Truespeak

#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!