Bush fatigue, interrupted

[theknife]

the daily parade of incompetence, cronyism, malfeasance. and stonewalling that passes for government under this regime is so routine, it's barely noteworthy. even so, this one is hard to pass unremarked:

WASHINGTON, July 10 — Former Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona told a Congressional committee today that top officials in the Bush administration repeatedly tried to weaken or suppress important public health reports because of political considerations.

Dr. Carmona, who served as surgeon general from 2002 to 2006, said White House officials would not allow him to speak or issue reports about stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education, or prison, mental and global health issues because of political concerns. Top administration officials delayed for years and attempted to “water down” a landmark report on secondhand tobacco smoke, he said in sworn testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

He was ordered to mention President Bush three times on every page of every speech he gave, Dr. Carmona said. He was asked to make speeches to support Republican political candidates and to attend political briefings, at least one of which included Karl Rove, the president’s senior political adviser, he said.

And administration officials even discouraged him from attending the Special Olympics because, he said, of that charitable organization’s longtime ties to the Kennedy family.

“I was specifically told by a senior person, ‘Why would you want to help those people?’ ” Dr. Carmona said.

The Special Olympics is one of the nation’s premier charitable organizations to benefit disabled people.

lift up any rock in the Bush administration and something ugly crawls out.

Dr. Carmona joins a list of present and former Bush administration officials who assert that politics often trumped science within what had previously been nonpartisan government health and scientific agencies.

edit: the Special Olympics stuff conjures up peculiar mental images...like maybe Karl Rove, backstage at the Special Olympics, loosening wheelchair axle hubs so the wheels fall off during parapalegic relay races, in order to embarrass the Kennedys...

[albed]

He's just mad because "the administration" wouldn't "allow" him to masturbate, "ordered" him to stop eating, "asked" him to poop his pants, and "discouraged" him from breathing.


You're obviously not bright enough to pick up on the clues that someone is spouting bullshit but the refusal to be specific is a big one. People give orders, requests and discouragement, not "the administration"; and how do you "not allow" someone to do something.


But you'd have to be incredibly stupid to think he could mention Bush 3 times on every page of every speech without drawing notice from the normal people who haven't damaged their brains with drug and alcohol abuse.


It's obvious to anyone who can think for themselves that he's just another lying nutcase that the liberal media loves to publicize. You must only comprehend a tiny fraction of the world you experience to be so clueless.

[malvachat]

Originally Posted by albed

It's obvious to anyone who can think for themselves that he's just another lying nutcase

Really?
So a Congressional committee doesn't think for them selfs then?
"lying nutcase"
I take it your under oath at a congressional committee?
"lying nutcase"
Former Surgeon General?
Who appoints the surgeon General?
I don't know?
Who would appoint a "lying nutcase"to such an important job?
Answers on a postcard

[theknife]

Originally Posted by albed

blah blah blah stupid blah blah blah liberal blah blah blah nutcase blah blah blah liberal media blah blah blah

your support for scientific illiteracy is duly noted

[Mazer]

knife, if stories like these didn't crop up every few weeks you'd go nuts, wouldn't you? I think the Betty Ford Center has a program for bad news junkies, maybe you should look into it, if not for yourself then for your loved ones.

Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies was making similar complaints about the administration a few years ago. And before that a certain individual got a witch hunt started when he said Iraq wasn't trying to buy uranium from Niger after all. It's the same old story with new names, but I guess originality isn't a major concern at the New York Times.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Mazer

It's the same old story with new names, but I guess originality isn't a major concern at the New York Times.

what, like this?

Carmona's remarks were the latest among complaints from government scientists about what they say are administration efforts to control - and sometimes distort - scientific evidence in order to support policy decisions.

NASA scientists have complained of political pressure to tone down warnings about global warming. EPA officials have complained that technical data on power plant emissions and oil drilling have been ignored.

Dr. Elias Zerhouni, director of the National Institutes of Health, recently dissented from the administration's position by saying its restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research were holding back progress and should be lifted.

Scientists outside the government also have complained about what some call the administration's "war on science."

see a pattern here?

[albed]

Yeah a pattern of omission; no names, dates, documents, emails; just a bunch of vague horseshit about "the administration". Much like the ufo freaks make their arguments.


Ever feel skeptical when hard facts are suspiciously absent knife? Or are you just so eager to swallow anything anti-Bush you'll mindlessly accept whatever you're fed?

[daddydirt]

= ???

the Wall Street Journal nails this; just the latest in a neverending list of non-scandals.

Iraq aside, the big political story of the week seems to be that Richard Carmona believes he was gagged, if not bound, by the Bush Administration during his tenure as Surgeon General from 2002-2006. Dr. Carmona made his case before Henry Waxman's never-sleeping House Government Reform and Oversight Committee on Tuesday, and most media outlets played it up.

At the beginning of his tenure as the country's top doctor, he "was still quite politically naive in the ways of the Beltway," Dr. Carmona said. "As I witnessed partisanship and political manipulation, I was astounded and unsure of what I was witnessing . . . [and] whether this was the norm for all Surgeons General." Cue the ominous music.

We hate to ruin a political scandal, but isn't this a tad overwrought as a story line? Let's assume that Bush officials did tell him to keep mum on such issues as embryonic stem cell research and sex education. This is what appointed officials of any Administration are expected to do -- support the policies of an elected President. If Dr. Carmona really thinks that the Surgeon General should be above politics, "naive" is not the first adjective that comes to mind.

Dr. Carmona says he was especially offended that his voice wasn't welcome on matters of "science." He misses a critical distinction: Science may inform policy, but it's no substitute for the political judgments that properly play a role in guiding public policy. In the area of stem cells, for instance, there is no ban on debating the science -- only a question of whether and to what extent it should be publicly funded.

In any case, Dr. Carmona was not an indentured servant. If he disagreed so profoundly with President Bush's policy, he could have resigned. Honorable people do it all the time, and no one should take a job in Washington unless he is prepared to resign to defend his principles. That Dr. Carmona failed to resign over so long a period suggests that his personal moral agony was rather less tortured than he now makes it seem.

Alternatively, the good doctor could have done what some of his predecessors chose to do: Speak up anyway, and face the consequences, such as being fired. C. Everett Koop did that on AIDS during the Reagan Administration and became a hero to the media establishment that had once dismissed him as an anti-abortion zealot. Joycelyn Elders also chose to use her pulpit to endorse creative sex education in public schools, at least until the Clinton Administration asked her to resign.

Either decision would have been more honorable than the one Dr. Carmona chose to indulge -- which is to engage in a late hit on the President who appointed him, and only now that he will pay no personal price and it is politically fashionable to do so.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1184...googlenews_wsj

[malvachat]

So he's not a "lying nutcase" than?
He's just

"quite politically naive in the ways of the Beltway,"

Because he,

"witnessed partisanship and political manipulation, I was astounded and unsure of what I was witnessing . . . [and] whether this was the norm for all Surgeons General."

But of course,

"This is what appointed officials of any Administration are expected to do -- support the policies of an elected President"

So he needed to be,

"more honourable"and less"naive"

Instead of,

"engage in a late hit on the President who appointed him, and only now that he will pay no personal price and it is politically fashionable to do so"


Yes,maybe he should have resigned first,so he paid a,

"personal price"

First ,then speak out.
After all,free speech is alive and well in the states,
but you must pay the price for it.
Shoot the messenger seems to be the norm.
What a strange place that there America is.

[Mazer]

malva, Dr. Carmona is only doing what a lot of people wait to do until after they quit their jobs because in non-European countries people risk dismissal when they openly insult their employers. He could have spoken up at any time but he chose to do so after he got his last paycheck. He would have acted the same way no matter who he was working for, and so would most people, so free speech really isn't at issue here.

[daddydirt]

.

[malvachat]

Originally Posted by Mazer

malva, Dr. Carmona is only doing what a lot of people wait to do until after they quit their jobs because in non-European countries people risk dismissal when they openly insult their employers. He could have spoken up at any time but he chose to do so after he got his last paycheck. He would have acted the same way no matter who he was working for, and so would most people, so free speech really isn't at issue here.

Okay,so why is paying a "personal price"an issue?
He may well be a coward and dishonourable,stayed in the job too long and lots of other things.
It doesn't make him a "lying nutcase"
It's something about these personal attacks all the time instead of addressing the issue.

Free speech in the states died a long time ago.
Along with a few more freedoms.
I don't worry about that here in the UK.Our administration system in this country is so flawed,they never let the right hand know what the left hand is doing.
For example,I have worked all of my life except for a couple of months during the years of TBW"That Bloody Woman"
Now I have four NI numbers and three different tax codes.
This has happened because I did a lot of temporary work a few years back.When I start paying on one code they write and tell me I should be paying another.It gets changed.Then because of the fact I have four different NI numbers I get issued with another tax code.Which when means I pay top rate of tax coz they think I have four jobs.I appeal of course.Everything goes back to normal and I get a tax rebate.
Till next year it all happens again.
I have wrote and phoned at least ten times over the years.This has gone on for six years now.
That is without the fact the house we live in is in three different names.My wife's first husband(left 15 years ago)Her old married name when he left.And now her new married name.
Every year we get council tax bills and rent bills for all three,post for all three from the council and everything else.
To date we have been done 27 times for non-payment.When the debt collectors call we explain and they go away.
Till when,guess what?You got it next year.
This has been happening for the last 14 years and they still can't get it right.
With this sort of thing going on all over the country I don't think we're in danger of a fascist state just yet.

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by malvachat

Free speech in the states died a long time ago.
Along with a few more freedoms.
I don't worry about that here in the UK.

Please provide me with some examples Mal. How and when did Americans lose the right to Free Speech? When did “Free Speech Die in the States?” Also what freedoms have Americans lost? What can they not do now compared to what they could do let us say ten years ago?

Maybe you think Listening in on international phone calls from suspected terrorist is one of these freedoms? Well I don’t know about you but I think National Security trumps suspected terrorist rights to not have their phone calls monitored. I don’t think the calls would be allowed to be used in court for any reason and I don’t think that is the purpose. National Security is. On this subject, you know why I know the first Amendment of the Constitution is alive and well. The America Media sometimes does harm to National Security and the government has not stopped them. The Media reports on how the government is trying to stop terrorist attacks and has provided the enemies information in the past, which was very helpful to them.

Since 9/11, how many terrorist attacks have occurred in the USA and how many have occurred in the UK? Who has a better grip on National Security? I don’t live in the USA but I visit a lot, so what Freedoms have been lost? I have not noticed one. Except Canadians and Americans need a passport now to cross the border. Big deal, National Security again, pretty important.

[albed]

Yeah I'll second that question -since you've made a rare post that wasn't in your usual drunken idiot style I actually read it- what freedoms have I lost? You must be getting "multi-syndrome"; living thousands of miles away from the U.S. but somehow thinking you know what's going on over here better than we do.

[multi]

here is the top ten from the Guardian

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
2. Create a gulag
3. Develop a thug caste
4. Set up an internal surveillance system
5. Harass citizens' groups
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7. Target key individuals
8. Control the press
9. Dissent equals treason
10. Suspend the rule of law

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html

[malvachat]

So the pair of you still think you have free speech then?

[albed]

We asked you a question dipshit. I know what I have where I live. WTF do you know?

[malvachat]

Here's something to think about.

"Freedom of speech is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship"

"The right to freedom of speech is guaranteed under international law through numerous human rights instruments, notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights"

"the United States First Amendment theoretically grants absolute freedom, placing the burden upon the state to demonstrate when (if) a limitation of this freedom is necessary"

Note the phase " limitation of this freedom is necessary"
Who deems it necessary?
The State?

"The US Supreme Court has spoken of the ability to criticize government and government officials as "the central meaning of the First Amendment."

"Some suggest that when citizens refrain from voicing their discontent because they fear retribution"

"Since 1977, the U.S. Supreme Court has retreated from protecting freedom of speech"

I can show you case after case where using so called "free speech" is curtailed because of retribution by people in so called positions of power.

It stands to reason if you insult your boss,you go.

But if you write a letter to a paper with a point of view about something not concerning your work that your boss doesn't like?
Or stating a point of view about anything unrelated to his or her work or workplace?
Maybe a point of view about dog baiting.
But because your boss goes dog baiting he sacks you.
right or wrong?

You might well think you have freedom of speech but you're very much mistaken.
As for your name calling it's becoming bit of a bore.
It's silly and it detracts from your point of view.

Now let's be sensible some restrictions on speech are necessary in lots of areas.But when it comes to criticizing government and government officials,free and open discussion should be allowed without fear of retribution.

Do you really think that is the case now in the States?
What is the quote from your president?

You either with us or your with the terrorists?
So if you disagree with his way,your on the side of the terrorist?Strange point of view that.
Anyway for the record,I don't dislike America or Mr Bush.
I just think your going down the road to a fascist state.

I got most of the quotes from Wikipedia.
Not sure if you consider that a credible source or not?

[albed]

Your refusal to answer a simple question about your statement marks you as just another lying shitstain who won't stand behind his own words. You ought to run for political office.

[multi]

Originally Posted by malvachat

I got most of the quotes from Wikipedia.
Not sure if you consider that a credible source or not?

It doesn't matter, you if you copy/paste..thats a no no
This means you don't know what you are talking about