Spending More on Medicare Ads Than Cheaper Drugs

The White House today announced it will be spending another $18 million of taxpayer money on television ads promoting its new Medicare bill. Not only was the last round of ads criticized by government regulators as misleading, but the White House is on track to spend more Medicare money on television ads ($80 million) than its own FDA commissioner says is necessary to create a safe system to import cheaper, FDA-approved prescription medicines from abroad ($58 million).

Allowing reimportation could save seniors - and all U.S. consumers - billions. That, of course, means the White House and its allies in the drug industry oppose it. Thus, the White House has not budgeted any money for setting up the reimportation system, and has stripped bipartisan provisions legalizing reimportation out of key bills. Meanwhile, the Administration has taken the extraordinary step of deploying federal agents to search and intimidate low-income seniors traveling to Canada in order to fill their prescriptions. On top of that, Pfizer CEO Henry McKinnell - a top Bush fundraiser - "vowed to continue efforts to cut off supplies" of medicines to Canada in an effort to starve U.S. and Canadian seniors of medicine until they stop their push for a reimportation bill.

Cheney Attacked Reagan For Not Cutting Defense

With Vice President Cheney set to attack his opponents Monday for supposedly wanting to cut defense spending in the 1980s, I wanted to pass along this quote from Cheney from the same time period. According to the 12/16/84 Washington Post, as a House leader, Cheney went on record and specifically attacked President Reagan for not cutting defense spending:

If Reagan "doesn't really cut defense, he becomes the No. 1 special pleader in town...The severity of the deficit is great enough that the president has to reach out and take a whack at everything to be credible...If you're going to rule out the other two [Social Security cuts and a tax increase], then you've got to hit defense."
- Dick Cheney quoted in the Washington Post, 12/16/84

How can Cheney attack others for supposedly wanting to cut defense in the 1980s, when he was leading vocal attacks against a President of his own party for not cutting defense?

Bremer Hit Bush Over Neglecting Terrorism Before 9/11

According to this article, which cites a book /conference of the Robert R. McCormick Tribune Foundation, Paul Bremer was very critical of the Bush Administration's failure to defend the country before 9/11. According to the article, he said in late February of 2001, "The new administration seems to be paying no attention to the problem of terrorism. What they will do is stagger along until there's a major incident and then suddenly say, 'Oh, my God, shouldn't we be organized to deal with this?' That's too bad. They've been given a window of opportunity with very little terrorism now, and they're not taking advantage of it."

This quote is consistent with everything we've heard from Richard Clarke, and everything we know about the White House's neglect of counterterrorism before the attacks.

White House Lies About U.S. Troop Needs

CLAIM:

"The President looks to the commanders in the theater to make the determinations of what is needed for our troops. They're the ones who are in the best position to look at circumstances on the ground and determine what is needed. And we have received assurances from Pentagon officials that the resources they have at this time are more than enough to meet their needs."
- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 4/21/04

FACT:

Military officials say "more money will be needed soon" and have "identified unmet funding needs, including initiatives aimed at providing equipment and weapons for troops in Iraq. The Army has publicly identified nearly $6 billion in funding requests that did not make Bush's $402 billion defense budget for 2005, including $132 million for bolt-on vehicle armor; $879 million for combat helmets, silk-weight underwear, boots and other clothing; $21.5 million for M249 squad automatic weapons; and $27 million for ammunition magazines, night sights and ammo packs. Also unfunded: $956 million for repairing desert-damaged equipment and $102 million to replace equipment lost in combat. The Marine Corps' unfunded budget requests include $40 million for body armor, lightweight helmets and other equipment."
- Washington Post, 4/21/04

Why would this pro-defense spending Administration oppose immediately funding these shortfalls with an emergency spending bill? Politics: The President and his allies in Congress probably don't want another contentious vote/debate right before the election like the one that took place last time on the $87 billion. In other words, George Bush's partisan political goals are more important to the White House than adequately protecting troops on the frontline.

Enough Said.

As excerpted from today's Progress Report:

"I kind of like ducking questions."

- President George W. Bush, 4/21/04

At least he's being honest here...for more, sign up for the Progress Report.

Bush Flip Flopping On Woodward's Book?

CLAIM:

"Administration: Woodward Book Wrong on War"
- Fox News Headline, 4/21/04

FACT:

"[The Bush campaign] has given their equivalent of four stars to Bob Woodward's 'Plan of Attack', his account of how Mr. Bush decided to go to war with Iraq...On the Bush campaign's Web site, georgewbush.com, there is a link to a 'Suggested Reading List.' At the top of that list - above the new book by Karen Hughes, Mr. Bush's trusted aide, and others by such Bush loyalists and admirers as Mary Matalin, Lynne Cheney and David Frum - is 'Plan of Attack.'"
- NY Times, 4/20/04

If they thought the book was so inaccurate, why would they be urging people to read it? Or is this just a case of Fox trying to do the Administration's dirty work?

Condi Rice Needs a Geography Lesson

From today's Progress Report...

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told CBS' Face the Nation she had no details about the President's alleged decision to secretly divert $700 million from Afghanistan operations to Iraq war planning without approval from Congress. However, she did say circumventing Congress was acceptable because Afghanistan and Iraq are "within the entire region." While she might have been referring to official military regions, her answer was deliberately evasive. The fact is, Asia and the Mideast are separate geographic regions - more than 1400 miles separate Kabul and Baghdad, which means by Rice's logic, Austin, Texas is in the same region as Nicaragua. In fact, the U.S. State Department has two separate bureaus and two separate Assistant Secretaries of State to deal with Iraq and Afghanistan. Her answer also ignores the fact that fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (as approved by Congress) had nothing to do with invading Iraq.

Primer: Why Bush Secretly Moving $700 Million Violates The Law

Since Bob Woodward disclosed that President Bush in July of 2002 diverted $700 million into Iraq invasion planning without informing Congress, the Bush Administration has failed to provide one shred of evidence to rebuff the charge. According to Woodward, Bush kept Congress "totally in the dark on this” leaving lawmakers with "no real knowledge or involvement." Not only does the Constitution vest the power of the purse with Congress, but whichever of the two supplemental bills the President drew the money from had explicit language obligating him to inform key congressional leaders. Instead of opening an investigation, White House allies on Capitol Hill actually told USA Today that the move was acceptable because "the $700 million was small compared" with the overall spending bills. Here is a look at the provisions in the only two supplemental bills that Congress passed between 9/11 and July 2002, and thus which Bush could have gotten the money from:

- BUSH REQUIRED TO TELL CONGRESS, IF DREW FUNDS FROM THE 9/11 SUPPLEMENTAL: While the President was given discretion to direct $10 billion of the post-9/11 Emergency Supplemental bill, the legislation specifically obligated the President to "consult with the chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committees on Appropriations prior to the transfer" of any funds. In other words, the President was obligated to tell key congressional leaders of both parties anytime he moved money. [Source: Text of HR 2888, Post-9/11 Emergency Appropriations, 9/14/01]

- BUSH DELIBERATELY USED VAGUE LANGUAGE IN DOCUMENTS TO HIDE SECRET MOVE: The White House issued two legally mandated updates to Congress about where the 9/14/01 supplemental funds were being spent. Both covered portions of the time Bush made his $700 million order. But in these documents, instead of telling Congress money was going to Iraq, the White House deliberately used vague and evasive language. For instance, in both of its updates to the Appropriations Committee, the Administration only said it had used monies for "increased situational awareness" and "increased worldwide posture" – and did not mention Iraq at all. [Source: OMB Notification, 8/9/02 & 10/17/02]

- SUMMER SUPPLEMENTAL REQUIRED BUSH TO TELL CONGRESS BEFORE MOVING FUNDS: According to the text of the August 2002 Supplemental, the Bush Administration was only permitted to transfer "up to $275 million" of previously appropriated funds within the Pentagon, and only "15 days after notification to the congressional defense committees." In other words, the White House was obligated to tell Congress if money was moved. [Source: Supplemental Bill, 8/2/02]

- SUMMER SUPPLEMENTAL REQUIRED BUSH TO TELL CONGRESS IF FUNDS GIVEN TO FRONTLINE STATES: According to the text of the August 2002 Supplemental, the President was allowed to use $390 million for aid to countries assisting with the Global War on Terror. However, that money could only be spent only after “15 days following notification to the appropriate Congressional committees.” [Source: Supplemental Bill, HR 4775, 8/2/02]

- UNABLE TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE BUSH EVER MENTIONED IRAQ TO CONGRESS: The Administration has yet to produce one reprogramming or transfer notice to Congress about the supplemental which mentioned Iraq. White House spokesman Scott McClellan “added that the White House had asked the Pentagon comptroller and OMB to document what had happened” but there has still been no evidence. [Source: LA Times, 4/20/04]

- CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE SAYS WHITE HOUSE DID NOT INFORM HIM: Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), who in 2002 was Chairman of the Appropriations Committee (the committee the President was legally obligated to report money transfers to), issued a statement on 4/20/04 saying, "To the best of my knowledge the Bush White House provided no consultations as required by law about its use of funds for preparation for a war in Iraq in advance of those funds being spent. There is nothing contained in the Administration's quarterly reports indicating that projects were being funded to prepare for war with Iraq. If the Woodward allegations are true, then the Administration failed to abide by the law to consult with and fully inform Congress."

Condi Rice Now Lying About Afghanistan

CLAIM:

"Resources were not taken from Afghanistan" when the President secretly moved $700 million out of the Afghanistan spending bill.
- National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 4/18/04

FACT:

"In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq." Former top Pentagon officials said the President's Iraq focus "siphoned spy aircraft and light infantry soldiers" and "diverted enormous military and intelligence assets."
- USA Today, 3/28/04

Consciously Deciding Not To Protect the Homeland

CLAIM:

"We're doing everything we can to protect the homeland."
- President George W. Bush, 9/3/03

FACT:

"The FBI often does not have enough agents or other personnel with the expertise to conduct the surveillance. The FBI still is trying to build a cadre of translators who can understand conversations that are intercepted in such languages as Arabic, Pashto and Farsi."
- AP, 4/16/04

FACT:

"In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI...Attorney General John D. Ashcroft cut the FBI's request for items such as computer networking and foreign language intercepts by half."
- Washington Post, 3/22/04

FACT:

Even before the Sept. 11 attacks, "Ashcroft did not agree to $588 million in increases that the FBI was seeking for 2003. That FBI request included funds to hire 54 translators and 248 counterterrorism agents and support staff."
- Washington Post, 3/22/04

>Pseudomaniac: One Who Has a Morbid Impulse to Falsify or Lie

CLAIM:

"And as to whether or not I make decisions based upon polls, I don't. I just don't make decisions that way...If I tried to fine-tune my messages based upon polls, I think I'd be pretty ineffective."
- President George W. Bush, 4/13/04
Source:

FACT:

"One [White House] adviser said the White House had examined polling and focus group studies in determining that it would be a mistake for Mr. Bush to appear to yield" and apologize for mistakes.
- NY Times, 4/15/04

This is an incredible example...he's now pathologically lying not only about policy, but about mundane details. As the Washington Monthly noted earlier, Bush apparently has an obsession with polling.

On Tax Day, People Start to Realize They Got Screwed Under Bush

A new poll from AP shows that "By almost a 2-1 margin, Americans prefer balancing the nation's budget to cutting taxes even though many believe their overall tax burden has risen despite tax cuts over the past three years...About six in 10, 61 percent, chose balancing the budget while 36 percent chose tax cuts when they were asked which was more important...Half in the poll, 49 percent, said their overall tax burden — including federal, state and local taxes — had gone up over the past three years. That's almost four times the 13 percent in the poll who said their overall taxes had gone down."

The reason for this? Most people got almost nothing from any of the Bush tax cuts, while their state/local taxes/fees went up, their services were slashed, and their wages stagnated. Translation: higher taxes, worse services, less money coming in, all while the White House says we need to cut overtime pay and outsource U.S. jobs.

Translation: middle class gets screwed to pad the wallet of George Bush, Dick Cheney and their fat cat friends.

Iran-Contra Figure Becomes Ambassador to Iraq

The White House has announced that it will appoint Iran-Contra figure John Negroponte as the new ambassador to Iraq. The arrogance of this move is shocking, even by this White House's standards: Negroponte's claim to fame was his involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal, which helped provide weapons to the Iranians in their war with Iraq. Essentially, America's first envoy to the new Iraq was a figure who indirectly helped wage a war against Iraq - a fact that might not go over too well in an Iraqi society that still can remember the bitter Iran-Iraq war.

And, of course, this says nothing about Negroponte's dismal human rights record and lack of expertise in Mideast affairs. Somehow, the White House thinks it is more important to have a conservative ideologue whose specialty Latin American covert operations in Iraq, rather than a Mideast expert who speaks Arabic.

CLAIM vs. FACT: Bush's Press Conference Tonight

CLAIM:

"But there was nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government that could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale."
- George W. Bush, 4/13/04

FACT:

In the very same press conference, President Bush said "part of [the reason I requested the PDB] had to do with the Genoa G-8 conference I was going to attend" in 2001, where he was warned that Islamic terrorists were potentially plotting to fly airplanes into buildings.

CLAIM:

"The oil revenues, they're bigger than we thought they would be at this point in time."
- George W. Bush, 4/13/04

FACT:

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said before the war that "we are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon" with Bush administration officials claiming "that Iraq's oil revenues would be $20 billion to $30 billion a year." Those oil revenues are now only "running at a rate of about $14 billion a year" while Americans taxpayers are shelling out billions for reconstruction.
– NY Times, 10/6/03

CLAIM:

Iraq "refused to disarm."
- George W. Bush, 4/13/04

FACT:

"The Bush administration's top weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay said that his group found no evidence Iraq had stockpiled unconventional weapons before the U.S.-led invasion in March."
- CNN, 1/26/04

White House's Top Economist Demanded Gas Tax Increase

It seems top White House economic adviser Greg Mankiw thinks that the best way to fix the sluggish economy is not only to outsource more U.S. jobs, but also to raise the gas tax. In his article entitled "Gas Tax Now!" Mankiw demands an increase in the gas tax.

I guess on gas tax policy, at least, Mankiw comes out of the Dick Cheney school of thinking - Cheney, you might remember, actually authored legislation in Congress that would have seriously increased the gas tax, "Let us rid ourselves of the fiction that low oil prices are somehow good for the United States."

Ashcroft & 9/11: AG Previously Lied Under Oath

A look at Attorney General John Ashcroft's sworn testimony to Congress show he has repeatedly contradicted the facts about his record in de-emphasizing and cutting funding for counterterrorism before and after 9/11.

ASHCROFT CLAIM:

"I had asked for and requested an increased funding for counterterrorism efforts of $436 million, and that was for the FY 2002 budget."
– Attorney General John Ashcroft, 2/28/02

FACT:

According to a simple analysis of the Department of Justice's counterterrorism programs, Ashcroft actually proposed an FY2002 budget that would have slashed $500 million out of counterterrorism from the FY2001 level.
– Center for American Progress analysis, 4/13/04

ASHCROFT CLAIM:

For the post-9/11 emergency counterterrorism bill, the FBI "came to me with a $670 million request, and we counseled them to take that to $ 1.1 billion."
– Attorney General John Ashcroft, 2/28/02

FACT:

"In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI... The document, dated Oct. 12, 2001, shows that the FBI requested $1.5 billion in additional funds to enhance its counterterrorism efforts with the creation of 2,024 positions. But the White House Office of Management and Budget cut that request to $531 million. Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, working within the White House limits, cut the FBI's request for items such as computer networking and foreign language intercepts by half, cut a cyber-security request by three quarters and eliminated entirely a request for 'collaborative capabilities.'"
– Washington Post, 3/22/04

ASHCROFT CLAIM:

Before 9/11, "our number-one goal was the prevention of terrorist acts. It is our -- it certainly is our goal. And we began to shape the department and its efforts in that respect." – Attorney General John Ashcroft, 2/28/02

FACT:

"Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft's 'Strategic Plan' from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department's seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs... The papers show that Ashcroft ranked counterterrorism efforts as a lower priority than his predecessor did."
– Washington Post, 3/22/04

ASHCROFT CLAIM:

"The five-year plan that had been put in place by my predecessor didn't mention counterterrorism." – Attorney General John Ashcroft, 2/28/02

FACT:

"In fact, the plan issued by Attorney General Janet Reno in 2000 said the Justice Department would have to devote more attention and resources to terrorism, citing sophisticated computer and bomb-making technology and the 'emerging threats of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons.'" – NY Times, 3/1/02

NOW & THEN: Violence In Iraq

NOW:

“It's hard to tell” if violence will end in Iraq soon.
- President George W. Bush, 4/11/04

THEN:

“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.”
- President George W. Bush, 5/1/03

THEN:

“We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.”
- Vice President Cheney, 3/16/03

THEN:

"There's no question but that [our troops] would be welcomed.”
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 2/20/03

Depends on What Your Definition of "Specific" Is

CLAIM:

President Bush said yesterday that a memo he received a month before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks did not contain enough specific threat information to prevent the hijackings and "said nothing about an attack on America." "I am satisfied that I never saw any intelligence that indicated there was going to be an attack on America -- at a time and a place, an attack."
- Washington Post, 4/12/04

FACT:

In a single 17-sentence document, the intelligence briefing delivered to President George W. Bush in August 2001 spells out the who, hints at the what and points toward the where of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington that followed 36 days later.
- NY Times, 4/12/04

Not only is Bush lying, but he's making a ridiculous argument: he's essentially saying that because he did not know terrorists would attack at a specific time, place he is absolved from his gross negligence in failing to ratchet up homeland security and counterterrorism before 9/11. It is like saying that while you know a car accident can kill you and your family, it is OK to not strap yourself and your kids in because you don't know exactly when and where you might get into an accident.

Bush: Two Lies in 10 Minutes

CLAIM:

"The [August 6, 2001] PDB was no indication of a terrorist threat...[It] said nothing about an attack on America."
- President George W. Bush, 4/11/04

FACT:

"[There are] patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York...The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives."
- Presidential Daily Briefing, August 6, 2001

CLAIM:

"I asked the intelligence agency to analyze the data to tell me whether or not we faced a threat internally, like they thought we had faced a threat in other parts of the world. That's what the PDB request was."
- President George W. Bush, 4/11/04

FACT:

According to the CIA, the briefing "was not requested by President Bush." As commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed, "the CIA informed the panel that the author of the briefing does not recall such a request from Bush and that the idea to compile the briefing came from within the CIA."
- Washington Post, 3/25/04

Note: The CIA has subsequently tried to change their original story under pressure from the White House and George Tenet has said that the White House requested the briefing. However, the original CIA analyst who authored the report has not publicly corroborated that story.

PDB Proves Condi Rice Knowingly Lied

CLAIM:

[The August 6th PDB] "was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States."

- National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 4/8/04

FACT:

The August 6th PDB included very current information, including warnings that the FBI had detected "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York." The memo also included information from just 90 days beforehand noting that al Qaeda members were trying to enter the United States for an attack with explosives. "The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers Bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or Bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives," the document said.

- Retuers, 4/10/04

Legal note: the official dictionary definition of perjury is "the deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath."

How is this not perjury?

CLAIM:
"There really was nothing that looked like it was going to happen inside the United States...There was nothing demonstrating or showing that something was coming in the United States."

Source: - Condoleezza Rice, 4/8/04

FACT:
Page 204 of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 noted that "In May 2001, the intelligence community obtained a report that Bin Laden supporters were planning to infiltrate the United States" to "carry out a terrorist operation using high explosives." The report "was included in an intelligence report for senior government officials in August [2001]." In the same month, the Pentagon "acquired and shared with other elements of the Intelligence Community information suggesting that seven persons associated with Bin Laden had departed various locations for Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States."

- Joint Congressional 9/11 Inquiry, 12/02