Republican Hypocrisy

Chuckling over the Republican's complaining about the Obama administration's adding to the national debt with the stimulus package? Wondering how Republicans can still call themselves "fiscal conservatives"? Here's a factoid for your Republican friends who remain firmly entrenched in Fox Fantasy Land: the Bush administration added $5 trillion to the national debt. That's what the Obama administration inherited. Republicans need to stop mewing about the stimulus plan and start acting responsibly to get this nation back on track. Obstinately refusing to act in good faith with the current administration that's now dealing with the after-effects of their atrocious governing is not the way to do that.

Here is George Packer's take on what the Republican-Democratic debate is really about.

And here is Steve Benen's post about Republican behavior.

Update, February 14, 2009: Steve Benen posts on Rush Limbaugh's and Republicans' "rooting for failure" of the Obama administration and of the stimulus package. As Benen points out, Republicans would have screamed "unpatriotic" to anyone who might have openly rooted for failure of the Republican-led government.

Success?

Ummm. . . . Is this the "success" in Iraq we hear so much about from John McCain? The United States has been paying thousands of militia members $300 a month and promising them jobs with the Iraqi government. Of the 24,000 Sunni Sons of Iraq in Diyala province, 11,000 are on U. S. payrolls. (On Tuesday morning, gunfire erupted between police in Diyala province and Iraqi special forces.) The U. S. is paying a total of 103,000 militia members throughout Iraq. The agreement between the U. S. and these militias has greatly influenced the decline in violence that politicians always cite as evidence of success of the surge. Now the Iraqi government is backing out of its commitment toward these former insurgents. What happens when the promises fail?

Colin Kahl, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a centrist policy institute in Washington, who recently visited Iraq, said the dispute over the militias could set the stage for a return of widespread bloodshed, particularly because the Maliki government seemed intent on thwarting the plan.

Sources
Leila Fadel, "Key U. S. Iraq Strategy in Danger of Collapse," McClatchy Newspapers, posted Wednesday, August 20, 2008, at http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/49538.html

Nicholas Spangler, "U.S. Denounces Chaotic Iraqi Raid," McClatchy Newspapers, posted Wednesday, August 20, 2008, at http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/49518.html

"One More Good American"

Perhaps it's old news that the U. S. Department of Justice politicized the hiring of career attorneys under the management of Monica Goodling, the DOJ's White House Liaison and Senior Counsel to the Attorney General, but the recently released investigative report on improper hiring procedures puts the story in headlines again today. As the U. S. Dept. of Justice's investigative report describes:

It is not improper to consider political affiliations when hiring for political positions. However, both Department policy and federal law prohibit discrimination in hiring for Department career positions on the basis of political affiliations. (p 12)

The report reminds us once again of the lawlessness of the Bush administration and the political hackery found throughout that administration. As the report indicates, Goodling broke the law in using political affiliation to make decisions on hiring career attorneys. In one instance, Bradley Schlozman, then interim U. S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, asked for waivers to hire an Assistant U. S. Attorney, and he described some of the candidates in conservative political terms, calling them, "rock-solid Americans." The e-mail interchange between Schlozman, EOUSA Deputy Director John Nowacki, and Monica Goodling indicates that the three equated "Good Americans" with Republicans:

That same day, Nowacki forwarded the three résumés by e-mail to Goodling in the OAG. Later that day, Goodling sent an e-mail to Nowacki saying, “Tell Brad he can hire one more good American.” Shortly thereafter, Nowacki sent an e-mail to Schlozman saying, “You can go ahead and hire one more good American.” Nowacki acknowledged to us that he understood the phrase “good American” to refer to someone with Republican credentials. (p 30)

I am so disgusted with this whole idea that Democrats and liberals are not "rock-solid American" or "Good Americans." This whole idea that one's political affiliation indicates one's true patriotism is downright un-American.

How do we combat this pernicious attitude? It is not only un-American, it undermines the effective workings of our government. Kevin Drum points out how one highly qualified candidate was dismissed because of his wife's political party affiliation! The individual who was subsequently placed in the position was very un-qualified, lacking the counter-terrorism experience required of the position as well as the minimum years' experience as a federal criminal prosecutor.

Oh, just read the whole report and weep! Monica Goodling's political vetting was not an isolated event. Candidates for positions with the Coalition Provision Authority were also vetted politically, and many young and inexperienced people were sent to Iraq unprepared, having met the administration's requirement that they be Republican but knowing little or nothing about the country they were to help lead. The consequences were disastrous. As "one more good American" AND a Democrat, I'm saddened and outraged by this incompetency--and lawlessness.

Quotation of the Year

On Tecumseh, Shawnee Chief:

Another distinguished aspect of Tecumseh's moral fiber was his aversion to the mistreatment of prisoners of war. In a culture that regularly practiced the torture and burning alive of captives as a religious rite, he was outspoken in his opposition to such barbarity. According to [Stephen] Ruddell [a white captive who had been Tecumseh's close friend as a child and young warrior], 'when prisoners fell into his hands he always treated them with as much humanity as if they had been in the hands of civilized people. No burning--no torturing.'"

from Jay Feldman's When the Mississippi Ran Backwards: Empire, Intrigue, Murder, and the New Madrid Earthquakes (2005)--another fine book from the sales tables of BookPeople in Austin, Texas.

Ummmm..... George Bush et alia--and all such so-called civilized people--, please take note.

Why Not Just Call It LYING?

Steve Benen, writing for Salon's "War Room," points out that President Bush has praised the expansion of the GI bill after he had publicly opposed it. He had to sign the bill because it passed by a veto-proof margin. Now he's praising it as if he had never opposed it. In addition to that, Benen points out, Bush praised Republican leaders who opposed the bill and even voted against it--in such a way that an unwary public (a group in which many Americans hold membership) would draw the conclusion that these leaders approved the bill. Bush also praised John McCain for his "hard work" on the bill--when John McCain also had publicly opposed the bill.

Bush had no words of praise for one of the actual Republican sponsors of the bill: Chuck Hagel.

Down is Up and Up is Down in this administration. Yes is No and No is Yes, too, I guess. (And torture is just enhanced interrogation procedures). I just think it's lying. But that's what this administration seems to do best.

In other news, the media are jumping on Wesley Clark for some comments he made about John McCain. Evidently, Clark said that flying a plane does not make one qualified to be president--but critics have taken Clark's comments out of context and are accusing Clark of attacking McCain's military career. I've read two good responses to these criticisms in the last few minutes. Here is Billings Outpost editor David Crisp on the brou-ha-ha, at his Billings Blog. And here is Steve Benen's response on Salon: "Media Mischaracterizes Clark Comments, Obama Backs Away."

Update:
Via Kevin Drum, I am reminded of earlier, truly nasty attacks on John McCain during the 2000 presidential primaries, attacks that are being echoed again among some lefties and some far-right conservatives. I remember receiving a forwarded e-mail from an uncle, in which John McCain's patriotism was questioned and in which McCain was described as a scary "Manchurian Candidate." I reacted negatively to those nasty innuendos and lies then, as I do to the resurrection of them today. Clark's comments, however, do not fall in that category.

Bolstering the Constitution

One of my sisters recently checked this blog and asked "what was up" with my not having any recent postings. There are a number of reasons: travel to Texas to help my son finish moving into an apartment and to visit with some friends and relatives there; general malaise due to some health issues; time spent doing other activities, such as gardening and reading; and such a disappointment in our country's leadership that I just don't have the heart to post!

However, I've been cheered by the Supreme Court's recent decision in Boumediene vs. Bush, rejecting the Bush administration's assertion that enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay do not have the right of habeas corpus. Of course, the reaction to this judgment seems to fall along political lines. Here are links to editorial responses on the Real Clear Politics (conservative-leaning) website: "Editorial Roundup".

I particularly recommend reading Scott Horton's clear and interesting discussion of the ruling on his [recently retired but occasionally updated] blog at Harper's Magazine: "A Setback for the State of Exception."

Update
I'm with Juan Cole on John McCain's response to the Supreme Court's decision on habeas corpus. And why can't those on the far right not see that people who have been abused by power can be radicalized by that abuse?

Stupid, Venal, or Illegal Stuff Government Officials Do In the Post 9/11 "Keeping You Safe" Era

And these links are just from a few minutes of today's Internet news browsing. . .

"Italian's Detention Illustrates Dangers Foreign Visitors Face" This article from The New York Times recounts the experience of an Italian man who had traveled to the United States to visit his American girlfriend. No threat to us United States citizens, this man ended up in jail for ten days.

"Official Urged Fewer Diagnoses of PTSD" The Washington Post reports on psychologist for Veterans Affairs Norma Perez, who sent an e-mail to mental-health specialists and social workers at the Department of Veterans Affairs' Olin E. Teague Veterans' Center in Temple, Texas, urging these medical professionals who treat our returning soldiers to avoid giving an "outright" diagnosis of PTSD. She suggested that the specialists diagnose "Adjustment Disorder" instead of PTSD, claiming that VA staff did not have time to do the extensive testing to determine PTSD with the increased diagnoses. Unlike soldiers who are diagnosed with PTSD, those diagnosed with the lesser disease, Adjustment Disorder, do not receive monetary disability compensation.

"Famed War Reporter Calls Pentagon /Media Propoganda Program Illegal" Joe Galloway, war reporter and author of We Were Soldiers Once...and Young, speaks out against Donald Rumsfeld's secret program to use "friendly to the administration" military analysts to spread government propaganda about the Iraq war.

Marjorie Cohn, president of the National Lawyers' Guild and Professor of Law at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, testifies before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the House Judiciary Committee. She calls for an "an immediate and thorough investigation of the circumstances under which torture was authorized and rationalized" by our top leaders. You can hear Scott Bateman's recording of some of her testimony here: Bateman's video

"Message Force Multipliers"

I haven't written a post lately because I've been busy reading, gardening, and working, and national news is just so dispiriting to me. Right-wing pundits are fond of claiming that liberals have no "moral values," but I seem to have a surfeit. As my previous entries indicate, I'm disgusted by our leaders' willingness to scuttle the Geneva Conventions and to stretch and distort the definition of torture. Too many such decisions of the present administration have led to immoral, illiberal, and anti-democratic consequences. Having lowered the bar in governing behavior, will a new administration be capable of raising the bar sufficiently to restore America's standing in the world and to restore trust to the American public?

Yesterday, The New York Times published an investigative report on how the Pentagon successfully countered any negative criticism with well-orchestrated responses from military analysts who were courted by the Pentagon, many of whom also traded on their contacts with Pentagon officials to line their own pockets through military contracts. The link is here: "Behind Military Analysts, the Pentagon's Hidden Hand."

And here are a few discouraging quotes from the article:

• "Internal Pentagon documents repeatedly refer to the military analysts as 'message force multipliers' or 'surrogates' who could be counted on to deliver administration 'themes and messages' to millions of Americans 'in the form of their own opinions.'"
• "Don Meyer, an aide to Ms. Clarke, said a strategic decision was made in 2002 to make the analysts the main focus of the public relations push to construct a case for war. Journalists were secondary....The decision recalled other administration tactics that subverted traditional journalism. Federal agencies, for example, have paid columnists to write favorably about the administration. They have distributed to local TV stations hundreds of fake news segments with fawning accounts of administration accomplishments. The Pentagon itself has made covert payments to Iraqi newspapers to publish coalition propaganda."
• "In interviews, participants described a powerfully seductive environment — the uniformed escorts to Mr. Rumsfeld’s private conference room, the best government china laid out, the embossed name cards, the blizzard of PowerPoints, the solicitations of advice and counsel, the appeals to duty and country, the warm thank you notes from the secretary himself."
• " Like several other analysts, Mr. Eads [retired
  Army lieutenant colonel, Fox analyst, vice-president of government relations for Blackbird Technologies] said he had at times held his tongue on television for fear that “some four-star could call up and say, ‘Kill that contract.’ ” For example, he believed Pentagon officials misled the analysts about the progress of Iraq’s security forces. “I know a snow job when I see one,” he said. He did not share this on TV."
• "Still, even the mildest of criticism could draw a challenge. Several analysts told of fielding telephone calls from displeased defense officials only minutes after being on the air."

And so it goes.

Quotations, Part II: Incompetency and ineptitude

From Patrick Cockburn's editorial, "Iraq is a Country No More," The Independent, 16 March 2008:

In those first months after the fall of Baghdad it was extraordinary, and at times amusing, to watch the American victors behave exactly like the British at the height of their power in 19th-century India. The ways of the Raj were reborn. A friend who had a brokerage in the Baghdad stock market told me how a 24-year-old American, whose family were donors to the Republican Party, had been put in charge of the market and had lectured the highly irritated brokers, most of whom spoke several languages and had PhDs, about the virtues of democracy.

In Still Broken: A Recruit's Inside Account of Intelligence Failures, from Baghdad to the Pentagon (2008), A. J. Rossmiller (former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst) writes:

In my office [Office of Iraq Analysis] where we constantly read reports straight from the ground, the general consensus--despite being overwhelmingly populated by conservatives--was that the Iraq project was a debacle, mainly due to incompetent leadership in the Pentagon and the White House. We joked that President Bush had finally set up the conservative religious government he dreamed of. . . only it was an Islamist one in Iraq rather than a Christian one at home. (215)

From The Assassin's Gate: America in Iraq (2005), by George Packer, on the looting that occurred in Iraq immediately after the U. S. forces won Baghdad:

"We're incompetent, as far as [the Iraqis] are concerned," said Noah Feldman, the New York University law professor who went to Baghdad as a constitutional adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority. "The key to it all was the looting. That was when it was clear that there was no order. There's an Arab proverb: Better forty years of dictatorship than one day of anarchy." He added, "That also told them they could fight against us and we were not a serious force." (138)

"Our people don't understand what's going on, so they think the Americans are deliberately creating this chaos," Dr. Butti told me. The conspiracy theories were an attempt to make sense of the absurd. . . The notion that bad planning, halfhearted commitment, ignorance, and incompetence accounted for the anarchy simply wasn't believable. How were Iraqis to grasp that the same Washington think tank where Bush offered Iraq as a model for the region had contributed to the postwar collapse by shooting down any talk of nation building? Deliberate sabotage made more sense. (166)

From A. J. Rossmiller's Still Broken:

To be viewed as legitimate by its people, a government must generally be competent in two areas: security and basic services. Iraqis view the United States as the government as much as they view their own elected officials as the government (after all, they reason, an occupying military must control the state, right?), and failure to meet those basic requirements offers insurgents an opportunity to present themselves as able to govern effectively, or at least better. Further, because Iraqis see the U.S. as overwhelmingly powerful and advanced, they think we must be able to provide security and economic opportunity--so if these things do not exist, many believe, it must be because we purposefully fail to provide them. A frequent reference among Iraqis is that the U.S. put people on the moon; how could a nation that can land on the moon not provide electricity? (52-53)

From Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq (2006), by Thomas E. Ricks, on the Coalitional Provision Authority (CPA)--or, less honorably known as Can't Do Anything:

The U.S. civilian occupation organization was a house built on sand and inhabited by the wrong sort of people, according to many who worked there. "No clear strategy, very little detailed planning, poor communications, high personnel turnover, lots of young and inexperienced political appointees, no well-established business processes," concluded retired Army Col. Ralph Hallenbeck, who worked at the CPA as a civilian contractor dealing with the Iraqi communications infrastructure. Personnel was an especially nettlesome issue. Hallenbeck said that in addition to being young and inexperienced, most of the young CPA people he met during his work as a contractor were ideologically minded Republicans whose only professional experience was working on election campaigns back in the United States. It was, as Zinni later commented, "a pickup team." Scott Erwin, a former intern for Vice President Cheney who worked on the budget for security forces, reported that his favorite job before that was "my time as an ice cream truck driver." (203)

From Packer's The Assassin's Gate, on the young members of the CPA:

Most of them [young members of the Coalition Provisional Authority] seemed to be Republicans, and more than a few were party loyalists who had come to Iraq as political appointees on ninety-day tours. They were astonishingly young. Many had never worked abroad, few knew anything about the Middle East, and that first summer only three or four of the Americans spoke Arabic. Some were simply unqualified for their responsibilities. A twenty-five-year-old oversaw the creation of the Baghdad stock market, and another twenty-five-year-old, from the Office of Special Plans, helped write the interim constitution while filling out his law school application.(184)

Almost all of [head of the CPA, Paul Bremer] Bremer's confidants were Americans. The Arabic-speaking ambassadors with years of experience in the Middle East had less access to the administrator and less work to do than his small coterie of trusted aides from Washington. An Iraqi who was close to the CPA told me that, in general, the less one knew about Iraq, the more influence one had. (198)

Why should we still care about the incompetent leadership of the Bush administration in the Iraq war? Because those leaders are still in power and because the Republican Party's nominee for president, John McCain, shows no indication of making any changes in leadership. The same people who advised George Bush are advising John McCain.

Let the Drug Addicts Die?????

I just read of an amazing drug that, if administered timely and correctly, can prevent drug addicts from overdosing on heroin. The drug is called Narcan, and it comes in the form of an easy-to-use nasal spray. According to a report on National Public Radio, naxolone, or Narcan, "blocks the brain receptors that heroin activates, instantly reversing an overdose." Drug programs include this drug in kits that cost $9.50 and make those kits, as well as education on how to use them, available for drug addicts. Doctors and emergency medical technicians have been using naxolone for years. Now it's available in a kit for the people who are on the scene at the moment of a drug overdose.

However, a Bush administration official, Dr. Bertha Madras, deputy director of the White House Office on National Drug Control Policy, doesn't think that these kits should be available to the public or drug overdose rescue operations. Why? Because, she says, "Narcan kits may actually encourage drug abusers to keep using heroin because they know overdosing isn't as likely."

What's up with people who think like this? These are the same people who think teenagers shouldn't have access to birth control because the teens will be more encouraged to have sex or that girls shouldn't receive the vaccine for human papillomavirus because more girls might then be encouraged to be sexually active with the fear of this disease (and its consequences, such as cervical cancer) removed.

People who engage in risky behavior aren't calculating those risks. They're caught up in the demands of the drug addiction or the forceful tug of their hormones or the siren song of love and desire.

There's a nasty undercurrent of sadism in these puritanical types who obviously think people should not escape punishment for poor decisions. It's really scary, however, when these types of folks are in positions of authority and run our government programs. Who do they think they are? God?

Other posts on this topic:
Kevin Drum, Washington Monthly

Mark Kleiman, at The Reality-Based Commuity

The "Menacing" Calls

I have tried to stick to my moratorium on responding to outrages resulting from the Iraq war, and so far I'm holding firm. However, I have to respond to an interview with Chris Matthews that I read online at TV Guide. Salon's "War Room" provided a link that didn't work, but I found the interview with a Google search. That interview followed up on some comments that Matthews made at the 10th anniversary party for Hardball. Matthews revealed that the Bush administration tried to silence discussion that was critical of the war in Iraq. He compares the treatment he received from the Clinton administration while he covered the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal with the treatment he has received from the Bush administration while covering the war in Iraq: "And the difference in these two cases was that although I was extremely tough on Clinton, there was never any attempt to silence me — whereas there was a concerted effort by [Vice President Cheney's office] to silence me. It came in the form of three different people calling trying to quiet me."

Matthews describes how it's now normal to receive "an almost menacing call" when he plans to air views the administration or some of the presidential campaigners do not like: "[T]heir people call up and threaten, or challenge, and get very nasty."

That folks in the Bush administration try to quiet people who are critical of the administration or who hold views contrary to the purposes and goals of the administration is not news. What's news to me is that Matthews describes these menacing calls as "the norm." Successful bullying has a cumulative effect--no matter who is doing the bullying. This administration's disregard for the First Amendment makes it easier for others in power to disregard the First Amendment.

Katie Couric also says she received corporate pressure from NBC to be less critical of the Iraq war and the administration in interviews on the Today show: "I think there was a lot of undercurrent of pressure not to rock the boat for a variety of reasons, where it was corporate reasons or other considerations."

So Sick: The Blackwater Horror

I am so sick of the incompetence, venality, greed, and jingoism associated with the war in Iraq. The latest Blackwater scandal just joins the list of ways our government has mismanaged the war. I read these stories of gun-toting, trigger-happy security contractors slaughtering Iraqi civilians, and I can't help wonder why more Americans aren't disgusted with the choices our leaders have made in beginning and directing this war. Are people incapable of empathizing with the Iraqi mother cradling her dead son in her arms, with the Iraqi taxi driver desperately crawling away from the bloody scene, with the Iraqi husband remembering his wife as a "beautiful woman"?

Or how about the family of the Iraqi bodyguard shot by a drunken Blackwater employee? The drunken 26-year-old was hustled out of the country after the murder.

I don't doubt Blackwater has some competent and ethically-motivated employees, men (mostly) who see themselves as patriots supporting the USA's military efforts in Iraq. At least one Blackwater security guard was heard yelling "No, no, no, no," gesturing to his colleagues to stop the gunfire that killed at least 17 Iraqis. But what we have here is a mercenary army that's been operating under the radar of oversight and a company that that has enriched itself immensely in the horror of Iraq.

The actions of Blackwater security contractors have also compromised military efforts in Iraq.

I recall that not one Iraqi was on the planes that flew into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon or the plane that crashed in that Pennsylvania field. There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the events of 9/11. I recall that the Taliban--which did and does support Al-Qaeda, is regaining power in parts of Afghanistan and that Osama bin Laden is still at large. The Iraq war has been obscenely cheered by neo-con leaders who are forming another cheer-leading section for war against Iran.

Anyone for supporting further incompetence, venality, and greed?

Updates

Military Eyewitnesses to the Blackwater event

New Evidence

Taking Reponsibility, Looking Ahead in Iraq

Two articles on Iraq recently published online are worth a close read. One looks back to one of the worst errors the United States made in the early days of the war, the disbanding of the Iraqi army, thus dumping 250,000 men onto the streets, angry, armed, and jobless. Fred Kaplan, writing for Slate, discusses who was probably responsible for that disastrous decision. President Bush says it wasn't his order but L. Paul Bremer's decision. Paul Bremer has publicly replied that he received the order from Donald Rumsfeld and that President Bush commended the order. But Kaplan shows how all the principal parties, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had decided to disband only the elite Republican Guards, not the ordinary enlisted men in the Iraqi army. So where do you think the finger points for what most believe was the worst decision in the early months of the Iraq war, a decision that led to the chaos and violence? Read Kaplan's piece for one analysis.

The second article is by George Packer, in The New Yorker. Packer, a journalist who supported President Bush's decision to invade Iraq but who quickly became disenchanted with the war because of its poor execution, has written extensively on the war in Iraq and has been to Iraq several times. (I highly recommend his book The Assassins' Gate: America in Iraq, as well as Ron Suskind's The One Percent Doctine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of its Enemies Since 9/11 and Thomas Ricks' Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq.) Packer's recent article, "Planning for Defeat", looks ahead to the decisions which will have to be made in the next few months. He rightly points out that these decisions are not ones relegated to one administration or one party. We are all responsible, and our decisions will determine America's standing in the world.

Thus Speaks. . . uh. . .General Petraeus?

Over and over again, the Bush administration has told us to be patient with the "surge" in Iraq until General Petraeus gives his report in September. This week on The Daily Show William Kristol repeated that advice. General Petraeus, Kristol told Jon Stewart, would give his report on how the surge has made Iraq a better place to be. "Don't trust me. Don't trust the president," Kristol said. "But trust Petraeus."

But who is writing the report that General Petraeus will give those of us waiting for his wise analysis? The Bush administration, reports the LA Times

Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.

So General Petraeus will say what the administration wants him to say. Now, watch the sock puppet .

Why Would You Want to Help Those People?

“Why Would You Want to Help Those People?”

The title of this blog is a quote from former Surgeon General Dr. Richard H. Carmona, who appeared before a Congressional panel on Tuesday of this week. He attributed the quote to administration officials who encouraged him not to attend a Special Olympics event because the Special Olympics have long been associated with a prominent family—the Kennedys.

That quote just about sums up the divisiveness and partisanship of this administration. Promising to be a “uniter,” President Bush has been anything but. A leader sets the tone for a nation, and the tone that this administration has set has been one of division, hostility, and a perverse rejection of reality.

Carmona, a Republican-appointed official, described how the administration had insisted he water down scientific findings in order to protect business or radical Republican ideology. This hostility toward facts has long been a characteristic of the Bush administration. Carmona described how a report on second-hand smoke had been delayed by the administration for years because the report revealed how “even brief exposure to cigarette smoke could cause immediate harm” [New York Times, 10 July 2007]. He described attending a meeting with government officials who dismissed global warming as a “liberal cause.” Although scientific reports show that the best sex education includes a discussion of contraceptives, the government again told Carmona not to speak on the subject because of its narrow policy of “abstinence only” sex education.

Again and again, this government has twisted arms to make research reflect its own radical agenda, its own fantasy, its own ideology.

Vice-president Cheney used his power to undercut environmental practices that were supported by scientific research and by the Republican appointees who would enforce those practices. Christine Todd Whitman, Republican appointed Environmental Protection Agency administrator, resigned from her position because of Cheney’s insistence that the agency adopt more pro-industry policies that were detrimental to the environment and to the health of the nation.

What I don’t understand is this: Why would anyone want to vote for those people?

Harris, Gardner. “Surgeon General Sees 4-Year Term as Compromised.” New York Times. 11 July 2007. Online: www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/washington/11surgeon.html

Becker, Jo and Barton Gellman. "Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency, Leaving No Tracks." Washington Post. 27 June 2007: A01. Online: blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/leaving_no_tracks/