Let the Record Show
a journal of politics, media, and cultural devolution
current best reads

Search WWW
Search ltrs.blogspot.com

Saturday, August 16, 2003  

We Distort, You Decide - Still Fair and Balanced on Saturday

A Bush campaign rally:

A Dean campaign rally:

.... 'nuff said.

posted by RJ | Link | 7:45 PM

Schwarzenegger’s Next Goal on Dogged, Ambitious Path | NY Times

"Thirty-five years ago, Arnold Schwarzenegger, an unknown Austrian bodybuilder who spoke only a few words of English, had little money and no acting experience, came to the United States and soon made a prediction: He would become a movie star, make millions of dollars, marry a glamorous wife and wield political power.

As far-fetched as some of his aspirations might have seemed to some, all of Mr. Schwarzenegger's predictions have come true — except the last."

Oh gag me! Talk about a puff piece. Is Arnold a candidate for a "Make a Wish" foundation grant, or is he a candidate for governor of country's largest state? Never mind that he hasn't articulated his position on any of the issues facing Calilfornia, let alone discussed what his solutions would be -- perhaps folks should vote for Arnold so that he can at last fulfill his dream. The so-called liberal media strikes again.

posted by RJ | Link | 4:58 PM

Who Turned Out the Lights?

You just knew this had to have ties to Bush. It was inevitable after all. If this gets debated as it should, the public should keep in mind that these companies don't have the public's best interest at heart, they have the company's best interest at heart - which is fine if we're talking about McDonald's, or Costco, or Gateway computers - but it's not fine when you're talking about essential services that present limited or non-existent choices to consumers.

In essence, these companies bribe legislators to advance the interests of the corporation over the interests of the public. And the republicans are plenty open to bribes, too, since their ideology of privatization trumps both common sense and the public good.

via Buzzflash

posted by RJ | Link | 4:00 PM

Which Party Gets the Blame? They Agree: It's the Other One | NY Times

In Congress, Democrats accused Republicans of blocking modernization of the nation's power-transmission system in 2001.

At the same time, Republican leaders in Congress and conservative talk-show hosts mounted a counteroffensive, charging that Democrats and environmentalists had colluded to prevent the overhaul of the power-transmission grid and blocked legislation on a national energy plan.

"Passage of the energy bill is a vital national interest, and partisan Democrats stalling it should work with the House to get a realistic program to the President's desk," said Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the majority leader."

That's what the "paper of record" has to say; now here's reality, starting at the top....

1. To say the democrats "accuse" republicans of blocking the bill implies that it's not a matter of fact and on the record. Yet it is. Here's the press release from June 20th, 2001. Lesson for the press - just because you were too craven to report an event doesn't mean it didn't happen.

2. The republicans and their right wing cronies in the media (i.e. TV and radio talk show hosts) are parsing here, and at all costs, avoiding the truth. "Democrats and environmentalists had colluded to prevent the overhaul of the power-transmission grid and blocked legislation on a national energy plan" actually means dems refused to pass a bill that would allow drilling in ANWR and massive further deregulation of energy companies. Deregulation basically means handing more control of the grid over to energy companies accompanied by less accountability, hence little incentive to properly maintain the grid(s). We saw how well that worked in California.

The argument from conservatives that they just didn't "do it" correctly in California now falls flat. It isn't just California that has a problem. And for the life of me, I can't understand how the republican plan of hooking us all into one big grid is going to help solve this problem. Oh wait, that's because it's not supposed to -- it's supposed to help energy companies make more money. I'm not sure how anyone can deny that reality with California staring us right in the face.

As for what republicans would do in the here and now regarding problems with the power grid, their version of an "overhaul", according to the congressional record, refers to a study of the problem, complete with commissions, presumably much like Cheney's task force on terrorism that never met prior to 9/11. And you can bet that the republican "energy" bill would not even include that much to address problems with the power grid if it wasn't an undeniable problem. Conversely, the democrat's solution involves investing money on modernization of the grid now -- today.

3. For a definition of the word "realistic" in Tom Delay's remark, "getting a realistic program to the President's desk" see #2 above.

Update: here's an excellent synopsis of why deregulation, particularly as republicans envision it, doesn't work

posted by RJ | Link | 9:41 AM

California Confidential | TAP

"Months before the recall was even a blip on the media radar, this consultant cabal began manipulating California's idiosyncratic electoral system, creating a muscular funding mechanism and exploiting it for its members' own ends.

The cabal includes Kaloogian, who was a right-wing backbencher in the state Assembly, Sal Russo, who handled banker Bill Simon's hapless 2002 gubernatorial campaign, and David Gilliard, a veteran GOP strategist with a career steeped in scandal. They're joined by former Enron pollster and Republican tactician Frank Luntz, who devised a strategy for the recall campaign centering around negative character attacks and avoidance of policy discussion."

That's the GOP, plotting daily to subvert democracy.

And by the way, Frank Luntz is that talking head on many of the pundit shows who is almost always identified as simply a "pollster" when he is in fact a republican pollster and strategist. In fact last week Hardball did a piece with Luntz holding a "focus group" with "democrats" in Iowa, who, oddly enough, had more than a few disparaging things to say about the dem candidates for president. Hey, Chris, how about getting a democratic pollster to do focus groups with dems? Bet that never even occurred to you, eh?

posted by RJ | Link | 2:50 AM

Friday, August 15, 2003  

System's Crash Was Predicted | WaPo

This is pure baloney:

"For two years, the Bush administration and leaders of congressional energy committee have called for new legislation to help expand the transmission system, but a major energy bill has yet to get through Congress. "

... as is this statement from Bush:

"We'll have time to look at it and determine whether or not our grid needs to be modernized. I happen to think it does, and have said so all along." - 8/14/03

No, what Bush has tried to do for two years is drill in ANWR and "study" the issue of modernizing the power grid (as opposed to actually doing anything about the problem) while they deregulate even further. Deregulation, of course, is the root cause of the problem in the first place, since there is no longer any motivation for private companies to maintain the grid.

The democrats have supported legislation calling for loan style funding to help companies maintain the power grid, but the GOP and Bush have consistently opposed it. The press would have you believe that because the energy bill that called for drilling in ANWR did not pass, this legislation wasn't voted on. But it was - in supplemental appropriations bills dealing with this issue. Bush's lap dogs in congress voted it down three times- flat out calling it unnecessary.

Here's a reality check for the mainstream media via links from Buzzflash:

"In June of 2001, Bush opposed and the congressional GOP voted down legislation to provide $350 million worth of loans to modernize the nation's power grid because of known weaknesses in reliability and capacity. Supporters of the amendment pointed to studies by the Energy Department showing that the grid was in desperate need of upgrades as proof that their legislation sponsored by U.S. Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) should pass.

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration lobbied against it and the Republicans voted it down three separate times: First, on a straight party line in the U.S. House Appropriations Committee, then on a straight party line the U.S. House Rules Committee, and finally on a party line on the floor of the full House [Roll Call Vote #169, 6/20/01]."

And if you doubt that for one second, here's the congressional record for June 2001, the debate on Farr's supplemental appropriations bill, that proves it. Bush is a pathological liar and our craven press simply repeats what he says in robotic fashion, truth be damned.

posted by RJ | Link | 11:36 PM

Troops could lose raise in combat pay | Seattle PI

"The Pentagon wants to cut the pay of its 148,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, who already are contending with guerrilla-style attacks, homesickness and 120-degree-plus heat.

Unless Congress and President Bush take quick action when Congress returns after Labor Day, the uniformed Americans in Iraq and the 9,000 troops in Afghanistan will lose a pay increase approved in April of $75 a month in "imminent-danger pay" and $150 a month in "family separation allowances."

The Defense Department says its budget can't sustain the higher payments amid a host of other priorities. But the proposed cuts have stirred anger among military families and veterans' groups and even prompted an editorial attack in the Army Times, a weekly newspaper for military personnel and their families that is seldom so outspoken."

This story has been floating around the blogs for over a month, soon after the Army Times editorial was published near the end of June. It took the "news" media 6 weeks to pick the story up, and then only because democrats running for president have been pounding it in speeches and statements. Of course once the press finally picked it up the Bushies backpedaled as fast as possible, in a nearly identical replay of the Air Marshall damage control incident a few weeks ago.

Clearly, there are some clues here for all of us. It took six weeks for this story to hit even a few newspapers in the mainstream media (50 nationwide by my count) even though it was all over the internet, and had already been incorporated into a radio ad by Take Back the Media. So where's the free press? Nowhere to be found. Only breaking the story when it could not ignore it any longer. These omissions are no different than out and out lies, but of course they tell those, too. It's not only that the media is not liberal, much of it is purely right wing propaganda.

And there is another clue here as well. The entire Bush administration strategy is predicated on presenting one view to the public and then doing something entirely different behind the scenes. You can't help but get the feeling that their attitude is "let's just go for it and see how much we can get away with." With the media by their side the answer appears to be, quite a lot.

Like the little foot soldiers they are, right wing AM hate radio came out to assist with damage control. John Carlson's show on KVI in Seattle put the story like this: It was all a silly misunderstanding by the Army and a case of democrats lying. And thank God he was there to set the record straight. Except he didn't, because he lied to his audience by pretending the Bush administration actually does support the troops (just not when we aren't looking - right, John?).

Here's reality about the Bush administration's support for the troops.

1. "Democrats, led by House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member David Obey (D-WI), proposed cutting the tax breaks Republicans awarded to people making more than $1 million a year by just 5 percent in order to restore the funds cut by Bush to military housing.

The Democratic proposal would reduce the average millionaire tax cut from $88,326 to $83,546 in order to restore the funds for military housing. The funds would go to restore cuts that affect military housing, barracks, child care centers, schools, hangars, and office buildings.

The Bush/GOP Military Construction Appropriations Bill cut $1.5 billion from military housing and families from last year's level, in direct contradiction of Bush and other Republicans' high praise of the military after the war in Iraq. Their refusal to restore $1 billion at the cost of a small reduction in millionaires' tax breaks demonstrates the depth of their professed respect for our men and women in the military." - statement by the democrats

2. Bush loves the troops so much he is closing 13 veterans hospitals.

3. Bush loves the troops so much he is canceling their health care 30 days after they return from Iraq.

4. Bush loves the troops so much he's trying to cancel the retirement benefits of veterans on disability.

posted by RJ | Link | 7:57 PM

GOP ponders tactic: No map, no primaries | Austin American Statesman

Translation: if they can't steal the election, they just won't have the election. How GOP of them.

Fascism is commonly defined as an open terror-based dictatorship which is:

Reactionary: makes policy based upon current circumstances rather than creating policies to prevent problems; piles lies and misnomers on top of more lies until the truth becomes indistinguishable, revised or forgotten.

Chauvinistic: Two or more tiered legal systems, varying rights based upon superficial characteristics such as race, creed and origin.

Imperialist elements of finance capital: Extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political domination of one state over its allies.

Need we say more?

posted by RJ | Link | 6:07 PM

Thursday, August 14, 2003  

O'Reilly Spins it big time

"In just a few weeks, the FOX News Channel will celebrate its seventh anniversary, awash in success and publicity. In that short period of time, we have become one of the most powerful news organizations in the USA, an amazing accomplishment."

Just goes to show how far those tax breaks for the wealthy will take those billionaires. It's a neat game they play - advance the republican political agenda with a media outlet that pretends to be news, propagandize the people, and persuade them to elect republicans who are sure to fill the pockets of their wealthy cohorts even further. I guess you can call that awash in success (or cash -- whatever).

But that success has caused an incredible amount of anger among some in the elite media and among some liberal ideologues. And their attacks on us have now resulted in legal issues, such as trademark infringement and defamation. The main point here is that trying to hurt a business or a person because you disagree with what they say is simply unacceptable in America. And that message has been sent by FOX. There's a principle in play. Vigorous debate is embraced by us, but smear campaigns will be confronted. It is simply a joke for The New York Times to editorialize that fabricated personal attacks are acceptable under the banner of satire.

So all those slurs Bill makes against liberals are just an accident. And vigorous debate is embraced so much that there is not a liberal to be found on Fox News (including Alan Colmes), and liberal guests on O'Reilly's show are told to "shut up." And of course O'Reilly would never defame anyone, especially not right after he has chastised them for what O'Reilly feels is defamation of others. Oh wait, yes he would.

I wonder if The Times thought that Donald Sagretti was funny when he manufactured dirt to hurt Richard Nixon's political opponents. I guess The Times editorial board would be yucking it up if their pictures appeared on a book cover accompanied by the word 'liar.' Satire, my butt.

Satire, my butt is right. O'Reilly is actually an ACTUAL liar. And if that doesn't convince you, here's a few more. I would suggest that if O'Reilly does not wish to be portrayed as a liar there is a simple solution. Don't lie.

There's no question that many of the attacks launched against FOX personnel are designed to injury and demean. It's unfortunate, but in this country, if you're successful or famous, many courts will allow defamation, slander and liable to go unpunished.

Well, if Bill really thinks about this statement I'm sure he will realize that it's actually lucky for him that courts allow it. Otherwise he would have had his pants sued off by now.

posted by RJ | Link | 11:43 PM

....an elaborate festival of goal post moving

That's what Josh Marshall's says were in for when David Kay, Bush's personal (albeit discredited) UN inspector issues his report in September. I don't doubt it for a moment. I don't think telling the truth ever even occurs to the Bushies.

posted by RJ | Link | 11:29 PM

In Solidarity with Al, LTRS vows to be "Fair and Balanced"

... okay, not really. We're lying about it just like Fox News does. Why? Well, it's not because we're trying to fool people like Fox News. No, we're using a bogus tag line to advance a political agenda, which is kinda like Fox News, only without the deception.

If you haven't already heard, Fox News is suing Al Franken over the title of his new book, "Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them - a fair and balanced look at the right." It seems that the whiney republicans who own Fox News don't care much for criticism of there non-fair and unbalanced "news" network. Franken had this to say about the lawsuit....

"From everything I know about law regarding satire, I'm not worried," liberal satirist Franken said in a statement issued by publishers Penguin Group.

Franken questioned the way he was described by the network, part of the News Corp group, in the 17-page suit filed in Manhattan Supreme Court on Friday and made public on Monday.

"As far as the personal attacks go, when I read 'intoxicated or deranged' and 'shrill and unstable' in their complaint, I thought for a moment I was a Fox commentator.

"And by the way, a few months ago, I trademarked the word 'funny.' So when Fox calls me 'unfunny,' they're violating my trademark. I am seriously considering a countersuit," he said."

He doesn't seem all that worried. And why should he be? Since Fox filed the suit, Franken's book has shot to number one on Amazon.com a month ahead of its release date (Note to Ann Coulter: Call Roger to discuss feasibility of Fox News lawsuit before publication of next book). Noticing this, LTRS has dared to dream that it might be possible to duplicate Franken's success if only Fox News will sue us as well. LTRS can smell the ad revenue already. Wish us luck! (And buy Al's book. Think of it as flipping the bird to Fox News).

posted by RJ | Link | 6:37 PM

Ala. justice defies federal court order | MSNBC

"The chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court said Thursday he will not remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state judicial building, defying a federal court order to remove the granite monument. Moore said he will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to stop any removal.

His decision came six days before the Aug. 20 deadline for the 5,300-pound monument to be removed from the building’s rotunda, where it is in clear sight of visitors coming in the main entrance.

U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson of Montgomery, who ruled the monument violates the Constitution’s ban on government promotion of religion, had said fines of about $5,000 a day would be imposed against the state after the deadline if the monument were not removed. Moore accused Thompson of a “callous disregard for the people of Alabama” and their tax dollars. "

Apparently, if you're a republican, following the law is optional. And if someone has to pay the price (in this case, the taxpayers of Alabama) the republican way of thinking is that the judge who is enforcing the law is to blame, not the republican who holds himself above the law. What do you want to bet that if the penalty were Judge Roy Moore going to jail instead of a fine levied against the Alabama taxpayer that monument would come down real fast?

posted by RJ | Link | 1:57 PM

The Bush Deceit | WaPo

"If the Bush administration had been wrong only about the Niger purchase, it would have indicated carelessness. But the references to nuclear weapons, taken as a whole, indicate dissatisfaction with the truth of the matter and a disregard for inconvenient facts.

Political leaders must not tell intelligence analysts what to write; the intelligence services cannot tell the elected decision maker what to do. The president, of course, is free to disregard intelligence, but he is not free to lie about it -- either directly, indirectly or by innuendo -- when making the case for war."

Unfortunately, it does seem that he is free to lie about it. I don't see anyone in congress rushing to make him accountable. Our republican controlled congress is more than content to brush it all aside. And the press appear to have had their fun with the story and let it drop... straight down the memory hole with the exception of a few straggling commentators.

Now if it were about sex, why that would be a whole different story. But when it's a trillion dollar war and the lives of our soliders at stake, you can write it off as no big deal. So much for the republican's era of personal responsibility, and so much for the so-called liberal media.

posted by RJ | Link | 10:30 AM

Wednesday, August 13, 2003  

Bush looking for a little help

He looks so determined, too, doesn't he?

posted by LJ | Link | 11:26 PM

Defusing the smoking gun | Fred Kaplan

"In the middle of a fascinating article in Monday’s Los Angeles Times, which quotes several former Iraqi officers on why they lost the war so badly, the following passage leaps out: Commanders interviewed for this article said they were issued no orders regarding chemical or biological weapons. And they denied that Iraq ever possessed such weapons."

There have been so many separate reports of this from so many different sources that it really is time we faced the fact that there were no WMD in Iraq prior to the war. But of course that won't happen because it raises too many uncomfortable issues... like why we went to war, and if we are really more safe than before if there was nothing in Iraq to threaten us.

And after all, we broke it; we bought it. So the American taxpayer will pay the trillion dollar invoice for the years and years and years we will be there, while at the same time American oil and gas companies with no bid contracts will reap the profits. Think of it as a redistribution of tax dollars from the middle class and poor to the wealthy corporate cronies, via our dead soldiers and a conned American public.

posted by RJ | Link | 4:01 PM

Pumping Arnold On His Policies | CBS News

"Visiting New York City, Schwarzenegger refused to take questions, fueling criticism that his campaign lacks specific policy positions.

His aides deny that. And CBS News Early Show political contributor Craig Crawford say it might not matter.

'Abraham Lincoln said it best: 'Better to remain silent and thought a fool than speak up and remove all doubt,'' he said. 'When you get specific, you become a target.'

'If he had to win a majority of the vote, maybe he should be more specific. He doesn't. He has core supporters. People who go to his movies can elect him governor,' Crawford said."

This is the very essence of how the republicans, coupled with the media, have made a mockery of our democracy. They have found a formula for success, but it's nothing to celebrate for the rest of us.

It seems to go something like this.... dumb down the campaign, dodge the questions that might show you're clueless, focus heavily on the smoke and mirrors, and with the help of the media, just bullshit your way to power. If you're really bad, you might need a little extra help, which can always be arranged of course. For instance, a republican funded recall that will give you a win with 10% or less of the vote, or maybe your very own 5 justices on the USSC.

posted by RJ | Link | 11:45 AM

Tuesday, August 12, 2003  

Report Details GOP Bids For U.S. Aid in Texas Fray | WaPo

Your hard earned tax dollars at work, helping republicans to subvert democracy daily.

posted by RJ | Link | 10:33 PM

Few Details From Schwarzenegger | WaPo

"Some Schwarzenegger supporters say he could be putting his campaign at risk if he does not speak specifically on issues soon. 'Arnold likes to know a subject very well before he addresses it,' said Sheri Annis, a political consultant who worked for him last year. 'But he does not have much time left now to ponder.'

And here I was thinking that a candidate for governor of a state with the 6th largest economy in the world might want to already know the issues and have a plan before deciding to run for the job. Silly me. I guess that's just not neccessary if you don't actually need a majority of the vote to win.

"The San Francisco Chronicle reported today that state records show Schwarzenegger has not voted in five of the past 11 statewide elections. Aides to the actor said he had requested and apparently returned absentee ballots on four of those occasions, and said they were investigating why records do not reflect that."/i>

He can't be bothered to vote, but he wants to be governor. Well at least he'll have something in common with Bill Frist, republican senate majority leader, and Dick Cheney, VP -- neither of whom could be much troubled to vote before they decided that running the government would be a fun idea.

posted by RJ | Link | 10:23 PM

Arms Control Hard-Liner Won't Attend Sessions on N. Korea | WaPo

Watch out, America....

"The Bush administration, establishing its lineup for six-nation talks on North Korea's nuclear weapons program, will not be sending John R. Bolton, an arms control hard-liner who recently called North Korean leader Kim Jong Il a 'tyrannical rogue.'

The crack Bush "diplomacy" team is gearing up to bring you another foreign policy disaster.

posted by RJ | Link | 10:13 PM

Support for Bush on Iraq stabilizes | WaPo

"In other areas, the two parties are mirror opposites of one another, with 80 percent of Democrats disapproving of Bush’s handling of the economy and 77 percent of Republicans approving. On the federal budget, 76 percent of Democrats disapprove of Bush’s handling of the issue, while 71 percent of Republicans approve."

Which begs the question, what exactly do republicans approve of, specifically -- the 3 million plus job losses, or the 450 billion dollar a year record budget deficit? Or might it be the 1500 point drop in the DJI that has taken place since he entered office?

If this isn't proof positive that republicans are absolute idiots I don't know what would be.

posted by RJ | Link | 9:55 PM

Man fined $10,000 for protesting war in Iraq | AP

"Ryan Clancy says he knew he could be punished for traveling to Iraq to protest the war there, but he had no idea how much the trip could ultimately cost.

Authorities have fined the Milwaukee man $10,000 for violating sanctions prohibiting travel to and trade with Iraq. If the 26-year-old doesn't pay, he could spend up to 12 years in prison."

No word yet on when charges will be brought against Halliburton and its former CEO, Dick Cheney for violating related sanctions prohibiting trade with Iraq.

posted by RJ | Link | 12:24 AM

Monday, August 11, 2003  

Bush Tries to Boost Environment Image | WaPo

Finally, a headline that fits the actual story - how refreshing. Shorter version of Bush's forest policy.... Instead of spending money managing the forests we should simply give the forests to the logging industry who will clear cut everything. Problem solved.

posted by RJ | Link | 11:52 PM

TSA in ‘witch hunt,’ air marshals say

"The Transportation Security Administration is conducting a “witch hunt” to ferret out and discipline employees in the federal air marshal program who have talked to the media, several sources within the program told MSNBC.com. Some air marshals are even being threatened with having the USA Patriot Act, a law enacted to help fight terrorism, used against them. The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the TSA, denies that any such investigation is taking place."

This refers, of course, to payback from the Bushies for letting the public know that they were making drastic cuts to the air marshall program. Drastic cuts that are apparently needed as we spend 4 billion a month in Iraq, where there didn't seem to be anything threatening our safety. These whistleblowers should be regarded as heros, but the Bushies are threatening them instead. Who's looking out for our safety? Not the Bushies, that's for sure.

posted by RJ | Link | 3:21 PM

Sunday, August 10, 2003  

Depiction of Threat Outgrew Supporting Evidence | WaPo

"In an interview with the New York Times published Sept. 6, Card did not mention the WHIG but hinted at its mission. "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August," he said.

The group met weekly in the Situation Room. Among the regular participants were Karl Rove, the president's senior political adviser; communications strategists Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and James R. Wilkinson; legislative liaison Nicholas E. Calio; and policy advisers led by Rice and her deputy, Stephen J. Hadley, along with I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff.


The day after publication of Card's marketing remark, Bush and nearly all his top advisers began to talk about the dangers of an Iraqi nuclear bomb.

Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair conferred at Camp David that Saturday, Sept. 7, and they each described alarming new evidence. Blair said proof that the threat is real came in "the report from the International Atomic Energy Agency this morning, showing what has been going on at the former nuclear weapon sites." Bush said "a report came out of the . . . IAEA, that they [Iraqis] were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need."

There was no new IAEA report. Blair appeared to be referring to news reports describing curiosity at the nuclear agency about repairs at sites of Iraq's former nuclear program. Bush cast as present evidence the contents of a report from 1996, updated in 1998 and 1999. In those accounts, the IAEA described the history of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program that arms inspectors had systematically destroyed.

A White House spokesman later acknowledged that Bush "was imprecise" on his source but stood by the crux of his charge. The spokesman said U.S. intelligence, not the IAEA, had given Bush his information. "

You have to wonder at some point if there isn't some big list somewhere in someone's office of words that are synonymous with "lie." The New Republic Online details some of the ever changing stories -- revisionist historians all.

posted by RJ | Link | 9:37 PM

Faith-Based Fudging - How a Bush-promoted Christian prison program fakes success by massaging data. By Mark A.R. Kleiman

A lie a day keeps the truth away.

posted by RJ | Link | 9:36 PM

Some of Army's Civilian Contractors Are No-Shows in Iraq | Newhouse News Service

Apparently those no-bid contracts to buddies of Bush and Cheney aren't working out so well for the troops.

posted by RJ | Link | 9:32 PM

Senator: Iraq Assumptions ‘Flawed’ | CBS News

To say the least. Not only do we have resistance fighters attacking troops and wreaking havoc (and couldn't anyone have predicted that?) but residents are also rioting because of shortages in power and other necessities, not to mention rough treatment by frustrated troops. Who would have figured all that would happen, huh?

Meanwhile, Bremer is calling it all "terrorism" -- presumably because it sounds better back home. Even though it's a lie.

posted by RJ | Link | 5:46 PM

George W. Bush's Resume - so far....

Worst. President. Ever.

posted by RJ | Link | 5:45 PM

Bush passing buck right up to the bench | William O'Rourke

"The president is vacationing in Crawford, Texas, clearing brush and enjoying the heat. He gave a rare ''solo'' news conference--his ninth--right before he left Washington, and although critics claim the media treat the president too kindly (a claim I find hard to make at the same time I'm treating him unkindly), even I was surprised at the congratulatory headlines that followed: ''Bush accepts blame for speech'' and ''Bush: Nuclear claim my fault.''

Well, that's putting it kindly. What Bush said regarding the misleading claims about Iraq and uranium in his State of the Union speech was of a different order altogether: ''I take personal responsibility for everything I say, of course.'' That's equivalent to accepting blame with a 10-foot pole. Of course."

This story is mainly about the William Pryor judicial nomination, but yeah, right on to the above. The headlines on the "Bush accepts responsibility" story were like a huge collection of gift wrapped presents complete with big read bows on the top from the press corps. That so-called liberal media strikes again, eh?

posted by RJ | Link | 5:41 PM

Iran: The Mystery Meeting | Newsweek

And you thought John Poindexter was the only Iran Contra crook on the Bush payroll. But as Rummy might say, "Is it to be expected? You bet!"

posted by RJ | Link | 11:35 AM

Is Iraqi Intel Still Being Manipulated? | Newsweek.com

"But for the Bush administration, things quickly began to go wrong with the Obeidi story. True, Obeidi said he’d buried the centrifuge equipment, as he’d been ordered to do in 1991 by Saddam’s son Qusay Hussein and son-in-law Hussein Kamel. But he also insisted to the CIA that, in effect, that was that: Saddam had never reconstituted his centrifuge program afterward, in large part because of the Iraqi tyrant’s fear of being discovered under the U.N. sanctions-and-inspections regime.

If true, this was a terribly inconvenient fact for the Bush administration, after months in which Secretary of State Colin Powell and other senior officials had alleged that aluminum tubes imported from 11 countries were intended for just such a centrifuge program. Obeidi denied that and added that he would have known about any attempts to restart the program. He also told the CIA that, as the International Atomic Energy Agency and many technical experts have said, the aluminum tubes were intended for rockets, not uranium enrichment or a nuclear-weapons program. And he stuck by his story, despite persistent questioning by CIA investigators who still believed he was not telling the full truth."

Josh Marshall had this a few days ago and it looks like he was right on. As could have been predicted, they are still manipulating the intel for political reasons. If we had a real press in this country this would be headline news all over the country. But it's not, and we don't.

posted by RJ | Link | 11:27 AM

President Meets Privately With Top Fundraisers | WaPo

Three of whom received a total of $1.9 million dollars from the tax cuts. I'm sure most of them were there in Crawford to discuss how to turn their next $200K campaign contribution investment into another $2 million dollars in tax cuts.

posted by RJ | Link | 11:01 AM