April 06, 2004

The Outrage List Continues: Part III

NOTE: You have probably found this blog through a Search Engine. This blog
has switched from Movable Type to WordPress. Unfortunately, I am not able to offer
an easy redirect. For a while, I will keep the original posts up, but you CANNOT LEAVE
COMMENTS from these archive pages. To leave a comment, COPY the title of this post,
follow this link to the new site, and paste the title into the SEARCH window.
You will be able to leave a comment on the new blog page. Thanks!

It is hard to see just a few days go by without another set of lies and scams perpetrated by the Bush people, and remember, people, these are just the ones we find out about--there are without doubt many more.

The first one is all too public, the failing of the Bush administration to manage postwar Iraq. Their failure to have a coherent postwar strategy, their arrogant posturing and just plain stupidity making a far more respectable U.N. force to keep the peace, and Bush's desperate rush to hand over power so he can pretend that U.S. troops aren't there (while they will really be there for at least another decade), have all led to this carnage we see today.

The number of U.S. soldiers killed now number 15 for the month of April (one other foreign soldier died as well), for an average of 3.2 Coalition troops killed per day--which is a startling number. That's just slightly behind the 3.6 per day killed in November, and that was when helicopters full of soldiers got shot down--this month our people are getting killed one by one, by bombs and in combat. And if you go past last November, this month so far has been bloodier for our troops than any month since the invasion began last March.

And that is before the summer heat starts up, and before a major turnover of troops will make a majority of troops reservists, minimally trained, the first time practically untrained soldiers have outnumbered active-duty troops. That, along with growing resentment of American troops in Iraq by the Iraqis, promises to make this quagmire bloodier and bloodier still.

But at least we have the comfort of knowing that the sacrifice of our young fighting forces will not be allowed to work against the election campaign of George W. Bush. Why? Because he's stacked the Iraq press office with a very large number of GOP staffers whose job it is to spin the Iraq news to benefit Bush's election run. "One-third of the U.S. civilian workers in the press office have GOP ties, running an enterprise that critics see as an outpost of Bush's re-election effort with Iraq a top concern."

And Bush's corruption of public information to help him get elected doesn't stop in Baghdad. Remember the 9/11 commission? Remember how Bush, through Dennis Hastert, did everything possible to stop the 9/11 commission from getting a 2-month extension because they were terrified of the investigation report coming out too close to the November elections? Well, problem solved. You won't get a chance to see the 9/11 commission report before the election, if Bush gets his way. They are saying that they will have to put the report through a "vetting" process, and they may not get finished with it until after the election.

But with luck, we'll get a look at what they've found through leaks, and that is the fact (which I've blogged on recently) that the 9/11 attack "were probably preventable." Any wonder the Bush White House--who before were incredibly anxious to get the report out asap and tried to block a 2-month extension the commission called for--is now saying that it'll take so much time they won't be able to say anything before the election. What a surprise.

And then we have piece of evidence #26 that Bush was planning to invade Iraq from early on: a former British ambassador reported that just nine days after 9/11, Bush told Blair that "when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq." Remember how the Bush people blasted Paul O'Neill, smearing him as some kind of psychotic, greedy liar because he claimed Bush was focused on invading Iraq from long before 9/11? Same for Richard Clarke? What will they say about this former British ambassador? Will they call him a raving loony? How many more ultimately respectable, intelligent and formidable men and women will Bush's people have to smear before people get wise to the lies?

And while we're talking about how Bush's people are smearing those who dare criticize them, look at the list of people who served the Bush administration that they are now attacking: Paul O'Neill, Joseph Smith, Lawrence Lindsay, Anthony Zinni, Eric Shinseki, Richard Foster, John DiIulio, Scott Ritter, and Richard Clarke. That's a lot of people, and that's just the A-list, but my point is this: if so many people who used to work for Bush are all liars, profiteers, child molesters, psychotics and so on--what does this say about the quality of people working for the Bush administration? These are the smart, honorable and dignified people Bush promised to surround himself with? No, the fact is, these are the honorable people about which none of the Bush smears are true, which is why they all had to leave--there's no place for people of such integrity in Bush's White House.

And closing for today before I overload once again (too late!), now we also find out that Bush's people sent out an email to the troops telling them to lie about the environment whenever asked about it, to wit: "global warming has not been proved, air quality is 'getting better', the world's forests are 'spreading, not deadening', oil reserves are 'increasing, not decreasing', and the 'world's water is cleaner and reaching more people.'" The source of these claims? A research institute funded by Mobil Oil. A Republican strategist behind most of this is reported to have said, "There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science." Which is the hallmark of Bush's scientific policy: fight the science. Make sure the ideology wins out. Science proves Bush wrong? Rewrite the report. It's as simple as that!

Oy. Yet more Outrage Overload. How much longer can this go on?

Posted by Luis at April 6, 2004 02:53 AM

What's that software you use to capture the audio streams?

P.S. - When AAR changed their site and the URL read "mediaplayeropen" or something like that my heart sunk. I thought they'd switched to solely WM audio. ECK! Fortunately I was wrong.

Posted by: Justin Faulkner at April 6, 2004 03:54 AM

For the PC:

Soundcapture. You can find it at:


Records as MP3s, does beautifully on my XP PC.

Posted by: Luis at April 6, 2004 04:03 AM


Posted by: Justin Faulkner at April 7, 2004 04:48 PM