Just thought I'd post this in the joint spirit of the holiday season and the final exam. Merry Christmas!
(original URL:
http://www.csee.umbc.edu/~mariedj/browse/funny/election94-gingrich)
-----
How the Gingrinch Stole Congress!
by Kris Rabberman & Scott Prevost
Every Who
Down in Whoville
Liked Elections a lot . . .
But Newt Gingrinch,
Who lived on Mount Gridlock,
Did NOT!
The Gingrinch loathed voting, the whole campaign season!
Now, please don't ask why. No one quite knows the reason.
It could be his head wasn't screwed on just right.
It could be, perhaps, that his shoes were too tight.
But I think that the most likely reason of all,
May have been that his brain was two sizes too small.
But whatever the reason,
His brain or his shoes,
He stood there Election Eve , hating the Whos,
Staring down from Mount Gridlock with a Gingrinchy frown,
At the candidates stumping below in their town.
For he knew every Who who was thinking that night,
Would cast their votes wisely--against the far right.
``And they're worried about issues!'' he snarled with a sneer,
``Tomorrow's the election! It's practically here!''
And the gears in his head began frantically spinning,
``I MUST find a way to keep liberals from winning!''
For tomorrow, he knew all the Whos in the know,
Would vote for the DemoWhos all in a row,
For Wofford and Foley, Feinstein and Cuomo.
Then the DemoWho Congress would do what he'd hate,
Come up with new programs, and then legislate!
Healthcare and gun bans they'd gladly create,
But such progress the Gingrinch would only berate.
And THEN they'd do something
He liked least of all!
Every DemoWho in Congress, the tall and the small,
Would stand close together, and say with one voice,
``We're for women's rights and we're also pro-choice!''
They'd work! And they'd work!
AND they'd WORK! WORK! WORK! WORK!
And the more that the Gingrinch thought, with a smirk,
The more that he thought, ``I must STOP their hard work!
``Why since Who-sevelt's years I've put up with it now!
``I MUST stop the liberals from winning!
. . . But HOW?''
Then he got an idea!
An AWFUL idea!
The Newt
got a HORRIBLE, AWFUL idea!
``I know just what to do!'' Gingrinch laughed in his throat.
``I'll make empty vows in return for their vote.''
And he chuckled, and clucked, ``I've got a great con.
``With these lies we'll pay homage to President Ron!''
``All I need is a gimmick . . .''
The Newt looked around.
But since ideas are scarce, there were none to be found.
Did that stop the old Gingrinch
>From finding a scheme . . . ?
Of course not, he had the Whopublican team.
So he called Mr. Dole, and he eagerly said,
``I need to make use of your sly, sneaky head.''
Then they made up a plan,
That was terribly Dole-y,
To unseat the speaker,
Congressman Foley.
And they wrote up a contract.
They did it that day,
And they chortled and laughed,
``All the liberals must pay.''
As the Gingrinch and Dole formulated their schemes,
Based on trickle down theories and far right extremes,
The DemoWhos, calmly, were dreaming their dreams.
First Gingrinch and Dole, with a gleam in their eyes,
About Clinton's record, told many lies.
Then they told of the programs they'd gleefully pinch,
Who better to do this than Mr. Gingrinch?
They got stuck only once, on the issue of ketchup,
So they got on the phone and they called Orrin Hatch up.
Then both of them sunk to a terrible low.
``Entitlements,'' they grinned, ``are the first things to go!''
Then they slithered and slunk, with smiles most unpleasant,
Obnoxiously trashing the left, past and present!
``With Huffington, Romney, North and Santorum,
``We're sure that the left cannot help but deplore 'em!''
With ads so misleading they're practically criminal,
``We'll use our PAC money for commercials subliminal!''
``We'll bombard them with TV, and a racist disc-jockey!
``Who supports Chuck Haytaian and dark-horse Pataki.
``We'll support Ollie North, and Dewine over Hyatt,
``And with all of his cash, we'll have Huffington buy it!''
``When we win, we'll control each and every committee,
``To be sure funds are sent to nary a city!
``And Alfonse D'amato,'' (the dork from New York),
``can continue to rant about Bill Clinton's pork!''
``Against Feinstein and Boxer's ardent protesting,
``Senator Packwood can keep on molesting!''
By the twisted up logic of Jesse and Strom,
``With gays in the army, we lost Vietnam!''
``A lineup like this is Clinton's worst fear,''
said Gingrinch to Dole, with a dastardly sneer.
``Taxes, the wealthy should not have to pay,''
the maniacal duo was eager to say.
``And when Congress is ours, we'll have prayer in the schools,''
Muttered Dole to the Newt, ``Disregard liberal fools!''
The plan was enacted,
The ballots were cast,
The sham made the voters return to the past.
The Gingrinch was gleeful, and Dole started gloating,
before all the Whos had completed their voting.
``We now have a mandate!'' they said with a laugh,
Even though, of the votes, they received only half.
With snickering Newt in the role of the Speaker,
The prospects for changes have never been bleaker.
``The plans that we've outlined, we won't be revising,''
said Gingrinch, ``We simply ABHOR compromising!''
____________________________________________
The day of this scary Whopublican showing,
We started to notice Newt's head slowly growing,
Though now we can say, as you may have inferred,
His brain starting SHRINKING that day, so we've heard.
Though the Whos may be worried and shaking in fear,
>From the dastardly changes that soon may be here,
The way Whos can solve this is really a cinch,
In '96 vote against cynic Gingrinch!
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed here are not necessarily the
opinions of Dr. Seuss, or those with an interest in his estate, or
anyone related to him, or anyone he met only once on a crowded train
traveling from New York to Chicago, or his former next-door-neighbor's
dog Max. Some stanzas of the preceding work were directly stolen from
Dr. Seuss' classic work, "How the Grinch Stole Christmas," without the
permission, expressed or implied, of Theodor or Audrey Geisel, or
Random House, Inc. This work was created solely for the amusement of
the authors and should not be copied, distributed or otherwise
duplicated by any means (electronic or telepathic included) without
the expressed written consent of whoever owns the copyright to the
book the authors plagiarized to create this masterpiece. Any evidence
to the contrary should be construed as purely accidental and not the
intent of the authors (who, by the way, receive no monetary benefit
for having written the poem, but had to pay an overpriced lawyer for
this disclaimer) . The authors accept no responsibility for any
nightmares or other psychological problems caused by reading this work
to liberals already suffering from Post Election Stress Disorder.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Friday, December 19, 2008
Bono Pats Bush on Back
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2704889.stm
In recent years, many promoters of the fight against AIDS, primarily Bono and Elton John, have been critical of the aid given by the American Government to research, and help victoms. Its widely documented that Ronald Regan did very little during the 80s to help research, primarily because it would have been a socially funded program. George W. Bush however has continued to fund and expand funding for AIDS in africa, prompting massive response from those fighting the disease. The BBC article from 2003 reports a glowing Bono on the new AIDS funding.
In recent years, many promoters of the fight against AIDS, primarily Bono and Elton John, have been critical of the aid given by the American Government to research, and help victoms. Its widely documented that Ronald Regan did very little during the 80s to help research, primarily because it would have been a socially funded program. George W. Bush however has continued to fund and expand funding for AIDS in africa, prompting massive response from those fighting the disease. The BBC article from 2003 reports a glowing Bono on the new AIDS funding.
'Deep Throat,' dead at 95
(CNN) -- W. Mark Felt, who leaked information to reporters under the moniker, "Deep Throat," about the Watergate break-in, died Thursday at the age of 95, sources told CNN.
W. Mark Felt, known as "Deep Throat," divulged information to reporters about the Watergate break-in.
Rob Jones, Felt's grandson, said his grandfather died at his home in Santa Rosa, California. According to published reports, Felt died of congestive heart failure.
Felt admitted in a 2005 Vanity Fair article he was the Washington Post's source for many of its 400 stories on the Watergate affair during the early 1970s. The Watergate break-in eventually led to the 1974 resignation of President Richard Nixon.
"I'm proud of everything that Deep Throat did," Felt, 92, told CNN's "Larry King Live" in 2006, his first public interview on the subject.
Felt's entanglement with history occurred in 1972 after the bungled break-in at the Democratic National Party offices in the Watergate hotel. Felt, an associate director at the FBI, said he was unhappy with the way the administration meddled with the investigation into the break-in, which led him to divulge information to the newspaper.
You can read the whole article here
Thursday, December 18, 2008
New York Times Editorial, Dec. 18th 2008: Prosecute the Architects of Torture
December 18, 2008
Editorial
The Torture Report
Most Americans have long known that the horrors of Abu Ghraib were not the work of a few low-ranking sociopaths. All but President Bush’s most unquestioning supporters recognized the chain of unprincipled decisions that led to the abuse, torture and death in prisons run by the American military and intelligence services.
Now, a bipartisan report by the Senate Armed Services Committee has made what amounts to a strong case for bringing criminal charges against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; his legal counsel, William J. Haynes; and potentially other top officials, including the former White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff.
The report shows how actions by these men “led directly” to what happened at Abu Ghraib, in Afghanistan, in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and in secret C.I.A. prisons.
It said these top officials, charged with defending the Constitution and America’s standing in the world, methodically introduced interrogation practices based on illegal tortures devised by Chinese agents during the Korean War. Until the Bush administration, their only use in the United States was to train soldiers to resist what might be done to them if they were captured by a lawless enemy.
The officials then issued legally and morally bankrupt documents to justify their actions, starting with a presidential order saying that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to prisoners of the “war on terror” — the first time any democratic nation had unilaterally reinterpreted the conventions.
•
That order set the stage for the infamous redefinition of torture at the Justice Department, and then Mr. Rumsfeld’s authorization of “aggressive” interrogation methods. Some of those methods were torture by any rational definition and many of them violate laws and treaties against abusive and degrading treatment.
These top officials ignored warnings from lawyers in every branch of the armed forces that they were breaking the law, subjecting uniformed soldiers to possible criminal charges and authorizing abuses that were not only considered by experts to be ineffective, but were actually counterproductive.
One page of the report lists the repeated objections that President Bush and his aides so blithely and arrogantly ignored: The Air Force had “serious concerns regarding the legality of many of the proposed techniques”; the chief legal adviser to the military’s criminal investigative task force said they were of dubious value and may subject soldiers to prosecution; one of the Army’s top lawyers said some techniques that stopped well short of the horrifying practice of waterboarding “may violate the torture statute.” The Marines said they “arguably violate federal law.” The Navy pleaded for a real review.
The legal counsel to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time started that review but told the Senate committee that her boss, Gen. Richard Myers, ordered her to stop on the instructions of Mr. Rumsfeld’s legal counsel, Mr. Haynes.
The report indicates that Mr. Haynes was an early proponent of the idea of using the agency that trains soldiers to withstand torture to devise plans for the interrogation of prisoners held by the American military. These trainers — who are not interrogators but experts only on how physical and mental pain is inflicted and may be endured — were sent to work with interrogators in Afghanistan, in Guantánamo and in Iraq.
On Dec. 2, 2002, Mr. Rumsfeld authorized the interrogators at Guantánamo to use a range of abusive techniques that were already widespread in Afghanistan, enshrining them as official policy. Instead of a painstaking legal review, Mr. Rumsfeld based that authorization on a one-page memo from Mr. Haynes. The Senate panel noted that senior military lawyers considered the memo “ ‘legally insufficient’ and ‘woefully inadequate.’ ”
Mr. Rumsfeld rescinded his order a month later, and narrowed the number of “aggressive techniques” that could be used at Guantánamo. But he did so only after the Navy’s chief lawyer threatened to formally protest the illegal treatment of prisoners. By then, at least one prisoner, Mohammed al-Qahtani, had been threatened with military dogs, deprived of sleep for weeks, stripped naked and made to wear a leash and perform dog tricks. This year, a military tribunal at Guantánamo dismissed the charges against Mr. Qahtani.
The abuse and torture of prisoners continued at prisons run by the C.I.A. and specialists from the torture-resistance program remained involved in the military detention system until 2004. Some of the practices Mr. Rumsfeld left in place seem illegal, like prolonged sleep deprivation.
•
These policies have deeply harmed America’s image as a nation of laws and may make it impossible to bring dangerous men to real justice. The report said the interrogation techniques were ineffective, despite the administration’s repeated claims to the contrary.
Alberto Mora, the former Navy general counsel who protested the abuses, told the Senate committee that “there are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq — as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat — are, respectively, the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo.”
We can understand that Americans may be eager to put these dark chapters behind them, but it would be irresponsible for the nation and a new administration to ignore what has happened — and may still be happening in secret C.I.A. prisons that are not covered by the military’s current ban on activities like waterboarding.
A prosecutor should be appointed to consider criminal charges against top officials at the Pentagon and others involved in planning the abuse.
•
Given his other problems — and how far he has moved from the powerful stands he took on these issues early in the campaign — we do not hold out real hope that Barack Obama, as president, will take such a politically fraught step.
At the least, Mr. Obama should, as the organization Human Rights First suggested, order his attorney general to review more than two dozen prisoner-abuse cases that reportedly were referred to the Justice Department by the Pentagon and the C.I.A. — and declined by Mr. Bush’s lawyers.
Mr. Obama should consider proposals from groups like Human Rights Watch and the Brennan Center for Justice to appoint an independent panel to look into these and other egregious violations of the law. Like the 9/11 commission, it would examine in depth the decisions on prisoner treatment, as well as warrantless wiretapping, that eroded the rule of law and violated Americans’ most basic rights. Unless the nation and its leaders know precisely what went wrong in the last seven years, it will be impossible to fix it and make sure those terrible mistakes are not repeated.
We expect Mr. Obama to keep the promise he made over and over in the campaign — to cheering crowds at campaign rallies and in other places, including our office in New York. He said one of his first acts as president would be to order a review of all of Mr. Bush’s executive orders and reverse those that eroded civil liberties and the rule of law.
That job will fall to Eric Holder, a veteran prosecutor who has been chosen as attorney general, and Gregory Craig, a lawyer with extensive national security experience who has been selected as Mr. Obama’s White House counsel.
A good place for them to start would be to reverse Mr. Bush’s disastrous order of Feb. 7, 2002, declaring that the United States was no longer legally committed to comply with the Geneva Conventions.
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
Editorial
The Torture Report
Most Americans have long known that the horrors of Abu Ghraib were not the work of a few low-ranking sociopaths. All but President Bush’s most unquestioning supporters recognized the chain of unprincipled decisions that led to the abuse, torture and death in prisons run by the American military and intelligence services.
Now, a bipartisan report by the Senate Armed Services Committee has made what amounts to a strong case for bringing criminal charges against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; his legal counsel, William J. Haynes; and potentially other top officials, including the former White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff.
The report shows how actions by these men “led directly” to what happened at Abu Ghraib, in Afghanistan, in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and in secret C.I.A. prisons.
It said these top officials, charged with defending the Constitution and America’s standing in the world, methodically introduced interrogation practices based on illegal tortures devised by Chinese agents during the Korean War. Until the Bush administration, their only use in the United States was to train soldiers to resist what might be done to them if they were captured by a lawless enemy.
The officials then issued legally and morally bankrupt documents to justify their actions, starting with a presidential order saying that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to prisoners of the “war on terror” — the first time any democratic nation had unilaterally reinterpreted the conventions.
•
That order set the stage for the infamous redefinition of torture at the Justice Department, and then Mr. Rumsfeld’s authorization of “aggressive” interrogation methods. Some of those methods were torture by any rational definition and many of them violate laws and treaties against abusive and degrading treatment.
These top officials ignored warnings from lawyers in every branch of the armed forces that they were breaking the law, subjecting uniformed soldiers to possible criminal charges and authorizing abuses that were not only considered by experts to be ineffective, but were actually counterproductive.
One page of the report lists the repeated objections that President Bush and his aides so blithely and arrogantly ignored: The Air Force had “serious concerns regarding the legality of many of the proposed techniques”; the chief legal adviser to the military’s criminal investigative task force said they were of dubious value and may subject soldiers to prosecution; one of the Army’s top lawyers said some techniques that stopped well short of the horrifying practice of waterboarding “may violate the torture statute.” The Marines said they “arguably violate federal law.” The Navy pleaded for a real review.
The legal counsel to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time started that review but told the Senate committee that her boss, Gen. Richard Myers, ordered her to stop on the instructions of Mr. Rumsfeld’s legal counsel, Mr. Haynes.
The report indicates that Mr. Haynes was an early proponent of the idea of using the agency that trains soldiers to withstand torture to devise plans for the interrogation of prisoners held by the American military. These trainers — who are not interrogators but experts only on how physical and mental pain is inflicted and may be endured — were sent to work with interrogators in Afghanistan, in Guantánamo and in Iraq.
On Dec. 2, 2002, Mr. Rumsfeld authorized the interrogators at Guantánamo to use a range of abusive techniques that were already widespread in Afghanistan, enshrining them as official policy. Instead of a painstaking legal review, Mr. Rumsfeld based that authorization on a one-page memo from Mr. Haynes. The Senate panel noted that senior military lawyers considered the memo “ ‘legally insufficient’ and ‘woefully inadequate.’ ”
Mr. Rumsfeld rescinded his order a month later, and narrowed the number of “aggressive techniques” that could be used at Guantánamo. But he did so only after the Navy’s chief lawyer threatened to formally protest the illegal treatment of prisoners. By then, at least one prisoner, Mohammed al-Qahtani, had been threatened with military dogs, deprived of sleep for weeks, stripped naked and made to wear a leash and perform dog tricks. This year, a military tribunal at Guantánamo dismissed the charges against Mr. Qahtani.
The abuse and torture of prisoners continued at prisons run by the C.I.A. and specialists from the torture-resistance program remained involved in the military detention system until 2004. Some of the practices Mr. Rumsfeld left in place seem illegal, like prolonged sleep deprivation.
•
These policies have deeply harmed America’s image as a nation of laws and may make it impossible to bring dangerous men to real justice. The report said the interrogation techniques were ineffective, despite the administration’s repeated claims to the contrary.
Alberto Mora, the former Navy general counsel who protested the abuses, told the Senate committee that “there are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq — as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat — are, respectively, the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo.”
We can understand that Americans may be eager to put these dark chapters behind them, but it would be irresponsible for the nation and a new administration to ignore what has happened — and may still be happening in secret C.I.A. prisons that are not covered by the military’s current ban on activities like waterboarding.
A prosecutor should be appointed to consider criminal charges against top officials at the Pentagon and others involved in planning the abuse.
•
Given his other problems — and how far he has moved from the powerful stands he took on these issues early in the campaign — we do not hold out real hope that Barack Obama, as president, will take such a politically fraught step.
At the least, Mr. Obama should, as the organization Human Rights First suggested, order his attorney general to review more than two dozen prisoner-abuse cases that reportedly were referred to the Justice Department by the Pentagon and the C.I.A. — and declined by Mr. Bush’s lawyers.
Mr. Obama should consider proposals from groups like Human Rights Watch and the Brennan Center for Justice to appoint an independent panel to look into these and other egregious violations of the law. Like the 9/11 commission, it would examine in depth the decisions on prisoner treatment, as well as warrantless wiretapping, that eroded the rule of law and violated Americans’ most basic rights. Unless the nation and its leaders know precisely what went wrong in the last seven years, it will be impossible to fix it and make sure those terrible mistakes are not repeated.
We expect Mr. Obama to keep the promise he made over and over in the campaign — to cheering crowds at campaign rallies and in other places, including our office in New York. He said one of his first acts as president would be to order a review of all of Mr. Bush’s executive orders and reverse those that eroded civil liberties and the rule of law.
That job will fall to Eric Holder, a veteran prosecutor who has been chosen as attorney general, and Gregory Craig, a lawyer with extensive national security experience who has been selected as Mr. Obama’s White House counsel.
A good place for them to start would be to reverse Mr. Bush’s disastrous order of Feb. 7, 2002, declaring that the United States was no longer legally committed to comply with the Geneva Conventions.
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Thursday, December 11, 2008
More Commentary that "No child Left Behind" is Working
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/31/gop.paige.transcript/index.html?iref=newssearch
This article argues that Bush's policy is benifiting society. The author argues that "This bipartisan law raises the bar for all students, no matter their race or income level. It challenges what the president calls the "soft bigotry of low expectations." Its goal is simple: All students read and do math at grade level." Raising the bar for students was forcing them to do better in school. In fact "All across America, test scores are rising; students are learning; the achievement gap is closing; teachers and principals are beaming with pride." The author of this article argues that Bush's policy is working because tests scores are showing improved results.
This article argues that Bush's policy is benifiting society. The author argues that "This bipartisan law raises the bar for all students, no matter their race or income level. It challenges what the president calls the "soft bigotry of low expectations." Its goal is simple: All students read and do math at grade level." Raising the bar for students was forcing them to do better in school. In fact "All across America, test scores are rising; students are learning; the achievement gap is closing; teachers and principals are beaming with pride." The author of this article argues that Bush's policy is working because tests scores are showing improved results.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Positive Bush Press
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=4303636&page=1
This article taken from ABC News, reveals a Bush policy to combat AIDS that people seem to be proud of. The fund is the largest international health initiative ever to fight a single disease, and Bush wants to double that amount to $30 billion over the next five years. Tanzanian President Jikaya Kikwete said. "But we, in Tanzania, if we are to speak for ourselves, and for Africa, we know for sure that you, Mr. President, and your administration, have been good friends of our country, and have been good friends of Africa." This is significant because it shows at least one country that likes the Bush administration. However, I would not be surprised if President Kikwete expects something else from the administration or there is a gap in the evidence for Bush's motives-
This article taken from ABC News, reveals a Bush policy to combat AIDS that people seem to be proud of. The fund is the largest international health initiative ever to fight a single disease, and Bush wants to double that amount to $30 billion over the next five years. Tanzanian President Jikaya Kikwete said. "But we, in Tanzania, if we are to speak for ourselves, and for Africa, we know for sure that you, Mr. President, and your administration, have been good friends of our country, and have been good friends of Africa." This is significant because it shows at least one country that likes the Bush administration. However, I would not be surprised if President Kikwete expects something else from the administration or there is a gap in the evidence for Bush's motives-
Final Review Terms
Fifteen (15) of the following terms will appear on the final and you will be required to identify ten (10) of them:
"A Time for Choosing" a.k.a. "The Speech"
Operation "Ranch Hand"
Great Society
Eugene McCarthy
Irving Kristol
White House Plumbers
EPA
Deep Throat
The Unitary Executive
Camp David Accords
Phyllis Schlafly
"There you go again."
Philadelphia, MS
The Laffer Curve
Trickle Down
Lt. Col. Oliver North
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."
Willy Horton
Lee Atwater
November 1989
Americans with Disabilities Act
Francis Fukuyama
Samuel Huntington
Anita Hill
James Carville
"Don't Ask. Don't Tell.
Newt Gingrich
Kenneth Starr
"The Turner Diaries"
1995 Government Shutdown
Dick Morris
DOMA
Linda Tripp
The Brooks Brothers Riot
Kyoto Protocol
August 6, 2001
yellowcake uranium
"Ghost Detainees"
Blackwater
No Child Left Behind
Essay Topics:
Questions based on three (3) of the following topics will appear in the essay section, and you will be required to write on two (2) of them:
The Imperial Presidency and the Cold War
Politics, media, and scandal: Watergate, Iran-Contra, and the Lewinsky Affair
The Imperial Presidency and the War on Terror
"The personal is political" in American politics
"It's the economy stupid": presidential politics and the economy from Reagan to George W. Bush
"A Time for Choosing" a.k.a. "The Speech"
Operation "Ranch Hand"
Great Society
Eugene McCarthy
Irving Kristol
White House Plumbers
EPA
Deep Throat
The Unitary Executive
Camp David Accords
Phyllis Schlafly
"There you go again."
Philadelphia, MS
The Laffer Curve
Trickle Down
Lt. Col. Oliver North
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."
Willy Horton
Lee Atwater
November 1989
Americans with Disabilities Act
Francis Fukuyama
Samuel Huntington
Anita Hill
James Carville
"Don't Ask. Don't Tell.
Newt Gingrich
Kenneth Starr
"The Turner Diaries"
1995 Government Shutdown
Dick Morris
DOMA
Linda Tripp
The Brooks Brothers Riot
Kyoto Protocol
August 6, 2001
yellowcake uranium
"Ghost Detainees"
Blackwater
No Child Left Behind
Essay Topics:
Questions based on three (3) of the following topics will appear in the essay section, and you will be required to write on two (2) of them:
The Imperial Presidency and the Cold War
Politics, media, and scandal: Watergate, Iran-Contra, and the Lewinsky Affair
The Imperial Presidency and the War on Terror
"The personal is political" in American politics
"It's the economy stupid": presidential politics and the economy from Reagan to George W. Bush
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
No Child Left Behind Yields Positive Results
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-03-01-letters-nclb_x.htm
The article supports No Child Left Behind and argues that the results demonstrate that it is working. The author points to all time high math scores in elementary education and reduced "achievement gaps" between races. The article suggests No Child Left Behind ends the process of "shuffling" kids from grade to grade whether or not they've learned the material. Ending this practice allows a student who is behind to get ahead in the next year. My personal thought is that there is a problem with standardized testing. Testing needs to be done at a national level. However, this does not mean that teachers should simply teach what they know will be on the examination. Putting limits on education such as this would be hugely detrimental. They also teach kids that education is about taking tests.
Fighing AIDS in Africa... Building on Bush's policy
I know many people have already posted articles about Bush's efforts in Africa; however, I found this article particularly interesting because it commends Bush for what he has done in Africa, yet explains what needs to be done in the future to build on his initiatives.
http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/bush-aids-business-and-africa/
http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/bush-aids-business-and-africa/
talking points for White House officials: accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative
President George W. Bush plays guitar with special Presidential Seal, August 30th, 2005
The L.A. Times reports that the Bush Administration has issued new talking points on how to describe the record of the outgoing administration:
For Bush's staff, upbeat talking points on his tenure
Administration officials get a memo from the White House suggesting what to say about the last eight years: President Bush upheld 'the honor and the dignity of his office,' for one.
By Peter Nicholas
December 9, 2008
Reporting from Washington — In case any Bush administration officials have trouble summing up the boss' record, the White House is providing a few helpful suggestions.
A two-page memo that has been sent to Cabinet members and other high-ranking officials offers a guide for discussing Bush's eight-year tenure during their public speeches.
Titled "Speech Topper on the Bush Record," the talking points state that Bush "kept the American people safe" after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, lifted the economy after 2001 through tax cuts, curbed AIDS in Africa and maintained "the honor and the dignity of his office."
The document presents the Bush record as an unalloyed success.
It mentions none of the episodes that detractors say have marred his presidency: the collapse of the housing market and major financial services companies, the flawed intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war, the federal response to Hurricane Katrina or the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
In a section on the economy, speakers are invited to say that Bush cut taxes after 2001, setting the stage for years of job growth.
As for the current economic crisis, the memo says that Bush "responded with bold measures to prevent an economic meltdown."
The document is otherwise silent on the recession, which claimed 533,000 jobs in November, the highest number in 34 years.
A copy of the memo was obtained by The Times' Washington bureau. A spokesman for Bush said Monday that the White House routinely sends out suggestions to officials and allies on ways to talk about the administration's record.
Brandon's blog post: Bush's "Legacy Project"
A number of people have already commented on Bush and AIDS but I thought this article had something interesting specifics:
http://stevensonblog.tuscaloosanews.com/default.asp?item=2294821
Especially this:
"In July 2008, Bush signed legislation tripling the program's funds to $48 billion dollars from $15 billion dollars. The new program drops a requirement for one-third of the anti-AIDS funds to be used to promote sexual abstinence and lifts a ban on HIV-positive foreigners entering the United States, which has earned Bush new support from previously unlikely progressive organizations."
Still, the article is careful not to praise Bush for anything else:
"The word is there is an active "Bush Legacy Project" going on right now in the White House led by Karl Rove, who arguably created and bestowed upon the world the 43 president of the United States.
That legacy, at least the positive part of it, is likely to be slim. But it can start with PEPFAR."
http://stevensonblog.tuscaloosanews.com/default.asp?item=2294821
Especially this:
"In July 2008, Bush signed legislation tripling the program's funds to $48 billion dollars from $15 billion dollars. The new program drops a requirement for one-third of the anti-AIDS funds to be used to promote sexual abstinence and lifts a ban on HIV-positive foreigners entering the United States, which has earned Bush new support from previously unlikely progressive organizations."
Still, the article is careful not to praise Bush for anything else:
"The word is there is an active "Bush Legacy Project" going on right now in the White House led by Karl Rove, who arguably created and bestowed upon the world the 43 president of the United States.
That legacy, at least the positive part of it, is likely to be slim. But it can start with PEPFAR."
Monday, December 8, 2008
Torture at Guantanamo
It seems like everything is coming full circle now:
Alleged 9/11 Plotters Offer to Confess at Guantánamo
GUANTÁNAMO BAY, Cuba — The five Guantánamo detainees charged with coordinating the Sept. 11 attacks told a military judge on Monday that they wanted to confess in full, a move that seemed to challenge the government to put them to death.
The request, which was the result of hours of private meetings among the suspects, appeared intended to undercut the government’s plan for a high-profile trial while drawing international attention to what some of the five men have said was a desire for martyrdom.
But the military judge, Col. Stephen R. Henley of the Army, said a number of legal questions about how the commissions are to deal with capital cases had to be resolved before guilty pleas could be accepted.
The case is likely to remain in limbo for weeks or months, presenting the Obama administration with a new Guantánamo issue to resolve when it takes office next month.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/us/09gitmo.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print
Although the torture is more of a well-timed decision to saddle the Obama Administration with the issue it seems to complicate the disgust that came out of Abu Ghraib.
Alleged 9/11 Plotters Offer to Confess at Guantánamo
GUANTÁNAMO BAY, Cuba — The five Guantánamo detainees charged with coordinating the Sept. 11 attacks told a military judge on Monday that they wanted to confess in full, a move that seemed to challenge the government to put them to death.
The request, which was the result of hours of private meetings among the suspects, appeared intended to undercut the government’s plan for a high-profile trial while drawing international attention to what some of the five men have said was a desire for martyrdom.
But the military judge, Col. Stephen R. Henley of the Army, said a number of legal questions about how the commissions are to deal with capital cases had to be resolved before guilty pleas could be accepted.
The case is likely to remain in limbo for weeks or months, presenting the Obama administration with a new Guantánamo issue to resolve when it takes office next month.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/us/09gitmo.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print
Although the torture is more of a well-timed decision to saddle the Obama Administration with the issue it seems to complicate the disgust that came out of Abu Ghraib.
Positive Bush Press
http://www.rand.org/commentary/2008/01/17/IHT.html
The article discusses Bush's potentially successful foreign policy concerning the Middle East. The radicalism of Bush has failed and this inevitably pushed Bush into a more centrist ideology. This can be seen in Bush's stronger emphasis on peace throughout the Middle East and his willingness to conduct talks between different countries. The article continues to discuss Bush's shift to the center and the policies the President-Elect will have to work with.
The article discusses Bush's potentially successful foreign policy concerning the Middle East. The radicalism of Bush has failed and this inevitably pushed Bush into a more centrist ideology. This can be seen in Bush's stronger emphasis on peace throughout the Middle East and his willingness to conduct talks between different countries. The article continues to discuss Bush's shift to the center and the policies the President-Elect will have to work with.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE2DB113AF933A05752C0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
This article is discussing his State of the Union address is January of 2002. Bush's popularity is sky high at this time and this reporter is praising Bush for hitting many of the right points in his speech. He praises Bush for his emphasis on the war on terror, defense at home, and reviving the economy. Though it is the New York Times so it does criticize his proposed tax cuts which seem to contradict the idea of spending on the war on terror and defense. While it points out flaws in his plan it is ultimately an article that is holding Bush in high regard. I found that I had a very hard time finding good press on George Bush and I am not sure if that is because of the politically left leaning media or if it is because except for the brief period after Sept. 11 he has made so many mistakes.
This article is discussing his State of the Union address is January of 2002. Bush's popularity is sky high at this time and this reporter is praising Bush for hitting many of the right points in his speech. He praises Bush for his emphasis on the war on terror, defense at home, and reviving the economy. Though it is the New York Times so it does criticize his proposed tax cuts which seem to contradict the idea of spending on the war on terror and defense. While it points out flaws in his plan it is ultimately an article that is holding Bush in high regard. I found that I had a very hard time finding good press on George Bush and I am not sure if that is because of the politically left leaning media or if it is because except for the brief period after Sept. 11 he has made so many mistakes.
When It Comes to Immigration, Bush "Gets It"
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/21/opinion/21thu3.html?scp=93&sq=bush%20immigration%20policy%20opinion&st=cse
In late December 2006, The New York Times editorial board praised President Bush's tolerance of undocumented immigrants and his careful consideration of immigration problems. Bush aimed to actually fix the immigration system with a "comprehensive bill" rather than mere token legislation that would appease most uninformed people or tough laws to satisfy conservatives. His proposed system would provide safer, more humane avenues for immigrants to enter the United States to work, while keeping dangerous internationals out. "Mr. Bush showed yesterday that he gets it," the Times wrote. "He should do that more often."
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Positive Press- Time Magazine praises the "Bush Doctrine"
In an article in Time Magazine in March of 2005, columnist Charles Krauthammer criticizes the liberal media for their harsh critiques of the "Bush Doctrine," as Krauthammer views the doctrine as a success in the Middle East at this time. He praises Bush for the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq because they allowed the U.S to be able to spread democracy to the Middle East and hold free elections, which countries had already begun at this time. Krauthammer does bring up some valid praises for Bush and the Bush Doctrine and their initial ability to take down tyrannical governments and install free elections in the Middle East, but I believe that he is making hypocritical statements at the same time. The author criticizes the liberal media for jumping to bad conclusions before the war in Iraq was over but Krauthammer is doing the same thing. He is proclaiming the U.S as "the Great Liberator" of the Middle East and also Bush and his Doctrine as the source for this liberation, which for me being able to look back on this article four years later, it is clear that the author is jumping to conclusions. The Iraq War is still far from over and the Middle East is still far from being stabilized, so it appears the liberal media was correct in their warnings about invading Iraq and the consequences that would follow. This is a good article pointing to some of the positives put forth by the Bush administration though. And here's a small part of the article, which is called "THREE CHEERS FOR THE BUSH DOCTRINE" and the URL:
"They warned us darkly that the alternative to the status quo was the seething Arab street--an unruly mob, anarchic, anti-American, pan-Arabist or perhaps Islamist, ignorant of all liberal traditions and ready to rise up against America should it disturb the perfect order of things by "imposing democracy."
Turns out, the critics, liberal and "realist," got the Arab street wrong. In Iraq and Lebanon, the Arab street finally got to speak, and mirabile dictu, it speaks of freedom and dignity. It does not bay for American blood. On the contrary, its leaders now openly point to the American example and American intervention as having provided the opening for this first tentative venture in freedom.
What really changed in the Middle East? The Iraqi elections vindicated the two central propositions of the Bush doctrine. First, that the will to freedom is indeed universal and not the private preserve of Westerners. And second, that American intentions were sincere. Contrary to the cynics, Arab and European and American, the U.S. did not go into Iraq for oil or hegemony, after all, but for liberation--a truth that on Jan. 31 even al-Jazeera had to televise."(Time Magazine, March, 2005, Charles Krauthammer).
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/krauthammer/article/0,9565,1035052,00.html
"They warned us darkly that the alternative to the status quo was the seething Arab street--an unruly mob, anarchic, anti-American, pan-Arabist or perhaps Islamist, ignorant of all liberal traditions and ready to rise up against America should it disturb the perfect order of things by "imposing democracy."
Turns out, the critics, liberal and "realist," got the Arab street wrong. In Iraq and Lebanon, the Arab street finally got to speak, and mirabile dictu, it speaks of freedom and dignity. It does not bay for American blood. On the contrary, its leaders now openly point to the American example and American intervention as having provided the opening for this first tentative venture in freedom.
What really changed in the Middle East? The Iraqi elections vindicated the two central propositions of the Bush doctrine. First, that the will to freedom is indeed universal and not the private preserve of Westerners. And second, that American intentions were sincere. Contrary to the cynics, Arab and European and American, the U.S. did not go into Iraq for oil or hegemony, after all, but for liberation--a truth that on Jan. 31 even al-Jazeera had to televise."(Time Magazine, March, 2005, Charles Krauthammer).
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/krauthammer/article/0,9565,1035052,00.html
Obama praises Bush efforts against AIDS
Monday, December 01, 2008
By ANN SANNER, Associated Press Writer
CHICAGO — President-elect Barack Obama praised the Bush administration's effort to combat AIDS and pledged Monday to continue to fight the deadly disease when he takes office in January.
Obama discussed AIDS in videotaped remarks to the Saddleback Civil Forum on Global Health held in Washington. The remarks were released Monday while Obama was in Chicago to announce members of his national security team. (See the link below for the rest of the article)
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Dec01/0,4670,ObamaAIDS,00.html
This article details President-Elect Obama's comments on President Bush's work to help eliminate AIDS worldwide. His comments were made on World AIDS Day (Dec. 1). Obama specifically praises Bush's work on providing "antiretroviral treatment to people in sub-Saharan Africa".
Monday, December 01, 2008
By ANN SANNER, Associated Press Writer
CHICAGO — President-elect Barack Obama praised the Bush administration's effort to combat AIDS and pledged Monday to continue to fight the deadly disease when he takes office in January.
Obama discussed AIDS in videotaped remarks to the Saddleback Civil Forum on Global Health held in Washington. The remarks were released Monday while Obama was in Chicago to announce members of his national security team. (See the link below for the rest of the article)
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Dec01/0,4670,ObamaAIDS,00.html
This article details President-Elect Obama's comments on President Bush's work to help eliminate AIDS worldwide. His comments were made on World AIDS Day (Dec. 1). Obama specifically praises Bush's work on providing "antiretroviral treatment to people in sub-Saharan Africa".
Positive Press on Bush's China visit
Here's an article from the International Herald Tribune. As you remember, Bush attended the Olympic Games in Beijing this summer, and received criticism for the decision because of China's issues with human rights. In this article Steven Lee Myers explains that Bush wanted to attend the games to send the message of respect and support to the Chinese people. The author also rejects the idea of Bush giving a public address with a strong critical message of the government:
"The idea of giving a Reaganesque "tear down this wall" speech on human rights in China — as members of Congress and others are calling for Bush to do — has been abandoned as potentially insulting to the president's hosts, one senior administration official said. Besides, most Chinese would probably not see or hear it, because of state control of the news media."
This author basically supports Bush's visit and relates to the arguments that prevented Bush from taking a stronger, more public position of opposition to the Chinese government's handling of human rights during his time in Asia.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/05/america/05prexy.php
"The idea of giving a Reaganesque "tear down this wall" speech on human rights in China — as members of Congress and others are calling for Bush to do — has been abandoned as potentially insulting to the president's hosts, one senior administration official said. Besides, most Chinese would probably not see or hear it, because of state control of the news media."
This author basically supports Bush's visit and relates to the arguments that prevented Bush from taking a stronger, more public position of opposition to the Chinese government's handling of human rights during his time in Asia.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/05/america/05prexy.php
Shinseki named as choice for Sec't of Veteran Affairs
Anyone who pays attention to CNN or news will basically know this by now, but Gen. Shinseki (the guy who was disregarded by the Bush Administration after he suggested that the Iraq War would require 'several hundred thousand' troops, instead of the smaller estimates propagated by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz) was just named as President-elect Obama's choice for Veteran's Affairs [new window]. He was Chief of Staff for the Army from 1999-2003 (Clinton having nominated him). In related news, as I realized this morning while watching a History Channel special, it's also the 67th anniversary of Pearl Harbor - hence the announcement today.
major architects of Bush torture policies: David Addington and John C. Yoo
This video features Congressional testimony by Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff David Addington and former White House legal adviser John C. Yoo regarding their role in designing the torture policies of the current administration. This is a long video. A brief account of it by Dana Milbank of the Washington Post can be found here.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Don't Forget Bush's Accomplishments
http://media.www.thetraveleronline.com/media/storage/paper688/news/2008/11/07/Opinion/Dont-Forget.Bushs.Accomplishments-3532390.shtml
Bailey McBride, an Obama supporter who has always been a critic of the Bush Administration, believes that people have overlooked the progress Bush has made in the U.S. support of Africa. "After the president's visit in 2003, significant efforts were made to accelerate economic development and fight global HIV/AIDS, malaria and other treatable diseases, all through U.S. programs."
He believes people should take the good with the bad when it comes to the Bush administration.
Bailey McBride, an Obama supporter who has always been a critic of the Bush Administration, believes that people have overlooked the progress Bush has made in the U.S. support of Africa. "After the president's visit in 2003, significant efforts were made to accelerate economic development and fight global HIV/AIDS, malaria and other treatable diseases, all through U.S. programs."
He believes people should take the good with the bad when it comes to the Bush administration.
Bush's Presidency in Retrospect
http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/mbarone/2008/11/26/judging-george-w-bush.html?s_cid=rss:judging-george-w-bush
This article looks at the Bush Administration in context to the larger story of American history. It claims that in retrospect, our opinion of Bush will undoubtedly improve, and that now, in the short term, we have been focusing on his shortcomings rather than his successes. The successes detailed in this article include the removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and its resulting change in Iraq, the AIDS program in Africa, greater ties to India, as well as improved relations with Japan, Australia, and key Latin and Central American countries.
This article looks at the Bush Administration in context to the larger story of American history. It claims that in retrospect, our opinion of Bush will undoubtedly improve, and that now, in the short term, we have been focusing on his shortcomings rather than his successes. The successes detailed in this article include the removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and its resulting change in Iraq, the AIDS program in Africa, greater ties to India, as well as improved relations with Japan, Australia, and key Latin and Central American countries.
Sarah Mayersohn's GW Bush blogpost
Found: A Rare Positive Opinion of Bush from a non-American.
In Greg Sheridan?s editorial, ?I Come to Hail the Chief, Not Bury Him? in the Australian Times (11/13/2008), the editor acknowledges Bush?s faults, but emphasizes his strengths and actions in Asia, Africa, and Australia. Here is a excerpt:
?From Australia's point of view, Bush gave us every single thing we seriously wanted, from a free trade agreement to historically important new intelligence sharing arrangements. In July 2004 Bush sent a presidential directive to the CIA and the US Defence Department that mandated Australian access to US intelligence classified as "no forn", meaning not to be seen by foreign eyes. Similarly, selected Australian institutions were given direct access to US intelligence systems. Former prime minister John Howard ran the US relationship brilliantly and secured huge, long-term institutional advantages for Australia out of it.
More generally, Bush was always ready to take Australian interests into account. Almost certainly we will never again have as good a friend in the White House. His first administration contained a group of senior officials - Cheney, Rich Armitage, Paul Wolfowitz, Bob Zoellick - with very deep Australian connections, and a doctrine that put solid allies ahead of all others. Howard sensibly took maximum advantage of all that this offered.?
This column shatters the stereotypical belief that the world outside of United States are very unhappy with the Bush Administration. Sheridan provides a new perspective on Bush, from the Australian political point of view. Actually, he comes off as having the belief that the American president is also a leader to him. I think this is rather interesting considering that there had been huge international attention on the last few presidential elections, especially the 2008 election. It brings up the question of to what extent of the degree that foreign governments and/or populations view the American president in relation to their own politics and lives. Having seen this article, I now know that I must no longer assume that the rest of the world always look at Bush unfavorably.
-Sarah Mayersohn
In Greg Sheridan?s editorial, ?I Come to Hail the Chief, Not Bury Him? in the Australian Times (11/13/2008), the editor acknowledges Bush?s faults, but emphasizes his strengths and actions in Asia, Africa, and Australia. Here is a excerpt:
?From Australia's point of view, Bush gave us every single thing we seriously wanted, from a free trade agreement to historically important new intelligence sharing arrangements. In July 2004 Bush sent a presidential directive to the CIA and the US Defence Department that mandated Australian access to US intelligence classified as "no forn", meaning not to be seen by foreign eyes. Similarly, selected Australian institutions were given direct access to US intelligence systems. Former prime minister John Howard ran the US relationship brilliantly and secured huge, long-term institutional advantages for Australia out of it.
More generally, Bush was always ready to take Australian interests into account. Almost certainly we will never again have as good a friend in the White House. His first administration contained a group of senior officials - Cheney, Rich Armitage, Paul Wolfowitz, Bob Zoellick - with very deep Australian connections, and a doctrine that put solid allies ahead of all others. Howard sensibly took maximum advantage of all that this offered.?
This column shatters the stereotypical belief that the world outside of United States are very unhappy with the Bush Administration. Sheridan provides a new perspective on Bush, from the Australian political point of view. Actually, he comes off as having the belief that the American president is also a leader to him. I think this is rather interesting considering that there had been huge international attention on the last few presidential elections, especially the 2008 election. It brings up the question of to what extent of the degree that foreign governments and/or populations view the American president in relation to their own politics and lives. Having seen this article, I now know that I must no longer assume that the rest of the world always look at Bush unfavorably.
-Sarah Mayersohn
The Abu Ghraib Scandal You Don't Know-Medical Care
By Adam Zagorin, Feb. 7, 2005
I remember hearing the Abu Ghraib story when it gained media attention in 2004. I was in high school and didn't pay much attention to it, so when we began watching "Standing Operating Procedure" I did not know the specifics of the situation. After watching part of the documentary on Wednesday, I searched online for more information on the scandal. Most of what I found was focused on the military personnel's torturous actions and the pictures depicting them. However, I found this time article which focused on another aspect of the prison.
Zagorin states that another story lies within the prison walls. The medical doctors' care of the prisoners was a story in itself. The medical care was another kind of torture. He says that in addition to the torture abuse, "There was also medical disarray at the prison: amputations performed by nondoctors, chest tubes recycled from the dead to the living, a medic ordered, by one account, to cover up a homicide. That in itself would have made Abu Ghraib a scandal even without the acts of torture inflicted on the inmates by their guards."
Although over 7,000 prisoners in 2003, there was no doctor at Abu Ghraib for most of 2003. He includes many statistics and examples which are worth reading including the statement that roughly 5% of the prisoners suffered from mental illness and received no medical assistance.
Although the poor medical care is not the focal point of "Standing Operating Procedure," I thought it was worth noting as another insight into Abu Ghraib. One of the most fascinating parts of the article was a quote by Dr. David Auch, the commander of the reserve company supporting medical operations at Abu Ghraib in 2003. In regard to some of the actions taken by medical personnel in Abu Ghraib, Auch states, "The priority is to safeguard the prisoner."
Maybe it's just me but something does not seem right with that statement.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1025139-1,00.html
I remember hearing the Abu Ghraib story when it gained media attention in 2004. I was in high school and didn't pay much attention to it, so when we began watching "Standing Operating Procedure" I did not know the specifics of the situation. After watching part of the documentary on Wednesday, I searched online for more information on the scandal. Most of what I found was focused on the military personnel's torturous actions and the pictures depicting them. However, I found this time article which focused on another aspect of the prison.
Zagorin states that another story lies within the prison walls. The medical doctors' care of the prisoners was a story in itself. The medical care was another kind of torture. He says that in addition to the torture abuse, "There was also medical disarray at the prison: amputations performed by nondoctors, chest tubes recycled from the dead to the living, a medic ordered, by one account, to cover up a homicide. That in itself would have made Abu Ghraib a scandal even without the acts of torture inflicted on the inmates by their guards."
Although over 7,000 prisoners in 2003, there was no doctor at Abu Ghraib for most of 2003. He includes many statistics and examples which are worth reading including the statement that roughly 5% of the prisoners suffered from mental illness and received no medical assistance.
Although the poor medical care is not the focal point of "Standing Operating Procedure," I thought it was worth noting as another insight into Abu Ghraib. One of the most fascinating parts of the article was a quote by Dr. David Auch, the commander of the reserve company supporting medical operations at Abu Ghraib in 2003. In regard to some of the actions taken by medical personnel in Abu Ghraib, Auch states, "The priority is to safeguard the prisoner."
Maybe it's just me but something does not seem right with that statement.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1025139-1,00.html
Slate article on torture, interrogation, and technology
This article was published at Slate.com shortly after the Abu Ghraib story broke.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
New York Times on the Wall Steet Bailout
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21cong.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
This article outlines the bailout plan, what it is intended to do and touches upon the arguments for and against it. The article is cautiously supportive of the plan, and praises the initiative taken by the Bush administration.
This article outlines the bailout plan, what it is intended to do and touches upon the arguments for and against it. The article is cautiously supportive of the plan, and praises the initiative taken by the Bush administration.
Positive Press for Bush's Social Security Plan
Bush employs a gentle touch by Peter S. Canellos
The Deseret News, a very conservative newspaper in Utah, published this article in 2005 praising Bush's confident manner in a recent State of the Union address. The article expresses a positive outlook for the second term of Bush's presidency based on the uncharacteristic diplomacy and sense of initiative he portrayed in his speech. It also glosses over the positive aspects of his Social Security plan and the successful ways in which he sold his plan in the address.
All Social Security options are open by Larry Wheeler
The same newspaper published this article in 2006 discussing the open options for Social Security reform following Bush's unsuccessful attempt to privatize Social Security in 2005. The article does not even try to be non-partisan when discussing Bush's rejected plan, outlining right from the beginning of the article the benefits that would have been reality if his plan was passed. The writer uses rhetorical words, such as "failed" when discussing the abysmal support of party members and "fierce" when describing the opposition, to garner sympathy for the President and make it sound as if Bush was victimized in Congress for his efforts. A very short paragraph is devoted to the opposing viewpoint at the end of the article - the least read section of any news story.
The Deseret News, a very conservative newspaper in Utah, published this article in 2005 praising Bush's confident manner in a recent State of the Union address. The article expresses a positive outlook for the second term of Bush's presidency based on the uncharacteristic diplomacy and sense of initiative he portrayed in his speech. It also glosses over the positive aspects of his Social Security plan and the successful ways in which he sold his plan in the address.
All Social Security options are open by Larry Wheeler
The same newspaper published this article in 2006 discussing the open options for Social Security reform following Bush's unsuccessful attempt to privatize Social Security in 2005. The article does not even try to be non-partisan when discussing Bush's rejected plan, outlining right from the beginning of the article the benefits that would have been reality if his plan was passed. The writer uses rhetorical words, such as "failed" when discussing the abysmal support of party members and "fierce" when describing the opposition, to garner sympathy for the President and make it sound as if Bush was victimized in Congress for his efforts. A very short paragraph is devoted to the opposing viewpoint at the end of the article - the least read section of any news story.
On the positive side of the Bush record
http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/38815
This article highlights an accomplishment of Bush's; the fact that the last seven years have been free of successful terrorist attacks, and the nation's present ability to deal with such an incident if it should occur, even one involving weapons of mass destruction.
The author's tone is a little sarcastic, and he does not say outright that this is an accomplishment; he only says that Bush's supporters consider it an accomplishment. Still, at the end of the article he states: "One might challenge contentions that Bush should get credit for the absence of major terrorist activity at home. But to do so would be to deny the long-held belief that what happens on a president's watch accrues to him either favorably or unfavorably."
This article highlights an accomplishment of Bush's; the fact that the last seven years have been free of successful terrorist attacks, and the nation's present ability to deal with such an incident if it should occur, even one involving weapons of mass destruction.
The author's tone is a little sarcastic, and he does not say outright that this is an accomplishment; he only says that Bush's supporters consider it an accomplishment. Still, at the end of the article he states: "One might challenge contentions that Bush should get credit for the absence of major terrorist activity at home. But to do so would be to deny the long-held belief that what happens on a president's watch accrues to him either favorably or unfavorably."
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Bush's handling of war praised by...Bruce Springsteen?
This article from 2002 quotes Bruce Springsteen as saying "‘‘The war in Afghanistan was handled well. It was deliberative, which I wasn’t counting on. I expected a lot less from this administration.’’
This is an interesting reminder of how many people were supportive of the war in Afghanistan. I think it actually gives some credibility to the outcries over the Iraq war, because it shows that the protest was not simply a "knee-jerk" reaction on behalf of Bush's critics. Many people did indeed support the initial war in Afghanistan (with the exception of Michael Moore and others) but became increasingly critical of the administration during the build up of the war in Iraq.
Another Democrat who defended Bush, but this time over the Iraq war, was former President Bill Clinton.
This article from CNN.com shows how Clinton balanced his criticisms of the way the war was handled (the timing, the Abu Gharib scandal) with an overall empathy of the situation Bush was faced with after 9/11: having an awakened responsibility to defend America against global security threats combined with an ever-uncooperative government in Iraq.
Larry Elder also details some of Clinton's defense of Bush, adding some pro Bush commentary of his own.
Also, I found this video of a large group of people who certainly had a lot of "praise" for the president...
(Sorry, I couldn't resist...)
This is an interesting reminder of how many people were supportive of the war in Afghanistan. I think it actually gives some credibility to the outcries over the Iraq war, because it shows that the protest was not simply a "knee-jerk" reaction on behalf of Bush's critics. Many people did indeed support the initial war in Afghanistan (with the exception of Michael Moore and others) but became increasingly critical of the administration during the build up of the war in Iraq.
Another Democrat who defended Bush, but this time over the Iraq war, was former President Bill Clinton.
This article from CNN.com shows how Clinton balanced his criticisms of the way the war was handled (the timing, the Abu Gharib scandal) with an overall empathy of the situation Bush was faced with after 9/11: having an awakened responsibility to defend America against global security threats combined with an ever-uncooperative government in Iraq.
Larry Elder also details some of Clinton's defense of Bush, adding some pro Bush commentary of his own.
Also, I found this video of a large group of people who certainly had a lot of "praise" for the president...
(Sorry, I couldn't resist...)
Praise for Faith-Based Initiatives
"Ohio Woman's Success Rates Praise from Bush"
http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=1913
WASHINGTON -- Standing in the ornate East Room of the White House, her family and the president of the United States alongside, Mifflin Township resident Pamela Hedrick proclaimed herself proof positive that welfare recipients can forge more productive lives.
Brought to the White House as part of a push yesterday by President Bush for his welfare-reform and faith-based initiatives, Hedrick credited a Columbus program -- the Enrichment Association of Community Healing on the East Side -- with helping move her from public assistance to the workplace.
"I'm here today because it works,'' said Hedrick, 35, who took her last welfare check in 1997 and a year and a half ago became an administrative assistant in Ohio first lady Hope Taft's office. "If it wasn't for the faith-based community program, I wouldn't be here.''
____________
While I maintain that the constitutionality of Faith Based Initiatives and the separation of Church and State is pretty questionable on this issue, it is good to see how the programs have helped people. It was definitely a positive experience for this Ohio woman who earned a pretty cool secretary position for the Governor's wife in Ohio. I can foresee praise in his efforts in getting people off welfare and finding more meaning in having a productive lifestyle and job. It is also the recognition that one needs to do something more than claim that people need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. This program seems to provide the motivation to get a pair of boots, or however you want to continue the metaphor.
While there is questionability for encouraging religion in the process of getting help with federal funding, it is clear that they have helped some people. Obama even agreed to continue some sort of faith-based initiative programs. While he has included a few changes in the program, the basic premise to the initiative remains--so this is a clear potential for a positive legacy of Bush.
http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=1913
WASHINGTON -- Standing in the ornate East Room of the White House, her family and the president of the United States alongside, Mifflin Township resident Pamela Hedrick proclaimed herself proof positive that welfare recipients can forge more productive lives.
Brought to the White House as part of a push yesterday by President Bush for his welfare-reform and faith-based initiatives, Hedrick credited a Columbus program -- the Enrichment Association of Community Healing on the East Side -- with helping move her from public assistance to the workplace.
"I'm here today because it works,'' said Hedrick, 35, who took her last welfare check in 1997 and a year and a half ago became an administrative assistant in Ohio first lady Hope Taft's office. "If it wasn't for the faith-based community program, I wouldn't be here.''
____________
While I maintain that the constitutionality of Faith Based Initiatives and the separation of Church and State is pretty questionable on this issue, it is good to see how the programs have helped people. It was definitely a positive experience for this Ohio woman who earned a pretty cool secretary position for the Governor's wife in Ohio. I can foresee praise in his efforts in getting people off welfare and finding more meaning in having a productive lifestyle and job. It is also the recognition that one needs to do something more than claim that people need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. This program seems to provide the motivation to get a pair of boots, or however you want to continue the metaphor.
While there is questionability for encouraging religion in the process of getting help with federal funding, it is clear that they have helped some people. Obama even agreed to continue some sort of faith-based initiative programs. While he has included a few changes in the program, the basic premise to the initiative remains--so this is a clear potential for a positive legacy of Bush.
Bush's Africa Policy - The Best of the Worst
To sound like a broken record and wear out a topic that's probably going to surface alot for this particular blog post assignment, Bush's African policies have generally been met with praise and survived public scrutiny with only mild criticism. His Africa policy is generally "good" - it's about the only area of his policy initiatives that receives consistent, mild praise rather than constant attacks and criticisms in the press. Everyone knows this.
But in an opinion piece for The New York Times, Josh Ruxin, a Columbia University expert on public health who has lived in Rwanda for the past few years, offers a knowledgeable, expert perspective on Bush's Africa policy more well-informed, reasoned and researched than most.
http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/bush-aids-business-and-africa/?scp=5&sq=Bush%20+%20positive%20press%20+%20Africa&st=cse
Ruxin writes in February 2008, reflecting on one of Bush's visits to Africa: "A big reason for the president’s visit is to see firsthand the progress made by the life-saving initiatives he set in motion through his administration’s programs. More than $19 billion has been invested in programs to fight AIDS, malaria and other killers. More than one million Africans with AIDS have been put on AIDS drugs, and new programs are aggressively treating and preventing malaria, the biggest killer of children under five on the continent. Though more needs to be done going forward, the Bush years have been a time when a foundation was laid for meaningful global public health interventions, and it’s right for the president to see the real impact of the United States dollars on African lives." Ruxin praises Bush's direct aid initiatives and the millions of dollars the President donated, in direct relief, to the continent.
But Ruxin goes on, throughout the rest of his blog post, to call for more than mere aid for Africa. He wants business directives and business initiatives. He wants to see businesses set up shop in Africa, because moving African countries toward economic prosperity is key in solving the AIDS epidemic, or at least in reducing AIDS in Africa to European and North American levels. With businesses and jobs come self-sufficiency and prosperity, which is what the continent needs even more than, but in conjunction with, direct aid. Business initiatives in Africa are just as essential to solving the problem of AIDS in Africa as direct relief.
This isn't a criticism of Bush directly or personally, but I think a call to Republicans in America and Republican ideals in America. Ruxin, to a certain extent, is espousing capitalism's ability to confer and bring prosperity to a society, of a kind which could alleviate many of Africa's health problems and most particularly its problems with AIDS and malaria. It's a very Republican ideal - faith in the free market economy and business to confer prosperity and a higher quality of life. Ruxin is appealing to Republican philanthropic impulses and private enterprise in giving Africa the material and kind of long-lasting change and relief the continent and its people truly need. He's calling for a new Republican experiment in Africa. At least in terms of Africa, Republicanism in its most idealistic form, might work.
But in an opinion piece for The New York Times, Josh Ruxin, a Columbia University expert on public health who has lived in Rwanda for the past few years, offers a knowledgeable, expert perspective on Bush's Africa policy more well-informed, reasoned and researched than most.
http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/bush-aids-business-and-africa/?scp=5&sq=Bush%20+%20positive%20press%20+%20Africa&st=cse
Ruxin writes in February 2008, reflecting on one of Bush's visits to Africa: "A big reason for the president’s visit is to see firsthand the progress made by the life-saving initiatives he set in motion through his administration’s programs. More than $19 billion has been invested in programs to fight AIDS, malaria and other killers. More than one million Africans with AIDS have been put on AIDS drugs, and new programs are aggressively treating and preventing malaria, the biggest killer of children under five on the continent. Though more needs to be done going forward, the Bush years have been a time when a foundation was laid for meaningful global public health interventions, and it’s right for the president to see the real impact of the United States dollars on African lives." Ruxin praises Bush's direct aid initiatives and the millions of dollars the President donated, in direct relief, to the continent.
But Ruxin goes on, throughout the rest of his blog post, to call for more than mere aid for Africa. He wants business directives and business initiatives. He wants to see businesses set up shop in Africa, because moving African countries toward economic prosperity is key in solving the AIDS epidemic, or at least in reducing AIDS in Africa to European and North American levels. With businesses and jobs come self-sufficiency and prosperity, which is what the continent needs even more than, but in conjunction with, direct aid. Business initiatives in Africa are just as essential to solving the problem of AIDS in Africa as direct relief.
This isn't a criticism of Bush directly or personally, but I think a call to Republicans in America and Republican ideals in America. Ruxin, to a certain extent, is espousing capitalism's ability to confer and bring prosperity to a society, of a kind which could alleviate many of Africa's health problems and most particularly its problems with AIDS and malaria. It's a very Republican ideal - faith in the free market economy and business to confer prosperity and a higher quality of life. Ruxin is appealing to Republican philanthropic impulses and private enterprise in giving Africa the material and kind of long-lasting change and relief the continent and its people truly need. He's calling for a new Republican experiment in Africa. At least in terms of Africa, Republicanism in its most idealistic form, might work.
What Bush Got Right
Hey Everybody,
Here's a link to a Newsweek article titled "What Bush Got Right." The article argues that blanket criticism of Bush is not always the right way to go. Bush has dug himself into a hole in terms of popularity, because his approval rating is so low people are hesitant to accept anything he does. Although his foreign policy when he first started his presidency was out of line (invading Iraq and the whole weapons of mass destruction thing), since then what he is doing now is more "sensible and mainstream" according to the story. This article argues that the Obama should continue some of Bush's foreign policies such as working on the US's relationship with China.
Here's a link to a Newsweek article titled "What Bush Got Right." The article argues that blanket criticism of Bush is not always the right way to go. Bush has dug himself into a hole in terms of popularity, because his approval rating is so low people are hesitant to accept anything he does. Although his foreign policy when he first started his presidency was out of line (invading Iraq and the whole weapons of mass destruction thing), since then what he is doing now is more "sensible and mainstream" according to the story. This article argues that the Obama should continue some of Bush's foreign policies such as working on the US's relationship with China.
Charlie Savage's Pulitzer Prize winning investigation of Bush's "signing statements"
Here is the story by the Boston Globe's Charlie Savage that won him the 2007 Pulitzer Prize. When historians assess the impact of George W. Bush on the U.S. Constitution, they will likely start here:
Bush challenges hundreds of laws
President cites powers of his office
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 30, 2006
WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution. [link]
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
George Bush Is Not Incompetent
This article, written by George Lakoff of the Huffington Post, on June 26, 2006, takes a very interesting, and non-negative look at the Bush presidency. The author declares that the mishaps of 9/11, Katrina and other events are clearly not the fault of George Bush.
The author discusses that George Bush, personally, is not a bad president. He even goes as far to say that in some respects, he will be considered a decent president. But the problem lies in his conservative philosophy, not his personal governance.
"Progressives have fallen into a trap. Emboldened by President Bush's plummeting approval ratings, progressives increasingly point to Bush's "failures" and label him and his administration as incompetent. For example, Nancy Pelosi recently charged "The situation in Iraq and the reckless economic policies in the United States speak to one issue for me, and that is the competence of our leader." Self-satisfying as this criticism may be, it misses the bigger point. Bush's disasters -- Katrina, the Iraq War, the budget deficit -- are not so much a testament to his incompetence or a failure of execution"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/george-bush-is-not-incomp_b_23845.html
Bush Likable?
The following article was posted on the New York Times website this past September by revered opinion columnist, Stanley Fish. Although Fish doesn't write off mistakes that Bush and his administration has made, he argues that shortly after Bush leaves office, people will like Bush. He comments on GWB's quirky personality, his ability to laugh and make fun of himself and the fact that he seems like a real, normal and relatable human. While I have been so caught up in the current election and who will replace Bush, I hadn't thought about what Bush's legacy would be and how he would be viewed in the public. This article gives good insight to Bush and how Fish believes he will be a "comeback kid."
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/george-bush-the-comeback-kid/
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/george-bush-the-comeback-kid/
2000 Election
The following video completely blames the media for the problems in Florida. While I realize that the media did act report too quickly and disregarded the requests from Harris, I believe the media was the most insignificant problem facing the Florida election disaster. With people accidently voting for the wrong candidate, the infamous "dangling chad" and inaccurate ballot counting machines, it seems to me that the least of the problems was the media calling Florida too early.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHK1-LA8zEU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHK1-LA8zEU
Newspaper Opinion Article c. 2004
"Bush Good For Country, Kerry Lacks Experience"
I will be voting for President Bush in November. He has presented a comprehensive, thoughtful set of policies, and he possesses a strong, proven character. He has surrounded himself with bright people who made decisions that make the United States a better, safer place for everyone.
The Democrats, making untruthful accusations of malfeasance and corruption, are relying on the emotional capriciousness of the American voter rather than offering a rational presentation of a contrasting platform. Their slogans are empty and idealistic, marching under a banner reading "Not Bush" rather than presenting a blueprint for an America that will truly be stronger at home and respected in the world....
http://media.www.dailylobo.com/media/storage/paper344/news/2004/10/08/Opinion/Letterbush.Good.For.Countrykerry.Lacks.Experience-747514.shtml
I suppose that at the time, Bush was viewed in a much more favorable light than he is today. Nevertheless, four years later, this opinion article has huge amounts of irony in it. The first - and most obvious - lies in the problems that the Bush administration has caused since then. It's funny to wonder if the writer of this article still feels this way today. When the writer criticizes Kerry for running a "Not Bush" campaign, it it highly ironic because that very platform is one of the major reasons that McCain lost this past election. I guess a lot can happen in four years.
I will be voting for President Bush in November. He has presented a comprehensive, thoughtful set of policies, and he possesses a strong, proven character. He has surrounded himself with bright people who made decisions that make the United States a better, safer place for everyone.
The Democrats, making untruthful accusations of malfeasance and corruption, are relying on the emotional capriciousness of the American voter rather than offering a rational presentation of a contrasting platform. Their slogans are empty and idealistic, marching under a banner reading "Not Bush" rather than presenting a blueprint for an America that will truly be stronger at home and respected in the world....
http://media.www.dailylobo.com/media/storage/paper344/news/2004/10/08/Opinion/Letterbush.Good.For.Countrykerry.Lacks.Experience-747514.shtml
I suppose that at the time, Bush was viewed in a much more favorable light than he is today. Nevertheless, four years later, this opinion article has huge amounts of irony in it. The first - and most obvious - lies in the problems that the Bush administration has caused since then. It's funny to wonder if the writer of this article still feels this way today. When the writer criticizes Kerry for running a "Not Bush" campaign, it it highly ironic because that very platform is one of the major reasons that McCain lost this past election. I guess a lot can happen in four years.
US-India nuclear deal a rare Bush foreign policy success
This article cites Bush’s recent nuclear relations with India as one of his few successful international policies. Published February 10, 2008, the article suggests that “A landmark US-India nuclear endorsed by the US Congress is a rare foreign policy success for US President George W. Bush and sets the stage for improved ties between the world's two largest democracies.” Of course, this policy has its critics, but its proponents argue that it will benefit American businesses and create opportunities for them in India. Those in support of the deal believe it to be one of the most important pieces of foreign policy legislation particularly because of Bush’s criticized foreign policy record. Critics of the policy warn of how it will change future arms control relations.
Dubya? Too soon to judge
Theo Caldwell, National Post - November 24, 2008
This article is the closest to positive press I could find on President Bush. Caldwell discusses the fact that Bush's legacy, like many former U.S Presidents, will most likely be determined years after he has left his office.
Some interesting quotes from the article:
"So simple and widespread is condemnation of the man that, when one hears some concerned citizen spouting the usual lines about "lies," "war for oil" and the like, one wonders what that person thinks he or she is adding to the public discourse. It has all been said before, and it was dopey the first time.
http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.bu.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T5284450513&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T5284450526&cisb=22_T5284450525&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=10882&docNo=10
This article is the closest to positive press I could find on President Bush. Caldwell discusses the fact that Bush's legacy, like many former U.S Presidents, will most likely be determined years after he has left his office.
Some interesting quotes from the article:
"So simple and widespread is condemnation of the man that, when one hears some concerned citizen spouting the usual lines about "lies," "war for oil" and the like, one wonders what that person thinks he or she is adding to the public discourse. It has all been said before, and it was dopey the first time.
What is far more difficult -- harder, even, than finding someone to sing Bush's praises --is to find intelligent analysis of Bush's successes and failures as leader of the free world. His foreign policy forays, like the Iraq war, and his domestic policies, like the prescription drug benefit, bear serious scrutiny. But since folks start hyperventilating at the mere mention of Bush's name, it seems sober discussion must wait until at least the end of his term.
It is often noted that while presidents Lincoln and Truman were both reviled in their times, history has judged them to be among the strongest leaders in American history. This simply proves Fred Barnes's formulation that in politics, as in life, the future is never a straight-line projection from the present. Also, it is fair to say that just because people hate you, that doesn't make you Abraham Lincoln."
"Domestically, while Bush's growth-inducing tax cuts added hundreds of billions of dollars to the Treasury and increased the share of taxes paid by the highest earners, the nation is in the grips of its worst financial crisis in decades. In truth, the current debacle finds its roots in the misbegotten mortgages mandated by president Carter's Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, if not president Roosevelt's creation of Fannie Mae as part of the New Deal. But as the man at the top when the bad news came down, Bush bears much of the burden."http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.bu.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T5284450513&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T5284450526&cisb=22_T5284450525&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=10882&docNo=10
Certified but Incomplete
Some highlights from an article by the New York Times Editorial Desk on November 27,2000.
"By hailing the certification of Florida's ballots as the last word on the presidential election and naming a transition director and chief of staff, Gov. George W. Bush reached boldly for the mantle of president-elect. Unfortunately, he is also trying to leapfrog the nation past the important pending legal challenges to that state's incompletely counted vote. In light of the events since Nov. 7, the last word ought to be delivered by the courts that will hear Vice President Al Gore's contests of the results and, more important, by a United States Supreme Court that is hearing arguments about the election at Mr. Bush's request."
http://www.nytimes.com
"By hailing the certification of Florida's ballots as the last word on the presidential election and naming a transition director and chief of staff, Gov. George W. Bush reached boldly for the mantle of president-elect. Unfortunately, he is also trying to leapfrog the nation past the important pending legal challenges to that state's incompletely counted vote. In light of the events since Nov. 7, the last word ought to be delivered by the courts that will hear Vice President Al Gore's contests of the results and, more important, by a United States Supreme Court that is hearing arguments about the election at Mr. Bush's request."
"Both the Florida courts and the United States Supreme Court can finish their work in a little over a week. They can give Americans of both parties a higher level of confidence in the ballot count. That, in turn, would allow either Mr. Bush or Mr. Gore to take office on a sounder basis. Both candidates should be looking to the broader issue of legitimacy instead of grasping for short-term advantage."
"It was, of course, no surprise that Florida's secretary of state, Katherine Harris, an eager partisan who worked for the Bush campaign, would quickly certify a result that showed Mr. Bush in the lead. But it was disappointing to see the Texas Governor embrace that disputed certification and call upon Mr. Gore to drop his plan to contest the Florida results. The courts need to look at this count and tell the nation whether it represents the official end point of the election. Once the courts have spoken, the time for argument will be over.""This is clearly not the time for Florida's restive, Republican-led Legislature to meddle with the election. The surest way to erode public trust is for the Florida Legislature and Florida's Republican governor, Jeb Bush, to try to override the decisions of the Florida courts."
"The United States Supreme Court can do its part to conclude this national drama on an authoritative note by allowing television coverage of the arguments before the court on Friday. The justices have a longstanding aversion to television, but they should make an exception for this case because of the need to clear up the disputed count certified in Florida last night."
http://www.nytimes.com
Bush's Positive AIDS Press
Let me start this post off by saying I had an incredible amount of trouble finding positive press on President Bush. My multiple queries on multiple issues - from foreign policy to domestic policy, abortion to gun laws - turned up almost nothing. The ranting and raving on even conservative websites was maddening, I got pretty discouraged. Until I found this article:
http://www.northstarwriters.com/rm016.htm
Although mildly sarcastic, writer Bob Maistros praises Bush's AIDS policy not on the basis of partisan issues but instead on its successes beyond its shortcomings. A search on Bush's AIDS policy in any search engine usually hails results about how Bush has forgotten about Africa and South America (as this article briefly references) but instead of focusing on Bush's policy of "spreading hope." Please ignore his obvious slant, as his rant about Al Gore is irrelevant and, I believe, distracts from his sincere praise of Bush's AIDS policy. Printed yesterday, World AIDS Day 2008 it's incredibly relevant and thought-provoking as I had, through the barrage of bad press, never even heard of Bush's positive AIDS policy initiatives. So, despite being sarcastic and irreverent at times, the article is praising Bush's presidential initiative against AIDS.
http://www.northstarwriters.com/rm016.htm
Although mildly sarcastic, writer Bob Maistros praises Bush's AIDS policy not on the basis of partisan issues but instead on its successes beyond its shortcomings. A search on Bush's AIDS policy in any search engine usually hails results about how Bush has forgotten about Africa and South America (as this article briefly references) but instead of focusing on Bush's policy of "spreading hope." Please ignore his obvious slant, as his rant about Al Gore is irrelevant and, I believe, distracts from his sincere praise of Bush's AIDS policy. Printed yesterday, World AIDS Day 2008 it's incredibly relevant and thought-provoking as I had, through the barrage of bad press, never even heard of Bush's positive AIDS policy initiatives. So, despite being sarcastic and irreverent at times, the article is praising Bush's presidential initiative against AIDS.
Bush's legacy in the Global Battle against AIDS
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/washington/05aids.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=In%20Global%20Battle%20on%20AIDS,%20Bush%20Creates%20Legacy&st=cse
Important Quotes from article:
"Yet the institute concluded that, over all, the program had made “a promising start.” And when
they step back, even critics like Mr. Zeitz concede that Mr. Bush spawned a philosophical
revolution. In one striking step, he put to rest the notion that because patients were poor or
uneducated they did not deserve, or could not be taught to use, medicine that could mean the
difference between life and death." (Page 2)
"Dr. Coutinho said Ugandans were terrified that when Mr. Bush left office, “the Bush fund,” as they call it, would go with him. “When I’ve traveled in the U.S., I’m amazed at how little people know about what Pepfar stands for,” he said. “Just because it has been done under Bush, it is not
something the country should not be proud of.” (Page 2)
Analysis of Article:
This New York Times article looks at an AIDS relief program that was begun by the Bush administration in 2004. Since the beginning of the program around 1.4 million AIDS patients have received lifesaving medicine that was paid for by the American dollars funding this program. This number increased from the 50,000 patients that were receiving this lifesaving medicine before Bush undertook this initiative. As announced in his 2003 State of the Union address, the goals Bush outlined for this program include treating 2 million people, preventing 7 million new infections and providing care for 10 million. These proposed goals of the number of patients to be treated included providing care to children and orphans who were considered to also be at risk for contracting the disease. The analysis as to whether or not these goals have been met will not occur until 2010, but Bush's global AIDS coordinator claims that they are on track to meet these objectives.
Along with presenting the facts and effects of this program under Bush the article's author Sheryl Gay Stolberg also considers the criticisms of this program and why it has not received more public attention. Stolberg argues that other unpopular Bush policies such as the war in Iraq, tax changes, education reforms, and his immigration policy have all cast a shadow on this admirable achievement of his administration. She says that this should not be a program that people are ashamed of or don't give worthy recognition to just because it was conducted under the Bush presidency. Therefore, the article reminds readers to not just get caught up in the popular opinions and polls that drag Bush's image down, but critics should also consider the positive legacy that this initiative will have on the global fight against AIDS.
Important Quotes from article:
"Yet the institute concluded that, over all, the program had made “a promising start.” And when
they step back, even critics like Mr. Zeitz concede that Mr. Bush spawned a philosophical
revolution. In one striking step, he put to rest the notion that because patients were poor or
uneducated they did not deserve, or could not be taught to use, medicine that could mean the
difference between life and death." (Page 2)
"Dr. Coutinho said Ugandans were terrified that when Mr. Bush left office, “the Bush fund,” as they call it, would go with him. “When I’ve traveled in the U.S., I’m amazed at how little people know about what Pepfar stands for,” he said. “Just because it has been done under Bush, it is not
something the country should not be proud of.” (Page 2)
Analysis of Article:
This New York Times article looks at an AIDS relief program that was begun by the Bush administration in 2004. Since the beginning of the program around 1.4 million AIDS patients have received lifesaving medicine that was paid for by the American dollars funding this program. This number increased from the 50,000 patients that were receiving this lifesaving medicine before Bush undertook this initiative. As announced in his 2003 State of the Union address, the goals Bush outlined for this program include treating 2 million people, preventing 7 million new infections and providing care for 10 million. These proposed goals of the number of patients to be treated included providing care to children and orphans who were considered to also be at risk for contracting the disease. The analysis as to whether or not these goals have been met will not occur until 2010, but Bush's global AIDS coordinator claims that they are on track to meet these objectives.
Along with presenting the facts and effects of this program under Bush the article's author Sheryl Gay Stolberg also considers the criticisms of this program and why it has not received more public attention. Stolberg argues that other unpopular Bush policies such as the war in Iraq, tax changes, education reforms, and his immigration policy have all cast a shadow on this admirable achievement of his administration. She says that this should not be a program that people are ashamed of or don't give worthy recognition to just because it was conducted under the Bush presidency. Therefore, the article reminds readers to not just get caught up in the popular opinions and polls that drag Bush's image down, but critics should also consider the positive legacy that this initiative will have on the global fight against AIDS.
Bush Wasn't So Bad
http://www.splicetoday.com/politics-and-media/george-w-bush-wasn-t-so-bad
"After all these efforts, the people who are going to miss him the most are liberals. They will have to finally start owning responsibility for the way the country is being run. They had successfully morphed their “Blame America First” slogan to “Blame Dubya First” and once he is out of the White House, there is only going to be a certain period of time before that goes stale."
"Bush has also been charged with singlehandedly botching Hurricane Katrina. But he did not design or build the levees that were breached. The Hurricane Contingency plans for the area were formulated by the City of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana. The response from FEMA was inadequate because it was something that nobody has even seen or expected before. It did not help that people in the city ignored the mandatory evacuation orders."
Bottom line: it is SO EASY to choose a scapegoat. One of the reasons why I'm personally hesitant to criticize Bush is because so many people my age see something like "Fahrenheit 9/11" or a "9/11 Truther" video and IMMEDIATELY become vehemently anti-Bush. Everyone says that the Bush adminstration and corporate America manipulated the minds the people...does anyone ever take a look at how the liberal media does the same thing?
We're in a hell of a tight spot right now and the Bush administration is to blame for much of it. But I think this country has become so biased that every problem we run into is now automatically the fault of Bush. People are inherently lazy and if it's convenient not to take responsibility for their own actions, they'll blame someone else in a heartbeat.
Merry Christmas!
"After all these efforts, the people who are going to miss him the most are liberals. They will have to finally start owning responsibility for the way the country is being run. They had successfully morphed their “Blame America First” slogan to “Blame Dubya First” and once he is out of the White House, there is only going to be a certain period of time before that goes stale."
"Bush has also been charged with singlehandedly botching Hurricane Katrina. But he did not design or build the levees that were breached. The Hurricane Contingency plans for the area were formulated by the City of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana. The response from FEMA was inadequate because it was something that nobody has even seen or expected before. It did not help that people in the city ignored the mandatory evacuation orders."
Bottom line: it is SO EASY to choose a scapegoat. One of the reasons why I'm personally hesitant to criticize Bush is because so many people my age see something like "Fahrenheit 9/11" or a "9/11 Truther" video and IMMEDIATELY become vehemently anti-Bush. Everyone says that the Bush adminstration and corporate America manipulated the minds the people...does anyone ever take a look at how the liberal media does the same thing?
We're in a hell of a tight spot right now and the Bush administration is to blame for much of it. But I think this country has become so biased that every problem we run into is now automatically the fault of Bush. People are inherently lazy and if it's convenient not to take responsibility for their own actions, they'll blame someone else in a heartbeat.
Merry Christmas!
Monday, December 1, 2008
'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple.
This is an article written by Fred Hiatt of the Washington Post on June 9, 2008. He attacks the "Bush Lied" products and says that Bush really didn't lie. Bush' exact response to whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was "substantiated by intelligence information." He says that the entire "Bush Lied" story is completely false and unfair. Although he does not completely support Bush's policies he thinks he has been poorly treated. Mostly he writes to say that it is difficult for a person to act on evidence that may or may not be true. The link to the article is listed below.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html
Indecision 2000
A day after the Supreme Court decided to award George Bush the presidency of the United States, John Stewart responds.
Stem Cell Research// New York Times
THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION: THE PRESIDENT; A Long Process That Led Bush To His Decision [new window]
"Just how thoroughly Mr. Bush considered the issue and whether that represented a usual or unusual degree of presidential engagement is difficult to know, and subject to interpretation. But even his critics acknowledge that his decision was well-informed, and seemingly everybody who met with Mr. Bush in the Oval Office came away impressed by what he knew about the topic."This article, dated 08/11/01, centers on the reaction of media to Bush's controversial announcement to stop federal funding for future development on Stem Cell Research (allowing funding for, however, research on existing lines). While it does give credence to Bush for attempting to come to a fully realized decision, it also acknowledges that the depth to which this is true may be up for debate, as some media outlets had felt that his administration was actively seeking to frame his decision in this light. Considering, however, that this article, written during a time of around 50% public approval, comes from the New York Times [obviously a notorious liberal media elitist paper] - it's rather even-handed, possibly bordering on approving.
Praise for Bush's AIDS Work
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_11112237
Today, President-elect Barack Obama praised the Bush administration for its work in Africa for AIDS relief: "I salute President Bush for his leadership in crafting a plan for AIDS relief in Africa and backing it up with funding dedicated to saving lives and preventing the spread of the disease... And my administration will continue this critical work to address the crisis around the world."
Obama recognizes the strides that Bush's 2003 project achieved of giving lifesaving treatments to 2 million people in five years. Bush claims that this goal was met and exceeded earlier than expected. Bush's program gave treatment to more than 10 million people around the world - a drastic change from the 50,000 people who were receiving treatment when the program began. Because of the treatments the program funded, over 237,000 children have been born without HIV, as the virus did not transfer from mother to child.
Today, President-elect Barack Obama praised the Bush administration for its work in Africa for AIDS relief: "I salute President Bush for his leadership in crafting a plan for AIDS relief in Africa and backing it up with funding dedicated to saving lives and preventing the spread of the disease... And my administration will continue this critical work to address the crisis around the world."
Obama recognizes the strides that Bush's 2003 project achieved of giving lifesaving treatments to 2 million people in five years. Bush claims that this goal was met and exceeded earlier than expected. Bush's program gave treatment to more than 10 million people around the world - a drastic change from the 50,000 people who were receiving treatment when the program began. Because of the treatments the program funded, over 237,000 children have been born without HIV, as the virus did not transfer from mother to child.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)