New book says Bush made anti-Semitic remark, and other Bush-bashing (haven't had much of that lately, what with Lebanon war and all)

1. Book: Bush told reporter Jews are 'all going to hell' – by Larisa Alexandrovna (from Raw Story)

An upcoming book about presidential advisor Karl Rove reports allegations of anti-semitism by President George W. Bush, RAW STORY has learned.

In The Architect: Karl Rove and the Master Plan for Absolute Power , Austin-based journalist James Moore and Wayne Slater, senior political reporter for the Dallas Morning News , will allege that Bush once made anti-semitic comments to a reporter.

"You know what I'm gonna tell those Jews when I get to Israel, don't you Herman?" a then Governor George W. Bush allegedly asked a reporter for the Austin American-Statesman .

When the journalist, Ken Herman, replied that he did not know, Bush reportedly delivered the punch line: "I'm telling 'em they're all going to hell."

Bush's thoughts on the fate of non-Christian souls became a minor source of controversy after he told the Houston Post in 1993 that only those who "accept Jesus Christ" go to Heaven. However, the future president was also earlier briefly engaged to a half-Jewish woman.

The quip never received wider media attention, even though the Austin American-Statesman reported it in December of 1998.

"As he gazed out a hotel hallway at the Superdome and waited for an elevator, Bush -- clearly going for a laugh at his own expense -- said the first thing he was going to say to Israeli Jews was that they were all 'going to hell,'" Herman had reported. "Bush, who has both a quick wit and generally good judgment on when to use it, made the comment to the same Austin American-Statesman reporter who had reported his 1993 comments about his religious beliefs."

The authors of The Architect assert that religion and ethnicity have been manipulated by Bush and Rove to "divide" and "conquer" the nation. RAW STORY obtained a copy of The Architect late this week.


2. "Have You No Sense of Decency, Sir?" -- by Keith Olbermann (from MSNBC)

It is to our deep national shame-and ultimately it will be to the President's deep personal regret - that he has followed his Secretary of Defense down the path of trying to tie those loyal Americans who disagree with his policies - or even question their effectiveness or execution - to the Nazis of the past, and the al Qaeda of the present.

Today, in the same subtle terms in which Mr. Bush and his colleagues muddied the clear line separating Iraq and 9/11 - without ever actually saying so - the President quoted a purported Osama Bin Laden letter that spoke of launching, "a media campaign to create a wedge between the American people and their government."

Make no mistake here - the intent of that is to get us to confuse the psychotic scheming of an international terrorist, with that familiar bogeyman of the right, the "media."

The President and the Vice President and others have often attacked freedom of speech, and freedom of dissent, and freedom of the press.

Now, Mr. Bush has signaled that his unparalleled and unprincipled attack on reporting has a new and venomous side angle:

The attempt to link, by the simple expediency of one word - "media" - the honest, patriotic, and indeed vital questions and questioning from American reporters, with the evil of Al-Qaeda propaganda.

That linkage is more than just indefensible. It is un-American.

Mr. Bush and his colleagues have led us before to such waters.

We will not drink again.

And the President's re-writing and sanitizing of history, so it fits the expediencies of domestic politics, is just as false, and just as scurrilous.

"In the 1920's a failed Austrian painter published a book in which he explained his intention to build an Aryan super-state in Germany and take revenge on Europe and eradicate the Jews," President Bush said today, "the world ignored Hitler's words, and paid a terrible price."

Whatever the true nature of al Qaeda and other international terrorist threats, to ceaselessly compare them to the Nazi State of Germany serves only to embolden them.

More over, Mr. Bush, you are accomplishing in part what Osama Bin Laden and others seek - a fearful American populace, easily manipulated, and willing to throw away any measure of restraint, any loyalty to our own ideals and freedoms, for the comforting illusion of safety.

It thus becomes necessary to remind the President that his administration's recent Nazi "kick" is an awful and cynical thing.

And it becomes necessary to reach back into our history, for yet another quote, from yet another time and to ask it of Mr. Bush:

"Have you no sense of decency, sir?"


3. Where Bush's Arrogance Has Taken Us
An illegal war, a long list of eroded rights, and a country run by and for the benefit of corporate campaign donors - all courtesy of the imperial presidency.
By Jim Hightower (from AlterNet.org)

During his gubernatorial days in Texas, George W let slip a one-sentence thought that unintentionally gave us a peek into his political soul. In hindsight, it should've been loudly broadcast all across our land so people could've absorbed it, contemplated its portent - and roundly rejected the guy's bid for the presidency. On May 21, 1999, reacting to some satirical criticism of him, Bush snapped: "There ought to be limits to freedom."

Gosh, so many freedoms to limit, so little time! But in five short years, the BushCheneyRummy regime has made remarkable strides toward dismembering the genius of the Founders, going at our Constitution and Bill of Rights like famished alligators chasing a couple of poodles.

Forget about such niceties as separation of powers, checks and balances (crucial to the practice of democracy), the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and open government-these guys are on an autocratic tear. Whenever they've been challenged (all too rarely), they simply shout "war on terror," "commander-in-chief," "support our troops," "executive privilege," "I'm the decider," or some other slam-the-door political phrase designed to silence any opposition. Indeed, opponents are branded "enemies" who must be demonized, personally attacked, and, if possible, destroyed. Bush's find-the-loopholes lawyers assert that a president has the right to lie (even about going to war), to imprison people indefinitely (without charges, lawyers, hearings, courts, or hope), to torture people, to spy on Americans without court or congressional review, to prosecute reporters who dare to report, to rewrite laws on executive whim?and on and on.

Here, we are pleased to give you a sense of the enormity of what Bush & Company are doing under the cloak of war and executive privilege in a handy-dandy poster format.

The War President

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
-George W., August 2004
Number of Americans killed in Bush's Iraq war as of August 2006: 2577
What Bush press flack Tony Snow said the day the total number of American dead reached 2,500: "It's a number"

Number of Americans killed since Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" on May 1, 2003: 2,438

Number of Americans wounded (a vague term that includes such horrors as brain damage, limb blasted off, eyes blown out, psyche shattered, etc.) in Bush's war:

Official count: 18,777

Independent count: up to 48,000

Estimated number of Iraqi civilians (men, women, and children) killed in Bush's war since Saddam Hussein was ousted: 38,960

For Iraqis, the bloodiest month of the war so far: June 2006

more than 100 civilians killed per day

Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmit's advice to Iraqis who see TV reports of innocent civilians being killed by occupying troops: "Change the channel."

Percent of Iraqis who want American troops to leave: 82

Stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction found in Iraq since Bush committed Americans to war in 2003 on the basis that Saddam had and was about to use WMDs: 0

Number of nations in the world: 192

Number that joined Bush's "Coalition of the Willing" (COW) to invade Iraq: 48
(The list includes such military powers as Angola, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Latvia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Romania, Solomon Islands, and Uganda.)

Number of COW nations that actually sent any troops to Iraq: 39
(Of these, 32 sent fewer than 1,000 troops. Many sent no fighting units, deploying only engineers, trainers, humanitarian units, and other noncombat personnel.)

Number of the 39 COW nations contributing troops that have since withdrawn them: 17
(An additional 7 have announced plans to withdraw all or part of their contingents this year.)

Number of COW troops in Iraq: 150,000

Number of these that are U.S. troops: 139,000

Number of White House officials and cabinet members who have any of their immediate family in Bush's war: 0

Follow the Money

We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."
-"Howling Paul" Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary, in testimony to Congress, March 2003
The official White House claim before the invasion of what the war and occupation would cost U.S. taxpayers: $50 billion

As of July 2006, the total amount appropriated by Congress for Bush's ongoing war and occupation: $295,634,921,248

Current Pentagon spending per month in Iraq: $8 billion (or $185,185.19 per minute)

Assuming all troops return home by 2010, the projected "real costs" for the war: More than $1 trillion
(includes veterans' pay and medical costs, interest on the billions Bush has borrowed to pay for his war, etc.)

Bonus Stat!

Annual salary of Stuart Baker, hired by the Bushites to be the White House "Director for Lessons Learned": $106,641

Number of lessons that Bush appears to have learned: 0

The Imperial Presidency

"I'm the commander - see, I don't need to explain - I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."
George W., August, 2002.


Signing Statements

When signing a particular congressional act into law, a few presidents have occasionally issued a "signing statement" to clarify their understanding of what Congress intended. These have not had the force of law and have been used discreetly in the past.

Very quietly, however, Bush has radically increased both the number and reach of these statements, essentially asserting that the president can arbitrarily decide which laws he will obey.
Number of signing statements issued by Bush as of July 2006: more than 800
(This is more than the combined total of all 42 previous presidents.)

A few examples of congressionally passed laws he has effectively annulled through these extralegal signing statements:
a ban against torture of prisoners by the U.S. military

a requirement that the FBI periodically report to Congress on how it is using the Patriot Act to search our homes and secretly seize people's private papers

a ban against storage in military databases of intelligence about Americans that was obtained illegally

a directive for the executive branch to transmit scientific information to Congress "uncensored and without delay" when requested

Provision of the Constitution clearly stating that Congress alone has the power "to make all laws": Article 1, Section 8

Provision of the Constitution clearly stating that the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed": Article 2, Section 3

Name of the young lawyer in the Reagan administration who wrote a 1986 strategy memo on how to pervert the use of signing statements in order to concentrate more power in the executive branch, as Bush is now doing: Samuel Alito, named to the U.S. Supreme Court by Bush this year

National Security Letters

These are secret executive writs that the infamous 2001 Patriot Act authorizes the FBI to issue to public libraries, internet firms, banks, and others. Upon receiving an NSL, the institution or firm is required to turn over any private records it holds on you, me, or whomever the agents have chosen to search.

Who authorizes the FBI to issue these secret writs? The FBI itself.
Surely the agents have to get a search warrant, a grand jury subpoena, or a court's approval? No

But to issue an NSL, an agent must show probable cause that the person being searched has committed some crime, right? No

Well, don't officials have to inform citizens that their records are being seized so they can defend themselves or protest? No

Number of NSLs issued by various FBI offices last year alone: 9,254

NSA Eavesdropping

In 2001, Bush issued a secret order for the National Security Agency to begin vacuuming up massive numbers of telephone and internet exchanges by U.S. citizens, illegally seizing this material without any judicial approval or informing Congress, as required by law.
Number of Americans who have had their phone and internet communications taken by NSA: Just about everyone!
(NSA is tapping into the entire database of long-distance calls and internet messages run through AT&T and probably other companies as well.)

In May of this year, the Justice Department abruptly halted an internal investigation that was trying to uncover the name of the top officials who had authorized NSA's warrantless, unconstitutional program. Who killed this probe, which was requested by Congress? George W himself! (He directed NSA simply to refuse security clearances for the department's legal investigators.)

What happened to NSA Director Michael Hayden, who was the key architect of Bush's illegal eavesdropping program and the one who would've formally denied clearances to Justice Department investigators? In May, Bush promoted him to head the CIA.

This past May, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales warned that journalists who report on NSA's spy program could be prosecuted under the antiquated Espionage Act of 1917.

Times in U.S. history this act has been used to go after the press: 0

Margin by which the U.S. House in 1917 voted down an amendment to make the Espionage Act apply to journalists: 184-144

Interesting Fact:

The New York Times reported this June that Bush was running another spy program. This one was snooping through international banking records, including millions of bank transactions done by innocent Americans. George reacted angrily to the exposure, branding the Times report "disgraceful" and declaring that revelation of his spy program "does great harm to the United States." The White House and its right-wing acolytes promptly launched a "Hate-the- Times " political campaign.

Name the guy who was the first to reveal that such a bank-spying program was in the works: George W. Bush! At a September 2001 press conference, he announced that he'd just signed an executive order to monitor all international bank transactions.

Watch Lists

From the Bushites' ill-fated Total Information Awareness program (meant to monitor all of our computerized transactions) to the robust efforts by Rumsfeld's Pentagon to barge into the domestic surveillance game, America under Bush has fast become "The Watched Society."
Number of data-mining programs being run secretly on us by the federal government: Nearly 200 separate programs at 52 agencies

Number of "local activity reports" submitted to the Pentagon in 2004 under the "Threat and Local Observation Notice" program (TALON), which directed military officers throughout our country to keep an eye on suspicious activities by civilians: More than 5,000
(They included such "threats" as peace demonstrators and 10 activists protesting outside Halliburton's headquarters.)

Number of official "watch lists" maintained by the feds: More than a dozen run by 9 different agencies

Number of Americans on the Transportation Security Administration's "No- Fly" list: That's a secret.
(TSA concedes that it's in the tens of thousands. In 2005 alone, some 30,000 people called TSA to complain that their names were mistakenly on the list.)

Most famous citizen who is on the No-Fly list and has been repeatedly pulled aside by TSA for additional screenings at airports: Sen. Ted Kennedy

How can you get your name removed from TSA list? That's a secret.

Name That Guy!

In 1966, a young Republican congressman stood against his party's elders to cosponsor the original Freedom of Information Act, valiantly declaring that public records "are public property." He said that FOIA "will make it considerably more difficult for secrecy-minded bureaucrats to decide arbitrarily that the people should be denied access to information on the conduct of government."

Who was that virtuous lawmaker? Donald Rumsfeld!

Only eight years later, Gerald Ford's chief of staff strongly urged him to veto the continuation of FOIA. Who was that dastardly staffer? Donald Rumsfeld!

Who is now one of the chief "secrecy-minded bureaucrats" who routinely violates OIA's principles? Right, him again!

Regime of Secrecy

"Democracies die behind closed doors."
- Appeals court judge Damon Keith, ruling in a 2002 case that the Bushites cannot hold deportation hearings in secret
Increase in the number of government documents marked "secret" between 2001 and 2004: 81 percent

Number of government documents stamped "secret" in 2001: 8.6 million

Number of government documents stamped "secret" in 2004: 15.6 million (a new record)

Cost to taxpayers of classifying and securing documents in 2004: $7.2 billion ($460 per document)

Number of previously declassified documents that the CIA tried to reclassify as "secret" under a 2001 secret agreement with the National Archives, even though many had already been published and some date back to the Korean War: 25,315

Number of different "official designations" the government now has to classify nonsecret information so it still is kept out of the public's reach: Between 50 and 60
(They include such stamps as CBU: Controlled But Unclassified, SBU: Sensitive But Unclassified, and LOU: Limited Official Use Only.)

The only vice-president in history who has claimed that he, like the president, has the inherent authority to mark "secret" on any document he chooses: "Buckshot" Cheney

Number of documents Cheney has classified: That's a secret.
(He claims he does not have to report this to anyone -- not even the president.)

Of the 7,045 advisory committee meetings held by the Bushites in 2004, percentage that were completely closed to the public, contrary to the clear intent of the Federal Advisory Committee Act: 64 percent (a new record)

Number of times from 1953 to1975 (the peak of the Cold War) that presidents invoked the "state secrets" privilege, which grants them unilateral power in extraordinary instances literally to shut down court cases on the grounds they could reveal secrets that the president doesn't want disclosed: 4

Number of times the same privilege was invoked between 2001 and 2006: At least 24

Under Clinton, Attorney General Janet Reno issued an official memo instructing agencies to release as much information as possible to the public. In October 2001, AG John Ashcroft issued a memo canceling Reno's approach, expressly instructing agencies to look for reasons to deny the public access to information and pledging to support the denials if the agencies were sued.

2005 FOIA requests still awaiting a response at year's end: 31 percent
(a one-third increase over the 2004 backlog)

Median waiting time to get an answer on FOIA request from Bush's justice department: 863 days

Halliburton

"Halliburton is a unique kind of company."
- Dick Cheney, September 2003
Total value of contracts given to Halliburton for work in the Bush-Cheney "War on Terror" since 2001: More than $15 billion

Amount that Halliburton pays to the Third World laborers it imports into Iraq to do the work in its dining facilities, laundries, etc.: $6 per 12-hour day (50 cents an hour)

Amount that Halliburton bills us taxpayers for each of these workers: $50 a day

Amount that Halliburton bills U.S. taxpayers for:

A case of sodas: $45

Washing a bag of laundry: $100

Halliburton's campaign contributions in Bush-Cheney election years:

In 2000: $285,252 (96 percent to Republicans)

In 2004: $145,500 (89 percent to Republicans)
Plus $365,065 from members of its board of directors (99 percent to Republicans)

Increase in Halliburton's profits since Bush-Cheney took office in 2000: 379 percent

Halliburton's 2005 profit: $1.1 billion
(highest in the corporation's 86-year history

"Since leaving Halliburton to become George Bush's vice-president, I've severed all of my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind."
Former CEO Dick Cheney, Meet the Press , September 2003
Annual payments that Cheney has received from Halliburton since he's been vice-president:

2001: $205,298

2002: $162,392

2003: $178,437

2004: $194,852

2005: $211,465

Cash bonus paid to Cheney by Halliburton just before he took office: $1.4 million

Retirement package he was given in 2000 after only 5 years as CEO: $20 million

Number of times in the past two years that Republicans have killed Sen. Byron Dorgan's amendment to set up a Truman-style committee on war profiteering to investigate Halliburton: 3

Naughty word Cheney used during a Senate photo session in 2004 to assail Sen. Patrick Leahy, who had criticized Cheney's ongoing ties to Halliburton: "Go #@! percent yourself.

(Jim Hightower is the author of Let's Stop Beating Around the Bush (Viking Press). He publishes the monthly Hightower Lowdown)


4. Things Get Ugly When Bush 'Trusts His Gut'
More proof that under George W. Bush, U.S. policies are governed mainly by impulse and fantasy.
By Paul Waldman (from TomPaine.com)

When President Bush was caught on tape saying to Tony Blair, “See the irony is what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it's over,” more than a few progressives said to themselves, “Well that’s a trenchant analysis of the situation, Sherlock.” And more than a few conservatives said, “Damn straight”—or as Michelle Malkin put it, “Sometimes, profanity is called for.”

Not that in mid-2006 anyone needed more proof that Bush is, depending on your perspective, either a simpleton or an admirably forthright straight talker who cuts to the chase. But as more and more evidence of the administration’s incompetence and hubris is revealed, we are presented with more proof that under George W. Bush, U.S. policies are governed by a strange amalgam of impulse and fantasy.

As Newsweek told us, Bush “still trusts his gut to tell him what's right, and he still expects others to follow his lead.” One might have thought Bush would have learned by now to view the proclamations of his gut with some suspicion—but then, that would be asking the president to rely on evidence and experience to make conclusions.

And it isn’t only friendly reporters like those at Newsweek who have noted the way policy is dictated by The Decider’s intestinal rumblings. One of the many disturbing pictures that emerges from Ron Suskind’s new book, The One Percent Doctrine, is the way Bush’s preference for making decisions not on the basis of facts and analysis but on his “gut” meshed so perfectly with Dick Cheney’s desire not to let facts and analysis get in the way of his visions of empire. The two were perfect partners, and when 9/11 happened, it was like the pins of a combination lock clicking securely into place in Bush’s mind. Everything made sense—there are evildoers out there, and his divinely appointed mission is to smite them. (If you’ve wondered why Bush has such affection for Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, all you need to know is that at their first meeting, Koizumi said Bush reminded him of Gary Cooper.)

For his part, Cheney was finally unbound, free to bend the government to his will. The presidency—and of course, the vice presidency—need no longer be constrained by petty bureaucrats with their “analysis” and their “laws.” If we wanted to invade Iraq, we’d damn sure invade Iraq, and if we wanted to say it was because they were about to attack us with their fearsome arsenal of weapons, well that’s what we’d say.

William Kristol, who is as responsible as anyone outside the Bush administration for the neocon dream of creating an empire in the Middle East—which has become the now-familiar nightmare—has made clear his preference for military action against Iran, sooner rather than later. And not only that, once we start dropping bombs, the Iranian people will do their part and rise up to overthrow their government. “The right use of targeted military force,” Kristol told Fox News, “could cause them to reconsider whether they really want to have this regime in power.”

That Kristol could make such a prediction without getting laughed out of Washington, never to be invited on television again, tells us something about the miasma of inanity and insanity that envelopes our politics like a fog. Being wrong—or being an outright fool, or being possessed of not a shred of morality, for that matter—carries no cost. Only being “weak”—that is, insufficiently enthusiastic about spilling others’ blood—will earn you the contempt of the Washington establishment.

Why? Because that establishment, both governmental and journalistic, is ruled by weenies. They burn to show that they’re real men, that they’re tough and strong and mean, that they don’t cower from a fight, that they’re the ones who get going when the going gets tough. Washington is an arena of institutional and ideological competition, but it is also a throbbing mass of insecurities.

We sometimes see it as ironic that those calling for the most bellicose foreign policy are almost invariably those both in and out of government, like Bush and Cheney and Gingrich and DeLay and Limbaugh and O’Reilly, who never served in the military and never got within a thousand miles of combat. But it is not ironic at all; in fact, it is absolutely predictable. Combine a personal history devoid of evidence that one’s manliness has been tested (let alone proven) with an ideology inclined to divide the world into enemies and friends, and you have a recipe for frantic muscle-flexing.

Those with actual military experience, on the other hand, have been of late far more hesitant to beat the war drums. For one thing, they tend to have a better understanding of how easily things can go wrong when you start lobbing ordnance around. But they also seem to feel the need to prove their manhood far less urgently.

In 2004, Dick Cheney reacted to John Kerry’s suggestion that in the war on terror we had to be “sensitive” to our allies’ concerns by responding contemptuously, “He talks about leading a more sensitive war on terror, as though Al Qaeda will be impressed with our softer side.” No one asked just why Cheney was so concerned with “impressing” al-Qaida.

But listen to Republican rhetoric and it begins to seem as though they are practically obsessed with how the terrorists think about us. Are they impressed? Do they think we’re weak, or do they think we’re strong? Have we sent them the right message? Indeed, there may be no justification for failed policy offered more frequently than the need to send the right message. And while we’re sending messages to al-Qaida, we’d better send some messages to the troops. Look at some of the things George Bush said during the first presidential debate in 2004:

What kind of message does it say to our troops in harm's way, wrong war, wrong place, wrong time? Not a message a commander in chief gives... I know we won't achieve if we send mixed signals… The way to make sure that we succeed is to send consistent, sound messages to the Iraqi people… But by speaking clearly and sending messages that we mean what we say, we've affected the world in a positive way.

Some might wonder why it is that all this posturing, message-sending, and attempts to look “tough” are so seldom seen for what they truly are. The answer is partly repetition: say that Bush is “strong” and “bold” and “resolute” enough times, and after a while it becomes part of how people think about him. That includes reporters, who fancy themselves cynical enough to see through the theater to the truth, but end up eating the image-making with a spoon.

As each new development occurs, they place it in the context of what they already believe. So when Bush changes his mind about something, he’s not a weak flip-flopper but a smart politician who tempers his unquestioned strength with realism. And his reliance on his “gut” is evidence of a man who knows what he believes.

As we move into the 2008 election, reporters will once again begin plumbing the candidates’ personal psychology to determine their “character.” This is critical work, which makes it all the more galling that they so often miss the mark. Think about the 2000 race, in which we were told that Bush was dumb and Gore was a liar. We saw who the liar turned out to be. But the real question with Bush was not whether he could pass a current-events quiz, but whether his Manichean worldview, his tendency to over-simplify, and his burning desire to show his father he’s a real man might have dire consequences for our country and the world.

As for the current Republican front-runner, John McCain, his solution to the quagmire in Iraq, as he told an audience at a fundraiser two months ago, is this: “One of the things I would do if I were president would be to sit the Shiites and the Sunnis down and say, ‘Stop the bullshit.’” You might say those are the words of someone possessed of a truly epic and dangerous naïveté. Or you might say it shows him to be a strong, straight-talking kinda guy. Want to guess what the reporters who will be covering the 2008 campaign think?

(Paul Waldman is a Senior Fellow at Media Matters for America . His next book, Being Right is Not Enough: What Progressives Must Learn From Conservative Success , will be released in the spring.)