http://www.alternet.org/story/40678/ Where Bush's Arrogance Has Taken Us http://www.alternet.org/story/40678/ By Jim Hightower, Hightower Lowdown. Posted August 23, 2006. An illegal war, a long list of eroded rights, and a country run by and for the benefit of corporate campaign donors -- all courtesy of the imperial presidency. Tools Also in Top Stories Big Ag, Oil and Tobacco Will Kill You For a Profit Jane Smiley, HuffingtonPost.com Another 9/11 Coverup in the Making? Rory O'Connor, AlterNet Juarez Killings Escalate As Investigation Stalls Leslie Fishburn-Clark, Women's Media Center The Jill Carroll Story, Part 8: A New Enemy Jill Carroll, Peter Grier, Christian Science Monitor More stories by Jim Hightower [Editor's Note: The August issue of The Hightower Lowdown contains a poster-sized chart detailing the many grievances, lies and miscues of the Bush Administration. Below is the story in text form, you can also download the full poster from The Hightower Lowdown.] During his gubernatorial days in Texas, George W let slip a one-sentence thought that unintentionally gave us a peek into his political soul. In hindsight, it should've been loudly broadcast all across our land so people could've absorbed it, contemplated its portent?and roundly rejected the guy's bid for the presidency. On May 21, 1999, reacting to some satirical criticism of him, Bush snapped: "There ought to be limits to freedom." Gosh, so many freedoms to limit, so little time! But in five short years, the BushCheneyRummy regime has made remarkable strides toward dismembering the genius of the Founders, going at our Constitution and Bill of Rights like famished alligators chasing a couple of poodles. Forget about such niceties as separation of powers, checks and balances (crucial to the practice of democracy), the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and open government-these guys are on an autocratic tear. Whenever they've been challenged (all too rarely), they simply shout "war on terror," "commander-in-chief," "support our troops," "executive privilege," "I'm the decider," or some other slam-the-door political phrase designed to silence any opposition. Indeed, opponents are branded "enemies" who must be demonized, personally attacked, and, if possible, destroyed. Bush's find-the-loopholes lawyers assert that a president has the right to lie (even about going to war), to imprison people indefinitely (without charges, lawyers, hearings, courts, or hope), to torture people, to spy on Americans without court or congressional review, to prosecute reporters who dare to report, to rewrite laws on executive whim?and on and on. Here, we are pleased to give you a sense of the enormity of what Bush & Company are doing under the cloak of war and executive privilege in a handy-dandy poster format. The War President "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." -George W., August 2004 Number of Americans killed in Bush's Iraq war as of August 2006: 2577 What Bush press flack Tony Snow said the day the total number of American dead reached 2,500: "It's a number" Number of Americans killed since Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" on May 1, 2003: 2,438 Number of Americans wounded (a vague term that includes such horrors as brain damage, limb blasted off, eyes blown out, psyche shattered, etc.) in Bush's war: Official count: 18,777 Independent count: up to 48,000 Estimated number of Iraqi civilians (men, women, and children) killed in Bush's war since Saddam Hussein was ousted: 38,960 For Iraqis, the bloodiest month of the war so far: June 2006 (more than 100 civilians killed per day) Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmit's advice to Iraqis who see TV reports of innocent civilians being killed by occupying troops: "Change the channel." Percent of Iraqis who want American troops to leave: 82 Stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction found in Iraq since Bush committed Americans to war in 2003 on the basis that Saddam had and was about to use WMDs: 0 Number of nations in the world: 192 Number that joined Bush's "Coalition of the Willing" (COW) to invade Iraq: 48 (The list includes such military powers as Angola, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Latvia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Romania, Solomon Islands, and Uganda.) Number of COW nations that actually sent any troops to Iraq: 39 (Of these, 32 sent fewer than 1,000 troops. Many sent no fighting units, deploying only engineers, trainers, humanitarian units, and other noncombat personnel.) Number of the 39 COW nations contributing troops that have since withdrawn them: 17 (An additional 7 have announced plans to withdraw all or part of their contingents this year.) Number of COW troops in Iraq: 150,000 Number of these that are U.S. troops: 139,000 Number of White House officials and cabinet members who have any of their immediate family in Bush's war: 0 Follow the Money We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." -"Howling Paul" Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary, in testimony to Congress, March 2003 The official White House claim before the invasion of what the war and occupation would cost U.S. taxpayers: $50 billion As of July 2006, the total amount appropriated by Congress for Bush's ongoing war and occupation: $295,634,921,248 Current Pentagon spending per month in Iraq: $8 billion (or $185,185.19 per minute) Assuming all troops return home by 2010, the projected "real costs" for the war: More than $1 trillion (includes veterans' pay and medical costs, interest on the billions Bush has borrowed to pay for his war, etc.) Bonus Stat! Annual salary of Stuart Baker, hired by the Bu****es to be the White House "Director for Lessons Learned": $106,641 Number of lessons that Bush appears to have learned: 0 The Imperial Presidency "I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." George W., August, 2002. Signing Statements When signing a particular congressional act into law, a few presidents have occasionally issued a "signing statement" to clarify their understanding of what Congress intended. These have not had the force of law and have been used discreetly in the past. Very quietly, however, Bush has radically increased both the number and reach of these statements, essentially asserting that the president can arbitrarily decide which laws he will obey. Number of signing statements issued by Bush as of July 2006: more than 800 (This is more than the combined total of all 42 previous presidents.) A few examples of congressionally passed laws he has effectively annulled through these extralegal signing statements: a ban against torture of prisoners by the U.S. military a requirement that the FBI periodically report to Congress on how it is using the Patriot Act to search our homes and secretly seize people's private papers a ban against storage in military databases of intelligence about Americans that was obtained illegally a directive for the executive branch to transmit scientific information to Congress "uncensored and without delay" when requested Provision of the Constitution clearly stating that Congress alone has the power "to make all laws": Article 1, Section 8 Provision of the Constitution clearly stating that the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed": Article 2, Section 3 Name of the young lawyer in the Reagan administration who wrote a 1986 strategy memo on how to pervert the use of signing statements in order to concentrate more power in the executive branch, as Bush is now doing: Samuel Alito, named to the U.S. Supreme Court by Bush this year National Security Letters These are secret executive writs that the infamous 2001 Patriot Act authorizes the FBI to issue to public libraries, internet firms, banks, and others. Upon receiving an NSL, the institution or firm is required to turn over any private records it holds on you, me, or whomever the agents have chosen to search. Who authorizes the FBI to issue these secret writs? The FBI itself. Surely the agents have to get a search warrant, a grand jury subpoena, or a court's approval? No But to issue an NSL, an agent must show probable cause that the person being searched has committed some crime, right? No Well, don't officials have to inform citizens that their records are being seized so they can defend themselves or protest? No Number of NSLs issued by various FBI offices last year alone: 9,254 NSA Eavesdropping In 2001, Bush issued a secret order for the National Security Agency to begin vacuuming up massive numbers of telephone and internet exchanges by U.S. citizens, illegally seizing this material without any judicial approval or informing Congress, as required by law. Number of Americans who have had their phone and internet communications taken by NSA: Just about everyone! (NSA is tapping into the entire database of long-distance calls and internet messages run through AT&T and probably other companies as well.) In May of this year, the Justice Department abruptly halted an internal investigation that was trying to uncover the name of the top officials who had authorized NSA's warrantless, unconstitutional program. Who killed this probe, which was requested by Congress? George W himself! (He directed NSA simply to refuse security clearances for the department's legal investigators.) What happened to NSA Director Michael Hayden, who was the key architect of Bush's illegal eavesdropping program and the one who would've formally denied clearances to Justice Department investigators? In May, Bush promoted him to head the CIA. This past May, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales warned that journalists who report on NSA's spy program could be prosecuted under the antiquated Espionage Act of 1917. Times in U.S. history this act has been used to go after the press: 0 Margin by which the U.S. House in 1917 voted down an amendment to make the Espionage Act apply to journalists: 184-144 Interesting Fact The New York Times reported this June that Bush was running another spy program. This one was snooping through international banking records, including millions of bank transactions done by innocent Americans. George reacted angrily to the exposure, branding the Times report "disgraceful" and declaring that revelation of his spy program "does great harm to the United States." The White House and its right-wing acolytes promptly launched a "Hate-the-Times" political campaign. Name the guy who was the first to reveal that such a bank-spying program was in the works: George W. Bush! At a September 2001 press conference, he announced that he'd just signed an executive order to monitor all international bank transactions. Watch Lists From the Bu****es' ill-fated Total Information Awareness program (meant to monitor all of our computerized transactions) to the robust efforts by Rumsfeld's Pentagon to barge into the domestic surveillance game, America under Bush has fast become "The Watched Society." Number of data-mining programs being run secretly on us by the federal government: Nearly 200 separate programs at 52 agencies Number of "local activity reports" submitted to the Pentagon in 2004 under the "Threat and Local Observation Notice" program (TALON), which directed military officers throughout our country to keep an eye on suspicious activities by civilians: More than 5,000 (They included such "threats" as peace demonstrators and 10 activists protesting outside Halliburton's headquarters.) Number of official "watch lists" maintained by the feds: More than a dozen run by 9 different agencies Number of Americans on the Transportation Security Administration's "No- Fly" list: That's a secret. (TSA concedes that it's in the tens of thousands. In 2005 alone, some 30,000 people called TSA to complain that their names were mistakenly on the list.) Most famous citizen who is on the No-Fly list and has been repeatedly pulled aside by TSA for additional screenings at airports: Sen. Ted Kennedy How can you get your name removed from TSA list? That's a secret. Name That Guy! In 1966, a young Republican congressman stood against his party's elders to cosponsor the original Freedom of Information Act, valiantly declaring that public records "are public property." He said that FOIA "will make it considerably more difficult for secrecy-minded bureaucrats to decide arbitrarily that the people should be denied access to information on the conduct of government." Who was that virtuous lawmaker? Donald Rumsfeld! Only eight years later, Gerald Ford's chief of staff strongly urged him to veto the continuation of FOIA. Who was that dastardly staffer? Donald Rumsfeld! Who is now one of the chief "secrecy-minded bureaucrats" who routinely violates OIA's principles? Right, him again! Regime of Secrecy "Democracies die behind closed doors." -- Appeals court judge Damon Keith, ruling in a 2002 case that the Bu****es cannot hold deportation hearings in secret Increase in the number of government documents marked "secret" between 2001 and 2004: 81 percent Number of government documents stamped "secret" in 2001: 8.6 million Number of government documents stamped "secret" in 2004: 15.6 million (a new record) Cost to taxpayers of classifying and securing documents in 2004: $7.2 billion ($460 per document) Number of previously declassified documents that the CIA tried to reclassify as "secret" under a 2001 secret agreement with the National Archives, even though many had already been published and some date back to the Korean War: 25,315 Number of different "official designations" the government now has to classify nonsecret information so it still is kept out of the public's reach: Between 50 and 60 (They include such stamps as CBU: Controlled But Unclassified, SBU: Sensitive But Unclassified, and LOU: Limited Official Use Only.) The only vice-president in history who has claimed that he, like the president, has the inherent authority to mark "secret" on any document he chooses: "Buckshot" Cheney Number of documents Cheney has classified: That's a secret. (He claims he does not have to report this to anyone -- not even the president.) Of the 7,045 advisory committee meetings held by the Bu****es in 2004, percentage that were completely closed to the public, contrary to the clear intent of the Federal Advisory Committee Act: 64 percent (a new record) Number of times from 1953 to1975 (the peak of the Cold War) that presidents invoked the "state secrets" privilege, which grants them unilateral power in extraordinary instances literally to shut down court cases on the grounds they could reveal secrets that the president doesn't want disclosed: 4 Number of times the same privilege was invoked between 2001 and 2006: At least 24 Under Clinton, Attorney General Janet Reno issued an official memo instructing agencies to release as much information as possible to the public. In October 2001, AG John Ashcroft issued a memo canceling Reno's approach, expressly instructing agencies to look for reasons to deny the public access to information and pledging to support the denials if the agencies were sued. 2005 FOIA requests still awaiting a response at year's end: 31 percent (a one-third increase over the 2004 backlog) Median waiting time to get an answer on FOIA request from Bush's justice department: 863 days Halliburton "Halliburton is a unique kind of company." -- Dick Cheney, September 2003 Total value of contracts given to Halliburton for work in the Bush-Cheney "War on Terror" since 2001: More than $15 billion Amount that Halliburton pays to the Third World laborers it imports into Iraq to do the work in its dining facilities, laundries, etc.: $6 per 12-hour day (50 cents an hour) Amount that Halliburton bills us taxpayers for each of these workers: $50 a day Amount that Halliburton bills U.S. taxpayers for: A case of sodas: $45 Washing a bag of laundry: $100 Halliburton's campaign contributions in Bush-Cheney election years: In 2000: $285,252 (96 percent to Republicans) In 2004: $145,500 (89 percent to Republicans) Plus $365,065 from members of its board of directors (99 percent to Republicans) Increase in Halliburton's profits since Bush-Cheney took office in 2000: 379 percent Halliburton's 2005 profit: $1.1 billion (highest in the corporation's 86-year history "Since leaving Halliburton to become George Bush's vice-president, I've severed all of my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind." Former CEO Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, September 2003 Annual payments that Cheney has received from Halliburton since he's been vice-president: 2001: $205,298 2002: $162,392 2003: $178,437 2004: $194,852 2005: $211,465 Cash bonus paid to Cheney by Halliburton just before he took office: $1.4 million Retirement package he was given in 2000 after only 5 years as CEO: $20 million Number of times in the past two years that Republicans have killed Sen. Byron Dorgan's amendment to set up a Truman-style committee on war profiteering to investigate Halliburton: 3 Naughty word Cheney used during a Senate photo session in 2004 to assail Sen. Patrick Leahy, who had criticized Cheney's ongoing ties to Halliburton: "Go #@! percent yourself. Jim Hightower is the author of "Let's Stop Beating Around the Bush" (Viking Press). He publishes the monthly Hightower Lowdown.
He will be in November if we can get the Democrats to control either the house or the senate, which would make his last 2 years lame duck years. For the first time in my life, I am going to simply walk into the voting booth and vote str8 democrat....anything to castrate GW and his hijacking of the American Presidency. DD
Bush was lame duck starting in Dec 2004, he just didn't realize it (remember his clueless "political capital" statement). For that matter, he's ROAST DUCK! Both parties will use his last 2 years in office as a campaign for 2008 and it will be ugly. He will be ignored by Republicans even more than he is now, no matter who controls congress.
Bush's ratings are in the 30s, almost 60 percent of Americans are against the Iraq war, and Republicans are almost universally trailing Democrats in important political races. But until Republican-owned Diebold voting machines are removed from elections, I honestly believe Republicans will miraculously pull out "unexpected" victories. Security Moms! NASCAR dads! A mobilized Christian base! Flawed exit polls! There's no way to check votes. There's no way to know if votes are counted fairly. There's no way to know if the decks are stacked. There's absolutely no transparent oversight. None. Zero. I hope I'm wrong and my cynicism is misdirected. I hope democracy is stronger than these flash-in-a-pan fearmongers. I hope that votes are counted honestly and openly. I hope my complete distrust in this opportunistic administration is misguided. I hope that after six years of utter corruption and complete disregard for American liberties, Republicans find a strand of integrity and do the right thing. But until proven otherwise, I just don't trust the bastards.
Great post! It astonishes me that there hasn't been the adoption of a paper trail for those Diebold machines. There is no way to "recount," them. It's a hole in the system big enough to drive a truck through... or an election. Keep D&D Civil.
These electronic voting machines are bogus and just make it easier to control the election process. It doesn't matter though because the two political parties control the elections already. The only difference between Bush and Clinton is they were given different assignments from their masters.
I think you need to be reminded that he was selected the first time. He finally was elected the second time.
Because the Democrats nominated the wrong person, that's why. A choice between a pile of horsesh!t and a pile of dogsh!t is not much of a choice, is it?
Maybe I am not entitled to comment on this, but from my observation, Democrates are "too smart". 70%+ academics are democrates. I would assume they have above average IQ. However, in history, intellectuals are never powerful, and they are always desents. Democates over-analyse everything, tried so hard to figure out and assume what the voters will like/dislike. The problem is, they are "smarter" than average Joe, and what they figured was never something average Joe wanted. Instead of sending out a clear message of what democrates want, they pretended that they are doing what you want. As dumb as Jr. is, he truely believes what he's doing. Kerry, on the other hand, or many other Democrates, not to mention that Liebemann clown, they don't believe in anything. They just go along and switch to a "popular" side all the time. It takes courage to be a leader, especially in difficult times. If you don't even believe in what you are doing, how could you ever convince anyone else to follow you? The over-calculating of risk/return back fires. Since they were all in the pro-war crowd, they don't have any credibility to critisize the war now. They gave up the right and obligation for check and balance after 9/11, it's hard to win that back. Maybe it's time for democrates to stop worrying about what their neighbours believe/think, but rather focus on what they believe, and vote a leader to represent their convictions. Let the public decide, whether that leader is what they want.
LOL! ...Can't argue there...Now the neo-demo party is a combination of the two. So a better Republican leader is what is needed. GOD willing...
