FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

Reasons Why George W. Bush Should Lose His Job

The purpose of this site is to allow for a reasoned discourse of why President George W. Bush should not be allowed to keep his current job. All political leanings are welcome here, left, right, libetarian, etc. Thus, discussions on this site should be kept free from political dogma. Arguments should be made with cold-hard facts backed up with links to websites or references to magazine articles and books. The crux of this page is to provide an arsenal for the concerned voter.

Name:
Location: California, United States

Monday, October 25, 2004

The Lies

In comparison to 'Slick Willie' or 'Teflon Reagan' Bush has, so far, gotten away with some incredible and outright lies.

How have they gotten away with it? Here's the pattern: a official in the cabinet makes the claim on a Bush-friendly media outlet, further statements are then made by other members in the cabinet supposedly supporting the claim without outright validating the claim, and once certain reports have gotten around to invalidating the claims Bush himself then comes out and in some manner separates himself from those claims. Usually, he disavows himself of those false assertations by either claiming the information provided was erroneous or blaming some crooked third-party source that was acting completely independently of his administration.

Here's a rough list of some of the doozies:

Medicare
Bush's administration deliberately excluded data that would have shown that their new Medicare plan would cost $540 billion, one third larger than the original estimate of $400 billion, in proposing the plan before Congress.

An article from the New York Times that details the tax plan and the erroneous estimate:
'Bush's Aides Put Higher Price Tag on Medicare Law' - By Robert Pear, the New York Times

This article details the deliberate attempt to mislead Congress about the Medicare proposal's costs:
'Bush administration ordered Medicare plan cost estimates withheld' - By Tony Pugh

Nigerian Uranium
We have all heard the arguments back and forth on the Bush administration's claim that Saddam Hussein had untold piles of weapons of mass destruction that could be used against American interests at any time. Much of the current controversy revolves around whether or not the administration deliberately forged or distorted intelligence to support their WMD claims.

However, one of the strongest pieces of evidence that the Bush administration knowingly lied has been overlooked. Before the American public and the UN Security Council the Bush administration produced documents that they knew were fake alleging that Saddam Hussein had purchased high quality uranium from Nigeria.

A timeline produced by ABC News that shows how the false information of the Nigerian purchase traveled through to the White House. Notice that the CIA determined that the information was not at all credible quickly yet the administration continued to push this information as a selling point for their end goal of getting to Saddam Hussein for over a year after the CIA's initial analysis. Also notice that the envoy that they sent to investigate these claims, Ambassador Wilson, admits that the administration distorted the fake evidence to suit their needs.
'Evolving Untruths - A Timeline: How Did False Evidence Make It to the President?'

A Slate article detailing more about the mystery behind who originally forged the Nigerian documents. The real interesting point of this article is the details it relays on poor the forgeries were, naming people as Nigerian officials who had not been in power for decades. This evidence just further emphasizes how quickly the CIA determined that these documents were fake and how willing the Bush administration was to use false evidence to reach their goals:
'Follow That Story: The Nuclear Whodunit, Part 4 - Who forged the uranium documents that bamboozled the U.S.? A chronology.' - By Jack Shafer

Iraq Was Involved with al Qaida

This was a claim made by many of George Bush's underlings, though not by George himself. Most adament in this claim was Dick Cheney who made very direct statements supporting this apparent administration claim. But as the smoke has cleared from the fall of Saddam's government we're finding out there is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. Many sites that support the president continue to insist that there was evidence of collaboration but they often cite only internal administration memos. After the weapons of mass destruction fiasco, we all know how accurate those intelligence memos are. What's most galling about this lie is that with pressure from the international community and the '9/11 Report' many of those same Bush officials who supported this lie initially now openly admit that there is 'no' evidence of any connection between Saddam and al Qaida.

The initial claims made by the White House of collaboration:
'Rice: Iraq trained al Qaeda in chemical weapons'

Pretty much all those who've made the claim, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz for instance, have since have since disavowed themselves of these claims.

A report detailing the 'flip-flopping' the Bush administration has done on these claims:
"Rumsfeld: Iraq/al-Qaida remarks 'misunderstood'" By Simon Jeffery

Monday, September 13, 2004

Recommended Books

I thought that I'd pull away from the (somewhat) educated rants and list some books that I'd recommend, if asked.

Links:

This is the current one I'm reading. The famous quote often goes, "Those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it". That is the lesson taught by this book. With meticulous research and careful analysis the author shows, quite successfully, how George W. Bush and members of his inner circle parrot imperialist ideals from the 1890s. Ideas that were initially trumpeted by early 20th century war hawks like Teddy Roosevelt and later abandonned as World War I later proved their arguments ridiculous. An invaluable reference to those who wish to know the history and fallicies in the neo-conservatives' and isolationists' international policies.
The Folly of Empire : What George W. Bush Could Learn from Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson by John B. Judis

For those more concerned with the domestic agenda this next book offers a huge amount of food for thought. Written by a registered Republican this book even-handedly details how Congress and the last few Presidents have perveted the IRS legal system and tax code to the advantage of the very wealthy. Even with this fairly objective analysis George W. receives special criticism from some mind-boggling attempts to sneak tax breaks into Congress that would have essentially freed the rich from paying taxes at all. Some of the tax breaks were so blatantly awful that Republican members of the House and Senate joined forces with opposing Democrats to openly criticize and kill the bills. This is a good reference for those who'd like to know how far the current federal system has been removed from power for the people and by the people.
Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich - and Cheat Everybody Else by David Cay Johnston

Wednesday, September 08, 2004

Re: National Guard Duty

It appears that the new Texas Air Guard records forced out of the Pentagon after threat of an AP lawsuit further support existing evidence that Bush shirked his National Guard Duty and got away with it. The most damaging evidence appears to have been obtained by reporters from 60 minutes. They claim to have evidence that "higher ups" were pressuring the commanding officer of Bush's unit to provide special favors for Bush.

An overview of the latest charges resulting from the latest Guard records:
'Democrats Say Bush Lied on Guard Service' By Matt Kelly

A potentially partisan claim by Texas' Speaker of the House that he helped Bush get into the National Guard so that Bush would avoid serving in Vietnam:
'Barnes Upset About Helping Bush Avoid War' By Jim Vertuno

Sunday, August 08, 2004

Commander in Chief?

How effective is George W. Bush as our Commander in Chief? Lately his supporters have been attempting to portray him as a decisive leader who would not let America falter. His record doesn't correlate with this image.

George W. Bush has displayed indecisiveness and poor judgment since taking office. One of the most notable episodes being the few minutes between the first plane hitting Tower One of the World Trade Center and the other planes attacking Tower Two and the Pentagon. Uncertain of what do he remained at a photo-op while the various executive branches roiled in confusion. Now one could that any other president would have done the same thing, but this wasn't the only example of lack of judgment.

The War on Afghanistan

With Bush diverting the military's attention away from Afghanistan to Iraq what's been left in Afghanistan is a half-hearted (on the part of our president and his advisors) effort to rid Afghanistan of Taliban and al-Qaida forces. The US led forces did cause Taliban militias to leave the major cities and institutions of Afghanistan. However, the Taliban has been forced back into the areas where they were most dangerous in the first place, into the rural and mountainous regions.

Despite US efforts the majority of the al-Qaida and Taliban command remain at large in and around the mountains of Afghanistan. This situation is far from over. Despite this, President Bush has like his announcement of "Mission Accomplished" vis-a-vis the Iraq War prematurely abandonned the situation. So much so that the interim president of Afghanistan Karzai has had to make repeated pleas to the United States to not forget the chaotic situation that still exists in his country and to continue to apply pressure on the Taliban insurgents.

Spread Thin

On top of this, many military leaders have come forth to openly complain about our forces being spread too thin in both regions. Despite this bold criticism the Bush administration fearing the political ramifications of deploying more troops overseas or of pulling out of other military commitments has refused to acknowledge that this is even a potentially dangerous situation.

In fact Bob Woodward has claimed in his new book, "Plan of Attack", that Gen. Barney Franks openly cursed when asked to draw up a war plan for attacking Iraq while he was still heavily involved in Afghanistan. A report that has been tacitly supported with recent admissions by Franks.

Links:

Description of the chaotic situation currently in Afghanistan:
'Security woes plague Afghanistan Widespread crime, lax police worrying officials, peacekeepers' by Malcolm Garcia

Discussion of what should be done in Afghanistan:
'Afghanistan Unbound' by Kathy Gannon

The '9/11 Commission Report' contains several very sharp criticisms of Bush's administration. It also emphatically states that there is no link between Iraq and al-Qaida despite assertations by Bush administration officials. In fact, it finds more connections between Iran and al-Qaida:
'The 9/11 Commission Report'

A report detailing how thin our forces are spread:
'U.S. forces spread thin overseas' By Tom Infield

Tuesday, July 27, 2004

The Undue Influence of Campaign Sponsors

Unfortunately much of the American political process has become very dependent on 'big money' contributions. So much so that both the Democrat and Republican presidential candidates will forgo collecting matching campaign funds, available from the government, due to limits those matching funds would place on the size of their campaign war chests. So the choices posed to the concerned voter are not purely determined by ideological compatibility. They are also determined by the candidate's campaign sponsors and how much influence they would have on said candidate.

Bush has already shown himself to be very much a lackey of the 'big money' interests from his earlier campaign. He has gone so far as to assign corporate friends to cabinet posts that regulated their respective industries. Conflict of interests have abounded in Bush's cabinet. From former CEO Cheney apparently being involved in the no-bid Iraq oil contract for Halliburton to extremely close ties with the corrupt Enron executives this has been a cabinet intimately involved in corporations who have been at the forefront of some of the worst collection of corporate scandals in this nation's history.

As Bush once dryly put to a fundraiser of rich patrons of his campaign, "This is an impressive crowd. The haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite. I call you my base". This has been an administration for the interests of a few. The majority of us will no doubt be left lacking in a second Bush term.

Links:

Skeletons from Cheney's past:
'Halliburton And Cheney Mentioned in Bribe Probe' By Richard Whittle

Cheney has denied that he has retained ties to Halliburton yet the evidence does not support this:
'Cheney's Halliburton Ties Remain' From CBS News

A record of questionnable ties to Bush's cabinet:
'FTCR: 13 of 16 Bush Cabinet Members Have Ties to 'Class Action' Targeted Companies' Newswire

A good example of the connections that a company like Enron has in Washington:
'Enron E-Mails Give Insiders' View' By Suzanne Gamboa

An early example of Bush's corporate cronyism:
'Thriving on Conflicts of Interest' By Marshall Maher from the Daily Texan

A somewhat dated list of Bush appointees and congressional leadership from the Conservative Caucus

'Cabinet Members and Aides' - A good list of Bush's cabinet members and scandals that have involved them.

A list of lower-rung adminstration officials:
'Administration Officials Below Cabinet Level'

An example of adminstrative ties to Enron:
'Army secretary denies insider facts on Enron' By Jonathan S. Landay and Chris Mondics

Monday, July 19, 2004

Environmental Record

Bush has the worst environmental record of all presidents in the past thirty years.  It's not surprising though.  While campaigning for president on a supposedly neo-conservative pro-environmental record Bush presided over a state whose environmental policy was in complete retreat.  Even some multi-national corporate officials in Texas were complaining about the role of corporations in their home state's environmental governance (Governor Bush had embraced corporate self-governance for many of Texas' environmental laws).  
 
What he started in Texas he has continued in his new position.  Upon reaching the White House he quickly set about dismantling popular environmental legislation.  As well, the administration has argued for loosening limitations set on mining on federal lands and national monuments.  To further these efforts he set the basis of his policy on bad and sometimes falsified science (see 'Science Policy' post).  Knowing the weakness of his position on these matters he has been pronounced in his disdain and vindictiveness for those who disagreed with him (see 'Why I Was Fired from the Geological Survey').  
 
One almost doesn't have to write anything in arguing against Bush's opinions on environmental matters. His record would speak for them. From attempts to derail popular environmental acts, to attempting to open national parks and federally protected wilderness to mining, unrestrictive logging, and other corporate interests.  Bush's actions have displayed an appalling disregard for what belongs to all of us: our land, our health, and our right to pass our protected and preserved public spaces to our next generations.
 
Links:
 
Bush's continuing record of trying to remove a massive outcry of disapproval in his policies by experts who know better:
'Ex-chief of Park Police denounces firing - Chambers: Administration 'silencing' dissenting views'

One of Bush's first attempts at environmental policy rollback was an attempt to gut the heart out of the 'Clean Water Act':
'Bush mulls changes to Clean Water Act - Protection laws wouldn't apply to one-fifth of nation's wetlands'

A pro and con debate on Bush's early rollbacks on environmental policy. It's interesting to note that not one of the talking heads in the pro-Bush camp actually argues that Bush is improving environmental policy at all. In fact, they admit that he has been rolling back previous environmental legislation. Their solution to the criticism is to try and deflect it while spouting platitudes and rhetoric about the 'problems' with previous policy:
'Bush and the Environment' - March 29, 2001

Bush's record concerning the environment is more misdirection than progress:
'National Parks fast falling into disrepair - From aging facilities to overgrown trails, reaching the backcountry is getting harder.' By Brad Knickerbocker

You and I have to clean up other people's messes:
'White House won't tax corporations for Superfund cleanup'

An opinion piece minutely detailing the state of Texas' environment, from within Texas:
'Bush and the Environment' By Molly Ivins and Louis Dubose

Bush's true record on the environment laid out before the 2000 election:
'George W. Bush on [the] Enivronment'

A report for Congress on Bush's proposal for rerversing Clinton's modifications to an archaic law from 1879:
CRS Report for Congress on mining of federal lands

Bush ponders opening up national parks for mining interests:
'Bush: National Monuments Have Oil-Drilling Potential' By Mike Soraghan

Thursday, July 15, 2004

Civil Liberties

No other president who has not been under a formal declaration of war has ever made so many and such wide ranging attacks on civil liberties.  From attempts to amend the constitution, ignoring international treaties of decorum, and outright ignoring the constitution when it's convenient, this president has attempted to stretch and breech his executive powers to extremes not exhibited since Thomas Jefferson attacked the Barbary Coast.
 
The most blatant attack on our civil liberties is, of course, the Patriot Act.   One may argue though that the temporary nature of the act makes it a more controlled form of martial law.  Those people forget that Bush has been lobbying Congress vehemently to repeal or at the least extend the expiration date of this act.   Making some of these losses of individual liberty permanent would be far worse than martial law.  They would become permanant vernacular of executive powers.
 
In addition, when Congress originally debated passing this act the administration made an unwritten promise to them that they restrict use of Patriot Act powers to cases targeting terrorist activities only.  That however has not been the case.  Recently, Ashcroft has been defending his use of the Patriot Act powers in cases that have not involved suspected terrorist activity.
 
The situation has gotten so bad that as of late, very conservative members of the Supreme Court have voted clearly against George W. Sometimes recalling very basic tenets in the Constitution in support of a decision against Bush.  
 
Links:
 
The Patriot Act:
The Patriot Act

Ashcroft attempts to justify the Patriot Act:
'Ashcroft defends Patriot Act as effective Civil liberties groups object to use of law in nonterror cases' by Dan Eggen of the Washington Post
 
List of rights lost under this administration:
'Bush Administration vs. the Constitution - A Civil Liberties Scorecard', September 2002
 
A report alleging that even the Supreme Court Justices are appalled:
'The O'Conner Factor' By Ted Rall
 
Bush attempts to lengthen the Patriot Act:
'Bush Wants Patriot Act Renewed' By Declan McCullagh
 
PDF detailing the decision of the Supreme Court concerning the Guantanamo Bay detainees.  Notice how they evoke the simple notion of habeas corpus that we've taken for granted since 1789:
'Supreme Court of the United States Rasul et al. v. Bush, President of the United States, et al.'