Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

What "Natl Security Policies"? THIS administration

Posted By: seems clueless as to what to do -frightening!.nm on 2009-04-08
In Reply to: Biden was right about this... - Truthseeker

nm


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

This administration is putting USA security in
nm
his policies are most

definitely in the race as McCain agrees with his polices over 90% and has announced to plan to change any of those policies.


 


 


 


I don't support all the policies

coming from this administration.   Do I think Bush is a good president, yes!   Do I think he's great?  No, because, personally, he's not been conservative enough for me. To me, Ronald Reagan was great.  He was tough, but he still made people like him.   Bush not been tough enough on some issues.....however, that's never here or there.  I have always freely said that I don't agree with everything coming from the Republican party.  I'm a conservative first, Republican second, but as the days go on I am becoming more and more a Libertarian.  I will still vote Republican, because I think that's where my vote has the most value, but if the Libertarian movement becomes more of a contender, believe me, I'm going to catch that wave.  


I said all that to say this.....I never generalized when it came to Democrats when it came to Clinton in office, because, being from the South where there are still a lot of old Southern Democrats (and, gasp, I was one for several years believe it or not...) I knew all Democrats did not stand behind some of the Clinton policies.  There were some Clinton policies I did like, although as a presidential role model he drug the office of president through the mud.....


To me it seems that liberals are all or nothing in hating Bush, but if there are some liberals out that who like Bush speak up and prove that generalization wrong 


It is not failed policies.
You can promote those programs, but in this culture, sex-saturated media, desensitization to the point of sex is just an expression and you don't even have to like each other, multiple partners, the whole 9 yards. No program is going to work at this point. Birth control information is out there. How, in this culture, could you even say abstinence with a straight face? Doesn't mean I don't think it should be mentioned, because if it causes 1 or 2 kids not to engage in premarital sex, much better. Most social programs are failed policies...and a huge waste and drain on the government. That is one thing I like about both candidates...they say they will get rid of the social programs that don't work. Trouble is...they never identify which programs. lol.
O needs no defense on this or his policies.
for me to know and for you to find out after the landslide in T-minus 24 and O's inauguration in January.

I know my candidate, my party and their platform. I am very comfortable with my choice. Since there is no party radical enough to suit you, and since you know so much, why don't you establish your own? How about the Nazican party? Has kind of a catchy ring to it, don't you think?
yes, you demonstrate liberal policies.

Making up stories, defending terrorists, hating America.  You must be proud.


And you demonstrate neocon policies.

Lying and attacking and personal insults.  You can't defend the issues because your theory is indefensible.


Again, this is the liberal board.  We're not here to please you.


SP's energy policies demonstrate

1.  Sarah's socialism is fine and dandy for Alaska:  "...and Alaska - we're set up, UNLIKE other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we SHARE THE WEALTH when the development of these resources occurs"... boasting to a reporter of having been able to send a check for $1,200 to every man, woman and child in the state since, "Alaska is sometimes described as America's socialist state, because of its collective ownership of resources.”


2.  She agrees with Obama's windfall profits concept...a windfall profit, by any other name, is...well, a windfall profit.


3.  Sarah is a hypocrite.


4.  Sarah can articulate the shrub's oil policies even more precisely that her running mate. 


 


Yes, but he is comparing policies and emphasizing
words straight from McC's mouth and infinitely verifiable upon inspection of his record. Obama is NOT indulging himself in a character assassinating, fear-mongering, cultural warring free-for-all. People DO notice the difference, you know...at least, some of them anyway.
after 8 years of failed policies...
I don't see how Obama could possibly do any harm. Bush has just officially been rated the 36th out of 42 presidents by a nonpartisan board of scholars.

Obama has his work cut out for him to clean up the mess that the republican president, senate and house created over the last 8-12 years.
Since there are no jobs.......policies will at least temporarily.

have to change. Quite frankly, I'd rather feed a family than endure/survive a home invasion. We haven't even SEEN the outcome of this economic crisis. When people are hungry, they steal. When people have nowhere to live, they steal. They steal in order to survive. In order to avoid massive civil unrest - these people need a safety net. My husband is laid off and he is a professional. I pray we don't have to resort to eating out of dumpsters in order to survive. And don't think for a minute you are immune.


I too want Obama's policies to fail. If anyone...
listened to the whole interview with Rush they would understand what he was talking about. Don't want the country to fail, which is happening right now before our very eyes.
you should update yourself on foreign policies
He most certainly does NOT know what he is doing.
and Obama was talking about McCain's policies
What's the difference? Because she used the word Lipstick in her speech, it was about her. That's quite a leap. Give me a break.
So untrue and so unfair. Disagree with his policies,
nm
If there already exist specific written policies

pertaining to personal workspace adornment (size, number and/or appropriateness of photographs, posters, banners, political content, sports memorabilia, etc.) then I would agree with you.  If you don't like the policy, don't work there.  Your office is not your personal gallery.


If the company doesn't want somebody hanging up a Soviet flag, then they're probably going to have to prohibit Old Glory as well.


However, if this is a policy formulated on the spur of the moment to appease a complainer, then I disagree.  What's next?  An Ohio State fan complaining about a Michigan pennant in the next cubicle?)  Nor do I agree that new policies should be formulated after the fact to deal with an existing situation just because nobody foresaw it.  If it's an important issue, then a rule should already cover it. 


If this is a public area (waiting room/reception area) then I am sure the company must have had the foresight to write a standard regarding decor, since all visitors will see this.  In my opinion, if it ain't covered in that policy, it should be okay.


Interesting that people voluntarily come to this country, going to considerable effort to get here, then so easily become offended and need special accommodations.  What is it they don't understand about "liberty"?  If an American coworker complained about the Ugandan flag in a neighboring workspace, there would be h*ll to pay!  Disciplinary action against the complainer.  Law suits!  ACLU involvement!   Paid leave  and free counseling for the Ugandan employee to get over the trauma of the event!


U.S. Spies on Americans who disagree with Bush policies









I guess this explains who Bush's real enemies are, and it has nothing to do with terrorism (unless you're the innocent American being targeted).


Posted on Fri, Jan. 20, 2006


U.S. accused of spying on those who disagree with Bush policies


South Florida Sun-Sentinel

While the White House defended domestic surveillance as a safeguard against terrorism, a Florida peace activist and several Democrats in Congress accused the Bush administration on Friday of spying on Americans who disagree with President Bush's policies.

Richard Hersh, of Boca Raton, Fla., director of Truth Project Inc. of Palm Beach County, told an ad hoc panel of House Democrats that his group and others in South Florida have been infiltrated and spied upon despite having no connections to terrorists.


Agents rummaged through the trash, snooped into e-mails, packed Web sites and listened in on phone conversations, Hersh charged. We know that address books and activist meeting lists have disappeared.


The Truth Project gained national attention when NBC News reported last month that it was described as a credible threat in a database of suspicious activity compiled by the Pentagon's Talon program. The listing cited the group's gathering a year ago at a Quaker meeting house in Lake Worth, Fla., to talk about ways to counter military recruitment at high schools.


Talon is separate from the controversial domestic-surveillance program conducted by the National Security Agency. Bush has acknowledged signing orders that allow the NSA to eavesdrop without the usual court warrants, prompting an outcry from many in Congress.


Bush plans to tour the NSA on Wednesday as part of a campaign to defend his handling of the program.


This is a critical tool that helps us save lives and prevent attacks, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said on Friday. It is limited and targeted to al-Qaida communications, with the focus being on detection and prevention.


The Defense Department's Talon program collects data from a wide variety of sources, including military personnel and private citizens, Pentagon spokesman Greg Hicks said.


They are unfiltered dots of information about perceived threats, Hicks said. An analyst will look at that information. And what we are trying to do is connect the dots before the next major attack.


To Hersh and some members of Congress, the warrant-less surveillance and Talon are all a part of domestic-spying operations that threaten civil liberties of average Americans and put dissenters under a cloud of suspicion.


Neither you nor anybody in that (Quaker) church had anything to do with terrorism, said Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla. The fact is, the Truth Project may have a philosophy that is adverse to the political philosophy and goals of the president of the United States. And as a result of that different philosophy, the president and the secretary of defense ordered that your group be spied upon.


There should not be a single American who today remains confident that it couldn't happen to them.









Fpolicy, HLSecurity, WarPeace SP=8 Obama 136 policies
nm
Ashes are all that's left of the shrub's scorched earth policies.
only after a platform transplant and some really new blood to resolve heir leadership crisis.
Yeah and Bush's policies got us in a fine mess didn't they?

proposed tax policies which include granting rebates to most US workers.

That statement jumped out at me.


 


aThis post is in violation of Rapture Ready's policies.
You are in violation of Rapture Ready's polices by posting a link to their message board on this forum. The following is a direct quote from their terms of service.

"No posts or links from other message boards, forums, or political and religious blogs on this site or posting messages here on other message boards, forums, or political and religious blogs."
Nah, this administration isn't in bed with
Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force

By Dana Milbank and Justin Blum
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, November 16, 2005; A01

A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.

The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.

In a joint hearing last week of the Senate Energy and Commerce committees, the chief executives of Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips said their firms did not participate in the 2001 task force. The president of Shell Oil said his company did not participate to my knowledge, and the chief of BP America Inc. said he did not know.

Chevron was not named in the White House document, but the Government Accountability Office has found that Chevron was one of several companies that gave detailed energy policy recommendations to the task force. In addition, Cheney had a separate meeting with John Browne, BP's chief executive, according to a person familiar with the task force's work; that meeting is not noted in the document.

The task force's activities attracted complaints from environmentalists, who said they were shut out of the task force discussions while corporate interests were present. The meetings were held in secret and the White House refused to release a list of participants. The task force was made up primarily of Cabinet-level officials. Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club unsuccessfully sued to obtain the records.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who posed the question about the task force, said he will ask the Justice Department today to investigate. The White House went to great lengths to keep these meetings secret, and now oil executives may be lying to Congress about their role in the Cheney task force, Lautenberg said.

Lea Anne McBride, a spokeswoman for Cheney, declined to comment on the document. She said that the courts have upheld the constitutional right of the president and vice president to obtain information in confidentiality.

The executives were not under oath when they testified, so they are not vulnerable to charges of perjury; committee Democrats had protested the decision by Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) not to swear in the executives. But a person can be fined or imprisoned for up to five years for making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation to Congress.

Alan Huffman, who was a Conoco manager until the 2002 merger with Phillips, confirmed meeting with the task force staff. We met in the Executive Office Building, if I remember correctly, he said.

A spokesman for ConocoPhillips said the chief executive, James J. Mulva, had been unaware that Conoco officials met with task force staff when he testified at the hearing. The spokesman said that Mulva was chief executive of Phillips in 2001 before the merger and that nobody from Phillips met with the task force.

Exxon spokesman Russ Roberts said the company stood by chief executive Lee R. Raymond's statement in the hearing. In a brief phone interview, former Exxon vice president James Rouse, the official named in the White House document, denied the meeting took place. That must be inaccurate and I don't have any comment beyond that, said Rouse, now retired.

Ronnie Chappell, a spokesman for BP, declined to comment on the task force meetings. Darci Sinclair, a spokeswoman for Shell, said she did not know whether Shell officials met with the task force, but they often meet members of the administration. Chevron said its executives did not meet with the task force but confirmed that it sent President Bush recommendations in a letter.

The person familiar with the task force's work, who requested anonymity out of concern about retribution, said the document was based on records kept by the Secret Service of people admitted to the White House complex. This person said most meetings were with Andrew Lundquist, the task force's executive director, and Cheney aide Karen Y. Knutson.

According to the White House document, Rouse met with task force staff members on Feb. 14, 2001. On March 21, they met with Archie Dunham, who was chairman of Conoco. On April 12, according to the document, task force staff members met with Conoco official Huffman and two officials from the U.S. Oil and Gas Association, Wayne Gibbens and Alby Modiano.

On April 17, task force staff members met with Royal Dutch/Shell Group's chairman, Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, Shell Oil chairman Steven Miller and two others. On March 22, staff members met with BP regional president Bob Malone, chief economist Peter Davies and company employees Graham Barr and Deb Beaubien.

Toward the end of the hearing, Lautenberg asked the five executives: Did your company or any representatives of your companies participate in Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001? When there was no response, Lautenberg added: The meeting . . .

No, said Raymond.

No, said Chevron Chairman David J. O'Reilly.

We did not, no, Mulva said.

To be honest, I don't know, said BP America chief executive Ross Pillari, who came to the job in August 2001. I wasn't here then.

But your company was here, Lautenberg replied.

Yes, Pillari said.

Shell Oil president John Hofmeister, who has held his job since earlier this year, answered last. Not to my knowledge, he said.

Research editor Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
Despite everything I know about this administration...
 I am still stunned when I hear the next hairbrained scheme, the next faux pas, the next wrong-headed decision (a decision that is so blatantly flawed that my 10-year old neighbor can see and explain what is wrong about it), deliver the next  we-will-do-whatever-we-want-and-don't- give-a -flip-about-what-you-people-think-Americans-or-anyone-else speech, then proceed to do it. The litany of wrongdoing surrounding this administration is growing exponetially; I don't know what to be more appalled at first. Last week Bush is offering help to the earthquake victims in Iran and this week he is going to nuke them...and pray tell, what is the rationale for this preemptive attack. WMD?, democracy for Iranians? or something else. I believe it is actually going to take a group of people, a coup, to just go in and remove these idiots from the White House...really. I agree with Harry Taylor, the guy in Ohio, I have never been so ashamed nor frightened of the administrators of my own country. God Help Us All and I cannot tell you how much I really really mean that.
Hug the former administration? I'm no

Bush supporter, but you can't blame Bush for this economic mess.  Perhaps you should do a little more research before you go off like a screaming meemie.  It was Bill Clinton who proposed everyone should have a mortgage in every pot, whether they could afford it or not, especially minorities, and the chickens came home to roost.  Do a little research, kiddo. 


LOL, you can't blame Bush for everything.  I think the time is coming when all Americans will realize what a decent man he is, the last decent one we will have as a president.  If Americans can vote in an illegal ursurper and think he is the Messiah, they sure won't vote for an honorable, Constitution-abiding successor, assuming we even have another election in this country with Comrade Obama in charge along with his Marxist cabinet. 


 


and yet this administration is
going to make it harder for charities to get donations by not making donations tax exempt.  They are going to tax people more and they will have less money to donate and contribute.  It is sad really.  The charities are already receiving less donations, etc.  It will only hurt them more. 
Exactly! Look what they did to Soc. Security.
nm
..and the Administration that has run the US into near insolvency
is any more credible?  pleeze....
Yes, and in an Obama administration...
censorship, intimidation, and all the rest. He is already doing it and he doesn't have the job yet. Cannot BELIEVE all the people concerned about civil liberties can't see this....sigh.
With everything they have to say grace over, this administration
will need streamlined, efficient performance. He's sounds like a great pick.
Clinton Administration.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.


Here is the link to this article


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink


Here is another one


http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,432501,00.html


I was taught in school if the economy is doing bad now, it was due to the president 6-8 years ago.  If the economy is doing well, it is also due to the president who was in office 6-8 years ago. 


Since it's almost Income Tax time, here's some interesting facts about the Democrat and Republican tax policies.  Just compare - and, while you're at it, use these facts the next time you hear that President Bush only "cut taxes for the rich".  Looks to me like someone single and making $30K, or a couple making $60K, got a 46% tax break under the Republicans.  That's what I would call taking care of the "middle class".


And remember, the truth only comes out when we refuse to be silent....
 Source:  www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html


      Taxes under Clinton 1999                         Taxes under Bush 2008


      Single making 30K - tax $8,400                Single making 30K - tax $4,500


      Single making 50K - tax $14,000              Single making 50K - tax $12,500


      Single making 75K - tax $23,250              Single making 75K - tax $18,750


      Married making 60K - tax $16,800             Married making 60K- tax $9,000


      Married making 75K - tax $21,000             Married making 75K - tax $18,750


      Married making 125K - tax $38,750           Married making 125K - tax $31,250


 


Take a gander at FDR administration. Hello.
before the winds of CHANGE blew us in a different direction. There is one thing for sure. Whatever we have been doing over the past 8 years AIN'T workin', and by the looks of things, it is going to take some bold, if not drastic measures to fix it. It is not going to be a walk in the park and most definitely will require us to put the bickering aside, come together and do our parts. When the storm has passed, we can sort it all out again, but from a personal standpoint, I will NEVER forget how we got here.
This is still the Bush administration.

There will be ZERO help for the average Americans who need it.  It's like a reverse "Robin Hood."  Take from the less fortunate and give to the wealthy.


This is Bush's policy (more like fascism than socialism), and we don't hear a whimper of protest, yet when Obama even hints at helping struggling Americans, everyone yells and screams SOCIALISM.


Bush can still do a lot of damage in the weeks he has remaining.  That's what worries me more than anything. 


Ok, how do you think the administration will handle this

I knew it was a mistake to pick Clinton for SOS.  The person who said she had no problems obliterating Iran if they didn't do what she wants (or something like that).  How do you think the current administration to include Hillary will handle this one.


http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSTRE50E3QB20090115


 


Ok, how do you think the administration will handle this

I knew it was a mistake to pick Clinton for SOS.  The person who said she had no problems obliterating Iran if they didn't do what she wants (or something like that).  How do you think the current administration to include Hillary will handle this one.


http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSTRE50E3QB20090115


 


Unlike our last administration....
at least Obama will not accept crooked politicians and they are on both sides of the aisle.
Sorry.........we got this garbage during the last administration
I support my President, now. I did not support Bush, torture, Vietnam II, failure to catch Bin Laden, the failure to protect our own country from natural disasters, Bush's attempt to appoint Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court and a host of other idiotic endeavors he tried to employ or, unfortunately, he did employ. I don't do stupid. IF YOU AIN'T WITH US, YUR AGAINST US! Remember that? Blow me is all I have to say to that.
We had a dictator with the last administration......nm
x
So, you want to try and justify THIS administration?
nm
It's not the past administration?
What color are your eyes? Brown? Thought so.
I know. The Obama administration (sm)

has gone out of its way to be FAIR to everyone (including Republicans), right down to Eric Holder (the Attorney General) taking a look at Republican Ted Stevens' case (prosecuted under the Bush administration) and dismissing the charges against this REPUBLICAN because of mistakes made by the Bush administration. 


They're trying to reach out to everyone, but most Repubicans and their followers are returning his outstretched hand of conciliation with a clenched fist.


This is truly sad and does nothing to help strengthen our country.  What is comforting is that the "party of no" and their followers represent the minority of Americans.


We became "extremists" with THIS administration....
--
O is smarter than JM on nat'l security.
Just for starters, here are a few concepts that would tend to argue in favor of inernational diplomacy...and hes got a brilliantly inspired plan.
2nd clue: He knows that US cannot be a leader in a world that it has alientated.
3rd clue: He understands the concept of common purpose. It is in the best interest of all modern, civilized nations to defeat terrorism.
3rd clue: Understands that securing, destroying and stopping spread of WMDs can only succeed as a a global effort, i.e., we can't be everywhere at once.
4th clue: Recognizes value in renewing and constructing old alliances to meet common challenges and threats.
5th clue: Foreign aid aimed at constructing foundations of sustainable democracies; strong legislatures, independent judiciaries, rule of law, civil society, free press and honest police force.
6th clue: Knows his geography. Appropriage military initiatives against AL Quaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan, their home base.
7th: Securing nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states.
8th: Energy Security.
9th: Obama on diplomacy: "The United States is trapped by the Bush-Cheney approach to diplomacy that refuses to talk to leaders we don't like. Not talking doesn't make us look tough — it makes us look arrogant, it denies us opportunities to make progress, and it makes it harder for America to rally international support for our leadership. Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. Reagan did this with Gorbachev, who posed a much greater immediate threat (i.e., "We are going to wipe you off the face of the earth") than Iran, Venezuela or Cuba does (for example). He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead."
10th: Obama: "The United States should have the courage and confidence to talk to its adversaries. Demanding that a country meets all your conditions before you meet with them, that’s not a strategy. It’s just naive, wishful thinking."

I realize this is a bit much for the scorched earth disciples, so it really serves very little purpose to really go to far beyond these basic principles, they way that he has. This is was real leadership looks like.
Well they should have the same security clearance
if they are a threat, as Obama is supposed to be. Okay if he gets in, then the FBI can do their thing and he can get thrown out of office, put in jail? or what? What has he done that is illegal??? Do not get it.

We are screwed with McCain also. Face it.
isn't that social security?
We already pay 7.5 of income to social security and employers pay an additional 7.5%. An IC pays the full 15% themself. Is this 5% in addition to that, replacing that or what? Can you provide additional information or a source for such?
Security check?

I apologize.  I'm obviously not understanding your statement.


Are you saying that a United States Senator, now internationally known because of his historic run for United States President, who is constantly surrounded by Secret Service people, is unable to pass a SECURITY check?


If that is what you're saying, please provide a link to support that.


Security Clearance
Can you post where you found that he had a security clearance denied? I have not seen that before.

Isn't US Citizenship required for senators? Wouldn't the FBI or the DSS uncovered back when Obama was first elected to senate?
Look what the Govt did to Soc. Security.
nm
Re: Social Security

Yes, I applied in April of 2008.  Was denied.  Filed Request for Reconsideration.  Was denied.  Am now awaiting a hearing, which might take another year.  Since my initial application, I've developed a few more diseases, and I'm hoping to talk with my lawyer today to see if we can send a "Dire Need Letter," since the situation is now dire.


As far as quarters, I have plenty of them and was even told when I applied how much I could expect to receive each month.


I never, EVER thought I would be in a position like this.  If anything, I've softened my attitude about "those people" who are forced to take advantage of government assistance.  You just never know when it might happen to you.


To be fair to the present administration..

There hasn't been a SINGLE PRESIDENT willing to address the borders.  I wish Bush would get off his duff about the border too, but if he did put a military clamp down on our border, you'd have a huge uproar from the civil liberties camp.  You can never make everybody happy. 


As for spending... Most Democrats never met a dollar they didn't want to spend.  Wanna have your hair stand on end?  Read a synopsis of The Big Dig in Boston, a la Kennedy and Kerry.  Talk about a money pit at the taxpayers expense.  If only it were a perfect world, but it never will be.


Buying of news..by this administration? Really? For sure!
Buying of News by Bush's Aides Is Ruled Illegal



By ROBERT PEAR

Published: October 1, 2005


WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 - Federal auditors said on Friday that the Bush administration violated the law by buying favorable news coverage of President Bush's education policies, by making payments to the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and by hiring a public relations company to analyze media perceptions of the Republican Party.


In a blistering report, the investigators, from the Government Accountability Office, said the administration had disseminated covert propaganda in the United States, in violation of a statutory ban.


The contract with Mr. Williams and the general contours of the public relations campaign had been known for months. The report Friday provided the first definitive ruling on the legality of the activities.


Lawyers from the accountability office, an independent nonpartisan arm of Congress, found that the administration systematically analyzed news articles to see if they carried the message, The Bush administration/the G.O.P. is committed to education.


The auditors declared: We see no use for such information except for partisan political purposes. Engaging in a purely political activity such as this is not a proper use of appropriated funds.


The report also sharply criticized the Education Department for telling Ketchum Inc., a public relations company, to pay Mr. Williams for newspaper columns and television appearances praising Mr. Bush's education initiative, the No Child Left Behind Act.


When that arrangement became public, it set off widespread criticism. At a news conference in January, Mr. Bush said: We will not be paying commentators to advance our agenda. Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet.


But the Education Department has since defended its payments to Mr. Williams, saying his commentaries were no more than the legitimate dissemination of information to the public.


The G.A.O. said the Education Department had no money or authority to procure favorable commentary in violation of the publicity or propaganda prohibition in federal law.


The ruling comes with no penalty, but under federal law the department is supposed to report the violations to the White House and Congress.


In the course of its work, the accountability office discovered a previously undisclosed instance in which the Education Department had commissioned a newspaper article. The article, on the declining science literacy of students, was distributed by the North American Precis Syndicate and appeared in numerous small newspapers around the country. Readers were not informed of the government's role in the writing of the article, which praised the department's role in promoting science education.


The auditors denounced a prepackaged television story disseminated by the Education Department. The segment, a video news release narrated by a woman named Karen Ryan, said that President Bush's program for providing remedial instruction and tutoring to children gets an A-plus.


Ms. Ryan also narrated two videos praising the new Medicare drug benefit last year. In those segments, as in the education video, the narrator ended by saying, In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting.


The television news segments on education and on Medicare did not state that they had been prepared and distributed by the government. The G.A.O. did not say how many stations carried the reports.


The public relations efforts came to light weeks before Margaret Spellings became education secretary in January. Susan Aspey, a spokeswoman for the secretary, said on Friday that Ms. Spellings regarded the efforts as stupid, wrong and ill-advised. She said Ms. Spellings had taken steps to ensure these types of missteps don't happen again.


The investigation by the accountability office was requested by Senators Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, both Democrats. Mr. Lautenberg expressed concern about a section of the report in which investigators said they could not find records to confirm that Mr. Williams had performed all the activities for which he billed the government.


The Education Department said it had paid Ketchum $186,000 for services performed by Mr. Williams's company. But it could not provide transcripts of speeches, articles or records of other services invoiced by Mr. Williams, the report said.