Bush is Evil Part 3

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by SmaxCom2, Aug 8, 2004.

  1. SmaxCom2

    SmaxCom2 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG]

    [size=-1]9-10-2002

    [​IMG]

    Washington Post [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush pushes phonics on schools.[/size][size=-1]One of the strangest controversies to arise in the past decade centers on the best way to teach children to read: phonics vs. whole language. Conservatives have mystifyingly latched on to phonics as the only appropriate way to teach reading; it even had a plank in the 2000 Republican platform. Unsurprisingly, the answer lies somewhere in the middle: some children learn better with phonics, others with whole language, and a combination of the two techniques usually proves most effective. But the Bush administration is siding with small-minded conservatives and abandoning his states-rights principles (for the umpteenth time) in pushing phonics-only education programs on schools. While the concentration on phonics will be a big help to publishing executives who were on the Bush transition team, it's impossible to tell how it will help children, since the same companies that write the programs also write the standardized tests Bush seems to think will magically fix our nation's schools.[/size][size=-1]8-21-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    New York Times [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush tries to relax logging rules and pretend it's for fire prevention.[/size][size=-1]Do you remember how President Bush figured out the best way to fight freedom-hating terrorists was to eliminate our freedoms? Now he's applying that same thoughtful strategy to fighting forest fires. You can't have forest fires without trees, after all, so thinning out our forests until they look like suburban subdevelopments is just the answer. But who will do the work of cutting down all those trees? Hey! Doesn't President Bush have some friends in the timber industry? Maybe he could ask them to help![/size][size=-1]8-15-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    New York Times [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush resists Congressional oversight of Justice Department.[/size][size=-1]I'm not sure most Americans understand the foundations on which our freedoms sit. For example, one of the reasons we're not supposed to fear our government is that our elected representatives have oversight of both the military and law enforcement. Now, when Congress passed the (do I have to say it?) USA PATRIOT Act, it gave the Justice Department overly broad powers, but at least we knew there'd be Congressional oversight. Oops! Forgot who was president! Bush and Ashcroft have made an art form of avoiding Congress, and PATRIOT Act law enforcement is no exception. Ashcroft refuses to provide the House Judiciary Committee the tools it needs to watch over the Justice Department, returning America to a colonial-era style of enforcing the law. The Bush administration does what it wants, and we just have to accept it.[/size][size=-1]8-14-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG]

    Washington Post [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush holds ridiculous sham of an economic forum.[/size][size=-1]Take 250 of the nation's biggest Bush boosters, including plenty of campaign donors and corporate CEOs, stick them in a room, tell them to talk about the economy, and--surprise, surprise--you'll get a lot of praise for Bush's economic policy. That's just what happens at President Bush's economic forum when he invites average Americans--like Cisco CEO John Chambers and Charles Schwab CEO, uh, Charles Schwab--to get together and just talk about what's going on with America. All of these executives and business owners want more tax cuts? Hey, Bush never would have guessed![/size][size=-1]8-14-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    New York Times [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush withholds $5.1 billion in antiterrorism and other important funds.[/size][size=-1]After making a $1.35 trillion tax cut heavily tilted to the very wealthy the centerpiece of his economic policy, Bush tries to prove his dedication to fiscal discipline by withholding $5.1 billion in spending mandated by Congress. While in comparison to the tax cut, the spending seems close to nothing (less than 0.4 percent of the size), the money Bush is withholding is vitally important to those waiting for it. This list includes firefighters (safety equipment), workers at New York's Ground Zero (tests of the effects of working there on their health), veterans (health care), Israel and Palestinians (foreign aid), overseas AIDS workers, the FBI, the Coast Guard, the National Guard, and on and on and on. While Bush's action will have an enormous impact on all of those groups, it will have no impact on the problems he claims to be attacking: the deficit and the economy.[/size][size=-1]8-10-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    New York Times [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush issues weak medical privacy rules.[/size][size=-1]Hey, it could have been worse. The Bush administration was considering letting pharmaceutical companies use your personal medical information to market their drugs to you. Thanks to political pressure, Bush caved on that issue. But the rules issued by the Department of Health and Human Services are still weak enough to please the insurance industry. They don't require a patient's written permission before doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, and--of course--insurance companies get to look at your records. Plus they allow drug companies to pay your pharmacist to recommend a different, more expensive drug no matter how similar it is to what you're taking. So next time your pharmacist recommends a particular drug, you'll have to take the recommendation with a grain of salt, thanks to President Bush.[/size][size=-1]8-10-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG]

    New York Times [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush tries to roll back environmental protections in our oceans.[/size][size=-1]The United States' official borders extend three miles from the shore on all our coasts. But for another 197 miles, there is an "exclusive economic zone," territory still controlled by the United States. The navy wants to conduct tests on a new kind of sonar in that zone, but environmentalists fear the sonar could present a risk to marine life. At issue is whether the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which would require the Navy to investigate the impact of the experiments before conducting them, applies to the economic zone. Bush's Justice Department sides with the Navy over the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in saying that the zone is not subject to NEPA, a decision that could open our shores to all kinds of environmental hazards.[/size][size=-1]8-7-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Washington Post [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush ignores judge's orders on U.S. citizen labeled an enemy combatant.[/size][size=-1]It's an interesting legal question: what rights does a U.S. citizen who fights against the United States have? Whether you think he's entitled to the same rights as the rest of us or none at all, one thing is clear: the courts are a better judge of this question than the Bush administration. But when a judge requests the information necessary to make that determination, the administration refuses to provide it, insisting that it has the right to pick and choose which of his orders it has to follow. Bush's expansion of executive powers is getting ridiculous as he refuses to share information with both the courts and Congress--not to mention the public.[/size][size=-1]8-5-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Financial Times [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush interferes in a human-rights suit against Exxon Mobil.[/size][size=-1]A law suit by a human-rights group against Exxon Mobil, the enormous oil company, alleges that the company's security forces protecting an Indonesian pipeline murdered, raped, and tortured villagers. Did they do it? If the Bush administration has its way, we'll never find out. In the name of the war on terrorism, the State Department tries to stop the suit. Which is more credible: the Bush administration is stopping the suit because it will hurt the war on terror, or the Bush administration stopping the suit because it will hurt Exxon Mobil? Bonus fact: when the State Department asked oil companies to institute voluntary measures to prevent the kinds of abuses alleged in the suit, Exxon Mobil chose not to adopt them.[/size][size=-1]8-1-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Boston Globe [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush stops telling veterans about the benefits they're entitled to.[/size][size=-1]How do you cut benefits for veterans without cutting benefits for veterans? It's a Zen koan worthy of the Bush administration. The answer: stop telling them about the benefits they're entitled to. And that's exactly what Bush's Veterans' Affairs department does, sending a memo to local VA administrators to stop marketing healthcare programs to veterans and their families. When there's a crisis in veteran healthcare, it doesn't occur to Bush that stopping his massive tax cut for the rich and increasing the VA's budget is the answer. Instead, he decides to stick it to those who served their nation in the armed forces by making them guess about the healthcare programs available to them.[/size][size=-1]7-31-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG]

    CNN [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush undermines corporate responsibility bill right after he signs it.[/size][size=-1]President Bush made it clear when he made his Wall Street speech that he supported only weak reforms for corporate responsibility. When Congress actually managed to send him a strong bill thanks to a public outcry, Bush had no choice but to swallow his pride and sign it. But veteran Bush watchers know Bush has a way of fighting bills he doesn't like even after they become law (Presidential Records Act of 1978, anyone?), and this bill was sure to be no exception. But who knew he'd act so fast! Just hours after signing the bill, Bush releases a statement that interprets the whistleblower protections to be much weaker than the bill's authors intended. Surely this is just the first strike of many as Bush looks to undermine the Sarbanes bill for his corporate cronies.[/size][size=-1]7-29-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Charleston Gazette [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush praises miners' rescue while cutting the budget for the department that saved them.[/size][size=-1]Even the most cynical among us must have breathed sighs of joy and relief when the nine miners stuck in a flooded Pennsylvania mine for three days were brought up alive. It was a victory not only of individuals, but also of government, as the Mine Safety and Health Administration played a vital part in the rescue. President Bush praises the rescue, of course, as anyone in his position would. But his budget included massive cuts to the agencies devoted to mine safety, endangering the lives of miners everywhere. Bush, unsurprisingly, didn't learn his lesson as a result of the three-day ordeal. He doesn't seem able to make a connection between the federal budget and miners stuck in a well. It's certainly easier to make budget cuts if you can't imagine the effects they'll have on real people.[/size][size=-1]7-23-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Washington Post [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush refuses to fund United Nations Population Fund.[/size][size=-1]When a right-wing extremist told the Bush administration that the United Nations Population Fund was supporting coercive abortions in China, the State Department sent a team to investigate. When the State Department came back and told Bush that the allegations were false (as several other investigations had shown), Bush ignored the findings and withheld funds from the program anyway. The UNPFA saves lives and reduces abortions by educating women, providing gynecological services, distributing safe-birthing kits, and more. Bush is killing poor women all over the world to appease America's most small-minded extremists.[/size][size=-1]7-23-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Washington Post [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush reverses all diplomatic progress made with Iran.[/size][size=-1]In 1997, Iranians elected Mohammad Khatami, a moderate interested in restoring ties with America, to the presidency. They reelected him in 2001. In doing so, the people of Iran rejected the fundamentalism of their totalitarian religious leaders and took baby steps toward democracy. But President Bush announces a refusal to deal with the Khatami government, taking an enormous step back that rivals his ridiculous "axis of evil" policy.[/size][size=-1]7-17-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Boston Globe [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush moves to privatize medical equipment inspections.[/size][size=-1]Look, capitalism isn't all bad. Sometimes the profit motive can accomplish great things. But do you really want people in charge of inspecting medical equipment to be private companies closely tied to the manufacturers of that equipment? Bush thinks that's a dandy idea, and that there's no danger of a conflict of interest that will put people at risk. Maybe medical inspection will be a great new business for Arthur Andersen.[/size][size=-1]7-16-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    CNN [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush creates a program for Americans to spy on each other.[/size][size=-1]Is that your average cable installer at the door, or a government spy? If Bush has his way, soon he'll be both. As part of his Citizen Corps, Bush introduces Operation TIPS, a program for recruiting your delivery person, your mail carrier, the guy who checks your gas meter, and other people with access to your home and personal information about you to report "suspicious activity" to the government. It's more than just an attack on your Constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure; it's also an anachronistic throwback to the days of red-baiting McCarthyism.[/size][size=-1]7-16-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Washington Post [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush sabotages court cases against polluters.[/size][size=-1]When President Bush changed the EPA's regulations to make it easier for utilities to expand their operations without putting in the safeguards needed to prevent added pollution (see 6-14-02 below), the Justice Department and EPA insisted it would continue to pursue the cases being prosecuted under the old rules. But the new Bush policy is undermining those cases, meaning that polluters who broke the old rules are more likely to get away with it.[/size][size=-1]7-11-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    New York Times [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush offers weak corporate reforms.[/size][size=-1]Given the heat Bush is taking over his own business record and his ties to big corporations, you'd think he would be smart enough to propose strong reforms just to get the heat off. But his desire to capitulate to the whims of corporate titans is just too strong. So Bush pushes only watered-down reforms instead of supporting a Senate bill that ends conflicts for auditors, creates an independent and industry-funded oversight board, and makes securities fraud a crime. Bush's proposals do none of those things.[/size][size=-1]7-4-2002

    [​IMG]

    Washington Post [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush lies twice about an stock sale made years ago.[/size][size=-1]When Bush sold stock in Harken Energy, he was required to report the sale as an insider trade since he was a director of the board. But he didn't file the form until eight months after the deadline. Back in the campaign, he said he filed the form with the SEC, which lost it. But this was an easily refuted lie, so when the story comes back to haunt him, he changes the excuse, saying it was Harken's lawyers. The only problem is that federal law puts the onus squarely on Bush to file in a timely manner. Does he admit this simple mistake? Of course not! Better to lie now -- chances are he won't be held accountable.[/size][size=-1]7-1-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Washington Post [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush aggressively pursues the death penalty.[/size][size=-1]John Ashcroft personally overrules career prosecutors at the Justice Department to insist that they pursue the death penalty. It's vengeful, barbaric, and immoral. The fact that Ashcroft is overturning the decisions of career prosecutors points to a darker motive of the Bush administration in promoting the death penalty so strongly. Is it doing it for political gain? Personal satisfaction? Whatever the answer, it's frightening the way Bush and Ashcroft view the death penalty so lightly. But given Bush's record as governor of Texas (where he spent all of 15 minutes reviewing death penalty cases), it's hardly surprising.[/size][size=-1]7-1-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    New York Times [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush cuts funds to Superfund cleanup sites.[/size][size=-1]In 1995, the Republican Congress eviscerated the Superfund program by refusing to reauthorize the taxes on polluters that funded it. President Bush refused to pursue that reauthorization, ensuring that average taxpayers paid for the crimes of polluting companies. Unsurprisingly, Superfund money has dwindled in the past few years, and now the Bush administration is cutting funds to 33 different Superfund sites. That's 33 horribly polluted places in America that won't be cleaned up any time soon, thanks to Bush and the rest of the GOP.[/size][size=-1]6-27-2002

    [​IMG]

    MSNBC [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush tells the same tasteless joke -- and lie -- over and over again.[/size][size=-1]"You know, when I was running for president, in Chicago, somebody said, would you ever have deficit spending? I said, only if we were at war, or only if we had a recession, or only if we had a national emergency. Never did I dream we'd get the trifecta." First of all, this isn't funny. Referring to September 11 as "the trifecta" is just disrespectful and tasteless, which is why he only tells that joke to donors. Second of all, it's just a lie. He never told anyone in Chicago that he would go to deficit spending under any of those conditions. During the campaign, Bush insisted that his proposed enormous tax cut wouldn't create deficits. September 11 had nothing to do with it; it was just Bush's tax cut. He lied during the campaign, and he's still lying.[/size][size=-1]6-19-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG]

    Washington Times [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush says toxic sludge is good for fish.[/size][size=-1]The EPA under President Bush has done a lot to hurt the environment: crippling the Superfund program, proposing ineffective Clean Air programs, and driving out key enforcement personnel. In perhaps its stupidest move yet, Bush's EPA says that toxic sludge is good for fish because it drives them away from fishermen. A Republican Congressman points out the stupidity of this logic, saying it's "like suggesting that we club baby seals to death to prevent them from being eaten by sharks."[/size][size=-1]6-14-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Washington Post [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush refuses to enforce an important provision of the Clean Air Act.[/size][size=-1]The utility industry asks, and President Bush gives. In the past few years, the EPA has begun to sue utility companies for expanding their operations without installing new pollution safeguards, which is prohibited under the Clean Air Act. But this costs the utilities money, and our president won't stand for that. So he does their bidding and tells the EPA to stop the suits and let utilities blacken the sky as much as they please.[/size][size=-1]6-13-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Time [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush robs an American citizen of his constitutional rights.[/size][size=-1]Let's set the scene. It's early June, and questions about the CIA and FBI are dominating the news. What's an administration addicted to secrecy to do? Attorney General John Ashcroft, thinking quickly, cobbles together a news conference during a trip to Moscow to announce important breaking news: the Justice Department arrested someone who maybe was thinking about releasing a dirty bomb someday, if he could find the parts and come up with a plan. Oh, and the arrest was a month earlier. While the media was trying to explain why dirty bombs aren't really any worse than regular, clean bombs, they mostly missed the big story. The Bush administration has put Jose Padilla away without charging him, without giving him access to a lawyer, and without any obligation to release him. Ever. When did we throw out the Constitution?[/size][size=-1]6-12-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Washington Post [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush shields missile defense plans from congressional oversight.[/size][size=-1]The justifications for Congressional oversight are simple and obvious. The executive branch is made up mostly of appointed, not elected, officials who must be held accountable to the people for their actions. Congress is an elected body that can be completely changed every two years if it's the will of the people, and thus is the appropriate body to protect the people's interests. But the Bush administration isn't interested in the public interest. His missile defense program, a bloated, quixotic mess that serves only to shovel money into the hands of defense contractors, isn't something he wants Congress to oversee. So the Defense Department takes steps to ensure that there's no oversight of the mess. Does it work? Does it cost too much? Guess we'll never know![/size][size=-1]6-12-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Washington Post [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush refuses to issue proclamation for Gay Pride Month--again.[/size][size=-1]He's a uniter, not a divider. That's why for the second year in a row (see 6-1-2001 below), Bush chooses not to issue a proclamation for Gay Pride Month. A White House spokesman justified it by saying, "The president believes every person should be treated with dignity and respect, but he does not believe in politicizing people's sexual orientation." Apparently, the president does believe in politicizing race (National African American History Month, Asian-Pacific American Heritage Month), ethnicity (Irish American Heritage Month), gender (Women's History Month), and age (Older Americans Month).[/size][size=-1]6-10-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Washington Post [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush develops "strike first" military policy.[/size][size=-1]Does America have the moral right to strike first, without provocation or any immediate threat? It takes a particularly thoughtless person to answer that question in the affirmative, and our president is just that kind of man. Bush isn't shy about using his September 11-inspired popularity for naked power grabs, and that includes military power. Bush says he'll bomb a country first if he feels it's in America's best interests. Just wait until his approval ratings drop under 50 percent to see this policy put into place.[/size][size=-1]6-7-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Associated Press [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush won't halt oil drilling in California like he did in Florida.[/size][size=-1]Florida was the most important state in the 2000 election, and it will play a vital role in 2004. Bush's brother Jeb is up for re-election as Florida's governor this year. So when President Bush offered to halt oil drilling off the coast of Florida, it wasn't too hard to figure out why -- even if he claimed it was a states' rights issue. But just in case there were any lingering doubts, Bush faced the exact same situation in California -- where he lost in 2000, will probably lose in 2004, and there's a Democratic governor up for re-election -- and does the exact opposite. In Florida, it's about states' rights. In California, it's about plundering our natural resources for energy-company profits. Which one do you think is the real George W. Bush?[/size][size=-1]6-5-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Washington Post [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush dismisses report from his own administration on global warming.[/size][size=-1]"I read the report by the bureaucracy," Bush sneered when asked about the EPA report that blamed global warming on human activity. Too bad there aren't any environmental-scientist cowboys, loners analyzing data out on the range so Bush wouldn't have to rely on those damn bureaucrats for scientific conclusions. Then maybe he'd get the answers he wants, instead of the politically inconvenient truth.[/size][size=-1]5-28-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    San Jose Mercury News [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush pushes abstinence-only sex education.[/size][size=-1]Facts are facts: teens have sex, and they will always have sex. Is it a good idea to try and reduce the numbers of teens who have sex? Of course. But limiting all sex education to abstinence is foolish and dangerous. If you don't teach teens about birth control, they're going to get pregnant. If you don't teach them about condoms, they're going to get HIV. Abstinence-only sex education adds to teen pregnancy rates and even kills teens.[/size][size=-1]5-24-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Washington Post [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush signs ineffective nuclear arms treaty.[/size][size=-1]Getting rid of nuclear weapons in undoubtedly a very good idea. Too bad our president--while happy to take credit for appearing to reduce nuclear weapons--isn't willing to get rid of any. The treaty he signs with Russian President Vladimir Putin sets a laudable goal: reducing our nuclear arsenal by two-thirds. But as was discovered in January (see 1-15-2002 below), the nuclear weapons aren't really going away. Instead, they'll just go into storage, where we can pull them out if we ever decide we want to break this treaty, too.[/size][size=-1]5-23-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Associated Press [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush reopens mining on proposed national monument.[/size][size=-1]What's left to say about Bush's gifts to the energy industry, which bankrolled his campaign? It almost seems absurd at this point to list yet another pristine American natural treasure that our president has opened up to spoilage in some way. This time it's the Siskiyou National Forest in southwestern Oregon, which Bush wants to open up to his friends in the mining industry.[/size][size=-1]5-22-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Washington Times [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush uses terrorism alerts as a distraction.[/size][size=-1]The Bush administration is facing a lot of pressure over how much intelligence it received about possible terrorist attacks before September 11 (and how much that contradicted with the statements officials made after September 11). Perhaps in its most despicable act yet, the administration releases terrorist alerts on several fronts, from the White House to the Pentagon to the FBI. Suddenly, just when Americans are starting to ask hard questions of the White House, we're all supposed to be worried about terrorist attacks coming any minute. How convenient.[/size][size=-1]5-14-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Washington Post [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush sells September 11 picture for Republican fundraiser.[/size][size=-1]When Bush promised during the campaign that he would change the tone in Washington, no one with any sense took him seriously. But September 11 did change things, at least for a while. Democrats and Republicans were forced to work together, if only for the sake of appearances. And even though there has been a return to partisan bickering on most issues, September 11 has remained something different. Until now. The Republican Party is holding a fundraiser where they are selling three pictures of President Bush for a $150 donation. One of them depicts Bush on Air Force One the day of the terrorist attacks, speaking to Vice President Cheney. With White House approval, the GOP is selling a September 11 memory in order to elect more Republicans. This marks the official end of any semblance of decency by the Bush administration. It will sell anything for power, even the memory of thousands of dead Americans.[/size][size=-1]5-8-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    The Hill [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush pushes corporate tax breaks through without Congressional approval.[/size][size=-1]President Bush wants more tax breaks for the rich, and he's not letting Congress get in the way. While it normally falls on our elected lawmakers to make the laws, Bush is using whatever regulatory means at his disposal to lighten the tax burden on America's corporations. Remember this. Anytime Bush says there isn't enough money for anything: Social Security, Medicare, schools--anything--it's because of this. Because Bush continues to give tax breaks to the richest individuals and the richest corporations, there isn't enough money to pay for your retirement, for your children's schools, for adequate environmental protections, and for so much more.[/size][size=-1]5-7-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG]

    Associated Press [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush underfunds wildfire prevention efforts.[/size][size=-1]Wildfire season is almost upon us, and this year should prove to be a destructive one. This year uncontrollable wildfires have a new ally besides blistering heat and high winds: the Bush administration. Because the administration isn't providing enough funds for fire-fighting efforts, chances are we'll see more blazes on cable news channels. Bush is planning to cut $37 million from fire prevention efforts, and Senators from both parties have criticized the Interior Department and Forest Service for not doing enough.[/size][size=-1]5-6-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    BBC [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush expands the axis of evil.[/size][size=-1]As if the original axis of evil wasn't stupid enough (see 1-30-2002 below), now Bush is expanding the rhetorical nightmare to include three more unstable countries: Cuba, Libya, and Syria. In a post-September 11 world, Bush should be working with every country possible for peace. Instead he is singling out the countries where we ought to be making the greatest diplomatic efforts and calling them "evil." Is there anything less diplomatic that he could do?[/size][size=-1]5-3-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Reuters [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush refuses to increase child care funding for welfare mothers.[/size][size=-1]Bush wants mothers on welfare to work more hours. He wants to increase the number of hours they work per week, and he wants to increase the number of welfare recipients that work. Basic logic dictates that increasing the amount of time poor women must spend away from their families means they will have greater child care costs, but this administration has never let basic logic get in the way of policy. Bush instead claims that there is no need for additional funding for child care, ensuring that poor women will continue to struggle to make it out of poverty.[/size][size=-1]4-30-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Washington Post [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush tries to end student loan consolidation program.[/size][size=-1]The hidden costs of Bush's tax cut to the wealthiest Americans will be emerging for years. Here's a good example. In order to bring down the projected $100 billion federal deficit this year, the administration suggests ending a $1.3 billion program that helps college graduates bring down their costs by consolidating their student loans into a single fixed-rate loan. That means that Bush wants recent college graduates to pay for his tax cut to the richest of the rich.[/size][size=-1]4-30-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    New York Times [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush lets mining companies cut down mountains close to streams.[/size][size=-1]Not only is Bush going to let mining companies dump mountaintop waste into streams and rivers (see 4-26-2002 below), but it's also going to allow such mining to take place closer to streams, which are likely to be damaged no matter where they put the waste. Mining companies donated generously to Bush during the 2000 campaign, and that investment is paying off.[/size][size=-1]4-26-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Washington Post [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush lets mining companies dump waste into streams.[/size][size=-1]Did you know mining companies can cut the tops of mountains to get to the coal inside? While that is kind of cool, they have the tendency to dump the tops of the mountains into rivers and streams, which isn't too good for the waterways. Now the Bush administration wants to change the designation of the waste from "waste" to the more palatable "fill." See, it fills up the streams! Get it?[/size][size=-1]4-25-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    New York Times [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush rejects stronger alternative for clean air program.[/size][size=-1]The Environmental Protection Agency made the mistake of proposing a program that might actually protect the environment. Don't worry, though, President Bush and the Energy Department nip that in the bud, listening to their friends in the energy industry and proposing a much weaker plan, one that might very well (surprise, surprise) be less effective than current law. Bush, never short on irony, names his program "Clean Skies" despite the fact that it might actually make the skies dirtier.[/size][size=-1]4-18-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG]

    Washington Post [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush removes Democrats from bipartisan defense panels.[/size][size=-1]Hey, the last thing our military needs is rational dialogue on policy, right? Apparently Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld thinks so. That would explain why he takes Democrats off of several traditionally bipartisan panels. Bodies that were once deliberative are now just rubber stamps for Pentagon policy.[/size][size=-1]4-17-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Chicago Tribune [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush endorses antidemocratic coup in Venezuela.[/size][size=-1]It's starting to look a lot like the 1980s again. Tax breaks for the rich, cuts to social services, market deregulation, and now, U.S.-backed coups of democratically elected Latin American leaders. President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is popular with the people who elected him, especially the poor. But the wealthiest members of Venezuelan society don't appreciate his policies, so they decide a military coup is just the thing. And since Bush understands the needs of wealthy right-wingers, his administration supports the coup instead of condemning it. Even when it fails two days later, Bush still fails to condemn it. After all, it's not the votes that count, right?[/size][size=-1]4-16-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    USA Today [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush considers eliminating requirements for testing children for lead.[/size][size=-1]Children on Medicaid are more likely to have lead in their blood because they more often live in substandard housing. So the government tests children on Medicaid for lead poisoning. But the Bush administration proposes making the testing voluntary, so that states--already too lax in the testing--can test even fewer children.[/size][size=-1]4-12-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    New York Times [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush opposes treaty establishing an international crimes tribunal.[/size][size=-1]Hey, who can blame him? With the record President Bush is racking up, the last thing he would ever want is to be held accountable for his actions in an international court. President Bush's choice to "unsign" the treaty creating an international crimes tribunal that would have the power to try heads of state is hardly a surprise. After all, he--or any number of his administration officials--might have to face one someday.[/size][size=-1]4-11-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG]

    New York Times [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush gives environmentalists just 48 hours to comment on energy policy.[/size][size=-1]Look, all those folks in the energy industry deserved something for those big contributions to the Bush campaign, didn't they? So what if they had constant access to Cheney, his staff, and the Energy Department while the administration was writing its energy policy? Environmentalists had a whole 48 hours to give their ideas to the energy policy task force. Isn't that enough time to suggest ideas that aren't going to be followed anyway?[/size][size=-1]4-5-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Washington Post [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush proposes voluntary ergonomic rules for industry.[/size][size=-1]If the Enron debacle proved one thing, it's that corporate executives are always responsible. Yes, you can always trust the heads of big companies to do the right thing--no matter what it means to their bottom line. That's why President Bush's plan to create voluntary guidelines for ergonomic safety is sure to be effective. When President Bush signed a repeal of strong ergonomic rules that President Clinton put in effect to protect workers (see 3-20-2001 below), he promised to come up with effective rules of his own. And that he did. The voluntary guidelines are sure to be effective at protecting his big campaign donors from expensive measures to protect their workers from injury.[/size][size=-1]3-30-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Seattle Post-Intelligencer [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush rejects environmental review of drilling for oil in ANWR.[/size][size=-1]Scientists at the Department of the Interior spent 12 years studying the impact drilling for oil would have on wildlife in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Their startling conclusion: drilling for oil may not be too good for the wildlife. So does the Bush administration admit that it was wrong and give up the idea of drilling in ANWR? Perish the thought. Instead, Interior orders a new study, one with parameters that are, shall we say, more convenient for the Bush political agenda--and the future business plans of the president's friends in the energy industry.[/size][size=-1]3-29-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG]

    Reuters [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush uses alternative energy funds to pay for printing energy policy.[/size][size=-1]Bush thinks the government should spend lots of money on polluting fossil fuels, and his energy plan released in May 2001 is heavily tilted to favor his friends in the energy industry. And while his policy pays lips service to renewable energy sources and conservation, his proposals fall far short of an effective plan for energy independence that won't hurt the environment. But most egregiously, Bush paid to print 10,000 copies of his policy out of funds meant for alternative energy programs. The very plan that will hobble America's ability to use alternative fuels was paid for with money supposed to go to alternative energy programs. Unconscionable.[/size][size=-1]3-22-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Washington Post [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush attacks medical privacy.[/size][size=-1]Here's a good reason to brag if you voted for Bush: he's going to give insurance companies greater access to your medical records. There's really no way for the administration to spin this. The insurance industry, which gave Bush about five times more cash than it gave Gore during the 2000 campaign, wants greater access to your medical records, so Bush is giving it to them. There's no justification for giving patients less control over their own medical records. None.[/size][size=-1]3-21-2002

    [​IMG]

    Washington Post [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush's Justice Department considers lifting civil rights decree against hotel chain.[/size][size=-1]It isn't often that you find that perfect political quid pro quo. But the Justice Department's decision to consider lifting a consent decree against the Adam's Mark hotel chain reeks of corruption. The chain was cited for gross discriminatory practices against African-American customers, including putting them in low-quality rooms and forcing them to wear wristbands. The head of the company that owns the hotels was a huge donor to John Ashcroft's Senate campaign, and when Ashcroft was appointed attorney general, he bragged about the deal he'd get from Ashcroft's DOJ. Sure enough, the Justice Department now says it is considering a virtually unprecedented early end to the consent degree that is costing the company millions. Not bad for an investment of less than $40,000.[/size][size=-1]3-20-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    New York Times [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush tries to shrink the habitat of many endangered species.[/size][size=-1]Funny how the Bush administration keeps backing off of these lawsuits where big corporate campaign donors are involved. Big tobacco (see 6-20-2001 below), Microsoft (see 11-2-2001 below), polluting power plants (see 12-20-2001 below)--the administration keeps sabotaging its own cases against big business. So it's no surprise when Bush's Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service indicate they'll cave in a lawsuit by real estate developers to reduce the protected habitats of many endangered species. Big business profits, or protecting species from extinction? Another clear choice, another wrong-headed decision from Bush.[/size][size=-1]3-20-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Washington Post [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush plans massive overhaul of regulatory system.[/size][size=-1]Maybe every regulation put out by the federal government isn't perfect or necessary. But many of them protect our health, our rights, and the environment, much to the chagrin of businesses who must bear the cost of implementing them. But big corporations never had a friend in the White House like George W. Bush, and his regulatory czar, John Graham, is all too willing to do their bidding. He plans to eliminate regulations across the board, applying a pseudoscientific analysis that favors business over the public interest. Goodbye, environment. Goodbye, public safety.[/size][size=-1]3-19-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Washington Post [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush makes prescription drugs less safe for children.[/size][size=-1]In 1997, President Clinton imposed rules requiring pharmaceutical companies to test their drugs to make sure they were safe on children. On the one hand, the idea of experiments involving kids is kind of unpalatable. On the other hand, it's important that pediatricians know exactly what dosages of what drugs to give to kids. That's why when President Bush rescinds the rule as a gift to the drug companies, the American Academy of Pediatrics objects strenuously. The profits of pharmaceutical companies or the health of our children? You'd think the choice was obvious, but Bush just loves to surprise us.[/size][size=-1]3-15-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Washington Post [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush lifts restrictions on aid to Colombia.[/size][size=-1]Colombia's government doesn't have the best human rights record. In a long, bitter, multi-party civil war, the army has racked up a record of torture and murder. So when the United States created plan Colombia to send military aid to the country (a bad idea in the first place), it put some restrictions on that aid. It could only be used for counter-narcotics operations, and Colombia had to improve its human rights record. Now the Bush administration is removing those restrictions, meaning U.S. military forces can become directly involved in Colombia's civil war, and the Colombian military has no incentive to improve its human rights record.[/size][size=-1]3-13-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Associated Press [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush puts bloated defense spending over clean water.[/size][size=-1]Conservative Republicans just hate spending taxpayer money. They say so all the time. But there are exceptions, such as when that money goes to fill the pockets of defense contractors. That's why the Bush administration shuns a proposal from Democratic lawmakers to increase funding for cleaning up drinking water. Instead, Bush says, our defense budget is the highest priority. But the billion-dollar-a-day budget that Bush proposed is far more than America needs for Al Qaeda, Iraq, or just about any conceivable threat. It's too bad Bush can't spare a tiny fraction of that budget to ensure that Americans have clean drinking water.[/size][size=-1]3-10-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    LA Times [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush makes the possibility of using nuclear weapons much more likely.[/size][size=-1]For years, the United States has maintained its nuclear arsenal for one purpose: to deter other countries from using nuclear weapons. They were meant solely to serve as a warning, never to be used in conventional warfare. No more. With its Nuclear Posture Review, Bush's Pentagon changes America's nuclear strategy dramatically. It names new nations at which we should point our nuclear missiles and suggests we develop new, smaller nuclear devices to use in conventional warfare. The idea of using nuclear bombs when there's no threat of one hitting us crosses a line that has gone uncrossed for decades. It's a new world.[/size][size=-1]2-26-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG]

    CNN [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush tells welfare mothers to find husbands.[/size][size=-1]All the problems of welfare mothers would be solved if they could just find husbands. Bush's plan to revamp the 1996 welfare reform law includes several hundred million dollars for programs that encourage women to get married. Instead of focusing on child care or job training--programs that might improve the lives of all poor mothers, not just those lucky enough to snag themselves a man--Bush concentrates on social engineering. Don't you love how conservatives think government should get out of people's lives, unless it's telling poor women what to do?[/size][size=-1]2-24-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    New York Times [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush makes taxpayers--rather than polluters--pay to clean up Superfund sites.[/size][size=-1]Who do you think should pay for polluted Superfund sites: polluters, or you? The Bush administration thinks it should be you. So he's shifting responsibility for paying for Superfund cleanups away from industry and toward the taxpayer. His budget specifically states that he won't pursue a reauthorization of the taxes on corporations that pay for Superfund cleanups, meaning that the money to pay for them will have to come from you and me.[/size][size=-1]2-19-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Boston Globe [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush doesn't pay for his own education priorities.[/size][size=-1]The No Child Left Behind Act is a sham. It does nothing but push standardized tests under the banner of "accountability"; it purports to measure how well schools are performing (and it's doubtful it accomplishes that) but does nothing to improve schools. But Bush hailed it as an enormous victory for education--unsurprising doublespeak from our president. But if it's such an enormous victory, why doesn't Bush's budget fund even these modest initiatives? It's a remarkable thing, failing the children of this country twice so quickly and dramatically.[/size][size=-1]2-17-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    New York Times [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush returns scientific documents to secrecy.[/size][size=-1]"When in doubt, choose secrecy," seems to be the governing principle of the Bush administration. Whether it's who Cheney met with when formulating energy policy, Reagan's presidential records, or the details of a 30-year-old mobster case, the first instinct of Bush and his cronies is to suppress first, ask questions later. Now Bush will make it harder for American scientists to do their work by taking previously declassified scientific papers out of circulation. Never trust anyone who says that less knowledge is a good thing.[/size][size=-1]2-15-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    CNN [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush backs Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site.[/size][size=-1]Back in December, Bush clearly indicated that he would push ahead with the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository when he changed the rules that determined whether the site was suitable. (See 12-11-2001 below.) Now he takes the next step by endorsing the Energy Department's recommendation that the administration go ahead on the site. Nevada residents, including Republican governor Kenny Guinn, have objected strenuously to building the site. But Bush again shows his complete lack of respect for states' rights that rears its head every time the energy industry is involved.[/size][size=-1]2-15-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Washington Post [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush releases his laughable global warming plan.[/size][size=-1]A plan to reduce greenhouse gases should have one characteristic at a minimum: it should reduce greenhouse gases. Seem obvious? Not to Bush. His global warming plan is so ineffective it would be funny, if it weren't so frightening. Instead of reducing greenhouse gases, he invents a new, meaningless measurement: greenhouse gas intensity. That's the amount of those gases divided by the size of our economy. Bush plans to reduce this "greenhouse gas intensity" by imposing caps on the growth of greenhouse gases that are lower than the growth of the economy. (If the economy grows by 3 percent, greenhouse gases can go up 1 percent.) Just to make certain his plan has no serious effect on the environment (not likely), Bush makes the caps voluntary, so there are no consequences if a company exceeds them. Unsurprisingly, Bush's friends in the energy industry think the plan is a fabulous idea.[/size][size=-1]2-14-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Washington Post [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush pursues drilling for oil off the coast of California.[/size][size=-1]There isn't much oil off the coast of California. What is there is of poor quality, some only good for asphalt. New leases for oil drilling off California's coast were banned in 1990, but leases that existed before the ban are exempt. There are 36 leases currently not in use that are exempt from the ban, and California wants to stop anyone from drilling on those leases. But the Bush administration appeals a judge's ruling giving California that power, proving--once again--that states' rights mean nothing to conservatives when it comes to protecting corporate interests.[/size][size=-1]2-1-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG]

    New York Times [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush allows states to designate fetuses as children.[/size][size=-1]Expanding public health care coverage to poor pregnant women is a good thing. Using that expansion to obscure an attack on abortion rights is despicable. Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson announces that the administration will allow states to designate fetuses as children eligible for funds under the Child Health Insurance Program so women will be able to get prenatal care under the program. But why not simply expand the program to cover pregnant women? Because by choosing to designate fetuses as "children," the Bush administration can appease the right-wing religious nuts who feel it hasn't done enough to fight abortion.[/size][size=-1]1-30-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG]

    CNN [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush tries to limit Congressional probes of September 11 terrorist attacks.[/size][size=-1]Don't the American people deserve a full explanation of what happened September 11? Bush doesn't think so. He asks Congress to limit probes of the attack's causes to the two Intelligence Committees, whose proceedings are secret. Bush encouraging secrecy from the government? Unthinkable![/size][size=-1]1-30-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Washington Post [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush invents the "axis of evil."[/size][size=-1]During his State of the Union address, Bush lists Iran, North Korea, and Iraq as a new "axis of evil" that his administration will confront. It's a remarkably short-sighted foreign policy move that makes it clear our president has no interest in promoting peace. His choice of phrase inflames those countries (not to mention most of the rest of the world), ensuring that we will enjoy hostile relations with them for years to come. And all of his picks came at especially inopportune moments. Iran has moved toward a moderate government in elections over the past few years, and the United States was delicately pursuing improved relations with the country before Bush made his clumsy remarks. Bush already ham-handedly squandered an opportunity left to him by the Clinton administration to improve relations with North Korea (see 3-9-2001 below), but further eroding those relations only makes a bad situation worse. Iraq--well, it's just disturbing to see Paul Wolfowitz winning arguments in this administration. These are three bad countries whose problems need our attention. But Bush's strategy of describing countries as "evil" makes serious diplomatic efforts virtually impossible. It sure does line the pockets of defense contractors, though.[/size][size=-1]1-22-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    New York Times [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush backs drilling for natural gas in national monument.[/size][size=-1]The Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument in Montana has stunning vistas of red and white cliff formations. But it's missing something, just one last element that would make it the perfect place for a relaxing family vacation: drills for natural gas. Don't worry, however. Thanks to the Bush administration's Bureau of Land Management, those drills may be coming soon to Upper Missouri. The BLM has recommended allowing natural gas drilling to go forward in the national monument, claiming that the drills--as well as the infrastructure to support them--would have little environmental impact. Given the drills, roads, and pipeline that will come with the wells, that seems like a stretch.[/size][size=-1]1-16-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    New York Times [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush bans unions at Justice Department.[/size][size=-1]"National security" is a great all-purpose excuse if you're a popular president waging a so-called war who wants to keep attacking the rights of your citizens. This time Bush attacks his own Justice Department by refusing to let several people who work there join unions. Apparently the president feels that joining a union makes it harder for DOJ employees to protect Americans. He also thinks it's a threat to national security, a new one since Justice employees have joined unions for decades.[/size][size=-1]1-15-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    San Francisco Chronicle [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush seeks to drill for oil off the California coast.[/size][size=-1]Good thing the president is a conservative interested in local control and states' rights. Otherwise Bush might be inclined to ignore the fact that the citizens of California don't want oil drills off their coasts and instead listen to his buddies in the energy business. Oh, wait. Bush isn't interested in local control or states' rights when it doesn't suit his agenda. He is pursuing oil drilling off the coast of California, and the state is suing his administration to prevent it. Funny how Bush's conservative philosophy seems to disappear whenever the interests of energy companies show up.[/size][size=-1]1-15-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG] UPI[/size]


    </FONT>[size=-1]Bush plans to store--rather than destroy--nuclear weapons slated for reduction.[/size][size=-1][size=-1]When Bush promised a two-thirds reduction in America's nuclear arsenal, most people assumed that meant America would have two-thirds fewer nuclear weapons. How silly. Turns out that "reducing" just means "turning them off and storing them" to be used in case another enemy pops up. This makes it more likely that Russia won't destroy its nuclear weapons, which in turn makes it more likely that someone will steal nuclear material.[/size][/size][size=-1]1-15-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG] Washington Post[/size]


    </FONT>[size=-1]Bush relaxes environmental rules on wetlands development.[/size][size=-1][size=-1]When the Army Corps of Engineers wants to roll back rules that would protect our nation's wetlands, Bush's own Fish and Wildlife Service objects. (See 1-14-2002 below.) But the Bush administration listens to one thing and one thing only: the sweet "ca-ching" of the campaign cash register. Bush's friends in the real estate and mining industries want the new rules, so they get them, wetlands be damned.[/size][/size][size=-1]1-14-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG]

    Washington Post [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush muzzles Fish and Wildlife objections to wetlands development rules.[/size][size=-1]Back in March 2000, President Clinton forced the Army Corps of Engineers to rewrite the rules regarding development and mining in the nation's wetlands. Clinton wanted it to be more difficult for developers and miners to damage the environmentally sensitive areas. When Clinton left office, the Corps--never known for its environmental activism--tried to reverse the rules. The Fish and Wildlife Service writes 15 pages of objections, saying the new rules would bring "tremendous destruction" on the wetlands. But the Interior Department, which oversees Fish and Wildlife, never passes on the comments to the Army Corps of Engineers, ensuring that the government's best biologists have no influence over a decision affecting one of our country's most fragile natural habitats.[/size][size=-1]1-12-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG] Washington Post[/size]


    </FONT>[size=-1]Bush puts a hold on U.N. family-planning funds.[/size][size=-1][size=-1]The United Nations Population Fund provides family-planning programs to poor women all over the world. They save the lives of mothers who would otherwise die in childbirth. They prevent thousands of abortions every year. So the anti-abortion religious right does the most sensible thing: demand that the United States not fund the program. Bush, who is never too busy to appease the radical fringe of his party, accedes to their request, withholding $34 million that would go to save the lives of thousands of the poorest mothers and children all over the planet.[/size][/size][size=-1]1-9-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Washington Post [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush abandons programs to build more fuel-efficient cars.[/size][size=-1]Remember when President Bush was interested in reducing our dependence on foreign oil? Well, maybe he still is, as long as it involves making his friends in the domestic energy business--those who haven't gone bankrupt yet--lots and lots of dough. But Bush doesn't want us to reduce our dependency on foreign oil by, say, using less oil. So he abandons a federal program that was aimed at producing cars that got high gas mileage. Instead Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham touts a program to produce pollution-free hydrogen fuel cells. While that program is laudable, it will take decades to produce a working model. Meanwhile America's highways will continue to be filled with polluting, gas-guzzling cars.[/size][size=-1]1-6-2002

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG] San Francisco Chronicle[/size]


    </FONT>[size=-1]Bush restricts Freedom of Information Act requests.[/size][size=-1][size=-1]The Bush response to every single happenstance is to hide as much information from the public as possible. The attacks of September 11 were no different, and the administration quickly moved to restrict information from the general public. Under the guise of protecting information that could aid terrorists, Attorney General John Ashcroft urged federal agencies to resist most requests under the Freedom of Information Act. Of course the Justice Department wants to reduce the public's access to sensitive information. Law enforcement is always easier when no one finds out what you're doing.[/size][/size][size=-1]12-28-2001

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Bloomberg [/size]


    [size=-1]Bush ignores disclosure rule on intelligence actions.[/size][size=-1]Congress does more than just make laws. It also serves the vital function of overseeing the actions of the federal government. That oversight role applies to all agencies, from social services to law enforcement to the military. This includes the actions of the U.S. intelligence community. Congress's role provides an essential check on the power of the most secretive of agencies, power that has been abused in the past. But President Bush feels that Congress shouldn't be snooping around in his business, especially in These Troubled Times. So he informs Congress that he won't be reporting the actions that the intelligence agencies take, unless he feels like it.[/size]

    [​IMG]
    [size=-1]Evil[/size]



    [​IMG][​IMG][size=-1]Very evil[/size]



    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][size=-1]Very, very evil[/size]



    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][size=-1]Very, very, very evil[/size]



    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][size=-1]Very, very, very, very evil[/size]
     
  2. Bengal B

    Bengal B Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2002
    Messages:
    47,986
    Likes Received:
    22,989
    Hey SmaxMonkey! How many of us do you think actually read all of your very long cut and paste propaganda pieces?
     
  3. SmaxCom2

    SmaxCom2 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    Its called copy and paste, not cut. Cut implies I moved something. If you are a Bush supporter you probably made it to the first big word and gave up after a few minutes of trying to pronounce it.
     
  4. JSracing

    JSracing Founding Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2003
    Messages:
    5,069
    Likes Received:
    152
    Monkeys invade Tigerforums ( send in the hounds! )

    Heck I think I'll give this old copy and paste thing a try! If jane Fonda's monkey can do it surely a dumb misplaced coonass can!

    repost.....................

    I have come to the conclusion that I am conversing with a Monkey trained by Jane fonda and james Carville to "Hit" a button when confussed.

    This is no ordinary button. This button cuts and pastes liberal propaganda all in one fell swoop. This happens often since the monkey is obviously lacking any ability to actually type in cognitive sentences of his own. Said Monkey is not at fault for his liberal pee brain. he has been subjected to many bannanas from Jane each time he hits the "liberal propaganda spewing button"

    let us realize the monkey's plight and give him props.

    I for one think we should report Jane and James to the United Monkey foundation or some other tree huggin .org , there has to be a violation here somewhere right?
     
  5. Bengal B

    Bengal B Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2002
    Messages:
    47,986
    Likes Received:
    22,989
    So who copied and pasted that idiotic reply? You or your trainer SmaxMonkey?
     
  6. SmaxCom2

    SmaxCom2 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    You know what they say....

    If you put enough monkeys in a room, and give them all typewriters.....

    Given enough time they will eventually write George W's war plan for Iraq.
     
  7. Bengal B

    Bengal B Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2002
    Messages:
    47,986
    Likes Received:
    22,989
    It takes no time at all for one monley with a computer to make a monkey of itself.
     

Share This Page