Bush Describes America to the Russians

President Bush made the following statement during his trip this week:

PRESIDENT BUSH: I live in a transparent country. I live in a country where decisions made by government are wide open and people are able to call people to -- me to account, which many out here do on a regular basis. Our laws and the reasons why we have laws on the books are perfectly explained to people. Every decision we have made is within the Constitution of the United States. We have a constitution that we uphold. And if there's a question as to whether or not a law meets that constitution, we have an independent court system through which that law is reviewed. So I'm perfectly comfortable in telling you our country is one that safeguards human rights and human dignity, and we resolve our disputes in a peaceful way.

What country is he talking about? America? People are able to call Bush to account???? Every decision is made within the Constitution??? We have an independent court system??? We safeguard human rights and human dignity? We resolve our disputes in a peaceful way????

Bush has rarely been held accountable for anything. Our Constitution is under attack. Our courts are being stacked with right wing conservatives. We torture people. We accept that millions of people do not have jobs or health care. We invade a sovereign nation and plan for more military escapades. Peaceful resolutions? No. Bush is talking absolute nonsense. I bet the Russians take him with a grain of salt. If he weren't so dangerous, we could all just laugh. But this is not a laughing matter. Bush is our weapon of mass destruction. He is the emperor who has no clothes. The people who surround him are telling him how magnificent his outfit is. They are enablers for our president.

The Germans Have a Backbone

Seems Bush cancelled the town hall style meeting in Germany this week because those planning the event insisted it actually be a town hall format, that is, not scripted in any way. Bush declined. Originally, this town hall meeting was to be the main highlight of Bush's trip, a chance to talk with "average" Germans. A few weeks ago, the Bush administration had declared that the chat would be the cornerstone of Bush's visit in Germany. The White House, however, had second thoughts. Trip planners got cold feet. They asked if the rules could be changed. The answer was simply NO!


The Germans, though, insisted that a free forum should be exactly that. Wolfgang Ischinger, Germany's Ambassador to the United States, explained to the New York Times last week: "We told them, don't get upset with us if they ask angry questions."

Instead the president will meet with a well-heeled group of so-called "young leaders." In order to guarantee an open exchange, the meeting has been closed to journalists.

What a coward!

[Click on the blog title to read the article from Spiegel Online from 02/23/2005.]

Simply Ridiculous: Perhaps Not

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,6119,2-10-1462_1666314,00.html

Bush, speaking in Brussels this week, said that the idea that the United States was preparing to attack Iran was "simply ridiculous." He went on to warn that he was keeping all his options open. What kind of a thing is that to say? All options are on the table. (Click on above link to go to article from 02/23/2005.)

Scott Ritter, a former intelligence officer and U. N. inspector in Iraq, has said that he believes the U.S. will most likely attack Iran this summer. Read a related article here:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0222-28.htm

Scott Ritter, Doomed to Fail, by the Baltimore Sun (02/22/2005):

Ritter writes:
"The intermingling of nonproliferation and regime change policies was doomed to fail. One requires skillful multilateral diplomacy based on the principles of uniform application of international law, the other bold application of a unilateral doctrine of aggressive liberation rhetoric backed by the real threat of military power. When blended, as the Bush administration did, unilateralism trumps multilateralism every time. North Korea's announced accession to the nuclear club represents the inevitable result."

Ritter's article states that all diplomatic efforts under Bush were regarded as disingenuous fronts intended to facilitate instability and regime change. Bush's approach leaves no choice for North Korea and Iran but to acquire an independent nuclear deterrent against possible U. S. aggression. Ritter believes there could be a solution to this dangerous situation, but it would require the Bush administration to unlink nonproliferation efforts from regime change. He sees this as unlikely since Bush and his ideologues have too much invested in the global crusade against tyranny. Ritter sees the possibility of nuclear apocalypse.

Germany, France, and Britain are involved in negotiations to get Iran to abandon any plans it has to develop a nuclear weapon. However, the U. S. has chosen not to join these talks. Without U. S. involvement, Europeans fear that the negotiations could be fruitless. Read further from a WaPo article by Tom Raum (02/23/2005):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46290-2005Feb23?language=printer

Why are we not participating in diplomatic efforts? Bush misled the American people and attacked Iraq rather than allow the U. N. inspections to be completed properly. He still maintains that Saddam Hussein was not complying with U. N. inspections. This was not true. But millions of Americans went along with Bush and supported the war. Now we know that there were no WMD and that WMD had been destroyed in Iraq by 1996, obviously long before Bush ever took office. However, the U. S. was committed to a policy of regime change in Iraq, which required economic sanctions-based containment and was dependent on finding Iraqi noncompliance with its disarmament obligation. Iraqi compliance was not an acceptable reality for George Bush and his neocons with their vision of American world dominance. So it seems another reality was constructed to suit the goals of the White House. Congress and the American people have complied over and over as calamity after calamity have occurred.

Is there a chance we can live through this? Can we stop killing and maiming people in the name of freedom, liberty, and democracy? Must we greet the world with our big guns and strutting cowboy president? Where Bush is, war is. Can he be stopped?

American Troops Prepare for Attack on Ramadi

[Click on blog title to read full article.]

My friends, wherever you are out there, we are gearing up for another full-scale attack on an Iraqi city- this time, Ramadi, a city 70 miles west of Baghdad and adjacent to Fallujah. This attack, codenamed River Blitz, comes less than three months after the massive and controversial assault on Fallujah. The suicide bombings and other attacks on Shia Muslims during Ashura have been attributed to Sunni resistance and in particular the group led by al-Zarqawi. So the U. S. plans to attack Ramadi in retaliation and in an effort to "pacify" the remaining "rebel" strongholds. We are supposed to believe that military action is the answer in Iraq. America will continue to destroy and kill in the name of democracy and, of course, freedom. We seem to have resorted to the lowest form of human encounter- WAR- rather than use our heads to come up with more imaginative solutions in Iraq. Bush announced "Mission Accomplished" months and months ago, and elections were held January 30th. Yet we are still on the warpath. The words of the song come to mind: When will we ever learn?

Supposedly, according to Maj-Gen Richard Natonski, commander of the 1st Marine Division, the U. S. has been asked by the Iraqi government to help out in Ramadi. And, if we are to believe reports from our government, diplomats and intelligence officers have been conducting secret talks with "insurgents" on ways to end the resistance. Meanwhile, the drumbeat of war can be heard in the distance. Is this what we call diplomacy? Can there be a meeting of minds when our soldiers are marching down every street in Ramadi, carrying huge weapons and giving the appearance of occupation? What are we thinking? What would we do if the same were happening in New York City or Boston? Would Americans trying to defend their cities be called "insurgents?"

Jon Stewart is certainly right. This is Mess-o-potamia.

When will we ever learn?

Obstructionist Republicans

The Bush administration and Congressional leaders, especially Frist, Hatch, and Allen, love to stand in judgment and express their holier-than-thou indignation about those Democrats who just want to obstruct every vote and stall the democratic process. It's that sour grapes syndrome they think. Democrats don't want anything that Republicans want. Democrats put their own agendas above the good of the country.

Well, well, well......

This past week the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee delayed voting on legislation (S. 131) on the so-called "Clear Skies" initiative until March 2 to avoid a tie vote that would have killed this attack on the Clean Air Act in committee.

Over the next two weeks, Committee Chair Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) and the White House will be working hard to persuade key swing members on the committee like Senators Max Baucus (D-MT), Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), and Tom Carper (D-DE) to vote for this dangerous legislation. Why is it dangerous?

The "Clear Skies" plan:
* Weakens clean air act requirements for most industries;
* Weakens requirements to minimize toxic pollution;
* Repeals local air quality protections;
* Weakens protections against haze and pollution for our National Parks;
* Revokes local and state authorities to control pollution;
* Delays deadlines for achieving clean air.

Why such a bill needs any debate is puzzling. You'd think everyone would be for improved living conditions and good health. And you'd think that everyone would want to leave the earth in good condition for future generations. Wouldn't they? But no wonder the Republicans want to further roll back environmental and public health protections. This is a Sweetheart Deal for polluters who, of course, contribute millions of dollars to the Republican Party. Our Congress listens to those who have money to keep them in office. It must be hard to resist being bought and paid for. Fundraising, after all, cannot be much fun. It's so easy to just take a stand for polluters and watch the money roll in. All the more vacation time for politicians who need not fund raise nearly as much. It's all about the money. Is it about what's best for human beings or the planet? Of course, not. What a ridiculous thing that would be!

So, of course, it is OK to delay this vote if it looks like the bill will be defeated. It's OK, that is, if you have an "R" after your name. Otherwise, you are aiding the terrorists!

Long live the filibuster! Disappoint Frist!

[Go to Save Our Environment for more information. www.saveourenvironment.org]

Study War No More

Read the words of Camilo Mejia who spent 8 months in Iraq and then refused to go back, filing instead for Conscientious Objector status. He was convicted of desertion and went to jail. He was released from prison this week.

Here are excerpts from his article, "Regaining My Humanity."

By putting my weapon down, I chose to reassert myself as a human being.

One of the reasons I did not refuse the war from the beginning was that I was afraid of losing my freedom. Today, as I sit behind bars, I realize that there are many types of freedom, and that inspite of my confinement, I remain free in many important ways. What good is freedom if we are afraid to follow our conscience? What good is freedom if we are not able to live with our own actions?

To read Mejia's article in full, click on the blog title above or click here:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/printer_021705Z.shtml

Nuclear Testing: Bush Wants to Do It

With all the rhetoric flying around about nuclear weapons, one would logically assume that the U.S. would perhaps be a leader in non-proliferation. However, though the Bush administration continues to spread fear about other countries possessing or developing nuclear weapons, he supports American efforts to resume actual underground warhead detonation and resurrect research on a potential "bunker buster" variation of an existing warhead to destroy buried enemy targets.

Though there have been some members of Congress and the Armed Services panel who have questioned the direction our country should take on nuclear weapons, our Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said on February 15th that the Nevada Test Site's ability to resume underground testing should be enhanced. The Bush administration's commitment to step up potential resumption of nuclear bomb testing in southern Nevada comes less than a week after the Utah Senate unanimously approved a House-passed resolution that urged the federal government not to "return to the mistakes and miscalculations of the past which have marred many Utahans." Thousands of Utah residents became ill between the 50s and 1992 when testing ceased. It is thought that their illnesses and deaths were caused by radioactive fallout.

Nonetheless, Bush continues to push for more nuclear weapons testing. Bodman stressed that we need to leave the door open to a resumption of testing in the event that future enemy threats require actual detonation. Millions of dollars will be budgeted for these activities.

I heard Bush's voice the other day saying, "I want to a have a few nuclear weapons at my disposal." We insist that no one but us can have nuclear weapons. We say nuclear weapons are dangerous and pose a threat to the U. S. Will not other countries attempt to acquire these weapons simply because they fear America? Are we not the cause of the buildup of weapons on the planet?

I don't think that America, especially George Bush, is to be trusted with nuclear weapons any more so than other countries. We should be actively seeking to ban all nuclear weapons from the face of the earth, not producing more.

We are going to regret our poor leadership. We are so wrong sometimes.

[Click on the blog title to read an article from The Salt Lake Tribune.]

Ugly Americans

Part of becoming a mature adult, I suppose, is developing self-assurance and confidence. It's not supposed to matter what others think of you. Trust your own instincts. Stick to your guns. Feel at home in your own skin. These are goals of the second half of life. However, suppose your instincts are wrong- dead wrong. Suppose you see yourself as a divinely appointed representative of God on earth. What if your deluded mind leads you to horrifying behavior? Then the part about trusting your own instincts becomes problematic. If you are driving the wrong way on a one-way street, and you assume that everyone else is wrong, that you are going the right way and everyone else is going the wrong way, then you are in trouble.

I have personal experience with this right-wing fundamentalist approach, though on a much smaller scale. A close member of my own family by marriage once brought it home to me. It was all over an innocent conversation about Halloween. I was told that Halloween was of the Devil and, therefore, inappropriate for children to celebrate. When I tried to put Halloween in its historical perspective, even pointing out that it has religious beginnings, I was told that people who think that way have been deceived. Who does the deceiving, you might ask. Why, the Devil himself, of course. This made perfect sense to my relative. No need to go any further. Case closed. This, of course, put me on the outside, looking in. I was now in that group of The Deceived. Like Bush said in his first SOTU, "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists!" When I ask myself, "How can people vote like this or think like this,?" my answer is fundamentalism. Fundamentalists do not like questions. They cannot tolerate dissent. And they know they are right. It is a matter of invincible ignorance, clothed in righteousness. George Bush thinks this way. The neocons needed a guy like him in power.

The reason I bring this up is this: Our president has taken this haughty position that he is right and everyone else in the world, if they disagree with him, is wrong. And he has surrounded himself with people who will, a la "The Emperor Has No Clothes," praise and encourage him. He has become entombed in a impenetrable cocoon of admiration, possibly bordering on worship. It appears that Bush could care less about the rest of the world. Yet our friends, or former friends, on the planet are quaking in their boots, worried sick about what will become of us all in the next four years. Or they are sickened and appalled at American ways. We are showing our worst side to the world at this time in history. Greed, insensitivity, callous disregard for humanity, lust for power- all these and more are becoming our trademarks.

If you, like me, have been reading the foreign press the last few years, you have a different perspective on America than those who rely on the American press which is under the nearly total control of either the Bush administration or corporate America, which is under the thumb of the Bush administration. What a cruel joke it is when people say that the media is too liberal. Nothing could be further from the truth! Here is an article which appeared in the Sunday Morning Herald (Australia) on January 21. It compares Bush with Napoleon, especially in regard to Bush's obscenely lavish inauguration festivities.

The article points out that the US has already begun its war with Iran through clandestine activities by our special forces on the ground there which are staking out nuclear targets for future bombing whenever Bush feels like it. This information was first divulged by Sy Hersch, the distinguished writer for The New Yorker magazine. Hersch also broke the story of My Lai in 1968 and the Abu Graib torture scandal in 2003. Our government denied those stories, too.

The Pentagon, namely Donald Rumsfeld, now rules the roost. It has been given almost total sway on everything now that the CIA has been marginalized. Two other men, Douglas Feith and Jerry Boykin, are undersecretaries, both of whom are scarier than Dracula.

Do you feel as humiliated as I do to be an American? I felt so uncomfortable even traveling in Canada and Italy last year. I didn't even want to wear my hat with a tiny American flag embroidered on it. I felt I had to let people know that not all Americans support George Bush and that we are not all monsters. It would have been easier to blend in and pretend to be from Italy or Australia, except I didn't have the accents.

This is the first time in my life that I feel a sense of shame about our country. Every so often, when a member of Congress stands up and speaks truth to power, I see a glimmer of hope breaking through. I really long for the day when America is known for her goodness once again.

[Click on the blog title to read the article from The Sydney Morning Herald.]

Bush Shows His Great Compassion in Omaha

On the official White House web site, a speech and subsequent Q & A by George Bush is proudly displayed on the front page. In Omaha on February 4th, the following exchange took place:

THE PRESIDENT: Mary is with us. Mary Mornin. How are you, Mary?
MS. MORNIN: I'm fine.
THE PRESIDENT: Good. Okay, Mary, tell us about yourself.
MS. MORNIN: Okay, I'm a divorced, single mother with three grown, adult children. I have one child, Robbie, who is mentally challenged, and I have two daughters.
THE PRESIDENT: Fantastic. First of all, you've got the hardest job in America, being a single mom.
MS. MORNIN: Thank you. (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: You and I are baby boomers.
MS. MORNIN: Yes, and I am concerned about -- that the system stays the same for me.
THE PRESIDENT: Right.
MS. MORNIN: But I do want to see change and reform for my children because I realize that we will be in trouble down the road.
THE PRESIDENT: It's an interesting point, and I hear this a lot -- will the system be the same for me? And the answer is, absolutely. One of the things we have to continue to clarify to people who have retired or near retirement -- you fall in the near retirement.
MS. MORNIN: Yes, unfortunately, yes. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't know. I'm not going to tell your age, but you're one year younger than me, and I'm just getting started. (Laughter.)
MS. MORNIN: Okay, okay.
THE PRESIDENT: I feel great, don't you?
MS. MORNIN: Yes, I do.
THE PRESIDENT: I remember when I turned 50, I used to think 50 was really old. Now I think it's young, and getting ready to turn 60 here in a couple of years, and I still feel young. I mean, we are living longer, and people are working longer, and the truth of the matter is, elderly baby boomers have got a lot to offer to our society, and we shouldn't think about giving up our responsibilities in society. (Applause.) Isn't that right?
MS. MORNIN: That's right.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but nevertheless, there's a certain comfort to know that the promises made will be kept by the government.
MS. MORNIN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And so thank you for asking that. You don't have to worry.
MS. MORNIN: That's good, because I work three jobs and I feel like I contribute.
THE PRESIDENT: You work three jobs?
MS. MORNIN: Three jobs, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that. (Applause.) Get any sleep? (Laughter.)
MS. MORNIN: Not much. Not much.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, hopefully, this will help you get you sleep to know that when we talk about Social Security, nothing changes.
MS. MORNIN: Okay, thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: That's great.

It is fantastic that Mary is working three jobs? What???? And wasn't that a cute little joke about not getting too much sleep. Very funny, Mr. President.

You can't make this stuff up.

Adopt a Sniper

War is not good for children and other living things.

Our soon-to-be-adults now attending college have already made major decisions in their lives about how they will live their lives. Their values systems are formed. We have found that much that we will become is already in place by the age of six. I am extremely concerned that we are doing a poor job at best in preparing our children for life on the planet. Don't we say to our children, "Use your inside voices. Use you words."? We want them to learn to negotiate with others, starting with the art of sharing at age two. This is an instinctive part of parenting. We all strive to teach our children to be aware of and sensitive to others. Yet when children reach eighteen, we watch them go off to war. As a society, we adopt violent methods of conflict resolution both at home and in the world. Child abuse and spousal abuse are a national shame. And by our support of war, we affirm our belief that might makes right. We sanction our role as bully of the world. We do not protest that our government is building more nuclear weapons. We shrug our shoulders when we hear that our country is building 14 new military bases in Iraq, and we believe our leaders when they say we have no intention of remaining there. Some cheer when our military kills people called enemies. Killing innocent men, women, and children becomes acceptable. We allow ourselves to live in fear. We justify war profiteering by deceiving ourselves that killing is the only way.

Our actions speak louder than words.

Friday, February 4, a report came out (Reuters) that Marquette University, a Jesuit university in Wisconsin, has blocked an attempt by Republican students to raise money for a group called "Adopt a Sniper." This group raises money for U.S. sharp-shooters in Iraq and Afghanistan. The students were selling bracelets bearing the motto "1 Shot 1 Kill No Remorse I Decide."

Adopt a Sniper (www.adoptasniper.org) supports snipers deployed by the U.S. armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The group says it "helps real snipers get the real gear they need to help keep us safe." Among products sold on their web site is a $15 coin with the imprinted phrase "Assistance From a Distance."

So if you can't be there in person killing Iraqis and Afghans, you can do the next best thing and help equip those who are there doing the killing.

What we don't realize perhaps is that killing others also affects us. We kill ourselves as well. We destroy the lives of our young people by sending them out to kill for us. Thousands of soldiers, called "the lucky ones," return shattered in mind, body , and spirit. And we continue to hail them as our heroes. Yet, ironically, we refuse to adequately care for them. We allow Congress to cut back on veteran costs. We stand by and watch as our poor families send their precious sons and daughters to fight and die for the rich.

Does not even the Bible teach us not to kill?

Lord, how long?

[Click on the blog title to read the Reuters article.]

Nineteen Little Words: This Must Be Wonderland

Dear readers:
Here is a post from DailyKos (below). The Social Security plan put forth by George Bush is nothing more than the destruction of the Social Security System. The devil is in the missing details which, of course, Bush would not reveal in his SOTU speech. If he told the whole truth, no one, not even the ditto heads in Congress, would be willing to support it.

Bush failed to point out that Social Security checks for those young workers who opt into this new proposal would be smaller and would be subject to the ups and downs of the stock market.

Bush also failed to point out that the job situation is in dire straights. He boasted that there have been 2.3 million jobs added in the last year alone. The number was correct, except that the overall job loss in his first 4 years is astounding. He's still 300,000 jobs short of the number of jobs we had when he took office in 2001. You see, George is counting on us forgeting these things. And many will forget, if they ever realized it in the first place. There are still people who will believe everything George says as the gospel truth, no questions asked. Those people with no jobs, of course, will not have to worry about what Bush does to Social Security. They won't be eligible anyway.

Now here is another fact to know. You heard Bush try to make people think that, in 2018, Social Security will have to pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes.- about $16 billion more. What he failed to add is that the Social Security Trust Fund in 2018 will have more than $3.6 trillion in assets, as well as $206 billion in interest income that year. So in 2018 a small fraction of Social Security's interest income will be used to pay benefits.

The truth is: Social Security is financially stronger than it has been throughout most of its history, according to Bush's Social Security Trustees. Bush's own people say Social Security is strong.

But we all have reason to fear Bush. He was a big success on Wednesday night. He could still succeed in destroying Social Security, the environment, the system of checks and balances, and many other American strengths. He could take down our democracy. There are many Americans who believe Bush is defending American democracy. He is not. He stands for empire-building throughout the world. He could care less about democracy or world peace.

Here is food for thought:

Bush's "19 words"

by kos Thu Feb 3rd, 2005

Bush said:

And best of all, the money in the account is yours, and the government can never take it away.

Lies.

As the WaPo explains:

If a worker sets aside $1,000 a year for 40 years, and earns 4 percent annually on investments, the account would grow to $99,800 in today's dollars, but the government would keep $78,700 -- or about 80 percent of the account. The remainder, $21,100, would be the worker's. With a 4.6 percent average gain over inflation, the government keeps more than 70 percent. With the CBO's 3.3 percent rate, the worker is left with nothing but the guaranteed benefit.The wingers loved to dismiss Bush's Yellowcake lie by counting words.
So we'll spare them the trouble -- this one was 19 words long.

Update: A reader who understand this stuff better than me writes:
I see from the early comments that people find this hard to believe. And it is astonishing -- but completely true. The policy wonks call this the "clawback" provision -- the government 'claws back' most of what you make to fund the system. In fact, they claw back the principal plus the assumed 3% annual gain EVEN FOR A WORKER WHO EARNED LESS THAN 3%, so you could earn 2% a year and lose $$$ on the deal! As for why they do it: because if they didn't, they would basically have to wipe out the guaranteed benefit entirely to make the numbers add up.
Warning: next administration lie will be: "No, no, you can keep all of your account -- it's the guaranteed benefit that is reduced." Technically true but a canard, because the benefit reduction is based entirely on how much you put in your account. And the 'clawback' terminology tells you exactly what this is about -- taking back the private account earnings. (But you can see the political genius of this design: it will appear to people that they got a lot of $$$ from their private account but almost nothing from the "old SS system," destroying public support for the system.)

And BTW, this is all IN ADDITION to the cuts in guaranteed benefits Bush is expected to make for all retirees, regardless of whether you choose to put $$ into an account.This is Alice in Wonderland-level stuff, no doubt.

[Readers, post a response by clicking on Comments below. Let me know you are out there!]