I have enjoyed the recent comment ctivity and believe it makes this a better venue. Keep it up. I will be away from thing possibly until mid October. When I return I hope to bring a fresh approach to things and enlven the debate. Peace All!!!
Friday, September 24, 2004
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
A reader shared this infrmative link.
This actually represents a balanced look at certain issues. take a look.
Bush buddies up with supporters of Terror!
How can anyone say this guy is our best defense against terror?
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Monday, September 20, 2004
Okay, look at this (lengthy) email from John Kerry
There were photos that didn't come through my security settings but the point is still there. My only question in all of this is: Why is he not sending this clear message at every campaign stop? Why is this simple message so fumbled by the candidate?
Read the message. Take it to heart- share it with your friends. But, if the candidate doesn't act now and get it right on the streets he can start thinking about finishing his last term as a US Senator.
"It is never easy to discuss what has gone wrong while our troops are in constant danger. But it's essential if we want to correct our course and do what's right for our troops instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over again. I know this dilemma first-hand. After serving in war, I returned home to offer my own personal voice of dissent. I did so because I believed strongly that we owed it those risking their lives to speak truth to power. We still do."
Dear (Citizen),
This election is about choices. The most important choices a president makes are about protecting America at home and around the world. A president's first obligation is to make America safer, stronger and truer to our ideals.
Three years ago, the events of September 11 reminded every American of that obligation. That day brought to our shores the defining struggle of our times: the struggle between freedom and radical fundamentalism. And it made clear that our most important task is to fight and to win the war on terrorism. In fighting the war on terrorism, my principles are straight forward. The terrorists are beyond reason. We must destroy them. As president, I will do whatever it takes, as long as it takes, to defeat our enemies.
But billions of people around the world yearning for a better life are open to America's ideals. We must reach them. To win, America must be strong and America must be smart.
The greatest threat we face is the possibility Al Qaeda or other terrorists will get their hands on a nuclear weapon. To prevent that from happening, we must call on the totality of America's strength -- strong alliances, to help us stop the world's most lethal weapons from falling into the most dangerous hands. A powerful military, transformed to meet the new threats of terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. And all of America's power -- our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, the appeal of our values -- each of which is critical to making America more secure and preventing a new generation of terrorists from emerging.
National security is a central issue in this campaign. We owe it to the American people to have a real debate about the choices President Bush has made and the choices I would make to fight and win the war on terror. That means we must have a great honest national debate on Iraq. The president claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight. This month, we passed a cruel milestone: more than 1,000 Americans lost in Iraq. Their sacrifice reminds us that Iraq remains, overwhelmingly, an American burden. Nearly 90 percent of the troops -- and nearly 90 percent of the casualties -- are American.
Despite the president's claims, this is not a grand coalition. Our troops have served with extraordinary bravery, skill and resolve. Their service humbles all of us. When I speak to them when I look into the eyes of their families, I know this: we owe them the truth about what we have asked them to do and what is still to be done.
In June, the president declared, "The Iraqi people have their country back." Just last week, he told us: "This country is headed toward democracy. Freedom is on the march." But the administration's own official intelligence estimate, given to the president last July, tells a very different story.
According to press reports, the intelligence estimate totally contradicts what the president is saying to the American people. So do the facts on the ground. Security is deteriorating, for us and for the Iraqis. 42 Americans died in Iraq in June -- the month before the handover. But 54 died in July -- 66 in August and already 54 halfway through September. And more than 1,100 Americans were wounded in August -- more than in any other month since the invasion. We are fighting a growing insurgency in an ever widening war-zone.
In March, insurgents attacked our forces 700 times. In August, they attacked 2,700 times -- a 400% increase. Falluja, Ramadi, Samarra, even parts of Baghdad -- are now "no go zones" -- breeding grounds for terrorists who are free to plot and launch attacks against our soldiers. The radical Shiite cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, who is accused of complicity in the murder of Americans, holds more sway in the suburbs of Baghdad.
Violence against Iraqis from bombings to kidnappings to intimidation is on the rise. Basic living conditions are also deteriorating. Residents of Baghdad are suffering electricity blackouts lasting up to 14 hours a day. Raw sewage fills the streets, rising above the hubcaps of our Humvees. Children wade through garbage on their way to school. Unemployment is over 50 percent. Insurgents are able to find plenty of people willing to take $150 for tossing grenades at passing U.S. convoys.
Yes, there has been some progress, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our soldiers and civilians in Iraq. Schools, shops and hospitals have been opened. In parts of Iraq, normalcy actually prevails. But most Iraqis have lost faith in our ability to deliver meaningful improvements to their lives. So they're sitting on the fence instead of siding with us against the insurgents.
That is the truth -- the truth that the commander in chief owes to our troops and the American people. It is never easy to discuss what has gone wrong while our troops are in constant danger. But it's essential if we want to correct our course and do what's right for our troops instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over again.
I know this dilemma first-hand. After serving in war, I returned home to offer my own personal voice of dissent. I did so because I believed strongly that we owed it those risking their lives to speak truth to power. We still do.
Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.
The president has said that he "miscalculated" in Iraq and that it was a "catastrophic success." In fact, the president has made a series of catastrophic decisions from the beginning in Iraq. At every fork in the road, he has taken the wrong turn and led us in the wrong direction. The first and most fundamental mistake was the president's failure to tell the truth to the American people. He failed to tell the truth about the rationale for going to war. And he failed to tell the truth about the burden this war would impose on our soldiers and our citizens.
By one count, the president offered 23 different rationales for this war.. If his purpose was to confuse and mislead the American people, he succeeded. His two main rationales -- weapons of mass destruction and the Al Qaeda/September 11 connection -- have been proved false by the president's own weapons inspectors and by the 9/11 Commission.
Just last week, Secretary of State Powell acknowledged the facts. Only Vice President Cheney still insists that the earth is flat. The president also failed to level with the American people about what it would take to prevail in Iraq. He didn't tell us that well over 100,000 troops would be needed, for years, not months. He didn't tell us that he wouldn't take the time to assemble a broad and strong coalition of allies. He didn't tell us that the cost would exceed $200 billion. He didn't tell us that even after paying such a heavy price, success was far from assured. And America will pay an even heavier price for the president's lack of candor.
At home, the American people are less likely to trust this administration if it needs to summon their support to meet real and pressing threats to our security. Abroad, other countries will be reluctant to follow America when we seek to rally them against a common menace -- as they are today. Our credibility in the world has plummeted.
In the dark days of the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy sent former Secretary of State Dean Acheson to Europe to build support. Acheson explained the situation to French President de Gaulle. Then he offered to show him highly classified satellite photos, as proof. De Gaulle waved the photos away, saying: "The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me." How many world leaders have that same trust in America's president, today? This president's failure to tell the truth to us before the war has been exceeded by fundamental errors of judgment during and after the war. The president now admits to "miscalculations" in Iraq. That is one of the greatest understatements in recent American history. His were not the equivalent of accounting errors. They were colossal failures of judgment -- and judgment is what we look for in a president.
This is all the more stunning because we're not talking about 20/20 hindsight. Before the war, before he chose to go to war, bi-partisan Congressional hearings... major outside studies... and even some in the administration itself... predicted virtually every problem we now face in Iraq. This president was in denial. He hitched his wagon to the ideologues who surround him, filtering out those who disagreed, including leaders of his own party and the uniformed military. The result is a long litany of misjudgments with terrible consequences.
The administration told us we'd be greeted as liberators. They were wrong. They told us not to worry about looting or the sorry state of Iraq's infrastructure. They were wrong. They told us we had enough troops to provide security and stability, defeat the insurgents, guard the borders and secure the arms depots. They were wrong. They told us we could rely on exiles like Ahmed Chalabi to build political legitimacy. They were wrong. They told us we would quickly restore an Iraqi civil service to run the country and a police force and army to secure it. They were wrong.
In Iraq, this administration has consistently over-promised and under-performed. This policy has been plagued by a lack of planning, an absence of candor, arrogance and outright incompetence. And the president has held no one accountable, including himself. In fact, the only officials who lost their jobs over Iraq were the ones who told the truth. General Shinseki said it would take several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq. He was retired. Economic adviser Larry Lindsey said that Iraq would cost as much as $200 billion. He was fired. After the successful entry into Baghdad, George Bush was offered help from the UN -- and he rejected it. He even prohibited any nation from participating in reconstruction efforts that wasn't part of the original coalition -- pushing reluctant countries even farther away.
As we continue to fight this war almost alone, it is hard to estimate how costly that arrogant decision was. Can anyone seriously say this president has handled Iraq in a way that makes us stronger in the war on terrorism? By any measure, the answer is no. Nuclear dangers have mounted across the globe. The international terrorist club has expanded. Radicalism in the Middle East is on the rise. We have divided our friends and united our enemies. And our standing in the world is at an all time low.
Think about it for a minute.
Consider where we were... and where we are. After the events of September 11, we had an opportunity to bring our country and the world together in the struggle against the terrorists. On September 12, headlines in newspapers abroad declared "we are all Americans now." But through his policy in Iraq, the president squandered that moment and rather than isolating the terrorists, left America isolated from the world. We now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and posed no imminent threat to our security. It had not, as the vice president claimed, "reconstituted nuclear weapons."
The president's policy in Iraq took our attention and resources away from other, more serious threats to America. Threats like North Korea, which actually has weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear arsenal, and is building more under this president's watch -- the emerging nuclear danger from Iran -- the tons and kilotons of unsecured chemical and nuclear weapons in Russia -- and the increasing instability in Afghanistan.
Today, warlords again control much of that country, the Taliban is regrouping, opium production is at an all time high and the Al Qaeda leadership still plots and plans, not only there but in 60 other nations. Instead of using U.S. forces, we relied on the warlords to capture Osama bin Laden when he was cornered in the mountains. He slipped away. We then diverted our focus and forces from the hunt for those responsible for September 11 in order invade Iraq.
We know Iraq played no part in September 11 and had no operational ties to Al Qaeda. The president's policy in Iraq precipitated the very problem he said he was trying to prevent. Secretary of State Powell admits that Iraq was not a magnet for international terrorists before the war. Now it is, and they are operating against our troops. Iraq is becoming a sanctuary for a new generation of terrorists who someday could hit the United States.
We know that while Iraq was a source of friction, it was not previously a source of serious disagreement with our allies in Europe and countries in the Muslim world. The president's policy in Iraq divided our oldest alliance and sent our standing in the Muslim world into free fall. Three years after 9/11, even in many moderate Muslim countries like Jordan, Morocco, and Turkey, Osama bin Laden is more popular than the United States of America.
Let me put it plainly: The president's policy in Iraq has not strengthened our national security. It has weakened it. Two years ago, Congress was right to give the president the authority to use force to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. This president, any president would have needed the threat of force to act effectively. This president misused that authority.
The power entrusted to the president gave him a strong hand to play in the international community. The idea was simple. We would get the weapons inspectors back in to verify whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And we would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam: disarm or be disarmed. A month before the war, President Bush told the nation: "If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail." He said that military action wasn't "unavoidable."
Instead, the president rushed to war without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work. He went without a broad and deep coalition of allies.. He acted without making sure our troops had enough body armor. And he plunged ahead without understanding or preparing for the consequences of the post-war. None of which I would have done.
Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no -- because a commander in chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe.
Now the president, in looking for a new reason, tries to hang his hat on the "capability" to acquire weapons. But that was not the reason given to the nation; it was not the reason Congress voted on; it's not a reason, it's an excuse.
Thirty-five to forty countries have greater capability to build a nuclear bomb than Iraq did in 2003. Is President Bush saying we should invade them? I would have concentrated our power and resources on defeating global terrorism and capturing or killing Osama bin Laden. I would have tightened the noose and continued to pressure and isolate Saddam Hussein -- who was weak and getting weaker -- so that he would pose no threat to the region or America. The president's insistence that he would do the same thing all over again in Iraq is a clear warning for the future. And it makes the choice in this election clear: more of the same with President Bush or a new direction that makes our troops and America safer.
It is time, at long last, to ask the questions and insist on the answers from the commander in chief about his serious misjudgments and what they tell us about his administration and the president himself.
If George W. Bush is re-elected, he will cling to the same failed policies in Iraq -- and he will repeat, somewhere else, the same reckless mistakes that have made America less secure than we can or should be. In Iraq, we have a mess on our hands.
But we cannot throw up our hands. We cannot afford to see Iraq become a permanent source of terror that will endanger America's security for years to come. All across this country people ask me what we should do now?
Every step of the way, from the time I first spoke about this in the Senate, I have set out specific recommendations about how we should and should not proceed. But over and over, when this administration has been presented with a reasonable alternative, they have rejected it and gone their own way. This is stubborn incompetence.
Five months ago, in Fulton, Missouri, I said that the president was close to his last chance to get it right. Every day, this president makes it more difficult to deal with Iraq -- harder than it was five months ago, harder than it was a year ago. It is time to recognize what is -- and what is not -- happening in Iraq today. And we must act with urgency.
Just this weekend, a leading Republican, Chuck Hagel, said we're "in deep trouble in Iraq ... it doesn't add up ... to a pretty picture [and] ... we're going to have to look at a recalibration of our policy." Republican leaders like Dick Lugar and John McCain have offered similar assessments.
We need to turn the page and make a fresh start in Iraq.
First, the president has to get the promised international support so our men and women in uniform don't have to go it alone. It is late; the president must respond by moving this week to gain and regain international support.
Last spring, after too many months of resistance and delay, the president finally went back to the U.N. which passed Resolution 1546. It was the right thing to do -- but it was late. That resolution calls on U.N. members to help in Iraq by providing troops, trainers for Iraq's security forces, a special brigade to protect the U.N. mission, more financial assistance, and real debt relief. Three months later, not a single country has answered that call. And the president acts as if it doesn't matter. And of the $13 billion previously pledged to Iraq by other countries, only $1.2 billion has been delivered.
The president should convene a summit meeting of the world's major powers and Iraq's neighbors, this week, in New York, where many leaders will attend the U.N. General Assembly. He should insist that they make good on that U.N. resolution. He should offer potential troop contributors specific, but critical roles, in training Iraqi security personnel and securing Iraq's borders. He should give other countries a stake in Iraq's future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq's oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process.
This will be difficult. I and others have repeatedly recommended this from the very beginning. Delay has made only made it harder. After insulting allies and shredding alliances, this president may not have the trust and confidence to bring others to our side in Iraq. But we cannot hope to succeed unless we rebuild and lead strong alliances so that other nations share the burden with us. That is the only way to succeed.
Second, the president must get serious about training Iraqi security forces.
Last February, Secretary Rumsfeld claimed that more than 210,000 Iraqis were in uniform. Two weeks ago, he admitted that claim was exaggerated by more than 50 percent. Iraq, he said, now has 95,000 trained security forces. But guess what? Neither number bears any relationship to the truth. For example, just 5,000 Iraqi soldiers have been fully trained, by the administration's own minimal standards. And of the 35,000 police now in uniform, not one has completed a 24-week field-training program. Is it any wonder that Iraqi security forces can't stop the insurgency or provide basic law and order?
The president should urgently expand the security forces training program inside and outside Iraq. He should strengthen the vetting of recruits, double classroom training time, and require follow-on field training. He should recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq. He should press our NATO allies to open training centers in their countries. And he should stop misleading the American people with phony, inflated numbers.
Third, the president must carry out a reconstruction plan that finally brings tangible benefits to the Iraqi people.
Last week, the administration admitted that its plan was a failure when it asked Congress for permission to radically revise spending priorities in Iraq. It took 17 months for them to understand that security is a priority, 17 months to figure out that boosting oil production is critical, 17 months to conclude that an Iraqi with a job is less likely to shoot at our soldiers.
One year ago, the administration asked for and received $18 billion to help the Iraqis and relieve the conditions that contribute to the insurgency.. Today, less than a $1 billion of those funds have actually been spent. I said at the time that we had to rethink our policies and set standards of accountability. Now we're paying the price.
Now, the president should look at the whole reconstruction package, draw up a list of high visibility, quick impact projects, and cut through the red tape. He should use more Iraqi contractors and workers, instead of big corporations like Halliburton. He should stop paying companies under investigation for fraud or corruption. And he should fire the civilians in the Pentagon responsible for mismanaging the reconstruction effort.
Fourth, the president must take immediate, urgent, essential steps to guarantee the promised elections can be held next year. Credible elections are key to producing an Iraqi government that enjoys the support of the Iraqi people and an assembly to write a Constitution that yields a viable power sharing arrangement.
Because Iraqis have no experience holding free and fair elections, the president agreed six months ago that the U.N. must play a central role. Yet today, just four months before Iraqis are supposed to go to the polls, the U.N. Secretary General and administration officials themselves say the elections are in grave doubt. Because the security situation is so bad and because not a single country has offered troops to protect the U.N. elections mission, the U.N. has less than 25 percent of the staff it needs in Iraq to get the job done.
The president should recruit troops from our friends and allies for a U.N. protection force. This won't be easy. But even countries that refused to put boots on the ground in Iraq should still help protect the U.N. We should also intensify the training of Iraqis to manage and guard the polling places that need to be opened. Otherwise, U.S forces would end up bearing those burdens alone. If the president would move in this direction, if he would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and forces, train the Iraqis to provide their own security, develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people, and take the steps necessary to hold credible elections next year -- we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring all our troops home within the next four years.
This is what has to be done. This is what I would do as president today. But we cannot afford to wait until January. President Bush owes it to the American people to tell the truth and put Iraq on the right track. Even more, he owes it to our troops and their families, whose sacrifice is a testament to the best of America.
The principles that should guide American policy in Iraq now and in the future are clear: We must make Iraq the world's responsibility, because the world has a stake in the outcome and others should share the burden. We must effectively train Iraqis, because they should be responsible for their own security. We must move forward with reconstruction, because that's essential to stop the spread of terror. And we must help Iraqis achieve a viable government, because it's up to them to run their own country. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.
On May 1 of last year, President Bush stood in front of a now infamous banner that read "Mission Accomplished." He declared to the American people: "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."
In fact, the worst part of the war was just beginning, with the greatest number of American casualties still to come. The president misled, miscalculated, and mismanaged every aspect of this undertaking and he has made the achievement of our objective -- a stable Iraq, secure within its borders, with a representative government, harder to achieve.
In Iraq, this administration's record is filled with bad predictions, inaccurate cost estimates, deceptive statements and errors of judgment of historic proportions. At every critical juncture in Iraq, and in the war on terrorism, the president has made the wrong choice.
I have a plan to make America stronger. The president often says that in a post 9/11 world, we can't hesitate to act. I agree. But we should not act just for the sake of acting. I believe we have to act wisely and responsibly.
George Bush has no strategy for Iraq. I do. George Bush has not told the truth to the American people about why we went to war and how the war is going. I have and I will continue to do so.
I believe the invasion of Iraq has made us less secure and weaker in the war against terrorism. I have a plan to fight a smarter, more effective war on terror -- and make us safer.
Today, because of George Bush's policy in Iraq, the world is a more dangerous place for America and Americans. If you share my conviction that we can not go on as we are that we can make America stronger and safer than it is then November 2 is your chance to speak and to be heard.
It is not a question of staying the course, but of changing the course. I'm convinced that with the right leadership, we can create a fresh start and move more effectively to accomplish our goals. Our troops have served with extraordinary courage and commitment.
For their sake, and America's sake, we must get this right. We must do everything in our power to complete the mission and make America stronger at home and respected again in the world.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.
John Kerry
Read the message. Take it to heart- share it with your friends. But, if the candidate doesn't act now and get it right on the streets he can start thinking about finishing his last term as a US Senator.
"It is never easy to discuss what has gone wrong while our troops are in constant danger. But it's essential if we want to correct our course and do what's right for our troops instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over again. I know this dilemma first-hand. After serving in war, I returned home to offer my own personal voice of dissent. I did so because I believed strongly that we owed it those risking their lives to speak truth to power. We still do."
Dear (Citizen),
This election is about choices. The most important choices a president makes are about protecting America at home and around the world. A president's first obligation is to make America safer, stronger and truer to our ideals.
Three years ago, the events of September 11 reminded every American of that obligation. That day brought to our shores the defining struggle of our times: the struggle between freedom and radical fundamentalism. And it made clear that our most important task is to fight and to win the war on terrorism. In fighting the war on terrorism, my principles are straight forward. The terrorists are beyond reason. We must destroy them. As president, I will do whatever it takes, as long as it takes, to defeat our enemies.
But billions of people around the world yearning for a better life are open to America's ideals. We must reach them. To win, America must be strong and America must be smart.
The greatest threat we face is the possibility Al Qaeda or other terrorists will get their hands on a nuclear weapon. To prevent that from happening, we must call on the totality of America's strength -- strong alliances, to help us stop the world's most lethal weapons from falling into the most dangerous hands. A powerful military, transformed to meet the new threats of terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. And all of America's power -- our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, the appeal of our values -- each of which is critical to making America more secure and preventing a new generation of terrorists from emerging.
National security is a central issue in this campaign. We owe it to the American people to have a real debate about the choices President Bush has made and the choices I would make to fight and win the war on terror. That means we must have a great honest national debate on Iraq. The president claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight. This month, we passed a cruel milestone: more than 1,000 Americans lost in Iraq. Their sacrifice reminds us that Iraq remains, overwhelmingly, an American burden. Nearly 90 percent of the troops -- and nearly 90 percent of the casualties -- are American.
Despite the president's claims, this is not a grand coalition. Our troops have served with extraordinary bravery, skill and resolve. Their service humbles all of us. When I speak to them when I look into the eyes of their families, I know this: we owe them the truth about what we have asked them to do and what is still to be done.
In June, the president declared, "The Iraqi people have their country back." Just last week, he told us: "This country is headed toward democracy. Freedom is on the march." But the administration's own official intelligence estimate, given to the president last July, tells a very different story.
According to press reports, the intelligence estimate totally contradicts what the president is saying to the American people. So do the facts on the ground. Security is deteriorating, for us and for the Iraqis. 42 Americans died in Iraq in June -- the month before the handover. But 54 died in July -- 66 in August and already 54 halfway through September. And more than 1,100 Americans were wounded in August -- more than in any other month since the invasion. We are fighting a growing insurgency in an ever widening war-zone.
In March, insurgents attacked our forces 700 times. In August, they attacked 2,700 times -- a 400% increase. Falluja, Ramadi, Samarra, even parts of Baghdad -- are now "no go zones" -- breeding grounds for terrorists who are free to plot and launch attacks against our soldiers. The radical Shiite cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, who is accused of complicity in the murder of Americans, holds more sway in the suburbs of Baghdad.
Violence against Iraqis from bombings to kidnappings to intimidation is on the rise. Basic living conditions are also deteriorating. Residents of Baghdad are suffering electricity blackouts lasting up to 14 hours a day. Raw sewage fills the streets, rising above the hubcaps of our Humvees. Children wade through garbage on their way to school. Unemployment is over 50 percent. Insurgents are able to find plenty of people willing to take $150 for tossing grenades at passing U.S. convoys.
Yes, there has been some progress, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our soldiers and civilians in Iraq. Schools, shops and hospitals have been opened. In parts of Iraq, normalcy actually prevails. But most Iraqis have lost faith in our ability to deliver meaningful improvements to their lives. So they're sitting on the fence instead of siding with us against the insurgents.
That is the truth -- the truth that the commander in chief owes to our troops and the American people. It is never easy to discuss what has gone wrong while our troops are in constant danger. But it's essential if we want to correct our course and do what's right for our troops instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over again.
I know this dilemma first-hand. After serving in war, I returned home to offer my own personal voice of dissent. I did so because I believed strongly that we owed it those risking their lives to speak truth to power. We still do.
Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.
The president has said that he "miscalculated" in Iraq and that it was a "catastrophic success." In fact, the president has made a series of catastrophic decisions from the beginning in Iraq. At every fork in the road, he has taken the wrong turn and led us in the wrong direction. The first and most fundamental mistake was the president's failure to tell the truth to the American people. He failed to tell the truth about the rationale for going to war. And he failed to tell the truth about the burden this war would impose on our soldiers and our citizens.
By one count, the president offered 23 different rationales for this war.. If his purpose was to confuse and mislead the American people, he succeeded. His two main rationales -- weapons of mass destruction and the Al Qaeda/September 11 connection -- have been proved false by the president's own weapons inspectors and by the 9/11 Commission.
Just last week, Secretary of State Powell acknowledged the facts. Only Vice President Cheney still insists that the earth is flat. The president also failed to level with the American people about what it would take to prevail in Iraq. He didn't tell us that well over 100,000 troops would be needed, for years, not months. He didn't tell us that he wouldn't take the time to assemble a broad and strong coalition of allies. He didn't tell us that the cost would exceed $200 billion. He didn't tell us that even after paying such a heavy price, success was far from assured. And America will pay an even heavier price for the president's lack of candor.
At home, the American people are less likely to trust this administration if it needs to summon their support to meet real and pressing threats to our security. Abroad, other countries will be reluctant to follow America when we seek to rally them against a common menace -- as they are today. Our credibility in the world has plummeted.
In the dark days of the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy sent former Secretary of State Dean Acheson to Europe to build support. Acheson explained the situation to French President de Gaulle. Then he offered to show him highly classified satellite photos, as proof. De Gaulle waved the photos away, saying: "The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me." How many world leaders have that same trust in America's president, today? This president's failure to tell the truth to us before the war has been exceeded by fundamental errors of judgment during and after the war. The president now admits to "miscalculations" in Iraq. That is one of the greatest understatements in recent American history. His were not the equivalent of accounting errors. They were colossal failures of judgment -- and judgment is what we look for in a president.
This is all the more stunning because we're not talking about 20/20 hindsight. Before the war, before he chose to go to war, bi-partisan Congressional hearings... major outside studies... and even some in the administration itself... predicted virtually every problem we now face in Iraq. This president was in denial. He hitched his wagon to the ideologues who surround him, filtering out those who disagreed, including leaders of his own party and the uniformed military. The result is a long litany of misjudgments with terrible consequences.
The administration told us we'd be greeted as liberators. They were wrong. They told us not to worry about looting or the sorry state of Iraq's infrastructure. They were wrong. They told us we had enough troops to provide security and stability, defeat the insurgents, guard the borders and secure the arms depots. They were wrong. They told us we could rely on exiles like Ahmed Chalabi to build political legitimacy. They were wrong. They told us we would quickly restore an Iraqi civil service to run the country and a police force and army to secure it. They were wrong.
In Iraq, this administration has consistently over-promised and under-performed. This policy has been plagued by a lack of planning, an absence of candor, arrogance and outright incompetence. And the president has held no one accountable, including himself. In fact, the only officials who lost their jobs over Iraq were the ones who told the truth. General Shinseki said it would take several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq. He was retired. Economic adviser Larry Lindsey said that Iraq would cost as much as $200 billion. He was fired. After the successful entry into Baghdad, George Bush was offered help from the UN -- and he rejected it. He even prohibited any nation from participating in reconstruction efforts that wasn't part of the original coalition -- pushing reluctant countries even farther away.
As we continue to fight this war almost alone, it is hard to estimate how costly that arrogant decision was. Can anyone seriously say this president has handled Iraq in a way that makes us stronger in the war on terrorism? By any measure, the answer is no. Nuclear dangers have mounted across the globe. The international terrorist club has expanded. Radicalism in the Middle East is on the rise. We have divided our friends and united our enemies. And our standing in the world is at an all time low.
Think about it for a minute.
Consider where we were... and where we are. After the events of September 11, we had an opportunity to bring our country and the world together in the struggle against the terrorists. On September 12, headlines in newspapers abroad declared "we are all Americans now." But through his policy in Iraq, the president squandered that moment and rather than isolating the terrorists, left America isolated from the world. We now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and posed no imminent threat to our security. It had not, as the vice president claimed, "reconstituted nuclear weapons."
The president's policy in Iraq took our attention and resources away from other, more serious threats to America. Threats like North Korea, which actually has weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear arsenal, and is building more under this president's watch -- the emerging nuclear danger from Iran -- the tons and kilotons of unsecured chemical and nuclear weapons in Russia -- and the increasing instability in Afghanistan.
Today, warlords again control much of that country, the Taliban is regrouping, opium production is at an all time high and the Al Qaeda leadership still plots and plans, not only there but in 60 other nations. Instead of using U.S. forces, we relied on the warlords to capture Osama bin Laden when he was cornered in the mountains. He slipped away. We then diverted our focus and forces from the hunt for those responsible for September 11 in order invade Iraq.
We know Iraq played no part in September 11 and had no operational ties to Al Qaeda. The president's policy in Iraq precipitated the very problem he said he was trying to prevent. Secretary of State Powell admits that Iraq was not a magnet for international terrorists before the war. Now it is, and they are operating against our troops. Iraq is becoming a sanctuary for a new generation of terrorists who someday could hit the United States.
We know that while Iraq was a source of friction, it was not previously a source of serious disagreement with our allies in Europe and countries in the Muslim world. The president's policy in Iraq divided our oldest alliance and sent our standing in the Muslim world into free fall. Three years after 9/11, even in many moderate Muslim countries like Jordan, Morocco, and Turkey, Osama bin Laden is more popular than the United States of America.
Let me put it plainly: The president's policy in Iraq has not strengthened our national security. It has weakened it. Two years ago, Congress was right to give the president the authority to use force to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. This president, any president would have needed the threat of force to act effectively. This president misused that authority.
The power entrusted to the president gave him a strong hand to play in the international community. The idea was simple. We would get the weapons inspectors back in to verify whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And we would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam: disarm or be disarmed. A month before the war, President Bush told the nation: "If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail." He said that military action wasn't "unavoidable."
Instead, the president rushed to war without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work. He went without a broad and deep coalition of allies.. He acted without making sure our troops had enough body armor. And he plunged ahead without understanding or preparing for the consequences of the post-war. None of which I would have done.
Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no -- because a commander in chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe.
Now the president, in looking for a new reason, tries to hang his hat on the "capability" to acquire weapons. But that was not the reason given to the nation; it was not the reason Congress voted on; it's not a reason, it's an excuse.
Thirty-five to forty countries have greater capability to build a nuclear bomb than Iraq did in 2003. Is President Bush saying we should invade them? I would have concentrated our power and resources on defeating global terrorism and capturing or killing Osama bin Laden. I would have tightened the noose and continued to pressure and isolate Saddam Hussein -- who was weak and getting weaker -- so that he would pose no threat to the region or America. The president's insistence that he would do the same thing all over again in Iraq is a clear warning for the future. And it makes the choice in this election clear: more of the same with President Bush or a new direction that makes our troops and America safer.
It is time, at long last, to ask the questions and insist on the answers from the commander in chief about his serious misjudgments and what they tell us about his administration and the president himself.
If George W. Bush is re-elected, he will cling to the same failed policies in Iraq -- and he will repeat, somewhere else, the same reckless mistakes that have made America less secure than we can or should be. In Iraq, we have a mess on our hands.
But we cannot throw up our hands. We cannot afford to see Iraq become a permanent source of terror that will endanger America's security for years to come. All across this country people ask me what we should do now?
Every step of the way, from the time I first spoke about this in the Senate, I have set out specific recommendations about how we should and should not proceed. But over and over, when this administration has been presented with a reasonable alternative, they have rejected it and gone their own way. This is stubborn incompetence.
Five months ago, in Fulton, Missouri, I said that the president was close to his last chance to get it right. Every day, this president makes it more difficult to deal with Iraq -- harder than it was five months ago, harder than it was a year ago. It is time to recognize what is -- and what is not -- happening in Iraq today. And we must act with urgency.
Just this weekend, a leading Republican, Chuck Hagel, said we're "in deep trouble in Iraq ... it doesn't add up ... to a pretty picture [and] ... we're going to have to look at a recalibration of our policy." Republican leaders like Dick Lugar and John McCain have offered similar assessments.
We need to turn the page and make a fresh start in Iraq.
First, the president has to get the promised international support so our men and women in uniform don't have to go it alone. It is late; the president must respond by moving this week to gain and regain international support.
Last spring, after too many months of resistance and delay, the president finally went back to the U.N. which passed Resolution 1546. It was the right thing to do -- but it was late. That resolution calls on U.N. members to help in Iraq by providing troops, trainers for Iraq's security forces, a special brigade to protect the U.N. mission, more financial assistance, and real debt relief. Three months later, not a single country has answered that call. And the president acts as if it doesn't matter. And of the $13 billion previously pledged to Iraq by other countries, only $1.2 billion has been delivered.
The president should convene a summit meeting of the world's major powers and Iraq's neighbors, this week, in New York, where many leaders will attend the U.N. General Assembly. He should insist that they make good on that U.N. resolution. He should offer potential troop contributors specific, but critical roles, in training Iraqi security personnel and securing Iraq's borders. He should give other countries a stake in Iraq's future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq's oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process.
This will be difficult. I and others have repeatedly recommended this from the very beginning. Delay has made only made it harder. After insulting allies and shredding alliances, this president may not have the trust and confidence to bring others to our side in Iraq. But we cannot hope to succeed unless we rebuild and lead strong alliances so that other nations share the burden with us. That is the only way to succeed.
Second, the president must get serious about training Iraqi security forces.
Last February, Secretary Rumsfeld claimed that more than 210,000 Iraqis were in uniform. Two weeks ago, he admitted that claim was exaggerated by more than 50 percent. Iraq, he said, now has 95,000 trained security forces. But guess what? Neither number bears any relationship to the truth. For example, just 5,000 Iraqi soldiers have been fully trained, by the administration's own minimal standards. And of the 35,000 police now in uniform, not one has completed a 24-week field-training program. Is it any wonder that Iraqi security forces can't stop the insurgency or provide basic law and order?
The president should urgently expand the security forces training program inside and outside Iraq. He should strengthen the vetting of recruits, double classroom training time, and require follow-on field training. He should recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq. He should press our NATO allies to open training centers in their countries. And he should stop misleading the American people with phony, inflated numbers.
Third, the president must carry out a reconstruction plan that finally brings tangible benefits to the Iraqi people.
Last week, the administration admitted that its plan was a failure when it asked Congress for permission to radically revise spending priorities in Iraq. It took 17 months for them to understand that security is a priority, 17 months to figure out that boosting oil production is critical, 17 months to conclude that an Iraqi with a job is less likely to shoot at our soldiers.
One year ago, the administration asked for and received $18 billion to help the Iraqis and relieve the conditions that contribute to the insurgency.. Today, less than a $1 billion of those funds have actually been spent. I said at the time that we had to rethink our policies and set standards of accountability. Now we're paying the price.
Now, the president should look at the whole reconstruction package, draw up a list of high visibility, quick impact projects, and cut through the red tape. He should use more Iraqi contractors and workers, instead of big corporations like Halliburton. He should stop paying companies under investigation for fraud or corruption. And he should fire the civilians in the Pentagon responsible for mismanaging the reconstruction effort.
Fourth, the president must take immediate, urgent, essential steps to guarantee the promised elections can be held next year. Credible elections are key to producing an Iraqi government that enjoys the support of the Iraqi people and an assembly to write a Constitution that yields a viable power sharing arrangement.
Because Iraqis have no experience holding free and fair elections, the president agreed six months ago that the U.N. must play a central role. Yet today, just four months before Iraqis are supposed to go to the polls, the U.N. Secretary General and administration officials themselves say the elections are in grave doubt. Because the security situation is so bad and because not a single country has offered troops to protect the U.N. elections mission, the U.N. has less than 25 percent of the staff it needs in Iraq to get the job done.
The president should recruit troops from our friends and allies for a U.N. protection force. This won't be easy. But even countries that refused to put boots on the ground in Iraq should still help protect the U.N. We should also intensify the training of Iraqis to manage and guard the polling places that need to be opened. Otherwise, U.S forces would end up bearing those burdens alone. If the president would move in this direction, if he would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and forces, train the Iraqis to provide their own security, develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people, and take the steps necessary to hold credible elections next year -- we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring all our troops home within the next four years.
This is what has to be done. This is what I would do as president today. But we cannot afford to wait until January. President Bush owes it to the American people to tell the truth and put Iraq on the right track. Even more, he owes it to our troops and their families, whose sacrifice is a testament to the best of America.
The principles that should guide American policy in Iraq now and in the future are clear: We must make Iraq the world's responsibility, because the world has a stake in the outcome and others should share the burden. We must effectively train Iraqis, because they should be responsible for their own security. We must move forward with reconstruction, because that's essential to stop the spread of terror. And we must help Iraqis achieve a viable government, because it's up to them to run their own country. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.
On May 1 of last year, President Bush stood in front of a now infamous banner that read "Mission Accomplished." He declared to the American people: "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."
In fact, the worst part of the war was just beginning, with the greatest number of American casualties still to come. The president misled, miscalculated, and mismanaged every aspect of this undertaking and he has made the achievement of our objective -- a stable Iraq, secure within its borders, with a representative government, harder to achieve.
In Iraq, this administration's record is filled with bad predictions, inaccurate cost estimates, deceptive statements and errors of judgment of historic proportions. At every critical juncture in Iraq, and in the war on terrorism, the president has made the wrong choice.
I have a plan to make America stronger. The president often says that in a post 9/11 world, we can't hesitate to act. I agree. But we should not act just for the sake of acting. I believe we have to act wisely and responsibly.
George Bush has no strategy for Iraq. I do. George Bush has not told the truth to the American people about why we went to war and how the war is going. I have and I will continue to do so.
I believe the invasion of Iraq has made us less secure and weaker in the war against terrorism. I have a plan to fight a smarter, more effective war on terror -- and make us safer.
Today, because of George Bush's policy in Iraq, the world is a more dangerous place for America and Americans. If you share my conviction that we can not go on as we are that we can make America stronger and safer than it is then November 2 is your chance to speak and to be heard.
It is not a question of staying the course, but of changing the course. I'm convinced that with the right leadership, we can create a fresh start and move more effectively to accomplish our goals. Our troops have served with extraordinary courage and commitment.
For their sake, and America's sake, we must get this right. We must do everything in our power to complete the mission and make America stronger at home and respected again in the world.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.
John Kerry
I've said it before- Rumsfeld should resign.
And if GW Bush had a spine he would fire him. See this article and comment below.
Sunday, September 19, 2004
Where is John Kerry?
Is anyone else remembering 1988 about now?
This campaign should have been John Kerry's to lose. We have a president who has failed on the economy and on his choices for use of military. The majority of Americans are begging for a candidate other than George W. but are not satisfied with the choice of Kerry.
He has not articulated his agenda for the issues he claims are of highest import - the war in Iraq, jobs, health care. Why?
There may be some who will not vote for Kerry if he gets suddenly bold and gives us straight talk on these issues. More likely however, the voters who are scandalized by this administrations misuse of power in Iraq and mismanagement of our economy will lock themselves in Kerry's camp.
It may in fact be too late for him to make this move. He needs to find within himsef the same fervor that he displayed following the Republican National Convention. People are asking for Edwards but the man the may elect has to set the tone himself.
The feeling is nagging again, that feeling that every voter of my generation has experienced. I am not enthusiastic about Kerry, frankly I never have been. I am in the "anybody but Bush" camp. But the message of a candidate seeking the office of the president needs to be clear. He owes it to the people he would serve. The campaign of any candidate does in fact show us something about how that candidate would lead. After all, look how poorly the candidate who lost 2000's popular vote has done.
The prospect of 4 more years of the same leadership does not frighten me. What frightens me is what this arogant administration would do if they had four years of leadership opportunity that would be unfettered by accountability to the American people.
So, uness Kerry brings on the campaign he promised, I will likely get in line on November 2, wait my turn, hold my nose and cast my vote in the strongest way possible against G.W. Bush.
This campaign should have been John Kerry's to lose. We have a president who has failed on the economy and on his choices for use of military. The majority of Americans are begging for a candidate other than George W. but are not satisfied with the choice of Kerry.
He has not articulated his agenda for the issues he claims are of highest import - the war in Iraq, jobs, health care. Why?
There may be some who will not vote for Kerry if he gets suddenly bold and gives us straight talk on these issues. More likely however, the voters who are scandalized by this administrations misuse of power in Iraq and mismanagement of our economy will lock themselves in Kerry's camp.
It may in fact be too late for him to make this move. He needs to find within himsef the same fervor that he displayed following the Republican National Convention. People are asking for Edwards but the man the may elect has to set the tone himself.
The feeling is nagging again, that feeling that every voter of my generation has experienced. I am not enthusiastic about Kerry, frankly I never have been. I am in the "anybody but Bush" camp. But the message of a candidate seeking the office of the president needs to be clear. He owes it to the people he would serve. The campaign of any candidate does in fact show us something about how that candidate would lead. After all, look how poorly the candidate who lost 2000's popular vote has done.
The prospect of 4 more years of the same leadership does not frighten me. What frightens me is what this arogant administration would do if they had four years of leadership opportunity that would be unfettered by accountability to the American people.
So, uness Kerry brings on the campaign he promised, I will likely get in line on November 2, wait my turn, hold my nose and cast my vote in the strongest way possible against G.W. Bush.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
Guess which Vice President spent the 90's hawking oil drilling equipment to terrorists?
He also bad-mouthed US sanctions toward Iraq. All this with only one or two heart attacks under his belt.
Consider this an open thread.
I have nothing new to add today but invite youyr input about how I can make "A Page That Aches" a more lively forum. I have seen a few new comment contributors recently and would like to hear more about how I can keep you on board. Your comments below.
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Weekend Warriors - no longer exist.
Last night on MSNBC’s Debra Norville show there was an outstanding report about today’s National Guard. It detailed how these “weekend warriors” are now working full-time in Afghanistan and Iraq. It also detailed how their families are struggling back home because of lost income. National Guard pay, in most cases, is significantly less than these individuals were making before they were called to service.
Contrast this with Bush’s praise of the honorable service of the National Guard. It becomes obvious that he is using these men and women as props in his campaign to make us think that this was the kind of service he did (one clip actually has him reference his own National Guard service, which even if more noble than the news reports suggest was still less of a sacrifice or commitment than today's guard shows).
Someone (Kerry) should call him out for his lack of concern for these military personnel and their families.
Contrast this with Bush’s praise of the honorable service of the National Guard. It becomes obvious that he is using these men and women as props in his campaign to make us think that this was the kind of service he did (one clip actually has him reference his own National Guard service, which even if more noble than the news reports suggest was still less of a sacrifice or commitment than today's guard shows).
Someone (Kerry) should call him out for his lack of concern for these military personnel and their families.
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
What Caligraphy Hand are You? Take the quiz.
I am 'Insular Majuscule'. "You are spiritual and well-rounded. People look to you for advice but sometimes find you difficult to understand."
Yeah, I guess that fits. Share your results.
Yeah, I guess that fits. Share your results.
See Rassmussen Polls !!
George W Bush reached his 'high-water mark" on September 4, 2004 at 49.1 %. Four days later he was at 48.2 and today (ten days from that high point he sits at 47.1%. In spite of what the "liberal" media is saying this guy has gotten all of the support that is his to get.
Kerry was at his lowest point on that same date ten days ago (44.7%) and has climbed over the same time period to 46.5 %. Bush is slipping (2% over ten days) faster than Kerry's support is growing (1.8%) over the same period but the trend frm Bush to Kerry is clear.
Kerry still has work to do but can win this thing if he can secure those who sit on the fence about Bush. The undecided's are largely undecided about Bush, not Kerry. They know Bush and still are reluctant to vote for him.
Kerry must clarify where he is different from Bush on issues that matter to people-
Assault Weapons Ban, Health Care, Stronger Economy and how that strengthens us here and around the world, etc., etc.
He must also take his fight straight to Bush during the debates. He needs to be quick enough on his feet to have a Lloyd Bensonesque moment or two. He needs to come right out to the president and tell him, in front of the whole nation, where his policies have failed America and at the same time tell us what he will do differently.
Too many of us watched Micheal Dukakis go up in flames against daddy to let that happen again.
Please, Mr Kerry, Give us the campaign fight you promised. Run like you want it more than the other guy. The people who believe in you deserve a better campaign than you are fighting.
Try the "It's the Economy, Stupid" slogan again. You can even try a modernized version: "Hey "W", its the economy again!"
Kerry was at his lowest point on that same date ten days ago (44.7%) and has climbed over the same time period to 46.5 %. Bush is slipping (2% over ten days) faster than Kerry's support is growing (1.8%) over the same period but the trend frm Bush to Kerry is clear.
Kerry still has work to do but can win this thing if he can secure those who sit on the fence about Bush. The undecided's are largely undecided about Bush, not Kerry. They know Bush and still are reluctant to vote for him.
Kerry must clarify where he is different from Bush on issues that matter to people-
Assault Weapons Ban, Health Care, Stronger Economy and how that strengthens us here and around the world, etc., etc.
He must also take his fight straight to Bush during the debates. He needs to be quick enough on his feet to have a Lloyd Bensonesque moment or two. He needs to come right out to the president and tell him, in front of the whole nation, where his policies have failed America and at the same time tell us what he will do differently.
Too many of us watched Micheal Dukakis go up in flames against daddy to let that happen again.
Please, Mr Kerry, Give us the campaign fight you promised. Run like you want it more than the other guy. The people who believe in you deserve a better campaign than you are fighting.
Try the "It's the Economy, Stupid" slogan again. You can even try a modernized version: "Hey "W", its the economy again!"
Monday, September 13, 2004
Time Magazine, August 6, 2006
For all those dreaming of Bush victory this friendly reminder of Nixon's second term.
This is the kind of mis-step in the Kerry campaign
that will likely lose him the election unless he starts fighting the campaign he promised.
Irony
On the same day as the Asault weapons ban is lifted a new report comes out that demonstrates that in spite of a Bush economy the ban has worked. Violent crimes are down in our counntry to the lowest levels since such figures were recorded beginning in 1973 (as reported by MSNBC).
Polls show overwhelmingly that the vast majority of people across our nation want this ban to remain in effect. But yet our Republican leadership will do nothing about it as they try to court every possible NRA and other vote.
Polls show overwhelmingly that the vast majority of people across our nation want this ban to remain in effect. But yet our Republican leadership will do nothing about it as they try to court every possible NRA and other vote.
Sunday, September 12, 2004
Finally, an Archbishop gets it right in a public statement.
I hope he is ready for the attack he will get in all of blogdom (blogdumb). Read his thoughtful article and decide for yourselves. Personally, I am delighted that someone in a position that actually carries the weight of his office is taking the core of our faith away from rightwingers who cynically try to divide the Catholic vote.
Saturday, September 11, 2004
Thursday, September 09, 2004
Are you a senior? How is your health?
Last weekend, while the country was focussed on post Republican convention activity and hurricanes in Florida, W pulled a sneek attack on senior citizens. Medicare premiums were slated to increase by 17.1 %.
Just so that you can get a better perspective on this thing. Social security went up this year between 2 and 3 %. Last December, the Bush administration fought attempts to pass legistlation to reduce costs for prescription drugs for seniors in order to protect their corporate drug interests.
Are there really seniors out there (other than the rich) who still support this guy?
Just so that you can get a better perspective on this thing. Social security went up this year between 2 and 3 %. Last December, the Bush administration fought attempts to pass legistlation to reduce costs for prescription drugs for seniors in order to protect their corporate drug interests.
Are there really seniors out there (other than the rich) who still support this guy?
AWOL - You decide!
Lots in the news about this story. Read for yourselves and move on to the important things in this race.
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
How to create terrorists on our own soil.
Step one: Drive interest rates so low that there is absolutely no value in saving money and bankers need to extend credit to those who would otherwise not qualify in order to make a profit.
Step Two: Let the economy cave in under you and create a job deficit of two million jobs, allow formerly employed to fall off the unemployment rolls and lose basic support.
Step Three: Prop up your own numbers by creating low paying minimum jobs and tell those who are unemployed and underemployed that things are getting better.
Step Four: Favor big Business to such an extent that you cut overtime benefits for full-time workers and allow insurance companies to increase health premiums -while at the same time reduce the liabilities of these insurance companies for actual payouts (maximum benefits, reduced legal recourse for patients).
Step Five: Allow the ban on assault weapons to expire and make weapons that are only good for killing people and opposed by police chiefs throughout the nation readily available.
This five step process is given to you by the national Republican leadership of Tom Delay and GW Bush.
Tom Delay offered to an NBC reporter the excuse that "there are not enough votes on the floor for the bill to pass." He therefore will not allow it to the senate floor for a vote.
He offered no evidence to support his guess that it wouldn't work and told us that, "even if the president asks" he would not allow it to the senate floor.
What the hell is he afraid of? Is he giving the president cover so that the president can avoid asking or is he giving political cover to himself and his neo-con croneys so that they don't have to make such a decision in an election year. Flip a coin.
NBC reports tonight that 68% of all respondents support such a ban be continued. 61% of Republicans and a higher number of indepnedents are among those who support the ban.
It occurs to me as I hear this report that such a weapon would be exactly what one might look for if they were going to ...I don't know... take a school full of children hostage.
Step Two: Let the economy cave in under you and create a job deficit of two million jobs, allow formerly employed to fall off the unemployment rolls and lose basic support.
Step Three: Prop up your own numbers by creating low paying minimum jobs and tell those who are unemployed and underemployed that things are getting better.
Step Four: Favor big Business to such an extent that you cut overtime benefits for full-time workers and allow insurance companies to increase health premiums -while at the same time reduce the liabilities of these insurance companies for actual payouts (maximum benefits, reduced legal recourse for patients).
Step Five: Allow the ban on assault weapons to expire and make weapons that are only good for killing people and opposed by police chiefs throughout the nation readily available.
This five step process is given to you by the national Republican leadership of Tom Delay and GW Bush.
Tom Delay offered to an NBC reporter the excuse that "there are not enough votes on the floor for the bill to pass." He therefore will not allow it to the senate floor for a vote.
He offered no evidence to support his guess that it wouldn't work and told us that, "even if the president asks" he would not allow it to the senate floor.
What the hell is he afraid of? Is he giving the president cover so that the president can avoid asking or is he giving political cover to himself and his neo-con croneys so that they don't have to make such a decision in an election year. Flip a coin.
NBC reports tonight that 68% of all respondents support such a ban be continued. 61% of Republicans and a higher number of indepnedents are among those who support the ban.
It occurs to me as I hear this report that such a weapon would be exactly what one might look for if they were going to ...I don't know... take a school full of children hostage.
Now you can easily spread the word about "A Page That Aches"
The little envelope icon allows you to email a post to a friend. If all five of my readers email their friends we will double our size in no time.
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
What (Star Trek) Race are You?
I am a Human, according to this. Inquisitive and warm, an explorer at heart. Perhaps a bit Naive. hmmn
Saturday, September 04, 2004
This is not a matter of ideology, it is a matter of grammar.
We have two major political parties in the United States. They are the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. The Republican Party holds to those values that strengthen our Republic (strictly speaking, that's the government itself and the nation as a whole). The Democratic Party hold to values that strengthen and promote values to support individual freedom and power in the voice of democracy. It would be overstating the case to say that either party ignores the values of the other party and it is silly to say that these are the only things that each party holds dear. These should be thought of more as founding principles that explain the wya you might expect each party to respond to a problem.
Members of the Republican Party are called Republicans. Members of the Democratic Party are called Democrats. But Fox News, for quite some time, has been distorting our language by incorrectly calling the party of the Democrats "the Democrat Party."
Have we truly entered into such a time in our history where ideology becomes more important the proper grammar? A Democrat party would be a party thrown by a Democrat and where probably he or she invited other Democrats.
I suppose the argument in their favor goes something like- "We don't want to confuse our audience into thinking Republicans are not democratic." They probably know the intelligence of their audience better than I do.
Members of the Republican Party are called Republicans. Members of the Democratic Party are called Democrats. But Fox News, for quite some time, has been distorting our language by incorrectly calling the party of the Democrats "the Democrat Party."
Have we truly entered into such a time in our history where ideology becomes more important the proper grammar? A Democrat party would be a party thrown by a Democrat and where probably he or she invited other Democrats.
I suppose the argument in their favor goes something like- "We don't want to confuse our audience into thinking Republicans are not democratic." They probably know the intelligence of their audience better than I do.
Friday, September 03, 2004
If not a lie, a gross distortion from W.
Last night President Bush called the current tax code "drag on our economy which is a complicated mess, filled with special interest loopholes." He told us about the frustration caused for Americans "saddled with 6 billion hours of paperwork and headache every year" and committed to creating "a simpler, fairer" system.
But the facts contradict that pledge. Bush has pushed through changes to the tax code far more complicated and burdensome for taxpayers. According to official Internal Revenue Service estimates from 2000 to 2003, "the time required for the set of forms associated with the 1040 has increased by 3 hours and 8 minutes."[3] The average taxpayer spent 1 hour and 20 minutes longer filing his or her taxes in 2003 than in 2002. He gave us tax cuts that favored the wealthy but his increase in paperwork was more evenly distributed. Many taxpayers not getting much of a reduction at all have to fill out the same forms that save others millions.
Sources: 1. "Text: President Bush's Acceptance Speech to the Republican National Convention ," The Washington Post, 9/02/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3447473&l=53415.
2. Ibid, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3447473&l=53415.
3. "Economic Snapshot," Economic Policy Institute, 9/2/04.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
But the facts contradict that pledge. Bush has pushed through changes to the tax code far more complicated and burdensome for taxpayers. According to official Internal Revenue Service estimates from 2000 to 2003, "the time required for the set of forms associated with the 1040 has increased by 3 hours and 8 minutes."[3] The average taxpayer spent 1 hour and 20 minutes longer filing his or her taxes in 2003 than in 2002. He gave us tax cuts that favored the wealthy but his increase in paperwork was more evenly distributed. Many taxpayers not getting much of a reduction at all have to fill out the same forms that save others millions.
Sources: 1. "Text: President Bush's Acceptance Speech to the Republican National Convention ," The Washington Post, 9/02/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3447473&l=53415.
2. Ibid, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3447473&l=53415.
3. "Economic Snapshot," Economic Policy Institute, 9/2/04.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
One of the most stunning inaccuracies of Arnold's Speach
is his crystal clear recollection of the 1968 debate between Nixon and Humphrey for their presidential race. Remarkable that he would have compared Humphrey to the european socialists, but all the more so since the two did not debate.
But why let the facts get in the way of a good story.
But why let the facts get in the way of a good story.
And a word from John Ashcroft's depatrment.
Seems they admit he was wrong. I doubt Bush will stand for that!
another daily mislead
All this might be irrelevant. If Kerry holds Pennsylvania and takes Ohio he can lose Wisconsin, Florida and New Mexico and still win the electoral votes needed (270). Colorado is very close and would be a feather in Kerry's cap. Still, this shows that these people are capable of anything and will go to any lengths, just as Cheney told us at the Convention.
Thursday, September 02, 2004
The only network to air John Kerry's rally in Ohio at midnight was MSNBC.
The other networks are sly as FOX !!!
John Kerry, " I have finally figured out what RNC stands for... Really Not Compassionate."
"If you believe this country is on the right track, then you go vote for George Bush. But, If you believe like John Edwards and I do, that there is a better way, Then I am asking you to vote for me and help set a new direction for our country. They can't talk about their record because it is a record of failure."
"George Bush told you tonight that he has a plan for your future, but he told you that four years ago. This president is quite proud of the fact that even failure will not make him change course."
" I will not have my ability to serve be questioned by those who failed to serve when they could have and misled us into a war with Iraq. Misleading our nation into war with Iraq makes you unfit to lead our country. Doing nothing to create new Jobs makes you unfit to run our country. Doing nothing for the families without healthcare makes you unfit to run our country. Letting the Saudi royal family set oil prices for America makes you unfit to run our country. "
"How can you leap into a convention and make a bunch of promises when you haven't kept the promises you made before?"
"We need a president who will fight just as hard for your job as he does to keep his own job."
"Healthcare, tuition and gas prices are up, wages are down. We are going to make America's work place fair again."
" In the last four years five million Americans have lost their health care."
"George Bush has made us more dependent, not less dependent on foreign oil. We are going to liberate ourselves and free our selves from dependence on others for energy."
" I pledge to you: I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as president. Our soldiers are doing a remarkable job. Our soldiers are amasing but they deserve leadership that allows them to do the job right. We need to get this war out of our pockets and get the targets off the backs of the American soldier"
This is the fight John Kerry promised us. Let's hope he keeps up the steam and that tghe press pays attention.
John Kerry, " I have finally figured out what RNC stands for... Really Not Compassionate."
"If you believe this country is on the right track, then you go vote for George Bush. But, If you believe like John Edwards and I do, that there is a better way, Then I am asking you to vote for me and help set a new direction for our country. They can't talk about their record because it is a record of failure."
"George Bush told you tonight that he has a plan for your future, but he told you that four years ago. This president is quite proud of the fact that even failure will not make him change course."
" I will not have my ability to serve be questioned by those who failed to serve when they could have and misled us into a war with Iraq. Misleading our nation into war with Iraq makes you unfit to lead our country. Doing nothing to create new Jobs makes you unfit to run our country. Doing nothing for the families without healthcare makes you unfit to run our country. Letting the Saudi royal family set oil prices for America makes you unfit to run our country. "
"How can you leap into a convention and make a bunch of promises when you haven't kept the promises you made before?"
"We need a president who will fight just as hard for your job as he does to keep his own job."
"Healthcare, tuition and gas prices are up, wages are down. We are going to make America's work place fair again."
" In the last four years five million Americans have lost their health care."
"George Bush has made us more dependent, not less dependent on foreign oil. We are going to liberate ourselves and free our selves from dependence on others for energy."
" I pledge to you: I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as president. Our soldiers are doing a remarkable job. Our soldiers are amasing but they deserve leadership that allows them to do the job right. We need to get this war out of our pockets and get the targets off the backs of the American soldier"
This is the fight John Kerry promised us. Let's hope he keeps up the steam and that tghe press pays attention.
And Finally... W
after a sappy 9-11 milking introduction.
Chant with me... "Four more Months!!!"
What is a chairaman?
But what is this vision that he kept promising?
These are his declaratives about the future. In order. I skip the accolades he gives him self for what he thinks he has already done. Many of these end with "and nothing will hold us back." but he is telling us what he will continue to do or do differently.
We will build a safer America and nothing will hold us back. (6 minutes in to speach.)
I am running with a clear and positive plan to build a safer America.
I will provide clear and steady leareship ( 11 minutes) paraphrased.
There is a new commitment to "compassionate conservativism".
We will extend the frontiers of freedom. (scary based on their past)
Many of our most fundamental systems were created for the world of yesterday. We will transform them to meet the needs of tomorrow. (yikes)
To create new jobs in America, America must be the best place in the world to do business-
I will reduce government spending and make tax relief permanent.
We will make our country less dependent on foreign sources of energy- we will protect small business against law suits.
I will transform the tax code- simpler fairer pro-growth system. In a new term I will lead a bi-partisan effort to simplify the federal tax code.. I will help workers find better and higher and paying jobs - I will increase funding to community colleges ( I wonder if the increase will replace the cuts those colleges have faced because of his policies).
I will improve availability of health insurance and I will establish health savings accounts.
We will provide better access to health care for poorer Americans. I will provide "to every poor community" available health clinics.
We must pass medical liability reform.
We will change outdated labor laws. " Our laws must never stand in the way of a family friendly workplace."
7 million new affordable homes (affordable to who?).
health care plan ownership, social security privitization,
Another promise to leave no child behind.
Another promise for health care.
This guy sounds good,
But ... "fool me once... shame on you... fool me... er... you can't get fooled again."
Chant with me... "Four more Months!!!"
What is a chairaman?
But what is this vision that he kept promising?
These are his declaratives about the future. In order. I skip the accolades he gives him self for what he thinks he has already done. Many of these end with "and nothing will hold us back." but he is telling us what he will continue to do or do differently.
We will build a safer America and nothing will hold us back. (6 minutes in to speach.)
I am running with a clear and positive plan to build a safer America.
I will provide clear and steady leareship ( 11 minutes) paraphrased.
There is a new commitment to "compassionate conservativism".
We will extend the frontiers of freedom. (scary based on their past)
Many of our most fundamental systems were created for the world of yesterday. We will transform them to meet the needs of tomorrow. (yikes)
To create new jobs in America, America must be the best place in the world to do business-
I will reduce government spending and make tax relief permanent.
We will make our country less dependent on foreign sources of energy- we will protect small business against law suits.
I will transform the tax code- simpler fairer pro-growth system. In a new term I will lead a bi-partisan effort to simplify the federal tax code.. I will help workers find better and higher and paying jobs - I will increase funding to community colleges ( I wonder if the increase will replace the cuts those colleges have faced because of his policies).
I will improve availability of health insurance and I will establish health savings accounts.
We will provide better access to health care for poorer Americans. I will provide "to every poor community" available health clinics.
We must pass medical liability reform.
We will change outdated labor laws. " Our laws must never stand in the way of a family friendly workplace."
7 million new affordable homes (affordable to who?).
health care plan ownership, social security privitization,
Another promise to leave no child behind.
Another promise for health care.
This guy sounds good,
But ... "fool me once... shame on you... fool me... er... you can't get fooled again."
Pataki Speaks
He thanks allof the various state delegations for the many good efforts people extended to New York. He talks about the sacrifices workers in New York did in the aftermath of September 11. I am waiting for him to make a connection that would dare imply that it was the conservatgives who did these things.
Instead, he falls into the same rhetoric we have heard for three days.
He said he'd do it, and he did, on and on!!
What about...
He said he would fund No Child Left behind... (no response?)
He said he would create jobs with a tax cut... ( no response?)
He said he would be a uniter, not a divider... ( no response?)
He said he would not create higher deficits with his tax cuts... (no response?)
He said that they would find WMD in Iraq... (no response?)
He gave us a "Blue Skies Initiative" to improve air quality... (no response?)
He promised to keep Nevada free of Nuclear waste... (no response?)
He said when he ran in 2000 that Gay marriage is an issue best left to the states..(no response?)
I could go on and on.
Here is another guy who thanks God GW Bush was president on September 11.
How he wishes the Clinton Administration had moved to protect us whe Al Queda first attacked us, and he names the events. How I wish that Clinton didn't have to work with a Republican Congress who apposed his attempts to do just that. How things might have been, and much sooner for the people of Afghanistan.
He tells us how we need to go after those who have attacked us before they can attack again. And I agree. But where is Osama? Where are the Taliban?
Instead we attacked the mayor of Bahgdad and are stuck in a quagmire that leaves our troops vulnerable abroad and our homeland less secure.
Instead, he falls into the same rhetoric we have heard for three days.
He said he'd do it, and he did, on and on!!
What about...
He said he would fund No Child Left behind... (no response?)
He said he would create jobs with a tax cut... ( no response?)
He said he would be a uniter, not a divider... ( no response?)
He said he would not create higher deficits with his tax cuts... (no response?)
He said that they would find WMD in Iraq... (no response?)
He gave us a "Blue Skies Initiative" to improve air quality... (no response?)
He promised to keep Nevada free of Nuclear waste... (no response?)
He said when he ran in 2000 that Gay marriage is an issue best left to the states..(no response?)
I could go on and on.
Here is another guy who thanks God GW Bush was president on September 11.
How he wishes the Clinton Administration had moved to protect us whe Al Queda first attacked us, and he names the events. How I wish that Clinton didn't have to work with a Republican Congress who apposed his attempts to do just that. How things might have been, and much sooner for the people of Afghanistan.
He tells us how we need to go after those who have attacked us before they can attack again. And I agree. But where is Osama? Where are the Taliban?
Instead we attacked the mayor of Bahgdad and are stuck in a quagmire that leaves our troops vulnerable abroad and our homeland less secure.
Although the networks didn't cover this
Michael W. Smith performed a song tonight which notinues Bush's theme wonderfully. It seems to be about the flag, but it is clear that the message is about safety. Your safety. The only thing it didn't do is come right out and say, like all the speakers here have said, "We are not safe if we don;t have George W. Bush as our president."
You need to watch this!!!
It's about three minutes but worth seeing. Kudos to the Daily Show for this one.
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
Ladies and gentleman, Dick Cheney, children cover your ears. This guy is a potty mouth.
"I will give this Campaign all that I have" not " I intend to serve faithfully for the next four years."
His "How do you think I got the Job" question must be rhetorical since those of us in the know are aware that he was in charge of the group that recommended his own name to Bush as a running mate.
Dick points out that GW Bush passed "No Child Left Behind" a bill Kerry voted for. He fails to point out that Bush and he failed to fund that initiative.
Dick tells us that "The Bush tax cuts are working" and that health care is more affordable and more accessible to more Americans. He is proving that we really do live in two Americas. And I don't know where the one he is talking about is.
We hear about his new Grandson in order to remind us that we need Bush to keep us safe.
"We are in a war we did not start but have no choice but to win." He must be talking about terror, not Iraq. So I guess the war on terror is winnable, but don't tell George.
Nothing in this is new.
There is an old joke. How do you know when Dick Cheney is lying? but I can't help but notice that this guys lips don't move.
His "How do you think I got the Job" question must be rhetorical since those of us in the know are aware that he was in charge of the group that recommended his own name to Bush as a running mate.
Dick points out that GW Bush passed "No Child Left Behind" a bill Kerry voted for. He fails to point out that Bush and he failed to fund that initiative.
Dick tells us that "The Bush tax cuts are working" and that health care is more affordable and more accessible to more Americans. He is proving that we really do live in two Americas. And I don't know where the one he is talking about is.
We hear about his new Grandson in order to remind us that we need Bush to keep us safe.
"We are in a war we did not start but have no choice but to win." He must be talking about terror, not Iraq. So I guess the war on terror is winnable, but don't tell George.
Nothing in this is new.
There is an old joke. How do you know when Dick Cheney is lying? but I can't help but notice that this guys lips don't move.
Zel Miller makes it clear
what the Republicans are trying to do.
"My family is safer if GW Bush is president."
That is the same message we heard from Laura Bush, from Rudy Giuliani and from Armold Scharzenegger.
Put daddy in charge and stop asking so many stupid questions. Ronald Reagan said it best. "Facts are stupid things."
I still have to believe that Americans are smart enough to not buy it.
And by the way Zel, It was the wisdom of our founding fathers that gave us the freedoms of speech, press, peaceful assembly (not protest as you stated it). The soldier plays an honorable role when they have to. The obligation of the Commander in Chief is to make sure that we only use them when we have to use them. In that regard George W Bush has failed.
Kerry did not blame the military for the failings of Vietnam. He blamed that administration. Kerry does not blame our military today. He blames this administration.
The same people out in blogdom who would criticize Kerry as he claims himself to be a Catholic yet has views that differ with the church on abortion rights will now stand side by side with this nutbag as he claims to be a Democrat yet apparently holds none of the positions of the democratic party.
"My family is safer if GW Bush is president."
That is the same message we heard from Laura Bush, from Rudy Giuliani and from Armold Scharzenegger.
Put daddy in charge and stop asking so many stupid questions. Ronald Reagan said it best. "Facts are stupid things."
I still have to believe that Americans are smart enough to not buy it.
And by the way Zel, It was the wisdom of our founding fathers that gave us the freedoms of speech, press, peaceful assembly (not protest as you stated it). The soldier plays an honorable role when they have to. The obligation of the Commander in Chief is to make sure that we only use them when we have to use them. In that regard George W Bush has failed.
Kerry did not blame the military for the failings of Vietnam. He blamed that administration. Kerry does not blame our military today. He blames this administration.
The same people out in blogdom who would criticize Kerry as he claims himself to be a Catholic yet has views that differ with the church on abortion rights will now stand side by side with this nutbag as he claims to be a Democrat yet apparently holds none of the positions of the democratic party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
