Intimidating the Press

By Dan Froomkin

It's a case study in how the Bush administration intimidated the press after 9/11.

The publication of a new book by Eric Lichtblau, one of the two New York Times reporters who in late 2005 broke the story of the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program, is calling attention to how the White House successfully persuaded the Times to suppress its expose in the fall of 2004 - when it might have had a profound effect on President Bush's reelection hopes.

In an interview with Terry Gross that aired yesterday on NPR, Lichtblau spoke about the paper's decision.

Rest of Article Here (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040308T.shtml)

What can one expect from the Worst. President. Ever. (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/04/hbc-90002804)

But, as George Mason University’s History News Network reports (http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html), the historians have a different measure. They want to stack him up against his thirty-three predecessors as the nation’s chief executive. Among historians, there is no doubt into which echelon he falls–his competitors are Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Franklin Pierce, the worst of the presidential worst. But does Bush actually come in dead last?

Yes. History News Network’s poll of 109 historians found that 61 percent of them rank Bush as “worst ever” among U.S. presidents. Bush’s key competition comes from Buchanan, apparently, and a further 2 percent of the sample puts Bush right behind Buchanan as runner-up for “worst ever.” 96 percent of the respondents place the Bush presidency in the bottom tier of American presidencies. And was his presidency (it’s a bit wishful to speak of his presidency in the past tense–after all there are several more months left to go) a success or failure? On that score the numbers are still more resounding: 98 percent label it a “failure.”

Here are some of the comments that the historians furnished:

“No individual president can compare to the second Bush,” wrote one. “Glib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self, he has bankrupted the country with his disastrous war and his tax breaks for the rich, trampled on the Bill of Rights, appointed foxes in every henhouse, compounded the terrorist threat, turned a blind eye to torture and corruption and a looming ecological disaster, and squandered the rest of the world’s goodwill. In short, no other president’s faults have had so deleterious an effect on not only the country but the world at large.”

“With his unprovoked and disastrous war of aggression in Iraq and his monstrous deficits, Bush has set this country on a course that will take decades to correct,” said another historian. “When future historians look back to identify the moment at which the United States began to lose its position of world leadership, they will point—rightly—to the Bush presidency. Thanks to his policies, it is now easy to see America losing out to its competitors in any number of areas: China is rapidly becoming the manufacturing powerhouse of the next century, India the high tech and services leader, and Europe the region with the best quality of life.”

His first 100 days were a pretty good indication of the colossal disasters to unfold. At least Bush has provided hours of entertainment in his quest to destroy the future of this country - should make for good reading in future history books.

:bang:

During WWII, the government completely censored all media. There were government people who decided what stories could be printed and which shall not be printed. Yet, somehow, our democracy survived. The things Bush has done are far less controlling than those days. You've got to admit that.

You call this survival? Is this democracy?

As far as free society goes, I give the modern day US a 6 out of 10.

You call this survival? Is this democracy?

As far as free society goes, I give the modern day US a 6 out of 10.So your assertion is that democracy ended when we engaged in WWII?

That's interesting...

During WWII, the government completely censored all media. There were government people who decided what stories could be printed and which shall not be printed. Yet, somehow, our democracy survived. The things Bush has done are far less controlling than those days. You've got to admit that.

What any rational person would admit is that we are slowly losing our freedoms. Since this is a "forever" war, the future actually looks pretty grim. Another serious terrorist attack and things will get worse. And since U.S. foreign policy most likely isn't going to change, we will definitely be targeted for more attacks.

There are definitely people in government who would welcome more attacks. That would give them the public approval they need to launch more pre-emptive wars, Iran for example.

What any rational person would admit is that we are slowly losing our freedoms.I don't disagree. But, that started WAY before Bush ever sat in the Oval Office and it will continue after he's gone.