|
|
<< Labor Roundup | Main | Does Trade With China Matter? >> March 23, 2004Destroying the MessengerPaul Krugman emphasizes that the personal assaults on Richard Clarke for revealing the indifference of Bush's team to Al Qaeda pre-911 are just part of a pattern of Bush officials seeking to destroy the lives of any government employee who dares to criticize the King: When Gen. Eric Shinseki told Congress that postwar Iraq would require a large occupation force, that was the end of his military career. When Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV revealed that the 2003 State of the Union speech contained information known to be false, someone in the White House destroyed his wife's career by revealing that she was a C.I.A. operative. And we now know that Richard Foster, the Medicare system's chief actuary, was threatened with dismissal if he revealed to Congress the likely cost of the administration's prescription drug plan.Hopefully, we're getting closer to the truth now. The Bush administration doesn't care about US terrorist deaths-- they care about expanding the military so they can expand the influence of its corporate allies around the world. They want privatization in Iraq, Haiti and every other country that they can invade, then auction to global multinationals at a bargain price. They also don't care about cutting the drug prices for the elderly. They just want corporate subsidies for the pharmaceutical and HMO industries. And anyone who reveals those facts will get it-- fired and personal assassinations as needed. Posted by Nathan at March 23, 2004 07:24 AM Related posts:
Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsI agree. They don't care about individuals at home or abroad. Posted by: Lynne at March 23, 2004 07:06 PM What do you all make of the Newseek poll, just cited on CNN (3/28), that says 60% of voter's opinions of the administration were unchanged by Clarke's testimony, 17% had a lower regard for the administration, and 10% had a more positive regard? My take is that most of us have already made a yes or no decision on Bush's administration, which is unlikely to be changed. The 10% strikes me as a common right wing response to criticism: spastic reaffirmation. But what is that 17%? Swing-voters? People who suddenly started paying attention? I don't generally find polls interesting, but this one has some mystery. Posted by: Lorca at March 28, 2004 11:30 PM Post a comment
|
Series-
Social Security
Past Series
Current Weblog
January 04, 2005 January 03, 2005 January 02, 2005 January 01, 2005 ... and Why That's a Good Thing - Judge Richard Posner is guest blogging at Leiter Reports and has a post on why morality has to influence politics... MORE... December 31, 2004 December 30, 2004 December 29, 2004 December 28, 2004 December 24, 2004 December 22, 2004 December 21, 2004 December 20, 2004 December 18, 2004 December 17, 2004 December 16, 2004
Referrers to site
|