he Bush Administration, and President Bush himself, are frequently the only people on earth who see clearly the truth about the dangerous world we live in.  Either that, or they're delusional and borderline insane, and everyone else knows better. It all depends on your perspective on things. This article page archives items from various blog updates in with the Bush Administration's perspective is pitted against everyone else. Choose your side.

More recent updates are added on top of this page.

February 16, 2004

Dubya's wife got interviewed recently, and while she's normally a lot more interesting, and certainly more intelligent and a better speaker than her husband, there's just so much bullshit in this one that I have to object.

Laura Bush says gay marriages are "a very, very shocking issue" for some people, a subject that should be debated by Americans rather than settled by a Massachusetts court or the mayor of San Francisco.

Asked how she feels about the issue personally, Mrs. Bush replies: "Let's just leave it at that."

In an Associated Press interview, Mrs. Bush also endorsed sexual abstinence programs for teens, which are slated to get double their current funding under the president's latest budget proposal.

Abstinence should be extensively discussed alongside contraception, she said. "We know it works. It's 100 percent fail-safe."

Okay, so the gay marriage comment equals... nothing. It's shocking, to some, but I have no personal opinion.  Thanks for sharing, sweetie.

As for the abstinence part, it's bullshit.  Sure, some people might actually not have sex after receiving counseling about why they shouldn't have sex. But the vast majority of those wouldn't have had sex anyway, and for all of the kids who do have sex, it's a lot more important to keep them from getting pregnant or herpes or AIDS than it is to satisfy your core religious backers who have no grasp of reality in the modern world.  And as she damn well knows, the religious right that pushes these sorts of programs have zero interest in doing both, as she makes it sound like she's supporting.  The US has pulled out of and refused to fund numerous programs in the last 3 years of Dubya, if they insisted on offering birth control and other realistic options instead of/in addition to the fairy tale that is abstinence education.   It's not "both" it's "either/or", and the "or" equals no funding from the US, which forces the clinics to either close down since they don't have any money, or provide no useful service at all other than happy biblical pabulum.

Moving on to other issues:

She defended her husband's credibility and took a shot at Democrats who allege he skipped out on his National Guard duty. "I think it's a political, you know, witch hunt, actually, on the part of Democrats," she said.

The president served honorably in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War and did report for duty in Alabama where he was briefly assigned, she said.

"He knows that he served honorably," she said. "He knows that he showed up the whole time."

And she was busy speaking up about the evils of political witch hunts when Ken Star was digging through every financial record in the history of Arkansas, trying to pin anything at all on Clinton, and when he somehow turned his Whitewater commissioned investigation into a hunt for an intern's blue dress, right?  Besides, Dubya ducked out on at least a year of his service time in the National Guard, which he joined to dodge the Vietnam draft, and no one with any grasp of the issues at hand denies that.  Unless they're out to defend Bush and don't care about the facts.  Like say, his wife?

She says she has been hurt by allegations that he lied to the American people about his Guard duty, and by contentions that he misled the public about the extent of Saddam Hussein's weapons when U.S.-led troops went to war in Iraq.

"Nobody likes that part of campaigning — the personal attacks," Mrs. Bush said, sitting on a couch in the private section of her plane. "I certainly don't like it."

What part of campaigning is it to point out that Bush and his people lied about Saddam's nuclear capabilities, his conventional WMDs, and denied that they'd been planning an Iraq war since he first came into office?   How are those personal attacks?  They're factually based criticisms of his administration's policies.  People calling him a smirking chimp, that's a personal attack.

Mrs. Bush said she and the president have been feeling a bit "nostalgic" as they watch the Democratic candidates campaigning in the snows of New Hampshire and Iowa.

"That's a much more upclose and personal campaign because you get to actually be with so many of the voters," she said. "We both miss that."

This from the president who is notorious for allowing absolutely zero interaction with real people.  No president in the modern era has ever held fewer press conferences, answered fewer questions from real people or the media, has ever forced all protesters to be roped into holding pens blocks and blocks from his actual speaking location, etc.  He's the least "upclose and personal" president in the last 50 years, FFS, and shaking hands with rich white people at a $10000 a plate fundraising dinner where all the Arabic waiters are sent home for the day doesn't count.

So what was Mrs. Dubya up to, while obtaining this press coverage for her lies and evasions and contentless husband-defending comments?

At Limerick Elementary School in Canoga Park, Calif., on Wednesday where she was promoting reading, Mrs. Bush said it appears that Sen. John Kerry will be the Democratic presidential nominee. "I assume he will be," she said.

"They've had a big primary," she said about the Democratic candidates. "They've spent $100 million dollars — all of them together — campaigning around the United States running ads. In general, I think they campaigned against my husband rather than each other."

Of course her husband has raised $200m to spend before the official campaign starts in September. So much that he went well past the limit he could raise while still accepting matching funds since he didn't even need it.  And he's not running against anyone but his own record!  Look forward to an incredible onslaught of Bush commercials this summer and fall, once he's got a Democratic candidate to attack.

Anyway, I don't disapprove of Mrs. Dubya defending her husband and repeating the same lies he and his other cronies spread every day.  It's nice that she can put aside her personal preferences and intelligence to back up things she simply must know are untrue.  I just find it depressing.  And it's funny the double standard, where she gets to say anything she wants and her quotes are presented without any sort of fact checking, since she's his wife, and a girl.  When Bush or Cheney or others make these sorts of distortions, the news items usually point out the truth they're twisting.  Yet his wife gets a free pass.  Useful tool there, for aspiring politicians.  Make a note of it.

February 9, 2004

If you've been idly following the "Dubya went AWOL" story for a while, but never really grasped what it's about or the exact details of it, check out this post, and the two others linked to from it, by CalPundit.  The whole thing is really heating up, as more and more evidence comes to light and we get a clearer picture of just how much of his duty in the national guard Dubya skipped out on (at least 8 months, possibly more like two years), why he skipped it (just never showed up or else refused to take a physical since it included a drug test that would have busted him back in his cocaine days), how much favoritism he received in being promoted and put into flight school (tons, given his very low entrance scores and lack of seniority), and why he wasn't sent to Vietnam as an active duty soldier after he skipped out on his assigned National Guard duty (unclearly exactly, but the CalPundit post is the best info on it yet).

That's a very long sentence, but read this if you want to know more about the issue; there's world breaking news in it.  Seriously.

January 22, 2004

...speaking of Bush and the State of the Union speech, here's about the funniest accidental TV joke I've ever seen. The photo was posted on Atrios' blog, sent in by a reader with quick fingers and the unenviable ability to captures screens off of CNN.

If you're wondering what the joke is, check here or here, to see dozens of things like these:

January 17, 2004

The corporate ownership of the Bush government continues to bring shame upon us all, especially in the field of science and technology.  Past disgraces have included the stripping of environmental regulations, editing reports to remove information about global warming, fighting all forms of energy production other than the short-sighted consumption of fossil fuels, banning funding for family planning that includes abortion information, and so on.  But this one today might be the stupidest yet.

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is challenging a World Health Organization report that outlines steps for nations to take to reduce obesity.

In a letter to the United Nations agency that is meeting next week, Health and Human Services official William Steiger questioned the organization's findings, said they were based on faulty science, and called for changes to the report.

The WHO report recommends eating more fruits and vegetables and limiting fats and salt. It also suggests governments limit food advertising aimed at children and encourage their citizens to eat healthier foods. Taxes and subsidies could be used to reduce the price of healthy food and make them more attractive to consumers, the report said.

The International Obesity Task Force estimates that 300 million people worldwide are obese and 750 million more are overweight, including 22 million children under age 5.

Steiger said in his letter that the WHO report did not adequately address an individual's responsibility to balance one's diet with one's physical activities, and objected to singling out specific types of foods, such as those high in fat and sugar.

"The (U.S. government) favors dietary guidance that focuses on the total diet, promotes the view that all foods can be part of a healthy and balanced diet, and supports personal responsibility to choose a diet conducive to individual energy balance, weight control and health," wrote Steiger, special assistant for international affairs at Health and Human Services.

What's next?  Are they going to object to world health recommendations to avoid smoking, since after all, cigarettes are damn tasty, and if you only smoke a few a day don't do any real harm?

There's a longer article about on the UK Guardian site, with some better quotage:

Kaare Norum, a professor at Oslo University who headed the group of scientists advising the WHO on diet and health, said: "I think it is tragic that the US is opposing this because the problem is very, very serious in the US. I think it is the multinational companies who are mainly behind this attack on the science."

Food industry trade groups including the Sugar Association and the Grocery Manufacturers Association disputed the links between certain food types and obesity and disease in their response to the report during the consultation period and said anything could be eaten as part of a balanced diet.

Commercial Alert, a US-based non-profit organisation, condemned the US government for attempting to "head off" the WHO initiative.

Gary Ruskin, its executive director said: "The Bush administration is putting the interests of the junk food industry ahead of the health of people - including children - on a global scale. The administration's arguments border on the ludicrous. Does anyone outside the administration and the junk food industry truly doubt that the consumption and marketing of high-calorie junk food plays a role in obesity and other chronic diseases? Why would this administration - or any administration - invoke the moral authority of the United States on behalf of the junk food and the obesity lobby?

Okay, wait. A scientist not employed by Bush or friends actually thinks the US has "moral authority?"

But seriously, to reference my above analogy again; doesn't this sound like cigarette company scientists in the 70's and 80's, when they were still fighting to convince people that cigs were healthy?

January 13, 2004

A humor site, Mad Kane, has their 2nd annual George Bush quote quiz online now.  There are 20 questions with 4 choices for each, and you must guess which is the real Dubya quote, and which is a made up one.  Since I figure you're all about as likely to read the whole thing as I was (not at all) I'll just cut to the chase and link to the answers page, upon which it's revealed that 3/4 of the answers on each question were actual Bushisms, with only the most ridiculous hick-speak one invented. And lest you think they're invented or spiced up, the sources for and some background info about nearly every quote is provided.

A few of my favorites:

"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill." (Washington, D.C., May 19, 2003)

I've had this one on my QotD page for a while, mostly in disbelief.  I honestly can't imagine what sort of discussion he was in where it became necessary to preface a statement with this disclaimer. It's also interesting to see his point of view as revealed in this one.  Any of us (I think) would find being rich a strange state of affairs and even if we were going to say what he's saying here (for some reason) we'd word it conversely. "Even if you're not lucky enough to be rich..." or something like that.  For Dubya, born a millionaire and grown richer ever since (thanks to sweetheart deals from Daddy's bidness friends), despite never showing any real ability in business, surrounded by other millionaires, the odd state of affairs is for a person to not be rich.  I hope to someday be this oblivious to the real world, when it comes to financial matters.

Another one, apparently issued after Saddam's capture.  You can sort of tell what he was trying to say here, but not exactly.  Read the whole sentence a couple of times if you need to; it's amazing just how tortured the prose is.

"As you notice, when there's a hole in the ground and a person is able to crawl into it in a country the size of California, it means we're on a scavenger hunt for terror, and find these terrorists who hide in holes is to get people coming forth to describe the location of the hole, is to give clues and data. And we're on it." (Washington, D.C., Dec. 15, 2003)

I guess I also have to give Dubya credit for sticking to the party line and still trying to hammer on the Saddam = terrorist concept, even though it's been completely debunked.  Of course that's assuming Dubya knows better; for all I know he might believe his own speech writers and Fox News and think Saddam was in cahoots with al Queda?

"I wanna remind you all that I -- in, in order -- what -- in order to fight and win the war it requires a expenditure of money -- uhh, uhh -- that is commiserate with keeping a promise to our troops to make sure that they're well paid, well trained, well equipped."

"And the time is getting worse. That's what people have got to understand up there in Washington or over there in Washington down there in Washington, whatever. Thought I was in Crawford for a minute." (Scranton, Pennsylvania, Jan. 16, 2003)

"I want to thank members of my administration who are here who will be involved in the implementation of some of the initiatives that I've outlined to the United States Congress. The Secretary of Education is here, Rod Paige, behind me. John Ashcroft is here... And, most importantly, Alma Powell, secretary of Colin Powell, is with us." (White House, Jan. 30, 2003)

There are plenty of others that are just head scratchers, where it's obvious that he's misspoken, but you're not quite sure what he was trying to say.  I'm not going to castigate him that fiercely for this sort of thing since after all, if our every statement was recorded and nit picked, we'd all realize that we say a lot of dumb things.  Times you start talking and forget a word, or try to change your point in mid-sentence, or just stumble over your own tongue. Take this listing for the humorous aspects of it, rather than trying to derive some grand "Bush is an idiot" conclusion from it.

Because, after all, there's ample evidence in many other areas that you can use to reach that conclusion.

November 27, 2003

Neil Bush, younger brother of President Bush (news - web sites), detailed lucrative business deals and admitted to engaging in sex romps with women in Asia in a deposition taken in March as part of his divorce from now ex-wife Sharon Bush.

According to legal documents disclosed on Tuesday, Sharon Bush's lawyers questioned Neil Bush closely about the deals, especially a contract with Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corp., a firm backed by Jiang Mianheng, the son of former Chinese President Jiang Zemin, that would pay him $2 million in stock over five years.

Marshall Davis Brown, lawyer for Sharon Bush, expressed bewilderment at why Grace would want Bush and at such a high price since he knew little about the semiconductor business.

"You have absolutely no educational background in semiconductors do you?" asked Brown.

"That's correct," Bush, 48, responded in the March 4 deposition, a transcript of which was read by Reuters after the Houston Chronicle first reported on the documents.

"And you have absolutely over the last 10, 15, 20 years not a lot of demonstrable business experience that would bring about a company investing $2 million in you?"

Bush is the third of five children in the family of former President George Bush and wife Barbara.

He was involved in a business controversy in the late 1980s when he was director of Denver, Colorado-based Silverado Savings & Loan, which collapsed at a cost to taxpayers of $1 billion.

He denied any wrongdoing, but was sanctioned by the federal government for his part in the failure.

The Bush divorce, completed in April after 23 years of marriage, was prompted in part by Bush's relationship with another woman. He admitted in the deposition that he previously had sex with several other women while on trips to Thailand and Hong Kong at least five years ago.

The women, he said, simply knocked on the door of his hotel room, entered and had sex with him. He said he did not know if they were prostitutes because they never asked for money and he did not pay them.

Other presidential siblings of the past have generated controversy, among them Billy Carter, who marketed "Billy Beer" to cash in on brother Jimmy's presidency, and more recently Roger Clinton, who was accused of trying to broker pardons at the end of President Bill Clinton's administration.

March 29, 2003

Here's an interesting article about the approach the Bush Administration takes towards everyone and everything.  Very much the "with us or against us" strategy, in all ways, foreign and domestic. This policy has been a rather notable disaster internationally, with stories of the bullying and bribery efforts failing in Turkey, Germany, the UN, the Arab World, and pretty much everywhere else. The Administration seems to have no concept whatsoever of working with anyone or making deals or being understanding, and other countries get pissed and aren't afraid to tell the assholes from the US State Department to "fuck off". Especially when Bush is viewed around the world as some sort of modern day Hitler.

It's less on public display in the US, but the article goes into a lot of detail about how dozens of Republicans and partisan groups have been shafted or insulted, and then retaliated against if they dared to not agree with absolutely everything Bush and pals wanted from them.  Democrats have given up any efforts to work with Bush, since they have learned that they'll be viciously attacked whether they cooperate or not, and Republicans are starting to chafe under the heavy hand as well.

I think the fact that the article is in the Washington Post, a conservative paper, really says a lot. If this article were in some liberal weekly paper, you could just write it off as criticism. But it's in the major conservative paper in the US.  If the right wing media is to the point that they're willing to discuss this so openly, you know Bush's tactics are really beginning to wear thin.

But as the article says, for now it's working.

The forms of pressure -- exclusions from White House guest lists, a loss of access to key Bush aides, calls to dissenters' superiors, veiled threats saying the White House has noted the transgression or even shouted accusations -- convey the same message. Grover Norquist, a conservative activist who enforces loyalty for the White House, puts it this way: "If I bitch, guess what? I get coal in my socks."

The technique has served the Bush White House well by maintaining the lockstep support among Republicans needed to pass Bush policies in a closely divided Congress. "It's fascinating the extent to which this administration has been able to hold troops in line for an extended period of time," said Thomas E. Mann of the Brookings Institution.

But it's beginning to crack, after just three years, and that's even with the war and 9/11 to drive up Bush's popularity and give a goal to unite for. 

I can't see Bush going 2 terms, but if he does I think 2004-2008 would be one of the ugliest times in American history.  He will have no allies left anywhere, there will be massive deficits and probably a recession, terrorism will continue to increase as the US military races around the world stirring up hornet's nests left and right while our policies do nothing to settle countries or stop new terrorists from being created. Bush's US popularity will slowly sink lower and lower, and he'll pull the Republican party down with him.  Once the Democrats have a majority in both houses, teamed with Republican senators and congressmen defecting from Bush's suffocating bully style, nothing will get done.  Congress will shoot down or trim all of Bush's plans, he'll veto all they try to do, and will go around them as much as possible with checks and balances twisting off-budget war funding, and gridlock will descend.

He may be somewhat successful keeping some popularity in the US, providing his military adventures go successfully (which is looking a lot less likely by the day). The future wars his policies are creating (Iran next? North Korea?  Pakistan?) will keep people from focusing so much on the domestic problems, and lots of Americans are too stupid to see through it, and will be in a perpetual "support our troops" mode where they see loyalty to the military actions as indivisible from the president who is publicly setting their course. So the hardcore right wingers will still love Bush, but everyone else will dislike or hate him, and I can't see any consensus building in such a polarized and nasty national debate.

March 3, 2003

There's a funny (in a "what an idiot" sort of way) story going on now in Washington.  The Bush Administration basically got everything it wants in the budget since after all, they are Republicans and both houses of congress are currently controlled by the Republicans. Once the record-deficit budget was approved (and amazingly there is nothing in the budget to pay for the Iraq Attack, so that'll swell Bush's record deficit even further) some people started to point out some problems.  For one thing the total lack of any money for ongoing work in Afghanistan.  You know, that whole "do something for the country so the terrorists don't just move back in the minute we're gone" concept?  They forgot it entirely.

Now there are people pointing out that there is far too little money in it for that whole Homeland Security (worst name ever) thing. When confronted with his systematic lack of spending to actually prevent terrorism in America, Bush was ready with a typically presidential response.  He blamed Congress.

The problem here, as you may remember from two paragraphs back, is that Congress is controlled by his party, and that the budget is basically just what Bush asked for. This article details the situation pretty succinctly.

Congressional Republicans say they now know Bush will undercut them if it serves his best political interest. In his speech to the governors, Bush said he was "disappointed" that Congress did not provide the $3.5 billion he requested a year ago for counterterrorism programs.

"If the president wanted the money, he should have asked for it. He never did," a senior House GOP leadership aide said Thursday. "I wonder if he remembers which party controls Congress."

The problem is that Bush's only strategy when something goes wrong is to issue bald-faced lies, or blame Clinton.  He can hardly blame Clinton for this one, and there are too many facts and figures to lie, so he was obviously grasping for straws.  He never seems to have considered owning up to his mistake and taking the responsibility, but as many have suggested, that's a pathological condition for the man.

You think that since he's never really accomplished anything on his own (everything has been done on daddy's coattails or by his rich friends, etc) he might really be unable to own up to an error and take it like a man?  It seems so easy to admit a mistake was made and correct it, and instead he always has an excuse or someone to blame, and that really reminds me of any spoiled rotten little kid, where saving face is more important to him than reality.

February 28, 2003

An interesting chart showing world wide support (or lack thereof) for a war/invasion of Iraq. The red countries oppose it (based on a majority of the population, I guess) while the blue one support it, by the same criteria. As you could probably guess w/o looking, it's damn near all red.  The only blue is the US, UK, Israel, and Kuwait.  They also have a blue spot for "Al Queda" but I don't know what that means, it's not a country and I can't see Al Queda supporting anything the US is doing.

So there are these various pro-war types in the US who are always raging on about how France and Germany and other countries are not supporting the war effort... what do they expect the leadership of those countries to do?  Their citizens are like 80 or 90% opposed to the US plan, and they are democracies.  You know, where the person who gets the most votes becomes the leader?  Just had to point that out.

Anyway, what do they expect the French president to do, when virtually everyone in his country opposes the war?  He is their elected representative.  Take that literally: "elected representative".  It is his duty and requirement to lead, but to also acquiesce to the will of the people he is representing. He is there to act in the will and best interests of his people.  Should he rubber stamp Bush's desires, and throw away his own political career, since a recall or defeat in the next election would be guaranteed by it?  It's like the current US administration are children, unable to imagine that anyone could believe anything they don't, or have different priorities than they do.

Related to this is a new poll showing that Americans are still 59% in favor of sending troops to Iraq. The poll also shows lower confidence in the economy and Bush, as he's dropped below 50% support for re-election for the first time since his 9/11 popularity windfall.

This is somewhat amazing, if you think about it.  The US is stupid enough to foot the bill, and sacrifice our own troops to rid Iraq of Saddam.  Countries like France and Italy and Spain and Canada and Germany and Japan and on and on; they don't have to do a damn thing.  No troops, no military bases being used, no airspace being allocated.  No personal involvement at all, no military lives risked, etc.  All of them know that Saddam is a psycho and would be colossally dangerous with nukes, if he could get his hands on them... and they still aren't in favor of it!

I think this has to reflect almost entirely on the unpopularity of the US around the world, especially the US with Dubya in charge of it, and suspicion of the US' motives for the Iraq Attack.  No one on earth would shed a tear if Saddam were ripped apart by wild dogs tomorrow morning just after breakfast, everyone knows he's trying to get his hands on weapons of mass destruction, and yet they still won't even passively support a military operation, with the excuse being that Saddam doesn't have such weapons.  Yet.

Yeah, it's all about who is pushing for the Iraq Attack... I can't see any other explanation.

Ex-Bush Administration insider is quoted at length in an article in the new Esquire magazine, and he says some interesting stuff.

"There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus," DiIulio was quoted as saying. "What you've got is everything, and I mean everything, being run by the political arm. It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis," he said.

DiIulio said in the article that domestic policy in particular had suffered in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

All of this seems perfectly obvious to any impartial observer, so there's no real argument from the White House, right? *laughs*

Someone got to DiIulio (what the hell kind of name is that anyway?) and he's back-peddling and retracting pre-publication.  His official statement is:

"John DiIulio agrees that his criticisms were groundless and baseless due to poorly chosen words and examples. He sincerely apologizes and is deeply remorseful," DiIulio's office said in a statement. The statement was distributed by the University of Pennsylvania, where DiIulio works as a professor.

But then he's quoted elsewhere with this explanation, that doesn't seem to be retracting anything?

DiIulio said in a statement Monday that he had held a long conversation with the article's author, Ron Suskind, which he had believed was off-the-record, and that he had then offered Suskind a long memo in October outlining his views.

"Several quotes and anecdotes concerning or attributed to me in the article are not from that response," he said.

So he spoke the truth, as he sees it, realized afterwards that it would look bad, or was leaned on by others to apologize, and did so.  He's not suing to stop publication or threatening to sue, or even saying he was misquoted.  He's just saying he didn't really mean it.  So at least he's not a liar, he's just spineless.

Please, if there is a God, let some reporter get Bush away from his handlers for thirty seconds, and ask the president about the "Mayberry Machiavellis" quote.  I would pay money to hear Bush' confusion at the term.  What if he tried to explain it, or talk at length about it?  I'm giggling just thinking about that.

My first thought any time anything complicated comes up in regards to Bush was a quote by a Noble prize winner for chemistry or physics or something highly-scientific like that.  He was from the US and won last year, and got to a White House reception some months later.  His comment on Bush was that the president just wanted to talk about the Texas vs. Oklahoma football game, and he (the Noble prize winner) just wasn't very interested.  Which speaks volumes, both about why Bush is popular with conservatives and rednecks, and why intellectuals view him as a tool, for good or evil, depending on their (the intellectual's) political orientation.

Graduating students were told that they would be expelled and arrested if they turned their backs. they were alerted that dozens of staff members and police officers would be watching the stands, as well as the Secret Service. A few students asked for the definition of expulsion....did it mean removal from the stadium or refusal of their diplomas, or both? One of the persons at the front said "Both."

So much for freedom of speech/thought/expression.  "All citizens will make merry, under penalty of death."  Yes, I'm quoting from Flash Gordon.

All site content copyright "Flux" (Eric Bruce), 2002-2007.