political appointees

The AP has the dirty:

The White House acknowledged Thursday it has conducted about 20 briefings recently for federal agency employees on the election prospects of Republican candidates _ the sort of meetings that sparked an investigation into whether Bush aides engaged in illegal political activity.

An independent investigative unit, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, this week launched a probe into a presentation by Bush aide J. Scott Jennings to political appointees at the General Services Administration. At issue is whether the January session violated the federal Hatch Act, which bars federal employees from engaging in political activities with government resources or on government time.

The Office of Special Counsel is in charge of enforcing the Hatch Act.
White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said briefings were held at other federal agencies besides the GSA, for a total of about 20 _ most in 2006 and a couple in 2007. They were conducted by White House political director Sara Taylor or Jennings, her deputy. It had been known that other briefings had been held, but not how many.

So how does the White House explain that? Well they try to act like there is nothing wrong with it (nothing to see hear - nothing wrong with breaking the law - move along!). Josh has the transcript of today's press briefing.

And give a Power Point presentation of all these secret nuclear facilities in Iran?

In an echo of the intelligence wars that preceded the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a high-stakes struggle is brewing within the Bush administration and in Congress over Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program and involvement in terrorism.

U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism officials say Bush political appointees and hard-liners on Capitol Hill have tried recently to portray Iran's nuclear program as more advanced than it is and to exaggerate Tehran's role in Hezbollah's attack on Israel in mid-July.

The struggle's outcome could have profound implications for U.S. policy.

President Bush, who addresses the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday, has said he prefers diplomacy to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, but he hasn't ruled out using military force.

If you just switch the N in Iran with a Q, you got 2003 all over again. In fact there is very little change. In 2003, Bush kept saying the same thing about "wanting diplomacy to work", right up till the first bomb dropped in Baghdad. Since then we have all learned that no matter what, Bush was going to war with Iraq.

Here's the question. If this Iran threat is so urgent, then why isn't the rest of the world helping to lead this fight? Why is it the U.S. has to once again be in charge. I believe the answer is very simple - because the U.S. is the only country run by such war mongers.

Well Bush can say he isn't worried about the mid-term elections but behind the scenes it looks different. When memos like this come out you got to wonder what they are thinking:

Career appointees at the Department of Agriculture were stunned last week to receive e-mailed instructions that include Bush administration "talking points" -- saying things such as "President Bush has a clear strategy for victory in Iraq" -- in every speech they give for the department.

"The President has requested that all members of his cabinet and sub-cabinet incorporate message points on the Global War on Terror into speeches, including specific examples of what each agency is doing to aid the reconstruction of Iraq," the May 2 e-mail from USDA speechwriter Heather Vaughn began.

The e-mail, sent to about 60 undersecretaries, assistant secretaries and other political appointees, was also sent to "a few people to whom it should not have gone," said the department's communications director, Terri Teuber . The career people, we are assured, are not being asked to spread the great news on Iraq in their talks to food stamp recipients, disadvantaged farmers, enviros or other folks.

Ahh yes. Don't worry about madcow disease. Just make sure you talk up Bush when it comes to his piss-poor decision to go to war in Iraq and his disastrous decisions on how to execute that war.

Now I understand they are trying to write this off as "an accident" that should not have gone to all these people but you know there is a hidden motive behind it. Kind of like an attorney saying something in the courtroom that he knows the judge will throw out, the damage is already done. The information has already been heard by the jury and they won't "just wipe it from their minds". The same thing goes with this memo.

Philadelphia Newspapers Inc. has an interesting article online everyone
should check out. It is a rather large article, but I want to highlight the
opening statement of it.

Two Bush 2000 Florida recount aides
were rewarded with top FEMA posts

 Reversing an eight-year crusade to rid the now-embattled Federal
Emegency Management Agency of political patronage, a newly elected George W.
Bush in 2001 named two key players in his Florida recount fight to important
FEMA posts.

Neither man, Jacksonville attorney Reynold Hoover (pictured at left) and
Miami lawyer Mark Wallace, had any experience in emergency management before
they were named by the Bush administration to FEMA, now under fire for its
botched response to Hurricane Katrina.

Hoover, a longtime "explosives expert" with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms who became a lawyer in 1996, is still with FEMA as its
director of national security coordination. Wallace left the Bush
administration in 2004 to become deputy manager of the president's
re-election campaign, and is now a lobbyist.

They are two more names to add to the list of political appointees and
out-and-out hacks at FEMA. Many are calling for the firing of agency chief
Michael Brown, the ousted head of a horse association who was hired at FEMA
in 2001 along with his college roommate, top Bush advisor Joe Allbaugh. And
it was reported yesterday that FEMA's No. 2 and No. 3 officials, Patrick
Rhode and Scott Morris, are also former campaign aides.

Consider this quote: