The selection
of John Edwards as the Democrats Vice President will enrage the Republicans. He’s a Trial Lawyer, something they hate more than lesbian
socialist welfare mothers on dope. Trial Lawyers are THE enemy (because they hold businesses accountable to their customers and employees
— something the govenment doesn’t do anymore).
Edwards is the antithesis of corporate welfare. The Republicans will try to exploit
him as ”anti-business,” just like liberalism is ”anti-American” — a horrible lie.
Worse, Edwards is going to steal the
whole ‘optimism’ argument. No one is more optimistic than Edwards. Stand Edwards next to Cheney and pick the one who exudes confidence
in the future.
And that’s why Cheney will withdraw and McCain will be Bush’s new choice for VP. If Cheney can’t let go of power and
Bush can’t let go of Cheney’s hand, they’re sunk. mjh
Monthly Archives: July 2004
Let Freedom Ring?
Bush in West Virginia for Fourth
A couple from Texas was taken out of a speech given by President Bush in West Virginia Sunday.
Police placed Nicole and Jeffery Rank of Corpus Christi in restraints after they entered the event with a ticket and then removed their clothes to reveal anti-Bush T-shirts, according to the acting director of the Capitol police in Charleston.
He said the two were asked to go out to the designated protest area, but refused.
Bush came to West Virginia on the nation’s 228th birthday….
About 6,500 people packed into the Capitol’s north courtyard to hear him.
As police rushed her out, Nicole Rank shouted that they were told they couldn’t be there because they were wearing anti-Bush shirts.
Police say the two were issued citations for trespassing and released.
Remember when all of America was a ”free-speech zone”? mjh
Krauthammer Does a Cheney (and feels better for it)
In Defense of the F-Word By Charles F. Krauthammer, washingtonpost.com
The F-word was used.
Washington is scandalized. The newspapers were full of it. Lamentations were heard about the decline of civility. …
Democrats, feeling darned outraged, demanded apologies. The vice president remained defiant, offering but the coyest
concession — that he “probably” cursed — coupled with satisfaction: “I expressed myself rather forcefully, felt better after I had done
it.” …
Ah, but the earnest chin-pullers are not amused. Cheney’s demonstration of earthy authenticity in a chamber in
which authenticity of any kind is to be valued has occasioned anguished meditations on the loss of civility in American politics.
Liberals in particular have expressed deep concern about this breach of decorum.
Charles Krauthammer is the
darling of the radical right. Here he presents a pseudo-intellectual dissertation on “fuck you” vs “go fuck yourself,” and gleefully
speaks of hurling insults at other drivers. Just in case anyone is actually offended, he speaks of Cheney’s ”alleged
indiscretion.” Alleged? Really? Did he curse or didn’t he? Where is that gutsy ‘you know where they stand’ manliness? Not to be
found in ”I probably said it.”
Krauthammer ends with contrasting the furor over Cheney’s witticism vs no furor over Gore
comparing Bush to Hitler and Stalin. And, in a way I’m sure he finds clever, says ‘fuck you’ to Gore.
Some might say there is a
difference between citizen Gore speaking to a partisan crowd and Vice President Cheney in the People’s House. Others cut Gore a lot of
slack as the true President deposed in a bloodless Supreme Coup — maybe attacking the usurper ”makes him feel better,” Dick.
As
a liberal, I don’t give a shit that Cheney, and Krauthammer, are assholes. I’m certainly not surprised. What’s significant is that
these are the holier-than-thou American Ayatollahs. These are the Christian right’s darlings. These are our mullahs, decrying the
decline of Western civilization at the hands of foreign infidels. These are the Compassionate Conservatives who want to restore family
values, defend marriage, leave no child behind. Fucking liars. These guys are coarse, common and mean as shit — and scared, to boot.
mjh
PS- The first few dozen time I used the word ‘fuck’ around my mother, she winced and covered her ears. I don’t mind using the
word, but writing it here in this public forum does make me very conscious of readers who don’t like it. I’m not saying I’m sorry,
just that I’m not indifferent or oblivious.
mjh’s Blog: Cheney says: Go Fuck Yourself, America!
Bush Secrecy and the FOIA
Secrecy and the Bush Administration
By Ben Carlson, alibi
Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a memo to government agencies in October of 2001 urging that FOIA requests be rejected whenever possible, using the vaguest reasoning possible. Ashcroft then assured federal agencies that the Department of Justice “will defend your decisions.”
In November 2001, President Bush effectively signed the 1978 Presidential Records Act out of existence. Executive Order 13233 granted former presidents, their heirs, and sitting presidents the right to veto the release of presidential documents to the public. In one fell stroke, Bush freed the supreme executive from public scrutiny of his records. (The 1978 law required their release after 12 years — a reaction to Nixon’s secretiveness.)
Even information that was already released or slated for release fell prey to the federal government’s hostility to disclosure. …
Without offering an explanation, Bush delayed the declassification of millions of documents in March 2003 and gave FOIA officers greater freedom to reclassify information that had already been released. …
A Brief History of the Freedom of Information Act
Growing efforts to pry open the doors of the government finally came to fruition in 1966, after JFK’s notoriously closed-door presidency. Public outcry had reached such a pitch by that time that President Johnson had little choice but to sign the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) on July Fourth. (He still managed to drag his heels, though; he dodged the press cycle by signing it late at night on his Texas ranch.)
Since 1966, FOIA has varied in strength depending on the compliance of each administration. Nixon’s, naturally, was a low point, though his stonewalling led to the strengthening of FOIA (a weak bill initially) under Gerald Ford. In the ’80s, Reagan attempted to scale it back, complaining that FOIA had become too expensive—an ironic point, considering that he spent more on Pentagon marching bands at the time.
Presidential compliance reached its zenith under Clinton, who issued a memo declaring his commitment to “enhancing [FOIA’s] effectiveness in my administration.” Attorney General Janet Reno further asserted a “presumption of disclosure” in matters of FOIA. Their words became action in 1996, when Clinton approved the expansion of FOIA rights to the Net, requiring agencies to post the most frequently requested information online.
For the complete guide [to filing FOIA requests} and agency addresses, go to http://archive.aclu.org/library/foia.html
Bush Meets The Press
In the local paper or on local news, I have seen nothing about the controversy surrounding an interview conducted by Carole Coleman, of Irish Public Television, with Bush. This interview was a week ago and the blogosphere is boiling. Thanks to Jas. for the heads-up. mjh
Interview of the President by Radio and Television Ireland (official White House transcript)
Pampered Bush Meets A Real Reporter by John Nichols
Carole Coleman, Washington correspondent for RTE, the Irish public television network … is a mainstream European journalist who has conducted interviews with top officials from a number of countries — her January interview with Secretary of State Colin Powell was apparently solid enough to merit posting on the State Department’s Web site.
Unfortunately, it appears that Coleman failed to receive the memo informing reporters that they are supposed to treat this president with kid gloves. Instead, she confronted him as any serious journalist would a world leader.
She asked tough questions about the mounting death toll in Iraq, the failure of U.S. planning, and European opposition to the invasion and occupation. And when the president offered the sort of empty and listless “answers” that satisfy the White House press corps — at one point, he mumbled, “My job is to do my job” — she tried to get him focused by asking precise follow-up questions.
The president complained five times during the course of the interview about the pointed nature of Coleman’s questions and follow-ups — “Please, please, please, for a minute, OK?” the hapless Bush pleaded at one point, as he demanded his questioner go easy on him.
After the interview was done, a Bush aide told the Irish Independent newspaper that the White House was concerned that Coleman had “overstepped the bounds of politeness.”
As punishment, the White House canceled an exclusive interview that had been arranged for RTE with first lady Laura Bush.
Did Coleman step out of line? Of course not. Watch the interview (it’s available on the www.rte.ie Web site) and you will see that Coleman was neither impolite nor inappropriate. She was merely treating Bush as European and Canadian journalists do prominent political players. In Western democracies such as Ireland, reporters and politicians understand that it is the job of journalists to hold leaders accountable.
The White House filed a complaint with the Irish Embassy in Washington over RTE journalist Carole Coleman’s interview with US President George Bush. …
Ms. Coleman, undeterred by the level of bovine excrement, presses on by correctly pointing out that most people find life today more dangerous than they did before Bush came to power. She points out that every day there is some terrorist news, while four years ago, it was always isolated incidents. Mr. Bush, then asks her what was it like on 9-11, and when she has the audacity to start to answer, he again cuts her off by saying “you ask the questions and I’ll answer them if you don’t mind.” What??? Hm, Mr. President, you JUST ASKED HER A QUESTION! Nevertheless, he continued and wouldn’t let her answer. The President rattled off a litany of bombings, all of which had one thing in common, they all had nothing to do with Iraq. Ms. Coleman correctly points this out and says that we feel less safe because Bush has taken the focus off al Qaeda and placed it on Iraq, a very astute point. …
If it is not completely under their control, they simply change the rules until it is. In this interview Bush lied about Abu Ghraib being a result of the actions of a few soldiers, that Saddam had WMD, that Saddam didn’t disarm, that he had the capacity to make weapons, that by blowing up Iraq and bringing democracy to it; terrorism will stop, that he has provided 15 billion to Africa for AIDS, that outside of France, Europe supports the Iraq war, and that he is leading in the face of terror by invading Iraq. That is a lot if lies and misdirection for a 12 minute interview.
On the truth side of the ledger, we see that Mr. Bush does not play fair with open inquiries, [and] that he then is punitive when someone has dared to question him honestly….
The Pluck of the Irish (washingtonpost.com)
The preceding link also has a link to the latest Wall Street Journal poll.
47 percent of Americans believe Bush deliberately misled people to make the case for war with Iraq, compared to 44 percent who think he gave the most accurate information he had. Back in March, it was 53-41 in favor of giving him the benefit to the doubt.
In case you want a taste of the right wing response (and more Republican obscenities) follow this next link. mjh