Tag Archives: Bush

The Great Bush Gasoline Reduction Deception.

Two weeks ago President Bush strolled into the White House Rose Garden and announced that he was taking action to reduce gasoline use by 20% over 10 years. Sounds great right.

Only thing is, it’s a lot of smoke and mirrors. First off, when you examine the actual words of what he said it’s really ambiguous as to what he has committed to do regarding reducing gasoline use. He’s really made no commitment to do anything more than study the issue further and what he has proposed is patently deceptive in that overall fuel use by cars and trucks will continue to go up.

One huge problem is that while reducing something 20% sounds great it is misleading and meant to deceive the public. It is a cover for doing very little in 10 years The goal he’s talking about is not a 20% reduction in fuel use, it’s specifically a 20% reduction in “gasoline use”. And three quarters of the 20% “reducing vehicle gasoline use” is actually a fuel shift to alternative fuels like ethanol and other biofuels.

The truth is Bush is only proposing a 5% reduction in gasoline use over 10 years and a 15% shift in use of gasoline to alternative fuels over this 10 year period. While this will have some impact in reducing dependence on foreign oil, the overall impact on reducing global warming is unclear. While shifting to some alternative fuels will reduce global warming gases, a shift to others would actually increase overall global warming gases produced.

The problem remains that all of this is hypothetical – Bush is asking for more study to produce recommendations before he leaves office next year. His answer to global warming is just like his answer to the Iraq War – leave it to the next President.

California has asked for a waiver to increase fuel efficiency standards. Bush’s study proposal is in fact a way for Bush to avoid acting on this waiver before he leaves office. It’s obvious he has no intent to seriously address global warming issues or make any serious attempt to actually significantly reduce our consumption of fuel and oil. The truth is he has the power to act now to increase fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. But he’s not going to. He’s not going to do antything to hurt his business friends in the oil industry from continuing to make record profits.

Its really up to Congress to act because Bush has not committed himself to do much of anything. Bush is just playing word games trying to pull another fast one on the public.

The Reason We Are in Iraq is to "Support the Troops"?

There have been so many “reasons” given by Bush as to why we are in Iraq. But it is a sorry state of affairs when the rationale for Congress continuing to fund the war turns into a debate about who is “supporting the troops” and the Democrats continue to respond to the issue on these terms.

If the issue is really about “supporting the troops“, then bringing them home now is the best way to support them. We can certainly do a better job at home than having to supply them with food and weapons half way around the world.

Why is the main stream media and everyone else seemingly buying into the idea that what the debate is about now is “supporting the troops“? Is it because all the other rationales given by Bush no longer make sense and this is his last desperate attempt to try to tug at the heartstrings of America? Why can’t someone just tell the Pretender Emperor he has no clothes?

What happened to fighting terrorism or bringing peace and democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan?This war is Bush’s war and it has turned out to have been made on false assumptions and false premises and false expectations. But Democrats make a big mistake if they continue to respond to Bush’s false pretenses and phony concerns and attempts to re-frame the debate now into a false issue of “supporting the troops“.

The debate now should not be about “supporting the troops” and never should have been. Democrats are wrong to engage in Bush’s phony attempts to change the debate. Get real. Debate what our goals are in Iraq and what we can or can not do. Whatever happened in the past is done – make your decisions based on the present reality and then act. But what the hell does “supporting the troops” have to do with this?

Debate what we need to do next. Only after you’ve made that decision and come up with a plan to carry out with a time line do you discuss what you can do to support carrying out the mission. Only then do you discuss how to “support the troops” in their mission. But only after you reach agreement on a plan of action can you determine how to “support the troops“.

Bush really is saying, support what I am doing. The problem is Bush choose to ignore the concerns of Democrats and others when he started this war. He chose his own counsel and continues to this day to function in isolation, stubbornly ignoring concerns and suggestions of others, including the bipartisan panel on Iraq that he put together to deflect criticism and then whose recommendations he choose to ignore.

Bush seemingly has no end game or exit plan except to ride things out until his term in office is up. Then he can blame whatever bad outcome there is on the next President. Bush is praying that he will get lucky in the next year and a half but the chances right now seem worse than the odds on winning one of those Mega-Lotteries.

Bush Gives Democrats and Kerry the Finger

Knowing that the Senate was not going to confirm his choice of Swift Boat Funder Sam Fox to be the Ambassador to Belgium, President Bush appointed him and two others to posts using the Congressional recess to make interim appointments. Considering the strong Congressional opposition to the President’s choices, Bush just gave the finger to the Democrats and John Kerry.

Consider the following exchange in the Senate between Senator Kerry and Sam Fox as recorded by Bob Geiger:

“Kerry: Let me ask you about that. On August 5, 2005, John McCain called the SBVT “completely nauseating, dishonest and dishonorable.” McCain pointed out “it’s the same kind of deal that was pulled on me” when he ran against Bush in 2000.

On August 15, John Warner, Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and former Navy Secretary said “I can speak to the process, that we did extraordinary careful checking on that kind of medal, a very high one, that it goes through the Secretary. So I’d stand by the process that awarded Kerry that medal and I think we best acknowledge that his heroism did gain that recognition. I feel he deserved it

.”He was then, incidentally, in the Navy — he signed my award.August 8, 2004, General Tommy Franks called the smear boat attacks “vitriolic and hyperbole.”

On August 7, 2004, Mike Johannes the Republican governor of Nebraska says the ads were “trash.”

Now these are Republican leaders. These are the leaders of your own party. President Bush said that he thought that my service was honorable and they shouldn’t be questioning it. Yet, even when your own candidate does that, you saw fit to put $50,000 on the line to continue the smear.

My question to you is why? When you say you couldn’t have known — these were people very publicly condemning it. How could you not have known?

Fox: I guess, Mr. Senator, when I’m asked I just generally give.”

Fox withdrew his name from consideration after the hearing but George Bush also likes to just give to his friends. “Here’s an ambassadorship Sam. Thanks for doing the dirty work,” Bush silently is saying to himself.

In addition Bush appointed two others to positions that were opposed by Democrats for good reason. As the New York Times notes today in an editorial entitled “No Recess from Bad Appointments“, the other two appointments are just as objectionable to reasonable people and out of tune with what America needs now. The NY Times says “All three are extraordinary bad appointments – and three more reminders of how Mr Bush’s claim s of wanting to work with Congress’s Democratic leadership are just empty words”

“…the appointment of Susan E. Dudley to the Office of Management and Budget, where she will review regulations from major federal agencies before they are issued. Ms. Dudley has made no secret of her hostility toward government regulation, criticizing everything from fuel economy standards for light trucks to a national drinking water standard for arsenic, arguing that the market will almost always suffice. This makes her just right for this administration but wrong for consumers and the environment.

Similarly, Andrew Biggs, the president’s choice to be deputy commissioner of the Social Security Administration, is a champion of partially privatizing the program he is being sent to administer. The agency dispenses checks to beneficiaries and traditionally provides factual information on the state of the program. But under this president the agency has become increasingly politicized, using questionable arguments and projections to support Mr. Bush’s drive for private accounts. As a lower ranking official in the agency, Mr. Biggs was in the thick of that politicization. His appointment is a sure sign that Mr. Bush intends to keep using the agency as a propaganda machine to push a privatization scheme that has little public support.”

Again and again we see the blind dogmatism of the Bush/Cheney/Rove and Republican attempts how to run the country to benefit corporate America . Forget Republican promises and words to the contrary- look at their actions. They speak louder than any words coming from the White House.

Molly Ivins Warned Us About Shrub Part II

Back in 1999 Molly Ivins co-authored with Dou Dubose a book entitled Shrub The Short but Happy Political Life of George W. Bush. What she said then still rings true today.
Take for example the following:

“…he owes his political life to big corporate money; he’s a CEO’s wet dream. He carries their water, he’s stumpbroke – however you put it, George W. Bush is a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America. …We can find no evidence that it has ever occurred to him to question whether it is wise to do what big business wants. He is perfectly comfortable, perfectly at home, doing the bidding of big business. These are his friends, and he takes care of his friends …”

As well as this:

“Where Bush is weak is on the governance side of politics. From the record, it appears that he doesn’t know much, and doesn’t care much about governing…. In fact, given his record, its kind of hard to figure out why he wants a job where he’s expected to govern. It’s not just that
he has no ideas about what to do with government- if you think his daddy had trouble with “the vision thing,” wait till you meet this one. For a Republican, not wanting to do much with government is practically a vision in itself. Trouble is , when you aren’t particularly interested in the nuts and bolts of governing, you end up with staff-driven policy.”

Or policy written by your Vice-President and corporate America.

Iraq War Really about Condoleezza Rice being Single?

Right Wing Attack Zombies have once again attacked a Democrat, this time Senator Barbara Boxer, in an attempt to divert attention from Bush’s War and the Old Time Media buys into it. It’s just as nonsensical as their buying into the same Right Wing Zombies spin diversion coordinated by the Republican Noise Machine when they attacked John Kerry’s Bush joke.

When will the media get out of the business of being manipulated and used by the conservatives to deflect criticism of the Iraq War? The New York Times gives right wing blogger’s and right wing radio attention and coverage on whether Barbara Boxer offended Condi Rice when she suggested that by Rice being single she didn’t have a close loved one in the firing sights over in Iraq. Ouch, the truth hurts.

The NY Times Headline, “Passing Exchange Becomes Political Flashpoint Focused on Feminism“. Excuse me, but doesn’t the media know what Bush and Rove and Rice are doing? It’s political jujitsu. Turn the questioning back on the questioner and make them the issue, thereby deflecting the original question. Flashpoint? No. Just an attempt to deflect questions that need to be asked and answered.

Here is Senator Boxer’s question as quoted in the International Herald

Who pays the price?” Boxer asked Rice. “I’m not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young. You’re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with immediate family.
“So who pays the price? The American military and their families.”


The International Herald’s Headline: “Rice says single women can understand ramifications of war
Excuse me again but what does that have to do with Bush escalating his personal war in Iraq without having to be accountable to America? There is nothing wrong with Senator Boxer’s question. It’s time someone started asking these questions and demanding answers.

The New York Times noted that Rice had no comment at the time but later its attack time. Bush’s press propagandist, Tony Snow comments that he thinks Senator Boxer’s comments were anti feminist and “a great leap backward for feminism” Yes the Bush people should know all about feminism with their anti contraception positions and other regressive policies that are steps backward for women.

The media needs to call this line of attack crap and do their job ferreting out the truth rather than just parroting back the Bush propaganda line. But wait, say too much and Bush will exclude you from being able to ask questions at his press conferences, excusee me, indoctrination conferences. Shame on the media for being so docile and compliant in parroting the White House nonsensical attack.

As Babara Boxer says in the International Herald article:

I spoke the truth at the committee hearing, which is that neither Secretary Rice nor I have family members that will pay the price for this escalation,” she said. “My point was to focus attention on our military families who continue to sacrifice because this administration has not developed a political solution to the situation in Iraq.”

Thank you Senator Barbara Boxer for raising the issue and asking questions like these. Keep up the good work!

Cheerleader Bush Yells for Giftmas

Yes Giftmas is upon us. And our intrepid cheerleader Bush not only is trying to rally us to send more troops for sacrifice in Iraq but also to get in the holiday spirit and support Giftmas.

Giftmas is the national holiday that shows support for corporations around the world that are based on ever increasing consumption of goods and materials. In America the Giftmas spirit of worshiping ever increasing consumption levels is tracked closely by watching the up and down gyrations of individual corporations as they report their profits and losses on Wall Street.

As just reported in Marketwatch.com, Bush in his press conference today said “The recent report on retail sales shows a strong beginning to the holiday shopping season across the country,” Bush said. “And I encourage you all to go shopping more.”

After 9-11 Bush you may have remembered also urged people to shop … and to fly on airplanes.

Bush was a Cheerleader in college. It seems he just can’t stop cheerleading for corporate America.

"Burn the Books. Who Needs Science?" says Bush to EPA

In Germany in 1933 they burned the books for having “unGerman ideas”. Here in America today the Bush Environmental Protection Agency is literally doing the same on behalf of its conservative corporate patrons supporting the Republican Party by closing the Environmental Protection Agency’s Libraries and destroying material.

The EPA, under Bush’s directive is quietly and rapidly closing the libraries in their national and regional offices without Congressional oversight or approval. The head of the EPA is appointed by Bush and does his bidding.

As the Kansas City Star reports, regional EPA libraries in Kansas City, Chicago, and Dallas have been closed. The National EPA library has closed along with a specialized library on chemicals. Other libraries like in Seattle are on reduced hours and are in imminent danger of being closed.

It is another action by the Bush Imperial Presidency that believes it can do whatever it wants. It is another example of the Bush Administration’s blatant hostility toward science and environmental concerns. They are carrying out the anti-environmental agenda of their corporate patrons with the fervor of Nazi Stormtroopers.
The American Library Association reports that:

the EPA is closing libraries and dispersing resources in accordance with an Administration budget directive that has neither been approved nor formally enacted by Congress. Implementation of the library reorganization is proceeding at a rapid pace. Reports of the library closures, information destruction, and property auctions continue to surface despite the objections to the plan raised by EPA professional staff, EPA employee union representatives and the American Library Association.

As one after another of the Environmental Protection Agency’s regional libraries close, both public access and access by EPA scientists is lost, further hindering the implementation of public policy based on science rather than politics. As books and scientific studies are being boxed up and sent to storage, material is also being destroyed. It is Bush’s modern day equivalent to Hitler’s “Book Burning.”

Ironically this closing of the libraries of the EPA is not hypocritical on the part of the corporate friendly anti-science Bush/Cheney Administration. Most of their decisions have not been based on science anyway but on politics. Global warming is just one example.
Democrats in Congress have tried to stop the library closings but have been ignored by Bush. They have asked that all closing of libraries be stopped immediately. As noted in a November 30th letter to the EPA :

“Eighteen Senators sent a letter on November 3, 2006, to leaders of the Senate Appropriations Committee asking them to direct EPA “to restore and maintain public access and onsite library collections and services at EPA’s headquarters, regional, laboratory and specialized program libraries while the Agency solicits and considers public input on its plan to drastically cut its library budget and services”(attached). Yet, despite the lack of Congressional approval and the concerns expressed over this plan, your Agency continues to move forward with dismantling the EPA libraries.

The National EPA Library closed on Oct 1, 2006. I know there really wasn’t any need for any of the Republican Congress or Bush’s cabinet or Presidential staff to really have an environmental library, particularly in Washington, D.C. They never used it. But the EPA library also had been open to the public and of course the EPA staff. But with things changing in Congress Bush doesn’t want any facts and science to get into the hands of any incoming Congressional Democrats who might read it and use it as they pass laws. So shut the damn thing down quick before anyone has a chance to stop what’s being done. No public input. No budget approval.

Beginning October 1, 2006, the EPA Headquarters Library, located in Room 3340 in the EPA West Building, located at 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, will become one of three EPA repositories for paper copies of EPA documents, reports and publications. The other two repositories will be located at the EPA-RTP Library, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Durham, NC 27711, and at the Andrew W. Breidenbach Environmental Research Center, 26 W. Martin Luther King Dr., Cincinnati, OH 45268.”

Rather than the regional offices having access to scientific information in each of their offices the plan is to box it up and send it to a repository. And probably destroy any duplicates. It’s much easier to only have one copy or no copies of a negative pesticide report to hide than multiple reports in offices around the country. And when you close a library you no longer have a need for a librarian to run the library – that’s one less person who knows about the reports.

The Bush EPA PR people are saying that the material will be digitized and put on the computer. But wouldn’t you do that before you shut everything down? Where is the plan. It’s just like Iraq? No plan – shoot first. The Republican scheme of things is box it up, because once it’s boxed up, fewer people will have access to deciding what is to be digitized. Its called controlling and denying access to information. Like you can really expect that the reports critical of Bush’s position of doing nothing on global warming are going to put up on the Internet?

On Dec 13, 2006 ALA President Leslie Burger issued the following:

It is a gross oversimplification to state that everyone benefits when libraries go digital.

This is only true when there is a thoughtful digitization plan that ensures valuable information is not lost and public access is retained. We are still waiting for the EPA to disclose its digitization plan and budget,” Burger said.

All this is just one more reason to support a Democrat for President in 2008. Bush represents the Republican philosophy of supporting corporations over public health and the environment. He supports controlling access to information over open public libraries that foster a free exchange of information. He doesn’t support science or the use of science in making public policy.

Do you hear any Republicans running for President protesting the closing of the EPA libraries? I don’t. Things just get worse and worse under Bush, despite the Nov elections because he is not going to listen or act in the behalf of the public interest. Shutting down the EPA libraries has nothing to do with saving money. It has all to do with the continued assault by corporate America on science and putting economic interests of the corporations above public health and the environment.

I urge you to contact your members of Congress and demand the EPA libraries be kept open. Congress needs to hear from us that this assault on science, libraries and the environment is not acceptable. If we don’t speak up who will?