Sunday, April 30, 2006

Bush Ignores Hundreds of Laws

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff April 30, 2006

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.


Far more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws.


''There is no question that this administration has been involved in a very carefully thought-out, systematic process of expanding presidential power at the expense of the other branches of government," Cooper said. ''This is really big, very expansive, and very significant."


Bush administration spokesmen declined to make White House or Justice Department attorneys available to discuss any of Bush's challenges to the laws he has signed.

Instead, they referred a Globe reporter to their response to questions about Bush's position that he could ignore provisions of the Patriot Act. They said at the time that Bush was following a practice that has ''been used for several administrations" and that ''the president will faithfully execute the law in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution."

But the words ''in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution" are the catch, legal scholars say, because Bush is according himself the ultimate interpretation of the Constitution. And he is quietly exercising that authority to a degree that is unprecedented in US history.

Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he has signed every bill that reached his desk, often inviting the legislation's sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes praise upon their work.

Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush quietly files ''signing statements" -- official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The statements are recorded in the federal register.

In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the bills -- sometimes including provisions that were the subject of negotiations with Congress in order to get lawmakers to pass the bill. He has appended such statements to more than one of every 10 bills he has signed.

---End of Transmission---

Saturday, April 29, 2006


Kickin' it in my new t-shirt.

(That's some of my art behind me and of course the Lord Buddha).

---End of Transmission---

Friday, April 28, 2006

Rights Take Backseat to Oil, Iran.

Searching for energy supplies and allies against Iran, the Bush administration is reaching out to leaders who rule nations that are rich in oil and gas but accused of authoritarian rule and human rights violations.

The presidents of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Equatorial Guinea are all getting special attention. The effort sometimes seems at odds with President George W. Bush's stated second-term goal of spreading democracy.

GOI: The president of Equatorial Guinea is a brutal dictator who is a humanitarian nightmare. Howver, since they have oil and whore themselves out to most of the major American oil companies they get a pass.

"If those countries were not oil producers, we would probably not be meeting with their leaders," said Michael O'Hanlon, a foreign-policy analyst at the Brookings Institution. "There is some tension with Bush's democracy-promotion agenda. They are pulling in different directions."

Bush meets today at the White House with the president of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliev. Next week, Vice President Dick Cheney is to visit the central Asian nation of Kazakhstan and its leader, President Nursultan Nazarbayev.

Human-rights groups have criticized both leaders. But the two former Soviet republics are allies in the war on terrorism and both have significant energy reserves.

GOI: This goes along with our policy of dealing with dictators when they fit our purpose and then kicking their ass when we are done using them. Remember the Rumsfeld/Saddam picture??? Yeah, enough said.

Administration officials defend the meetings and similar ones, noting that Bush and other officials make a point of raising human rights and other social policy concerns, as Bush did when Chinese President Hu Jintao visited last week

GOI: What a bunch of bullshit. They just give them a slap on the wrist and lip service and we all know it. If we were serious about cracking down on human rights abuses then we wouldn't be whoring ourselves out to them. We wouldn't be letting them into our White House. In one sentence Bush says we're addicted to oil and then he goes and sells out our Democratic principles for that very OIL!!!! I thought Democracy was on the march?? It's more like oil companies are on the march. I am so SICK (pretty much literally at this point) of this administration and just politics in general. It makes me want to vomit in having to swallow this disgusting style of "diplomacy."


The search goes on for stable supplies of oil from areas other than the volatile Persian Gulf -- a search joined by China and India. But much of the world's remaining accessible oil is controlled by governments not particularly friendly to U.S. interests.

---End of Transmission---

Thursday, April 27, 2006

Rice, Rummie Visit Troops in Iraq. Front Line Troops Say, "Yeah, So?"

BALAD, Iraq (CNN) -- As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made their surprise visits to Baghdad on Wednesday, many of the troops stationed north of Baghdad, in Balad and Dujail, say either they didn't know about it or didn't care.

"I'd ask him for a plane ticket home to see my wife. I have barely seen her in the last two years," said a young sergeant, who did not want to be identified. Like many of the soldiers with the 4th Infantry Division, he is on his second deployment to Iraq.

Some joked that whenever VIP's come to visit they just go to the main bases and meet the "fobbits," the nickname given to troops who do not go outside the barbed wire.

"They have to get out to see the people that are doing the jobs they are making them do. If they didn't they would not be very good leaders," said Maj. Michael Humphreys, one of the few soldiers here willing to tell journalists some of his opinions on senior leadership.

At the time he was asked, he didn't know Rumsfeld and Rice were visiting. He was too preoccupied with his mission -- trying to set up a local paper for the Tribal Council in Dujail.

As we discussed the visit, a tip came through -- a suspected leader of a cell dedicated to making "IED's," or improvised explosive devices -- military-speak for homemade bombs -- would be at a certain location at 1400 hours.

The chase was on.

Bumping along the dusty back roads to avoid insurgents, a VIP visit was the furthest thing from these troops' minds. For them, the priority is the mission. On this day they were following a lead, chasing a vehicle trying to escape as they approached the target house, and trying to find bits of intelligence from residents unwilling to talk.

A top priority is getting themselves and their fellow soldiers home alive, and we are told that priority does not change -- no matter who visits.

---End of Transmission---

Republican Dominated House Planel Rejects Container Inspection

By Susan Cornwell

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A House of Representatives committee on Wednesday rejected a Democratic proposal to require overseas inspection of all U.S.-bound marine containers but approved a plan for more screening in American ports and possibly abroad.

The legislation from the Homeland Security Committee authorizes $7.4 billion to require the government to finish installing radiation screening equipment at major U.S. ports by the end of 2007. It also would let the United States, if it decides to beef up security checks abroad, deny entry to containers from countries that refuse to cooperate.

Democrats seized on the security issue after the Bush administration ran into a storm of controversy for its decision to approve a state-owned Dubai company's plan to manage six U.S. port terminals. The plan has since been aborted.

But Republicans counter that Democrats are making unworkable demands and bristle at insinuations that Republicans are the handmaidens of industries that oppose higher shipping costs.

GOI: Then why didn't they approve this important legistlation?

The cargo screening gap has prompted warnings from some U.S. lawmakers and security experts that sea cargo is still one of the nation's most serious security vulnerabilities more than four years after the September 11 attacks.

"We know from intelligence, their (terrorists') highest goal would be to bring a nuclear device to our shores," Rep. Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, told the committee.

The Republican-led panel rejected, on a mostly party-line vote of 16-18, a Markey amendment to require overseas inspection of all U.S.-bound cargo and tamper-proof seals. It was strongly opposed by the shipping industry.

GOI: Hmmm but I guess Republicans are so strong on national security after all. So who's the REAL party living in a pre-9/11 world now? HMMM??? Democrats try to get something passed to help portect our ports and shores and the Republican'ts smack it down choosing big business over national security. Niiiice. Yeah Dem's run with this one big time for the mid-terms.

And you know where I found this article? Over-seas Reuters news agency. You'll never hear about this one in the "liberal main stream media."

---End of Transmission---

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Visit Chernobyl on Your Next Vacation!!!

Nearly 20 years after the world's worst nuclear disaster, the Chernobyl power plant and the poisonous wasteland that surrounds it has become an unlikely tourist destination.

Day-trippers armed with Geiger counters take guided tours from Kiev through military checkpoints to the doorstep of the reactor. Increasing numbers of adventurers are finding their way into the irradiated zone, seeking the eerie thrill of entering family homes unchanged since they were evacuated at a few minutes' notice, two decades ago.


More than 3,000 visitors go to the site every year, and hundreds more explore the abandoned villages in the 20-mile evacuated "dead zone". "

Strange as it may sound, people visit here from all over the world - the United States, Australia, Japan, the UK," said Yulia Marusich, an official guide who leads visitors to a viewing platform overlooking the concrete sarcophagus that encloses the remains of Reactor Four.

As she spoke, standing beside the sarcophagus, a Geiger counter began to tick frantically. It registered 50 times the natural background level of radiation - apparently a "tolerable" level of exposure for a short visit, officials say.

Engineers say that there is a serious risk that the sarcophagus could collapse, exposing hundreds of tons of unstable nuclear debris.

GOI: This gives new meaning to a tourist, "hot spot." This is the kind of vacation that will literally make you sick. If you think diarrhea from visiting an under-developed country is bad try visiting Chernobyl. You don't just get diarrhea but you get bloody diarrhea, watch your hair fallout and get cancer!! Come for the cancer, stay for the death! Yey!!!! Don't forget to take pix so that your family that is left behind after you die can remember your insane selfish person.

---End of Transmission---

The Snow Job

From and The Huffington Post

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Wednesday named Tony Snow, a conservative pundit who has nonetheless been critical of the administration, as his press secretary — the latest move in Bush’s effort to remake his troubled White House.


The Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, circulated unflattering observations by Snow about Bush.

“His (Bush’s) wavering conservatism has become an active concern among Republicans, who wish he would stop cowering under the bed and start fighting back against the likes of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Joe Wilson,” Snow wrote last November after Republicans failed to win the governor’s race in Virginia. “The newly passive George Bush has become something of an embarrassment.”

GOI: The following comes to us from the Center for American Progress:

– Bush has “lost control of the federal budget and cannot resist the temptation to stop raiding the public fisc.” [3/17/06]

– “George W. Bush and his colleagues have become not merely the custodians of the largest government in the history of humankind, but also exponents of its vigorous expansion.” [3/17/06]

– “President Bush distilled the essence of his presidency in this year’s State of the Union Address: brilliant foreign policy and listless domestic policy.” [2/3/06]

– “George Bush has become something of an embarrassment.” [11/11/05]

– Bush “has a habit of singing from the Political Correctness hymnal.” [10/7/05]

– “No president has looked this impotent this long when it comes to defending presidential powers and prerogatives.” [9/30/05]

– Bush “has given the impression that [he] is more eager to please than lead, and that political opponents can get their way if they simply dig in their heels and behave like petulant trust-fund brats, demanding money and favor — now!” [9/30/05]

– “When it comes to federal spending, George W. Bush is the boy who can’t say no. In each of his three years at the helm, the president has warned Congress to restrain its spending appetites, but so far nobody has pushed away from the table mainly because the president doesn’t seem to mean what he says.” [The Detroit News, 12/28/03]

– “The president doesn’t seem to give a rip about spending restraint.” [The Detroit News, 12/28/03]

– “Bush, for all his personal appeal, ultimately bolstered his detractors’ claims that he didn’t have the drive and work ethic to succeed.” [11/16/00]

– “Little in the character of demeanor of Al Gore or George Bush makes us say to ourselves: Now, this man is truly special! Little in our present peace and prosperity impels us to say: Give us a great man!” [8/25/00]

– “George W. Bush, meanwhile, talks of a pillowy America, full of niceness and goodwill. Bush has inherited his mother’s attractive feistiness, but he also got his father’s syntax. At one point last week, he stunned a friendly audience by barking out absurd and inappropriate words, like a soul tortured with Tourette’s.” [8/25/00]

– “He recently tried to dazzle reporters by discussing the vagaries of Congressional Budget Office economic forecasts, but his recitation of numbers proved so bewildering that not even his aides could produce a comprehensible translation. The English Language has become a minefield for the man, whose malaprops make him the political heir not of Ronald Reagan, but Norm Crosby.” [8/25/00]

– “On the policy side, he has become a classical dime-store Democrat. He gladly will shovel money into programs that enjoy undeserved prestige, such as Head Start. He seems to consider it mean-spirited to shut down programs that rip-off taxpayers and mislead supposed beneficiaries.” [8/25/00]

GOI: Here's Tony Snow commenting on racism back in 2003: Snow said on an October 2003 edition of Fox News Sunday, "racism isn't that big a deal anymore."

Back to the AP story:

Unofficially, the White House tried to put the best face on Snow’s criticism, suggesting it showed that the administration listens to different voices and noting that Snow’s job called for him to be opinionated.

GOI: With "different voices" like these who needs enemies? I think it's time to give them a taste of their own medicine. Remember this one??: FLIP-FLOP!!! FLIP FLOP!!! FLIP FLOP!!! I welcome Mr. Snow with open-arms given that kind of in-depth, harsh criticism of Bush. I'm sure though he'll put on his sycophant face any minute now, and strap on his leash. I wonder how much he gained from selling his soul and integrity to Bush? Hmmm. I'm sure Snow will bring his "unbiased, fair and balanced" indoctrination with him to this new job. Frankly I'm surprised that they didn't just go right with Rupert Murdoch himself.

However, why stop with Tony Snow? How about John Gibson for Secretary of State (since he hates pretty much every country but the good old U.S. of A. Mr. "my country right or wrong"), Neal Cavuto for Sec. of the Treasury, Oliver North or John Negoponte for Sec. of Defense, Bill O'Liely for U.S. Ambassador to France and Sean Hannity for top propaganda minister, oops, I mean top speach writer.

The White House: Brought to you by FOX News.

---End of Transmission---

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Highway Robbery @ The Pump

The Republican answer to high gas prices?

There is no quick fix. There is no magic bullet.

GOI: So basically they are saying that their answer is to throw their hands up, shrug their shoulders and just kick the can down the road some more. Once again putting off the inevitable. This is like those people who know something is wrong with their bodies but refuse to go to the doctor because they just can't be bothered.

It's no wonder they feel reluctant to put pressure on the oil and gas industry as that industry represents some of their largest sources of money. Not to mention that Bush and Cheney are both oil men and putting oil men in charge of helping relieve pain at the pump is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house! They aren't going to put any pressure on themselves!! The last thing they want to do at this point is admit that they are a HUGE part of the problem!

By the way, who did Mr. Cheney meet with in those behind closed door sessions with "energy leaders???" HMMMM?!! If he doesn't have anything to hide then why not release the papers and disclose?

We are in a time again of huge corporate conglomerants that dominate the oil industry (and other industries). This is a return to the days of the robber barons and we are in dire need of some serious government regulation and a modern verion of good ole fashioned "trust busting" (this also applies to the health, insurance and drug industries).

Where are the true conservatives like the great Teddy Roosevelt??? They aren't to easily found because Teddy would most likely be called a Democrat or Greenie today.

Bush's only real plan is to make sure people aren't gouging Americans at the pump but that is a given! That's already in YOUR energy bill that passed!! Read your own legislation Sir. What ELSE do you got Mr. President???

By and large, most Democrats want to demand higher regulations on fuel efficiency of vehicles, higher taxes on an industry that is making MORE then enough money (on something that should be pretty tightly regulated as gas is a necessitiy for people to get to work and back. It is imperative that we impose these regulations as these absurd gas prices directly impact the heart of our work force/economy). We also need to build more refineries and invest more time and money in alternative forms of fuel. We should have been doing this a loooong time ago. Look at Brazil. They started some 30 years a go and are nearly energy independent (sugar being a big part of it).

Roll back these tax breaks for big oil!!!! (Would translate to about $7 billion in royalties according to Lou Dobbs).

We need to launch a huge effort to revamp gas stations so that they can offer bio-diesel as well as regular gas all over the country. This would go in conjunction with giving the car companies MORE and HIGHER breaks for making MORE vehicles that can burn bio diesel and achieve huge gas efficiencies. It is worth the millions of dollars it would take in order to get us off of oil as soon as possible (not to mention saving the cost of the lives of our soldiers).

Another option that needs to be done is increase the amount of ethenol in our current fuel source.

We need to set a goal for what year we want all of our cars to run on bio-diesel, electricity and/or other means. This is a concept similar to when JFK pushed for us to reach the moon by a certain date. We set the goal, funded the research immensely and achieved our goal. THIS CAN BE DONE if we elect leaders who are whole-heartedly committed to a very reachable and much needed goal. Voting in more pro-oil company Republicans isn't going to help AT ALL. This do nothing Republican Congress hasn't done much of anything to help the situation despite their so called "energy bill."

How are we going to pay for all of this research and development? With the extra money from the oil and gas industries taxes and rolling back the tax cuts for the wealthy. Again, we should have been doing this 10-20 years ago and the Democrats were to blame then but now it's the Republicans who are standing in the way.

Anyway, I haven't quite nailed down my platform on all of this but this post represents where i'm sitting right now.

---End of Transmission---

Monday, April 24, 2006

Bush Approval Rating Falls to a New Low in CNN Poll

Only 32% of Americans agreed with the way the president is handling his job. And a poll of poll shows that the average trend is toward 30% or ever lower. Even the latest FOX News Bush sycophant Channel's poll has him at 33%!! His approval ratings are lower then snake hips.

Bill Schneider had some interesting commentary on the CNN poll. Saying that only 4 presidents had poll numbers this low and lower:

-Harry Truman: Didn't run for re-election

-Jimmy Carter: Defeated after one term

-George H.W. Bush: Defeated after one term

-Richard Nixon: We all know what happened to him.

-George W. Bush??

All signs point to "Yes."

All of these low numbers don't matter to Bush though which is obvious since he doesn't read newspapers and has refused to change his dismal policies. Jo-jo the idiot circus clown (and he is an insult to clowns) is too busy playing "God" with his toys in the sands of greater Arabia to care.

Let them eat cake George???

Bush response: What's cake?

---End of Transmission---

Bush Warned About WMD According to Former CIA Chief

By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
Published: 24 April 2006

The Central Intelligence Agency tried to warn the Bush administration on the eve of the 2003 invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein did not appear to have weapons of mass destruction but the warning was dismissed because the US political leadership was not interested in what the intelligence showed, according to a retired senior CIA operative.

The revelation, by the CIA's former European chief Tyler Drumheller, was broadcast on CBS's news magazine Sixty Minutes last night and added to the body of evidence that US and British leaders saw the weapons of mass destruction issue only as a selling point for a war they had already decided to wage for other reasons.

According to Mr Drumheller, Western intelligence services were told about Iraq's lack of chemical and biological weapons by Naji Sabri, a former Iraqi foreign minister. The CIA director of the time, George Tenet, took this information straight to President George Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney and other senior officials, but it made no impression on them.

GOI: Add another log to the bon fire folks. This is more evidence that the CIA are not the only ones to blame. This claim is also more supportive evidence of the Downing Street memos that the Bushies were fixing the weak intelligence to fit their policy of pre-emptive war. It is also more evidence to back the claims of Joe Wilson and his debunking of the Niger yellow cake claims. Given this new testimony from the former CIA European Chief it makes sense why the "W" administration would want to smear Wilson and his wife. Two people who tried to pull open the curtain of lies to expose the deception of the Bush admin. insane aslyumn. It is more evidence to Richard Clarkes claims that the Bushies wanted to use 9/11 as a convenient excuse to attack Iraq, something they seemed intent on doing from day 1. Then their are all the generals coming out saying the Bush admin. repeatedly didn't listen to them in the planning and in the execution or war as well as the peace process. And on and on. Drip, drip, drip, drip.

---End of Transmission---

Sunday, April 23, 2006

Rolling Stone: The Worst President in History?

GOI: I read a fascinating article yesterday on the idea that Bush is the worst President in History in a Rolling Stone magazine article by Sean Wilentz.

Special thanks to Tom for providing me with the picture.

I am a little late on this one but the article was too interesting to not do a post on it. It's a bit long but worth the read.

Now, though, George W. Bush is in serious contention for the title of worst ever. In 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the non-partisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush [GWB] administration a "failure."

GOI: Count this historian as number 416 please.


In fact, roughly one in ten of those who called Bush [GWB] a success was being facetious, rating him only as the best President since Bill Clinton-a category where Bush is the only candidate.

GOI: Touche!

The lopsided decision of historians should give everyone pause. Contrary to popular stereotype, historians are generally a cautious bunch. We assess the past from widely divergent points of viewand are deeply concerned about being viewed as fair and accurate by our colleagues. When we make historical judgements, we are acting not as voters or even pundits, but as scholars who must evaluate all the evidence, good, bador indifferent. Seperate surveys, conducted by those perceived as conservatives as well as liberals, show remarkable unanimity about who the best and worst presidents have been.


Twelve percent of the historians polled-nearly as many as those who rated Bush as a success-flatly called Bush the worst president in American history. And these figures were gathered before the debacles over Hurrican Katrina, Bush's role in the Valerie Plame leak affair and the deterioration of the situation in Iraq. Were the historians polled today, that figured would certainly be higher.

Even worse for the president, the general public, having once given Bush the highest approval ratings ever recorded, now appears to be coming around to the dismal view held by historians.


(When the columnist Richard Reeves publicized the historians' poll last year and suggested it might have merit, he drew thousands of abusive replies that called him an idiot and that praised Bush as, in one writers words, "a Christian who actually acts on his deeply held beliefs.") Yet the ranks of the true believers have thinned dramatically. [...] Since the commencement of reliable polling in the 1940s, only one twiced-elected president has seen his ratings fall as low as Bush's in his second term: Richard Nixon, during the months preceeding his resignation in 1974.


More then half the country now considers Bush dishonest and untrustworthy, and a decisive plurality consider him less trustworthy then his predecessor, Bill Clinton-a figure still attacked by conservative zealots as "Slick Willie."


On September 10th, 2001, he [GWB] held among the lowest ratings of any modern president for that point in a first term. The attacks the following day transformed Bush's achieve greatness. Some of the early signs were encouraging . Bush's simple, unflinching, eloquence and his quick toppling of the Taliban government in Afghanistan rallied the nation. Yet even then, Bush wasted his chance by quickly choosing partisanship over leadership.


No other president-Lincoln in the Civil War, FDR in World War II , John F. Kennedy at critical moments of the Cold War-faced with such a monumental set of military and political circumstances failed to embrace the opposing political party to help wage a truly national struggle. But Bush shut out and even demonized the Democrats.


All the while, Bush and the most powerful figures in the administration, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, where planting the seeds for the crises to come by diverting the struggle against Al-Qaeda toward an all-out effort to topple their pre-existing target, Saddam Hussein. In a deliberate political decision, the administration stampeded the Congress and a traumatized citizenry into the Iraq invasion on the basis of what has now been demostrated to be tendentious and perhaps fabricated evidence of an imminent Iraqi threat to to American security, one that the White House suggested included a nuclear weapon. Instead of emphasizing any political, diplomatic or humanitarian aspects of a war on Iraq-an appeal that would have sounded "too sensitive" as Cheney once sneered - the administration built a "Bush doctrine" of unprovoked, preventative warfare, based on speculative threats and embracing principles previously abjured by every previous generation of U.S. foreign policy makers, even at the height of the Cold War. The president did so with premises founded, in the case of Iraq, on wishful thinking. [...] He did so while dismissing intelligence that an American invasion could spark a long and bloody civil war among Iraq's fierce religious and ethnic rivals, reports that have since been proved true. And he did so after repeated warnings by military officials such as Gen. Eric Shinseki that pacifying Iraq would require hundreds of thousands of American troops - accurate estimates that Paul Wolfowitz and other Bush policy gurus ridiculed as "wildly off mark."

When William F. Buckley, the man whom many credit as the founder of the modern conservative movement, writes categorically, as he did in February, that "one can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed," then something terrible happened. Even as a brash young iconoclast, Buckley always took the long view. The Bush White House seems incapable of doing so, except insofar as a tiny trusted circle around the president constantly reassures him that he is a messianic liberator and profound freedom fighter, on par with FDR and Lincoln, and that history will vindicate his every act and utterance.


The heart of Bush's domestic policy has turned out to be nothing more then a series of massively regressive tax cuts - a return, with a vengeance, to the discredited Reagan-era supply-side faith that Bush's father once ridiculed as "voodoo economics." [...] While wiping out the solid Clinton-era federal surplus and raising federal deficits to staggering record levels, Bush's tax policies have necessitated hikes in federal fees, state and local taxes, and co-payment charges to needy veterans and families who rely on Medicaid, along with cuts in loan programs to small business and college students, and in a wide range of state services. The lion's share of of benefits from the tax cuts has gone to the very richest Americans, while new business investment has increased at a historically sluggish rate since the peak of the last business cycle five years ago. [...] Real wages for middle-income Americans have been dropping since the end of 2003: Last year, on average, nominal wages grew by only 2.4 percent, a meager gain that was completely erased by an average inflation rate of 3.4 percent.

The monster deficits, caused by increased federal spending combined with the reduction of revenue resulting from the tax cuts, have placed Bush's administration in a historic class of its own with respect to government borrowing. According to the Treasury Department, the forty-two presidents who held office between 1789 and 2000 borrowed a combined total of $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions. But between 2001 and 2005 alone, the Bush White House borrowed $1.05 trillion, more then all of the previous presidents combined. Having inherited the largest federal surplus in American history in 2001, he has turned it into the largest deficit ever - with an even higher deficit, $423 billion, forcast for fiscal year $2006. Yet Bush - sounding sound much like (another failed president) Herbert Hoover in 1930 predicting that "prosperity is just around the corner" - insists that he will cut federal deficits in half by 2009, and that the best way to guarantee this would be to make permanent his tax cuts, which helped cause the deficit in the first place!


Previous presidents have regularly invoked [...] but no president before Bush has allowed the press to disclose, through a close friend, his startling belief that he was ordained by God to lead the country (GOI: If that is indeed the case that he was ordained by God to lead this country then God is one sick, twisted bastard!)


The Bush White House's indifference to domestic problems and science alike culminated in the catastrophic responses to Hurricane Katrina. Scientists had long warned that global warming was intensifying hurricanes, but Bush ignored them - much as he and his administration sloughed off warnings from the director of the National Hurricane Center before Katrina hit.


Karl Rove has sometimes likened Bush to the imposing, no-nonsense President Andrew Jackson. Yet Jackson took measures to prevent those he called "the rich and powerful" from bending "the acts of government to their selfish purposes." Jackson also gained eternal renown by saving New Orleans from British invasion against terrible odds. [...] If anyone sings about George W. Bush and New Orleans, it will be a blues number."


History may ultimately hold Bush in the greatest contempt for expanding the powers of the presidency beyond the limits laid down by the U.S. Constitution.

[...] Bush doesn't seem to be concerned about his place in history. "History. We won't know," he told the journalist Bob Woodward in 2003. "We'll all be dead."

Another President once explained that the judgements of history cannot be defied or dismissed, even by a president. "Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history," said Abraham Lincoln. "We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor to the latest generation."

---End of Transmission---

Friday, April 21, 2006

Good News from Iraq?

Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Shiite politicians agreed Friday to nominate Jawad al-Maliki as prime minister, replacing the incumbent in a bid to clear the way for a long-delayed new government.

Al-Maliki is a top ally of outgoing Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, whose nomination had sparked sharp opposition from Sunni Arab and Kurdish leaders and caused a four-month deadlock.


Some Sunni Arab and Kurdish parties already have indicated they will accept al-Maliki, after fiercely opposing a second term for al-Jaafari, who bowed out Thursday.

GOI: Only time will tell if Maliki is going to help bring Iraq and the government together. Right now it seems that the government has no teeth no matter who is leading it. Hopefully that will change under Maliki. One concern over Maliki, however, are his close ties to Iran.

---End of Transmission---

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Mixed Opinion about the McClellan-Rove Shake-up

WASHINGTON - A Bush administration shake-up continued Wednesday, with White House press secretary Scott McClellan announcing his resignation and adviser Karl Rove shedding some duties.

GOI: (Dances around while singing) "Ding-dong the witch is 'dead!!'" Oh thank the Heavens!!! Don't let the door split ya Scott where Mother Nature split ya!!

I know this won't change the policies of the Bush administration (which is needed more then staff changes) but oh boy was McClellan an arrogant, snotty, pain-in-the-ass, S.O.B weasel. I know, I know. Tell us what you really think of him James!!

I hear also that FOX news model Tony Snow is on the top of the list to replace McClellan and it makes sense as the White House already uses FOX to dissiminate their propoganda out to the masses.

Sorry to go off on McClellan but damn was he a nusance and a royal pain in the ass. I know that most White House Press Sec.'s have to be liars but he took the cake. Good riddance.

Rove is giving up oversight of policy development to focus more on politics with the approach of the fall midterm elections.
An administration source told NBC that the shift was “an acknowledgement of the tough political climate.”

GOI: Don't know whether to cheer or be worried about Rove shifting duties to the mid-term campaigns as he's such a mud slingin,' dirty politic player. Brace for a national, "swift-boat," smear campaign coming from "Bush's Brain." Just look at the smear campaign against those brave, heroic generals who have stood up to this administration and Sec. Def., Field Marshall Donald Von Rumsfeld.This administration (led by Rove) smears anyone that dares disagree and criticize them.

Look for ads showing critical Dem's as "terrorists" just like they did to triple amputie Vietnam vet former Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia. Republican candidate Saxby Chambliss not only questioned but denied Cleland's patriotism!! They also ran a sickening ad showing him [Cleland] morphing into Osama bin Laden. Get ready for more of the same sh*t with Rove focusing purely on the 2006 elections. Smearing and attacking is Rove's forte but things will get especially dirty now that he's fully in charge of backing Republican candidates from the White House. Especially now that the White House and the Republican led Congress and Senate has no accomplishments to claim so they'll resort to digging into that nasty bag of sh*t again.

They all make me sick.

---End of Transmission---

Saturday, April 15, 2006

The Iranian Situation

I am concerned about the saber rattling coming out of the administration and from its sycophants lately in regards to a military strike on Iran.

Here's the deal from my point of view.

Of course we should have a plan of military action. That is a given with many countries. The reality of defense means that you have to have a contingency plan for many possible military situations that may or may not occur.

However, in regards to Iran the military option should be put waaaaay up high on the highest shelf. This is because right now the large, young population (a majority of the countries population) in Iran is mostly pro-western (a rarity in the region). And a military attack on Iran would risk turning the young population against us and push them to cozy up with the Iranian regime.

Besides, a U.S. attack would most likely set off a regional war pulling Lebanon, Israel and Syria into the mix.

Not a good idea AT ALL.

We may not have a choice at some point but to launch attacks. However, we should try to kick that can as faaaaar down the road as possible.

---End of Transmission---

Friday, April 14, 2006

A "General" Revolt

Top, important generals are dropping out of the military faster then outed gays.

The number now is six.

How many top generals are worth the career of one stubborn, insulated Secretary of Defense???

Only Bush knows I guess and that scares me as I don't think Bush knows much at all. Although if you believe John Dean and many other intelligent critics of this administration (and I am inclinded to do so), Cheney is really the one pulling the strings in the Oval Office. Having Cheney running a shadow gov't explains a lot. Whether it is the secretative nature of the administration, the leak of the name of a vital WMD, Iran CIA operative (and her entire cover business that other CIA operatives where using as well), blurring the lines between legal and illegal spying and on and on require the twisted genius of a man much more intellectual then el Busho.

Bush is simply a puppet who appeals (in general) mostly to the average, under-educated, rural "Joe Beer can" while Cheney pushes the buttons from behind his undisclosed, secure bunker. In other words, the figure head of Bush and his "every man" antics are so much smoke and mirrors to keep us all from paying attention to the man behind the curtain. Richard B. Cheney.

Anyway, moving on.

I echo the comments of columnist David Ignatius when he said in today's Washington Post that, "Rumself should go or we risk loosing the war." However, I think that it might be worse then that. I know, how can it get any worse then that you're asking? Well, we probably have already lost the war as we can not control the sectarian violence that is tearing up Iraq. We can not really step in without becoming a target from both sides. So, right now our hands are tied and we basically can only urge Iraqi "leaders" to come together and somehow control the violence.

However, it doesn't appear right now that the Iraqi "leaders" are listening to us anymore (and to some extent I don't blame them) as we've sent many of our leaders to talk to them and our "pep talks" and stern warnings seem to be falling on deaf ears. The war is pretty much out of our hands and in the hands of Iraqis now.

Anyway, Ignatius went on in his column to say the following:

Rumsfeld has lost the support of the uniformed military officers who work for him. Make no mistake: The retired generals who are speaking out against Rumsfeld in interviews and op-ed pieces express the views of hundreds of other officers on active duty. When I recently asked an Army officer with extensive Iraq combat experience how many of his colleagues wanted Rumsfeld out, he guessed 75 percent. Based on my own conversations with senior officers over the past three years, I suspect that figure may be low.


Much of the American public has simply stopped believing the administration's arguments about Iraq, and Rumsfeld is a symbol of that credibility gap. He is a spent force, reduced to squabbling with the secretary of state about whether "tactical errors" were made in the war's conduct.

The Bush administration has rightly been insisting that the Iraqis put unity first and that in forming a permanent government they remove ineffectual and divisive leaders and replace them with people who can pull the country together. The administration should heed its own advice. America needs leadership that can speak to the whole country, not just the people who already agree with the president.

Rumsfeld's replacement should be someone who can help restore a bipartisan consensus for a sensible Iraq policy. One obvious candidate would be the centrist Democrat Sen. Joe Lieberman. Another would be a centrist Republican with military experience, such as Sen. Chuck Hagel or Sen. John McCain. The administration would have to swallow its pride to take any of them on board, but that's the point: Without bold moves from the White House, support for the war will continue to slip away (GOI: I vote for Hagel).


Rumsfeld is a stubborn man, and I suspect the parade of retired generals calling for his head has only made him more determined to hold on. But by staying in his job, Rumsfeld is hurting the cause he presumably cares most about. The president, even more stubborn than his Pentagon chief, is said to have rejected his offer to resign. If that's so, it's time for Rumsfeld to take the matter out of Bush's hands.

--End of Transmission---

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Arizona Talk Show Host "Jokes" About Killing Illegal Immigrants

PHOENIX (AP) - An Arizona radio talk show host who suggested killing illegal border-crossers may have intensified racial tension in the state, two officials wrote in a letter to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission.

But a manager at the radio station insisted the comments were satirical, rather than threatening. Brian James, a fill-in talk show host with Phoenix radio station KFYI, suggested on the air last month one solution to the immigration problem in Arizona would be to kill illegal immigrants as they cross the border.

"What we'll do is randomly pick one night every week where we will kill whoever crosses the border," James said on the March 8 broadcast.

"Step over there and you die. You get to decide whether it's your lucky night or not."

"I think that would be more fun."

GOI: MORE FUN?!!! That's the kind of thing that a sociopath would say! Apparently this guy views illegal immigrants as no better then vermin to be exterminated.

He said he would be "happy to sit there with my high-powered rifle and my night scope" and kill people as they cross the border.

He also suggested the National Guard shoot illegal immigrants and receive "$100 a head."

GOI: I also heard that he mentioned how expensive building a wall on the border would be and then to think how many bullets one could buy with that money!!!

In a letter sent Friday to FCC chairman Kevin Martin, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard and U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton called the remarks irresponsible and dangerous.

"At no time during this hour did Mr. James disavow violence or indicate he was joking," the letter said.

"This type of threatening and inciting speech is dangerous and totally irresponsible for anyone, particularly a licensed body using public airways.

We are deeply concerned that, given the intensifying conflict over immigration in Arizona, this speech may lead to violence."

"Tempers are short on both sides and the situation is highly volatile."

Goddard and Charlton urged Martin to consider sanctions against KFYI for what they said was an abuse of public airwaves.

A spokesman with the FCC said he was not yet aware of the letter.

James did not return calls for comment by late Friday.

James has been a talk show host in Tampa, Fla., and Salt Lake City, Utah. He is a fill-in host at KFYI and has been on air there twice, said Laurie Cantillo, program manager at the radio station.

Cantillo did not say whether she was worried about the FCC possibly launching an investigation.
"It's never happened to me," she said Friday.

"But in this case, we're on solid ground. I would look forward to being able to tell KFYI's side of the story."

Cantillo denied James' comments were dangerous or irresponsible.

"The comments were made in a satirical manner and the listeners who heard the full broadcast understand that," she said.

GOI: Yeah, see if this is satire then I guess terrorist claims and threats to kill people should only be taken as satire as well. And how can it be satire if according to the Arizona D.A. and the U.S. attorney "At no time during this hour did Mr. James disavow violence or indicate he was joking," (BIG SIGH). GOOD LORD!! WHERE do these people COME FROM???

"We were having a serious discussion about the immigration issue and it was solution-driven."

GOI: Oh yeah!! Now here I agree with them. Saying such things ARE serious and what kind of "solution" is shooting and killing people?!! It's a cop out to now say that you were "only joking."

Guess what kind of message this sends to kids. It's ok to say that you want to kill people and explain in graffic detail how that would happen and then when someone says it's out of line and dangerous you can get away with it by just sayin, "Well, geez!! I was only joking! Lighten up!!!"

Yeah, hey buddy!! Ever hear of choosing tact and responsibility over a terrible, terrible joke?!! Such things shouldn't be said in ANY light let alone on the public air waves!!

---End of Transmission---

Monday, April 10, 2006

Immigration Reform

I have avoided weighing in on this issue as I haven't exactly hammered out a firm position on it.

However, let me say how I feel about it at this point.

I think that the biggest thing we need to do to stop illegal immigration is slap the businesses and corporations that hire illegals with massive fines.

I also feel though that we should grant amnesty to the ones already here, beef up the border with more agents and a better fence all along the border. It would cost a lot but it would be worth it I think to stem the tide of illegal immigration.

I wish that we could keep our border open but we just can't do that. Mainly from a security issue in this dangerous world. However, also from the stand point that we can not maintain an increasing illegal population on our resources. This is why amnesty and citizenship of the millions already here is a good idea. We can document them and get some tax money out of them just like anyone else so that we can help pay for these resources. Just imagine the amount of money that would be put into the system if we could tax these millions of immigrants as any other American.

I also like the idea that you can become a citizen of America if you serve some time in the military.

I'd like to commend the Catholic church for standing up for these immigrants and offering them humanitarian aide. That is truly following in the example of Christ. It would be a crime against humanity to make these religious good samaritans criminals.

It would also be a terrible, terrible idea to turn all of these 11-20 million illegal immigrants into felons. Our prisons are over-crowded enough as it is and if you're worried about the resources being zapped by illegal immigrants now, just imagine how much it would cost to deport or criminalize all of these people. Not to mention that many of these immigrants have children born into the United States who are citizens, speak English and pay into the system. It would be a humanitarian nightmare to pull these families apart and ship off their parents and grandparents who's status is illegal. It isn't realistic.

We have to come to terms with these issues. Especially in light of these MASSIVE protests and gatherings of legal and illegal immigrants. These people are mostly here to work hard and be apart of this wonderful country. We can not turn a deaf ear against the millions of people who are speaking with one voice in these gigantic rallies.

Most of us seem to forget that our ancestors arrived here in mass immigration waves back in the day. Most of which were all accepted without question into this country to add to our great American project. Have we forgotten the words on the Statue of Liberty?

“Give me your tired, your poor,Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,The wretched refuse of your teeming shore – Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me;I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

-From the poem "The NewColossus" by Emma Lazarus

PHOTO CREDIT: AP James A. Finley

---End of Transmission---

Friday, April 07, 2006

Bush Thinks He is Above the Law

Thanks to Washington Monthly for tracking down this information. As Kevin Drum says in his commentary. It appears that they White House isn't denying that Bush was the source of the leak:

A senior administration official, speaking on background because White House policy prohibits comment on an active investigation, said Bush sees a distinction between leaks and what he is alleged to have done. The official said Bush authorized the release of the classified information to assure the public of his rationale for war as it was coming under increasing scrutiny.

GOI: So this is basically the Nixon defense of saying that "Well, if the President does it that means it is not illegal." And that if he felt that it was justified to keep America brain washed with his war message. War by any means necessary in other words.

Nixon went on to say something eeriely similar to W's comments lately regarding the NSA spying controversy. As well as the above comment from a senior White House official saying Bush sees a difference between an illegal, treasonous leak and what he is alleged to have done regarding the Valerie Plame affair. His defense being that in a time a war a President can break the law through acting unilaterally in authorizing the leak of the ID of a CIA operative.

The ironic thing here is that Plame was a WMD specialist and of course we know that we did not find WMD in Iraq. The damage was especially expensive as not only was Plame working on WMD issues but that she was working specifically on WMD issues in regards to Iran whom we are now in a stand-off with.

The following are excerpts from an interveiw between David Frost and President Richard Nixon:

FROST: By Definition.

NIXON: Exactly. Exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they're in an impossible position.

GOI: This is the problem with a unitary executive which should actually be called monarchy.

UPDATE: Scott McClellan is now blaming the Democrats for making a big deal out of Libby saying Bush authorized the Plame leak via Cheney!! Of COURSE they are going to make a big deal out of this! This is huge and possibley daming information that alleges our President of treasonous behavior!! How are the Democrats at fault for talking about something which was said by a former, top White House senior aide??? This is a matter of national security being jeopardized by OUR SITTING PRESIDENT and the Dems are not supposed to talk about it??? Get real Scott.

Now he is saying that Bush had to leak this information because it was harmful to our national security and yet in exposing a top, under cover WMD agent (who was working on Iran) that is not harmful to our national security??? He also said that the President doesn't have a credibility problem but rather it is the Democrats on this issue!! Get real Scott. I'm really starting to wonder about your sanity.

They can't even keep their lies straight. They are lying about their lies!!

This is classic Bush attack mode when accused of wrong doing.

---End of Transmission---

Thursday, April 06, 2006

Libby: Bush, Cheney OK'd Plame Leak

A former White House aide under indictment for obstructing a leak probe, I. Lewis Libby, testified to a grand jury that he gave information from a closely-guarded "National Intelligence Estimate" on Iraq to a New York Times reporter in 2003 with the specific permission of President Bush, according to a new court filing from the special prosecutor in the case, THE NEW YORK SUN reports Thursday.

The filing can be found here.

The paper's site isn't loading. RAW STORY will excerpt more when available. Excerpts:

"The court papers from the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, do not suggest that Mr. Bush violated any law or rule. However, the new disclosure could be awkward for the president because it places him, for the first time, directly in a chain of events that led to a meeting where prosecutors contend the identity of a CIA employee, Valerie Plame, was provided to a reporter."

"Defendant testified that he was specifically authorized in advance of the meeting to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller on that occasion because it was thought that the NIE was ‘pretty definitive' against what Ambassador Wilson had said and that the vice president thought that it was ‘very important' for the key judgments of the NIE to come out," Mr. Fitzgerald wrote.

Mr. Libby is said to have testified that "at first" he rebuffed Mr. Cheney's suggestion to release the information because the estimate was classified. However, according to the vice presidential aide, Mr. Cheney subsequently said he got permission for the release directly from Mr. Bush. "Defendant testified that the vice president later advised him that the president had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE," the prosecution filing said.

GOI: This testimony about Bush authorizing the leak information is awkward for the White House at best. Especially given these comments from Bush:

"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.

"I welcome the investigation. I am absolutely confident the Justice Department will do a good job.

"I want to know the truth," the president continued. "Leaks of classified information are bad things."

He added that he did not know of "anybody in my administration who leaked classified information."

GOI: Let's pound the cable and newspaper agencies with emails to report this and look into it further. Don't forget to contact your Representative and Senators as well.

This whole thing REAKS and seems very devious.

---End of Transmission---

Monday, April 03, 2006

Tom da Bomb


Updated: 11:27 p.m. ET April 3, 2006

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a firebrand Texan tainted by a lobbying scandal that ensnared some of his former top aides and cost the congressman his leadership post, won’t seek re-election to Congress, MSNBC's Chris Matthews reported Monday night.


The Associated Press quoted unnamed officials as saying DeLay also is likely to resign his seat and leave Congress by the end of May.

GOI: (Tommy boy seen here with that fake, plaster grin chiseled onto his face from years of inhaling pesticides and lying, cheatin' and stealing from the American people). Nah, nah nah nah. Nah nah NAH NAH. HEY HEYYYY GOOD BYE!!! Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.

---End of Transmission---

Saturday, April 01, 2006

Scalia: Gays Criminals with No Rights

According to a clip aired on CNN, on March 8, 2006, Justice Scalia told students at the University of Freiburg in Switzerland:

"Question comes up: is there a constitutional right to homosexual conduct? Not a hard question for me. It's absolutely clear that nobody ever thought when the Bill of Rights was adopted that it gave a right to homosexual conduct. Homosexual conduct was criminal for 200 years in every state. Easy question."

GOI: Ummmm, Scalia? One, wouldn't you want to recuse yourself on such a hot topic that will most likely come before you on the Supreme Court? Second, with this kind of statement how do we know whether or not he is remaining impartial on issues before the court?? Third, (and most importantly) the Constitution also refered to African-American slaves as three quarters of a man. And the Bill of Rights had no amendment specific to African-Americans for nearly a century. It's scary to think that we have a justice on the bench of our highest court who thinks that the Constitution is a rigid document!! He is apparently a strict constructionist and to me that is scary, dangerous and down right ignorant.

Scalia is the reason why (to me) judges for life is a terrible, terrible idea.

---End of Transmission---