Thursday, April 01, 2004
Bush guts IRS power to track down AQ funds
Is there something I'm missing?
So I'm catching up at Jerome Dolittle's fine blog, and I come upon this astonishing question:
No Jerome, and surely you jest, I think to myself. How could that possibly be true? Now? In the midst of what Richard Clarke has to say about their less than vigorous anti-Al Qaeda efforts? Not even this crowd would dare....and why would they risk...Risk? Risk what? When have they ever been called to account for anything, any outrage? Good God, the questions begin to answer themselves.
Turns out that Mr. Dolittle has sharp eyes indeed, because the NYTimes story he's discussing, by one of the paper's most trustworthy reporters, David Cay Johnson, whose book on the astounding tax iniquities the Reagan/Bush revolution hath wrought you shouldn't miss, appeared on page C3.
It's Jerome's catch, so go visit his excellent blog, Bad Attitudes, and do take his advice to read the actual NYTimes article carefully, twice if necessary. The White House response is especially amusing; yes, the eighty positions were zeroed out, but that doesn't take away from the "robust" increase in funding that demonstrates the President's "robust" committment to disrupt the financing of terrorism. That's so Bush & Co, isn't it? Every policy, with the possible exception of waging a war, is essentially symbolic, a shell without actual substance, an indicator of what you are supposed to believe about this President, because all actual policies, what actually gets done, is driven exclusively by politics, by the will to acquire and maintain power. And they're good at it, their sooo damn good at it.
So I'm catching up at Jerome Dolittle's fine blog, and I come upon this astonishing question:
Did you know that Bush just turned down an IRS request for 80 more criminal investigators to block the flow of funds to Al Qaeda?
No Jerome, and surely you jest, I think to myself. How could that possibly be true? Now? In the midst of what Richard Clarke has to say about their less than vigorous anti-Al Qaeda efforts? Not even this crowd would dare....and why would they risk...Risk? Risk what? When have they ever been called to account for anything, any outrage? Good God, the questions begin to answer themselves.
Turns out that Mr. Dolittle has sharp eyes indeed, because the NYTimes story he's discussing, by one of the paper's most trustworthy reporters, David Cay Johnson, whose book on the astounding tax iniquities the Reagan/Bush revolution hath wrought you shouldn't miss, appeared on page C3.
It's Jerome's catch, so go visit his excellent blog, Bad Attitudes, and do take his advice to read the actual NYTimes article carefully, twice if necessary. The White House response is especially amusing; yes, the eighty positions were zeroed out, but that doesn't take away from the "robust" increase in funding that demonstrates the President's "robust" committment to disrupt the financing of terrorism. That's so Bush & Co, isn't it? Every policy, with the possible exception of waging a war, is essentially symbolic, a shell without actual substance, an indicator of what you are supposed to believe about this President, because all actual policies, what actually gets done, is driven exclusively by politics, by the will to acquire and maintain power. And they're good at it, their sooo damn good at it.
