Truespeak

When it mattered most, John Kerry delivered.

We have it in our power to change the world again. But only if we're true to our ideals -- and that starts by telling the truth to the American people. That is my first pledge to you tonight. As president, I will restore trust and credibility to the White House.
.....
I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war. I will have a vice president who will not conduct secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws. I will have a Secretary of Defense who will listen to the best advice of our military leaders. And I will appoint an Attorney General who actually upholds the Constitution of the United States.
.....
As president, I will ask hard questions and demand hard evidence. I will immediately reform the intelligence system, so policy is guided by facts, and facts are never distorted by politics. And as president, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: The United States of America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to.
.....
I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a president who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, and reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.

Here is the reality: That won't happen until we have a president who restores America's respect and leadership -- so we don't have to go it alone in the world.

And we need to rebuild our alliances, so we can get the terrorists before they get us.

I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as president. Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security. And I will build a stronger American military.
.....
We believe that what matters most is not narrow appeals masquerading as values, but the shared values that show the true face of America. Not narrow appeals that divide us, but shared values that unite us. Family and faith. Hard work and responsibility. Opportunity for all -- so that every child, every parent, every worker has an equal shot at living up to their God-given potential.

It was a speech of personal accomplishment and a forward-looking goal. He met the President on his terms, taking on the issues that President Bush has been running on and putting his own personal stamp on them. John Kerry did not shy away from any of the issues, even if he did not address them by name and his attacks on the White House were well worded and precise. It was a speech to be proud of.

Of course the pundits criticized his delivery because he didn't allow the audience to respond in full. However, if he let the applause go on, he would have run long and gone into prime time on the west coast and Rush and the others would have faulted him for trying to monopolize the spotlight. It's a no-win situation. But my view on things is this: If that's all the Republicans can find to complain about, they have big problems.

Back on July 7, I was reading Josh Marshall's blog and I came across this article that was quoting an article from the New Republic.

A third source, an official who works under ISI's director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed tnr that the Pakistanis "have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of HVTs [i.e., high-value al Qaida targets] before [the] election is [an] absolute must." What's more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: "The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq's] meetings in Washington." Says McCormack: "I'm aware of no such comment." But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.

Not being a huge fan of consipiracy theories and daring predictions, I wasn't really too sure what to make of this. Then today we hear this:

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian wanted in connection with the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa, has been captured in Pakistan, Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat said Thursday.

The FBI had offered a reward for his capture of up to $5 million. At least 13 other people, including Ghailani's wife, a Uzbek national, were arrested along with him. Ten were non-Pakistanis, Pakistani security sources said.

A U.S. official in Washington confirmed the arrest but refused to say whether the United States had any role in the capture.

The official did note that the United States "has been working closely with the Pakistanis" and credited the Islamabad government with "stepping up things over the past few months" in its pursuit of terrorists.

Pretty scary stuff. Everyday I grow more and more uneasy about another "surprise" come October. Maybe they'll trot out bin Laden or maybe there'll be another attack. It's hard to say what depths the Republicans will sink to.

Back on July 7, I was reading Josh Marshall's blog and I came across this article that was quoting an article from the New Republic.

A third source, an official who works under ISI's director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed tnr that the Pakistanis "have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of HVTs [i.e., high-value al Qaida targets] before [the] election is [an] absolute must." What's more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: "The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq's] meetings in Washington." Says McCormack: "I'm aware of no such comment." But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.

Not being a huge fan of consipiracy theories and daring predictions, I wasn't really too sure what to make of this. Then today we hear this:

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian wanted in connection with the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa, has been captured in Pakistan, Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat said Thursday.

The FBI had offered a reward for his capture of up to $5 million. At least 13 other people, including Ghailani's wife, a Uzbek national, were arrested along with him. Ten were non-Pakistanis, Pakistani security sources said.

A U.S. official in Washington confirmed the arrest but refused to say whether the United States had any role in the capture.

The official did note that the United States "has been working closely with the Pakistanis" and credited the Islamabad government with "stepping up things over the past few months" in its pursuit of terrorists.

Pretty scary stuff. Everyday I grow more and more uneasy about another "surprise" come October. Maybe they'll trot out bin Laden or maybe there'll be another attack. It's hard to say what depths the Republicans will sink to.

Back on July 7, I was reading Josh Marshall's blog and I came across this article that was quoting an article from the New Republic.

A third source, an official who works under ISI's director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed tnr that the Pakistanis "have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of HVTs [i.e., high-value al Qaida targets] before [the] election is [an] absolute must." What's more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: "The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq's] meetings in Washington." Says McCormack: "I'm aware of no such comment." But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.

Not being a huge fan of consipiracy theories and daring predictions, I wasn't really too sure what to make of this. Then today we hear this:

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian wanted in connection with the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa, has been captured in Pakistan, Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat said Thursday.

The FBI had offered a reward for his capture of up to $5 million. At least 13 other people, including Ghailani's wife, a Uzbek national, were arrested along with him. Ten were non-Pakistanis, Pakistani security sources said.

A U.S. official in Washington confirmed the arrest but refused to say whether the United States had any role in the capture.

The official did note that the United States "has been working closely with the Pakistanis" and credited the Islamabad government with "stepping up things over the past few months" in its pursuit of terrorists.

Pretty scary stuff. Everyday I grow more and more uneasy about another "surprise" come October. Maybe they'll trot out bin Laden or maybe there'll be another attack. It's hard to say what depths the Republicans will sink to.

The last several nights, I have been watching MSNBC's coverage of the Democratic Convention and each night Chris (the screamer) Matthews has asked the same question. "How do the Democrats overcome that image of George W. Bush standing atop the rubble at Ground Zero with his arm around a relief worker speaking those inspirational words?" So far, none of the pundits seem to have an answer. Well, I have an answer for Chris and a suggestion for the Dems.

PLAY THE VIDEO!!!

Show Bush saying "I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked down these buildings will hear all of us soon." Show him vowing to find those responsible and bring them to justice. Then, show the video of the capture of Saddam Hussein. All the Dems have to do is ask the question: "Did we get our man?"

As a good liberal, I have spent the last three evenings watching coverage of the Democratic Convention. I loved the opening night speeches, and as I posted yesterday, Barrack Obama was amazing. Last night I found Rev. Sharpton amusing, to say the least, and I was impressed by John Edwards' speech as well. I think he will be a real asset to the Kerry ticket.

But as I watched (PBS and MSNBC), something occurred to me. Now, it could be that I'm a little slow in coming to this conclusion but I feel it's something that needs to be discussed. (Preferably by someone with a little more exposure than me, but it's a start.) Which of the two major parties is most closely associated with religion? Of course it's the conservatives. Ask the religious right who they support and they'll gladly tell you, George W. Bush (or whomever the current conservative candidate in the race is). Now stop and ask yourself, which of the two major parties is most closely aligned with the principles of Christianity: acceptance, forgiveness, charity? Is it still the conservatives? No, it's the liberals.

Think about the story of Jesus for a moment. He spoke of love, peace, and charity. He was willing to be associated with an alleged prostitute and he healed the sick. He turned the other cheek in the face of confrontation and he sacrificed for himself and his own prosperity for the betterment of others. Do these sound like the qualities of the conservative party? Not the conservative party that I know.

Let's try a few more questions. Which party is opposed to a woman's right to choose? That would be the conservative party, because, in their eyes, abortion is murder. However, how many abortion clinics have been bombed by conservatives? How many abortion doctors have been killed by conservatives? Are violence and murder a part of the Christian principles that I'm unaware of? I don't seem to recall those.

What about matters of finance? Which party advocates the rich getting richer and the poor staying poor? That would be the conservatives. (Did you know that for every Dick Cheney who saved $300,000 from the Bush tax cuts that there were 250 Americans that saved $0? That's how you get an average tax cut of $1200 per person.) I don't recall Jesus condoning this practice. Jesus advocated charity.

What about acceptance? Which party was it that advocated civil rights? Which party was integral in the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? I don't think this one was the conservative party. In fact, I recall our current conservative president being in favor of ending affirmative action. As Rev. Sharpton said last night (I'm paraphrasing here), if our current president were in office in 1954, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wouldn't have been able to get into law school.

So what conclusion can I draw from all this? Obviously, Jesus was a liberal. In fact, he may have been the first, and most ardent, liberal. So why does the religious community support Bush? I know, God works in mysterious ways.

If you watched the Democratic Convention last night you saw the future of our party. Barack Obama delivered the speech of the night. Possibly the speech of the future.

"The people I meet--in small towns and big cities, in diners and office parks --they don't expect government to solve all their problems. They know they have to work hard to get ahead--and they want to. ... They don't want their tax money wasted, by a welfare agency or the Pentagon."
.....
"Go into any inner-city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can't teach kids to learn--they know that parents have to parent, that children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white," he said.

This was one of the most powerful speeches I have ever heard. It was optimistic, it was inspiring, and it was delivered with a sincerity that we don't often see these days. Even Tucker Carlson had to agree it was pretty impressive.

In my opinion, this is the direction of the new Democratic Party. With Bill Clinton, we became complacent, docile. Honestly, did you really think Al Gore was going to lose in 2000? I didn't. I don't think a lot of us did. We quit fighting for the things that got Bill Clinton elected and we rested on our laurels. We got fat, we got lazy, and we got weak. (If you need evidence, just look at the 2002 congressional election.)

We're getting strong again. Barrack Obama is the example. He is going to be one of the leaders of the new Democrats. Revitalized, optimistic, energetic, and inspirational. We will take this country back and it will again be a better place.

UPDATE: Read a transcript of his speech here. It's worth it.

John Kerry believes in America. And he knows that it's not enough for just some of us to prosper. For alongside our famous individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga. A belief that we are all connected as one people.

If there's a child on the South Side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child.

If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for their prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandparent.

If there's an Arab-American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties.

It is that fundamental belief -- it is that fundamental belief -- I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper -- that makes this country work.

It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. "E pluribus unum." Out of many, one.

According to the 9/11 Commission report our country is safer, but not safe enough. In that respect, this article from the New York Times is not encouraging.

CLEVELAND - Many cities with budget shortfalls are cutting their police forces and closing innovative law enforcement units that helped reduce crime in the 1990's, police chiefs and city officials say.

Nowhere is this more true than here in the Midwest. This year, Cleveland has laid off 250 police officers, 15 percent of its total force. Pittsburgh has lost one-quarter of its police officers over the last three years, and Saginaw, Mich., has lost almost a third in that time.

Elsewhere, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department has let go 1,200 deputies in the last two years, leading it to close several jails and release a number of inmates early. In Houston, the police chief laid off 190 jail guards in July and assigned their duties to existing police officers.

In Cleveland, detectives have been assigned to patrol duties, specialized units like the gang and auto theft squads have been eliminated, and ministations spread around poor neighborhoods have been closed and the community police officers who worked at them have returned to patrol cars.

Our current administration likes to say they are making us safer, yet they are allowing this to happen. Where did the money they promised for our first responders go? Maybe to our needless war in Iraq? As I've said before, the war in Iraq is not making us safer. We are less safe every day that cuts like these are made. We need to refocus our efforts to secure us here at home. Stop playing cowboy and chasing phantom weapons on the other side of the world and actually make our security the most important issue.

We can not risk another four years of irresponsible behavior in the White House. We need a leader that will really protect us.

Last night I was reminded what it was like to have a President that could inspire me. The Democratic Convention began with Al Gore, whose speech was humorous yet also a stark reminder of what could have been. It was surgically sharp in its points about voting and its importance. I admire his humility in the face of what must be a very bitter pill.

Gore was followed by former President Jimmy Carter. As John Stewart called him afterwards, Carter was the "Velvet Hammer." It was somewhat shocking to hear a man who has won the Nobel Peace Prize utter such sharp criticisms. He was extremely passionate and wonderfully eloquent. Jimmy Carter is probably the most honest politician of our time and I take what he says very seriously. He makes a very strong case for John Kerry.

Eventually, we got to Bill Clinton. If there is a man that can inspire the masses more than him, I have yet to see it. His speech started slow but turned into a laser precise dissection of a failed Bush policy. His speech was inspirational, educational, and self-deprecating. I was nothing short of "dazzling."

It was nice to see someone, in this case several someones, who can give a speech without smirking, hunching over the podium, and checking his notes every five words. Last night we saw what the President has been, should be, and could be again. In the words of William Jefferson Clinton:

"Send John Kerry!"

Lately I've been seeing a lot of interactive electoral maps on the internet. The best one I've found is available through the L.A. Times. Not only does it show the states and how many electoral votes each has to offer, it also shows polling data for each state giving the latest percentages from a variety pollsters. At present time, the polls show that John Kerry has 186 of the necessary 270 electoral votes in his favor with another 209 up for grabs in the swing states.

However, if you examine the poll numbers and assign the electoral votes to the candidate currently leading in each swing state you end up with KERRY - 296 and BUSH - 242.

I have to assume that Kerry's people are aware of this and are planning to capitalize on it at this week's Democratic National Convention. This is a time for Kerry to solidify his base, appeal to the swing voters, and clarify his message. Recent polls show as many as 30% of respondents saying they don't know enough about Kerry. Now is his time to change that.

Two things to keep in mind:

1. Elections are always a referendum on the incumbent, and
2. Undecided voters tend to vote for the challenger.

November could be good!

Last Wednesday I posted my opinion concerning the war in Iraq and its effect on our country's safety. Basically, my opinion is that the war has not made us safer and the money spent on the war could have been better allocated to beef up security here at home. Well it seems that Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism chief in President Bush's National Security Council, agrees.

Americans owe the 9/11 commission a deep debt for its extensive exposition of the facts surrounding the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. Yet, because the commission had a goal of creating a unanimous report from a bipartisan group, it softened the edges and left it to the public to draw many conclusions.

Among the obvious truths that were documented but unarticulated were the facts that the Bush administration did little on terrorism before 9/11, and that by invading Iraq the administration has left us less safe as a nation. (Fortunately, opinion polls show that the majority of Americans have already come to these conclusions on their own. )

I like it when things work out this way.

Here in central Illinois, we don't appear to be benefiting from the economic recovery that the rest of the country is allegedly experiencing. While we continue to read/hear about 100,000 jobs being created each month, we are losing thousands. Mitsubishi Motors in Peoria recently announced they will lay off 1,200 employees to help "pare mounting debt." Earlier we learned that Maytag in Galesburg announced that all 1,600 of their workers will lose their jobs as the plant relocates to Mexico. On top of all this, it also announced that Butler Manufacturing, also in Galesburg, will be closing its doors putting nearly 280 people out of work.

So where are all of these jobs? According to this article in the New York Times, Bob Herbert says the new jobs aren't going to the unemployed.

A startling new study shows that all of the growth in the employed population in the United States over the past few years can be attributed to recently arrived immigrants.

The study found that from the beginning of 2001 through the first four months of 2004, the number of new immigrants who found work in the U.S. was 2.06 million, while the number of native-born and longer-term immigrant workers declined by more than 1.3 million.

The study, from the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston, is further confirmation that despite the recovery from the recession of 2001, American families are still struggling with serious issues of joblessness and underemployment.

The study does not mean that native-born workers and long-term immigrants are not finding jobs. The American workplace is a vast, dynamic, highly competitive arena, with endless ebbs and flows of employment. But as the study tallied the gains and losses since the end of 2000, it found that new immigrants acquired as many jobs as the other two groups lost, and then some.

Andrew Sum, the director of the center and lead author of the study, said he hoped his findings would spark a long-needed analysis of employment and immigration policies in the U.S. But he warned against using the statistics for immigrant-bashing.

"We need a serious, honest debate about where we are today with regard to labor markets," said Professor Sum, whose work has frequently cited the important contributions immigrants have made. The starkness of the study's findings, he said, is an indication that right now "there is something wrong."

I think the statement "there is something wrong," is long overdue. In the last few months, two cities here in central Illinois have lost over 3,000 jobs due to economic problems, yet we continue to hear about the nation's recovery. According to the U.S. Labor Department, the average hourly work week is trending downward, meaning many of the new jobs are not full time and are therefore not likely to include benefits. At the same time, the average real earnings are also trending downward, meaning people are taking home less money.

So where is this recovery taking place? I know one thing, the job recovery is not taking place here in middle America.

The Republicans are getting nervous.

Republicans initially dismissed "Fahrenheit 9/11" as a cinematic screed that would play mostly to inveterate Bush bashers. Four weeks and $94 million later, the film is still pulling in moviegoers at 2,000 theaters around the country, making Republicans nervous as it settles into the American mainstream.

"I'm not sure if it moves voters," GOP consultant Scott Reed said, "but if it moves 3 or 4 percent it's been a success."

Two senior Republicans closely tied to the White House said the movie from director Michael Moore is seen as a political headache because it has reached beyond the Democratic base. Independents and GOP-leaning voters are likely to be found sitting beside those set to revel in its depiction of a clueless president with questionable ties to the oil industry.

.....

More than a third of Republicans and nearly two-thirds of independents told Gallup they had seen or expected to see the film at theaters or on video.

.....

Bush's leadership in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks had impressed retired teacher Lavone Mann, another Des Moines moviegoer. After watching the film, Mann wanted to know more about its claims.

"I guess that I think it makes me want to pursue how much of it is accurate and not just get carried away with one film," she said. "I don't hear Bush and (Vice President Dick) Cheney saying that this is incorrect."

November could be fun!

I expect ot hear this a lot over the next several days. Here it is almost two hours before the release of the 9/11 commission's report and the Republicans are already on the tube saying "It's not our fault." According to the commission's findings, blame should be placed on basically everyone.

Administration officials familiar with the contents of the report said those failings include:


• That the FBI was not set up to collect intelligence domestically;
  
  
• The failure of the intelligence agencies to share information;
  
  
• Missed opportunities catalogued in the press;
  
  
• The failure in "connecting the dots" in the intelligence community.
  
  
  These officials said the plot "fell into the void" between foreign and domestic threats and was timed when the nation was still in transition from one administration to the next.
  
  .....
  
  Congressional sources told CNN the report outlines 10 "missed opportunities" by both the Clinton and Bush administrations to derail the suicide hijacking plot.
  
  One source said, however, that it would take a "huge stretch of the imagination that any of these opportunities would have really happened."
  
  Congressional leaders were briefed on the report by the commission's leaders Tuesday and Wednesday. Top White House officials were briefed Wednesday afternoon.
  
  Six of the missed opportunities mentioned in the report occurred during the Bush administration and four under the Clinton administration, according to a story in The Washington Post, citing an unnamed government official it said had read the report.
  
  Officials told CNN the report will note that both Clinton and Bush took action against al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, but that neither administration totally appreciated the threat his al Qaeda terror network posed.

First of all, I see this as a cop-out. Victims families were looking for something difinitive and what they got was a general statement saying "well, somebody screwed up."

Second of all, I think this commission was put into an almost impossible position. If they find blame with either the Bush or the Clinton administration, it could effect the outcome of the election. For instance if they were to place the blame on Bush, it may very well cost him the election in November giving the perception that the commission was biased

Finally, there is still the issue of disclosure by the White House. If they didn't feel that they were guilty, why did they continuously block access to documents, officials and information? Why wouldn't the President and Vice President testify under oath? Why did they oppose the commission in the first place? I'd be interested to see if any of those questions are addressed by the commission' report. I doubt they will.

What I don't doubt is that the Republicans will be dancing around all over television holding a copy of the report and saying "It's not our fault," when what they should be saying is what Richard Clarke said on the day of his testimony:

...your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you and I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed.

But that would take integrity.

The U.S. death toll in Iraq has now reached 900, and by the November election we will surely have surpassed the 1,000 mark. All for a needless war. I say needless because it's not making us safer despite what our current administration would have you believe.

I believe that there is a widespread misconception that most liberals do not support the war on terror. I have to admit that I don't think that this is a winnable war. I equate it to the war on drugs. It's a noble cause, but an unattainable goal. This does not mean that I am not in support of making our country safer. I'm all for that. I do not wish to see another 9/11. Ridding the world of terrorism would be a wonderful thing, right up there with world peace. However, the war in Iraq is not the answer.

President Bush has repeatedly called Iraq a "central front in the war on terror." I disagree. In my opinion, the central front in the war on terror is right here in America. Instead of spending $100 billion in Iraq to root out a WMD program that was virtually nonexistant and wasn't threatening anyone, why not spend that money here in America to help secure our borders, ports, nuclear facilities, water facilities, and airlines? 95% of all cargo that comes into our country's sea-ports goes unchecked. Securing our border with Mexico has been underfunded for years. We've been told repeatedly about the dangers of an attack on our nuclear power plants or about the ramifications of a chemical/biologocal attack on our nation's water supply yet most are unguarded. And it goes without saying that we are all aware of the dangers posed by hijacked airplanes, yet we are unable to fully staff each airport with qualified screeners and each airplane with an air marshall. Couldn't that $100 billion be used here at home to correct these issues?

Furthermore, if Iraq is only a part of this global war on terror, how long before we get to the next step? The Korean conflict was labeled a "police action" and we still have troops there fifty years later. How long will we have to keep troops in Iraq? Fifty years? Our military is already stretched to the limits from the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq. How do we propose to continue fighting this war on terror? Normally, I'd say we could use our coalition allies, but Kazakhstan's 25 troops probably won't be too effective. Neither will Estonia's 31, or Macedonia's 37. Of the 154,000 troops in Iraq 84% are American. Our biggest ally, Great Britain has only committed 9,000 troops; a mere 6%. That's some coalition we've got. We are basically fighting this war on our own. And in the process, we are weakening our position to fight conflicts in other regions. We can't/won't even respond to the crisis in Sudan. Would we even be able to respond to a crisis here in America?

Sidebar:

I know, we have the Department of Homeland Security to protect us. Unfortunately, the only thing I'm seeing from the DOHS is non-specific intelligence that may or may not be indicative of a coming terrorist attack. In the process, they are scaring the hell out of people who actually believe we are being protected. The other day, I saw a piece on television about southern voters and one of the people interviewed stated: "I believe Bush is doing a good job protecting us because there hasn't been another attack since 9/11." (Obviously he's referring to attacks here in the United States.) By this logic, every president that came before George W. Bush was doing a marvelous job as well. The DOHS is a political tool for the Bush administration. I've said it before, by using terror warnings, this administration is putting itself in a win/win situation. If there's an attack they say "See, our intelligence was correct and we were right to warn you." If there's no attack, they say: "See, we are protecting you from danger by preventing terrorist attacks." It's a tool and we're all getting played.

So why have we wasted almost 1,000 American lives? Why have we destroyed hundreds of families? I have my theories (PNAC), but I can't really give any difinitive answers. It certainly isn't to protect us. It clearly has not made our country safer.

Halliburton is under investigation again. This time it's for doing business with Iran.

A Houston grand jury is investigating Halliburton Co.'s business dealings with Iran.

In a filing Monday with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Halliburton revealed that a federal grand jury for the Southern District of Texas has subpoenaed documents related to Iran, a country long suspected of sponsoring terrorism.

Federal law prohibits U.S. companies from trading directly with Iran. But foreign subsidiaries are allowed to do business with rogue states as long the foreign entity is truly independent of the U.S. operation.

How many times has this company screwed our government? Among other things, they've overcharged for oil, they've overcharged for meals, their employees have been taking kick-backs, and now we find out they're doing business with Iran. Isn't Iran part of the "axis of evil?" Isn't our government looking into Iran's ties to 9/11? According to John W. Dean, Halliburton was also doing business with Iraq as late as 1998. That too was prohibited. Who's next? Syria? North Korea?

Now you may be asking yourself, how are they getting around the law to do business with these countries? They're doing it by using foriegn subsidiaries. It's the same way they get around paying U.S. taxes. They do their business through companies based in the Cayman Islands and other locations around the world that are immune from U.S. restrictions. Sounds fair doesn't it?

So while Halliburton is patriotically doing what it can to help the United States in the war on terror, they are also doing what they can to ensure that they make a profit wherever possible. I'm sure the Bush administration will take care of this right away. Maybe Cheney will make sure they get another no-bid contract to punish them. That'll teach 'em!

Linda Ronstadt was kicked out of a Vegas casino because she voiced her support for Michael Moores' Fahrenheit 9/11.

Singer Linda Ronstadt was thrown out of the Aladdin casino in Las Vegas on the weekend after dedicating a song to liberal filmmaker Michael Moore and his movie "Fahrenheit 9/11," a casino spokeswoman said Monday.

Ronstadt, who had been hired for a one-show engagement Saturday night at the Las Vegas Strip casino, dedicated a performance of "Desperado" to Moore and his controversial documentary, which criticizes President Bush and the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

That dedication angered some Aladdin guests who spilled drinks, tore down posters and demanded their money back, said casino spokeswoman Sara Gorgon.

"We had quite a scene at the box office," she said.

About a quarter of the 4,500 people in the audience got up and left before the performance had finished, Gorgon said.

I think there are a few items that we can take from this:

1. Conservatives are overly sensitive. Liberals are supposed to sit and heal when Bush gets praised but Conservatives can hold their breath and throw a hissy fit.
   
2. Vegas is just as afraid of Bush/Cheney/Rove as is business (think Slim-Fast and Clear Channel).
   
3. More importantly, it appears as if three-quarters of the audience was okay with her statements and stayed. I'm sure the liberals would be happy with seventy-five percent support come November 2.

President Bush is experiencing a slow and painful political death. Naturally in an election year, Democrats are fighting Bush's proposals in congress; but it now appears as if Republicans aren't cooperating either.

After three years of getting most of the major legislation he wanted through a cooperative Congress, President Bush is coming up almost empty-handed this year as he heads into the homestretch of his reelection campaign.

Capitol Hill has turned into a sinkhole for the unfinished business on Bush's agenda, which includes bills to spur domestic energy production, crack down on lawsuits, extend his 2001 tax cuts and liberalize immigration rules.

Bush and his GOP allies blame the Democrats for the stalemate, as the minority party has become more united and stubborn in its opposition to White House initiatives.

But many issues, such as highway funding and additional tax cuts, have languished not just because of Democratic obstruction but also because of divisions among Republicans — between the House and Senate, moderates and conservatives, and Bush and congressional leaders.

Last week's Senate debate on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage was symptomatic of the many forces conspiring to turn this year into a legislative bust for the White House. Despite Bush's strong push for the amendment — a crowd pleaser for his party's conservative wing — it met with resounding defeat in the face of solid Democratic opposition and a divided Republican Party.

Even in the House, where Republicans are generally more disciplined in following Bush, his agenda is facing challenges. The House this month nearly passed a measure to scale back Bush's signature anti-terrorism law, the Patriot Act. Only an intensive, 11th-hour round of arm-twisting by GOP leaders spared Bush an embarrassing defeat.

We keep hearing about how much the conservatives love Bush, but where's the love from lawmakers? Maybe they've realized that Bush's agenda is alienating a large portion of the population. Issues such as the Patriot Act and constitutional amendments banning gay marriage are simply too divisive. Supporting these agendas could cost a person their seat in congress.

Bush's greatest appeal is to the far right. He's pandering to the minority of his base. His inability to compromise combined with his inability to admit fault is narrowing his appeal. He's becoming a neo-con despite billing himself as a compassionate conservative. He's pigeon-holing himself. He talks a big game, but the Emperor has no clothes. Moderates are beginning to distance themselves.

...some Republicans worry that an anemic record this year will be a political problem, because one of their prime arguments for reelecting Bush and GOP majorities in Congress is that a government dominated by one party can get more done than a divided government.

"You can't just point your finger and call Democrats obstructionist," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.). "If you have a job to do, you have to do it. People aren't interested in how many storms you encounter at sea. They want to know when you pull into port."

How does this play for the November election? I think his low-to-mid forties approval rating tells the story.

California Governor Ahnuld Schwarzenegger actually called Democrats "girlie-men." My only hope is that the Democrts responded by saying "I know you are, but what am I." Next thing you know, Schwarzenegger's going to challenge them all to a fight after work by the flag pole in front of the Capitol Building. I'm so glad things are being handled in a mature way.

With all of our efforts focused on terrorists getting nuclear materials/secrets from rogue nations, we apparently forgot to close the gate at home.

I know this is kind of "old news," but Slim-Fast has dropped Whoopi Goldberg as their spokesperson. This is only the latest in a very disturbing trend. For those of you who aren't aware, Whoopi Goldberg made some disparaging remarks concerning George W. Bush at a John Kerry fundraiser. Apparently, the remarks concerned the homophonic relationship between the president's last name and a slang term for a part of the female anatomy. Not necessarily original material, but it was enough to anger the Slim-Fast corporation.

We've seen this before. This week it's Whoopi Goldberg and Slim-Fast, a few months ago it was Howard Stern and Clear Channel. Both of these "artists" were fired from their respective employers because of "offensive" material. Both Goldberg and Stern had a reputation for this type of behavior. You can't tell me that Clear Channel wasn't aware that Howard Stern was offensive. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Clear Channel signed Howard Stern BECAUSE he was offensive. It was his controversial material that made him famous and was therefore going to make Clear Channel a lot of money. The same goes for Goldberg. She has been performing her raunchy, albeit funny, comedy material for years. This is what made her famous (before Sister Act of course). Slim-Fast knew this when they hired her. Now both companies act as if they are surprised by the behavior.

I think this feigned outrage actually has a different source. It goes back to the Dixie Chicks and the controversy caused by Natalie Maines' comments about their embarrassment over the President. The band was ostracized by main stream radio, labeled as un-American, and even threatened with death. Why? Because they dared to criticize authority. Our country's founding fathers are regarded as heroes for doing that. No, I think it comes down to something else: FEAR.

Fear is what fuels these decisions. Fear of the government's wrath. Fear of the media scrutiny. Fear of being labeled "un-American." Fear of losing money because of the Republican's/conservative's fake outrage. Dick Cheney says "Fuck you" on the Senate floor to another elected official and he's blowing off steam. Howard Stern and Whoopi Goldberg make the same jokes they've been making for years and it's a scandal. It's not a scandal, it's fear. People in this country are afraid to criticize the president because we are at war and it would be unpatriotic.

I call bullshit! Our country was founded on criticism and dissent. Questioning authority is what eventually made us the country we are. However, our government has us so afraid of being labeled that we will do anything to stay in their good graces. Watch the media. They grill John Edwards on his lack of experience, yet they ask Laura Bush which glamour pictures of her daughters she likes best. They question whether or not John Kerry actually earned his purple hearts, but refuse to press George W. Bush to actually release all of his military records explaining why he was suspended from flying and whether or not he actually fulfilled his required service time. Why do they do this? Fear. Fear that they will be cut off from the White House. Fear that they may not get the next big scoop. Fear that they won't be allowed to ask another pointless question at the next scripted Presidential Press Conference. Fear of Karl Rove and his pack of attack dogs.

Thomas Jefferson said: "When the government fears the people, there is liberty; when the people fear the government, there is tyranny." This is tyranny. This is what we supposedly removed Saddam Hussein for. If you can't speak out against your government, then the government has total control. We can not let this continue. Our country has survived and flourished on dissent. I urge you to speak out whenever and wherever you can. Hang signs, pass out flyers, volunteer for a campaign, or just talk to people. Do not be afraid, it is almost over.

This is a sham, a fraud, a ploy or whatever other synonym you want to use. The Republicans knew that there was no chance of the gay marriage amendment passing the Senate but now they have ammunition. By pushing this vote forward in place of other more useful and legitimate legislation, the Republicans have forced their Democratic rivals to take a stand and define their position. Now they will use it against them. They won't tell the truth and say things like "He/She voted not to write discrimination into the Constitution," or "He/She voted to uphold the civil liberties of all Americans." No, they'll say things like "He/She voted against traditional family values," or "He/She voted to destroy the American family as we know it." Kind of like they distorted John Kerry's voting record in their newest commercial.

First of all, I want to talk about the government's role in marriage. I, for one, seem to recall something about the separation of church and state. If a marriage is something that is sanctified by God, how is it that our government can regulate it? Why do you have to purchase a marriage license, from the government, to join in a holy union. The line between church and state seems a little blurry here. If church and state are truly separated, as the founding fathers intended, the government has no role in marriage. In many other countries around the world, marriage isn't recognized by the government because of its association with the church. These countries require that a couple enter into a civil union in order to be recognized as a couple and entitled to inheritance and benefits. Two ceremonies, one for the government and one for the church. Now that's true separation.

Second on my list, why would we, as a nation, want to write discrimination into our Constitution? All twenty-seven amendments to our Constitution, with the exception of the eighteenth (prohibition) that was later repealed, were written to expand the rights of American citizens. An amendment banning gay marriage would restrict those rights. What's next, gays can't vote? Gays can be forced to serve as slaves? Who's next? The Jews? The French? Where does it stop? Whatever happened to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" So much for land of the free.

I think what bugs me most about the situation is that our president is "disappointed" that the amendment didn't pass. So our president is truly for discrimination? When he took his oath of office he stated:

"I,George Walker Bush, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States."

Was there some part of that oath that he didn't understand? It doesn't say "change to fit my homophobic views." It doesn't say "except for homosexuals." It says preserve, protect, and defend. How does this amendment preserve, protect, or defend? It doesn't. It shows the republicans ignorance. It exposes them as the homophobic bigots that they are.

Bush claims that he will pursue the gay union ban. I say go right ahead. It will continue to be defeated. I have to believe in my heart that we are the country we claim to be: equality for everyone, regardless of race, color, or creed. If that is true, this amendment will never pass and the Republicans and the amendment's supporters will simply be seen as the bigots they are.

Amid reports of flawed intelligence, exaggerated claims, and secret documents, this article from the L.A. Times finally reveals the truth about our reasons for war in Iraq.

In the months and years leading up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, they marched together in the vanguard of those who advocated war.

As lobbyists, public relations counselors and confidential advisors to senior federal officials, they warned against Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, praised exiled leader Ahmad Chalabi, and argued that toppling Saddam Hussein was a matter of national security and moral duty.

Now, as fighting continues in Iraq, they are collecting tens of thousands of dollars in fees for helping business clients pursue federal contracts and other financial opportunities in Iraq. For instance, a former Senate aide who helped get U.S. funds for anti-Hussein exiles who are now active in Iraqi affairs has a $175,000 deal to advise Romania on winning business in Iraq and other matters.

And the ease with which they have moved from advocating policies and advising high government officials to making money in activities linked to their policies and advice reflects the blurred lines that often exist between public and private interests in Washington. In most cases, federal conflict-of-interest laws do not apply to former officials or to people serving only as advisors.

As is usually the case, it was about money. Numerous blogs have been pushing this idea for months now; Michael Moore even alluded to this in Fahrenheit 9/11; now, a major newspaper. Could our media be turning a corner? Doubtful.

Do you remember the Oliver Stone movie JFK? Donald Sutherland's character, known only as X, was a former Black Operatives official who stated that war equals money. This has never been more true than it is now. Companies like Lockheed/Martin made billions in the destruction of Iraq and now companies like Halliburton are making billions in the reconstruction.

Energy companies stand to benefit greatly from the U.S. friendly Iraqi government's access to the country's large oil reserves. Now we don't know anyone in the White House that has an interest in oil reserves. Our National Security Advisor didn't sit on the board of Chevron or anything like that. Our Vice President didn't oversee the operation of any company making a profit from this war.

To quote the article: "We see no conflict of interest in using our knowledge and contacts in Iraq that we developed through our previous work with the INC to support economic development in Iraq."

President Bush is still having to defend his decision to go to war in Iraq. Sixteen months later, and he still feels like he has to convince us. The problem is that we are becoming increasingly more skeptical (finally).

President Bush asserted Monday that the war against Iraq has made America safer as he sought to counteract the findings in a Senate report late last week that the U.S. intelligence community distorted and exaggerated the weapons threat posed by former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.

"Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq," Bush said during a brief visit to east Tennessee. His remarks came amid fresh evidence that support for his Iraq policies continues to decline. A new Washington Post poll found that 45 percent of the public believes the war was worth fighting, compared with 49 percent in May and 57 percent a year ago.

Bush's remarks -- his most extensive on the Senate report -- represented an attempt to regain political footing on an issue that his advisers had expected to be a strong selling point in his reelection campaign but that has stirred public skepticism.

Confronted with unanimous findings by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that the administration had relied on unfounded intelligence in going to war, the president essentially sought to reframe the debate. Hussein's removal, he said, was part of a three-prong strategy for peace.

"We are defending the peace by taking the fight to the enemy," Bush said in a subtle reformulation of the idea of "preemption" that has been a centerpiece of his foreign policy since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. "We have followed this strategy -- defending the peace, protecting the peace and extending the peace -- for nearly three years. We have been focused and patient, firm and consistent."

Peace was never threatened by Iraq. This is an empty statement to make you think the government is doing you a favor by "protecting" you. Not only was peace never threatened, neither was my freedom. I'm tired of hearing that the troops are "fighting for my freedom." I was already free and Iraq did not have the capabilities to take my freedom from me.

However, I think the focus of this discussion about the war in Iraq needs to focus on the concept of preemption. What we did in Iraq was not preemptive. It was preventative. John W. Dean does a good job of explaining the difference between preemptive and preventative military policy in his book Worse Than Watergate.

"By design, Bush does not distinguish between "preemptive" and "preventative" war. There is a difference. Those who launch "preventative" wars are aggressors - notwithstanding efforts to claim, as all such aggressors do, that they are acting in self-defense. On the other hand, those who engage in "preemptive" wars are viewed as acting in self-defense, with the preemptive action being akin to a quick-draw response to an obvious threat. International law has long accepted preemptive actions and rejected preventative wars."

This would explain why many of our allies were so strongly opposed to our Iraq policy. It also points out another deception by the Bush administration. We were not acting in self-defense. We were the aggressors. We were arrogant in our policy and our approach.

Fortunately, the American people are beginning to see the light. According to the latest poll numbers, people see Bush as arrogant.

President Bush is viewed by more American voters as decisive and arrogant than Democratic rival John Kerry, according to an Associated Press poll. Voters are more likely to see Kerry as intelligent.

Maybe we're getting some where.

#1
I apologize for not posting on Friday. My ISP sucks. All morning I was unable to connect and I was out of town most of the weekend. Living in the sticks definitely has its drawbacks.

#2

A lot of blogs have been floating the idea that the Bush administration would delay the November election under the pretense of security. I originally thought this to be a little extreme, but now this.

U.S. officials have discussed the idea of postponing Election Day in the event of a terrorist attack on or about that day, a Homeland Security Department spokesman said Sunday.

The department has referred questions about the matter to the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, said spokesman Brian Roehrkasse, confirming a report in this week's editions of Newsweek magazine.

Newsweek said the discussions about whether the November 2 election could be postponed started with a recent letter to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge from DeForest Soaries Jr., chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

The commission was set up after the disputed 2000 presidential vote to help states deal with logistical problems in their elections.

Knowing how the Bush administration reacts to negativity (terror alerts), could this be the next step? Would they actually delay the election if things looked bad? I know that this seems to be far-fetched, but what about our recent terror alert.?

Ridge warned Thursday that al Qaeda terrorists were planning a large-scale attack on the United States "in an effort to disrupt the democratic process."

Ridge said he had no specific or credible information about threats to the political conventions. The four-day Democratic convention kicks off July 26 in Boston, Massachusetts, and the Republican National Convention begins August 30 in New York City.

Ridge also said the nation's color-coded terrorist threat level would remain at yellow, or elevated.

Democratic Rep. Jane Harman of California, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said Sunday that she believes planning for the possibility of postponing Election Day is "excessive, based on what we know."

"Six days ago, the leadership of the House and Senate intelligence committees and leadership of the House and Senate were briefed on these so-called new threats," Harman said on CNN's "Late Edition."

"They are more chatter about old threats, which were the subject of a press conference by Attorney General [John] Ashcroft and [FBI] Director [Robert] Mueller six weeks ago.

"[Ridge] sounded more like an interior decorator talking about what more we can do under the shade of yellow," she said.

Would they really postpone the election if Bush was losing? The Republicans recently held the Senate vote on the Patriot Act open past the allotted time so they could get the votes they needed. They did everything they could to block the recount of votes in Florida in 2000. They tried to block the 9/11 Commission, have been dragging their feet on the Valerie Plame investigation, and they continually use national security and terror threats to divert attention from negative news. This would be a bold move, but I guess it has to be considered. This administration is not going to want to give up its control. It's sad, but this may be realistic than I had thought.

#3

To quote the Church Lady: "Well, isn't that convenient." According to this New York Times article, Bush's military service records were destroyed. Of course they were. There's an election coming up (maybe). If they weren't already destroyed to hide the fact that he's a deserter, they certainly are now that he's running against a Vietnam vet.

I don't think that you should be judged by things you did thirty years ago, but this is an issue that goes to the heart of the Bush administration. They hide the truth. Some would call that dishonest. I call it lying.

#4

According to a recent study, most Americans object to viewing graphic images of the war.

According to the study, 24 percent of adult Internet users, or 30 million people, have seen such graphic images online, and 28 percent of those people actively sought them out. That comes out to more than 8 million active seekers.

Yet overall, Americans disapprove of the postings by a margin of 49 percent to 40 percent. Another 4 percent say approval depends on circumstances, while the rest wouldn't say or have no opinion.

A third of the Americans who saw the images -- some 10 million -- regret doing so.

This is part of the problem in today's society. Not only do people not understand the consequences of war, they don't want to understand. They want to live in their sanitized little world where America is always right, the government is always trustworthy, and the world always looks up to us. This is a fantasy. A delusional, twisted fantasy. Americans will sometimes kill, lie, and betray if it benefits them in some way. We are no better than any other nation when it comes to greed. In some ways we may be worse.

I, for one, think it's important that people see these images. The nightly news won't show them because they don't want to offend anyone and our government certainly isn't going to show them; it might make people feel uncomfortable about what we're doing. Hell, our government won't even show flag-draped coffins because it would have to admit that people are dying. Without seeing these photos, supporting the war is equal to blind faith.

#5

Finally, I learned something really important about John Kerry from the Today show. According to a photo taken for Time magazine, JOHN KERRY USES A MAC! He gets my vote!

This is total horseshit.

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said Thursday that al Qaeda may be moving forward with plans to carry out an large-scale attack on the United States.

Prior to Ridge's statement, an administration official said an attack might precede the November elections.

No new specific intelligence exists, however, and Ridge did not raise the national color-coded threat level beyond the yellow, or elevated, level.

It was not immediately clear how the assessment of existing intelligence has led Ridge to his remarks.

These warnings are scare tactics; nothing more. It's a win/win situation for the Republicans. If there is an attack, they say "See, we told you so." But if there's no attack, they say "See, we're protecting you." They win either way and the public feels safe.

The Republicans are panicking. Kerry announces Edwards as his running mate, two polls (NBC, CBS) show Bush trailing by a significant margin, Bush and Cheney's approval ratings are sinking, and we suddenly have a terror alert. That should divert attention back to the fact that we need Big Bush to protect us. Because God knows that nobody can protect us like Georgieboy.

Every time something comes up that shows the Bush administration in a vulnerable position, we're reminded of terrorism. This is the real Bush/Cheney campaign tactic: SCARE THE HELL OUT OF THEM! They have nothing else to run on.

Democrats have said that the immediate Republican response to John Edwards selection as Kerry's VP shows how scared they are of Edwards' appeal. Maybe they're right. According to this article in the Houston Chronicle, Bush/Cheney have good reason to be scared.

Sheila Piner was so disillusioned with the presidential contenders that she considered not voting in November. But that changed this week when Democrat John Kerry named John Edwards his running mate.

"I love him. He's so damn cute," Piner, 38, said Wednesday as she ate at the Golden Nugget Pancake House, a popular breakfast spot in the suburbs of this industrialized city.

Piner's reaction was just the sort that Kerry hoped for in this politically divided state, where the new Democratic ticket spent its first day campaigning together in Cleveland and Dayton.

Of the dozens interviewed here over pancakes, omelets and waffles, many described the 51-year-old Edwards as a down-to-earth and engaging politician whom they said filled Kerry's charisma deficit. Even most Republicans offered only tepid criticism of Edwards.

Ohio is one of those states that Bush narrowly won in 2000. Losing it in 2004 could swing the election in favor of Kerry. Keep in mind that the 2000 election was won and lost by a total of one state. With Florida going to Bush, the total difference in electoral votes was a mere four, giving Bush one more than the required 270 electoral votes to win. Ohio would provide Kerry/Edwards with 21 electoral votes creating a 42 vote swing in the results. This is assuming that Kerry/Edwards can win the states that Gore won in 2000.

Ohio could prove troublesome for Bush because of the deep losses in manufacturing jobs. Even if he is able to regain a majority of the 3,000,000 jobs lost nationwide, the best that he can claim is status quo. The American people have to decide if that's satisfactory. Is it okay for the country to spend four years working to get back where we were? That's a tough sell when your trying to run on your record of "progress."

Maybe the most telling part of the article came in the numbers.

A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll found that 57 percent believe Edwards was qualified to be president -- the same percentage that found Vice President Dick Cheney to be ready for office four years ago.

The poll also said 64 percent thought Edwards was a good or excellent choice, compared with 55 percent who felt the same way about Cheney in 2000.

In Ohio, where polls show the race close, political scientist Herb Asher said Edwards is likely to help the Democrats with women and in the southeast part of the state, which culturally resembles the South.

"He will help to humanize the ticket," said Asher, professor emeritus at Ohio State University.

I think Ohio will look great in blue.

By the way, if you're concerned about Edwards' "lack of experience," check out these facts courtesy of The Rude Pundit.

Prior to his election to the Presidency, Grover Cleveland had been Governor of New York for three years, 1883-1885. Cleveland was 48.

Before being elected Vice-President to William McKinley in 1900, Theodore Roosevelt had been governor of New York for two years. He had spent one year as Assistant Secretary of the Navy. When McKinley was assasinated eight months after taking office, Roosevelt became President at age 43.

Woodrow Wilson was elected President at age 56 after serving only two years as governor of New Jersey, from 1911-1913.

When he was elected Vice-President to Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge had been governor of Massachusetts for two years. At age 48, he had also served as lieutenant governor for three years. When Harding died in 1923, Coolidge took over and the Roarin' Twenties were on their way.

In 1920, at the age of 38, Franklin Roosevelt was nominated for the Vice-Presidency, having been, well, Assistant Secretary of the Navy. At age 50, when he was elected President in 1932, his only additional experience was four years as Governor of New York.

When he became President at age 54, George W. Bush's political experience consisted of 6 years as Governor of Texas. He had never held a previous elected or appointed office when he became Governor.

If elected Vice-President, John Edwards will have served a full six-year term as a senator. He will be 51.

I'm shocked! I was just looking at the information provided by gop.com concerning John Edwards and I have to say that I am floored. You mean to tell me that he actually supports gun control? And he supports a woman's right to choose? How appalling.

DUH!

Maybe the Republicans are more out of touch than I thought. John Edwards is a Democrat! Of course he supports these things. That's what Democrats do. If he didn't support these things we'd call him a Republican.

I don't understand the logic in this. This type of information only plays to their base. Only the Republicans are going to look at this information and feign to be outraged. Democrats are going to look at it and say "Hey, he stands for the same things I do." I thought the idea was to peel off votes from the other parties. Maybe I was wrong.

Let's take a look at some of the other issues they are knocking Edwards for.

Edwards Twice Voted Against President Bush’s Jobs And Growth Reconciliation Tax Act Of 2003, And Twice Against 2001 Bush Tax Cut. (Fine by me, the tax cut doesn't benefit anyone but the rich)

In 1999, Edwards Twice Voted Against Implementing $792 Billion Tax Cut. (Maybe because the rich are rich enough)

Edwards Opposed And Blocked The Bipartisan Energy Bill. (Ken Lay doesn't need any more money)

Edwards Voted Twice Against The 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Package. (Maybe because it's not a "benefit")

Edwards Says He Is “Opposed To Vouchers, [Has] Always Been Opposed To Vouchers.” (Vouchers will not improve schools, just shift the problems from school to school)

In 1999, Edwards Voted Against Banning Partial-Birth Abortion. (Because the law does not allow for medical necessity)

Edwards Voted To Allow Federal Money To Be Used To Distribute Morning-After Abortion Pill In America’s Schools. (A woman's right to choose)

Edwards Voted To Require Federal Licensure And Registration Of Gun Shows. (Makes sense)

Edwards Voted Against Voluntary Background Checks For Gun Purchases. (They should be mandatory)

Edwards Supported Background Checks At All Gun Shows. (Good idea, close that loophole)

Edwards Said He Would Not Support Defense Of Marriage Act. (That's because it should be called the "Gays can't marry act)

Edwards Believes In Right To Privacy When It Comes To State Sodomy Laws. (What two consenting adults do in their bedroom is their business)

Edwards Supports Partner Benefits And Gays In The Military. (What? He's not a homophobe?)

Edwards Sided With Unions Over Bush. (So he's for unions fighting for worker's rights? How awful!)

See what I mean? He's a Democrat, that's one of the reasons Kerry chose him. The way I see it, the Republicans are calling a duck a duck. If they really want to dissuade Democratic voters, show how he supports Republicans. I don't think they thought this one through very well.

Of course the media is still whoring for the man and talking only to the Republicans. As I write this, I'm watching the Today show and I have yet to see them talk to a single Democrat outside the Kerry campaign concerning John Edwards. Makes sense to me. The Republicans obviously know Democrats best.

# posted by kissfan @ 7:55 AM

PINKY: "What do you want to do tonight, Brain?"

BRAIN: "The same thing we do every night, Pinky, try to take over the world"

(Now replace Pinky and the Brain with Bush and Cheney respectively and I think you'll get the idea.)

According to this article in the New York Times the CIA witheld pertinent information concerning Iraq's WMD programs.

The Central Intelligence Agency was told by relatives of Iraqi scientists before the war that Baghdad's programs to develop unconventional weapons had been abandoned, but the C.I.A. failed to give that information to President Bush , even as he publicly warned of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's illicit weapons, according to government officials.

The implication here is that the CIA is to blame for our president leading us into an illadvised war. Our president and his staff couldn't possibly be to blame. However, as you will see, war was an easy sell to this administration. I can't imagine that the Bush/Cheney team was real eager to disprove anything the CIA might have said concerning Iraq and their WMDs. They already had a plan in place and were simply waiting to act.

Our story begins way back during the Bush I administration. After the fall of the Soviet Union, then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney authored a plan to maintain America's military at Cold-War era levels. With the help of Paul Wolfowitz, then Undersecretary of Defense, and Colin Powell, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Cheney wrote the "Defense Strategy for the 1990s." It has been described as follows:

The Plan is for the United States to rule the world. The overt theme is unilateralism, but it is ultimately a story of domination. It calls for the United States to maintain its overwhelming military superiority and prevent new rivals from rising up to challenge it on the world stage. It calls for dominion over friends and enemies alike. It says not that the United States must be more powerful, or most powerful, but that it must be absolutely powerful.

The plan basically stated that the United States needed to be ready to combat any other country from rivaling our power. To do this, "the United States could no longer assess its military needs on the basis of known threats. Instead, the Pentagon should focus on maintaining the ability to address a wide variety of new and unknown challenges."

The Plan's debut was well timed. By a remarkable coincidence, Bush revealed it the very day Saddam Hussein's Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait.

The Gulf War temporarily reduced the pressure to cut military spending. It also diverted attention from some of the Plan's less appealing aspects. In addition, it inspired what would become one of the Plan's key features: the use of "overwhelming force" to quickly defeat enemies, a concept since dubbed the Powell Doctrine.

In early 1992 Powell told members of the House Armed Services Committe that the United Stated required "sufficient power" to "deter any challenger from ever dreaming of challenging us on the world stage." He went on to say "I want to be the bully on the block."

At the same time Powell and Cheney were trying to sell this plan to Congress, Wolfowitz was incorporating it into U.S. policy.

During the early months of 1992, Wolfowitz supervised the preparation of an internal Pentagon policy statement used to guide military officials in the preparation of their forces, budgets, and strategies. The classified document, known as the Defense Planning Guidance, depicted a world dominated by the United States, which would maintain its superpower status through a combination of positive guidance and overwhelming military might. the image was one of a heavily armed City on a Hill.

The DPG stated that the "first objective" of U.S. defense strategy was "to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival." Achieving this objective required that the United States "prevent any hostile power from dominating a region" of strategic significance. America's new mission would be to convince allies and enemies alike "that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests."

Another new theme was the use of preemptive military force. The options, the DPG noted, ranged from taking preemptive military action to head off a nuclear, chemical, or biological attack to "punishing" or "threatening punishment of" aggressors "through a variety of means," including strikes against weapons-manufacturing facilities.

The DPG also envisioned maintaining a substantial U.S. nuclear arsenal while discouraging the development of nuclear programs in other countries. It depicted a "U.S.-led system of collective security" that implicitly precluded the need for rearmament of any king by countries such as Germany and Japan. And it called for the "early introduction" of a global missile-defense system that would presumably render all missile-launched weapons, including those of the United States, obsolete. (The United States would, of course, remain the world's dominant military power on the strength of its other weapons systems.)

The story, in short, was dominance by way of unilateral action and military superiority.

.....

"While the U.S. cannot become the world's policeman," the document said, "we will retain the preeminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends." Among the interests the draft indicated the United States would defend in this manner were "access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, [and]
threats to U.S. citizens from terrorism."

You can check out the more detailed points of the plan in this 1992 article from the New York Times.

Now, as we all know, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Powell and Bush I were defeated in 1992. Unfortunately for them, the Clinton administration did not embrace their plan. This doesn't mean that the plan was forgotten. Wolfowitz, who was opposed to ending the first Gulf War without removing Saddam from power, called for the Clinton administration to finish the job. He even proposed launching a preemptive strike against Iraq in 1996. He wrote in an editorial "Should we sit idly by, with our passive containment policy and our inept cover operations, and wait until a tyrant possessing large quantities of weapons of mass destruction and sophisticated delivery systems strikes out at us?" He felt that it was necessary to "go beyond the containment strategy." As we all know, Clinton didn't heed the advice.

In 1998 the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neocon organization of which Wolfowitz is a member, wrote a letter to President Clinton urging him to remove Saddam from power.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

Who signed this letter? A number of familiar names. Of the eighteen signators, eleven now hold appointments in the Bush II administration. Who are they?

Donald Rumsfeld - Secretary of Defense

Paul Wolfowitz - Deputy Secretary of Defense

Richard Armitage - Deputy Secretary of State

Elliott Abrams National Security Council

Richard Perle - Chairman of the Defense Policy Board

John Bolton - Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security

Paula Dobriansky - Under Secretary, Global Affairs

Zalmay Khalilzad - Special Envoy to Afghanistan

Peter W. Rodman - Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs

William Schneider, Jr. - Chairman of the Defense Science Board

Robert B. Zoellick - U.S. Trade Representative

All of these people supported the use of military force to remove Saddam Hussein from power prior to taking office. Paul Wolfowitz, along with Dick Cheney and Colin Powell, supported U.S. dominance throughout the world. Don't you think that maybe these guys were a little too eager to bother with contrary evidence? Can we really pretend that the responsibility for our current situation in Iraq falls squarely on the CIA alone?

(Sidenote: One of the members of PNAC that didn't sign the letter, was our very own Dick Cheney. According to former Nixon Counsel John W. Dean's book Worse Than Watergate, Cheney refrained from signing the letter because his employer, the Halliburton Company, was illegaly doing business with Saddam.)

Blaming the CIA for our illegitimate war in Iraq is a ruse to deflect accountability away from the current administration. Even if the CIA presented select evidence, this administration was hungry. Hungry for war, power, and dominance. Don't be fooled, they knew what they were doing. Maybe not Pinky (Bush) but the Brain (Cheney) understood all too well.

# posted by kissfan @ 1:22 PM

Call them the two Johns or John John or whatever you want. John Kerry and John Edwards sounds good to me. Of course the Republicans are wasting no time in attacking Edwards. Within minutes of the announcement, GOP.com released over 30 pages of "information" on John Edwards. Of course the information is about as reliable as their information on John Kerry (see yesterday's post). And in the great media tradition of whoring for the money, the "news" shows are only talking to the Republicans concerning Kerry's choice. Like they have a clue. They think Cheney's the "greatest vice-president this country has ever had." Check back later today for my view of Cheney and this article from the New York Times.

As for John², I will support them all the way.

With this week's expected announcement of his running mate and the upcoming Democratic Convention, John Kerry stands to garner a lot of attention. This should be to his advantage. Considering that a large portion of the American public claims to know very little about him, the fact that he and Bush are running neck-and-neck in the polls is fairly impressive. But beginning with yesterday's commentary in the Washington Post, John Kerry is positioned to make his move in the race for president.

Kerry has been called a number of things by the Bush administration; most notably "weak on defense" and a "flip-flopper." Truth is, neither of these labels fits. Has he changed his mind on some issues? Who hasn't over the last twenty years? As I recall, Reagan was once a Democrat. People change their views. It happens. So to say that he's a "flip-flopper" is irresponsible. We all change our minds as we grow and, hopefully, get wiser. Our president should know all about changing his mind. He's done it on a number of issues himself; the 9/11 Commission comes to mind.

As for being weak on defense, Kerry is anything but. According to FactCheck.org. Bush and his supporters are deliberately misleading America concerning Kerry's voting record.

The statement that Kerry voted against a long list of mainstream weapons is misleading. He didn't vote against those weapons specifically, and though he did vote against the entire Pentagon budget on occasion he voted for weapons spending far more often than not. Furthermore, Republicans including Bush's father and Vice President Cheney also proposed cuts or elimination in several of the same weapons at around the same time Kerry supposedly "voted against" them.

In a series of articles concerning this subject, FactCheck.org debunks the Bush attack. Not only has Kerry been supportive and strong on defense, he has voted for Pentagon money bills 16 of the 19 years he has been in the Senate, but he has been prudent in his decision making, stating that "there's no excuse for casting even one vote for unnecessary weapons of destruction." His voting record reflects this attitude.

Throughout Kerry's early Senate years he often voted against specific weapons systems and sometimes against the entire Pentagon budget. He voted repeatedly to cancel the B-2 Stealth bomber, for example, in  1989 , 1991 (twice ) and  1992. He voted against the Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missile in  1994  and  1995.  And he voted repeatedly to cut funds for the Strategic Defense Initiative (ballistic missile defense) in 1991,  1992,  1993 ,  1995,  and  1996. He also voted for across-the-board cuts in the military budget in 1991 and 1992, as Congress struggled to deal with mounting federal deficits and the former Soviet Union disintegrated.

Republicans shouldn't make too much of these votes, however, since President Bush's own father announced in his 1992 State of the Union address that he would be ceasing further production of B-2 bombers and MX missiles, and would cut military spending by 30 percent over several years.

In true Republican fashion, the hypocrisy of these attacks is astounding. While claiming that Kerry is weak on defense, they are failing to mention that Dick Cheney and George H. W. Bush voted against the same weapons that they are accusing Kerry of voting against.

Bush's own father, who was then President, and Richard Cheney, who was then Secretary of Defense, proposed to cut or eliminate several of the very same weapons that Republicans now fault Kerry for opposing. In his first appearance before Congress as Defense Secretary in April 1989, for example, Cheney outlined $10 billion in defense cuts including proposed cancellation of the AH-64 Apache helicopter, and elimination of the F-15E ground-attack jet. Two years later Cheney's Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and targeted a total of 81 Pentagon programs for termination, including the F-14 and F-16 aircraft. And the elder President Bush said in his 1992 State of the Union address: "After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B - 2 bombers. . . . And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles." So if Kerry opposed weapons "our troops depend on," so did Cheney and the elder President Bush.

Check out all of the articles at FactCheck.org. Some of these articles will point out some of Kerry's more misleading statements as well a George W. Bush's. The key point is to be informed. Know that Kerry is not the waffler that he has been made out to be. As this campaign hits the homestretch, look for Kerry to define himself beyond the boundaries of Bush's advertisements. And as people learn more about him, and in turn more about the Bush administration's hypocrisy and deception, expect Kerry's lead to increase. Bush can not hide from the truth.

Happy Fourth of July!!! Be proud of your country, even if you're embarrassed by your president. It'll all be over soon!

Back Monday with a new post.

The job report for the month of June was released today and the numbers were much lower than projected.

Job growth slowed dramatically in June, as employers added just 112,000 workers to payrolls last month, a number that came in well below forecasts by private economists.

The gain was about half of May's revised gain of 235,000 jobs, and was the weakest since February following three straight months of strong job growth, the Labor Department reported.

Economists surveyed by Briefing.com had forecast a gain of 250,000 jobs, on average.

Overestimating is not necessarily a bad thing. I've done it myself on occasion. For instance, I've often overestimated my tolerance for alcohol. These things happen. And yes, we did gain jobs. That is a good thing even if it is not as many jobs as we would like. Anything to recover the 3,000,000 we lost is good. But many analysts see this as troublesome for the economy. If jobs continue to grow at this slower rate, Bush has no chance of recovering the jobs that were lost before November. This is one of the key issues in this year's election.

Now overall, I don't find the slower than expected job growth issue as troubling. What does bother me, is what else is contained in this report.

Aside from the sharp slowdown in job growth, the report contained more bad news for workers.

Average hourly wages rose 2 cents, or 0.1 percent, to a seasonally-adjusted $15.65. But that was well below the 0.3 percent gain that economists had forecast.

In addition, the average work week fell to 33.6 hours for private sector employers last month from 33.8 in May.

"This economic recovery is a lot more fragile than most of us thought," said Anthony Chan, chief economist for Banc One Investment Advisors.

In other words, the jobs that were added were less than full-time, which means they aren't likely to include benefits (ie-health insurance). Now I realize, a job is job. Any job pays more than no job at all. But when the government states that they have added jobs, what they are neglecting to report is the quality of the job. A person who lost their job as a salaried employee two years ago and then takes a job working the fryers when McDonald's expands for summer help is still considered a job added. Not quite the same thing though.

Even more troubling, is the fact that they have revised the job numbers for April and May. And not in a positive direction, I might add.

The Labor Department revised its job estimates for the last two months, saying payrolls grew by 324,000 instead of 346,000 for April, and 235,000 instead of 248,000 in May.

This is something our government is good at. Stating one thing and then later revising the numbers or backpedalling from their promises. Remember the $15 billion promised to fight AIDS in Africa in last year's State of the Union Address? Guess how much money was budgeted by the White House. If you guessed $0 you are correct. How about the money promised to fund No Child Left Behind? (As an educator, this is a big issue with me and will be the subject of a future posting, I'm sure.) Did you know that it was underfunded by $10 billion dollars? Probably not, because this administration makes a big deal about announcements, but then quietly goes about the actual business. The big announcement makes the news, but the quiet deception doesn't get covered. It's like the fine print in those television commercials -stunt driver, closed course, do not attempt, weight loss not typical, etc. -, you really have to look close to see it.

So when Peter Jennings says the economy added 112,000 jobs last month, keep in mind that there's more to those numbers. You see, numbers are wonderful things. They never lie, as long as you're given all of them.

What is up with Ralph Nader? According to this article in the New York Times, he is now affiliated with the Reform Party.

...Mr. Nader, the left-leaning consumer advocate, and Patrick J. Buchanan, the right-leaning commentator, hardly seem like political soul mates. But four years after Mr. Buchanan won the endorsement of the Reform Party, Mr. Nader has succeeded him as the party's standard-bearer.

His alignment with the Reform Party is but one example of how Mr. Nader is facing such daunting forces to get his name on statewide ballots this year that he is seeking support from groups that do not necessarily share his long-held liberal beliefs.

Clearly Nader has become desperate. After the results of the 2000 election, people have abandoned third party candidates in droves. The only way that he can get any support is to join forces with the opposition. Liberals have shunned him because of his perceived role in Gore's defeat, so he has to go to the conservatives for support.

He is also getting helping from other unexpected quarters. Democrats have sued to keep Mr. Nader off the ballot in Arizona and Illinois and may be planning a similar challenge in Texas, but Republicans and some conservative groups in Oregon, Arizona and Wisconsin are feverishly, if not cynically, mobilizing to get him on ballots in those states in a drive to siphon votes from the likely Democratic nominee, Senator John Kerry.

Conservatives realize Nader's value to them. Liberals realize Nader's threat to them. Apparently the only person that doesn't understand his role, is Nader himself. Does he want another four years of Bush? Is Nader a closet Bush fan? I know, he claims that there is no difference between the two major party candidates. He may be right, but does he really want Kerry to lose that badly? Does he really want Bush to win?

Any votes siphoned off by Nader will come from Kerry. The conservatives see this as a win/win situation for them. Nader is their tool, their bitch. By allowing the conservatives to help him get on the ballot, he's become a part of the problem he professes to fight against. He may as well join the conservatives.

This election comes down to one issue: Do you want George W. Bush to be re-elected or not? If so, vote for Bush. If not, you really only have one choice: John Kerry. A vote for anyone else is a vote for Bush.