Saturday, April 10, 2004

Presidentin' is hard 

From the Washington Post:

This is Bush's 33rd visit to his ranch since becoming president. He has spent all or part of 233 days on his Texas ranch since taking office, according to a tally by CBS News. Adding his 78 visits to Camp David and his five visits to Kennebunkport, Maine, Bush has spent all or part of 500 days in office at one of his three retreats, or more than 40 percent of his presidency.

This man isn't worth the toilet paper he wipes his ass with. As Teddy Roosevelt said, according to Kurt Vonnegut JR: I could carve a better man out of a banana.


S C R E W E D 

Not much on it yet, but here comes the PDB! The word is that this document proves incriminating and shoots Rice's Thursday testimony full of holes.

Associated Press Report: White House Releases Aug. 6, 2001, Briefing

And remember: the briefing's title is "Bin Laden Determined To Attack Within the United States."

More to come, guaranteed. First the entire text of the document, then the news stories, then the commentary.

Then the satire. "White House Declassifies Bush's Briefs." It's inevitable.


Friday, April 09, 2004

"Bin Laden Determined To Attack Within the United States." 

That's the title of the PDB (Presidential Daily Briefing) that Bush received on 6 August 2001, a bit more than a month before the September 11 attacks.

According to David Corn, writing for The Nation, when CBS broke the story of the PDB, on 20 May 2002, Condoleeza Rice held a briefing in which she said this:

"This was generalized information that put together the fact that there were terrorist groups who were unhappy [with] things that were going on in the Middle East as well as al Qaeda operatives, which we'd been watching for a long time, that there was more chatter than usual, and that we knew that they were people who might try a hijacking. But, you know, again, that terrorism and hijacking might be associated is not rocket science."

The administration has repeadedly denied that the briefing, or any other intelligence they had, contained specific intelligence that Al Qaeda might attack within the borders of the United States.

But there it is, right in the title of the PDB: "Bin Laden Determined To Attack Within the United States."

In yesterday's testimony before the 9/11 commission, Rice claimed that the PDB could not be considered a warning because it contained no specific information about when and where such an attack might take place.

Corn writes:

Whether that is true or not, the PDB appears to be much broader--and more frightening--than Rice had said previously (when she was talking to reporters and not under oath). She certainly made sure back in May 2002 not to mention the alarming title--which had been classified until the hearing. In fact, the classification of the PDB's title demonstrates how an administration can abuse the classification system. In theory, the classification system is supposed to keep secret any Information that if released would harm the national security of the United States. But how could releasing the title--"Bin Laden Determined To Attack Within the United States"--cause any injury after bin Laden had already succeeded in attacking within the United States? The reason for keeping the cloak over the title for so long is clear: the White House did not want the public to see that Bush had received a document with such information--warning or not--five weeks before 9/11. So Rice disingenuously portrayed the PDB when its existence first became known in May 2002.

Now that the PDB is (partially) out of the bag, Rice and the Bush administration have to deal with the obvious follow-up question: even though most of the intelligence "chatter" in the summer of 2001 focused on a possible attack overseas, what did Bush and Rice do concerning the prospect that bin Laden might strike the United States directly?

At this point of course one can only wish that Bush had felt "that sense of urgency" to do something about the threat Osama Bin Laden posed to the U.S. There's no doubt left that the administration knew such a threat existed and did little or nothing to stop it.

Thursday, April 08, 2004

Just a number 

There have been 32 Americans killed in Iraq since Sunday. That's a lot. But it's only a number to some people. A number that shouldn't be kept track of, in public, for "political purposes". A lot of conservatives bristle at liberals counting and posting the number of dead. They must think it's only up to them to do such a sacred duty, even if they can't be bothered to publicly declare the fact.

There have been over 600 Americans killed in Iraq in the last year-plus. 32 is just five percent of the total.

It's just a number.

So why are the body bags and the news headlines and even Congressional Republicans starting to get outraged NOW?

President Bush is facing increasing dissent among leading conservative politicians and pundits in the face of mounting U.S. casualties in Iraq.

The war has become the long slog that some Republicans feared. Since Sunday, 32 Americans have been killed in fighting across Iraq. American body bags are on the front page of major U.S. newspapers.

Why weren't they outraged for the PREVIOUS SIX HUNDRED DEATHS?

That damn liberal media...they smell blood in the water--Bush's blood. And they're going for it.

That must be it.


Go read this. 

Just go. Go. Read it.

You DO want to know what's REALLY going on in Iraq, don't you?

Then GO.


Wednesday, April 07, 2004


That's where you are when the President of Ford is more to the left and more Green than the fucking President of the United States. Via Hesiod:

"Ford Motor Co. chairman and chief executive Bill Ford Jr. reiterated his support Wednesday for government incentives and a larger tax on fuel to spur consumer interest in gas-electric hybrid vehicles, in which his company is investing heavily.

Ford, speaking to automotive journalists at the New York International Auto Show, said he thought incentives like tax breaks or government rebates of, say, $3,000 would be most effective. He also mentioned his past support of an additional 50-cent tax on gas, which he said would make fuel economy "a purchase motivation for the customer."

But Ford acknowledged such a tax "doesn't have legs" in the political arena.

"I'd like to get either federal or state and local help ... and I think it's the responsible thing to do," he said. "If the federal government really wants to encourage this kind of behavior -- and they should -- then that's a way they can clearly help."

I think we just found Kerry's Vice-President. NO, DAN, I'M JUST KIDDING...!


Tuesday, April 06, 2004

Potemkin baseball crowd 

We had a little visitor to my town yesterday.

BACK AT BUSCH: A somewhat hostile crowd complained mightily about the problems the presidential motorcade caused with regular fans trying to get into the park. A Cards employee tipped moi that the team was so concerned about Bush being booed that they piped in fake applause when he strode out to the mound. Lamping flatly denied it.


Not since the days of Caligula and Tiberius 

This is simply unbelievable. I have to say, if it didn't come from a legitimate news source, my BS detectors would be setting off alarms all over the place. On the other hand, I've heard that Bush goes completely ballistic whenever a cell phone goes off in his presence. Control freak, eh? That's putting it MILDLY.

$2,000 meal, but no utensils

Silverware banned to prevent clinking while president was speaking


It was a mouthwatering menu. Not that you'd expect less for $2,000 a plate.

Seered beef tenderloins with golden tomatoes on an herb-encrusted baguette. Grilled garlic chicken with smoked gouda on a honey wheat wrap. Fruits and gourmet olives and crudite. A gourmet luncheon with only one thing missing: something to eat it with.

The explanation was at the bottom of the menus distributed at President Bush's $1.5 million Charlotte fund-raiser Monday.

"At the request of the White House, silverware will not accompany the table settings," it said in discreetly fine print.

No silver. No plastic.

The lack of utensils might have been why many plates went virtually untouched.

The reason: So the tinkle of silver wouldn't disrupt the president's speech.

"They're just doing it so people can eat their meals prior to or after the president's speech," said spokesman Reed Dickens, who said it's standard procedure for fund-raisers. "It's just a logistical issue. Nothing more."

Apparently the White House doesn't worry about all diners.

Behind a rope on the side of the ballroom next to many paying guests, reporters scarfed down their own buffet. It came with silverware.


Why Bush failed to plan for the aftermath of the war 

Iraq is in the midst of an uprising in the last several days, in case you haven't noticed. I don't think this is a little blip on the radar. Sadr has crossed the Rubicon, and so has the U.S.; they want him arrested. If that happens, fagetaboutit, baby.

If Bush pulls out in July, he cannot win either way. If he leaves the military in place, they will suffer casualties that might even make the most ardent war-supporter blanche.

If Bush pulls the military OUT of Iraq, we all know what will happen then. Civil war, chaos and the emergence of ANOTHER DICTATOR.

How is Bush going to deal with this? What's the solution? I'm not sure--but I know that Bush has no clue.

I'm seriously, seriously beginning to think that Bush & CO all thought that when he invaded Iraq, it would lead to Armageddon and bring Jesus back. THAT'S why they didn't bother to plan for the aftermath.

You think I'm kidding, that I'm making fun of Bush? No way. There are people I've talked to personally whose entire CHURCHES believe that shit. Bush is such a man of God, he could summon Jesus back to Earth with his faith-based attack on the country that is supposed to be the location of the Final Battle...

They really do think this way. Scary.


The next step in Iraq 

From the Medium Lobster, via the Slacktivist, come the ultimate Zen words of wisdom. This is the best explanation for what drives the likes of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz that I can find.

If the United States is to have any chance of success in Iraq, it must retaliate, swiftly and surely, with full-scale invasion of North Korea.

Sometimes the most direct solution -- throwing water on a fire, pulling a weed out by the roots, eliminating a terrorist organization by hunting down that terrorist organization -- is in fact the wrong solution. The White House demonstrated a profound understanding of this principle in the build-up to the Iraq War. Rather than continue pursuit of al-Qaida after the Afghanistan invasion, the Bush administration realized the best way to defeat al-Qaida was to hit them where they weren't -- in Iraq. ...

We cannot afford to fall back on the failed policies of fighting Iraqi terror with police and intelligence operations. We must strike somewhere else, and allow the healing to begin. The obvious choice is North Korea, an aggressive and warlike nation ruled by a mad and brutal dictator known for supporting terror and building weapons of mass destruction. If left to its own devices, North Korea could have a nuclear bomb in the hands of Fallujah terrorists within the year. But if America takes North Korea and overthrows Kim Jong Il, we can be assured of dealing an incredible blow in the war on Iraqi terror. No doubt the North Koreans would welcome us as liberators, and Iraqi terror would decrease substantially.

[Slacktivist writes:] Some will oppose the Lobster's proposed invasion of North Korea because they'd rather just sit around and do nothing. Like Neville Chamberlain. They are objectively pro-Kim Jong Il.


If Ralph Nader could only get 741 people to show up... 

...to an Oregon rally, trying to get 1000 signatures to qualify for the ballot there...

...how come he's polling as high as SIX PERCENT in some states??????

I'm getting worried and upset about Ralph, only because everything I hear about him is so...conflicting. Does he still have a base? Is that base just lying pollsters' faces? Will that base pull the lever for Kerry when they enter the booth, out of sight?

I'm getting worried and upset about Ralph. Maybe that's the idea. If he has no voter base in reality, he garners and creates no controversy and no headlines. I just don't get it, and I'm not going to pretend I do.

And the Diebold Factor makes Ralph Nader look like a piker.



I published a new satire piece today:


Usually when I do something like this, I can count on links for Buzzflash and the editor of Michael Moore's "Must Read" page (which is excellent, by the way). For some reason, though, neither has come through this time (despite my pleasantly worded, personal notes to them). Now, this could be because the piece sucks (if so, tell me); but I happen to think it's one of my best efforts. And I LOVE a couple of the pictures.

Anway, I'm hoping the BushWhackedUSA blog readers will help spread the word about this one by E-mailing friends with a link and/or posting links to the article in their own and other blogs. Of course, I'll start spreading the word about this one, as well, to the best of my ability.

I must confess: there's something deeply satisfying in making these things, despite the fact that they take HOURS, which I don't really have.

Now, back to work on that damned novel...

Monday, April 05, 2004

Bush's poll ratings: Down, down, down 

Just like the dream Pee-Wee had with Francis Buxton dressed up as Satan in Pee-Wee Herman's Big Adventure...

Via TPM:

January 56% ... February 48% ... March 47% ... April 43%.

President Bush's approval ratings from the Pew Poll.


Yet another Bush flip-flop 

Via Kos. All we need to oust Bush from the White House is jiu-jitsu. Using his own words against him is better than any ad a Madison Avenue whiz kid could come up with. F'rinstance:

On Oct. 17, 2000, in a presidential debate against Democratic candidate Al Gore, then-[no! STILL-!] Gov. George W. Bush of Texas promised a patients' bill of rights like the one in his state, including a right to sue managed-care companies for wrongfully refusing to cover needed treatment.

"If I'm the president . . . people will be able to take their HMO insurance company to court," Bush said. "That's what I've done in Texas and that's the kind of leadership style I'll bring to Washington."

Today, legislation for a federal patients' bill of rights is moribund in Congress. And the Bush administration's Justice Department is asking the Supreme Court to block lawsuits under the very Texas law Bush touted in 2000.

A little history-- Bush took credit for that Texas law in his 2000 debate with Gore. This, despite the fact that Bush vetoed it the first time it came across his desk. A couple of years later, faced with a veto-proof majority, he let the bill become a law without his signature.

And now, after explicitly promising the same patient rights at the federal level, his Justice Department is trying to get the Supreme Court to kill the Texas law.

A unique sort of liar, Bush is. Filth. Utter filth. This man will undoubtedly suffer the Ninth Level of Hell.


Things are going just SWIMMINGLY 

Iraqi security forces/police accompanying U.S. soldiers came under heavy fire. The motherfucking Iraqi security forces TURNED THEIR GUNS ON THE U.S. SOLDIERS AND FIRED along with the insurgents.

WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON OVER THERE? I'm certain, as certain as I am alive, that there are many U.S. soldiers in Iraq thinking the EXACT SAME QUESTION.

And why is this story unreported in any U.S. news agencies? Why do we once again have to go to the British or or Canadian or, in this case, Australian newspapers for the unvarnished truth?

US helicopters fire on Sadr supporters in Baghdad

April 5, 2004 - 11:44PM

US Apache helicopters sprayed fire on the private army of radical Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr during fierce battles today in the western Baghdad district of Al-Showla, witnesses and an AFP correspondent said.

"Two Apaches opened fire on armed members of the Mehdi Army," said Showla resident Abbas Amid.

The fighting erupted when five trucks of US soldiers and the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps (ICDC) tried to enter the district and were attacked by Sadr supporters, Amid said.

Coming under fire, the ICDC, a paramilitary force trained by the Americans, turned on the US soldiers and started to shoot at them, according to Amid.

The soldiers fled their vehicles and headed for cover and then began to battle both the Mehdi Army and the ICDC members, he said. Their vehicles were set ablaze.

Heavy gunfire rattled the district and columns of black smoke billowed into the sky.


It's where you land last that counts 

When you flip-flop. Lots of links at the original article. From slate's William Saletan:

What do all these flip-floppers have in common? Not subject matter: DiIulio worked on social policy, O'Neill on economics, Clarke on national security. Not party: Kerry, Edwards, and Gephardt are Democrats; O'Neill is a Republican; Clarke worked for President Reagan and both Bushes as well as for President Clinton. The only thing they have in common is that they all cooperated with this administration before deciding they'd been conned. Flip-flopping, it turns out, is the final stage of trusting George W. Bush.

That's how Kerry, Edwards, and Gephardt got whiplash. They supported tax cuts in 2001 when Bush challenged them to give back some of the surplus. Then the surplus vanished, Bush demanded more tax cuts, and they decided they'd been conned. They supported Bush's "No Child Left Behind" education bill in 2001. Then the administration withheld money for it, and they decided they'd been conned. They supported the Patriot Act after 9/11 when Bush urged them to trust law enforcement. Then the Justice Department took liberties with its new powers, and they decided they'd been conned. They voted for a resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq after the administration promised to use the resolution as leverage toward U.N. action, reserving unilateral war as a last resort. Then Bush ditched the United Nations and went to war, and they decided they'd been conned.

When the administration offered them a supposedly $400 billion Medicare bill stuffed with goodies for health insurers and drug companies, they said no. But lots of fiscally conservative House Republicans said yes. Now, thanks to yet another flip-flopping Bush administration whistleblower, those Republicans have discovered that the real bill, concealed by the White House, will be $150 billion higher than advertised. You don't have to be a Democrat to feel conned.

Once you vote with Bush, serve in his cabinet, or spin for him in a classified briefing, you're trapped. If you change your mind, he'll dredge up your friendly vote or testimony and use it to discredit you. That's what he's doing now to all the politicians at home and abroad who fell for his exaggerations about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. "In Iraq, my administration looked at the intelligence information, and we saw a threat," he tells audiences. "Members of Congress looked at the intelligence information, and they saw a threat. The United Nations Security Council looked at the intelligence information, and it saw a threat." It's too late to admit that Bush is wrong and that you were fooled. You're on record agreeing with him. He doesn't even look dishonest when he rebukes you, because, unlike the people who run his administration's scams, he can't tell the difference between what he promised and what he delivered.

Maybe the White House will get away with this chicanery. Maybe people will believe its spin that flip-flopping is Kerry's idiosyncrasy, not the Bush administration's design. Or maybe some of the folks who voted for Bush last time around will decide they were conned and throw him out. Flip-floppers, every one of them.


Sunday, April 04, 2004

Kurt Vonnegut and Eric Bosse: Great minds think alike 

Look at the photo graphic at the top of this page. Then read THIS:

They Get Letters

To the Editor:

A woman I had dinner with the other night said to me that the atmosphere in this country since the Persian Gulf war is like that at a party in a beautiful home, with everybody being polite and bubbly. And there is this stink coming from somewhere, getting worse all the time, and nobody wants to be the first to mention it.


March 27, 1991, to the NYT.


The last straw 

Lying right to our faces--AGAIN. How can they call the 9-11 Commission "independent"? It was CREATED by the President, it's INVESTIGATING the President, but their findings will be SUBJECT TO A FINAL REVIEW by the President.

This is a whitewash.

White House to review 9/11 report before release

By Randall Mikkelsen

WASHINGTON, April 4 (Reuters) - The White House will vet "line by line" the report of an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks before it is publicly released, the commission chairman said on Sunday.

Chairman Thomas Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he was surprised to learn of the White House review, which he said was required under law to ensure any material that could compromise intelligence was not included.

"They go through it line by line," Kean said, referring to the White House review process involving intelligence issues. White House chief of Staff Andrew Card will oversee the vetting.

Required by WHAT law?


Diebold strikes again 

You guys simply MUST go to bartcop.com TODAY (Sunday, April 4) and run through the issue. Check out the Diebold ad; there is a running set of them through past issues of bartcop.

But today's was a GEM.

[Picture of JFK at the Presidential lecturn, pointing and smiling]

"Don't buy a single vote more than necessary. I'll be damned if I'm going to pay for a landslide."

--Joseph P. Kennedy, quoted by his son John F. Kennedy

Choose from our economy Cliffhanger, standard Mandate, or deluxe Juggernaut packages.

Diebold. Results for every budget.

ha ha

I really, really shouldn't be laughing...but it beats armed revolution.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com