stories... issues... bushreport... comedy... site map... contact...

Ask Politex

Politex, Just let me say THANKS FOR BEING THERE , but - will it help to stop a repetition of what we're seeing today?? --I.R. Heller

Not all alone, I.R., but your letter's a start. --Jerry, 04.02.03


"Suppose Bush is defeated in 2 years, how much of what this administration has wrought can be undone? What are the true consequences of all these changes in our government and how the rest of the world sees us after these changes? Two years is a very short time, and yet, to think of all that's been done in the two he has already turned upside down is astounding. --Everett English

I suspect, Everett, that you'll be even more astounded at the damage Bush will do in the remaining two years of his term. Further, I'm sure Karl Rove is presently figuring out ways to bamboozle the public and manipulate Bush's incredibly poor record to get four more years out the American electorate and create more long-lasting misery for the average man.

As you probably know, many of the wrongheaded, repressive, unfair, unjust, and ill-advised bills Bush is getting passed into law, not to mention his under-the-table executive orders, are either permanent, designed to last beyond two terms in office, or are presently being tweaked to make them as as long-lasting as possible. Clearly, Bush is not only interested in turning the country into his firmly conservative image, but he wants to place his misguided stamp on our nation for generations to come. Given that understanding, it's shortsighted to think of a Dem administration of 4 or 8 years turning around the world being created during the Bush years.

Those who are placed in positions of power during Republican administrations tend to be leaders in long-lived, top-down corporations; are very much aware of the evolution of power from one generation to the next; and think of conservative politics as evolving in the same corporate way. In that sense, we're experiencing an evolution of conservative economic and social political power that started modestly with Nixon, gathered its strength with Reagan, and has reached fruition with Bush. While all three men have their own peculiarities, strengths, and weaknesses, I believe that the men and women surrounding Bush, most of whom from past Republican administrations with long-felt ideological agendas, coupled with 21st Century tools of control (computer information networks, the media in the hands of a few conservative moguls, conservative control of Congress, a Bush majority in the Supreme Court as well as a growing Bush network of federal judges, and a frightened, uninformed citizenry), constitute a far greater threat to our traditions of a free, democratic, upwardly mobile society than either the Nixon or the Reagan administrations.

It would be naive of us to think that a further evolution of conservative control would be halted for good by the election of a Dem in 2004 or 2008. Keep in mind that it took a moderate Bill Clinton to defeat Reagan-clone Bush, and numerous Reagan policies and control mechanisms were left in place while Clinton was otherwise employed. (That's what Monicagate really was all about.) There's little reason to think this conservative evolution will not continue to be pressed, much of it at the expense of the average American citizen, not to mention many of our best American traditions. --Jerry Politex, 01.20.03


Is there a reason your "Bush Lies" page is weeks out of date? It's not like Bush has stopped lying. As corroboration, I refer to the President's speech to the nation last Thursday.

Given Bush's own statements, and that of his Press Secy and others, wasn't the claim that they always meant to make the Office of Homeland Security a cabinet post for weeks or months a flat lie? I seem to recall the President himself, in a press release a few days before his June 6 speech, saying there was no reason to make the Director of Homeland Security anything other than a Presidential advisor.

Of course, that was when Bush was trying to keep Tom Ridge from having to testify up on Capitol Hill about what he wasn't doing to protect us all from another terrorist attack. I guess, as Ari Fleischer and others in this Administration often say, "the previous statement was inoperative." Isn't that pretty much a slick way of saying, "We were lying before we decided we had to tell the truth"? In fact, just tonight (Monday, 6/10), I saw the folks at Fox News Channel having a good laugh over Ari Fleischer admitting, "When the President says he has read something (i. e., his own EPA's 260-page report on global warming), you can assume that means he was 'briefed' on it." -- Paul R. Drake

First of all, Paul, you know and I know but our readers don't know that your letter was longer than the above excerpt, but I plan to post it in our letters section later this week. Meanwhile, I agree with you about Bush lying about originally wanting the Homeland Security post to be a Cabinet-level position. He didn't, for a number of reasons. One was how in the world could he criticize the "bureaucracy," as he did when rejecting the EPA global warming report, if he's responsible for creating one of the largest bureaucracies in U.S. history? Further, how can he continue to act in secret and in the unconstitutional shadows if his Homeland Secretary has to talk to Congress under oath? There are more reasons, but let's just say that his reasons in general tend to be political decisions dealing with his own protection, rather than ours. This is hardly what a true leader would do.

Anyway, about Bush Watch not updating its "Bush Lies" page more regularly. As we note on that page the lies we report are representative. If we took the time to document every lie that Bush or his representatives told, we'd have time for little else. We'd have to change the name of our site from "Bush Watch" to "Bush Lies." Hmmm... --Jerry Politex, 06.12.02

Anyone know the REAL reason White House counselor Karen Hughes resigned her job in April? --Karen

Hughes, Bush's closest advisor and the first member of Bush's inner circle to leave Washington, said it was to spend more time with her family, but hedged her bets by saying "she will continue to work on President Bush's behalf, helping him with major speeches and being a 'phone call away' when he needs advice," according to CNN. Hughes told reporters, "When I talked to him about moving home to Texas, he said, 'Well, as long as I can still have your advice and counsel and rely on your judgment. I want you still involved,'" she said. "I want to be involved, and I plan to continue to be involved.'" So don't be surprised when Hughes leaves her post sometime this summer and surfaces as the brains behind the GOP push to retain the open Senate seat and the Governor's Mansion in Texas.

As Bush watcher M. E. Buccieri said to us at the time, Hughes' leaving "is probably about her going back to Texas to help Cornyn beat Kirk, so Bush isn't embarrassed by the Democrats gaining a Senate seat in Texas." Now in last Sunday's PARADE, columnist Walter Scott writes, "Bush asked Hughes to buck up the state's Republican Party, which is in danger of losing this fall's governor's race and the U.S. Sentate seat being vacated by Phil Gramm. Such a defeat would be a humiliation for the President. Hughes, 45, is intimately familiar with the Lone Star State's rough and tumble politics, and Mr. Bush is counting on her to save face for him and the GOP." --Politex, 06.03.02

Saw an article from Drudge where right after George W. was put in office U.S. agents were told to back off Bin Laden and his family. Question: Did the influence of James Baker and Daddy Bush have anything to do with this? If they influenced Jr. to back off investigating Bin Laden and telling U.S. agents to stop going after the terrorists, we have something bigger than Watergate on our hands....Please inform us of anything you might have. --Jeff, 11/8/01

The Sydney (Australia) Morning Herald story that Drudge linked you to, Jeff, was a summary of a recent report on BBC TV:

"United States special agents were told to back off the bin Laden family and the Saudi royals soon after George Bush became president, although that has all changed since September 11, a BBC television program has claimed."

The summary goes on to note that the FBI had been investigating Bin Laden family activities in the U.S. prior to Sept. 11. One relative of Osama had a relationship with a suspected terrorist organization that had been investigated " but for some reason [FBI] agents were pulled off the trail," according to the BBC report. Speaking of similar previous U.S. behavior, a former head of the U.S. visa bureau in Saidi Arabia says on camera, " I complained there. I complained here in Washington ... and I was ignored. What I was doing was giving visas to terrorists, recruited by the CIA and Osama bin Laden to come back to the United States for training to be used in the war in Afghanistan against the then Soviets."

The Sidney summary concludes, " The [BBC] program said it had been told by a highly placed source in a US intelligence agency there had always been "constraints" on investigating Saudis, but under [present] President George Bush it had become much worse. After the elections, the intelligence agencies were told to "back off" from investigating the bin Laden family and the Saudi royals. The policy was reversed after September 11, it reported."

The implied questions from the story are pretty clear: If the details of the report are true, why did the U.S. back off from investigating possible terrorist groups prior to Sept. 11, and why did the "constraints" on "investigating Saudis" grow "much worse" under Bush? As you may know, Bush Watch has two special reports on related questions, Bush And Bin Laden Money and Bush And The Arab-American. Another Bush Watch special report that seems relevant is Bush And Central Asian Oil.

Surprisingly, the Sydney summary of the BBC TV report doesn't mention the name of the reporter, Greg Palast, who is best known for his BBC documentary on vote manipulation in Forida during the Gore-Bush election, which you can see from his web site. In a Guardian story yesterday, "FBI AND US SPY AGENTS SAY BUSH SPIKED BIN LADEN PROBES BEFORE 11 SEPTEMBER," also posted on his web site, Palast writes that the BBC report on the Bin Laden family will soon be posted on his web site. His Guardian story adds a number of details to the BBC report.

From viewing the TV report yesterday when it was still posted on the BBC site, I recall three points. After Sept. 11 the Bin Landen family severed its financial connections with Carlyle, thus cutting its financial connection to both the Bush family and James Baker through Carlyle (see Bush and Bin Laden Money), on Sept. 12 members of the Bin Laden family living in the U.S. were flown back to Saudi Arabia through U.S. government arrangements, and an official on the BBC show attempted to debunk Palast's report by claiming that the CIA, not the FBI would have been investigating the Bin Laden family proior to Sept. 11, so the FBI documents alluded to on the show must be bogus. He did not explain why the CIA, and not the FBI, would be investigating possible domestic terrorism.

I don't think we've heard the last of this story, Jeff. --Politex, www.bushwatch.com, 11/8/01

(c)copyright 2001, may be reprinted with attribution and link to bush watch


Click Here!