Why doesn't the media show more of the "good" in Iraq?

This from a recent GOP-sponsored presentation by Bush in West Virginia regarding the progress being made in the War on Terror. This woman's question caught my interest as she presents her particular grievances on the media's portrayal of the Iraq War:

Q I have a comment, first of all, and then just a real quick question. I want to let you know that every service at our church you are, by name, lifted up in prayer, and you and your staff and all of our leaders. And we believe in you. We are behind you. And we cannot thank you enough for what you've done to shape our country. (Applause.)

This is my husband, who has returned from a 13-month tour in Tikrit.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes. Thank you. Welcome back. (Applause.)

Q His job while serving was as a broadcast journalist. And he has brought back several DVDs full of wonderful footage of reconstruction, of medical things going on. And I ask you this from the bottom of my heart, for a solution to this, because it seems that our major media networks don't want to portray the good. They just want to focus -- (applause) --

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, hold on a second.

Q They just want to focus on another car bomb, or they just want to focus on some more bloodshed, or they just want to focus on how they don't agree with you and what you're doing, when they don't even probably know how you're doing what you're doing anyway. But what can we do to get that footage on CNN, on FOX, to get it on headline news, to get it on the local news? Because you can send it to the news people -- and I'm sorry, I'm rambling -- like I have --

THE PRESIDENT: So was I, though, for an hour. (Laughter.)

Q -- can you use this, and it will just end up in a drawer, because it's good, it portrays the good. And if people could see that, if the American people could see it, there would never be another negative word about this conflict.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I appreciate that. (Applause.) No, it -- that's why I come out and speak. I spoke in Cleveland, gave a press conference yesterday -- spoke in Cleveland Monday, press conference, here today. I'm going to continue doing what I'm doing to try to make sure people can hear there's -- why I make decisions, and as best as I can, explain why I'm optimistic we can succeed.


You're right, why are we showing footage of terror and misery when we could show...what? Is an Iraqi's life worth an American's life in this woman's eyes?

Full Text of Conyers' Investigation and Censure resolutions

From afterdowningstreet.org:

H.Res.635 would create a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, and retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.

H.Res.636 and H.Res.637 would censure, respectively, Bush and Cheney for failing to respond to requests for information concerning allegations that they and others in the Administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq, misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for the war, countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of persons in Iraq, and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of the Administration, for failing to adequately account for certain misstatements they made regarding the war, and – in the case of President Bush – for failing to comply with Executive Order 12958.

Use the links in the sidebar to contact your US Representative or go to afterdowningstreet.org for simple instructions on how to support these resolutions.

"We are faced with an executive branch that places itself above the law"

Remarks of Senator Russ Feingold
Introducing a Resolution to Censure President George W. Bush

Use the links in the sidebar to contact your US Senators and demand that they support this resolution.

Excerpts from the remarks:

[W]hen the President of the United States breaks the law, he must be held accountable. That is why today I am introducing a resolution to censure President George W. Bush.

The President authorized an illegal program to spy on American citizens on American soil, and then misled Congress and the public about the existence and legality of that program. It is up to this body to reaffirm the rule of law by condemning the President's actions.

...This President has done wrong. This body can do right by condemning his conduct and showing the people of this nation that his actions will not be allowed to stand unchallenged.

...To approve the President's actions now, without demanding a full inquiry into this program, a detailed explanation for why the President authorized it, and accountability for his illegal actions, would be irresponsible. It would be to abandon the duty of the legislative branch under our constitutional system of separation of powers while the President recklessly grabs for power and ignores the
rule of law.

...Our founders anticipated that these kinds of abuses would occur. Federalist Number 51 speaks of the Constitution's system of checks and balances:

"It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

...The President's own words show just how seriously he has violated that trust.

...On April 20, 2004, for example, the President told an audience in Buffalo that: "Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way."

In fact, a lot had changed, but the President wasn't being upfront with the American people.

Just months later, on July 14, 2004, in my own state of Wisconsin, the President said that: "Any action that takes place by law enforcement requires a court order. In other words, the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order."

Last summer, on June 9, 2005, the President spoke in Columbus, Ohio, and again insisted that his administration was abiding by the laws governing wiretaps. "Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, a federal judge's permission to track his calls, or a federal judge's permission to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools. And these standards are fully consistent with the Constitution of the U.S."

In all of these cases, the President knew he wasn't telling the complete story....He knew when he gave those reassurances that he had authorized the NSA to bypass the very system of checks and balances that he was using as a shield against criticisms of the Patriot Act and his Administration's performance.

...The President's wrongdoing demands a response. And not just a response that prevents wrongdoing in the future, but a response that passes judgment on what has happened. We in the Congress bear the responsibility to check a President who has violated the law, who continues to violate the law, and who has not been held accountable for his actions.

Passing a resolution to censure the President is a way to hold this President accountable. A resolution of censure is a time-honored means for the Congress to express the most serious disapproval possible, short of impeachment, of the Executive's conduct. It is different than passing a law to make clear that certain conduct is impermissible or to cut off funding for certain activities. Both of those alternatives are ways for Congress to affect future action. But when the President acts illegally, he should be formally rebuked. He should be censured.

[Emphases added]

Bush Explains Medicare Drug Bill -- Verbatim Quote

Apologies if you have already been subjected to this painful document, but this is the President himself explaining the Medicare Drug Bill. Can we impeach this fucking SOB on the basis of mental deficiency?? My diagnosis: President is not intellectually fit to continue as Head of State.

WOMAN IN AUDIENCE: 'I don't really understand. How is it the new plan going to fix the problem?'
Verbatim response: PRESIDENT BUSH:
'Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculated, for example, is on the table. Whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to that has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, supposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.'
Got that?

How is this possibly excusable? Oh yeah, I forgot. Bush has moral values...

Whitey Off to Mars

From my buddy Justin:

I used to say that the Bush administration was where irony went to die, because everything was just so ridiculous, the way they attacked everyone and had such lame reasoning for everything -- EVERYTHING -- that making fun of it was pointless. You could just repeat what they said. And if irony can be applied to everything, then it is no longer relevant. Goodnight, Generation X!

But now, it’s gotten to the point where I could believe just about anything. I didn't believe the Canary Islands thing, and actually I don’t know why.

It was too clever maybe?

I mean, Cheney shoots some guy in the face and they simply do what they always do, blame the guy who got shot. "It was preemptive!" Can you see the confab where they discuss claiming that the guy didn’t look like a quail so much as a quail carrying bird flu.

Where do they go from here?

Bush was talking about going to Mars, remember? We're going to Mars? OK, I believe he thinks that will help him get votes. Maybe there are people in his constituency who want to know that we’re going to bring some water and baptize the Martians.

Going to Mars my ass.

But if it polled well, we would, in fact, be going.

"We're going to Mars and we're going to blow it up: the threat is too great."
OK, I'd believe that.

"We're going to Mars because we believe we'll find an alternative fuel source that will finally break the cycle of addiction to foreign oil."

OK, Mr. Bush, I believe you believe that. You'll get someone to stand up with a locked box, and they'll say, "In here is Martian fuel. I can't show it to you, the threat is too great, and if I open up the box, we'll all go blind and our teeth will fall out and then we’ll be incinerated by it and the Muslims and/or Martians will
win. But it's in there. Trust me."

"We're going to Mars and we're turning it into a penal colony, or, if it's really nice, we're moving there and turning Earth into a penal colony. The threat is too great."

Yeah. I'd believe this. It’s kind of been sliding that way for a while anyway. I'm sure there have been contracts with prison builders for decades. They’ll live on Mars with the superwealthy and well-connected. Katherine Harris will have a condo, or a street named after her.

"We’re going to Mars because it’s an expensive and stupid distraction."

Sure. A rat just bit my sister Nell at Gitmo, and Whitey’s off to Mars.

"We're going to Mars because we are really curious about what's there and what it can teach us about our own planet, what secrets it holds. We want to find out if there's life there, or if there was or if there could be. We're going because there is much to learn. Because we can broaden our perspective...and..."

Sadly, I wouldn't believe that. How'd you put it Mr. Bush?

Oh yeah: "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again"

Wounded Patriots -- A Sign of the Times

On Friday March 3rd, I composed and sent the following fake news story to a few dozen friends (with the subject line "CNN.com Breaking News")

In a press briefing moments ago, US President George W. Bush announced that he has ordered the bombing of the Canary Islands. Despite repeated attempts from within his own administration to prevent this unprovoked attack, Mr.
Bush insists that the bombing is necessary to thwart to spread of bird flu. www.cnn.com/headlines/030306/birdflusux.htm

In addition to several panicked "Ohmygod, What do we do?" emails, I received:

From an environmental scientist:
"If you must know, the fear is not unfounded. The Canary Islands are lousy with birds!
http://www.camacdonald.com/birding/africacanaryislands.htm"

From a colleague (who also emailed me the entire day's WH press briefing):
I actually looked into it and can't find ANYTHING about it on CNN.com or the White House pages. Seems George W. was greeted with burning flags in Pakistan, but the only press briefing listed for today doesn't mention anything about this (or anything I could see that might have hinted to this.)

Are my friends and colleagues simply incredibly naive and gullible? I think not.

They were willing to believe that our president would bomb a sovereign nation without provocation to protect US interests (10 of roughly 50 people have thus far emailed concerned).

There is a little bit of precedent for this (see Afghanistan 2002, Iraq 2003, Iraq 2006).

In each case where Bush's administration bombed sovereign nations without provocation, there was also a great deal of dissent (from die-hard hawks, no less). And still he bombed.

The truly disturbing thing about the emails I received is the sense of paralysis that most conveyed: "What do we do?"

As we approach the third anniversary of the bombing of Baghdad, we must, simply, do. There will be vigils to attend and opportunities for civil disobedience. But these are only temporary balms for wounded democratic, patriotic Americans.

We must call for an investigation of the Bush-Cheney administration. We must impeach them. We must find progressives and get them in the House and Senate. Only then can we hope to stem both the administration's madness and our own despair.

There are three things we can do to support “regime change” at home:

Contact your US Congressperson and ask them
to support Rep. Conyers’ resolution calling for an investigation.

Contact your US Senator and the Senators on the Judiciary Committee and tell them not to let Bush & Co. off the hook for domestic wiretapping

Start working on the mid-term elections now – There are progressive candidates running across the country. Give them your support! If you are in Pennsylvania, there’re several Democrats running against Santorum. I’m behind Chuck Pennachio and have been working to get the press to cover the fact that Bob Casey is not yet the Democratic nominee.

Is the law a law or is it a piece of toast?

Garrison Keillor makes an impressive argument for impeachment in the March 1, 2006, Chicago Tribune .

First he lays out the case in satiric Keillor fashion:

Wiretap surveillance of Americans without a warrant? Great. Go for it. How about turning over American ports to a country more closely tied to Sept. 11, 2001, than Saddam Hussein was? Fine by me. No problem. And what about the war in Iraq? Hey, you're doing a heck of a job. No need to tweak a thing. And your blue button-down shirt--it's you.

The kicker, though, is that torture is un-American and will come out in a democracy:

But torture is something else....It goes against the American grain and it eats at the conscience of even the most disciplined, and in the end the truth will come out. It is coming out now.

The solution?

The U.S. Constitution provides a simple, ultimate way to hold [Bush] to account for war crimes and the failure to attend to the country's defense. Impeach him and let the Senate hear the evidence.

Congress no longer part of the government

The most frightening part of Bush's ports deal debacle (even worse than the fact that he didn't know about it until shortly before he gave his press briefing), was the following statement:

"I can understand why some in Congress have raised questions about whether or not our country will be less secure as a result of this transaction," the president said. "But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully."

The hubris of this man and his administration, the utter disregard for our constitutional system of government, is without precedent in the US.

Bush and Cheney must go.

Bush had chance to lead and he failed us again

An AP story yesterday revealed that Bush was briefed in August 28th and told

• that a major levee breach was "obviously a very, very grave concern." He would lie about this point just five days later.
  
• that if New Orleans flooded the Superdome emergency shelter would likely be under water and short on supplies, creating a "catastrophe within a catastrophe."
  
• to prepare for "devastation of historic proportions."

According to MoveOn, "Bush didn't ask a single question during the briefing. In the next two days he campaigned, attended birthday parties and played guitar while the worst natural disaster in American history killed over 1,300 people and displaced hundreds of thousands.

"There can now be no mistake: President Bush had a chance to lead, and he failed to keep us safe."

Stop him, before he gives crocs a bad name

Arundhati Roy -- Bush in India: Just Not Welcome

I thought the comparison to crocs (who are often not that ruthless and who show an uncanny ability to work "off-script" was unfair. But, otherwise, a good piece. R