Friday, March 20, 2009

Crazy Rep. Michele Bachmann Calls for Armed Revolution


Someone really needs to do something about Ms. Bachmann, (A padded cell comes to mind), before she starts something she can't deal with, let alone finish.

There are a few others among the Rethugs who should join her. These people are NUTZ!


By Steve Benen, Washington Monthly
Posted on March 23, 2009, Printed on March 25, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/132980/

It's obviously just rhetoric from overly-excited far-right lawmakers. It's no doubt intended to fire up the activists (and donors) who help Republicans succeed.

But when Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) casually refers to elected Democratic officials as the "enemy," and nonchalantly refers to keeping her supporters "armed and dangerous," it's probably a good time to remind Republican lawmakers to turn the temperature down a bit. (via the University of Minnesota and the Dump Bachmann blog.)

Bachmann appeared over the weekend on the First Team radio show with John Hinderaker and Brian Ward, speaking about the horrible stuff that the Democrats are doing: "I'm a foreign correspondent on enemy lines and I try to let everyone back here in Minnesota know exactly the nefarious activities that are taking place in Washington."

Bachmann also spoke out against the cap-and-trade proposals currently making their way through Washington, and how she'll be distributing information against it at an upcoming event in the district. "I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax, because we need to fight back," said Bachmann. "Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing. And the people -- we the people -- are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country."

On the one hand, it seems clear that Bachmann was speaking figuratively. On the other hand, is it appropriate for a member of Congress to speak in any context about being armed for revolution?

No, probably not. But this seems to fit in with a larger trend. We have one GOP lawmaker saying the party should emulate the insurgency tactics of the Taliban. We have another arguing the party should position itself as "freedom fighters" taking on the "slide toward socialism."

And now Bachmann is throwing fuel on the fire of right-wing rage.

Obviously, Bachmann and other unhinged conservatives have the right to say what they please. But at a minimum, I think it's fair to describe this kind of talk from elected leaders in positions of authority as irresponsible.

Steve Benen is "blogger in chief" of the popular Washington Monthly online blog, Political Animal. His background includes publishing The Carpetbagger Report, and writing for a variety of publications, including Talking Points Memo, The American Prospect, the Huffington Post, and The Guardian. He has also appeared on NPR's "Talk of the Nation," MSNBC's "Rachel Maddow Show," Air America Radio's "Sam Seder Show," and XM Radio's "POTUS '08."

© 2009 Washington Monthly All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/132980/


Let The Sun Shine In......

A Gooper With Guts?

God deliver us from these greedy, self-centered, thieving, lustful....just plain evil-doers in our own midst.

If we had the money that Bush/Cheney and pals made off their illegal war in Iraq, there would be enough money to put a green car in every driveway in America, but why should we expect that kind of common sense from two oilmen and a hive of fascists called Neocons?

Paul Craig Roberts: Was the Bailout Itself a Scam?

Professor Michael Hudson (CounterPunch, March 18) is correct that the orchestrated outrage over the $165 million AIG bonuses is a diversion from the thousand times greater theft from taxpayers of the approximately $200 billion “bailout” of AIG.

Nevertheless, it is a diversion that serves an important purpose. It has taught an inattentive American public that the elites run the government for their own private interests. Americans are angry that AIG executives are paying themselves millions of dollars in bonuses after having cost the taxpayers an exorbitant sum.

Senator Charles Grassley put a proper face on the anger when he suggested that the AIG executives “follow the Japanese example and resign or go commit suicide.” Yet, Obama’s White House economist, Larry Summers, on whose watch as Treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration financial deregulation got out of control, invoked the “sanctity of contracts” in defense of the AIG bonuses.

See what we mean about the false duality of Republican and Democrat?


Let The Sun Shine In......


The Big Takeover


On CNN today, I caught a brief blah, blah, blah about how N.Y. A.G. Cuomo had the names of all of the bonus babies. The CNN folks were concerned that the names would be made public, as apparently there have been death threats and such.

I say, who the hell cares about their security?

Make the names public!

The masses have more to worry about than these greedy SOBs' security. Let them spend their bonuses on their own security. They can surely afford it.


.....So it's time to admit it: We're fools, protagonists in a kind of gruesome comedy about the marriage of greed and stupidity. And the worst part about it is that we're still in denial — we still think this is some kind of unfortunate accident, not something that was created by the group of psychopaths on Wall Street whom we allowed to gang-rape the American Dream.

When Geithner announced the new $30 billion bailout, the party line was that poor AIG was just a victim of a lot of shitty luck — bad year for business, you know, what with the financial crisis and all.

Edward Liddy, the company's CEO, actually compared it to catching a cold: "The marketplace is a pretty crummy place to be right now," he said. "When the world catches pneumonia, we get it too." In a pathetic attempt at name-dropping, he even whined that AIG was being "consumed by the same issues that are driving house prices down and 401K statements down and Warren Buffet's investment portfolio down."~~~~~~~The global economic crisis isn't about money - it's about power. How Wall Street insiders are using the bailout to stage a revolution


Let The Sun Shine In......

Want to Prevent Another AIG? Let the Sunshine In

The simple fact is that our elite government, all of them, suck to the high heavens as do their pals on Wall Street.

Tea Party, anyone?


BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
by Meg White

The fact that Americans are mad as hell has not escaped the media or government. Indeed, it seems that everyone is racing to be first to tell the American people where to direct their rage.

Blame AIG! Those greedy bastards are already sucking us dry and giving our money to foreign banks, and then they take millions in bonuses for the very employees that precipitated this crisis in the first place.

Blame Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT)! He wrote in a change to the stimulus bill that allowed the AIG bonuses to be paid.

Oh wait, no. Looks like we got that one backwards, so...

Blame Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner! He's the one that asked Dodd to change the stimulus bill, fearing that Dodd's amendment to prevent all bonuses being paid out to rescued bankers might expose the government to lawsuits.

Let's just blame President Barack Obama, because he doesn't look pissed off enough! Or because he's too pissed off!

All this anger is understandable, but it isn't helping us out of this crisis. This kind of infectious anger is an emotion that fosters putrefaction and corrosion. We need a cure, not a supplement. But most cures are costly, and the American body politic is running low on cash as well as political capital. Thankfully, the best antiseptic is cheap: sunshine.

So where do we turn for help but the Sunlight Foundation? This group has been working toward greater government transparency for years now, but they've recently renewed their push to have Congress actually read the bills they vote on.


Read The Bill from Sunlight Foundation on Vimeo.

Lisa Rosenberg, a Sunlight Foundation government affairs consultant, talked to BuzzFlash about their Read the Bill initiative, which proposes that all non-emergency legislation be available and posted online 72 hours before Congressional debate begins.

The list of rushed bills according to Sunlight is massive: the stimulus, the Wall Street bailout, FISA, the Fannie/Freddie bailout and more. And that's just the most recent history. Don't forget about the past eight years of tossing accountability like a hot potato between a pushy executive branch and a negligent legislature. Um, Iraq war resolution anyone? How about the PATRIOT Act? And while we're on the subject of eliminating civil liberties, who wants seconds?

According to Rosenberg, the AIG bonus situation shows why the status quo is "really problematic right now." If the 72-hour window was already in place, things would have been different with the bonus loophole.

"Someone would have found it and the outrage would have been directed at Congress at a time when they could have changed it," Rosenberg said. "Instead they're going to write a whole new bill [to tax the bonuses]. Congress hasn't learned from their mistakes."

The initiative was introduced in the last Congress, but it didn't go anywhere. Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) sponsored legislation that would require posting legislation on the Internet for 72 hours before vote consideration in 2007, but it died in the House Committee on Rules.

"It's on his radar," Rosenberg said of the possibility of Baird taking up the measure in the 111th Congress. She didn't have any immediate predictions for the initiative, but it's possible the infusion of fresh faces from the 2008 election cycle could break up some of the previous resistance.

"I think seniority has a lot more to do with it," she said. "Freshmen are more open to the idea."

Perhaps the most important outcome of this sort of legislation is the deflation of the moral high ground so many politicians stand on when they claim they didn't know what was in a particular bill after a controversy turns up. The argument goes that if lawmakers don't have enough time to read legislation before they are forced to vote on it, they shouldn't be held responsible for the dirty details. Plenty of lawmakers claim they want more time to read bills. But do they really want that kind of accountability?

"A lot of it is lip service," Rosenberg said, noting that "you'll see a lot of Republicans complain about not having time to read" legislation sponsored by Democrats, and vice-versa. On the other hand, there are plenty of reasons for Congress to let the bill die yet again.

"My best guess is a combination of a fear of really altering the way they've always done business," Rosenberg said, adding that there is also an "unfounded fear" that the 72-hour window would slow Congress down to a standstill.

Some lawmakers may be equating a loss of speed with a loss of force. Rosenberg offered a third reason why the initiative might encounter resistance: "Certain members think they have a lot more power when they can slip things into a bill at the last minute."

The argument can certainly be made that simply allowing enough time for a bill to be read doesn't guarantee it'll make it onto The New York Times Bestseller List. In other words, you can lead a lawmaker to legislation, but you can't make him read.

Thank goodness for that other cheap cure: the information superhighway. Turns out that if you put stuff up on the Internet, there's a good chance people will look at it. Some of those people won't have behinds to cover and donors (or, ahem... constituencies) to cater to.

Remember that it wasn't Congress or the White House or the Treasury that revealed the existence of the AIG bonuses. It was the fourth estate. If the information is there, someone will look at it.

So let us trade in our tirades for change. A frown makes a terrible umbrella, but if it weren't raining, we wouldn't need one. Let's use this anger for something more productive and let the sunshine in.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Learn more and sign the petition at the Sunlight Foundation's ReadTheBill.org.


Let The Sun Shine In......

Maddow: Pentagon reversal coming?




more about "Maddow: Pentagon reversal coming?", posted with vodpod

Bush, Cheney, PNAC, 9/11 & The Criminal Conspiracy To Invade Iraq




more about "Bush, Cheney, PNAC, 9/11 & The Crimin...", posted with vodpod

Monday, March 16, 2009

Keep Internet Open And Health Reform Alive


Right-wing broadcasters, who outnumber liberal/progressive talkers by more than 9 to 1, have been up in arms about the possibility that the Federal Communications Commission under Barack Obama might try to restore the Fairness Doctrine, which until the 1980s required the holders of broadcast licenses to provide some balance in the presentation of controversial issues of public importance. Ronald Reagan’s FCC in 1987 abolished the Fairness Doctrine and Reagan vetoed a bill to reimpose the doctrine.

We think changes in media technology have made the doctrine largely irrelevant but we still don’t understand why Senate Democrats knuckled under to Republican demagogues Feb. 25 to pass a measure that would prohibit the FCC from restoring the doctrine. The 87-11 vote was on an amendment to an unrelated bill giving the District of Columbia a voting member of Congress.

We’d rather see the Obama administration move toward promoting more diversity in radio and TV stations, including repeal of rules that allow media conglomerates to own multiple stations in a market and approval of community radio stations and low-power radio stations that operate at 100 watts or less.

We also think Congress should create a permanent, independent funding mechanism for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which supports PBS and NPR, and change the governance structure to prevent partisan meddling by political appointees, as occurred under the Bush administration when the CPB chairman sought to meddle in programming.

We also believe the FCC should support public access cable TV channels against telecoms such as AT&T that community media groups accuse of relegating the nonprofit channels to second-class status, in violation of the 1984 Cable Act and FCC rulings and policies.

But the most revolutionary new outlet for public media is the Internet, as technology makes it possible for any website or blog to reach across the World Wide Web.

Progressive talkers have gotten a hostile reception in the executive suites of media conglomerates, as the liberal Air America network hovers around 60 stations nationwide, along with other syndicated talkers such as Ed Schultz, Thom Hartmann, and Stephanie Miller. In most of the country, including the liberal bastion of Austin, Texas, the only way you can listen to progressive talkers is over the Internet.

An estimated 33 million people age 12 or over listened to radio stations over the Internet during an average week in January 2008, Edison Media Research reported. That was around 13% of the total American population over 12. And the Internet audience is growing.

Michael Bassik, chief digital officer of Air America Media, said the Internet is creating a new era of talk radio, allowing listeners to “stream” programs online and, in many cases, download “podcasts” to replay shows they miss. They also can engage with talk show hosts and producers by email as well as by telephone.

More than 700,000 people listen to Air America programming via airamerica.com, which streams up to 1.5 million hours of content every month. That does not include streaming from affiliated radio stations that carry Air America shows.

Approximately 70% of US households have some Internet access, but Leichtman Research reported in March 2008 that only 57% of those homes had broadband access, which is needed for quality streaming.

We need a national broadband policy that keeps the Internet open under the principle of Net Neutrality and promotes more broadband Internet access, particularly in underserved areas, such as rural areas and low-income urban neighborhoods that phone and cable companies choose not to serve.

The problem is particularly acute in rural areas. Megan Tady of Free Press recently reported that 61% of rural homes across the country are not connected to high-speed Internet. “This isn’t just a statistic. It’s a daily reality for the millions of people who can’t go online to apply for jobs, attend classes, start home-based businesses, get news and information, and participate in the global economy,” she wrote.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, also known as the Stimulus Bill, allots $7.2 billion for expanding broadband connections to underserved areas. The US Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service will get $2.5 billion to expand rural broadband services while $4.7 billion goes to the Commerce Department for assistance in expanding broadband access with the requirement that those Internet providers adhere to open Internet principles established by the FCC.

President Obama, whose campaign took advantage of the Internet, has pledged to “take a back seat to no one” in his commitment to Net Neutrality. His selection of Julius Genachowski as new chairman of the FCC has been hailed by Net Neutrality advocates. Genachowski, a former FCC legal counsel, anchored the drafting of Obama’s comprehensive media policy agenda that promotes fast and neutral Internet connections and more competitive choices for the consumer. “It is clear that he understands the importance of open networks and a regulatory environment that promotes innovation and competition to a robust democracy and a healthy economy,” said Gigi Sohn of Public Knowledge and SaveTheInternet.com. This will be important as Open Internet supporters face off against telecom interests who would like to become the gatekeepers on the Internet tollway.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Obama deserves credit for getting interested parties together for his Health Care Summit March 5, even if the White House had to be pressed to invite Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), sponsor of HR 676 (the Medicare for All bill), and Dr. Oliver Fein, president of Physicians for a National Health Program, which supports Conyers’ single-payer bill.

Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America’s Future, noted that Obama reached out to deficit hawks who disagree with him fundamentally on the budget, as well as insurance companies who want to preserve their role in the health system. The health insurance lobbyist promised to help pass health care reform this year. But sooner or later, Hickey predicted, the insurance industry will break with Obama, and he will have to assemble a majority in the Congress that supports his approach. Then he will need progressives to help him win.

One of the top priorities of the insurance lobby is to prevent the public from getting the option to buy into Medicare or a similar public insurance program.

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee has ruled out a single-payer solution, such as Conyers proposes. But Baucus has proposed creation of a public insurance plan similar to Obama’s that would compete with private insurers. The Commonwealth Fund recently reported that a public health insurance plan could offer premiums averaging 20% less than private insurance companies.

That’s the sort of competition insurance companies don’t want. At the close of the White House Summit, Obama asked Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, for his thoughts. Grassley said he would work for health reform but he added, “there’s a lot of us that feel that the public option, that the government is an unfair competitor and that we’re going to get an awful lot of crowd-out.” Other Republicans have taken to belittling “government-run” solutions.

Baucus also bears watching as he says he’d prefer funding health care reform by taxing workers’ health benefits rather than phasing out tax breaks for the richest Americans. Pray that Ted Kennedy can rise from his sickbed to pull this one out. — JMC

From The Progressive Populist, April 1, 2009


Home Page

Let The Sun Shine In......


Thursday, March 12, 2009

How the Permanent Power Structure Is Trying to Stop Obama

Is the Hunter Being Captured by the Game?

by Danny Schechter

Some things don't change. Obama may be in the White House, shuffling between the safety of the center and the language of change ("changeguage?"), firm in his commitment to the doctrine of neo-prog pragmatism which all too often requires the abandonment of ideas and ideals that could offend both the right and wrong people.

He is in office, but is he in power?

The mistake that many make is to confuse the trappings of symbolic power with the exercise of real power. Truth be told, real power is exercised mostly by unchecked private interests, lobbyists and our media. They have the power to obstruct policies, stir up controversies and orchestrate pressure to kill measures they don't like. They are well-funded minority and work skillfully in the shadows and through highly paid PR practitioners.

(I know what you're thinking.....'Oh, God....there they go again....the conspiracy theorists." Take a minute. Think. It is as we have been saying for years...."The politicians are just, for the most part, middlemen/women. When there were powerful monarchies, there were no elected officials, only nobility. Nobility and the Church stood between the beaten down masses and the Royals, as the middle class and the politicians do today. The middle class is disappearing.... splitting....splitting into 1)those who see themselves as being a part of the modern-day "nobility," making six-figure incomes. living in gated communities or grand apartments in security buildings and who have great health insurance and 2) those who know longer see themselves as middle class, are no longer in denial about their fate after the intentional demolition of the economics and security of this nation.)

Every politician knows that these non-elected power centers often have more power than elected decision-makers. They know that Congress is a swamp of competing interests catering to provincial needs. Remember the debate over "earmarks" during the campaign? McCain raised it but then Obama agreed with him. What happened?

Both parties promote them. They are, apparently, a permanent part of the system. South Carolina's Lindsay Graham thunders against them until it involves money for a convention center in Myrtle Beach SC. And etc.

AP says of the President: "He criticized pork barrel spending in the form of "earmarks," urging changes in the way that Congress adopts the spending proposals. Then he signed a spending bill that contains nearly 9,000 of them, some that members of his own staff shoved in last year when they were still members of Congress."

True, but! Like many press reports this is totally context-free, even in our Republic of Pork. These earmarks represented 2% of the budget and got 98% of the coverage.

That's because the media are in the perception-forming business, and despite some liberal (but rarely left) voices, tilts center-right when it is not blatantly serving a right-wing agenda.

Is this a conspiracy theory? I don't think so based on thirty years inside the media world.

(I sure as hell don't think this is a conspiracy theory. Many of us know this is true for other reasons other than working inside the ACNM.)

Former AP reporter Robert Parry, now Editor of Consortiumnews.com, sums up this part of the problem, "Less than two months into Barack Obama's presidency, it has become clear that the top threat to his ability to accomplish his goals - from reversing the recession to reforming health care to building a greener economy - is not just an obstructionist Republican Party but a U.S. news media that remains largely tilted to the Right.

There is the powerful right-wing media - with its many outlets in print, radio, TV and the Internet - but also a mainstream/corporate media that can't escape the old dynamic of framing stories negatively about Democrats and granting Republicans every benefit of the doubt."

This phenomenon is obvious to anyone that looks closely but few among the Democrats mention it less they be marginalized or stripped of access to the airwaves for an occasional sound bite. Even fewer try to build and support independent media like Parry's organization or our own.

Politics remains a battleground and it's not just Rush and his ditto heads who help steer or undercut the agenda. Conservative democrats are not fully on board Obama's express.

Powerful lobbies from two private sector complexes and one country have disproportionate clout. There's the long-standing military-industrial complex, there's the financialized credit and loan complex and there are the bully boys of Israeli hegemony.

The first two want to suck off the budget and deregulate when possible; the third wants money too-and gets far more than its fair share-but also to control the discourse and even name the officials who are part of it.

Example, President Obama appointed Dennis Blair Director of National Intelligence. Blair wanted to have an advisory group and reached out to a former US ambassador Charles Freeman considered to be an outspoken and outside the box thinker. Like Obama, Blair wanted some diversity of views among his advisors, and to understand a region that has largely turned against us.

What happened? Freeman who dared criticize Israeli policy was targeted by the Israeli Lobby. Rumors were floated; his record was distorted. Right wing pundits went to work painting Freeman as an enemy of the United States. He was forced to withdraw. Ironically part of this noxious campaign was steered by an AIPAC operative who is himself accused of spying for Israel.

Ray McGovern, a veteran CIA man notes that Freeman himself revealed that his character assassination was orchestrated by the Israel Lobby.

"The outrageous agitation ... will be seen by many to raise serious questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions about the Middle East and related issues. [It casts] doubt on its ability to consider, let alone decide what policies might best serve the United States rather than those of a Lobby intent on enforcing the will and interests of a foreign government...

"The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views ... and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those it [the Lobby] favors."

It is almost as if every government, Republican and Democrat are required or intimidated into supporting Israel's every policy even when blatantly reactionary, racist, or even self-destructive. Are we now supposed to rubber-stamp every decision by its new ultra-right government that won power with electoral maneuvers and blatant appeals to chauvinism and fanaticism?

Obama stayed silent when his own appointee was bashed into resigning by agents of a foreign power, even if they don't cop to that description?

Has the president lost his tongue, or his courage? Must he lay down with the lions to stay in power or do the people who put him into office have to get back into action and stand up for the values and spirit that turned so many on?

As we said before the election, the battle will not be one on election days even if Obama wins. He cannot do what we want him to do without our support, whatever it takes.

Yes, he's better than Bush even if some of his recent pronouncements sound Bush-lite. We have to understand the nature or the terrain he's fighting in---and then press him to do what's right, not offer rationalizations.

We also have to anticipate what my former government professor at Cornell, Theodore Lowi is now saying, that he expects Obama too will inevitably be targeted and go through a downward spiral.

"If you check out the rhetoric on the front pages of papers and magazines and TV, you'll see how personalized references are: ‘Can he deliver? When will he deliver?' ....

"The reality is that all the powers in the world could not make it possible for him to do what's expected. That's what makes me so sad. Obama excels in all that we require in a president and he'll fail, precisely because he's president. I know this sounds like an awful contradiction or conundrum, but that's the presidency."

Mediachannel’s News Dissector Danny Schechter investigates the origins of the economic crisis in his new book Plunder: Investigating Our Economic Calamity and the Subprime Scandal (Cosimo Books via Amazon). Comments to dissector@mediachannel.org



Let The Sun Shine In......

Bushies Count On Americans' Stupidity or ADHD


No quit: the campaign to boost Bush
By: Mike Allen
March 11, 2009 04:28 AM EST

The defense never rests. When President Barack Obama released his own policy this week on former President George W. Bush’s practice of attaching controversial signing statements to legislation, a reporter quickly got a tip from a Bush loyalist: the cell phone number for a White House lawyer in the past administration.

“The spin is bogus,” said William Burck, a former deputy White House counsel, in pushing back against early news accounts framing Obama’s action as a slap at his predecessor. In fact, Burck insisted, the new policy is no different from Bush’s.

Even though Bush is keeping quiet in Texas before heading out on a lucrative speaking tour, an informal network of former aides is keeping his views in the political bloodstream, defending his legacy in TV appearances and back-grounding reporters about his record.

Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer calls the Bush pundits “a loose confederation of people united in our belief in what President Bush did, and we’re freer now to talk about some things than we used to be — good and bad.”

The Bush defense forces include Fleischer; former press secretary Dana Perino; Bush political czar Karl Rove, who has contracts with Fox News, The Wall Street Journal and Newsweek; economics guru Tony Fratto; the prolific Peter Wehner, former director of the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives; and the graceful speechwriter Michael Gerson, who writes an opinion column for The Washington Post.

The former aides are armed with many of the same arguments that they tried out on reporters when they strolled the hallways of the West Wing.

When CNN’s Larry King recently asked what Fleischer considered to be a hostile question about tax cuts, the president’s first press secretary pulled out an ancient talking point and reminded viewers that the nation “had a record-breaking 55 straight months of job creation and economic job growth” on Bush’s watch.

“We’re invited to comment on the events of the day and along the way, we remind people that there was, indeed, good news under President Bush,” Fleischer said.

Participants say the effort is not coordinated or organized but, rather, a natural result of the hunger by bookers and reporters to get the views of aides who approached the status of celebrity through their service in a two-term presidency. The Bush alumni said they make their points subtly — both because the former president does not want to feed an Obama vs. Bush story line and because they know they will never win that battle.

“Communications-wise, this tidal wave is going to have to wash on over everybody,” said Perino, Bush’s last press secretary. “We do what we can, and we believe that history will get it right in the end.”

A few days before Obama announced he was abolishing Bush-era limits on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, Bush supporters who frequently appear on TV received an e-mail from an adviser saying: “I wanted to send you the following two documents on President Bush’s record on stem cell research: 1. a Bush White House fact sheet on President Bush’s record of advancing stem cell research in ethical, responsible ways and 2. a November 2007 Washington Post column by Charles Krauthammer, ‘Stem Cell Vindication.’”

Recipients said the information was helpful and that they were struck by the fact that it wasn’t talking points — just a savvy reminder of points the press was likely to overlook.

So the Bush message persists in the punditry ether. On National Review Online, Yuval Levin, who worked on health issues as an associate director of Bush’s Domestic Policy Council, defended his boss’s approach to the stem cell decision: “Unfortunately, the political debate has yet to recover the kind of balanced understanding of the moral quandary that President Bush offered the country eight years ago.”

Jim Connaughton, the former chairman of Bush’s White House Council on Environmental Quality, popped up on Fox the other day talking about the president’s record on energy and the environment.

And Fratto, once a top spokesman for Bush’s Treasury Department and White House, talks to reporters about economic issues just about every day.

“A lot of us still hear from you guys, looking for reaction, especially when we’re attacked, like on the budget,” Fratto said. “There’s no coordinated effort to push back on these things, but if there’s a charge, we’ll set the record straight.”

Bush-era officials walk a fine line, and they know it. The outgoing administration, in the view of even the most partisan members of the Obama team, was hugely helpful and professional during the transition — a tone that clearly started in the Oval Office. Former presidents, by tradition, try to leave the stage to their successors, and Bush — who has been largely incognito except for a visit to a Dallas hardware store, has been no different.

Former White House aides from both parties also feel a bond with the new kids in town — particularly given the economic apocalypse that they face. Fratto says he often reminds reporters to give his successors at Treasury a break, since they have so much on their plate, “some of it of their own making, a lot of it that they had to pick up as they came in.”

“That doesn’t always make the stories,” he said.

Perino said her fellow alumni have no interest in “fanning the flames of Obama vs. Bush.” But sometimes the frustration does show.

“For many years, we were accused of being too close to the Russians, right?” Perino said. “Too close to Putin — too friendly with them. And then on this recent trip, our new secretary of state wants to press the reset button and improve the relationship with Russia. And I think: Why isn’t there any critical thinking going on?”

© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC




Let The Sun Shine In......

ALERT!!! Cheney Hit Squads?


In a testament to the vital need for non corporate, independent media, the non-profit MinnPost.com posted a Five Alarm bombshell: Seymour Hersh stated that a top secret assassination squad reported directly to Dick Cheney in the Bush Administration.

Ignored by the corporate mainstream press -- as usual -- Hersh's comments were picked up and followed up upon by the MinnPost following a forum at the University of Minnesota.

(This piece of information was not ignored by MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. He mentioned it last night and promised more details tonight.)

Hersh almost in passing revealed:

"Right now, today, there was a story in the New York Times that if you read it carefully mentioned something known as the Joint Special Operations Command -- JSOC it’s called. It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently. They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. They did not report to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or to Mr. [Robert] Gates, the secretary of defense. They reported directly to him. ...

"Congress has no oversight of it. It’s an executive assassination ring essentially, and it’s been going on and on and on. Just today in the Times there was a story that its leaders, a three star admiral named [William H.] McRaven, ordered a stop to it because there were so many collateral deaths.

"Under President Bush’s authority, they’ve been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. That’s been going on, in the name of all of us.

Moreover, Hersh dropped a second Five Alarm bombshell: the CIA was more deeply involved in spying on American citizens than ever previously revealed: "After 9/11, I haven’t written about this yet, but the Central Intelligence Agency was very deeply involved in domestic activities against people they thought to be enemies of the state. Without any legal authority for it. They haven’t been called on it yet."

Like BuzzFlash, the MinnPost has shown the importance of a completely independent media, free of corporate influence, to expose the crimes and shocking actions of those in power.

Coming from anybody else, these allegations would be met with some skepticism. But Eric Black of the online MinnPost knew that Hersh, a long-time intelligence correspondent for the New Yorker, has impeccable credentials and bats nearly 100% with his analysis and conclusions. So he not only found the dynamite buried in a question and answer session, Black followed up by e-mail with Hersh to verify the quotes.

Let BuzzFlash know if a former vice-president ordering and overseeing the assassinations of people in foreign countries makes the front page news of any mainstream corporate newspaper, the nightly news, or corporate radio. Somehow we doubt it will get much play, if any.

That's why we need the independent media, such as MinnPost and BuzzFlash.

Hersh spoke indirectly to the need for alternative sources of information when he observed:

“The major newspapers joined the [Bush] team,” Hersh said. Top editors passed the message to investigative reporters not to “pick holes” in what Bush was doing. Violations of the Bill of Rights happened in the plain sight of the public. It it was not only tolerated, but Bush was re-elected.

But the only completely independent alternative to the corporate press is a grassroots-supported media, which is accountable to the citizens of America and its communities.

MinnPost.com proved that once again.

Now, we still have a question at BuzzFlash.

When will Dick Cheney be tried and put away for war crimes and violations of American law?

Damn Good Question. One we would sure like and answer to. Surely to God, after all the other crimes against the Constitution as well as International law, A.G. Holder cannot ignore this.


Let The Sun Shine In......