From today's Guardian (UK), "US and UK officials dread presidential trip":

The British government in public says it is delighted George Bush is visiting Britain next week. Tony Blair encapsulated this in a speech last Monday when he said: "I believe this is exactly the right time for him to come."

In the corridors of No 10 a more realistic assessment can be heard. One Downing Street insider, contemplating the visit, expressed exasperation: "That man seems to cause us no end of trouble, doesn't he?"

The list of issues is long - from the Kyoto pollution agreement through to Guantanamo and Iraq - and now added to it is the row over steel tariffs. At a Whitehall briefing it was not Iraq that topped the list of issues on the urgent agenda for the president and prime minister but the fate of British steelworkers. "A trade war will help nobody," an official said.

Nor will the protests during the presidential visit help Mr Blair or Mr Bush. The trip has turned into one that no one wants, despite what Mr Bush said yesterday. He claimed he was not upset about the prospect of protesters because "freedom is a beautiful thing". Speaking on Breakfast with Frost, he said: "So Laura and I are really looking forward to coming."

That does not square with what US officials, like their counterparts in Whitehall, are saying. One official described it as the trip from hell.

When preparations were being made months ago the expectation in Washington had been that it would be a victory trip, with Iraq relatively stable and its elusive weapons of mass destruction unearthed. What had not been anticipated was the present chaos and mounting death toll.

Mr Bush is to fly into London tomorrow evening for the first state visit since President Woodrow Wilson in 1918, whose path was strewn with roses by a people grateful for his help during the war. There will be no such public welcome for Mr Bush, and protesters will dog his path until he leaves on Friday evening.

Television footage of Mr Bush with the Queen was supposed to provide useful footage for a president seeking re-election next year. But US officials know that any royal benefit will be offset by damaging images of protests.

The morning after President George W. Bush delivered his Veterans Day message at Arlington National Cemetery, the administration's Office of Management and Budget - in writing - opposed an additional $1.3 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs health care budget and reiterated its call to charge many veterans seeking treatment at VA a $250 annual enrollment fee and to raise the pharmacy co-payment from $7 to $15.

"A veteran is a veteran," American Legion National Commander John Brieden said. "The law was changed in the '90s to allow all veterans to seek treatment at VA. Although OMB is willing to wield the budget to repel veterans from seeking treatment at VA, the men and women of The American Legion as well as Republicans and Democrats in Congress remain determined not to let that happen."

Brieden made the Legion's case to Congress perfectly clear Sept. 16 when he testified here before a joint hearing session of House and Senate committees on Veterans' Affairs. Simply put: Health care for veterans is the delayed cost of war. Therefore, if Congress can meet the president's request for an additional $87 billion to fund the ongoing war in Iraq, then Congress also can raise an additional $1.8 billion next year, and a $3 billion increase the following year, to meet the health care needs of veterans.

A blueprint passed by the House in April called for a Legion-backed $27.1 billion for the system, but in July the House approved an appropriations bill that called for $25.3 billion. Therein lies the $1.8 billion spending gap that the Legion, the nation's largest veterans organization, is fighting alongside other veterans groups to close. As the spending bill for VA-HUD and Independent Agencies makes its way through the Senate, an amendment offered by Sen. Christopher Bond of Missouri -- an amendment that has bipartisan support -- could fill the chasm by $1.5 billion. Congress is also poised to remove the Senate Appropriations Committee's "emergency" designation from $1.3 billion targeted for VA health care, and to send the entire increase directly to VA.

How badly does VA need the money? The American Legion's "I Am Not A Number" survey in May identified scores of the more than 200,000 veterans who had been waiting from six months to two years for their initial primary-care appointments at VA. Recent news media accounts noted veterans of the ongoing war on terror also having trouble accessing the system. Although VA reports tremendous recent success in whittling down the backlog, about 164,000 veterans in the lowest of VA's eight priority-treatment groups have been suspended from enrolling in the VA health care system since January because VA lacks the resources to serve all of the veterans who are lawfully eligible for treatment.

- From a press release issued by The American Legion last week, via Helpful Reader Mike

From Bush's press briefing regarding the battle over his judicial nominees:

Q Mr. President, are you --

THE PRESIDENT: Are you going following up on the judges?

Q Yes, well, the Democrats say they have confirmed 98 percent of your judges.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q And by focusing on the few that they are opposing, that you're picking essentially an unfair fight.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, our circuits -- circuit courts remain in some cases dangerously vacant. And here are three cases where people are being treated unfairly. My question is, why won't they give these three ladies an up-or-down vote? Where's the justice? These are eminently qualified people. These are three women who are -- represent the best of American jurisprudence. And why won't they let them come to the floor? If they're so fair, bring them up to a vote -- today. Let these three nominees get onto the floor of the United States for an up-or-down vote, and then -- and then I will listen to whether or not they're fair or not.

Yes, last question, then I've got to go.

Yes, yes you do.

George Soros, one of the world's wealthiest financiers and philanthropists, has declared that getting George Bush out of the White House has become the "central focus" of his life, and he has put more than $15m (£9m) of his own money where his mouth is.

Mr. Soros argues that the Bush White House is guided by a "supremacist ideology" that is leading it to abuse US power in its dealings with the rest of the world, and creating a state of permanent warfare.

He has mounted a single-minded campaign involving a book, magazine and newspaper articles as well as multi-million dollar donations to liberal groups, all aimed at defeating President Bush in the November 2004 elections, a contest he describes as "a matter of life and death". (via the Guardian, via Helpful Reader Mike)

At last, a George we can agree with.

Newsflash: the Iraqis do not consider American troops to be liberators. Apparently, the White House is the only place on the planet where this development was not anticipated.

The White House yesterday drew up emergency plans to accelerate the transfer of power in Iraq after being shown a devastating CIA report warning that the guerrilla war was in danger of escalating out of US control.

The report, an "appraisal of situation" commissioned by the CIA director, George Tenet, and written by the CIA station chief in Baghdad, said that the insurgency was gaining ground among the population, and already numbers in the tens of thousands.

One military intelligence assessment now estimates the insurgents' strength at 50,000. Analysts cautioned that such a figure was speculative, but it does indicate a deep-rooted revolt on a far greater scale than the Pentagon had led the administration to believe. (via the Guardian)

Bush's move to speed up the transition to democracy smacks of trouble. If we don't have a handle on the country now, how are we going to do it faster?

So much for the end of the era of big government...

Confounding President Bush's pledges to rein in government growth, federal discretionary spending expanded by 12.5 percent in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, capping a two-year bulge that saw the government grow by more than 27 percent, according to preliminary spending figures from congressional budget panels.

The sudden rise in spending subject to Congress's annual discretion stands in marked contrast to the 1990s, when such discretionary spending rose an average of 2.4 percent a year. Not since 1980 and 1981 has federal spending risen at a similar clip. Before those two years, spending increases of this magnitude occurred at the height of the Vietnam War, 1966 to 1968.

The preliminary spending figures for 2003 also raise questions about the government's long-term fiscal health. Bush administration officials have said fiscal restraint and "pro-growth" tax cuts should put the government on a path to a balanced budget. Bush has demanded that spending that is subject to Congress's annual discretion be capped at 4 percent.

But the Republican-led Congress has not obliged. The federal government spent nearly $826 billion in fiscal 2003, an increase of $91.5 billion over 2002, said G. William Hoagland, a senior budget and economic aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.). Military spending shot up nearly 17 percent, to $407.3 billion, but nonmilitary discretionary spending also far outpaced Bush's limit, rising 8.7 percent, to $418.6 billion.

Much of the increase was driven by war in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as homeland security spending after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. But spending has risen on domestic programs such as transportation and agriculture, as well. Total federal spending -- including non-discretionary entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- reached $2.16 trillion in 2003, a 7.3 percent boost, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

White House officials have said the president's 4 percent annual growth cap was never supposed to curtail "one-time" spending requests, such as natural disaster aid or wars. But even if such emergency spending measures are removed, spending jumped last year by 7.9 percent, Hoagland said.

[…]

Regardless of the final numbers, there can be little doubt that government growth has been accelerating, said Richard Kogan, a federal budget analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. And although Congress ultimately controls the purse strings, Bush is not immune from criticism, said Rudolph G. Penner, a Republican and former CBO director.

"The most interesting thing is Bush has not vetoed anything, let alone a spending program," Penner said. "One wonders how serious the White House is about holding the line."

Stan Collender, a federal budget analyst at Fleishman-Hillard Inc., said: "This is an administration that cannot possibly take up the mantle of fiscal conservatism. It's probably the least fiscally conservative in history." (via the Washington Post)

The World Trade Organization issued a final ruling yesterday that the steel tariffs imposed by President Bush violate international trade rules, raising expectations that the White House will soon repeal the tariffs to avoid imminent European retaliation.

The WTO decision gives the European Union and several other countries the right to impose retaliatory tariffs on billions of dollars worth of American exports unless Bush reverses the decision he made in March 2002 to give American steelmakers protection from imports. Such sanctions could be the largest ever applied in a WTO case.

[...]

When Bush first imposed the tariffs, which ranged up to 30 percent, in March 2002, he said he was giving U.S. steelmakers three years to restructure, under a law that allows "safeguard" tariffs for industries facing a surge of imports. But the EU and its allies filed complaints asserting that the United States failed to provide evidence of a recent surge in steel imports, and the WTO agreed. (via the Washington Post)

Twenty months ago the U.S. steel industry pressured Bush to impose tariffs on its product, and the President caved for purely political reasons. He knew the Europeans would complain. He knew the WTO would ultimately rule that his actions were a violation of international trade rules. But he also knew that he could get away with it long enough to keep U.S. Steel voting Republican (actually, Karl Rove is the one who knew all this), and so that is what he did.

Now that the WTO has finally ruled against him, Bush will likely agree to abide by its decision - not because it is right but because of the threat of retaliatory tariffs on other U.S. goods. No doubt there will be carefully massaged talking points on this about face, but we can guarantee you that nowhere will the White House mention the central irony of the steel story: the U.S. lectures other nations on its trade policies, extolling the redemptive qualities of free trade, all the while ignoring international trade rules when it suits the White House politically.

It's the hypocrisy of it all that drives us crazy. Leadership is about doing what's right rather than doing what's popular. It's about abiding by America's international commitments because we are a member of the international community and because we respect international law. It's about thinking in the longer term rather than only to the next election.

It's what's sorely lacking in the Bush White House.

From Saturday's Guardian (UK - because the story isn't being covered in the American press...yet), "Fury at Bush's civil rights policing of abortion ban":

The Bush administration has given the US justice department's civil rights division the job of enforcing a contentious new ban on late-term abortions, it emerged yesterday.

The move has provoked furious accusations that the White House is perverting the government's role in promoting civil rights.

In the past, the civil rights division has been instrumental in ensuring black Americans have the right to vote and equal access to housing, while prosecuting hate crimes against minorities.

The ban on late abortions, which was signed into law by President George Bush on Wednesday, has become a new legal battleground in the conflict between American liberals and the religious right.

Since the signing, three judges around the country have ordered injunctions that have blocked its enforcement - paving the way for an eventual showdown in the supreme court.

The justice department, under the leadership of the conservative attorney general, John Ashcroft, has vowed to press forward with the enforcement of the law, promising in a statement released this week "to strongly defend the law prohibiting partial-birth abortions using every resource necessary".

From today's Guardian (UK), "Private Jessica says President is misusing her 'heroism'":

When American Private Jessica Lynch was rescued from an Iraqi hospital last April, President George Bush's administration and much of the US media was gripped by a dramatic tale of blonde, all-American heroism.

The story reaches fever pitch this week with the publication of Lynch's autobiography, a dramatised TV documentary, interviews and a Vanity Fair cover story.

Beneath the gloss of the US media and the machinations of an administration eager to show a 'good news' angle of the Iraq conflict against the reality of a rising body count, Lynch has become a metaphor not for the heroism of pretty young Americans captured by a devilish foreign enemy, but for the confusion that has marked Bush's Operation Iraqi Freedom from the start.

Misgivings characterising Lynch's story are coming to a head: last week she accused the administration of manipulating her story for propaganda, saying she was not a heroine at all; accusations that she'd been raped were disputed by appalled Iraqi doctors who first treated her, and the army was accused of insensitivity and racism for awarding Lynch a full disability pension while others from her ambushed maintenance company, including Shoshana Johnson, the black cook wounded and captured by Iraqis, will receive barely a third of Lynch's discharge package.

And while we're at it, here's a hiss for the media organizations who were so quick to buy into this, and make a buck off it during Sweeps Week.

From Josh Marshall’s Talking Points Memo, via Helpful Reader Eric:

The week before last I wrote a post questioning the wisdom of something President Bush said when he addressed the Australian parliament.

"We," said the president, "see a China that is stable and prosperous, a nation that respects the peace of its neighbors and works to secure the freedom of its own people."

The statement and its rather odd implication were reported around the world. But then a few days later I got an email from a reader who had followed the link I'd provided to the White House's transcript of the speech and asked if maybe I'd gotten it wrong.

A few days ago (10/23), you quoted Bush as speaking to the Australian Parliament and saying that he "sees" a China that is free, etc. At the time, I didn't go back to the White House press release, but if you look at it now you will see that it says he "seeks" a free China. Did you misread it, or have they been massaging the record after the fact? I don't know how to go about looking for a cached version of the page, but maybe it's worth pursuing.

Well, I'm not sure I'd know how to go about getting the cached version either. But luckily that's not necessary, since I made a PDF version of the original White House transcript as it appeared on the day in question. (Call me suspicious.) You can see it right here. If you scroll down to the big, clumsily-drawn red circle you'll see that the word was 'see' not 'seek'. Then compare it to the current version now at the White House website.

At some later point, they (i.e., someone in the White House press operation) simply changed the word and thus utterly changed the meaning.

And from Marshall’s follow up:

According to a trusted source, the prepared remarks the White House handed out at the time did indeed include the word ‘seek.’

But when the president delivered the speech he pretty clearly said ‘see’, thus changing the meaning of the statement and creating a small international hubbub. (Listen to the audio feed here.)

The White House released the transcript of the president’s speech saying ‘see.’ The official record of the Australian parliament records it as ‘see.’ Perhaps most revealing, when asked about it by members of the press, administration officials traveling with the president in Asia defended the ‘see’ statement and made no mention of the president’s having meant something different from what he said.

At some point people at the White House realized that the president had just committed a gaffe. He said ‘see’ but they had told him to say ‘seek’. And the folks at the White House seem to have reasoned, ‘hey, why are we defending this line when it’s not what he was supposed to have said in the first place?’ So they just changed the transcript to say what the president was supposed to have said rather than what he did say.

Now, is this a federal case or the end of the world? Of course not. But this White House does have a bit of a record of massaging transcripts. And at the end of the day there’s something to be said for the transcripts actually saying what the president said rather than what he was supposed to say.

Call me old-fashioned ...

Altering the transcript is just one of the worrying things about the see/seek business. Even more disturbing is that the obvious gap between the words coming out of Bush’s mouth and their actual meaning. It suggests the work of an actor, not a leader - and not a very good actor, at that.

More distressing news from the Environmental Pardon Agency. It just keeps coming.

A change in enforcement policy will lead the Environmental Protection Agency to drop investigations into 50 power plants for past violations of the Clean Air Act, lawyers at the agency who were briefed on the decision this week said.

The lawyers said in interviews on Wednesday that the decision meant the cases would be judged under new, less stringent rules set to take effect next month, rather than the stricter rules in effect at the time the investigations began.

The lawyers said the new rules include exemptions that would make it almost impossible to sustain the investigations into the plants, which are scattered around the country and owned by 10 utilities.

The lawyers said the change grew out of a recommendation by Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, which urged the government two years ago to study industry complaints about its enforcement actions. The Bush administration has said its goal is to ensure cost-effective improvements to air quality. (via the New York Times)

Four Observations:

1. Dick Cheney needs to get his fat finger out of environmental policy.

2. Our children, not to mention the nation’s trees and wildlife, will be irreparably harmed if Bush is allowed to keep handing out his environmental pardons.

3. Under Bush II, the interests of the planet are less important than those of campaign cash-wielding polluters. It seems that buying off Bush is cheaper than paying to clean up outdated factories.

4. No wonder Christine Todd Whitman quit.

President Bush signed legislation banning late-term (“partial-birth”) abortions yesterday, although the new law was quickly blocked by a federal judge.

A federal judge in Nebraska blocked implementation of a federal ban on certain late-term abortions Wednesday, less than an hour after President Bush signed the ban into law.

U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf issued a temporary restraining order against the law after a three-hour hearing on a lawsuit in Nebraska brought by abortion-rights supporters.

He said his order would apply only to the four doctors who filed the lawsuit, but the ruling could extend beyond Nebraska because the physicians are licensed to practice in Alabama, Georgia, Iowa, New York, South Carolina and Virginia.
Kopf cited concerns that the law did not contain an exception for preserving the health of the woman seeking the abortion.

[. . .]

It was a challenge by one of the four doctors in the suit that led to the Supreme Court overturning Nebraska's so-called partial-birth abortion ban in 2000. The high court said the law and others like it passed by other states were an "undue burden" on women's rights. (via CNN)

The case will end up in the Supreme Court. But in the meantime, we can’t afford to have Bush making this decision for all American women. Yes, late-term abortions are even more controversial than early-term abortions. But what we have here is one of the slipperiest slopes around. And Bush, surrounded by his moral majority, just can’t wait to slide on down.

He has said that Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are his models for appointing a Supreme Court Justice, and that means (in addition to a number of other very scary things) that women are in serious jeopardy of losing control over their bodies if Bush is allowed to make an appointment.

We need to make sure he never gets the chance.

From today's Washington Post:

Haley Barbour, a powerful Washington lobbyist and former chairman of the Republican National Committee, won in Mississippi, getting 404,466 votes (53 percent) to 341,966 (45 percent) for incumbent Gov. Ronnie Musgrove (D) with 84 percent of precincts reporting.

Who's next, Newt as the governor of Georgia?

From "Bush barbie cost $25,000-plus", via News Interactive (Australia).

Taxpayers will pay more than $25,000 for the private barbecue lunch for US President George W Bush during his one-day visit to Australia.

Officials from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet today confirmed the cost of the invitation-only lunch, which included sport and media stars, politicians and business leaders.

Officials told a Senate estimates committee that the informal lunch was organised at The Lodge by Prime Minister John Howard's office.

Among the costs, departmental officials said the Government paid $19,000 to hire a marquee, chairs and equipment for the function.

Another $4500 was spent on food for the event, where about 70 guests dined on prawns, beef fillet and lamb cutlets and a desert of macadamia pavlova roulade with passionfruit ice cream.

Damn that Bush and his extravagant barbies.

Not being old enough to remember the Vietnam War, we've often wondered how more than one administration could escalate a war while at the same time refusing to supply an adequate number of troops to accomplish the task at hand.

Now we know.

Can't remember the calibrated justifications put forth by Robert McNamara? Just listen to his Bush II counterpart:

On the bloodiest day for the U.S. military in more than seven months, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld insisted yesterday that the Bush administration's plan to improve security in Iraq was on track, with no need for additional U.S. troops as Iraqis are quickly trained to fill any manpower gaps.

"In a long, hard war, we're going to have tragic days, as this is," Rumsfeld said on ABC's "This Week." "But they are necessary. They are part of a war that's difficult and complicated." ("Rumsfeld: No Need For More U.S. Troops" via the Washington Post)

So the families of the 238 American soldiers who have died since Bush declared an end to the Iraq war can take solace in this: war is complicated, tragedy is necessary. We regular citizens just don't get it.

From yesterday’s Los Angeles Times, "Regulators to Let Maker Test Chemical Levels":

The Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Agriculture announced an unprecedented plan Friday to entrust testing for water pollution from atrazine, one of the most heavily used weedkillers in the country, to the chemical's manufacturer.

The EPA called the plan for monitoring by Syngenta Crop Protection "an innovative protective approach." Syngenta, based in Greensboro, N.C., is a subsidiary of the Swiss agribusiness Syngenta.

[. . .]

The European Union recently announced a ban on use of atrazine. Syngenta plans to replace the chemical in Europe with an alternative, terbuthylazine. However, the company has not sought permission to market the chemical in the U.S., said Syngenta spokeswoman Sherry Ford. "It did not work as well on U.S. weeds," she said.

Analysts estimate that Syngenta supplies 98% of the estimated 75 million pounds of atrazine applied to U.S. fields every year. The new Syngenta monitoring program will start in March by looking at 20 waterways in 10 states: Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, Minnesota, Tennessee and Louisiana.

Ford called the transformation from pesticide manufacturer to environmental monitor part of a new era of stewardship. "This is one way we can ensure it's not presenting any risk to the environment," she said.

Olson said NRDC sees the plan as an abandonment of government responsibility under the Clean Water Act.

"They're going to require Syngenta to monitor 3% of the 1172 highest-risk watersheds, 20 to begin with, then 40 in 2005," Olson said. "Ninety-seven percent of the highest-risk watersheds will not be required to be monitored. It's insane."

Sorry, did we just call it the "Environmental Pardon Agency"? We meant the Embarrassingly Pointless Agency.

Via http://www.wired.com's Furthermore:

Get Yer Groove On, Don!

Has Donald Rumsfeld lost his mojo? That's the question Time magazine asked in a recent article about Rumsfeld's recent difficulties with Iraq and his differences with U.S. lawmakers. That question may not be answered any time soon, because apparently Rumsfeld is not familiar with the word "mojo." When asked this same question by a reporter at a Pentagon briefing, Rumsfeld had to consult an aide about its meaning. He was told that in 1926 it had to do with jazz music. "I guess the answer is that beauty's in the eye of the beholder. I don't know enough about mojo to know," said Rumsfeld. Good answer.

President Bush announced in Tuesday's press conference that he fully supported the actions of his brother, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, in ordering Terri Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted after state courts repeatedly affirmed her husband's right to allow her to die.

That a state legislature, at Governor Bush's request, would pass a law essentially overturning a judicial branch decision is unconscionable. The limited scope of the law - it is effective for only 15 days - shows that the Florida Legislature knew it was tampering somewhere it didn't belong. The case is heartbreaking, but it is solely a family matter and it is certainly not Jeb Bush's role to decide what is best for Terri Schiavo.

The President's comments in support of his brother's actions do not help. They are another example of his administration's belief that its values constitute a high moral imperative. Once you believe in the certainty of your own moral supremacy, you start trampling on laws that were put in place precisely to keep one person's morals from infringing on the rights of another.

And we are deeply afraid of George W. Bush's morals.

From Tuesday's New York Times, "Bush Steps Away From Victory Banner":

The triumphal "Mission Accomplished" banner was the pride of the White House advance team, the image makers who set the stage for the president's close-ups. On May 1, on a golden Pacific evening aboard the carrier Abraham Lincoln, they made sure that the banner was perfectly captured in the camera shots of President Bush's speech declaring major combat in Iraq at an end.

But on Tuesday in the Rose Garden, Mr. Bush publicly disavowed the banner that had come to symbolize what his critics said was a premature declaration that the United States had prevailed.

"The 'Mission Accomplished' sign, of course, was put up by the members of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished," Mr. Bush told reporters. "I know it was attributed somehow to some ingenious advance man from my staff. They weren't that ingenious, by the way."

Well, yes and no. After the news conference, the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, carefully elaborated on the president's words.

The banner "was suggested by those on the ship," he said. "They asked us to do the production of the banner, and we did. They're the ones who put it up."

And, you know, "those on the ship" were planning to cruise in circles off the California coast waiting for that cinematic sunset anyway. Something to do with, uh, bilge maintenance, right Scott?

Op-Ed by Paul Krugman in the New York Times:

According to The New York Times, President Bush was genuinely surprised to learn from moderate Islamic leaders that they had become deeply distrustful of American intentions. The report on the "perception gap" suggests that the leader of the war on terror has no idea how badly that war — which must, ultimately, be a war for hearts and minds — is going.

Mr. Bush's ignorance may reflect his lack of curiosity: "The best way to get the news," he says, "is from objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are people on my staff." Two words: emperor, clothes.

But there's something broader going on: a sort of willful ignorance, supposedly driven by moral concerns but actually reflecting domestic politics. Surely it's important to understand how others see us, but a new, post 9/11 version of political correctness has made it difficult even to discuss their points of view. Any American who tries to go beyond "America good, terrorists evil," who tries to understand — not condone — the growing world backlash against the United States, faces furious attacks delivered in a tone of high moral indignation.

Both the tone of high moral indignation and the emporer's lack of clothes were in ample evidence at Bush's press conference yesterday (see it here). Seeing the President live is painful - the guy is dumb - and it frightens us to see that the man in charge of the war on terror has no clue about what's really going on around him.

In his own words: "I'll say that the world is more peaceful and more free under my leadership, and America is more secure...." [minute 40:48]

Okay then. If anyone out there thinks America is experiencing greater peace, freedom or security under Bush's leadership, then you would fit right in as one of the "objective sources" on the President's staff.

From "Bush says attacks aim to undermine progress", via Reuters UK:

President George W. Bush has portrayed resistance forces as growing desperate because Iraq is heading in the right direction.

Bush offered his assessment on Monday after two bloody days in Iraq, with a rocket attack on Sunday on a fortified Baghdad hotel where U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Paul Wolfowitz was staying, and four suicide bomb attacks on Monday that left dozens dead and hundreds injured in the Iraqi capital.

"There are terrorists in Iraq who are willing to kill anybody in order to stop our progress," Bush said at the White House after meeting with Paul Bremer, U.S. civil administrator for Iraq, and Gen. John Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command.

[…]

"The more progress we make on the ground, the more free the Iraqis become, the more electricity is available, the more jobs are available, the more kids that are going to school, the more desperate these killers become, because they can't stand the thought of a free society," Bush said.

Interesting, when both Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld have indicated in recent weeks that Iraq is in fact not heading in the right direction.

George W., move to the head of the spinning class.

From a commentary by Roy Hattersley in today’s Guardian, "Bush is not welcome in Britain":

Has anyone yet explained why President George W Bush is about to make a state visit to the United Kingdom? In my time at the Foreign Office, the supreme accolade of an invitation from Her Majesty was only awarded after long deliberation had convinced the prime minister and foreign secretary that Britain's national interest would be served by arranging for the king, queen or president in question to perform a number of meaningless ceremonies and eat numerous mediocre meals in the company of the royal family. What do we have to gain by feting President Bush?

[. . .]

Tony Blair, on the other hand, has nothing to gain and everything to lose from the visit. He may not have noticed it, but President Bush is regarded in Britain with something approaching contempt. He has achieved the unusual feat of being simultaneously sinister and ridiculous, and he is regarded as the rich kid who grew up arrogant and inarticulate. But it is his role in making the war in Iraq inevitable that makes him unwelcome here. There are no votes to be won by being buddy-buddy with a man who is despised by most of the British public.

[. . .]

How the president himself will react to the humiliation of a state visit that has had to be truncated and emasculated because of the strength of feeling against him, we can only guess. We can rightly discount the behaviour of the hooligans who try physically to disrupt his progress. But he ought to know how strongly so many of us feel. Send a postcard to the American embassy, Grosvenor Square, London W1A 1AE.

From "Oil industry faring better with Bush in White House", via the Odessa (TX) American:

The business and political climate is the best it’s been in years for the oil and gas industry, and some area producers appear to be well positioned to help make things even better.

The ascendancy three years ago of former Midland independent producer George W. Bush to the presidency ... gave producers a much greater say in the policies and politics that affect them, said Jim Henry, chairman of the Midland independent oil and gas firm Henry Petroleum.

Former President George H.W. Bush “was not an advocate for the industry,” Henry said. “His son is an unabashed advocate.”

That was particularly true when the federal government’s stricter stormwater-runoff regulations went into effect in July.

The new standards, implemented to protect drinking water and freshwater supplies from pollution, stripped the oil and gas industry’s long-standing exemption from the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. For the first time, producers would have to obtain stormwater permits before they could develop a new oil and gas lease.

...[A] group of oil and gas executives from Midland, including Doug Robison, general counsel of Henry Petroleum, flew to Washington to meet with representatives of the administration to “talk to them about the serious impact these changes would have on oil and gas operation,” Landreth said.

“And we were able to accomplish a change of direction at the last minute,” he said.

We might as well start calling it the Environmental Pardon Agency.

Environmental Protection Agency rule changes could lead to almost 1.4 million tons more air pollution in 12 states and jeopardize Clinton-era lawsuits against power plants, two studies concluded yesterday, contradicting Bush administration claims.

EPA studies in 2002 found that about 160 million tons of pollution were emitted into U.S. skies. About 146 million people lived in counties where air monitored in 2002 was periodically unhealthy from at least one of the six principal air pollutants, the EPA said.

EPA and the White House have issued new rules in the Clean Air Act's "new source review" program to make it easier for coal-fired electric utilities, refineries and other industrial plants to make improvements without having to install additional pollution controls.

Sens. James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.), Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) cited the GAO report in asking the EPA inspector general yesterday to investigate the administration's claims that the regulations would not affect the lawsuits. Lieberman said the GAO findings contradict administration officials' statements before Congress "that were just not right, that didn't give a clear enough picture of the dangers of the increase in air pollution that would result."

EPA spokeswoman Lisa Harrison dismissed the study predicting more pollution as not credible, although the National Academy of Public Administration vouched for its methodology. She said the EPA was confident the changes will not affect enforcement. ("2 Studies Contradict EPA on New Rules: Changes to Boost Pollution", via the Washington Post)

And if the Bush administration says something is "not credible", well then, it must be so.

From an article by Seth Porges in Editor and Publisher, Press Underreports Wounded in Iraq:

When newspapers reported this week on poor medical and living conditions for Americans injured in Iraq, it might have come as a shock for some readers. For months, the press has barely mentioned non-fatal casualties or the severity of their wounds.

E&P reported in July that while deaths in combat are often tallied by newspapers, the many non-combat troop deaths in Iraq are virtually ignored. It turns out that newspaper readers have also been shortchanged in getting a sense of the number of troops injured, in and out of battle.

"There could be some inattention to [the number of injured troops]," said Philip Bennett, Washington Post assistant managing editor of the foreign desk. "And obviously if there is, it should be corrected. Soldiers getting wounded is part of the reality of conflict on the ground. I think if you were to find or discover that those figures are being overlooked, that would be something we'd want to correct."

Few newspapers routinely report injuries in Iraq, beyond references to specific incidents. Since the war began in March, 1,927 soldiers have been wounded in Iraq, many quite severely. (The tally is current as of Oct. 20.) Of this number, 1,590 were wounded in hostile action, and 337 from other causes. About 20% of the injured in Iraq have suffered severe brain injuries, and as many as 70% "had the potential for resulting in brain injury," according to an Oct. 16 article in The Boston Globe.

Current injury statistics were easily obtained by E&P through U.S. Central Command and the Pentagon, so getting the numbers is no longer a problem. According to Lawrence F. Kaplan, author of an article on injured troops in the Oct. 13 issue of The New Republic, this information has only recently been readily accessible. "Pentagon officials have rebuked public affairs officers who release casualty figures, and, until recently, U.S. Central Command did not regularly publicize the injured tally either," Kaplan wrote.

[. . .]

Even now, when the injury information is easily available, many newspapers neglect to report or keep a tally, as an informal survey of some top papers has shown. This comes on the heels of reports Wednesday that attacks on American troops in Iraq had increased in recent weeks from an average of 15 to 20 attacks per day to about 20 to 25 attacks a day, with a peak at about 35 attacks in one day, according to the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez.

According to an Oct. 3 report by UPI, nearly 4,000 soldiers had been medically evacuated from Iraq for non-combat reasons.

As for the tally of total deaths in Iraq, most of the media continues to only cite those killed in hostile action. On Oct. 20, for example, The New York Times reported: "Since President Bush declared an end to major hostilities in Iraq on May 1, 106 American soldiers have been killed." But this number represents only those killed in combat by hostile fire. A total of 200 American troops have been killed in this time period from all causes, such as vehicle accidents, drowning, and suicides, a figure that is rarely mentioned in the press.