The Bush Administration

[RottingCorpse]

While we've talked about the war, foreign policy and elections, there are no threads dedicated solely to the policies of the Bush administration, which I believe are truly unique in the last hundred years of U.S. history.

This isn't meant to be a Bush bashing thread though I'm sure myself and others will do their fair share of that. I just want to really talk about what he and his people have done and will continue to do over the next two years.

I start with this video, which I believe illustrates many of the contradictions of this administration.

http://www.peacecandy.com/gwbush/remindus/

[monkey!]

Quite nicely done.

We need a video now that highlights the contradictory totalitarian anti-democracy government that parades itself as the government of The Free and Democratic America, and uses this false image of "democracy" to impose foreign ideals upon other countries... like Iraq [which was perfectly stable] to remove their "Regime" [CAUTION! BUZZWORD! CAUTION! BUZZWORD! CAUTION!] that had kept the country in a markedly better situation than before American interference in said region.

We could also do with a video highlighting how the "secular" and "democratic" government of "free" America is actually controlled by people whose lives are based on direct and FLAGRANT contradictions of what are better known as logic and reason - many of whom actually buy into that whole Rapture nonsense.

Maybe a nice video of American foreign policy designed around the desire to de-stable all developing countries whether they have valuable natural resources or not... especially if they lie beside another country which has an inflating economy and technological thresh-hold and who should continue telling America to fuck off, because without tangible nuclear deterrents they'll be bullied and ripped apart just like those other countries... because, why? Because the Free and Democratic Government of Liberated America can, that's why

[monkey!]

I believe that's one of my most cognizant posts in a while.

[nacho]

And sending those people off to war while at the same time drastically cutting Veteran's Benefits.  And not just shortcutting here and there -- over a billion dollars got ripped out from under the VA.

We've just seen the results of that at Walter Reed.

Much of the Bush Administration is less malevolent and thought out and more just boys with toys.  It's playing the games that the Nixon administration did except it's not getting caught.  Again, it all rolls back to you and me, Mr. and Mrs. America.  Unlike when Nixon pushed the envelope, everyone sits here and clucks their tongues when Bush fucks the environment, energy, science, civil liberties... Things would be different if we had the same active youth culture to cause problems.  By the time Nixon came around, the protest groups had splintered into increasingly violent groups.  The crack was obvious and leaking.  You've got the Weathermen, the kidnapping of Patty Hearst, bodies being shipped home, total meltdown.  All the normals were huddled behind sandbags...and, then, it just continues.  Cambodia, the rapid disintegration of Vietnam.  But the anti-government stuff led to paranoia with Nixon.  He blew himself out of the water.

Bush takes it in stride.  That's the problem. But he can take it in stride because we're not really against him.  No time to make bombs in the sink, or lay siege to DC.  No desire to face down the cops at a protest, or get in trouble of any sort.  Stay within the barriers, march within the orange cones, obey the laws. Speak out -- but not too loud.  Battle the government -- until the government asks you to stop and go home because your permit has expired.

No, we're working ourselves to the point of collapse so we can keep our condos, we're getting pretty cars, we're on the career path, settle down by 30 and be like Ward and June Cleaver -- 21st Century style!

We deserve Bush.  And his policies?  Environment, veteran's affairs, civil liberties...? We let it happen.

Though much of this, as before, will be corrected with a future president. One great thing about the US is that we still have the ability to reverse unwanted policies.  If we care to.

[fajwat]

And sending those people off to war while at the same time drastically cutting Veteran's Benefits.  And not just shortcutting here and there -- over a billion dollars got ripped out from under the VA.

We've just seen the results of that at Walter Reed.

Thanks for reminding me.  I told my dad and his sister this a couple of weeks ago while he was going nuts over the WRAMC scandal/interview.  They said, "Nawwww..."  then, when they decided they might believe me, they said, "How can you remember this stuff?"  Like, duh?  it was huge gobsmacking hypocrisy? 

So what you reminded me is I need to go find news links to show them when and how huge the cuts were (and that yes, they really were real).  Along with which military expansion they were concurrent.

[nacho]

So what you reminded me is I need to go find news links to show them when and how huge the cuts were (and that yes, they really were real).  Along with which military expansion they were concurrent.

Yeah.  Try...everywhere!

This is the genius of whoever or whatever has done this to modern society -- they can blow up a city and eat babies on prime time, then shit them out onto the Pope's face and we won't remember in six months.  Total blank.  "How can you remember that?!?"  That's about the same as asking "How can you remember Watergate?" a year after it happened.

Somehow, somewhere along the line, our brains were universally short-circuited in some sort of terrifying way.  Cutting the VA was massive news for a long time, falling on deaf ears but still covered because we're a warrior nation and our vets need help. Which is alarming when it comes to you dad. He's retired, right?  He hasn't felt the cuts?  Because my war family has felt the cuts.  Every vet I talk to, young or old, goes right to "holy shit" when the VA comes up. 

[RottingCorpse]

To what end? Cut funds from everything else to spend all this money on a war that's not even going to secure our financial future. All is does is keep the "here and now" status quo in place, and anybody with brains has to be able to see that eventualy something has to give. Maybe Bush is simply that shallow. I don't know.

[nacho]

I think they really are banking on the "We'll show you!" factor. Hell, most of us think and act that way.  It's a rare person who considers the future.  And I don't think anyone considers the future all the time.

You're thinking about here and now all the time.  Even with your project -- organizing it, launching it, looking to make it a success.  All the same principle as what's driving the war.  We will take on this task and change it for the better to better ourselves!

It's the same with me.  And especially true with folks who don't have hobbies or side projects or are independently or self employed.

Recycling cans or buying Earth-friendly goods doesn't count for anything. If we were really thinking about the future, we would be living within or below our means, committing all of our funds to worthy charitable organizations, involving ourselves deeply in local politics, using public transport exclusively, helping our neighbors, helping the poor and the orphaned and the hungry. We wouldn't be banking money and saving it for ourselves.  We wouldn't be buying books off of Amazon and getting better and better TV's.

The Bush Administration is the ultimate reflection of ourselves. All the lies and all the talk of previous Administrations have now been swept away. The Great Hypocrisy -- our hypocrisy -- and senseless desire for financial and material wealth has been crystallized.

[RottingCorpse]

http://www.a28.org/

[nacho]

http://www.a28.org/

It takes a moment to load--thanks for your patience.

Thank you for visiting the 1995 internet museum.

[nacho]

So is this applicable to this thread's theme?  Today's Washington Post:

After Katrina, U.S. Did Not Accept Most Offers of Aid

By John Solomon and Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, April 29, 2007; A01

As the winds and water of Hurricane Katrina were receding, presidential confidante Karen Hughes sent a cable from her State Department office to U.S. ambassadors worldwide.

Titled "Echo-Chamber Message" -- a public relations term for talking points designed to be repeated again and again -- the Sept. 7, 2005, directive was unmistakable: Assure the scores of countries that had pledged or donated aid at the height of the disaster that their largesse had provided Americans "practical help and moral support" and "highlight the concrete benefits hurricane victims are receiving."

Many of the U.S. diplomats who received the message, however, were beginning to witness a more embarrassing reality. They knew the U.S. government was turning down many allies' offers of manpower, supplies and expertise worth untold millions of dollars. Eventually the United States also would fail to collect most of the unprecedented outpouring of international cash assistance for Katrina's victims.

Allies offered $854 million in cash and in oil that was to be sold for cash. But only $40 million has been used so far for disaster victims or reconstruction, according to U.S. officials and contractors. Most of the aid went uncollected, including $400 million worth of oil. Some offers were withdrawn or redirected to private groups such as the Red Cross. The rest has been delayed by red tape and bureaucratic limits on how it can be spent.

In addition, valuable supplies and services -- such as cellphone systems, medicine and cruise ships -- were delayed or declined because the government could not handle them. In some cases, supplies were wasted.

The struggle to apply foreign aid in the aftermath of the hurricane, which has cost U.S. taxpayers more than $125 billion so far, is another reminder of the federal government's difficulty leading the recovery. Reports of government waste and delays or denials of assistance have surfaced repeatedly since hurricanes Katrina and Rita struck in 2005.

Administration officials acknowledged in February 2006 that they were ill prepared to coordinate and distribute foreign aid and that only about half the $126 million received had been put to use. Now, 20 months after Katrina, newly released documents and interviews make clear the magnitude of the troubles.

More than 10,000 pages of cables, telegraphs and e-mails from U.S. diplomats around the globe -- released piecemeal since last fall under the Freedom of Information Act -- provide a fuller account of problems that, at times, mystified generous allies and left U.S. representatives at a loss for an explanation. The documents were obtained by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a public interest group, which provided them to The Washington Post.

In one exchange, State Department officials anguished over whether to tell Italy that its shipments of medicine, gauze and other medical supplies spoiled in the elements for weeks after Katrina's landfall on Aug. 29, 2005, and were destroyed. "Tell them we blew it," one disgusted official wrote. But she hedged: "The flip side is just to dispose of it and not come clean. I could be persuaded."

In another instance, the Department of Homeland Security accepted an offer from Greece on Sept. 3, 2005, to dispatch two cruise ships that could be used free as hotels or hospitals for displaced residents. The deal was rescinded Sept. 15 after it became clear a ship would not arrive before Oct. 10. The U.S. eventually paid $249 million to use Carnival Cruise Lines vessels.

And while television sets worldwide showed images of New Orleans residents begging to be rescued from rooftops as floodwaters rose, U.S. officials turned down countless offers of allied troops and search-and-rescue teams. The most common responses: "sent letter of thanks" and "will keep offer on hand," the new documents show.

Overall, the United States declined 54 of 77 recorded aid offers from three of its staunchest allies: Canada, Britain and Israel, according to a 40-page State Department table of the offers that had been received as of January 2006.

"There is a lack of accountability in where the money comes in and where it goes," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the public interest group, which called for an investigation into the fate of foreign aid offers. She added: "It's clear that they're trying to hide their ineptitude, incompetence and malfeasance."

In a statement, State Department spokesman Tom Casey said that the U.S. government sincerely appreciated support from around the world and that Katrina had proved to be "a unique event in many ways."

"As we continue our planning for the future, we will draw on the lessons learned from this experience to ensure that we make the best use of any possible foreign assistance that might be offered," Casey said.

Representatives of foreign countries declined to criticize the U.S. response to their aid offers, though some redirected their gifts.

Of $454 million in cash that was pledged by more than 150 countries and foreign organizations, only $126 million from 40 donors was actually received. The biggest gifts were from the United Arab Emirates, $100 million; China and Bahrain, $5 million each; South Korea, $3.8 million; and Taiwan, $2 million.

Bader Bin Saeed, spokesman for the Emirates Embassy in Washington, said that in future disasters, "the UAE would not hesitate to help other countries, whether the U.S. or any other state, in humanitarian efforts."

Kuwait, which made the largest offer, pledged $100 million in cash and $400 million in oil. But the Kuwaitis eventually gave their money to two private groups: $25 million to the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund, a project of the former presidents, and another $25 million to the American Red Cross in February 2006. They still plan to contribute another $50 million, said the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States, Salem Abdullah al-Jaber al-Sabah.

"It was based on my government's assessment of the fastest way to get money to the people that needed it," he said. "The Red Cross was on the ground and action-oriented."

In the White House's February 2006 Katrina report, U.S. officials said Kuwait's $400 million oil donation was to be sold for cash. Sabah said it was an in-kind pledge made when it appeared that U.S. refining capacity was devastated and that the American public would need fuel.

"We have to see what we have to do with that. When you pledge something in-kind, your intention is to give it in-kind. I do not think now the American people are in need of $400 million of fuel and fuel products," he said.

Of the $126 million in cash that has been received, most has not yet been used. More than $60 million was set aside in March 2006 to rebuild schools, colleges and universities, but so far, only $10.4 million has been taken by schools.

Half the $60 million was awarded last fall to 14 Louisiana and Mississippi colleges, but five have not started to claim the money. Only Dillard University in Louisiana and Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College have tapped their full awards, worth $6 million, U.S. Education Department officials said Friday.

Another $30 million was sent to Orleans, St. Bernard and Plaquemines parishes in Louisiana and to the state-run Recovery School District in New Orleans to build libraries, laboratories and other facilities for 130 public schools.

But none of that money has been used yet, said Meg Casper, spokeswoman for the Louisiana Department of Education. Allocations were just approved by the state board last week, she said, "so the money should start to flow."

The first concrete program officials announced in October 2005 -- a $66 million contract to a consortium of 10 faith-based and charity groups to provide social services to displaced families -- so far has assisted less than half the 100,000 victims it promised to help, the project director said.

The group, led by the United Methodist Committee on Relief, has spent $30 million of the money it was given to aid about 45,000 evacuees. Senate investigators are questioning some terms in the contract proposal, including a provision to pay consultants for 450 days to train volunteers for the work the committee was paid to do.

Jim Cox, the program director, said that the project is "right on track" but that its strategy of relying on volunteers foundered because of burnout and high turnover. He acknowledged that more people need help than are receiving it and said the program will be extended to March to use available funds.

"The resources aren't there, but these resources certainly are coming," Cox said.

[nacho]

Zuh?

The Associated Press Published: May 29, 2007

WASHINGTON: The Bush administration said Tuesday it will fight to keep meatpackers from testing all their animals for mad cow disease.

The Agriculture Department tests fewer than 1 percent of slaughtered cows for the disease, which can be fatal to humans who eat tainted beef. A beef producer in the western state of Kansas, Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, wants to test all of its cows.

Larger meat companies feared that move because, if Creekstone should test its meat and advertised it as safe, they might have to perform the expensive tests on their larger herds as well.

The Agriculture Department regulates the test and argued that widespread testing could lead to a false positive that would harm the meat industry.

A federal judge ruled in March that such tests must be allowed. U.S. District Judge James Robertson noted that Creekstone sought to use the same test the government relies on and said the government didn't have the authority to restrict it. - A federal judge ruled in March that such tests must be allowed. The ruling was scheduled to take effect June 1, but the Agriculture Department said Tuesday it would appeal, effectively delaying the testing until the court challenge has played out.

Mad cow disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy, is linked to more than 150 human deaths worldwide, mostly in Britain.

Three cases of mad cow disease have been found in the United States. The first, in December 2003 in Washington state, was in a cow that had been imported from Canada. The second, in 2005, was in a cow born in Texas. The third was confirmed last year in an Alabama cow.

[fajwat]

zomg.

[nacho]

Thanks to the UK, we've all witnessed a very clear object lesson on what happens when you stick your head in the ground on this issue. Or am I crazy?  I'm crazy. Okay.

[fajwat]

says the man with contraband honey and farm-soiled shoes.