Today I received my "confirmation notice" from the White House. I guess they want to make sure I've really thought about what I wanted to say to W. Here's the message I received:

"This message is to verify the authenticity of a submission
made to White House Web Mail at www.whitehouse.gov. Your
e-mail address was submitted as the address to send a
response. To confirm your interest in receiving a response
from the White House please reply to this message without
changing the subject line. You must reply to this e-mail
within 72 hours from the time stamp of this message. If
you do not reply to this e-mail, White House Web Mail will
disregard the submission received.

This system will certainly invite more meaningful interaction with the White House. I'm very disappointed though that this system was created by federal employees and not "out sourced" to a more competent entity. Afterall, Microsoft's security in its new OS is terrific; now, those folks know how to write great software!

Here's another stunning development regarding the Bush White House: they've just made it more difficult to contact the White House via e-mail! You can no longer simply dash off a note to president@whitehouse.gov (although the White House page provides this address, it is not now looking at what you send there). Now you must use webmail: https://sawho14.eop.gov/PERSdata/intro.htm How's that for a nice, intuitive address that the average citizen with email will easily remember?! What the Bushies call "enhancement" is a series of web pages that control what you write about and collect lots of information about the writer.

Regarding control, for example, you must declare before starting your email if the message is supportive of Bush or critical of him or the administration! (You are given a convenient drop menu to do so, for which I am eternally grateful.) You must choose your topic from some menus. (I wanted to contact him regarding his propensity to lie to the American public, but "Lying" was not a topic for me to choose, nor was "Cynical Manipulation of Language." I chose "Prayer in Schools" in an effort to get as close as possible to the relevant issues. (I also declared the message to be "supportive" of the President because my goal really was to encourage him to tell the truth. I think that's supportive in intent.)

Beyond that sort of control, you must provide specific information about who you are or the message cannot be sent--you have no choice over what information you provide. It's a bit intimidating, but I felt that if I was George's Sunday School teacher (and he claims to be supportive of Sunday School doesn't he?) I assume I wouldn't be put on a "No Fly" list for helping Georgie to be a better boy, so I sent all for which they asked.

I'll let you know what response I get ...

I've copied the letter below if you'd like to read it:

Dear President Bush,
A truly democratic society relies on a modicum of truthfulness in officeholders. The
constant stream of disinformation emanating from the White House and the offices
under its control amounts to an attack on our democratic system.

As president of this nation, it is especially incumbent up you and those you manage
to be truthful, and honest with the citizens of this country. Your failure in this arena,
as is your utter failure in domestic and foreign issues should be a shame to you, but I
see no evidence of any such response on your part or anyone in your administration.
There is still time to change your approach and your policies such that history may
place you in a respectable place among the presidents of this nation.

I encourage you to reassess your communication policies and institute a strict policy
of truth telling, starting, Mr. President, with you and your office. Perhaps our nation
may again be considered a real democracy, should your hard work in this area be
persistent and consistent. Our future is much dependent your commitment to the
notion of telling the truth. Good luck.

I have been concerned about the truthfulness of the administration for some time. I think the case is pretty well-made at this point that Bush has certainly lied about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Niger. The question remains regarding what other lies he's told about the the budget, his promises to African countries, etc.

My comments make little difference in the larger scheme of things, but it is not just me who questions Bush's forthrightness. I take particular notice when members of the Senate conclude that we have been lied to by W and his coterie of spin doctors and synchophants.

Take a look at an exerpt from comments made by Senator Carl Levin, Ranking Member Senate Armed Services Committee. Levin stated, in part:
"The President's statement that Iraq was attempting to acquire African uranium was not a "mistake." It was not inadvertent. It was not a slip. It was negotiated between the CIA and the NSC. It was calculated. It was misleading. And what compounds its misleading nature is that the CIA not only "differed with the British dossier on the reliability of the uranium reporting" to use Director Tenet's words, but the CIA had also "expressed [its] reservations," again using Director Tenet's words, to the British in September 2002, nearly five months before the State of Union address. Furthermore, the CIA pressed the White House to remove a similar reference from the President's speech on October 7, 2002, and the White House did so - nearly four months before the State of the Union address.

The uranium issue is not just about sixteen words. It is about the conscious decisions that were made, apparently by the NSC and concurred in by the CIA, to create a false impression. And it is not an isolated example. There is troubling evidence of other dubious statements and exaggerations by the Intelligence Community and Administration officials."

Levin makes it plain that Bush did not "mis-speak" but, given the intentionality of the statement, lied to Congress and the American people. He cynically wanted to manipulate the fears of the population and a cowed Congress to support his unilateral attack of Iraq.

You can read all of Levin's presentation in the Congressional Record, 108th Congress, First Session, Tuesday 15 July 2003.