Bush Upset Over Media Bias (Fox News Agrees)

Awwwwww. The poor old Bush administration just hasn't been able to catch a break these past 8 years. From winning the war in Iraq, to saving the environment, to fixing the US economy, every major Bush accomplishment has been under-reported or distorted by the liberal media. Today, President Dorkwad W. Dicksmack has taken the fight right to the doorstep of the enemy - NBC News.

The White House issued a terse statement condemning NBC for demonstrating bias after it edited out a portion of Dubbya's evasive non-answer to Richard Engel's question about whether or not Bush's recent "appeasement" comment was directed at Barack Obama. In answer to Engel's question, Bush replied:

"You know, my policies haven't changed, but evidently the political calendar has. People need to read the speech. You didn't get it exactly right, either. What I said is that we need to take the words of people seriously."

Only the first sentence was used in the network broadcast, although the entire interview was available on the website. Frankly, NBC could have edited out Bush's entire response, and it wouldn't have made a difference. The President never answered Engel's question, and no amount of culling of his rhetorical talking points could alter that fact.

Of course, for George W Bush to accuse anyone of misrepresentation is laughable. His administration has been unconscionably deceitful, and has been enthusiastically supported by Fox News, which acts as a de facto media extension of the Republican Party. Curiously, we never heard the White House complain about shoddy journalistic standards when mass media stalwarts were slavishly beating the drum for war in Iraq. Nor have we ever heard condemnation of Fox for their ongoing assault on honest reporting.

The White House has issues with Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews setting an agenda at NBC, but gives Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity a free pass at Faux News. In typical right wing fashion, what's good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander. Congratulations to NBC on their response to the White House (although personally, I would have used more four-letter words in telling Bush to go fuck himself).

"Just as the White House does not participate in the editorial process at the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal or USA Today, NBC News, as part of a free press in a free society, makes its own editorial decisions," NBC said in a statement.

Bad Idea

In my estimation, American foreign policy over the years has been little more than a series of remarkably short-sighted marriages (and divorces) of convenience. But, like Liz Taylor, the US never seems to tire of trips to the altar, and never seems to learn the lessons of past relationships gone sour.

The latest courtship comes in the form of a reported deal to supply arms to Saudi Arabia and its Gulf neighbours (Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman) to the tune of 20 billion dollars. These arms would include advanced weapons such as satellite-guided bombs, and upgraded equipment for the Air Force and Navy.

The reason for such generosity is of course that George W Bush is becoming increasingly worried about the dominance of Iran in a destabilized region. That Bush himself is in large part the cause of the region's instability seems of little consequence to the blistering dunderheads who run the show. The solution, they have decided, is to dump more weapons into the other Gulf states. The Israelis, who are naturally alarmed by this prospect, are being assuaged by a 30.5 billion dollar arms package of their own. Keeping up with the Joneses and all.

The dangers of fomenting an arms race in the Middle East should be apparent to even the most inebriated of casual observers. To be sure, the Americans have tread on such dangerous ground before. It didn't work with these guys. Or with this guy. But hey, who's to say it won't work this time? After all, Iran is a menace and a threat to the Gulf, right?

As a columnist from the Malaysia Star observes,

More cruel dictators have happily and profitably supported US interests, with US assistance, than threatened them. Only when they become too independent, like Panama’s Noriega and Iraq’s Saddam, do they have to be “taken out”.
Would any US presidential contender end this policy of nurturing, in former president Harry Truman’s phrase, “our bastards”? That would make a real difference from existing policy, and energise US diplomacy
all-round.

Marriages of convenience may be bad ideas, but they have the advantage of being...um, convenient. At least in the short term. And so it's likely we will have to endure more such trips down the aisle. Weddings always make me cry.

Update: For another interesting look at lessons not learned, check out this post.

Bush Commutes Scooter's Sentence

From CNN, the least surprising but most disappointing story of the day.

To paraphrase Jon Stewart, debate now rages between those who think the President will pardon Libby......and those who know he will.

Seeing the World Through Bush-Coloured Lenses

Reading the sad news today that 5 Brits were abducted in Baghdad, 10 more U.S. soldiers were killed and 33 Iraqi civilians died in two bombings, I couldn't help but think about what a deplorable nightmare Iraq has become.
May 2007 has been the bloodiest month of the year for Iraqis, and the worst month for American troop deaths since November of 2004. The numbers have been widely reported, and the facts are not in dispute. But as usual, the devil is in the interpretation of said facts. Far be it from me to suggest that the facts surrounding Iraq speak for themselves. For if they are speaking, George W. Bush seems blithely unaware of their message. But then again, facts have never stood in Dubbya's way before, so....why start now?

The Facts:

From a recent CBS/New York Times poll:
72% disapprove of Bush's handling of the war in Iraq
61% feel the US should have stayed out of Iraq
20% feel the troop surge will make things better in Iraq
63% support a timetable for troop withdrawal in 2008

From a recent USAToday/Gallup poll:
61% oppose US troop surge in Iraq
72% feel GWB does not have a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq

Bush's Interpretation:

"I recognize there are a handful there, or some, who just say, `Get out, you know, it's just not worth it. Let's just leave.' I strongly disagree with that attitude. Most Americans do as well."

Bush clearly has a lot invested in this war, both financially and politically. So his defensive attitude isn't entirely surpising. But the way in which he casually dismisses the 63% of Americans who support withdrawal as "a handful" is truly astonishing. Either he is willfully attempting to deceive the public, or he is clinically delusional. The latter option is only partially in jest. If not for delusion, how else does one explain the fact that the US is in the process of building a $592 million dollar new US Embassy in Baghdad? At two thirds the size of Washington's National Mall, it will be the world's largest and most expensive foreign mission. Nevermind the fact that it is being built in the middle of a warzone, and will likely be a target for extremists for years to come.

"What you have is a situation in which they are building an embassy without really thinking about what its functions are," said Edward Peck, a former top U.S. diplomat in Iraq. "What kind of embassy is it when everybody lives inside and it's blast-proof, and people are running around with helmets and crouching behind sandbags?"

And finally, a thought for those who, despite all the facts, still support the Iraq war as part of Bush's fairy-tale "Global War on Terror". Earlier this month, NYU professor and foreign policy analyst Marilyn B Young made this astute observation:

"[I]n Iraq, it's not the terrorists - I mean, terrorists - anyhow, who are they? Terrorism is a tactic. It's not an ideology. It's not a person. It's a tactic that groups use."

When one views the GWOT from this perspective, its futility becomes apparent. Wars are fought against people and nations. But how do you wage a war against a tactic? The war in Iraq was Bush's attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole - to turn an inherently unwinnable war againt "terror" into a much more palatable war against Saddam Hussein. The ongoing kidnappings, bombings, and murders are sad testimony to the shortsightedness of Bush's plans.

Democrats: Winning, One Loss at a Time

Dubbya has done it again. George W. Bush -a lame duck President, riding out the second of two disastrous terms, presiding over an ill-conceived and unpopular war, enjoying the support of less than 30% of Americans, surrounded by a diminishing number of close friends many of whom are themselves under investigation for various forms of malfeasance - has managed to score a political victory over the Democratic majority in Congress.

After their first bill was vetoed, Congress yesterday reached a new low by approving almost $95 billion dollars in extra funding for the war in Iraq, without any attached withdrawal plan. Democrats then showed off their versatility - that rare combination of spinelessness and shamelessness not seen since the run-up to the war itself. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent out an e-mail, bragging about their humiliating capitulation! If you have the stomach for it, you can read it here, courtesy of Daily Kos. “This debate will go on,” vowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Bravo, Nancy, bravo.

The bill establishes a series of goals for the Iraqi government to meet as it strives to build a democratic country able to defend its own borders. Continued U.S. reconstruction aid would be conditioned on progress toward the so-called benchmarks, although Mr. Bush retains the authority to order that the funds be spent regardless of how the Baghdad government performs.

All of this has no doubt been confusing for voters who elected a Democratic Congress on the promise of a "change in direction" and as a direct rebuke of the President's Iraq policy. Perhaps sensing their ownership of shamelessness slipping, House Republicans sent in their leader John Boehner to play the 9/11 card, and to tearfully reiterate the long-ago debunked myth of a link between the terror attacks and Iraq.

John Boehner of Ohio choked back tears as he stirred memories of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. “After 3,000 of our fellow citizens died at the hands of these terrorists, when are we going to take them on? When are we going to defeat them,” he asked.

But Boehner needn't cry too much. When Congress plays the Shame Game, everyone's a winner.

Falwell That Ends Well

First, to my faithful reader(s), apologies for my brief 2 day absence. I've been miserably ill, and could barely rouse myself from bed, let alone blog.


Despite my suffering, it didn't escape my attention that noted American evangelist and founder of the Moral Majority, Jerry Falwell, died a couple of days ago. Given the proclivities of some of his compatriots (Ted Haggard, Jim Bakker etc), that he didn't pass away in the bed of a transgendered crack addict is in itself something of a minor miracle.



And it didn't take long for the 2008 Republican presidential nominees to start lining up and proffering their condolences and admirations for a man who embodied the American Christian conservative movement (and its accompanying votes). Senator John McCain in particular said "Dr. Falwell was a man of distinguished accomplishment who devoted his life to serving his faith and country". I'll let John Nichols of The Nation respond:

Distinguished accomplishment? Would that be when Falwell regularly featured segregationists Lester Maddox and George Wallace on his Old Time Gospel Hour television program in the 1960s? When he condemned the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and referred to the civil rights movement as "the civil wrongs movement"? When he opposed sanctions against South Africa's apartheid regime in the 1980s? When he produced an infomercial in the 1990s accusing President Clinton of
orchestrating murders of journalists and political critics, even though he would eventually admit that "I do not know the accuracy of the claims"? When he attacked Teletubbies character Tinky Winky as a gay recruitment tool? When he asserted that the Antichrist "must be, of necessity, a Jewish male"?

I don't begrudge anyone their religious views. Even closed-minded fatheads like Jerry Falwell. But I am a firm believer in the concept of separation of church and state, one of the principles of American governance. Falwell was the embodiment of a concerted effort by evangelicals to narrow, even ablate, that gap. Their contribution to the Bush presidency cannot be underestimated. In 2004, Falwell himself stated that the GOP would be unable to win without the support of Christian conservatives. Virtually all of Bush's policy decisions (opposing stem cell research, federally funded abstinence programs, even the war in Iraq) have been the direct result of his ideological commitment to Christian conservative groups to which he is politically beholden.


Aside from the obvious philosophical and constitutional consequences of this behaviour, GOP presidential candidates would be well advised to note that the Bush strategy has not been a resounding political success. Despite "winning" 2 terms, Bush's approval rating sits just under 30%, and the country is as politically divided as it has ever been. Rather than pandering to extreme right wing crackpots like Falwell, Republicans should instead focus on more mundane things...like, say...good governance. Just a thought.


And as my little obituary to the good Reverend, here are some of his more thoughtful observations:

"The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country."

"The ACLU is to Christians what the American Nazi party is to Jews."

"AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharaoh's charioteers... AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."

"Grown men should not be having sex with prostitutes unless they are married to them."

Here endeth the sermon.

USA vs Cuba: Almost 50 Years of Success!!

Michael Moore is making headlines again. In advance of the Cannes premiere of his new documentary "Sicko", he is being investigated by the US Treasury Department. The reason? A trip he took to Cuba during filming of the documentary.

The USA is approaching a half century of dimwitted foreign policy with respect to the small communist island. This seems to be news to the troglodytes in the Bush administration, who issued a report in June of 2006 patting themselves on the back and suggesting that their plan was working. Assuming their "plan" was to wait for 50 years until the death of Fidel Castro by natural causes, then yes, I would have to concede that they are succeeding. But to any thinking observer, their muddled policy of isolation, aborted invasions, and failed attempts to assassinate or overthrow Castro has been nothing but a total disaster.

One such enlightened observer is Wayne S. Smith. A Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy, Smith has in the past served as Cuba analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, Third Secretary of Political Affairs in the American Embassy in Havana, Director of Cuban Affairs in the Department of State, and Chief of the U.S. Interests Section Havana. Of the July 10 2006 report, Smith writes:

"...it says: "Chronic malnutrition, polluted drinking water, and untreated chronic diseases continue to affect a significant percentage of the Cuban people." And of course adds that: "Conditions will not improve as long as Fidel Castro remains in power." Never mind that UN indices consistently indicate Cuba's population to be considerably healthier than those of most neighboring states, including the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico--one reason being that they have free health care. It is interesting to note also that life expectancy for Cubans is five years longer than for African-Americans!"

Indeed a quick scan of the World Health Organization website demonstrates that Cuba has the same average life expectancy and child mortality rates as the USA. In 2004 the Bush administration put together a Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba. This organization produced a 500 page report which, incredibly, was little more than a recipe book for interfering in the political affairs of a sovereign state. Says Smith:

"[It was] a 500-page action plan for the removal of the Castro government and for what sounded worryingly like the US occupation of Cuba: how to make their trains run on time, how to reorganise their schools, and so on. Shortly thereafter, it even appointed a US "transition coordinator". As Jose Miguel Insulza, the Chilean secretary general of the Organisation of American States remarked, "But there is no transition - and it isn't your country."

The administration (and scores of rabid anti-Castro Cubans living in the USA) predicted that with the end of Fidel Castro's rule, would come a "people's revolution" of sorts. Raul Castro, it was thought, would never be accepted by Cubans. As has become the habit of the Bush administration, it was wrong again.

"Seeming to follow Miami's lead, however, the Bush administration has refused to accept the transition. It refuses to deal with Raul, as it had earlier refused to deal with Fidel. This is especially unfortunate for there is considerable evidence that Raul is more pragmatic than his brother and might be open to some degree of accommodation with Washington. That was something at least worth exploring, but following its usual pattern, the Bush administration simply closed the door."

As Smith concludes, Bush's Cuba policy has been an abject failure. Contrary to its intentions, it has likely served to toughen the resolve of Cuba's government and its people to resist interference from the USA. And investigating Michael Moore's visit to Cuba has likely served only to create more publicity for his upcoming film. The ironies abound.