From an article by Rebecca Traister on Salon.com last week, "Making women's issues go away":

A damning new report reveals that the Bush administration has quietly removed 25 reports from its Women's Bureau Web site, deleting or distorting crucial information on issues from pay equity to reproductive healthcare.

If you'd logged onto the Department of Labor's Women's Bureau Web site in 1999, you would have found a list of more than 25 fact sheets and statistical reports on topics ranging from "Earning Differences Between Men and Women" to "Facts About Asian American and Pacific Islander Women" to "Women's Earnings as Percent of Men's 1979-1997."

Not anymore. Those fact sheets no longer exist on the Women's Bureau Web site, and have instead been replaced with a handful of peppier titles, like "Hot Jobs for the 21st Century" and "20 Leading Occupations for Women." It's just one example of the ways in which the Bush administration is dismantling or distorting information on women's issues, from pay equity to reproductive healthcare, according to "Missing: Information About Women's Lives," a new report released Wednesday by the National Council for Research on Women.

The full report is available here.

"Bush to Visit Italy to Mark Allied Liberation" (The Scotsman):

US President George W. Bush will visit Italy on June 4 on the 60th anniversary of the Allied liberation of Rome during World War II, the Italian foreign minister said today.

Foreign Minister Franco Frattini, speaking at the sidelines of a media conference, confirmed local reports that Bush would be in Italy shortly before his trip to France to mark the anniversary of the Normandy landings.

“We will welcome President Bush as the president of a great friendly country, right on the day when we celebrate the anniversary of the liberation of Rome, which was owed to the American forces and in which many American soldiers lost their lives,” Frattini said. “We will never forget this gesture.”

From "U.S. Rules Morning-After Pill Can't Be Sold Over the Counter" in the New York Times:

Federal drug regulators yesterday rejected a drug maker's application to sell a morning-after pill over the counter because of concerns about whether young girls would be able to use it safely.

The Food and Drug Administration told the pill's maker, Barr Pharmaceuticals, that before the drug could be sold without a prescription the company must either find a way to prevent young teenagers from getting it from store shelves or prove, in a new study, that young girls can understand how to use it without the help of a doctor. Company executives expressed confidence that they could clear those hurdles, although it was unclear how long that would take. The decision was a surprise because in December, a panel of independent experts assembled by the Food and Drug Administration voted 23 to 4 to recommend that the drug be sold over the counter. The majority concluded that the drug was not only effective but that women could be trusted to use it correctly without a doctor. The Food and Drug Administration normally follows the recommendation of its advisory panels.

Normally, that is, except in an election year.

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
May 6, 2004
12:20 P.M. EDT

Q Does the President take any responsibility for what happened at Abu Ghraib? And as the Commander-in-Chief, or as the President of the United States, is he responsible? It was on his watch.

MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, the people who are responsible need to be held accountable. That's what the President believes. This --

Q Does he think he's responsible?

MR. McCLELLAN: The actions of a few do not represent our United States military. Our United States military is committed to adhering to the highest standards of conduct, and they're committed to adhering to our international obligations in treating prisoners --

Q We didn't abide by our international --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and treating prisoners humanely. And the vast majority of our men and women in the military are upholding those standards of conduct. And we appreciate --

Q He doesn't take any responsibility, is that what you're saying?

MR. McCLELLAN: The people who are responsible for this need to be held accountable. That's what the President believes -- because what they did does harm what we are working to achieve, and it does not represent what America stands for, and it does not represent what the United States military stands for. And that's why when these allegations came to light, the Pentagon and the military took strong steps to address it and hold people responsible and correct this, correct any problems that many exist. And the President wants to continue to receive updates about these investigations going forward, and that's what he expects.

President Bush, Jordanian King Discuss Iraq, Middle East
May 6, 2004
2:03 P.M. EDT

PRESIDENT BUSH: […]

We also talked about what has been on the TV screens recently, not only in our own country, but overseas -- the images of cruelty and humiliation. I told His Majesty as plainly as I could that the wrongdoers will be brought to justice, and that the actions of those folks in Iraq do not represent the values of the United States of America.

I told him I was sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi prisoners, and the humiliation suffered by their families. I told him I was equally sorry that people who have been seeing those pictures didn't understand the true nature and heart of America. I assured him Americans, like me, didn't appreciate what we saw, that it made us sick to our stomachs. I also made it clear to His Majesty that the troops we have in Iraq, who are there for security and peace and freedom, are the finest of the fine, fantastic United States citizens, who represent the very best qualities of America: courage, love of freedom, compassion, and decency.

[…]

Q … Should [Secretary Rumsfeld] keep his job?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Secretary Rumsfeld is a really good Secretary of Defense….

[…]

The acts were abhorrent, Steve. They sickened my stomach. I know they sickened yours, too. You're a decent American. Any decent soul doesn't want a human being treated that way. And it is -- it's a stain on our country's honor and our country's reputation. I full understand that. And that's why it's important that justice be done.

But it's also important for people -- and I explained this to His Majesty, and I think he understands this -- that the actions of the people in that prison do not reflect the nature of the men and women who wear our uniform. We've got brave souls in Iraq, sacrificing so that somebody can be free. And helping that -- the Iraqi citizens be free, it helps America be more secure. There are thousands of acts of kindness and decency taking place every day in Iraq, because our soldiers, our men and women in uniform, are honorable, decent, loving people.

And we'll find out the truth. We'll take a good look at the whole system to determine -- to make sure this doesn't happen again. But I am -- I am -- I am sickened by what I saw, and sickened that somebody gets the wrong impression of people who are serving this country and this world with such dignity.

We’ve got it! Decent Americans wouldn’t commit such abhorrent acts. Therefore, the soldiers involved aren’t decent Americans and THUS they must be enemies of freedom and democracy! QED!!

It’s good that Bush is sickened by what he saw in the pictures from Iraq. However, he apparently is sickened only enough to apologize to the King of Jordan, and not to the Iraqi people themselves. We wouldn’t want them to get the wrong impression about the Americans “who are serving this country and this world with such dignity.”

If only Bush would serve this country and this world with dignity….

Take responsibility? Who me? But I'm a really good President.

Finally, there is this: if soldiers and contractors at the Abu Gharib prison felt comfortable enough to take pictures of themselves giving the thumbs up to naked and prostrated Iraqis, of Iraqis who had clearly been beaten to death and of a naked Iraqi on a leash, imagine the abuses which must have occurred that they didn’t feel comfortable documenting. And imagine what a very big and shameful problem we have on our hands.

Yesterday George Bush was interviewed by Alhurra Television regarding the torture of Iraqi detainees:

First, people in Iraq must understand that I view those practices as abhorrent. They must also understand that what took place in that prison does not represent America that I know.

[. . .]

The American people are just as appalled at what they have seen on TV as the Iraqi citizens have. The Iraqi citizens must understand that.

He's not wrong about abhorrent practices and appalled Americans, but he has no business telling Iraqis what they "must understand" about this situation. He can ask that they understand; he can hope, and even pray they understand - we hate to think what it could mean for honorable soldiers if the people of Iraqi choose outrage over understanding.

But telling the citizens of another nation - and at a time like this - what they "must understand"? He has the gall, but he doesn't have right.

From "Patriot Act Suppresses News Of Challenge to Patriot Act" in the Washington Post, via Wonkette:

The American Civil Liberties Union disclosed yesterday that it filed a lawsuit three weeks ago challenging the FBI's methods of obtaining many business records, but the group was barred from revealing even the existence of the case until now.

The lawsuit was filed April 6 in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, but the case was kept under seal to avoid violating secrecy rules contained in the USA Patriot Act, the ACLU said. The group was allowed to release a redacted version of the lawsuit after weeks of negotiations with the government.

"It is remarkable that a gag provision in the Patriot Act kept the public in the dark about the mere fact that a constitutional challenge had been filed in court," Ann Beeson, the ACLU's associate legal director, said in a statement. "President Bush can talk about extending the life of the Patriot Act, but the ACLU is still gagged from discussing details of our challenge to it."

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment on the case.

The ACLU alleges that a section of the act is unconstitutional because it allows the FBI to request financial records and other documents from businesses without a warrant or judicial approval. The group also says such requests, known as "national security letters," are being used much more broadly than they were before the Patriot Act.

From "More federal agents track Cuba than al-Qaida" at AP Online via the Anchorage Daily News:

The Treasury Department agency entrusted with blocking the financial resources of terrorists has assigned five times as many agents to investigate Cuban embargo violations as it has to track Osama bin Laden's and Saddam Hussein's money, documents show.

In addition, the Office of Foreign Assets Control said that between 1990 and 2003 it opened just 93 enforcement investigations related to terrorism. Since 1994 it has collected just $9,425 in fines for terrorism financing violations.

In contrast, OFAC opened 10,683 enforcement investigations since 1990 for possible violations of the long-standing economic embargo against Fidel Castro's regime, and collected more than $8 million in fines since 1994, mostly from people who sent money to, did business with or traveled to Cuba without permission.

The figures, included in a lengthy letter OFAC sent to Congress late last year and provided to The Associated Press this week, prompted Republicans and Democrats alike to question whether OFAC has failed to adjust from the Cold War to the war on terrorism.

From Bloomberg.com today, "Iraq Costs Surge, May Force Bush to Shuffle Funds, Seek More":

U.S. military operations in Iraq may be $4 billion over budget by August, forcing President George W. Bush to shift money from other Pentagon accounts or ask Congress for more money before the November election, say Republican and Democratic lawmakers.

''If the tempo of combat stays like it has been since early April, they'll have to increase the troops strength and they'll need a supplemental budget of well over $75 billion,'' said Representative John Murtha, 71, a member of Congress from Pennsylvania since 1974 and the senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee panel that approves defense spending.

The monthly cost of the war is approaching $6 billion, at least $2 billion more than Bush projected two months ago, said Senator Lincoln Chafee, 51, a first-term Republican from Rhode Island who is chairman of the Foreign Relations subcommittee that oversees Iraq. The Pentagon has spent more than $70 billion in Iraq since January 2003, according to data provided by the Pentagon comptroller.

The Pentagon stepped up shipments last week of M1 Abrams tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles and M-16 bullets following insurgencies in Fallujah and cities near Baghdad that pushed the Army and Marines into their fiercest battles since Bush declared an end to major combat a year ago Saturday. At least 128 servicemen were killed in April, the worst monthly toll yet.

U.S. Governor of Iraq Paul Bremer said on Sunday his past criticism of President Bush for being slow to implement anti-terror measures was unfair.

Bremer said in a speech six months before the September 11 attacks in 2001 that the Bush administration seemed to be ignoring the problem of terrorism and would "stagger along" until a major incident.

Details of the speech came to light last week as Bush answered questions from the independent commission investigating the September 11 suicide hijackings.

But Bremer said on Sunday his remarks had been unjust.

"My statement in February 2001 reflected my frustration that in the nine months following the recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorism, none had been implemented by the Clinton administration nor by the newly elected Bush administration," he said in a statement.

"Criticism of the new administration, however, was unfair. President Bush had just been sworn into office and could not reasonably be held responsible for the Federal Government's inaction over the preceding seven months. (via Reuters)

Granted, in February 2001, it was unfair. But after another seven months of inaction, it was prescient.

From today's Seattle Times, "One year later, Bush backs Iraq speech on carrier":

One year ago today, Bush donned a flight suit, landed on an aircraft carrier and declared "victory" beneath a banner that read "Mission Accomplished." Democrats fretted that the election — not only the Iraq war — might be over.

Nevertheless, the president, now locked in a neck-and-neck race for re-election, stoutly defended his trip to the deck of the Abraham Lincoln, saying the mission had been the removal of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

"A year ago, I did give the speech from the carrier, saying that we had achieved an important objective, that we'd accomplished a mission, which was the removal of Saddam Hussein," Bush said. "And as a result, there are no longer torture chambers or rape rooms or mass graves in Iraq. As a result, a friend of terror has been removed, and now sits in a jail."

Bush had spoken in more sweeping terms on the carrier. "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed," he said. "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001, and still goes on."

While at least 594 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq since the carrier speech, compared with 138 beforehand, the White House insisted yesterday that major combat has not resumed in the country.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan, pressed repeatedly yesterday on how the fighting could not be considered "major," described the violence as "certain areas in Iraq that are dangerous" and "certain areas in Iraq where there are pockets of resistance."

From the President's remarks to the press regarding his meeting with the 9/11 Commission:

Q Mr. President, what topic did the commissioners want to spend most of the time on? And were there any subjects that you didn't answer or were advised by your counsel not to answer?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I was never advised by my counsel not to answer anything. I answered every question they asked. Really -- probably best that I not go into the details of the conversation; let them incorporate into their report. There was a lot of interest in -- about how to better protect America. In other words, they're very interested in the recommendations that they're going to lay out. And I'm interested in those, as well.

And we discussed a lot of things, Terry, a lot of subjects. And it was a very cordial conversation. I was impressed by the questions and I think it helped them understand how I think and how I run the White House and how we deal with threats.

John.

Q Mr. President, as you know, a lot of critics suggested that you wanted to appear jointly with the Vice President so that you two could keep your stories straight, or something --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes --

Q -- can you tell us what you think of the value of appearing together and how you would answer those critics?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes -- first of all, look, if we had something to hide we wouldn't have met with them in the first place. We answered all their questions. And as I say, I think I -- I came away good about the session, because I wanted them to know how I set strategy, how we run the White House, how we deal with threats. The Vice President answered a lot of their questions -- answered all their questions. And I think it was important for them to see our body language, as well, how we work together.

But it was -- you know, the commissioners will speak for themselves over time. They will let you know whether they thought it was a fruitful series of discussions. I think they did. I think they found it to be useful.

Yes.

Q Mr. President, don't you think that the families deserve to have a transcript, or to be able to see what you said?

THE PRESIDENT: Adam, you asked me that question yesterday.

Q I'm hoping for an answer today.

THE PRESIDENT: I've got the same answer.

And then he called on another reporter. Here's "the same answer", and the question that lead to it, from the previous day's remarks / photo op with the Swedish Prime Minister:

Q Yes, thank you, Mr. President. What does Vice President Cheney bring to your 9/11 testimony that you couldn't provide alone? And don't you owe history and the 9/11 families a transcript or a recording?

PRESIDENT BUSH: What he's asking about is a meeting I'm going to have tomorrow morning, talking with this 9/11 Commission about -- my attitude and the attitude of the Vice President about our country, our security, what happened on that particular date, what happened leading up to that. And I look forward to the discussion. I look forward to giving the commissioners a chance to question both of us. And it's a -- it will be an ample -- it will be a good opportunity for people to help write a report that hopefully will help future Presidents deal with terrorist threats to the country.

So Bush says he answered all of the commission's questions. If the answers were anything like that example, he might as well have stayed with his original plan.

You remember the original plan, right? The one that made it look like he had something to hide?

From "Militants in Europe Openly Call for Jihad and the Rule of Islam" in the New York Times:

The call to jihad is rising in the streets of Europe, and is being answered, counterterrorism officials say.

In this former industrial town north of London, a small group of young Britons whose parents emigrated from Pakistan after World War II have turned against their families' new home. They say they would like to see Prime Minister Tony Blair dead or deposed and an Islamic flag hanging outside No. 10 Downing Street.

They swear allegiance to Osama bin Laden and his goal of toppling Western democracies to establish an Islamic superstate under Shariah law, like Afghanistan under the Taliban. They call the Sept. 11 hijackers the "Magnificent 19" and regard the Madrid train bombings as a clever way to drive a wedge into Europe.

[...]

On working-class streets of old industrial towns like Crawley, Luton, Birmingham and Manchester, and in the Arab enclaves of Germany, France, Switzerland and other parts of Europe, intelligence officials say a fervor for militancy is intensifying and becoming more open.

In Hamburg, Dr. Mustafa Yoldas, the director of the Council of Islamic Communities, saw a correlation to the discord in Iraq. "This is a very dangerous situation at the moment," Dr. Yoldas said. "My impression is that Muslims have become more and more angry against the United States."

Hundreds of young Muslim men are answering the call of militant groups affiliated or aligned with Al Qaeda, intelligence and counterterrorism officials in the region say.

Even more worrying, said a senior counterterrorism official, is that the level of "chatter" — communications among people suspected of terrorism and their supporters — has markedly increased since Mr. bin Laden's warning to Europe this month. The spike in chatter has given rise to acute worries that planning for another strike in Europe is advanced.

"Iraq dramatically strengthened their recruitment efforts," one counterterrorism official said. He added that some mosques now display photos of American soldiers fighting in Iraq alongside bloody scenes of bombed out Iraqi neighborhoods. Detecting actual recruitments is almost impossible, he said, because it is typically done face to face.

Bush's war is not just killing young Americans - it's putting millions of people across the world in danger. All for something that didn't have to happen and should never have been started in the first place.

So much for going it alone. We've drug our European friends - even those who answered Bush's "You're either with us or against us" call with a resounding "We're against you!" - directly into the fray.

The Bush team is uncanny in its ability to tie every issue to the war on terror:

WOLF BLITZER: Does the president have a problem with American women, when it comes to abortion rights?

KAREN HUGHES, PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADVISER: … I really believe, Wolf, the biggest issue for women this year is the safety and security of our families. And clearly, President Bush is leading the way to making the world safer and more peaceful. And that's the utmost important issue I think for women all across the country this year.

BLITZER: There is a clear difference when it comes to abortion rights between the president and his Democratic challenger, John Kerry. In your opinion, Karen, how big of an issue will this abortion rights issue be in this campaign?

HUGHES: Well, Wolf, it's always an issue. And I frankly think it's changing somewhat. I think after September 11th the American people are valuing life more and realizing that we need policies to value the dignity and worth of every life.

And President Bush has worked to say, let's be reasonable, let's work to value life, let's try to reduce the number of abortions, let's increase adoptions.

And I think those are the kind of policies that the American people can support, particularly at a time when we're facing an enemy, and really the fundamental difference between us and the terror network we fight is that we value every life. It's the founding conviction of our country, that we're endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, the right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Unfortunately our enemies in the terror network, as we're seeing repeatedly in the headlines these days, don't value any life, not even the innocent and not even their own.

(CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, via Wonkette)

If you didn’t get that: abortion rights demonstrators = non-valuers of human life = terrorists = evil. It’s just that easy!

From last week's Scripps Howard News Service, via Helpful Reader K, "Mystery at the National Archives":

The Bush administration's secretive ways have made a Washington mystery of something as relatively straightforward as choosing a new National Archivist.

On April 8, President Bush nominated historian Allen Weinstein to be the head of the National Archives and did so without the customary consultation with professional societies of archivists and historians. They now suggest darkly that there might be some ideological agenda at work, especially because the Archives administer the presidential libraries.

And then there were the murky circumstances of the departure of John Carlin, whom President Clinton had appointed archivist in1995 and who had publicly expressed his intention of serving his full 10-year term and leaving on his 65th birthday next summer.

But on Dec. 19 Carlin told the White House he planned to resign this fall and as of Thursday was refusing to say why, giving rise to speculation that he was pushed.

This could be dismissed as so much inside-the-Beltway intrigue except that in November 2001 Bush issued an executive order giving him broad powers to control the release of papers from the libraries of presidents Reagan, Bush senior and Clinton.

Not only did he give himself the power to block the release of presidential records, he conferred it on former presidents, vice presidents and their designated representatives. Previously, the law required the automatic release of papers 12 years after a president left office. Papers could be withheld, but the library had to justify doing so. Bush's order put the burden of proving that a document should be declassified on the researcher, a real obstacle.

Some suspected he was trying to protect his father, Reagan's vice president. And indeed the following January the Bush White House initially blocked the release of 68,000 pages of Reagan's record even though the Reagan library had no objection to their disclosure.

The meddling seemed to continue when the White House initially refused to turn over the bulk of 11,000 pages of records the 9/11 commission requested from the Clinton library before relenting.

And suspicions have been raised that the reason Carlin is leaving ahead of schedule is that Bush wants his own person in place at the archives when the papers from his father's presidency come up on the 12-year release point next January.

Given the administration's track record, these forebodings can't be summarily dismissed. Weinstein, for his part, told a reporter, "I am committed to maximum access."

If so, it will be a first for a Bush administration official, and Congress, which must confirm him to the post, should hold him to it.

The Bush team is still trying to cover up anything that looks bad re: 9-11:

The Bush administration will today seek to prevent a former FBI translator from providing evidence about 11 September intelligence failures to a group of relatives and survivors who have accused international banks and officials of aiding al-Qa'ida.

Sibel Edmonds was subpoenaed by a law firm representing more than 500 family members and survivors of the attacks to testify that she had seen information proving there was considerable evidence before September 2001 that al-Qa'ida was planning to strike the US with aircraft. The lawyers made their demand after reading comments Mrs Edmonds had made to The Independent.

But the US Justice Department is seeking to stop her from testifying, citing the rarely used "state secrets privilege". Today in a federal court in Washington, senior government lawyers will try to gag Mrs Edmonds, claiming that disclosure of her evidence "would cause serious damage to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States".

Mrs Edmonds, 33, a Turkish-American who had top secret security clearance, claimed this month that while working in the FBI's Washington headquarters, she saw information proving senior officials knew of al-Qa'ida plans to attack the US with aircraft months before the strikes. She has provided sworn testimony to the independent panel appointed by President George Bush to investigate the circumstances surrounding 11 September. (via the Independent)

Bush et al. continue to tamper with the boundaries of the Constitution:

The Bush administration's effort before the Supreme Court to shield the names of private citizens who helped devise its energy policy might appear on the surface unrelated to its defense, in cases also before the court, of the detention of those the administration has classified as enemy combatants.

But the legal arguments are strikingly similar, projecting a vision of presidential power in both war and peace as far-reaching as any the court has seen and posing important questions of the constitutional separation of powers.

Just as the administration is arguing in the detainee cases for the exercise of presidential authority without judicial interference in policies related to the war on terrorism, it is making sweeping claims in the energy case for the existence of a constitutionally protected "zone of autonomy" for presidential advice received in the ordinary course of proposing legislation. (via the New York Times)

The Defense Department finally admits that not all of the Iraqi insurgents of enemies of freedom and democracy, via Wonkette:

Today's Coalition Provisional Authority Briefing brings wonderful news: The insurgents don't hate us. . . They're just tweaked out of their fucking gourds!

[O]ur delegation has been told by Fallujan leaders that many of the individuals involved with the violence are on some -- are on various drugs. It is part of what they're using to keep them up to engage in this violence at all hours. And the Fallujans leaders, the political and civic leaders with whom we've been talking, have repeatedly expressed this to be a serious problem, that the drug use by those engaged in the violence is something that we need to address.

We're gonna get Nancy Reagan right on it!

Coalition Provisional Authority Briefing [Defenselink]

President Bush has decided to allow U.S. companies to resume most trade with Libya and to buy Libyan oil to reward Tripoli for giving up its weapons of mass destruction, U.S. officials said on Thursday. (Reuters)

This is all well and good, but while they pat themselves on the back over Libya and spout off about the enemies of freedom and democracy in Iraq, the Bush administration is ignoring the true WMD threat:

North Korea is potentially more dangerous than the mess in Iraq. It probably has at least 1 to 3 nuclear weapons already, it is producing both plutonium and uranium, and it is on track to have close to 10 nuclear weapons by the end of this year.

Yet because President Bush's policy has failed in North Korea, Washington is determinedly looking the other way. When we next focus on North Korea, after the election, it could be a nuclear Wal-Mart.

[...]

The latest disclosure, via David "Scoop" Sanger of The Times, is that the father of Pakistan's bomb, Abdul Qadeer Khan, claims that North Korea showed him three nuclear weapons in 1999. The Bush administration, after publicizing anything to do with Iraqi W.M.D., tried to keep that North Korean revelation secret.

Dr. Khan's report has not been confirmed. But this much is sure: The Bush administration has invaded a country on far less evidence.

Worse, North Korea is reprocessing enough plutonium to make an additional half-dozen weapons. It has also restarted one nuclear reactor and will soon replace the fuel rods there, producing enough plutonium for another weapon. All of that activity began during the Bush administration. North Korea is also continuing a uranium enrichment program that it covertly began in the Clinton years. (Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times)

It would be nice if Tommy Franks had something up his sleeve to help us out on this one. Of course, when a country has REAL WMDs, and not just fabricated ones, Bush's team prefers multi-lateral negotiations. How novel.

From Reuter's on Monday, "White House reviews Iraq funding after charge of mispending":

The White House denied any wrongdoing on Monday in the use of funding to prepare for the war in Iraq after a book alleged the money was diverted from operations in Afghanistan without Congress' knowledge.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan insisted that Congress was "fully informed" of how the money was spent.

He said emergency spending legislation after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks gave the administration "broad discretion" on how the funding could be used.

In "Plan of Attack," author Bob Woodward says President George W. Bush began preparing for war with Iraq within weeks of the Sept. 11 attack.

To further guard the secrecy, Bush funded the war preparations with $700 million that was earmarked for Afghanistan and old appropriations.

"Congress was totally in the dark on this," Woodward told CBS "60 Minutes" of the shift in funding in July 2002.

McClellan said the White House Office of Management and Budget and the Pentagon were "reviewing this," but added, "At this time we are confident that Congress was kept fully informed of all expenditures."

"We're gathering all those facts," McClellan said. "In emergency spending, there is broad discretion in how those funds could be used in the war on terrorism. Iraq is a part of the war on terrorism."

Well, it is now, anyway.

Bush continues to delude himself that his war in Iraq and his support of Israel's settlements in the West Bank (a complete about-face in U.S. policy) are all helping to promote his vaulted freedom and democracy. All this is of course sanctioned by Bush's God and, as evidenced by the President's statements to Bob Woodward, what we really have here is a modern-day crusade.

Egypt's president says Arabs hold a "hatred never equaled" toward America. Jordan's king abruptly postpones a visit to the White House. And those are among the United States' best friends in the Arab world.

The war in Iraq, and a shift on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, has left the Bush administration facing growing hostility and an estrangement from friends across the Middle East.

"There is enormous anger in the Arab world that needs to be dealt with," said Nail Al-Jubeir, a spokesman for the Saudi embassy in Washington.

The White House minimized the problem Tuesday, saying President Bush did not feel snubbed by King Abdullah II's decision to leave the United States early and skip a planned meeting with Bush at the White House this week. Spokesman Scott McClellan said the meeting was merely postponed until May and chalked it up to "domestic issues" in Jordan. (AP via the San Francisco Chronicle)

So, not only does the Bush team not see anything wrong with alienating the entire Arab world (hell, they're used to it), but they resort to lying about it (and not very well) by way of an explanation. They either think we're incredibly stupid, or they really are that desperate.

From today's New York Times, "An I.R.S. Promotion for Bush at Tax Time":

As the deadline for filing tax returns approached, news releases from the Internal Revenue Service included a little something extra, a sentence promoting the administration's tax policies that said, "America has a choice: It can continue to grow the economy and create new jobs as the president's policies are doing, or it can raise taxes on American families and small businesses, hurting economic recovery and future job creation."

"Stating our position is appropriate," said Rob Nichols, a spokesman for the Treasury Department, which oversees the I.R.S. "The administration's views on fiscal policy are that lower taxes have helped strengthen the economy and led to an environment of increased job creation."

Earlier this year, the Treasury Department was criticized after its analysis of a tax plan similar to one proposed by Senator John Kerry was used to attack Mr. Kerry as he sought the Democratic nomination for president.

"This administration is abusing the public trust and campaigning on the taxpayers' dime," Phil Singer, a spokesman for the Kerry campaign, said Monday. The Kerry campaign has started an online petition to protest the White House's use of federal resources for the president's re-election effort.

The sentence about President Bush's tax policies showed up on four April 9 news releases that were labeled "April 15th Tax Day Reminders": "Treasury and I.R.S. Work To Make Paying Taxes a Little Easier," "The 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief Plans Will Impact Income Tax Returns Filed," "Millions of Individuals and Families Are Benefiting From Tax Relief Plan" and "Tax Relief Reinvigorated the U.S. Economy and Is Driving Job Creation."

These news releases are now nowhere to be found on the IRS website.

From today's New York Times, "Airing of Powell's Misgivings Tests Ties in the Cabinet":

For more than a year, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and his aides have tacitly acknowledged that he was concerned before the war about what could go wrong once American forces captured Iraq.

But Mr. Powell's apparent decision to lay out his misgivings even more explicitly to the journalist Bob Woodward for a book has jolted the White House and aggravated long-festering tensions in the Bush cabinet. Moreover, some officials said, the book has created problems for the secretary inside the administration just as the situation in Iraq is deteriorating and President Bush is plunging into his re-election drive.

Mr. Powell has not acknowledged that he cooperated with Mr. Woodward, but the book presents the secretary's reservations in such detail that it leaves little doubt. A spokesman for Mr. Powell said again Sunday that he would not comment on the book, "Plan of Attack."

Critics of Mr. Powell in the hawkish wing of the administration said they were startled by what they saw as his self-serving decision to help fill out a portrait that enhances his reputation as a farsighted analyst, perhaps at the expense of Mr. Bush. Several said the book guaranteed what they expected anyway, that Mr. Powell will not stay as secretary if Mr. Bush is re-elected.

[. . .]

People close to Mr. Powell said Sunday that they had no doubt he would weather any criticism from within over his apparent cooperation with Mr. Woodward, an assistant managing editor at The Washington Post. Polls show that he is one of the most popular and best-known figures in government. The people close to him note that most people following the situation closely knew that he had misgivings about the war.

"Is the secretary going to be undercut for having been right?" asked an official close to Mr. Powell. "I don't think so. Undercut compared to who? Donald Rumsfeld? Dick Cheney? These are people who have some real problems right now. They're not reading Bob Woodward's book. They're reading the dispatches from the field."

This picture of Dick Cheney. . .

. . .at the NRA's annual convention on Saturday.

From today's AP wire, via the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, "MoveOn bake sales raise anti-Bush funds":

Raising money to unseat President Bush was a cakewalk Saturday, when a liberal advocacy group said it organized at least 1,000 bake sales nationwide to raise money for the effort.

The MoveOn political action committee, the political branch of MoveOn.org, coordinated bake sales from Maine to Hawaii that offered such treats as Beat Bush Brownies and No C.A.R.B. (Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Bush) Meringues. Early estimates Saturday placed the national tally for the bake sales at about $250,000.

Yesterday, Bush had this to say about taxes:

On Tax Day 2004, President Bush told voters in the heartland that his policies are fattening their wallets and that tax cuts he pushed through Congress should be made permanent to fuel the economy.

"Tax relief today, and not tax relief tomorrow, and we need to do something about it," the president said. (San Francisco Chronicle)

But:

By almost a 2-1 margin, Americans prefer balancing the nation's budget to cutting taxes, according to an Associated Press poll, even though many believe their overall tax burden has risen despite tax cuts over the past three years.

About six in 10, 61 percent, chose balancing the budget while 36 percent chose tax cuts when they were asked which was more important, according to a poll conducted for the AP by Ipsos Public Affairs.

As the nation's tax deadline of April 15 approaches, people's lukewarm feeling about tax cuts may be influenced by a belief that recent cuts haven't helped them personally.

Half in the poll, 49 percent, said their overall tax burden - including federal, state and local taxes - had gone up over the past three years. That's almost four times the 13 percent in the poll who said their overall taxes had gone down. (Pittsburg Morning Sun)

And:

A new poll finds that 62 percent of Americans would be willing to give back all of the recent federal tax cuts in exchange for universal health insurance coverage.

The poll was commissioned by the Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation that researches health and social issues. It found that 69 percent of Americans would favor capping the tax cuts at $1,000 per person if the remaining federal dollars were earmarked for health insurance coverage. (Bizjournals.com)