An Apology for Bush

theteach

Bush to veto Schip...Again

Senate Passes SCHIP Again, Bush to Screw Over Sick Kids...Again

Posted by Joe Sudbay at 7:04 AM on November 2, 2007.

Joe Sudbay: Hey, they're just sick kids. What's the big deal? His kids have health care.

This post, written by Joe Sudbay, originally appeared on AMERICABlog

They must be all excited at the Bush White House tonight. Bush gets to pull out his veto pen again. And, one more time, he gets to screw sick kids. The Senate passed the children's health insurance bill tonight:

The Senate passed a new bill Thursday expanding a popular children's health insurance program, despite the lingering threat of a veto from President Bush.

The bill -- which boosts the number of low-income children covered by the State Children's Health Insurance Program -- was recently passed by the House, but without the veto-proof margin it received in the Senate.

Bush vetoed the first SCHIP bill and is expected to veto this one.

"There's a bill moving through Congress that's disguised as a bill to help children, but I think it's really a trick on the American people," the president said Wednesday.

Oh, that Bush. He's such a joker. You know he's giddy about vetoing SCHIP again. Hey, they're just sick kids. What's the big deal? His kids have health care. Why is Bush supposed to worry about other people's children?

Via Alternet

theteach

Some Interesting Bits of News

Today, revelations about current government wiretaps and surveillance continue. Verizon has just revealed to Congress that it supplied customer records to the government more than 94,000 times since 2005. The American Civil Liberties Union has uncovered collusion between the Pentagon and the FBI in circumventing the law to obtain financial and credit information on people in the U.S.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. --

Members of the anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church are urging Fred Thompson to support their stance on homosexuality -- a position on which they say the Republican presidential candidate once ''saw eye to eye'' with them. (Miami Herald)

On Monday, President Bush appointed Susan Orr to oversee federal family planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Orr, who is currently directing HHS child welfare programs, was touted by the administration as "highly qualified."

But a look at Orr's record shows that her strongest qualifications appear to be her right-wing credentials and endorsement of the Bush administration's failed abstinence-only policies. (Alternet)

House Fails to Override Child Health Bill Veto

By DAVID STOUT and ROBERT PEAR

Supporters of a children’s health insurance bill failed, as expected, to muster enough support in the House today to override President Bush’s veto. (New York Times)

theteach

Pronunciation Guide for Bush

Goof Reveals Phonetic Guide for Bush

By Matt Spetalnick

Reuters

Posted: 2007-09-26 19:49:45

NEW YORK (Sept. 26) - How do you keep a leader as verbally gaffe-prone as U.S. President George W. Bush from making even more slips of the tongue?

When Bush addressed the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday, the White House inadvertently showed exactly how -- with a phonetic pronunciation guide on the teleprompter to get him past troublesome names of countries and world leaders.

The White House was left scrambling to explain after a marked-up draft of Bush's speech popped up briefly on the U.N. Web site as he delivered his remarks, giving a rare glimpse of the special guidance he gets for major addresses.

It included phonetic spellings for French President Nicolas Sarkozy (sar-KO-zee), a friend, and Zimbabwe leader Robert Mugabe (moo-GAH-bee), a target of U.S. human rights criticism.

Pronunciations were also provided for Kyrgyzstan (KEYR-geez-stan), Mauritania (moor-EH-tain-ee-a) and the Zimbabwe capital Harare (hah-RAR-ray).

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the draft, labeled the 20th version and complete with typos and speechwriters' cellphone numbers, had been turned over in advance to help U.N. interpreters who must simultaneously translate leaders' speeches into several languages.
_________________________________________________________________
To be honest, speeches loaded into the teleprompters for all speakers at the UN have such phonetic spellings indicated in the text. I don't like Bush and I think he's not very smart but it was only fair to point this out...

theteach

Mandela is Alive, Saddam is dead

Via the Huffington Post:

In a press conference this morning, President Bush tried to assert that Saddam's brutal rule over Iraq wiped the country clean of potential democratic reformers -- individuals who may have possessed leadership skills like former South African President Nelson Mandela. In doing so, Bush inartfully suggested Saddam killed Mandela:

I thought an interesting comment was made -- somebody said to me, I heard somebody say, "Now, where's Mandela?" Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas.

Nelson Mandela was a strong opponent of the war in Iraq. Prior to the war, he condemned Bush as “a president who can’t think properly and wants to plunge the world into holocaust.” “Why does the United States behave so arrogantly?” he asked, adding, “They just want the oil. We must expose this as much as possible.”

Read the whole article at ThinkProgress

theteach

Bush's speech on Iraq

Via BBC:

US President George W Bush is expected to back a limited withdrawal of troops in an address on his Iraq war strategy.

The gradual pull-out would take troop numbers back to their level before Mr Bush ordered a build-up this year. The Democrats say more must be withdrawn.

Mr Bush's televised speech is expected to follow the advice of US commander in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, who gave a progress report to Congress this week.

In his primetime televised address Mr Bush was expected to announce that he plans to reduce US troops by roughly 30,000 by next summer, if certain conditions are met.

At a White House briefing ahead of the speech, senior officials said the aim is to reduce the US force from 20 combat brigades to 15 by the middle of next year.

Senior Democrats have said the proposed reductions in US troop numbers are "insufficient" and do not represent a change in course.

Top Democrats say they will try to pass new legislation on Iraq

Senator Jack Reed is expected to give the party's response shortly after Mr Bush's address.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi has accused the president of effectively signing-off on an "open-ended" commitment that could keep US troops in Iraq for 10 years.

Read more.

theteach

Bush suggests a reduction in troops

In Iraq, Bush Cites Gains

By Michael A. Fletcher and Ann Scott Tyson

Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, September 4, 2007; Page A01

AL-ASAD AIR BASE, Iraq, Sept. 3 -- President Bush, making an unannounced visit to this isolated and well-fortified air base in Anbar province, said Monday that continued gains in security in Iraq could allow for a reduction in U.S. troops and called on the Iraqi government to follow up with progress toward rebuilding and

political reconciliation.

Via Washington Post

theteach

_________________________________________________________________

It's the only thing we should care about -- that Bush SAID it. He said he could "allow for reduction in troops." Now we have to hold him to it. The Democrats have to hold him to it. No more guys going over there to begin, all the guys over there coming back home.

Obama, Clinton, Edwards and all the rest of the candidates have to speak up and DEMAND that we begin the reduction process. No ifs, ands, or buts, get it started. It's over...there's no more that can be done...

And here's something else, if the surge has been a failure, the troops should come home. If the surge has been a success, the troops should come home. Either way...

Photo: US troops are pictured during a foot patrol along the Tigris river south of Baghdad, 03 September 2007. Bush offered the tantalizing prospect of US force cuts during a dramatic one-day visit to Iraq but he is not saying when or how many troops might come home.

theteach

Bush President of Iraq?

Via NatalieDee.com

theteach

Bush and Bonaparte

I believe I can't add anything more of value to this article from AlterNet:

Bush and Napoleon Both Believed Their Own Propaganda About a "Greater Middle East"

By Juan Cole, Tomdispatch.com. Posted August 25, 2007.

There are times when the resonances of history are positively eerie. The parallels of Napoleon's occupation of Egypt with Bush's disaster in Iraq are enough to make you jump out of your chair.

There are many eerily familiar resonances between the two misadventures, not least among them that both began with supreme arrogance and ended as fiascoes. Above all, the leaders of both occupations employed the same basic political vocabulary and rhetorical flimflammery, invoking the spirit of liberty, security, and democracy while largely ignoring the substance of these concepts.

The French general and the American president do not much resemble one another -- except perhaps in the way the prospect of conquest in the Middle East appears to have put fire in their veins and in their unappealing tendency to believe their own propaganda (or at least to keep repeating it long after it became completely implausible). Both leaders invaded and occupied a major Arabic-speaking Muslim country; both harbored dreams of a "Greater Middle East"; both were surprised to find themselves enmeshed in long, bitter, debilitating guerrilla wars. Neither genuinely cared about grassroots democracy, but both found its symbols easy to invoke for gullible domestic publics. Substantial numbers of their new subjects quickly saw, however, that they faced occupations, not liberations.

The overthrow of a tyrannical regime and the liberation of an oppressed people were constant refrains in the shipboard addresses of both the general and the president, who felt that the liberated owed them a debt of gratitude. Bonaparte lamented that the [Mamluk] beys "tyrannize over the unfortunate inhabitants of the Nile"; or, as one of his officers, Captain Horace Say, opined, "The people of Egypt were most wretched. How will they not cherish the liberty we are bringing them?" Similarly, Bush insisted, "Men and women in every culture need liberty like they need food and water and air. Everywhere that freedom arrives, humanity rejoices; and everywhere that freedom stirs, let tyrants fear."

For both Bush and Bonaparte, the genteel diction of liberation, rights, and prosperity served to obscure or justify a major invasion and occupation of a Middle Eastern land, involving the unleashing of slaughter and terror against its people. Military action would leave towns destroyed, families displaced, and countless dead. Given the ongoing carnage in Iraq, President Bush's boast that, with "new tactics and precision weapons, we can achieve military objectives without directing violence against civilians," now seems not just hollow but macabre. The equation of a foreign military occupation with liberty and prosperity is, in the cold light of day, no less bizarre than the promise of war with virtually no civilian casualties.

Read the rest of the article here.

theteach

Bush Gets It Wrong

You know people who talk as experts (not that Bush is an expert on anything) and use history to show what might happen in Iraq if we pull out, should, at least get their facts straight.

Via Crooks and Liars:

Bush to connect Iraq, Vietnam

By: Steve Benen on Wednesday, August 22nd, 2007 at 5:12 AM - PDT

With the president’s upcoming report to Congress on “progress” in Iraq just a few weeks away, the White House is, once again, preparing a new public-relations offensive to bolster support for Bush’s war policy. It starts today with a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars’ annual convention, followed by another address next week to the American Legion, which will reportedly offer a “broader context” to discouraging news out of Iraq.

Apparently, this context includes an odd comparison between the wars in Iraq and Vietnam.

As he awaits a crucial progress report on Iraq, President Bush will try to put a twist on comparisons of the war to Vietnam by invoking the historical lessons of that conflict to argue against pulling out.

On Wednesday in Kansas City, Missouri, Bush will tell members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars that “then, as now, people argued that the real problem was America’s presence and that if we would just withdraw, the killing would end,” according to speech excerpts released Tuesday by the White House.

But this is an obvious misread of history. Supporters of the war in Vietnam said a withdrawal would lead to Communists dominating Southeast Asia., just as supporters of the war in Iraq argue that a withdrawal now would lead to some kind of al Qaeda caliphate.

That, of course, is probably one of the least persuasive arguments the White House could offer. Predictions predicated on an Asian “domino theory” turned out to be wrong. As Josh Marshall explains why.

Also Bush will mention the "killing fields" stating what happened in Vietnam would happen in Iraq if we pulled out. The "killing fields" refers to what happened in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge not Vietnam.

theteach

In an update in RJ Eskow's column today on Karl Rove's resignation in The Huffington Post, he says:

In a cryptic addendum to this story, Bush observed in today's leave-taking ritual that "Karl Rove is moving on down the road." This odd phrasing, with its "ease on down the road" Wiz vibe, was followed by this: "I'll be on the road behind you in a little bit."

What an strange piece of hillbilly kabuki. It won't be long afore I'm there with ya, Hattie, so tell St. Peter to hold the door. This White House is going to be even more tone-deaf without Karl.

Andrew Sullivan only sees “one of the worst political strategists in recent times.” Here’s more:

Rove preferred to divide the country and get his 51 percent, than unite it and get America’s 60. In a time of grave danger and war, Rove picked party over country. Such a choice was and remains despicable.

Then Adam Nagourney mentions that “Even some of his former lieutenants are apt, in private moments, to speak of Mr. Rove in tones of disappointment, disillusionment and no small amount of anger,” he wrote.

So long, Mr. Rove... You are no loss to the country.

theteach

Bourne Ultimatum...Is it Real?

The Bourne Ultimatum: Fantasy Meets Reality
Steven Barrie-Anthony at 12:22 PM on August 10, 2007.

Steven Barrie-Anthony: The most compelling aspect of this very compelling film is that the premise doesn't seem very far-fetched, at all.

This post, written by Steven Barrie-Anthony, originally appeared on The Huffington Post

In The Bourne Ultimatum, amnesiac superspy Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) finally confronts the CIA schemers responsible for erasing his memory and reprogramming him as the ideal assassin.

Audiences flocked to watch Bourne on opening weekend -- it was the biggest August opening ever, taking in over $70 million -- and the most compelling aspect of this very compelling film is that the premise doesn't seem very far-fetched, at all.

Indeed, the story's only major fictional element is its depiction of successful CIA attempts to create a hypnotized breed of remote-controllable super-soldier. The rest -- the torturous "brainwashing" process, the ruined lives, and eventually, victims seeking answers and retribution -- has all happened before. (Read the Alternet article)
___________________________________________________________________

But the point the Alternet article makes about government "brainwashing" is not my point in bringing up the Bourne film. Further into the Alternet article there's this:

Whether or not audiences are aware of the literal truthfulness of the Bourne premise, the notion that an authoritarian-leaning American administration and intelligence agency might abuse the trust of its public and trample the constraints of its charter is clearly more fact than fiction. For the latest Bush administration trampling of civil liberties, check your newspaper of choice. So there's some primal satisfaction in watching Bourne wreak havoc on the government that wronged him.

The film has the feel of truth. All of the technology that we see is possible: the room full of men at computers, tracking individuals movements by their cell phones and cameras on the street. I said so to my husband when we came out of the movie theater.

The film left me exhilarated, but it also left me thinking: How much of this is happening in the CIA and FBI today with impunity? How far does our government go, without our knowing it, to, in the name of fighting terrorists, track down individuals, seize them, question and torture them, terminate them. Is it happening right now?

The Bush government makes me think so.

theteach

Why the White House Keeps Hiding Behind General Petraeus

By Frank Rich, The New York Times. Posted July 30, 2007.

The White House has done everything possible to create the appearance that Gen. David Petraeus has all the responsibility for the occupation of Iraq -- but it's really an attempt to shield Bush from the failure in Iraq.

Read full post.

Bush hands over government to Cheney...

Bush Colonoscopy Puts Cheney In Charge »

---

AP | Deb Riechmann | July 20, 2007 12:42 PM

WASHINGTON - President Bush will undergo a routine colonoscopy Saturday and temporarily hand presidential powers over to Vice President Dick Cheney, White House press secretary Tony Snow said.

Snow told reporters Friday that Bush will have the procedure done at his Camp David, Md., mountaintop retreat.

___________________________________________________________________

No, No, Mr. Bush, don't you realize what you're doing? Don't give over the government to Cheney!

Mr. Bush, good luck and up yours!

via Huffington Post

theteach

Cheney pushing Bush on Iran...

According to the Guardian UK:

The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.

The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."

Read rest of article here.

_____________________________________________________________

OMG! And it's Dick Cheney who's in favor of "upping the threat of military action" against Iran.

theteach

Bush as Jesus Christ

Found this shot on Reuters:

President Bush speaks about the economy in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington, July 11, 2007.
REUTERS/Jason Reed

I call it "Bush as Jesus Christ." You can't tell me the photographer and Reuters service didn't see the obvious suggestion.

What the heck were they thinking?

theteach

Any progress in Iraq?

Today Bush dragged out that old saw (saying) in his news conference where he was supposed to report on his Iraq Benchmark Assessment Report. I listened on NPR (WNYC) and caught this quote:

"Their ambition is to continue to hurt the American people. My attitude is: We ought to defeat them there so we don't have to face them here..."

I did a Google search on that phrase just to see how many times Bush & Co. have reiterated that phrase. I got 1 million 700 thousand hits!

And still the American people overwhelmingly want us out of Iraq...

We're not listening, Mr. Bush. We don't believe you.

Bush's Die Hard

Some say that this most recent Die Hard movie is George W's Die Hard movie. According to Alternet (via The Huffington Post) since Ronald Reagan there has been a Die Hard movie for every administration since.

I never noticed, but this movie certainly could be George's movie because it's filled with violence and chaos and a state of utter confusion and disorder.

According to Lawrence Levi who wrote the article:

It scared me because it gave a glimpse of an America in which pandemonium rules. Between kick-ass action beats, when McClane and his young hacker sidekick make their way to a D.C. police station after all the traffic lights and phones have gone out, and the stock market has collapsed and every city's transportation system has shut down, we get a brief, slo-mo sense of what true chaos feels like -- it's post-Katrina New Orleans on a national scale.

Even scarier, the government is totally unprepared. ("It took FEMA five days to get water to the Superdome," the hacker reminds us.) That's what makes this George W.'s Die Hard: it's explicitly Homeland Security's incompetence and indifference that make the nation so defenseless. In fact, the terrorist mastermind is a former government security expert who wants to prove the network's vulnerability. So, naturally, a bald, fifty-something Luddite cop is America's only hope. But if Bruce Willis won't come to our rescue in real life, who will?

____________________________________________________________________
So I certainly agree with Mr. Levi but I can't let this go without mentioning... Bruce Willis still has it, doesn't he? I'll take "a bald, fifty-something Luddite cop" anyday. :-)

theteach

Have a couple of laughs!

Since it's the weekend and I don't want to work too hard I thought I'd treat you to

Pat Robertson's Weather Predictions. (Why is it I don't think this is entirely a joke?)


Giuliani: Obama Victory Would Lead to "Negrofication" of Country


President Bush Loses Risk Game to Twelve Year-Old Boy, Chimpanzee


all via News Mutiny

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."

- Sinclair Lewis