Month: May 2006

Bush Lied about Catching Fish

Jon Ponder

Gawd. Am I gullible or what? I believed Bush’s assertion that the best moment of his presidency was catching a 7.5 pound perch. When will I ever learn?

The only problem is that the world’s record for the largest freshwater perch caught is 4 pounds 3 ounces.

So Bush either doubled the world record, and didn’t report it, or he’s a liar.

UPDATE: Apparently, the White House has changed the transcript from “perch” to “bass.” Odd thing is, catching a 7.5 bass is no big thing, right? Developing…

Special Delivery — Bush’s Letter from Iran

Buck Banks

Return to sender: You have to admire the cojones of Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejab to pen a note and send it rather publicly to George W. Bush, a notorious non-reader. It’s a great public relations ploy, and when you read excerpts from the letter, you realize that Ahmadinejab’s questions are our questions, and Bush should be made to answer them.

Reuters India somehow got a copy of the letter and translated it from Farsi. Here are a few excerpts from Reuter’s excerpts:

Mr. George Bush,

For some time now, I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable contradictions that exist in the international arena … Many questions remain unanswered. These have prompted me to discuss some of the contradictions and questions, in the hopes that it might bring about an opportunity to redress them.

Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (Peace Be Upon Him), the great Messenger of God, feel obliged to respect human rights, present liberalism and a civilization model, announce one’s opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs, make “War on Terror” his slogan, and finally, work towards the establishment of an unified international community – a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern, but at the same time, have countries attacked. The lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed and on the slight chance of the presence of a few criminals in a village, city, or convoy for example, the entire village, city or convoy set ablaze?

Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is occupied, around 100,000 people killed, its water sources, agriculture and industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity of private homes of citizens broken, and the country pushed back perhaps 50 years.

….

Mr. President,

You might know that I am a teacher. My students ask me, how can these actions be reconciled with the values outlined at the beginning of this letter and duty to the traditions of Jesus Christ (Peace Be Upon Him), the Messenger of peace and forgiveness.

There are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that have not been tried, have no legal representation, their families cannot see them and are obviously in a strange land outside their own country. There is no international monitoring of their conditions and fate. No one knows whether they are prisoners, POWs, accused or criminals.

….

Young people, university students and ordinary people have many questions about the phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them. Throughout history, many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times. Students are saying that 60 years ago such a country did not exist. They show old documents and globes and say, try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel.

….

The people of the world are not happy with the status quo and pay little heed to the promises and comments made by a number of world leaders … The people are protesting the increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots and the rich and poor countries. The people are disgusted with increasing corruption. The people of many countries are angry about the attacks on their cultural foundations and the disintegration of families … the people of the world have no faith in international organizations, because their rights are not advocated by these organizations.

Liberalism and western-style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the Liberal democratic systems.

Mr. President, whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.

Quote du Jour

Buck Banks

Americans have always had an ambivalent attitude toward intelligence. When they feel threatened, they want a lot of it, and when they don’t, they regard the whole thing as somewhat immoral.

— Vernon A. Walters, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations

The President Pelosi Scenario

Jon Ponder

Bush and Cheney would fight the impeachment every step of the way, stubbornly refusing to give testimony and evidence, ignoring the entreaties of the party elders to do as Nixon did and fall on their swords, only to become the first president and vice president to be removed from office by impeachment.

That Nancy Pelosi could become the first female president of the United States next year is one of the longest long shots going in the current political environment. Nonetheless, it remains a technical possibility — and even a practical reality — if President Bush and Vice President Cheney were to decide to tough it out to the end of their impeachments in a Democratic controlled Congress in 2007.

We first wrote about this last June, back when the idea that impeaching President Bush and Vice President Cheney was all but unthinkable except to a few liberal extremist Bush haters.

Now about half of country would favor impeachment if there was reasonable cause to believe the president has broken the law. (And Bush has broken at least 750 laws, so take your pick.) And about a third favor impeaching the president based on what they know now, which is 7 percentage points higher than the number who wanted to impeach President Clinton in 1998.

I was reminded of my musings a year ago about possibility that Nancy Pelosi could become president when I saw this article Sunday at Ice Station Tango:

Impeachment is meaningless unless both Bush and Cheney go down. If Cheney stays in place the goal of the impeachment movement seems that much more daunting. Two impeachments?

Keeping Cheney is the equivalent of the Republican party going all in. If Bush and Cheney are impeached and removed, then the Presidency likely falls to Nancy Pelsoi. Convenient for a Rovian administration that has already successfully smeared her. Impeachment would then be a choice between someone Republicans call an “uber-liberal” and “staying the course. Could be a problematic frame for the impeachment movement.

If Democrats re-take the House this fall (and that is a big “if”), Pelosi will become the first female Speaker of the House. In that position, she would also be third in line to become president.

If Democrats also take control of the Senate (an even bigger “if”), the odds that the president and vice president will be impeached become all but a dead cinch.

Assuming all those conditions fall in place, we might expect that Bush and Cheney would follow the course set by the previously most corrupt presidential administration: Cheney would resign, as Nixon’s vice president, Spiro Agnew did, and the party elders would force a new vice president onto Bush without consulting him — someone like John McCain.

With McCain in place as VP, Bush would be forced to resign, clearing the way to the McCain ascendancy.

But President Bush is not a student of history, as we have learned, and everything we have seen about his temperament indicates he would hold out until the end — that he and Cheney would fight the impeachment every step of the way, stubbornly refusing to give testimony and evidence, ignoring the entreaties of the party elders to do as Nixon did and fall on their swords, only to become the first president and vice president to be removed from office by impeachment.

Which scenario sounds more like them: falling on their swords for the good of their party and nation — or toughing it out to the bitter end, even though they know they are guilty?

Poll: Bush at 31% in USA Today/Gallup

Jon Ponder

Another new low:

In the poll, 52 percent of conservatives and 68 percent of Republicans approved of Bush’s job performance.

President Bush’s approval rating has slumped to 31 percent in a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, the lowest of his presidency and a warning sign for Republicans in the November elections.

The survey of 1,013 adults, taken Friday through Sunday, shows Bush’s standing down by 3 percentage points in a single week. His disapproval rating also reached a record: 65 percent. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points…

Bush’s fall is being fueled by erosion among support from conservatives and Republicans. In the poll, 52 percent of conservatives and 68 percent of Republicans approved of the job he is doing. Both are record lows among those groups.

Moderates gave him an approval rating of 28 percent, liberals of 7 percent.

These results offer a glimpse at the difference between conservatives and Republicans: Conservatives are 16 percentage points smarter than members of the GOP.

Trading Violent Insurgents for Sectarian Violence In Iraq

Buck Banks

Balking at peace talks: What if Bushco were secretly preparing the next Big Thing in Iraq? You remember the first Big Thing — Weapons of Mass Destruction — and how well that turned out. Took about two years for that one to be replaced by the next Big Thing — Insurgents Are Terrorists. Well, it looks like the next Big Thing is going to be We Can’t Leave Iraq Until We’ve Ended Sectarian Violence Or We’ve Trained the Iraqi Army To Quash It.

That seems to be one conclusion that can be drawn from an Inter Press News Service report that came out on May 5, citing a London-based Arab newspaper that said secret peace talks between the U.S. and Iraqi insurgents ended in late April when the U.S. representative, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, failed to respond to a peace proposal from the insurgents.

According to IPS, “Asharq Al Awsat” newspaper, reported that “resistance organisations” had just broken off the secret talks:

The Arab-language newspaper reported that the leader of a Sunni insurgent group had revealed in an interview that representatives of more than 10 prominent Iraqi insurgent organisations had met with Khalilzad seven times starting on Jan. 16.

‘The formation of the government based on a sectarian formula will lead to the partition of Iraq and weakening it.’

However, the insurgent leader said that the United States had never responded to a memorandum of understanding presented to Khalilzad around March 1, despite a promise to do so before the formation of a new government. He said the insurgents had decided to end the talks and had delivered a memo to the U.S. Embassy on April 29 informing the United States of the decision.

IPS noted that the story was picked up by the Associated Press, datelined Dubai, but has escaped the notice of major international news media. “Asharq Al Awsat” quoted an anonymous source regarding the meetings and their purpose:

“We took part in a series of meetings with the US ambassador, beginning on 16 January first in Amman and later in Baghdad, outside the Green Zone. In total, seven meetings were held, three before a week of enforced calm [cease fire] on 6 February and four afterwards.”

The source admitted that the meetings were held through an intermediary “an Iraqi leader who we trust and who has good relations with the US administration.”

The insurgents’ goal in participating in the talks was to reach an understanding before the new government was installed. Their proposal sought to ensure that U.S. troops withdrew from Iraq and the country remained united, without foreign countries — or the puppet Iraqi government — dictating its affairs.

That Khalilzad would meet seven times with insurgent representatives, and inside the Green Zone and in the presence, allegedly, of the assistant to Army Commander Gen. George Casey, surely would have demonstrated to the insurgents that the U.S. was negotiating in good faith. But it wasn’t, according to the source quoted by the Arab paper:

“However, we have yet to receive an answer. We were very surprised by the new Iraqi government, which was based on sectarian considerations. The U.S. side was expected to reply to our memorandum prior to the formation of the new Iraqi government and reach an agreement with us. This is why we decided to suspend the talks and we informed the Americans of this in a memorandum on Sunday[April 28].”

“Our agreement with the U.S. ambassador was conditioned on the non-participation of any other individuals or political group. We wanted the talks to be held between us and the U.S. ambassador directly.”

The source cautioned that, “The formation of the government based on a sectarian formula will lead to the partition of Iraq and weakening it. We do not recognize this government and will not deal with it.” He also revealed that efforts were under way to unite the Iraqi resistance and create a council and unified leadership.

And there, folks, you have the birth of the next Big Thing. The insurgents were ready to deal, and all they asked was to deal directly with the U.S. and for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. But once they’d tipped their hand and Bushco found what it would take to end the insurgency (and the ongoing occupation of Iraq by the United States, which is the point of the whole exercise), the deal was off. The new puppets were installed in a way that guarantees sectarian sniping and violence, and ensures that the insurgents will continue to insurge.

Thus, the U.S. has no choice but to stay in Iraq to build up the Iraqi army to quell the insurgency, which is being fed by sectarian violence, and enforce cohesion where, according to the Sunni insurgent, we could have peace and stability — if only we’d leave. But the pull out of U.S. troops from Iraq is one Big Thing we are not likely to see anytime soon.

Quote du Jour

Buck Banks

Let no man think that we can deny civil liberty to others and retain it for ourselves …. When zealous agents of the Government arrest suspected “radicals” without warrant, hold them without prompt trial, deny them access to counsel and admission of bail, we have shorn the Bill of Rights of its sanctity as a shield to every American citizen.

— Robert M. Lafollete (1855-1925), American political and reform leader

Fox News Bleeding Ratings

Jon Ponder

Los Angeles Times:

“[Fox News will] always have their hard-core audience that wants to hear, ‘Everything’s great! [Bush is] doing a great job.’ ” But less-partisan viewers are drifting away.”
— Keith Olbermann

Nielsen Media Research reported that Fox News’ overall prime-time lineup dropped 17 percent last month compared with a year ago (MSNBC grew 16 percent during the same period, while CNN plummeted by 38 percent).

Late last week, a reliable television industry website, TVNewser.com, reported that in April, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly had his worst month in nearly five years among viewers age 25 to 54, the most coveted audience in TV news.

Although the network still churns out ratings light-years ahead of competitors’ and O’Reilly remains cable news’ No. 1 host, Fox News’ explosive growth appears to be, like the president’s 90 percent approval rating in the days following Sept. 11, a relic from the first Bush term.

That’s the elephant in the room, of course — the broadly assumed, and occasionally documented, affinity between Fox News and the current administration (Vice President Dick Cheney’s office prepared a hotel checklist, recently posted on TheSmokingGun.com, that ordered “all televisions tuned to Fox News” during Cheney visits). Could it be mere coincidence that O’Reilly, populist scourge of both Clintons and countless left-wing causes, is seeing his still-formidable nightly audience of 2.1 million or so start to shrink in tandem with the Bush/GOP’s rapidly fading grip on the electorate?

O’Reilly’s thoroughly delighted rivals think not.

“When the stock market was through the roof in the ’90s, people used to sit around and watch CNBC and slap high fives and say, ‘I made another hundred bucks today!’ ” said MSNBC host and O’Reilly foe Keith Olbermann, adding that CNBC’s ratings quickly went south when the tech bubble burst.

“I think the same psychology applies to Fox. They’ll always have their hard-core audience that wants to hear, ‘Everything’s great! [Bush is] doing a great job.’ ” But less-partisan viewers are drifting away, Olbermann argued.

Hillary Schmillary

Jon Ponder

On Friday I happened to catch a cable newsreader interviewing a reporter for a Rhode Island newspaper in Rep. Patrick Kennedy’s district discussing the congressman’s non-arrest for erratic driving near the Capitol. Back home, the reporter said, Kennedy was “sort of like Hillary Clinton — people either love him or hate him.”

Sen. Clinton would probably make as good a president as any other politician but I don’t find her to be inspirational or exceptional leader on any level.

This reflects the conventional wisdom about Sen. Clinton. Rightwingers hate her, and we liberals love her. There’s no middle ground.

Sorry, but that just doesn’t square with reality on the ground, at least the reality here in the Los Angeles liberal enclave. I don’t know any liberals who “love” Hillary Clinton. Some of us respect her and admire her, but I just don’t see the fanatical love for the senator that the conventional wisdom says is out there.

In particular, I haven’t seen even a hint of a groundswell of support for her presidency here. I suspect she does well in the early polling simply because as a former First Lady she has extremely high name recognition and because even Republicans are now wistful for the good old days of the Clinton Era.

In an editorial in yesterday’s Washington Post, DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas explains Clinton’s lack of connection on the left as part of her husband’s political legacy of moving the Democratic Party away from the left toward the center.

Moulitsas also says that Clinton’s failure to provide leadership on national issues has hurt her with DailyKos members, and points out that in a recent presidential straw poll on the site, she only got 2 percent of the vote.

In fact, I’m ambivalent about Clinton — and not because she’s not liberal enough. (She’s more liberal than Sen. Dianne Feinstein, whom I admire a lot more than Hillary.) Clinton would probably make as good a president as any other politician but I don’t find her to be inspirational or exceptional leader on any level.

Bush on the Presidency: I’d Rather Be Fishing

Jon Ponder

“Dear Leader has to be the worst president in history if he feels his best moment in office is this,” says Pam Spaulding about this item about President Bush from the German press:

A normal president would have at least one achievement to be proud of.

U.S. President George W. Bush told a German newspaper his best moment in more than five years in office was catching a big perch in his own lake.

“You know, I’ve experienced many great moments and it’s hard to name the best,” Bush told weekly Bild am Sonntag when asked about his high point since becoming president in January 2001.

“I would say the best moment of all was when I caught a 7.5 pound (3.402 kilos) perch in my lake,” he told the newspaper in an interview published on Sunday.

Maybe the stress is getting to President Bush because he has been popping off recently. Yesterday, I pointed out that if a normal president had casually mentioned that he believed World War III had started, alarms would have gone off in every world capitol. When President Bush makes this very assessment, it barely makes the news.

In today’s outburst, we hear the president chafing at a question about his accomplishments. And no wonder — a normal president would have at least one success to be proud of. His only achievement is the efficiency with which he has turned the nation’s resources over to the corporate oligarchy.

If George Bush believes the pinnacle of his life as president happened when he was fishing, Pam is right — he really is the Worst President Ever.

He should follow his bliss and resign. Without the chore of presidentin’, he’d have plenty of time for fishing — and, of course, working on his abs — after he is pardoned by President Cheney.