Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
2003 August
2003 July
My Links
Contact Congress
Casualties in Iraq
National Debt Clock
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
|
| ... Fair Expectations ... |
| 09.30.04 (8:44 pm) [edit] |
"It's time to end the "soft bigotry of low expectations" that President Bush is afforded in presidential debates." - Steve Cobble
[b]"We the People" must stop treating the election of the President of the United States of America like a football game-- or a match of tactical "wins"-- ... Too much is at stake to participate in the bizarre pre-occupation that many have with so-called "performance" in the debates ... Instead we must be clear regarding the horrendously disastrous track-record of the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]and our need for a new administration to restore credibility, competence and integrity to the White House and to America ...[/b]
George W. is right – it's time to end "the soft bigotry of low expectations."
I'm talking about the presidential debates. It's long past time to quit treating George W. like some precious little elementary school kid from the boondocks. He's supposed to be the president. He needs to be held to the same debate standards to which other first-term presidents were held, the standards that helped derail his father and Jimmy Carter.
Standards like truth. Coherence. His actual record in office. An ability to go beyond scripted sound bites. Some connection between the dreamscapes that his PR people paint for him, and the cruel reality on the ground that his policies have helped to create.
(As for Dick Cheney – some tenuous connection with the truth would be a good start . . .) The media have never held George W. Bush to the same standards as his debate opponents. Despite being the incumbent governor, the eloquent Ann Richards could only win by slaughtering Bush in their debates, a wildly unfair set of expectations. Al Gore actually won two out of the three debates, according to the viewing audience – but he lost ground during their debate series, as much as 10 points in the polls, because he was unable to "knock Bush out" (and because of intense post-debate right-wing spin).
Why? Because in the past, Bush's reputation for mangling phrases, for making up words, for not knowing what he was talking about, was an asset when the media judged the debates. He "won", not because he did better than his opponents, but because he did "better than expected," according to the pundit class.
George W. has always only had to "exceed expectations", which are always set low to begin with. He has never actually had to "win" a debate; he wins by not losing, or in some cases, even by not losing badly.
This media frame is long outdated. Bush is the president now (whether he really won or not). When he says something, it should be judged by real, factual benchmarks, not artificially enhanced by "the soft bigotry of low expectations."
For instance, can the man who would be Churchill tell the truth? Can he explain how an attack on a nation with no WMDs that was not involved in the 9/11 attacks somehow boosted the war on terror? Can he tell us how we're going to get out of his quagmire in Iraq? Should he be allowed to get away with reciting some truism about "turning the corner" rather than confronting our net loss of a million jobs, stagnant wages, and growing trade deficit?
Will his promises on the budget deficit be measured against his record in squandering the Clinton surplus? Will his tough-guy talk about terrorists be matched up against his failure to follow through on bin Laden? Will the media ask him if he believes that Armageddon will happen soon, and is that belief influencing his Middle East policy?
Will they ask him how it is that his Administration could be warned in early August that al Qaeda was going to attack inside the United States, and yet more than a month later, still not be able to defend the Pentagon? What could explain such a massive display of incompetence?
And what does it mean that he can find the time to drop in on soldiers and National Guard reserves being sent off to Iraq, but he has never been able to find the time to show respect for our fallen, to show respect for their families, by attending even one funeral of one soldier killed in Iraq? Not one, out of more than one thousand killed.
Everyone seems to agree that this is the most important election in our lifetimes. (Granted, people say that every four years, but this time both sides are also acting as if they mean it.) Is it too much to ask that the next leader of the most powerful nation on earth have to earn it, by actually winning the debates, rather than winning by "social promotion" due to "the soft bigotry of low expectations"?
So this time, can we make George W. actually win these debates on his merits – or more likely, allow him to lose them on his demerits?
[b]Source:[/b]
Steve Cobble, AlterNet, http://www.alternet.org
|
|
|
| |
| ... INFLUENCE ... |
| 09.30.04 (7:25 pm) [edit] |
"The secret of my influence has always been that it remained secret" - Salvador Dali
[b][i]Times, they are a changin' [/i]... No longer is the blatant abuse of power to enrich the influence-peddlers (lobbyists for corporate interests ...) a "secret" ... The shameless exploitation of the American people on behalf of gluttonous corporations and the wealthiest among us is "business as usual" with the corrupt Bush regime ... [/b]
[i][b]An example ...[/b][/i]
[b]Protecting Industry, Not People:[/b] The[i] Washington Post [/i]reports, "food industry lobbyists met privately with Bush administration officials 10 times while the government was crafting rules to protect the food supply from bioterrorism and those congressionally required rules emerged in significantly weakened form as a result." Caroline Smith DeWaal, of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said, "the result is regulations that the industry likes, but that don't fully protect the public interest." http://www.washingtonpost.com... The Bush administration has a history of meeting secretly with industry groups when crafting important legislation: Vice President Cheney had back room meetings with energy officials when crafting his energy policy; the White House also met with the owner of one of the largest pharmacy benefits management companies in drafting prescription drug card legislation; http://www.americanprogress.o... the new mercury emission rules from the EPA contained "at least a dozen paragraphs [that] were lifted, sometimes verbatim, http://www.washingtonpost.com... from the industry suggestions."
[i][b]And ...[/b][/i]
[b]Military Industrial Complex - No-Bid Contracts Gone Wild:[/b] A new report by the Center for Public Integrity shows over the past six years, more than half the Pentagon's $900 billion budget was given out to contractors. More than 40 percent http://www.washingtonpost.com... of that was awarded without competitive bidding. Also, points out the [i]Wall Street Journal[/i], the Pentagon "doesn't adequately monitor its contractors," with poor record-keeping and weak accountability. Some of the Pentagon's largest contractors, http://online.wsj.com/article...,,SB109646763473331232,00 .html?mod=politics%5Fprima ry%5Fhs "including Lockheed Martin Corp. and General Dynamics Corp., received a majority of their defense revenue through no-bid contracts." http://www.nytimes.com/aponli... You get what you pay for: the top 10 contractors "won $340 billion in contracts over the six-year period. In that time, the companies gave $35.7 million to political campaigns and spent $414.6 million on lobbying." The study concluded, "The 10 biggest defense contractors all spent heavily on both campaign contributions and lobbying. But the return on their investment was staggering."
[b]The current administration is not representing "We the People" ... Isn't it time for a change? ...[/b]
|
|
|
| |
| ... 10 Questions for Tonight's Debate ... |
| 09.30.04 (4:47 pm) [edit] |
[b]On the day of the first presidential debate on foreign policy and homeland security, the Center for American Progress suggests 10 debate questions.[/b] Also check out their list of things President George W. Bush might say http://www.tblog.com/template... to defend his foreign policy record—followed by the facts explaining why the statements are misleading.
"We the People" should pay close attention to the questions posed [i]as well as [/i]the answers given ...
SEE THE DEBATE QUESTIONS HERE THAT JIM LEHRER SHOULD ASK:
[b]1. Vice President Cheney, Speaker of the House Hastert and others have said, in so many words, that al Qaeda would like to see Senator Kerry elected. Assuming you agree with their assessment, could you please tell the American people what the evidence is on this? Don't you think that, given the kind of threat this could represent to all Americans, you owe it to them to reveal the information so that they can make an informed choice in the election?[/b]
Earlier this month, Vice President Cheney said, "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States." His comments echoed those of other leading GOP figures. House Speaker Dennis Hastert has said al Qaeda "would like to influence this election" against Bush, and suggested terrorists would be more comfortable with John Kerry as president. And Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage claimed that insurgents have stepped up their deadly assaults in Iraq because they want to "influence the election against President Bush." None of these claims has been backed up with any evidence whatsoever.
[u]Sources[/u]:
. Cheney says U.S. will be "hit" if we elect Kerry http://www.freerepublic.com/f...
. Hastert says al Qaeda roots for Kerry http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPO...
. Armitage says insurgents want Kerry to win http://www.sunherald.com/mld/...
[b]2. President Bush, you've said in the past that America will never ask for a permission slip to defend itself. But recently, you said that Fallujah wasn't dealt with more aggressively because of concerns expressed by Iraqi politicians. Why are Iraqi politicians vetoing American military tactics?[/b]
Lt. Gen. James Conway, the outgoing U.S. Marine Corps general in charge of western Iraq – now deputy director of operations at the Joint Chiefs of Staff – said in September that he disagreed with the hasty order that sent his troops to invade Fallujah in April, as well as the subsequent decision to withdraw from the city and turn over control to the disloyal Brigade. Conway said the disastrous assault increased tensions while making the region more hostile to U.S. forces: "We felt like we had a method that we wanted to apply to Fallujah, that we ought to probably let the situation settle before we appeared to be attacking out of revenge." Instead, higher ups insisted on the attack, and then demanded troops pull out when the fighting grew fierce. "I would simply say that when you order elements of a Marine division to attack a city, you really need to understand the consequences of that, and not, perhaps, vacillate in the middle of that. Once you commit to do that, you have to stay committed." When asked by Bill O'Reilly to explain the administration's hesitance, Bush responded, "There was a dual track with a political process going forward. A lot of people on the ground there thought that if we'd have gone into Fallujah at the time, the interim government would not have been established."
[u]Sources[/u]:
. Conway Criticism http://www.latimes.com/news/n...,1,3338025.story?coll=la-home-headli nes
. Bush on O'Reilly http://www.foxnews.com/story/...,2933,133712,00.html
[b]3. Before the war, Gen. Eric Shinseki estimated "several hundred thousand troops" would be needed to secure the peace in Iraq. Have events proven Gen. Shinseki correct? Should America have gone in with more troops?[/b]
U.S. and foreign officials, including Army Commander John Abizaid, are indicating that more armed forces in addition to the 138,000 troops already in Iraq "will be needed over the coming months to secure the nation's first democratic elections, to protect against the possibility of an insurgent offensive," and to allow U.S. commanders to launch a major counteroffensive to quell an insurgent rebellion in the Sunni Triangle. In the march to war, Bush administration officials publicly rebuked Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki for his estimate that "several hundred thousand troops" would be necessary to provide security in post-war Iraq. At the time, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz dismissed Shinseki's estimate as "wildly off the mark." When Army Secretary Thomas White agreed with Shinseki, he was also disparaged.
[u]Sources[/u]:
. Wolfowitz repudiates Shinseki's "suspect" estimate http://www.drumbeat.mlaterz.n...%20Feb%202003/Wolfowitz%2 0critical%20of%20occupati on%20estimate%20022803a.htm
. On White and Shinseki's public feuds with Pentagon http://www.usatoday.com/news/...
. Iraqi insurgents getting stronger http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5...
. Abizaid says more troops may be needed in Iraq http://www.washingtonpost.com...
[b]4. Mr. President, in 2000, you told members of the military that "help is on the way." Yet the war in Iraq has stretched the military to the breaking point. Reenlistment is falling, tours of duty are longer, the National Guard and Reserve contribute about 40 percent of the troops in Iraq, and now you've been forced to call up the Individual Ready Reserve in what people call a back-door draft. Could you have done more to help the military?[/b]
The U.S. is relying on the National Guard and Reserve more than ever, with "citizen soldiers" comprising more than 40 percent of U.S. forces in Iraq alone. The administration's failure to anticipate the demands of post-war Iraq has left guardsmen and reservists with insufficient notice before mobilization, forced thousands of soldiers into back-to-back deployments and left little backup in the event of another terrorist attack. As a result of the strains to the Guard, commanders across the country are concerned about their ability to recruit and retain troops. Reenlistment and retention rates are falling. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has warned that using reservists at this level is "unsustainable." And this year, "the Army National Guard will fall 5,000 soldiers short of its recruiting goal." But with Army planners preparing to maintain current troop levels in Iraq through 2007, it is unclear where the new soldiers will come from. Fearing "sharp declines" in recruiting and troop retention, Army officials are considering cutting the length of combat tours in Iraq, even as commanders consider asking for more troops to secure the January elections.
[u]Sources[/u]:
. On death toll for citizen soldiers http://www.globalsecurity.org...
. Guard commanders concerned about troop recruitment http://www.washingtonpost.com...
. Current troop levels unsustainable http://www.pinr.com/report.ph...
. CBO report says U.S. cannot maintain current troop strength http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD...
. Army planners prepare for 2007 http://seattlepi.nwsource.com...
. Army Guard sees recruiting shortfall http://www.kansascity.com/mld...
[b]5. Republican Senator Richard Lugar said the administration has managed to spend just $1 billion of the $18.4 billion Congress approved to rebuild Iraq because of its "incompetence." Republican Senator Chuck Hegel said, "We need more regionalization. We need more help from our allies." Republican Senator John McCain said, "we made serious mistakes'' in Iraq. Do you agree?[/b]
Appearing this month on ABC's This Week, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) said, "We've got to get the reconstruction money out there. That was the gist of our hearing this week, that $18 billion is appropriated a year ago and only $1 billion has been spent." When asked why the money hadn't been spent, Lugar replied, "This is the incompetence in the administration.'' On Face the Nation, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) said we were "in deep trouble in Iraq" and urged more "help from out allies." John McCain (R-AZ), speaking on Fox News Sunday, cited mistakes such as the toleration of looting immediately after U.S. troops took Baghdad and failures to secure Iraq's borders and prevent insurgents from establishing strongholds within the country. President Bush has offered no response to these statements, other than saying the critical senators support him for president.
[u]Sources[/u]:
. Lugar quote: ABC News Transcript, 9/19/04 (Available on Lexis)
. 140 out of 2,300 projects underway http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...
. Hagel says we're in "deep trouble in Iraq" http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs...
. Republicans criticize Bush "mistakes" in Iraq http://www.reuters.co.uk/news...§ion=news
[b]6. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said we went to Iraq to avoid a "mushroom cloud," but that country turned out to have no nuclear capability. Meanwhile, in the last four years we've pursued six-party negotiations with North Korea, and Kim Jung Il has quadrupled his nuclear arsenal. Did we miscalculate which country presented the most immediate nuclear threat?[/b]
Charles Pritchard—formerly Colin Powell's top official dealing with North Korea—says, "the White House lacks an effective strategy to dissuade North Korea from building up its nuclear arms." The Bush administration waited 18 months before making a serious proposal to North Korea, allowed its senior officials to make statements that were certain to hand it excuses to leave the discussions, thereby prolonging the crisis, and has spent an estimated 100 hours in three rounds of discussions with the six parties. Meanwhile, North Korea's nuclear weapons potential has quadrupled in size from a suspected two weapons to as many as eight. According to Stuart Taylor of the National Journal, if the present course persists, North Korea will be "making about a dozen [weapons] a year, with every intention of selling them to terrorists and other willing bidders." According to Pritchard, the situation has deteriorated because "the administration has neither offered much of a carrot nor wielded a stick." The administration has refused to engage North Korea in direct negotiations or "put the North Koreans on notice that further developments will trigger economic sanctions or perhaps even military actions."
[u]Sources[/u]:
. New York Times, Warnings Go Unheeded Over North Korea Threat http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...
. National Journal, Nuclear Terror: Has Bush Made Matters Worse? http://www.crimlaw.org/defbri...
. Time Magazine,"Why Talking May Only Make the North Korea Situation Worse" http://www.time.com/time/worl...,8599,478492,00.html
. American Progress Report Card http://www.americanprogress.o...
[b]7. After identifying Iran as a member of the Axis of Evil, you chose to focus on Iraq – which turned out to have no nuclear capability. Last week, Iran announced that it was going to pursue a nuclear program that would allow it to produce nuclear materials that could be used to build bombs. Did we miscalculate which country presented the most immediate nuclear threat?[/b]
The Bush administration's own actions and policies have simultaneously encouraged Iran to pursue nuclear weapons while severely limiting our options for compelling Iran to abandon its fuel cycle programs. President Bush declared in his 2002 National Security Strategy that the United States would preemptively attack rogue regimes that pursued weapons of mass destruction. In his 2002 State of the Union address, he identified three of these regimes—Iran, Iraq, and North Korea—as forming an "Axis of Evil." The Bush administration then invaded Iraq, despite skepticism within his administration and among nuclear experts over whether Iraq was in fact actively pursuing nuclear weapons. The lesson this taught Iran (and North Korea) is that they should accelerate their weapons programs to deter a U.S. invasion.
[u]Sources[/u]:
. BostonGlobe, "US turning more to UN for help" http://www.boston.com/news/wo...
. GlobalSecurity.org, "Target Iran—Air Strikes" http://www.globalsecurity.org...
. National Journal, "Nuclear Terror: Has Bush Made Matters Worse?" http://www.crimlaw.org/defbri...
. New York Times, "Bush Aides Divided on Confronting Iran Over A-Bomb" http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...
[b]8. The 9/11 Commission says there was no collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Vice President Cheney insists there was a collaborative relationship. Who is right?[/b]
Vice President Cheney said on Sept. 9 that Saddam Hussein "provided safe harbor and sanctuary...for Al Qaeda." It was one of many times that Cheney has described a collaborative relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda. There is no evidence to support Cheney's claim. The 9/11 Commission – which spent months exhaustively studying the issue – concluded there was no "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda. After the release of the 9/11 report, Cheney claimed there was "overwhelming" evidence of a relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq and that he had "probably" seen evidence that was not shared with the commission. After investigating the matter, the 9/11 Commission found "it had access to the same information the vice president has seen regarding contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq prior to the 9/11 attacks." The commission also reaffirmed its position that it had not discovered a "collaboration-cooperatio n between al-Qaeda and Iraq."
[u]Sources[/u]:
. Cheney on Sept. 9 http://www.latimes.com/news/y...,1,1085252.story
. Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed http://www.washingtonpost.com...
. Cheney disputes 9/11 Commission claim http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPO...
. 9/11 panel confirms conclusions http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Po...
[b]9. The war in Iraq has cost American taxpayers about $145 billion – and you're slated to ask for another $75 billion before the end of the year. Do you think you've spent the $145 billion in the best way possible? Or would this money have been better spent on key homeland security efforts like protecting our ports and securing nuclear materials?[/b]
So far, the Iraq war has cost American taxpayers roughly $150 billion. An additional $60 billion is expected to be allocated in a supplemental request after the November election. It was costing us $2 billion a year to keep Saddam contained. According to the 9/11 report, Iraq was not involved in the planning or execution of the Sept. 11 attacks and did not have a "collaborative operational relationship" with al Qaeda. However, many homeland security needs, as well as U.S. counterterror operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere, have been underfunded or neglected because of Iraq. It would cost just $7.5 billion over ten years, for instance, to secure all of America's ports against a terrorist attack, but so far just $500 million has been allocated. Seven billion dollars over five years could pay for 100,000 more community police officers, but the Bush administration's FY2005 budget proposes just $97 million. Experts say the war has "increased the threats America faces, and has reduced the military, financial, and diplomatic tools with which we can respond." A 2004 Harvard study shows that in the two years since 9/11, your administration has secured less of the nuclear materials that can be used to make weapons than in the two years before 9/11.
[u]Sources[/u]:
. Center for American Progress on opportunity cost of war http://www.americanprogress.o...%7bE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A52 1-5D6FF2E06E03%7d/Opportu nity%20Cost%20of%20War%20 Report%208%2025.pdf
. War has depleted resources to deal with terror http://www.theatlantic.com/do...
[b]10. Mr. President, you claimed this week that "[the] Taliban no longer is in existence." Yet, the death toll for Afghanis at the hands of the Taliban this year is 45 percent higher than last year. Can you explain your claim in light of this fact?[/b]
While the administration has worked to build a positive picture of its successes in Afghanistan, the situation on the ground tells a different story. Drugs, militants, terrorists and warlords continue to undermine security and democracy in the country. Opium production is expected to reach record high levels this year, and even the Bush administration's ambassador to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, recently admitted that Afghanistan was in danger of becoming a "narco-state." The Taliban have been making a steady comeback since their government was ousted by the U.S.-led coalition in 2001, and the Afghan death toll attributed to the group rose by 45 percent this year. Osama bin Laden and senior members of al Qaeda remain at large, and there are indications that senior al Qaeda leaders are involved in planning and directing attacks in Afghanistan. Warlords and armed militias continue to rule the countryside, creating instability and factional fighting, preventing the Karzai government from extending its authority and threatening the legitimacy of the Oct. 9 presidential election.
[u]Sources[/u]:
. Opium: Source 1 http://www.wtopnews.com/index... | Source 2 http://www.boston.com/news/wo...
. Taliban http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...
. Al-Qaeda http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5...
. Warlords Source 1 http://www.theledger.com/apps... | Source 2 http://www.hrw.org/background... .
|
|
|
| |
| ... Claim vs. Fact: What The President Will Say ... |
| 09.30.04 (2:39 pm) [edit] |
"Saddam…had a relationship with al Qaeda." - Vice President Dick Cheney, 9/29/04, http://www.whitehouse.gov/new...
[i]VERSUS[/i]
There was no "collaborative operational relationship" between al Qaeda and Saddam. - 9/11 Commission Report, http://www.americanprogress.o...
[b]The corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] is comprised of sophisticated neo-con operators, well-practised at perpetrating heinous lies, deceptions and falsehoods against "We the People" ... "We the People" need to wise-up and become a little more sophisticated ourselves so that we're no longer ruthlessly manipulated by these incompetent, corrupt and criminal neo-fascists in the traitorous Bush regime ... [/b]
On the morning of the first presidential debate on foreign policy and homeland security, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright wants to ask President Bush, "How has the Iraq war made us safer, if it transformed Iraq from a place whose military was surrounded and contained, into what you have repeatedly called the 'central front' in the war on terror?'" Arthur Schlesinger Jr., the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, wants to ask, "Do you really believe that there are fewer terrorists plotting against America today than there were before you began the invasion of Iraq?" And Richard Clarke, Bush's former counterterrorism chief, wants to know "what steps" the president has taken to defend the homeland from a Madrid-style attack. American Progress suggests ten debate questions of its own http://www.americanprogressac... . Below are some of the things President Bush might say to defend his foreign policy record. Beneath them are facts explaining why the statements are misleading. Read the complete list of what the president will likely say, versus what you should know.
[b]CLAIM 1: I HAD A CHOICE TO MAKE:[/b] When prodded on his decision to invade Iraq, President Bush may say, "I had a choice to make: take the word of a madman…or do what's necessary to defend this country." But Bush didn't have to take the "word of a madman" to know Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction. He could have taken the word of the CIA, which reported in February 2001, "We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs." He could have taken the word of his own secretary of state, who said Saddam Hussein "has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction." Or he could have taken the word of a 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency report, which said there was "no reliable information" proving Iraq was producing chemical weapons. Finally, he could have taken the word of chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, who said the WMD intelligence was weak and asked for more time to carry out inspections.
[b]CLAIM 2: WAR HAS MADE THE WORLD SAFER:[/b] When asked to confront evidence that the war in Iraq has increased terrorism worldwide, the president has a stock answer ready: because of the war, he says, "America and the world are safer." Every available piece of evidence indicates just the opposite. Reports by both the International Institute of Strategic Studies and the British House of Commons concluded the world was less safe because of the war, with al Qaeda recruitment soaring. Earlier this week, the Los Angeles Times reported Iraq had emerged as a "rallying point for a seemingly endless supply of young extremists willing to die in a jihad, or holy war." And government data shows "significant" terrorist attacks were at a 21-year high in 2003. When asked if he agreed with the president's assessment, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said, "No, I cannot say the world is safer today than it was two, three years ago."
[b]CLAIM 3: THE TALIBAN IS GONE, 10 MILLION WILL VOTE:[/b] The President will likely claim unmitigated success in Afghanistan. He said on Monday that the "Taliban no longer is in existence," and he repeatedly claims "10 million" Afghanis have registered to vote. In fact, with American resources diverted in Iraq, the Taliban has been making a steady comeback since 2001. The Afghan death toll attributed to the Taliban rose by 45 percent this year, and more than forty election workers have been killed or wounded in the past four months. A new report by Human Rights Watch http://www.hrw.org/background... states that warlords are threatening voters and the number of registered voters is probably much lower than the 10 million President Bush cites. The United Nations says many areas of the country are still too dangerous for people to register there.
[b]CLAIM 4: I LEAD WITH CLARITY:[/b] When questioned on the way he has handled the insurgency in Iraq, President Bush may say, "In order to have credibility with those people who are fighting for freedom, the leaders of this country must not send mixed signals." But Bush sent mixed signals in his ambivalent approach to Fallujah. Marine Commander Lt. Gen. James T. Conway said, "When you order elements of a Marine division to attack a city, you really need to...not vacillate in the middle of something like that. Once you commit, you have to stay committed." In the October issue of the Army Times, Col. Joe Anderson echoes Conway's frustration. "I was in Fallujah in June standing downtown," he says, "and I don't know why we ever left…It's just a damn shame we're [starting over] a year later." For other Bush flip-flops, click here http://www.americanprogressac... .
[b]Source:[/b]
The Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.o...
|
|
|
| |
| ... The Lies of W. ... |
| 09.30.04 (11:55 am) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" have been duped by the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] into "buying" their BIG NEO-CON LIES ... The despotic Bushies' illegal and immoral incursion into Iraq warrants impeachment and trial for War Crimes because it was based upon a traitorous pack of lies, deceptions and falsehoods ... -- Instead, Bush is being allowed to get away with heinous mass-murder and neo-fascist atrocities ... It's a shame ...[/b]
What won’t get mentioned in tonight’s debate is that George Bush, Dick Cheney et al. lied to get us into Iraq.
For this I blame the media. For the past six months, the media has basically stopped digging on the issue of the Office of Special Plans, the manipulation of intelligence, the distortions and the lies. It is the single most important failure of the media. As someone who has written extensively and repeatedly about it, it is, to me, very sad. What it means is that Bush will go into the debate tonight far more secure that he ought to be. Kerry can accuse Bush of making the wrong choices, of not having a clear pre-war strategy, of bungling the occupation. But Kerry can’t accuse the president of purposefully misleading America, because he doesn’t have the ammunition—at least not from slam-dunk, mainstream sources that he can wave around.
The facts are that Bush and Cheney wanted to invade Iraq for reasons other than the stated ones. They knew that Iraq couldn’t threaten the United States with WMD, and they knew that Iraq was not allied with Al Qaeda. Yet they manufactured evidence to the contrary, meticulously.
Of course, they miscalculated, too. The occupation is a failure, and America is losing the war it lied to get into. But the latter is a mistake. The former is criminal. And there is a big, big difference.
Six months ago, administration defectors such as Paul O’Neill and Richard Clarke made clear that the president was targeting Iraq long before 9/11. The media was abuzz with stories of visits to the CIA by Cheney to pressure analysts to support pre-arranged conclusions. There was lots of news about Joe Wilson and the deliberate lies about Niger yellowcake. The Senate was bustling with pressure from Jay Rockefeller to investigate the OSP. And lots more. It’s all been lost. The media dropped the ball. Instead of looking into the machinations of Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Harold Rhode, Bill Luti and others who managed the Pentagon’s policy shop and the OSP, instead of digging into Richard Perle’s friends David Wurmser and Mike Maloof (who founded OSP’s precursor) and so on, the media got lost. There hasn’t been a single important investigation of the OSP by a major media outlet in months, and (as far as I can remember) not even a recap! It’s like all the lies never happened.
So now Bush can blame the CIA, and George Tenet, for having given him bad intelligence on Iraq’s WMD, and say that at least the world is rid of a bad guy.
Once the lies are off the table, all Kerry can do is to point out how badly things are going. Bush slips away, at least until historians unravel this.
It’s a shame.
[b]Source:[/b]
Robert Dreyfuss,[i] The Dreyfuss Report[/i], TomPaine, http://www.tompaine.com
|
|
|
| |
| ... Jon Stewart: Voters' Best Friend ... |
| 09.29.04 (7:59 pm) [edit] |
"I mean, you've got stoned slackers watching your dopey show every night…you know the research on your program."
- Bill O'Reilly, 9/17/04, http://www.wonkette.com/archi...
[i]VERSUS[/i]
"Viewers of Jon Stewart's show are more likely to have completed four years of college than people who watch 'The O'Reilly Factor,' according to Nielsen Media Research."
- AP, 9/27/04, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6...
[b]"We the People" might want to pay more attention to those[i] in the know[/i], instead of the insane neo-con ideologues who simply parrot Karl [i]'Joseph Goebbels' [/i]Rove's mendacious propaganda ...[/b]
Okay, not that Jon Stewart needs more PR, but a new survey http://www.business-journal.c... shows that viewers of the Daily Show are better informed on the issues at stake in the election than, well, whole lot of other people. Dannagal Goldthwaite Young, a senior analyst at the Annenberg Public Policy Center who conducted the research told the Business Journal:
"In fact, Daily Show viewers have higher campaign knowledge than national news viewers and newspaper readers -- even when education, party identification, following politics, watching cable news, receiving campaign information online, age, and gender are taken into consideration."
Now think about that for a second: you're more likely to be well-informed on the issues if you are a Daily Show viewer than even a person who reads the[i] New York Times [/i]or watches CNN. Read 'em and weep, Judy Woodruff.
[b]Source:[/b]
[i]lakshmi[/i], AlterNet, http://www.alternet.org
|
|
|
| |
| ... Judge Rules Against Patriot Act Provision ... |
| 09.29.04 (5:42 pm) [edit] |
[b]The Patriot Act represents an affront to everything that the United States of America stands for-- including our freedoms and rights under the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights ... "We the People" must gather our courage and reject this heinous erosion of our freedoms and rights by the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] who would destroy our Republic for Which Our U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights Stands ...[/b]
A key part of the Patriot Act, a central plank of the Bush Administration's war on terror, was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge on Wednesday, in the latest blow to U.S. security policies.
U.S. District Judge Victor Marreo ruled in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the power the FBI has to demand confidential financial records from companies that it can obtain without court approval as part of terrorism investigations.
The legislation bars companies and other recipients of these subpoenas from ever revealing that they received the FBI demand for records. Marreo held that this permanent ban was a violation of free speech rights.
In his ruling, Marreo prohibited the Department of Justice and the FBI from issuing special administrative subpoenas, known as national security letters. But he delayed enforcement of his judgment pending an expected appeal by the government. The Department of Justice said it was reviewing the ruling.
The ruling was the latest blow to the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies.
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that terror suspects being held in U.S. facilities like Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, can use the American judicial system to challenge their confinement. That ruling was a defeat for the president's assertion of sweeping powers to hold "enemy combatants" indefinitely after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The FBI first received power to get customer records in 1986 legislation, but its power to obtain confidential data was greatly expanded by the Patriot Act -- a controversial law the Bush administration pushed through Congress after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks to help it battle terrorism.
The ACLU argued that the anti-terrorism laws give the FBI unconstitutional power to demand sensitive information without adequate safeguards.
The judge agreed, saying the provision "effectively bars or substantially deters any judicial challenge."
"Such a challenge is necessary to vindicate important rights guaranteed by the Constitution," Marreo said.
Under the provision, the FBI does not have to show a judge a compelling need for the records nor does it have to specify any process that would allow a recipient to fight the demand for confidential information.
Prior to December, the letters could only be sent to certain financial institutions.
However, legislation signed by President Bush in December expanded the definition of companies from which information can be obtained and allowed FBI agents to send out the letters without first obtaining a judge's approval.
The legislation allows the FBI to seek information from businesses such as insurance firms, pawnbrokers, precious metal dealers, the Postal Service, casinos, and travel agents.
[b]Source:[/b]
Judge Rules Against Patriot Act Provision, By Gail Appleson, Reuters, http://reuters.com/newsArticl...
|
|
|
| |
| ... Families USA: New Report Shows Health Care is Far Less Affordable Than It Was Four Years Ago ... |
| 09.29.04 (4:45 pm) [edit] |
"A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." - Albert Einstein
[b]"We the People" need an administration that cares about the needs of our citizens ... The corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]doesn't care about the Middle Class, Working Families and/or Poor people in our country ... Please vote for John Kerry for President of the United States of America ...[/b]
Despite fewer health benefits for working families, health insurance premiums rose much faster than earnings over the last four years, according to a report released today by Families USA, http://www,familiesusa.org/ the national nonprofit and nonpartisan organization for health care consumers.
In the following 35 states, according to the report, average premium costs for workers rose at least three times faster than average earnings from 2000 to 2004: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Nationally, workers' premium costs rose, on average, by 35.9 percent, while their average earnings over the same period rose by only 12.4 percent.
These comparatively large premium increases occurred despite erosions in health care coverage, with employer- provided insurance packages covering fewer health services and workers paying more in deductibles and copayments.
"Working families were squeezed by runaway health care costs over the past four years," said Ron Pollack, Executive Director of Families USA. "As a result, workers are paying much more in premiums but are receiving less health coverage; wages are being depressed; and millions of people have lost health coverage entirely."
Family health premiums paid by employers and workers rose from $7,028 in 2000 to $9,320 in 2004. The average amount paid by workers for this coverage rose from $1,433 to $1,947 during that period-an increase of 35.9 percent. And, the number of Americans who had total health costs that consumed more than one-quarter of their earnings rose from 11.6 million in 2000 to 14.3 million in 2004-an increase of almost 23 percent. The overwhelming majority of these people (10.7 million) had health insurance.
"Health care costs and coverage for America's working families have gotten considerably worse over the past four years," said Pollack. "It is high time that these growing problems receive priority attention and national leadership."
The Families USA report also found that many more people are now uninsured. Approximately 85.2 million people were uninsured at some time during the 2003-2004 period, an increase of 12.7 million from 1999-2000, when the number of uninsured stood at 72.5 million. In 2003-2004, one out of every three Americans under 65 years of age went without health insurance for some period of time. Over half of these people were uninsured for at least nine months.
"The number of people who were uninsured at some point in 2003-2004 exceeds the combined population of 32 states and the District of Columbia," said Pollack. "This is an epidemic that requires immediate attention."
The report was produced with data compiled and analyzed by The Lewin Group from federal government sources, including the Census Bureau, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Health and Human Services. The analysis allowed Families USA to compare data on health costs and coverage in 2000 with projections for 2004.
[b]Sources:[/b]
Families USA, http://www.familiesusa.org/
Middle-Class Families Lose Again, http://www.tblog.com/template...
Middle Class Misnomer, http://www.tblog.com/template...
Time For A Checkup, http://www.tblog.com/template...
|
|
|
| |
| ... Losing the War ... |
| 09.29.04 (2:52 pm) [edit] |
"That's what learning is, after all; not whether we lose the game, but how we lose and how we've changed because of it and what we take away from it that we never had before, to apply to other games. Losing, in a curious way, is winning." - Richard Bach
[b]Bush has bungled Iraq ... Bush is a loser ... "We the People" must face this dire reality and elect a new administration that will bring fresh eyes, adroit competences and real integrity to our government ...[/b]
Here are some quotes from today’s [i]Washington Post[/i], from intelligence and military officials, most of them anonymous. They’re exactly like the ones I’ve been getting all year from similar officials. This week, in this space, I’ve been writing about the need for more leaks from U.S. officials to highlight Bush’s bungling in Iraq. It’s not just about quotes to a newspaper reporter. These officials need to leak documents, or resign and speak out in public, with their names attached. Not to do so is allow the re-election a president who launched an illegal war.
Okay, the quotes:
“There’s not obvious way to fix it. The best we can hope for is a semi-failed state hobbling along with terrorists and a succession of weak governments.”
“It’s getting worse. It just seems that there is a lot of pessimism flowing out of the theater now. There are things going on that are unbelievable to me. They have infiltrators conducing attacks in the Green Zone. That was not the case a year ago.”
“They keep telling us that Iraqi security forces are the exit strategy, but from what I hear from the ground is that they aren’t working. There’s a feeling that Iraqi security forces are in cahoots with the insurgents and the general public to get the occupiers out.”
“There’s a real war going on here that’s not just” the CIA against the administration on Iraq “but the State Department and the military” as well.”
Tomorrow night, Kerry gets one chance, and one chance only, to win the domestic war over Iraq. He needs to look the president in the eye and tell him that the war was wrong, that he deceived the American people (and their senators) about the threat from Iraq, that he doesn’t know enough about foreign affairs to understand the consequences of the bad advice he gets from hawkish advisers, and that we are losing the war. He has to say, “The American people know that this was is not making them safer. The American people need to know that it was a costly, needless mistake. And now, according to our own military and our own CIA, we are losing the war.” He needs to say it over and over. (Memo to Kerry’s wordsmiths: No big words.) He needs to have a simple message, and repeat it and repeat it. If they ask him about Russia, he needs to say: “How can we deal with the problems in Russia when we are engaged in a losing war that was a mistake in the first place?” If they ask him about Iran, he has to say: “We can’t deal with Iran now because we are losing a war in Iraq, in a way that is helping Iran get stronger.”
Then Kerry needs to present an exit strategy. “The president got us into this mistaken war. I can get us out. He can’t.” And he needs to say that over and over, too. The pundit establishment says Kerry can’t present an exit strategy that is different from Bush’s. He can. Kerry has to stop talking about getting the French to help us, and start talking about getting out. How do you get out of Iraq? By leaving. Time to leave.
[b]Sources:[/b]
Robert Dreyfuss, [i]The Dreyfuss Report[/i], TomPaine, http://www.tompaine.com
The Facade Has Fallen, http://www.tblog.com/template...
|
|
|
| |
| ... The Facade Has Fallen ... |
| 09.29.04 (1:25 pm) [edit] |
[b]Blind stubborness won't help Iraq http://www.americanprogressac... ... "We the People" must oust the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta [/i]and their ruthless cabal of neo-con traitors and install a new administration in Washington D.C. led by John Kerry that will work effectively with other nations and extricate us from this nightmarish disaster in Iraq ...[/b]
Comprehensive data compiled by a private security company with access to military intelligence reports and its own network of Iraqi informants reveals that "Over the past 30 days, more than 2,300 attacks by insurgents have been directed against civilians and military targets in Iraq, in a pattern that sprawls over nearly every major population center outside the Kurdish north." The Washington Post reports, "a growing number of career professionals within national security agencies believe that the situation in Iraq is much worse...than is being expressed in public by top Bush administration officials." President Bush says we are making "steady progress" in Iraq. Here's what some of America's well-informed intelligence officers and army officials have to say in today's papers: "Things are definitely not improving," says a government official who reads the intelligence analyses on Iraq. Perhaps the Bush administration is looking at a different country: otherwise its sunny pronouncements represent a dangerous disconnect from reality.
[b]STUDY SHOWS REBEL ATTACKS WIDESPREAD: [/b]Last week, President Bush referred to the insurgency in Iraq as a "handful of people," and Prime Minister Ayad Allawi called it a "tiny minority," operating in just three of Iraq's eighteen provinces. But data quoted in the Times shows the attacks are occurring over a "sweeping geographical reach," from "Nineveh and Salahuddin Provinces in the northwest to Babylon and Diyala in the center and Basra in the south." Even the supposedly safe "Green Zone" is facing increased security concerns, and some say security is deteriorating in Baghdad. Other data compiled by Kroll Security indicates attacks on U.S. troops are occurring in "nearly every major city in central, western and northern Iraq."
[b]CIA NOT HAPPY WITH BUSH SMEAR:[/b] When the NIC delivered a discouraging report in July, White House spokesman Scott McClellan dismissed them as "pessimists and naysayers." In today's Washington Post, several CIA officers and national security professionals respond, reiterating their belief that the "rebellion is deeper and more widespread than is being publicly acknowledged." "I'm not surprised if people in the administration were put on the defensive," said one CIA official, "We weren't trying to make them look bad…Of course, we're telling them something they don't want to hear." A former intelligence officer with contacts at the CIA put it bluntly: people at the CIA are "mad at the policy in Iraq because it's a disaster," he said, "and they're digging the hole deeper and deeper and deeper. There's no obvious way to fix it…The best we can hope for is a semi-failed state hobbling along with terrorists and a succession of weak governments."
[b]IRAQI SECURITY FORCES 'AREN'T WORKING':[/b] An army staff officer quoted in the Post indicated the reality behind the Bush administration's insistence that Iraqis will soon be ready to take control of their security. "They keep telling us that Iraqi security forces are the exit strategy," he said, "but what I hear from the ground is that they aren't working. There's a feeling that Iraqi security forces are in cahoots with the insurgents and the general public to get the occupiers out." On Thursday, President Bush claimed that "nearly 100,000 fully-trained" security personnel are working today," but last Monday the Pentagon said that "only about 53,000 of the 100,000 Iraqis on duty have now undergone training." And, according to Reuters, just 8,169 police officers have received full training. American Progress takes a look at the state of the Iraqi armed forces here.
[b]ELECTION COMPLICATIONS:[/b] "Leading Shi'ite Muslim cleric Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has expressed concern that Iraq has not yet met conditions for fair elections in January." A senior cleric close to Sistani told Iranian state radio: "He expressed concerns…the regulations and conditions set for the elections are unsuitable. There are problems and negative signs." Continued backing from Sistani, the "most revered leader of the country's Shi'ite majority," is critical to the success of the elections.Check out American Progress' checklist http://www.americanprogress.o... to monitor the "progress" Iraq really does have to make if it wants to hold elections in January.
[b]Sources:[/b]
The Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.o...
Well, Iraq Worked, Right?, http://www.tblog.com/template...
Accurate Intelligence Ignored, http://www.tblog.com/template...
Being President Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry, http://www.tblog.com/template...
Iraqi Civilian Casualties, http://www.tblog.com/template...
|
|
|
| |
| ... 'Not On My Watch' ... |
| 09.28.04 (2:08 pm) [edit] |
"Thou shalt not be a victim. Thou shalt not be a perpetrator. Above all, thou shalt not be a bystander." - Holocaust Museum, Washington D.C.
[b]An humanitarian disaster of immense proportions is occurring in the Sudan and "We the People" are numb, stupified and hardened to the nightmarish consequences-- We lack the competent leadership and moral authority in the White House to work with the United Nations (U.N.) to resolve this conflict-- because the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] has no moral authority-- no humane voice-- and no respect in the world community ...[/b]
Representatives from about 30 countries and international organizations are meeting in Oslo today to talk about Sudan. Hopefully, they will pledge support for civilian protection and provide funding for an expanded African Union (AU) mission in Darfur. But with the situation continuing to deteriorate, what is needed is less talk and more action. The U.N. has acknowledged the humanitarian disaster in Darfur, and threatened sanctions, but such symbolic steps have done little to stop the killing. Unfortunately, the international community, led by an America which is "preoccupied in Iraq," has so far been unwilling to do much more than issue tough statements and veiled threats. There is even evidence the international community's cautious denunciations are making things worse. Check out American Progress' new Web site http://www.americanprogressac... , "Sudan: A Challenge for All."
[b]IRAQ HAMSTRINGS POLICY:[/b] The Bush administration has been vocal in denouncing the violence, but with America's troops, money and moral authority tied up in Iraq, it has been difficult for the U.S. to put much substance behind its words. So far this year, the U.S. government has provided $174,866,722 to Darfur – or, about what we spend each day in Iraq. On Thursday, the U.S. Senate approved up to $680 million in aid, but even that move highlighted the extent to which the war has hamstrung American foreign policy, as some of that money had to be shifted from funds earmarked for rebuilding Iraq. "Under the Senate legislation, the extra funds from the Iraq account would be available only if President Bush requested them."
[b]THE LATEST FROM DARFUR:[/b] Under a largely ineffectual threat from the U.N. Security Council, the Sudanese government continues to insist it is "doing all it can to calm Darfur and says it is ready to welcome home" more than 1.4 million villagers who have been uprooted by government-backed militias. But, according to AP reports, "the few who do trickle back find whole villages and tribes on the move, seeking safety from attacks." The situation underscores the inability of the same government that sponsored the militias in the first place to stop the killing now. Yet, so far, this has been the expectation of the international community. The major powers continue to urge Khartoum to "'disarm the Janjaweed,' knowing full well that Khartoum funded and armed the militia and continues to do so." The latest count places the death toll at between 50,000 and 80,000.
[b]THE GENOCIDE LABEL:[/b] Roughly two months after the U.S. Congress said "genocide" was taking place in Sudan, Secretary of State Colin Powell declared "that genocide has been committed in Darfur, and that the government of Sudan and the Janjaweed bear responsibility, and that genocide may still be occurring." But as Time Magazine reports, "professions of outrage are doing nothing to stop the killing. Immediately after labeling the Janjaweed's slaughter genocide, Powell told lawmakers, 'No new action is dictated by this determination'—despite the fact that the international Genocide Convention, signed by the U.S. and 134 other countries," legally obligates signatories to "prevent and to punish" genocide where it is occurring. Considering "the U.S. use of the G word has done little more than set off a new round of bureaucratic shuffling," some human-rights advocates are concerned that "the significance of the Convention will be undermined."
[b]BACK IN THE CAMPS:[/b] Clearly unable to return home, about 1.2 million displaced Darfurians are subsisting in overcrowded and insecure "prisons without walls," set up hastily by the United Nations. American Progress' Gayle Smith visited the camps in Geneina. In part three of her series, "Eyewitness to a Crisis," she writes, "The stories told by the residents of the Krinding Camp are repetitive, but none of the horror is lost in the retelling of their tales – of the militia attacking at night, of their animals being slaughtered, of the men, women and children beheaded, stabbed, beaten or left for dead; of the wells poisoned by corpses and of the torches that set their homes alight." With no guarantee of security in and around their homes, the displaced are "destined to remain in camps for the foreseeable future."
[b]NOT ON MY WATCH:[/b] In her book on genocide, "A Problem From Hell," http://www.amazon.com/exec/ob... Samantha Power recounts how President Bush wrote four words in the margins of a memo he received on President Clinton's response to the Rwandan genocide: "Not on my watch." And yet, just a decade after close to a million Rwandans lost their lives as the world stood by, the international response to the unfolding crisis remains "agonizingly slow." And, unfortunately, it is happening on President Bush's watch. The man who urges Americans to "fight evil" and touts his preference for "action" over deliberation, has offered not one public speech on Sudan and made no contingency plans, even as the situation "threatens to become one of the most devastating humanitarian disasters of our times." You can take action here http://www.americanprogressac... .
[b]Source:[/b]
The Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.o...
|
|
|
| |
| ... Well, Iraq Worked, Right? ... |
| 09.28.04 (12:30 pm) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" cannot afford to permit another 4 years of corruption, incompetence and bold-faced lies, deceptions and falsehoods leading to the unnecessary deaths, bloodshed, maiming, injury, mayhem and misery caused to innocents, perpetrated by the insane neo-con Bush regime ...[/b]
[i]Newsweek’s[/i] latest issue http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6... provides another good reason not to re-elect the president, unless you think Iraq was a great success:
... "Deep in the Pentagon, admirals and generals are updating plans for possible U.S. military action in Syria and Iran. The Defense Department unit responsible for military planning for the two troublesome countries is "busier than ever," an administration official says. Some Bush advisers characterize the work as merely an effort to revise routine plans the Pentagon maintains for all contingencies in light of the Iraq war. More skittish bureaucrats say the updates are accompanied by a revived campaign by administration conservatives and neocons for more hard-line U.S. policies toward the countries. (Syria is regarded as a major route for jihadis entering Iraq, and Iran appears to be actively pursuing nuclear weapons.) Even hard-liners acknowledge that given the U.S. military commitment in Iraq, a U.S. attack on either country would be an unlikely last resort; covert action of some kind is the favored route for Washington hard-liners who want regime change in Damascus and Tehran." ...
Meanwhile, I continue to wonder why there isn’t more leaking happening during the pre-election struggle about Bush’s bungling of Iraq. It might be starting. Paul Pillar, the CIA’s Middle East officer at the National Intelligence Council, seems to be doing his part. According to Bob Novak’s latest column, Pillar is telling people that the CIA provided “secret, unheeded warnings about going to war in Iraq,” and the “the president of the United States and the Central Intelligence Agency are at war with each other.”
[i]The New York Times[/i], meanwhile, carries some more details about Pillar’s views, in a useful, if sketchy leak about the CIA’s 2003 estimates about what a war with Iraq would mean. (The estimates came from Pillar’s unit.) The CIA told Bush that it would be a mess, and specifically that invading Iraq would lead to an increase in the power of “political Islam.” It reports http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... :
... "The estimate came in two classified reports prepared for President Bush in January 2003 by the National Intelligence Council, an independent group that advises the director of central intelligence. The assessments predicted that an American-led invasion of Iraq would increase support for political Islam and would result in a deeply divided Iraqi society prone to violent internal conflict.
One of the reports also warned of a possible insurgency against the new Iraqi government or American-led forces, saying that rogue elements from Saddam Hussein's government could work with existing terrorist groups or act independently to wage guerrilla warfare, the officials said. The assessments also said a war would increase sympathy across the Islamic world for some terrorist objectives, at least in the short run, the officials said." ...
But the 2003 estimates are just the tip of giant iceberg. My point is, virtually the entire U.S. national security bureaucracy thought that going to war in Iraq was wrong, even crazy. Right now there ought to be a flood of leaks saying, “I told you so.” Where are they?
[b]Sources:[/b]
Robert Dreyfuss, [i]The Dreyfuss Report[/i], TomPaine, http://www.tompaine.com
Accurate Intelligence Ignored, http://www.tblog.com/template...
Being President Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry, http://www.tblog.com/template...
|
|
|
| |
| ... Accurate Intelligence Ignored ... |
| 09.28.04 (8:21 am) [edit] |
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
[b]"We the People" have been ruthlessly duped by the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] -- Whether or not Bush willingly [i]or [/i]unwittingly ignore(d) intelligence from those whose evidence might not support his neo-con ideology is unimportant ... Bush is responsible for the deaths of over 1050 US Soldiers and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians-- and consequently deserves to be impeached and put on trial for War Crimes ... In the meantime, Bush must be defeated on the 2nd November, for the good of our nation ...[/b]
Last week, President Bush dismissed a bleak assessment on Iraq prepared in July by the National Intelligence Council (NIC) as "just guessing as to what the conditions might be like." (Bush later said he should have used the word "estimate" instead, but continues to insist that Iraq is on a path of steady success. Note to media: please ignore this vacillation when discussing the president's "clarity" and "resolve.") But the record shows that estimates on postwar Iraq prepared by the NIC – a group White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan dismissed as pessimists and naysayers – have been extraordinarily accurate. An NIC report prepared two months before the war began, and first reported in the New York Times this morning, "warned of a possible insurgency against the new Iraqi government or American-led forces, saying that rogue elements from Saddam Hussein's government could work with existing terrorist groups or act independently to wage guerrilla warfare." The report also warned that a war "would increase sympathy across the Islamic world for some terrorist objectives." Twenty months later, "the warnings about anti-American sentiment and instability appear to have been upheld by events."
[b]BUSH POLICIES HAVE MADE US MORE VULNERABLE:[/b] Speaking yesterday at George Washington University, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) said, "The Bush administration's failure to shut down al-Qaida and rebuild Iraq have fueled the insurgency and made the United States more vulnerable to a nuclear attack by terrorists." Kennedy said the shift in attention from al Qaeda to Iraq "has made the mushroom cloud more likely, not less likely."
[b]BUSH NUMBERS DON'T ADD UP:[/b] On Thursday, President Bush claimed that "nearly 100,000 fully trained and equipped Iraqi soldiers, police officers, and other security personnel are working today." But last Monday, the Pentagon said that "only about 53,000 of the 100,000 Iraqis on duty have now undergone training." According to Pentagon documents obtained by Reuters, of the 90,000 in the police force "only 8,169 have received full training." The White House, inexplicably, stands by its 100,000 figure.
[b]INSURGENCY IS PRIMARILY IRAQI:[/b] President Bush has long insisted that Iraq is now the central battle in the global war on terrorism. But, according to the U.S. military's own assessment, "the Iraqi insurgency remains primarily a home-grown problem." (Even as scores of foreign terrorists pour across the border.) According to top military officials, "loyalists of Saddam Hussein's regime — who have swelled their ranks in recent months as ordinary Iraqis bristle at the U.S. military presence in Iraq — represent the far greater threat to the country's fragile 3-month-old government" than foreign fighters. According to the U.S. military, "Iraqi officials tended to exaggerate the number of foreign fighters in Iraq to obscure the fact that large numbers of their countrymen have taken up arms against U.S. troops and the American-backed interim Iraqi government."
[b]IRAQ TOO DANGEROUS FOR ELECTIONS:[/b] In an interview with the French newspaper Le Figaro, Jordan's King Abdullah – one of the Bush administration's closest allies – said, "it appears to me impossible to organize indisputable elections in the chaos currently reigning in Iraq." Abdullah stressed that "partial elections which excluded cities such as Falluja could isolate Sunni Muslims, saying that could create even deeper divisions in the country." Last week, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld raised the possibility that elections could be excluded from dangerous parts of the country." Read American Progress' Iraq election checklist http://www.americanprogress.o... .
[b]Source:[/b]
The Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.o...
|
|
|
| |
| ... Middle-Class Families Lose Again ... |
| 09.27.04 (3:00 pm) [edit] |
"The president [Bush] appears to believe that every economic problem is spelled T-A-X.
That misguided thinking has precluded him from adopting a sound policy program.
The centerpiece of his economic agenda, the tax cut that he pushed through Congress, was fiscally irresponsible." - Joseph E. Stiglitz, a professor at Columbia University, is a recipient of the 2001 Nobel Memorial Prize in economics, http://www.commondreams.org/v...
[b]Bush is a reckless neo-fascist [i]ne'er-do-well[/i], callous to the needs of our citizens and who shamelessly panders to gluttonous corporations and the wealthiest amongst us ... "We the People" are [i]saddled[/i] with [i]disastrous economic policies [/i]that the neo-con Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]put in place to enrich themselves and their rich cronies, while the rest of us are [i]saddled [/i]with the paying their exhorbitant bills ... Meanwhile, the historically record-level deficit http://www.tblog.com/template... skyrockets; homelessness and poverty rises; and joblessness and the lack of health care for tens of millions of our citizens are unconscionably neglected ... [/b]
By now, it's not much of a surprise that the Bush administration is no friend to working families. The new tax cut that passed last week is no exception. Those in the middle of the income scale will receive an average tax cut of [i]$162 [/i]in 2005, found a report from the Center on Budget And Policy Priorities http://www.cbpp.org/index.htm... —hardly enough to make up for the jobs and benefits that keep slipping away. And those in the top fifth of the income scale will get an average tax cut of $2,390. Even worse, the new cuts are funded by deficit financing, and will have to be [i]repaid with cuts to programs and spending [/i]in the future. So working families and their kids are likely to lose twice. SEE THE REPORT: http://www.cbpp.org/9-23-04ta... .
Since George W. Bush came into office, there have been some very good years for large corporations. How good? Well, according to a report prepared by Citizens For Tax Justice http://www.ctj.org/ and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy http://www.ctj.org/itep/ , 28 large companies [i]enjoyed negative federal income tax rates[/i] each year between 2001 and 2003. And 82 companies had negative tax rates at least one of these years. How did they do it? The huge influx of corporate lobbyists to Washington and Bush and Congress' [i]willingness to stand with corporations [/i]meant that lots of loopholes were exploited and lots of heads looked the other way. SEE THE REPORT: http://www.ctj.org/corpfed04a... .
[b]Sources:[/b]
TomPaine, http://www.tompaine.com
White House Economic Policies Are Bankrupt, http://www.commondreams.org/v...
Kerry Wins Backing from Nobel Economics Laureates, http://www.commondreams.org/h...
Mountains Of Madness, http://www.tblog.com/template...
|
|
|
| |
| ... Being President Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry ... |
| 09.27.04 (11:45 am) [edit] |
[b]What do you say about a President who tells bold-faced lies about war ([i]and [/i]peace) resulting in the daily massacre and maiming of innocent civilians and US troops??? ... Bush may foolishly believe that [i]he never has to say he's sorry [/i]... "We the People" can respond vigorously by saying that we're only[i] sorry that Bush temporarily "took over" power [/i]in our land, and that we're[i] not sorry [/i]to see him ousted on the 2nd November ... [/b]
"There is nothing, no problem, except on a small pocket in Fallujah." - Ayad Allawi, 9/23/04, http://www.whitehouse.gov/new...
[i]VERSUS[/i]
Data collected on behalf of the United States government indicates attacks in "nearly every major city in central, western and northern Iraq." - Washington Post, 9/26/04, http://www.washingtonpost.com...
In May 2003, President Bush landed on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit, stood under a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished," and triumphantly announced that major combat operations were over in Iraq. Since that time, 900 U.S. troops have died, key cities have fallen under the control of rebel forces, and the size of the insurgency has quadrupled. Knowing what he knows now, would the president pull the same stunt again? "Absolutely." In a slap in the face to the families of the 900 troops who have died in the last 16 months, Bush informed Fox News' Bill O'Reilly that he wouldn't change a thing about the spectacle he put on aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. Bush told a surprised O'Reilly, "You bet I'd do it again." This April, even the president's top political advisor, Karl Rove – not known for easily admitting error – said that he regretted the use of the "Mission Accomplished" banner. Catch Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) speak and answer questions on the Iraq war today at 12:30 on C-SPAN http://inside.c-spanarchives....:8080/cspan/schedule.csp .
[b]VIOLENCE IS FREQUENT AND WIDESPREAD:[/b] In his weekly radio address on Saturday, Bush reiterated his claim that the United States is making "steady progress" in creating a secure and democratic Iraq. Secret security reports prepared for the government and leaked to the Washington Post, however, tell a different story. According to data complied by Kroll Security International on behalf of the U.S. government, "attacks against U.S. troops, Iraqi security forces and private contractors number in the dozens each day and have spread to parts of the country that had been relatively peaceful." While Bush frequently claims that the transfer of power from the U.S.-controlled Coalition Provisional Authority to the Iraqi provisional government on June 28 has improved conditions in Iraq, attacks on U.S. forces in the past two weeks number about 70 a day, compared to 40 or 50 a day before the transfer. At a Rose Garden press conference last week, Iraqi Interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi said "there is nothing, no problem, except on a small pocket in Fallujah." But the Kroll data indicates attacks on troops in "nearly every major city in central, western and northern Iraq." Read more http://www.americanprogress.o... about the administration's deception on the reality in Iraq.
[b]SENIOR COMMANDER OF IRAQI SECURITY FORCES ARRESTED BY U.S.: [/b]Last week, Bush stressed that "Iraq must be able to defend itself. And Iraqi security forces are taking increasing responsibility for their country's security." Iraqi security forces may have more problems than the president let on. On Sunday, the U.S. military "arrested a senior commander of the nascent Iraqi National Guard." The commander was arrested on suspicion of "having associations with known insurgents." The move raised concerns "about the loyalty and reliability of the new security forces just months before general elections are scheduled across the embattled country."
[b]COLIN POWELL SAYS THINGS ARE GETTING WORSE:[/b] Bush continues to insist that there have been "months of steady progress" in Iraq. Yesterday, Secretary of State Colin Powell said that "the insurgency in Iraq is getting worse and that the U.S. occupation there has increased anti-American sentiment in Muslim countries."
[b]ABIZAID PREDICTS FLAWED ELECTIONS:[/b] Powell said that the only hope of turning things around in Iraq was the elections scheduled for January. But Gen. John Abizaid, top U.S. commander in Iraq, "said Sunday he expected flawed elections." Abizaid said he didn't think "Iraq will have a perfect election." But, according to Abizaid, that isn't anything to worry about because Iraq will just be following the U.S. model. Abizaid said, "if I recall, looking back at our own election four years ago, it wasn't perfect either." The administration "appears to be willing to risk holding an election marred by violence and, quite possibly, incomplete balloting to keep to its schedule."
[b]MOST IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION FUNDS NOT BENEFITING IRAQIS:[/b] According to U.S. government officials and independent experts, "less than half of the aid in the Bush administration's reconstruction package for Iraq is being spent in ways that will benefit Iraqis." Much of the money spent on security services, insurance, property losses, contractors' profits, and foreign workers' salaries never reaches Iraqis. According to Frederick Barton of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, "We're spending a lot of money we believe is helping people and converting Iraq to a new kind of economy. That's where I think we're kidding ourselves."
[b]IRAQ WAR ASSISTS AL QAEDA RECRUITING:[/b] According to intelligence and law enforcement officials interviewed by the Los Angeles Times, the Iraq war has emerged as "a rallying point for a seemingly endless supply of young extremists willing to die in a jihad, or holy war." Judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere, dean of Europe's anti-terrorism investigators, said, "In Iraq, a problem has been created that didn't exist there before." The sentiment was echoed by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who said on Friday that the invasion of Iraq has "ended up bringing more trouble to the world," in part because it "has aroused the passions of the Muslims."
[b]ADMINISTRATION PRIVATELY LOWERS EXPECTATIONS:[/b] Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) said that members of the administration have privately told him they've lowered expectations for democracy in Iraq. Kolbe quotes one administration official: "When we went in there, I thought we would build American-style democracy. Hell, I'd be happy with Romanian-style democracy now."
[b]Source:[/b]
The Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.o...
|
|
|
| |
| ... Mountains Of Madness ... |
| 09.27.04 (8:46 am) [edit] |
[b]From Brad DeLong http://www.j-bradford-delong.... :[/b]
My friend," he says, "I look at this projection of the national deficit, and I shudder before its enormity. Take heed, and stay clear. These peaks, and the entitlement spending--there in the distance are the mountains of madness. I beg you, believe my tale, do not come to this place and this time."
But he is wrong. These [b]Mountains of Madness [/b]are not in the distance. They are here, right in front of us.
Click here for the image: http://www.j-bradford-delong....
[b]"We the People" have been neo-con conned by the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] and it is time to rid ourselves of these insane neo-fascist traitors ... Read also "Deficient Deficit Debate" on http://www.tblog.com/template... [/b]
|
|
|
| |
| ... Iraqi Civilian Casualties ... |
| 09.26.04 (11:52 am) [edit] |
"The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference.
The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference.
The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference.
And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference." - Elie Wiesel
[b]For "We the People" to be indifferent to the daily massacre and misery that the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] has caused in Iraq is unconscionable ... We must rid ourselves of the despotic Bush regime for they have immorally and illegally reeked horrendous havoc, mayhem and misery upon Iraq [i]and [/i]also upon us here at home in America ...[/b]
Operations by U.S. and multinational forces and Iraqi police are killing twice as many Iraqis - most of them civilians - as attacks by insurgents, according to statistics compiled by the Iraqi Health Ministry and obtained exclusively by Knight Ridder http://www.realcities.com/mld... (BAGHDAD, Iraq).
According to the ministry, the interim Iraqi government recorded 3,487 Iraqi deaths in 15 of the country's 18 provinces from April 5 - when the ministry began compiling the data - until Sept. 19. Of those, 328 were women and children. Another 13,720 Iraqis were injured, the ministry said.
While most of the dead are believed to be civilians, the data include an unknown number of police and Iraqi national guardsmen. Many Iraqi deaths, especially of insurgents, are never reported, so the actual number of Iraqis killed in fighting could be significantly higher.
During the same period, 432 American soldiers were killed.
Iraqi officials said the statistics proved that U.S. airstrikes intended for insurgents also were killing large numbers of innocent civilians. Some say these casualties are undermining popular acceptance of the American-backed interim government.
That suggests that more aggressive U.S. military operations, which the Bush administration has said are being planned to clear the way for nationwide elections scheduled for January, could backfire and strengthen the insurgency.
American military officials said "damage will happen" in their effort to wrest control of some areas from insurgents. They blamed the insurgents for embedding themselves in communities, saying that's endangering innocent people.
Lt. Col. Steve Boylan, an American military spokesman, said the insurgents were living in residential areas, sometimes in homes filled with munitions.
"As long as they continue to do that, they are putting the residents at risk," Boylan said. "We will go after them."
Boylan said the military conducted intelligence to determine whether a home housed insurgents before striking it. While damage would happen, the airstrikes were "extremely precise," he said. And he said that any attacks by the multinational forces were "in coordination with the interim government."
The Health Ministry statistics indicate that more children have been killed around Ramadi and Fallujah than in Baghdad, though those cities together have only one-fifth of the Iraqi capital's population.
According to the statistics, 59 children were killed in Anbar province - a hotbed of the Sunni Muslim insurgency that includes the cities of Ramadi and Fallujah - compared with 56 children in Baghdad. The ministry defines children as anyone younger than 12.
"When there are military clashes, we see innocent people die," said Dr. Walid Hamed, a member of the operations section of the Health Ministry, which compiles the statistics.
Juan Cole, a history professor at University of Michigan who specializes in Shiite Islam, said the widespread casualties meant that coalition forces already had lost the political campaign: "I think they lost the hearts and minds a long time ago."
"And they are trying to keep U.S. military casualties to a minimum in the run-up to the U.S. elections" by using airstrikes instead of ground forces, he said.
American military officials say they're targeting only terrorists and are aggressively working to spare innocent people nearby.
Nearly a third of the Iraqi dead - 1,122 - were killed in August, according to the statistics. May was the second deadliest month, with 749 Iraqis killed, and 319 were killed in June, the least violent month. Most of those killed lived in Baghdad; the ministry found that 1,068 had died in the capital.
Many Iraqis said they thought the numbers showed that the multinational forces disregarded their lives.
"The Americans do not care about the Iraqis. They don't care if they get killed, because they don't care about the citizens," said Abu Mohammed, 50, who was a major general in Saddam Hussein's army in Baghdad. "The Americans keep criticizing Saddam for the mass graves. How many graves are the Americans making in Iraq?"
At his fruit stand in southern Baghdad, Raid Ibraham, 24, theorized: "The Americans keep attacking the cities not to keep the security situation stable, but so they can stay in Iraq and control the oil."
Others blame the multinational forces for allowing security to disintegrate, inviting terrorists from everywhere and threatening the lives of everyday Iraqis.
"Anyone who hates America has come here to fight: Saddam's supporters, people who don't have jobs, other Arab fighters. All these people are on our streets," said Hamed, the ministry official. "But everyone is afraid of the Americans, not the fighters. And they should be."
Iraqi officials said about two-thirds of the Iraqi deaths were caused by multinational forces and police; the remaining third died from insurgent attacks. The ministry began separating attacks by multinational and police forces and insurgents June 10.
From that date until Sept. 10, 1,295 Iraqis were killed in clashes with multinational forces and police versus 516 killed in terrorist operations, the ministry said. The ministry defined terrorist operations as explosive devices in residential areas, car bombs or assassinations.
The ministry said it didn't have any statistics for the three provinces in the north: Arbil, Dohuk and Sulaimaniyah, ethnic Kurdish areas that generally have been more peaceful than the rest of the country.
The Health Ministry is the only organization that attempts to track deaths through government agencies. The U.S. military said it kept estimates, but it refused to release them. Ahmed al Rawi, the communications director of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Baghdad, said the organization didn't have the staffing to compile such information.
The Health Ministry reports to interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, whom the United States appointed in June.
Iraqi health and hospital officials agreed that the statistics captured only part of the death toll.
To compile the data, the Health Ministry calls the directors general of the 15 provinces and asks how many deaths related to the war were reported at hospitals. The tracking of such information has become decentralized since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime because both hospitals and morgues issue death certificates now. And families often bury their dead without telling any government agencies or are treated at facilities that don't report to the government.
The ministry is convinced that nearly all of those reported dead are civilians, not insurgents. Most often, a family member wouldn't report it if his or her relative died fighting for rebel cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia or another insurgent force, and the relative would be buried immediately, said Dr. Shihab Ahmed Jassim, another member of the ministry's operations section.
"People who participate in the conflict don't come to the hospital. Their families are afraid they will be punished," said Dr. Yasin Mustaf, the assistant manager of al Kimdi Hospital near Baghdad's poor Sadr City neighborhood. "Usually, the innocent people come to the hospital. That is what the numbers show."
The numbers also exclude those whose bodies were too mutilated to be recovered at car bombings or other attacks, the ministry said.
Ministry officials said they didn't know how big the undercount was. "We have nothing to do with politics," Jassim said.
Other independent organizations have estimated that 7,000 to 12,000 Iraqis have been killed since May 1, 2003, when President Bush declared an end to major combat operations.
Iraqis are aware of the casualties that are due to U.S. forces, and nearly everyone has a story to tell.
At al Kimdi Hospital, Dr. Mumtaz Jaber, a vascular surgeon, said that three months ago, his 3-year-old nephew, his sister and his brother-in-law were driving in Baghdad at about 9 p.m. when they saw an American checkpoint. His nephew was killed.
"They didn't stop fast enough. The Americans shot them immediately," Jaber said. "This is how so many die."
At the Baghdad morgue, Dr. Quasis Hassan Salem said he saw a family of eight brought in: three women, three men and two children. They were sleeping on their roof last month because it was hot inside. A military helicopter shot at them and killed them: "I don't know why."
U.S. officials said any allegations that soldiers had recklessly killed Iraqi citizens were investigated at the Iraqi Assistance Center in downtown Baghdad.
"There is no way to refute" such stories, said Robert Callahan, a spokesman at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. "All you can do is tell them the truth and hope it eventually will get through."
[b]Sources:[/b]
Bush Administration Ignoring Reality in Iraq, http://www.tblog.com/template...
The Hollow World of George Bush, http://www.tblog.com/template...
Reality Check Badly Needed, http://www.tblog.com/template...
|
|
|
| |
| ... Why Wait? Here's a Pre-Debate Quiz ... |
| 09.26.04 (9:32 am) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" are faced with the most important presidential election in a generation ... However, the following light-hearted [i]food-for-thought [/i]is worth pondering before Thursday night's "debate" http://www.tblog.com/template... ...
Instructions for candidates:[/b] Pretend each question is coming from Jim Lehrer, the moderator of the debate, and choose the one answer most likely to please swing voters watching on television on Thursday night. Do not assume that voters want to hear your innermost feelings, let alone the truth.
[b]Instructions for noncandidates:[/b] Some of the answers, right and wrong, are remarks (either verbatim or slightly abridged) made by the candidate in speeches, interviews and news conferences. See how many real quotations you can spot.
[b]Bush Questions[/b]
1. President Bush, you and Mr. Kerry have both been criticized for your conduct during the Vietnam War. Which one of you served his country better?
a) Some have questioned Senator Kerry's decision to take a jaunt halfway around the world to Vietnam, leaving our border with Mexico defended only by my small band of brothers in the Texas National Guard. But I will not stoop to criticizing any man's service.
b) I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes.
c) Well, Dan - excuse me, Jim I've already answered the critics of my Guard record by releasing documents that were actually typed on typewriters. But I do want to thank all your colleagues, and the Democrats, for spending so much time on these questions. Beats questions on Iraq.
d) My opponent has said that Vietnam veterans have a motto, "Every day is extra." That's just how we looked on our service in the Guard. And it just so happened that at that point in my life, my schedule didn't have any extra days.
e) I think we agree, the past is over.
2. What was your biggest foreign-policy mistake as president?
a) Hmmm. I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it. I'm sure historians will look back and say, Gosh, he could have done it better this way or that way. I'm sure something will pop into my head here, but it hadn't yet. You just put me under the spot here and maybe I'm not quick, as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.
b) Well, I guess it's what I said to Karl Rove yesterday, when we were talking about sending the neocons back to their think tanks. If we'd stayed out of Iraq, we'd be up 20 points in the polls.
c) That "Mission Accomplished" banner. Or maybe the flight suit.
d) I'm starting to wonder if we were wrong about those W.M.D.'s.
e) We overestimated how long it would take to defeat Saddam's army, but we underestimated how long some of them would go on fighting as insurgents.
3. When Senator Kerry was your daughters' age, he volunteered to go to Vietnam. Did you ever encourage them to volunteer for Iraq?
a) As Dick Cheney says, they had other priorities, like that Vogue story.
b) I don't think people ought to be compelled to make the decision which they think is best for their family.
c) We don't need any more problems in Iraq, thank you.
d) It did cross my mind after their speech at the convention.
e) I don't believe in telling children what career to pick, but I would be proud if they enlisted.
4. Mr. President, can you name the commonly used term for the inhabitants of any of these countries: Greece, East Timor, Sweden, Kosovo and France?
a) Grecians
b) East Timorians
c) Swedenese
d) Kosovians
e) I just call them all good friends of America, except the Francians.
[b]Kerry Questions [/b]
1. Senator Kerry, you have been described by the Bush campaign as the greatest debater since Cicero. Does that give you an edge tonight?
a) I would have said Demosthenes.
b) There he goes again with the misunderestimation game.
c) I can't make a fair judgment, since I've read Cicero only in the Italian translation - you lose so much from the Latin. But I do have a special admiration for one of his arguments: "No well-informed person ever imputed inconsistency to another for changing his mind."
d) I'm just hoping to do better than Al Gore.
e) The president has won every debate he's ever had.
2. Senator Kerry, you say you have a better plan for winning the war in Iraq and the war on terror. But what specifically would you do differently?
a) Convene a summit meeting of the world's major powers and of Iraqis' neighbors.
b) Personally issue a multilingual invitation to the leaders of France, Germany and the Trilateral Commission to convene in the inner sanctum of Skull and Bones. Over foie gras and a robust riesling.
c) The final victory in the war on terror depends on a victory in the war of ideas, much more than the war on the battlefield. And the war - not the war, I don't want to use that terminology. The engagement of economies, the economic transformation, the transformation to modernity of a whole bunch of countries that have been avoiding the future.
d) Same thing we did in Nam - declare victory and bring the troops home.
e) George Bush has not told the truth to the American people about why we went to war and how the war is going. I will.
3. You now call the Iraq war a mistake. Yet you say that, even knowing what we know now, you would still have voted to authorize it. How does that make sense?
a) It was the correct vote because we needed to hold Saddam Hussein accountable for weapons.
b) I actually voted against the first gulf war before I voted for this one.
c) The vote for authorization is interpreted by a lot of people as a vote to go to war. But if you read it, and if you think about what it gave the president, it gave the president what he said: "America will speak with one voice.''
d) Look, I never liked this war, but I figured it was political suicide to vote against it, and then I was afraid it would sound like a flip-flop if I changed my mind. Makes perfect sense.
e) My vote was a vote to do this the right way. And the president, every step of the way, has chosen the wrong way.
4. Do you now consider your public display of windsurfing off Nantucket to be a faux pas?
a) Faux pas? Non, au contraire. C'etait magnifique! J'ai donné l'image d'homme très fort et très sportif! Et Monsieur Bush, il est un wuss!
b) I was just trying to look like J.F.K. without the yacht.
c) Who among us does not love windsurfing?
d) Teresa said spandex is a hot look for me.
e) Faux pas? What does that mean?
[b]Answers[/b]
For all questions: [i]e. (If either candidate didn't figure that out by now, he may want to develop laryngitis before Thursday.)[/i]
Bush actual quotes: [i]1:b, e; 2:a; 3:b; 4:a, b, d.[/i]
Kerry actual quotes: [i]1:e; 2:a, c, e; 3:a, c, e; 4:e. ("What does that mean?" was uttered by Mr. Kerry on his way into a bistro after a reporter wished him, "Bon appetit.")[/i]
[b]Sources:[/b]
No More Debate On Debates, http://www.tblog.com/template...
Why Wait? Here's a Pre-Debate Quiz, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...
Expert Advises Bush Dumb-Down-Diction for Thursday's Debate, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...
|
|
|
| |
| ... No More Debate On Debates ... |
| 09.26.04 (7:09 am) [edit] |
"Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent, and debate." - Hubert H. Humphrey
"It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle it without debate." - Joseph Joubert
"It's a moral issue. The German theologian Bonhoeffer said, "The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world it leaves to its children." Now we're leaving our kids unthinkable taxes and debts and so forth." - Pete Peterson [This issue http://www.pbs.org/now/politi... should be[i] debated [/i]...]
[b]Debates [i]matter[/i] http://www.opendebates.org ... Unhappily, "We the People" are not going to get the [i]real[/i] debates between Bush and Kerry http://www.pbs.org/now/politi... that we deserve as citizens of a democratic society ... The presidential debates are purposely engineered[i] to avoid [/i]the very kind of combative discourse necessary for us to see the real candidates (unscripted) and their viewpoints (expressed spontaneously) ... Therefore, Americans [i]must read and read a great deal [/i]in order to uncover the truth and vote intelligently on the 2nd November ...[/b]
After a week of negotiation, the Bush and Kerry campaigns finally agreed to terms for the upcoming presidential debates. Despite earlier Republican posturing about limiting the number of discussions, the four dates proposed by the Commission on Presidential Debates – three presidential debates and one vice-presidential – were all accepted, with the first Bush/Kerry matchup taking place Sept. 30 at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Fla.
While the Kerry camp prevailed on the number of debates, negotiator (and longtime Bush family ally) James Baker managed to get most of the president’s other demands met.
Baker and Democratic negotiator Vernon Jordan announced the agreed-upon schedule http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm... Monday evening. After next week’s Florida meeting, Kerry and Bush will square off at Washington University in St. Lou | |
