DUMMIES GENIUSES - The Uber
Kerry for Dummies
Policy: As reflected in the Bush administration's investigations of
Ever wondered how many investigations the Bush administration has been
forced to order, of itself? Check it out.
Policy - Bush administration and National/Homeland Security before 9/11
This is an analysis of Condi Rice's testimony showing their
and lying compassionate policy on terrorism and national
security before 9/11. Check
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
- But not under oath
- And only for an hour
- And only with the chair and
- And then he insisted on having
Cheney go with him
- And agreed to a single
- Then he refused to grant the
commission a time extension
- Then he tried to stop Rice
- 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
- 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
(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.
Compassionate Conservatism in Bush administration responses to Richard
Clarke - a growing compendium
waffles, broken promises and flip-flops
compassionate conservatism. A growing list
PlameGate update - before I go on a hiatus!
Via Atrios (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?
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
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
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:
Hey, it worked the first time, didn't
- 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.
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:
another, more detailed, account of the matter by Parry.
- Despite the phone records and the
public declarations by Czech intelligence veterans, diGenova said
he "found no evidence linking the publication of the 
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
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.
And just for posterity's sake ... Here are some previous posts on this
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
Nothing to worry about
then, right? The case is in professional, diligent, apolitical
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
"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
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
"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.
A Happy New Year to you all!
Busy with stuff - may not be posting here for some time.
conservatives criticizing (loving?) Bush... an update
The (hopefully) last set of courses on Iraq
- Overall Threat Assessment, Justifications for invasion/war, U.N. and
"Coalition" Building and the "Major Combat" period
- Post-invasion Justifications for invasion, Iraq reconstruction and
democracy building and order/chaos/security/terrorism in Iraq after the
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
In this course, I cover the following
weapons/threat assessment BEFORE the Iraq invasion
weapons/threat assessment AFTER the Iraq invasion
weapons/threat assessment BEFORE the Iraq invasion
weapons/threat assessment AFTER the Iraq invasion
of Other weapons/threats BEFORE the Iraq invasion
of Other weapons/threats AFTER the Iraq invasion and statements relating
to the WMD search
Lies, Deception and Misleading Statements
moral clarity, honesty and integrity on Iraq and Al-Qaeda/9-11
For coverage the Valerie Plame/Joseph Wilson issue these are the
websites to bookmark
White House Officials outed undercover CIA agent - says "senior
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
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
CIA website states:
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
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
"...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
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
UPDATE: Also, thanks to Democrats.com
for sending some visitors down this way.
Uranium, Africa, Nuclear, program, etc.
In case the header is not obvious, the first course on my examination of the
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:
made before the Iraq invasion and
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.
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:
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??
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
would Powell drop any references to uranium in Africa a few days
after the SOTU because it hadn't stood the "test of time"?
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?
here for the facts.
A quick thanks to Atrios
for the link to my Uncompassionate
I discovered another referrer - Into
the Breach (Kendall Miller). Thanks Kendall.
Criticism of Bush's policies - Bush-hating or
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
"...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
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!).
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?
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?
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?
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
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?
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?
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?
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
"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?
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"?
Who flayed Bush for his bait and switch and attempts to gut campaign
Who has been some of the key critics of the way Bush has been treating
our military heroes, past and present?
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.
The Valerie Plame scandal
Mark Kleiman (via Atrios)
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
Update: The indefatigable Josh Marshall of Talking Points
Memo has a nice must-read interview with Joesph Wilson.
The Energy "Task Force"
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!)
to Felonious Elephant for the link to this site!
Clarity on the Economy, Budget and Taxes - Part II
The above URL contains the second of two parts dealing with President
lies and deceptions moral clarity and honesty on
the Economy, Budget and Taxes. This part has three sections:
Economic Moral Clarity
Clarity on the Economy, Budget and Taxes - Part I
The above URL contains the first of two parts dealing with President
lies and deceptions moral clarity and honesty on
the Economy, Budget and Taxes. This part has four sections:
Tax Cuts and 2001/2002 "Stimulus"
Security / Medicare (costs)
Do check it out!
Media, Uncompassionate Voices
I am kicking off this section with three sub-sections
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.
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.)
This sub-section will feature uncompassionate voices (i.e., criticisms
of the Bush administration, especially - but not always - by (rare)
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.
The first two "courses" are up...
Bush's Moral Clarity during Election 2000 - Part I, and
- Bush's Moral Clarity during Election 2000 - Part II.
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
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
After that, you will see
Compassionate Nominees/Appointees (in many of the above areas)
During the course of this
period, I will from time to time mention Uncompassionate Voices
(particularly amongst Conservatives and the Republican Party) and some
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.