Vyan

Showing posts with label Worst President Ever.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Worst President Ever.. Show all posts

Monday, May 21

Gore: Bush has the blood of thousands of Innocents on his hands

From Raw Story
Former vice president Al Gore insists that he's "not a candidate," even though his new book The Assault On Reason is attracting headlines for it's "two-fisted" attacks on the Bush Administration.

"I'm not a candidate and this is not a political book, this is not a candidate book," Gore said on Good Morning America Monday. "It's about that there are cracks in the foundation of American democracy that have to be fixed."

ABC's Jake Tapper notes that Gore "doesn't assail any Democrats by name."

"Bush, however, he names," Tapper continues. "Over and over."

Tapper adds, "'President Bush has repeatedly violated the law for six years,' Gore charges, regarding the warrantless surveillance program. He argues that the president does not need the enhanced domestic surveillance powers he has sought and received, often in secret, but that the competent use of the information already available would have been sufficient. Such as, for instance, the fact that Sept. 11 terrorists Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almidhar were already on a State Department/INS watch list."

The following video is from ABC's Good Morning America

Excerpts from ABC article on Gore's book:


In the book, Gore is accusatory, passionate, and angry. He begins discussing the president by accusing him of sharing President Richard Nixon's unprincipled hunger for power -- and the book proceeds to get less complimentary from there. While Gore stops short of flatly calling for the impeachment of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, he certainly gives the impression that in his view such a move would be well deserved. He calls the president a lawbreaker, a liar and a man with the blood of thousands of innocent lives on his hands.

Vyan

Saturday, May 19

It's Official: W is the Worst. President. Ever. - signed Jimmy Carter

Although there was one diary about this already, I think it deserves another look since it's like - totally unprecedented.

Former President and Nobel Peace Prize Winner Jimmy Carter has called the current sitting President out big time.

"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history,"

"The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and
Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me."

"We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered," he said. "But that's been a radical departure from all previous administration policies."

As I documented yesterday, this Presidency is a complete total abject failure.

It about time people started to openly talk about it, but to hear it from a former President is something unique.

Of course, this isn't the first time that a former President has criticized a current President. Although I'm sure that'll come as surprise to Brit Hume who once claimed, following the entire Bill Clinton/Chris Wallace kurfuffle over the U.S.S. Cole that President Bush Sr. never sunk so low as to ever criticize Clinton while he was in office.

Former President Bill Clinton has now done something his predecessor, the first President George Bush, did not do, and that is criticize the sitting president and his administration

Unfortunately for Hume - Bush Sr. did do it

In an appearance at a San Antonio grade school on October 13, 1993, Bush expressed concern that the humanitarian mission to Somalia that he had launched nearly a year earlier was being "messed up" by the Clinton administration. "If you're going to put somebody else's son or daughter into harm's way, into battle, you've got to know the answer to three questions," Bush told the students. He said the president has to know what the mission is, "how they are going to do it," and "how they're going to get out of there."

You think Pappy Bush has ever asked his own son those three questions? I don't, but then I'm a cynic.

In an interview published in the February 1994 issue of Washingtonian magazine, Bush criticized the Clinton administration's purported lack of a "general strategy" in the foreign policy arena and the "start-and-stop" failures it had exhibited. Bush pointed to the Clinton administration's handling of the situation in Haiti as an example and also criticized Clinton for his policy toward Bosnia:

As it happened, both Haiti and Bosnia ultimately turned out pretty well I think. In fact, after years of sectarian strife that began under Pappy Bush - Bosnia is now the flowering peaceful democracy that Jr. and Cheney claim that Iraq will become someday after they finally find those misplaced chocolates and flowers and stuff, or the "last throes" finally throw in the towell, or the surge-suppression finally takes, or we just plain run out of able-bodied willing troops once the insurgents and sectarian militias are done killing them where it's more "convenient".

But that wasn't all, Pappy actually took credit for the Clinton economic boom, which to this day remains the greatest in American history.

During a July 26, 1996, news conference with Bob Dole, then the Republican nominee for president, Bush "criticized Clinton for boasting of current economic stability," according to a Kansas City Star article published the following day. Bush argued that "he handed Clinton an economy that grew at about 5 percent in 1993." "That was not recession," he told reporters.

Pappy also though Ken Starr was a right fine guy.

In a letter released on April 23, 1998, Bush "criticized the White House and its allies for their continuing public campaign to criticize [independent counsel Kenneth] Starr and undermine his investigation," according to a New York Times article published that day. In the letter, Bush professed to hold Starr -- who at the time was investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair -- "in high regard."

So much for the "grand tradition" of previous Presidents refraining from commenting negatively on the current office holder.

But to be fair, Carter isn't the first to say the "W" word. The Washington Post has already noted that historians have already shown that Bush is the Worst Ever.

More often, however, the rankings display a remarkable year-to-year uniformity. Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Franklin D. Roosevelt always figure in the "great" category. Most presidents are ranked "average" or, to put it less charitably, mediocre. Johnson, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Richard M. Nixon occupy the bottom rung, and now President Bush is a leading contender to join them. A look at history, as well as Bush's policies, explains why.

At least Nixon had a talent for diplomacy, and Polk who started our other false war with Mexico at least had the where-with-all to fracking win it!. Bush this guy Dubya... is a total mess.

Bush has taken this disdain for law even further [than Nixon, yet!]. He has sought to strip people accused of crimes of rights that date as far back as the Magna Carta in Anglo-American jurisprudence: trial by impartial jury, access to lawyers and knowledge of evidence against them. In dozens of statements when signing legislation, he has asserted the right to ignore the parts of laws with which he disagrees. His administration has adopted policies regarding the treatment of prisoners of war that have disgraced the nation and alienated virtually the entire world. Usually, during wartime, the Supreme Court has refrained from passing judgment on presidential actions related to national defense. The court's unprecedented rebukes of Bush's policies on detainees indicate how far the administration has strayed from the rule of law.

Carter didn't just bash Bush on his foreign policy, he also hit him hard on his domestic issues, particularly his so-called faith based initiatives - which is particularly ironic since Carter was the First "Born Again" President we ever had.

"The policy from the White House has been to allocate funds to religious institutions, even those that channel those funds exclusively to their own particular group of believers in a particular religion," Carter said. "As a traditional Baptist, I've always believed in separation of church and state and honored that premise when I was president, and so have all other presidents, I might say, except this one."

The historians are against him, the former Presidents both Clinton and Carter - if not Pappy - are against him. Except for the Neo-Con Cabal who this weekend gave Convicted Purgerer Scooter Libby a huge round of applause as they ponder their next targets for regime change (cuz their first target has turned out so spectacularly they just have to have a sequel) - the jury is basically in on this one. I will admit though that this type of historical judgement is arguably premature, but still I have a great deal of myself that the legacy of George Bush is only going to become burnished and shine with the passage of time.

More like dull and tarnished with age.

Maybe I'm wrong, but somehow I just don't think so....

Vyan

This Failed Presidency

Sometimes I'm completely dumbstruck at what this President has so nonchalantly wrought, how he has destroyed American credibility, broken our military and destroyed Iraq while time and time again letting those who attacked us off Scott Free and criminally neglecting the needs of nation at home.

The full depth of Bush's bullshit is truly staggering if you even try to recount it all, or even the half of it that we know about.

It's a bit like the old adage about the frog and the boiling water. Put him directly in a hot pot and he'll simply leap out, but place him in while the water is still cold then slowly raise the temperate and he'll sit there quietly until his skin peels off and he cooks alive.

That's what has happened to America.

This week we learned that Bush's former White House Counsel, Alberto Gonzales and his Chief of Staff Andrew Card with the direct support and intervention of President Bush ambushed Attorney General John Ashcroft on his sickbed, in order to override his deputy James Comey into implementing an illegal domestic spying program that would shatter the privacy of millions of Americans and that when they refused - Bush and the White House went ahead and did it without them anyway!

What's even more staggering is that ABC and CBS haven't even bothered to report this story.

Imagine if we'd learned of such a thing in the year 2000? Think back to how the press howled at the allegations that the Clinton's had prematurely removed members of the White House Travel Office merely because - they were about to be indicted, and strove to replace them with "someone they could trust."

Y'know, like people who weren't potential felons.

All the White House Press Office does is arrange for the travel by the White House Press Corp to accompany the President and his staff - period. They - unlike the fracking Justice Department - don't have any real power to influence or implement policy.

We also had the "scandal" of some people in the Clinton White House having access to the FBI records of members of the previous administration due to an outdated access list provided by the Secret Service.

"They must have wanted those records for political dirty tricks."

Yeah, sure - the Secret Service does that all the time.

Flip that scenario on it's head in terms of relative political targets and multiply by about 1.2 Million and you have the Bush's Domestic Spying program in a nutshell, albiet a rather l.a.r.g.e nutshell.

Now we have Senate Confirmed U.S. Attorney's being fired for no reason, some reason, mutiple-reasons - all smoke screens to hide the real reason - none of which new Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was aware of or can seem to remember. At one point Gonzales wished that his deputy Paul McNaulty knew more and was more involved, and then he later claimed that McNulty knew everything all along.

Uh huh. And somehow Gonzales still retains the "full confidence" of this President.

This President, who claims to "Support the Troops", yet never fails to use them as props and shields while letting our wounded languish in rat infested squalor, has opposed legislation to have our flags lowered to half-mast in honor of fallen soldiers in the same way that we honored those slaughtered at Virginia Tech. He has oppossed and threatened to Veto raising their pay and death benefits while the price tag for his failed war sky-rockets above $500 Billion.

Despite all the blood and treasure we've spent, not to mention the millions of Iraqis impacted by our sad misguided attempt at "regime change" - Iraq is still on the verge of become a failed state.

The Iraqi's didn't want the Surge, but we surged anyway.

So far, that Surge - like so many Bush initiatives - has failed. And doesn't look like thing will get any better "when September comes", so we can certainly expect Bush's response to be to call for a Super-Surge even though recruitment has become so dismal the Army has been coaching new recruits on how to beat the drug tests.

Addicts with heavy firepower. Great.

That's likely to just hand us more and more Haditha's.

The U.S. Army private accused of raping and murdering a 14-year-old Iraq girl "was a high school dropout with three misdemeanors and was accepted into the Army just as the military, desperate for recruits, began issuing more ‘moral waivers.’"

It's gotten so bad even Republicans are starting to say "if the Iraqi government wants to leave - we should"

Here's a newsflash, 83 members of the Iraqi Parliament (about 1/3rd) asked for a timetable for our troops to withdraw - almost two years ago. And just this month, that 1/3 has grown to a Majority of the members of Iraqi Parliament who've now signed a petition ASKING US TO LEAVE.

You think we're gonna leave? Not with this President.

This President, who went golfing and campaiging while an American City Drowned in a toxic stew of piss, raw sewage, gasoline and decaying bodies.

This President and White House, who when Governor Sebelius correctly pointed out that the equipment Kansas needed after a devastating tornado attack has been sent to Iraq, much like the lack of response to Katrina, Blatantly LIED and claims she never asked for any equipment.

What? Did she forget to say "Simon Says?"

This President, who despite all his tough He-man talk about "fighting them over there" (so our soldiers can die much more conveniently) Completely. Totally. Dropped. The. Ball. On. 9-11 when it Counted.

MR. RUSSERT (Speaking to George Tenet): Then in June, a briefer of the CIA named Rich B gave a conclusion saying, based on all the reporting we've seen, that "bin Laden is going to launch a significant terrorist attack against U.S." Israeli "interest in the coming weeks." July 10 you got another briefing so alarming that you picked up the phone, said to Condoleezza Rice, "I want to come see you now," jumped in the car with some of your key advisers, went to see her. Rich B, he gave her a briefing package. Opening line, "There will be a significant terrorist attack in the coming weeks or months!" And then you--and later July, Rich B sitting at the CIA, said, "They're coming here."

This President failed to recognize that Iraq was already disarmed despite being told exactly that by Foreign Minister Sabri, the UN mandated Full Declaration by Saddam and the Weapons Inspectors on the ground.

This President, who shoved a revokation of The Great Writ through a compliant supine Republican Congress simply to cover his own ass and hide his own not entirely secret campaign of terror and torture - to the delight of his ghoulish supporters and the horror of his commanding generals.

This President, who through his VP aided and abetted Treason by allowing the identity of a Covert CIA Operative to be revealed simply to support a lie and a forgery that would have undermined his justifications for an unneccesary war.

This President, who has established a shiny new set of American Concentration Camps for muslim immigrants and their children.

This President, has a VP who busted a cap in some old dudes face and is still hanging around.

This President's "No Child Left Behind" Initiative - has failed.

This President's "Abstinence Only" Initiative - has failed.

This President's "Faith-Based Initiatives" - have failed.

At every level, and in almost every way imaginable the policies and practices of this president have failed the American People.

We - the proverbial frog - have already been well and truly deep fry fucked. It's long past time we hopped out of the pot and began far more than just talk about, and drafting of resolutions for the Impeachments of Rice, Gonzales, Cheney and yes, even Bush himself. It's time to start implementing the tools of oversight of this goverment. Frankly, just impeaching Bush or one of the others is NO LONGER ENOUGH. All of them have to go because at this point I'm afraid that the damage already done just might be nearly permanent.

Iraq and it's people will never be the same again.

How do we get back the trust of the world's nations when we say we need to defend ourselves from this threat, or that threat after we FUBAR'd Iraq this badly?

The Gulf Coast, particularly New Orleans, and the survivors of Katrina will never be the same.

How do we as American people begin to trust our own government when it alternately spies on us, then neglects us when our local resources are overtaxed by flood, fire, hurricanes and tornados? Not after New Orleans and Kansas we can't. How do we trust that they'll ever be able to handle another attempted 9-11 attack?

How do we prevent future Presidents from amasing the same near unlimited power onto themselves via the fiat of quasi-constitutional signing statements, and then completely mismanaging that power as badly as Bush has?

This Presidency has Failed.

We can not afford to let this legacy stand. We can not afford to let this President or his criminal cronies escape their crimes quietly in 2009, they must be held accountable - or else we will see another future President commit them again. If possible, it might even be worse next time.

We have to get out of the pot. It may not be right now, but it has to be soon. The timer is almost about to go off.

And still, even if we do get out, American will never be the same.

Vyan

Tuesday, February 27

False Patriotism: Republicans and their contempt for the Troops

pIt's almost enough to make your head explode. Time and time again we see Bush and his cohorts hide behind the flag, and those dumb little "Support the Troops" magnets - for everything they do even everything they don't do to protect this nation.

I for one, am well sick of it.

Last week we had the absolute coup de gras revealed by the Dana Priest at the Washington Post that Walter Reed, the Hospital responsible for taking care of our many thousands of wounded returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, is a rat and roach infested shithole.

But the signs were well displayed on the wall long before this recent report. Long before...

Here's a quote we should all be committing to memory.

Behind the door of Army Spec. Jeremy Duncan's room, part of the wall is torn and hangs in the air, weighted down with black mold. When the wounded combat engineer stands in his shower and looks up, he can see the bathtub on the floor above through a rotted hole. The entire building, constructed between the world wars, often smells like greasy carry-out. Signs of neglect are everywhere: mouse droppings, belly-up cockroaches, stained carpets, cheap mattresses.

On the worst days, soldiers say they feel like they are living a chapter of "Catch-22." The wounded manage other wounded. Soldiers dealing with psychological disorders of their own have been put in charge of others at risk of suicide.

But this isn't the picture that the Bush Administation - who frequently used Walter Reed as a shining example of their "commitment to the troops" - would like to paint.

This world is invisible to outsiders. Walter Reed occasionally showcases the heroism of these wounded soldiers and emphasizes that all is well under the circumstances. President Bush, former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and members of Congress have promised the best care during their regular visits to the hospital's spit-polished amputee unit, Ward 57.

"We owe them all we can give them," Bush said during his last visit, a few days before Christmas. "Not only for when they're in harm's way, but when they come home to help them adjust if they have wounds, or help them adjust after their time in service."

They'd like to keep this ugly little secret hidden - unfortunately the WaPo blew their cover and they've been scrambling like ants under a magnifying glass ever since with Tony Snow first declaring that Bush knew all about it and then that he didn't. Flip-flop much Tony?

But Walter Reed is just the tip of the iceberg.

The issue of equiping our troops with proper armor, aging equipment, helmets and Frag 5 kits has been going on for as long as the war.

Many of those who are in walter Reed with amputations and brain injuries wouldn't even be there if proper precautions had been taken in the first place. (Nor or course, would they be there if we hadn't started a bogus war in the first place - although that fact is beside the point of this post)

The true disgrace here is that even with all of these clear shortfalls in spending and legitimate support for the troops the U.S. has simultaneously wasted over $10 Billion in Iraq in addition to the $8.8 Billion that the Coalition Provisional Authority just plain lost.

The three top auditors overseeing contract work in Iraq told a House committee of $10 billion in spending that was wasteful or poorly tracked. They pointed to numerous instances in which Defense and State department officials condoned or otherwise allowed poor accounting, repeated work delays, bloated expenses and payments for work shoddily or never done by U.S. contractors.

Yet when someone like John Murtha (who visits Walter Reed every week) steps forward to try and truly give the troops the support they deserve and need - including ensuring they receive proper training, proper equipment and proper rest prior to redeployment - he is vilified by the right for attempting to "slow bleed" us out of the war.

What a surprise that is, eh?

We all know about Jean Schmidt accusing a decorated Marine veteran like Murtha of being a "coward" who "cuts and runs". This follows perfectly with thier attacks on John Kerry for simply stating the truth about Vietnam, just as they've tried to White-Wash Abu Ghraib, Haditha and Mahmoudiya.

Should we expect any less after Bush sets up a staged interview with the troops just so they can tell America "everything is going great" - especially the training of the Iraqi Army - which we subsequently learned had been completely botched and fubar'd just like everything else the Bush Administration has tried, and failed to do in this war?

Just as they love to tear down real heroes - they also love to create false stories about them such as the ones about Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman.

Meanwhile they ignore the fact that repeated deployments and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and anti-depressants are leading our troops into record breaking levels of suicide.

Twenty-two U.S. troops committed suicide in Iraq last year, accounting for nearly one in five of all non-combat deaths and the highest suicide rate since the war started, the newspaper said.

Some service members who committed suicide in 2004 and 2005 were kept on duty despite clear signs of mental distress, sometimes after being prescribed antidepressants with little or no mental health counseling or monitoring, the Courant reported. Those findings conflict with regulations adopted last year by the Army that caution against the use of antidepressants for "extended deployments."

"I can't imagine something more irresponsible than putting a soldier suffering from stress on (antidepressants), when you know these drugs can cause people to become suicidal and homicidal," said Vera Sharav, president of the Alliance for Human Research Protection, a New York-based advocacy group. "You're creating chemically activated time bombs."

Yet to them, Murtha is the one who "doesn't support the troops" - if you can believe that.

They call it their 'slow-bleed' plan. Instead of supporting the troops in Iraq, or simply bringing them home, the Democrats intend to gradually make it harder and harder for them to do their jobs.

'Slow-bleed' is exactly the right name for this incredibly irresponsible and dangerous strategy. Cutting and running is bad enough. But the Murtha-Pelosi 'slow-bleed' plan is far worse. It is a cynical and dangerous erosion of our ability to fight the terrorists while we still have men and women on the ground in Iraq. It will put their lives in far greater danger, as resources slowly dry up. How can our troops operate without bases? How can they fight without backup?

But of course, if Democrats were to cut funding or try to put a cap on the troops - the Republicans would scream bloody murder about it wouldn't they? It's not like they didn't seriously entertain doing the exact same thing (impose a cap and cut funding) for President Clinton's campaigns in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo.

Oh wait, they did.

At a certain point you simply have to admit that this is a complete pile of bullcrap.

These guys don't really care about our troops - they simply using them as a political tool to enrich their own positions of power. And even after that has clearly stopped working on the American people - amazingly, they're still doing it. They've been getting away with this shit for so long , they don't when it's time to quit the game and go home.

It truly boggles the mind.

This Sunday 60 Minutes did a report on a number of Iraq Veterans who have now turned against the War.

"It's not about speaking out against the military or speaking out against the war. It's just, we're here four years down the line and there's not an end to it," Sgt. Evans, one of the dissenters, tells Logan.

"What are we trying to accomplish over there? I mean, what is what are we trying to do in Iraq?" another soldier, Sgt. Ronn Cantu asks.

What does he think?

"I don't even know anymore," he tells Logan.

...

"We’re not telling young men and women that it’s not worth it, to serve their country. We’ve served our country. The men and women who have signed the appeal have served their country. So those, we’re not saying it’s not worth it. We’re saying that, if you have reservations about it to communicate it. That’s simply what it is," Hutto says.

"There are gonna be a lot of people who don't like what you’re doing," Logan says.

"By volunteering we've done more than about 99 percent of the population. And anybody who joined after 9/11 when the country was at a state of war, it's my opinion that nobody has the right to question that soldier's patriotism, nobody," Cantu replies.

"There are going to be a lot of people listening to this who say that, 'You're a traitor. You're betraying your uniform. You don't deserve to wear it,'" says Logan.

"I hope there aren't people that think that," says Lt. Commander Mark Dearden.

Oh but they will think that, particularly those in the right-wing state of mind.

In response Hannity practically had an aneurysm, claiming that "CBS is distorting the truth - they're lying." He's promising to expose them and has setup an email address (VictoryInIraq@foxnews.com) for veterans who continue to support this war and the way that it's being fought.

He had "expert" testimony for Oliver North who claimed "I've never heard any troops complain to me" about Iraq. Hm, maybe those that would complain probably don't think it's worth their time to talk to neo-facists like North or Hannity - ya think?

Then again, I think a few Dkos vets might have a thing or too to say to Mr. Hannity.

The good news is that these ploys really are beginning to fail. People don't believe this tripe anymore. 67% of the public currently disapproves of how the Iraq war is being handled. 64% don't think Iraq wasn't worth fighting for. 56% feel we should withdraw our forces before civil order is restored. 67% oppose "the Surge". 58% would support a plan similar to Murtha's requiring better training and more rest time.

They don't believe Cheney when he say's everything is going fine in Afghanistan - not after al-Qaeda attempts to kill him with a suicide-bombing.

They don't believe Laura Bush when she claims "Much Of Iraq Is ‘Stable,’ There’s Just ‘One Bombing A Day That Discourages Everybody’" - while figures show that there are over 185 militia and insurgent attacks a day.

The rights pathological hatred and disgust for the troops welfare is obvious for all to see - which may explain why they fight so hard to over-compensate for it.

They resent the Troops. Possibly because those men and women who serve have either shown the type of courage almost none of them possess or have come from dire financial straights which the pampered blue-bloods of the reich wing will never truly relate too.

Whatever the reason - it's clear that all they really care about is basking in the endless shower of money for defense contracts and sub-contracts that perpetual war will guarantee for generations. As was shown in Robert Greenwald's film "Iraq for Sale" this is all about enabling War Profiteers, nothing more.

The right doesn't want to "Win" this war - they simply want the fighting to go on and on and on...

It's better for the bottom line of Halliburton, CACI and Blackwater, so what if our troops pay for it with their bodies and blood?

And that's why - From DAY ONE - they have shown nothing but contempt for the "poor rubes" who let themselves be suckered into a uniform.

2008 can't come soon enough for their day of reckoning.

Vyan

Tuesday, September 26

Bush was Asleep at the Wheel!

After five years of skirting even the most inarguable of facts — that he was President on 9/11 and he must bear some responsibility for his, and our, unreadiness, Mr. Bush has now moved, unmistakably and without conscience or shame, towards re-writing history, and attempting to make the responsibility, entirely Mr. Clinton’s.

Of course he is not honest enough to do that directly.

As with all the other nefariousness and slime of this, our worst presidency since James Buchanan, he is having it done for him, by proxy.
From Thinkprogress:

In her interview with the New York Post, Condoleezza Rice falsely claimed that President Bush’s pre-9/11 anti-terror efforts were “at least as aggressive” as President Clinton’s. In fact, the 9-11 Commission disputes that account. While the Bush administration should have been preparing for a potential terrorist attack, it was instead focused on developing a costly missile defense system.

    [S]enior officials from both the Clinton and Bush administrations…say that Clarke had a set of proposals to ‘roll back’ al-Qaeda. In fact, the heading on Slide 14 of the Powerpoint presentation reads, ‘Response to al Qaeda: Roll back.’ Clarke’s proposals called for the ‘breakup’ of al-Qaeda cells and the arrest of their personnel.” [Time, 8/4/02]

    In a speech on May 1, 2001, Bush said, “Unlike the Cold War, today’s most urgent threat stems not from thousands of ballistic missiles in the Soviet hands, but from a small number of missiles in the hands of these states, states for whom terror and blackmail are a way of life.” [Bush, 5/1/01]

    “After his first meeting with NATO heads of state in Brussels in June 2001, Bush outlined the five top defense issues discussed with the closest U.S. allies. Missile defense was at the top of the list, followed by developing a NATO relationship with Russia, working in common purpose with Europe, increased defense spending in NATO countries, and enlarging the alliance to include former East European countries. The only reference to extremists was in Macedonia, where Bush said regional forces were seeking to subvert a new democracy.” [Washington Post, 4/1/04] expand post »


Providing more than just a briefing, In January of 2001, Richard Clarke also presented a memo request and the URGENT NEED TO ADDRESS AL-QIDA.

Attached to that memo was THE DELENDA PLAN that Clarke had developed to fight Al Qaeda both Politically and Militarily.

After the bombing of the Cole the Clinton Administration had two months to respond before leaving office. During that time the CIA and FBI could not come to an agreemen on whether Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden was responsible. That confirmation came while Bush was in office - and he did nothing.

That is the bottom line point, as Keith Olberman so eloquently stated last night on Countdown.

After five years of skirting even the most inarguable of facts — that he was President on 9/11 and he must bear some responsibility for his, and our, unreadiness, Mr. Bush has now moved, unmistakably and without conscience or shame, towards re-writing history, and attempting to make the responsibility, entirely Mr. Clinton’s.

Of course he is not honest enough to do that directly.

As with all the other nefariousness and slime of this, our worst presidency since James Buchanan, he is having it done for him, by proxy.
...

Thus instead of some explanation for the inertia of your first eight months in office, we are told that you have kept us "safe" ever since -- a statement that might range anywhere from Zero, to One Hundred Percent, true.

We have nothing but your word, and your word has long since ceased to mean anything.

And, of course, the one time you have ever given us specifics about what you have kept us safe from, Mr. Bush -- you got the name of the supposedly targeted Tower in Los Angeles... wrong.

Thus was it left for the previous President to say what so many of us have felt; what so many of us have given you a pass for in the months and even the years after the attack:

You did not try.

You ignored the evidence gathered by your predecessor.

You ignored the evidence gathered by your own people.

Then, you blamed your predecessor.

That would be the textbook definition... Sir, of cowardice.

To enforce the lies of the present, it is necessary to erase the truths of the past.


Vyan

Wednesday, January 26

Bush's Assault on the Environment

BUSH'S ASSAULT ON THE ENVIRONMENT

According to a new report from the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Bush administration, in just the past year, has “took nearly 150 actions to undermine environmental protections over the past year, consistent with its historic assault on the nation’s environmental safeguards.”

So what’s on Bush’s impressive environmental resume?:

Environmental Enforcement Is Down
EPA data documents a 75 percent decline in the number of federal lawsuits filed against companies violating national environmental laws in the first three years of the Bush administration as compared to the last three years of the Clinton administration. Civil citations for polluters are down 57 percent since 2001, and criminal prosecutions have fallen 17 percent.

Letting Industry Draft a Mercury Proposal
In January 2004, the EPA unveiled proposals to regulate mercury emissions from power plants that were criticized as far weaker than enforcing current Clean Air Act law. In September 2004, internal agency documents were made public confirming that the EPA’s proposal copied passages from a memo written by lawyers representing the utility industry.

Trying to Legalize Sewage Dumping in Our Waterways
According to EPA data, sewage releases onto our lands and into our waters occur thousands of time annually in the United States, and typically contain bacteria, viruses, fecal matter, and a host of other dangerous wastes. In December 2004, the EPA was poised to finalize a policy that would allow the routine release of inadequately treated sewage into waterways as long as it is diluted with treated sewage, a process the agency has euphemistically labeled “blending."

Among other things.

Data Show Environmental Deterioration

There is ample data affirming that the Bush administration's destructive policies have had a significant negative effect on our nation's environment. The facts are clear. The figures above and below, largely drawn from the administration's own data, show that environmental protection declining precipitously.


Toxic Releases Are Up

After years of consistent decline, the most recent annual inventory of industrial toxic releases shows an increase of 5 percent in the release of toxic substances into our air, water, and land. Data released in June 2004 document toxic releases from industrial facilities of nearly 4.8 billion pounds.


Environmental Enforcement Is Down

EPA data documents a 75 percent decline in the number of federal lawsuits filed against companies violating national environmental laws in the first three years of the Bush administration as compared to the last three years of the Clinton administration. Civil citations for polluters are down 57 percent since 2001, and criminal prosecutions have fallen 17 percent.


Pollution-Related Beach Closings Are Up

The EPA reports a 36 percent increase in annual beach closings due to unsafe water quality since 2001. Sewage contamination is an important and growing part of the problem.


Mercury Contamination Warnings Are Up

A total of 2,348 fish consumption advisories for mercury contamination were issued in 45 states in 2003. Seventy-six percent of fish samples from U.S. lakes were found to contain mercury levels unsafe for children 3 years old and younger to eat twice a week, according to the EPA. Every year more than 600,000 newborns may have been exposed to levels of mercury exceeding EPA health standards while still in the womb.


Hazardous Waste Cleanups Are Down

The pace of completed cleanups of Superfund hazardous waste sites, which increased dramatically in the later years of the Clinton era, has declined 52 percent since 2001, according to the EPA's own estimates. The Bush administration has refused to seek renewal of the Superfund clean-up tax on polluting industries, allowing the fund effectively to go bankrupt. The EPA reported 34 unfunded Superfund cleanups in 19 states in 2004.


Perchlorate Contamination Is Widespread

Perchlorate, a toxic rocket fuel additive, is leaching out from military dumps and contaminating the drinking water of more than 20 million Americans. More than 90 percent of lettuce and milk sampled nationwide showed levels of perchlorate that may be unsafe for children. Despite recommendations from scientific experts at the EPA to severely reduce perchlorate contamination, the Bush administration has refused to take action.


Dirtier Air, Longer

In September 2004, EPA's inspector general concluded that the agency was not making sufficient progress in reducing the pollutants that cause ozone smog in the nation's population centers. According to EPA data, 159 million Americans (55 percent of our population) now live in areas with hazardous smog levels and 100 million people live in areas that violate the EPA's new pollution standards for harmful soot.


Less Oversight of Refineries

There has been a 52 percent decrease in EPA clean air inspections at refinerie since 2001, and a 68 percent reduction in the number of notices of violations issued to refineries over the same period.

Until recently, our environmental laws and the infrastructure for their enforcement were a model for the world and a tremendous success in improving our quality of life and protecting our health. But today, with its foundations under assault from within, our system for environmental protection is becoming less effective and less credible with each passing day. As evidenced by the statistics above, our environment, our quality of life, and our health are suffering as a result.


Some of 2004's Worst Environmental Actions

It is a considerable understatement to observe that 2004 was not a good year for the environment. Below is a quick review of some of the year's most troubling Bush administration actions.


Letting Industry Draft a Mercury Proposal

In January 2004, the EPA unveiled proposals to regulate mercury emissions from power plants that were criticized as far weaker than enforcing current Clean Air Act law. In September 2004, internal agency documents were made public confirming that the EPA's proposal copied passages from a memo written by lawyers representing the utility industry.


Trying to Legalize Sewage Dumping in Our Waterways

According to EPA data, sewage releases onto our lands and into our waters occur thousands of time annually in the United States, and typically contain bacteria, viruses, fecal matter, and a host of other dangerous wastes. In December 2004, the EPA was poised to finalize a policy that would allow the routine release of inadequately treated sewage into waterways as long as it is diluted with treated sewage, a process the agency has euphemistically labeled "blending."


Managing National Forests for Forestry Companies

In December 2004, after President Bush proclaimed that his environmental policies have "improved habitat on public and private lands," the U.S. Forest Service formally nullified basic wildlife protections dating back to the Reagan administration. Under the new rule, the Forest Service will be able to eradicate many fish and wildlife populations that inhabit national forests.


Drinking Water Contamination to Remain Unregulated

In April 2004, the EPA formally decided to ignore the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) regarding the regulation of additional substances not currently listed under the law. The EPA postponed consideration of the NAS recommendations until the issuance of a new list of contaminants not scheduled to be released until 2007 or later. Among the pervasive drinking water contaminants that the EPA has declined to regulate is the rocket fuel component perchlorate, which contaminates over 20 million Americans' drinking water. Over the past four years, the agency also has missed a series of Congressional deadlines for controlling new drinking water contaminants and strengthening current standards, and failed to conduct a pivotal review of the extent of waterborne diseases mandated by Congress in the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act amendments.


Ceding Public Lands to Energy Companies

The natural treasures threatened with oil and gas drilling and related activities as a result of decisions by the Bureau of Land Management over the past year include: Otero Mesa, a unique grassland in southern New Mexico; Nine Mile Canyon, in eastern Utah's West Tavaputs Plateau; the Western Arctic Reserve in northern Alaska; the Jack Morrow Hills in southwest Wyoming; and Valle Vidal, an alpine sanctuary for Rocky Mountain wildlife located near the Philmont Boy Scout Ranch in northern New Mexico.


The Coming Battles

The effort of Bush environmental agencies to undermine environmental enforcement and weaken key programs seems certain to continue through the coming year. But indications are this will be only a part of the battle. As the Bush administration evaluates where it stands at the midpoint, there is every indication that in its second term it will seek a more lasting legacy of change in the way our environment is treated.

In his first term, President Bush was largely unsuccessful in Congress with his ambitious proposals for overhauling the nation's environmental laws. With the notable exception of damaging forest legislation, which was enacted under the guise of fighting fires, other major legislative proposals fell by the wayside, including those concerning energy, air policy, and endangered species. As a result, the president increasingly turned to administrative actions. Some of these actions were withdrawn after public outcries; others were overturned in the courts as illegal under environmental laws.

Now with expanded majorities to work with in the House and Senate, it appears that the Bush administration and its industry allies will more aggressively pursue permanent weakening changes by rewriting the statutes in Congress and packing the courts with extremists unreceptive to our environmental laws.

The most contentious early Congressional battles on the environment will likely include:


Energy Legislation

There is good reason to expect a reprise of the energy fights of the past two Congresses. The White House and its allies will push to further relax the environmental safeguards applying to energy development on public lands, and to grant huge subsidies to the oil, gas, coal, and nuclear industries. Environmental forces will promote provisions to enhance energy efficiency, expand the use renewable energy, and reduce America's reliance on oil. The stakes are especially high because a bad energy bill might underwrite dramatic increases in fossil fuel use for years to come, making it far more difficult to enhance our reliance on cleaner energy and address the global warming problem.


Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Advocates of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are fully aware that they do not have the votes to make drilling legal through, for example, authorizing Arctic drilling in energy legislation. Instead drilling proponents are expected to turn to budget legislation where special rules apply, allowing them to shortcut the legislative process by bypassing filibusters. This means there will likely be a two-stage battle, with an initial engagement around the Congressional budget resolution in the spring or summer of 2005, and a possible second battle in the context of the so-called budget reconciliation legislation, which may move forward in the summer or fall of 2005. The Arctic refuge is critically important to protect both for its own irreplaceable natural value, and because opening the refuge to drilling would pave the way for an assault on other public wildlands in refuges, forests, and parks throughout America.


Clean Air

The most contentious and high-profile environmental battle of the coming Congress may well surround the Bush administration's effort to fundamentally rewrite and weaken the Clean Air Act. The leading edge of this initiative will be the administration's proposal to weaken the law's new source review program and relax requirements for control of mercury pollution from power plants, currently promoted under the label "Clear Skies." Once the Clean Air Act is in play, industry forces will almost certainly advocate a range of additional weakening changes to reduce their obligations under the law. Environmentalists will of course promote strengthening amendments to remedy some of the most glaring regulatory excesses of the Bush administration's EPA, and to better address important new problems like global warming.

Unlike past Bush administration environmental battles, which often occurred below the public radar, the effort to weaken the Clean Air Act will involve public hearings, open debates, and public voting, and is likely to prompt substantial media scrutiny.


Endangered Species

One of the earliest environmental battles in the coming Congress may involve efforts to weaken the nation's premier wildlife protection law, the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Opponents of the law are promoting a broad range of unfortunate changes, including proposals that would make it harder to add new species to the list of endangered and threatened wildlife, eliminate protection for critical habitat, and weaken the legal tools environmental advocates have relied on to ensure protection for imperiled wildlife. Legislation seems likely to move first in the House of Representatives, since last year two anti-ESA bills were voted out of the House Resources Committee, which is chaired by California Republican Richard Pombo.


Environmental Exemptions for the Defense Department

Having recently secured exemptions from the Marine Mammal Protection Act and key provisions of the ESA, the Department of Defense (DOD) is now prepared to up the ante by seeking blanket exemptions from key health protection laws, including the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Superfund statute. Each of these laws already has a special provision allowing the DOD to escape any requirement that might hinder national security, although the DOD has never made an effort to utilize these provisions. This is an important battle because military facilities around the country routinely handle a variety of dangerous substances, including munitions and radioactive materials, which have the potential to cause a host of serious environmental problems and threaten the health of both civilian and military personnel. This battle appears likely to occur in the context of legislation authorizing funding for the military.

Beyond these policy battles, a new arena for major environmental engagement may emerge in the Senate's consideration of judicial nominees. With the administration stretching credulity in its efforts to redefine environmental laws to require less and less protection, the courts have proven a vital last refuge for preserving the integrity of our landmark statutes. In key recent cases, federal courts have, for example, sustained environmental objections to Bush policies concerning clean air, energy efficiency, clean water; snowmobile access to Yellowstone National Park, the disposal of high-level nuclear waste; policies surrounding energy development in public wildlands; and the Navy's deployment of a new form of sonar that threatens marine mammals.

Given this pattern of disregard for environmental laws by government agencies, the continued independence and integrity of the judiciary is crucially important. If nominees to influential courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and the Supreme Court, have records suggesting a hostility to environmental statutes, environmental forces are likely to invest heavily to make environmental and public health issues a key part of the Senate confirmation battles.

With permanent changes to our environmental protections hanging in the balance, the stakes will be higher than ever in the coming year. Only through an alert media and an informed and mobilized citizenry, can environmental forces hope to hold the line in these important engagements.


Eric Hananoki