In an earlier post, I pointed to the broad political strategy employed by this administration of purging non-loyalists from government agencies and operations. That doesn't just mean Democrats or Clinton appointees (or even, for example, RoeVWade supporters from employment in the Green Zone). It has also included many who are independent or principled enough to base decisions on regulations or laws rather than on perceived political and economic advantage for the administration and its connected benefactors.
Quote:Suits Say U.S. Impeded Audits for Oil Leases Four government auditors who monitor leases for oil and gas on federal property say the Interior Department suppressed their efforts to recover millions of dollars from companies they said were cheating the government.
The accusations, many of them in four lawsuits that were unsealed last week by federal judges in Oklahoma, represent a rare rebellion by government investigators against their own agency.
The auditors contend that they were blocked by their bosses from pursuing more than $30 million in fraudulent underpayments of royalties for oil produced in publicly owned waters in the Gulf of Mexico.
"The agency has lost its sense of mission, which is to protect American taxpayers," said Bobby L. Maxwell, who was formerly in charge of Gulf of Mexico auditing. "These are assets that belong to the American public, and they are supposed to be used for things like education, public infrastructure and roadways."
The lawsuits have surfaced as Democrats and Republicans alike are questioning the Bush administration's willingness to challenge the oil and gas industry.
The new accusations surfaced just one week after the Interior Department's inspector general, Earl E. Devaney, told a House subcommittee that "short of crime, anything goes" at the top levels of the Interior Department.
... Interior officials did not say how much money they had recovered from companies named by the auditors. But the agency's own statistics indicate that revenue from auditing and enforcement plunged after President Bush took office.
From 1989 through 2001, according to a report by the Congressional Budget Office, auditing and other enforcement efforts generated an average of $176 million a year. But from 2002 through 2005, according to numbers that the department provided lawmakers last May, those collections averaged only $46 million.
In another clash, frustrated federal auditors have complained that the Interior Department no longer allows them to subpoena documents from oil companies.
"Subpoenas are a very powerful tool to get the information you need, but I don't think they've approved a single subpoena in years," Mr. Maxwell said in an interview. "In the good old days when we were able to issue subpoenas on our own, each of us was able to recover millions of dollars a year."
link
And here's a fine example of how godawful stoopid and intellectually childish it is to exchange rationality and skeptical independence of mind for the easy emotional comfort which can come from trusting leaders who look/talk confident, certain, and resolved.
A short paragraph description of President Bush yesterday...
Quote:The scope of his determination to dominate not only the airwaves but the debate became evident yesterday evening, when he entered a hotel conference room on the East Side with a jaunty smile, a wave and an air of supreme confidence.
Except it wasn't about Bush, it was a description of Mr. Ahmadinejad.
link
Oil...insurance, pharmaceuticals, education, medical delivery...or mining and logging...name an industry with powerful corporate representation in Washington AND with healthy donations to Republican electoral causes and you have the determinative dynamic on this administration's policies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/21/washington/21roads.html
Lining fools up and giving them a really fullsome Stooge-slap is an honorable use of one's time which promotes both circulation and community advancement.
Gloating, on the other hand, seems a suspect activity, its provenance in the social classes vulgarly consumed with their ranking in the scheme of things. Some famous gloaters are, of course, Tonya Harding, Michael Jackson, the Unibomber, and George Bush.
Add me to the list, as of right now.
Bill Frist, otherwise known world-wide as "Mr. Up or Down Vote...that's all we are asking for is an up or down vote...the American people deserve and up or down vote...the democrats don't want to allow a fair up or down vote" (repeat endlessly) is threatening a fillibuster.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/19/AR2006091901463.html
Only 25% in Poll Approve of the Congress
Only 25% in Poll Approve of the Congress
By Adam Nagourney and Janet Elder
The New York Times
Thursday 21 September 2006
With barely seven weeks until the midterm elections, Americans have an overwhelmingly negative view of the Republican-controlled Congress, with substantial majorities saying that they disapprove of the job it is doing and that its members do not deserve re-election, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
The disdain for Congress is as intense as it has been since 1994, when Republicans captured 52 seats to end 40 years of Democratic control of the House and retook the Senate as well. It underlines the challenge the Republican Party faces in trying to hold on to power in the face of a surge in anti-incumbent sentiment.
By broad margins, respondents said that members of Congress were too tied to special interests and that they did not understand the needs and problems of average Americans. Two-thirds said Congress had accomplished less than it typically did in a two-year session; most said they could not name a single major piece of legislation that cleared this Congress. Just 25 percent said they approved of the way Congress was doing its job.
But for all the clear dissatisfaction with the 109th Congress, 39 percent of respondents said their own representative deserved re-election, compared with 48 percent who said it was time for someone new.
What is more, it seems highly unlikely Democrats will experience a sweep similar to the one Republicans experienced in 1994. Most analysts judge only about 40 House seats to be in play at the moment, compared with over 100 seats in play at this point 12 years ago, in large part because redistricting has created more safe seats for both parties.
The poll also found that President Bush had not improved his own or his party's standing through his intense campaign of speeches and events surrounding the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The speeches were at the heart of a Republican strategy to thrust national security to the forefront in the fall elections.
Mr. Bush's job approval rating was 37 percent in the poll, virtually unchanged from the last Times/CBS News poll, in August. On the issue that has been a bulwark for Mr. Bush, 54 percent said they approved of the way he was managing the effort to combat terrorists, again unchanged from last month, though up from this spring.
Republicans continued to hold a slight edge over Democrats on which party was better at dealing with terrorism, though that edge did not grow since last month despite Mr. Bush's flurry of speeches on national security, including one from the Oval Office on the night of Sept. 11.
But the Times/CBS News poll found a slight increase in the percentage of Americans who said they approved of the way Mr. Bush had handled the war in Iraq, to 36 percent from 30 percent. The results also suggest that after bottoming out this spring, Mr. Bush's approval ratings on the economy and foreign policy have returned to their levels of about a year ago, both at 37 percent. The number of people who called terrorism the most important issue facing the country doubled to 14 percent, from 7 percent in July; 22 percent named the war in Iraq as their top concern, little changed from July.
Across the board, the poll found marked disenchantment with Congress, highlighting the opportunity Democrats see to make the argument for a change in leadership and to make the election a national referendum on the performance of a Republican-controlled Congress and Mr. Bush's tenure.
In one striking finding, 77 percent of respondents - including 65 percent of Republicans - said most members of Congress had not done a good enough job to deserve re-election and that it was time to give a new people a chance. That is the highest number of voters saying it is "time for new people" since the fall of 1994.
"You get some people in there, and they're in there forever," said Jan Weaver, of Aberdeen, S.D., who described herself as a Republican voter, in a follow-up interview. "They're so out of touch with reality."
In the poll, 50 percent said they would support a Democrat in the fall Congressional elections, compared with 35 percent who said they would support a Republican. But the poll found that Democrats continued to struggle to offer a strong case for turning government control over to them; only 38 percent said the Democrats had a clear plan for how they would run the country, compared with 45 percent who said the Republicans had offered a clear plan.
Overall discontent with Congress or Washington does not necessarily signify how people will vote when they see the familiar name of their member of Congress on the ballot, however. Democrats face substantial institutional obstacles in trying to repeat what Republicans accomplished in 1994, including a Republican financial advantage and the fact that far fewer seats are in play.
Thus, while 61 percent of respondents said they disapproved of the way Congress was handling its job, just 29 percent said they disapproved of the way their own "representative is handling his or her job."
The New York Times/CBS News poll began last Friday, four days after the commemoration of the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, and two weeks after the White House began its offensive on security issues. A USA Today-Gallup Poll published Tuesday reported that Mr. Bush's job approval rating had jumped to 44 percent from 39 percent. The questioning in that poll went through Sunday; The Times and CBS completed questioning Tuesday night. Presidential addresses often produce shifts in public opinion that tend to be transitory.
The nationwide poll was conducted by telephone Friday through Tuesday. It included 1,131 adults, of whom 1,007 said they were registered to vote, and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
As part of the Republican effort to gain advantage on the war in Iraq, Republicans have accused Democrats who want to set a timetable for leaving Iraq of wanting to "cut and run." But 52 percent of respondents said they would not think the United States had lost the war if it withdrew its troops from Iraq today.
The poll also found indications that voters were unusually intrigued by this midterm election: 43 percent said they were more enthusiastic than usual about voting. However, with turnout promising to be a critical factor in many of the closer Senate and House races, there was no sign that either party had an edge in terms of voter enthusiasm.
Evidence of the antipathy toward Congress in particular - and Washington in general - was abundant: 71 percent said they did not trust the government to do what is right.
"If they had new blood, then the people that influence them - the lobbyists - would maybe not be so influential," said Norma Scranton, a Republican from Thedford, Neb., in a follow-up interview after the poll. "They don't have our interest at heart because they're influenced by these lobbyists. If they were new, maybe they would try to please their constituents a little better."
Lois Thurber, a Republican from Axtell, Neb., said in a follow-up interview: "There's so much bickering, so much disagreement - they just can't get together on certain issues.
"They're kind of more worried about themselves than they are about the country."
Incumbents and challengers nationwide are trying to accommodate this sour mood. Democrats are presenting themselves as a fresh start - "Isn't it time for a change?" asked an advertisement by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee directed against Senator Jim Talent, Republican of Missouri.
And Republican incumbents are seeking to distance themselves from fellow Republicans in Washington. "I've gone against the president and the Republican leadership when I think they are wrong," Representative Christopher Shays, a Connecticut Republican locked in a tough re-election battle, said in a television advertisement broadcast this week.
The Republicans continue to be seen as the better party to deal with terrorism, but by nowhere near the margin they once enjoyed: it is now 42 percent to 37 percent. When asked which party took the threat of terrorism more seriously, 69 percent said they both did; 22 percent named Republicans, compared with 6 percent who said Democrats.
Voters said Democrats were more likely to tell the truth than Republicans when discussing the war in Iraq and about the actual threat of terrorism. And 59 percent of respondents said Mr. Bush was hiding something when he talked about how things were going in Iraq; an additional 25 percent said he was mostly lying when talking about the war.
Not that Democrats should draw any solace from that: 71 percent of respondents said Democrats in Congress were hiding something when they talked about how well things were going in Iraq, while 13 percent said they were mostly lying.
Robert Allen, a Democrat from Ventura, Calif., said: "We're in a stalemate right now. They're not getting hardly anything done." He added, "It's time to elect a whole new bunch so they can do something."
----------------------------------------------
Megan C. Thee, Marjorie Connelly and Marina Stefan contributed reporting.
Worth noting: last week, Webb found the right take on the issue of Bush's torture legislation. Pity, of course, that McCain c.s. have since sold out.
I didn't think that whole thing would end up being anything new, just a political ploy by those republicans looking like they are fighting bush but are not. The whole thing just burns me up but hardly anyone talks about it. Thank you, nimh for reintroducing the subject again.
CIA Praises Deal; Harsh Techniques Would Continue
Quote:The CIA director, General Michael Hayden, praised the deal reached in Congress today that, in effect, would permit CIA interrogators to use harsh techniques critics call torture.
If this languages becomes law, the Congress will have given us the clarity and the support that we need," Gen. Hayden said in a message to employees late this afternoon.
CIA officials said it was impossible to proceed with the agency's harsh interrogation techniques without a law that made it clear CIA officers would not one day face prosecution.
As reported on the Blotter on ABCNews.com, in questioning certain high-value terror suspects, the CIA has used a series of six increasingly harsh interrogation techniques that begin with a slap to the face and end with a procedure called water boarding, in which a prisoner is made to feel he is drowning.
President Bush and the CIA have repeatedly maintained the procedures are not torture and have saved American lives.
Human rights groups maintain the procedures constitute a form of torture, and the United States military has banned its personnel from using water boarding.
Today's congressional deal, if signed into law, would allow the CIA to continue the six techniques and to continue to run secret prisons overseas for select terror suspects.
Gen. Hayden said the measure "allows us to continue to defend the homeland, attack al Qaeda and protect American and Allied lives."
Torture by any other name is still torture. The reason Bush wanted clarity is because of the ruling by the courts which said that Bush must abide by the GC and congress, now congress has given Bush the authority to dismiss the GC if the CIA or Bush feels like it.
Quote:Torture does not yield reliable information
Well-trained interrogators, within the military, the FBI, and the police have testified that torture does not work, is unreliable and distracting from the hard work of interrogation. Nearly every client at the Center for Victims of Torture, when subjected to torture, confessed to a crime they did not commit, gave up extraneous information, or supplied names of innocent friends or colleagues to their torturers. It is a great source of shame for our clients, who tell us they would have said anything their tormentors wanted them to say in order to get the pain to stop. Such extraneous information distracts, rather than supports, valid investigations.
2. Torture does not yield information quickly
Although eventually everyone will confess to something, it takes a lot of time. We know that many militaries and radical groups train their members to resist torture and to pass along false pieces of information during the process. And those with strong religious or political beliefs that help them understand the purposes of torture used against them are most able to resist and to recover from its impact.
3. Torture will not be used only against the guilty
Inherent in all of the scenario building is the assumption that we know, with great reliability, that we have the appropriate party who possesses knowledge that could save lives. But our clients are living testimony that once used, torture becomes a fishing expedition to find information. It perverts the system which, seeking shortcuts to the hard work of investigation, relies increasingly on torture. The estimate from the Red Cross was that at least 80 percent of those imprisoned at Abu Ghraib, for example, should never have been arrested, but were there because it was easier to arrest persons than to let them go (people feared letting go a terrorist more than protecting the innocent). The Israeli security system claimed to use its stress and duress techniques only where they had the most reliable information about the detainee's guilt. Yet human rights monitors estimate that they were used on over 8000 detainees. It is not credible to believe they had this precise information about so many.
4. Torture has a corrupting effect on the perpetrator
The relationship between the victim and the torturer is highly intimate, even if one-sided. It is filled with stress for the interrogator, balancing the job with the moral and ethical values of a person with family and friends. One way this cognitive dissonance is managed is through a group process that dehumanizes the victim. But still another way is to insure that some sort of confession is obtained to justify to the interrogator and to his superiors that pain and suffering was validly used.
5. Torture has never been confined to narrow conditions
Torture has often been justified by reference to a small number of people who know about the "ticking time bomb," but in practice, it has always been extended to a much wider population.
6. Psychological torture is damaging
When torture is defined as strictly a physical act, many believe that psychological coercion is okay. CVT's clients say it was the psychological forms of torture that were the most debilitating over a long period. The source of their nightmares, 15 and 20 years later, was the mock executions or hearing others being tortured. The lack of self-esteem and depression were more related to scenarios of humiliation, consciously structured to demean the victim. Many within the world treatment movement believe we have seen increasingly sophisticated forms of psychological torture over the past 20 years.
7. Stress and duress techniques are forms of torture
Many of these techniques were developed during Israel's struggle against terrorism, and so this example is often cited for effective interrogation techniques falling short of torture. But the Israeli Supreme Court concluded that they were illegitimate. Every democratic nation's court system and international court which has reviewed them has concluded that they are forms of torture.
8. We cannot use torture and still retain the moral high ground
The arguments we hear are not so different in form and content from those used by the repressive governments of CVT's clients, and which the U.S. has refused to accept from other nations that have used torture to combat their real or perceived enemies. Torture is not an effective or efficient producer of reliable information. But it is effective and efficient at producing fear and rage, both in the individuals tortured and in their broader communities.
source
revel wrote:The whole thing just burns me up but hardly anyone talks about it.
Yes, indeed. You and me both. Good summary of arguments against torture there too. See also my new thread,
The US Army knows: Torture doesnt even actually work, either
Meanwhile, on a gloating note:
Quote:Democrats Keep Upper Hand in U.S. Ballot
September 27, 2006
The Democratic Party maintains a large advantage before this year's congressional election in the United States, according to a poll by the New York Times and CBS News. 50 per cent of respondents would vote for the Democratic candidate in their district, while 35 per cent would support the Republican contender.
Support for both the Democrats and the Republicans increased by three points since August. [..]
Polling Data
If the 2006 election for U.S. House of Representatives were being held today, would you vote for the Republican candidate or the Democratic candidate in your district? (Registered Voters)
Code: Sept. 2006 Aug. 2006 Jul. 2006
Democrat 50% 47% 45%
Republican 35% 32% 35%
Other 1% -- 1%
Not / Depends / Not Sure
14% 20% 19%
Source: The New York Times / CBS News
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,131American adults, conducted from Sept. 15 to Sept. 19, 2006. Margin of error is 4 per cent.
All the window dressing descent by republicans are for show; it's how they vote that matters, not all the verbiage shared on the media.
Unfortunately, chaplin, I agree with you 100%. Most of the time unless a candidate really has the ability to transcend partisanship loyalties, most people stick to their party no matter what scandal or disgust they may be feeling for those who currently hold those positions. In other words, a right wing politically Christian conservative republican is not going to suddenly vote democrat because of a disgusting scandal by one of its own. Nor will they stay away from the polls because to do so would give other party with completely different ideologies control of how the country conducts its business. They are on a roll now and they know it, why would they stop when everything is going their way?
Speaking as a democrat, we can't rely on scandals and the failures of this administration to win the house and senate and the next presidential election for us. We should have learned that in 2004 with our "anybody but bush" failed strategy. We have to articulate why the current policies are damaging to the future of this country and we have to show we actually have alternative answers and plans rather than just complaints.
It is hard to do that in sound bits and here a little and there a little on the odd chance a democrat actually gets air time on one those news talks' shows on cable. But it's something democrats are going to have to find a way to do successfully.
For instance, when a republican accuses a democrat of being in alliance with terrorists because we are against the current policy of eavesdropping of terrorist we should answer that "no, that is not correct." We should say that we are all in favor of eavesdropping on terrorist in accordance with the existing laws of FISA. We should point out how FISA allows eavesdropping on suspecting terrorist up to a certain amount of days and there is time enough within that time frame to either have enough evidence to get a warrant if indeed the evidence shows a reason to continue to suspect the suspect in question. But how do you put all that (or better words than mine) in a sound bite? How do you explain how doing it the president's way erases decades of reasonable due process which has separated us from other undemocratic countries in a sound bite? It just don't work quite as well as "we are fighting for freedom from those who hate freedom by taking away our own freedom." (Obviously that last bit is not something that republican would add, nonetheless it is true, maybe that is how a democrat should phrase it in a sound bite?)
Re Bush's job approval ratings - this article from last Sunday brings together the results of five opinion polls:
Quote:Bush Approval Falls Below 40% Mark in U.S.
Public support for George W. Bush dropped this month in the United States, according to a review of five recent public opinion polls. 39 per cent of respondents to surveys conducted by Opinion Research Corporation for CNN and Hart/McInturff for the Wall Street Journal and NBC News approve of the president's performance.
Bush's approval rating reaches 38 per cent in a study by Ipsos-Public Affairs released by the Associated Press, and 37 per cent in a poll by SRBI Public Affairs for Time. In three of the five polls, the United States president's rating fell by at least one point.
Read on...
Approval? GWB? Are you serious? He is a war criminal without the wit to realise what he has done.
McT, Not only does he lack the wit, but any conscience for his responsibility of destroying Iraq (and over 600,000 dead) to its current level of violence.
Long time no see, CI
It's sushi time, whenever you are ready...
Cycloptichorn
Hi Cyclo, Thanks for the welcome back. As for the sushi meal, it'll have to wait until I return from Israel on October 27: leaving on Friday. It'll have to fit between my return from Israel and my trip to Europe on November 22 for a Danube cruise, and will be home from December 3 till December 29 for yet another trip to Miami and a Caribbean cruise.
BTW, I don't have sending PM priviledges, so it's open for all to see. You can always send me an email.
Welcome back, Cicerone Imposter.
Good to see you again.
