Month: April 2008

Poll: Bush’s Approval Remains Stupendously High at 28% in New AP-Ipsos Survey

Jon Ponder

Although 28 percent is the lowest rating George Bush has received in the AP-Ipsos poll, it is still remarkably high for a president whose signal accomplishments in seven years and three months in office have been turning the entire world against the United States, needlessly causing the deaths of over 4,000 U.S. troops and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens, emptying the U.S. Treasury and staving off impeachment.

With Bush’s record of zero achievements, it is a miracle that over 25 percent of Americans — 100 percent of whom are Republicans — can yet muster approval of good ol’ George. But, as is typical of the liberal media, the AP writer sees the glass half-empty for Worst President Ever:

Public approval of President Bush has reached a new low in the Associated Press-Ipsos poll, driven by dissatisfaction with his handling of the economy.

A survey released Thursday showed just 28 percent approve of the overall job he is doing. His previous record low in the poll was 30 percent last month.

In another record low, only 27 percent are happy with his job on the economy, which threatens to enter a recession.

Other presidents have had low approval ratings that were nonetheless amazingly high, of course. Richard Nixon was still garnering a 25 percent approval rating at the time of his resignation in August 1974, for example.

Gov. Siegelman: ‘Karl Rove’s Fingerprints Were All Over’ My Conviction on Trumped up Political Charges

Jon Ponder

“Saying that Karl Rove is not involved in my prosecution is like saying George Bush is not involved in the war in Iraq,” former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman told Dan Abrams on the MSNBC show, “The Verdict,” on Monday. It was Siegelman’s first live interview after being released on bail from prison, where he was serving a seven-year term on federal corruption charges.

“I think the House and Senate Judiciary Committee should subpoena Karl Rove and bring him before those committees.”
– SiegelmanSiegelman, a Democrat, was convicted by a jury on charges that he traded a seat on a state board for a donation to the state education lottery. Siegelman insists that “not a penny of that money” went into his own pocket (and we can assume that if prosecutors had found otherwise, we’d know it by now). So, on the face of it, the quid pro quo here is far less corrupt than when a newly elected president gives a major donor an ambassadorship to, say, Luxembourg — a trade off that happens approximately every four years in this country.

Seigelman insists Karl Rove masterminded the prosecution by U.S. Attorneys from the political office in the White House in an effort to suppress the Democratic Party in Alabama:

ABRAMS: How are you so convinced that Karl Rove and Alabama Republicans were behind your prosecution?

SIEGELMAN: Well, number one, Karl Rove‘s fingerprints were all over this case. And you know, if you ask me, do we have the knife with his fingerprints on it, no, but we‘ve got the glove and the glove fits. And here‘s how.

In 1994, when Karl Rove was in Alabama trying to steal his first election, I voluntarily testified against his client. In 1999, his client starts an investigation of me and this goes on until 2001 when Bill Canary, who is a business associate and political partner of Karl Rove, his wife is appointed as a U.S. attorney and she starts a federal investigation.

ABRAMS: … You‘re alleging that Rove talks to his friend, who‘s that Bill Canary who‘s married to the U.S. attorney and it‘s a serious allegation you‘re making that he then effectively gets his wife to go after you?

SIEGELMAN: Well, I‘m telling you, the facts of this are that Rove‘s fingerprints are all over here – all over this case because his client investigated me, one of his friends, social friends started an investigation and prosecution of me that was dismissed after just a couple of days in court.

They went after me again, this time with the wife of Bill Canary—the wife of Karl Rove‘s business client and political associate. And, you know, it continues from there. When those investigations were faltering, the people who were holding back the investigation, a career Department of Justice employee was replaced, was replaced with someone who was the wife of the campaign manager of one of Karl Rove‘s clients … And then when that investigation was slowing down, they were called to Washington and they were told to go at Siegelman again.

Siegelman says Rove has strong connections into Alabama Republican politics:

[…]

Cheney, Rice, Powell and Other Top Bush Officials Said to Have ‘Choreographed’ Torture Techniques

Jon Ponder

ABC News is reporting that a gang of top Bush officials known as the “Principals” — but for whom a better moniker might be the “Sadists” — met, starting in 2002, to prescribe in detail which torture techniques, and what combinations, American interorogators could use on terror suspects.
The high-level discussions about these “enhanced interrogation techniques” were so detailed [that] some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed — down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.
At the time, the Principals included Dick Cheney, National Security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet and John Ashcroft, a devout Christian who then served as U.S. attorney general.

What this group of high officials did in these meetings appears to have been not only horrifically immoral and unethical, but illegal and un-Constitutional:

In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News.

The so-called Principals who participated in the meetings also approved the use of “combined” interrogation techniques — using different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time — on terrorist suspects who proved difficult to break, sources said.

Highly placed sources said a handful of top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects — whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.

The high-level discussions about these “enhanced interrogation techniques” were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed — down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.

All of these officials — these suspects — were unavailable or refused to comment when contacted by ABC News.

Torture is illegal in the United States, and it can’t be made legal by a cabal around George Bush, or any president, just because they say so. Or at least that’s the way it used to be, back in the quaint old times before 2000, when Americans — especially Republicans — demanded that our elected leaders abide by the U.S. Constitution.

Poll: Obama, McCain Tied

Trish

Rasmussen’s daily presidential poll took an interesting turn today.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows Barack Obama with a statistically insignificant one-point advantage over John McCain, 46% to 45%. While that lead is statistically insignificant, it is the first time Obama has had any advantage over McCain in a month…

While that lead is statistically insignificant, it is the first time Obama has had any advantage over McCain in a month

In a match-up with Hillary Clinton, McCain attracts 47% of the vote while Clinton earns 44%. McCain has a very slight edge over Clinton among unaffiliated voters but trails Obama 49% to 39% among that key group. McCain leads both Democrats by double digits among White voters but trails by large margins among African-American voters. Rasmussen Markets data shows that Democrats are given a 59.2 % chance of winning the White House this year.

McCain is viewed favorably by 53% and unfavorably by 44%. Obama’s reviews are 53% favorable and 45% unfavorable. For Clinton, those numbers are 45% favorable, 52% unfavorable.

Today’s numbers might be influenced by yesterday’s Petraeus/Crocker hearings, at which Sen. John McCain again had a hard time getting his arms around the differences between those darn Sunnis and Shiites. The hearings also reminded voters that six months ago, Sen. Hillary Clinton dissed Petraeus by saying she’d have to suspend disbelief to believe him, which I think, is another way of saying she doesn’t believe him which might, when you think about, be a way to say he’s lying.

McCain’s Sunni-Shia Confusion: Senility or Bushevik Conflation?

Jon Ponder

During his questioning of Gen. David Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings yesterday, John McCain again confused — or deliberately conflated — the relationship between the Iranian regime, which is controlled exclusively by Shiites, and al Qaeda, a Sunni terror cult.

Here’s what McCain said:

SEN. MCCAIN: There are numerous threats to security in Iraq and the future of Iraq. Do you still view al Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat?

GEN. PETRAEUS: It is still a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was, say, 15 months ago.

SEN. MCCAIN: Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shi’ites, all overall, or Sunnis or anybody else.

McCain’s confusion/conflation yesterday was the fifth time he’s made the mistake, according to an email sent out by the Democratic National Committee yesterday. If so, the first error may have been a slip of the tongue. The second time could have been misspeaking. The third may have been a brain fart. But the fourth time he confused Shias and Sunnis was simply egregious, and this fifth time may well be presenting for senile dementia.

On the other hand, Republicans have been talking up a purported threat from Iran whenever possible lately, and the Petraeus/Crocker hearings provided an excellent venue for fear-baiting. So maybe McCain was not confused at all. Maybe he has deliberately conflating Shiite Iran with its bitter Sunni enemies in order keep the GOP base too terrified to think rationally about, say, how Republican economic policies have devastated their family finances.

While the difference between the Islamic sects is obscure to most Americans, as it was to George Bush before he invaded Iraq, Shiites and Sunnis have been bitterly at odds for the better part of 12 centuries, and voters must demand that the next president have a comprehensive understanding of the blood lust of these internecine factions, which is at the core of the violence faced by U.S. occupation forces in the region.

No Impeachment Or War Crimes Charges For Bush – Only ‘Punishment’ Will Be Treatment in Oliver Stone Biopic

Jon Ponder

What fate will befall George W. Bush as retribution for leading the United States into the worst debacle in our military history, illegally authorizing torture, deliberately betraying a secret CIA operation tracking the black market for terror weapons or the drowning of New Orleans on his watch?

It’s safe to say it won’t be impeachment, at least not while he remains in office, and it is surely wishful thinking to suggest he might be tried for war crimes later on.

No, as it was with Richard Nixon, whose malfeasance pales in comparison with Bush’s, the only “punishment” awaiting Bush is to grow old in disgrace — and to be the subject of a fictionalized biographical film by Oliver Stone.

Hollywood is buzzing about the film, which is titled “W.” (pronounced “Dubya”), starting with the fact that Josh Brolin, son of James Brolin, the spouse of uber-liberal Barbra Streisand, has been signed to play the title character. Now the film-biz trade rag Hollywood Reporter has obtained the first couple of pages of the script for Stone’s movie, which in the real world might be be called a “scoop” but in this town it is called, “promotion”:

Even before a single talent deal was signed or locations scouted, Oliver Stone’s “W” was hotter than a Texas afternoon in July. Conservative pundits were ready to pounce on the provocateur for what they said was agenda-driven filmmaking, while Stone and his partners said they were simply telling the story of the Bush White House without varnish or sugar-coating.

As Stephen Galloway and Matthew Belloni report in THR today, both turn out to be right — sort of. According to four Bush scholars who read a draft of the script, the tale has elements that are unquestionably accurate (like when George Jr. comes home drunk and nearly gets into a fistfight with his father) and elements that are just plain made-up (like when the president and his advisers discuss high-level policy in a casual, even frat-house, sort of manner).

Rather than just let the experts judge, we decided to offer the first few pages of the script, in which Bush and his advisers prep for the “Axis of Evil” speech, here on Risky Biz — with the caveat that this comes from a draft of the script dated in mid-October and, according to sources close to the project, may have changed in the interim.

Here are the script pages in PDF.

Poll: China Shouldn’t Host Olympics

Buck Banks

bigbadmama.jpgThe Olympic torch made its only U.S. stop today in San Francisco, and while it’s still early in the day, expect some protests and juicy news footage on the evening news.

In a poll released today, Zogby International found that fully 70 percent of likely voters surveyed think that the International Olympic Committee should not have let China host the 2008 summer Olympics, based on its longtime crappy human rights record and its current crackdown in Tibet.

The sentiment crosses party lines, with 70 percent of both Democrats and Republicans saying the IOC screwed up, and 68 percent of independents agreeing. But just a year ago, public opinion was less, um, anti-China:

A Zogby Interactive poll conducted in May 2007 found 44 percent had a favorable opinion of the IOC’s decision to award the 2008 Summer Olympic Games to China, while 39 percent viewed the decision unfavorably.

Of course, it’s not just the current crackdown in Tibet that has Americans down on the Chinese. Let’s review. In the past year:

OK, so there are lots of reasons to hate Chine besides its human rights violations in Tibet. Which reminds me — here’s a word from the Dalai Lama:

I am deeply saddened by the loss of life in the recent tragic events in Tibet. I am aware that some Chinese have also died. I feel for the victims and their families and pray for them. The recent unrest has clearly demonstrated the gravity of the situation in Tibet and the urgent need to seek a peaceful and mutually beneficial solution through dialogue. Even at this juncture I have expressed my willingness to the Chinese authorities to work together to bring about peace and stability.

Chinese brothers and sisters, I assure you I have no desire to seek Tibet’s separation. Nor do I have any wish to drive a wedge between the Tibetan and Chinese peoples. On the contrary my commitment has always been to find a genuine solution to the problem of Tibet that ensures the long-term interests of both Chinese and Tibetans. My primary concern, as I have repeated time and again, is to ensure the survival of the Tibetan people’s distinctive culture, language and identity. As a simple monk who strives to live his daily life according to Buddhist precepts, I assure you of the sincerity of my personal motivation.

But let’s get back to the Zogby survey and what Americans feel about the Olympics in China:

The online survey finds nearly half — 48 percent — think U.S. political officials should not attend the opening ceremony of the games because of China’s poor human rights record, while 33 percent believe U.S. officials should attend and 19 percent are unsure. Most Democrats (52 percent) and independents (51 percent) would support U.S. political officials boycotting the opening ceremony, while Republicans are more divided — 42 percent believe U.S. officials should not attend, while 41 percent believe they should be present at the opening ceremony. Support for a U.S. boycott of the opening ceremony is strongest among younger Americans — 56 percent of those age 18 to 29 would support skipping the opening ceremony, compared with 37 percent of those age 65 and older.

So, should the IOC have granted the 2008 summer Olympics to China? Probably not, based on the country’s human rights record. But then again, what other country was willing to spend money like a drunken Chinaman? They are building 12 sports stadiums. They’ve built a railroad. They’ve built new hotels. They’ve spent googobs of money on preparations for the Olympics, but they still are bad people.

OK, maybe not really bad people. After all, they are our second-biggest creditor (after Japan), and it’s not nice to say bad things about people to whom you owe googobs of money. They might just call in the debt, and then where would we be? The United States of China, that’s where.

Sen. Vitter’s Bad Day – He Learns He May Be on DC Madam Witness List, Then Comes a Fender-Bender

Jon Ponder

Sen. David Vitter, the Louisiana Republican who positioned himself as a moralist while regularly consorting with prostitutes, learned today thatt he is on a prospective witness list in the trial of the DC Madam:
A car carrying U.S. Sen. David Vitter ran into a No Parking sign in the Gonzales Police Department parking lot Monday morning as the senator was attempting to evade members of the media.

Defense attorneys listed the Republican senator among potential witnesses Monday as jury selection began in the case against Deborah Palfrey. Vitter has acknowledged being involved with the escort service. But after issuing brief statements apologizing for what he called “a very serious sin,” he has ducked follow-up questions.

On the witness stand, the Louisiana Republican would not have that luxury.

This news was followed by word of a traffic incident involving the senator and his staff:

When a car carrying an aide to Sen. David Vitter nearly collided with a parked police cruiser outside the Hart Senate Office Building last month, Vitter spokesman Joel DiGrado complained to our Politico colleague Anne Schroeder Mullins that it really wasn’t a story.

“The Politico must be really desperate for a scoop if they want to write a story about the near-misadventures of a senator’s staffer, especially when the member wasn’t even in the car,” DiGrado said.

Fair enough.

From today’s Gonzales (La.) Weekly Citizen:

“A car carrying U.S. Sen. David Vitter ran into a No Parking sign in the Gonzales Police Department parking lot Monday morning as the senator was attempting to evade members of the media, including the Gonzales Weekly Citizen, following a Town Hall forum event at Gonzales City Hall.

“No one was injured in the incident, but the car — in which Vitter was a passenger — sped away from the scene with visible, but light damage following the wreck.

“The sign was encased in an orange safety cone and cemented into the driveway.

“Members of the media were attempting to question Vitter about news released Monday that he may be called to testify in the upcoming trial of a woman accused of running a high-end Washington, D.C. prostitution ring.”

Also on the witness lists are former senior State Depart. official Randall Tobias, and mlitary strategist Harlan Ullman, who is known for inventing “shock and awe” — and whom the women in Palfrey’s employ referred to as “Mr. Unpleasant.”