12/18/04 <link>
BERNARD KERIK for DUMMIES GENIUSES ^- The Uber Compassionate Conservative

10/24/04 <link>
John Kerry for Dummies

5/23/04 <link>
Compassionate Policy: As reflected in the Bush administration's investigations of itself
Ever wondered how many investigations the Bush administration has been forced to order, of itself? Check it out.

4/28/04 <link>
Compassionate Policy - Bush administration and National/Homeland Security before 9/11
This is an analysis of Condi Rice's testimony showing their asleep-at-the-wheel and lying compassionate policy on terrorism and national security before 9/11. Check it out.

Meanwhile, Tim Dunlop at The Road to Surfdom elegantly summarizes how Bush has systematically tried to undermine the 9/11 Commission and ensure that the truth about his administration does not come out in the open.

In short, this is what Bush's relationship with the 9/11 Commission boils down to:

• He tried to block the formation of the commission
• Failing, he then appointed a patsy chairman, Henry Kissinger
• Then he refused to testify
• And he blocked them from getting key documents
• Then he agreed to talk with them
• But not under oath
• And only for an hour
• And only with the chair and deputy chair
• And then he insisted on having Cheney go with him
• And agreed to a single notetaker
• Then he refused to grant the commission a time extension
• Then he tried to stop Rice testifying
• And he blocked the release of papers from the Clinton era
• Then tried to stop the August 6, 2001 PDB being released
• Then he flip-flopped on the extension, Rice testifying, the Clinton papers and the PDB
• Then he ran ads saying Kerry was a flip-flopper
• Then he changed his mind about the notetaker
• And then he decided to have his legal counsel along

And then, funniest all, his spokesman can say this with a straight face:

McClellan said Bush "appreciates the job the commission is doing. He strongly supports the commission's important work."
He said the president "very much looks forward to sitting down with the commission and answering whatever questions they may have."

Well, obviously.
(Article link via Corrente and there is more over there.)

UPDATE 5/24/03: A more detailed history of the Bush administration's repeated attempts to prevent the investigation of 9/11 - and their attempts to undermine the 9/11 Commission - is here. 

3/24/04 <link>
Fakery and Deception Compassionate Conservatism in Bush administration responses to Richard Clarke - a growing compendium

3/10/04 <link>
George W. Bush's waffles, broken promises and flip-flops compassionate conservatism. A growing list

1/2/04 <link>
PlameGate update - before I go on a hiatus!
Via Atrios (here and here) we learn of a few outrages re: the Valerie Plame expose scandal.

Firstly, as Josh Marshall points out (bold text is my emphasis):

Mike Allen, who wrote several of the best articles about the Plame case, has a new article in the Post...
The point of Allen's article is that the perps in the Plame case may not have committed a crime because they may not have known that Plame was undercover. They may only have known she was CIA.
And who's the expert who pushes this angle?
Victoria Toensing...
Allen calls Toensing a "legal expert" and "the chief counsel of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence when Congress passed the law protecting the identities of undercover agents."
But that's a rather incomplete description, now isn't it?
Toensing, of course, is not only a pricey DC defense lawyer. She's also a professional Republican, one tightly connected to the DC GOP power structure, and someone you could find at pretty much any point in the late nineties as an anti-Clinton "legal expert" on every chat show under the sun.
Using Toensing as the legal expert on this question is like bringing Bruce Lindsey in as your commentator to discuss Lewinsky.
Now for the substance of what Toensing said.
Toensing says this may not have been a crime because the perps may not have known Plame was undercover.
But this isn't really a reason why this wasn't a crime. It's more properly termed the logical defense at trial or perhaps in a plea negotiation. It may well be impossible to prove the perps' knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt. But it's very hard to believe, for a number of reasons, they didn't know exactly what she did.
Here's just one of the many reasons why.
Allen writes ...

The July column by Robert D. Novak that touched off the investigation did not specify that Valerie Plame was working undercover, but said she was "an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." That raises the possibility that the senior administration officials he quoted did not know Plame's status.

This rather misses the point.
In the intelligence community, the word 'operative' is a term of art. And it means someone who is undercover. It doesn't refer to an analyst. And as I showed in this post from October 9th a review of all of Novak's columns in the Nexis database shows that he always use the term in this way...
And one other point.
Back on October 9th and 10th I told you that Scott McClellan's denials that Rove, Libby and Abrams were the perps wasn't nearly as air-tight as they seemed, that it was basically a non-denial denial. But no one seemed to catch on.
Now they're coming clean. Again, from Mike Allen's piece in the Post ...

When White House press secretary Scott McClellan was being barraged with questions about the case this fall, he said repeatedly that he knew of no Bush aides who had "leaked classified information." McClellan would not answer questions about the ethics or propriety of encouraging reporters to write about Plame.

"The subject of this investigation is whether someone leaked classified information," McClellan said. Another time, he said, "The issue here is whether or not someone leaked classified information." McClellan left open the possibility that White House aides had discussed Plame with the media. "You all talk about what's in the news, I talk about what's in the news, people always talk about what's in the news," he said.

A senior administration official said Bush's aides did not intend to mount a legalistic defense, but two GOP legal sources who have discussed the case with the White House said the careful, consistent wording of McClellan's statements was no accident.

"If they could have made a broader denial, they would have," said a lawyer who is close to the White House. "But they seem to be confident they didn't step over the legal line."

So let's stop the charade. They're guilty as sin. It's now crystal clear that from the very beginning the folks at the White House have known who did it. And pretty clearly the president didn't see anything wrong with it, or didn't care, because he didn't try to do anything about it.

More on Toensing from David Neiwert:

This defense has a decidedly familiar ring. From the same source: Victoria Toensing, aka the "better half" of the Republican tag team of [Joseph] diGenova and Toensing.
For those keeping score, diGenova was the "independent counsel" appointed to investigate former President George H.W. Bush and Co. for their illegal handling of Bill Clinton's passport files. For some reason, diGenova was conveniently appointed to the investigation just a couple of years before the U.S. District Court of Appeals ruled that the counsels' most important attribute was independence from the administration under investigation.
Here's how diGenova's absurdly partisan dismissal of the charges was reasoned in 1995:

As independent counsel, I have just wrapped up a three-year inquiry into the State Department's search of Bill Clinton's passport file when he was a Presidential candidate. The investigation found no criminality, just political stupidity, in the Bush Administration.

Hey, it worked the first time, didn't it?
Incidentally, as Robert Parry has reported at The Consortium, diGenova's whitewash covered up more than just the passport files affair -- it also papered over the possible enlistment of the Czechoslovakian secret police to dig up dirt on Clinton. Nonetheless:

Despite the phone records and the public declarations by Czech intelligence veterans, diGenova said he "found no evidence linking the publication of the [1992] Czech press stories to either Czechoslovak intelligence or the Bush-Quayle campaign." Similarly, diGenova announced that he found nothing wrong with the Bush administration's search of Clinton's personal passport files or its leaking of the confidential criminal referral about those files a month before the 1992 election.
The report aimed its harshest criticism at State Department Inspector General Sherman Funk for suspecting that a crime had been committed in the first place. DiGenova's report mocked the IG for "a woefully inadequate understanding of the facts."
Stung by the criticism, John Duncan, a senior lawyer in the IG's office, expressed disbelief at diGenova's findings. Duncan protested in writing that he could not understand how diGenova "reached the conclusion that none of the parties involved in the Clinton passport search violated any federal criminal statute. Astoundingly, [diGenova] has also concluded that no senior-level party to the search did anything improper whatever. This conclusion is so ludicrous that simply stating it demonstrates its frailty."
Duncan saw, too, a dangerous precedent that diGenova's see-no-evil report was accepting. "The Independent Counsel has provided his personal absolution to individuals who we found had attempted to use their U.S. Government positions to manipulate the election of a President of the United States," Duncan wrote.

Here's another, more detailed, account of the matter by Parry.
And just for posterity's sake ... Here are some previous posts on this point:
Spinning stupidity
Counterspinning Plame

Not to mention, Liberal Oasis points out what readers may have missed in the description of the Special Counsel that the Bush administration has appointed:

The new special counsel in charge of the PlameGate investigation is US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.
What’s the insiders’ take on him, as summed up by the NY Times?
…even Mr. Fitzgerald's former opponents in the courtroom say [he is] dogged, dispassionate and endlessly prepared…
…said George Santangelo, who represented John Gambino, identified by the authorities as a crime family captain, in a case prosecuted by Mr. Fitzgerald. "…If John Ashcroft wanted any favors on this one, he went to the wrong guy. This guy is tough."…
…David N. Kelley, a former colleague of Mr. Fitzgerald…said [he] always seemed to view himself as "an independent prosecutor" of any case he approached — whatever the politics, whatever the players.
Nothing to worry about then, right? The case is in professional, diligent, apolitical hands.
Not so fast.
Go back to August 6, 1994, when the NY Times ("A Prosecutor Overnight") profiled brand new special prosecutor Ken Starr:
Few Democrats or Republicans who have worked with Kenneth W. Starr expressed any doubt today that he would be a fair and thoughtful prosecutor in the Whitewater case…
…A respected Washington insider and several times a contender for a nomination to the Supreme Court under Republican Presidents, Mr. Starr carries a reputation as a soft-spoken, even-tempered professional whose work is marked by thoroughness…
…Supporters of Mr. Starr, and they are many, say the former Solicitor General and Federal appeals court judge will be able to rise above both politics and his own inexperience to cast a balanced eye on a difficult inquiry…
…"He will be extremely thorough," said Alan Slobodin, the president of the legal studies division of the Washington Legal Foundation, a law and public policy group of which Mr. Starr is a member. "But it is not going to be a witch hunt."
Consistently described as judicious, balanced and fair-minded, Mr. Starr won accolades today from those who have worked both with and against him.
"If I was going to be a subject of an investigation, I would rather have him investigate me than almost anyone I can think of," said Arthur B. Spitzer, the legal director of the American Civil Liberty Union's [sic] Washington office.
"I don't have the feeling that he is a fervid prosecutor in the sense that he thinks that anyone accused of something must be guilty."
Though he has won a reputation as concertedly conservative, he wins the kind of praise rarely accorded those of pronounced ideology.
"There's a really small cast of people who have accumulated the kind of credentials he has," said Lincoln Caplan, author of "The 10th Justice,"...a book focusing on the office of Solicitor General.
"Such people prove their reliability to the culture by transcending rank partisanship. He managed to be consistently conservative without being sharp-edged."…
Oops. Just a wee bit off.

You bet!

1/1/04 <link>
A Happy New Year to you all! 
Busy with stuff - may not be posting here for some time.

11/8/03 <link>
Uncompassionate conservatives criticizing (loving?) Bush... an update

10/31/03 <link>
The (hopefully) last set of courses on Iraq

CC203D: Iraq - Overall Threat Assessment, Justifications for invasion/war, U.N. and "Coalition" Building and the "Major Combat" period 

CC203E: Iraq - Post-invasion Justifications for invasion, Iraq reconstruction and democracy building and order/chaos/security/terrorism in Iraq after the invasion

10/26/03 <link>
My next couple of courses on Moral Clarity are out --- 

CC203B: Bush administration lies and deception moral clarity, honesty and integrity on Iraq and (non-nuclear) WMDs and other weapons
In this course, I cover the following chapters.
- Chemical weapons/threat assessment BEFORE the Iraq invasion
- Chemical weapons/threat assessment AFTER the Iraq invasion
- Biological weapons/threat assessment BEFORE the Iraq invasion
- Biological weapons/threat assessment AFTER the Iraq invasion
- Assessment of Other weapons/threats BEFORE the Iraq invasion
- Assessment of Other weapons/threats AFTER the Iraq invasion and statements relating to the WMD search

CC203C: Bush administration Lies, Deception and Misleading Statements moral clarity, honesty and integrity on Iraq and Al-Qaeda/9-11 (911)/Terrorism

10/6/03 <link>
For coverage the Valerie Plame/Joseph Wilson issue these are the websites to bookmark
Atrios/Eschaton
Calpundit
Talking Points Memo
Mark Kleiman

9/27/03 <link>
TWO White House Officials outed undercover CIA agent - says "senior administration official"
via Atrios and Josh Marshall
Finally, the Press is paying more attention to this obviously criminal act in which two White House officials (per the WP article - see quotes below) outed Joseph Wilson's wife (see my note in this earlier) as an undercover CIA agent. What is remarkable is that a "Senior Administration Official" has confirmed that this happened, without naming names. MSNBC earlier reported that the CIA has asked the Department of Justice to investigate this issue.

Here are some key paragraphs from this Washington Post article by Mike Allen and Dana Priest. All the bold text is my emphasis.
"At CIA Director George J. Tenet's request, the Justice Department is looking into an allegation that an administration official leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer to a journalist, administration officials said yesterday.
The operative's identity was published in July after her husband, former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, publicly challenged President Bush's claim that Iraq had tried to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore from Africa, which can be used in nuclear weapons. Bush later backed away from the claim.
The intentional disclosure of a covert operative's identity can violate federal law.
A senior administration official said two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and revealed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. That was shortly after Wilson revealed in July that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account eventually touched off a controversy over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq.
"Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak.
Sources familiar with the conversations said the leakers' allegation was that Wilson had benefited from nepotism because the Niger mission had been his wife's idea. Wilson said in an interview yesterday that a reporter had told him that the leaker said, "The real issue is Wilson and his wife."
The official would not name the leakers for the record and would not name the journalists. The official said he had no indication that Bush knew about the calls. Columnist Robert Novak published the agent's name in a July column about Wilson's mission.
It is rare for one Bush administration official to turn on another. Asked about the motive for describing the leaks, the senior official said the leaks were "wrong and a huge miscalculation, because they were irrelevant and did nothing to diminish Wilson's credibility."
Wilson, while refusing to confirm his wife's occupation, has suggested publicly that he believes Bush's senior adviser, Karl C. Rove, broke her cover...
...
The Intelligence Protection Act, passed in 1982, imposes maximum penalties of 10 years in prison and $50,000 fines for unauthorized disclosure by government employees with access to classified information..."

As this CIA website states: 
"...1982 23 June President Reagan signs Public Law 97-200, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, imposing criminal penalties on those who reveal the names of covert intelligence personnel..."

Additionally, DailyKos has posted the comments of a reader who says that this was an Act, that was pushed, ironically, by George Bush Sr. The reader Sara comments as follows: 
"...The origin of the law is 1976 when Richard Welch, CIA officer in Athens Greece was murdered. At the time the belief was that "Counterspy" published his identity obtained from a rogue CIA officer. At the time George Herbert Walker Bush was DCI, and he became the chief advocate for this bill [CG emphasis]. Welch had been killed under his CIA watch, and the legislation was his response. However, after November 76, GHWBush was no longer at the CIA -- Carter had his own chief. So the legislation went no where for four years. However, in 1981 GHWBush became VP, and passing this law became his passion. [CG emphasis] The chief lobbiests in addition to Bush were his buddies, Scowcroft and Baker. The three of them had been pall bearers when Welch's remains were returned from Greece for burial at Arlington. In 1982, Bush finally got the bill passed and Ronald Reagan signed it with ceremony. So -- in no uncertain terms, this law is Poppy's law. Folk need to be reminded of this history."

Indeed.

9/23/03 <link>
A quick thanks to Seeing The Forest for mentioning my site. One of the excellent collections of articles and commentary that Dave Johnson has at Seeing the Forest is the one on electronic voting machines. He's perhaps the go-to-person for this stuff, among other things. Do check him out when you get a chance. 

UPDATE: Also, thanks to Democrats.com for sending some visitors down this way.

9/20/03 <link>
Iraq, Uranium, Africa, Nuclear, program, etc.
In case the header is not obvious, the first course on my examination of the Bush administration's lies, misleading statements and deception moral clarity on Iraq is now online. It covers the topic of Iraq and its supposed nuclear weapons/program. There are two sections in this course:
- Statements made before the Iraq invasion and 
- Statements made after the Iraq invasion (includes detailed "Uranium in Africa" coverage).

In the latter, I provide extensive coverage on the whole Bush State of the Union "uranium in Africa" statement (the so-called "16 words"). Not only do I show that those "16 words" were a scandal compassionate utterance, but additionally, that the administration's defense of the 16 words is an even greater scandal of mendacity form of compassion. I also respond to the Daily Howler and Spinsanity who have chided or criticized reporters on the topic of Niger vs. Africa. 

While both the Daily Howler and Spinsanity also cover some of the administration's other fibs in their responses to questions on the Uranium issue, one of the aspects that I believe they nevertheless have not explored in greater depth is whether the administration's case that Africa (in general) and not Niger was the focus of the SOTU statement, is really the logical conclusion based on EVERYTHING that the administration has said to date. While it is tempting to take the latest statements of the administration and evaluate what everyone says in the context of that, it is important that the latest statements are thoroughly dissected without simply using them as a frame of reference to criticize the Press. 

For example, the Daily Howler makes a statement here that the President's claim may have actually been true. He writes this after citing a David Ignatius article which says that "...neither the British dossier nor Bush’s reference to it had anything to do with documents that surfaced last year alleging that the Iraqis had actually purchased uranium from Niger. They were later branded “crude forgeries” by International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, who were given a copy by the United States. The British were unaware of the documents when they prepared the September dossier and learned of them only after the president’s State of the Union speech..." If these facts are so crystal clear, then:

• Why the heck did Paul Kelly write back to Henry Waxman specifically on behalf of the White House, in April 2003, on the topic of Bush's "uranium in Africa" SOTU statement (not Niger!) by only citing the forged documents?? 

• Why would the Bush administration cite Niger in the State Department response to Iraq and provide the forged documents to the IAEA as "proof" after the SOTU?  

• Why would the Bush administration even announce that the statement should never have been in the SOTU if it is still correct and there is no evidence suggesting it is wrong? 

• Why would Ari Fleischer make statements that the SOTU was "based and predicated...on Niger" even when told that the administration has been claiming Africa is a superset of Niger? 

• Why would Ari Fleischer say that they only discovered that the documents that formed the basis of the SOTU reference were forged, sometime after the SOTU? 

• Why would Ari Fleischer keep referring to the President's SOTU reference as being to Niger (not Africa) even when he defended the statement as being valid because it applies to Africa as a whole? 

• Why would Powell drop any references to uranium in Africa a few days after the SOTU because it hadn't stood the "test of time"? 

• Why would Condi Rice in her first Meet the Press interview on this topic, respond to a "uranium in Africa" question framed by equating Africa and Niger, by only referring to the forged documents and not making it clear Africa and Niger were quite different? 

• ....................and more.......click here for the facts.

9/7/03 <link>
A quick thanks to Atrios for the link to my Uncompassionate Voices page... 

I discovered another referrer - Into the Breach (Kendall Miller). Thanks Kendall.

9/2/03 <link> (updated 9/5/03)
Criticism of Bush's policies - Bush-hating or Bush-loving?
The outstanding David Neiwert recently wrote a very interesting response to the right-wing garbage about liberals and "Bush-hating". David wrote, among other things that:
"...None of these beliefs [about Bush], whether on Lowry's list or mine, are founded in half-baked conspiracy theories. They are based in reported facts that are not in dispute. The only contention is in the interpretation of those facts. Moreover, every one of these beliefs revolves around policy and civic institutions -- they are not personal attacks aimed at impugning Bush's character. (There is only one common trait among Bush-haters that meets this description -- namely, their fondness for "Bushisms" and other ways of depicting him as stupid. It is a short-sighted and shallow view, but not particularly hateful, nor in the least delusional.)
Contrast this, then, with the accusations inveighed by Clinton-haters -- all of which were utterly without foundation and predicated on vicious smears and wild accusations, and all of which were about the Clintons' personal characters, not about their policies or their abilities at conducting it..."
Well put. To that let me add some comments.
--- Firstly, Compassiongate aims to provide the most systematic examination of the Bush administration on the web. In part, you can already see the tip of the iceberg, by visiting the Moral Clarity section - which is a work in progress.
--- Secondly, a fairly thorough documentation of media and right-wing bias/fraud against Clinton (and Gore) is available at my sister site eRiposte.

However, most importantly, here's a pop quiz of sorts (of course if you are impatient, you can skip the questions and go straight to the Q&As!). 

On Iraq
Who said "Bush's Iraq policy threatens to turn what was a major military victory into a potential humanitarian, political and economic disaster."? Who said that "At the end of the third inning we declared victory and said the game's over. It ain't over"? Who wondered if Iraq is another Vietnam? Who has opined that Bremer is not getting enough resources from the Bush administration? Who has dismissed the so-called "flypaper" thesis (attracting terrorists to Iraq as opposed to the US) as largely BS. Who has weighed in with criticisms on the lack of sufficient security in Iraq, the lack of civilian infrastructure and advisors, unconscionable power shortages, the lack of sufficient troops, and flawed assumptions on the post-war situation? Who thinks the Uranium flap went deeper than Tenet, and who opined that some people in the Pentagon may potentially be on a war crimes list? Who asked whether Bush will be impeached and if comparisons to Hitler might arise? Who said the WMD threat was bogus and who said Iraq was never a national security threat to the US? Who said these things, and many more uncompassionate things about Bush?

On National Security
Who said the US remains dangerously unprepared to deal with another terrorist attack? Who felt that Bush is underfunding key national security agencies? Who says Bush's war on Iraq took focus away from terrorism and increased the risk of terrorism against the US? Who said hyping of the WMD threat compromised our national security? Who is complaining about Bush calling Pakistan and Saudi Arabia - two nations most implicated in 9/11 (after Afghanistan) - our "Allies"? Who suggested Bush would be impeached if he invaded Syria or Iran? Who pointed out Afghanistan (the last country we "liberated") is a terrible mess? Who called the Bush doctrine of pre-emption a failure? Who felt that "Conventional political wisdom is that Republicans are better than Democrats when it comes to defense and national security. Such thinking could be dead wrong"? Who thought that Bush brought defeat and profound humiliation to the U.S. by his handling of the China spy plane incident?

On the Economy/Budget/Taxes
Who said Bush is the biggest spender since LBJ and likes to be surrounded by yes men? Who challenged his 2003 tax cuts, saying they are likely to be largely worthless in stimulating the economy? Who said this of the Bush budget: "Irresponsible at best, deceptive at worst. And certainly not conservative."? Who said that the "Middle-class benefits from Bush 2003 tax cut proposal are wholly illusory", that "there is something unconservative about this [the Bush 2003 tax cut]" and that "over the long run, taxpayers may pay dearly for it"? Who said that George W. Bush and the Republican Congress are massive spenders?

On Commerce/Trade
Who said "If the Farm Bill wasn't the most fiscally rancid legislation I have seen, it's certainly in the top three."? Who opined that steel tariffs were bad policy and led to the reverse of what was claimed would be the result? Who claimed that the $190B Farm Bill signed by Bush is a outrage and represents an effective tax per household of $4377- which strengthened Soviet-style cartels.

On the Environment
Who said that Bush shaded the global warming report to imply that the warming threat is bogus? And that it's time to stop this nonsense and  stop playing politics with the environment? Who pointed out that under both Presidents Nixon and Ford...there never was such White House intrusion into the business of the E.P.A.? Who felt that Bush's "Healthy Forests" initiative is basically dangerous nonsense? Who said that the Energy Bill is the ultimate in "swine-ish" opulence and does little or nothing to take America towards independence from oil or build energy security?  Who reminded us that Bush is no Teddy Roosevelt? Talking of the latter, who felt that the Bush administration policy on ANWR breaks Republican tradition by emphasizing undisciplined and wasteful consumption over conservation and energy independence?

On his Compassionate Conservatism
Who felt that Compassionate Conservatism as practiced by Bush is basically hogwash? Who commented that Bush Jr. is no Reagan - and that he's far from it? Also that a radical conservatism runs through Bush's policies, whether it's tax cuts or affirmative action or the environment or education or dismantling The Great Society? Who took pains to point out that there is a virtual absence as yet of any policy accomplishments that might, to a fair-minded non-partisan, count as the flesh on the bones of so-called compassionate conservatism; that politics dominates this WH; that policy in the real sense is almost missing?

On Civil Liberties
Who has pointed out that many of Ashcroft's (and thus the Bush administration's) defenses of the Patriot Act are either false, misleading, or Orwellian? Who feels that this is not the government created by the Founders- that this is not the government that any believer in liberty should favor? Who says that the Patriot Act threatens civil liberties? Who opined that "We the People" must turn to Congress to protect us from this out-of-control Justice Department, since the president has yet to keep it within the bounds of the Constitution and its principles? Who felt that American conservatism has grown, for lack of a better word, malign - that it has gained the government, trashed its soul, and now bestrides the planet? Who said that Bush's policies on civil rights are antithetical to everything we stand for and are un-American -- and that conservatives would have fought all this had it been Clinton imposing these changes? Who believes that legislation passed by Bush administration for presumed anti-terrorism purposes has little to do with that objective and a lot to do with curbing freedoms? Who feels that the Bush Justice Department is running amok and is biggest threat to civil liberties in the U.S. right now? Who thinks that on the home front President Bush has been doing a poor job of defending freedom? 

On Harken and Bush's road to riches
Who said that Bush is a man who has been rewarded for repeated failures by having money shot at him through a fire hose....a man who talks with a straight face about having "earned" a fortune of tens of millions of dollars, without having ever done an honest day’s work in his life?

On Media Policy
Who felt that Bush FCC's media consolidation ruling is an outrage? Who was outraged by Bush's "misbegotten" veto threat on legislation to override outrageous FCC ruling? Who opined that Bush FCC has abdicated enforcement of the public interest and that the FCC proposal is unconservative?

On Government Secrecy
Who said that this administration is the most secretive of our lifetime, even more secretive than the Nixon administration - that they don't believe the American people or Congress have any right to information? Who opined that the Bush administration's secrecy was "an open invitation to abuse of government power"?

On Campaign Finance
Who flayed Bush for his bait and switch and attempts to gut campaign finance reform?

On Military/Veterans Affairs
Who has been some of the key critics of the way Bush has been treating our military heroes, past and present?

And, there's more...

Well, the answers to the above are....various Republicans and Conservatives, of course! Since many of them seem to love Bush, their words obviously are not hate (morally clear, black-and-white thinking). So, what's wrong if liberals show Bush some love as well?

Read it all - HERE in CC610 Uncompassionate Voices. 

8/26/03 <link> (UPDATED 9/22/03)
The Valerie Plame scandal
Mark Kleiman (via Atrios) has been covering one of the real scandals associated with this administration - the outing of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife Valerie Plame as a CIA agent- a violations of U.S. law. Nothing reflects the Compassion of the Media more than their almost total indifference to this serious issue. How low we have dropped -- from the media compassion on faux scandals in the days of the Clinton administration to its indifference to a real scandal that is a high crime. What is interesting now, as Mark K points out is that Wilson is indirectly naming Karl Rove as one of the two perpetrators - significantly increasing risk to his own reputation. 
Update: The indefatigable Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo has a nice must-read interview with Joesph Wilson.
Click here.
The Energy "Task Force"
Also via Atrios, Oliver Willis is commenting on Dick Cheney's obstruction of justice (which was previously excused by Judge Bates, a former colleague of none other than the guy who was busy labeling, at the drop of a hat, the Clinton administration one that obstructs justice - Ken Starr!)

8/25/03 <link>
Thanks to Felonious Elephant for the link to this site!

8/22/03 <link>
CC202B: Moral Clarity on the Economy, Budget and Taxes - Part II
The above URL contains the second of two parts dealing with President Bush's lies and deceptions moral clarity and honesty on the Economy, Budget and Taxes. This part has three sections:
- 2003 Tax Cuts
- Dividend Taxation
- Other Economic Moral Clarity 

8/16/03 <link>
CC202A: Moral Clarity on the Economy, Budget and Taxes - Part I
The above URL contains the first of two parts dealing with President Bush's lies and deceptions moral clarity and honesty on the Economy, Budget and Taxes. This part has four sections:
- 2001 Tax Cuts and 2001/2002 "Stimulus"
- Estate Taxes
- Budget Deficits/Spending
- Social Security / Medicare (costs)

Do check it out!

8/8/03 <link>
Compassionate Media, Uncompassionate Voices
I am kicking off this section with three sub-sections ("courses").

CC601: Media Compassion for Al Gore
This is taken directly from eRiposte. It is a tabulated chronicle of the so-called liberal media's (SCLM) campaign to falsely tarnish former VP Al Gore and thus support the third estate in elevating George W. Bush to the Presidency. My own name for the SCLM is Compassionate Media.

CC602: Compassionate Media
Here I will from time to time chronicle the Compassionate Media's honesty and moral clarity on George W. Bush. I have some snippets from Diane Sawyer's flogging (for lack of a better word) of the Dixie Chicks and today's reports chronicling the brazen lying and journalistic fraud (i.e., compassion) from Fred Barnes (Weekly Standard/Fox News Channel.)

CC610: Uncompassionate Voices
This sub-section will feature uncompassionate voices (i.e., criticisms of the Bush administration, especially - but not always - by (rare) Conservatives).

8/5/03 <link>
Many thanks to Dwight Meredith
Dwight Meredith at Politics, Law and Autism is one of the writers on the web I admire the most. Dwight, thanks for linking to this site and introducing it to other netizens. 

Some of you may wonder why many of the pages don't have data yet. Please read my comments below. I will be publishing new data probably on a weekly basis, not daily. 

For now, please see my collection on Election 2000 (links CC201A and CC201B) below. Each "Compassion Con" credit measures one instance of deception or lying or inaccuracy. If you look at the Election 2000 collection, there are (by my count) 74 credits in Part I and 105 credits in Part II (a total of ~179 instances of lies/deception as far as I am concerned - note that this excludes counts from serial lying or deception). 

More data to follow soon on the Economy.    

7/31/03 <link>
The first two "courses" are up...
CC201A: Bush's Moral Clarity during Election 2000 - Part I, and 
CC201B - Bush's Moral Clarity during Election 2000 - Part II. 

7/30/03 <link>
On Compassiongate
You can read more about this site and what I mean by Compassionate Conservatism in the About CG section. Over the next 3 months I will be presenting on this site the results of a brief "research" project about the Bush administration. 

I will start with -
Moral Clarity (aka honesty - as opposed to lies, deception, misleading, etc.)
The topics will include the following (roughly in the order of how I will be updating the information):
Election 2000, the Economy, Pre-Iraq invasion, Post-Iraq invasion, National Security, (other) Foreign Affairs, Environment, Energy, Law, Health, Women's Rights, Civil Rights, Education, Welfare, Tort Reform, Enron, Harken and Other

I will move on to -
A Promise Made is a Promise (Un) Kept  
The topics will pretty much line up as above (with the exception of Election 2000)

After that, you will see -
Compassionate Nominees/Appointees (in many of the above areas)

And finally, 
Compassionate Policies

During the course of this period, I will from time to time mention Uncompassionate Voices (particularly amongst Conservatives and the Republican Party) and some Compassionate Media. 

This website has been the culmination of a remarkably engaging quest to understand the workings of the Bush administration. As a project, it has been exciting, given the wealth of subject matter to explore. I hope you will find it as interesting as I did. If you would like to get on my mailing list for updates, you will find my contact information in the About CG section. Thank you for visiting.