The Bush administration proposes to relax rules that protect rare wildlife. But hey, the move will raise money to protect rare wildlife...

Conservationists are angry over a Bush administration proposal that would allow the importation of animals listed on the United States' endangered species list, a move they say will further cripple the species' dwindling populations.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing a relaxation of regulations that prohibit the transport of live animals considered endangered in other countries. That would mean hunters and merchants who trade in animal skins, tusks and other body parts would be able to go after their prized prey unquestioned.

Administration officials contend revenue generated from the move would help fund conservation efforts both in the United States and abroad. But animal rights activists say that is not true.

"There are a lot of other ways to bring in revenue rather than to place a price tag on endangered species to allow them to be killed or captured," said Wayne Pacelle, senior vice president of The Humane Society of the United States.

HSUS says the international commercial wildlife trade is worth billions of dollars every year and has been responsible for the decline of wild populations of a number of species of animals and plants.

"The Bush administration is telling us with a straight face that the best way to protect endangered species in poor countries is to allow those species to be hunted or captured, then sold in the United States," [said John Kostyack, senior counsel for the National Wildlife Federation].

In a memorandum filed as the public comment on the measure closed last week, Kostyack called the move the Bush administration's latest effort to distort the letter and spirit of the United States' environmental laws, by claiming that its proposal is compatible with the Endangered Species Act. (via UPI)

Bush’s stinginess with his time when it comes to responding to questions from the press is well known at home. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, he doesn’t feel any more generous abroad:

George Bush's word is apparently beyond question. At least, by the Australian press.

The US President has declined a customary joint press conference after his address to the Federal Parliament tomorrow.

The media event, which normally allows two or three questions from Australian media and an equal number from the visiting press, would have been the only official opportunity for Australian journalists to quiz Mr. Bush on the Iraq war and its aftermath.

It would also be the only opportunity to ask the US President about the two Australian citizens being detained without charge at Guantanamo Bay.

Australian journalists have also been denied any place in a so-called "close-up media pool" that will follow Mr. Bush on all his official stops on the day. All positions in the four-member pool have been allocated to members of the White House press corps.

Yes, we know his administration is afraid he’ll say something stupid. But if you purport to rule the world from the Oval Office, you at least owe its citizens an explanation now and then.

From yesterday's Washington Post, "Officials Correct Bush on Indonesia":

President Bush misspoke when he said last week that the United States was ready to "go forward with" a new package of military training programs with Indonesia, according to a White House official questioned about the president's remarks.

Bush said on Indonesian television that new military programs could be launched because Indonesia had cooperated in an investigation into the killing of two U.S. citizens last year in the eastern Indonesian province of Papua.

The comments caught U.S. officials by surprise. Asked to explain Bush's remarks, a senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said: "We want to move ahead with increased military-to-military cooperation with Indonesia, which is in both of our interests.

"Progress in building a broader military-to-military relationship with Indonesia," he said, however, "will be pinned on continued cooperation from Indonesia on the investigation into the murders of two Americans" near the town of Timika, in Papua. "The investigation is moving forward due to the improved cooperation by the Indonesia government."

No new programs are currently planned or have been approved, other administration officials said, contrary to what Bush's statement implied.

During the same interview, Bush also mischaracterized Congress's continued opposition to such military training. Bush said that "for a while the Congress put restrictions on [military training], but now the Congress has changed their attitude."

In fact, opposition in Congress to military training programs with Indonesia grew stronger this year after the possibility of Indonesian military involvement in the Papua attack was raised in a closed-door hearing in May.

From a feature on Barbara Bush's latest memoir, Reflections, in today's New York Times:

Referring to herself as "Miss Pessimistic," Mrs. Bush recalls that she advised her son George W. Bush not to run for governor of Texas against the popular Ann Richards because she "did not think he could win" and that she was equally worried about his chances of winning the White House, because "we are at peace and because we have a strong economy."

By now everyone should be familiar with the comments of Lieutenant General William "Jerry" Boykin, who, among other things, had this to say:

Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him. He's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this.

Well, it's certainly true that the majority Americans didn't vote for Bush, and if there's any truth to the latter statement, we can only guess it's because frogs and locust have already been done.

From Wednesday's Knight Ridder wire, "Bush orders administration officials to `stop the leaks'":

Concerned about the appearance of disarray and feuding within his administration as well as growing resistance to his policies in Iraq, President Bush - living up to his recent declaration that he's in charge - told his top officials to "stop the leaks" to the media, or else.

News of Bush's order leaked almost immediately.

Bush told his senior aides on Tuesday that he "didn't want to see any stories" quoting unnamed administration officials in the media anymore, and if he did, there would be consequences, a senior administration official who asked that his name not be used told Knight Ridder.

From the BBC News website, "Bush hails 'sheriff' Australia":

Mr Bush was asked by an Australian newspaper whether he agreed with Australian Prime Minister John Howard's comment in 1999 that his country was the US' "deputy sheriff".

Mr Bush promptly gave Australia a promotion.

"No. We don't see it as a deputy sheriff. We see it as a sheriff," he told the paper.

This has, not surprisingly, raised a fuss in Southeast Asia:

Malaysian's Deputy Defence Minister Shafie Apdal hit out at the comments on Thursday.

"I suppose America wants a puppet of its own in this region whom they can trust who will do whatever they wish," he told The Associated Press.

"We are quite capable of handling our own security," he added.

President Bush, the most powerful political figure in the world, felt compelled on Monday to assert that he, not his advisers, was in control of his administration's policy on Iraq.

"The person who is in charge is me," he told Tribune Broadcasting in a White House interview that was part of an administration effort to counter criticism of its Iraq policy.

Mr. Bush was responding most directly to Senator Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Mr. Lugar said on the NBC News program "Meet the Press" on Sunday that "the president has to be president" as his top advisers have quarreled over postwar Iraq.

Mr. Bush also said the White House strategy for postwar Iraq was in able hands. "In all due respect to politicians here in Washington, D.C., who make comments, they're just wrong about our strategy," he said.

Mr. Bush added, "We are making very good progress about the establishment of a free Iraq." (New York Times)

The Bush PR machine runs amok, via Business Wire.

Newspapers, many of them in crucial swing states, recently received identical letters to the editor purportedly submitted by soldiers serving in Iraq. These letters contain exactly the same message employed by the Bush administration in their new PR campaign on Iraq.

Mike Lux, president of American Family Voices and Democratic strategist, has observed that each letter is identical and none of the soldiers whose names appeared in print were the one to pen the letter. One soldier had never even read the letter, much less signed it and mailed it home. The letters have appeared in key battleground states for the 2004 election: Washington, California, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and New York. One letter was sent to Olympia, Washington, a major swing state in presidential politics, even though the soldier now resides in Idaho, a Republican stronghold, and considers it home.

These letters appear at a time when the Bush administration is engaged in a wide-ranging campaign to regain public support for the Iraqi occupation. The message points contained in the letters mirror White House message points urging for greater support of the Iraqi effort.

Apparently, the White House hasn’t learned what every college student knows: you have to change the wording if you want to get away with cheating.

From today’s ABC News (that’s the Australian Broadcasting Corporation):

The Federal Opposition leader has told Labor MPs he expects them to treat the US President with respect when George W Bush addresses Parliament next week.

Simon Crean has indicated they should give President Bush a standing ovation after his speech.

Mr Crean says all Labor MPs are expected to attend the joint sittings of Parliament for addresses by Mr Bush and Chinese President Hu Jintao.

Mr Crean says courtesy should always be extended to invited guests and MPs should listen respectfully.

He says they should make an appropriate acknowledgement at the end of the speeches.

He says in the past this has been in the form of a standing ovation.

Labor backbencher Harry Quick last week decided against turning his back on President Bush during his speech.

He says he still intends to wear a white arm band to signify his opposition to the war against Iraq.

We can’t wait to see how they interpret "appropriate acknowledgement at the end of the speeches."

From Wednesday’s Washington Post:

President Bush complained this week that it is hard to tell progress is being made in Iraq "when you listen to the filter" of the news media.

So let’s skip the media filter and go straight to the State Department:

This information is current as of today, Mon Oct 13 00:20:26 2003.

IRAQ

October 2, 2003
This Travel Warning provides updated information on the security situation in Iraq and advises Americans of the bombings at the UN headquarters that resulted in deaths and injuries of American citizens and threats against expatriate targets. The security threat to all American citizens in Iraq remains high. This replaces the Travel Warning of August 22, 2003.

There have been a number of explosions in Baghdad, including at hotels, the UN headquarters, and the Jordanian Embassy. In addition, there have been planned and random killings, as well as extortions and kidnappings. The Department of State continues to strongly warn U.S. citizens against travel to Iraq. Although the restrictions on the use of U.S. passport travel to, in or through Iraq has been lifted, travel to Iraq remains extremely dangerous. Remnants of the former Baath regime, transnational terrorists, and criminal elements remain active. Coalition led military operations continue, and there are daily attacks against Coalition forces throughout the country. Hotels, restaurants and locations with expatriate staff are being targeted. The security environment in all of Iraq remains volatile and unpredictable. Attacks against coalition forces as well as civilian targets occur throughout the day, but travel at night is extremely dangerous.

All vehicular travel in Iraq is extremely dangerous, and there have been attacks on civilian as well as military convoys. Travel in or through Ramadi and Faluja is particularly dangerous. There has been an increase in the use of Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) and/or mines on roads, particularly in plastic bags, soda cans, and dead animals. Grenades and explosives have been thrown into vehicles from overpasses, particularly in crowded areas.

From the Guardian (UK), "Bush launches PR salvo on Iraq":

The [Bush] administration is taking the 'good news in Iraq' message out into smalltown America. A series of speeches and interviews for Bush and top aides has been planned for this week with local newspapers and small television stations.

From Thursday’s Rocky Mountain News (CO), "Questions answered, Rumsfeld-style":

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld brought his inimitable style to a Colorado Springs news conference Wednesday: He told reporter after reporter their questions were wrong.

Fielding questions during a NATO defense ministers' meeting at the Broadmoor Hotel, Rumsfeld said, "Let me take your question and try to correct it."

In another case, he avoided commenting on an event by denying that it had occurred.

Another time, he laughed off a reporter's query with the statement, "You're wrong."

He was asked if the North Atlantic Treaty Organization had recovered from arguments over many allies' refusals to send troops to Iraq.

Rumsfeld said the the response by alliance countries had been "excellent." He said 11 of 19 NATO members had troops in Iraq, and six of the seven potential new members did, too.

He dismissed "all of this myth about poor response and going it alone." He did not address the small numbers of troops sent by most of those countries.

Looks like Rumsfeld isn’t making a great impression with the locals.

On the very same day that Dick "No Credibility" Cheney was repeating the already discredited notion of Saddam’s connections to al Qaeda, and shamelessly using scare tactics to justify the behavior of the Bush administration, George "The President" Bush was announcing the dilution of the mission of the Department of Homeland Security:

I've instructed the Department of Homeland Security to increase inspections of travelers and shipments to and from Cuba. We will enforce the law. We will also target those who travel to Cuba illegally through third countries, and those who sail to Cuba on private vessels in violation of the embargo.
(via The Miami Herald)

So the Department of Homeland Security will be targeting the estimated 40,000 Americans to who choose to travel to Cuba in defiance of law more closely tied to personality than policy, and resources which should, theoretically, be fighting the War on Terror will be fighting the Cold War instead.

From BuzzFlash, courtesy helpful reader David-but-not-David-Sirota, "Bush Swears He'll Hunt Down Osama and Saddam, But Says He Can't Find a Treasonous Betrayer in His Own Administration Because It's Too Big":

A BUZZFLASH GUEST NEWS ANALYSIS
by David Sirota

The Bush Administration on finding Osama Bin Laden in Central Asia:

"We're going to hunt them down one at a time…it doesn't matter where they hide, as we work with our friends we will find them and bring them to justice."
- President George W. Bush, 11/22/02

The Bush Administration on finding Saddam Hussein in the Mideast:

"We are continuing the pursuit and it's a matter of time before [Saddam] is found and brought to justice."
- White House spokesman McClellan, 9/17/03

The Bush Administration on finding the leaker in the close confines of the White House:

"I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official. I don't have any idea....This is a large administration, and there are a lot of senior administration officials."
- President George W. Bush, 10/7/03

From today's Guardian (UK), "America may abandon quest for UN backing":

The US is considering abandoning its pursuit of a UN resolution calling for assistance for the occupation of Iraq, after concerted opposition from UN officials and security council members.
Two weeks after President George Bush appealed for support from the UN general assembly, several security council member states, including France, Germany and Russia, remain firmly opposed to the proposed timetable for Iraq gaining sovereignty.

Their opposition has been bolstered by the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, who believes that unless the resolution is amended it will not provide sufficient security for UN personnel.

None of the permanent members of the security council has threatened to veto the resolution. But if the council fails to secure broad support, abstentions will deprive the resolution of sufficient legitimacy as a mandate.

Failure to get consensus will not only dissuade other countries, such as India and Pakistan, from assisting, but also discourage donors of money worldwide.

Maybe he should offer to call them "Rangers" and "Pioneers".

The New York Times reported this lovely tidbit in response to Arnold Schwarzenegger’s victory yesterday in California:

Republicans asserted that the unseating of a Democratic governor in an overwhelmingly Democratic state was the latest phase in a realignment that began with last year's Congressional elections and would continue in 2004.

Democrats of course argued otherwise, noting that Gov. Gray Davis is extremely unpopular and Californians are just dumb enough to elect an inexperienced movie star as the state tumbles into an increasingly severe fiscal crisis.

Nevertheless, we must all be diligent about nipping in the bud this whole notion of a conservative realignment. California voters chose to limit state spending and then punished Gray Davis for not being able to staunch the bleeding from schools, police and social services. We are hard pressed to imagine what Arnold can do to solve the state’s myriad problems, particularly since he has yet to articulate a meaningful agenda.

In the real world, big problems can’t be solved with a gun or an orchestrated Hollywood ending.

Yep, George "Pre-emptive Strike" Bush was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Why in hell? you may reasonably ask.

According to Reuters, "President Bush has been nominated for ousting Iraq's Saddam Hussein but is unlikely to get it since members of the Nobel committee have spoken out against the war in Iraq."

"Bush is out of the question," said Espen Barth Eide, a senior researcher at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs.

So who nominated Bush? The Nobel committee won't say, but we’re thinking Karl Rove.

From the Straits Times (Singapore), "Washington's risky dollar brinkmanship":

The United States trade deficit is at record heights. It also has a yawning fiscal deficit, which puts further pressure on the dollar - foreigners finance the fiscal deficit, selling their own currencies to buy US Treasuries, causing the dollar's value to rise. Businesses and unions pressure Washington to do something about the twin deficits, and legislators introduce a flurry of protectionist measures. To deflect these pressures, the administration persuades its most powerful trading partners to intervene in the currency markets, to knock down the dollar. A crisis is averted.

Sounds familiar? It should. The above sequence describes not only the present but also what happened 18 years ago. On Sept 22, 1985, when US external deficits were as unsustainable as they are now, finance ministers of the world's five most powerful economies - the US, Japan, Germany, Britain and France - gathered at New York City's elegant Plaza Hotel. The resultant 'Plaza Agreement' committed the five to a managed devaluation of the dollar. In addition, the US agreed to control its fiscal deficit and Europe and Japan agreed to stimulate their domestic economies. It was recognised that a mere devaluation of the dollar would be insufficient in reversing America's external imbalance.

Plaza was a success insofar as it averted an immediate international financial crisis. Within three years, the yen soared from 240 to the dollar to around 135, and Japan's imports rose by almost 50 per cent. Although the US balance of trade never did become balanced as a result, and its fiscal deficit continued to grow, Plaza did moderate the rate of deterioration of the twin deficits, and it did deflect protectionist sentiments in the US. That was the chief reason then President Ronald Reagan abandoned his free market sentiments to intervene forcefully in the currency markets.

Can anyone imagine President Bush even entering into serious negotiations with other G-7 nations, let alone agreeing to control the deficit at their behest?

Can anyone imagine Candidate Bush abandoning his "free market sentiments" before the election?

From the AP wire, via CNN.com:

[Laura Bush] revealed that President Bush had penned a poem for her when she got back from a five-day solo trip to Europe, where she attended a book festival in Moscow and visited France -- getting two kisses on the hand from French President Jacques Chirac.

"President Bush is a great leader and a husband, but I bet you didn't know he is also quite the poet," she said. "Upon returning home last night from my long trip I found a lovely poem waiting there for me."

The poem read:

Well, it's not as bad as the song Ashcroft wrote, but it's certainly no threat to Rumsfeld's laurels.

From the New York Times, "Report Offered Bleak Outlook About Iraq Oil":

The Bush administration's optimistic statements earlier this year that Iraq's oil wealth, not American taxpayers, would cover most of the cost of rebuilding Iraq were at odds with a bleaker assessment of a government task force secretly established last fall to study Iraq's oil industry, according to public records and government officials.

The task force, which was based at the Pentagon as part of the planning for the war, produced a book-length report that described the Iraqi oil industry as so badly damaged by a decade of trade embargoes that its production capacity had fallen by more than 25 percent, panel members have said.

Despite those findings, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz told Congress during the war that "we are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

Moreover, Vice President Dick Cheney said in April, on the day Baghdad fell, that Iraq's oil production could hit 3 million barrels a day by the end of the year, even though the task force had determined that Iraq was generating less than 2.4 million barrels a day before the war.

Now, as the Bush administration requests $20.3 billion from Congress for reconstruction next year, the chief reasons cited for the high price tag are sabotage of oil equipment — and the poor state of oil infrastructure already documented by the task force.

"The problem is this," L. Paul Bremer III, the top civilian administrator in Iraq, asserted at a Senate hearing two weeks ago: "The oil infrastructure was severely run down over the last 20 years, and partly because of sanctions over the last decade."

Similarly, Bush administration officials announced earlier this year that Iraq's oil revenues would be $20 billion to $30 billion a year, which added to the impression that the aftermath of the war would place a minimal burden on the United States. Mr. Bremer now estimates that Iraq's total oil revenues from the last half of 2003 to 2005 will amount to $35 billion, running at a rate of about $14 billion a year.

The administration now plays down the report's findings.

Senior administration officials said that Mr. Cheney, Mr. Wolfowitz and Donald H. Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense, were aware of the oil group's overall mission, but that they could not say whether they knew of its specific findings.

So they've decided it's better we think they're incompetent, rather than deceitful. What a nice change of pace.

Worse, with unemployment, poverty and the percentage of Americans without health insurance rising, he makes taxpayers foot the bill for his folly:

The Bush administration is seeking more than $600 million from Congress to continue the hunt for conclusive evidence that Saddam Hussein's government had an illegal weapons program, officials said Wednesday.

The money, part of the White House's request for $87 billion in supplemental spending on Iraq and Afghanistan, comes on top of at least $300 million that has already been spent on the weapons search, the officials said. (via the New York Times)

C'mon George, there are no weapons. You were duped by your own advisors. Don't waste our money trying to save face.

From yesterday's Caspar Star Tribune, "Critics say Bush plan puts 600,000 Colorado acres at risk":

Critics of a new Bush administration policy say it will put 600,000 acres of Colorado wilderness at risk of damage from energy development, grazing and all-terrain vehicles.

Earlier this week, the administration ordered the Bureau of Land Management to give equal consideration to the commercial value of land before setting it aside as wilderness.

Critics say the order will prevent future wilderness designations, especially in areas such as Roan Plateau, an area near Rifle with untapped natural gas reserves.

''The administration has, in effect, ruled the primary purpose of public lands is to provide energy at the expense of everything else,'' said Matt Baker, executive director of Environment Colorado.

Here’s some shocking news: the U.S. has a bad image in the Muslim world, via the New York Times.

The United States must drastically increase and overhaul its public relations efforts to salvage its plummeting image among Muslims and Arabs abroad, a panel chosen by the Bush administration has found.

"Hostility toward America has reached shocking levels," the panel stated in its report, which will be released Wednesday. "What is required is not merely tactical adaptation but strategic, and radical, transformation."

The report added that "spin" and manipulative public relations "are not the answer," but that neither is avoiding the debate.

The advisory panel said that it recognized that American policies might well be the root of the problem, but that Washington could do far more to present its side of the issues and rebut widespread misinformation among Muslims overseas.

We agree with the panel that the root of the problem might very well indeed be the American policies themselves. What are we going to advertise to the Muslim world – that they should like us because we are the protectors of democracy? Bush’s arrogant behavior towards the rest of the world during the build-up to the Iraq campaign and continuing to the present has proven to the world that our commitment to democracy is casual at best. It’s a convenient way to couch our true intentions, which involve oil, American business interests and a conservative plan to oust Saddam Hussein that evolved long before Bush announced he would run for president.

Bush’s continuing swagger and outright hypocrisy cannot be explained away by catchy public relations slogans. What will change minds in the Muslim world and beyond is for the U.S. act as a partner instead of a bully, a builder instead of a protector of its own interests and anything other than an out of control occupation force.

From Thomas Friedmans’s editorial in the New York Times, via the Salt Lake Tribune:

The United States and Europe, argues Clyde Prestowitz*, the trade expert and author of Rogue Nation, should actually shrink their farm subsidies, even if developing countries don't immediately reciprocate.

If only the Bush team connected the dots, it would see what a nutty war on terrorism it is fighting, explains Prestowitz. Here, he says, is the Bush war on terrorism: Preach free trade, but don't deliver on it, so Pakistani farmers become more impoverished. Then ask Congress to give a tax break for any American who wants to buy a gas-guzzling Humvee for business use and also ask Congress to resist any efforts to make Detroit increase gasoline mileage in new cars. All this means more U.S. oil imports from Saudi Arabia.

So then the Saudis have more dollars to give to their Wahhabi fundamentalist evangelists, who spend it by building religious schools in Pakistan. The Pakistani farmer we've put out of business with our farm subsidies then sends his sons to the Wahhabi school because it is tuition-free and offers a hot lunch. His sons grow up getting only a Quranic education, so they are unprepared for modernity, but they are taught one thing: that America is the source of all their troubles. One of the farmer's sons joins al-Qaida and is killed in Afghanistan by U.S. Special Forces, and we think we're winning the war on terrorism.

*Yet another figure from the Reagan administration critical of George W. Bush

From Bush officials who leaked name of US spy 'for revenge' could face jail, via the UK's Independent:

The Justice Department is investigating whether Bush administration officials broke the law by revealing the identity of an undercover CIA operative whose husband disparaged claims by the White House that Iraq was seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

George Tenet, the director of the CIA, has sent a memo to the department asking it to find out who revealed Valerie Plame's identity in July.

Ms Plame, a weapons expert, is the wife of the former US ambassador Joe Wilson. It is alleged that her identity was revealed in retaliation for comments he made about Iraq's alleged scheme to buy uranium from Niger to develop nuclear weapons.

Ms Plame's identity was first mentioned by a syndicated newspaper columnist, who said his sources were "two administration officials".

Yesterday The Washington Post reported that the two officials had telephoned at least six journalists and identified Ms Plame. "Clearly it was meant purely and simply for revenge," a White House official said.

Mr Wilson's comments caused the White House to admit that "16 words" in President George Bush's State of the Union address last January which claimed Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa were incorrect.

Mr Wilson said yesterday: "I have always said that the desire to implicate my wife in this was intended to intimidate others from coming forward. The idea that someone would do this is an anathema to me and should be an anathema to a president who came to office promising to restore honour to the White House." Naming a undercover operative is a federal offence which carries penalties of $50,000 (£30,000) and up to 10 years jail.

Breaking the law isn't that great, either.