Jay Haynes

Novak Attacks Man For Calling Him a Traitor

GOP Hypocrite of the Week: Tom DeLay - A BuzzFlash Editorial

GOP Hypocrite of the Week: Tom DeLay - A BuzzFlash Editorial

This is a guy who claims that he is a fundamentalist Christian, but won't talk to his mother. This is a guy who accused Clinton of impeachable carnal sins, but throws junkets for lobbyists in Vegas at which his daughter allegedly jumps into hot tubs filled with champagne. This is a whacko coward who claimed that he and Dan Quayle were prevented from serving in the military during the Vietnam War because minorities had taken up all the enlistment spots. This is a guy who has been accused of shaking down contributors if they want legislation passed. This is an ex "bug" man who is exterminating democracy in Texas by stealing congressional districts. This is a war profiteer who proudly declared, "Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes."

The Case for Impeachment

Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall: January 25, 2004 - January 31, 2004 Archives

Center for American Progress - Neglecting Intelligence, Ignoring Warnings - Page

Center for American Progress - Neglecting Intelligence, Ignoring Warnings

Neglecting Intelligence, Ignoring Warnings

A chronology of how the Bush Administration repeatedly and deliberately refused to listen to intelligence agencies that said its case for war was weak

January 28, 2004
Updated January 29, 2004
Download:  DOC,  PDF,  RTF

Former weapons inspector David Kay now says Iraq probably did not have WMD before the war, a major blow to the Bush Administration which used the WMD argument as the rationale for war. Unfortunately, Kay and the Administration are now attempting to shift the blame for misleading America onto the intelligence community. But a review of the facts shows the intelligence community repeatedly warned the Bush Administration about the weakness of its case, but was circumvented, overruled, and ignored. The following is year-by-year timeline of those warnings.

FactCheck.org President Uses Dubious Statistics on Costs of Malpractice Lawsuits

FactCheck.org
President Uses Dubious Statistics on Costs of Malpractice Lawsuits

The President holds out the prospect of major cost savings if Congress will pass a law limiting what injured patients can collect in lawsuits. He wants a cap of $250,000 on any damages for “pain and suffering” and other non-economic damages. His administration projects savings to the entire economy of between $60 billion and $108 billion per year in health-care costs, including $28 billion or more to federal taxpayers.

But both the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office criticize the 1996 study the Bush administration uses as their main support. These nonpartisan agencies suggest savings – if any – would be relatively small.

Where’s the Apology? Three Examples

Op-Ed Columnist: Where’s the Apology?

Let's look at three examples. First is the Valerie Plame affair. When someone in the administration revealed that Ms. Plame was an undercover C.I.A. operative, one probable purpose was to intimidate intelligence professionals. And whatever becomes of the Justice Department investigation, the White House has been notably uninterested in finding the culprit. ("We have let the earthmovers roll in over this one," a senior White House official told The Financial Times.)

Then there's the stonewalling about 9/11. First the administration tried, in defiance of all historical precedents, to prevent any independent inquiry. Then it tried to appoint Henry Kissinger, of all people, to head the investigative panel. Then it obstructed the commission, denying it access to crucial documents and testimony. Now, thanks to all the delays and impediments, the panel's head says it can't deliver its report by the original May 11 deadline — and the administration is trying to prevent a time extension.

Finally, an important story that has largely evaded public attention: the effort to prevent oversight of Iraq spending. Government agencies normally have independent, strictly nonpartisan inspectors general, with broad powers to investigate questionable spending. But the new inspector general's office in Iraq operates under unique rules that greatly limit both its powers and its independence.

And the independence of the Pentagon's own inspector general's office is also in question. Last September, in a move that should have caused shock waves, the administration appointed L. Jean Lewis as the office's chief of staff. Ms. Lewis played a central role in the Whitewater witch hunt (seven years, $70 million, no evidence of Clinton wrongdoing); nobody could call her nonpartisan. So when Mr. Bush's defenders demand hard proof of profiteering in Iraq — as opposed to extensive circumstantial evidence — bear in mind that the administration has systematically undermined the power and independence of institutions that might have provided that proof.

And there are many more examples. These people politicize everything, from military planning to scientific assessments. If you're with them, you pay no penalty for being wrong. If you don't tell them what they want to hear, you're an enemy, and being right is no excuse.

Bush Backs Away From His Claims About Iraq Arms

Bush Backs Away From His Claims About Iraq Arms

President Bush declined Tuesday to repeat his claims that evidence that Saddam Hussein had illicit weapons would eventually be found in Iraq, but he insisted that the war was nonetheless justified because Mr. Hussein posed "a grave and gathering threat to America and the world."

Asked by reporters if he would repeat earlier expressions of confidence that the weapons would be found in light of recent statements by the former chief weapons inspector in Iraq, David A. Kay, that Mr. Hussein had gotten rid of them well before the war, Mr. Bush did not answer directly.

Advertisement

"I think it's very important for us to let the Iraq Survey Group do its work, so we can find out the facts and compare the facts to what was thought," he said at an appearance with the visiting president of Poland.

Fact: Republican Ad Lies to the Public

FactCheck.org
RNC Fails to Document Ad’s Claim

In a TV ad supporting the President the Republican National Committee went four words too far, not-very-subtly implying that Democrats who have criticized him are something close to traitors. The RNC ad claims that Bush is being attacked “for attacking the terrorists.” But  when pressed to back up that claim the RNC provided only quotes from Democrats griping about such things as Bush losing international support for anti-terror efforts, or spending too little on homeland security. None of them said he shouldn’t be attacking terrorists.

The RNC’s 30-second ad shows a portion of Bush’s State of the Union address from last January 28. As the President speaks of the possibility of “a day of horror,” words silently appear on screen saying “Some are attacking the President for attacking the terrorists.” And just in case anybody might miss the point, the word “terrorists” turns slowly from black to red.

So who’s complaining about attacking terrorists? Usama Bin Laden, maybe. But the RNC made clear in a backup document released to news media that its ad actually referred to Democratic presidential candidates. “Democrats Attack President For Waging War On Terror,” the press release said. But no Democrats were quoted saying any such thing.

Calpundit: Terrorism and Elections

Calpundit: Terrorism and Elections

There are, of course, many reasons that liberals generally didn't support the war in Iraq, but certainly one of them was the overwhelming partisan cynicism that the Bush administration brought to the task. Karl Rove made it clear that the war would be a perfect wedge issue for Republicans, Andy Card admitted that the "marketing" of the war resolution was deliberately timed, and now we discover that they really don't care much what happens to Iraq as long as we are officially out and can claim victory before November:

In private conversations with the United Nations and its coalition partners, the administration has begun to discuss the viability of abandoning the complex caucuses outlined in the agreement and even holding partial elections or simply handing over power to an expanded Iraqi Governing Council, an old proposal now back on the table, U.S. and U.N. officials say.

Even simply handing power over to the IGC is now on the table. Anything, as long as it gets us out.

Liar: Cheney Is Adamant on Iraq 'Evidence'

Cheney Is Adamant on Iraq 'Evidence'

After Cheney implied in a television interview in September that Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush was forced to acknowledge days later that the administration "had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved" in Sept. 11.