campaign hosting a dinner for 500 people who each gave the maximum legally allowed: $2,000.
The Dean camp decided to try and match that $1,000,000. In order to raise the $1,003,620.00 the campaign had mustered two hours before their deadline ended, 17,115 people put in their donations. Doing the math, that means that the average donation was $58.64.
Dean motivated thirty-four times as many people into contributing as Bush did. This indicates that Dean's base of strong supporters was significantly wider than Bush's. And the sort of folks who supported Dean are middle-class folks: those who can spare a few bucks, but not those with money to burn. Had the 17,115 Dean donors been able to give their maximum of $2,000, Dean would have raised a whopping $34,230,000.
Bush isn't going for a large number of supporters like Dean did; Bush would rather have the backing of a few people with deep pockets. That perfectly illustrates the difference between Bush and the rest of us.
Potemkin Village, here we come. When George W. Bush travels out to see "The People," he makes sure that no people who oppose him are nearby. Bush's Secret Service agents search the crowd for dissenting signs and corral those individuals to "free speech zones" which are typically out of sight of the President, rendering the dissent purposeless. Members of the crowd who support the President get to stay. (Sources: St. Petersburg Times 10/13/2002, St. Petersburg Times 11/3/2002, Fort Worth Star-Telegram 8/18/2002)
In his administration, Bill Clinton prohibited the paying of cash bonuses to political appointees in the executive branch of the U.S. government. The Bush administration reinstated cash bonuses for political appointees. (Source: New York Times 12/4/2002).
Read my lips: No record deficits! There is an alternative to Bush's record-deficit ways. Actually, there are a number of alternatives, articulated by a number of Democratic presidential contenders. All of the major Democratic presidential contenders not only criticized Bush's debt-ridden ways, but also took the positive step of articulating plans to get out of this burgeoning mess. Bush's plan: do nothing and hope for the best.
Bush's idea of a "war on evil" is simplistic, naive, and downright apocalyptic.
Why boot Bush? So that government of Enron, by Halliburton, and for Bechtel shall not be established upon this earth.
My children haven't even been born yet, and already George Bush is borrowing money from them.
We'll never prevail against terrorists who hide in the shadows with a president who only sees the world in black and white.
If George Bush leaves Washington, D.C. at 9:30 am on a train to Crawford, Texas going at 50 miles per hour and never comes back, calculate just how cool that would be.
We need to win Florida by a substantial margin this time, so it doesn't have to change its state motto to "Florida: The Dangling Chad State."
All that drinking and drug abuse back in the 70's really seems to have put the zap on Bush's head.
If we're fighting a war against evil, why isn't Ken Lay being held at Guantanamo?
It's going to take years to get back the constitutional rights we've lost under Bush. The sooner we get started, the better.
While our soldiers went to Afghanistan and Iraq to fight for freedom, Bush is back here taking freedom away.
If wars, recessions and lies are your thing, by all means stay the course. Otherwise, isn't it time for a change?
I don't care what Bush or the Republican pundits say, if the Germans are reluctant to go to war, that's fine with me.
Corporate welfare erodes the moral fiber of the rich.
I'm "shocked and awed" at just how poorly "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is going.
Our foreign policy could do with a little more negotiation and a little less assassination.
I believe in the rich! They are intelligent, resourceful people who can make it without another Bush handout.
During Iraq War II, defense contractors fired journalist Peter Arnett for telling the truth on Iraqi television. But you'd better believe those same contractors will put up millions for Bush's re-election campaign, even though Bush lied on American television. (Source: The Guardian March 31, 2003)
While unsuccessfully trying to convince members of the United Nations Security Council to back a war with Iraq, the Bush Administration's National Security Agency bugged the phones of Security Council delegation offices. Amazingly enough, when word leaked out, Security Council nations got angry! Wonder why. (Source: The Observer 3/2/2003)
Because if I have to spend four more years listening to the man say "Nookyular," I'll probably tear my head off.
Frat boys already get to be presidents of their universities' student councils. Isn't that enough?
Intelligence agencies are investigating whether the Bush administration was duped by Iraqi defectors into believing bogus claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. We can't trust the Bush administration to tell the difference between truth and lies. (Source: Los Angeles Times August 28, 2003)
Nobody married to a librarian should be that stupid.
"Bring 'em on!" is not a line fit for a professed Christian (or
President of the United States, for that matter)
If we give Bush the boot in 2004, perhaps in time Canadians and Europeans will want to visit our country again. Our tourism industry is suffering enough already -- who wants to pay money to see an ugly American in the White House?
Susan from Asheville, NC writes us with this reason: "Because Bush #2 is the worst President in the history of the United States, period." Susan can't be dismissed as a "left coast" Californite or "East Coast" effete. No, she's a resident of state that went for Bush, living in the mountains, surrounded by rural Southern towns. It's sad that Bush and his Republican Party flacks love to dismiss people because of where they're from. But Susan belies even that tired line. People from all over the country, even what Republicans call "real America," are getting just plain fed up with Bush's performance.
Because the Bushies are annoyingly self-satisfied while they wreak havoc
on the Iraqis.
As the protest signs read across the world, there is a village in Texas missing an idiot. Let's help that village out and send him home. We can even give him directions. (Source: South Africa's News 24 June 10, 2003)
Bush has the ring and Frodo wants it back....
Carol Moseley Braun didn't grow up with a silver spoon in her mouth, but she has built successful careers in politics, academics and business. George W. Bush was born into the Lucky Sperm Club, has repeatedly been given the assistance of his daddy's name and the money of his daddy's pals, but still can't get it right, running multiple businesses and now the United States of America into the ground. Carol Moseley Braun would have made a better President than George W. Bush.
Dennis Kucinich has a plan to give every American access to medical care. George W. Bush has neither a plan nor a clue. Dennis Kucinich would make a better President than George W. Bush.
John Kerry has a plan to boost the AmeriCorps program, in which Americans engage in service projects to make this country even greater and its people stronger. John Kerry would make a better President than George W. Bush.
While we're on the subject, George W. Bush promised in his State of the Union address to increase the AmeriCorps budget. Then he cut it. Typical. (Source: Christian Science Monitor 8/11/03)
Bush can't even keep his lies straight. Bush once said: "I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go to war." Ha, ha! Problem is, Bush hasn't ever been to war (Source: Houston Chronicle 1/28/02).
We've got to stop Mad Cowboy Disease before it spreads out of control.
Because after pushing for a constitutional amendment to criminalize flag desecration, George W. Bush has repeatedly desecrated the flag himself. Whoopsie. (Source: Washington Post August 31, 2003)
Al Sharpton is running against George W. Bush and has developed a foreign policy strategy to end the slave trade in Sudan. George W. Bush hasn't done a thing about the Sudan slave trade. Yes, Al Sharpton would make a better President than George W. Bush.
Do you know what the W. in George W. Bush stands for? Well, then, I'll tell you. It stands for Walker, in honor of the last name of of George W. Bush's great-grandfather. This guy was a documented Nazi collaborator. That means he lent his support to Adolf Hitler. Not only did George W.'s grandparents choose to honor this Nazi sympathizer by making "Walker" one of the middle names of George Herbert Walker Bush, but the first President Bush decided to repeat this honor to the Nazis by naming his own son George Walker Bush. We think it's creepy that the President of the United States has support for the Nazis as his middle name. That's why we say America needs to dump George W. (Nazi Collaborator) Bush! (Hey, perhaps you don't believe us on this one. It does sound really far out there. That's why we've come prepared with a reference to this fact. We recommend that you go ahead and read the important book Fortunate Son, which among other things, documents the link between the Bush family and the Nazis.) (Source: Fortunate Son by J.H. Hatfield)
Two years on the case, and in spite of John Ashcroft's super duper new powers to spy on the private lives of ordinary American citizens, the Bush Administration still has absolutely no clue who sent deadly anthrax spores to prominent American politicians and media personalities. What use are Bush's new government programs to spy on Americans if they don't help catch murderers in our midst? Dump that Bush! (Source: American Daily October 2, 2003)
Because the American Committee on Accuracy in Naming Things (A.C.A.N.T.) has unofficially changed George W. Bush's name for the war in Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom, into "Operation: A Rocky Freedom", in honor of the war's underwhelming results.
George W. Bush is a convicted drunk driver. Well, it's true. (Source: Dallas Morning News November 3, 2000)
For years, George W. Bush would not admit to the American people that he has been convicted of driving drunk. He kept this secret to himself even after he had been elected to public office as governor of Texas. Bush only acknowledged that he is a convicted drunk driver after investigative reporters found about his conviction on their own. (Source: Dallas Morning News November 3, 2000)
Billions of people all around the world want to get rid of Bush, but don't have the opportunity to vote against him. Get out there and cast your vote against him, for your country and your world.
The children of America, who will suffer most of the long-term effects of Bush's policies, aren't old enough to vote. Let's vote Bush out in their name.
Show me a guy who's out fighting "the enemies of civilization," and I'll show you a dangerous nut with delusions of grandeur. (Source: National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September 2002)
After two wars, a recession, record deficits, rollbacks of civil liberties, erosion of environmental protections, and lie upon lie upon lie, I'm not just tired. I'm Bushed!
Because the victims of the August 29 bombing of the Imam Ali Mosque in Iraq had asked the U.S. for protection and permission to arm 2000 guards. We provided neither. (Source: Washington Post September 1, 2003)
Even George Bush wants George Bush to go. Bush says we must get rid of evil. Bush lied. Lying is evil (especially if people die as a result). Therefore we must get rid of Bush.
Bush says of his "war on terror" that "we will continue until we have rid the world of evil." Well, if that's the case, we worry that Bush has a conflict of interest in executing this war.
Because Iraq is not Vietnam, it's just another oil company scam. Take a look at who is to benefit from war profiteering in Iraq and you'll see oil, oil, oil. Wait a minute, wasn't that the industry in which George W. Bush and Dick Cheney used to work?
(Source: Washington Post October 9, 2003)
The war's not over in Afghanistan, either. Two American soldiers were killed fighting the Taliban on August 31, 2003--a year and a half after we invaded. On October 8, 2003, more than 60 Afghan soldiers were killed or wounded in battle. Dare we say quagmire? Or should that be plural - quagmires? We hope not, but if so we know who needs to be held to account. (Sources: Associated Press September 2, 2003 and Reuters October 9, 2003)
Because perpetual war abroad gives Bush an excuse to restrict freedom at home. A constant state of war also serves to distract us while Bush loots the treasury on behalf of his rich buddies. Let's put a stop to these shenanigans.
In the 1980's, we supported Manuel Noriega, Osama bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein. Nobody paid much attention. Then they turned on us, and we heard about them. What murderers is the United States cozying up to now? Well, there's the Mukhabarat. Can we trust them not to turn on us? Of course not. Is George W. Bush losing sleep over the possibility? Of course not. (Source: Reuters August 24, 2003)
George W. Bush is low-balling the cost of occupation and reconstruction in the Middle East (who'd have thought that $87 Billion a year would be low-balling?), making unreasonable assumptions that the world community will spring to his financial aid when so recently he rejected that community as irrelevant. (Boston Globe September 16, 2003)
Bush not only refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol; he refused to articulate any international alternative to it. The de facto Bush policy on the international environment has been to do nothing.
Bush has relentlessly pursued his intent to destroy our wildlife by bulldozing our forests and drilling in Alaska. The only thing standing in his way has been Democratic opposition. Can we afford to give Bush four more years to push his radical agenda through?
Appointing Christie Whitman as head of the EPA looked like one of the few moderate actions of George W. Bush back in 2001. But despite her somewhat reasonable environmental past, Whitman bent over backwards to let pro-dozer, anti-environmental extremists get their way in the Bush administration.
Ever notice that both he and his father used the same strategy of picking a running-mate that people would be terrified to see taking over as president (Quayle because he was such an obvious simpleton and Cheney because he had numerous heart attacks before he even took office)? Can we really trust a president who picks his V.P. as insurance against impeachment?
How many ways can you say it? Bush has closed-minded, sheltered, backward, anachronistic, religion-based, legally ignorant, prudish views towards homosexuals and same-sex marriage. On this issue, Bush represents the past, not the present, and not the future.
Because Bush and the Republican Party continue to oppose a minimum wage for workers right here in the United States.
George W. Bush says he thinks Arnold Schwarzenegger would make a great governor for California. What's next? A nomination of Bill O'Reilly for the Supreme Court? (Here's hoping Karl Rove doesn't get wind of that suggestion) (Source: Reuters August 20, 2003)
Bush is an embarrassment to the country. He can't even speak English properly, which is embarrassing not only to him, but to our country. It's hard to be taken seriously as a world power when the commander in chief says things like, "There are some concern about overstating a numbers, you know, invest in my company because the sky's the limit. We may not be cash flowing much, but the sky's the limit." George said it. (Source: White House News Releases February 20, 2003)
The aggravating idiocy of the Bush team is dangerous in a number of indirect ways. Listening to Bush mangle policy and the language at the same time can be dangerously distracting to drivers.
What does Bush think about when he goes to sleep at night? The nearly three million American jobs lost since he took office? The tens of thousands of dead in a war he started? Environmental regulation? Campaign finance? The next cabinet meeting? No, according to Bush, "Sometimes when I sleep at night I think of 'Hop on Pop.'" George said it! (Source: White House News Releases April 4, 2002)
Ron writes in: "Everytime I hear Bush's voice on the radio or see him on the tube, I feel myself losing IQ points. It is starting to concern me. Can a voice or
an image really drain my intelligence, as I feel it is surely doing?"
Because Bush's unspoken campaign slogan seems to be "REPEAL THE NEW DEAL!"
This is a piece of love mail we just got from a Ms. Crickenberger. It's typical of correspondence from Bush supporters -- doesn't that say something?
|"GO TO HELL!!!!
Take this anti-american crap off the web.....If you
are not supporting our president and our country then
go live in Iran.
I back our president in going to war against Hussian.
Saddam is/was a threat to humanity whether here in the
United States or abroad.
If you are too Clinton stupid and blind to that fact
then you do not deserve to live in "my" great and
proud country, the USA.
So make me a bumper sticker that says "Bush all the
Put that in your turban.
Ms. America and damn proud of it."
When asked in August 2002 why George W. Bush was simultaneously complaining about Iraq as an imminent threat but saying he wouldn't have any suggestions for action until he returned from a month-long vacation in Texas, Bush's chief of staff Andrew Card replied: "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August." For those of us who think war shouldn't be marketed as a product, the Bush team is clearly not an option (Source: New York Times, September 7 2002).
Why dump Bush? Well, here's reason number one hundred and sixty-six: Both you and I can think of a hundred better ways to spend the more than EIGHTY BILLION DOLLARS that George W. Bush is asking for just the next year of his occupation of Iraq. How many years will the occupation take when in the first half-year, the situation has gone from bad to worse?
Reason number one hundred and sixty-seven: it's not just that George W. Bush is asking us to spend more than EIGHTY BILLION DOLLARS in the next year alone in Iraq. An argument can be made that in order to fix the country Bush so profoundly broke, it is the moral duty of all Americans to pour hundreds of billions of dollars into its pacification and reconstruction. The problem with George W. Bush is that his fool-hardy, impatient, evidence-free behavior not only got a whole lot of people killed, but committed us all to his new big government program. Whoever takes over for Bush in 2004 will have to spend a lot of money and effort setting everything aright.
As Bush might say, let's get perticuler: The latest wad of cash requested by George W. Bush is meant to plug up an ever-widening drain of death, destruction and disorganization in Iraq. The clean-up of Bush's Mess may be necessary now, but it wouldn't have been if we had followed a cautious, sensible course of diplomacy, inspection and creative intervention. Reason number one hundred and sixty-six comes straight from the Los Angeles Times (September 9, 2003): "The $87 billion that President Bush seeks to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan is more than the $78 billion that all 50 states would need to balance their budgets next year." It's too late to fix that now, but it's not too late to change the administration that put us in this pickle.
Adding the $87 Billion for Bush's War to the $79 Billion already appropriated by Congress in the spring of 2003, we get a price tag of $166 Billion for Bush's War... so far. Let's assume there's not a dollar more in expense (riiiiiight). Had Bush pursued diplomatic ends, we could have used all that money to give $20,000 scholarships for college education for for 8,300,000 kids turning 18 this year. Imagine how that would have changed the world. But, alas, it was not to be. Instead, we've got Iraqis without basic standards of living and Americans getting picked off in ones and twos.
For the hedonists among us: That $166 Billion sunk into the Iraq Quagmire could have been used buy each and every woman, man, child, baby, grandma and grandpa in this country a TV and DVD player.
For the hockey fans among us: That $166 Billion being used to bail us out of Bush's Folly could have bought 5 rinkside tickets to a Buffalo Sabres game for each and every citizen of the United States. That's assuming we didn't get any group discounts, mind you. Then we could have all seen the blood getting spattered everywhere over and over with the peace of mind that nobody got permanently hurt.
With that squandered $166 Billion, we could have bought 369 aspirin for each and every one of the six billion human beings on the planet, giving us all a year's respite from the headaches that follow from listening to Bush speak on a daily basis. But instead, he's just given us more headaches and stiffed us with the bill.
That $166 Billion could have obtained lead paint test kits with lab fees pre-paid for each of the 104,705,000 households in the United States. Assuming that 10% of those households tested positive for lead paint, we'd still have enough leftover funds to buy 40 gallons of paint for each of those households so that the lead paint would be covered and kids made safer. Just in case the paint didn't take care of the problem, we'd still have enough money leftover to test each of these at-risk households again one year and yet again ten years later. And for the nearly 400,000 children who have already suffered lead poisioning, we would still have had enough money to hire nearly 400,000 teachers specializing in learning disabilities for ten years at the livable wage of $40,000 per year. Yes, that's a student-teacher ratio of 1 to 1. That's what we could have done if Bush had held his horses.
With the $166,000,000,000 Bush has just spent on his war of choice so far, we could have bought a 2 Gigahertz computer for each of the 60 million or so people in the United States aged 10-25 years. But that's not all -- we could have bought them high speed internet access for five years. Imagine the learning our nation's youth could have engaged in with this kind of investment. Imagine the long-term productivity growth. Imagine all you want -- now that Bush has sent the money down the sinkhole, it ain't gonna happen.
With that $166 Billion of Bush's play money for his Iraq War, we could have hired 3,320,000 new public school teachers at the attractive pay rate of $50,000 a year. But now that the money's gone, it ain't gonna happen.
With the $166 Billion that we'll need just this year to bail Bush out of the consequences of his war of choice, we could have simply reduced Bush's record deficits by a sizeable chunk. As it is, our children and grandchildren will end up owing $166 Billion more -- plus a hefty load of interest to boot.
Instead of being elected the President of the United States, George W. Bush has only been selected as the Resident of the White House.
In addition to being the Resident of the White House, George W. Bush is the Military Dictator of Iraq and Afghanistan, and even with the power of a supreme dictator over those countries, he can't keep them under his control!
Before he invaded Iraq, George W. Bush promised to the American people in a nationally-televised speech that he would insist that the members of the United Nations Security Council "put their cards on the table" and force them to vote on a resolution explicitly authorizing an invasion of Iraq. Then, within a week, George W. Bush broke his promise to the American people and withdrew that resolution from the United Nations Security Council so that none of the member nations ever had the chance to "put their cards on the table". America doesn't need a Commander-In-Chief who's infamous across the world for talking tough, but then turning tail and running away when he can't back up his tough words with the tough-minded diplomacy it takes to really get things done.
Before he invaded and started the American occupation of Iraq, George W. Bush complained that there was no time to be patient with weapons inspectors because Iraq had huge stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction with which he could attack the United States at any time. Now, when those weapons of mass destruction cannot be found, and Bush's plan for a stable American dictatorship over Iraq has fallen apart, Bush begs the American people to be patient with him, saying "This will take time." A responsible leader encourages patience in the interests of peace, not as an excuse to prevent criticism of a reckless rush to war. (Source: ABC News September 8, 2003)
As he began his War Against Evil, George W. Bush peppered every speech with the name of Osama Bin Laden, telling the American people that the wars were necessary in order to capture the "eviloder." Now that he has failed to even find, much less get rid of Osama Bin Laden, George W. Bush refuses to mention his name in his speeches. America needs a President who doesn't try to restate the goals of his wars when things don't go his way.
Bush says that the continuing American military occupation of Iraq is "critical to our security". But he doesn't mention that Iraq only became a real threat to American security after the American invasion and occupation began. Oops. (White House Press Release September 12, 2003)
Bush says that "The terrorists thrive on the support of tyrants and the resentments of oppressed peoples." Um, there's still no democracy in Iraq, and the people of Iraq are feeling resentment at being oppressed by the American military dictatorship over their country, a dictatorship that routinely guns down unarmed civilians, including Iraqi children. By his own standard, hasn't Bush's invasion of Iraq actually helped terrorists to thrive? (Washington Times September 8, 2003)
Since George W. Bush began his supposed War On Terror, the number of terrorist attacks has increased, not decreased. The American voter has got to answer the question: "Is that working for you?" (Source: Iraq Coalition Casualties at http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx)
George W. Bush tells the American people that "the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans." However, the plain fact is that in the decade before the invasion and occupation of Iraq by the American military, Iraqis were responsible for precisely zero killings of Americans. Now, in less than half a year since the beginning of Bush's war in Iraq, Iraqis have killed hundreds of Americans. Is this what Bush calls "the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people?" Now, for people outside the Bush White House, hundreds is a bigger amount than zero. Apparently, Bush himself disagrees with that calculation. Folks, we need a President who doesn't engage in this kind of dangerous fuzzy math. (Source: Denver Post September 8, 2003)
While he's messing up the task of rebuilding Iraq, Mr. Bush apparently doesn't have the time to rebuild the American economy that has fallen apart under his watch.
Under direction from the Bush Administration, the EPA announced on May 14, 2003 that it would further delay the implementation of smog requirements designed to make it easier for millions of Americans to breathe. (Source: San Jose Mercury-News May 14, 2003)
The Bush Administration announced this spring that it would restrict the implementation of wilderness protection over 6 million acres of federal lands. (Source: Salt Lake Tribune August 30, 2003)
The Bush Administration overturned rules keeping jack-hammer loud, pollution-spewing snowmobiles and their inconsiderate operators from ruining Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks for the rest of us (including the young Moose). To give you an idea of how bad the problem is, rangers have been wearing respirators and earplugs on the job to deal with the smoggy onslaught. But there's no hydrocarbon or hydrocarbon-based machine (or is that just hydrocarbon-based industry?) that George W. Bush won't fight for. Bush administration officials tried to make a field day out of claims that a new generation of snowmobiles would run cleaner and quieter -- but independent tests showed that the new generation of chuggers were actually more polluting and louder than older machines! (Source: Los Angeles Times September 4, 2003)
Because this is the sort of thing anonymous Bush supporters are writing in public: "Any complaints just keep them to yourself that [sic] called freedom of expression." If Bush attracts this kind of supporter, doesn't that give a hint as to the quality of the man himself? (Source: personal correspondence from Bush Supporter September 2003)
Bush Administration "Expert" on Iraq Paul Wolfowitz told Congress in the Spring that "We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." Either Wolfowitz didn't know what he was talking about or he was misleading Congress. Neither of these is a good option. (Source: New York Times September 9, 2003)
Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, says that "I do think that this administration did a miserable job of planning in a post-Saddam Iraq." That a Republican Senator would say this speaks volumes. The Bush administration has pursued two gigantic policy initiatives: big tax cuts for the rich and war against Iraq. If the Bush administration can't get the details on one of its two major initiatives right, how can we trust it to do a competent job anywhere else? (Source: Arizona Republic September 6, 2003)
Bush let Microsoft get away with establishing a monopolistic control over the single greatest source of personal and systematic power in the coming decades: The computer. Just when the federal government was poised to gain victory in its ongoing anti-trust lawsuit against Microsoft, George W. Bush came to occupy the White House, and ordered the lawsuit to be abandoned. Microsoft was instead allowed to settle with the federal government, in a sweetheart deal. (Source: Money in Politics Alert September 6, 2001)
The administration of George W. Bush has systematically moved to destroy the balance of powers between the executive and judicial branches of the federal government, the balance that is established in the United States Constitution. Under Bush's watch, Attorney General John Ashcroft has moved to reduce the ability of judges to deliberate when sentencing individuals convicted of a crime. Judges are there to restrain the baser impulses of the executive branch -- and the Bush-Ashcroft team wants to take them out of the picture. (Source: Associated Press September 30, 2003)
Bush sold out the heart of America, the National Mall in Washington D. C., to be staging grounds for a giant and illegal commercial advertisement for corporate contributors to the Republican Party, with Britney Spears as its main spokesmodel. It's against the law for commercial activities to take place on the National Mall, but George W. Bush is willing to bend the law when big business contributes big money to the Bush campaign for re-election. In fact, George W. Bush took the time to relay a video message endorsing the Pepsi commercial event. The National Mall belongs to the American people, not to the President, and it's time we got someone back in the White House who understood the difference. (Source: US News and World Report September 10, 2003)
When he was selling his war against Iraq, Bush sent administration officials to Congress to dismiss worries about the cost of the occupation after the war by saying that revenues from Iraqi oil would pay for it all. Now, Bush is coming to American taxpayers with an 87 billion dollar bill just for the next year of the occupation. (Source: Boston Globe September 9, 2003)
Where's the oil revenue going from the Iraq occupation going?? To Halliburton, a multi-national corporation that just happened to have been run by Dick Cheney until he became Vice President. Just a coincidence, we're sure. Oh, and Mr. Bush, how is that oil revenue going to pay for the hundreds of American lives that have been lost during the occupation so far? The answer: it's not, of course: oil revenues -- after Halliburton takes its cut of the dough, of course -- will not even pay for the re-establishment of clean drinking water in Iraq. (Source: Philadelphia Inquirer August 31, 2003)
And now it comes out that Vice President Dick Cheney has been receiving payments from Halliburton since he came into office. But hey, we're sure that had nothing to do with Halliburton getting that gazillion-dollar no bid contract. Absolutely sure. (Source: Reuters September 16, 2003)
Before George W. Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq, Bush told the American people that the reason his arguments for war didn't seem to make sense was that he was in possession of "secret evidence" about Iraq's possession of vast quantities of weapons of mass destruction and links to Al Qaeda. Now, after Bush's war has killed hundreds of thousands of people and cost American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, we find out that the supposed "secret evidence" was just as flawed as the junk documents that the Bush Administration tried to pass by the American people in public. It appears that this "evidence" was kept secret in order to cover up its extremely poor quality, not in order to protect national security. We need to dump Bush in 2004 because America needs a President who is honest enough to give us the facts before our nation is sent off on a risky adventure.
To what tasks did the Bush Administration devote its attention in the Spring of 2003? Planning for war's aftermath? No. Instead, Air Force One's in-flight menu was revised to remove references to "French Toast" and to offer "Freedom Toast" instead. That'll show 'em! (Source: Reuters March 26, 2003)
When President Bush's mouthpieces can't deny the truth of the criticisms his opponents make, they whine about style. "This is political hate speech!" frothed Republican National Committee Ed Gillespie after Democrats had the temerity to criticize Bush's policies. "Political hate crime!" fumed Republican House Majority Leader Tom Delay when a Bush nominee was rejected by Democrats after the White House wouldn't let them see, of all things, the nominee's files. Whine, whine, whine. How annoying! More importantly, how insubstantial! I just can't stomach voting for a President who employs professional whiners. (Sources: Dallas Morning News September 10, 2003 and New York Times September 4, 2003)
Laws sure can be inconvenient. Bush and Cheney lied about where Cheney lived (he lived in Dallas and claimed the property tax exemption for it as his primary residence) so that Cheney could get on the ballot--the 12th Amendment to the United States Constitution specifies that both can't be from the same state (Source: Associated Press November 28, 2000).
George W. Bush is a typical reformed drunk in his moral worldview. Don't get us wrong; Bush should be admired for keeping apparently keeping his alcoholism under control for the past few years. What we have a problem with is typical for the reformed drunk: the conversion from hedonist to sermonizer. Now that he's managed to exert some modicum of self-control, he can't help but lord it over everybody else, telling them how to live their lives, be righteous, and defeat evil. Will someone tell this guy that the world isn't just black and white?
Another apparent lesson Bush took from his decades-long inability to control his appetites: since I couldn't trust myself, I can't trust anyone else, and therefore arrangements based on trust won't work. Bush's foreign policy schemes are based on the premise that you've got to exercise violent might in order to protect yourself. On the schoolyard, this is called bullying. On the world stage, it's called "might makes right" unilateralism, and it relies on constant warfare (or the threat thereof) for survival. Is this the kind of world we want our children to inherit?
With Bush in the White House, the looniest of Republican politicians in the Congress have been set free. And what are our Republican representatives doing with their time? Balancing the budget? No. Fully funding education programs they themselves passed? No. Figuring out how to get back the millions of American jobs that Bush has lost? No. Developing consistent mental health policy? Lord, no. The Republican-controlled Congress is spending its time renaming lunch items in the House Office Building cafeterias. That's right. With all the problems in our country that need to be addressed, Republican members of Congress have instead been spending their days and nights putting up signs, passing out leaflets, and calling news conferences declaring that "Freedom Fries" are now being served for lunch. Oh, that'll fix things! (Source: Associated Press March 11, 2003)
The bad news: According to a report by the inspector general at the Defense Department released in the year 2000, the Defense Department has completely lost track of one trillion and one hundred billion dollars of taxpayers' money. The even worse news: This number is only a rough estimate, because the Defense Department uses approximately 2,300 different accounting methods to keep track of its money, according to the United States General Accounting Office. The news gets worse: The Defense Department has continued to lose track of more money in the three years since the report was released. Worse, worse, news: Even though George W. Bush knows about the report, he has done nothing to recover the missing taxpayers' money or reform the accounting systems in the Defense Department. Worst of all: Knowing that a substantial percentage of money in the Defense Department's budget is lost every year, George W. Bush decided to give the Defense Department the largest budget increase since World War II (Source: Department of Defense Agency-Wide Financial Statements Audit Opinion).
The best argument in 2003 that Bush's minions could come up with against a John Kerry Presidency: "He Looks French." Zut alors! (Source: Boston Herald April 23, 2003)
They're at it again: now in 2004, Bush's Commerce Secretary Donald Evans has taken to observing that "John Kerry looks French." This is a statement worthy of an eighth grader, not a cabinet official responsible for international economic relations. For goodness' sake! (Source: Washington Post March 23, 2004)
In Oregon, those dying of an incurable and terminal disease can make the decision to spare themselves a final week of severe pain, if they are certified as terminally ill and mentally competent by two doctors. Bush's Attorney General, John Ashcroft, pushed to have any doctors acting under the Oregon law placed under arrest. (Source: Bloomberg News April 27, 2002)
George W. Bush talks all the time about how fiscally irresponsible Democrats are.
But the facts are not on the Republican Party's side. In constant dollars:
We need to get a Democratic President back in the White House to get our fiscal situation back under control. (Source: Office of Management and Budget, Table 1.3: SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS; IN CURRENT DOLLARS, CONSTANT (FY 1996) DOLLARS, AND AS PERCENTAGES OF GDP: 1940-2008)
- Democratic Presidents Kennedy and Johnson contributed less to deficits than Republicans Nixon and Ford, both in total and on an average yearly basis.
- Democratic President Carter borrowed less than Republican Presidents Reagan and Bush, both in total and on an average yearly basis.
- It was Democratic President Bill Clinton who brought us out of deficit territory back to surpluses.
- It is Republican George W. Bush who is surging back to record deficits.
As the son of a millworker, John Edwards knows what it's like to work hard for a living. As the son of a President who repeatedly failed in life despite being handed ready-made, pre-funded businesses to him, George W. Bush hasn't a clue. With the experience of the American people in his blood, John Edwards would have made a better President than George W. Bush.
No matter how many times he poses in ratty jeans next to a stump somewhere outside Waco, George W. Bush and his band of Republican Radicals are not the outsiders they pretend to be. Bush and his cabinet are insiders, drawn from the corporate boardrooms and lobbyist backrooms of America. Does he think the American people are so stupid as not to notice?
Bush's drive to amass the greatest campaign warchest of money in the history of American presidential campaigns is based on the premise that votes can be bought. Howard Dean's drive to enlist the greatest number of people ever in meetups and other locally-organized grassroots campaigns is based on the premise that in a democracy, the activity of citizens is the best way to boost a candidate. George W. Bush's campaign exploits the worst of what our society currently is. Howard Dean's campaign enlists the best of what our society can be.
Beware a man who inhabits the Oval Office and who cannot bear to say that he was wrong, or that he is sorry.
Beware a Secretary of Defense who cannot bear to say that he was wrong, or that he is sorry.
Beware an Attorney General who cannot bear to say that he was wrong, or that he is sorry.
In their bizarre defense of Bush's lie to Congress in the State of the Union address, conservatives note that it was only 16 words. Funny, the previous inhabitant of the Oval Office was impeached for just 9 words: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Do these conservative paragons of virtue really believe that the number of words uttered in a lie matter? Or is Bush the sort of man whose supporters will say anything to get their guy off the hook? Excuse me for a moment, my B.S. detector is ringing...
George W. Bush has squandered the goodwill of the world in the wake of September 11, 2001. Do you remember how, in the days following the attacks on the World Trade Center, they marched in the streets of nation after nation (including France and Germany) to demonstrate their solidarity with the United States? How they played the American national anthem and flew American flags? What could we have done to change the world for the better, to unite nations in a common positive purpose, had George W. Bush not soured it all with his flaccid bravado?
Under Bush, Republican politicians have swallowed the idea that in solving the world's problems, we just can't do any better than war. An increasing number of Democratic voices are saying yes, we can. Willingness to work hard for better solutions than the ones we have today is quintessentially American. Defeatism is not.
Bush wants to send America's best medical researchers to jail. I'm not kidding: George W. Bush wants to ban somatic cell nuclear transfer research, which would create medically precious stem cells by moving patients' own skin cells into the nucleii of donated eggs. This is not the cloning of babies we're talking about -- no Frankenbabies would be created in the process. It's simply the creation of stem cell lines tailored to each individual's genetic makeup, which could be used to help people walk again, recover from strokes, battle Parkinson's disease and lead healthier lives in ways we can't even yet imagine. But Bush will have none of that. If his policy is enacted, any researcher, health care provider or patient using such a treatment would have to fork over up to a million dollars and spend up to ten years in jail. How petty and backward-minded. (Sources: New York Times April 23, 2003 and New York Times May 2, 2003)
When Bush couldn't get his own U.S. Senate to go along with his plan to ban somatic cell nuclear transfer research, he pushed the United Nations to ban the research world-wide, regardless of the lack of agreement in the United States that this is a wise course of action. (Source: Reuters December 9, 2003)
In a show of hubris typical for members of the Bush administration, Donald Rumsfeld insisted for a time that as Defense Secretary he have final say in determining the shape of Iraq's occupation. Bush gave it to him, and look what happened. If the Bush team were in Kindergarten, their report card would read "does not share well with others." (Source: Washington Post September 14, 2003)
Would you like evidence that the administration had no clue what they were getting into in Iraq? Alright, then. In May 2003 Vice President Dick Cheney was asked by Tim Russert to react to the statement of a top Army general "that we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to maintain stability." Cheney responded: "I disagree. To suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don't think is accurate. I think that's an overstatement." (Source: Meet the Press May 16, 2003)
The Bush Administration uses doubletalk in its continuing effort to mislead the public into thinking there was a connection between Iraq and September 11 when there is no evidence even suggesting that was the case. Case in point: in a September 14, 2003 interview with Tim Russert, Vice President Dick Cheney said the following: "If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." But there is no evidence that Iraq was ever a geographic base of the terrorists who had America under assault on 9/11. None, Zip, Zero. As Dick Cheney was forced to put it when directly asked by Russert in the same interview about an Iraq-9/11 connection, "we don't know." (Source: Meet the Press September 14, 2003)
Who needs three branches of government? Not George W. Bush. No, he seems to think judicial review of executive branch actions is needless. Bush's latest policy push is to allow members of his administration's Justice Department to issue subpoenas to seize citizens' records or compel their testimony WITHOUT the permission of a judge, based solely on the judgment of John Ashcroft or his underlings that the target is a danger to society. But wait, it gets better. If Bush's law gets passed, the citizen who has been slammed with an Ashcroft subpoena can't tell anyone but his or her lawyer that the subpoena even exists, under threat of a five-year prison term. If we value a free society (and it's clear Bush and Ashcroft don't), this sort of insanity has got to be stopped. (Source: Associated Press September 14, 2003)
...and here's the real rub. At the same time George Bush and John Ashcroft pushed for their subpoena without mercy measures or judicial review (see the point above), Ashcroft himself appealed to a judge with the argument that he doesn't himself need to respond to a subpoena laid down by that judge. According to his lawyer, a subpoena is an "extraordinary step" and unnecessary to the pursuit of justice. Oh, the hubris of it all! (Source: Associated Press September 13, 2003)
The justifications for any of the major Bush Administration policies resemble nothing more than one of those Mad Libs sheets I used to fill out on car trips when I was a kid. [Adjective] [Tyrant] is in possession of [Nifty Secret Weapon], so we need to bomb [Third-World Country]. We can't show you the evidence because that's just what [Adjective] [Tyrant] would want, you [Adjective] [non-patriotic Noun]. We need another tax cut to [Stimulate/Maintain/Rein In] the [Current Economic Condition], rescue [cute animal] from the clutches of the [not cute animals], and cure [nasty debilitating disease].
CBS News reports: "Former weapons inspectors now say, five months after the U.S. invasion, that what the U.S. alleged were "unaccountable" stockpiles may have been no more than paperwork glitches left behind when Iraq destroyed banned chemical and biological weapons years ago." Gee, just what the Iraqis said last year! What happened to the secret evidence that according to the Bush administration said otherwise? (Source: CBS News September 15, 2003)
Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer's "reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do." reminds us instead of the Bush administration's disdain for the Bill of Rights. (Source: Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer September 26, 2001)
George W. Bush often justifies his domestic and foreign policy decisions with references to his faith in God and his beliefs about what course of action is most consistent with his understanding of God's standards. The problem is that faith by its very nature transcends logic and reason; if one can justify a policy path by means of logic combined with broad and deep knowledge of a problem, then faith is not required. In his reliance on faith, George W. Bush is asking us to trust his own trust that he has a good bead on God's existence and will. Given Bush's trustworthiness on other issues, we think we'll pass. (Source: Christianity Today May 2003, Newsweek March 10, 2003)
In 1999, George W. Bush revealed that "I believe God wants me to be President." We're highly dubious that if there's a supreme ruler of hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars, many with multiple planets, that this supreme ruler would be particularly interested in the outcome of a Presidential contest in one year for one of the hundreds of countries on one of those multiple planets around one of those hundreds of billions of stars in one of those hundreds of billions of galaxies. It sounds just a bit iffy. More importantly, it betrays by how much Bush inappropriately magnifies the sense of his own scale. (Source: Religious News Service February 12, 2003)
In September 2003, just as Bush's ratings in the polls slipped further, the Bush Administration issued a new warning: Al Qaeda is going to poison our food! Problem is, the FBI says there's actually no evidence that any such attack is imminent. We're sure that the terrorist warning and Bush's dip in the polls was a mere coincidence. Sure it was. (Source: CBS News September 12, 2003)
Have you ever noticed that when Bush is done winding his way through a moderately difficult sentence or has just noted a fact of any particularity, he does one of two things? Sometimes he smirks off to the side, as if to say to himself "Yeah, I made it!" Sometimes he bobs his head forward with a self-satisfied look, as if to say to his audience "See? See?" These personal mannerisms betray Bush's low standards for himself. We need someone in the Oval Office who shoots for, and surpasses, a higher bar.
Vice President Dick Cheney says "I am a deficit hawk... so is the President." If a multi-trillion dollar budget deficit over the next few years makes Dick Cheney a deficit hawk, then I guess my $2100 paycheck last week makes me a millionaire (Source: Meet the Press September 14, 2003).
Colin Powell suggests that the real reason that George W. Bush rushed an invasion of Iraq was a chemical weapons attack in the north of Iraq back in 1988. Oh, how I wish I were making this up, but no, I read it right in the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle on September 17,2003. Colin Powell says that a chemical weapons attack within Iraqi borders by the Iraqi government fifteen years ago is adequate proof there was an immediate danger of a chemical weapons attack against the United States this spring. Actually, American soldiers have found no evidence that Iraq has had any chemical weapons at all in recent years (Washington Post September 16, 2003).
Under Mr. Powell's logic, the fact that the United States dropped nuclear bombs on Japanese cities in the 1940s proves that there is the threat of an imminent American nuclear attack against Mexico, and justifies the violent overthrow of the American government and occupation of the United States by the Mexican military.I can't wait to hear what these guys are going to think of next.
Every month, we get a new "real reason" that we invaded Iraq. We're told with a straight face that no, this is the real reason now, not that other real reason we heard about last month, or the other really real reason they told us a month before that, or the other one the month before that. It's becoming increasingly obvious that the Bush administration wouldn't know reality if it stepped in front of them wearing a t-shirt that said "This is reality. Right here!" in foot-high letters.
Americans already have the Comedy Channel. We prefer that the material that comes out of the White House has more of a grounding in reality than The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Oh, I know we ask a lot.
George W. Bush says that trees cause forest fires, and that if we would just cut a lot of trees down, we wouldn't have as many forest fires. That's about as logical as saying that it's journalists who cause George W. Bush to lie, and if we just cut down on the number of journalists writing about the Bush White House, Bush would lie less often. Does Bush believe that one too?
We can see that Mr. Bush would have much better time applying his unusual management style to a Texas baseball team than he does sitting around the Oval Office. If he were mis-managing Texas sports teams again, instead of running up multi-trillion dollar budget deficits, Bush could just draft a new pitcher every now and then. Letting Bush follow his true passion would save us all a lot of pain. We may not be conservative, but we are compassionate. Let's extend Bush's month-long vacations and make them year-round.
The Bush-Cheney re-election team shows the same twisted moral compass as the Bush-Cheney policy team. At George W. Bush's official election web site, visitors are encouraged to appropriate text written by campaign staffers and pass it off as their own original letter to the editor at dozens of papers at a time. There's a word for this: plagiarism. And there's a word for that: unethical. (Source: Irregular Times at http://irregulartimes.com/astroturf3.html)
"Mission Accomplished"? Not yet, bucko. As John Kerry put it, "Being flown to an aircraft carrier and saying mission accomplished doesn't end a war." (Source: Associated Press September 3, 2003)
The Bush team wasted taxpayer money keeping the USS Abraham Lincoln idling offshore so Bush could land on it in a fighter jet and a flight suit. Bush used an expensive fighter jet to land, claiming that the aircraft carrier was out of helicopter range. But, of course, that turned out to be a lie. (Source: CBS News May 8, 2003)
Diane of Texas writes: "Why oust Bush? Because single moms trying to get off welfare struggle enough without having child care assistance cut." It's a central conundrum for single parents of young children that in order to get a job, the kids have to go to child care. But often, child care costs more than any job that a single parent might find, or at least so much that it's not possible to pay for child care and rent and food. In 2001, George W. Bush tried to cut funding for low-income child care. While child care costs rose in 2002, George W. Bush proposed increasing the work hours required for single parents on welfare -- with no increase in the funds to help single parents find child care. (Sources: New York Times March 26, 2001 and USA Today April 8, 2002)
Bush's tough-on-the-Constitution Attorney General John Ashcroft has been publicly mocking librarians for their opposition to provisions of the Patriot Act. Substance aside, that's just plain stupid. Didn't Mr. Ashcroft learn anything in school? Unless you're itching for trouble you should never, ever, mock a librarian. (Source: New York Times September 15, 2003)
In its breathless rush to war in the fall of 2002, the Bush Administration asserted that Iraq had a fleet of unmanned "drone" aircraft designed to fly over cities and release chemical or biological weapons. Bush cabinet member Colin Powell even suggested that the tiny drones might somehow wind their way after multiple refuelings to the United States where they would attack us mercilessly. Horrors! Well, guess what? The drones exist! But wait: American scientists have determined that their range was highly limited and that they were incapable of carrying chemical or biological weapons. (Source: Associated Press August 25, 2003)
Got some aluminum pipes and a balsa-wood model airplane sitting around in your garage? That about all Saddam seems to have had. It turns out that intelligence sources were warning the Bush Administration last fall that the pilotless drones being droned about were harmless. But, surprise surprise, the Bush Administration ignored those warnings and went ahead with Operation Freak Out America. George W. Bush has never let the facts get in his way. (Source: Associated Press August 25, 2003)
"CCB" sends this one in:
Karl Rove is a despicable Machiavellian Svengali. He has left a trail of broken lives and ruined careers of honest people in his wake. He will do and/or say absolutely anything to gain and maintain power for Republicans and the billionaires who love them.
This man, more than any other, is the single reason why the republican party has succeeded in controlling almost absolutely all branches of our government and is moving rapidly to further expand that power until it is all but untouchable.
Karl Rove doesn't just promote his candidates, he spreads vicious lies and rumors about his opponents, starts phony investigations against them and anyone remotely connected with them, and even goes as far as destroying anyone he THINKS might someday conceivably be a threat to his candidates.
Bush must go, but getting rid of Rove is almost as important.
And now, unprecedented in U.S. history, this uber-creep political operative has an office at the right hand of President DimSon. This guy controls what gets to Smirky, and so controls the policy and direction of the country. Rove cares about and eats, sleeps, and breathes only one thing. Politics and how it can help Bush and Republicans. That's fine, but in his position, he controls the country (Bush is so easily led, it's not even funny.) So what is being done at the White House is completely controlled by political advantage and expedience, NOT, I repeat, NOT, by what is best for the nation or it's citizens.
When George W. Bush went to war, he was so desperate to create the appearance of a worldwide coalition that his ridiculously administration pumped up the numbers of nations entering as members of his coalition. The Bush administration published a list of supporting nations including the Solomon Islands. Solomon Islands Prime Minister Allan Kemakeza quickly retorted that his nation was not a member of any coalition and had not in fact offered any support to President Bush in its invasion of Iraq. Whoopsie. (Source: The New Zealand Herald March 27, 2003).
Among the powerhouse nations listed in the big big "Coalition of the Willing" supporting George W. Bush: the Micronesian Island of Palau. It's a pretty place. Palau provided moral support. That's George W. Bush's diplomatic power for you. (Source: San Diego Union-Tribune March 21, 2003).
George W. Bush's diplomacy leading up to his war against Iraq was so botched that 15 of the 45 nations numbered as providing support to Bush's invasion of Iraq actually weren't, um, listed by name. That's right, they were too embarrassed on the world stage to stand with George W. Bush. (Source: Ottawa Citizen March 26, 2003).
George W. Bush's powers of persuasion are so weak that of the 45 mostly small nations providing "support" to Bush's invasion of Iraq, only 3 sent troops to participate in the actual invasion. (Source: Ottawa Citizen March 26, 2003).
The Bush administration likes to toot its horn about how now, after the invasion, 26 nations have sent troops to Iraq. What a grand coalition! Well, not so grand, actually. As of September 2003, that set of 26 includes nations like Slovakia (sending a total of 82 troops) Albania (which has sent 70 troops), New Zealand (61 troops) and Kazakhstan (26 troops). Lithuania has sent 90 troops, but hey, they're thinking maybe of sending 50 more. Well, that will certainly fix things. Thanks for rallying the world to our side, George. Good work. (Source: Associated Press September 19, 2003)
Stephen writes in, "He lied to my mother and has her believing him, when everything he does undermines her ability to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. She is of the snookered middle class." Hey, nobody gets away with lying to our mothers!
Because if the Republican controlled House of Representatives chose to
put the interests of the nation over the interests of the Party, he would be
Because if anything ever happened to Karl Rove the 25th Amendment would
kick in (after all, without Rove Bush is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office) and Dick Cheney would be President. We don't need another Republican President named Dick.
On the job training hasn't worked, and we can't afford any more training
Because not even one person got so much as publicly reprimanded for the failures on September 11th.
Because every time there's an emergency Bush runs away and hides, from
September 11th when he flew around the nation hiding at military bases to
when he ran away to Camp David rather than face Hurricane Isabel. (Sources: Washington Times September 21, 2003 and the Daily Telegraph September 10, 2003)
Aboard the Aircraft Carrier on May 1, 2003 he said "In the battle
of Afghanistan, we destroyed the Taliban, many terrorists, and the camps
where they trained." Meanwhile, the Taliban keeps attacking our troops. (Source: National Review May 2, 2003)
Aboard the Aircraft Carrier on May 1, 2003 he shamelessly
connected Iraq and the September 11th attacks to justify his war when he
said "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on
September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil
men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the
civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of
one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the 'beginning of the end of
America.' By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and
their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and
force our retreat from the world. They have failed." Bush said this even though he knew the allegation of an allegiance between Iraq and Al Qaeda was baseless (Source: National Review May 2, 2003).
Because aboard the Aircraft Carrier on May 1, 2003 he shamelessly
connected Iraq and the September 11th attacks to justify his war when he
said the following: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against
terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist
funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of
mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.
In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and
deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the
victims of September the 11th -- the last phone calls, the cold murder of
children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and
their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they
Our war against terror is proceeding according to principles that I have
made clear to all: Any person involved in committing or planning terrorist
attacks against the American people becomes an enemy of this country, and a
target of American justice." Bush said all this, even though he knew the claim of connection between September 11 and Iraq was false! (Source: National Review May 2, 2003)
Aboard the Aircraft Carrier on May 1, 2003 Bush declared, "Any person,
organization, or government that supports, protects, or harbors terrorists
is complicit in the murder of the innocent, and equally guilty of terrorist
crimes." How odd that Bush looks the other way when it comes to the Saudi government
and actually gives money to prop up the Pakistani government. (Source: National Review May 2, 2003)
So we can stop the stupid policy of attacking the neighbors of nations
that directly supported the September 11th attackers and deal with those
So we can stop our nasty, addictive habit of invading the poorest nations of the world.
Because we have 130,000 troops in Iraq. Because the plan is to have
110,000 troops in Iraq in September of '04. Because if we follow this
mis-leader we will always have troops in Iraq. (Source: Wall Street Journal September 9, 2003)
Because the free Iraqi Council Bush had Bremer appoint just won't do as its told.
Because Bush has shown that he thinks so little of the American military
that they can be used as cannon fodder.
Because while the rest of us have moved on to the Twenty-First century, George is somehow still living in the Dark Ages. Will someone tell him the Crusades are over?
Because Americans refuse to live in the perpetual state of fear he demands of us.
Because Dick Cheney needs to go cash in his chips over at Halliburton and
Junior needs to go join his Dad on the Saudi speakers tour. Let's help them jump-start their revolving-door careers!
Because he makes Reagan look sane.
Because he's so inexperienced and inept that I find myself longing for the days his father was in office!
Because The Carlyle Group needs new Board Members so the Reaganites can
So we don't have to listen to Cheney mis-speak any more.
So we don't have to listen to Rumsfeld mis-speak any more.
So we don't have to listen to Wolfowitz mis-speak any more.
So we don't have to listen to Powell mis-speak any more.
So we don't have to listen to Armitage mis-speak any more.
So we don't have to listen to Rice mis-speak any more.
SO WE DON'T HAVE TO LISTEN TO BUSH MIS-SPEAK ANY MORE.
Because I cannot find one completely honest, accurate statement the man has
made. Well, let me be fair and take that back. Once he did say "Hello, my name is George W. Bush." That's true. But other than that, it's really hard to say.
Because Osama been forgotten.
Because Bush said: "One year ago today, the time for excuse-making has come to an end." Washington, D.C., Jan. 8, 2002. (Source: U.S. Department of State International Information Programs -- and a tip of the pen on this and the preceding 38 reasons to Dan of Mansfield, Massachusetts!)
Because it's under the Bush Administration that the American government has formally established ways to use its own agents to torture its enemies. No longer does the government just allow foreign countries to do its dirty work. American taxpayers are now directly funding training for American agents so that they can become career torturers. In fact, Mark Bowden, author of "The Dark Art of Interogation", has suggested in an interview with Atlantic Monthly that George W. Bush is presiding over a period of American history in which torture is becoming so common that it "will produce some of its own theory and practice" of torture. So, Bush is helping to define the standards of torture for generations to come - how about we not cast a vote for that? (Source: Atlantic Monthly September 2003)
George W. Bush has caused the people of Texas a lot of embarrassment, but the truth is that he's not a native Texan. No, as a matter of fact, George W. Bush was born and bred into a rich, socially-exclusive community in Connecticut. I feel pretty uncomfortable voting for an American who won't even be honest about which state he's from. I mean, that's not very patriotic of him, is it?
One should never vote for a son of a Bush.
In the summer of 2003, Bush's justice deputy, John Ashcroft, ordered all federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty whenever possible. Even if you believe in the death penalty, prosecutorial discretion about recommending its usage is one way for complexities of the circumstances surrounding a crime to be considered. Complexity is apparently too much for Ashcroft to handle. (Source: Washington Post September 22, 2003)
In the fall of 2003, John Ashcroft ordered federal prosecutors broadened his rigid pursuit of the death penalty to all federal criminal cases, ordering prosecutors to seek the maximum available penalty in all cases and avoid plea bargains if possible. This rigid approach not only insults the professional judgment of prosecutors, turning them into Ashcroft automatons, it also shoves cases into trial that may not belong there, costing the budget aplenty. (Source: Washington Post September 22, 2003)
According to a report by the Congressional Budget Office, of the $4 Billion a month being spent in 2003 for Bush's War in Iraq, $1.5 Billion cannot be accounted for (Source: Associated Press September 18, 2003).
In September 2003, Senator Edward Kennedy said the following regarding Bush's War in Iraq: "There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud." He further noted of the $1.5 Billion in unaccountable spending, "my belief is this money is being shuffled all around to these political leaders in all parts of the world, bribing them to send in troops."
George W. Bush's did not respond on a factual basis to Senator Kennedy. He could have let us know where the mystery $1.5 Billion is going, but he didn't. Instead, he attacked Senator Kennedy's patriotism for questioning him: "I don't think we're serving our nation well by allowing the discourse to be come so uncivil that people say -- use words that they shouldn't be using."
It is dangerous to have a President in office who calls questions about hidden money and policies of war unamerican and uncivil. (Sources: Associated Press September 18, 2003 and Boston Globe September 22, 2003)
George W. Bush isn't just the king of a restored American monarchy, he's also the king of lamebrain ideas. Here's one idea that proves the legitimacy of Bush's claim to the lamebrain throne: He says America ought to train Iraqis to take over security for American soldiers, but then when those Iraqis are trained to provide security, he won't provide them any guns because he doesn't trust them. You know that car bomb that went off outside the United Nations headquarters in Iraq yesterday, killing an Iraqi security guard? Well, the Bush Dictatorship in Iraq refused to allow that security guard to have a gun. Source: San Francisco Chronicle, September 23. What can Iraqi security forces do to establish order in their country, if they're not entrusted with the ability to defend themselves?
Apparently, George W. Bush believes that Iraqis can end the chaos triggered by the American invasion through mere assertiveness. For example, here's a member of the Iraqi security force, trying to stop a guerilla attack through force of will alone: "Hey, guys? Um, stop that. No, I mean it. Wait! I really, really mean it now! Halt! Hey, put that bomb away, or else! I'll tell on you! Hey, the Americans say not to do that! No, I really, really, really mean it now! Hey, that's going to put someone's eye out! Ow! Ow! Augh!" It's by thinking that strategies like this are going to work that George W. Bush became the King of Lamebrain Ideas.
In his September 26, 2003 letter to Bush campaign supporters, Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie yet again demonstrates the willingness of the Republican Party leadership to engage in bald lies in order to defend Bush's missteps.
After referring to criticism of a President as "hate speech," Ed Gillespie lays down the mission of the recipients, conservative political activists called "GOP Team Leaders": "As Team Leaders, we are dependent upon you to make sure communities across this great nation get the FACTS." It's too bad that Gillespie's "FACTS" are not, in fact, factual.
In order to diffuse criticism of the mounting costs of Bush's War in Iraq, Gillespie says "Compared to similar conflicts the cost of fighting the war in Iraq is small. The cost for this war amounts to approximately 0.5% of Gross Domestic Product, compared with 130% for World War II and 15% for the Korean War."
Gillespie gets these estimates from an article entitled The Economic Consequences of a War with Iraq by Yale Economist William D. Nordhaus. Reading his Table 2 and surrounding text in which the figures for Korea and World War II are calculated, we find to arrive at this figure, the total cost of the war (no matter how long it takes) is divided by the average annual Gross Domestic Product during the war. This tells us how to make a parallel calculation.
So, is it true that the cost of Bush's War in Iraq is only 0.5% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)? In order to figure this out, we need to know what the Gross Domestic Product is. We can't know for 2003, since that year is still underway. A reasonable guess would be to go with the U.S. GDP for 2002, which was 10.4462 trillion dollars (source: Bureau of Economic Analysis at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/gdplev.xls). How much has Bush's War in Iraq cost so us so far? Let's be generous and not count the costs involved in long-term medical care for wounded American soldiers, or the cost of buying new bombs, missiles and bullets to replace the ones that are being used, or any other indirect costs. No, to be nice to Gillespie let's make an absurdly conservative calculation of costs and just focus on the costs of war having directly to do with Iraq: invasion, occupation and reconstruction. $79 Billion were appropriated by the U.S. Congress for Bush's War in Iraq in the spring of 2003. Bush has already asked for another $71 Billion just for Iraq (the $87 Billion figure is widely quoted, but includes continuing multibillion-dollar costs for Afghanistan). That makes for $150 Billion already, which is 1.5% of the last available annual U.S. GDP. That's three times Gillespie's figure, not including any indirect but real costs of the Iraq war. Ed Gillespie reads the newspapers. He knows these numbers. Ed Gillespie is lying.
Of course, the war in Iraq is, unfortunately, not over. A bipartisan group of U.S. Senators estimates that we'll be in Iraq for five years. Let's be extra nice and not only ignore the indirect costs of Bush's Iraq War but also assume that the cost of Bush's war will be cut in half each year, so that in year 2 we'll only need to fork out $35 Billion, then $17 Billion in year 3, then $8 Billion, then $4 Billion, and then nothing at all afterward (riiiight...). This brings the total cost of the war to $214 Billion, or 2% of annual U.S. GDP. That's four times Gillespie's figure, making the nicest of assumptions on Gillespie's behalf. Gillespie isn't a fool. Even to his own political shock troops, Gillespie is a liar.
(Sources: CNN September 17, 2003, Washington Times September 25, 2003, Reuters , Bureau of Economic Analysis, The Economic Consequences of a War with Iraq by William Nordhaus)
A sermon a day makes me want Bush to go away.
Jim Toy of Seaside, California contributes this humdinger:
The Bush Administration came up with a plan to "reform" Amtrak. His plan is to turn responsibility for funding Amtrak over to the states. Route planning, including interstate routes, would also become a state responsibility. Since most Amtrak routes cover several states, coordination and funding will become a logistical nightmare. Most interstate rail services will be eliminated as a result.
(Sources: Stateline September 10, 2003 and National Association of Rail Passengers Hotline May 9, 2003)
Bush's plan theoretically offers 50-50 matching funds to states for rail infrastructure improvements, but provides no source of funds for the federal portion (highways and airports receive 80% federal funding from dedicated trust funds).
In formulating this plan, the administration did not consult with either Amtrak or the states.
Add to all of this a dose of hypocrisy. When Bush was Governor of Texas he was asked to help fund Amtrak's Texas Eagle. At the time he refused and stated that "a national rail service was the responsibility of the federal
According to a disgruntled senior Bush administration figure, the Bush White House leaked the name of a secret CIA operative to the press in order to get back at that operative's husband, who had criticized Bush's plans for going to war in Iraq. The White House's actions not only jeopardized the safety of that CIA operative, but also the safety of the operative's helpful contacts in countries around the world. (Source: Washington Post September 28, 2003)
After the CIA requested an investigation into the above matter, the Bush Administration neglected to authorize such an investigation for two months until the public furor over the matter became undeniable. (Source: Associated Press September 29, 2003)
After conceding that any White House staff member involved in betraying the identity of a CIA operative would "at a minimum" deserve to be fired and also face criminal charges, White House Spokesman Scott McClellan noted that George W. Bush refuses to ask any of his White House staff whether they were the source of the leak. (Source: White House Press Briefing September 29, 2003)
When the heat finally got turned up enough for the Bush Administration to say they'd look into the possibility that an individual or individuals in their ranks had exposed the identity of a CIA agent, they initially refused to appoint an independent investigator. Instead, they assigned John Ashcroft. Given Ashcroft's approach to justice, this is more than a bit like asking a fox to guard the chicken house. (Source: Reuters September 29, 2003)
You haven't heard any updates on the Ashcroft investigation into the illegal White House leaks, have you? That's because there's been nothing but silence from the White House and the Justice Department for months. Can you say "buried"? Well, a senior White House official can. While refusing to be named, the official commented that ""We have let the earth-movers roll in over this one." (Source: Financial Times of London December 5, 2003)
How many ways can they try to spin the truth? The Bush Administration, in scrambling desperation, tried again to explain why it sent hundreds of thousands of young Americans off to kill and be killed in Iraq when it had no solid evidence that there was any need to do so:
Condoleeza Rice, George W. Bush's National Security Advisor, justified the invasion and occupation of Iraq by saying, "nothing pointed to a reversal of Saddam Hussein's very active efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, to have very good programs in weapons of mass destruction."
Lack of evidence that a crime has not occurred is not the same thing as evidence that a crime has occurred. If there's a man who lives next door to me who has a history of embezzling money from work, would I be justified in having him arrested on suspicion of doing it again, just because I didn't have any evidence that he was not?
Of course not! This isn't the American way of doing things, although Bush and company would like us to forget it. Here in America, our legal and ethical traditions are based upon giving the benefit of the doubt, when there is a lack of evidence that we should do otherwise. If there is no evidence that a person or group of persons has committed a crime, we do not assume that there is a crime and start the punishment. That's just not the way Americans do things. (Source: Boston Globe September 29, 2003)
In 2002, the number of Americans lacking health insurance rose by 2.4 million, introducing not only personal danger into the lives of these citizens, but also high costs for society when these people get acutely sick after a lack of preventative care. Does Bush have a plan to get these people insured? What do you think? (Source: New York Times September 30, 2003)
The number of Americans living in poverty rose by 1.7 million in 2002. It seems Bush's first big tax cut didn't exactly work as planned. (Source: New York Times September 27, 2003)
In July of 2003, ABC News aired a story about soldiers opposed to the war in Iraq who were calling for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The Bush White House responded by letting it leak out that the reporter covering the story was "Gay" and "Canadian." Will someone tell Dubya he's not in middle school anymore? (Source: Toronto Star July 19, 2003)
Bush's notorious Attorney General John Ashcroft has directed executive agencies to obstruct, by all legal means possible, Freedom of Information requests by the public. Democratic President Bill Clinton, by contrast, had set in place a policy directing the same agencies to comply with, whenever legally possible, Freedom of Information requests about government activities. (Source: New York Times January 3, 2003)
In February of 2003, George W. Bush referred to an impending war against Iraq as a "game." That's sick. (Source: Toronto Star February 9, 2003)
While delivering his talking points on how great Bush's War in Iraq would be, Secretary of State Colin Powell depended on a blue curtain to obscure what really stood behind him: Pablo Picasso's Guernica. See, the painting showed images of war: dead people and stuff. That's a really pesky thing for people to see when you're trying to get them to invade a country. (Source: Toronto Star February 9, 2003)
When people tried to tell George W. Bush that his tax cuts would break the bank, he replied with indignance that those people didn't know what they were talking about, that "we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens." Well, the people were right, George was wrong to the tune of $500 Billion -- but of course it is the people who will have to pay the price. (Source: Washington Post July 2, 2002)
Lloyd Grove of the New York Daily News uncovered a "frequently asked questions" memo from the Bush-Cheney campaign to their fundraisers in New York City. Excerpted text follows:
Question: "Can I use my personal aircraft for campaign business?"
Answer: "No, you may not use your personal aircraft for campaign business. Corporate aircraft may be used, but only if each person boarding the plane pays the equivalent of a first-class airplane ticket."
Q: "Can I have a fund-raising cocktail party for my friends at a private club or hotel and pay for the party?"
A: "No. You may have them come to your house and treat them up to $1,000 in expenses per adult in the household without it counting against your $2,000 contribution limit."
Q: "Can I use my executive assistant to help with my fund-raising activities?"
A: "Any person can volunteer to help. Employees may volunteer a maximum of 1 (one) hour per week during working hours and an unlimited amount outside of the office."
(Source: New York Daily News September 30, 2003)
It doesn't take a weathervane to tell which way the wind is blowing. Just watch the Republicans. Prominent New Hampshire Republican Hilary Cleveland, who served in official capacities in the campaigns of both George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, will not be campaigning for George W. Bush this time around. Instead, she started a statewide Republicans for Dean movement that garnered significant support. Cleveland's move shows that you don't have to be a Democrat to find the Bush record unacceptable (Source: Associated Press September 26, 2003)
Bush makes the entire US population look like half-wits before the world when he stands at podiums challenging everyone with his patent lies. What must they think of us that we elected him? Wait, no, we didn't. But you know what I mean.
He's neither bright eyed nor Bushy-tailed -- but he is awfully squirrely when it comes to his past.
When a man points to air, and he says something's there, there is nothing to call him but strange.
It's tune time! Everybody sing along (to the tune of "Pistol Packin' Mama"): "Oh, lay that pistol down, George, lay that pistol down; Drunk-drivin' prep-school cowboy, lay that pistol down..."
(to the tune of "Have You Forgotten?"): "Have you forgotten about Vietnam, 'bout that two-year old girl crying, covered with napalm? Have you forgotten about My Lai, that sad day in the jungle, when we were the bad guy? I know we all are angry, and we're itching for a fight, but we just need to make damn sure what we're fighting for is right. (And Bush, we still ain't even caught bin Laden, have you forgotten?)"
As Drew Carey remarked after visiting Graceland, there's "nothing like getting ripped off by a dead hillbilly." Unless, of course, you get ripped off by some snotty prep-school idiot pretending to be a hillbilly.
A "shoot first and ask questions later" attitude isn't a sufficient basis for a decent character in a B-grade spaghetti western movie, let alone sound foreign policy for the United States.
Would you trust this guy to watch your kids while you ran out to the supermarket?
While we're at it, would you trust Dick Cheney to watch your kids while you ran out to the supermarket? Eeeeesh.
Ever wish you could work together with millions of other Americans to promote a healthy economy, better schools, peace on earth, constitutional rights, a cleaner environment, and domestic security all in one second? You've got your chance in 2004--vote Bush out. Punch out that chad for Bush's opponent. Punch it good and hard.
Heck, would you trust this guy to watch your dog while you went out of town for a week?
We can win. Look at it this way: If a good 30% of eligible voters are firmly opposed to Bush (recent polls suggest the number is much higher), and voter turnout is about 50% of eligible voters, that means that if every eligible voter who opposes Bush votes against him, 60% of the vote will go to his opponent.
Who needs the help of France, Russia, Germany and China to acheive their international objectives anyway? Um, we do. And Bush just keeps ticking them off.
Who profits when Bush goes to war? Oil companies and defense contractors who make big soft-money campaign contributions. Who loses when Bush goes to war? Kids from some small town or inner city who joined to army to try to scrape together enough money for college.
Why do we have to boot Bush? Because we can't just close our eyes and make him go away.
Because I just had this weird dream where it was just like twelve years ago, and George Bush was president again, and somebody blew up the World Trade Center, and then there were these letters with anthrax in them, but we never caught the guys behind any of it, so people were still afraid, then we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, but Saddam and Omar and bin Laden all got away, but our troops kept getting killed, like, every day almost, and the stock marked crashed and there were a bunch of corporate scandals but Bush just said we'd "let the market take care of it," and Bush gave rich people a big tax cut and the budget surplus was gone and we had huge deficits again, and lots of people were out of work, just like twelve years ago. Then I woke up and I was like, that was a weird dream, but then I realized I was still in the dream and I went around trying to convince people to vote Bush out of office so I could get out of the dream.
Ever have a dream like that?
Here's a riddle for you: Q: What do Hitler, Napoleon, Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush have in common? A: They all tried to fight land wars in Asia. Ha ha. (Sorry, I wish it was funny, but it isn't really, is it? When will he ever learn? When will he ever learn?)
Here's another riddle for you: Q: How is George W. Bush different from Hitler, Napoleon, and Lyndon Johnson? A: Bush tried to fight two land wars in Asia. (I know, still not funny...)
The only reason I keep on laughing at George W. Bush is to keep from crying.
We're electing a U.S. president here, not an upper-class twit of the year.
Because every time I drive near Pennsylvania Avenue in DC, I get the urge to turn on my "hazard" lights.
Would you trust this guy to water your plants while you were out of town?
OK, so what does Condi Rice do, anyhow? I mean, I know she doesn't review intelligence reports and advise the president on the content of his speeches or anything, so what does she do? For instance, how come when 9/11 happened and everybody was running around saying "we should have somebody in the cabinet in charge of the security of the nation," she didn't pipe up and say, "Well, I am actually in charge of 'national security,' it's in my job title and everything," I mean, did she forget what her job was, or what? If we vote Bush out, Condi goes back to her old job as a college administrator, where she can continue to do absolutely nothing--for the students, faculty and staff of Stanford University.
Would you trust this guy just to feed your guppies while you were out of town?
If a free sample at the supermarket left as bad a taste in your mouth as the last three years, would you buy more of the product and take it home to your family?
Because in 2000, Bush ran against peace and prosperity. Now that he's made it abundantly clear where he stands on those issues, the choice is clear: yes to peace and prosperity, no to Bush.
If George W. Bush were a kid offering to mow your lawn, would you wince before you said "OK?" Would you even say "OK" at all? All right, then. Now imagine that YOU are the flower bed of shasta daisies...
Because the president is a role model for kids. You want millions of kids running around trying to be like Bush?
If you loaned this guy fifty bucks, would you count on getting it back?
I'm becoming convinced that getting this clown elected president was the ultimate fraternity prank. This prank ended up costing thousands of lives, millions of jobs, and trillions of dollars out of peoples' life savings. It's gone way too far. Couldn't they have just stolen a street sign or something?
America is a shining beacon of hope for the world. But when we lie and kill, or let a few corrupt people loot our treasury, the golden glow of that beacon is tarnished. Instead of holding forth hope for the world, we engender fear. It is not in our long term interest to be feared. Boot Bush in 2004, and help make the United States a country the world can look up to again.
From the October 11, 2000 Debate at Wake Forest University:
"Q: What is the role of the U.S. in the world?
Bush: I'm not sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say this is the way it's got to be.... I'm not sure where the vice president's coming from, but I think one way for us to end up being viewed as the ugly American is for us to go around the world saying, we do it this way, so should you. I think the United States must be humble and must be proud and confident of our values, but humble in how we treat nations that are figuring out how to chart their own course."
"Q: Should the people of the world fear us, or see us as a friend?
Bush: If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us.... If we're an arrogant nation, they'll view us that way, but if we're humble nation, they'll respect us."
We couldn't agree more. It is tragic that Bush has not followed his own advice.
The Bush Administration's interpretation of the Homeland Security Act is that model rocketry hobbyists must be fingerprinted. (Source: Quad Cities Times March 24, 2003)
Bush ran for President in 2000 on the apparent success of the Texas school system. He even appointed Houston School District Superintendent Rod Paige his Secretary of Education based on the supposed "Texas Miracle" in that city following from Bush's purportedly miraculous education policies in the state. But it turns out that the "Miracle" that Rod Paige produced in Houston was anything but miraculous. Paige set up a system in which school principles got bonuses for low dropout rates. Principles simply underreported dropouts to get their bonuses, creating the illusion of a Miracle that never actually existed. (Source: Palm Beach Post September 27, 2003)
People are getting so fed up with Bush's pattern of, er, misrepresentations that they're sending a flatbed truck around the country with a twelve foot-high flaming statue of the man, with the words "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire." I kid you not. (Source: WCAX News October 1, 2003)
Tellingly, the response of Republican Politicians to charges that Bush is a liar is not to deny that he has been lying. No, instead they trot out phrases like this: "When you start throwing out words like lies and liars, i think that offends people." Well, yes, it does offend people. But not in the way that Bush partisans might like. (Source: WCAX News October 1, 2003)
George W. Bush says that the lesson of "September 11" is that there are bad guys and we have to make them pay. Also, George W. Bush says that "September 11" "changed everything", which seems to mean that he gets to do whatever he wants and the Constitution doesn't count any more. From the people in charge of the American government, the explanations of "September 11" don't get much deeper than that. We need a deeper appreciation of what has (and what has not) changed in this country since the attcks that took place on that day.
One of the most forgotten details of the American response in the weeks weeks after September 11, 2001 is that the government of Afghanistan offered to give in to George W. Bush's demands. The government of Afghanistan offered to hand Osama Bin Laden over to the American government, through Pakistan.
Why didn't George W. Bush take Afghanistan up on its offer? Oh, what an excellent question that is.
Bush refused to take Osama bin Laden into custody from Afghanistan because the Afghan government wanted to negotiate the way in which this transfer would take place.
Bush said that he would not conduct any negotiations with the Afghan government, even if it meant that the American government could get Osama Bin Laden as a prisoner. Then, Bush said he'd had enough of talk with the Afghans.
Bush wanted to attack.
The government of Afghanistan pleaded with the Bush Administration, saying that it wanted to talk to him about handing over Osama bin Laden into American custody. Bush refused. Bush said he wouldn't talk about it. Bush wanted a war more than he wanted Osama bin Laden. Bush made a choice to let Osama bin Laden go.
America didn't have to invade Afghanistan. Bush made the choice that he wanted to fight for Osama bin Laden instead of negotiating for him. For Bush, fighting felt better. And that makes Bush a dangerous leader. (Source: Washington Post October 29, 2001)
If Afghanistan didn't get rid of Osama bin Laden, then at least it got rid of Al Qaida and the oppressive Taliban, right? Right? Wrong. Al-Qaida and the Taliban are still in Afghanistan. In fact, they still rule in parts of Afghanistan. In fact, they're still attacking and killing American soldiers.
Hamid Karzai, the American-appointed "President" of Afghanistan only really controls a small part of Afghanistan. Elsewhere, independent warlords rule, and some of those warlords seem more loyal to the Taliban than to the American occupation force. (Source: CBS News September 11, 2003)
OK, if Afghanistan didn't get rid of Osama bin Laden or Al Qaida or the Taliban, then at least women aren't oppressed in Afghanistan any more, right? Unfortunately, no. Amnesty International reports that in the two years since Bush invaded Afghanistan, conditions for women have barely improved at all, with forced marriages, rapes, domestic violence and the burka still dominating most women's lives. Bush promised a changed Afghanistan for women -- but then he got swept away by the next great war. (Source: Associated Press October 5, 2003)
Because Laura Bush married beneath her -- a librarian having a
"non-curious" husband who doesn't read a single newspaper and gets
his important information in 'sound bites' from staffers can only mean
she missed her calling ... she should have gone into puppetry.
Because every time W says "we" he's talking to himself. His 'we' doesn't
pertain to anyone I know -- we're not "his people," so we can be
summarily dismissed. As were the many thousands of Americans who marched
for peace, 'we' are just the worlds largest "special interest
group" in his eyes.
Because since his first weeks in office, no matter how innocuous an
announcement the Texas Bush makes, you can bet that it will reduce your
safety, your opportunity, your freedom, or your welfare. His track
record in reducing 'quality of life' for the average American is
In the spring of 2003, Sheriff Bush's loyal deputy Paul Wolfowitz testified before the United States Congress that "we are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." But lo and behold, it turns out that well before the war, a secret task force (another one?) made a report determining that Iraq's oil infrastructure was in a decrepit state. Administration officials confirmed that Wolfowitz was aware of the task force's existence. So when he testified in front of Congress, did he lie, obfuscate the truth or just forget it? None of these options are acceptable. But neither is any of them, sadly, a surprise. (Source: New York Times October 5, 2003)
How far have we fallen? A contrast:
John F. Kennedy: Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.
George W. Bush: Big tax giveaway to the rich. Yum, yum!
Franklin D. Roosevelt: We have nothing to fear but fear itself.
George W. Bush: Orange Alert! Orange Alert! Quick! Grab your duct tape and plastic sheeting! Orange Alert!
Still more contrast:
Abraham Lincoln: A nation of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from this Earth.
George W. Bush: Come to my fundraiser. It costs two thousand dollars per ticket.
Yet another contrast:
George Washington: I cannot tell a lie.
George W. Bush: What I said about there being an imminent threat of a nuclear attack from Iraq was technically correct.
Patrick Henry: Give me liberty or give me death!
George W. Bush: There ought to be limits to freedom.
When George W. Bush said "There ought to be limits to freedom" on May 21, 1999, he was trying to justify his efforts to shut down a critical web site. Even before he assumed the presidency, Bush couldn't tolerate anyone making fun of him. (Source: Dallas Morning News May 22, 1999)
When George W. Bush couldn't get his pals to shut down the web site making fun of him, he had Karl Rove buy up dozens of internet domain names that included the word "Bush" with the idea of stemming the tide of anti-Bush web sites. Clearly, the idea didn't work. But it betrays the extent to which these "free market" Bushies just can't handle a free market of ideas. (Source: Dallas Morning News May 22, 1999)
In more evidence of where the wind is blowing, a Republican attracted attention for his blog, Republicans Against Dean, against the Bush administration and for his chief rival at the time, Howard Dean. He writes:
"I am a Republican Speaking out against a Regime which is sending our nation over a cliff, and has many reasonable Democrats using the word "Fascism...." The last time we had a Republican President who lied this much to the American people, we threw Dick Nixon's ass straight out of the White House. Bush has lied to you, he has lied to me, he has lied to our allies, and no one is talking about it. Republicans are walking around in a malaise, fearing that Abdul will blow up their mom's chess club meeting, because Bushy and Rummy want you to be afraid."
Although Howard Dean's candidacy has submerged, the writer continues to write in opposition to George W. Bush at The Moderate Republican.
Under George W. Bush's push to fund "faith-based intiatives" (translation: religious programs) with taxpayers' money, The Reverend Pat Robertson's Christian organization Operation Blessing received $500,000 from the federal government. This organization's mission statement declares that "We believe that the Holy Bible is the inspired, infallible, and authoritative source of Christian doctrine and precept... We believe that the only hope for man is to believe on Jesus Christ, the virgin-born Son of God, who died to take upon Himself the punishment for the sin of mankind and who rose from the dead so that by receiving Him as Lord, man is redeemed by His blood." This is the ministry your taxpayer funds have paid for. (Source: Washington Post October 3, 2002)
July 2003 brought news from the government that Al-Qaeda was planning to attempt more hijackings of airplanes within the United States this summer. How did George W. Bush reacted to this news? He announced that he would cut funds for the air marshals that protect American flights from terrorist attack. The reason? He said there's just not enough money to pay for them, so a large number of air marshals would just have to be fired, even as new air terror alerts were sounding. Where did all the money go? That's right, the money went into Bush's gigantic tax giveaway to the top richest one percent of Americans. (Source: CBS News July 31, 2003)
Because in two billion years, when alien lifeforms come to Earth and
uncover the historical records of our extinct society, no one will be there
to tell them "No, Bush the Second wasn't really elected by the popular
vote." Flipping a few years forward through our records, these aliens will
look at us with certain disgust if we re-elect (Oops, did we say
re-elect? A typographical mistake.) this man.
Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith, killed in Bush's invasion of Iraq, April
4, 2003. His widow is quoted as asking, "What is the Medal of Honor? What
is it to me? What is it to Paul? Maybe it's something to the kids, but it
doesn't bring my husband back. It is nothing." (Source, Syracuse
Post-Standard, October 5, 2003)
How could George W. Bush say with a straight face on March 17, 2003 that "the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war?" In March of 2002 Bush remarked in a policy planning meeting: "Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out," and Dick Cheney remarked to a Senate Republican planning meeting also in March of 2002 that the question of a war with Iraq was no longer if but when. (Source: Time May 5, 2002)
Watching Carol Moseley Braun speak during the Democratic Presidential candidates' debates has reminded me just how low we have sunk under George W. Bush, and what great alternatives are available. Carol Moseley Braun frequently stops in mid-sentence in her speeches to add subordinate clauses strengthening her arguments, and manages through it all to retain grammatical sense. George W. Bush struggles to make utterances like this: "You've also got to measure in order to begin to effect change that's just more when there's more than talk, there's just actual paradigm shift." Say What? (Source: Bushisms at http://slate.msn.com/id/76886/)
In October 2003, after Israel bombed Syria after a Palestinian bombed 19 Israelis into oblivion after Israel killed innocent bystanders in a targeted assassination after...well, you get the idea, George W. Bush faced a choice: either condemn Israel's bombing of Syria and contradict his own policy of disregarding international law in conducting war, or support Israel's bombing of Syria and risk a new Mideast war. Bush was painted into this no-win corner by his own actions in pursuing a war of choice without international legitimation. Our world has become a more dangerous place as this trend spreads to other nations in their approach to conflict. (Source: New York Times October 7, 2004)
One of Bush's least sparkling criticisms of Al Gore in the fall of 2000 was that "He talks about numbers! I'm beginning to think not only did he invent the Internet, but he invented the calculator!" There's nothing wrong with numbers. Numbers are specific. Quoting numbers indicates a high confidence in their veracity, since numbers can be verified. Bush's disdain of specific knowledge leaves him vulnerable to being manipulated by others. (Source: ABC News October 3, 2000)
After promising to engage with the United Nations in the lead-up to war with Iraq, promising a vote, George W. Bush withdrew his resolution when it became clear a majority of the Security Council (indeed, a majority of the world) thought his resolution was bunk. Now in the aftermath of war, George W. Bush has done the same thing: promising to involve the United Nations in reconstruction of Iraq and then withdrawing his resolution when it became clear a majority of the Security Council thought his resolution was bunk. In case after case of early withdrawal, it has become clear that George W. Bush can't handle diplomacy. (Source: New York Times October 8, 2003)
An anonymous senior Bush Administration official's understanding of the meaning of multilateralism: "We don't want to play this game for a long, long time. This is as much a choice for the Council as it is for us. They can be multilateral and be part of it, or they can tell us to do it ourselves." The "It's Bush's Way or the Highway" Principle is not what multilateralism means. (Source: New York Times October 8, 2003)
Bush's failure of diplomacy in this instance (related to his inability to admit error) is not just a personal failure: it has dire consequences for Americans and Iraqis. If the Bush Administration can't successfully handle negotiations in the Security Council, the United States won't get much of any financial, logistical or military help in handling Bush's mess in Iraq. Americans will be stuck with the bill, the headache and the danger. Iraqis will be stuck with a quagmire. The world will be stuck with a terrorist breeding ground that Bush created but couldn't clean up. (Source: New York Times October 8, 2003)
Al Qaeda brought down two buildings, and thousands of people lay dead in the rubble. Bush brought down two nations, and millions of people still live in the rubble.
In February of 2002, Bush lectured the Japanese parliament about how the United States and Japan had been allies "for a century and a half", when in fact, the US and Japan have only been allied since after World War II, which ended just over 50 years ago. Little details like that matter. (Source: United States Embassy in Japan, Transcript of February 18, 2002)
We all remember how when he was campaigning to be President, Bush had no idea who the President of Pakistan was, even though the military coup in Pakistan had recently been in the news. Campaigning for President and not bothering to read the newspaper seems pretty boneheaded to me. Is this what Bush calls preparation? (Source: Financial Times of London November 6, 1999)
George W. Bush doesn't understand how the beliefs of his own church are different from the beliefs of other churches, even though he goes to church every week. In 1994, George W said, "The Episcopal Church is very ritualistic and it has a kind of repetition to the service. It's the same service, basically, over and over again. Different sermon, of course. The Methodist Church is lower key. We don't have the kneeling. And I'm sure there is some kind of heavy doctrinal difference as well, which I'm not sophisticated enough to explain to you." If he cannot understand how Methodist theology is different from Episcopal theology, how can he hope to understand the nuances of U.S. foreign policy? The years of the Bush Presidency have demonstrated that he cannot. (Sources: Houston Post 1994 and Salon.com July 7, 2000)
George W. Bush said he appointed Thomas White to be Secretary of the Army because White had great business experience at Enron. Bush said he wanted Thomas White to run the Army like he ran his business. The problem is, White's former employees say that he was dishonest and helped to set up fake partnerships that eventually led to Enron's bankruptcy. White responded that he had no part in the illegal fraud because he wasn't really in touch with the operations of the division where he was supposed to be in charge. Which really happened? Was White a criminal or just grossly incompetent? Neither possibility merits confidence. (Sources: Houston Chronicle October 24, 2001, Houston Chronicle March 30, 2002, and New York Times September 17, 2002)
Bush's Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, decided in February of 2002 to disband a panel charged with addressing claims of sexual assault in the military. Since then, multiple stories of sexual assault mishandled by the military have emerged in the press. Clearly, the panel was desperately needed. (Source: New York Times March 2, 2003; Associated Press October 4, 2003)
In 1975 the Northern Mariana Islanders voted to join the United States, and since then residents have enjoyed U.S. citizenship and lived under U.S. law -- with two important exceptions. First, the importation of Asians as "guest workers" without citizenship rights has been permitted. Second, the U.S. minimum wage laws exclude this part of our country.
These two loopholes have led to dismal conditions in the islands. By 1999, more than 33,000 "guest workers" lived in the islands, a number greater than that of citizen residents. Their status is less one of "guest" and more one of wage slavery -- workers are required to pay up to $10,000 in "fees" for the privilege of leaving their jobs. These foreign workers live behind barbed-wire fences, eat infested food, sleep on cots in dormitories that they are forced to pay more "fees" for, work "off the clock" hours that they aren't paid for, all the while working in unsafe conditions for far less than the U.S. minimum wage. (Source: Jim Hightower, If the Gods Had Meant us to Vote, They Would Have Given us Candidates)
H.R. 965, sponsored by Democrat George Miller, would phase in the U.S. Minimum Wage, require good working conditions and wages as a condition for tariff forgiveness, and require U.S. standards of labor be met for the awarding of a "Made in the U.S.A." label. Sounds simple and decent, doesn't it? Unfortunately, this bill is struggling to stay alive. Why? The Republican Party is in control the Congress, and the Republican Party is blocking it.
Has George W. Bush spoken out on this issue? Has George W. Bush told Congressional Republicans to stop sweatshops in the USA, to support the bill? Of course not. George W. Bush is a Republican politician, too, and maintaining sweatshops is the sort of thing that Republican politics stands for.
How close is George W. Bush to the Enron debacle? Bush has a friendly nickname for Enron CEO Ken Lay: "Kenny Boy." (Source: The Daily Telegraph January 19, 2002)
How close is the Republican Party that Bush champions to the Enron swindle? Ed Gillespie, who in 2003 took over leadership of the Republican National Committee, was an Enron lobbyist before he took his current job. (Source: New York Times June 17, 2003)
Weeks after Senator Edward Kennedy was pilloried by Republicans for suggesting that George W. Bush was using billions of dollars to bribe other nations into sending troops to Iraq, imagine what happened. In October of 2003, Bush agreed to lend Turkey $8.5 Billion, but on the condition that Turkey send troops to Iraq. Sounds like a bribe to me. (Source: Associated Press October 8, 2003)
This should secure your trust: Elliott Abrams, the man George W. Bush appointed as National Security Council senior director, pleaded guilty to charges of lying to Congress in 1991. But that's OK, since George Bush Sr. pardoned him. Right? (Source: Reuters October 7, 2003)
In 2002, the Bush Administration began implementation of their Total Information Awareness project, which would collect citizens' personal information in a central database. According to the TIA website, this information includes financial, educational, communication, medical, travel, housing and yes, even VETERINARY records. Under the TIA plan, a computer will use this information to identify "dangerous" citizens and engage in "pre-emptive" action. When the public began to complain, the Bush Administration tried to keep TIA in place by renaming it "Terrorism Information Awareness." Thank goodness enough Americans read George Orwell to demand this nonsense be shut down. (Sources: Department of Defense Briefing November 20, 2002 and Washington Post September 26, 2003)
George W. Bush has proclaimed that "We've got a plan to reduce the deficit in half in five years." United States Comptroller General David M. Walker rejects that claim, stating outright that "the idea that this is manageable or that we are going to grow our way out of the problem is just flat false. Even if we repeal all the tax cuts, you are still going to have to make tough choices.... Our projected budget deficits are not manageable without significant changes in status quo programs, policies, processes and operations." (Sources: Remarks of the President August 22, 2003, Bloomberg News October 7, 2003 and Washington Post October 5, 2003)
It's medical diagnosis time! Imagine you are a doctor, and a man comes into your office complaining about neighbors developing weapons in secret to attack him. When you ask him how he knows about this activity, he refers to secret evidence he cannot show you. When you ask people in the neighborhood, no one can offer any evidence of that activity, either.
OK, now imagine you are George W. Bush's doctor...Roger writes in, "If during the election George W. was receiving those National Security briefings that Presidential candidates supposedly get, he had to first have a background check. That means he needed to fill out background paperwork. On that paperwork he would have been required under threat of perjury to list any convictions or arrests, even DUIs. If he had not that can be a federal felony in and of itself. So I wonder if he lied on that paper work since his DUI surfaced to the public just a week before the election."
Knowing of General William G. Boykin's history of illegal use of military training facilities for religious purposes, and aware of Boykin's radical views about using America's military to fight a Christian Crusade against other religions, George W. Bush promoted Boykin to the position of Deputy Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. In this position, Boykin is in frequent communication with senior White House officials, and even the President of the United States himself.
Now it comes to light that, preaching in his military uniform before a religious congregation, Boykin uncovered the real motivation for Bush's war. Apparently, "the enemy that has come against our nation is a spiritual enemy. His name is Satan. And if you do not believe that Satan is real, you are ignoring the same Bible that tells you about God." Boykin also revealed that the reason the terrorists are out to get us is -- get this -- "because we're a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christians." Yeah, they just can't stand Christians! That's the ticket. And Boykin's motivation in battle against Muslims? "I knew my god was bigger than his. I knew that my god was a real god and his was an idol." This is the U.S. Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence speaking, which speaks volumes about the motivations of the Bush Administration in pursuing its course of war.
Of course, George W. Bush refuses to disparage Boykin's religiously fundamentalist war doctrine, which tells us a great deal about Bush's own allegiance to Boykin's dangerously unhinged vision of the world. (Source: Associated Press October 18, 2003)
George W. Bush's tolerance of William G. Boykin's intolerance is an older story than this. The Bush Administration has long been aware that Boykin used his position as leader of a military base within the United States to provide unique and unprecedented access to civilian Southern Baptist missionaries so that they would have the opportunity to convert Green Beret soldiers to their particular fundamentalist version of Christianity. Boykin even invited hundreds of Southern Baptist evangelists to attend a special Fort Bragg event for their organizational benefit.
Did George W. Bush ask Boykin to resign for his use of taxpayer funds in the name of conservative religious evangelism? Of course not. (Source: New York Times April 6, 2003)
An Army veteran with more than 20 years of experience anonymously relates his own reaction to Bush's war:
"I had one guy tell me all he wanted was to see his little daughter; she was born three days after the war started. He died in the sand holding my hand and crying because his daughter would never know him. Tell me that's fucking right. Where was George Bush when this kid was gasping for air and spitting his blood on foreign soil?... That asshole went AWOL and never showed up for duty and then he has the nerve to take us into two different wars that will be going on for years." (Source: Coalition for Free Thought in Media October 19, 2003)
The same soldier who must share his story anonymously to avoid prosecution by his superiors shares this glimpse of George W. Bush's war of choice:
"Let me tell you about the cluster bomb raid we saw wipe out a whole bunch of little kids. It looked like they had already lost their parents and were trying to salvage food from a destroyed Iraqi convoy by the side of the road we were on. The kids were way off to the side about half a mile away by then when we got the word that the Iraqi column was going to be hit with cluster bombs and we had to clear the area. We got on the radio and tried to get the air strike stopped but we were told it was too late to get it stopped.
We could see the body parts flying up into the air after the bombs hit. It was terrible and we could not do a damn thing but watch it happen and scream into the radio at the dumb shit pilot that was dropping the bombs. After the strike was over we went to see if there were any survivors and all we found was bits and pieces of little kids and here and there an arm or leg you could still identify." (Source: Coalition for Free Thought in Media October 19, 2003)
And what awaits veterans when they come home from dutifully carrying out the job George W. Bush sent them to do? The soldier who must remain anonymous continues his report:
"Well the first thing I would like to thank Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Congress for is that nice huge cut they made to Veterans Benefits as soon as the war started. I am in the Reserves after years of active duty and now I cannot get PTSD counseling or many medical benefits I used to take for granted. I knew I would have the benefits because I was laying my life down for my country. Now my benefits are cut by around 2/3 and I have to go to either group therapy or pay for a private counselor out of my own pocket. What happens when someone like me has been through enormous battle stress and combat fatigue and then comes home to no counseling?
I'll tell you what is going to happen, he will either kill himself or take a bunch of people with him. Some of the guys coming back are going to have gone through the worst time of their lives with their buddies dying and getting hurt, and then they'll find out they got screwed out of any counseling. It is the greatest disservice America is committing against soldiers who fought for this country and may come back wounded or horribly scarred. Medical services, school aid to dependents, school aid for the vets, all slashed to the bare bones; mental health and drug and alcohol counseling are being eliminated or the waiting lists will be years long for whatever services manage to survive.
That is one thing the American people still have not really caught on to is the fact that while they were screaming out 'Support Our Troops' the current regime makers were fucking the military and veterans out of almost every social program and non essential service that would make life easier." (Source: Coalition for Free Thought in Media October 19, 2003)
Last month has now officially been declared the hottest September on record. George W. Bush policy to combat increasingly undeniable global warming and the consequent catastrophes we face: do nothing. (Source: Associated Press October 18, 2003)
Even the money is talking against George W. Bush. Although the media is fond of fawning over the whopping $84.6 million Bush raised in the first three quarters of 2003, what's even whoppinger is the $98.6 million raised by the Democratic presidential candidates in the same period. (Source: Center for Responsive Politics at Opensecrets.org)
George W. Bush's own dad is so upset at his administration's policies that he has given Bush's most vocal Senate critic, Edward Kennedy, the 2003 George Bush Award for Excellence in Public Service. (Source: Boston Globe October 18, 2003)
Barbara from British Columbia shares the perspective of our neighbors from north of the border (that's Canada, George): "extremely tired of his lies, deceptions and incredible disdain of other nations who opposed the war in Iraq... in other words, we are just plain Bushed."
The American people deserve to have a President who knows how to play in the major leagues with the rest of the world leaders - we cannot afford the "Bush-league" rudeness that inevitably comes back to bite us.
Little men who are unsure of themselves are the most dangerous -- they overcompensate by turning into tyrants. The world cannot stand four more years of a little man at the helm.
Hundreds upon hundreds of Americans have died in Iraq in the course of prosecuting George W. Bush's war of choice. In our country, one traditional way to honor the sacrifice slain soldiers has been the ceremonial reception of soldiers in their caskets upon their arrival. Since the days of Vietnam, such ceremonies have been televised as a way of allowing the nation to share in the reverential moment -- and as an indicator of the finality that war brings.
Now comes word that the administration of George W. Bush, which sent these soldiers to die halfway around the world, has not only banned these ceremonies, but has also banned media from covering the return of slain soldiers to our country.
Bill Clinton not only allowed these ceremonies to occur; he took it upon himself to personally attend these ceremonies as a way of honoring the soldiers' sacrifice for their country.
George W. Bush, on the other hand, would rather act by fiat to hide the painful consequences of his actions. (Source: Washington Post October 21, 2003)
George W. Bush and Republican politicians in Washington tried to force class action lawsuits, aiming to relieve the millions suffering the effects of pollution and corporate malfeasance, away from state courts and into federal courts, where the rules make it harder for victims to gain compensation for the harm done to them. You can always count on Bush to stand with corporations and against the people who are hurt by them.
By the way, the scheme of Bush and his Party failed, thanks to the Democrats in Congress who are finally standing up to him. (Source: Washington Post October 23, 2003)
Speaking of malfeasance, George W. Bush can't manage to pronounce the word right. He says "malFEEance." Repeated mispronunciation of words is a sign that someone doesn't read those words very much. (Source: White House press conference, Washington, D.C., Jul 8, 2002)
The move to stop class action lawsuits against corporate misconduct is not only another piece of evidence that Bush and the Republican Party stand with corporations and against people, it's also another piece of evidence that the "states' rights" excuse the GOP attaches to its most odious policies is a sham. When it's convenient to its corporate friends, the Bush team is all too happy to squash states' rights.
In yet another "who needs states' rights after all" move, the Bush Administration promised to issue an federal executive order exempting the Salvation Army from state and local laws against anti-gay discrimination. The Salvation Army, in turn, promised to give public support to George W. Bush and his policies. Sweetheart deals, rank hypocrisy, and smearing the queers all in one day -- how impressive. (Source: Washington Post July 12, 2001)
George W. Bush's very first official act as President was to block the funding of family planning organizations. Bush's first executive order, issued on the 28th Anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade decision, prohibits the funding of family planning organizations overseas if those organizations use their own privately raised funds to lobby their own governments in favor of less restrictive abortion laws. Although Bush justified his order by saying that "taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions," taxpayer funds were not in fact being used for those purposes, since that's been illegal since 1975.
Further, the executive order places a gag on family planning organizations worldwide, keeping them from even discussing abortion issues if they want badly needed U.S. funds. Bush's first order was designed to curtail the use of contraception in the developing world, a change that only increases the suffering of poor families -- and back-alley abortions to boot. (Source: BBC News January 23, 2001)
George W. Bush's idea of personal sacrifice during his war against Iraq: a commitment to no sweets as long as soldiers are overseas risking their lives. Bush's follow-through on this commitment: lacking. He's taken to sucking on life savers. (Source: Washington Post October 26, 2003)
When George Bush Jr. visits his mom and dad, Dad reads the text of every story in the newspaper. When Dad frets over the contents of the news, Bush Jr. tells him to "forget it." When Bush Jr.'s turn with the paper comes, he quickly skims over the headlines, then puts the paper down. (Source: New York Times October 27, 2003)
The Bush Administration refused for month after month after month to turn over documents requested by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a panel given full legal authorization by the U.S. Congress to collect and review information about the attacks of September 11, 2001. Commission head Thomas Kean (a Republican, mind you) became so frustrated with Bush's stonewalling that he made preparations in October 2003 to issue a subpoena of those documents. (Source: New York Times October 28, 2003)
MIT scientists reported in late October of 2003 that they had succeeded in growing cartilage, liver and neural tissue from stem cells. This development heralds the promise of new organs grown to restore the health of millions threatened by cancer, paralysis and degenerative disease. George W. Bush supports a ban on these life-saving therapies. Bush stands in the way of a cure. (Source: Boston Globe October 28, 2003)
In the wake of "Operation Enduring Freedom," it's an embarrassment that our nation's leader and his cabinet act so much like freedom is something to endure.
Now that his war of choice in Iraq isn't working out so well, George W. Bush is trying to dissociate himself from it in big and little ways. On Tuesday, October 28, Mr. Bush tried to claim that neither he nor his staff had anything to do with the "Mission Accomplished" banner flying behind him as he spoke on the Aircraft Carrier Abraham Lincoln on May 1. After journalists uncovered other banners with the same background and typeface placed behind Bush at other speeches, the Bush Administration backtracked and admitted that it did indeed make and place the banner. (Source: Army Times October 28, 2003)
If tales of Bush administration sleaze and consequent coverups continue to leak out like this, they'll have to rename it the Whitewash House.
Remember that No-Bid contract the Bush Administration handed to Halliburton, the corporation headed by Dick Cheney until he became Vice President? Well, guess what Halliburton's doing with the gift -- overbilling the U.S. Government for gasoline by more than a two and a half dollars per gallon. This is what happens when cronyism is allowed to creep into politics. (Source: New York Times December 10, 2003)
How did the Bush Administration react to Halliburton's crooked conduct? It decided to extend Halliburton's no-bid contract. (Source: Associated Press October 29, 2003)
Surprise, surprise: it turns out that Halliburton, Bechtel and the other companies that won no-bid contracts taking government money in Iraq were huge contributors to George W. Bush and the Republican Party. (Source: New York Times October 31, 2003)
On October 28, 2003, a reporter asked George W. Bush the following question: "Can you promise a year from now that you will have reduced the number of troops in Iraq?" George W. Bush refused to answer the question, referring to it as a "trick question." It's a simple question; perhaps the tricky part is getting out of a quagmire. (Source: White House Press Conference October 28, 2003)
George W. Bush serves as commander-in-chief of the Washington, DC National Guard, and so the traditional thing for him to do is to offer his condolences to any member of the DC National Guard who dies in combat. But he hasn't bothered to contact the family of fallen guardsman Darryl Dent. As Courtland Milloy reports: "We haven't heard from him or the White House, not a word," said Marion Bruce, Dent's aunt and family spokeswoman. "I don't want to speak for the whole family, but I am not pleased." (Source: Washington Post September 8, 2003)
When George W. Bush and John Ashcroft's Justice Department publicly released a study of racial discrimination in the Justice Department, they "redacted" (the polite word for censored) the considerable number of sections of the report that criticized the department's lack of tolerance for diversity. Did they think we wouldn't notice the big black marks where words should be? (Source: New York Times October 31, 2003)
How bad is it in Bush's Iraq? Sentries at the Rashid Hotel in Baghdad, where officials of the Provisional Authority live and eat, are placed with official orders to prevent reporters' entry unless they are chaperoned by a government press handler. (Source: New York Times November 2, 2003)
The Bush State Department came up with a report accurately predicting the chaos of post-war Iraq. The Bush Defense Department was feuding on a personal level with members of the Bush State Department and so ignored the report. George W. Bush's job as an administrator is to bring differing departments into the same room, regardless of squabbling and get them to work jointly for a common goal. George W. Bush's job as a leader is to synthesize information from various sources and create a sensible strategy for action. George W. Bush couldn't handle these essential presidential tasks. (Source: New York Times Magazine November 2, 2003)
George W. Bush has so alienated the world that the stiffly polite British are publicly burning him in effigy (Source: The Guardian November 3, 2003)
You've got to set a good example for your kids. If you've got kids and you're a parent worth your salt, you're trying to teach them to do the right thing and tell the truth. You're trying to teach them the difference between a little white lie and a serious lie. When is a lie serious? When it hurts somebody. The truth is simple enough for a child to understand: BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED.
Now, if you have kids, and you vote for Bush, what's the moral lesson? You're teaching your kids that it's OK to tell a serious lie sometimes--if you have the power. You're teaching them that you can somehow be "right" even if you are totally wrong. You've fallen off the slippery slope of moral relativism into the sea of absurdity, and that's where you're raising your kids.
Is it any of my business how you raise your kids? Well, as conservative moralists have argued, your kids are going to grow up and become a part of the society that I live in. And I don't want to live in a the kind of morally bankrupt society you are helping to create by raising your kids in a moral vacuum. So it's my responsibility to exhort you parents to set a good moral example for your children. So I came up with a little rhyme that you can use to teach your children right from wrong:
When people die
It's no little white lie
I will tell everyone I can
Bush is a bad bad man
Hey, maybe Bill Bennett can put that in his next book (if he's not too busy gambling). Somehow, I think ol' B.B. won't be too keen on my little ditty. I'd like to see him explain why in a way that doesn't smack of "moral relativism."
Bin Laden killed thousands of people for no good reason. You'd vote against him if you had a chance, wouldn't you? Well, Bush has also killed thousands of people for no good reason--and you have a chance to vote him out of office.
Because united we STOOD, until Bush tried to drag us all to the right of Mussolini.
Because we can imagine a greater American epic than one that ends: "and the cowboy shot them all. The end."
The Bush Administration's Security and Exchange Commission is supposed to inspect mutual funds to ensure that brokers dealt on the straight and narrow. Instead, it turns out that huge swaths of the mutual funds brokerage houses gave sweetheart deals to large-scale investors that illegally allowed them to trade after-hours at the expense of small-scale investors. And Bush's poorly-funded SEC didn't carry out enough inspections to catch these evil-doers. Indeed, Bush's SEC didn't even follow up when a whistle-blower literally walked into its office with documentation and alerted them to the problem. New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, whose well-funded investigation (along with an investigation of the well-funded Massachussets Securities Division) uncovered the shenanigans, says that Bush's SEC engaged in "an outrageous betrayal of the public trust.... The regulators who were supposed to have been watching this industry were asleep at the switch." (Sources: Boston Globe October 24, 2003 and Rocky Mountain News November 1, 2003)
You probably aren't surprised by any of this, are you? Isn't that a shame? And doesn't it tell us something about the moral state of the Bush Adminstration?
George W. Bush has changed his tune. Now that weapons of mass destruction are not to be found in Iraq, Bush and his cronies croon that the real reason we went to war was to get rid of domestically evildoing Saddam Hussein. Let's for a moment attempt to take their claim seriously. We'll try... sorry, we just can't do it. How can we take this latest, newest justification seriously when in 2002 the Bush Administration gave half a billion dollars to Uzbekistan, the regime of which uses torture in interrogation and the president of which kills his opponents with boiling water? (Source: New York Times October 26, 2003)
In George W. Bush's America of 2002, 3.8 million families skipped meals because they couldn't afford them -- a 13.0% increase from 2000 and a 8.6% increase from the previous year alone. (Source: Associated Press November 1, 2003)
George W. Bush is becoming so unpopular that his own campaign is releasing estimates that Bush will fall very far behind Democratic candidates in the polls during the Spring of 2004. This is so that in the event that Bush falls moderately behind, the Bush campaign can claim he is doing better than "expected." (Source: Associated Press November 3, 2003)
Reading so many reasons to boot Bush in 2004 must make you tired and thirsty. So go ahead, take a break. Head over to your kitchen, get a glass of tap water, and drink it down. Aaaaahhhh... refreshing, no? Well, enjoy it while you can. Bush's EPA (the P is supposed to stand for "Protection") is loosening sewage-treatment regulations to allow for more untreated sh..stuff in your drinking water. The Bush EPA euphemistically refers to this as "blending." Mmmm! (Source: USA Today November 3, 2003)
For those looking for an alternative to George W. Bush's pre-packaged McCampaign, one need look no further than the website of John Kerry. Kerry offers approach a useful contrast in ethics and assumptions about the intelligence of followers:
John Kerry's high-road approach is a demonstration in action that he would make a better President than George W. Bush.
George H.W. Bush wrote in his book A World Transformed: "To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant, into a latter-day Arab hero... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war, it could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater instability." George W. Bush should have listened to his dad. (Source: A World Transformed, quoted in the New York Times March 8, 2003)
Colin Powell once wrote, "Occupying Baghdad comes at an unpardonable expense in terms of money, lives lost and ruined regional relationships." George W. Bush should have listened to his Secretary of State. (Source: Foreign Affairs, 1992, quoted in the New York Times March 8, 2003)
Well, George W. Bush is a Republican, you know. His presence on the national stage strengthens the hands of reactionary ghouls like Tom Delay and Trent Lott.
How out of touch is the Bush Administration? When a reporter asked Donald Rumsfeld whether he had lost his "mojo," Rumsfeld responded that "I don't know what it means... in 1926 or something, it had to do with jazz music." (Source: Reuters October 31, 2003)
Even Republican politicians are admitting in public that George W. Bush has been a royal idiot about Iraq. Recently, Representative Jim Leach of Iowa told a group of reporters that Bush's optimistic outlook about the war in Iraq is "one of the most misguided assumptions in the history of United States strategic thinking". Geez. If that's what a professional Republican has to say about Bush's performance as Commander-In-Chief, then things have got to be going very sour in the Bush White House. (Source: Washington Post, November 5, 2003)
It has been revealed that in the days before the American invasion of Iraq, the Iraqi government sent a message to the Bush Administration repeating its claim to have no weapons of mass destruction and offering to allow American soldiers to search throughout Iraq in order to verify this claim.
George W. Bush and his top aides rejected the offer.
I'm not making this up, folks. If you don't believe me, go ahead and read the article from the Associated Press, printed in the Times Daily of Northeast Alabama - hardly a bastion of liberal media bias.
Pentagon officials have confirmed that this message was received and rejected.
The upshot is this: George W. Bush had the chance to send American soldiers to search Iraq for the weapons of mass destruction he thought were there, but which turned out not to be there.
Bush didn't need to send American soldiers to war. The Iraqi government was willing to allow them in peacefully.
Bush turned this offer down because he wanted to send American soldiers to war, not because American soldiers had to go to war.
What's particularly despicable is that George W. Bush never even had the courage to tell the American people about this offer. He kept it secret. He lied when he told us that there was no other way but war to disarm Iraq. He not only betrayed the American soldiers he sent to die, he betrayed the entire American nation.
You want another 4 years of that? (Sources: Associated Press November 6, 2003 and New York Times November 6, 2003)
Under Vice President Dick Cheney's instruction, Bush's EPA (Emitting Pollution Accelerated) has dropped investigation of 50 power plants for violations of the Clean Air Act. The Bush Administration explains that it would simply have been too expensive for the power plants to obey the law. (Source: New York Times November 6, 2003)
Scott M. writes in, "While George Bush drank and snorted his way out of his National Guard obligation, he has no compunction about sending young men and women into harm's way in his 51st State of Iraq. How many Americans in the Guard who went awol do you think would have escaped jail? Certainly not this pampered buffoon - this one ends up in the White House...what a shame on America."
"We believe that 2 million people would even borrow $100 for the pleasure of sending this man back to Crawford, Texas." So said Howard Dean in his November 8, 2003 announcement of a strategy to build a campaign based on $100 contributions from regular people, rather than $2,000.00 contributions from the very rich. Howard Dean's strategy took power away from the exclusive grasp of the very rich and distributes it back to a larger number of regular people. Howard Dean had a richer appreciation of populist civic politics than George W. Bush ever will.
With all the bizarre shenanigans George W. Bush is engaged in, sometimes I have to doublecheck my newspaper to make sure I didn't pick up a copy of the Weekly World News.
Private Jessica Lynch, in her own words, when the Pentagon isn't speaking for her:
"...they used me as a way to symbolize all this stuff. Yeah, it's wrong."
"It hurt in a way that people would make up stories that they had no truth about. Only I would have been able to know that, because the other four people on my vehicle aren't here to tell the story. So I would have been the only one able to say, yeah, I went down shooting. But I didn't."
When Private Lynch was captured in the middle of the American invasion of Iraq, the Bush Administration claimed that Private Lynch was dramatically rescued from torturers during the course of a gun battle. They also claimed that Private Lynch had fiercely resisted capture. It turns out that the Bush Administration just made it all up, exaggerating the struggle of Private Lynch in order to score public relations points.
Lying about a captured, injured, and often unconscious soldier to look good - way to "support the troops", Mr. Bush!
It's just downright shady that a man who says things are "fabulous!" so often would be so callously indifferent to discrimination against gay, lesbian and bisexual people. (Source: Betty Bowers, "Is Bush Gay?")
Made-in-the-USA textile businesses are infuriated at the Bush Administration for failing to address the economic fallout of cheap, sweatshop-produced clothing flooding into this country from China. Says John Emrich of Guilford Mills, "So far, we have not been able to get our message across to anyone in this administration. They have dragged their feet on every issue and patted our heads as if we are the sort of people who don't get it." When even corporations start getting angry at a Republican President, you just know he's doing an awful job. (Source: Associated Press November 7, 2003)
The Bush Administration whines that its ultra-conservative judicial nominees are being blocked by Senate Democrats. There are two problems with this story. First, the Senate is majority Republican. Second, the Senate has confirmed 168 of Bush's judicial nominees and rejected only 4. This makes for a higher success rate than in the Clinton presidency. Whining does not become a presidency. (Source: New York Times November 10, 2003)
"No amount of money can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering that they went through" -- so says Bush Administration spokesman Scott McClellan. The Bush Administration really means "no amount of money." After a group of American soldiers tortured by Saddam Hussein won a court settlement for compensation of their suffering in time of war, the Bush Administration took away the pool of money from which the compensation was to come. Why will these soldiers never see a dime? The money is needed for the prosecution of Bush's new war of choice in Iraq. (Source: New York Times November 10, 2003)
In the face of a huge error, a humbler Secretary of Defense would own up to his mistakes and learn from them. But when asked by journalists about his assertion that the Iraqi public would welcome Americans after the invasion, Bush's Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld denied the truth, sharply commenting "Never said that. "Never did. You may remember it well, but you're thinking of somebody else. You can't find, anywhere, me saying anything like either of those two things you just said I said." Of course, Donald Rumsfeld said exactly that on national televion on February 20, 2003. But Rumsfeld is in denial -- and we are paying the price. (Source: Ocala Star-Banner November 9, 2003)
How vulnerable are we at home with the Bush administration fighting two wars? For Veterans Day 2003, parades across the country were scrapped because there weren't enough troops left back home to march in them. The most important role a military can play, defense, is being sorely neglected by Bush and company. (Source: Washington Post November 10, 2003)
In his November 10, 2003 remarks at the Convention Center in Little Rock, Arkansas, George W. Bush said, "I appreciate the grass roots folks who are here, the people making this party work." It cost $2,000.00 a person for these "grass roots folks" to make it in the door. Those are some pretty richly fertilized "grass roots." I'd like to see the grass.
Jennifer H. of Maine writes in, "With Bush in office the song we ought to be humming is 'Fail Did the Chief.'"
In its desperate bid to hide the deadly outcome of its war of choice, the Bush Administration has taken to renaming body bags "transfer tubes." (Source: Chicago Sun-Times November 11, 2003)
Let us consider family values!
Yesterday, I glanced at the USA Today newspaper in the library, and my eye was caught by by one of those little charts they've always put down in the corner of the front page. According to this chart, the number one reason that most American families do not sit down together for an evening meal is that one or more of the parents is forced to work long hours that bring them home long after dinnertime is over!
What!?!? You mean Hollywood isn't to blame? You mean it isn't the "Gay Agenda"? How could it be that the lack of mandatory prayer in school was not to blame? I'm shocked! Shocked!
No, it looks like the reason that American families can't even sit down to dinner together anymore is that they're having to work longer and longer hours just to make ends meet.
Now, I find this to be kind of interesting, considering that one of the Republican Party's current missions is to ABOLISH OVERTIME PAY. No, really, it's true! George W. Bush himself spent months this year pushing a bill through Congress that would have made millions of American workers exempt from overtime pay. So, under the Bush plan, American workers ought to work overtime, taken away from their family evening meals, but then get no overtime pay for it. That's actually what the Bush bill said!
Folks, that's not family values. That's corporate values. That's Republican elite values.
The Republicans are the anti-family values party, and America needs to wake up before Bush and the Republicans do further damage to the American working family. (Source: USA Today November 11, 2003)
Four more years of the performance of George W. Bush will strain the capacity of our mental health care system as Americans deal with the negative repercussions of stress, anxiety, depression and a loss of contact with reality.
The looming certainty of four more years of Bush-induced damage to our security, our liberties, our environment and our grammar would induce a crippling December 2004 brain drain as some of our smartest, most capable citizens moved to saner places like Canada. We cannot afford to let this happen!
We can't take another four years of this guy. If he's re-elected, somebody's going to have to have oral sex with him so we can get him impeached. Please don't let it come to that!
Are you thirty-something? Remember the '80's? The big hair? The neon
spandex? Swatches? That crazy music? Good times.
Remember when Reagan was president, and he decided to balloon the nuclear
arsenal until it could kill tens of thousands of dozens of millions of people, and the Soviets offered to sign a treaty stipulating that neither side would use nuclear weapons first, and Reagan refused to sign it? Good times.
Remember when you started understanding what nuclear weapons could do,
and you got really scared, and you found out how close you were to the nearest city or military base or power plant, and figured out whether you'd get swallowed up in the fireball, or get caught in the shock wave, or take a heavy dose of radiation that would punch millions of little holes through your body and die in a few weeks of the infections you got when your intestinal fluids leaked into your abdominal cavity, or whether you'd have the chance to try to survive for a few months or years in
whatever was left of the world? Good times.
Remember that night when you were eleven and you had that nuclear
nightmare, and you woke up around 2:30 in the morning and walked downstairs and looked around and saw all the telephone poles still standing and slowly realized that you weren't the only person left alive or a ghost, but you were still scared, and you finally went back to bed and got to sleep around 4:00. Then suddenly there was this blast of light and you threw your arm over your eyes and jumped out of bed groping for a
place to brace for the shock wave, until it gradually dawned on you that it was morning and that light was the sun? Good times.
What's all this got to do with Bush? Read on. REMEMBER THE THING THAT
SCARED YOU THE MOST? WHAT IF SOME CRAZY WORLD LEADER DECIDED TO START A WAR FOR NO GOOD REASON? And what if it turned out you had voted for the guy? Was that what made you decide not to care anymore--not to vote anymore? Well, 2004 is the year to turn it all around, because GEORGE W. BUSH HAS STARTED A WAR FOR NO GOOD REASON! We can not, even
through inaction, allow this man who has proven he will start a major war for no good reason to keep his finger on the button for another four years.
Retired General Wesley Clark knows what war is. George W. Bush has only played war games. This voice of experience, leadership, character and courage could outwit and outmatch George W. Bush any day. Wesley Clark made an outstanding candidate for President of the United States in 2004. Compared to Clark, George W. Bush is a mediocre choice.
"Barron" contributes this reason:
Bush got into Yale on a type of affirmative action that helps the rich and well connected but he denies any help to those who started a mile
behind the starting line and have made huge steps to catch up. Affirmative action is right for those who through no fault of their own went to bad schools and have made huge strides to catch up. Bush would reserve affirmative action for the rich who went to private schools but snorted too much cocaine with their parents' money to get into school on their own merit.
The Bush Administration's stupendous idea for protecting American freedom: Operation TIPS, in which American citizens were encouraged to volunteer as spies on their fellow citizens, calling in legal but "suspicious" behavior to the FBI. They tried it this way in East Germany, and it would have been done in the USA too if Democratic lawmakers hadn't called a halt to the Bush-Ashcroft plan. (Source: New York Times November 16, 2003)
Even without Operation TIPS, the fearmongering of George W. Bush and John Ashcroft has the effect of provoking some portions of our citizenry into acts of dangerous paranoia. Bush-supporting tipsters alerted Secret Service agents that A.J. Brown of Durham, NC had material threatening the President. The agents visited Brown for an interview, to find only a poster stating opposition to Bush's implementation of the death penalty in Texas. Quel overreaction. (Source: CBS News May 16, 2002)
Under Bush's administration, the FBI is investigating bumper sticker makers! Srini Kumar got a visit from the FBI for operating a website, unamerican.com, that sells bumper stickers saying "Darn the gov't" and "fuck the republican party." Is that criminal? (Source: CBS News May 16, 2002)
The campaign to re-elect George W. Bush is at it again.
In an e-mail to the Bush faithful, the Bush-Cheney team writes of George Soros that "the Wall
Street Journal says that he sees 'America as the gravest threat to world freedom.'"
Wow! George Soros sees America as the gravest threat to world freedom? Wow. I mean, it's a quote, right?
No. The unnamed authors of this hack-email pull a fast one here. See, the quotes around "America as the gravest threat to world freedom" refer to the Wall Street Journal, not to George Soros. The Wall Street Journal of November 10, 2003 reads as follows:
More recently, since September 11, Mr. Soros has made it his goal to burst what he has called "the bubble of America supremacy." He has said that having helped to liberate Communist countries, he now views America as the gravest threat to world freedom. In the Financial Times in March, he wrote that Mr. [Bush] "deliberately fosters fear because it helps to keep the nation lined up behind the president."
See, the Wall Street Journal doesn't quote George Soros as stating the phrase "America as the gravest threat to world freedom." But the Bush-Cheney campaign uses the quotes to make it appear that George Soros said it. The thing is, I cannot find a single reference to George Soros referring to "America as the gravest threat to world freedom" on Google, Google News or the entire Lexis-Nexis archive of news transcripts, world news, U.S. newspapers, magazines, or abstracts.
That's because, of course, George Soros didn't say these words. The Wall Street Journal Editorial staff said them.
And now conservative stooges like Michael Costello continue to spread this piece of falsehood, embellishing it even further in posts like these:
George Soros, currency trader and destroyer of nations, has chosen his man - Howard Dean - as the best candidate to advance his cause of bursting "the bubble of American supremacy."
He believes that America represents the " the gravest threat to world freedom."
Michael Costello's concoction is further distanced from reality, making no reference to the Wall Street Journal but instead generating a sentence that can only be interpreted as a false reference to the direct words of George Soros.
So hey, conservatives, if you are going to insult George Soros, who is neither a friend nor an acquaintance of mine, at least bother to look up the original source before you do. This makes you look really ignorant, and I'm inclined to disbelieve the rest of what you write.
But wait! There's more!
I could stop there. But there's more to bother about in this whole affair. There's the whole "bubble of American supremacy" quote.
Does George Soros really want to burst "the bubble of American Supremacy?"
Gosh, the Wall Street Journal sure makes it look like he does. But the handily anonymous editorial staff doesn't include the verb "burst" in their quote, do they? The quote is the title of an editorial Soros wrote for The Korea Herald, the text of which closely follows an editorial Soros wrote for the Financial Times (that's the editorial the Wall Street Journal refers to in the quote [of the WSJ! Not Soros!] above).
What does Soros say in these editorials? Well, follow that link and read his words yourself. He worries about the possibility that George W. Bush is, in his hyperbolic approach, inflating a bubble of false expectations that will inevitably burst, causing great harm as a result. Let me, you know, directly quote Soros:
"In a boom-bust process, passing an early test tends to reinforce the misconception that has given rise to it. That could happen here.
It is not too late to prevent the boom-bust process from getting out of hand." (Source: Financial Times of London March 13, 2003)
See? Soros said he wants to prevent the whole boom-bust thing. The Wall Street Journal editorial staff is twisting and spinning
like a hyperkinetic D.J. to make it appear that the opposite is true.
So let's review:
- The quoted words of George Soros? Soros didn't say them.
- In teeny tiny words, Soros no want bust bubble. Soros want bubble not bust!
- Oooga! Booga! Ug Mug! (perhaps the conservative blogosphere will understand this phrasing.)
Am I surprised that the campaign of George W. Bush and its ally in the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board would stoop to misrepresenting the truth? Of course not. And that's another reason to boot Bush in 2004. (Source: e-mail from BushCheney04@GeorgeWBush.com, November 14, 2003)
Bush's National Security Adviser, Condoleeza Rice, either lied or was completely ignorant of intelligence in the national security apparatus under her supervision when she said of the Niger Nuke Forgery, "no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery". Neither possibility inspires confidence.(Source: Associated Press July 23, 2003)
George W. Bush talks tough when he's surrounded by supporters, but he can't face the heat of opposition. Bush pulled out of a speech to the British Parliament at the last minute after his advisers told him he might be heckled by members of Parliament. Instead, he will give a speech at Buckingham Palace to an invitation-only audience. (Source: The Mirror November 17, 2003)
When I see the headline "Roadside bomb kills 2 U.S. Soldiers in Iraq," my first reaction is no longer surprise. Instead I think to myself, "Are those the same roadside bombing deaths they reported yesterday, or are these new ones?" We've become accustomed to death under the Bush Administration.
When George W. Bush said, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised," he should have inserted the words "in my own misinformed, non-reading, adviser-surrounded, power-drunk mind" after the words "no doubt." (Source: Presidential Address to the Nation March 17, 2003)
"There are a lot of other things that are more important than that," writes Republican Tom Delay, referring to a Democratic proposal to include working families earning up to $26,625 in the $400 child tax credit given to better-off families. At the last minute, Republican Party operatives removed children of the working poor from the tax credit plan.
What, empirically speaking, is "more important" in the Republican Party tax package than including children of the working poor in a child tax credit plan? Dividend benefits for millionaires?
Can we permit George W. Bush and his Republican Party to continue to devalue kids from the wrong side of the tracks like this? (Source: New York Times June 4, 2003)
While we're at it, what kind of cruel jerk thinks it's a cool political maneuver to offer Americans a $400 child tax "credit" that they have to pay back? Yeah, that's right - when you paid your taxes in 2004, you had it pay that "credit" all back so that George W. Bush has enough money to pay for a tax cut to the rich. You don't see George W. Bush asking all those billionaires to pay back their tax cuts, so how come he makes middle-class and working class Americans pay back a tax credit for their children? That's just mean.
After the Bush administration spent more than two years drafting an energy bill in secret and hoarding records of meetings regarding the bill, the text of the bill was finally released on Saturday, November 15, giving Democrats and the public only 48 hours to read it before voting was scheduled to begin. Politicians like Bush only use secretive tactics like this when they have something to hide. (Source: New York Times November 16, 2003)
Bryan writes in with this one: Evicting a doubtlessly disappointed Bush Jr. from the White House just may help put unemployed cocaine dealers and bartenders back to work. Sure, one man may suffer, but it's worth it for the economic health of the country. Hey, that's the Bush Ethic, isn't it?
George W. Bush has so offended the Brits that they've taken to posting signs that say "Special Relationship? I Want a Divorce!" George W. Bush has tarnished not only his reputation, but the long-standing relationship between Britain and the United States. (Source: National Public Radio November 19, 2003)
In his address to an invitation-only crowd at the royal Whitehall Palace in the United Kingdom, George W. Bush said without apparent irony that "duty sometimes requires the violent restraint of violent men." Under this moral principlem, what does that make the men who pursue violent restraint? Who shall in turn "restrain" them? (Source: George W. Bush, Address of November 19, 2003)
In his palatial speech, Bush continued that "the measured use of force is all that protects us from a chaotic world ruled by force." Not only does Mr. Bush's assessment of foreign policy neglect the power of diplomacy, the enabling force of institution-building and the stabilizing effect of economic interdependence, it also clarifies Bush's distinction between good and evil: ordered violence versus chaotic violence. Anyone who has lived under a totalitarian regime will tell you that ordered violence still is violative in nature. Someone, please, slip Mr. Bush a copy of 1984, especially the part about Oceania always being at war...
Harriet Elaine Johnson of Cope, S. C., the mother of slain U.S. Army Specialist Darius T. Jennings, says of Bush's war in Iraq, "it doesn't seem like the American leaders are listening.... Let us not use our babies at the expense of the country to try to prove some kind of power struggle.... I feel quite sure if they had some kids over there, they would have already come up with a plan." (Source: The Wilmington Journal November 20, 2003)
Where in the world is the front in the "War on Terror"? George W. Bush's stated standard: "anywhere the terrorists think they can strike is a front." That kind of dangerous thinking makes the world a battlefield and turns the "War on Terror" into a War on Terra. (Source: Washington Post November 22, 2003)
Typical Bush diplomacy: Queen Elizabeth is furious at George W. Bush for allowing his staff to trample exotic plants and damage shrubs and trees dating back to the reign of Queen Victoria on the grounds of Buckingham Palace. (Source: Sunday Mirror November 23, 2003)
In the fall of 2002, White House economic advisor Lawrence B. Lindsey estimated that a war against Iraq would cost between $100 Billion and $200 Billion. Instead of listening to Lindsey, the Bush Administration quickly put out word that Lindsey was wildly overestimating. Then the Bush Administration fired him. (Source: Los Angeles Times February 26, 2003)
Captain John Teal, of Mechanicsville, killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq. (Source: Washington Post, October 25, 2003)
Donald Rumsfeld's continuing manner of belittling those who question him only builds resentment toward the Bush Administration. Rumsfeld's inability to control his temper is counterproductive and, in a crisis situation, potentially dangerous.
George W. Bush's blog does not permit comments.
The "Students for Bush!" rally at the University of Michigan on Saturday, November 22 gathered together to take a picture for the historical record. In that picture, there are only 37 people out of attended out of 24,517 students endrolled in the fall of 2003. That's a big ol' 0.15% (or 1.5 out of every thousand students) attendance! If this kind of picture merits headline inclusion on Bush's Blog, then what does that say about the depth of his support?
All of the individuals in that picture were white.
In the fall of 2003, conservatives liked to say that Howard Dean was destined to be this generation's George McGovern. Well, gee, that would have made George W. Bush this generation's Richard Nixon.
George W. Bush's campaign blog, the one that does not permit comments, reports that "The Seniors Coalition" has endorsed George W. Bush's medicare bill. TSC says it has "Four Million Supporters." Wow, what a movement! That's more than 3% of the U.S. population.
It turns out that "The Seniors Coalition" is not a movement of four million after all -- the AARP found that as of 2001 TSC didn't list any revenue from membership dues on its tax return (Source: AARP Bulletin February 2003). TSC is a lobbying organization whose latest calendar of activities is limited to the Washington, DC area. In the most recent year for which data is available from the Better Business Bureau, 2001, 65% of "The Seniors Coalition" funds are themselves spent on fundraising appeals, and a futher 16% of expenses are incurred in direct lobbying of officials.
TSC, investigated by Congress in 1992 for mail fraud, is funded by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (source: Minneapolis Star-Tribune November 16, 2003). Indeed, in a campaign contribution made June 12, 2003, Thomas Moore identifies himself as the "Director of Federal Affairs" for PhRMA, but is identified as "Director of Operations" for "The Seniors Coalition" on TSC's website. Moore also attended a press conference of Wisconsin Governor Scott McCallum as a representative of PhRMA on January 31, 2002. I'm sure it's all just a coincidence!
If the Bush administration has to rely on "endorsements" from McMovements like "The Seniors Coalition," support from outside the Beltway must be flagging indeed.
George W. Bush and his Republican Party politicians have control of the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. Yet they cannot manage to accomplish the simplest, most basic tasks necessary for the proper running of the government. As of November 26, 2003, for instance, Bush and the Republicans were two months late in passing an omnibus budget bill, with no date for passage in sight. (Source: National Public Radio Day to Day November 26, 2003)
When the media followed George W. Bush on his visit to Fort Carson, the Army and White House passed out 10 ground rules to the media for them to follow. Rule #3 for the "free press": do not talk to any soldiers or any soldiers' families. (Source: Denver Post November 25, 2003)
More "free press" First Amendment fun: Ground Rule #9 for all media covering George W. Bush's visit to Fort Carson on November 24 instructed that journalists must "Write positive stories about Ft. Carson and the U.S. Army." (Source: Denver Post November 25, 2003)
Even more "free press" fun: Ground Rule #6 for all media at Fort Carson instructed that "no roaming" was to be allowed. After all, journalists might actually end up interviewing someone. Apparently, the Bush Administration does not trust members of the military to follow the Bush party line. (Source: Denver Post November 25, 2003)
Three budget seasons into his four-year term, and Bush has yet to veto a single spending bill. That's just one sign of Bush's fiscal irresponsibility, and the big government spending of the Washington D.C. Republican elite. (Source: CBS News, November 29, 2003)
Republicans are coming out of the woodwork to oppose George W. Bush. Fu's Fume is a series of critical articles written by a man who describes himself as having "been a Republican longer than Rush Limbaugh...Seriously." When members of Bush's own party start deserting him in droves, you know something serious is wrong with him.
Key Bush military adviser Richard Perle laid it on the line in November of 2003 when he said of the invasion of Iraq, "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing." Perle further clarified that international law "would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone." Beware an administration that considers law to be an obstacle. (Source: The Guardian November 20, 2003)
George W. Bush sure seems to enjoy dressing up in military uniforms, doesn't he? What other world leaders do you know of in history who enjoyed doing the same?
The Republican Party that George W. Bush heads is trying to hire a luxury cruise liner so that its delegates and "special guests" won't have to, you know, STAY in New York City during Bush's coronating convention in 2004. Instead, they'll have the best of amenities and avoid the riff-raff. (Source: New York Times December 1, 2003)
Bush's Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was awarded the Foot in Mouth 2003 Award for uttering the following:
"Reports that say something hasn't happened are interesting to me, because as we know, there are known unknowns; there things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."
Therein lies the crux of the Bush administration's problems. While they thought they knew what they knew, they actually didn't know what they knew, and they didn't know they didn't know it. Yet they told the world they knew what they didn't know, and the world didn't know that the administration didn't know that they didn't know what they knew. You know? (Source: Reuters December 1, 2003)
As if putting more arsenic and human sewage in Americans' drinking water isn't enough, George W. Bush and his White House aides have come up with a new poison to let loose, into the air this time: Mercury.
It's a fact: George W. Bush and new EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt have acknowledged that they plan to let their friends in big energy corporations pump more mercury into the air that drifts through American neighborhoods in small towns, cities and even the countryside.
Frank O'Donnell, executive director of the Clean Air Trust, says "It shows that [EPA Administrator Michael] Leavitt is taking orders from the White House, which is influenced by the power companies that want to gut the mercury requirements."
(Source: Atlanta Journal-Constitution, December 3, 2003)
What's ironic about Bush's policy decision is that mercury poisoning can cause abortion. Yes, that's right, abortion of unborn children. You see, when pregnant mothers are exposed to dangerous levels of mercury, the brains of the children growing within their wombs fail to develop. Put a lot of mercury into the air, as Bush is proposing to do, and you'll have otherwise healthy babies being born dead and deformed. If Bush really cared about the unborn, and not just about restricting women's choices, he would make the elimination of mercury not just a policy priority but a moral imperative.
When his Medicare bill seemed in doubt in the Congress, George W. Bush's team pulled out the big guns, offering a $100,000 campaign bribe to Representative Nick Smith for him to change his vote from No to Yes. When Rep. Smith refused to change his vote, his son (who is running to replace him in office) was threatened: Rep. Smith was told that campaign contributors would send extra funds to his son's competitors if he were to vote No. Rep. Smith stood his ground and voted No. After the vote, a number of Republican members of Congress (including perpetual twerp Randy Cunningham) approached Rep. Smith and let him know his son's candidacy was effectively over.
This is the "honor and integrity" that Bush promised to restore to Washington? (Source: Chicago Sun-Times November 27, 2003)
The Washington Post (December 4, 2003) reports that the pretty picture of George W. Bush holding a turkey on a platter to serve the troops on Thanksgiving Day was... a fake. That makes for two fake plastic turkeys in one picture.
The only way to Ban the Bomb is to Ban the Bush
Stephen Cleghorn, 54, is an executive at a D.C. nonprofit group. With his stepson in the U.S. Army in Iraq, Cleghorn talks about his son's military mission in the following way. "I believe he's a conscientious young man who went into the service to defend his country. I just think he's been put on the wrong mission." (Source: Washington Post, October 24, 2003) We agree with Mr. Cleghorn. We also believe that if you want to support the troops, the best way to do that now is to join the campaign to get a new President, so that American soldiers will not continue to be put in harm's way for unnecessary missions.
David Cline, national president of Veterans for Peace says he sees some "eerie parallels to what we went through 30 years ago." He ought to know. Like John Kerry, he went to Vietnam. Although he was of age, George W. Bush did not. (Source: Canadian Press, October 24, 2003)
Hey, for the record, we don't think that its our place to make negative judgments about choices people made about the military draft over 30 years ago. We do very well believe that it is proper and necessary to evaluate the present day actions of politicians according to those politicians' past behavior. We think that it's reprehensible that so many people who decided not to go to war themselves are now
pushing other people's children into unnecessary combat.
On NPR's The Connection, December 5, 2003, Dick Gorden asked the stupidest question I've heard in a long time: Why can't the Democrats come up with a new idea around which the Party can be organized?
This is a question right out of the Republican playbook, and it's a trick. The real answer is that the Democratic Party doesn't need to come up with a new organizing principle. The Democrats have an old one that does just fine. On The Connection, Mario Cuomo identifies it as "we're all in this together."
That's a nice phrase, and it's true, but what it comes down to is much simpler: The Democratic Party stands for the Golden Rule: Do Unto Others as You Would Have Them Do Unto You.
The Golden Rule makes sense not only because it is nice, but because when others (whether they are individuals or nations) are treated with respect they tend to become respect-worthy. When others are treated with fairness, they tend to act fairly. When others are treated with accountability they tend to take responsibility. The Golden Rule works to build more stable, more prosperous, more tightly interwoven and more just societies.
Meanwhile, the Republican Party stands for the Rotten Rule: Do Unto Others Whatever You Can Get Away With.
The Rotten Rule erodes trust, encourages venality, fosters violence, encourages fear, ignores justice, and wastes our energies on destructive gambits.
Bush and the Republicans are Rotten. The alternative is Golden. That's the only reason you need to give Bush the boot. (Of course, we're happy to provide you with many more.)
Who is a citizen of the United States? The current rule is pretty simple when you get down to it: if you were born in this country, you're a citizen. If you weren't born in this country, you must apply for citizenship. This idea about citizenship is so fundamental that it is formally enshrined in the United States Constitution.
Republican Party operatives are trying to change this rule so that you can be born in this country but not be a citizen. Republican Representatives Ron Paul and Nathan Deal are trying to pass laws (H.J. Res 42 and H.R. 1567, respectively) that would deny citizenship to some babies born in the United States. Their bills, introduced in April and May of 2003, have gained the support of a dozen fellow representatives, all of whom are also Republicans.
This is the sort of dangerous nonsense that the Republican Party stands for, and it is why the man at the head of the Republican Party, George W. Bush, deserves to be booted from office.
Bush is fucking up Iraq, he told his aides that he was going to "fuck Saddam," and what does his White House spend its time doing? Criticizing John Kerry for using the word "fuck" when he said, "Did I expect George Bush to f..k it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did."
In the Bush moral universe, reckless foreign policies that end up killing thousands and wasting hundreds of billions of dollars are acceptable. But saying "fuck?" Man, that's just beyond the pale. (Source: Reuters December 7, 2003)
Let's put this one in the "what the hell were they thinking?!?" pile:
Reuters has reported that the Bush Administration is asking for advice from Israel about how to use military units to quash Arab insurgents.
Hm. All right, put aside for a moment your moral opinions about Israel's military campaigns against the Palenstinians and ask this basic operational question:
Has Israeli actually quashed their own Arab insurgents?
The obvious answer is: um, gosh, NO.
For some reason, the Bush Administration and Ariel Sharon's government seem to have overlooked this basic fact. Get this quote from an Israeli security agent, talking about how Israel is giving advice to the Bush Administration on how to run the war in Iraq: "Israel has been providing advice on how to shift from a reliance on heavy, armored occupation troops to mobile forces that are more effective in quelling urban resistance and cause less friction with the general populace."
(Source, Reuters, December 9, 2004)
See, the little problem with this latest plan is that Israel's military campaigns against Palestinian insurgents have not quelled urban resistance. They've increased it. And, as for reducing friction with the general populace, Palestinian anger at Israel has grown, not lessened, as a result of Israel's military raids. To anyone who doesn't have an ideological reason to favor building closer ties with the Israeli government, the military campaigns are an obvious failure. Unfortunately, George W. Bush and his top aides do have an ideologically-based pro-Israel stance that blinds them to the real problems in the military strategy employed by Israel.
Ask almost any American whether they want American troops to get involved in the kind of endless urban warfare that the Israeli military has been stuck in for generations, and the answer you will get is: um, gosh, NO. For some reason, the answer George W. Bush gives to that question is: um, gosh, YES, and how soon can we start?
George W. Bush asking the Israelis for advice on how to deal with the insurgents in Iraq is as profoundly stupid as it would be for Howard Dean to call up Michael Dukakis and ask him how to run a presidential campaign.
Howard Dean is smart enough not to ask miserable failures for advice, but Mr. Bush doesn't appear to have summoned enough brain cells to figure out this basic principle of life.
Making failed military strategy on the basis of political ideology: Yet another reason to give Bush the boot in 2004.
The Bush Administration has announced that in contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq, companies of French, German, Russian and Canadian (yes, Canadian!) nationality need not apply because to do business with them in this way would be against "the essential security interests of the United States." That's no way to treat three long-time allies and one fledgling ally of the United States simply because they (along with the vast majority of countries of the world) opposed a single policy decision of a particular American President. (Source: New York Times December 10, 2003)
But wait, there's more! Matters of justice aside, the Bush administration announced its exclusion of companies from France, Germany, Russia and Canada from bidding for rebuilding contracts just hours before asking those same countries' governments to forgive Iraqi debts. This would all be silly if it didn't matter so much to the people getting ground down and picked off in Iraq. When George W. Bush exercises his diplomatic incompetence, he makes the world a more dangerous place. (Source: New York Times December 11, 2003)
George W. Bush's nominee to be the U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia: Texas oil industry lobbyist James Oberwetter. What interests do you think Oberwetter will better represent, those of the American people, or those of big American oil and energy corporations. (Source: Reuters November 18, 2003)
Rush Limbaugh has been down on his luck lately. Could it be that the strain of defending George W. Bush's ridiculous policies helped push him into drug addiction? If you'd like to help Rush help himself, take Bush out of the picture in 2004 and give Limbaugh a break from breaking with reality.
George W. Bush looked deep into the eyes of Russian leader Vladmir Putin and saw a companion soul. The problem? Putin, a former KGB agent, has been working systematically to undermine democracy in Russia. There's a creepy parallel with what Bush has been doing here in America. Bush wants to do to America what Putin has done to Russia.
Oh, some Republicans will say that it's unpatriotic to even mention this fact, but here goes: In 2003, 15 Afghan children were killed by the American military in just one week. (Source: Washington Post, December 10, 2003)
George W. Bush declared victory in Afghanistan over a year and a half ago, so we find it odd that the war is still going on.
Bush promised the Afghan people that America would rebuild their country. Instead, Bush's attention moved on to Iraq, leaving behind only enough soldiers to do a half-baked job of stabilizing Afghanistan. As a result, warlords are still running most of the country, the Taliban are still fighting, and children are still being slaughtered in the name of Bush's War on Evil.
Yes, we think that it matters. No, we don't think it's unpatriotic to talk about what the American government is doing. We do think that it's downright undemocratic of the Republicans to try to bully Bush's critics into keeping their mouths shut. Oh, but that's another reason to boot Bush, isn't it? It's so damn hard to keep them all straight!
If you try to visit the "grassroots" section of the Bush/Cheney re-election web site, you'll get redirected to the Bush Campaigns "Donate" page, which asks for your credit card information. It seems that Mr. Bush has missed the lesson that the working people of America are good for more than just serving as a source of financial income.
Section 9528 of the No Child Left Behind Act that George W. Bush got passed gives the Pentagon access public schools' directories for students' addresses and home phone numbers. Before this act was passed, one third of public schools declined to share student information with recruiters. This was a local government decision reflecting the will of these communities. George W. Bush has removed this modicum of local control. When it comes to the war-making side of government, Bush is for big government mandates all the way. (Source: Alternet December 9, 2002)
When Bush was (more or less) elected in the year 2000, what did the
people who voted for him expect him to DO? Think about it. The guy openly
confessed he was not a "policy wonk." He didn't really seem too
interested in the details of government. He had a long history as a lazy
party boy. He was elected to DO NOTHING!
I know that seems strange, but think back to the year 2000. The
economy's going great, we're at peace. For a lot of people, it's good
times. As the old saying goes, "running a country is like cooking a small
fish." Don't keep poking at it, just let it cook. The man was elected to
be lazy, get nothing done, and leave well enough alone.
And so it would have been, were it not for the shady entourage. You
know the crew--Cheney, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, Dumbsfeld... And the shady
companies that donated big money and wanted something back regardless of
the consequences to the country--Enron, Halliburton... They all got their
claws into America and screwed it up. They sent our young men and women
to die in the sand based on bogus intelligence. They gouged big chunks
out of the bill of rights. They detained people indefinitely with no due
process, like totalitarian thugs. They messed up our environment, bled
our schools dry, and screwed up our tax code. Bush sucked our budget
surplus dry and got us into a deficit spiral again.
The man has let us down on everything--even his implicit promise to the
American people to slack off and do nothing once he was elected.
Unfortunately for us, he and his creepy crew have done a lot. We would have been better off if Bush had done nothing at all.
Bush seems to like his last name so much, he puts the "sh" sound in words
that don't have an "sh." For BuSH, the bill has to be signed by
CongreSH. Dangerous policies are described as in our intereSHts. How SHelf-absorbed! We thing it's ridiculouSH!
The "At least he isn't Bill Clinton" excuse was old a long time ago.
You can see it in their eyes when they show up on TV -- truly conservative Republican politicians are getting tired of defending free-wheeling, big-spending, bank-busting Bush budget after budget. Put them out of their misery by putting Bush out of power.
George W. Bush had the gall to say to a reporter, televised, in front of the whole country: "one of the things, David, I think you've seen about our foreign policy is that I'm reluctant to use military power." This is the man who, in response to members of his administration inquiring about the progress of negotiation, said "Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out" -- a full year before going to war against Iraq. (Source: Presidential Press Conference December 15, 2003)
In George Orwell's 1984, a totalitarian regime governs under a series of slogans, including this one: "who controls the past, controls the future." The Ministry of Truth in Orwell's novel employs agents to scan the historical record for facts that would embarassing to the Party, then delete them from the record to avoid such embarassment. The totalitarian Soviet Union employed this tactic often, airbrushing "purged" officials out of old photos.
Taking a page from Orwell and the Soviets, the White House has rewritten its posting of George W. Bush's speech of May 1, 2003, changing the phrase "President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended," to the ever-so-much-more convenient "President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended." (Source: Washington Post December 18, 2003)
More Soviet-style truth management: The Bush Administration has eliminated all reference to comments made by United States Agency for International Development administrator Andrew S. Natsios. Natsios aided the pro-war pep rally of the Bush Administration by announcing in an interview with Ted Koppel on ABC that the reconstruction of Iraq would only require an investment of $1.7 Billion on the part of the United States, with all other costs to be paid for by other countries. A transcript of this interview was prominently placed on the USAID website during the summer, but now all reference to it has been eliminated. (Source: Washington Post December 18, 2003)
When confronted with evidence of the elimination of this information from the government database, a USAID spokeswoman requested time to investigate, and then reported back that the information was removed because ABC would have required payment for the government to continue to post it. The trouble with this story is that ABC says not only that nobody from ABC requested payment or the removal of the information, but also that as a matter of policy it would never charge the government for such information. George W. Bush and his apparatchiks just can't handle the truth. (Source: Washington Post December 18, 2003)
Question: Who made this statement?
"In recent years there's such an emphasis on getting there fast with a story that oftentimes after goes out the window. People don't check the facts, people will pick up a story, or allegations that aren't true, if they'd check they'd know they aren't true, but they never bother to check."
Answer: Dick Cheney (absolutely not talking about the weapons of mass destruction fiasco!) (Source: Washington Post December 19, 2003)
Pat writes in: "I have come to the conclusion that our Republican representatives on the hill are like ostriches. Between Washington's Orca whales population, Yellowstone snowmobiles, Alaska drilling, and drilling in the Rockies, their actions betray heads buried in the sand in regard to the long-term health of our planet. Is short-term profit all that matters to Bush's GOP? How short-sighted."
"Yankee" contributes the following reason to boot Bush: "In early November of 2003, President Bush signed the partial-birth abortion ban, going against the principle that we have no right to shove our laws inside a woman's uterus."
Marlana suggests, "Bush is so stupid he supposedly believes that tuna fishers will
self-regulate themselves with his administration's softening the requirements for using the "dolphin safe" label on tuna fish, allowing the label to be used even if the tuna is caught by encircling dolphins in mile-long nets." This kind of homeland security roundup approach to dolphin safety proves that we'd be better off with Flipper in the White House than we would be letting George W. Bush continue his occupation of the Oval Office. (Source: Associated Press January 1, 2003)
The Republican Party that Bush heads is the party of apes like Strom Thurmond, who loudly rallied for racial segregation while hiding his black daughter.
All these orange alerts are making Halloween creepier than ever. They make me wonder, does John Ashcroft plan on searching my jack-o-lanterns for suspicious items?
Would you lend George W. Bush your credit card and tell him to use it however he saw fit? Well, guess what: The Republicans in Congress are letting Bush spend like there's no tomorrow. Still, they tell us not to worry. We won't have to pay anything until, um, tomorrow.
B.K. Prince of Columbus, Ohio writes in: "By supporting the "Defense of Marriage Act", our "president-chosen" Bush is validating the uniquely Christian view that marriage is solely between a man and a woman. The problem is that not all Americans are religious, and not all religious Americans are Christians (Buddhism, for instance, allows gay 'marriage'). Besides, I believe that there's a little section of the US Constitution that says the government shall make no laws establishing a religion. As president-chosen, Bush is supposed to uphold the Constitution, not ram his personal Christian beliefs down everybody's throats. On the basis of his religion, and in defiance of the Constitution, George W. Bush is trying to deny what the US Supreme court called "A basic human liberty" to one-tenth of the United States."
The conservative reactionaries who support George W. Bush try to tell us that gay marriage is against Christian religious tradition, but the plain facts contradict this claim. It's not just non-Christian religion that accepts gay marriage.
Many Christian churches have religious ceremonies consecrating weddings for homosexual couples. The Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, the Unity Fellowship Church, the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, the United Church of Christ, the United Church of Canada, and Reconciling congregations of the United Methodist Churches include gay marriage within their set of religious rituals. So, when George W. Bush and his Republican supporters say that they want to use the power of government to forbid gay marriage, they are taking sides in a struggle between religious groups, supporting conservative religious beliefs and opposing liberal religious beliefs.
The federal government has no place stepping into the middle of a battle about theology and telling Americans which religious beliefs are right and which ones are wrong. On that basis alone, the effort of George W. Bush and his Republican elite extremists to restrict the authority of churches from practicing marriage ceremonies for gay couples is an unconstitutional and illegal blunder. (Source: Human Rights Campaign)
There's enough sand, in enough countries with leaders Bush doesn't like, to soak up the blood of every one of our young men and women. We need to stop Bush from spilling more.
If you hired a servant who started acting like a king, would you rehire him after his contract was up? George Bush is supposed to be our servant (thus the term "public servant"), not our king.
Our troops have got the right stuff, but they've been sent on the wrong mission, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons, by the wrong President.
You know, it's just a matter of time before some reporter slips and calls
the secretary of defense "Mr. Dumbsfeld." We've dodged a bullet so far, but is it worth running the risk for four more years?
Ronald Dumbsfeld's condescending attitude when talking to the American people through the press, besides being just plain annoying, points to a fundamental problem with the Bush administration--they have forgotten they work for us. Remind them in 2004, by firing their sorry asses.
Little did they know it, but the people who cast ballots for Bush in 2000 weren't just voting for the president of the United States. They were also voting for the military dictator of Afghanistan and Iraq. Thinking about voting for Bush in 2004? Think again. You may be voting for the military dictator of Syria or Sudan.
Because our armed forces have a responsibility to the American people: to carry out any mission the government assigns them without question or complaint. They're doing an outstanding job. It's our responsibility as voters to elect a government that will send them on missions for honest reasons, with clear objectives and reasonable expectations for stable outcomes. We let them down in 2000 by allowing Bush to become president. Do right by the troops in 2004. Boot Bush!
Despite putting out the call on their national blog well in advance, the Bush-Cheney campaign only managed to draw a few more than 100 to a pro-Bush rally in Louisiana on January 4 -- outside the jam-packed Sugar Bowl! If this is a groundswell, I'm Patsy Cline. (Source: Bush-Cheney News Release January 5, 2004)
Conservative televangelist Pat Robertson has been telling his listeners that God told him Bush will win in a "blowout election in 2004." Let's make it clear to that blowhard Pat Robertson and his followers that he doesn't have a direct line to God by giving Bush a blowout election loss. (Source: Associated Press January 2, 2004)
Anti-Dean advertisements on the air in Iowa make the damning criticism that Howard Dean drives a Volvo! Eeeeeeeeek! Well, actually, he drives a Ford Explorer. But even in this inaccuracy, pro-Bush campaigners show that they are dividers, not uniters.(Sources: Washington Times January 5, 2004 and Detroit Free Press October 20, 2003)
Another anti-Dean criticism in the Iowa advertisement: members of his campaign read a newspaper! Apparently, the pro-Bush campaigners consider literacy and knowledge to be dangerous. (Source: Washington Times January 5, 2004)
Yet another anti-Dean criticism in that Iowa advertisement: his campaign team eats sushi! We all know who eats sushi: Slanty-eyed furriners, the kids of slanty-eyed furriners and the nefarious sort of person who associates with slanty-eyed furriners! Bush supporters will have none of this furriner business. (Source: Washington Times January 5, 2004)
Still another anti-Dean criticism in that Iowa advertisment: his campaign team drinks lattes! The pro-Bush campaign betrays its lack of substantive heft when it stoops to criticizing what opponents put in their coffee. Besides, doesn't the Bush campaign realize that latte drinks are now sold at gas stations all across America? Geez, if we can't even drink gas station coffee without being criticized by Republicans, I don't see why we should we vote for a Republican for President. (Source: Washington Times January 5, 2004)
How strained has the Bush Administration left our national defenses? In order to maintain enough soldiers to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan while defending U.S. borders from attack, the U.S. Army has been forced to order thousands of troops to remain on duty in Iraq even after their term of service has ended. So many soldiers in the Army are planning to leave active duty that the Army has had to increase its re-enlistment bonus to up to $10,000. Thanks to the overstretching offense ordered the Bush administration, the armed forces are having to labor mightily to maintain national defense. (Source: New York Times January 6, 2004)
Dick Cheney's 2003 Christmas card included this quotation: "And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?" Beware a Vice President who thinks God is his ally. (Source: New York Times January 7, 2004)
The whole "empire" reference in the card is a bit troubling, too. The job of the President and Vice President is to run the country, not rule the world.
The most troubling thing about that Christmas card is that Dick Cheney felt comfortable sending out hundreds of Christmas cards with the message that God was his Imperial ally. To root out the moral rot at the base of this hubris, we need to remove the current occupants of the White House.
Between March 16, 2003 and January 7, 2004, 8,848 injured Americans in the U.S. Army alonehad to be evacuated from Iraq. Before he obtained this information, journalist Daniel Zwerdling was bounced from Pentagon office to Pentagon office (and back) for weeks by Bush administration bureaucrats who said they didn't have the information. (Source: NPR All Things Considered January 7, 2004)
There are consequences to the Bush Administration decision to do nothing about global warming. A team of 19 scientists studying 1,103 native species in Mexico, Australia, Brazil, South Africa and Europe conclude that one third of these species could disappear or approach extinction by 2050 if greenhouse gas emissions are not curbed. This isn't crackpot science: results are being published in the prestigious journal Nature.(Sources: Associated Press October 18, 2003 and Associated Press January 7, 2004)
In the time since George W. Bush was elected to office, there's been a fundamental change of direction in American society, one that I haven't heard any economist, social scientist or professional commentator mention. In the last three years, the meaning of Americans' work has undergone a 180 degree reversal.
Just think back to the days when Bill Clinton was in office. Back then, the defining idea about work was that ordinary Americans had finally found the power to make their work their own. Americans were beginning to make free choices about their work, including where, when and to what ends they would work. Record numbers of Americans in the 1990s began to work for themselves, ending their wage enslavement to the whims of bosses.
What's happened since Bush began his occupation of the White House? America has gone back to the days when bosses were kings, ruling the lives of their employees like hungry feudal lords. We're told when to work, how to work, and we're told to like it or else. Under Bush, the bosses have regained the power to cut wages, increase hours and wither down the health care packages workers earn. We're bludgeoned with the hammer of OR ELSE, told that a cruel job is better than no job at all. So, we get busy working at someone else's job, for someone else's interests.
What about the independence we workers gained in the 1990s? The Republicans now tell us that our independence was a dream, a manifestation of workers' "irrational exuberance". The Republicans tell us to get back in our place, under their heels.
Are you going to vote four more years of that?
In his entire term in office, George W. Bush has only met with the Congressional Black Caucus once, snubbing all other requests for a meeting. (Source: St. Louis American January 1, 2004)
Bush's record on the environment is so shoddy that fellow Republicans are coming out of the woodwork to criticize him on it. Prominent Republican politician Pete McCloskey writes regarding the Endangered Species Act, "The administration has stopped designating "critical habitat" for listed species except under court order. It has stopped adding to the list of threatened and endangered species unless ordered to do so by a judge. It has moved to exempt the Forest Service from abiding by the law on the pretext of fire prevention. It is working to weaken the requirement that endangered species be protected from pesticides. And that list barely scratches the surface. The assault on the law is widespread and relentless. The administration and its comrades in arms argue that the law is ineffective, expensive and in need of drastic overhaul. In truth, they are acting as agents for the timber industry, the mining industry, land developers, big agriculture and other economic interests that sometimes find their profits slightly decreased in the short run by the need to obey this law." (Source: Los Angeles Times January 2, 2004)
"We know for a fact that there are weapons there." White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told us, less than three months before the American invasion of Iraq belong. Now, we know for a fact that the supposed weapons of mass destruction were not there. Now, America has to wonder what other facts the Bush Administration claimed to have, when they really didn't at all. Undermining Americans' trust in authority is a serious offense that it not to be rewarded. Get tough! Don't coddle the amoral relativism of the Bush Administration! (Source: White House Press Briefing January 9, 2003)
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and John Ashcroft have got Americans so scared of their own shadows that people are overreacting. How much, you ask? This much: in Salem, Massachussets (yes, that Salem), a woman inquiring about a copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator software for her 10-year old son led the staff at the Staples superstore to report her to the police. How do we know? The state trooper shining a flashlight through a glass door at her home (looking for terrorists of all things) shared the story. (Source: The Register of London August 1, 2004)
Here's the real kicker to that story. It turns out that the Staples store manager who reported this woman to the police said staff was just following the authorities' advice. It seems the FBI had asked for citizens to be on the lookout for people with reference materials, or "drivers with maps." What phrase best describes a nation in which drivers with maps or customers asking about software at stores that sell software become criminal suspects? "Police State" comes to mind. Thanks so much for fanning the flames of fear, George. (Source: The Register of London August 1, 2004)
"Ohollem" writes in: If we give Bush the boot, we won't have to go to the trouble of revising Webster's dictionary to include "misunderestimate," "subliminable," and "suicider."
What is the quality of George W. Bush's presidency? Listen to the judgments of the members of Bush's administration themselves. John J. DiIulio was the highly touted leader of Bush's office of faith-based initiatives. Nonetheless, DiIulio said of the Bush White House that "there is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus. . . . What you've got is everything -- and I mean everything -- being run by the political arm. It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis." (Source: Associated Press January 10, 2004)
How about the man Bush chose to be his Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill? O'Neill says that Bush led cabinet meetings "like a blind man in a room full of deaf people." (Source: Associated Press January 10, 2004)
O'Neill says that when he tried to engage Bush in a dialogue on economic policy, Bush just sat there and said nothing: "As I recall, it was mostly a monologue." That pretty much sums up Bush's approach to the economy. We desperately need a do-something President. (Source: Associated Press January 10, 2004)
Remember all those stories about how Iraq moved its supposed weapons of mass destruction to Syria, and that was why Iraq's weapons of mass destruction couldn't be found? Well, gee, now it turns out that the United States does not have and never had any credible evidence at all to support that conveniently spun yarn. (Source: Associated Press January 9, 2004)
Nathan writes in, "There's gotta be a reason nobody ever compared Clinton to Hitler." Well, Nathan, one good reason we can think of is that, unlike Bush, Bill Clinton did not engage in a systematic attempt to undermine people's basic freedoms in order to establish a central order of law enforcement and domestic espionage used to quash dissent. See, it is possible to lead a nation and not send governmental secret agents out to harass its law-abiding citizens. It's too bad George W. Bush and Adolph Hitler never learned that lesson.
Because if it hadn't been for concerted opposition by progressives, George W. Bush and John Ashcroft would have foisted an expansion of the Patriot Act (dubbed "Patriot Act II") on American citizens. (Source: Alternet January 1, 2004)
Bush's attacks on the environment just come 2 fast and 2 furious 2 follow. As if allowing more sewage and arsenic into drinking water weren't enough, Bush now wants to give the green light to polluting watersheds right at the source.
See, up to now there's been this pesky little regulation that prevented coal miners from disturbing land within 100 feet of a stream unless they could prove it wouldn't harm the water quality or reduce the flow of water. But the mining industry wants that regulation overturned so it can do something called "mountaintop mining": blasting away the top of a mountain ridge to reveal a coal deposit, then dumping the waste into mountain streams. And George W. Bush is going to bat for them.
Did an overwhelming flood of letters from ordinary Americans begging to have their pure alpine brooks turned into heaps of mining waste convince Bush that he just had to act? Or is he taking his cue from the National Mining Association lobbyists?
Bush's plan to bomb the tops off America's mountains is downright unpatriotic. Those aren't just big heaps of rock we're talking about. Bush wants to blow up America's purple mountains' majesty! What's next? Will Bush create a plan to fill up our fruited plains with strip malls?
Congratulations, NMA. The way the administration's towing your line, you may as well be the EPA. I can only plead with you, as I would plead with a monarch, to have mercy on the environment.
And listen up, Bush. You are not my king. And your fatcat lobbyist friends are not my lords. You've got one more year to be their puppet, then we vote you out of office. (Source: The Guardian, Jan. 7, 2004)
Under the administration of George W. Bush, the Pentagon auditors designated to ferret out military waste have been caught in their own cover-up of inconvenient practices. If you think George W. Bush is the man to put a stop to these shenanigans, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. (Source: Associated Press January 10, 2004)
Paul O'Neill, who served in the Cabinet as Treasury Secretary under George W. Bush, says that in the first few months of the Bush Administration in 2001, the Bush White House was already drawing up plans to invade Iraq using American troops. O'Neill's account is corroborated by members of the dissident Iraqi National Congress, who say that officials representing the Bush White House contacted them in early 2001 to include them in planning for an American invasion of Iraq. (Source: CBS News January 10, 2004)
O'Neill on the supposed evidence for weapons of mass destruction: "In the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction. There were allegations and assertions by people. But I've been around a hell of a long time, and I know the difference between evidence and assertions and illusions or allusions and conclusions that one could draw from a set of assumptions. To me there is a difference between real evidence and everything else. And I never saw anything in the intelligence that I would characterize as real evidence." (Source: Time Magazine January 10, 2004)
Part of the early 2001 planning for an invasion of Iraq was the drafting of official planning documents. One of these documents, authored by the Pentagon, is entitled "Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts" and describes areas of the country that are suitable for oil exploration. A war for oil? No, of course not. (Source: CBS News January 10, 2004)
The White House is trying to control political damage from the revelations of Paul O'Neill by sending out anonymous "senior administration officials" to say that Paul O'Neill is an incompetent economist and therefore can't be trusted to speak competently about the goings-on in the White House when he was there. If such accusations are false, they indicate that the Bush White House is willing to engage in baseless slander to protect itself. If such accusations are true, they mean that George W. Bush put an incompetent man in charge of the U.S. Treasury for two years. Neither possibility inspires confidence in the quality of the Bush administration. (Source: CBS News January 10, 2004)
A little afterthought: With what Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill has told us, we now know that George W. Bush had over two years to plan for the occupation of Iraq - and still he got it wrong.
Just in case you were wondering, now another administration official has corroborated O'Neill's story about Bush's early Iraq planning, adding that senior Bush Administration officials started planning for the use of ground forces to invade Iraq long before September 11, 2001. This corroborating official won't let ABC News identify him -- she/he doesn't want to be tarred and feathered like O'Neill. (Source: ABC News January 14, 2004)
According to The Guardian (Jan. 3, 2004), American troops smashed up an Iraqi mosque on New Year's Day, 2004. They roughed up the people they found there, threw copies of the Koran onto the floor, busted open the collection box and took the money. Al-Jazeera satellite television network showed pictures of the damaged Korans. Some weapons were found, though that's par for the course in Iraq, where people have to provide their own security in the absence of an organized, legitimate government.
Imagine the shoe on the other foot. Iraqi soldiers occupying the U.S. in defiance of global sentiment and international law trash your church. They fling Bibles onto the floor, punch your priest, smash your collection box and leave with the money. Would you feel like supporting their "reconstruction" effort, or would you feel humiliated and pissed off?
We all want to see peace and justice restored to Iraq, but if we want the Iraqis to respect us and help with the reconstruction, we need to respect them in return. We need a president who realizes how important it is to show respect for other cultures and religions. We need a president who will clearly articulate: search the mosque if you must, but for Pete Pity's sake don't desecrate it! Bush has not articulated a conscientious plan for law enforcement in Iraq in the past, and we can't count on him to do it in the future.
Back in early 2003, when conservatives told me to shut up and stop criticizing Bush, I told them, "If you want to live under a military dictatorship, go move to Iraq." Now, in 2004, I tell them, "If you want to live under a military dictatorship, go move to Iraq."
Think opposing Bush dishonors the troops? Think again. Bush dishonored the troops by sending them to die and kill based on lies. SUPPORTING Bush dishonors the troops.
Because it ain't morning in America. It's one of our darkest hours. It's time to start a new day.
Come to think of it. Under George W. Bush, it's mourning in America.
Remember in 2001, when people got letters in the mail saying we'd get a check for our tax rebate, then a few weeks later we got a check? I got $300. Thanks, but I would've taken the check and the letter together to save us all some postage. OK, now remember last year when Bush asked for $87,000,000,000 extra for the Iraq war and other stuff he called parts of the war on terror? My share of that works out to around $300 or so too. Now how come I didn't get letter saying I was going to get a bill for $300, or a nice little certificate saying "a debt of $300 has been incurred in your name, which you will not have the option to pay off until it has accrued a whopping great pile of interest"? Why not? Because George Bush is a huckster who's waving cash in our faces with one hand and picking our pockets with the other.
Because sea otters, polar bears, caribou and dolphins don't get to vote, but they have to live with the results or our elections. Along with us humans, Bush has been giving animals the shaft too. If you won't do it for yourself or America, cast an anti-Bush ballot on behalf of our furry friends.
"Deficits don't matter." This was the advice of Vice President Dick Cheney to Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill. Saying that deficits don't matter is as outrageous as saying that credit cards don't matter. I worry about the credit card debts that Dick Cheney must be running up. Does his wife know? Let's get Dick Cheney out of the White House, so that he has some time to attend credit counseling seminars. (Source: Reuters January 11, 2004)
When Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill suggested that the White House tackle corporate crime more aggressively , George W. Bush said that he couldn't do it because of opposition from "the corporate crowd." That's our no-backbone, soft-on-crime Bush! (Source: Reuters January 11, 2004)
Amy M. writes in: "(Bush's) Hot Air is not a viable alternative energy source. Although Bush tried to appear concerned with the environment by coming out with
a plan to fund research into alternative energy sources, namely hydrogen fuel, that plan went up in smoke, so to speak. The money Bush assigned to this research was, apparently, already earmarked for other Energy Department projects. Although not one of his moneyed elite friends (so perhaps I don't understand how The System works), I am perplexed. How can one claim to be funding research with money that is already slated for other projects? Is this another case of shifting money from one account to the other to make the books look good? Oh, wait. I'm getting the Bush administration confused with Enron. Just Hot Air or Green Bush. You decide."
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has released a report warning that thanks to the policies of the Bush Administration, the United States is generating an "unprecedented level of external debt for a large industrial country." The report not only points out that record U.S. budget deficits under Bush threaten the Social Security and Medicare programs, but also that they are poised to raise interest rates around the world, making it harder for working people everywhere to get by. (Source: New York Times January 12, 2004)
Speaking of studies, the Army War College has just released a doozy of a study of its own. It says "the global war on terrorism as currently defined and waged is dangerously indiscriminate,... is strategically unfocused, promises more than it can deliver, and threatens to dissipate U.S. military resources in an endless and hopeless search for absolute security." It concludes that the war against Iraq was unnecessary to protect American security and unnecessarily costly in dollars and American lives. I suppose this means that, by Bush Administration standards, the Army War College is just an unpatriotic and America-hating institution with a liberal bias. (Source: Washington Post January 12, 2004)
George W. Bush has the ignorant audacity to say "no President has ever done more for human rights than I have." Read your history books, George. There have been plenty. (Source: New York Daily News January 11, 2004)
When George W. Bush openly expresses doubt that the leaker who exposed undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame will ever be found, he betrays a lack of control over his own staff. If he really were in charge and everyone were working for him, he could order his staff to 'fess up or resign. The fact that he cannot find a ne'er-do-well in his employ indicates that the White House is an anarchic place. (Source: Washington Post January 6, 2004)
On the other hand, maybe George W. Bush doesn't care about felons on his staff. Read the words of Bush spokesman Scott McClellan carefully: "Certainly no one wants to get to the bottom of this more than he does." No one, as a non-existent person, would have no interest in getting to the bottom of the leak. McClellan clearly means that Bush cares less about the matter than a non-existent person. You see? You see? Bwahahahaha! (Source: Washington Post January 6, 2004)
With George W. Bush out of office, we'll all sleep a little better. In the mornings we'll be less cranky with our kids, we'll be nicer to our dogs, we'll walk with a spring in our step and we'll slowly be able to wean ourselves from that nasty caffeine-cocaine-nicotene cocktail on which we've grown dependent.
Camilla S. writes in: "all that drinking and drug abuse as a privileged young man on the spot meant learning to lie, evade, manipulate, cover up and let the money buy the truth."
Laura Bush has had no job for years but to support her husband in his work. George W. Bush says he's proud of his wife's support. Judith Steinberg Dean, on the other hand, not only has kept her full-time job as a physician but says she will continue her work when her husband is in office. Howard Dean says he respects and supports his wife's choice to embrace her own career path. What a great role model for modern American marriages, and for millions of girls with aspirations of their own, a Dean Presidency would have offered! What an oddly anachronistic and lopsided example the Bush marriage offers by comparison. (Source: New York Times January 13, 2004)
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in Colorado: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 35% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. Bush's plan for economic recovery seems to be to pay Colorado's workers less for the same amount of work. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
Susan P. writes in: "Why boot Bush? So we can get a President who will sign the Kyoto Protocol. Considering that we make up only 5 percent of the world's population but account for 25 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, it seems only fair that we start doing our share."
Susan's contribution makes it clear that beyond the damage that Bush has actively done, he's caused a great deal of harm by passively refusing to act. For instance, the Bush administration has offered no major policy initiative to combat the shameful condition of America's homelessness.
The Bush administration has also offered no major policy initiative to improve highway safety, although 14 times more people died in motor vehicle accidents in the year 2000 than died in the attacks of September 11, 2001. Wait for Bush apologists to remark that such a suggestion trivializes the deaths on September 11. Respond that not doing anything about highway safety trivializes the deaths of the equivalent of fourteen September 11s -- EVERY YEAR. When will Bush get off his ass and do something?
Sometimes dealing with the Bush Administration feels just like... dealing with the Bush Administration. As Mike M-O points out, it's Deja Vu all over again as the son follows in his father's footsteps. Daddy lies to us and tells us we're going to the moon, then Junior does the same. Is that what they mean by the Texas two-step?
Mike M-O writes in: "His support of NAFTA/FTAA is costing Americans their jobs and their futures. While other countries continue their protectionist policies this
president has abandoned all support for Americans middle class. He says
we have to compete with foreign workers, where they are paid $5/day US.
How in the world can we compete with that? End FTAA/NAFTA and BOOT BUSH!!"
More from Mike: "George Bush is working to end overtime pay for a huge number of Americans. He claims that it will increase the number of people that are eligible but
his own General Accounting Office study shows that almost 3/4 of a million people will lose overtime pay. Further that, according to the Economic Policy Institute, 8 million Americans will no longer be eligible. Why would ANYONE ever want him to be
president?" Ending overtime pay for millions of Americans seems like a very good reason to boot Bush. (Source: Economic Policy Institute March 31, 2003 and June 26, 2003)
Mike continues: "When did it become acceptable for a leader, regardless of position, to stop listening to the people he served? And why do we as a nation continue to vote for people who don't listen and don't care?"
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in New Mexico: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 23% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. It's downright disrespectful for Bush to celebrate an economy that pays New Mexico workers less money for the same good work they've always done. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
Clayton writes in with a doozy: "President Bush has said he will propose legislation to overhaul the USPS based on the commission's recommendations. A Republican President with a Republican Senate and a Republican House has an
excellent chance of passing his legislation.
If Bush passes legislation changing the scope of representation
postal unions presently have, postal workers will undoubtedly be faced
with massive changes in pay, benefits and working conditions. The
legislation would very likely seek to mirror what is currently available
to other federal employees through their unions, and reduce the number of
issues postal workers can grieve.
Postal workers' contractual rights would be gutted, and unions
would have jurisdiction over a very limited scope of issues. Very few
disputes would be eligible for settlement through the
grievance/arbitration system. Postal workers would undoubtedly have to take a deep cut in pay, in addition to the reduction of contractual rights."
Don't our hardworking mail carriers deserve better treatment than this? Come on, George, get it together! (See APWU News Service December 9, 2003 and the APWU legislative factsheet)
A lot of Americans do not realize that the Bush Administration has overseen the closure of the Statue of Liberty for over two years.
Now we're told that the Statue of Liberty will only be re-opened after extensive renovations that will increase security at the national treasure. Among other things, Americans won't be allowed inside the statue in the way that they were before. You never know, say the custodians of the statue, a terrorist attack to destroy the Statue of Liberty could take place at any time, so it's just not safe to allow Americans to have access any more.
It's kind of symbolic, I think, that the Statue of Liberty, the symbol of American freedom, has been shut down for almost the entire time George W. Bush has been in office. This act reflects Bush's priorities: Americans only get to enjoy freedoms when they don't interfere with a paranoid obsession with security.
You know, my car could be broken into and used in a crime at any time. It happens! In fact, cars are broken into, stolen, and used to commit criminal acts far more often than prominent American landmarks are destroyed in terrorist attacks. Does that mean that, for the sake of security, my freedom to drive my own car should be taken away? That's the kind of logic Bush and his friends are using to attack Americans' freedoms, and I just don't buy it.
Are Americans really such cowards that they are afraid to climb the Statue of Liberty out of fear that they'll die in a terrorist attack? Aren't we brave enough to carry on with our lives as normal? George W. Bush is encouraging fear and forbidding us to live in the bravery of freedom. That's hardly strong leadership.
How soon will it be before the Bush Administration erects a giant Statue of Security in New York Harbor?
Yes, it bothers me that under the leadership of George W. Bush, liberty has been officially recognized as unsafe. It bothers me enought to boot Bush in 2004. (Source: New York Newsday, January 16, 2004)Boot Bush because he says he wants to build a colony on the Moon, but won't put enough money in the budget to do the job right. He says that NASA ought to do the job on the cheap. That's President Moonbeam for you. Let's call this one the Marooned On The Moon Act of 2004.
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in Arizona: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 29% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. A 29% pay cut for Arizona workers under Bush's watch makes another four years under his reign as pleasant as a jog between Flagstaff to Phoenix on a sunny day in August. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
My wife and I want to have another baby, and I don't want to raise a child under a government that regards a frightened citizenry as a positive thing. Please, don't make us wait another four years.
The Bush Administration now says that it is willing to do extensive replanning of the process of turning over the sovereignty of Iraq to Iraqis, given the popular Iraqi rejection of its current plan. Yet, George W. Bush insists that he will not alter the timetable for the transfer of sovereignty. Look, the transfer of sovereignty is essential, and it's essential that the transfer be done right, so that the civil situation in Iraq doesn't go from bad to worse. This is not the kind of job that should be rushed. When circumstances change, the timetable for the transfer of sovereignty needs to be changed. Otherwise, Iraq will end up with nothing but the facade of democracy. George W. Bush and his advisers seem to value the political necessities of an election year more than the welfare of the Iraqi people. Those kinds of priorities will be strengthened if rewarded through re-election. (Source: Reuters, January 16, 2004)
On the same day that it was announced that the criminal probe against oil corporation Halliburton's overcharging the American taxpayers for its services in Iraq would be widened, the Bush Administration awarded a new 1.2 billion dollar contract for Halliburton in Iraq. The Bush Administration coddles corporate criminals when it awards new contracts to corporations under investigation for cheating the American people. Bush and Cheney's special favors to Halliburton reeks of corruption. (Sources: Reuters, January 16, 2004; The Associated Press, January 16, 2004)
Right after visiting the grave of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., George W. Bush appointed Charles W. Pickering to the federal appeals court. Pickering has a long history as an advocate of racial segregation, and an opponent to voting rights legislation. This betrayal reminds us that we need to watch what Bush does, not what the photo opportunities say he's going to do.
Oh, and keep your eyes on this: Bush appointed Pickering while Congress was out of session, thus depriving the American people of their right to approve the appointment through the Senate confirmation process. The Senate had failed to confirm Pickering, deciding that Pickering's segregationist past made him a poor choice for a federal appeals judgeship. By appointing Pickering in this back-handed manner, Bush not only flouted the will of the United States Senate, he also snubbed the very civil rights activists he met with on Dr. King's birthday.
George W. Bush refuses to lead the Republican Party beyond its segregationist leanings. That's another good reason to give him the boot on Election Day. (Source, San Francisco Chronicle, January 16, 2004)
In order to score political points by funding his promise to send people on a mission to the Moon (Haven't we been there before?), George W. Bush has ordered the Hubble Space Telescope program to be ended prematurely. Destroying important scientific missions in order to fund Buck Rogers whiz bang space adventures is just one more reason to boot Bush. (Source: New York Times, January 17 2004)
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in Utah: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 17% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
When New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who has been loudly and repeatedly supporting Bush Administration foreign policy for years, refers to Bush's Israeli-Palestinian policy as "insane," you know something bad's going down. (Source: New York Times January 18, 2004)
A video playing at the Lincoln memorial that reviews the history of the memorial and the National Mall included shots of various protest marches, including gay rights marches, abortion rights marches and -- gasp -- civil rights marches. This sort of historical document is too much for the Bush Administration, which has pressured our Park Service to um, "revise" the footage. Like it or not, such marches did occur, and continue to occur, on the National Mall with some regularity, and as such are a part of history. This sort of silencing tactic would politely be called "revisionist." (Source: New York Times January 18, 2004)
Jonathon K. admonishes that in our identification of all these reasons to boot Bush we are "rude, and intolerant." It is not our intention to be rude, although we freely admit we cannot tolerate George W. Bush's behavior. But perhaps we ARE rude. What then? Rudeness is a tone of discourse. Words do not in themselves kill, or cripple, or pollute, or corrupt. But Mr. Bush has actually acted in a destructive fashion. Rudeness versus Destructiveness: which is the worse sin? Which would you rather have inflicted upon you?
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in Washington: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 30% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
George W. Bush speaking about Saddam Hussein on October 14, 2002: "This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use al-Qaida as a forward army." But it didn't happen. What does that say about trusting George W. Bush's judgment? (Source: New York Newsday September 23, 2003)
George W. Bush on September 12, 2002: "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." No, they weren't. (Source: George W. Bush's speech to the United Nations September 12, 2002)
Colin Powell on February 5, 2003: "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction." The evidence now shows that at the time of Powell's speech he didn't have any. (Source: Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations Security Council February 5, 2003)
The Bush administration and its subordinate military commanders have proved too eager to push away doubts: "There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction... As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them." -- General Tommy Franks, March 22, 2003. The problem is that less than a year later there is a huge amount of doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction at the time that Franks, Powell, Bush and company were trumpeting their lack of doubt. We cannot afford to have such an intellectually inflexible administration in place. (Source: Washington Post March 23, 2003)
Pentagon Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman, March 23, 2003: "I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction." There's that lack-of-doubt problem again. The Bush administration is full of it. What else do they have "no doubt" about that they should be doubting? (Source: Washington Post March 23, 2003)
Vice President Dick Cheney August 26, 2002: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction; there is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us." There's that "no doubt" again! From where did all these people get their lack of doubt? It is becoming clear that the Bush Administration is filled with people whose powers of estimation are lacking and whose willingness to elevate hunches into certainties is downright dangerous. (Source: New York Times August 27, 2002)
Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke on March 22, 2003: "Clearly one of our top priorities, one of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites. I won't go into details which ones they are, where they are." Unfortunately, we never found out the details about where those elusive WMDs were. Perhaps Clarke can inform us and we can end the whole no-WMD problem right now. Or perhaps Clarke was engaged in just another Bush Administration bluff. (Source: Washington Post March 23, 2003)
Donald Rumsfeld on the location of weapons of mass destruction, in an interview on March 30, 2003: "We know where they are are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad, and east, west, south and north somewhat." The No-Doubt, We-Know Bush Administration drove the country into a panic with these WMD claims. But the panic turned out to be unsupported by the facts. As George Bush Sr. might say, the rhetoric of panic wasn't prudent. (Source: The Age of Melbourne July 27, 2003)
Ari Fleischer, December 5, 2002: "The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it were not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it." So said the President's Press Secretary. But it was not true. What does that mean? (Source: FOX News December 5, 2002)
Ari Fleischer, April 10, 2003: "We've always said that we have information that they have weapons of mass destruction.... What we have always said is that we know that they have it and they are expert at hiding it.... we've always said we know they have it, they are expert at hiding it. I can't discuss all intelligence information. And this is something that Secretary Powell talked about when he went to the United Nations and talked about their abilities to hide. But make no mistake, we maintain high confidence that they have it and it will be found.... But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found." This is another indication that when the Bush Administration says it is confident of the "facts," we shouldn't be very confident at all. When you just can't trust an administration to tell the unvarnished truth, it's time for that administration to go.
While we're at it, check out that reminder from Mr. Fleischer that, as far as the Bush Administration was concerned, WMD was "what this war was about and it is about." Bush and his underlings are spending a lot of energy trying to get us to forget that central fact. It is incumbent upon us to remember and to remind. (Source: White House Press Briefing April 10, 2003)
In an impromptu news conference on May 4, 2003, the following exchange occurred:
"QUESTION: Sir, the rationale to go to war was to find weapons of mass destruction. We have not found them yet.
SECRETARY POWELL: We will.
QUESTION: Do you think that the rationale has changed?
SECRETARY POWELL: The rationale was the same. There was the weapons of mass destruction. Let's be clear.... And I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now."
With this level of clarity, you can't even say that this is yet another piece in a puzzle, because it's not a puzzle at all. Numerous members of the Bush Administration have reiterated that the rationale for going to war was the supposed existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Numerous members of the Bush Administration, including Bush himself, expressed certainty that the weapons were there. As it becomes ever-more clear that weapons of mass destruction are not in Iraq, both the rationale for war and our confidence in the competence of the Bush Administration disintegrates. (Source: Department of State Transcript of Remarks with Reporters After NBC Interview of May 4, 2003)
The same Kenneth Adelman, member of George W. Bush's Pentagon's Defense Advisory Board, who said "I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction," now says that because no weapons of mass destruction have been found, "the foreign policy blow-back is pretty serious," as nations around the world are showing a diminishing inclination to believe that what the Bush White House says is credible. (Source: Washington Post January 19, 2004)
Mr. Bush made the same point himself in his 2004 State of the Union address: "For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible." While he continues that "no one can now doubt the word of America," many in the world community must be disagreeing in the wake of Bush's WMD deceptions.
As the case for George W. Bush's war in Iraq disintegrates, apologists for the war have tried to connect support for Bush's war to support for the U.S. military. But a group called Military Families Speak Out shows that it's possible to be in support of the soldiers carrying out Bush's orders and still be firmly opposed to the orders that Bush is giving. As Bush gave his State of the Union address on January 20, 2004, military families and veterans gathered for a candlelight vigil along Washington, D.C.'s National Mall with the theme of "Remembering Lives Lost to a Lie."
What is the intention behind George W. Bush's plan to allow foreigners to come into the United States to work on a temporary basis before being deported? A hint comes from the behavior of the Bush Administration back in 2001 and 2002. Every year, the "Adverse Effect Wage Rate" is published by the government to establish the lowest wage payable to those engaged in the current "guest worker" program. Every year, this rate must be adjusted to keep pace with inflation. Traditionally, the new rate is published every February. But the Bush Administration refused to publish a new rate for guest workers in February of 2001 and 2002. In both years, the Administration had to be threatened with legal action before the new rate was published -- 6 months and and 3 months late, respectively. The big Agribusinesses that employ "guest workers" loved this delay, because it meant that they could pay lower real wages to their workers as inflation marched on. Of course, this was unfair to guest workers, but that wasn't relevant enough to the Bush Administration to move them to act. (Source: Slate July 11, 2003)
Under George W. Bush, the Department of Labor removed a graph showing the notable decline in the real value of the minimum wage during the Bush years. If they look bad, the Bush Administration just shoves facts under the carpet. (Source: Slate July 11, 2003)
First the Bush Administration dragged its feet in giving testimony and documents to the commission investigating the lead-up to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Then the Bush Administration rejected a request for more time for the commission to get its work done, even as it continued to drag its feet on complying with commission requests. What is the Bush Administration's priority here? (Source: Washington Post January 19, 2004)
In his 2004 State of the Union address, what major domestic policy initiative did George W. Bush announce? He's going to ask NFL coaches to keep their players off steroids. Well, that'll fix things! (Source: State of the Union address, January 20 2004)
D.O. Ray, writing from overseas, says that "Steel" is "one word with a lot of meaning." George W. Bush imposed steep tariffs on imports of steel, angering many other nations. Then Bush reversed course, angering domestic steel producers. The result is that both domestic and international steel producers are dealing with increased uncertainty, and both are upset at U.S. economic policy. This is just another indication that George W. Bush can't handle diplomacy. (Sources: BBC News March 6, 2002; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette January 21, 2004)
One line from George W. Bush's State of the Union address of January 20, 2004 really stuck in my craw:
"Our greatest responsibility is the active defense of the American people."
Since this was an address to a joint meeting of the House and Senate, I assume Mr. Bush was referring to his duty as President, the duties of Senators and the duties of Representatives. Members of the Supreme Court were there, too: to be fair, let's include them as well.
Let's actually look at the job descriptions of the President, Senators, Representatives and Members of the Supreme Court as described in two places: the U.S. Constitution and the oaths of office taken by each of these officeholders.
In the U.S. Constitution, the Preamble tells us what the government should be for:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Look in there: "provide for the common defense" is just one of six priorities, and it's stuck in the middle there, like the middling actor in a movie who gets neither the top billing nor the coveted final "and featuring..." spot. Surely (surely!) George W. Bush has read the Constitution. Why, then, does he neglect Union, Justice, Tranquility, Welfare and Liberty?
Moving on through the Constitution to Article I, Section 8 enumerates the responsibilities of the House and Senate in a set of 18 clauses. By my reading, these include
In Article V, amending the Constitution is also mentioned as a legislative responsibility. Here too, the whole "defense of the American people" thingy is only one of many duties of the Congress. Is Bush ignorant of these, or does he actively choose to ignore them?
- imposing taxes
- paying debts
- securing common defense
- promoting general welfare
- borrowing money
- regulating foreign and domestic commerce
- regulating citizenship
- coining money
- governing the post office
- building roads
- promoting scientific and artistic progress
- instituting intellectual property
- maintaining a court system
- supporting international law
- declaring war
- maintaining an Army
- maintaining a Navy
- instituting domestic law enforcement
- governing the District of Columbia
- writing laws to accomplish all of the above.
In Article II, Sections 2-3 of the Constitution, the responsibilities of the President are enumerated:
Yet again, multiple responsibilities are named, most of which are not directly related to military engagement.
- serving as commander in chief of the armed forces
- administrating of the departments of the executive branch
- granting reprieves and pardons
- making treaties
- appointing ambassadors, administrators and judges
- filling vacancies when Congress is not in session
In Article III of the Constitution, the responsibilities of the Judiciary are enumerated, and all of them are related to upholding a system of laws. No responsibilities related to military engagement are named.
Finally, Article VI of the Constitution states that "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." (That whole "no religious Test" thing is another story). The oaths of office for all three branches of the U.S. Government are not to engage in "the active defense of the American people," but rather to uphold the Constitution.
The Oath of Office for the President is specifically laid out in Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The oath of the Constitution makes it perfectly clear what the primary responsibility of the President is. It is not to defend economic security. It is not to defend the people. It is to defend the Constitution of the United States.
The Constitution that the President of the United States is sworn to preserve, protect and defend contains a Bill of Rights. These include:
- the prevention of the establishment of religion (which Bush proposed doing by providing material governmental support to certain religious groups)
- freedom of speech (which Bush's spokesman attacked by admonishing Americans to "watch what they say, watch what they do")
- freedom of the press (which Bush does not bother to read)
- freedom of peacable assembly for purposes of protest (which Bush undermines in his appearances by keeping opponents out of his line of sight and in distant "free speech zones," outside of which words of protest are forbidden)
- a right to bear arms (which Bush is OK with)
- a right to refuse search and seizure without probable cause (undermined by involuntary data mining operations, unregulated surveillance of law-abiding citizens without notification, and random roadside searches)
- a right to a trial (taken away for those Bush designates as "enemy combatants")
The Bill of Rights does not include a right to national security, or to personal safety. It prescribes liberty and admonishes government leaders including the President to protect that liberty. It requires the President to swear to uphold those liberties by protecting, upholding and defending not the American People, but the American Constitution.
Is Mr. Bush ignorant of his Constitutional duties? Has he forgotten his oath of office? Or is he acting in knowledgeable disregard of them?
None of these possibilities is reassuring. Fortunately, in cases of presidential ignorance and/or active contravention of duty, the Constitution reserves to the people the right to remove a sitting (and this one definitely is sitting) President from office.
Dereliction of Constitutional duty: another reason to boot Bush in 2004.
In the fall of 2002, George W. Bush and members of his administration stated unequivocably that Iraq "possessed weapons of mass destruction." By April 2003, the Bush Administration retreated to accusing Iraq of maintaining "weapons of mass destruction programs." By the 2004 State of the Union address, George W. Bush was reduced to asserting the existence of "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities." At this rate, by summer, they'll be accusing Iraq of harboring "weapons of mass destruction-related statements about program activities." Sheesh! (Sources: January 20, 2004 State of the Union address, New York Times April 25, 2003, New York Times August 27, 2002)
The last words of George W. Bush's 2004 State of the Union Address: "May God Continue to Bless America." Beware a President who thinks he can read the thoughts of the Supreme Ruler of the Universe.
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in Oregon: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 27% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
Jason A. writes in: "Everything is Bigger in Texas." That means bigger hearts and bigger hopes in some cases. But unfortunately, in the case of Bush that means a bigger liar, a bigger fool, and a bigger idiot with a bigger head. We need quality, not quantity, in 2004.
Guess who was behind George W. Bush's bypassing Congress to get former segregationist Charles Pickering appointed to the federal appeals bench? None other than fellow "former" racist Trent Lott. Here's what Trent had to say about the sneaky recess appointment of Pickering:
"While temporary recess appointments certainly are not a preferred means of getting quality judges on the bench, in this exceptional case, Judge Pickering's record deems this recess appointment fully appropriate." (Source: CNN January 16, 2004)
Well, come on Trent. What exactly about Pickering's record makes this appropriate? Does it have anything to do with the reason why, had Strom Thurmond been elected president, we wouldn't have all these problems we have now? Out with it.
Will somebody please tell these guys Jim Crow has left the house? Isn't it time we had somebody in the White House with enough backbone to tell these arch-segregationists to keep their show back in the last century where it belongs?
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in California: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 40% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
According to Bush's 2004 State of the Union speech, there is evidence Iraq had "weapons of mass-destruction-related program activities."
A slick piece of verbal packaging, this. It's carefully crafted to lull the casual listener into concluding that weapons of mass destruction were found after all. It sounds like a kinda fancy way of saying we found Saddam's WMD. But look a little closer, and you'll discover the fancy phrasing obscures Bush's claim, rather than making it clearer. It's supposed to sound like weapons-inspector technicalese, but it's actually cover-your-ass legalese.
It's like the wording on those cans of bogus cheese in the supermarket. Take a close look at the fine print under the word "Cheez" (note the change in spelling--we never claimed it was cheese)--it'll say something like "processed cheez product." Why split hairs, you nutty left-wing deconstructionist? What's the difference between "processed cheez product" and cheese? Well, to put it bluntly, "processed cheez product" ain't cheese. It's just slick packaging designed to cover the company's ass while deceiving the consumer.
The phrase "weapons of mass-destruction-related program activities" is just too vague to be meaningful. For instance, we know Saddam had gas masks ready to distribute to at least some of his troops during the war. At the time, the U.S. claimed it was because he had poison gas and was planning to use it on our troops. Iraqis said it was because they feared the U.S. would release chemical weapons and claim the Iraqis had done it. Who knows what the truth is? Simple fact is, a gas mask is a fairly standard piece of military equipment--that the Iraqis would have some just doesn't prove much. Now, is the stockpiling of gas masks an "activity" "related" to a "weapons of mass destruction" "program." Absolutely. The "activity" of stockpiling and distributing gas masks was undertaken as part of a "program" to protect Iraqi soldiers from (protection from constitutes a "relation"ship to) "weapons of mass destruction." So there we have it: "weapons of mass-destruction-related program activities." By the same logic, if you bought plastic sheeting and duct tape during last year's Terrorist Scare, you too were engaged in "weapons of mass-destruction-related program activities."
By now, those of you that are still reading are probably pretty sick of me splitting too many verbal hairs. I mean, come on. I'm stretching word analysis to the point that words just become meaningless, right? Well, yeah. But I didn't start the word games. Bush and his crew started them, by trying to pull the wool over my eyes with this slick little phrase.
This especially annoys me because of Bush's carefully cultivated public image as a straight-talking rural Texan. But he ain't. What if two ranchers from Texas were talking, and one asked: "So, do you have any cattle up on that ranch?" And the other one answered: "We have bovine quadruped-related program activities." The first guy's going to say, "Hell, man, do you have cows or not?" The reason rural Texans, by and large, don't speak intentionally obfuscatory legalese is because they don't have a full-time staff of advisors team-writing for them.
But, of course, Bush ain't a rural Texan. He's just a slickly packaged "processed Texaz product."
Misleader.org alerts us to the following discrepancy: In an interview in January of 2004, Dick Cheney was asked whether the claim that Iraq had a serious connection to Al Qaeda was legitimate. Cheney's responded that the claim was legitimate, and cited this source: "One place you ought to go look is an article that Stephen Hayes did in the Weekly Standard here a few weeks ago, that goes through and lays out in some detail, based on an assessment that was done by the Department of Defense and forwarded to the Senate Intelligence Committee some weeks ago. That's your best source of information."
The problem is that the piece written by Stephen Hayes in the Weekly Standard, based on leaks of an annex of reports, was condemned by the Department of Defense in Media Release 851-03: "News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate.... The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions. Individuals who leak or purport to leak classified information are doing serious harm to national security; such activity is deplorable and may be illegal."
Why is Dick Cheney making continued reference to an article that his own administration says is inaccurate? Why does he refer to the article as regarding an "assessment" when his own administration reports no assessments were involved at all? And why does Dick Cheney draw reporters' attention to a leaked report when his own administration has stated that such leakage is inappropriate at best and illegal at worst? Where have Dick Cheney's loudly trumpeted standards of ethics gone? (Sources: United States Department of Defense News Release #851-03 November 15, 2003; Rocky Mountain News January 9, 2004)
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in Alaska: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 38% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
When Dick Cheney met with the Pope recently, he brought the Pope a gift of a crystal dove. This is a perfect symbol for the fragile state of world peace under the watch of Cheney and company. (Source: Reuters January 27, 2004)
Even David Kay, the weapons inspector tapped by George W. Bush himself to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, concludes that "that there were not large stockpiles of newly produced weapons of mass destruction. We don't find the people, the documents or the physical plants that you would expect to find if the production was going on.... I don't think they existed. I think there were stockpiles at the end of the first Gulf War and those were a combination of U.N. inspectors and unilateral Iraqi action got rid of them." (Sources: New York Times January 26, 2004; Reuters January 23, 2004)
David Kay's replacement as chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq is Charles Duelfer, who has said that Saddam Hussein did not pose the immediate threat that the Bush administration implied. (Source: Washington Post January 24, 2004)
On July 14, 2003 George W. Bush said "The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region. I firmly believe the decisions we made will make America more secure and the world more peaceful."
Read that again, slowly. I know, there are lots of errors in that one paragraph, but can you pick the whopper?
Yes, George W. Bush said that the reason we went to war was that Saddam Hussein wouldn't let weapons inspectors in.
You and I and the New York Times and the Washington Post and the Associated Press and every other big and small newspaper, newsmagazine and TV anchorman -- know that not only did Saddam Hussein agree to let weapons inspectors in the country, but they actually went in and were doing their job!
No, the reason we went to war was that George W. Bush said the weapons inspectors weren't finding the missing WMDs that were really there and didn't know what they were doing.
George W. Bush's historical ignorance apparently extends to major events involving him during his own presidency. (Sources: Salon.com January 27, 2004 and White House Press Release July 14, 2003)
Lest you think we're making too much of this, George W. Bush said it again January 26, 2004: "He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in." No, no, no: again, the historical record shows that inspectors were let in. (Sources: Salon.com January 27, 2004)
George W. Bush made these bizarre counterfactual statements in question-and-answer sessions with the White House Press Corps. Do you think the White House Press Corps questioned him on it during the sessions? Oh, no, of course not. Do you think these statements became major news stories the next day? What do you think? The "liberal" New York Times didn't mention them at all in their newspaper reports the next day in either case.
When the press abdicates its duty to report completely and objectively on a sitting American President, democracy has lost one of its great protectors. It is up to us to protect democracy in November 2004.
More recently on the same theme, when Karl Rove can call the White House Press Corps "Weenies" to their face and get away with it, it means either that the current Administration is too powerful or that the current press corps does not question the Bush Administration strongly enough. In either case, a change of administrations would do the press and the public that depends on them a world of good. (Source: Washington Post January 27, 2004)
"I want the American people to know that I, too, want to know the facts." So says George W. Bush about the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The problem is, the Bush Administration said they had the facts a year ago, and they took us to war based on those supposed facts. Where did those facts go, Mr. Bush? If you didn't have them, what in the name of sanity were you doing calling for war?
President Moonbeam's Medicare boondoggle, the White House acknowledges after the bill is passed, will cost 34% more than they told the U.S. Congress and the American people it would cost. Is the Bush Administration clueless when it comes to the basics of health care economics, or is it practiced in deception? (Source: Washington Post January 31, 2004)
Whoopsie! Now it turns out that the Bush Administration knew well before its Medicare boondoggle passed the U.S. Congress that the cost estimates it had supplied to legislators and the American people were wildly inaccurate. (Source: Washington Post January 31, 2004)
In the past, Michael E. Toner has served as legal counsel for the Republican National Committee and the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign. Thanks to George W. Bush, what's his current title? Federal Elections Commissioner. Talk about foxes guarding the chicken coop! (Source: Washington Post January 31, 2004)
Karl F. writes in: "Business people need a country to do business in and consumers with enough money to do business with. Four more years of this Bushwhacking will do away with both."
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in Hawaii: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 6% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
Michael M-O notes that while millions of Americans go without jobs, while millions more try to make it without health insurance, while American soldiers are getting picked off in Iraq, the White House has promised that its administration will pursue policy remedies to prevent Janet Jackson's boob from falling out of her shirt again on television. Priorities, people!(Source: White House Press Briefing February 2, 2004)
If we really want to prevent boobs from being exposed on national television, George W. Bush is going to have to go.
While we're at it, watch as Laura Bush trots herself out in front of the American people to distract us from the breaking crisis of confidence we're having with the her husband. But don't be distracted, says Michael: "Bush is putting together an independent commission? How can it is be independent when he is picking the members? You ain't fooling no one but yourself, Bush!"
Michael has his facts right: George W. Bush is picking the members of the commission that will investigate his administration. That's not tradition: usually, members of both parties in the Congress appoint commission members. Not this time. What does George W. Bush have to hide? (Source: New York Times February 2, 2004)
Michael continues, "Didn't Bush run as a fiscal conservative? But now his budget for 2005 has the biggest deficit in history! Even his conservative buddies are dumping him. Why aren't you?"
The Bush Administration and its allies in Congress want to make it seem like there's a whole lotta oil that just can't be accessed because it's trapped in wildlife refuges. The truth is that there are 1,806 active oil and gas wells on 36 different wildlife refuges throughout the United States. The real problem is that these oil and gas wells are dramatically under-regulated. The General Accounting Office recently recommended a tightening of governmental oversight on activities related to oil and gas wells currently pumping within wildlife refuges in order to make sure that the refuges are not being harmed. What did George W. Bush do with this report? Why, he did the same thing he does with most reports - he ignored it. Under the Bush plan, there would be more oil and gas drilling within wildlife refuges, with less oversight. Way to ignore the experts, G.W.! (Source: Sierra Magazine, March/April 2004)
George W. Bush has insisted that his handpicked commission to investigate his own administration's untruthful declarations to the American people must delay issuing a report until after November 2004.
The problem is that elections are the tool by which people can hold their leaders accountable. If we do not know how and why the Bush administration misled Americans into supporting a war until after the November election, how can the elections serve their designated purpose?
George W. Bush does not want to be held accountable. George W. Bush cannot handle accountability. George W. Bush is running pell-mell from accountability. And that is all the more reason to hold him to account in the elections this year. (Source: New York Times February 2, 2004)
Now that George W. Bush has single-handedly appointed his so-called "independent" commission to investigate the failures of U.S. government intelligence under his command, it's clear that the commission is rigged to fall in line and give the kind of limited, politically safe findings that Bush is looking for. A case in point: Commission member Laurence Silberman has been exposed as a hard-right ideologue who has been involved in Republican conspiracies to produce propaganda for years. Silberman and his wife were primary sources of misinformation used to smear Anita Hill's personal character after she testified about Clarence Thomas's history of sexual harassment. Silberman was also instrumental in the orchestration of the failed attempt to depose President Bill Clinton through the politically-designed sexual investigations of Ken Starr and impeachment by Newt Gingrich.
Laurence Silberman is not the kind of person who can be trusted to give an unbiased contribution to a commission to investigate an issue as politically charged as the complete failure of the Bush Administration to anticipate the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. George W. Bush knows of Silberman's history as a political fixer. Why else would Bush appoint a man known for distorting the truth for political purposes unless he intends for the commission to help him distort the truth? (Source: Blinded By the Right, David Brock)
In 2003, Bush appointee Gale Norton, the Secretary of the Interior, ordered the Bureau of Land Management to stop all attempts to keep track of land with good potential protection as public wilderness. Thus, the Bush Administration effectively ordered all offices of the federal government to stop even thinking about preserving any vulnerable wilderness not already protected as public land. This kind of attitude of purposeful avoiding looking for problems in order to pretend that the problems do not exist should be a source of shame, but the Bush Administration adopts it with pride. (Source: Sierra Magazine, March/April 2004)
George W. Bush has destroyed the efforts of President Bill Clinton to support the development of ever-more fuel efficient hybrid electric/gasoline automobiles in the present, and replaced those efforts with pie-in-the-sky, theoretical plans to start a hydrogen fuel cell cars over 25 years from now. The Bush plans have been completely discredited by two recent reports, one by the National Academy of Sciences, and another by Joseph J. Romm, the former chief Energy Department official in charge of conservation and alternative energy. ""Fuel-cell cars will not be environmentally desirable for decades," says Romm. America can't afford to wait 25 years to start to address the real crisis in air pollution and climate change. Unfortunately, the Bush family and its corporate friends can't afford to let anyone interfere with their big oil profits. (Source: New York Times, February 6, 2004)
Um, what's the point of establishing a commission that is limited to investigating the failures of the intelligence community within the Bush Administration, when it was the Bush Cabinet and the political arm of the Bush White House that actually put faulty intelligence into action?
I'm so confused! The Bush Administration is blaming the CIA for the failures of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and other top Bush Administration officials to acknowledge that there was never any solid evidence for weapons of mass destruction programs in Iraq. Yet, there is clear evidence that has already been uncovered that officials at all levels of the Bush White House willfully ignored the intelligence reports that they had already been supplied with, and knowingly made claims that could not be supported by any existing intelligence report.
Let's quote the Washington Post on this one: "In its fall 2002 campaign to win congressional support for a war against Iraq, President Bush and his top advisers ignored many of the caveats and qualifiers included in the classified report on Saddam Hussein's weapons that CIA Director George J. Tenet defended Thursday. In fact, they made some of their most unequivocal assertions about unconventional weapons before the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) was completed."
What America needs is a truly independent commission to investigate the Bush White House's lies and exaggerations about the non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. What George W. Bush is giving us is a whitewash. (Source: Washington Post, February 7, 2004)
George W. Bush does not even come close to measuring up to his father's environmental record, which was itself far from perfect. President Bush the First designated 4 million acres of land as protected wilderness. President Bush the Second has designated only one eighth that amount. President Clinton designated 9.5 million acres, and President Carter designated 66.3 million. Looks like George W. Bush is more associated with suburban sprawl than responsible environmental stewardship. (Source: Sierra Magazine, March/April, 2004)
A fundamentalist Muslim nation ruled by a military dictatorship spreads nuclear weapons technology around the world! Iraq? No. Iran? No. It's Pakistan, folks. And what has George W. Bush done? He calls Pakistan an "ally" in the "war on terror". This kind of twisted logic has no place in the White House. It's time to take the blinders off and get this guy back to his dude ranch, where he can't hurt anything but prairie dogs. (Source: Financial Times, February 7, 2004)
The Bush Administration converted an important study into a piece of propaganda when it edited a report from a group of scientists at the Department of Health and Human Services on disparities in the American health care system to eliminate portions that were incompatible with Republican policies to limit health care reform. A group of Congressional Representatives, led by Henry Waxman of California, uncovered the following changes to the report:
It's shameful for a bunch of filthy rich Republicans try to minimize the problems of average Americans who are unable to get adequate health care. For leading this effort to hide the truth, George W. Bush deserves to be given a permanent political vacation in 2004. (Source: United Press International, January 15, 2004)
- The final version of the report contained none of the scientists' conclusions that were present the original draft that described social differences in healthcare treatment as "national problems" that were "pervasive" in the system.
- The draft summary defined "disparity" as "the condition or fact of being unequal, as in age, rank or degree" but the definition was deleted from the final summary.
- The word "disparity" was used more than 30 times in the key findings section of the draft, but 28 of these instances of the word disparity were deleted by the Bush Administration
- The final version crafted by the Bush Administration deleted draft language about social costs of disparities but replaces that section of a listing of "successes" achieved in eliminating disparities.
George W. Bush, who says that he's the man for homeland security (and security for the United States of America too, apparently), has actually proposed to eliminate the funding for a research program designed to establish methods to decontaminate buildings that have been exposed to biological or chemical weapons.
In his budget proposal, Bush actually admits that the end of funding he suggests "represents the complete elimination of homeland security building decontamination research."
The Environmental Protection Agency says that eliminating the research will "force it to disband the technical and engineering expertise that will be needed to address known and emerging biological and chemical threats in the future."
Why does Bush want to eliminate this essential security program? He wants more tax cuts for the rich, and he has to pay for his ongoing adventure in Iraq. What priorities! (Source: Associated Press, February 7, 2004)
Just think of all the work that the team from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy would have to slog through trying to get the White House back in shape. No one should have to go through that. Let's spare them, and vote George W. Bush out of office before they can make their way down Pennsylvania Avenue.
It's not just extremist environmentalists who are bothered by the Bush Administration's compassionless disregard for America's natural heritage. Hunters and fishermen are increasingly turning against George W. Bush, as a result of Bush's attacks on the natural American environment.
For example, the membership of Ducks Unlimited is shifting away from support of George W. Bush's re-election to strong opposition of a second term in office for Bush and Cheney. Describing the effect of Bush's anti-environmental crusade on hunters and fishermen, Alan Wentz, the senior group manager for conservation at Ducks Unlimited (a hunters' organization) comments, "This is the worst case scenario. It represents a radical change of direction from 30 years of Clean Water Act implementation." (Source: National Wildlife, February/March 2004)
The dangers of global climate change are recognized by a strong majority of the American public, and yet George W. Bush and Dick Cheney continue to recklessly pretend that there is no problem. According to a recent poll conducted by Zogby International, 79 percent of Americans believe that the United States should curb its emissions of greenhouse gases. 67 percent of Americans believe that the threat of global warming can be addressed without harm to the economy. There is strong public support for governmental action against global climate change, yet the Bush Administration refuses to do anything. That's not just cruelly negligent. It's also just plain stupid. (Source: National Wildlife, February/March 2004)
George W. Bush and his advisors want to hand the keys of government over to a group of fundamentalist extremists who would take America back to the conditions of the mid-1800's, with an anti-science, pro-segregation, anti-freedom, coal-burning agenda that would place power-hungry priests and corrupt energy barons in positions of power, to dictate how the rest of us will be allowed to live: by the harsh rules of the Old Testament Bible, and by the dictates of profit.
Is this assessment going too far? Consider:
- Segregationist Charles Pickering, appointed a federal judge without Senate confirmation
- Secret energy committee meetings with modern day oil barons
- Vice President Dick Cheney's Halliburton getting sweetheart deals to gouge taxpayers for Iraqi gasoline above the market price
- The President of the United States sending generals into battle in the belief that they are fighting against Satan
- A special office in the White House to help churches take over the responsibilities of government
- John Ashcroft setting up civilian surveillance programs, planning computer systems to scour through private records, and putting wiretaps in the homes of American citizens who are not even suspected of crimes
- Christian fundamentalist lobbyists appointed to government science panels
Personally, I prefer present-day life to the life of the 1800s, but not that's not how Bush's fundamentalist supporters see things. They're dragging America backwards, against all the progress we've made in 150 years. Just imagine what another 4 years of that dragging could do.
Under the approving watch of George W. Bush, Republicans are putting a record amount of pork barrel wasteful spending into the national budget. For example, Republican Senator Christopher Bond of Missouri is using Bush's position in the White House to help him push a 2.3 billion dollar project to build new locks on the Mississippi River, even though the Army Corps of Engineers has conducted a study that says that such locks are completely unjustified by the amount of barge traffic on the Mississippi River. This kind of wasteful use of taxpayer money is shameful, but George W. Bush keeps on signing it into law. (Source, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, January 20, 2004)
Just take a look at Bush's Cabinet. They're all the bad old guys who were in the White House back in the era of Richard Nixon. Is that what Bush thinks America should aspire to: the dirty tricks of Richard Nixon?
Not since the days of the Nixon White House has an administration so
profoundly failed to see any distinction between personal political
expediency and national security.
Is is just me, or does something about the Bush administration smell fishier than Whitewater?
If we had a real investigation that was aggressively out to find the truth, once they started issuing subpoenas and putting the fear of jail time into people left and right, what would they find?
A lot of loose ends have frayed out of this tangle of Middle East-oil-Iraq-power company shenanigans:
What energy people did Cheney meet with in 2001, and what did they tell him?
What's up with the administration covering Saudi Arabia's ass?
Was there pressure on intelligence agents to modify threat assessments? (Subpoena the agents, swear them in, then ask them.)
What kind of backroom dealings has this administration had with Ahmad Chalabi, and other Iraqi exiles? Who offered whom what, and how did that affect administration policy?
Who leaked the identity of a CIA agent to the press? (Subpoena members of the administration, swear them in, then ask them.)
What's up with Halliburton continuing to pay Cheney while he's vice president? Does this have to do with Cheney pushing hard for a war that has landed Halliburton huge no-bid contracts? (Subpoena reams of Halliburton memos that were never supposed to see the light of day, and get a staff going over them with a fine-tooth comb.)
The list goes on and on...
We need an investigation that will tug at these loose threads until they start to unravel. Is it a cleverly-spun web of deceit, or just a tangle of petty corruption and conflict of interest? I don't know, but I smell a rat.
How much do you want to bet Bush's hand-picked team of "investigators" won't dig into the connections between these loose ends? One good reason to boot Bush is that I don't feel at all reluctant in placing this kind of bet, and I am not a betting man.
Before the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, Bush said Saddam had weapons of
mass destruction. Saddam said he didn't have any. Looks like we were
wrong and he was right. America now has credibility than a two-bit
former dictator. Thanks, Bush.
Propaganda ministries in totalitarian nations around the world can
point to what's happening now in America and say, "See? Democracy doesn't
work after all. America's not really run by the people. It's run by a
small group of corrupt, powerful individuals. Democracy is just an
illusion created by the few to control the many."
Well they're wrong, because no matter how the corrupt few try to pull the
wool over our eyes, at the end of the day, we all get to vote. Democracy
does work, and 2004 is the year we show the world it works by throwing
out the most corrupt president we've had in a generation.
For what we're spending on the Iraq war, we could go to a thousand of
the poorest villages in the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia--and
build a million-dollar medical clinic, water-treatment plant, housing
project, or road in each village, EVERY WEEK. Who would hate America
then? Where would Al-Qaeda go to recruit?
The time and money Bush spent chasing after phantasmal weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq could have been used to get rid of real live WMD in
the former Soviet Union. The Nunn-Lugar program, which has helped destroy
or secure thousands of actual WMD, has remained neglected, underfunded,
and poorly administered under Bush. (Source: Union of Concerned Scientists January 22, 2003)
Wesley Clark has called the War in Iraq a "sideshow in the war on
terror." Right on! It's also a sideshow in the struggle against the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, a sideshow in the pursuit
of peace in the Middle East... (Source: Meet the Press November 17, 2003)
Come to think of it, Bush's tax cuts are a sideshow in the creation of
jobs and the pursuit of a healthy economy. Nice going, Sideshow George.
George W. Bush has so alienated conservatives with the combination of bloated spending and a bloated deficit that they have started up websites like ConservativesForKerry.com, where one commentator writes: "As a fiscal conservative, I take the long-term view and note with rising concern George W. Bush's inability to do the same. As any parent would tell a wayward child, we must tell George W. Bush to stop spending money we do not have."
The Bush Jobs Legacy in Connecticut: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 33% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
It turns out that the Bush/Cheney energy policy is not an energy policy for all Americans. No, the Bush/Cheney energy policy is an energy policy specifically designed to provide big government financial rewards to industrial and energy corporations in Texas.
Bush and Cheney have proposed letting thousands of power plants, factories and other industrial sources of pollution get away with breaking the law, giving them a loophole to violate the Clean Air Act without having to the consequences.
Now where, oh, where, do you think that the majority of the dirty power plants that would profit from this new pro-pollution policy are located? That's right kids, they're in Texas - all 1,942 of them. (Source, Environmental Protection Agency, September 30, 2003)
It looks like if you're going to play in Texas, you've got to have a big wad of cash for Republican politicians like Bush and Cheney, along with a face mask on to breathe.
George W. Bush's special favor to allow 1,942 Texas polluters to keep on spewing dangerous filth into the air in violation of the Clean Air Act has consequences. Yes, we're hoping that there will be consequences for Bush himself, but in the meantime we're talking about more life-or-death consequences. Consider what will happen to the people downwind from Texas if George W. Bush lets the polluters from the lone star state keep on getting away with it.
Cancer. Heart disease. Asthma and other respiratory illnesses. Whatever the particular manifestation, it amounts to death and misery in 27 states from Maine all the way down to Florida to the south, and to the west in Oklahoma.
There are currently 64,000 deaths every year from diseases related to air pollution. Ignoring the gravity of this consequence is enough on its own to merit a big boot for Bush on Election Day.
As of January 2004, George W. Bush has avoided answering reporters' questions eleven times by accusing the reporters of using "trick questions". The use of this "trick questions" excuse is the sign of an immature mind. An intellectually mature president would easily be able to point out the false premises in a question and then explain how the issue ought to be framed. When Mr. Bush insults reporters with his "trick question" response, he appears to merely either not know the answer to the question, or to not want to admit what the real answer is. The American people deserve more honest leadership that that. (Source, Harper's Magazine, January 2004)
Michael Blaise and Brian Hazelgrove were killed in Iraq when their helicopter went down near the city of Mosul. They were both just 29 years old, starting to enter the prime of their lives. They were sent to Iraq to fight a war under false pretenses. They deserved better than that. (Source: Department of Defense)
Thanks again to Harper's Magazine, for providing a sharp insight into the messed up priorities of the Bush Administration. Harper's reports that the Bush Administration spends 18 times more on its misadventure in Iraq than it spends on fighting the spread of AIDS in other "developing countries". Of course, over the last ten years AIDS has killed many more people worldwide than Iraq has. The United States may be a wealthy nation, but we don't have enough luxury to shortchange the efforts to address the real threats in the world while combatting the imaginary dangers drawn out of the fantasies of obsessive presidents.(Source, Harper's Magazine, January 2004)
The Bush Jobs Legacy in Rhode Island: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 34% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
George W. Bush complains about the persecution of religious groups in the United States (for not getting full government funding for their private, theologically-based missionary programs!). Yet, when it comes to foreign countries, Mr. Bush doesn't seem to mind at all when governments imprison people because of their religion, as long as those governments are willing to provide support for Bush's War on Evil.
A case in point: George W. Bush calls Uzbekistan an ally in the War on Evil. In fact, Bush has provided Uzbekistan a 1,600 percent increase in military aid since he came to occupy the White House in 2001. Shockingly, the government of Uzbekistan is currently imprisoning an estimated 6,500 of its people solely for their religious or political beliefs. George W. Bush has done nothing to stop this persecution, and in fact appears to be rewarding it, and providing material support with it, through the dramatic increase in military aid. (Source, Harper's Magazine, January 2004)
While Mr. Bush and his fundamentalist supporters get all huffy about the Defense of Marriage Act, wouldn't we all be better off with a Defense of Sewage Act? I'm talking about some kind of act of government that would ensure Americans' right to clean drinking water. Well, we can expect Bush to get all hot and bothered, worked up into a moral pretzel about cleaning up the institution of marriage, but it doesn't look like Bush is willing to do a damn thing to defend the tradition of not drinking water that doesn't have crap and poisons in it. Because clean water comes before moral crusading in my list of priorities, I say we've got great reason to dump Bush on Election Day in 2004!
One day in early 2004, a bomb south of Baghdad killed at least 50 people, many of them American-trained policemen or new police recruits. This kind of event has been going on almost non-stop since the Bush Administration began its rule over Iraq.
No one expected an occupation of Iraq to be problem free. The plain truth, however, is that neither George W. Bush nor his advisors seemed to think that an ongoing rebellion killing hundreds of Iraqis and hundreds of Americans was a reasonable possibility. Bush aides even mocked those experts who predicted a difficult insurgency.
Now, the Bush Administration does not want to admit that there is a serious problem of out-of-control violence in Iraq. Over and over again, the people in the White House try to tell us that this sort of thing is to be expected. Bush goes so far as to suggest that yesterday's bombing is inconsequential to his "march to freedom" in Iraq.
When a new democracy is being formed, factional infighting is to be expected. Arguments about methods are to be expected. Power struggles over the construction of a constitution are to be expected.
Bombs that kill over 50 people at a time ripping a country apart? It's a sad sign of the poor leadership that Bush has brought to Iraq that people are beginning to see such violence as par for the course. (Source: Toronto Star, February 11, 2004)
Update: There was another blip on the "march to freedom" just one day after the bomb that killed 50 people south of Baghdad. A car bomb was set off at another recruiting station in Iraq, killing at least 36 people. 36 people killed at a pop, and again George W. Bush suggests that everything is going according to his plan. Let's hope that Bush doesn't try to start a "march to freedom" here in America. (Source: NPR, February 11, 2004)
The Bush Jobs Legacy in Maine: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs in the state were 25% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
Just suppose it actually DID become necessary to take military action to counter a„1¤76�0„671�0„3¨¨76�6¥71¡è70„1¤76�0„67671�6¥71¡è70„1¤76�0„673�0„3¡ì�0„3¡ì70�6¥71¡è76„1¤70�6¥7671„1¤70�6¥73¡§¡§76„1¤76�0„671�0„3¨¨70�6¥71¡è76„1¤70�6¥767708serious, imminent threat to U.S. security. And suppose the threat were discovered through intelligence sources that, for whatever reason, had to remain undisclosed. George Bush would be the absolute worst president to have under those circumstances. He's lied so many times about Iraq that nobody would believe him. Congress wouldn't believe him; the press wouldn't believe him; our allies wouldn't believe him; even some of our own troops on the mission wouldn't believe him. I sure wouldn't believe him. Bush is like the little boy who cried wolf. If we elect him again, we could very well end up being the sheep who are left without credible protection.
The Bush Jobs Legacy in New Hampshire: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs in the state was 35% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
The Bush Administration is spending so much money on its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that it is projected to completely devour its annual budget for the year by September, requiring the Pentagon to divert 19 billion dollars extra into the wars. That amount will then be made up through an increased defense budget for that amount.
So, you remember that 87 billion dollars for Iraq last year? Bush is now telling the American public that the 87 billion wasn't enough! Bush's campaign slogan seems to be: More Money for More War in 2004! (Source: Chicago Tribune, February 11, 2004)
On top of THAT, the Bush Administration is planning to ask for an additional $40 Billion or so for Iraq...after the November elections. We may well have to pay this money now that we're in this mess, but it's important to remember that it was Bush who unnecessarily pushed us into this war. What productive investments could we have made without Bush's destructive course of action? Why is Bush trying to hide from the consequences of his choices?
The Bush Jobs Legacy in Vermont: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs in the state was 29% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
Gabriel Palacios and James Parker were killed in a mortar attack on an American military base near Baquouba, Iraq. They were both less than 25 years old. They didn't need to be in Iraq. There were no weapons of mass destruction there, but Bush sent them to fight and die there anyway, just to score political points. They deserved better. We can honor their loss by voting for a leader who won't play soldier at the drop of a hat. (Source: Department of Defense)
Bush made a big speech on February 12, 2004, covering the subject of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Take note that Bush's policy so far is to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by invading and occupying countries that do not have any weapons of mass destruction. Hey, none of us get it right all the time, but we ought to expect that the President of the United States will have the wisdom to make speeches on those subjects about which he actually knows something (Source: ABC News, February 12, 2004)
News item courtesy of the Associated Press (February 15, 2004): The College Republicans of Roger Williams University have initiated a scholarship available to white students only, with an essay on white pride required.
This is George W. Bush's party. 'Nuff said.
The Bush Jobs Legacy in Massachusetts: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs in the state was 41% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
Big oil and chemical companies are responsible for the majority of the dangerously polluted sites covered under Superfund legislation, and historically, this responsibility has been compensated for with a special tax on oil and chemical companies. It is through this tax that the cleanup of Superfund sites has taken place. Now that he has the power of the White House, George W. Bush is trying to end this system, and force ordinary taxpaying citizens to pay for Superfund directly. Even Bush's fellow Republicans think that this is a bad idea. Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island has introduced legislation that would continue the current payment system, so that polluting corporations, not individual American workers, will pay the price of keeping America clean. Bush refuses to support Chafee's legislation. (Source: Sierra Magazine, March/April 2004)
Back in 2000, Republican Senator John McCain told America that George W. Bush "twists the truth". If it was true then, are we really supposed to believe that it's not true now? (Source, New York Times, February 17, 2004)
The Bush Administration once predicted that 5.5 million jobs would be created by the end of 2004. Well, so far the Bush Administration still hasn't made up the 3 million jobs it lost in the first three years it occupied the White House. Hey, the end of 2004 is still a few months away, and you never know what can happen, but creating 5.5 million jobs in less than a year does seem a bit farfetched. Making outlandish economic predictions is not a quality we need to see in a President of the United States. (Source: New York Times, February 16, 2004)
Within just one week this year, the Bush Administration claimed that it would create 2.6 million jobs this year, then tried to distance itself from that prediction, only vaguely saying that "there are some things we need to do." Oh, so this is Bush's plan to create jobs for America's workers: to "do" "some things". If this is the best that Bush can do with his Ivy League MBA, it looks like we're all in a bit of trouble. (Source: Boston Globe, February 19, 2004)
When George W. Bush tried to back off from the prediction of 2.6 million new jobs he put his signature to, his justification was that "I'm not a statistician." No, but presumably statisticians are on the President's Council of Economic Advisers, which drew up the report. And with a graduate-level degree in business that he supposedly earned, George W. Bush should be able to properly consume if not generate statistical reports. We're left with this unhappy set of alternatives again: either George W. Bush and the President's Council of Economic Advisers are incompetent, or they're inflating their prediction of job growth for political reasons. Neither alternative is a happy one for the nation. (Source: Sacramento Bee, March 5, 2004)
The Bush Jobs Legacy in New York: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 38% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
I keep hearing from Fox News about what a great guy George W. Bush is, but I know that as long as Bush is President, I don't have a chance of meeting him myself. Let's get Bush out of the Oval Office in 2004 so that we can all have the great pleasure of getting to know him in person, without a busy White House schedule to get in the way.
After Halliburton (the big oil corporation Dick Cheney led until he became Vice President) was caught overcharging the American military for oil in Iraq, George W. Bush promised that they would make sure that no further such corruption would take place. Count that as another broken promise. Now, Halliburton has been caught in "substantial overcharging" on millions of meals it has been hired to serve to American soldiers and other personnel. It looks like Vice President Dick Cheney created a pervasive culture of corruption when he led Halliburton. It also looks like George W. Bush is unwilling to crack down on this corruption when it takes place under his watch. (Source: Dow Jones Newswires, February 16, 2004)
Why dump Bush? Well, it's part of the great American tradition of literacy. You see, if our great forefathers had not sacrificed their energy to speak with correct grammar and elect coherent political leaders, we'd all be speaking gibberish right now, like George W. Bush. For the sake of this great tradition of trying not to sound like blabbering idiots, we must dump Bush!
The Bush Jobs Legacy in New Jersey: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 39% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
There are three hundred endangered and threatened species of wildlife living on land managed by the United States military. Yet, George W. Bush has created a new exemption of 25 million acres of that land that allows the military to completely ignore the habitat-protection provisions of the Endangered Species Act. (Source: Sierra Magazine, March/April 2004)
George W. Bush has disrespected the federal system of balance of power and once again appointed a radical, controversial nominee to become a federal judge without confirmation by the U.S. Senate. This time, it's extremist conservative William Pryor, the judge from Alabama who has declared himself an opponent of homosexuality and reproductive choice.
In fiery political speeches before the Christian Coalition, Pryor joined with Roy Moore in defending, as in accordance with God's will, the display of the Bible's Ten Commandments in public courthouses and government buildings, giving special preference to Christianity and Judaism over all other religions in America. Pryor also sent a signed brief to the Supreme Court of the United States which compared homosexuality to "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography and even incest or pedophilia."
Senator John Edwards, a member of the Senate's Judiciary Committee, which has the constitutional right to approve all presidential nominations to the federal judiciary, explains that William Pryor "has a long record of vigorous efforts to deny Americans' basic rights under our laws." In fact, Judge Pryor has such a well-recognized history of opposition to the most basic principles of civil rights and the separation of church and state that the U.S. Senate has refused to approve his appointment, even though the Senate is currently controlled by Republicans.
George W. Bush ought to be ashamed of nominating such an undemocratic, divisive man as William Pryor for a federal judgeship. Bush puts our entire nation to shame when he waits for the U.S. Senate to be out of session in order to appoint such a demagogue without confirmation, or even so much as a review outside of the political offices of election strategist Karl Rove. (Source: Seattle Times, February 21, 2004)
To be fair, it's not just Republican federal judges who are racists. Many Republican state legislators are racists as well. With George W. Bush in the White House, Don Davis, a Republican state representative in North Carolina sent a letter to every member of the North Carolina House and Senate, containing the following passage: "Two things made this country great: White men & Christianity. The degree these two have diminished is in direct proportion to the corruption and fall of the nation. Every problem that has arisen (sic) can be directly traced back to our departure from God's Law and the disenfranchisement of White men." When we elect a Republican to the White House, we support a Republican Party that embraces opinions like this. (The Fayetteville Observer, August 22, 2001)
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in Pennsylvania: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 23% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
The Pentagon, of all organizations, has advised George W. Bush that climate change has the likely potential to create huge disasters for humanity. A Pentagon report, kept secret from the American people until uncovered by the British press, predicts that, as a result of climate change "Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life... Once again, warfare would define human life." This is the Pentagon speaking here, not some far-out group of environmentalist radicals. Mr. Bush has responded to this dire prediction by doing nothing. Four more years of this kind of nothing is four more years closer to disaster. No thanks. (Source: The Observer, February 22, 2004)
In the first three years of the Clinton Administration, 221 species were added to the list of endangered species. In his first three years in office, George W. Bush has only allowed 20 species to be added to the list, in spite of the fact that the rate of species extinction is increasing, not decreasing. (Source: Sierra Magazine, March/April 2004)
So maybe you don't want to take the political advice of latte-sipping, Volvo-driving, body-piercing liberals. Okay, how about listening to conservative farmer Mike Cross, a farmer from Londonderry, New Hampshire. He says, "It seems like he's just taking care of his rich buddies now... I'm not a great fan of John Kerry, but I've had enough of President Bush." Gee, I guess Middle America doesn't support Bush after all. So much for the claims of the Club for Growth that Middle America only votes Republican. (Source: New York Times, February 22, 2004)
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in Ohio: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 29% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
I say we ought to boot Bush on Election Day because, in spite of all his ranting and raving about the threat of same-sex marriage to the institution of marriage, I've found that the institution of my marriage is doing just fine under the onslaught, thank you very much.
A simple fact: The Bush Administration lost American jobs in 24 out of the first 37 months it spent in office. This is not a track record we'd like to see continued for four more years. (Source: Boston Globe, February 19, 2004)
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in Indiana: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 27% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
A Republican judge in Beachwood, Ohio provides the following thoughts about George W. Bush to American voters: "I feel like a complete traitor, and if you'd asked me four months ago, the answer would have been different, but we are really disgusted. It's the lies, the war, the economy. We have very good friends who are staunch Republicans, who don't even want to hear the name George Bush anymore." When a Republican judge turns against Bush, you know that something's very wrong. (Source: New York Times, February 22, 2004)
Jeremy Symons, a prominent scientist at at the Environmental Protection Agency, has quit in protest of what he charges is a politically-motivated effort by the Bush Administration to suppress open discussion of the science-related issues that face the United States. Symons charges that the Bush Administration is "burying its head in the sand" and "ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil companies". Ouch. Does suppressing science have an official place on the Republican Party Platform? (Source: The Observer, February 22, 2004)
George W. Bush is doing such a bad job as President that he's even losing the loyalty of Republicans in Texas! Take the example of John Scarnado, a registered Republican who lives in Austin, Texas. He says, "I'm upset about Iraq and the vice president and his affiliation with Halliburton. I think the Bush administration is coming out to look like old boy politics, and I don't have a good feel about that." (Source: New York Times, February 22, 2004)
According to Jeff Ruch, the executive director of PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility), the Fish and Wildlife Service under the Bush Administration has begun the practice of reassigning members of its professional staff when they issue reports on environmental issues that do not favor the economic interests of industries that supported George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential campaign. He describes instances of "targeted political payback" orchestrated by the top officials at the Service, officials appointed by Bush. (Source: Sierra Magazine, March/April 2004)
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in Illinois: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 34% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
Take this perspective from Congressional Representative Steny Hoyer, from Maryland: "The reality is that President Bush does not have a job-creation program beyond cheerleading at campaign events. But, of course, wishful thinking will never create the jobs that are necessary for American families to thrive. The President's advisers seem to believe that these happy-talk sessions on the economy demonstrate that he is engaged. In fact they do the President more harm than good because they show just how out of touch he really is." Representative Hoyer is right. America needs more than an economic plan based on mere wishful thinking. That's why America needs to vote for anybody but Bush in 2004. (Source: PRNewswire, February 19, 2004)
Bob Watson, the chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, calls the Bush Administration's denial of the reality of climate change, "hugely embarrassing". This is the game we're having to play with Bush in the White House: Guessing how many different ways Bush can embarrass America in the eyes of the international community. I want a president I don't have to be embarrassed of, and that's just one more reason to give Bush the boot. (Source: The Observer, February 22, 2004)
Bush is still pushing to open up oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, in spite of the fact that a majority of Americans oppose doing so for sound environmental reasons. Okay, let's pretend that we can put those environmental issues aside for a moment, and consider this: Bush's push for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge proves that he's an awful businessman. How so? Well, you see, because of global warming, the arctic tundra is becoming much softer on average as the permafrost melts and turns to a kind of mushy arctic marsh through the warmer parts of the year. The number of days in which the areas of the North Slope of Alaska already open to oil drilling are actually accessible to oil companies' vehicles has dropped in half. As this trend continues, oil drilling in far northern Alaska will become more and more expensive, driving oil prices up. A good businessman can see that it's just not worth the national investment that would be required, but Bush can't see this. Someone who can't grasp this kind of basic business dynamic has no business being the chief executive of the United States of America. (Source: Sierra Magazine, March/April 2004)
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in Michigan: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 26% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
The amateurish approach of the Bush Administration to the responsibilities of government is causing former Bush voters to cross over into the ranks of the opposition. Take, for example, the comments of Bill Flanagan, who voted for George W. Bush in 2004, but now says, "The combination of lies and boys coming home in body bags is just too awful... I could vote for Kerry. I could vote for any Democrat unless he's a real dummy." Mr. Flanagan's good advice is yet another reason to boot Bush on Election Day. (Source: New York Times, February 22, 2004)
Even David Gergen, conservative and former adviser to Republican Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan, admits that George W. Bush has an awful environmental record. Describing the Bush Administration, Gergen says, "On issues of the environment, I do not think we can take pride in what we've done." (Source: Salt Lake Tribune, February 21, 2004)
Since he came to occupy the White House in 2000, George W. Bush has managed a federal government that systematically intimidates scientists from presenting results of studies that do not support Bush's extremist conservative political policies. In just one example of manipulation of government-sponsored scientific research, after 10 years of research, a team of biologists studying the effect of water flow on endangered pallid sturgeons in the Missouri River was replaced with a new team when their their study's results appeared to recommend changes in shipping patterns that were stronger than those favored by the Bush Administration. So, a Bush appointee put a new research team in place, which, after just 45 days, released a new report that supported the plans of the Bush Administration. When a President fires scientists because they say things that he doesn't want to hear, he undermines the trust that Americans should be able to place in scientific research sponsored by the government. (Source: Sierra Magazine, March/April 2004)
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in Wisconsin: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 19% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
George W. Bush has lost the support of the founder of the American Military Museum. Although he supported Bush in 2000, Republican George Meagher now says, "Given the outcome and how dissatisfied I am with the administration, it's hard to think about now... People like me, we're all choking a bit at not supporting the president. But when I think about 500 people killed and what we've done to Iraq, and what we've done to our country, I mean, we're already $2 trillion in debt again." (Source: New York Times, February 22, 2004)
George W. Bush's National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice justified the need for war by arguing that UN weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq had been given all the information they needed to succeed, but still weren't up to the job of keeping us safe. Her words on March 6, 2003: "United Nations inspectors have been briefed on every high or medium priority weapons of mass destruction, missile and U.A.V.-related site the U.S. intelligence community has identified."
You know what comes next, don't you? Now the Bush Administration has admitted that as a matter of fact, United Nations inspectors were not provided with information about a large number of alleged sites. How typical, and how disappointing. And in this case, how deadly. (Source: New York Times, February 21, 2004)
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in Minnesota: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 29% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
How do we know that they time to boot Bush has come? Even Green Party members and former hardcore Ralph Nader supporters are saying that they're going to vote for the Democratic candidate in order to make sure that George W. Bush doesn't have another 4 years to do his damage to America. (Source: Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, February 23, 2004)
Oh, how George W. Bush loves to talk about homeland security. It turns out that he's not very interested in keeping the actual land in the homeland secure, though. In fact, under Bush, American land is the least secure it's been in generations. For example, the EPA states that 1,172 streams are at high risk of pollution by the weed-killer atrazine. These streams run all through that "homeland" Bush keeps talking about, so you'd think he'd be concerned. Nope. It turns out that, under Bush's direction, the EPA is requiring only 3.4 percent of the streams that are at high risk of being poisoned by atrazine to actually be monitored. Under Bush's plan, the other 1,132 streams at high risk of this chemical attack will be left defenseless. George W. Bush's plan for homeland security requires communities along these waterways to fend for themselves and just hope that they aren't exposed to this poison. That's not just sloppy. It's not just careless. Bush is being negligent in protecting Americans from very real threats to their lives. (Source: Sierra Magazine, March/April, 2004)
I turned on CSPAN one morning to hear a conservative Republican from Tennessee preach about what it means to be a "real American", announcing that if Massachusetts and California want to let gay people get married, they don't belong in the United States anymore. It's a sign of how much the divisive politics of George W. Bush are breaking the country apart that the Republicans are encouraging interregional hatreds of a strength that have not been seen since the days of the Civil Rights struggle four decades ago. Through negative advertisements, like those of the Club for Growth, Bush's supporters are actually encouraging Americans to hate other Americans solely because of the region of the United States in which they live. This kind of division within America should not be sought for the sake of mere political gain. (Source: CSPAN, February 23, 2004)
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in Iowa: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 19% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
Jim Rego is a marketing manager for Xerox, and a Republican. When asked for his opinion of George W. Bush, he says, "I won't be voting for Bush in the fall. I think he's destroyed the economy... I'm interested in anybody who actually will bring the deficit back down. I think George Bush has bungled the economy. I think Iraq was a mistake... I would vote for either one of the Democratic candidates right now." America has good reason to consider Jim Rego's advice. (Source: Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, February 23, 2004)
G.I. Joe is not a real American hero. G.I. Joe is a mass-marketed toy produced by a giant corporation in order to appeal to little boys' desire to play at war as if it is a game. We need a President who knows the difference.
John Kerry has seen the face of war. George W. Bush hasn't.
The Bush campaign issued a scathing indictment of John Kerry, noting that over the past decade and a half John Kerry had received campaign contributions from lobbyists at a rate of nearly $54,000 a year. Bad, bad, bad.
Problem is, Bush received $960,000 in payments from lobbyists in the last year alone. That's more than SEVENTEEN TIMES AS MUCH as Kerry.
This striking difference gives quantitative ground to what has been qualitatively obvious for some time now: George W. Bush is the lobbyist candidate. (Source: New York Times February 23, 2004)
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in Missouri: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 25% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
George W. Bush is using the power of the White House to punish states that did not vote for him in 2000, and are not likely to vote for him in 2004. A case in point: Bush has broken his promises to provide financial assistance to the state of California. During his campaign to become California's governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said that, as a Republican, he would be able to get more help from Bush. So what did Bush do? He reduced federal funds for California, making a patsy out of Arnold. Regional favoritism is no game for a President of the United States to be playing. (Source: Meet the Press, February 22, 2004)
Has George W. Bush been using the power of the federal government to pay back his campaign contributors in ways that harm the American people? Well, let's look at one example of Bush's mutual back-scratching strategies (We can't call it bribery, can we? Oh no, we musn't.) During the 2000 presidential campaign, the electric utility industry donated 4.8 million dollars to the Bush campaign and the Republican National Committee. Now, as president, George W. Bush has ordered 50 separate investigations of electrical power plants for violations of the Clean Air Act to be stopped. It is estimated that the electrical utility industry will save 10 billion dollars as a result. As the Church Lady might have asked, "Isn't that special?" (Source: Sierra Magazine, March/April 2004)
Dr. Sidney Drell, a professor emeritus of physics at Stanford and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution who has served both Democratic and Republican administrations as a national security advisor, gave the following warning about the Bush Administration's sacrifice of science for the sake of political advantage: "I am concerned that the scientific advice coming into this administration seems to me very narrow... The input from individuals whose views are not in the main line of their policy don„1¤76�0„671�0„3¨¨76�6¥71¡è70„1¤76�0„67671�6¥71¡è70„1¤76�0„673�0„3¡ì�0„3¡ì70�6¥71¡è76„1¤70�6¥7671„1¤70�6¥73¡§¡§70�6¥71¡è70„1¤76�0„673„1¤70�6¥73¡§¡§39t seem to be sought or welcomed." Stifling the open pursuit of knowledge for the sake of conservative cultural preferences reminds one of the Dark Ages. Would Bush have prosecuted Galileo? (Source: New York Times News Service, February 23, 2004)
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in North Dakota: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 22% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
Why is George W. Bush marshalling his administration's attention and resources to battling gay marriage of all things, when there are much more serious problems going on: millions of jobs lost, Americans getting shot at in foreign countries, nuclear proliferation going unaddressed, and global warming? Is banning gay marriage really so important compared to these things?
The night before George W. Bush announced he would push for the government to amend the constitution in order to keep gay people from getting married, he made the following statement about his opponents:
"They seem to be against every idea that gives Americans more authority and more choices and more control over their own lives. We'll hear them make a lot of promises over the next eight months -- and listen closely because there's a theme: Every promise will increase the power of politicians and bureaucrats over your income, over your retirement, over your health care, and over your life. It's that same old Washington mind-set -- they'll give the orders..."
Does he not see the dissonance here? Is he projecting his motivations on his opponents? Or in his universe do gay and lesbian people not count as people? I am truly mystified. (Source: Remarks by George W. Bush to the Republican Governors Association, February 23 2004)
Ad Dawson was planning on voting for George W. Bush, but no longer. Why? Read Ad's own words:
"For most of my life, I decided to remain neutral and not take sides in any political issue. My reason for this was due to my desire to not offend someone else's viewpoints and to be open to hearing all sides of any heated discussion or argument. I'm registered independent and have voted for both a Democratic candidate and a Republican candidate throughout the years.
For the first few years of Bush's term, many of my friends looked down upon Bush while I remained neutral. Up until this issue arose, I was planning on voting for Bush as I was concerned that putting a new President in during the current state of our country could place our economical situation in even worse affairs. But, with this amendment proposal and Bush's backing, I have decided to finally come off the fence.
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in South Dakota: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 26% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
"I will not be voting for Bush in 2004 whereas just a few months ago, I was planning on supporting him. I will not back any President who wants to attempt to modify the United States Constitution created by our forefathers which was designed to protect ALL people's rights and not take them away or classify them for certain groups/people.
"It's a shame that religion is still defining our politics. It's an even bigger shame that the United States would invest its time and money on an issue to segregate the people of its country rather than unite us all.
"I consider myself spiritual and am open to a diverse nation. Whether you are gay, straight, black, white, latino, asian, male, female, christian, muslim, hindu, buddist, etc, etc, we all come from the same creator.
'One nation, under God...' How can this be true by adding laws that will segregate and classify groups of people?"
(Source: Washington Post Forums February 24, 2004)
In attempting to justify his push for a constitutional amendment to restrict the freedom of gays and lesbians, George W. Bush explained that "attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country."
Serious consequences? What serious consequences might those be? Bush did not elaborate, unfortunately, so we'll have to work those out for ourselves. Will tadpoles fall from the sky and clog sewer drains? Will we all start fornicating with cattle? Will the fact that gay people are getting married in San Francisco lead people to start committing petty theft in Austin? I can think of no consequences any more serious than the shocking possibility that some awfully closed-minded people might take offense. That's an awfully low standard for amending the Constitution. Yet again, George W. Bush has managed to simultaneously embrace low standards and the lowest common denominator. (Source: Remarks by George W. Bush in the Roosevelt Room, February 24 2004)
Under the administration of George W. Bush, millions of taxpayer dollars are still being funnelled to the "Iraqi National Congress," a front group headed by Ahmed Chalabi that fed the Bush Administration a series of untrue and often fabricated stories in its push for war. Couldn't we do something better with those millions than pay for more tall tales? (Source: Duluth News-Tribune February 22, 2004)
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in Kansas: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 26% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
On February 24, the world was shocked to hear of the slaughter of 200 people in a refugee camp in Uganda, by a group of rebels, including child soldiers, who are fighting for a man who says he wants to create a national Ugandan government that is based upon the Ten Commandments. Without a moment to lose, George W. Bush made an announcement: He declared that he would help a nation besieged by immorality and lawlessness by amending the Constitution of the United States so that only those marriages that don't involve gay people can take place. (Source: Associated Press, February 24, 2004)
George W. Bush seems to feel that it's just too much of a pain in the neck to bother setting standards for public behavior in our society. That's especially true in relation to the behavior of big corporations, and when it comes to the environment. Let's compare: In the first three years of the Clinton Administration, there were 30 environmental standards set by the EPA. In the first three years of the new Bush Administration, there have only been 3 such environmental standards set, and 2 of those 3 were required by court order. Low standards seems to be Bush's way to govern. (Source: Sierra Magazine, March/April 2004)
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in Delaware: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 43% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
George W. Bush chose Rod Paige to be Secretary of Education. So how well does this choice reflect on Bush? Well, recently Rod Paige announced to a meeting of the nation's governors that "The NEA is a terrorist organization". For those of you who don't have kids in school, he was talking about the National Education Association, America's largest organization of school teachers. Apparently, Rod Paige believes that teachers are terrorists. Bush is the guy who appointed Mr. Paige, so you can imagine what Bush's opinion of teachers is. (Source: Associated Press, February 23, 2004)
Rod Paige's announcement that hundreds of thousands of American school teachers are in fact members of a "terrorist organization" has provoked at least one teacher's confession. Michael Sherwin, from Corvalis, Oregon, writes: "Since Secretary of Education Rod Paige has torn off the mask and exposed the National Education Association for what it is „1¤76�0„671�0„3¨¨76�6¥71¡è70„1¤76�0„67671�6¥71¡è70„1¤76�0„673�0„3¡ì�0„3¡ì70�6¥71¡è76„1¤70�6¥7671„1¤70�6¥73¡§¡§70�6¥71¡è70„1¤76�0„673„1¤70�6¥73¡§¡§35 a terrorist organization, I can see the game is up. There's no use in dissembling anymore. I want to confess. For decades, I have been part of this terrorist organization. For decades, I have sent them material support disguised as union dues. For decades, I have spent countless hours participating in their nefarious plot to educate America's children. But no more. I have seen the light! I saw Sarah Good with the Devil! I saw Goody Osburn with the Devil! I saw... Oh, sorry ... wrong witch hunt." So what's the associated reason to boot Bush? Well, we are shocked that it took Bush three and a half years to summon the courage to confront this evil plot in our midst! (Source: Corvalis Gazette-Times, February 24, 2004)
Getting on to the more serious threats to America, let's talk about the assault of George W. Bush and the Republican Congress on our system of public lands. Back in the 20th Century, Republican President Theodore Roosevelt preserved 240 milllion acres of wild country as American public land. During the least three and a half years, George W. Bush has weakened the protection of 234 million acres of public land. That's America's natural heritage Bush is messing with. (Source: Sierra Magazine, March/April 2004)
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in Maryland: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 32% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
George W. Bush has led the Republican Party into a degraded attitude of amorality, in which Republican activists, and even Republican employees in Congress, are encouraged to do whatever is necessary, even to break the law, in order to defeat Democrats' attempts to bring balance back to American government. A case in point: Republican staffers in the U.S. Senate have been caught breaking into the computer systems used by Senators who belong to the Democratic Party. When Republican Senator Orrin Hatch dared to condemn this illegal act, powerful agents in the Republican Party attacked Senator Hatch for being disloyal, and President Bush has done nothing to reign these Republican attack dogs in! (Source: Slate, February 20, 2004)
George W. Bush has managed the federal government in such a way that anti-environmental officials have seized power over the very governmental agencies that are supposed to protect the environment. For example, Craig Manson, the official at the Interior Department who is supposed to oversee the Fish and Wildlife Service and enforce the Endangered Species Act, is on record as stating, "If we are saying that the loss of species is inherently bad, I don't think we know enough about how the world works to say that." Here we have the man who is supposed to make sure that endangered species are protected in accordance with the law, and he's saying that it doesn't much matter to him whether or not species go extinct. For keeping this man in office, Bush's presidency ought to go extinct. (Source: Sierra Magazine, March/April 2004)
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in the District of Columbia: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 32% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
Lynne Cheney, wife of Bush's Vice President Dick Cheney, has been not just a member, but a board member of the Independent Women's Forum, a radical anti-feminist group that opposes pay equity, blaming what it characterizes as women's biological differences for the lower pay that women receive in comparison to men. (Source: Blinded By The Right, David Brock)
If George W. Bush gets re-elected, it may be necessary to pass a constitutional amendment defining the Presidency as an office held by one man or woman who is not a blabbering idiot. We ought to be restrained in offering amendments to the Constitution, so I'd prefer that we just vote him out of office.
If you're a mountain climber, you ought to protect your favored activity by casting a vote against Bush. Many of the world's most popular mountain-climbing destinations, such as the Matterhorn and Mount Blanc, are disintegrating because of global warming, which increases the rate of avalanches and huge rockfalls by warming up mountains' ground temperatures and increasing evaporation from glaciers and snow pack during summertime. As a result, mountain climbing is becoming more dangerous, and many mountains are even being closed to climbers. Bush, of course, is doing nothing to address issues of climate change, other than to say that they don't exist. Bummer. (Source: Sierra Magazine, March/April 2004)
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in Virginia: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 37% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
John Kerry says that as President, he would require companies to give their workers a three month warning before "outsourcing" their jobs to foreign countries. George W. Bush refuses to support such a move. Of course, Bush is a third-generation corporate executive, and wouldn't know a worker's interest if it was shaking a picket sign in his face. (Source: Financial Times, February 25, 2004)
It appears that, before the war against Iraq, as Bush and Blair were trying to get a United Nations resolution in favor of war passed, British agents were engaged in a prolonged mission to spy on United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, recording all his private conversations.
It has been known for some months that the Bush Administration requested the British government to spy on delegations to the United Nations Security Council, including Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan. A memo acknowledging this American request for espionage at the UN Headquarters in New York City was leaked to the press by a translator who felt ethically unable to be complicit in the spy mission.
Now, Clare Short, who was the Secretary of International Development in UK Prime Minister Tony Blair's government at the time of the buildup to war in Iraq, has revealed that the British spy mission included not just espionage against Security Council delegations, but also the break-in and bugging of the office of the Secretary General himself. Short reports having read transcripts of Kofi Annan's private, confidential conversations herself.
If, as it appears, this espionage was done at the request and with the knowledge of the Bush Administration, then President George W. Bush has committed a crime quite similar to the one at the center of the Watergate scandal that led Richard M. Nixon to resign: A break-in and spying effort in order to gain political advantage. It's important to keep in mind that the United Nations Headquarters is on American soil, in downtown Manhattan. There are no overseas exemptions to U.S. law there.
This would certainly be an impeachable offense, but let's not drag America through another impeachment. Instead, we need an independent investigation of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the leaders of the American intelligence community. If a crime has been committed, the responsible parties in the Bush Administration, including the President, should resign. If Bush does not resign, our only alternative is to vote him out of office. (Source: CBS News, February 26, 2004)
Yes, it turns out that UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix was bugged, too. He calls it "disgusting", and we agree. (Sources: The Guardian February 27, 2004, CBS News, March 1, 2004)
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in West Virginia: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 33% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
George W. Bush can't seem to even take a glimpse of wilderness without wanting to fill it all up with industrial machinery. The Bush Administration has targeted the Red Desert of Wyoming for more than 12,000 oil and gas wells by the year 2010. Of course, this decision has nothing to do with the fact that both the Bush and Cheney families are up to their earlobes in the oil business, right? (Source: Sierra Magazine, March/April 2004)
It's important not just to look at what Halliburton is doing now, but how it fits into a pattern of behavior and allegiances over time. Time 1: As Secretary of Defense under George Bush Senior, Dick Cheney masterminds the turning over of military operations to private contractors. Halliburton is chosen to draw up the specific plans to do so. Time 2: When George Senior is kicked out of office, Dick Cheney is hired by Halliburton as its CEO. Time 3: While Cheney serves as Vice President under George Bush Junior, Halliburton is given a no-bid contract to administer various aspects of reconstruction in Iraq. Connect the dots. (Source: The Age, February 21 2004)
When Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton in the late 1990s, $180 Million in bribes were paid to Nigerian officials by four corporations including Halliburton, according to the Nigerian Economic and Financial Crimes Commission. (Source: The Age, February 21 2004)
Some people claim that even with all of Halliburton's nefarious doings in the late 1990s, perhaps Vice President Dick Cheney wasn't culpable. After all, even though he was CEO of Halliburton, he may not have known what his own corporation was doing. This is called the "asleep at the wheel" defense. Well, do we really want a Vice President in office with a record of being asleep at the wheel, especially when his boss is snoozing as well?
But fret not, at least not about Cheney dozing. No, fret instead about what he did while he was awake and clearly in charge at Halliburton. Current Halliburton CEO David Lesar has said in an interview that Cheney knew all about the questionable accounting practices going on at Halliburton. (Source: Newsweek July 15, 2002)
"Am I the evil genius in the corner that nobody ever sees come out of his hole? It's a nice way to operate, actually." So says Dick Cheney. Unfortunately, Mr. Cheney works in a public position and is supposed to be accountable to the American people. Shady backroom skulking does not a good administration make. (Source: The Age, February 21 2004)
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in North Carolina: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 11% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
What is the operational definition of injustice? Try the "military tribunals" at Guantanamo. Now the detainees, an increasing number of whom the Bush Administration now admits are not culpable, have been held for years without trials or even access to lawyers. The plan is for those being held to be put through "military tribunals" in which the traditional American standard of courtroom justice -- evidence, representation and all that silly stuff -- is not met.
But now comes the real kicker: Military officials now say that even if detainees are found not guilty in front of these "military tribunals," they may continue to be detained indefinitely anyway.
Yes, this is the Bush Administration's definition of justice. You may be lucky so far. But would you like it to happen to you? (Source: BBC February 26, 2004)
We don't weep for terrorists. But if it's clear the people being held at Guantanamo are terrorists, then why not put them on trial where the introduction of evidence will make it clear that they are terrorists? And if it's not clear that these are terrorists we're holding, then what is the justification for their indefinite detention?
Such is the logic of the American justice system. But the Bush Administration can't handle justice.
We used to say that other countries like the Soviet Union were "evil" because they conducted show trials in which the accused were denied access to evidence, denied access to lawyers and denied freedom even when found not guilty. What does it make the U.S.A. to be doing the same now? What does that make the man responsible, George W. Bush?
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in South Carolina: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 16% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
When even staunch Bush supporter Bill O'Reilly,under duress (in a fit of pique, saying "What do you want me to do? Go over and kiss the camera?"), admits that "I was wrong" about the existence of weapons of mass destruction and that "all Americans should be concerned"... well, you know the shit has hit the fan. (Source: BBC February 11, 2004)
The official biography of George W. Bush on the U.S. State Department website inaccurately inflates Bush's national guard service, crediting him with years more in flight than he actually mustered. This is just one more instance in which the Bush Administration prefers flights of fancy to messy reality. (Source: Boston Globe February 28, 2004)
George W. Bush created the President's Council on Bioethics in 2001 to address issues such as therapeutic stem cell research and treatment and suggest policy remediation, appointing various experts from the field. Now Bush has removed Dr. Elizabeth Blackburn and Dr. William May, two members of the council whose conclusions do not match with his own. It's no wonder that Bush has made such a mess of the federal government. Dissenting professional voices throughout the scientific community in Washington D.C. are being systematically silenced. What are experts for, anyway, if they aren't going to agree with you? (Source: Associated Press February 27, 2004)
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in Georgia: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 23% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
President Bill Clinton pledged that the United States would sign on to an international treaty banning the use of land mines (which have the unpleasant habit of killing and maiming countless innocent civilians every year) by 2006. His successor, George W. Bush, has decided not to honor that pledge, and to keep using land mines. What's a missing leg or a dead kid to you when you know your own are safe? (Source: The Charlotte Observer February 28, 2004)
The United States is being hit by a 5% penalty tariff from the World Trade Organization. Why? The Bush Administration and the U.S. Congress, all Republican-controlled, can't get their act together to pass legislation to bring the U.S. into WTO compliance. Bush and the G.O.P. told us that a Republican administration would be more efficient than a Democratic one. But we were prosperous under Clinton and the Democrats. Bush and the Republicans just keep bungling their simplest duties. (Source: Associated Press February 28, 2004)
Former Cuyahoga County GOP official John Farina has had it. In a letter to the chair of the Ohio county's Republican Party, Farina explains that George W. Bush's endorsement of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage was the last straw. "It does nothing to strengthen marriage," he writes. "It is an obviously political move that will do nothing but divide the nation even further. So much for Mr. Bush being a uniter." (Source: Gay.com February 26, 2004)
George W. Bush's media adviser, Mark McKinnon, says it himself: "You don't hear the president in the Oval Office railing against the special interests." (Source: New York Times February 23, 2004)
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in Florida: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 15% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
The Bush Administration's Treasury Department has issued a regulation making it illegal for Americans to translate or act as an editor for anything written by an Iranian citizen. So much for the freedom of information. (Source: New York Times February 28, 2004)
George W. Bush has led the charge in making the present day Republican Party the most fiscally irresponsible governing group in over a generation. A case in point in republican Congressional Representative James Walsh, who won the "Porker of the Month" award for February, 2004 from Citizens against Government Waste, for his recent outrageous acts of unnecessary and poorly-targeted big government spending. We need a President who is willing to set a better example for confused, weak-willed legislators like Walsh. (Source: Associated Press, February 28, 2004.)
It's not just San Francisco that's standing up to the religious fundamentalist agenda of the segregation of marriage rights. Same-sex weddings have been taking place all over America. As far east as the small Upstate New York village as New Paltz, city and town officials have been helping couples of the same sex get married. In the parking lot of the New Paltz Village Hall, Mayor Jason West legally married 21 couples, explaining, "I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. What we're witnessing in the village today is the flowering of the largest civil rights movement in a generation." It's a shame that George W. Bush is attacking the institution of marriage by trying to annul the weddings of these 21 small town couples. That's downright anti-family, that is. (Source: Poughkeepskie Journal, February 28 2004)
Presidential candidate John Kerry has a solid plan to hand over the responsibility for handling the political transition to sovereignty and democracy for Iraq to the authority of the United Nations, saying "We must offer the U.N. the lead role in assisting Iraq with the development of new political institutions." George W. Bush refuses to allow the United Nations to help the United States manage the political transition, even though Bush's own plan for the transition has almost completely fallen apart. (Source: Knight-Ridder Newspapers, February 28, 2004)
George W. Bush, when he heard of John Kerry's plan to get United Nations cooperation in bringing sovereignty and democracy to Iraq, moved quickly into action. He ordered two Republican senators, John Kyl of Arizona and Norm Coleman of Minnesota, to find new ways to criticize John Kerry's 20-year long record of experience with foreign policy issues. If Bush would only spend half of the energy he currently uses attacking more experienced leaders, we might not have the profound troubles in Iraq we're seeing today. (Source: Knight-Ridder Newspapers, February 28, 2004)
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in Kentucky: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 22% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
Listen to the opinion of one Haitian about George W. Bush's long-term refusal to do anything serious to help Haiti resolve its violent crisis. "You tell George W. Bush he is a hypocrite and assassin because the terrorists are killing the Haitian people." So much for Bush's supposed moral clarity. (Source: Associated Press, February 28, 2004)
Why was George W. Bush unwilling to do anything to help Haiti for so long? Well, Bush Administration officials explained that they just couldn't do anything, because Bush has stretched the American military too thin, what with the war in Iraq and all, which was a very very necessary war because of, um, something. (Source: Associated Press, February 28, 2004)
More moral clarity from George W. Bush: When 500 Haitians took to the sea in rickety boats to try to escape the devastating violence in their country, Bush ordered the Coast Guard to pick them up and return them to Haiti, where they face attacks by both rebels and Aristide loyalists, all over again. Bush's excuse? He says it's not his problem. It is against international law to refuse to help refugees who are fleeing violence. I guess Bush's morality gets a bit fuzzy on matters like that, though. (Source: Associated Press, February 28, 2004)
Still more moral clarity from George W. Bush: according to U.S. officials, the groups that seized power in Haiti in February and March of 2004 are headed by the leaders of the old Haitian death squads and by convicted murderers. George W. Bush had the strange notion to suggest that the elected Aristide step down and allow these thugs to take power. (Sources: New York Times February 28, 2004 and Associated Press February 28, 2004)
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in Tennessee: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 14% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
On his "Republicans Against Bush" website, Brian Youmans of Boston, MA notes that "The Republican party used to be the party that kept America out of international entanglements. Until the Reagan years, the party had taken pride in the fact that all major wars in the last century had been entered into by Democrats (WW I, WW II, Korea, Vietnam). The peace treaty for WW I was signed under a Republican, Warren G. Harding, and Nixon had extracted the US from Vietnam. Why are the Republicans suddenly the party of war?"
Good question, Mr. Youmans. But Mr. Bush isn't answering. (Source: An Open Letter to All Republicans, December 2002)
We agree with Al Sharpton when he says, "The issue in 2004 is not if gays marry. The issue is not who you go to bed with. The issue is whether either of you have a job when you get up in the morning." (Source: CNN, February 26, 2004)
We're also with Sharpton when he suggests that, instead of having a constitutional amendment to deal with the non-emergency of gay marriage, "Let's make a constitutional amendment against presidents who lie!"
(Source: CNN, February 26, 2004)
How can we expect a man who can't handle his pretzels to handle the White House?
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in Alabama: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 22% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
18,000 families will be ripped apart this year as more National Guard soldiers are prepared to be sent to Iraq, which still is not under control. Surely 18,000 family breakups merit notice as at least one more reason to boot Bush. (Source: Reuters, March 1, 2004)
Laura Bush says that she's tired of being known as the "First Lady". We'd like to help her with that problem. (Source, AP, February 29, 2004)
George W. Bush has approved programs that grant taxpayer money to the Catholic Church to teach children not to have sex. We think he's got it backwards. Shouldn't the government be promoting programs that teach the Catholic Church that its priests shouldn't have sex with children? (Source: St. Joseph News-Press, February 9, 2004)
For a couple years at least, now, George W. Bush has claimed that God is on his side. Still, I've received no memo from God about this. Have you? Has God gone on Larry King Live to announce that he's for George W. Bush? No. I think it may just be that George W. Bush has been hallucinating about this whole talking to God thing. Even worse, maybe he just made it all up! A crazy man or a big old liar. Why do I have to make up my mind about which one the President is? This is just not right, people!
Dan Keefe gives a pretty good reason for why he'll be voting to boot Bush in 2004. He writes, "I will never vote for another Republican in my life. I had a 19 year old fourth generation US Marine Grandson serving in Iraq. I am also a retired US Marine. My grandson was shot in the pelvis in mid-December and when patched up and shipped back to the states the marrow in his pelvis was no longer producing Red Blood Cells. If this cannot be fixed his life is ruined. He was planning to become an FBI agent like his older brother and they have told him that they will no longer consider him. The entire reason for our being in Iraq is based on a filthy lie by the President, Vice President, and Secretary of State as well as the conservatives running around the White House." We couldn't agree more, Mr. Keefe, and we hope your grandson is better soon. Even more than that, we hope that there won't be American grandsons and granddaughters getting shot up in Iraq for much longer. (Source: Conservatives for Kerry, March 1, 2004)
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in Mississippi: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 13% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
James Webb, a Vietnam combat veteran, and secretary of the Navy under Republican President Ronald Reagan, writes, "Bush arguably has committed the greatest strategic blunder in modern memory. To put it bluntly, he attacked the wrong target. While he boasts of removing Saddam Hussein from power, he did far more than that. He decapitated the government of a country that was not directly threatening the United States and, in so doing, bogged down a huge percentage of our military in a region that never has known peace. Our military is being forced to trade away its maneuverability in the wider war against terrorism while being placed on the defensive in a single country that never will fully accept its presence. There is no historical precedent for taking such action when our country was not being directly threatened. The reckless course that Bush and his advisers have set will affect the economic and military energy of our nation for decades. It is only the tactical competence of our military that, to this point, has protected him from the harsh judgment that he deserves. At the same time, those around Bush, many of whom came of age during Vietnam and almost none of whom served, have attempted to assassinate the character and insult the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with them. Some have impugned the culture, history and integrity of entire nations, particularly in Europe, that have been our country's great friends for generations and, in some cases, for centuries. Bush has yet to fire a single person responsible for this strategy. Nor has he reined in those who have made irresponsible comments while claiming to represent his administration. One only can conclude that he agrees with both their methods and their message." Mr. Webb is no liberal pacifist. When he condemns Bush's reckless military adventures, we ought to listen. (Source: USA Today, February 19, 2004)
Under the American military occupation of Afghanistan supervised by George W. Bush, Afghan opium production is at record levels. That means that heroin will be cheaper and easier to get on American streets, thanks to Mr. Bush's incompetence in governing Afghanistan. Isn't that trippy? (Source: CBS News, March 1, 2004)
Upon learning that American-occupied Afghanistan is a record-producer of opium, Bush's point man on narcotics in the State Department said that the current Afghan government should not be held responsible for the problem. That's George W. Bush for you, promoting a responsibility-free drug culture for America and the whole world. (Source: CBS News, March 1, 2004)
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in Arkansas: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 14% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
A series of bombs in the city of Karbala tore apart a crowd of people as they visited the Imam Musa al-Khadam shrine as a part of celebrations of a Shiite holy day. At least 143 people were killed, just a few less than were killed in the Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh. This bombing, and the many others that have plagued Iraq in the last year, are a direct result of George W. Bush's incomplete and incompetent planning for the occupation of Iraq. Bush's plan? He'd just kill the bad guys, and then everything would be all liberated and wonderful. That kind of simplistic planning is dangerous when exercised by the most powerful man on Earth. You want another four years of that? Thanks, but I'll vote no. (Source: New York Times, March 2, 2004)
There has been another attack upon Shiites, this time in Pakistan, where military dictator General Pervez Musharraf has received Bush's support in spite of the Pakistani government's admitted efforts to provide nuclear weapons technology to countries like Libya. In this attack, at least 41 people were killed, and at least 150 wounded. George W. Bush's crusade against Islamic "evildoers" may have touched off a religious conflict that threatens to destroy not only Iraq, but a wide swath of territory from the Middle East through Central Asia. Bush's holy wars have brought about just the kind of instability that terrorists thrive upon. Smooth move, Mr. Bush. (Source: New York Times, March 2, 2004)
George W. Bush has been such a disaster in the White House that Americans are willing to vote for anybody but Bush. It's remarkable that so early in the campaign year, the defeat of George W. Bush has accumulated such intense focus. As one worker in New York City states, "Whoever comes as a Democrat, they have my vote. If it's Dean. If it's Kerry. It doesn't matter. Anybody." Such desperation is another sign that Bush is bad for America. (Source: New York Times, March 2, 2004)
Bush is apparently still living in a fantasy land in which America is threatened by massive biological and chemical weapons attacks from some enemy, somewhere, somehow. "Attack from a chemical or biological weapon is one of the gravest threats our country has ever faced," he says. But wait and think: the anthrax attacks of 2001 were incredibly inefficient, with large numbers of packages killing only 4 people. Besides, the attacks used a form of anthrax developed by the United States military. The threat isn't from an enemy of the United States, it's from within, as George W. Bush continues to push for the development of newer, ever more deadly weapons of mass destruction by the United States military! Folks, George W. Bush is one of the gravest threats our country has ever faced. (Source: USA Today, March 2, 2004)
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in Louisiana: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 33% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
George W. Bush says that workers at the Department of Homeland Security deserve "a gold star". No, they deserve a President who doesn't get the United States involved in unnecessary wars that trigger animosity against America. (Source: Associated Press, March 2, 2004)
What does "absolutely not" mean George W. Bush says it? It means "Yes, absolutely!" On October 11, 2000, in a debate with Vice President Al Gore, George W. Bush said "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. . . . I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have a kind of nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not." It turns out Bush was missing something. Since he's become President, George W. Bush has had little foreign policy other than invading other countries in order to try to rebuild them. In fact, in Iraq, nation-building is the only rationale for the unprovoked American invasion that Bush has left. All the other rationales turned out to be based on mistakes, lies and exaggerations. So, folks, when (if?) Bush debates the Democratic presidential candidate in the fall of 2004, listen for him to say that he will "absolutely not" do something, and it just might mean that Bush will do it! This kind of flip-flopping has been typical of Bush, who seems to have an uncanny ability to mismatch his policies with the challenges that face us. (Source: Boston Globe, March 2, 2004)
White House aides have been busy denying that George W. Bush has any responsibility for the armed revolution that has torn Haiti apart. However, as far back as his campaign in 2000, George W. Bush actively promoted a policy of neglect of Haiti by the United States. Back then, Bush criticized the Clinton Administration's efforts to stabilize Haiti, saying, "I wouldn't have sent troops to Haiti. I didn't think it was a mission worthwhile. It was a nation-building mission." So what did Bush do once he got into the White House to keep Haiti stable? He did exactly what he promised to do: Nothing. So, the Haitian people can give a big "Thanks for nothing" greeting card to George W. Bush, now that their nation is being ransacked by unelected gangs and drug dealers. (Source: Boston Globe, March 2, 2004)
Oh, my. Now that Jean-Bertrand Aristide has been forced out of Haiti against his will, and through American neglect at the very least, brutal former dictator Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier says he wants to return to the Caribbean nation. That's our Bush: Defending democracy and freedom around the globe - NOT! Duvalier says, "I'm ready to put myself at the disposal of the Haitian people." That's an unfortunate choice of words. (Source: San Francisco Chronicle, March 2, 2004)
George Soros knows money. He's made 7 billion dollars of it for himself. So, perhaps we ought to listen when Mr. Soros comments on George W. Bush's tax policy. Soros says, "The purpose of Bush's tax cuts was to reduce taxes on the rich, people like me. The linking of job cuts to taxes is deceptive. They weren't targeted at the middle class, and some don't kick in for five years. How does that create jobs in the short term?" Answer: It doesn't. It hasn't. Count ignoring the financial wisdom of George Soros as another reason to boot Bush. (Source: San Francisco Chronicle, March 2, 2004)
David Catania is a Republican city councilman in Washington, D.C. He started out as a big fundraiser for George W. Bush's re-election, raising 80,000 dollars. He's earned a place as a delegate to the Republican Presidential Convention this summer. Nonetheless, he's had second thoughts, and has stopped his fundraising efforts. Now, he says that he can't bring himself to vote for George W. Bush. Why? He's decided that George W. Bush is dangerously beholden to radical right-wing extremists, so much so that having Bush in the White House is endangering America's freedoms. He comments, "You know the concept of buyer's remorse? I've got it. I want my money back." We're with you, Mr. Catania. We want our country back. (Source: Newsweek, March 8, 2004)
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in Oklahoma: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 30% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
All across America, Republicans are abandoning the Bush re-election effort. Donald Capoccia, a real estate developer in New York, was a Bush appointee to the United States Commission of Fine Arts. Mr. Capoccia has become so disgusted with Bush's record as President that he has since resigned in protest and declared that he will not vote for Bush. When Republicans protest because they believe that George W. Bush has become too extreme, you know things have gotten very bad indeed. (Source: Newsweek, March 8, 2004)
Republican and former congressional representative Steve Gunderson expresses his worries that the extremism George W. Bush is dividing America. Referring to the impact of Bush's decision to support a constitutional amendment that would take away the freedom of same-sex couples to get married, Gunderson comments, "This country will be more polarized than we've been in decades." A vote to boot Bush is a vote to end the division, and start the healing. (Source: Newsweek, March 8, 2004)
George W. Bush's decision to push for an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America in order to take away the freedom to get married from same-sex couples has alienated him from moderates within the Republican Party, who can't understand why Bush doesn't spend as much time working on creating jobs as he does making speeches about who he thinks ought to get married. For example, Janet Creighton, the Republican mayor of Canton, Ohio, complains, "I frankly don't care about what goes on in anybody's bedroom. What we need to focus on is economic progress in this city." As Mayor Creighton points out, sacrificing the economy to go off tilting at gay marriage windmills is just plain wrong for America. (Source: Newsweek, March 8, 2004)
John Kerry has a plan to make America independent of oil from the Middle East within 10 years, through what he refers to as the Manhattan Project of alternative energy, focusing on automobile efficiency and a series of alternative fuels, starting with ethanol, that we can use right now. George W. Bush's plan focuses on making changes starting 20 years from now. That's too little, too late. Kerry's plan isn't perfect, but it's a heck of a lot better than Bush's. (Source: JohnKerry.com)
John Kerry has a plan to promote "Clean and Green Communities" throughout America by coordinating federal transportation policies, federal housing incentives, federal employment opportunities and the use of federal dollars to acquire parks and open space. Does George W. Bush have a plan to promote truly livable communities? Nope. Bush seems to think it's fine to just let our cities sprawl all over the landscape. I think that America can do better than strip malls from coast to coast, and that's why I'll vote to give Bush the boot. (Source: JohnKerry.com)
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in Texas: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 35% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
George W. Bush's 2005 Budget cuts back on professional development funds for school teachers, making it more difficult for teachers to keep their classroom techniques up to date. It's typical Bush to hold teachers accountable for performance even as he undercuts their ability to perform. (Source: United Federation of Teachers, February 2004)
We agree with The Progressive magazine when it states, "Bush contended that marriage is the foundation of our society. But he's wrong. Justice is the foundation of our society." Justice, in and out of marriage, is the core of our values, even if it's not something that Bush values. We're sick of hearing Bush's supporters cram their family values through everybody else's front door. We want to return to an America in which individual rights are respected as much as the rights of social institutions of authority, such as marriage. (Source: The Progressive, February 25, 2004)
We also take note when Republican Patrick Guerriero says, "As conservative Republicans, we are outraged that any Republican--particularly the leader of our party and this nation--would support any effort to use our sacred United States Constitution as a way of scoring points in an election year." Hey, I'm not sure the Constitution is actually sacred, but it is essential to keeping American democracy alive, and it's really rotten that George W. Bush is toying around with it for political purposes. We're glad to see that Republicans feel this way too. (Source: The Progressive, February 25, 2004)
According to an official from the Clinton Administration, George W. Bush knew about North Korea's uranium enrichment program as soon as he took office in January 2001, even though Bush has claimed that he only learned about the program in 2002. The Bush Administration did nothing in the meantime to stop or even slow down the North Korean program, creating an international crisis through its lazy neglect. (Source: Bloomberg, February 19, 2004)
If John Kerry is elected in 2004, you know that the morning of his inauguration some right-wing newspaper will blame him for something bad that happened that day. It'll be red meat for fringe Bush supporters, but the rest of us will get a giggle. Giggles are good. Dump Bush.
In 2004, for the third consecutive year, George W. Bush has underfunded his own No Child Left Behind Act. This year, Bush has underfunded the initiative by $9.4 Billion. Over three years, $27 Billion has gone missing from funds to implement No Child Left Behind. Not million. Billion. What happened to keeping your commitments? It's time to start calling this the Hundreds Of Thousands Of Children Left Behind Act. (Source: Charlotte Observer, March 2, 2004)
Dollars mean something real, especially when they add up to the billions. Because George W. Bush has underfunded his own act, more than 53,000 children in North Carolina alone who have been promised tutoring in reading and math won't get their help. That's a profoundly wrongheaded choice: when children gain reading and math skills early in life, their increased productivity will lead to many social contributions. George W. Bush just isn't that farsighted. (Source: Charlotte Observer, March 2, 2004)
Also cut in the 2005 Bush budget: drop-out prevention efforts. What's Bush's logic here? George W. Bush has dropped out of many things in life, and it didn't hurt him. Maybe that's his inspiration. (Source: Charlotte Observer, March 2, 2004)
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in Montana: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 29% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
The effect of the Bush deficits is real. How real? Your personal share of the national debt is $24,000. Each and every American is going to have to pay that off, or push off the debt onto their kids. What a rotten choice to make. Thanks for nothing, George. (Sources: U.S. Treasury Department and Census Bureau)
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the president of the Waterkeepers Alliance and senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, writes in his new book (Crime Against Nature) that, "George W. Bush will go down in history as America's worst environmental president. In a ferocious three-year attack, the Bush Administration has initiated more than 200 major rollbacks of America's environmental laws, weakening the protection of our country's air, water, public lands and wildlife." We vote no to continuing this onslaught on America's natural heritage. (Source: Sierra Atlantic, Spring 2004)
In 2000, George W. Bush sailed to a party coronation with competitors shoved off the stage. In 2004, John Kerry is winning the nomination the old-fashioned way: by working for votes against a rich slate of competitors. Democracy is good: look at what the lack of it brought us.
From the beginning of the Bush Administration through December of 2003, Alabama lost 48,900 jobs. (Source: Democratic State of the Union Response Center, January 2004)
Under the approving eye of the Bush Administration, the mayor of New Paltz, New York has been arrested. His crime? Marrying people who pledge to love, honor and cherish one another. (Source: Associated Press March 2, 2004)
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in Idaho: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 13% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
From the beginning of the Bush Administration through December of 2003, Arkansas lost 14,500 jobs. (Source: Democratic State of the Union Response Center, January 2004)
Thanks to the Bush Administration for ushering the democratically, constitutionally-elected Aristide out of Haiti while leaving a political and military vacuum. What's the result? The next day, drug trafficker Guy Phillipe declares "I am the Chief... The country is in my hands." After his speech, Phillipe's men begin the public smashing and burning of artwork. (Sources: Cox News Service March 3, 2004; New York Times February 29, 2004)
From the beginning of the Bush Administration through December of 2003, California lost 270,700 jobs. (Source: Democratic State of the Union Response Center, January 2004)
Looking for a sign that George W. Bush is dividing the nation? Look to Tallahassee, Florida, where 2,000 people turned out March 2nd in opposition to Bush, chanting "enough is enough!" (Source: Tallahassee Democrat, March 3, 2004)
Former chief weapons inspector David Kay has criticized the Bush Administration for not being upfront about what it knew and didn't know about weapons of mass destruction. In an interview with the Guardian, Kay says "It's about confronting and coming clean with the American people, not just slipping a phrase into the state of the union speech. He should say: 'We were mistaken and I am determined to find out why'.... When you don't say you got it wrong, it leads to the general belief that you manipulated the intelligence and so you did it for some other purpose.... And the other thing is it makes it very difficult for relations with allies. I think we lost the credibility of our intelligence. The next time you have to go and shout there's fire in the theatre people are going to doubt it." (Source: The Guardian, March 3, 2004)
Americans are waking up to the fact that, thanks to George W. Bush, the USA is a black sheep in the international community. In a new Gallup poll in February, 55% of Americans agreed that the the United States "rates unfavorably" in the world community. Only 24% of Americans agreed with that statement as George W. Bush began his term in office. (Source: The Gallup Poll February 2004 and February 2001)
From the beginning of the Bush Administration through December of 2003, Colorado lost 90,300 jobs. (Source: Democratic State of the Union Response Center, January 2004)
When even Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger says that a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is a step too far, you know that George W. Bush has really joined the fringe. (Source: New York Times March 3, 2004)
Bush's Low-Wage Jobs Legacy in Wyoming: from November 2001 to November 2003, the average wage in industries adding jobs there was 40% lower than the average wage in industries losing jobs there. (Source: Economic Policy Institute Economic Snapshot, January 21, 2004)
Because Bush supporters routinely send us anonymous e-mails like this:
"The Number One Reason We Want to Boot Bush:
1. Because we Liberals want a Communist Regime in Washington Go Commies,
Let's all wear red tommorrow to symbolize out leftist philosophy."
Democrats, Independents and Moderate Republicans not only know this isn't true, but their doubts about the Bush Administration are growing daily. The core constituents of George W. Bush are people like the one who wrote this message, people who have lost touch with the past two decades of American political and social history.
Thanks to a decision by the Bush Administration, significant areas of wetlands across New York State have lost their federal protection and are now open to complete destruction. The wetlands of New York State are one of its greatest natural resources, protecting New Yorkers from floods, providing them with areas for hunting and fishing, and increasing the quality of drinking water used by municipalities like Albany and New York City that rely on surface supplies of water. For Bush, the freedom of big business to push urban and suburban sprawl appears to be more important than the quality of life for all New Yorkers. (Source: Sierra Atlantic, spring 2004)
From the beginning of the Bush Administration through December of 2003, Connecticut lost 46,700 jobs. (Source: Democratic State of the Union Response Center, January 2004)
Why boot Bush? Because momentum matters. Individually, people can be very smart, but collectively we can act like cattle, moving in a direction just because other people are. It's a sad aspect of human nature, but true. This is how George W. Bush managed to yank the country rightward despite losing the popular (and possibly the electoral) vote in 2000.
Now the momentum is shifting, because Democrats, Independents and moderate Republicans have had enough of being pushed. We're pushing back, and the country is noticing. Perhaps you've noticed, too: it's little things such as few people daring any more to call you unpatriotic just for criticizing George W. Bush.
If we want to return the United States to sanity, however, we've got to keep the momentum headed in the right direction. That means we've got to have a reasonable person in the White House who isn't pushing against the national grain. George W. Bush has got to go.
From the beginning of the Bush Administration through December of 2003, even tiny Delaware lost 7,000 jobs. (Source: Democratic State of the Union Response Center, January 2004)
George W. Bush's rosy scenario for the economy predicted that in 2004, 2.6 million new jobs would be added to the economy. At that rate, 216,666 new jobs should have been added in January 2004. Less than half that number were added in reality. (Source: Knight-Ridder Newspapers March 5, 2004)
Bob McIlvaine of Oreland, Pennsylvania reacts to George W. Bush's decision to air campaign commercials exploiting images of dead bodies in the rubble of the World Trade Center:
"My son was murdered on September 11. To argue that using footage of the wreckage of the towers to further someone's political career is tasteful really needs to be rejected outright and I condemn it." (Source: Trenton Times, March 6, 2004)
Bush's advertisements using images of the aftermath of September 11 are flooded with video of firefighters and others slogging through debris, working hard in both rescue and recovery efforts. None of them signed up to be part of a Bush campaign commercial; they signed up to help their fellow Americans.
Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, hit the nail on the head when it comes to George W. Bush: "We're not going to stand for him to put his arm around one of our members on top of a pile of rubble at Ground Zero during a tragedy and then stand by and watch him cut money for first responders." (Source: Associated Press, March 4, 2004)
The Bush campaign had promised it would not use images of the September 11, 2001 attacks for political gain. Specifically, in January 2003 George W. Bush said he had "no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue." This is yet another broken promise. So much for honor and integrity. (Sources: Associated Press, March 4, 2004; New York Times March 5, 2004)
While Bush uses images of the bodies of the 9/11/01 dead in his campaign commercials, he continues to forbid cameras to film bodies of the Iraq War dead as they are returned home. (Sources: Star-Telegram March 5, 2004; USA Today December 30, 2003)
From the beginning of the Bush Administration through December of 2003, Illinois, the once-bustling center of the Midwest, lost 182,800 jobs. (Source: Democratic State of the Union Response Center, January 2004)
The Bush Administration has issued a new legal opinion through the justice department that doctor-patient confidentiality will no longer be recognized by the federal government, and that patients "no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential." This is just another piece of evidence that the B in Bush stands for Big government. (Source: New York Times, March 6, 2004)
According to the International Association of Chiefs of Police, hundreds of cops will have to be laid off next year if George W. Bush's proposed budget cuts to cops go through. (Source: USA Today, March 3, 2004)
The problem is not just George W. Bush's cuts in policing efforts in general. The specific police budget cuts Bush has put in place have undermined America's security. Since 2001, George W. Bush has made significant cuts in the federal Community Oriented Policing program (COPS), and he wants to make even more cuts next year. This program brings police out from behind the wheels of their squad cars and back out onto the beat, on foot and on bicycles, and sets up community policing centers that are more accessible to people than traditional police stations. Community policing increases security by keeping police in touch with what's going on in our neighborhoods in a friendly way, without violating anyone's constitutional freedoms. When Bush cuts these programs in order to fund special tax giveaways for the richest Americans, it shows that he is soft on security. (Source: Boston Globe, March 13, 2004)
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President of the Waterkeeper's Alliance, explains why so many Republicans are deciding not to support George W. Bush in 2004. He writes that, "The fishermen I represent are traditionally Republican. But, without exception, they see this administration as the largest threat not just to their livelihoods but to their values and their idea of what it means to be American." Attacking traditional American values of stewardship over land and water is another reason to boot Bush. (Source: Sierra Atlantic, spring 2004)
From the beginning of the Bush Administration through December of 2003, Indiana lost 88,800 jobs. (Source: Democratic State of the Union Response Center, January 2004)
You know the saying "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me?" Well, George W. Bush has now been fooled by Ahmad Chalabi twice, each time in a big way. In the leadup to war, Bush bought hook, line and sinker a series of "reports" by Chalabi about Hussein's Iraq that just weren't true. After the war, Chalabi assured the Bush Administration he would support an interim Iraqi constitution... then backed out at the last minute. If the United States of America is going to depend on hucksters in developing its foreign policy, then at least... no, no, the lesson is that the United States of America should not depend on hucksters in developing its foreign policy. How many times must he be fooled until Mr. Bush learns his lesson? (Source: Knight-Ridder Newspapers, March 5, 2004)
From the beginning of the Bush Administration through December of 2003, hard-working Iowa has fallen on hard luck, losing 32,000 jobs. (Source: Democratic State of the Union Response Center, January 2004)
Eva writes to us from Germany with an international perspective: "Germans tend to think that Americans are arrogant and ignorant and believe
themselves to be the kings of the world. George W. does nothing to
contradict that; he even confirms it."
Eva from Germany continues: "Chancellor Schroeder was among the first to offer help after 9/11. Bush's conception of friendship seems to be: do what I want, or get lost!"
An increasing number of Americans will react to Eva's thoughts by dismissing them: after all, they'll say, she's a German, not an American, so who cares what she thinks anyway? This xenophobic way of thinking has only been encouraged by the bull-in-a-China-shop tactics of George W. Bush.
Under the direction of the Bush Administration, the National Cancer Institute posted a claim on its web site that there is a connection between having an abortion and getting breast cancer. The claim stayed on the web site for 5 months, in spite of the fact that claims of this connection have been definitively disproved for quite some time. Allowing the announcements of scientific organizations to be determined by fundamentalist Christian religious agendas is not the kind of behavior we should expect from an American President in the 21st century. (Source: CBS News, March 11, 2004)
From the beginning of the Bush Administration through December of 2003, Kansas lost 3,700 jobs. (Source: Democratic State of the Union Response Center, January 2004)
George W. Bush has refused to endorse the creation of the International Criminal Court, since Americans could be tried in it -- along with citizens of any other nation. Bush says he'll endorse the International Criminal Court if citizens of other nations can be tried, just so long as Americans are exempt from standing trial. Bush continues to display contempt for the idea of equal protection under law.
George W. Bush's 2005 Budget cuts funding for clean-water projects by $492 million. (Source: Reuters, February 2, 2004)
Under George W. Bush, fewer Superfund toxic waste sites are being cleaned up per year than during Bill Clinton's years in office. (Source: Reuters, February 2, 2004)
From the beginning of the Bush Administration through December of 2003, Kentucky lost 52,300 jobs. (Source: Democratic State of the Union Response Center, January 2004)
George W. Bush's rosy scenario for the economy predicted that in 2004, 2.6 million new jobs would be added to the economy. At that rate, 216,666 new jobs should have been added in February 2004. Less than a tenth that number were added in reality. An amazing ninety percent of the jobs that Bush promised for Americans were never created at all. Imagine, now, if a big new company came into your home town and promised that it would create three hundred for local residents. Then, on opening day, the company opened its doors and only gave jobs to 30 people and told everyone else to go away. That kind of betrayal is what George W. Bush has perpetrated against American workers month after month after month. Enough with Bush's broken promises. We give him the boot, so he can go back to his daddy and ask for a job of his own. (Sources: Houston Chronicle, March 13, 2004; Knight-Ridder Newspapers March 5, 2004)
In order to make it look like America isn't losing so many manufacturing jobs, the Bush Administration is considering reclassifying work in a fast-food joint as "manufacturing." (Source: New York Times, February 20, 2004)
From the beginning of the Bush Administration through December of 2003, Louisiana lost 29,600 jobs. (Source: Democratic State of the Union Response Center, January 2004)
"5.6 percent unemployment is a good national number." So says George W. Bush in one of his latest promotional speeches. Well, tell that to those out there looking for a job. Or tell that to the people out there who've just stopped looking -- Yes, that's one of the main reasons the unemployment rate has gone down. To be listed as "unemployed" you have to be looking for work. Increasing numbers of people have just given up and even stopped looking. (Sources: Remarks by the President to the National Governors Association, February 23, 2004; Dallas Morning News, March 8, 2004)
Arnie writes in to ask: If George W. Bush saying "Bring 'Em On" from the safety of American soil is tough, why did he have to slip into Iraq secretly? Why wasn't he tough enough to stand at a streetcorner in Iraq and say "Bring 'Em On" there? Or did he just mean that the Iraqi opposition should attack American soldiers, but not him?
Arnie continues: What kind of logic is it for George W. Bush to ignore the U.N. to show Saddam Hussein that the U.N. cannot be ignored?
From the beginning of the Bush Administration through December of 2003, Maine lost 6,100 jobs. Ay-ya. (Source: Democratic State of the Union Response Center, January 2004)
George W. Bush invited nine of his campaign's biggest donors to stay overnight in the White House and at Camp David. The is the same George W. Bush who said in the 2000 campaign that such behavior is unethical and inappropriate. (Source: Associated Press March 10, 2004)
In another sign that members of George W. Bush's own party are disenchanted with his presidency, Arizona Senator John McCain said, "John Kerry is a close friend of mine... Obviously I would entertain it," when asked whether he'd consider being Kerry's presidential running mate. Kerry is a uniter. Bush is a divider. (Source: Good Morning America March 10, 2004)
At the beginning of 2004, CIA Director George Tenet had to take Vice President Dick Cheney aside to tell him that his public statements about weapons of mass destruction did not match the available facts. (Source: Knight-Ridder Newspapers March 10, 2004)
From the beginning of the Bush Administration through December of 2003, Maryland lost 2,800 jobs. (Source: Democratic State of the Union Response Center, January 2004)
Do you need another sign that Bush is a divider, not a uniter? Look no further than Bush's own Republican Party. Gay Republican organizations have not only announced their intention to oppose Mr. Bush, but have also gone as far as to introduce their own advertisements against his policies. If Bush can't unite his own party, how can he ever hope to bring all Americans together again? (Source: Washington Post March 10, 2004)
Dick flip-flops. Cheney on gay marriage during the 2000 campaign: "People should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into.... That matter is regulated by the states. I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area."
Cheney on gay marriage during the 2004 campaign: "I support the president."
Let's ease Mr. Cheney out of office in 2004 so he can find his backbone again. (Source: Washington Post March 10, 2004)
Speaking of Dick Cheney, he only agreed to offer one hour of testimony to the official commission investigating the attacks of September 11, 2001. Why won't he give more than an hour of his time to this critical fact-finding mission? (Source: Washington Post March 10, 2004)
From the beginning of the Bush Administration through December of 2003, Massachusetts lost 186,000 jobs. (Source: Democratic State of the Union Response Center, January 2004)
When, after months of refusing to do so, George W. Bush finally gets around to testifying before the official commission investigating the attacks of September 11, 2001... wait, it turns out he won't after all. Bush has agreed only to allow two members of the commission to speak with him, leaving the remainder of the commission behind. And Bush has refused to be sworn in for this testimony. Why is he unwilling to testify under oath? (Sources: Washington Post March 10, 2004; National Public Radio March 10, 2004>
George W. Bush's administration is so incompetent, his attack dogs can't even manage to get their facts straight. After they accused John Kerry of voting to cut $300 million a year from the Intelligence budget in the early 1990s, it emerged that Kerry has supported increases in Intelligence funding averaging more than $2 Billion a year over the five most recent years for which estimates are available. That's a strong record of support for intelligence, making Kerry a good choice for those who want to keep America safe. (Source: Center for Defense Information, "Intelligence Funding and the War on Terror," February 26, 2002)
After George W. Bush's campaign released memo criticizing John Kerry for supporting a bill to cut the intelligence budget by $300 million a year over five years, it turned up that Kerry was a cosponsor on that effort with two Republican legislators: Arlen Specter and Richard Shelby. So let's get this straight: the Republican Party is criticizing Kerry for supporting a bill that's 2/3 Republican in its sponsorship. How bizarre. (Source: Washington Post, March 12, 2004)
And, oh, yes, we should mention that these cuts were passed by the Republican-controlled Congress, after it increased the size of the cuts to $3.8 Billion. By the Bush standard, this means that the Republicans are weaker on supporting Intelligence than Kerry. (Source: Washington Post, March 12, 2004)
From the beginning of the Bush Administration through December of 2003, Michigan lost 202,500 jobs. (Source: Democratic State of the Union Response Center, January 2004)
How fat with cash is George W. Bush's political machine? They're swimming in so much dough from their billionaire contributors that they've gone to the extreme of building and deploying "Reggie the Registration Rig." You heard me right. "Reggie" is a 56 foot-long, 80,000 pound, 18-wheeler decked out with luxuries like Xbox machines to lure people aboard and an "E-shot" multimedia center which allows entrants to pose with a fictional, pretend make-up of George W. Bush.
This is the kind of high-cost toy that the Republicans think will get people to vote for George W. Bush. If only Bush and his staff would devote such lavish attentions to actually crafting policies that make America a better place, he wouldn't need an opulent multimedia extravaganza to try and win voters back. (Source: "Reggie is Rolling" e-mail from RNC Chair Ed Gillespie, March 5 2004)
How low has George W. Bush sunk in the regard of the world community? Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has taken to calling him an "asshole" in public. (Source: Reuters February 29, 2004)
From the beginning of the Bush Administration through December of 2003, Minnesota lost 56,500 jobs. (Source: Democratic State of the Union Response Center, January 2004)
"Where are all the weapons of Mass Destruction? Where are the stockpiles of Chemical and Biological weapons?" wrote Richard Dvorin in a letter to George W. Bush last month, after his son was killed by a roadside bomb. Bush hasn't answered those questions. (Source: Washington Post March 11, 2004)
Cherise Johnson, whose husband was killed in Iraq, reports "I'd love to say I back [Bush] 100 percent, but I can't.... How many more people are going to die because he can't say, 'I'm sorry, I made a terrible mistake'?" (Source: Washington Post March 11, 2004)
From the beginning of the Bush Administration through December of 2003, Mississippi lost 12,800 jobs. (Source: Democratic State of the Union Response Center, January 2004)
In another indication that even Bush's fellow Republicans have begun to withdraw their support, John Bugay has started a website entitled Republicans For Kerry in which he explains his switch from support for Bush to opposition to Bush:
"The Bush administration set aside some of the foundational principles of this nation „1¤76�0„671�0„3¨¨76�6¥71¡è70„1¤76�0„67671�6¥71¡è70„1¤76�0„673�0„3¡ì�0„3¡ì70�6¥71¡è76„1¤70�6¥7671„1¤70�6¥73¡§¡§70�6¥71¡è70„1¤76�0„673„1¤70�6¥73¡§¡§34 principles outlined in the Constitution „1¤76�0„671�0„3¨¨76�6¥71¡è70„1¤76�0„67671�6¥71¡è70„1¤76�0„673�0„3¡ì�0„3¡ì70�6¥71¡è76„1¤70�6¥7671„1¤70�6¥73¡§¡§70�6¥71¡è70„1¤76�0„673„1¤70�6¥73¡§¡§34 to make a war it didn't need to make, a war which was not "a last resort," not a "just war" (according to the Judeo-Christian tradition it claims to follow), and for which there were adequate alternatives, even on March 19, 2003, that could have avoided that particular conflict while still effectively waging the "war on terror," spared my family and the families of thousands of other Reservists the need to make a terrible "sacrifice," and still have achieved the goal of forcing Saddam Hussein (who was in a "death spiral" according to the oft-quoted David Kay) out of power."
George W. Bush has referred to John Kerry as the "enemy of job creation." Well, that's kind of like the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it? Or is it that it takes one to know one? I mean, George W. Bush has actually presided over historic job losses, and he's saying that John Kerry is the problem? Bush's credibility on this issue is less than zero, which is another reason we why need to boot Bush out of the White House this year. (Source: Chicago Tribune March 11, 2004)
From the beginning of the Bush Administration through December of 2003, Missouri lost 70,400 jobs. (Source: Democratic State of the Union Response Center, January 2004)
Which is the party of fiscal responsibility? The Democrats, with help from only a small number of fiscally responsible Republicans, have passed a bill that would require a supermajority of 60 for any spending increase over the next five years. Who objected? George W. Bush and the Republicans. (Source: New York Times, March 10 2004)
From the beginning of the Bush Administration through December of 2003, Nebraska lost 5,100 jobs. (Source: Democratic State of the Union Response Center, January 2004)
George W. Bush on the role of his own beautiful self in American democracy: "I'm the commander - see, I don't need to explain - I don't need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the President. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." (Source: Washington Post, November 19, 2002)
"I don't understand how poor people think." -- George W. Bush, stating the obvious. For the record, George, we don't understand how you think either. (Source: New York Times, August 26, 2003)
From the beginning of the Bush Administration through December of 2003, New Hampshire lost 15,700 jobs. (Source: Democratic State of the Union Response Center, January 2004)
It took six whole months for the Bush Administration to name its nominee for a post dedicated to retaining manufacturing jobs in America. La dee da dee da. What's six months to a guy who's never had to worry about losing a job his entire life? (Source: United Press International, March 11, 2004)
Oh, this is rich -- literally. It turns out that the guy George W. Bush has finally got around to appointing to the task of keeping manufacturing jobs from drifting overseas, Anthony Raimondo, laid off a sixth of his American employees in 2002 -- and opened a new factory in China. Bush has since been forced to withdraw Raimondo from consideration for the position. (Sources: United Press International, March 11, 2004 and Bloomberg News, March 13, 2004)
From the beginning of the Bush Administration through December of 2003, New York lost 280,400 jobs. (Source: Democratic State of the Union Response Center, January 2004)
Hundreds of Arizonans have signed on to a letter asking George W. Bush not to come out to the University of Arizona to speak at commencement, saying they'd rather not be associated with him. This is yet another sign that George W. Bush has taken on the presence of that annoying, embarrassing person at the party that everyone is hoping will just leave. (Source: Associated Press March 11, 2004)
Under pressure, the Bush Admininstration said it would carry out a study to determine whether or not drug importation from Canada would be a good idea. Then the Bush Administration chose Mark McClellan, who has already publicly concluded that drug importation from Canada would be a bad idea, to lead the study. This is the Bush Admininstration's version of impartiality, and that's pretty telling. (Source: New York Times, February 26, 2004)
Bush Administration official and former health-industry lobbyist Thomas Scully forbade the top U.S. Medicare cost expert, Richard Foster, from telling legislators that the cost of Bush's Medicare bill would be over $100 Billion more than the Bush Administration was letting on. Scully told Foster he'd be fired if he told the Congress this fact. Scully's explanation for his action? Telling the Congress about the actual cost would have caused a political disruption in the passage of the bill. (Source: Miami Herald, March 12, 2004)
When word leaked out that Foster had been told by the Bush Administration to clam up and not inform the Congress of the actual cost of the Medicare Bill, incensed members of Congress called Scully's supervisor in the Bush Administration, Tommy Thompson, to task. Thompson promised the following: "I can assure you that from now [on], the remaining days that I am secretary, you will have as much access as you want to anybody or anything in the department. All you have to do is call me."
So members of Congress asked Thompson to provide a copy of Richard Foster's cost estimates for Medicare. As the weeks passed, that information continued to be withheld. And Richard Foster's superiors continue to forbid him to be interviewed by news organizations picking up the story. (Source: Miami Herald, March 12, 2004)
From the beginning of the Bush Administration through December of 2003, North Carolina lost 115,700 jobs. (Source: Democratic State of the Union Response Center, January 2004)
The Republican Party is working with the Bush campaign to silence anti-Bush voices, enaging in tactics like writing 250 television stations and asking them not to air advertisements that criticize Bush. What country do these people think they live in? (Source: San Jose Mercury-News, March 6, 2004)
Usually, it's a president who has to restrain the Congress from passing a budget that spends too much. But with George W. Bush in office, this pattern is turned on its head: the Senate had to cut Bush's proposed spending by Billions of dollars in order to reach a level they considered acceptable. This is just one more sign that when it comes to the United States budget, George W. Bush is out of control. (Source: Washington Post, March 12, 2004)
George W. Bush has called for making the tax cuts for the rich he promised would be temporary permanent instead. In a demonstration of how stupid that idea is, Senate Republicans led the way in passing a budget measure in March of 2004 that refuses to make those tax cuts for the rich permanent. When Republicans repudiate Bush, you know he's extreme. (Source: Washington Post, March 12, 2004)
From the beginning of the Bush Administration through December of 2003, Ohio lost 249,000 jobs. This state with Hi! in the middle is saying a long, hard goodbye to a working living. (Source: Democratic State of the Union Response Center, January 2004)
On March 11, 2004, George W. Bush gave his stump speech, in English of course, to a crowd especially brought in for the speech, a crowd that cheered for the campaign cameras. Journalists going into the crowd after the speech found out that it was comprised of people who only spoke Spanish. (Source: Newsday, March 12, 2004)
As of March 2004, more than 250 American cities have passed resolutions stating opposition to George W. Bush's "USA Patriot Act." (Source: Fort Worth Star-Telegram March 12, 2004)
From the beginning of the Bush Administration through December of 2003, Oklahoma lost 34,200 jobs. (Source: Democratic State of the Union Response Center, January 2004)
Why boot Bush? Because it's high time we paid some attention to the man behind the curtain.
Remember all those fantastic scientific breakthroughs that came pouring out of the Soviet Union during the Cold War? No? Could it be because there weren't any to speak of? And could THAT in turn be because Soviet scientists were hobbled by an inflexible set of ideologically-based constraints? George Bush's ideologically based pressure on fields of study ranging from stem-cell research to environmental science is just one facet of the way he is turning today's America into yesterday's Soviet Union. You've got to vote against that.
The Japanese are justifiably proud of their constitution, which specifies that the Japanese armed forces shall only be used in a defensive role. Who has pressured them into violating their constitution? Why, Bush, of course. Japanese troops are now part of the "coalition of the willing" (more like coalition of the bribed, cajoled, and pressured) that is occupying post-invasion Iraq. Encouraging Japan to occupy invaded countries! Mr. Bush, have you no sense of history?
French people often express dismay at someone else's stupidity by expelling a quick puff of air. If we re-elect Bush, the cumulative effect of tens of millions of French people simultaneously puffing could disrupt weather patterns for weeks.
From the beginning of the Bush Administration through December of 2003, Oregon lost 53,700 jobs. (Source: Democratic State of the Union Response Center, January 2004)
The International Association of Fire Fighters, including the members of the New York City Fire Department that the Bush Administration cites as "heroes" of September 11, 2001, has endorsed John Kerry as its candidate for President in 2004. (Source: Newsweek, March 15, 2004)
So all of a sudden gay marriage is the number one threat to America? Is it really going to destroy traditional marriage, morality, and society? Does Bush have any evidence to back that up, or is it, y'know, secret? Come off it. This is a tired old Bush formula: hype up unfounded claims of a threat, then offer to protect us all.
Let's call Bush's proposed amendment against gay marriage what it is: An attack on freedom of religion. An attack on families. An attack on states' rights. An attack on marriage as a religious institution. A constitutional amendment proposed to settle a theological debate. An attempt to swell the American bureaucracy until it governs sacred ritual. You want to vote for that?
Who will go out and stop gay marriages after Bush makes them unconstitutional? How about the ATF? We could rename it the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Gay Marriage--or the ATFGM. I know I'd feel safer with THEM prowling my neighborhood.
Think about it. If we make gay marriage illegal, there are thousands of liberal ritual officiants out there who would go to jail. Think about it in terms of the cost to society: a travesty of justice, an ocean of unnecessary suffering. Now think about it from the perspective of the private prison industry lobby: Mo' money! Mo' money! Hm. Which perspective do you think Bush takes?
Attacking marriage in an election year: Bush, you fox! Are you going
to vote for someone that stupid?
From the beginning of the Bush Administration through December of 2003, Pennsylvania lost 78,100 jobs. (Source: Democratic State of the Union Response Center, January 2004)
All those claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, over five hundred American soldiers and thousands of Iraqis dead, tens of billions of dollars wasted, and not a single Iraqi WMD found. Yet none dare call it scandal. Screw that. Scandal! Scandal! Scandal! You want to vote for a scandal-ridden president?
Bush's grasp on the truth is awful slippery. Maybe all that blood on his hands is messing up his grip.
This whole "pax Americana" thing is nice and all, but some of us would prefer to have, like, a job.
A second Bush term would be a last hurrah for the pack of Nixon/Reaganite neoconservatives pulling the strings now. Who's going to succeed W? Cheney? Come on! You think they're looting the treasury for their rich friends now? Just wait 'till you see them in action in a final term, with nobody to impress and nothing to lose.
From the beginning of the Bush Administration through December of 2003, South Carolina lost 69,900 jobs. Living in a "red state" doesn't get you any relief in Bush's America. (Source: Democratic State of the Union Response Center, January 2004)
"We are at a critical juncture in the course of history. What is needed now is not criticism, but the people's cooperation." Bush makes this kind of appeal all the time. What's wrong with it? Well, nothing. If you like Communist propaganda, that is.
"Those who are not with us are against us." You hear that coming from the Bush administration all the time. What do I have against it? Nothing but a distaste for the crasser aspects of radical Marxist-Leninist ideology.
From the beginning of the Bush Administration through December of 2003, Tennessee lost 51,000 jobs. (Source: Democratic State of the Union Response Center, January 2004)
Up until a couple of months ago, that king of obfuscatory speciousness Ronald Dumbsfeld was telling us that our failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq didn't prove they didn't exist. After all, we hadn't found Hussein. Did that mean he didn't exist? Well, Dummy, now that we have found Hussein, how does that argument go?
From the beginning of the Bush Administration through December of 2003, Texas lost 72,500 jobs. (Source: Democratic State of the Union Response Center, January 2004)
Why boot Bush? Because sooner or later, as global warming accelerates, we're going to have to seriously reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, and make other major adjustments to the way we live. We can either start now, and phase in changes in ways that minimize the impact on our economy and society, or we can react at the last minute, when serious environmental problems force our hand. Bush has done absolutely nothing to address the problem of global warming. Four more years of doing nothing may just make the difference between measured, reasonable anti-global warming policy and disastrous last-minute panicky scrambling.
There's way more impeachable dirt on Bush than there ever was on Clinton. If we re-elect Bush and Congress goes to the Democrats, there's more than a good chance the government will be tied up with scandal investigations and impeachment hearings for the next four years. Why chance it?
From the beginning of the Bush Administration through December of 2003, Utah lost 13,600 jobs. (Source: Democratic State of the Union Response Center, January 2004)
The Bush Administration is trying to expand its powers to wiretap your broadband internet connection. Putting those wee privacy concerns aside, another problem is that such efforts will be very expensive. The Bush Administration's solution? You get to pay for it! (Source: Washington Post, March 13, 2004)
The word is that Bush Administration officials are finding it hard to get their policy work done given their campaign duties in their unusually early 2004 start. Notice which duties take priority here. (Source: Washington Post, March 13, 2004)
Recent research indicates that children can suffer from brain damage even when they are exposed to lead levels that are lower than the currently recommended levels. So, what has George W. Bush done? He put three people with ties to the lead and paint industry on the Center for Disease Control's Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention. One of those people advocates raising lead levels to 2.5 times the amount that was permissible in the 1970s! Valuing industry over children's health is as crass as it gets. (Source: CBS News, March 11, 2004)
The demands of being President of the United States require extreme creativity and flexibility. Some people refer to these qualities as being able to "think outside the box". Well, the problem with George W. Bush is that he is only capable of thinking inside the box, locked with a deadbolt, rusted shut, inside a lead vault, encased in stainless steel, resting in a thick layer of mud at the bottom of the sea.
From the beginning of the Bush Administration through December of 2003, Vermont lost 1.900 jobs. (Source: Democratic State of the Union Response Center, January 2004)
George W. Bush has a really nasty habit of trying to put extremist, right-wing activist judges into federal judicial positions. For example, Bush has nominated Terrence Boyle, a former aide to racist Senator Jesse Helms, to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Boyle has a long history of conservative judicial activism in attempts to undermine civil rights legislation. George W. Bush seems to think that this kind of approach is just what America needs. That attitude in itself is frightening enough to make me want to boot Bush in 2004. (Source: People for the American Way, February 2004)
What's even more frightening than Bush's extremist nomination attempts is that he usually succeeds. George W. Bush nominated Deborah Cook to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In her years as a judge in Ohio, Judge Cook has become infamous for opposing civil rights. Ohio Citizen Action writes that Judge Cook's opinions "reveal a callousness toward the rights of ordinary citizens which offends any reasonable sense of justice." Bush was successful in pushing Deborah Cook through the U.S. Senate, thanks to the majority of Republicans in that house of Congress. (Source: People for the American Way, February 2004)
From the beginning of the Bush Administration through December of 2003, Virginia lost 1,500 jobs. (Source: Democratic State of the Union Response Center, January 2004)
Do you remember how George W. Bush promised during his campaign in 2000 that he would not base his decisions on focus groups? Well, it turns out that was a big lie. The Bush Administration has made extensive use of focus groups throughout its time in office. A recent example is George W. Bush's first televised campaign advertisement, which was carefully tested through the use of focus groups. Bush tells America that he's a straight-talker, but it looks like he's not willing to let anyone actually hear him talk until he's had a bunch of people test his straight talk to make sure that it's okay. (Source: Newsweek, March 15, 2004)
It's not that there's anything wrong in itself with using focus groups for the purpose of honing political messages, but you've got to wonder at a President who can sign off on an ill-conceived political advertisement, with no more support than a bunch of focus groups. The problem with focus groups is that they measure reaction in a social setting, but political decisions, including reactions to political advertisements, are often made on an individual basis. When Bush's first advertisement used footage of the September 11 attacks, including images of dead victims, it passed the social focus group tests because social pressure pushes people towards the "United We Stand" reaction. Bush and his political team failed to imagine that as individuals, Americans would take offense at the political partisan exploitation of an American tragedy. A shocking lack of skill in the use of political research is another good reason to give Bush the boot on Election Day. (Source: Newsweek, March 15, 2004)
One final item about that ill-conceived advertisement from the Bush Administration: The fire fighters that appeared in the advertisement were actors wearing fake fireman costumes. It appears that the Bush/Cheney Re-election team was unable to find any real New York City firefighters who actually support their campaign. A spokesperson for an association of fire fighters says that jokes have been spreading through fire houses across America that the supposed fire helmets worn by the actors in the Bush advertisement looked like toy plastic fireman hats "from a birthday party". So what does the Bush campaign say about why it had to use actors instead of real fire fighters? A Bush media advisor says, "It's cheaper and quicker." That pretty much sums up the way the Bush Administration has treated fire fighters. (Source: Newsweek, March 15, 2004)
From the beginning of the Bush Administration through December of 2003, Washington lost 54,600 jobs. (Source: Democratic State of the Union Response Center, January 2004)
Let us speak of Miguel Estrada. He's a lawyer in Washington D.C. with no judicial experience. Yet, as a member of the far right-wing Federalist Society, he's gained friends in powerful Republican circles, so in spite of his lack of qualifications, George W. Bush has nominated him to join the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. Well known for his radical conservative legal opinions, Estrada was described by one of his supervisors as lacking in judgment and being "too much of an idealogue to be an appeals court judge." Additionally, Estrada refused to answer many important questions asked by senators during his confirmation hearing, and the Bush Administration has refused to hand over memos reflecting his legal views to the Senate. Asking the Senate to approve the nomination of such a candidate under such circumstances is insulting to the Senate, and to the Americans who would have to submit to Estrada's power as a circuit court judge. (Source: People for the America Way, February 2004)
What is it with George W. Bush and all these conservative judicial nominations? Here's another one: Carolyn Kuhn. Judge Kuhn, like Miguel Estrada, is a member of the ultra-conservative Federalist Society. Also like Miguel Estrada, Judge Kuhn has a long history of attacking civil rights. In particular, Judge Kuhn has shown a propensity for supporting racial segregationists. During her time serving Ronald Reagan in the Justice Department, for example, Judge Kuhn pushed to get tax-exempt status for Bob Jones University, which will not allow its students of different racial groups even to date each other. The Supreme Court afterwards found, in a 8-1 vote, that Bob Jones was not eligible for tax-exempt status because of its racial discriminatory policies. George W. Bush seems to want to support these same policies of racial discrimination by supporting judges like Carolyn Kuhn, and that's a mighty good reason for us to withdraw our support when he runs for re-election in 2004. (Source: People for the American Way, February 2004)
99.9 percent of the world's scientists agree that the science behind claims of global climate change are strong. However, George W. Bush, who has no scientific training, has declared that the science of global warming is inconclusive. Bush's pattern of ignoring the experts is another good reason to boot Bush on Election Day. (Source: CBS News, March 11, 2004)
From the beginning of the Bush Administration through December of 2003, West Virginia lost 13,300 jobs. (Source: Democratic State of the Union Response Center, January 2004)
When George W. Bush abandoned the new source review policy that required old power plants to upgrade and clean up with new anti-pollution devices, he also abandoned a promise he made to the people of Upstate New York. In spring 2002, Bush flew up to the Adirondacks, the beautiful range of mountains New York protects as a state park, and promised Upstate residents that "We will do more to reduce power plant emissions than ever before in our national history." Another broken promise is another reason to boot Bush. (Source: Sierra Atlantic, Spring 2004)
Speaking of the Adirondacks, the Bush Administration has decided to assault the Adirondack Park with more than just the smog from coal-burning power plants. No, the Bush Administration has decided to replicate its attack on the peace of Yellowstone National Park in the Northeast's greatest public park by insisting that the Adirondacks be opened to the pollution, noise, erosion and other threats to wildlife of snowmobile trails crisscrossing public lands. Consider that snowmobile exhaust is so toxic that U.S. Park Rangers using snowmobiles are required to wear gas masks for protection. The Adirondack Committee has stated that the best way to protect the wild forest character of the Adirondacks is to prohibit snowmobiles altogether, but Bush's Department of Environmental Conservation recommends more snowmobile traffic through the establishment of new trails specifically for snowmobiles. (Source: Sierra Atlantic, Spring 2004)
Just think: If he had lived in George W. Bush's America, Robert Frost could have written, "Two roads diverged in yellow wood, bruuummmmmbumbumbumbum, and were crossed by snowmobile trails running through the trees, bruuuuumbruumbumbumbruuuummmbum, and I chose the one with the thinnest blue clouds of exhaust."
From the beginning of the Bush Administration through December of 2003, Wisconsin lost 70,400 jobs. We wish you luck, Wisconsin. The Bush Presidency sure isn't giving you much help. (Source: Democratic State of the Union Response Center, January 2004)
George W. Bush justified his decision to outlaw the use of new stem cell lines by scientific researchers using federal funds by stating that there were already 60 stem cell lines in existence that could be used for ongoing research. The problem with Bush's justification: It just wasn't true. As of September 2203, there were only 12 stem cell lines that could really be used for the kinds of research being discussed. This kind of huge mistake explains why the Bush Administration has lost its credibility in the scientific community. (Source: CBS News, March 11, 2004)
Among the corporations that have outsourced the most American jobs, George W. Bush seems to be the candidate of choice. As of early 2004, the Bush/Cheney re-election campaign had received more than four hundred and forty thousand dollars from these corporations. The Republican Party had received over three million, six hundred thousand dollars from these corporations. Quid pro quo? Keep in mind that the Bush Administration is actually campaigning on promoting outsourcing of American jobs to overseas locations. (Source: MoveOn, March 10, 2004)
From the beginning of the Bush Administration through December of 2003, Wyoming lost 7,600 jobs. (Source: Democratic State of the Union Response Center, January 2004)
In a glowing, yes we mean literally glowing, report on the Bush Administration's environmental record, BushGreenWatch reports that the Bush Administration is pushing to have certain categories of radioactive waste reclassified so that it can be dumped in ordinary landfills. If the Bush Administration has its way with this effort, we could all soon be glowing. (Source: BushGreenWatch, March 12, 2004)
Back in 1999, George W. Bush criticized Bill Clinton's war in Kosovo by saying, "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." So come on, Mr. President, explain what your exit strategy from Iraq and Afghanistan is. So far, it appears that the exit strategy simply does not exist! Bush was too busy taking month-long vacations at his dude ranch in Texas to come up with one. (Source: Houston Chronicle, April 9, 1999)
A cost analysis of the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change shows that its curbs on the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change would cost each American household less than six cents per day. George W. Bush refuses to support the act, saying that it's too expensive. Well, people who are born rich have weird ideas about money. (Source: Steve Cochran, Director of Strategic Communications at Environmental Defense)
We hate to see a beautiful mind go to waste. Therefore, our attention was grabbed when Barbara Bush, George W. Bush's mother, made the following comment just before the invasion of Iraq began: "Why should we hear about body bags and deaths and how many, what day it's gonna happen? It's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?" It's disgusting that a member of a family that has made its political power out of demanding that we "support the troops" would say such a thing. We're ashamed to see that the arrogance of the mother has been passed down to the son, who appears to have an equal disregard for American lives. (Source: Common Dreams, April 16, 2003)
Harold Schaitberger, General President of the International Association of Fire Fighters, points out that President Bush proposes cutting Homeland Security Department funding for first responders by $700 million in 2005. We think that it's appalling the way Bush weakens true security programs while pushing for the renewal of the Patriot Act, which does nothing to increase security, but undermines every American's civil liberties. (Source: U.S. Newswire, March 10, 2004)
We think that John Kerry was right when he criticized the Republican attack squads, saying "These guys are the most crooked, lying group I've ever seen." And yes, we do think that includes Bush. (Source: Cybercast News Service, March 11, 2004)
The Toronto Globe and Mail reports the reason why the Canadian government refused to join George W. Bush's war coalition as it had done during the past. It turns out that Jean Chretien had asked the United States to share the secret intelligence it claimed it had showing that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq. Although the U.S. has shared such evidence with Canada in the past when the need for a coalition existed, George W. Bush refused to show Canada his evidence this time. Canadian officials say they understand why now: "They didn't have any evidence." (Source: Toronto Globe and Mail March 12, 2004)
John Kerry has challenged George W. Bush to a series of monthly debates. Kerry says, "Surely, if the attack ads can start now, at least we can agree to start a real discussion about America's future." We say surely, if George W. Bush is in the right on the issues that matter for America, he should have nothing to be afraid of. But George W. Bush has refused to agree. Telling. (Source: Associated Press March 13, 2004)
In another indication that the Bush Administration cannot manage to hold together an international coalition, the government of Spain has announced that it will recall its 1,300 troops home from Iraq, ending participation in the post-war effort and increasing the burden on American troops (Source: Associated Press March 15, 2004)
It has emerged that the Bush Administration has distributed videos to local news outlets across the country for inclusion in their nightly news programs. In these segments, "reporters" explain the virtues of Bush's Medicare policy, lending the aura of considered legitimacy. The problem is, those "reporters" are not reporters at all. They're hired actors. The General Accounting Office has judged these fake "reports" to be illegal, noting that under federal law this activity qualifies as "covert propaganda." (Sources: New York Times March 15, 2004; New York Times May 20, 2004)
The Bush Admininstration was stymied in its attempts to foist Total Information Awareness, a program putting your public and private information on a centralized government computer so the government can observe you for patterns in your behavior, on the American people. This you know.
What you may not know is that since Total Information Awareness was sidelined, a new program started with financial support from the Bush Administration has taken its place. This new program also collects public and private information about you in a computer database so the government can observe you for patterns in your behavior.
Guess what it's called? That's right -- the Matrix. (Source: New York Times March 15, 2004)
What hath Bush wrought? In the wake of his endorsement of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, ministers have been arrested for performing marriages between same-sex couples. Neither the couples nor the ministers signed civil licenses, but instead simply performed a ceremony.
As long as no legal documents are signed, isn't it ministers' and couples' own business what they do in their churches? Apparently not.
When George W. Bush tries to use government power to enforce religious doctrine, the use of government power to arrest religious officials for carrying out legally non-binding marriages should be no surprise. (Source: Associated Press, March 15, 2004)
Martha K. writes in to point out some heavy contradictions in George W. Bush's trade policy:
"Importing prescription drugs from Canada is unsafe, but exporting our personal and proprietary information and intellectual property to India, China and Russia is not unsafe?
"Dependency on foreign oil is unsafe, but dependency on foreign manufacturing of everything from A to Z is not unsafe?"
Good questions, Martha. But I don't think George W. Bush is going to answer them.
CNN Late Edition, March 14, 2004:
WOLF BLITZER: "If the intelligence was wrong, looking back, was it a mistake to go to war at that time instead of giving the U.N. more time to continue their own inspections?
CBS News, February 20, 2003:
DONALD RUMSFELD: Well, the U.N. inspectors were not in there. The U.N. inspectors were out."
"Inside Iraq, U.N. arms inspectors are privately complaining about the quality of U.S. intelligence and accusing the United States of sending them on wild-goose chases.
Does Rumsfeld think we're that stupid, or is Rumsfeld himself profoundly ignorant?
In either case, we should worry that such a man occupies the office of Secretary of Defense.
CBS News Correspondent Mark Phillips reports the U.N. has been taking a precise inventory of Iraq's al-Samoud 2 missile arsenal, determining how many there are and where they are."
...which brings us back to the CBS News report of February 20, 2003. The report continues:
The inspectors have become so frustrated trying to chase down unspecific or ambiguous U.S. leads that they've begun to express that anger privately in no uncertain terms.
When someone in the Bush Administration even comes close to admitting that there are no WMDs in Iraq, they'll cry that nobody could have guessed that before the war. Such proclamations ignore the millions of individuals, including professional UN weapons inspectors, whose bullshit detectors went off in advance.
U.N. sources have told CBS News that American tips have lead to one dead end after another.
Example: satellite photographs purporting to show new research buildings at Iraqi nuclear sites. When the U.N. went into the new buildings they found "nothing."
Example: Saddam's presidential palaces, where the inspectors went with specific coordinates supplied by the U.S. on where to look for incriminating evidence. Again, they found "nothing."
Example: Interviews with scientists about the aluminum tubes the U.S. says Iraq has imported for enriching uranium, but which the Iraqis say are for making rockets. Given the size and specification of the tubes, the U.N. calls the "Iraqi alibi air tight."
How dare the Bush Admininstration engage in such historical revisionism? Worse, how dare the Bush Admininstration not exercise all due diligence before reporting a false case for war?
Parce que les Francais avaient raison.
Because Bush would need a translator to figure out what the previous sentence meant. John Kerry wouldn't. Bush's most extreme supporters would say that was a reason not to vote for Kerry. But putting xenophobia aside, that sort of difference in skill is important, giving John Kerry a diplomatic edge George W. Bush will never have.
In another indication of the Bush Admininstration's lack of skill in maintaining an international coalition, Honduras announced it would withdraw its troops from Iraq. (Source: Associated Press, March 16, 2004)
In still another indication of the Bush Admininstration's inability to maintain an international coalition, Nicaragua decided not to replace its troops departing from Iraq. (Source: Associated Press, March 16, 2004)
Congressman Henry Waxman commissioned a report which examined the statements of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice. The report includes a searchable database of two hundred and thirty-seven (237!) misleading statements about the threat from Iraq. Two hundred and thirty seven. Two hundred and thirty seven. (Source: Henry Waxman, "Iraq on the Record: The Bush Administration's Public Statements on Iraq." Online at http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf)
How extreme a conservative is Dick Cheney? Well, most Americans can agree that Newt Gingrich is the all-time top expert on radical right-wing Republican politics in America, and here's what Gingrich has had to say about Dick Cheney: "Cheney's voting record was slightly more conservative than mine." (Source: Washington Times, July 25, 2000)
George W. Bush has proposed cutting staff from the Veterans Administration dedicated to processing disability claims -- this at a time when a backlog of hundreds of thousands of claims has built up. (Source: Washington Post, March 3, 2004)
Under the budget George W. Bush submitted to the Congress, Veterans' copayments for prescription drugs are set to double. Way to support our troops, Mr. Bush. (Source: Washington Post, March 3, 2004)
George W. Bush' onslaught of campaign commercials includes a video image of a swarthy, thick-browed Arab actor counterposed with the word "terrorist."
Aren't you sick and tired of this kind of hate-mongering? (Source: The Detroit News, March 14, 2004)
Bush's supporters in Congress are pulling out the red paint again in their efforts to tar Kerry's supporters as communists. Republican Representatives Mario Diaz-Balart and Mark Foley tried to suggest, without any factual basis, that Kerry had sought and obtained the political support of evil Spaniard socialists and Fidel Castro.
Last time I checked, the Cold War was over. But it seems that the Bush campaign is living in the distant past. (Source: The Miami Herald, March 17, 2004)
George W. Bush's budget for 2005 cuts the budget for sewage cleanup by 37 percent. More shit for you. (Source: Atlanta Journal-Constitution, February 4, 2004)
If George W. Bush is such a big fan of small businesses in America, why did he try to cut $79 million in funds from the Small Business Administration in his budget for 2005? (Source: Arkansas News Bureau, March 11, 2004)
When Natural History magazine asked the Bush and Kerry campaigns
to send them answers to ten questions related to science and the
environment, the Kerry campaign prepared and sent off answers to all
ten. The Bush campaign, on the other hand, declined to respond to the
magazine, instead telling the editors of Natural History to go look it
up in the papers themselves. That symbolizes the different approaches
to government-public relations of Bush and Kerry. While Kerry is
happy to oblige, providing information as needed, Bush refuses to
respond as often as possible, leaving it up to the public to scrape
together whatever information it can find from the margins. The
government is supposed to by of, by and for the people -- didn't Bush
hear Lincoln's words? Well, thank goodness we have Kerry as an
alternative. (Source: Natural History Magazine October 2004)
George W. Bush says that "when we make decisions, we want to make
sure we do so on sound science -- not what sounds good, but what is
real." But Bush didn't nominate a presidential science advisor for
his administration until six months into his first term. John Kerry
has publicly pledged, if he is elected, to get a presidential science
advisor quickly on the job. (Sources: White House Press Release June
25, 2001; Natural History Magazine October 2004)
John Kerry can handle moral thinking in the gray areas between
black and white. While he supports stem cell research, he is also
aware of the hazards of establishing a precedent of creating human
blastocysts strictly for purposes of research. As a solution, Kerry
supports using the human blastocysts already created and discarded
after fertility treatments for research, leaving the door open for
innovative new treatments that would allow subsequent treatment of
patients using material cloned from their own bodies.
Can you imagine George W. Bush coming up with such a carefully
nuanced policy? No, I didn't think so. This is just one more reason
that a Kerry presidency would be better for America than four more
years of Bush. (Source: Natural History Magazine October
George W. Bush's space policy is focused on the whiz-bang
entertainment value of putting people into space, on the Moon, and on
Mars. John Kerry's space policy is focused on increasing science
funding so that we can learn more about space in an efficient manner
that will lead not only to an increase in accumulated basic knowledge,
but the possibility of realistic economic application as well.
(Source: Natural History Magazine October 2004)
Make the Monkey See Red!
Send us YOUR Reason to Boot Bush!