Truespeak

And quite frankly, it reeks. Since they can't seem to shake the story of the missing Iraqi explosives, the Bush administration trotted out some poor lacky to claim that he had destroyed 250 tons of munitions. Problem is, he didn't destroy any of the explosives that are currently missing, didn't see any IAEA seals that are clearly shown in the video from channel KSTP out of Minneapolis, and all of this took place five days before the KSTP video was shot clearly showing the explosives still in their bunkers. So what the hell was the point of throwing this guy to the wolves? He didn't have anything significant to offer us and the press tore him apart. The whole while, Larry DiRita, Rumsfeld's assisstant, won't let the poor guy answer a question and keeps saying this proves that nobody really knows what happened to those explosives. No Larry, you and your dumb-ass friends are the only ones that don't know; the rest of us all know exactly what happened: Bush fucked up! Plain and simple.

So after this train wreck of a press conference, as it's clear that the missing explosives story is going to carry on into the weekend, what do we get? A new Osama bin Laden video. This might seem a little far-fetched to think that it was planned, but ask yourself this, how was the United States able to verify that it was indeed bin Laden before it was actually aired on al Jazeera television? Still don't believe me? Think about this: Nothing in the video indicated that it was recorded within the last few days. In fact it could have been recorded anytime after John Kerry became the clear Democratic nominee. And one more thing: Anybody remember Karl Rove promising an "October Surprise?" Let's face it, things couldn't be going any worse for Bushco right now. Everyday seems to bring fresh evidence of the administration's incompetence and momentum appears to be shifting in Kerry's favor. So why wouldn't Rove and Co. roll out a new video that they've been saving for just the right occassion? They've used old evidence as the basis for raising the terror alert level, right?

So far, it seems to be working in their favor. As I watched the evening news, the first eleven minutes of the broadcast were devoted to the Osama video while only two minutes towards the end of the broadcast were devoted to the missing explosives and then there was no mention of the clearly staged and diversionary press conference. Then on CNN's Newsnight With Aaron Brown, he ran through tomorrow's headlines as always and every paper led with the bin Laden video above the fold. I assure you that Timmy and the rest of the bobbleheads on Sunday will be talking about this video and completely ignoring the explosives story.

But John Kerry can take the focus back with one simple statement: "Our President promised to get bin Laden 'Dead or Alive.' As this video proves, he's obviously failed to do so. If I am elected President, I promise to do everything in my power to make sure that the next video the American people see of bin Laden will be the one showing him in chains or dead."

As David Kay would say: "Game, set, match."

And as if I needed any more proof that the Republicans are deperate, my sister, who lives in the swing state of Iowa, received this letter in the mail this past week.


The text reads:

Dear Amanda,
     The military has found the floor plans of a San Diego school in a terrorist camp in Iraq.
     I recall that one of the 9-11-01 terrorists spent time in Cedar Rapids.  Are there floor plans for any Midwest school over there?  Does it really make sense to consult the U.N. or other countries prior to defending our children from Islamic terrorists?
     Please join me and vote for President Bush on November 2nd.

Sincerely,
Concerned Grandma

Can you spell voter intimidation? How about scare tactics? Of course this arrived with no return address. I can assure you this didn't come from my grandma, she's a faithful Democrat. But really, does anybody really believe that this was written by anyone other than the Republican party? They are desperate. They feel the momentum changing and they can smell defeat.

I can't wait until we are able to say John Kerry, the 44th President of the United States. Only a few days left!

One last thing. I finally carved my Halloween pumpkin. Whaddya' think?



See ya' Monday!

If anyone is still undecided about next Tuesday's Presidential election, today provided all the information thay should need to make up their minds. For days now, the top story has been the missing explosives in Iraq. John Kerry has run with the story to bolster his claim that President Bush has mishandled the war but the President has been claiming that the explosives may have been moved prior to the US invasion. President Bush has even gone so far as to say Senator Kerry is jumping to conclusions without the facts. But today, all the evidence needed has come to the surface.

It turns out that ABC affiliate 5 Eyewitness News from Minneapolis/St. Paul had a crew embedded in Iraq that filmed some video at the al QaQaa weapons facility after the fall of Baghdad on April 9, 2003, clearly showing the IAEA seals on the door. Soldiers with the 101st Airborne Division cut the chains to the bunkers allowing the reporters in where they were able to film the explosives still inside. (You can read the story here, here, and here.) On this evening's Newsnight With Aron Brown on CNN, former weapons inspector David Kay confirmed that the items in the video were indeed the explosives in question.

Truth of the matter is, we actually knew they were there. On April 5, 2003, the Washington Post ran an article which included the following passage:

In the first of yesterday's discoveries, the 3rd Infantry Division entered the vast Qa Qaa chemical and explosives production plant and came across thousands of vials of white powder, packed three to a box. The engineers also found stocks of atropine and pralidoxime, also known as 2-PAM chloride, which can be used to treat exposure to nerve agents but is also used to treat poisoning by organic phosphorus pesticides. Alongside those materials were documents written in Arabic that, as interpreted at the scene, appeared to include discussions of chemical warfare.

This morning, however, investigators said initial tests indicated the white powder was not a component of a chemical weapon. "On first analysis it does not appear to be a chemical that could be used in a chemical weapons attack," Col. John Peabody, commander of the division's engineering brigade, told a Reuters reporter with his unit.

U.N. inspectors have surveyed Qa Qaa some two dozen times, most recently last month. But some 1,000 structures there, organized into 10 or more factory complexes, have mainly been devoted to such conventional military industries as explosives and missile fuels. Neither is forbidden under U.N. Security Council mandates. Qa Qaa was last linked to proscribed activity in 1995 -- and somewhat peripherally then.

"Based on [the powder and antidotes] you couldn't form any real judgment," said Terence Taylor of Britain, a former inspector with the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM). "It is a place where there would be a lot of chemicals, not necessarily related to chemical or biological weapons. More likely in that place it would relate to some form of rocket propellant."

The same day, the Associated Press ran their own article stating this:

Closer to Baghdad, troops at Iraq's largest military industrial complex found nerve agent antidotes, documents describing chemical warfare and a white powder that appeared to be used for explosives.

UN weapons inspectors went repeatedly to the vast al Qa Qaa complex, most recently on March 8. But they found nothing during spot visits to some of the 1,100 buildings at the site 40 kilometres south of Baghdad.

Col. John Peabody, engineer brigade commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, said troops found thousands of five-centimetre by 12-centimetre boxes, each containing three vials of white powder, together with documents written in Arabic that dealt with how to engage in chemical warfare.

A senior U.S. official familiar with initial testing said the powder was believed to be explosives. The finding would be consistent with the plant's stated production capabilities in the field of basic raw materials for explosives and propellants.

Both articles clearly show the existence of the explosives at the al QaQaa site on April 4, 2003, well after the invasion had begun. So all that talk about the weapons being moved prior to the invasion, and all that talk by Drudge and the Washington Times about the Russians being involved is bullshit! Complete and total bullshit!

As many of us have known for a long time now, the President has been lying to the American people. The simple truth is, our current administration has FUCKED UP! But they still can't admit it. Kerry has been right all along: The President has made us less safe.

Anyone who is still undecided after today's revelations is clearly not paying attention.

Kerry is going to win in a landslide!

Living in rural Illinois, I sometimes feel as if I'm in the heart of Christian Country. The popular opinion around here is that our President is a good man because he has "good Christian values." (I know, the irony is stunning. I didn't realize starting a war of choice was sanctioned by the Bible, but I have to admit I'm a little rusty on my Bible history.) So anyway, I decided to write a letter to the editor of my local paper (republican rag). And what do you know, it was actually published. Here's what it had to say:

To the Editor:

With the political season reaching a fever point, it is only natural that the letters to the editor should adopt a political tone. But the more I read, the more dismayed I become with those who continually confuse religion with politics. The upcoming election is not about choosing a religious leader for our country; it is about choosing the candidate who is best able to lead our country forward in a positive direction.

Choosing a religious leader is a personal choice that can be made by choosing which church or synagogue to attend. When choosing our country’s leader, it is important to choose one that is capable of seeing beyond the restrictions of faith to make a decision that is in the best interest of the entire country. After all, this is a country composed of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and a variety of other religions; all of which are guaranteed their rights under the Constitution.

As someone who regularly attends and is active in church, I understand the place of religion in a person’s life. But I believe that it is a personal place that has no bearing in a political election. Choosing the candidate that would best serve my religious agenda at the expense of the country’s interests can only be described as selfish. I believe that the president should be the candidate who best represents the country’s diverse and unique population.

Although critics panned him, I thought Senator Kerry did a remarkable job of articulating this viewpoint during the second debate when he said:

“Religion has been a huge part of my life.  [...] But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever.“

This is a person who understands the difference of opinion in today’s America. He can look beyond his faith and make an informed decision that is fair to all parties involved. After all, this is someone who will have to deal with leaders from other countries, many of whom will not be of the Christian faith.

While I don’t begrudge President Bush his faith, I do believe that he has allowed it to interfere with his decision making. Because of his faith, he is of the opinion that our Constitution should be amended to allow for discrimination against gays and lesbians. Never before has the Constitution been used to deny individuals of their rights, but it is President Bush’s faith that leads him to believe that this is the right thing to do.

One thing that I’ve always respected about the Christian religion is the Bible’s support of tolerance. Our current President is not capable of moving beyond the confines of his faith therefore rendering him intolerant to a good portion of our country’s population.

Because of this, I believe that John Kerry is the right choice for our next President.

Unfortunately, the paper has a 500 word limit on all letters to the editor, so I was unable to really expand on much. However, there is no limit on this blog post, so here we go.

Since when did our political process become a contest to see which candidate can out-God the other? Each candidate has done his best to try and show that he is a God-fearing man. I want to know, why does this matter? Oh, the Bible-thumpers will tell you that this country was founded on "Christian principles" and is therefore a Christian nation by heart. But c'mon, people, let's look at these "Christian principles." Explain to me how these principles differ from that of Judaism. Or Buddhism. Or (non-radical) Islam. The answer is, they don't. Freedom and equality are not Christian principles. As I recall, women were to be servants to their husbands if we go by the Bible's law. I don't see many women rushing to go back to that day and age. So the argument is null. The truth is, this country was founded and settled by Christians who were unhappy with their homeland for one reason or another. In fact, many of them were dissatisfied with the religious confinement of their mother country. I would think that we could understand the concept of religious confinement and would try to do something the avoid that. But no, here we are trying to make sure that the person we elect is the most Christian man available and all other eligions be damned because how could we consider ourselves good Christians if we didn't.

As I said in my letter, this is selfish. We couldn't be any more selfish. This is the equivalent of voting for the man that will give me the biggest tax cut despite the fact that he can't pay for it. Oh, wait, that's already happening. Have we, as a nation, become so selfish that we are willing to disregard the well being of our country? Have we become so selfish that we are only interested in getting everything we can for ourselves and screw the rest of you? Are we really willing to say "Fuck 'em all, I want it my way," when in reality we know that it is hurting future generations? The sad answer is yes.

Over the summer I spent a considerable amount of time debating with a conservative relative of mine. Through a number of e-mails, we debated the virtues of the liberal and conservative viewpoints. I can't say that I converted him anymore than he converted me, but I did learn a lot about the other side. Their view is that if you've got it (money, success, opportunity, etc.) good for you, you should be able to keep it; but if you don't have it (money, success, opportunity, etc.) screw you, you're on your own. In other words, get your filthy fucking hands off of mine.

We have become a nation of greed and excess. A nation concerned about getting more and sharing less. If it's yours it should be mine, but if it's mine, you're shit-out-of-luck. This is the nation we have become under George W. Bush. Now I admit, it's not all his fault. This attitude has been growing for years, but Bush has done nothing to stem the tide. Look at our holier-than-thou attitude towards foriegn policy. It's alright for us to possess nuclear weapons, but not for others. It's perfectly acceptable for us to defy the will of the United Nations, but when a country like Iraq does it, watch out. It's completely understandable for us to use our veto power over the United Nations Security Council (which we do more than any other country) but if France or Germany or Russia even hint at it, they're siding with the enemy. It's no wonder our country is regarded as arrogant. It's no wonder we are viewed as bullies and the biggest threat to world security. We have become exactly what our founding fathers were fighting so hard to be free of.

How did I get to this point in my rant from Christianity in politics? I got here because it all falls under the same heading: Selfishness. As Christians or as Americans we do not embrace the diversity that we claim to endorse. Who is responsible? A lot of people. But as they say, a fish rots from the head down. Right now, we need a new head because ours is rotten. We need a new direction. We need a fresh start. John Kerry is the right man to do this. He has promised to make America stronger at home and more respected in the world. He deserves that chance. America deserves that chance. On November 2 we have the opportunity to put America back on the right track. We can't let that chance pass us by.

Vote on November 2 and cast your vote for America. There are plenty of things we can be selfish about, but our country's future isn't one of them.

Even our hand-picked allies are now blaming us for the failures in Iraq.

Prime Minister Ayad Allawi blamed the American-led military forces on Tuesday for the weekend massacre of 49 freshly trained Iraqi soldiers, saying the military had shown "major negligence."

In a speech before the interim National Assembly, the prime minister said a committee had begun investigating the ambush, the deadliest of the guerrilla war. The assault took place Saturday night in remote eastern Iraq, as three minibuses of unarmed Iraqi soldiers were heading south on leave. Insurgents dressed as policemen waylaid the men at a fake checkpoint, killed all 49 soldiers and their three civilian drivers, mostly with shots to their heads, and burned the vehicles.

"I think there was major negligence by the multinational forces," Dr. Allawi said before the 100-member assembly. "It was a way to damage Iraq and the Iraqi people."

I can't understand this. How can anybody look at what has happened in Iraq and still think that our President is worth re-election? It's only Tuesday, and already this week we have the situation with the 380 tons (yes tons) of missing explosives, the masacre of almost 50 Iraqi forces for which we are being blamed for our negligence, and today it's revealed that the Bush administration plans to ask for yet another $70 billion in supplemental funding for Iraq raising the total to almost $225 billion (yes billion). Yet the polls are still within the margin of error.

Why is this race even close? All of the polls should look like this:

Kerry - 98%
Bush - 1% (Taking family into account)
Nader - 1%

This President continues to prove his ineptness when it comes to dealing with Iraq; which, by the way, is a war he chose to get us into. This is a war he said would be easy. This is a war in which the Vice President said we would be greeted as liberators with flowers. None of which has happened.

The fact that we still have a Presidential race worth polling is pathetic. How can anyone be so blind as to trust this administration any longer? I'm speechless.

Today the New York Times prints what is possibly the starkest example of the Bush administration's incompetence in their handling of the war in Iraq and it gets only a passing mention in the evening news. According to the Times, almost 380 tons (yes tons) of explosives are now missing from an Iraqi weapons cache.

The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives - used to demolish buildings, make missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons - are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.

The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no man's land, still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday. United Nations weapons inspectors had monitored the explosives for many years, but White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge that the explosives vanished sometime after the American-led invasion last year.

The NBC Nightly News spent a whole two minutes on this subject at the begining of their broadcast. Instead of focusing on the fact that our President, who claims he can keep us safe from terrorists, and his staff were unable or unwilling to guard 380 tons of explosives, they spent a good five minutes discussing how good President Clinton looked when he appeared with John Kerry in Philadelphia today. I admit that I was glad to see Clinton back up and around, but the shallowness of their coverage while ignoring the severity of the missing explosives was all too typical of today's misguided media.

In plain and simple terms, the Bush administration fucked up. In May of this year, the International Atomic Energy Agency sent a memo to the White House warning that terrorists might be helping themselves to "the greatest explosives bonanza in history," yet the Bush team did nothing. They continued to ignore the problem allowing these explosives to be looted and spread throughout the country and possibly the entire Middle East. These are not mere grenades or landmines, this is HMX, which stands for "high melting point explosive," and RDX, which stands for "rapid detonation explosive." These explosives are some of the most devestating available. It took less than a pound of of this type of material to bring down Pan Am Flight 103. According to Atrios, the amount of missing explosives is about 4,000 (yes 4,000) times as dangerous as the explosion that destroyed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

So I'll ask it again: Where's the outrage?

Why isn't this all over the news? Why isn't someone demanding that the Bush administration explain this? When the subject was broached today with Scott McLellan, he responded this way:

Q: The Kerry campaign is hitting you on this story in the New York Times today that a large cache of explosives have gone missing. Is there anything you could have done about that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Maybe the best way to do this is kind of walk you through how we came to be informed about this. The Iraqi Interim Government informed -- told the IAEA -- the International Atomic Energy Agency on October 10th that there were approximately 350 tons of high explosives missing from Al Qaqaa in Iraq. And they informed the IAEA because these munitions were subject to IAEA monitoring, because they were considered dual-use materials. And the International Atomic Energy Agency informed the United States mission in Vienna on October 15th about these -- this cache of explosives that was missing because of some looting that went on in Iraq toward the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom, or during and toward the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

[Did I miss it, or did he not answer the question?]

Q: When did the President find out?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I said, we were informed on October 15th. Condi Rice was informed days after that. This is all in the last, what, 10 days now.

Q: She was informed days after October 15th?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, and she informed the President. And the first priority, from our standpoint, was to make sure that this wasn't a nuclear proliferation risk, which it is not. These are conventional high explosives that we are talking about. And the President wants to make sure that we get to the bottom of this. Now, the Pentagon, upon learning of this, directed the multinational forces and the Iraqi survey group to look into this matter, and that's what they are currently doing.

Now, if you go back and look at the Duelfer report that recently has come out, according to the Duelfer report, as of mid-September, more than 243,000 tons of munitions have been destroyed since Operation Iraqi Freedom. Coalition forces have cleared and reviewed a total of 10,033 caches of munitions; another nearly 163,000 tons of munitions have been secured and are on line to be destroyed. That puts this all -- that puts this all in context.

[Actually Scott, that puts nothing in context. They're still missing and you still haven't explained why or how that happened.]

Q: Prior to the 10th, and the notification by the interim government, whose responsibility was it to keep track of these munitions, the IAEA or the multinational force in Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think you need to look at the time. I think the Department of Defense can probably answer a lot of these questions for you. But that's why I pointed out what we did to -- literally, there were munitions caches spread throughout Iraq at the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom. That's why I pointed out the large volume of munitions that have already been destroyed and the large volume that are on-line to be destroyed. The sites now are the responsibility of the Iraqi government to secure.

[Once again Scott, you're not answering the question. You're being asked who's fault it is and instead of saying that we fucked up you're giving us bullshit rhetoric.]

Q: But after Iraqi Freedom, there were those caches all around, wasn't the multinational force -- who was responsible for keeping track --

MR. McCLELLAN: At the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom there were a number of priorities. It was a priority to make sure that the oil fields were secure, so that there wasn't massive destruction of the oil fields, which we thought would occur. It was a priority to get the reconstruction office up and running. It was a priority to secure the various ministries, so that we could get those ministries working on their priorities, whether it was --

[So in other words, we were more worried about securing the oil fields than keeping our soldiers and the rest of the Middle East safe. That's about right.]

Q: So it was the multinational force's responsibility --

MR. McCLELLAN: There were a number of -- well, the coalition forces, there were a number of priorities at the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom. And munitions, as I said, were literally spread throughout the country. And we have gone in and destroyed, as I pointed out, more than 243,000 tons --

Q: Was it the coalition's responsibility to take care of that --

Q: This morning, in Senator Kerry's remarks, he calls this one of the greatest blunders in the Iraq mission and this presidency. How do you respond to that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Senator Kerry has a strategy of protest and retreat for Iraq. It is essential that we succeed in Iraq, because Iraq is critical to winning the war on terrorism. The President will talk in his remarks today about how the terrorists understand how high the stakes are in Iraq. They are doing everything they can to try to disrupt the progress we are making toward free elections in Iraq. And this is a critical difference in how the two candidates view the war on terrorism. Senator Kerry has a strategy for retreat and defeat in Iraq. The President has a strategy for success in Iraq. We are making important progress. And as I pointed out, the first priority, when it came to these munitions, was to make sure that there was not a nuclear proliferation risk. There is not a nuclear proliferation risk. We're talking about conventional explosives, when we talk about these -- and that's why I pointed out the more than 243,000 munitions that have already been destroyed, and nearly 163,000 munitions that are in the process or are awaiting to be destroyed now. So this, as I said, this was pointed out by the Iraqi Interim Government to the IAEA, and then we were informed about it just in recent days.

Q: Scott, did we just have enough troops in Iraq to guard and protect these kind of caches?

MR. McCLELLAN: See, that's -- now you just hit on what I just said a second ago, that the sites now are really -- my understanding, they're the responsibility of the Iraqi forces. And I disagree with the way you stated your question, because one of the lessons we've learned of history is that it's important to listen to the commanders on the ground and our military leaders when it comes to troop levels. And that's what this President has always done. And they've said that we have the troop levels we need to complete the mission and succeed in Iraq.

[In other words, it's not our fault. It's the fault of the Iraqis because we don't make mistakes.]

Q: But you're saying this is the responsibility of the Iraqi forces. But this was our responsibility until just recently, isn't that right? Weren't these -- there is some U.S. culpability, as far as --

MR. McCLELLAN You're trying -- I think you're taking this out of context of what was going on. This was reported missing after -- when the interim government informed that these munitions went missing some time after April 9th of 2003, remember, that was when we were still involved in major military action at that point. And there were a number of important priorities at that point. There were munitions, munition caches spread throughout Iraq. There were -- there was a concern that there would be massive refugees fleeing the country. There is concern about the devastation that could occur to the oil fields. There was concern about starvation that could happen for the Iraqi people.

So -- and obviously there is an effort to go and secure these sites. The Department of Defense can talk to you about -- because they did go in and look at this site and look to see whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction there. So you need to talk to Department of Defense, because I think that would clarify that for you and set that record straight.

Thanks Scott, that sure cleared things up. My understanding of what he just said is "It's not our fault." But in fact, these weapons were being guarded by the IAEA themselves before we invaded. So yes Scott, it most certainly is our fault.

According to the administration's spin, it's not that big of a deal, because these are just explosives not nuclear weapons. Maybe President Bush could explain how insignificant these explosives are to the families of those servicemen and women who have lost their lives in explosions while serving in Iraq. Since June, one month after the IAEA sent the memo warning the White House of the possibility of these explosives falling into the wrong hands, at least 90 American soldiers have lost their lives due to an IED or a car bombing. Many of which may have contained the exact material our government failed to secure. Those 90 deaths account for almost one-third of all American casualties during that time.

So I'll ask it one more time: Where's the outrage?

This is irrefutable evidence that our government's inneptitude has actually left us less safe than we were before we invaded Iraq. In their own words, we were more interested in Iraq's oil than we were in safeguarding the weapons and keeping our soldiers safe.

I, for one, am pissed! I can hardly wait the eight days to cast my vote to remove this incapable prick from office.

I want to apologize for the sporadic and often-times brief posts this past week. I have been extremly busy with school activities and some volunteer work. I am currently volunteering my time to assist a philanthropic organization that has donated significant sums of money to my school's fine arts programs. After this weekend, I should be free to return to my blogging responsibilities on a more regular basis.

That being said, there are a few things that I need to catch up on.

Between Windsurfing and Goose Hunting

Back in August, the Bush/Cheney campaign pounced on photographs of John Kerry windsurfing saying that it was proof that he was out-of-touch with the average American. According to them, windsurfing is a rich-kid recreation that most people can not relate to. This week, the Bush/Cheney campaign wasted no time in ridiculing Kerry about his recent hunting trip, claiming it was nothing more than a photo-op. (I know, the irony behind B/C ridiculing someone for a photo-op is staggering, but that could be a whole other post by itself.) So apparently, the message here is that Kerry is out-of-touch when he windsurfs but not genuine enough when he hunts.

I think it's time the Kerry/Edwards campaign shot back. The ad could go something like this:

(Black screen w/ voice-over)
Announcer: George Bush and Dick Cheney have criticized Senator Kerry for his choice of recreational activities.

(picture fades in)

Announcer:They have made fun of him for windsurfing.

(picture fades out)

(picture fades in)

Announcer: They have made fun of him for hunting.

(picture fades out)

Announcer: Maybe it's time we start looking a little more closely at the President's recreational habits.

(picture fades in)


Announcer: Isn't it time we had a President that can maintain some balance in his life?

John Kerry: I'm John Kerry and I approved this message.

I know, it's a little juvenile but come on, look at who we're up against here. I think it would be hysterical to listen to Hannity and his band of Dick (Cheney) sucking buddies lose their minds over this one.

The Politics of Fear

According to the Bush/Cheneyites, John Kerry has been running a campaign of fear. Silly me, I thought that telling the truth about a worsening outlook for the economy, the war in Iraq, healthcare, and deficits would be considered honest. Apparently, I'm going to have to consult my dictionary to see what fear means.

In an attempt to clear up the confusion about who is really running a campaign of fear, I would like to offer the following examples:

"The biggest threat we face now as a nation is the possibility of terrorists ending up in the middle of one of our cities with deadlier weapons than have ever before been used against us _ biological agents or a nuclear weapon or a chemical weapon of some kind to be able to threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans." - Dick Cheney

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind-set, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we're not really at war." - Dick Cheney

"So if John Kerry had been in charge, maybe the Soviet Union would still be in business." - Dick Cheney

"In 1991, John Kerry voted against sending troops to expel Saddam Hussein after he invaded Kuwait. So if John Kerry had been in charge, Saddam Hussein might well control the Persian Gulf today." - Dick Cheney

"In an increasingly dangerous world, even after the first terrorist attack on America, John Kerry and the liberals in Congress voted to slash America's intelligence budget by $6 billion. Cuts so deep they would have weakened America's defenses. And weakness attracts those who are waiting to do America harm." - dialogue from the latest Bush/Cheney campaign ad entitled "Dogs"

I think it's perfectly clear which campaign is indeed engaging in the politics of fear.

And finally....

What's the Difference?

I know this is kind of old news, but can someone please explain to me the difference between the following two photographs.



With the exception of the actual person in the photo, all I see is two politicians trying to whore out the military for a photo-op.


Only ten more days!

It's hard to help a country go from tyranny to elections to peace when there are a handful of people who are willing to kill in order to stop the process, and that's what you're seeing on the TV screens. - George W. Bush

For a while now, John Kerry has been knocking the President, saying that he's living in a "fantasy world." With the above quote in mind, this New York Times article, proves that Kerry is exactly right.

Senior American officials are beginning to assemble a new portrait of the insurgency that has continued to inflict casualties on American and Iraqi forces, showing that it has significantly more fighters and far greater financial resources than had been estimated.

When foreign fighters and the network of a Jordanian militant, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, are counted with home-grown insurgents, the hard-core resistance numbers between 8,000 and 12,000 people, a tally that swells to more than 20,000 when active sympathizers or covert accomplices are included, according to the American officials.

20,000 is a handful? That's more than all the non-U.S. "coalition" troops combined. Once again, this just proves how poorly the Bush administration planned for a post-war Iraq. It has been one failure after another.

The only word to describe this is incompetence. However, Bush will tell you that we can trust them to protect us. Protect us from what? How reliable is their information? They have continuously underestimated the situation in Iraq. Who is to say that they aren't underestimating the threat to our safety? Based on past experience, I would say there's a pretty good chance that they could be wrong. After all, look how worried they were about a terrorist attack on September 10, 2001. As I recall, the topic of the day was missile defense. Sure, they'll fall all over themselves trying to blame 9/11 on Clinton saying that he didn't do enough to combat terrorism and therefore he emboldened the enemy; but what they fail to mention is that when the Marine barracks were bombed in Beruit in the early eighties, Reagan failed to respond at all. Clinton pursued the terrorists and brought some of them to justice, while Reagan rolled over and let them get away with it. This problem was not started by Clinton, but it was definitely ignored by Bush.

How can we know that they are not currently ignoring pertinent information? They ignored the August 6th PDB titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the United States." They ignored the warnings of Richard Clark. They ignored the advice of military leaders like Gen. Zinni and others who said we would need more troops. They ignored the advice of the U.N. and other allies who urged us not to invade Iraq. It appears to me that this administration will ignore anything they choose if it is adverse to their plans. Why should they behave any differently now?

This administrtion is incompetent. It is evidenced in their handling of the hunt for Osama bin Laden. It is evidenced in their inability to secure the country of Iraq. It is evidenced in their inability to recognize the threat posed by Iran and North Korea. It is evidenced in their inability to maintain and stabilize our national economy. It is evidenced... Well, you get the picture.

George Bush has had his chance to prove that he is the right man for the job. For the last two years, the Republicans have controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House and over that time they have accomplished nothing. When you can't get things done while you control all the parts, it can only be because of incompetence.

The White House keeps claiming that Democrat obstructionists are preventing them from accomplishing their goals, but we all know the truth. George W. Bush is simply incapable of doing the job.

I attended a rally with John Edwards this evening. He's a great speaker. He spoke with no podium and no notes. Unlike someone else we know. Here's some pictures.

Go see him if you can, he's refreshing after watching Snarlin' Dick for the last four years.

Back with a new post tomorrow. Only twelve more days!

AHHHH! He's hot!

For the second time in the last two weeks, the Bush/Cheney campaign has conned the media into broadcasting one of their stump speeches by announcing that the President will be making a policy speech. Again today, the television viewer got to watch Bush stumble through his reality-challenged, fact-free campaign speech. How many times is the media going to be duped before they decide to ignore him altogether. It may have already started as CNN and Fox cut away once it was obvious that there was nothing new in today's speech. However, MSNBC broadcast it in its entirety.

Aside from the dishonesty about the premise of the speech, I think the thing that was most alarming about today's fraud was the content of the speech itself. If you're a regular reader of this blog, you know that I have been critical of Bush's speeches in the past. They are nothing but a hodge-podge of twisted quotes, empty statements, and fear. To illustrate this point, I decided to go through today's speech and color-code it to indicate the different techniques used. I have not altered the speech in any way other than to remove the parts from the transcript that indicate audience reaction. If you would like to read the entire speech with the audience reaction intact, be my guest, but I should warn you that it's pretty dry reading.

Here's how it works:

The President is fond of fear. He uses it often in his speeches by mentioning the events of and surrounding September 11, 2001. He often makes references to war, terror, terrorists, and attacks. For each of these instances where the President uses fear, I have color-coded that part of the the speech in red.

The President has made a habit of twisting the words of his opponent. He often misquotes, misleads, or takes quotes out of context and applies them to unrelated situations. For each of these instances, I have color-coded that part of the speech in blue.

Finally, the President is extemely fond of what I like to call empty language. These are statements that sound strong and decisive but really mean nothing. They are often opinions or simply statements that can't be refuted because they have no basis in fact. For each of these instances, I have color-coded that part of the speech in green.

So here it is folks. The President in all his glorious color.

Evesham Recreation Center
Marlton, New Jersey



THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you all.  Thanks for coming.  Thanks for the warm welcome.  It is great to be back in the state of New Jersey.  Oh, I know it might surprise some to see a Republican presidential candidate in New Jersey in late October.  The reason why I'm here, with your help we'll carry the state of New Jersey in November.

We are now 15 days away from a critical election.  Many important domestic issues are at stake.  I have a positive, hopeful agenda for job creation, broader health coverage and better public education.  Yet all the progress we hope to make depends on the security of our nation.  America is in the middle of a global war on terror, a struggle unlike any we have ever known before.  We face an enemy that is determined to kill the innocent and make our country into a battlefield.  In the war on terror, there is no place for confusion and no substitute for victory.  For the sake of our future and our freedom, we will fight this war with every asset of our national power, and we will prevail.

Laura sends her best.  So I asked her to marry me, she said, fine, just so long as I never have to give a political speech.  I said, okay, you got a deal.  Fortunately, she didn't hold me to that deal.  The American people -- A lot of Americans have seen her give a speech, and when they do they see a compassionate, strong, warm woman.

I'm proud to have been standing on the stage with Bernie Kerik.  He knows something about security.  He's lived security all his life.  And I want to thank him for his dedication and his service to the people of this country.

I want to thank Congressman Jim Saxton for being here today. And thank you for bringing your daughter, Jennifer. I want to thank Congressman Scott Garrett for joining us today.  Congressman, thank you.  Congressman Frank LoBiondo, thanks for coming, Frank.  And Tina.  I want to thank Congressman Chris Smith and Marie for joining us.  The Chairman of the Republican Party was born and raised in this county.  He's doing a fabulous job.  Welcome my friend, Ed Gillespie.  Thanks for coming, Ed.

I want to thank all the state senators and state House members who are here.  I want to thank the grassroots activists.  I want to thank you for what you're going to do during the next 15 days -- put up the signs, call the phones, get the people out to vote.  We're going to win the state of New Jersey and win a great victory in November.

During the decade of the 1990s, our times often seemed peaceful on the surface.  Yet, beneath that surface were currents of danger.  Terrorists were training and planning in distant camps.  In 1993, terrorists made their first attack on the World Trade Center.  In 1998, terrorists bombed American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.  And then came the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, which cost the lives of 17 American sailors.  In this period, America's response to terrorism was generally piecemeal and symbolic.  The terrorists concluded this was a sign of weakness, and their plans became more ambitions [sic], and their attacks became more deadly.

Most Americans still felt that terrorism was something distant, and something that would not strike on a large scale in America.  That is the time that my opponent wants to go back to.

A time when danger was real and growing, but we didn't know it.  A time when some thought terrorism was only a "nuisance."

But that very attitude is what blinded America to the war being waged against us.  And by not seeing the war, our government had no comprehensive strategy to fight it.  September the 11th, 2001 changed all that.  We realized that the apparent security of the 1990s was an illusion.

The people of New Jersey were among the first to understand how the world changed.  On September the 11th, from places like Hoboken and Jersey City, you could look across the Hudson River and see the Twin Towers burning.  We will never forget that day, and we will never forget our duty to defend America.

Out of the horror of that day we also saw good emerge.  America has seen a new generation of heroes -- police, firefighters, members of the military.  Americans have felt a new sense of community in neighborhoods and across our country.  We've been reminded that all of us are a part of a great American story that is larger than our individual lives.  And we have been reminded of our solemn responsibility to defend freedom.

September the 11th also changed the way we should look at national security.  But not everyone realizes it.  The choice we face in this election, the first presidential election since September the 11th, is how our nation will defeat this threat.  Will we stay on the offensive against those who want to attack us or will we take action only after we are attacked?

Will we make decisions in the light of September the 11th, or continue to live in the mirage of safety that was actually a time of gathering threats?  And in this time of choosing, I want all Americans to know you can count on me to fight our enemies and defend our freedom.

Winning the war on terror requires more than tough-sounding words repeated in the election season.  America needs clear, moral purpose and leaders who will not waver, especially in the tough times.  And winning the war on terror requires a strategy for victory.  Unlike my opponent, I understand the struggle America faces and I have a strategy to win.

Our first duty in the war on terror is to protect the homeland.  This morning at the White House, I signed a strong law that will make our nation more secure.  With the 2005 Homeland Security Appropriations Act, we are providing essential funding for Coast Guard patrols and port security, for the Federal Air Marshal program, and for technology that will defend aircraft against missiles.  We're adding new resources to patrol our borders and to verify the identity of foreign visitors to America.  We need to know who's coming in and out of our country.

The new law includes vital money for first responders, and for better security of chemical facilities and nuclear plants and water treatment plants and bridges and subways and tunnels.  All these measures show the unwavering commitment of our government.  We will do everything in our power to protect the American people.

The law I signed today is part of a broad effort to defend America against new dangers.  After September the 11th we created the Department of Homeland Security to make sure our government agencies are working together.  We're transforming the FBI into an agency whose primary focus is stopping terrorism.  Through Project BioShield, we are developing new vaccines and treatments against biological attacks.  We've trained more than a half million first responders across America.

To protect America, we passed the Patriot Act, giving law enforcement many of the same tools to fight terrorists that they already had to fight drug cartels and organized crime.  Since September the 11th, law enforcement professionals have stopped terrorist activities in Columbus, Ohio; San Diego, California; Portland, Oregon; Seattle, Washington; Buffalo, New York and other places, including New Jersey, where we apprehended an arms dealer who was allegedly trying to sell shoulder-fired missiles to terrorists.

My opponent voted for the Patriot Act, but now he wants to weaken it. There are plenty of safeguards in this law, making sure that civil liberties are protected and searches are authorized by court order.  By seeking to dilute the Patriot Act, my opponent is taking the eye off the ball.  The danger to America is not the Patriot Act, or the good people who use it; the danger to America is the terrorists.  And we will not let up in this fight.

To protect America, our country needs the best possible intelligence. Chairman Tom Kean and other members and other members of the September the 11th Commission made thoughtful and valuable recommendations on intelligence reform.  We are already implementing the vast majority of those recommendations that can be enacted without a vote of Congress.  We're expanding and strengthening the capabilities of the CIA.  We've established the Terrorist Threat Integration Center so we can bring together all the available intelligence on terrorist threats to one place.  But other changes require new laws.  Congress needs to create the position of the National Intelligence Director and take other measure to make our intelligence community more effective.  These reforms are necessary to stay ahead of the threats.  I urge Congress to act quickly, so I can sign them into law.

My opponent has taken a different approach, and it shows in his record.  Just one year after the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, Senator Kerry proposed a $6 billion cut in the nation's intelligence budget.

But the majority of his colleagues ignored his irresponsible proposal.  In 1995, he tried to cut intelligence funding again -- and this time he could not get a single member of the United States Senate to support his bill.  And that's an important difference between us.  Senator Kerry has a record of trying to weaken American intelligence.  I am working every day to strengthen American intelligence.

In a free and open society, it is impossible to protect against every threat.  So, second, we must pursue a comprehensive strategy against terror.  The best way to prevent attacks is to stay on the offense against the enemy overseas.  We are waging a global campaign from the mountains of Central Asia to the deserts of the Middle East, and from the Horn of Africa to the Philippines.  These efforts are paying off.  Since September the 11th, 2001, more than three-quarters of al Qaeda's key members and associates have been brought to justice.  The rest of them know we're coming after them.

After September the 11th, we set a new direction for American policy and enforced a doctrine that is clear to all:  If you support or harbor terrorists, you're equally guilty of terrorist murder.  We've destroyed the terror camps that train thousands of killers in Afghanistan. We removed the Taliban from power.  We have persuaded governments in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to recognize the enemy and join the fight.  We ended the regime of Saddam Hussein, which sponsored terror. Iraq's new government under Prime Minister Allawi is hunting down terrorists in Iraq.

We sent a message to Libya, which has now given up weapons of mass destruction programs and handed nuclear materials and equipment over to the United States.  (Applause.)  We have acted, through diplomacy and force, to shrink the area where the terrorists can operate freely, and that strategy has the terrorists on the run.

My opponent has a fundamental misunderstanding on the war on terror. A reporter recently asked Senator Kerry how September the 11th changed him. He replied, "It didn't change me much at all."

His unchanged world view is obvious from the policies he still advocates.  He has said this war is "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation."  He has declared, we should not respond to threats until they are -- quote -- "imminent."  He has complained that my administration -- quote -- "relies unwisely on the threat of military preemption against terrorist organizations."  Let me repeat that.  He says that preemptive action is "unwise," not only against regimes, but even against terrorist organizations.

Senator Kerry's approach would permit a response only after America is hit.

This kind of September the 10th attitude is no way to protect our country.  (Applause.)  The war on terror is a real war, with deadly enemies, not simply a police operation.  In an era of weapons of mass destruction, waiting for threats to arrive at our doorsteps is to invite disaster.  Tyrants and terrorists will not give us polite notice before they attack our country.  As long as I'm the Commander-in-Chief, I will confront dangers abroad so we do not have to face them here at home.

The case of one terrorist shows what is at stake.  The terrorist leader we face in Iraq today, the one responsible for beheading American hostages, the one responsible for many of the car bombings and attacks against Iraq is a man named Zarqawi.  Before September the 11th, Zarqawi ran a camp in Afghanistan that trained terrorists in the use of explosives and poisons, until coalition forces destroyed that camp.  He fled to Saddam Hussein's Iraq, where he received medical care and set up operations with some two dozen terrorist associates.  He operated in Baghdad and worked with associates in northern Iraq, who ran camps to train terrorists, and conducted chemical and biological experiments, until coalition forces arrived and ended those operations.  With nowhere to operate openly, Zarqawi has gone underground and is making a stand in Iraq.

Here, the difference between my opponent and me is very clear. Senator Kerry believes that fighting Zarqawi and other terrorists in Iraq is a "diversion" from the war on terror.  I believe that fighting and defeating these killers in Iraq is a central commitment in the war on terror.

If Zarqawi and his associates were not busy fighting American forces in Iraq, does Senator Kerry think they would be leading productive and peaceful lives?  Clearly, these killers would be plotting and acting to murder innocent civilians in free nations, including our own.  By facing these terrorists far away, our military is making the United States of America more secure. 

Third, to win the war on terror, America must work with allies and lead the world with clarity.  And that is exactly what we are doing.  The flags of 64 nations fly at U.S. Central Command Headquarters in Tampa, Florida, representing coalition countries that are working openly with us in the war on terror.  Dozens more are helping quietly in important ways.  Today, all 26 NATO nations have personnel either in Iraq, Afghanistan, or both.  America's allies are standing with us in the war on terror, and we are grateful.

My opponent promises that he would do better with our allies.  Yet, he's decided that the way to build alliances is to insult our friends.  As a candidate for President, Senator Kerry has managed to offend or alienate almost every one of America's fighting allies in the war on terror.  He has called the countries serving alongside us in Iraq -- quote -- "a trumped-up ... coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought, and the extorted."

He has dismissed the sacrifice of 14 nations that have lost forces in Iraq, calling those nations "window dressing."  In our debate a few weeks ago, he declared, "when we went in [to Iraq], there were three countries -- Great Britain, Australia, and the United States."  He left out Poland, one of the first countries to see combat on the first days of hostilities in Iraq.  He never shows respect for some of the 30 nations that are serving courageously in Iraq today. 

Senator Kerry even has disregarded the contributions of Iraqis who are fighting for their freedom.  When he speaks of coalition casualties in Iraq, he doesn't count the hundreds of Iraqis who have given their lives fighting the terrorists and the insurgents.  When Iraq's Prime Minister came to Washington to address Congress last month, Senator Kerry did not show up.  Instead, he called a press conference and questioned the Prime Minister's credibility.  The Prime Minister of Iraq is a brave man, who survived the assassins of Saddam.  The Prime Minister of Iraq deserves the respect of the world, not the scorn of a politician.

As part of his foreign policy, Senator Kerry has talked about applying a "global test."

As far as I can tell, it comes down to this:  Before we act to defend ourselves, he thinks we need permission from foreign capitals.

Yet, even the Gulf War coalition in 1991 did not pass Senator Kerry's global test.  Even with the United Nations' approval, he voted against removing Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.

If that vast, U.N.-supported operation did not pass his test, nothing ever could.  Senator Kerry's global test is nothing more than an excuse to constrain the actions of our own country in a dangerous world.

I believe in strong alliances.  I believe in respecting other countries and working with them and seeking their advice. But I will never submit our national security decisions to a veto of a foreign government.

Fourth -- fourth, we will win the war on terror and make America safer by advancing the cause of freedom and democracy.  Free societies are hopeful societies, which do not nurture bitterness, or the ideologies of terror and murder.  Free governments in the broader Middle East will fight the terrorists, instead of harboring them.  And this is why a free Iraq and a free Afghanistan are vital to peace in that region, and vital to the security interests of our country.

After decades of tyranny in the broader Middle East, progress toward freedom will not come easily.  Yet, that progress is coming faster than many would have said possible.  Across a troubled region, we are seeing a movement toward elections, greater rights for women, and open discussion of peaceful reform.  The election in Afghanistan less than two weeks ago was a landmark event in the history of liberty.  That election was a tremendous defeat for the terrorists.

My opponent has complained that we are trying to -- quote -- "impose" democracy on people in that region.  Is that what he sees in Afghanistan, unwilling people have democracy forced upon them?  We removed the Taliban by force, but democracy is rising in that country because the Afghan people, like everywhere, want to live in freedom.

No one forced them to register by the millions, or stand in long lines at polling places.  On the day of that historic election, an Afghan widow brought all four of her daughters to vote alongside her. She said this -- she said, "When you see women here lined up to vote, this is something profound ... I never dreamed ... this day would come."  But that woman's dream finally arrived, as it will one day across the greater Middle East.  Thank you.

The dream of freedom is moving forward in Iraq.  The terrorists know it, and they hate it, and they fight it.  And we can expect more violence as Iraq moves toward free elections.  Yet, every day in Iraq, our coalition is defeating the enemy's strategic objectives.  The enemy seeks to disrupt the march toward democracy.  But an Iraqi independent electoral commission is up and running, political parties are planning campaigns, voter registration will begin next month -- and free and fair Iraqi elections will be held on schedule this coming January.

The enemy seeks to establish sanctuaries in Iraq from which to commit acts of terror.  But Iraqi and coalition forces are on the offensive in Fallujah and North Babil, and have restored government control in Samarra, Tall Afar, and Najaf.  The enemy wants to make Iraqis afraid to join security forces.  But every week, more and more Iraqis answer the call to arms.  More than 100,000 soldiers, police and border guards are already trained, equipped and bravely serving their country.  And well over 200,000 will be in place by the end of 2005.  The enemy seeks to break the will of the Iraqi people.  But as Prime Minister Allawi told the Congress, Iraqis are hopeful, optimistic and determined to prevail in their struggle for liberty. 

After the enemy has failed in so many goals, what can these killers do now?  They can fill up our TV screens with horrible images of suicide bombings and beheadings.  These scenes are chaotic and horrific, but they're not a complete picture of what's happening in Iraq.  A recent poll found that more than 75 percent of Iraqis want to vote, and they have confidence in the electoral progress.  And more than 75 percent are hopeful about the future of their country.  The violent acts of a few will not divert Iraqis and our coalition from the mission we have accepted.  Iraq will be free, Iraqis will be secure and the terrorists will fail.

My opponent has a different outlook.  While America does the hard work of fighting terror and spreading freedom, he has chosen the easy path of protest and defeatism.  He refuses to acknowledge progress, or praise the growing democratic spirit in Iraq.  He has not made democracy a priority of his foreign policy.  But what is his strategy, his vision, his answer?  Is he content to watch and wait, as anger and resentment grow for more decades in the Middle East, feeding more terrorism until radicals without conscience gain the weapons to kill without limit?  Giving up the fight might seem easier in the short run, but we learned on September the 11th that if violence and fanaticism are not opposed at their source, they will find us where we live.  America is safer today because Afghanistan and Iraq are fighting terrorists instead of harboring them.  And I believe future generations of Americans will be spared violence and fear as democracy and hope and governments that oppose terror multiply across the Middle East.

Victory in the war on terror requires victory in Iraq.  If a terror regime were allowed to re-emerge in Iraq, the terrorists would find a home, a source of funding and vital support.  They would correctly conclude that free nations do not have the will to defend themselves.  When Iraq becomes a free society at the heart of the Middle East, an ally in the war on terror, and a model for hopeful reform in a region that needs hopeful reform, the terrorists will suffer a crushing defeat and every free nation will be more secure.

Unfortunately, Senator Kerry does not share our commitment to victory in Iraq.  For three years -- depending on the headlines, the poll numbers and political calculation -- he has taken almost every conceivable position on Iraq.

First, he said Saddam Hussein was a threat, and he voted for the war.  Then he voted against funds for bullets and body armor for the troops he had voted to send into battle.

He declared himself an anti-war candidate.  Months later he said that knowing everything we know now, he would have still voted for the war.  Then he said the war was a "mistake," an "error," or "diversion."  Having gone back and forth so many times, the Senator from Massachusetts has now flip-flopped his way to a dangerous position.  My opponent -- my opponent finally has settled on a strategy, a strategy of retreat.

He has talked about artificial timetables to pull our troops out of Iraq.  He has sent the signal that America's overriding goal in Iraq would be to leave, even if the job is not done.

And that approach would lead to a major defeat in the war on terror.  So long as I'm the Commander-in-Chief, America will never retreat in the face of the terrorists.  Thank you.

We will -- we will keep our word to the Iraqi people.  We'll make sure Iraqi forces can defend their country.  And then American troops will return home, with the honor they have earned.

On each of the four commitments needed to prevail in the war on terror, there is a clear choice before the American people.  My opponent wants to weaken the Patriot Act, and has a history of trying to undermine our intelligence services.  I will take every necessary measure to protect the homeland.  The Senator wants to wage the war on terror on the defensive.  I will take the fight to the enemy.  The Senator insults our friends in the world and wants to please a few critics. I'm working with our friends for the sake of freedom and security. The Senator is skeptical and pessimistic about democracy in Iraq, and critical of our efforts in the broader Middle East.  I know that the advance of freedom is the path to security and peace.

In all these areas, my opponent's views would make America less secure and the world more dangerous.  And none of these positions should come as a surprise.  Over a 20-year career in the United States Senate, Senator Kerry has been consistently wrong on the major national security issues facing our country.  The Senator who voted against the $87 billion for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq is the same Senator who has voted against vital weapons systems during his entire career.  He tried to cancel the Patriot missile, which shot down scud missiles in Operation Desert Storm.  He opposed the B-1 bomber, which was critical to victory in the Afghan campaign.  He opposed the B-2 stealth bomber, which delivered devastating air strikes on Taliban positions.  He opposed the modernized F-14D, which we used against terrorists in Tora Bora.  He opposed the Apache helicopter, which destroyed enemy tanks and anti-aircraft missile launchers in Iraq.



The Senator who is skeptical of democracy in Iraq also spoke with sympathy for a communist dictator in Nicaragua in the 1980s, and criticized the democracy movement as "terrorism."  His misguided policies would have impeded the spread of freedom in Central America.  The Senator who claims the world is more dangerous since America started fighting the war on terror is the same Senator who said that Ronald Reagan's policies of peace through strength actually made America less safe.

The same Senator who said the Reagan presidency was eight years of "moral darkness" --

In this campaign, Senator Kerry can run from his record, but he cannot hide.  (Applause.)  Thank you.

The Senator's long record shows a clear pattern on national security. He has consistently opposed a stronger military.  He has consistently looked for excuses to constrain American power.  He has consistently shown poor judgment on the great issues of war and peace.  When one senator among a hundred holds a policy of weakness, it doesn't make a lot of difference. But the presidency is an office of great responsibility and consequence.

I have a record in office, as well.  And all Americans have seen that record.  September the [1]4th, 2001, I stood in the ruins of the Twin Towers. It's a day I will never forget.  Bernie might remember the workers in hard hats that were yelling at me and yelling at us, "Whatever it takes."  A man grabbed me by the arm, just coming out of the rubble and he said, "Do not let me down."  I have a responsibility that goes on.  I wake up every morning thinking about how to make our country more secure.  I acted again and again to protect the American people.  I will never relent in defending our country, whatever it takes. 

In a new term -- In a new term as your President, we will finish the work we have started.  We will stand up for terror -- we will stand up for freedom.  And on November the 2nd, my fellow Americans, I ask that you stand with me.  God bless.  Thank you all.

Consider the parts of the speech that are uncolored to be either unnecessary bullshit, recycled stories, or based upon questionable facts.

Quite a President we got here. I can't wait to hear his concession speech.

Like a lot of people, I've been following the story of those soldiers in Iraq that refused to carry out an ordered supply mission. Eighteen soldiers from the 13th Coscom's 343rd Quartermaster Company refused to drive a dangerous delivery route outside of their normal delivery area because their trucks were still not armored. While reading this article, I was struck by one statement in particular:

None of the 13th Coscom's trucks arrived in Iraq with armor. Since February, the unit's engineers and private contractors have been working in impromptu maintenance yards to weld heavy metal "boxes" over truck cabs.

All of this begs the question, why weren't they armored when they arrived? Instead of simply repeating the Bush meme of "John Kerry voted against the $87 billion to provide necessary armor and equipment for the troops," maybe someone in the media could ask President Bush why they were sent there without the armor in the first place. If it was so damn necessary that the Senate approve the money, why didn't we wait until the money was approved before we invaded? If the armor was so necessary, why wasn't it avilable before the invasion?

If this question has already been asked, please point me to the answer. If it hasn't, what the hell are we waiting for?

The feigned outrage of the Republican party over John Kerry's remarks about Vice President Cheney's daughter during the third and final debate is laughable at best. To be clear, this is the exchange in question:

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, let's get back to economic issues. But let's shift to some other questions here.

Both of you are opposed to gay marriage. But to understand how you have come to that conclusion, I want to ask you a more basic question.

Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?

BUSH: You know, Bob, I don't know. I just don't know. I do know that we have a choice to make in America and that is to treat people with tolerance and respect and dignity. It's important that we do that.

And I also know in a free society people, consenting adults can live the way they want to live.

And that's to be honored.

But as we respect someone's rights, and as we profess tolerance, we shouldn't change -- or have to change -- our basic views on the sanctity of marriage.

I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I think it's very important that we protect marriage as an institution, between a man and a woman.

I proposed a constitutional amendment. The reason I did so was because I was worried that activist judges are actually defining the definition of marriage, and the surest way to protect marriage between a man and woman is to amend the Constitution.

It has also the benefit of allowing citizens to participate in the process. After all, when you amend the Constitution, state legislatures must participate in the ratification of the Constitution.

I'm deeply concerned that judges are making those decisions and not the citizenry of the United States. You know, Congress passed a law called DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act.

My opponent was against it. It basically protected states from the action of one state to another. It also defined marriage as between a man and woman.

But I'm concerned that that will get overturned. And if it gets overturned, then we'll end up with marriage being defined by courts, and I don't think that's in our nation's interests.

SCHIEFFER: Sen. Kerry?

KERRY: We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as.

I think if you talk to anybody, it's not choice. I've met people who struggled with this for years, people who were in a marriage because they were living a sort of convention, and they struggled with it.

And I've met wives who are supportive of their husbands or vice versa when they finally sort of broke out and allowed themselves to live who they were, who they felt God had made them.

I think we have to respect that.

The president and I share the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. I believe that. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

But I also believe that because we are the United States of America, we're a country with a great, unbelievable Constitution, with rights that we afford people, that you can't discriminate in the workplace. You can't discriminate in the rights that you afford people.

You can't disallow someone the right to visit their partner in a hospital. You have to allow people to transfer property, which is why I'm for partnership rights and so forth.

Now, with respect to DOMA and the marriage laws, the states have always been able to manage those laws. And they're proving today, every state, that they can manage them adequately.

I fail to see anything that should cause offense in this statement. Had the question been about education, would we be seeing the same outrage if John Kerry had used Jenna Bush as an example? After all, she's planning to be a teacher. The answer is, no we wouldn't. The crux of the issue here is that John Kerry pointed out that Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian, something Cheney himself has done many times on the campaign trail, and the Republicans don't want their religio-crazy base to be reminded of that. Had Kerry done something truly offensive like call her a dyke during the debate, I could understand the anger, but he didn't do that. He called her what she is, a lesbian.

A little over six weeks ago, Illinois Senate Candidate Alan Keyes made some truly troubling comments concerning the Vice President's daughter when he said that she was a sinner practicing "selfish hedonism."

After saying homosexuality is "selfish hedonism," Keyes was asked if that made Mary Cheney "a selfish hedonist."

"Of course she is," Keyes replied. "That goes by definition."

Certainly the Vice President and his family were upset about these comments, but I don't recall hearing about it on the nightly news three days later. Where was all of the outrage then? Where was Lynne Cheney saying that Alan Keyes was "not a good man?" Where was snarling Dick saying that he was an "angry father?" The fact of the matter is, being upset at Keyes for some truly disparraging remarks didn't have the same political value as being upset at Kerry for some open and honest comments. When it can benefit them politically, anything is fair game to the Republicans including the sexual preference and reputation of a family member.

Last night on HBO's Real Time With Bill Maher, Rep. Jim Rogan (R-CA) claimed that the Kerry campaign was using Mary Cheney as a political football. He qualified this remark by saying that John Edwards had brought up her up in the VP debate and now Kerry in the last Presidential debate. As I recall, Dick Cheney said thank you to John Edwards for his statement about Mary Cheney, so I don't see an issue there; and John Kerry was citing her as a person the President is familiar with who disagrees with his point of view. Once again, I don't see where the outrage is coming from.

Obviously, this is a diversion. The Bush campaign is hoping to divert attention from the President's poor performance in the debates. They are trying to create a stir about Kerry's comments so the media won't report that Kerry swept all three debates, Iraq is falling into chaos, allies are leaving the coalition, the economy and the job market are going in the tank, the deficit is growing, and the President has absolutely no plan to fix any of this. If anyone is using Mary Cheney as a political football, it's the Bush/Cheney campaign. Cheney can use her to say that he has a gay daughter and therefore he doesn't support a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage, while the President continues to come out in support of it to keep the evangelicals content and on his side. They're using her to play both sides of the issue. I hope they look back on this and are ashamed of the way they've used her private life for their own political gain.

Funniest part of this whole story is that I haven't heard a single word from Mary Cheney. Apparently she's too distraught over being a political football.

I've got a lot of shit happening right now and I am therefore forced to take a couple of days off. So, no post today or tomorrow, but I hope to be back on Saturday night to get caught up. Have a good weekend and I'll see you Saturday.

Unfortunately, that statement was made by our President in reference to fiscal irresponsibility, saying he would only break his promise of budgetary balance in the case of war, recession, or emergency. But I think it applies aptly to John Kerry this evening. As I sit here after the third and final debate, I can't help but feel satisfied that John Kerry has won all three. He was more articulate, better informed, more emotionally composed, and more straight forward than President Bush. It has become clear over the last three weeks that George W. Bush is the intellectual equivalent of a Kleenex in a flood: completely overmatched.

I'm always amused by the spin afterwards. Joe Scarborough said that John Kerry may have won in the eyes of the Yale debate coaches but George Bush spoke to the American people. Apparently the American people speak a different language than I do. I found Bush's answers to be rambling at times, erratic at best, and incoherent at worst. If he was in a position where he wasn't able to talk his way out of something he returned to education. Time and time again he returned to education as the fix for everything. As a teacher, I believe that education is one of the most important things in a person's life, but it doesn't answer the question "what would you say to a worker who has lost his job overseas." Education was Bush'a safety-net tonight. He spent a lot of time falling back into that net.

Along the lines of spin, Rudy Giulliani said that George Bush won over a lot of undecideds with tonight's performance. WTF? Apparently Rudy's line of thought is that undecided voters are going to say "well, I don't have a clue who I'm going to vote for and the President doesn't have a clue of what he's going to do, so I'm voting for him because together we are both clueless." WTF? What is it about the President's performance that would sway an undecided? He was only appealing to his base. Bush spouted conservative talking points all night long. It's the same thing we've been hearing and seeing for four years. If you're not convinced by the last four years, what are you waiting for? It's not going to get any better. It won't be any different in a second term. Bush had his chance, failed to deliver, ran our country's economy and reputation into the ground, and now he wants to be re-hired. He has failed and does not deserve a second chance.

One of my favorite moments of the night came when the debate turned to Pell Grants. Bush claimed that his administration had increased Pell Grants by a million students. Kerry responded beautifully by saying:

[...] you know why the Pell Grants have gone up in their numbers? Because more people qualify for them because they don't have money.

But they're not getting the $5,100 the president promised them. They're getting less money.

We have more people who qualify. That's not what we want.

What a great response. And how did Bush respond? By changing the subject to tax cuts. In other words: I can't refute what he's saying so hey everybody, look over here. Pay no attention to the facts behind the curtain.

And what about homosexuality being a choice issue? The President doesn't know? The MSNBC panel said that Kerry's response invoking Dick Cheney's daughter was a low blow. I, however, think it was perfectly within bounds. Cheney's daughter is a homosexual that Bush is presumably acquaited with. Does he think that she made a choice to be a lesbian? This isn't a porn movie where women choose to do bi because it pays the bills, this is real life. Homosexuals don't choose their sexual preference. It's a scientific fact, George. You might want to look into it.

Tomorrow morning I expect that we will see the video clip of Bush saying "Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations," (deliberately stretch out and enunciate the word exaggeration) followed immediately by a video clip of the President saying just that. Just like it did with Cheney saying he had never met John Edwards, the video will prove that George W. Bush is a liar. But we've all known that for quite some time.

What it comes down to here folks is that John Kerry has embarassed our President. He has made him look confused, frustrated, furious, and out of touch. George Bush has no explanations for his failed past and no plan for the country's future. Four more years under his leadership would be a disaster. John Kerry is clearly the better choice to lead our country into the future. On November 2, John Kerry is clearly the right choice for our next President.

Last Monday Paul Bremer, the former U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq, stated that the troop levels in Iraq were insufficient to do the job.

The former U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq says the United States "paid a big price" for not having enough troops on the ground after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime.

L. Paul Bremer, speaking Monday at an insurance conference in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, said "horrid" looting was occurring when he arrived to head the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad on May 6, 2003.

"We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," Bremer said. "We never had enough troops on the ground."

Of course the White House disagreed and Bremer immediately tried to take back his statement. However, today we found out that Bremer was exactly right.

The senior adviser to Iraq's Interior Ministry blamed U.S. forces Tuesday for not securing facilities where the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency says equipment that could be used to make nuclear weapons has vanished.

U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, playing down the International Atomic Energy Agency's concerns, said U.S.-led coalition forces "did move quickly" to secure the so-called dual-use equipment after invading Iraq in March 2003.

"I think we share the general concern that some material might have gotten out [during the mass looting that took place] immediately after the war, but it has been brought under control," Boucher told reporters in Washington.

George Bush continues to claim that he is the candidate to keep us safe. Yet it was his administration that ignored the advice of former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki who said that "several hundred thousand troops" would be necessary to secure a post-war Iraq. An increased troop level may have possibly prevented the widespread looting that led to the disappearance of the nuclear equipment. It was also Bush's administration that ignored the advice of former military leaders like General Anthony Zinni, former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, and former NATO Commander Wesley Clark; all of whom expressed doubts about the invasion. At almost every turn, the Bush administration ignored the advice of qualified military personel and rushed unprepared into an unnecessary war.

During the 2000 campaign there was a lot of talk about George W. Bush's intelligence (or lack of). However, we were told that we shouldn't worry because he would surround himself with "good people." Well it's these "good people" that have put us into this mess. People like Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, and others have incompetently led us into a war of choice that is spinning out of control. If these are Bush's "good people," I'd sure hate to see the list of people he rejected for his cabinet.

National Security is one of the prominent issues in this year's election. How can we be expected to trust a person who isn't smart enough to guard the facilities that were supposed to be the main reason for our invasion. If we are really trying to prevent the spread of WMD, I would think that the first thing we would do upon toppling the regime would be to secure the material we don't want the terrorists to obtain. The only way to describe this administration's handling of the situation is Iraq is to call it incompetent. Had any other country perpetrated such an inept invasion of Iraq, they would be the laughing stock of the world. Fortunately for us, our president and our media are too stupid to realize that and have in turn saved us the shame of knowing how the rest of the world is mocking us.

I guess we can thank George for that.

For years we have heard about the "liberal bias" in the media. The premise is that broadcasters and journalists are slanted toward the left and are therefore more inclined to report on an issue if it makes the left look better or the right look worse. Those that ascribe to Rush Limbaugh and the like are convinced that the media is part of some "left-wing conspiracy" to denigrate the conservatives, destroy America, and abolish organized religion. What I find to be the most interesting part of their argument is that the media outlets they have labeled as "liberal" are commonly labeled by those of us on the left as being too "conservative." For instance, both sides are convinced of the opposing skew of the New York Times, The Washington Post, and even CNN. As a liberal, I see all three of these outlets leaning to the right, while the conservatives are complaining of their slant to the left.

Over the weekend, it has become more apparent to me that there really is no "liberal bias," but a strong anti-liberal bias. With the constant accusations from the right, I believe that the media has tried too hard to appease their critics, thus overcompensating on the side of conservatism. Take for instance the MSNBC coverage of last weeks two debates. After the Vice Presidential debate on Tuesday, the panel on Hardball practically fell all over themselves to call the debate for Dick Cheney despite opinion polls showing differently. After Hours host Joe Scarborough even went so far as to crumple a piece of paper containing the results from a CBS poll that showed John Edwards as the winner refusing to acknowledge its findings. Then on Friday, the Hardball panel consisted of Andrea Mitchell (supposed to be impartial despite being married to Alan Greenspan who thinks Bush's tax cuts are working), Ron Reagan (an Independent), Ben Ginsberg (Republican Election Lawyer), and Patrick Buchanan (conservative extraordinaire). This is a panel? This isn't a panel, this is Conservative convention.

Furthermore, I have to criticize MSNBC and factcheck.org for their so-called fact-checking. After Friday night's debate, Brian Williams claimed that John Kerry was incorrect when he claimed that George Bush had under-funded the No Child Left Behind Act. Williams claimed that although it had not been funded to the maximum level as approved by congress, that it was incorrect to claim that the underfunding was detrimental to the law. Factcheck.org made the following claim:

What Kerry is referring to is an often-repeated Democratic charge that Bush broke a "promise" to fund the law at the maximum Congress allowed, or authorized. Though Kerry said Bush's funding falls short of that maximum by $28 billion the figure usually given by Bush critics is 27 billion. And actually, Bush made no such promise. What he did promise was to "provide the resources necessary." Many state officials and education experts do argue that even more funds are needed to provide resources necessary to meet the ambitious goals and standards set by the No Child Left Behind Act. Still, what's "necessary" is a matter of opinion.

As an educator, I take issue with this claim. The No Child Left Behind Act has been underfunded to such a degree that individual states are now forced to make cuts in their education budgets in order to allocate more funds to keep themselves in compliance with the NCLB standards. Were the act funded at the higher level, the states wouldn't have to use their own money and could then avoid making cuts. This may seem a little nitpicky, but John Kerry is absolutely correct when he says that the NCLB Act has been underfunded. This lack of sufficient funding has pushed the burden onto the states and has had an inverse effect on the educational progress of many states and schools. This inaccurate claim by MSNBC and factcheck.org makes it appear as if John Kerry's fudging the truth when in fact he is not.

Finally, on to the big story of the weekend. The Sinclair Broadcast Group, owner of the largest chain of television outlets in the country, plans to run an anti-Kerry "documentary" called Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal that accuses John Kerry of betraying Vietnam Veterans and POWs with his 1971 testimony to congress. The broadcasting giant has sent a memo to its sixty-two stations ordering them to air the program without commercials during the prime-time viewing hours next week. This is the same broadcasting company that forbade its ABC affiliates from broadcasting the edition of Nightline during which the names of the soldiers killed in Iraq would be read upon the air. Thankfully, the DNC has filed a claim with the FEC trying to block the airing of the program. (If this doesn't convince naysayers of an "anti-liberal bias," maybe the fact that executives from Sinclair have given over $65,000 to Republican groups will.)

As an American citizen, I find it abhorant that a media outlet would do something like this. Seeing as how many of the Sinclair affiliates are in so-called swing states, this is an obvious attempt to influence voter opinion of a candidate. Therefore I urge everyone to contact the Sinclair Group and demand that they either refrain from showing the "documentary" or they allow for equal time and show Fahrenheit 9/11 the following evening during their prime time hours. You can see if your local affiliate is a member of the Sinclair Group here. If they are, send them a letter or e-mail as well demanding equal time.

You may send an e-mail to Sinclair Broadcasting here.

Or, if you're more ambitious, you can send an e-mail to all of their executives by clicking here. Please remember to be polite.

I would also like to encourage you to write to your local newspapers and call into your local radio stations as well. The more people hear about this, the more likely we are to make a difference. We can not let the anti-liberal media control the opinions of our country and its constituents. If that were to happen, then all that this country stands for is lost.