Bush Asks Justice Department to Look at New Ohio Voters

The Washington Post and the Cleveland Plain Dealer are both reporting that President Bush asked Attorney General Mukasey to review concerns raised by the GOP over approximately 200,000 new voter registrations. This action was taken as a result of a letter that Bush received from the House Minority Leader, John Boehner. Boehner first asked Attorney General Mukasey to take action, but didn't receive a response to that request. He then sent his letter to Bush.

This action may explain why a GOP donor dismissed his lawsuit against Brunner that he had filed in the Ohio Supreme Court. That lawsuit was subject to possible dismissal because he wouldn't have standing to bring such an action against Brunner.
One of the arguments that Secretary of State Brunner raised in Federal Court is that a private person or entity doesn't have standing to raise claims under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). The U.S. Supreme Court apparently agreed with her since it cited cases in its opinion that deal with that issue and since it voted 9-0 not to hear the case. The same argument wouldn't apply to a lawsuit brought against Brunner by the Federal Government.

The issue between Brunner and the GOP deals with the approximately 200,000 voter registrations where the information in the voter database doesn't match the information in databases maintained by the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles or the Social Security Administration. The GOP sees this as evidence of voter fraud. It cites as evidence reports of problems with registrations obtained by ACORN workers. Brunner counters that most discrepancies are caused by typographical errors and other errors made by clerical workers at local Boards of Elections.

Brunner's attorneys point out that the HAVA mandates that no voter can be removed from the voting rolls within 60 days of an election due to computer database mismatches. They could, however, be required to vote provisional ballots. Brunner believes that requiring provisional ballots in such cases carries the potential of such votes not being counted. Additionally, there is the possibility that many Ohioans who registered this year may not vote if they think that their votes won't be counted. One suspects that depressing the turnout is what is behind Bo

Given the track record of Bush's Department of Justice on supposed voter fraud issues, this is not a good thing. One of the many scandals that has rocked the Bush Administration is the firing of nine U.S. Attorneys because they wouldn't bring bogus criminal prosecutions for supposed voter fraud. We don't know whether any of the political appointees who were behind the firing of the U.S. Attorneys are still in office under Mukasey.

On the other hand, we don't know if Mukasey is as much of a political partisan as Gonzales. We don't know if he wants to further sully the reputation of the Department of Justice by ordering the possible disenfranchisment of up to 200,000 voters. We don't know if he wants to be preceived as a partisan hack on his way out the door.

GOP Policies Suck at Creating Jobs

There are over 500,000 American jobs that existed at the beginning of 2008 that don't exist now. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that over 80,000 jobs were lost in August. In 2008 there has not been a month that has not seen a loss of jobs.

According to the BLS, the unemployment rate hit 6.1% in August, the highest unemployment rate in five years. According to the BLS report, dated September 5, 2008, all sectors of the economy showed a loss of jobs. This means that the unemployment is spreading out from the sectors that started reporting job losses earlier this year such as construction and financial services.

The Republicans have controlled the White House for the last 92 months. During that time, 34 months have seen job losses. During the first 92 months of the Clinton Administration, there were only five months that saw job losses.

The graph below shows the number of jobs created or lost in one month increments from January 1, 1993 until August 31, 2008. The numbers on the left hand side represent jobs in units of 1000, so at the top of the graph where you see the number "500", that represents a gain of 500,000 jobs. The number at the bottom of the left hand side, "250", represents a loss of 250,000 jobs.



During the best Bush month, July of 2005, 368,000 jobs were created. During the best Clinton month, September of 1997, 508,000 jobs were created. During the worse Clinton month, March of 1993, 51,000 jobs were lost. During the worse Bush month so far, October of 2001, 325,000 jobs were lost.

The historical record seems pretty clear: GOP policies suck at creating jobs.

Iraqi Politicians Get to Determine If Americans Die

This is the situation that the Bush Administration has got us into: Iraqi politicians like Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki get to determine if American soldiers go into combat. This is from an article in the Washington Post:

"The clashes suggested that American forces were being drawn more deeply into a broad offensive that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, launched in the southern city of Basra on Tuesday, saying death squads, criminal gangs and rogue militias were the targets. The Mahdi Army of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, a Shiite rival of Maliki, appeared to have taken the brunt of the attacks; fighting spread to many southern cities and parts of Baghdad.

As President Bush told an Ohio audience that Iraq was returning to "normalcy," administration officials in Washington held meetings to assess what appeared to be a rapidly deteriorating security situation in many parts of the country.

Maliki decided to launch the offensive without consulting his U.S. allies, according to administration officials. With little U.S. presence in the south, and British forces in Basra confined to an air base outside the city, one administration official said that "we can't quite decipher" what is going on. It's a question, he said, of "who's got the best conspiracy" theory about why Maliki decided to act now."

So let me see if we have this straight. The Prime Minister of Iraq, without apparently consulting his American allies, decides to go after a political rival. This leads to fighting, which apparently was predictable. Now that the fighting has begun, according to the Post article, American troops are taking the lead. This is also from the Post article:

"U.S. forces in armored vehicles battled Mahdi Army fighters Thursday in Sadr City, the vast Shiite stronghold in eastern Baghdad, as an offensive to quell party-backed militias entered its third day. Iraqi army and police units appeared to be largely holding to the outskirts of the area as American troops took the lead in the fighting."

We have been told by this Administration that the U.S. is not being drawn into a civil war in Iraq. What the hell do you call it when armed groups of Iraqis are fighting each other for political power, a tea party? Of course it is a civil war. The fact that Sadr hasn't yet declared a rival government doesn't mean that its not a civil war.

If American soldiers are going to risk death, then the decision to put them in harm's way should be made by American politicians, not Iraqis. Not one American had the opportunity to elect this Prime Minister who is so careless with American lives.

Read the whole Post article here.

Feds Reject Ohio Plan to Epand Kids' Health Coverage

The Toledo Blade has a story dated Saturday, December 21, 2007, on how the Bush Administration has rejected Ohio's bi-partisan to expand health insurance for working families. This plan, which was in the Governor's budget which passed with only one negative vote, would have expanded health insurance coverage for families up to $62,000 in family income. The Bush Administration announced this rejection with a one-sentence explanation and refused any other requests for more information.

This means that the Bush administration is not only fighting the Democratic Congress in its efforts to expand S-CHIP but is also fighting the efforts of states like New York and Ohio to use state money and federal money to insure children. This is, of course, in keeping with Bush's philosophy of trying to get uninsured children into private health insurance plans as opposed to using government funded plans. Never mind, of course, that such insurance plans are prohibitively expensive and don't really exist for working families. It's more important to Bush and his radical right-wing allies to fight for a philosophy than actually see uninsured children insured for medical purposes.

Ohioans need to recognize that Ohio can't depend on Washington to solve this problem for us. It is possible that a Democratic President will get elected and that S-CHIP will be expanded in early 2009, but it is certainly not a certainty. That's why SPAN-Ohio, which stands for Single Payer Action Network is working for a universal health insurance plan in Ohio. If you are interested in their efforts, go to www.spanohio.org. You will find ways to get involved in this struggle.

Does George Voinovich Believe in the Rule of Law?

Okay, so this is not exactly a surprise, but Senators Brown and Voinovich split on the nomination of Michael B. Mukasey to be Attorney General. One of the more depressing things about Voinovich's support of Bush's agenda over the last several years is the fact that Voinovich is a lawyer and yet seems unconcerned about the assault on the rule of law by the Bush Administration.

Since 9-11 the Bush Administration has claimed the right to conduct survelliance without a warrant; hold an American citizen indefinitely without bringing a charge against him in court; send people to foreign countries to be tortured; and conduct interrogations using methods that are considered torture were they to be done by American military personnel. Through all of this George Voinovich has said little if anything.

All of these practices are assaults on the rule of law. The rule of law includes "the principle that governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedural steps that are referred to as due process." All of the practices described above are assaults on the rule of law in the United States.

One of the exciting things for those of us who are attorneys has been the role of lawyers in confronting the acts of General Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan. At no small risk to themselves, Pakistani lawyers and judges have resisted the attempt of General Musharraf to set aside the law in his quest to stay in power. These lawyers and judges are willing to put their "money where their mouths are" when it comes to defending the rule of law in Pakistan.

Contrast that with the actions of lawyers like Voinovich who are willing to help Bush set aside the rule of law in the United States. When George Voinovich was sworn in as an attorney, he took an oath to uphold and support the Constitution of the United States. How does he square that oath with his support of this administration?

Bush Administration Seeking Emergency Funds for Bunker-Busting Bombs

Bunker-busting bombs sounds like a Dr. Strangelovian form of alliteration. What they are, however, are bombs capable of going deep into the ground and destroying fortified structures. You know, the kind that we think that Iran has for developing nuclear weapons.

ABC News reported on October 24, 2007 that buried deep in the Bush Administration's request for additional funding for the Iraq War is a 88 million dollar request for funds to modify two stealth bombers to carry such bombs. This is the one sentence explanation for the funding request: "an urgent operational need from theater commanders."

As ABC News asks in its report, what urgent operational need? We aren't using stealth bombers in Iraq and wouldn't need to use them in Afghanistan against caves where we believe the Taliban is hidden. We might use such bombers, though, to attack Iran.

If Bush attacks Iran, all bets are off regarding 2008 presidential campaign. As the Washington Post reported in an articlee on its website dated October 25, 2007, both Obama and Edwards have been hitting Clinton over her vote to designate a unit of the Iranian Army as a "terrorist organization."

This quote is from the Post story explaining the Senate vote:

Iran sprang up as a campaign issue on Sept. 26, when the Senate voted 76 to 22 for a defense authorization bill amendment sponsored by Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.). The amendment not only urged the administration to label the IRGC a terrorist organization but also said that the U.S. military presence in Iraq could have a critical impact on Iran's ability to pose a threat to the entire Middle East.

Clinton denies that the Senate vote could be used by the Bush Administration to justify an attack on Iran. Right, and of course, there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Bush only wanted to "reform" Social Security, not destroy it, and "Brownie" did do a heck of a job during Katrina.

It is dangerous to give this administration any authority assuming that it will act rationally with such authority. Passing that resolution may turn out to be as crazy as giving a loaded .45 to a baby.

Wolf Blitzer Confronts Republican Congressman with Reality

This is a very interesting video that is posted on You Tube and was mentioned in the Think Progress blog:



What's interesting about this is that Blitzer is not just accepting the Republican spin that the Bush Administration is putting out in advance of the report that Petreaus is going to make to Congress later this month. It may be that the ability of the Bushies to bully the media into doing their bidding is finally ending.

Is Bush Administration Planning Massive Military Attack on Iran?

This online article certainly thinks so. Of course, since there is no way of knowing exactly what "Times Online" is, there is no way of knowing how much stock to place in this report. On the other hand, there is no doubt that Bush and Cheney are crazy enough to try such a stunt. Embroiling the whole Middle East might be the only way they think they can ensure a GOP President gets sworn in on January 20, 2009.

There is also the possibility that the Bushies are putting this story out there as a way to pressure the Iranians and the United Nations into doing what they want. One possible advantage of being considered a war-monger by the rest of the world is that other global actors are inclined to believe such rumors and take them into consideration when planning their moves.

The article does show how they are going to justify this move. They are going to claim that the Iranians are supplying the insurgents in Iraq and if they would just stop, Bush's use of military force would start paying dividends in Iraq. One thing is for sure and that is that Bush won't be swayed by any humanitarian considerations. He is willing to sacrifice our military personnel and an untold number of people in Iraq and Iran to get his way. That's what happens when you turn our country over to a man whose entire life has been all about his sense of entitlement.

UPDATE: This is an article from another UK newspaper's website on the same topic. It is chilling reading to say the least.

Time Magazine Writers Predicts Attack on Iran, Cites Administration Source

There is an article on the Time magazine website, which can be read here, claiming that an administration source told one of its writers that there will be an attack on Iraq later this year. This is from the article:

Strengthening the Administration's case for a strike on Iran, there's a belief among neo-cons that the IRGC is the one obstacle to a democratic and friendly Iran. They believe that if we were to get rid of the IRGC, the clerics would fall, and our thirty-years war with Iran over. It's another neo-con delusion, but still it informs White House thinking.
And what do we do if just the opposite happens — a strike on Iran unifies Iranians behind the regime? An Administration official told me it's not even a consideration. "IRGC IED's are a casus belli for this Administration. There will be an attack on Iran." (emphasis added).

How dumb do you have to be to start a third war when you have finished the first two wars? As dumb as they get, which means that war with Iran could be around the corner.

Iraqis Refuse Possession of U.S. Build Reconstruction Projects

If you needed yet another example of how much of a mess the Bush Administration has created in Iraq, just click on the link in this entry's title. You will read a story from the New York Times that appeared in the Saturday, July 28, 2007, edition. It concerns a report from the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, a federal oversight agency. This is a quote from that article:

Iraq's national government is refusing to take possession of thousands of American-financed reconstruction projects, forcing the United States either to hand them over to local Iraqis, who often lack the proper training and resources to keep the projects running, or commit new money to an effort that has already consumed billions of taxpayer dollars.

The article notes that the Bush Administration often cites reconstruction projects as evidence that Iraqis are making strides toward establishing a working government even though there is a civil war brewing. Yet, as this report shows, constructing such projects are only the beginning. You have to have someone who will take control of them and use them.

This quote from the article probably best sums up the situation:

“To build something and not have these issues resolved from top to bottom is unfathomable,” said William L. Nash, a retired general who is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and an expert on Middle East reconstruction. “The management of the reconstruction program for Iraq has been a near-total disaster from the beginning.”

Why has it been a near-total disaster from the beginning? Because under Bush ideology trumps everything, including experience, education, sound public policy, and training. Bush is a true believer and he surrounds himself with true believers.

He apparently believed that once he overthrew Saddam Hussein everything would just fall into place, as if by magic. Consequently there was no planning for what happened after Hussein was removed from power. American soldiers are paying with their lives, and American taxpayers with their money, for Bubble-Boy's folly. Of course, just like every other screw-up in Bush's life, he will leave office and other people will have to clean up his mess.

Supporting the Troops: Bush Administration Opposes House of Representatives Planned 3.5% Raise for Military Personnel

The Army Times reports that the Bush Administration is opposing a 3.5% pay raise that the House Democratic Leadership wants to give to American military personnel. Apparently the Bush Administration thinks that a 3% raise is sufficient. The reason why the House wants to give a bigger raise is to close the existing 3.9% gap between civilian jobs and military service. The House raise would close the gap to about 1.4%.

So let's see: if you are a Democrat and you want to get American troops out of the middle of a civil war you are not supporting the troops, but if you are the Bush Administration and want to limit a pay raise for American troops, you are supporting the troops. Does that make sense to you?

Of course, this is all consistent with the Bush Administration's philosophy that people who earn their money are less worthy than those who get their money from investments. This is shown by the fact that the Bush's tax cuts dramatically reduced the tax rates on investment income, especially when compared to earned income. This administration simply doesn't value people who work for a living, even when they serve in the military.

Republicans are Singing "See You in September" but What Does it Mean?

The New York Times published a story that you can read by clicking on the link in this entry's title. Basically the article points out that while Congressional Republicans are focusing on September as when the Bush Administration has to show some progress in Iraq, they don't know how progress should be defined. They have no agreed system for measuring Iraqi progress to establishing a functioning government.

Think about that for a minute. Here they are, four years into a war that their party started and they have no idea how to tell if we are winning or even what winning would look like. These people are simply incompetent. They are not capable of governing this country. The sad thing is, of course, that it is not just Republicans who suffer from this demonstrated incompetence, it is all of us.

Why Is the Media Still Calling It A Surge?

Opening paragraphs of article in Washington Post:

The Pentagon announced yesterday that 35,000 soldiers in 10 Army combat brigades will begin deploying to Iraq in August as replacements, making it possible to sustain the increase of U.S. troops there until at least the end of this year.

U.S. commanders in Iraq are increasingly convinced that heightened troop levels, announced by President Bush in January, will need to last into the spring of 2008. The military has said it would assess in September how well its counterinsurgency strategy, intended to pacify Baghdad and other parts of Iraq, is working.

Definition of surge from online version of Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Pronunciation:
\ˈsərj\
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
surged; surg·ing
1 : to rise and fall actively : toss 2 : to rise and move in waves or billows : swell 3 : to slip around a windlass, capstan, or bitts — used especially of a rope 4 : to rise suddenly to an excessive or abnormal value 5 : to move with a surge or in surges transitive verb : to let go or slacken gradually (as a rope)

Something that takes months to accomplish and is going to last for months is not a "surge" in the most accepted definition of the word. What is really happening is that the Bush Administration is escalating the number of troops in Iraq in hopes of holding things together until the next president is sworn in. Then, Bush can go down to Crawford, play at being a cowboy, and write his memoirs.

We know why the Bushies want to call it a surge. To call it an escalation, when the American public is increasingly soured on Bubble-Boy's foreign adventure, would be political suicide, but why is the media using the same term? Just because the Bush Administration wants to call this troop increase something that it's not doesn't mean that the media has to play along with it.

You can read the whole Post article by clicking on the link in this entry's title.

And the Incompetence Goes On

This is from a story in the New York Times, published in the April 29, 2007 edition: "In a troubling sign for the American-financed rebuilding program in Iraq, inspectors for a federal oversight agency have found that in a sampling of eight projects that the United States had declared successes, seven were no longer operating as designed because of plumbing and electrical failures, lack of proper maintenance, apparent looting and expensive equipment that lay idle."

It gets even better: At the airport, crucially important for the functioning of the country, inspectors found that while $11.8 million had been spent on new electrical generators, $8.6 million worth were no longer functioning.

Of course, since it is the Bush Administration, there has to be a lie somewhere. How about this:
The dates when the projects were completed and deemed successful ranged from six months to almost a year and a half before the latest inspections. But those inspections found numerous instances of power generators that no longer operated; sewage systems that had clogged and overflowed, damaging sections of buildings; electrical systems that had been jury-rigged or stripped of components; floors that had buckled; concrete that had crumbled; and expensive equipment that was simply not in use.

If you want to read the whole damned depressing story, click here.

Bush Administration Doesn't Count Car Bombings in Promoting Surge Success

Okay, we shouldn't be surprised anymore. After all, this is the Bush Administration and when it comes to Iraq, it is simply incapable of telling the truth. Even given that standard, however, this is one for the books. The McClatchy News service is reporting that when the Bush administration claims that its Iraq surge is working because civilian deaths are going down, it turns out that they are not counting fatalities resulting from car bombs. Unfortunately for Iraqi civilans in Baghdad, and for the administration's credibility, car bombs are one of the main reasons why Iraqi civilians die.

Question for Republicans: How Many American Deaths in Iraq are Enough?

Right now the cost of this war is over 3,000 American dead and over 419 billion spent on the Iraq War. Given the fact that the American dead in the first Gulf War was a fraction of that number, and the cost was borne by several nations, Americans were not prepared for what this war is costing us in lives and treasure.

Here is a question for Bush and his Republican supporters: how many American deaths in Iraq are enough? How much money do we have to spend in Iraq? Does the death toll have to reach 5,000; 10,000; or 15,000 before this administration decides the sacrifice isn't worth it? Do we have to spend half a trillion; a trillion; or a trillion and a half before this administration decides that trying to convince Iraqis not to kill each other isn't worth the cost?

No one in the media, to our knowledge, has ever asked a White House spokesperson this question: how many American deaths in Iraq are you willing to accept? No one in the media, to our knowledge, has ever asked a White House spokesperson what the administration calculated the American death toll to be when the administration was planning this war. Isn't it time we had a rational discussion about what this war is costing America versus the alleged benefit that we are receiving from this war being fought?

Retired Marine General Explains Why He Turned Down Iraq War Czar Position

Retired Marine General John Sheehan wrote an op-ed piece in Monday's Washington Post about why he turned down the position of Iraq-Afghanistan War "Czar". The link to the article is in this entry's title. According to Sheehan the Bush Administration doesn't understand what it is doing in Iraq. This is a quote from the article: What I found in discussions with current and former members of this administration is that there is no agreed-upon strategic view of the Iraq problem or the region.

Here we are, four years into this war, and this Administration doesn't have a strategic view of the Iraq problem or the region. That is a damning indictment of Bush, Rice, and the rest of this incompetent crowd. They had no idea what they were going to do the day after they got rid of Saddam Hussein. That's why this operation has been so badly managed. The entire focus was on getting rid of Saddam. Once they had accomplished that goal. they had no idea what to do next. It was if getting rid of Hussein would magically make everything in Iraq work out. If the consequences weren't so horrible, it would be funny.

Pat Robertson's Regent University Places 150 Alumni in Bush Administration

Monica Goodling, the Justice Department official who announced that she will take the Fifth Amendment rather than testify truthfully to the Congress about the fired U.S. Attorneys issue, is a graduate of the law school at Regent University. Regent University was started by Pat Robertson. According to its website 150 alumni have taken jobs with the Bush Administration. This is just one more example of the marriage between the religious right and the Bush Administration.

Bush No Longer Intimidating Democrats on Iraq

In this article from the New York Times, the writers talk about how Democrats have kept their Congressional unity over Iraq even in the face of Bush's tough-guy talk. The fact that Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate have stayed together on the Iraq vote is remarkable. In the past Bush could intimidate enough Democrats from "red" states or Congressional districts to give his policies a veneer of "bi-partisanship".

This intimidation took place because Democrats from such areas were afraid of his political power. Since he is now polling in the low to mid-thirties on job approval, his political power has diminished. The diminishment of Bush's political power combined with the power of being the majority party has emboldened Democrats and led to party unity on Iraq.

If Democrats keep united, they will force Bush to respond to them because it is hard to conduct a war without bi-partisan support for that war. Increasingly Republicans from "blue" states or Congressional districts will be under pressure to desert Bush on Iraq. It will be interesting to see how long Republicans will keep supporting Bush' war as we get closer to the 2008 elections.

Bush Justice Department Official to Take 5th Amendment Before Congress

As the article from CNN linked to in this entry's title reports, an official of the Bush Justice Department is going to take the 5th Amendment instead of testifying about the firing of the U.S. Attorneys. This is actually a pretty smart move, but one that makes her look guilty and will ratchet up the news coverage of the Congressional hearings. It is smart because she has reason to believe that someone in the Justice Department is trying to make her the sacrificial lamb. Apparently she doesn't plan to pull a "Libby" and take one for the team. Can you imagine how the wingnuts would have howled if an official working for Janet Reno had taken the 5th Amendment in front of a Republican Congress?