Too Many Reasons

Catastrophic Success

The worse Iraq gets, the more we must be winning.
By William Saletan, Tuesday, Sept. 28, 2004

In 1999, George W. Bush said we needed to cut taxes because the economy was doing so well that the U.S. Treasury was taking in too much money, and we could afford to give some back to the people who earned it. In 2001, Bush said we needed the same tax cuts because the economy was doing poorly, and we had to return the money so that people would spend and invest it.

Bush's arguments made the wisdom of cutting taxes unfalsifiable. In good times, tax cuts were affordable. In bad times, they were necessary. Whatever happened proved that tax cuts were good policy. When Congress approved the tax cuts, Bush said they would revive the economy. You'd know that the tax cuts had worked, because more people would be working. Three years later, more people aren't working. But in Bush's view, that, too, proves he was right. If more people aren't working, we just need more tax cuts.

Now Bush is playing the same game in postwar Iraq. When violence there was subsiding, he said it proved he was on the right track. Now violence is increasing, and Bush says this, too, proves he's on the right track.

On July 23, 2003, three months into the occupation, Bush scoffed that Iraqi insurgents were confined to "a few areas of the country. And wherever they operate, they are being hunted, and they will be defeated. ... Now, more than ever, all Iraqis can know that the former regime is gone and will not be coming back." A week later, he assured reporters, "Conditions in most of Iraq are growing more peaceful. ... As the blanket of fear is lifted, as Iraqis gain confidence that the former regime is gone forever, we will gain more cooperation." Bush warned that failure to stick with his policies "would only invite further and bolder attacks."

A year later, the insurgents are not defeated, conditions are not more peaceful, the blanket of fear is spreading, cooperation is fraying, and attacks on U.S. personnel are growing bolder. Does this prove Bush is failing? No. It proves he's succeeding.

READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE AT:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2107383/

The Unfeeling President

By E.L. Doctorow

I fault this president for not knowing what death is. He does not suffer the death of our 21-year-olds who wanted to be what they could be. On the eve of D-Day in 1944 General Eisenhower prayed to God for the lives of the young soldiers he knew were going to die. He knew what death was. Even in a justifiable war, a war not of choice but of necessity, a war of survival, the cost was almost more than Eisenhower could bear.

But this president does not know what death is. He hasn't the mind for it. You see him joking with the press, peering under the table for the weapons of mass destruction he can't seem to find, you see him at rallies strutting up to the stage in shirt sleeves to the roar of the carefully screened crowd, smiling and waving, triumphal, a he-man.

He does not mourn. He doesn't understand why he should mourn. He is satisfied during the course of a speech written for him to look solemn for a moment and speak of the brave young Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

But you study him, you look into his eyes and know he dissembles an emotion which he does not feel in the depths of his being because he has no capacity for it. He does not feel a personal responsibility for the 1,000 dead young men and women who wanted to be what they could be.

They come to his desk not as youngsters with mothers and fathers or wives and children who will suffer to the end of their days a terribly torn fabric of familial relationships and the inconsolable remembrance of aborted life . . . they come to his desk as a political liability, which is why the press is not permitted to photograph the arrival of their coffins from Iraq.

How then can he mourn? To mourn is to express regret and he regrets nothing. He does not regret that his reason for going to war was, as he knew, unsubstantiated by the facts. He does not regret that his bungled plan for the war's aftermath has made of his mission-accomplished a disaster. He does not regret that, rather than controlling terrorism, his war in Iraq has licensed it. So he never mourns for the dead and crippled youngsters who have fought this war of his choice.

He wanted to go to war and he did. He had not the mind to perceive the costs of war, or to listen to those who knew those costs. He did not understand that you do not go to war when it is one of the options but when it is the only option; you go not because you want to but because you have to.

Yet this president knew it would be difficult for Americans not to cheer the overthrow of a foreign dictator. He knew that much. This president and his supporters would seem to have a mind for only one thing -- to take power, to remain in power, and to use that power for the sake of themselves and their friends.

A war will do that as well as anything. You become a wartime leader. The country gets behind you. Dissent becomes inappropriate. And so he does not drop to his knees, he is not contrite, he does not sit in the church with the grieving parents and wives and children. He is the president who does not feel. He does not feel for the families of the dead, he does not feel for the 35 million of us who live in poverty, he does not feel for the 40 percent who cannot afford health insurance, he does not feel for the miners whose lungs are turning black or for the working people he has deprived of the chance to work overtime at time-and-a-half to pay their bills - it is amazing for how many people in this country this president does not feel.

But he will dissemble feeling. He will say in all sincerity he is relieving the wealthiest 1 percent of the population of their tax burden for the sake of the rest of us, and that he is polluting the air we breathe for the sake of our economy, and that he is decreasing the quality of air in coal mines to save the coal miners' jobs, and that he is depriving workers of their time-and-a-half benefits for overtime because this is actually a way to honor them by raising them into the professional class.

And this litany of lies he will versify with reverences for God and the flag and democracy, when just what he and his party are doing to our democracy is choking the life out of it.

But there is one more terribly sad thing about all of this. I remember the millions of people here and around the world who marched against the war. It was extraordinary, that spontaneous aroused oversoul of alarm and protest that transcended national borders. Why did it happen? After all, this was not the only war anyone had ever seen coming. There are little wars all over he world most of the time.

But the cry of protest was the appalled understanding of millions of people that America was ceding its role as the last best hope of mankind. It was their perception that the classic archetype of democracy was morphing into a rogue nation. The greatest democratic republic in history was turning its back on the future, using its extraordinary power and standing not to advance the ideal of a concordance of civilizations but to endorse the kind of tribal combat that originated with the Neanderthals, a people, now extinct, who could imagine ensuring their survival by no other means than pre-emptive war.

The president we get is the country we get. With each president the nation is conformed spiritually. He is the artificer of our malleable national soul. He proposes not only the laws but the kinds of lawlessness that govern our lives and invoke our responses. The people he appoints are cast in his image. The trouble they get into and get us into, is his characteristic trouble.

Finally, the media amplify his character into our moral weather report. He becomes the face of our sky, the conditions that prevail. How can we sustain ourselves as the United States of America given the stupid and ineffective warmaking, the constitutionally insensitive lawgiving, and the monarchal economics of this president? He cannot mourn but is a figure of such moral vacancy as to make us mourn for ourselves.

http://www.easthamptonstar.com/20040909/col5.htm

U.S. Casualties in Iraq

Mission Accomplished?

Get more details about the U.S. Casualties in Iraq at:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

Bush Neglects Al Qaeda

REPORT SHOWS BUSH NEGLECTING HUNT FOR AL QAEDA

In the months after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush promised America he
would make the hunt for al Qaeda the number one objective of his
administration. "[We] do everything we can to chase [al Qaeda] down and
bring them to justice," Bush said. "That's a key priority, obviously, for me
and my administration."[1] But according to a new report, the President has
dangerously underfunded and understaffed the intelligence unit charged with
tracking down al Qaeda's leader.

The New York Times reports "Three years after the Sept. 11 attacks on New
York and the Pentagon, the Central Intelligence Agency has fewer experienced
case officers assigned to its headquarters unit dealing with Osama bin Laden
than it did at the time of the attacks." The bin Laden unit is "stretched so
thin that it relies on inexperienced officers rotated in and out every 60 to
90 days, and they leave before they know enough to be able to perform any
meaningful work."[2]

The revelation comes months after the Associated Press reported the Bush
Treasury Department "has assigned five times as many agents to investigate
Cuban embargo violations as it has to track Osama bin Laden's" financial
infrastructure.[3] It also comes after USA Today reported that the President
shifted "resources from the bin Laden hunt to the war in Iraq" in 2002.
Specifically, Bush moved special forces tracking al Qaeda out of Afghanistan
and into Iraq war preparations. He also left the CIA "stretched badly in its
capacity to collect, translate and analyze information coming from
Afghanistan."[4] That has allowed these terrorists to regroup: according to
the senior intelligence officials in July of this year, bin Laden and other
top al Qaeda leaders are now directing a plot "to carry out a large-scale
terror attack against the United States" and are overseeing the plan "from
their remote hideouts somewhere along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border."[5]

Sources:

1. "President Calls for Ticket to Independence in Welfare Reform,"
WhiteHouse.gov, 5/10/02,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1192992&l=55681.
2. "C.I.A. Unit on bin Laden Is Understaffed, a Senior Official Tells
Lawmakers," New York Times, 9/15/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1192992&l=55682.
3. "More Agents Track Castro Than Bin Laden," Common Dreams News Center,
4/29/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1192992&l=55683.
4. "Shifts from bin Laden hunt evoke questions," USA Today, 3/28/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1192992&l=55684.
5. "Officials: Bin Laden guiding plots against U.S.," CNN.com, 7/08/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1192992&l=55685.

Visit www.Misleader.org for more about Bush Administration distortion.

Bush is a Flip-Flopper

Sep 12, 7:08 AM (ET)

By TOM RAUM

WASHINGTON (AP) - While working relentlessly to portray Democratic Sen. John Kerry as a "flip-flopper," President Bush has his own history of changing his position, from reversals on steel tariffs and "nation-building" to reasons for invading Iraq.

Most recently, Bush did an about-face on whether the proposed new director of national intelligence should have full budget-making powers as the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission recommended. Bush at first indicated no, then last week said yes.

Just as GOP efforts to question Kerry's military record in Vietnam helped revive nagging questions about Bush's service in the Air National Guard, the "flip flop" attacks on Kerry could boomerang against an incumbent running on his record and reputation as a straight talker.

"The guy who is the ultimate flip and flop is this sitting president," said Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware.

Yet so far Democratic efforts to paint Bush as "Flip-Flopper-in-Chief," as one Democratic news release put it, have not seemed to have had much impact on the race.

Republicans have been driving home their depiction of Kerry as a flip-flopper for months, in campaign ads, speeches and interviews. And polls suggest this line of attack is working.

Far more voters give Bush high marks for being decisive than they do Kerry. Three-fourths, 75 percent, in the latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll said the president is decisive, up 7 percentage points from August, while 37 percent said Kerry is decisive, down 7 percentage points from a month ago.

Republican audiences chant "flip-flopper" when Kerry is mentioned, some political novelty stores are carrying flip-flop sandals bearing Kerry's picture, and the theme is reinforced by late-night comedians.

"Gee, I wonder if Bush will say the 'F' in John F. Kerry stands for flip-flop," said NBC's Jay Leno after Kerry last week suggested the "W" in George W. Bush stood for "wrong."

If he is a flip-flopper, Kerry has company.

_In 2000, Bush argued against new military entanglements and nation building. He's done both in Iraq.

_He opposed a Homeland Security Department, then embraced it.

_He opposed creation of an independent Sept. 11 commission, then supported it. He first refused to speak to its members, then agreed only if Vice President Dick Cheney came with him.

_Bush argued for free trade, then imposed three-year tariffs on steel imports in 2002, only to withdraw them after 21 months.

_Last month, he said he doubted the war on terror could be won, then reversed himself to say it could and would.

_A week after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush said he wanted Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." But he told reporters six months later, "I truly am not that concerned about him." He did not mention bin Laden in his hour-long convention acceptance speech.

"I'm a war president," Bush told NBC's "Meet the Press" on Feb. 8. But in a July 20 speech in Iowa, he said: "Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president."

Bush keeps revising his Iraq war rationale: The need to seize Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction until none were found; liberating the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator; fighting terrorists in Iraq not at home; spreading democracy throughout the Middle East. Now it's a safer America and a safer world.

"No matter how many times Senator Kerry flip-flops, we were right to make America safer by removing Saddam Hussein from power," he said last week in Missouri.

Bush has changed his positions on new Clean Air Act restrictions, protecting the Social Security surplus, tobacco subsidies, the level of assistance to help combat AIDs in Africa, campaign finance overhaul and whether to negotiate with North Korean officials.

But while Bush's policy shifts have been numerous and notable, Democrats haven't succeeded yet in tarring him as a flip flopper, said American University political scientist James Thurber.

"Kerry has made some statements about it, but he doesn't have a clear strategy for hammering back at the flip flops of the president," Thurber said.

The sustained Bush attack draws on Kerry's 20-year Senate record, with special emphasis on his votes to authorize force in Iraq in 2002 and against final passage last year of an $87 billion aid package for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Kerry didn't help himself by explaining that he first supported an amendment to provide the $87 billion by rolling back Bush's tax cuts. "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it," he said. The Bush campaign turned the quote into an ad.

Bush aides brush off suggestions by Democrats that the real flip-flopper is Bush, not Kerry.

"One moment they say the president's too stubborn and the next day accuse him of being a flip-flopper. It's generated to a point of incoherence," said Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt.

---

ARTICLE COURTESY OF:
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20040912/D8522SDG0.html .

The Curse of Dick Cheney

Should George W. Bush win this election, it will give him the distinction of being the first occupant of the White House to have survived naming Dick Cheney to a post in his administration. The Cheney jinx first manifested itself at the presidential level back in 1969, when Richard Nixon appointed him to his first job in the executive branch. It surfaced again in 1975, when Gerald Ford made Cheney his chief of staff and then -- with Cheney's help -- lost the 1976 election. George H.W. Bush, having named Cheney secretary of defense, was defeated for re-election in 1992. The ever-canny Ronald Reagan was the only Republican president since Eisenhower who managed to serve two full terms. He is also the only one not to have appointed Dick Cheney to office.

This pattern of misplaced confidence in Cheney, followed by disastrous results, runs throughout his life -- from his days as a dropout at Yale to the geopolitical chaos he has helped create in Baghdad. Once you get to know his history, the cycle becomes clear: First, Cheney impresses someone rich or powerful, who causes unearned wealth and power to be conferred on him. Then, when things go wrong, he blames others and moves on to a new situation even more advantageous to himself.

"Cheney's manner and authority of voice far outstrip his true abilities," says Chas Freeman, who served under Bush's father as ambassador to Saudi Arabia. "It was clear from the start that Bush required adult supervision -- but it turns out Cheney has even worse instincts. He does not understand that when you act recklessly, your mistakes will come back and bite you on the ass."

Read the rest of this excellent article by T.D. Allman at
RollingStone.com .

Dishonoring the Veterans

Richard Hoefer of GTVO.com just created a web-ad that he wants to share with others. It’s his response to the shameful disrespect shown by delegates to the Republican Convention toward our military men and women.

Download the full image at:
http://www.on101.com/dishonor2

Why Vote for Kerry?

by Greg Woods & Taigen Dan Leighton

1. During the Bush Administration, there has been unprecedented fraud and corruption that has moved the country from a balanced budget to its greatest debt level in history. This will affect social services, social security, environmental protection, education, and medical practices for generations to come.

2. The Bush Administration is more secretive and lacking in democratic transparency than any administration in modern history.

3. The Bush Administration has lied more and lied more blatantly about the effect and intent of its own policies than any other Administration in modern history. Bush, at best, was asleep to warnings of the impending 9/11 tragedy, and thereafter he stonewalled its investigation. The Bush Administration lied about the reasons for invading Iraq, and violated international and domestic law to do so.

4. There has been a deliberate and concerted attack against civil liberties, the Balance of Powers and Rule of Law. Bush Administration policies have introduced measures that have not been new law so much as the erosion of law. This has amounted to attacks on the Constitution itself in its very foundations and upon the American people in their most fundamental Rights as citizens. Privacy, Due Process Rights and equal protection of law are all affected. John Ashcroft, the misnamed "Patriot Act" and "Homeland Security" measures have undermined American Rights in ways the public has not even begun to imagine collectively.

5. It has now been well established by Seymour Hersh, The Wall Street Journal, and the International Red Cross, among many reports, that torture was investigated planned and approved by the Bush Administration in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay. Torture, bare in mind, is the ultimate expression of the corruption of power. Rationalizations of torture in public -- also planned by Bush and his propagandists -- pervert the very notions of civil behavior, law, and government responsibility.

6. Nader's campaign and his presence on the ballot in many states has been very highly financed by Republicans and specific Bush operatives. Nader's presence in the election confuses theory and practice, substituting credible ideology for devastating real consequences. Should Bush be re-elected something near martial law will be the result. Kerry, certainly, does not represent that.

7. Just on the effect of the Supreme Court for the next 2-3 decades, the next president will appoint at least 3 new Supreme Court Justices, including probably the Chief Justice. Bush will appoint more right-wing anti-Constitutional ideologues opposed to women's rights, environmental protection, and corporate regulation. Kerry will appoint respectable liberal justices.

8. John Kerry's promise to shut down the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump, condemned as unsafe by scientific studies, is reason in and of itself to strongly work for Kerry over Bush, who promotes massive government subsidies to the nuclear energy industry, and development of "usable" nuclear weapons. Kerry also says he will oppose any central nuclear waste dump until we get scientific opinions on the best available approach to nuclear waste safety. Bush and company disdains all science.

9. John Kerry has an overall excellent record on the environment. Bush, as fast as he can, often secretly, has been handing over public lands to oil drilling, and logging, mining, and grazing corporations. He has plans to set up oil drilling up and down the California coast.

10. The Bush government denies the scientific reality of global warming and has actively distorted or suppressed scientific fact to suit its political purposes and influence pedaling.

11. Kerry was the only Senator to work to expose the Iran-Contra scam.

12. Kerry opposes the Death Penalty. Bush bragged about his Texas executions as Governor, and continues sponsoring mass killings of civilians in Iraq, and death of American soldiers in Iraq.

13. Bush will make his massive tax cuts for billionaires permanent. Kerry will repeal them immediately.

14. The Bush War in Iraq is using radioactive weapons. These appalling weapons are polluting the Iraqi ecosystem, it people and American soldiers alike with the most grotesque consequences for all. So called "Depleted" Uranium munitions, in fact, produce active and deadly uranium contamination that is like a radioactive plague effecting soldiers, their wives and children, for the rest of their lives. The consequences are so severe and far reaching that this may very well be the most cynical and shortsighted policy in the history of government.

15. All in all, the Bush government cannot be called an "American" government in any real sense. It is, in fact and in deed, the most anti-American, anti-democratic and divisive government in American History.

VOTE FOR KERRY. Appeal to friends. REGISTER VOTERS if you can.
Your vote may be the last best chance to preserve and protect American liberty and democracy.

courtesy of http://www.rhinosblog.info