Evil indexEvil actEvil details[size=-1]10-20-2003 USA Today [/size] [size=-1]Bush pleads with China and Japan to save him from his economic failures.[/size][size=-1]Bush likes to say that his enormous tax cuts that give hundreds of billions of dollars to America's wealthiest people are job-creation programs. But America has bled millions of jobs since Bush's tax cuts became law, so it's time to try something new. Bush's new tactic? Beg China and Japan to increase the value of their currencies, which will make American manufacturers more competitive. But Bush has nothing to offer in return -- and has done little to make other countries inclined to offer him favors. Instead of making pointless pleas to other countries, maybe Bush should come up with an economic plan that would actually create jobs instead of just putting more money in the pockets of those who need it least.[/size][size=-1]10-15-2003 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush uses EPA funds to make campaign ads.[/size][size=-1]Well, the EPA probably has a lot of money sitting around, what with it not enforcing environmental regulations anymore. So why not spend some of that dough getting President Bush reelected? The EPA runs Spanish-language ads on radio touting the Bush environmental policies that destroy the environment.[/size][size=-1]10-15-2003 CBS [/size] [size=-1]Bush misrepresents evidence on Iraq to the United Nations.[/size][size=-1]Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations was a watershed moment in the run-up to the Iraq war. Powell's reputation as a moderate and credible voice made the evidence he presented about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction seem that much more impressive. But as State Department employee Greg Thielmann reveals, it was nothing but twisted and misleading evidence, trumped up to sell Bush's Iraq war.[/size][size=-1]10-11-2003 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush proposes loosening protections of endangered species.[/size][size=-1]Sure, species extinction is a bad thing, but is it as bad as, say, not having a wastebasket made out of real ivory? That's the position of the Bush administration, anyway, which lifts restrictions on killing and trading endangered species. But at least it's only foreign animals. Who cares about those animals in other countries?[/size][size=-1]10-10-2003 Associated Press [/size] [size=-1]Bush overturns limits on mining waste sites.[/size][size=-1]In another victory for the mining industry, which has been as generous to President Bush as a donor as he has been to it as a president, the Interior Department overturns a rule put in place by the Clinton administration that limited the land mining sites could use to dispose of waste.[/size][size=-1]10-8-2003 CNN [/size] [size=-1]Bush starts new public relations campaign on Iraq.[/size][size=-1]Faced with failure, effective leaders change policy. Ineffective leaders figure out new way to sell their current policies. President Bush chooses to do the latter in Iraq, creating a new public relations push to make people feel better about the soldier-per-day death rate since Bush declared "Mission Accomplished."[/size][size=-1]10-3-2003 White House Proclamation [/size] [size=-1]Bush declares Marriage Protection Week.[/size][size=-1]Is the institution of marriage in danger? Because as far as I can tell, people are still getting married. But President Bush apparently thinks marriage is in dire need of protection, and hops into action by declaring "Marriage Protection Week." Bush, of course, thinks that marriage needs protection from gay couples, who want to attack marriage by, uh, getting married. I'm not quite sure how that works, but Bush must know what he's doing, right?[/size][size=-1]10-1-2003 CNN [/size] [size=-1]Bush does nothing to reveal who disclosed Valerie Plame's identity.[/size][size=-1]The White House likes to tout President Bush as a "strong leader." If there's even a modicum of truth to that, Bush already knows who leaked Valerie Plame's identity as an undercover CIA agent. But when asked, he refuses to do anything to reveal the truth, instead just claiming, "I want to know the truth," and passing the buck (as usual) to the Justice Department.[/size][size=-1]9-28-2003 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush discloses undercover CIA agent's identity as retribution against her husband.[/size][size=-1]When Joseph Wilson revealed that the Bush administration had used false intelligence to justify the war in Iraq, a smear campaign against him was predictable. But it was impossible to predict that the White House would reveal that Wilson's wife was an undercover CIA agent who worked on weapons of mass destruction -- supposedly the reason we went to war in the first place -- just to get back at Wilson.[/size][size=-1]9-24-2003 New York Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush tells Congress not to offer a Medicare prescription drug benefit to the poor.[/size][size=-1]Traditionally, Medicare benefits go to all Medicare recipients. But President Bush wants millions of low-income seniors to lose out on any new prescription drug benefit. He would rather those seniors rely on the states' Medicaid benefits, which vary from state to state (and year to year) and worsen the states' already severe fiscal crises -- which Bush has made worse with his enormous tax cuts.[/size][size=-1]9-23-2003 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush takes away the discretion of career prosecutors.[/size][size=-1]Conservative politicians like to reduce law enforcement to simple "tough on crime" platitudes. But the actual enforcement of law and prosecution of crime can't be reduced to simple black-and-white thinking. That's why prosecutors ought to have discretion over charges they file. But Attorney General John Ashcroft issues new guidelines forcing federal prosecutors to file the most serious charges possible in every case, because that "tough on crime" stance still looks great in the papers.[/size][size=-1]9-22-2003 Associated Press [/size] [size=-1]Bush gives federal funds to religious groups.[/size][size=-1]President Bush continues his efforts to chip away at the wall between church and state by issuing new regulations that allow new federal funds to go religious groups. But this is about more than church-state separation. It's also about Bush's attempt to move the federal government out of the business of helping people.[/size][size=-1]9-21-2003 The Observer [/size] [size=-1]Bush tries to cover up global warming.[/size][size=-1]Seriously, can we just stop it with the global warming denial already? I know it's inconvenient for conservative ideologues, but facts are facts. Actually, facts aren't facts if you work for the Bush administration, because facts can always be covered up. And when it comes to global warming, that's just what this administration does.[/size][size=-1]9-17-2003 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush continues to hide energy task force proceedings.[/size][size=-1]Back in 2001, the administration released an energy policy that was filled with gifts to President Bush and Vice President Cheney's friends in the energy industry. So it would hardly be surprising to find out that the energy industry dominated the meetings at which the policy was written. But Cheney goes to the Supreme Court to try and keep records of his energy task force's meetings secret, simply because of the administration's distaste for open government.[/size][size=-1]9-16-2003 New York Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush attacks librarians for opposing the Patriot Act.[/size][size=-1]Librarians have criticized the Patriot Act because it allows the federal government to invade the privacy of library patrons. And how does the Bush administration respond? "Mr. Ashcroft mocked and condemned the American Library Association and other Justice Department critics for believing that the F.B.I. wants to know 'how far you have gotten on the latest Tom Clancy novel.'" Silly people who want to protect civil liberties! Don't you have something more important to do, like celebrating "Patriots' Day"?[/size][size=-1]9-11-2003 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush uses the September 11 attacks to justify all his policies.[/size][size=-1]Why should we pass tax cuts for the rich? The September 11 attacks. Why should we clear cut forests and let polluters write environmental policy? The September 11 attacks. Why has America lost millions of jobs since Bush took office? The September 11 attacks. Next thing you know, he'll be saying we went to war with Iraq because of the September 11 attacks! Nah, he wouldn't go that far...[/size][size=-1]9-11-2003 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush tries to expand the Patriot Act.[/size][size=-1]President Bush celebrates the second anniversary of the September 11 attacks by calling for an expansion of the Patriot Act, which restricts civil liberties in the name of security. But at least he renames the day "Patriots' Day," so we all know that we're bad Americans for valuing our freedom.[/size][size=-1]9-10-2003 Agence France-Presse [/size] [size=-1]Bush tries to expand the death penalty.[/size][size=-1]This really speaks for itself. In a time when the death penalty ought to be shrinking into nonexistence what with dozens of innocent people being discovered on death row, President Bush pushes for an expansion of the death penalty, saying the current law is one of the "unreasonable obstacles" to fighting terrorism.[/size][size=-1]9-1-2003 USA Today [/size] [size=-1]Bush allows the sale of PCB-polluted lands.[/size][size=-1]Remember when EPA stood for Environmental Protection Agency? President Bush's EPA -- who knows what the hell it stands for under that guy -- reverses a 25-year policy of not selling lands polluted by PCBs. The bans prevented people from spreading the pollution until the EPA could ensure the lands were clean. Not any more.[/size][size=-1]8-29-2003 Associated Press [/size] [size=-1]Bush expands global abortion gag rules.[/size][size=-1]One of Bush's first acts in office (see 1-21-2001 below) was to limit funding to international organizations that provide abortions. Now he expands that rule so that no federal funds can go to international organizations that provide any abortions, even with their own funds. The result, of course, is devastating for the health of the world's poorest women.[/size][size=-1]8-29-2003 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush chooses not to regulate auto emissions.[/size][size=-1]It isn't often that government agencies choose to limit their own power, but President Bush's EPA is a notable exception. The agency announces that it conveniently doesn't have the power to regulate auto emissions, providing another big win for the auto industry. The reason? The EPA claims carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant. Which is true, if you don't believe in global warming. (See 9-21-2003, above.)[/size][size=-1]8-29-2003 Associated Press [/size] [size=-1]Bush cuts Energy Star program.[/size][size=-1]President Bush likes to praise programs in front of the camera and then slash them when the camera is turned off. One good example is the Energy Star program, which Bush touts (correctly) as an effective environmental program, providing $70 in benefits for every one dollar spent. But the EPA shifts funds so that the Energy Star program doesn't get the funds Congress intended for it to get. When Bush praises a program, watch out -- it maybe destined for big cuts.[/size][size=-1]8-28-2003 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush awards no-bid contracts to Halliburton.[/size][size=-1]Look, Halliburton may be the best company to provide contracting services in Iraq. It may not be. But one thing is certain: it looks awfully suspicious for the Bush administration to award a no-bid contract to Halliburton when Vice President Cheney used to be the company's CEO. What's more, it completely contradicts the White House's professed distaste for government interference in a free market. A bidding process would drive down the costs for the taxpayer and guarantee improved services. But it would mean smaller profits for Cheney's old firm.[/size][size=-1]8-27-2003 Associated Press [/size] [size=-1]Bush cites war on terror as reason for small federal pay raise.[/size][size=-1]Justifying a miserly 2 percent raise for federal workers, Bush says that a higher raise would harm our ability to prosecute the war on terror. So he does realize that we need money to win the war on terror. But he hasn't realized that his multi-trillion-dollar tax cuts do much, much, much more to destroy the nation's financial health than a decent raise for those who work for the government.[/size][size=-1]8-23-2003 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush relaxes clean air rules.[/size][size=-1]We have to be honest with you: we thought this was a done deal back in November 2002. (See 11-22-2002 below.) But apparently the EPA is now getting around to implementing the rules that will gut the Clean Air Act. Under the new Bush rules, older power plants will be able to expand their operations without installing new anti-pollution technology. But why should Bush care? Prevailing wind patterns push all that pollution toward the northeast, and those states didn't vote for him anyway.[/size][size=-1]8-22-2003 Associated Press [/size] [size=-1]Bush lies about air quality after September 11 attacks.[/size][size=-1]There's nothing funny about this at all. After the September 11 attacks, the EPA told New Yorkers it was safe to live and work near Ground Zero. It turns out that under White House pressure, the EPA lied about the data it had and omitted important information about the quality of the air and what New Yorkers needed to do to stay healthy. It may take years to see the effects -- possibly birth defects or increased cancer rates -- of what may be Bush's worst lie yet.[/size][size=-1]8-18-2003 Time [/size] [size=-1]Bush defunds Teach for America.[/size][size=-1]If you run a nonprofit organization, beware the photo-op with George W. Bush. It's like the kiss of death: it may seem friendly at the time, but you'll learn to regret it later. While those who run Teach for America were optimistic after meeting Bush the presidential candidate, they found their funding taken away under Bush the president. Now the program, which gives top students money for college for teaching in underprivileged communities, has to eliminate scholarships.[/size][size=-1]8-17-2003 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush blocks plan to upgrade nation's power grid.[/size][size=-1]You would think that in the wake of an enormous power outage that paralyzed much of the northeast United States and southeast Canada, it wouldn't be difficult to unite behind a plan to upgrade the power grid. But President Bush opposes his own handpicked chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and sides with (surprise, surprise) the energy industry to oppose the plan. Instead, the administration thinks that more deregulation is the solution, even though deregulation is largely the problem in the first place. A deregulated power industry has no financial incentive to pay the costs of upgrading the grid. Apparently, Bush hasn't quite learned the lessons from Enron that he needs to learn yet.[/size][size=-1]8-14-2003 San Francisco Chronicle [/size] [size=-1]Bush cuts pay for soldiers in Iraq.[/size][size=-1]"And tonight, I have a special word ... for all the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States: America is grateful for a job well done," said President Bush as he declared an end to fighting "major" combat operations in Iraq. Bush has a funny way of showing he's grateful. Under Bush, the Pentagon cuts imminent danger pay as soldiers die every day in Iraq and family separation pay as soldiers are separated from their families for months.[/size][size=-1]8-12-2003 New York Daily News [/size] [size=-1]Bush uses the IRS and federal funds to send out a campaign letter -- again.[/size][size=-1]Just as with his enormous tax cut in 2001 (see 6-22-2001 below), President Bush is spending millions of taxpayer dollars to send a letter to folks letting them know about the rebate checks they'll receive in the mail. The purpose of the letter is nothing more than to associate Bush's name with the checks, providing a little campaign boost for the president's reelection.[/size][size=-1]8-11-2003 Associated Press [/size] [size=-1]Bush pushes plan to make it easier for timber companies to plunder national forests.[/size][size=-1]Just as President Bush fights the freedom-hating terrorists by taking away our freedoms, so he fights tree-burning forest fires by selling off the trees. (See 8-21-2002 below.) On a break from his annual month-long vacation, Bush takes the opportunity to promote his tree-destroying program and pretend to be an environmentalist.[/size][size=-1]8-9-2003 New York Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush proposes eliminating protections for historical sites from highway projects.[/size][size=-1]Another no-brainer that's no-brained by the Bush administration. Of course protecting historical sites should be of vital importance when you're deciding where to put a major interstate. And those protections are written into federal law. But if the Bush administration has its way, they'll be taken out, opening all kinds of historical sites to desecration and even destruction.[/size][size=-1]8-7-2003 LA Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush gives oil companies in Iraq blanket immunity from lawsuits.[/size][size=-1]Whether you think Iraq's oil was a small factor in the decision to go to war or the main reason, you cannot deny the potential that some of the companies given contracts to deal with the oil in post-Saddam Iraq may abuse their new privileges. After all, any company can abuse any contract. But Bush ensures that oil companies can engage in all the abuse they want with an executive order that gives them blanket immunity from lawsuits.[/size][size=-1]8-7-2003 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush seeks retribution for judges who use their discretion in sentencing.[/size][size=-1]Laws that restrict the ability of judges to use their discretion when sentencing criminals can be the source of grave miscarriages of justice. Attorney General John Ashcroft wants to make sure those miscarriages happens as often as possible, so he has asked federal prosecutors to report any instances of judges imposing more lenient sentences than the law allows. The law is a blunt instrument, and discretion in sentencing allows judges to take appropriate action based on mitigating circumstances. Is it any surprise that Ashcroft doesn't approve?[/size][size=-1]8-6-2003 New York Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush proposes cuts to Medicare funding for cancer drugs.[/size][size=-1]Cutting government healthcare costs is a good goal. When it involves cutting services for cancer patients, you'd hope the compassionate would rule out the conservative. But not for the Bush administration, as the Department of Health and Human Services proposes cutting the amount of money the government spends on cancer drugs. The administration says we overpay, but patient advocates say "instead of expanding access to lifesaving drugs, [the cuts] would limit access to cancer treatments for some of the most seriously ill Medicare beneficiaries."[/size][size=-1]7-31-2003 CBS News [/size] [size=-1]Bush promotes a federal ban on gay marriage.[/size][size=-1]Conservatives believe that gay people getting married somehow threatens heterosexual marriages. (They never seem particularly clear on how that works.) President Bush believes that an unsatisfied conservative base somehow threatens his reelection chances. (It's pretty clear how that works.) The solution is clear. Bush attacks gay marriage, suggesting that his administration is working on a way to make it illegal everywhere in the country. His attack comes at the expense of equality and dignity for homosexuals, values that Bush has never seemed to hold in high regard.[/size][size=-1]7-31-2003 Guardian [/size] [size=-1]Bush shuts down nuclear weapons advisory panel.[/size][size=-1]President Bush has been pushing for new kinds of nuclear weapons (see 7-6-2003 below), and there's nothing more inconvenient for that kind of goal than independent oversight. So the Bush administration eliminates the independent advisory board to the National Nuclear Security Administration. Members of the committee had criticized Bush's plans for new nukes, and the administration hadn't called the committee together in the year before it was disbanded.[/size][size=-1]7-29-2003 New York Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush creates a system where people can invest in the possibility of terror attacks and international upheaval.[/size][size=-1]This one didn't last long, and it showed just how important it is to have open government. From the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the same folks who brought us "Total Information Awareness" (and, years ago, the Internet), comes a project that would encourage investors to risk real money against the possibility of future events, like the overthrow of Jordan's king, or terrorist attacks. The idea would be to see whether such a system would have a predictive effect that would help us see world events before they happen. But the obvious ethical problems of essentially betting on chaos, death, and destruction forces the Pentagon to shut down the sickening project the day it becomes public.[/size][size=-1]7-22-2003 Reuters [/size] [size=-1]Bush threatens veto if Congress overturns new FCC rules.[/size][size=-1]When President Bush eased media ownership rules (see 6-3-2003 below), he never expected trouble from the Republican-controlled Congress. But an unprecedented public outcry against the new rules has put pressure on Congress to overturn the FCC's decision. But Bush isn't one to let something like "the will of the people" get in the way of his pro-corporate agenda. So he lets Congress know that if it overturns the new rules, he'll exercise his first veto. How appropriate that it will go to protect the profits of megacorporations![/size][size=-1]7-16-2003 The Nation [/size] [size=-1]Bush exposes an undercover CIA agent in an act of petty vengeance.[/size][size=-1]Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson recently went public to say that he had investigated President Bush's State of the Union claim that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Africa and had found the story not credible nearly a year before Bush's speech. Given the Bush administration's record, you'd expect some kind of retaliation or attempt to discredit Wilson from the White House or its surrogates. But Bush hits a new low when "senior administration officials" expose Wilson's wife as an undercover CIA agent to reporter Robert Novak, ruining her career and possibly endangering her life. Wilson calls it "a shot across the bow" to others who would speak out against the Bush administration. Seems like a pretty direct hit to me.[/size][size=-1]7-9-2003 New York Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush obstructs September 11 investigation.[/size][size=-1]Remember when President Bush's complaint with the weapons inspectors was that all their interviews were conducted in front of Iraqi government "minders"? Apparently he objected to the instance but likes the principle. When the independent commission (long opposed by Bush) investigating the attacks of September 11 interviews intelligence personnel, the Justice Department insists on having a "minder" in the room, chilling testimony before the commission. And that's just the tip of the Bush administration obstructionism iceberg. The commission complains of interference and noncooperation from all over the administration, noting that "problems that have arisen so far with the Department of Defense are becoming particularly serious."[/size][size=-1]7-8-2003 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush proposes weakening Head Start.[/size][size=-1]Head Start is that rarest of gems: an effective and universally lauded educational program. So why mess with success, right? But instead of expanding this preschool program that has been proven to give children a jump on learning, President Bush proposes changing the specific federal outlays to block grants that will give states more "flexibility" to spend the money. Given that states are in their worst fiscal crises since World War II, it's likely that they'll stretch the money and direct as much as possible away from Head Start.[/size][size=-1]7-6-2003 USA Today [/size] [size=-1]Bush continues to push for new nuclear weapons.[/size][size=-1]Radical conservative activists like the current President Bush a lot more than they did his father, and here's one reason why. Where Bush 41 put a moratorium on U.S. nuclear weapons tests in 1992, Bush 43 not only wants to resume tests, but wants to create entirely new kinds of nuclear weapons. Continuing with earlier efforts (see 2-20-2003 below), the Bush administration argues for smaller nukes that are much more likely to be used in combat.[/size][size=-1]6-30-2003 The Army Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush belies pro-military rhetoric with cheap treatment of troops.[/size][size=-1]President Bush sure talks a good game when it comes to the military, doesn't he? Whether he's embedding the media with troops in combat or flying jet planes to victory celebrations, Bush has used the military as a political backdrop more effectively than any president in U.S. history. But what does his real military record look like? Not his personal record of bravely protecting the skies of Texas from the Viet Cong. Rather, Bush's record as president shows a pattern of disrespect to the military that the Army Times describes as "nickel-and-dime treatment." Whether he's opposing an increase in payments to families of troops killed in action or capping raises for low-ranking soldiers, Bush never matches his pro-military rhetoric with action.[/size][size=-1]6-27-2003 LA Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush tries to remove Yellowstone from UN World Heritage Site list.[/size][size=-1]When it comes to the environment, the Bush administration's top officials and the career agency staffs just can't seem to agree on anything. Although a Bush official tries to get Yellowstone National Park taken off the United Nation's World Heritage Sites list, officials at the Interior Department insist the park still faces "continuing threats to the quality of the park's streams, bison herd and cutthroat trout populations -- and to visitors' overall experience of the park."[/size][size=-1]6-27-2003 CNN [/size] [size=-1]Bush proposes to eliminate overtime for 8 million American workers.[/size][size=-1]Back in January (see 1-31-2003 below), President Bush proposed changes to labor laws that could mean millions of workers lose overtime pay. Now we know just how many millions. A study from the Economic Policy Institute showed that 8 million American workers would lose the right to overtime under the proposed rule changes from Bush's Labor Department.[/size][size=-1]6-23-2003 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush pushes school-sponsored religious activities.[/size][size=-1]Students have a right to pursue their own religious activities in public schools, but any implication that a religious activity is sponsored by the school or any authority figure violates the first amendment by giving the appearance of state-approved religion. But the Bush administration files an amicus brief asking a court to allow Child Evangelism Fellowship to distribute its materials through school officials, essentially trying to drill another hole in the wall separating church and state.[/size][size=-1]6-20-2003 The Globe and Mail [/size] [size=-1]Bush intimidates non-governmental organizations.[/size][size=-1]Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) work closely with the government to provide aid to foreign populations. But under the Bush administration, NGOs have another role to play: public relations for President Bush. One NGO director said that under Bush, "It looks like the NGOs aren't independent and can't speak for themselves about what they see and think."[/size][size=-1]6-19-2003 New York Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush suppresses EPA report on global warming.[/size][size=-1]President Bush has repeatedly said he'll base environmental decisions on "sound science." Apparently by "sound" he means "funded by polluting industries." When the Environmental Protection Agency delivers a draft report to the White House that cites several studies linking industrial and automotive pollution to global warming, the administration makes some minor tweaks here and there, just enough to change the entire thrust of the section on climate change. An internal EPA memo says that after the White House edits, the report "no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change." But it does accurately represent the American Petroleum Institute's consensus on climate change, and if you can't trust the petroleum industry to do accurate, impartial studies, who can you trust?[/size][size=-1]6-17-2003 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush guts Americorps.[/size][size=-1]President Bush has used both of his State of the Union addresses to highlight volunteerism. In 2002, he created a sort of parent agency -- USA Freedom Corps -- for the federal volunteer agencies. In 2003 he called for even more funding for volunteers. But when the cameras are turned off, his actions don't match his rhetoric. Bush allows Congress to slash funding to AmeriCorps, the successful community service program. AmeriCorps' largest group of volunteers faces a reduction from 16,000 to just 3,000.[/size][size=-1]6-7-2003 New York Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush overstates the case on weapons of mass destruction.[/size][size=-1]When the military found two trailers in Iraq that might have been used for biological weapons production sometime in the past, President Bush was quick to jump on the find as evidence of WMDs, declaring, "We found the weapons of mass destruction." Unsurprisingly, that assessment came a little too quickly. First of all, there were no weapons. Second, many analysts dispute that the trailers were used in the production of biological weapons. But the question remains: even if Bush was right, did we really go to war to defeat two trailers?[/size][size=-1]6-7-2003 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush refuses to issue proclamation for Gay Pride Month--again.[/size][size=-1]For the third year in a row (see 6-12-2002 and 6-1-2001 below), President Bush throws a bone to his right-wing nut-job base by refusing to issue a proclamation for Gay Pride Month. Attorney General John Ashcroft jumps on board and bans a gay pride celebration at the Department of Justice, citing the lack of proclamation as a reason. (Justice held the celebration the previous two years.) Bush claims he doesn't want to "politicize" anyone's sexual orientation. Funny, no one in the gay community seems to mind the idea of a month for celebration. Could it be that Bush is just a bigot?[/size][size=-1]6-3-2003 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush eases media ownership rules.[/size][size=-1]Greater media consolidation means fewer voices and fewer sources of news. It means people hear fewer perspectives, and that the interests of a few media moguls can influence virtually all the news we consume. It also means big profits for media conglomerates, which explains why the Bush administration relaxes rules to allow media companies to gobble up more newspapers, radio stations, and TV stations.[/size][size=-1]5-30-2003 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush blocks human rights cases from reaching U.S. courts.[/size][size=-1]A quirk in a 200-year-old law allows the United States to provide a legal refuge for the victims of human rights violations, rather an appropriate role for the world's only superpower. But sometimes, those human rights abuses can involve oil companies. (See 8-5-2002 below.) When Unocal is the subject of a suit in Burma, the Justice Department asks for the suit to be dismissed, saying it will interfere with foreign policy. Isn't that the State Department's job? Funny, State asked Justice to stay out of this case! But when it's Unocal's bottom line vs. the rights of Burmese laborers, well, we know who wins in the Bush administration, right?[/size][size=-1]5-29-2003 Financial Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush buries a report warning of disastrously enormous deficits.[/size][size=-1]One thing we learned from the war in Iraq and the search for weapons of mass destruction is that if there's evidence that doesn't support the Bush administration's agenda, it won't see the light of day. But this doesn't just apply to foreign policy. When then-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill commissioned a report to gauge the long-term U.S. budget picture under Bush policies, he should have known President Bush wouldn't like the answer. So the post-O'Neill Treasury department kept the news -- which warned of a disastrous $44 trillion federal debt -- out of the annual budget report. After all, catastrophic deficits aren't a very good argument for new tax cuts for the super rich.[/size][size=-1]5-28-2003 CNN [/size] [size=-1]Bush signs another huge tax cut.[/size][size=-1]Here we go again. With the economy stagnant, states cutting vital services and raising taxes, and the federal debt growing by record-breaking leaps, President Bush signs another huge tax cut. (See 6-7-2001 below.) Two notes. First of all, although the nominal cost of the tax cut is $350 billion over ten years, in fact it will cost $800 billion to $1 trillion if the administration and Republicans in Congress have their way. Second, the increase in the child tax credit doesn't help the working poor -- those who need it most -- thanks to last-minute Republican maneuvering.[/size][size=-1]5-28-2003 Mother Jones [/size] [size=-1]Bush ensures that hydrogen cars will still pollute.[/size][size=-1]Hydrogen cars are the wave of the future. The engines won't pollute at all; the only emission will be water. Great, right? Wrong. If President Bush and his allies in the fossil fuel industries have their way, the hydrogen fuel will all come from the same fossil fuels we rely on now, and extracting the hydrogen will produce just as much pollution. So while the smog won't come out of your tailpipe, thanks to Bush, you know it will still be there.[/size][size=-1]5-26-2003 News.com.au [/size] [size=-1]Bush plans executions at Guantanamo Bay.[/size][size=-1]The suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay don't get access to the guarantees of our judicial system: jury trials, appeals, and the like. But they will see the worst of our system: executions. In the past few years we've seen dozens of cases of innocents on death row. Imagine how much more likely it is that innocents will be executed when the rights we enjoy are stripped away.[/size][size=-1]5-25-2003 Scotland on Sunday [/size] [size=-1]Bush makes Columbia shuttle investigation more secretive.[/size][size=-1]The explosion of the shuttle Columbia and the subsequent investigation are not matters of national security. Clearly this is an example where openness can only improve the investigation, and the only thing secrecy can accomplish is protecting people's hides. So why does NASA put the members of the investigation board on the federal payroll, thus allowing them to conduct the investigation in secret?[/size][size=-1]5-21-2003 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush tries to revive military database of every American with public relations push.[/size][size=-1]Back in November, the public learned about the Pentagon's Total Information Awareness system (see 11-12-2002 below) a Big Brother database of financial, medical, and other personal information about all Americans. Predictable public outrage put the kibosh on the system -- temporarily. The solution? In a classic move for this administration, the Pentagon just changed the name -- not even the acronym. TIA now stands for "Terrorist Information Awareness." See, by keeping a big database on all of us, they'll be able to pick out the baddies. That's OK, right? If you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to fear...[/size][size=-1]5-16-2003 Knight Ridder Newspapers [/size] [size=-1]Bush charges dozens of people as terrorists for no reason.[/size][size=-1]Protestors who opposed the Navy's bomb tests on Vieques. Illegal aliens who used fake Social Security numbers to get jobs. A check forger. Someone who cheated on a test. What do all these people have in common? They were all charged as terrorists despite having no connections to terrorism whatsoever. Welcome to a brave new world, where the Justice Department shows no compunction about abusing its broad new powers.[/size][size=-1]5-12-2003 Newsweek [/size] [size=-1]Bush fails to protect Iraqi nuclear site from looting.[/size][size=-1]We may not have found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but that doesn't mean there isn't anything dangerous lying around. For example, there's the Al Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center -- just 12 miles south of Baghdad -- which has two tons of uranium. Or it did, before the looters got there.[/size][size=-1]5-8-2003 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush lies about aircraft carrier landing.[/size][size=-1]Karl Rove is smart. Really smart. The image of Bush flying a jet and landing it on an aircraft carrier, emerging in a flight suit surrounded by the military might be the best political image ever created. Of course, the White House had to lie about the reason for doing it, saying that the carrier was too far away for a helicopter landing. But it's a hell of a campaign commercial.[/size][size=-1]5-7-2003 USA Today [/size] [size=-1]Bush interferes with Canada's decriminalization of marijuana.[/size][size=-1]Whether you think that first-time marijuana offenders should face a light fine or a harsh jail sentence, it's hard to argue with one fact: nations should be allowed to make these decisions for themselves. The Bush administration has already interfered with states' medical marijuana laws -- usually voted into law by referendum -- so why not interfere with the legislative process of another country? Drug czar John Walters goes on a cross-Canada trip to tell Canadians how they should treat their criminals, because Canadians carrying small amounts of pot clearly pose a serious threat to the United States.[/size][size=-1]5-3-2003 Newsday [/size] [size=-1]Bush seeks new domestic investigation powers for the CIA and military.[/size][size=-1]For obvious reasons (namely, freedom), the CIA and military have been traditionally shut out of domestic law enforcement and intelligence gathering. But if the Bush administration has its way, that wall will be shattered. President Bush secretly pursues giving the CIA and military the power to issue subpoenas with no judicial oversight, an unthinkable attack on our most basic civil liberties.[/size][size=-1]4-30-2003 Newsweek [/size] [size=-1]Bush suppresses September 11 report.[/size][size=-1]Don't Americans deserve to know the circumstances leading up to and surrounding September 11? Won't that knowledge help us prevent future attacks? Those rights and that security play second fiddle to President Bush's political needs as the administration suppresses a report on September 11 that could indicate Bush might have done more to prevent an attack.[/size][size=-1]4-26-2003 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush defends Senator Santorum after anti-gay remarks.[/size][size=-1]When President Bush calls Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) an "inclusive man," he's not kidding. Santorum includes lots of stuff on his list of activities government should forbid, equating incest, adultery, and polygamy to homosexuality. Santorum fundamentally believes that his personal religion and its disapproval for gays and lesbians should be enshrined in law. (Funny how his Catholicism didn't affect his approval for Bush's war despite the Pope's opposition.) Bush's refusal to offer even the slightest disapproval of Santorum's remarks is yet another sign of his fealty to the right-wing extremists who make up his political base.[/size][size=-1]4-25-2003 New York Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush creates stringent proof requirements for earned-income tax credit recipients.[/size][size=-1]Here's a quiz. If you have a large group responsible for about $9 billion in fraud and a small group responsible for $54 billion in fraud, which group do you pursue? If you answered the big group responsible for one-fifth the fraud, you might be President Bush! Bush's IRS creates stringent new rules for the working-poor families who receive the earned-income tax credit, requiring "documents that will be difficult or impossible for people to get within the six-month deadline." When it comes to choosing between going after the working poor (responsible for $8-5-$9.9 billion in tax fraud in 1999) or going after big corporations (responsible for $54 billion in tax fraud in 1998), this administration bravely takes on poor families every time.[/size][size=-1]4-25-2003 ABC News [/size] [size=-1]Bush lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify war.[/size][size=-1]Now that military action is winding down in Iraq, you'd expect the U.S. military to be tripping over Iraqi weapons of mass destruction at every turn, judging from the administration's pre-war rhetoric. But so far, we have yet to turn up a single cache of WMDs. Now the administration admits that it may have, well, overstated the case of WMDs a tiny little bit to convince people that the war was a good idea while hiding the real agenda. But they didn't lie, according to one administration official. "It was just a matter of emphasis." Well that explains everything.[/size][size=-1]4-22-2003 New York Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush plans re-election strategy around September 11 anniversary.[/size][size=-1]"The convention, to be held in New York City, will be the latest since the Republican Party was founded in 1856, and Mr. Bush's advisers said they chose the date so the event would flow into the commemorations of the third anniversary of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks." There really isn't anything you can add to that. Despicable.[/size][size=-1]4-21-2003 Time [/size] [size=-1]Bush sidetracks a study of ballistic fingerprinting.[/size][size=-1]Ballistic fingerprinting is clearly a good idea, if it works. If you shoot someone, after all, you have no right to privacy in the matter, even if the shooting was legitimate self-defense. So the only question is whether it works, but if the Bush administration has its way, we'll never find out. Attorney General John Ashcroft puts aside a study to test the efficacy of ballistic fingerprinting, doing the bidding of his extremist friends at the National Rifle Association.[/size][size=-1]4-19-2003 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush privatizes federal jobs.[/size][size=-1]When the Bush administration first proposed privatizing thousands of federal jobs, it claimed that the resulting competition would save taxpayers millions of dollars. But according to a National Park Service memo, Bush's "competitive sourcing" plan will result in the direct privatization of hundreds of Park Service employees -- with no competition from the public sector. In other words, it's not about saving money. It's about ending the protections federal employees have won over decades. The move hardly comes as a surprise, given that Bush insisted that employees of the new Homeland Security Department lose protections.[/size][size=-1]4-13-2003 Associated Press [/size] [size=-1]Bush limits protected wilderness areas.[/size][size=-1]One top priority of Bush campaign donors in the mining and energy industries is to see as much public land as possible opened up to their potentially exploitive activities. Step by step, President Bush's Interior department, led by Secretary Gale Norton, has removed the protections on some of America's most valuable expanses of land. Now Norton's Interior takes an enormous step backward when it stops all review of lands to be designated as protected wilderness. Under the new rules, no new lands will gain wilderness protections without an act of Congress, and Interior can roll back current protections to reduce the size America's wilderness even further.[/size][size=-1]3-26-2003 Associated Press [/size] [size=-1]Bush delays declassifying documents.[/size][size=-1]The Bush administration is quickly becoming famous for its secrecy, restricting Freedom of Information Act Requests (see 1-6-2002 below), making scientific documents secret (see 2-17-2002 below), refusing to turn over records of the energy policy task force (see 7-19-2001 below), and delaying the release of Ronald Reagan's presidential records (see 6-9-2001, 9-1-2001, and 11-2-2001 below). So it's hardly a surprise when President Bush issues a new executive order that delays the declassification of decades-old documents and makes certain documents classified by default. One expert at the National Security Archives pointed out that "making foreign government information presumptively classified drops us down to Uzbekistan's openness norms."[/size][size=-1]3-26-2003 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush uses the war in Iraq to justify his tax cut.[/size][size=-1]It is no longer a matter of question whether Bush's tax cut is good for the economy. Every serious, nonpartisan economist says it won't help, and even the Congressional Budget Office (run by a former chief economist of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers) says the tax cut won't have a significant effect. So the administration resorts to the last resort of a scoundrel: patriotism. Bush uses the war on Iraq as a political tool to push bad economic policy. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer says we need the cut "to make sure that the economy can grow and that jobs can be created, so that when our men and women in the military return home, they'll have jobs to come home to." We already know the tax cut won't grow the economy. But there's another lie here. Those who serve in the military full time don't need to worry about employment; they already have jobs. And under a 1994 law, employers must reinstate reservists when they return from active service.[/size][size=-1]3-22-2003 ABC News [/size] [size=-1]Bush requests secret bids for post-war aid contracts in Iraq.[/size][size=-1]One thing is certain in the uncertainty of the ongoing conflict in Iraq: some people are going to make some money. One big profit opportunity will be providing aid to the Iraqi people. Usually when the US Agency for International Development seeks bids for such contracts, it puts out a public request for proposals and accepts bids from any company. But that's not how the Bush administration does business. Instead, USAID requests bids in secret from some of the administration's closest friends. The highlight of the list? Halliburton, Dick Cheney's old stomping grounds.[/size][size=-1]3-21-2003 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush invades Iraq.[/size][size=-1]What brought us to this point? Perhaps diplomacy never had a real chance. Certainly no one in the administration save Colin Powell ever seemed that interested in winning the hearts and minds of the world and its leaders. But we could have done it. We could have let the inspections go on for a few more months and tried to disarm Saddam Hussein without bombing the hell out of Baghdad. And if the inspections had failed, any military action would have been backed by a broad international coalition and supported by all but the most ideological pacifists. Instead, Bush rushes to invade Iraq with glee, even pumping his fist and saying "feels good" before announcing the invasion to the American people. American soldiers and Iraqi civilians will die needlessly. I hope that when we win this war, we remember that there were avoidable tragedies.[/size][size=-1]3-18-2003 Mother Jones [/size] [size=-1]Bush undermines international treaty on tobacco.[/size][size=-1]Undermining international treaties is what the Bush administration does best, whether they are for human rights, the environment, arms control, or a host of other issues. Working with the tobacco industry, the administration reverses the U.S. position on a treaty that would restrict tobacco advertising, eliminate second-hand smoke from public areas, and set cigarette taxes that would discourage smoking.[/size][size=-1]3-17-2003 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush breaks his promise to call for a second United Nations resolution.[/size][size=-1]When asked by a reporter on March 6 whether he would call for a second United Nations resolution authorizing military action in Iraq, Bush insisted he would, saying it's time for nations to "show their cards." Not only does Bush break this promise and withdraw the resolution, but he defies logic and blames France's veto for other countries' refusal to support the resolution. If France is going to veto the resolution, and thus make the vote a forgone conclusion, doesn't that give the other nations on the Security Council the freedom to take whatever position they want with no consequences? Bush simply takes advantage of his ability to trash France with impunity to shift the blame for his own broken promise. This New York Times editorial does an excellent job of laying out the incompetence and failures of diplomacy that has led up to the conflict with Iraq.[/size] Evil scale [size=-1]Evil[/size] [size=-1]Very evil[/size] [size=-1]Very, very evil[/size] [size=-1]Very, very, very evil[/size] [size=-1]Very, very, very, very evil[/size]
[size=-1]Bush discloses undercover CIA agent's identity as retribution against her husband.[size=-1]When Joseph Wilson revealed that the Bush administration had used false intelligence to justify the war in Iraq, a smear campaign against him was predictable. But it was impossible to predict that the White House would reveal that Wilson's wife was an undercover CIA agent who worked on weapons of mass destruction -- supposedly the reason we went to war in the first place -- just to get back at Wilson.[/size][size=-1]9-24-2003 [/size][/size] Already disproven by the 9/11 Commission. Valerie Plame was never an "undercover CIA agent" either. Bush promotes a federal ban on gay marriage. [size=-1]65% of the American public agrees w/ him. Since when are the wishes of an overwhelming majority subordinated to the wishes of a few? Is this still a representative democracy?[/size] [size=-1][/size] [size=-1]Bush ensures that hydrogen cars will still pollute.[size=-1]Hydrogen cars are the wave of the future. The engines won't pollute at all; the only emission will be water. Great, right? Wrong. If President Bush and his allies in the fossil fuel industries have their way, the hydrogen fuel will all come from the same fossil fuels we rely on now, and extracting the hydrogen will produce just as much pollution. So while the smog won't come out of your tailpipe, thanks to Bush, you know it will still be there.[/size][/size] [size=-1][/size] [size=-1]How about some legitimate scientific evidence to back up this contention, hmmm?[/size] [size=-1]Sounds like a bunch of leftist, enviro-whacko rhetoric to me.[/size] [size=-1][/size] [size=-1]Bush fails to protect Iraqi nuclear site from looting.[size=-1]We may not have found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but that doesn't mean there isn't anything dangerous lying around. For example, there's the Al Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center -- just 12 miles south of Baghdad -- which has two tons of uranium. Or it did, before the looters got there.[/size][/size] [size=-1][/size] [size=-1]Sounds to me like an inadvertant, yet tacit admission from the left that we were indeed justified in going into Iraq. Saddam wasn't supposed to have uranium, was he?[/size] [size=-1][/size] [size=-1]Bush lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify war.[/size] [size=-1][/size] [size=-1]See above. You might want to read what you post to avoid contradicting yourself, and thus save yourself some semblance of credibility.[/size] [size=-1][/size] [size=-1]...the increase in the child tax credit doesn't help the working poor -- those who need it most -- thanks to last-minute Republican maneuvering...[/size] [size=-1][/size] [size=-1]Since the "working poor" pay almost nothing in taxes to begin with, perhaps you can explain to me why [/size][size=-1]we should pay them just for having children? Pres. Bush has already done that, and it still isn't good enough for you whiners on the left.[/size] [size=-1][/size] [size=-1]Looks to me like you strung together a bunch of Op-Ed pieces from Molly Ivins and her[/size] [size=-1]ilk and posted them as a propaganda piece. Weak arguments, all of them. [/size]
Show me where the 9/11 Commisssion disproved this. To my knowledge the Ashcroft Justice Department investigation of the CIA agent disclosure scandal will not issue its finding until sometime after the November elections. Very convenient. Bush Welcomes Probe of CIA Leak
Voting for Kerry, aren't you Red? :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: Actually, I am mistaken. Wilson's claim that his "spy" wife's cover was blown was not disproven by the 9/11 commission. Wilson himself was discredited by the 9/11 Commission for his claim that Iraq never sought to buy uranium from Niger. They more or less called him a liar.
Besides all of this being typical of Smaxcom2's attempts to Michael Moore people here, he (or she or it) cannot even post the original link of where he just copies and pastes this stuff. One has come from democrats.com and this post comes from: http://www.wage-slave.org/scorecard.html Put in quotes or put a link to the original unless you are scared to let others here find out where you keep getting these comical little fables. No one thinks this stuff is intelligent, so no one is giving you credit for coming up with it anyway (except for crawfish but that kind of speaks for itself).
You mean crawfish is not credible? Damn, I didn't know that..... :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi:
You know me better than you think. Oh I'll vote, but I really wish I had a better choice. Both candidates are a little extreme for me, and neither one is really made out of presidential timber. I wish there was a centrist party or at least a moderate candidate left to vote for. But there ain't, so I'm going for a change. Often ignoring the obvious . . . which are not always facts.
