The Blog From Another Dimension: Reasons to Not Vote for Bush Archives

Bush-Kerry Timelines

If you would like to see what Bush and Kerry were both doing throughout their lives and compare them side by side, visit this site. They've done a pretty good job, and it is not hard to see where Kerry is the far more competent, honorable, and accomplished man.

I have my own Bush Record page, visited 559 times in October despite the fact that I don't advertise it--at least, not until now. People just found it. It takes you through a lot of Bush's history up to his being elected president.

While Kerry, in the Naval Reserves, is regarded a "top-notch officer in every measurable trait," Bush gets a 25% on his pilot aptitude test and yet is accepted into a champaign unit of the National Guard; while Kerry earns his rank of Lieutenant and goes off to the Mekong Delta where he earns a Silver Star, Bush is promoted without merit and stays at home. While Bush goes AWOL and then is given an easy early out from the guard, Kerry, back at home, is district attorney putting organized crime figures behind bars. Meanwhile, Bush gets arrested for drunk driving. As Bush drives his first family-money-backed business into the ground and begins his second failed business with Saudis funding him, Kerry gets elected to the Senate without even using PAC money.

While Kerry gets appointed to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, supports deficit reduction and stops a Dick-Cheney sponsored oil tax, Bush gets involved in a variety of insider trading and other questionable activities; this is also about when he drunkenly explodes in a hail of obscenities and threats against newspaper editor Al Hunt, his wife and their four-year-old child. Kerry, meanwhile, is on the job rooting out corruption as he chairs the Senate subcommittee on the Iran-Contra hearings. The same year Kerry saved the life of Republican Senator Jacob "Chic" Hecht by using the Heimlich maneuver, Bush buys the Texas Rangers in a sweetheart deal and trades away Sammy Sosa. Bush violates the law at least three times in insider trading, tax law violations, and other financial scandals, but as the son of the President is not investigated by the SEC. Soon afterward, Kerry works closely with John McCain to investigate US soldiers still missing in Vietnam, eventually working to normalize relations with Vietnam.

Bush gets elected Governor of Texas and immediately gets a new driver license number to wipe the public records of his criminal past. He accepts a call to jury duty and leaves the legal forms referring to his criminal record blank; he soon has his staff finagle him out of jury duty when he gets assigned to a drunk driving case and will be asked under oath if he was ever arrested on that charge. Kerry, meanwhile, co-sponsors the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Bill, and fights for better pay and benefits for soldiers, veterans, police, and teachers. Bush, on the other hand, gets involved in a corporate scandal and lies under oath to get out of having to testify.

This is just a partial list. Read the two pages and get a better idea of how the two men spent their lives. An alcoholic, draft-dodging three-time-loser in business with an abusive character and a criminal record, versus a decorated Vietnam War vet with a conscience, spending his life putting bad guys behind bars and rooting out corruption.

Not really much of a challenge to pick the better man.

Because Bush Wants to Say It But Is Too Chicken

From the AP, in the SC State:

A new videotape of Osama bin Laden was meant to help elect Sen. John Kerry president, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson says.
...
"There's no question in my mind, and I think to anybody who knows how close this election is," Thompson later told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in an interview. "Osama bin Laden would not give out a video report 72 hours before the election unless he wanted to influence it."

The rest of the article shows the depth in which Thompson discusses his belief. The inappropriateness of such a bald declaration by an administration official is staggering; if, say, John Edwards or any Kerry campaign official had said that bin Laden wants Bush elected, we'd be hearing Bush decry the act as "shameful" all the way to election day.

The fact is, Bush has played into bin Laden's plans--and vice versa--almost so seamlessly that one can hardly fault the conspiracy theorists that believe they are in cahoots. Bin Laden gave a failing Bush presidency a gigantic boost, allowing Bush to get almost every political agenda point he could wish for rammed through Congress, and to this day provides Bush with his strongest rallying point; if Bush wins the election, it will be because of bin Laden. Conversely, Bush has provided bin Laden with exactly what he wanted: an administration with its eye off the ball so that the 9/11 attacks could be carried out (unlike Clinton, who foiled the Millennium attacks), propelling bin Laden and al Qaeda to stratospheric fame; Bush then alienated the U.S. from a sympathetic world, deprived his own people of their freedoms, and let bin Laden escape while they invaded Iraq, an action which drove tens of thousands of new recruits into the waiting arms of al Qaeda, whilst the Bush administration only succeeded in capturing a few dozen noted members of the terrorist organization. In short, both Bush and bin Laden have gotten exactly what they wanted through each others' actions.

Bin Laden does not want Bush re-elected because he quakes in his boots at the idea of a Kerry presidency; rather, he wants Bush re-elected because Bush's policies are what bin Laden wants: an isolated America, focused on a fracturing Middle East war that fuels terrorism while it does little to attack al Qaeda directly. Kerry, on the other hand, would bring America back into the world fold, strengthening its ability to fight terror, and would be more sympathetic in the eyes of the people of the Middle East--forming alliances and winning hearts and minds instead of invading nations and turning millions against him. The only way Kerry stands more of a chance to get bin Laden than Bush is in that Kerry will not put all his energy into Iraq or whatever next Big War Bush will get us into. But the whole point is not really to catch bin Laden, but rather to fight al Qaeda. And that's what Kerry will do better, and that's what bin Laden would prefer not happen. See this post for a longer explanation of why bin Laden prefers Bush stay in office.

There. I can say that, because I'm not an senior official in either campaign. Thompson is, which is what makes his statement reprehensible and worthy of note and attack by the Democratic side.

There Goes All Doubt

Remember those soldiers that Bush claimed didn't find any explosives? He was talking about these soldiers:

These soldiers, who are on this video, at al Qaqaa, finding rooms full of explosives:

But hey, those could be any explosives, right? Maybe those are different explosives than the ones that the IAEA was talking about.

Oops.

According to the reports, the troops found "bunker after bunker" full of the explosives, having to break the IAEA seals to get into the buildings, the facilities left behind unsealed and unguarded because not enough troops were available, and with Iraqi civilians freely going in and out of the facility.

Meanwhile, Republicans are sinking to new lows to try to shift blame. After RNC chairman Ed Gillespie and George W. Bush himself falsely claimed that Kerry was blaming and denigrating the troops, GOP footsoldier Rudy Giuliani went on the NBC "Today" show and said the following:

''No matter how you try to blame it on the president, the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?''

Enough said.

In Good Company

A few posts back I pointed out how Bush, his people, and his supporters all are using the troops and other honorable people as straw-man scapegoats, falsely suggesting that when Kerry blames Bush, he is actually blaming someone else, like the troops. In effect, Bush is being a gutless coward by deflecting blame onto honorable people just to save his own sorry butt. Well, Bush is at it again:

Now the Senator is making wild charges about missing explosives, when his top foreign policy advisor admits "we don't know the facts." End quote. Think about that. The Senator is denigrating the actions of our troops and commanders in the field without knowing the facts.

As explained before, Kerry never attacked the troops or the generals, he clearly and singularly attacked Bush. Bush's lie on the matter echoes RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie's rather blatant out-of-context misquote of Kerry to the same effect.

Fortunately, I am not the only person to make this observation; I am in good company with the former chief of staff of the Air Force:

Retired Air Force Gen. Merrill A. "Tony" McPeak said in a statement that Bush seems to believe that Kerry should not be criticizing him "since the president thinks he has never made a mistake."

McPeak continued: "Let's be perfectly clear: it is the President who dropped the ball. Senator Kerry is being critical of George Bush, not the troops. By embarking on the line of attack, George Bush is deflecting blame from him over to the military. This is beneath contempt."

Edwards is also sounding the same note:

"Why did George Bush (news - web sites) take three days to finally say something about 380 tons of missing explosives?" Kerry said. "They did nothing, nothing to secure them and now they're gone. And we don't know who has them. It's possible terrorists have them."

"And, what did George Bush have to say about this? He said that John Kerry doesn't support the troops."

In a dubious voice and shaking his head, Edwards asked from his platform in the middle of supporters in a gymnasium: "Aren't we sick and tired of George Bush and Dick Cheney using our troops as shields to protect their own jobs?"

Kerry also referred to this, citing Bush's willingness to blame anyone and everyone but himself. I am, to say the least, extremely pleased and gratified that people are calling Bush out on this spineless practice.

By the way, it's great to be ahead of the curve on this kind of thing--in this case, a full year ahead!

Top Iraqi Official: Explosives "Could Not Have Been Taken" Before US Invasion

This from Yahoo News:

A top Iraqi science official said it was impossible that 350 tonnes of high explosives could have been smuggled out of a military site south of Baghdad before the regime fell last year.

...

"It is impossible that these materials could have been taken from this site before the regime's fall," said Mohammed al-Sharaa, who heads the science ministry's site monitoring department and previously worked with UN weapons inspectors under Saddam.

"The officials that were inside this facility (Al-Qaqaa) beforehand confirm that not even a shred of paper left it before the fall and I spoke to them about it and they even issued certified statements to this effect which the US-led coalition was aware of."

Sharaa also warned that other nearby sites with similar materials could have also been plundered.

"The Al-Milad Company in Iskandariyah and the Yarmouk and Hateen facilities contained explosive materials that could have also been taken out," the official told AFP in an interview.

In other words, the Bush administration knows full well that the explosives were plundered on their watch, were taken because they didn't think to put enough soldiers on the ground to watch all the places that needed to be watched. And a week before the election, with things so close, they are scared silly to admit the truth, so they have been lying their hineys off.

The al Qaqaa debacle is, at the right time, so perfectly representative of all the debacles the Bush administration has been responsible for; it would be difficult to think of a better story to exemplify the incompetence of this administration, and why we need new governance.

The Political Art of Shifting Blame

I have written before about the political art of shifting blame to others: when you've made a colossal blunder and it threatens your political career or agenda, if reporters ask you if you made an error, then twist the question to make it appear like they are blaming an honorable group of people. Reagan did this when the Marine barracks were blown up in Lebanon, making it appear that any accusation of wrongdoing was equal to dishonoring the soldiers who died, saying their deaths were in vain. In my prior article on the subject, I noted that a FOX reporter tried the same thing on Wesley Clark, implying that if Clark said that Iraq was a sideshow and Bush was missing the real target in Afghanistan, that was equal to belittling the troops in Iraq.

The Bush campaign is in full-gear blame-shifting mode this week. First was the criticism that Bush outsourced the hunt for bin Laden to the local warlords, who let bin Laden escape. Searching for a way to dismiss this cogent and damaging criticism, Bush said:

Now my opponent is throwing out the wild claim that he knows where bin Laden was in the fall of 2001, and that our military passed up the chance to get him in Tora Bora. This is an unjustified criticism of our military commanders in the field. This is the worst kind of Monday-morning quarterbacking.

In other words, if there was a blunder made, it wasn't me, it was the generals. And how dare he criticize the generals!

But they didn't stop there. Ed Gillespie, the chairman of the RNC, sent out a mass email to millions of people, claiming that the ultra-super-liberal media was at it yet again, daring to report that the explosives in Iraq were looted after the invasion, when in fact American troops found the cache had been looted already, on Saddam Hussein's watch, and that an NBC News crew had confirmed it, therefore making Kerry's criticism and the press coverage of it a howling outrage.

Of course, he was wrong: the troops only stayed at al Qaqaa for the night, they did not look for the weapons (and would not have been qualified to make that determination anyway), and the NBC crew in fact contradicted the claim that the explosives had been found already missing. CNN's report of the NBC team and the soldiers finding the weapons gone was not even based on an NBC report, it was in fact based on a Matt Drudge story, and we all know how reliable he can be. Josh Marshall is all over the story.

But the point in this entry is that Gillespie used this blame-shifting technique; note carefully the words in bold, as well as Gillespie's careful use of quotation marks:

John Kerry seized on the New York Times headline to launch a political attack on President Bush, saying U.S. troops "failed to guard those stockpiles" and that is "one of the great blunders" of the war.

Senator Kerry and the New York Times leave the impression that these weapons went missing recently and U.S. troops were derilict in their duty to guard the stockpile — neither of which is true.

Not only does this shift the blame to the troops instead of the president, but it also carefully misquotes Kerry, whose original quote was:

After being warned about the danger of major stockpiles of explosives in Iraq, this president failed to guard those stockpiles. ... Now we know our country and our troops are less safe because this president failed to do the basics, this is one of the great blunders of Iraq, one of the great blunders of this administration. The incredible incompetence of this president and this administration has put our troops at risk and put this country at greater risk than we ought to be.

Notice Gillespie's careful and intentional editing of Kerry's quote, cutting it off just so he can take the blame Kerry puts squarely on Bush, and make it appear like Kerry is criticizing the troops. When in fact, Kerry not once said it was the fault of the troops, and quite clearly blamed the Bush administration, not once but repeatedly--kind of hard for Gillespie to miss.

We know these people are lying bastards, folks... but it's hard not to use even stronger language when you see such blatant lies such as these--not to mention cowardly attempts to hide behind honorable people in order to save your own sorry political ass.

Looted Explosives (350 tons) in Iraq Covered Up by Bush Administration

Talking Points Memo is covering it in detail, after the story was broken by the Nelson Report, a private newsletter (no web site) reporting on Asia. Apparently, 350 tons of high explosive was looted early on in the U.S. occupation of Iraq--you remember, the looting which Rumsfeld pooh-poohed as insignificant, looting caused by a lack of sufficient troops which the administration tried to say wasn't important--and, as Kerry pointed out in the debates, is now being used against our own people every day in Iraq. Explosives which may have killed hundreds of our troops, in the hands of the insurgents because Bush did not do the job right. Apparently this type of explosive could also be used to trigger a nuclear device.

What's more, it was covered up: it seems that the Bush administration and the DoD did not report this to the IAEA or other bodies that it should be telling, and told the Iraqi government not to inform anyone either. Not to mention that it withheld this information from the American people. Considering the potential political implications of the story, this could be big. Expect it to break in the mainstream press soon. And keep in mind that Kerry was talking about this weeks ago.

Update: The New York Times is now carrying the story. And it seems to be 380 tons, not 350.

Large-Scale GOP Voter-Intimidation Drive Planned in Ohio

No, I'm not kidding:

Republican Party officials in Ohio took formal steps yesterday to place thousands of recruits inside polling places on Election Day to challenge the qualifications of voters they suspect are not eligible to cast ballots.

In the meantime, Democrats recruited 3,600 people to protect those same voters from Republican intimidation. The Republican intimidation drive and the Democratic defense against it are taking place primarily in "heavily Democratic urban neighborhoods of Cleveland, Dayton and other cities." This is not a two-sided attempt by both parties to intimidate voters on the other side--this is purely offensive on the part of the GOP, hoping to scare off as many Democratic voters as possible.

This is reprehensible. But not unexpected. The GOP is now running scared, and is evidently willing to stop at nothing to win this one by hook or crook.

Scare Tactics

From Reuters, October 19:

"Instead of articulating a vision or a positive agenda for the future, the senator is relying on a litany of complaints and old style scare tactics," Bush told a rally in New Port Richey.

From ABC News, October 22:

Bush suggested his Democratic rival "does not understand the enemy we face and has no idea how to keep America secure." His campaign reinforced that theme with a new television ad with chilling imagery of prowling wolves in a dense forest. "Weakness attracts those who are waiting to do America harm," an announcer says.

He Didn't But Says He Did

From the Des Moines Register, October 21:

President Bush touted himself as a man of his word Wednesday, reminding a crowd of 4,000 supporters about promises he made four years ago when campaigning in Iowa, and maintaining he's fulfilled them.

"I kept my word," Bush said repeatedly at a morning rally held at the North Iowa Fairgrounds in Mason City.

From Knight-Ridder, October 20:

President Bush will end his four-year term having fulfilled about 46 percent of the [178] promises he made during the 2000 presidential campaign, according to an analysis by Knight Ridder. ... A similar Knight Ridder analysis found that, during his first term, President Clinton had fulfilled about 66 percent of the 160 commitments that he made during his first presidential campaign.

This Reality Distortion Field Bush puts up is not a mistake; he very much wants people to believe things that are patently untrue--and it's working. According to PIPA, most Bush supporters have a completely mistaken idea of what Bush stands for. A slight majority are correct on his standing on defense spending (increase), and 70% know that he wants the U.S. to do nation-building in Iraq. But fewer than half know his standing on missile defense, the international court and even (unbelievably) the Kyoto accords--and fewer than 25% know that he opposes nuclear weapons testing bans or the land mine treaty. Only 13% know that he opposes labor and environmental conditions in trade agreements.

Kerry supporters, on the other hand, know their man much better. On only one topic--defense spending--do a minority understand his position, and that's 43%. On all the other above-mentioned topics, a majority of his supporters know where he stands: International court, 65%; Missile defense, 68%; Kyoto accords, 74%; Nuclear test bans, 77%; Land mine treaty, 79%; Role in rebuilding Iraq, 80%; and Labor/environment in trade agreements, 81%.

In short, people who support Kerry do so because they know that Kerry stands with them on the issues, while Bush has hoodwinked his own supporters into voting for him by making them think that he stands with them on the issues when he really doesn't.

Bush: I Will Nominate a Supreme Court Justice Who Will Criminalize Abortion

He didn't say it directly, but he did use all the code words:

BUSH: I really don't have -- haven't picked anybody yet. Plus, I want them all voting for me.

I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.

Let me give you a couple of examples, I guess, of the kind of person I wouldn't pick. I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words "under God" in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.

And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We've got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution.

And I suspect one of us will have a pick at the end of next year -- the next four years. And that's the kind of judge I'm going to put on there. No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution.

The first code word is "strict constructionists," whose basic ideology is that the Constitution only applies to matters that it directly and specifically addresses, and that any interpretation beyond that is not within the court's power; to these people, there is no such thing as "intent of the founders," and they would judge no new law from the original intent or principles derived from the constitution. Any new law is acceptable so long as it is not directly addressed in the constitution.

As such, Bush's remark that he wants "strict constructionists" and that the "judges interpret the Constitution" are not exactly consistent.

The right wing found strict constructionism as their legal philosophy while trying to find a way to fight Roe v. Wade; traditionally, it has been a Libertarian point of view. If one applies strict constructionism, Roe. v. Wade would be struck down, as would many other issues concerning civil rights and probably separation of church and state. This goes along with the current Republican agenda to remove power from the judicial so that conservatives in the legislative branch can pass whatever laws they wish with no challenge on their constitutionality.

Another code word from Bush's rhetoric was the Dred Scott decision, which, for those of you who forgot about it since high school, was a rather infamous Supreme Court decision which ruled that blacks were not citizens and were constitutionally the property of the slaveholders. Dred Scott is a famously popular case held up by pro-life groups as an example of how an entire class of people can be regarded as property to be dealt with without concern for their rights. The argument is that fetuses today are like blacks at the time of Dred Scott.

Bush's reference, therefore (as first pointed out by Paperweight), is little more than a code word meaning that he will have Roe stricken just as Dred Scott was.

Other comments on Bush's remarks: his joke about how he would "want them [Supreme Court justices] all voting for me" was borderline at best; few have forgotten how the politically partisan 5-4 vote on Bush v. Gore--considered by many as an illegal decision at least, and a coup d'état at most--handed Bush the presidency in 2000. It's a ballsy thing to joke about.

He also called the courts' ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance a "personal opinion," which is fiction, of course, but then on these matters, such fiction is standard fare for Republican politicians. The core issue of the pledge, of course, is the First Amendment and its protection that prevents the state--in this case public schools--from requiring any American citizen--in this case, schoolchildren--to make a religious pledge, and to prevent that government agency from endorsing any one belief system. It is a core constitutional matter on civil rights with very little real ambiguity (the only lack of clarity is in the GOP fiction), which is why the GOP is trying so hard to pass a law that would prevent the courts from ruling on "Pledge protection" laws without having to amend the Constitution to achieve that.

Finally, on the litmus test, Bush says that he would have "no litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution." However, since what he defines as "interpreting the Constitution" covers almost every major issue before the courts, he is essentially saying that he will choose a judge based upon a wide range of litmus tests, especially Roe v. Wade.

September Jobs Report Out

And it's not good for Bush. What he'll tout as the Greatest Thing Since Buttered Bread will be the unemployment rate, which held stead at 5.4% for the second straight month. While that's far from stellar (Clinton had a 3.9% rate in the late 90's), it is better than almost any other time in Bush's term. However, it does not really mean that fewer people are unemployed, it just means that fewer people are counted as unemployed, which is why the rate is deceptive. It leaves out people who have been unemployed longer than their benefits run and are not currently reported as seeking a job. Which means that millions of unemployed Americans are not even on that list.

But the big news is the number of jobs gained: 96,000, well below expectations, well below the 150,000 jobs needed each month just to tread water, to provide for population growth. In other words, there's a net loss of about fifty thousand jobs there. "Anemic" would be about right as far as describing it. This number plays up the fallacy of believing everything is OK because of the illusory unemployment numbers. And while July's numbers were adjusted upwards by a small 12,000 (August was revised down by a tiny 1,600), it is nowhere close to the upward revisions the Bush people were claiming would be seen.

It will be Kerry's challenge to make sure that he can best Bush at establishing which number is more indicative of the present economy. A few numbers that will help him do this is that in September, 18,000 manufacturing jobs were lost, while government bureaucracies swelled by 37,000 workers--Bush's version of "smaller government," apparently.

Daily News

Michael J. Fox has made a new ad supporting John Kerry, citing his support for stem-cell research. In the video, available on Kerry's site, Fox states, "I say lives are at stake and it’s time for leadership. That’s why I support John Kerry for president." Right to the point--though those saved by stem cell research will only be a few whose lives would be saved by a Kerry presidency.

The economic figures are coming out very soon, and it's anybody's guess as to what they'll say. But there's little chance that they'll be anywhere near good enough to wipe out the past four years of mismanagement by Bush and the GOP, whose massive overspending has disgusted many even in the Republican party. In case you're not aware of it--and you should be before the next debate--you can find Kerry's plan for the economy here. The bullet points:

• Strengthen the Middle Class
  
• Stand Up for Workers Rights
  
• Create Good-Paying Jobs
  
• Restoring Fiscal Responsibility
  
• Opportunity for Small Business
  
• Free & Fair Trade
  
• Balance Work & Family

Kerry would keep tax cuts for the middle class and add targeted cuts (like those Gore proposed four years ago), while getting rid of tax cuts for those earning over $200,000; he would work to stop the overspending, and if he gets even one house of Congress controlled by Democrats, he'll have a far easier time of accomplishing that. He'll focus on creating jobs that pay well through direct incentives, not just throwing cash at rich people and hoping that it somehow makes its way into middle-class pockets; and he'll really invest in energy-independency, an effort which will lead to many good jobs in and of itself. That and a lot more, including detailed plans; read the page on his site.

And going in to the debate, Kerry has scored a 4-point lead in an AP/Ipsos poll, leading Bush 50-46.

Meanwhile, Bush is beginning to sound desperate--and that's not my headline, it's Howard FIneman's, not exactly a flaming liberal. FIneman describes how Iraq could be Bush's undoing. Some have opined, however, that Fineman is just trying to lower expectations for Bush for the debate Friday night.

He's certainly looking desperate to many: he suddenly announced a "significant speech" that he planned to make, stirring up all kinds of expectations, and it turns out that he had nothing new, he just wanted to trick the networks into carrying his stump speech live on TV. That is desperate, when you risk pissing off the networks so close to an election.

Other things not going well for Bush: oil prices hit $53 a barrel, an unprecedented high. Watch the gas prices continue to soar, while the man who said he'd be able to control those prices sits by and does nothing.

And to top it off, a new report came out from Charles Duelfer. Duelfer was hired by Bush when David Kay came out with a report that said Saddam had no WMD and was not a threat to us. This is rather typical Bush fashion: you don't like the facts, try to find someone who will give you different ones. Well, now Duelfer's report is due out, and the results are: Saddam had no WMD and was not a threat to us. In fact, Duelfer's report said that Hussein was a diminishing threat, not a "grave and gathering" one.

Cheney's reaction: the report justifies the administration's case to go to war. I kid you not. He's in full reality-denial mode now, folks. He's now resorted to using Iraqi abuses of the fuel-for-food program as justification for going to war.

That doesn't sound desperate, does it?

The Case Against Bush

What is needed at this time is a portable yet comprehensive list detailing why Bush should not be re-elected. Here's my shot at it:

Taxes: Gave trillion-dollar tax cut to the wealthy while giving token sum to middle class; in so doing, shifted the tax burden from wealthier Americans onto the middle class. What little the middle class got out of it was quickly nullified by higher oil prices, slashed public services, and a greater burden put on states, leading to higher property and other state & local taxes.

Jobs: Presided over the greatest loss of jobs since Herbert Hoover. What few jobs have been gained pay far less than before, with a hemorrhage of manufacturing jobs going overseas with Bush trying to give them tax breaks for doing so. The Bush administration's solution to the loss of valuable jobs: try to get burger flippers reclassified as manufacturers.

Deficit and Debt: Inherited a historic, rare budget surplus. Immediately handed a gigantic tax cut to wealthy people as the economy was floundering, and allowed a Republican-controlled Congress to massively overspend on pork, while spending hundreds of billions on a war in Iraq that did not need to be fought. The result: massive, record-breaking deficits. The damage: the interest on the national debt alone is now costing us $375 billion per year, and more than $4 trillion over the next ten years. A Democrat would have stayed Clinton's course and would have been paying down the debt right now instead of massively adding to it. Bush's budgets have grown twice as fast as Bill Clinton's.

Medicare: Lied to Congress about how much his Medicare plan would cost. Locked seniors into plans that healthcare providers could change at any time. Forbade the government from negotiating for lower prices from pharmaceutical corporations, and blocked state plans to import drugs from other countries like Canada. Illegally used government funds to create fake news reports which were little more than Bush campaign commercials.

Social Security: after doing little to nothing on the issue, Bush still wants to privatize social security, which could have catastrophic effects on seniors while handing a trillion-dollar windfall to financial service industries. It would also strand millions of seniors whenever the economy goes south just as they retire, and we will be forced to pay benefits to them anyway or let them starve.

Education: Failed miserably in reforming Texas educational system, instead corrupting the system and encouraging fraud and the abandonment of lower-performing students. Backs standardized testing which leads to a disastrous test-centered educational system. Massively underfunded education, most of all the "No Child Left Behind" system. Wants vouchers for private schools which cannot possibly work at the large scale; instead it will only limit quality education for wealthier families who already access private schools, while huge numbers of poorer children will see their own educational system crumble.

Foreign Policy: Alienated most of the world, after almost all countries felt an incredible level of sympathy for us. Abrogated several treaties, ridiculed and condescended to some of our strongest allies. Lied to the international community about Iraq intelligence, and met unheard-of opposition from other countries in his single-minded drive into Iraq. Has made the United States an international pariah.

National Security: Underfunded border and import control, local police, fire and emergency services. The invasion of Iraq has stretched our military forces to the breaking point, rendering us unnecessarily unable to fight any war that may need to be fought. Bungled the intelligence before 9/11, ignoring intelligence that pointed to the attack because it would have been inconvenient to focus on terrorism while pushing for a missile defense system. Admits that al Qaeda operates within the United States while having no clue as to who or where they are or what they may be doing. Abandoned any serious hunt for bin Laden or al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Military: Cut pay and benefits for soldiers, slashed veterans' benefits, and chintzed on supplies for soldiers while handing billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to big firms, most of all Vice President Cheney's firm, Halliburton. Created havoc in the military with the invasion of Iraq, a quagmire that is sapping our military strength. Is lengthening soldiers' (including guardsmen and reservists) tours ridiculously long while draining forces from military bases around the world, discouraging re-enlistment and recruitment. America is now unable to take on any additional military tasks, and can barely handle what Bush is pushing on it.

Environment: Cut clean-air and -water regulations, cut funding for environmental protection, pushed for oil drilling in wildlife sanctuaries, allowed corporations to avoid clean-up costs, opened up public lands to logging, among countless other environmental failings. Subverted and distorted science to fit his policies, appointed pro-business and anti-environmental officials to key posts. Opposes the Kyoto treaty.

Energy: Among the main points of the very long list of malfeasance: allowed big oil, coal and nuclear industries to secretly write the nation's energy policy, and refuses to this day to let you know the details. Mouths support for clean energy but does not fund them anywhere close to the point where they could actually produce anything. Oil prices under Bush have shot up to record levels, making Americans even more dependent on foreign oil, not less.

A Divider, Not a Uniter: Has polarized the American public to an unheard-of degree. Has played extreme partisan politics since day one.

Character: The only president in history with a criminal record. Arrested for drunk driving. Well-known for belittling people, putting them down. Once cruelly mocked a woman on death row who had become a born-again Christian and was doing good works. There is so much more... see here, here and here for a fuller accounting of the depth of this man's petty character.

Lies: Lied about his criminal record. Lied about his relationship to Ken Lay. Lied about his intentions upon becoming president. Lied about the state of Iraq's weapons programs, and our reasons for going into Iraq. Lied about who kept inspectors from doing their job in Iraq. Lied about the state of affairs in Iraq. Lied about wanting to find out about intelligence failures that led to 9/11, opposed the 9/11 commission. Lied about his tax cuts. Lied about the size and permanence of budget deficit. Lied about his Medicare program. Lied about countless other issues, large and small.

Corruption and Lawbreaking: As governor of Texas, lied under oath in a criminal case. Had Ken Lay as his biggest contributor, then denied knowing him. Had long-term relations with Saudis and other oil interests in the Middle East, then covered for them by censoring a report that identified them as supporting terrorists. Allowed energy corporations to write national energy policy. Subverted antiterrorism policy in favor of pushing pet policies like missile defense, leading to the open door the terrorists walked through on 9/11 and before. Fought tooth and nail to prevent the 9/11 commission from being formed, fought against it when it needed time and resources, and has failed to implement its recommendations. Lied to Congress about his Medicare plan costs, then illegally used public funds to make fake news reports which were thinly veiled campaign commercials. People in his administration committed a felony when they revealed the identity of a CIA operative as payback for her husband's exposing Bush's lie on Iraq's nuclear program. Republican operatives for Bush purged mostly-Democratic and legally eligible voters from voter rolls in Florida (in 2000 and 2004), and then in 2000 led a massive campaign of fraud in Florida to stop recounts, aided by election fraud consisting of tampering with absentee ballots in two counties and suppressing the minority vote; without even one of these illegal actions, Bush would not have won. And the list goes on and on, from the man who claimed to bring "honor and dignity back to the White House. More here, here, and here (just recent stuff), and here and here and on countless other sites on the net, just do a Google and see the huge numbers pop up.

---

And remember: all of the above is the short list.

Another Bullet List: What We Must Do

In his most recent speech at Temple University in Philadelphia, Kerry outlined specifics in how Bush badly mismanaged the fight against al Qaeda:

• Instead of using U.S. forces to capture Osama bin Laden, Bush outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, who let bin Laden slip away.
• Instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan, Bush rushed to a new war in Iraq.
• Instead of listening to the military, State Department, leaders in Congress, and outside experts about how to win the peace in Iraq,Bush listened only to nearsighted ideologues who pitched a pipe dream about being welcomed.
• Instead of responding to the greatest intelligence failure in our history, Bush dragged his feet and actually resisted reform. After opposing the 9/11 Commission, after trying to block its extension, and after finally agreeing to testify, Bush still refuses to fully implement the Commission’s recommendations.
• Instead of proposing a Department of Homeland Security, Bush actually opposed it – and then exploited it for political purposes.
• Instead of expanding programs to keep weapons of mass destruction in Russia out of terrorist hands, Bush first tried to cut the programs.
• Instead of facing the urgent nuclear dangers in North Korea and Iran, Bush allowed these dangers to mount.
• Instead of speaking forcefully to the Saudis and others about terrorist financing, Bush has said little and done less.
• Instead of providing our police and firefighters with vital equipment, instead of protecting ports, trains, subway lines and highways, instead of defending nuclear plants and chemical factories, Bush has under-funded homeland security.
• Instead of bringing the world together against the terrorists, Bush alienated the countries whose help we need to defeat them.

And Bush says he wants to "stay the course." Spiffy. Kerry, in contrast, outlined his own ideas about how we should do things differently:

Kerry will build military and intelligence capability:

• implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations
• increase the number of troops by 40,000
• increase special forces
• develop new technologies for collecting intelligence on terrorists
• strengthen the intel community
• make Afghanistan a priority again
• get NATO to provide more troops to Afghanistan

Kerry will move to deny the terrorists weapons:

• secure all nuclear weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union within four years (as opposed to Bush’s 13 years)
• seek a verifiable global ban on the production of materials for nuclear weapons (Bush abrogated nuclear treaties)
• lead an international effort to impose tough sanctions on North Korea if they do not stop developing nuclear weapons (Bush has virtually ignored Korea, which has shared weapons with terrorists where Hussein did not)
• work with U.S. allies to get the six party talks with North Korea back on track

Kerry will wage a war on terrorist finances:

• trace terrorist funds to their sources and freeze the assets of anyone financing terrorism
• hold the Saudis accountable
• shut down the financial pipeline that keeps terrorism alive
• make the U.S. energy-independent of Mid East oil

Kerry will make homeland security a true priority, backing it with actual resources:

• prevent terrorists from entering our country (Bush has underfunded border patrol and cargo inspections)
• give border inspectors access to the terrorist watch lists
• seaports must be protected (Bush spends more in Iraq in 4 days than in the U.S. in 3 years)
• improve the way the terror aviation list is structured to keep terrorists from entering the country
• screen air cargo just like baggage is screened
• make sure our police, firefighters, and ambulance drivers have the latest equipment and emergency operation centers they need to respond effectively in a crisis
• cancel the $100 billion missile defense system which won't work anyway, technically or strategically
• protect chemical plants and other high-priority terrorist targets (which Bush has neglected)
• reinstate the program to put 100,000 new police officers on the street (which Bush has scrapped)
• invest more than $2 billion to safeguard railroads and subways

Kerry will focus on the long-term anti-terror goals, denying them recruits and safe havens:

• show that America uses its economic power for the common good
• assist the world’s poorest countries
• lead the international community to cancel the debt of the most vulnerable nations
• enable children in poor countries to get a quality basic education
• work to pre-empt the radical schools teaching hatred of America throughout the Middle East

Kerry says that he will promote the development of free and democratic societies throughout the Arab and Muslim world:

• make clear to repressive governments in the region that we expect to see them change
• improve our outreach to the Muslim world
• train a new generation of American scholars, diplomats, and military officers who understand the region
• convene a summit with our European partners and leaders from the Muslim world

And finally, Kerry made absolutely clear that we will be stronger if we work with our allies.

That is a very strong case, and would be difficult to argue against--I invite conservative guests here to try, so long as you provide evidence to back it up and show how, in equal detail to the above, how Bush has done better than this. I don't think there will be any takers, though, and certainly none who can prove such a point. In all areas Bush has been lacking. He has sapped the strength of the military to the point where we can no longer fight a new war without dropping all other balls, and he has had more than enough time with full control of Congress to get exactly that done--no more excuses about how it was the last guy's fault.

Bush has done nothing to deny terrorists weapons: Iraq had none, and countries where such weapons are coming from are untouched and even more out of control than before. On finances, I would like to hear exactly what Bush has done--I certainly know of no achievements in that area. As for homeland security, it is a joke--used more often to infringe on non-terrorist Americans' rights, and sometimes even as a political weapon (both in terms of publicity and as a physical resource). But the borders are porous, law enforcement underfunded and under-equipped, and our infrastructure, power plants, factories and transportation open to attack. But at least we've got John Ashcroft telling us what color we should be afraid of, right?

And if one thing is certain, it is that Bush has done an abysmal job of winning the hearts and minds of the people of the Arab world.

There are no easy answers, no snap solutions. After four years of Bush, Kerry will have his hands full just with damage control over the havoc Bush has wrought. But Kerry has better ideas and better plans, and we simply cannot afford four more years of Bush. This is not just mere partisanship; the way so many people who see what Bush is doing, and I myself, genuinely fear what might happen under Bush. It's not just distaste for the man, it is a palpable fear and trepidation of what he will do over that much time.

We do not just need a change. Change is overwhelmingly essential to the well-being of our country and to the world, and to lose that opportunity to a well-oiled PR and dirty-trick campaign would be a disaster. And yes, I know how over-the-top that sounds. But I would be less than honest if I said that it was anything less than what I firmly believe.

An Important Message to Hear (Kerry's NYU Speech, Part II)

To continue on John Kerry's speech at NYU earlier this week:

The centerpiece of the speech was Iraq, with Kerry pointing out, in detail, exactly how Bush had gone wrong before and after the invasion. One aspect of that is the fact the Bush diverted resources away from Afghanistan--where the real fight against al Qaeda was centered--and instead focused them on Iraq, where there was no terrorist threat. As a result, Bush alienated our allies and sowed discord in the Middle East, while sabotaging the real war against terrorists. As Kerry himself summarized:

The President’s policy in Iraq has not strengthened our national security. It has weakened it.

And it is here where Kerry further clarifies his stand on the vote to authorize the president with war powers: that it was to give Bush the ability to play a strong hand so he could accomplish the desired goal of getting arms inspectors in. Instead, Bush abused the authority and rushed to war, flushing out the inspectors who Bush later outrageously claimed were thrown out by Hussein. Kerry pointed out how Bush violated his promises:

Bush promised to let inspectors do their work--instead, he drove them out of Iraq even though progress was being made;

Bush promised he would take "every precaution" and would "plan carefully"--he did neither;

And Bush promised he would only go to war with an international coalition, "allies at our side"--when in fact he went in with Great Britain only, all other members of the "coalition" playing only token roles.

Many people criticize Kerry for not providing a "magic bullet" for solving the Iraq problem, that his proposals are only marginally better than Bush's--but the criticism is weak. There is no magic solution to the Iraq problem, and that's the point: Bush got us into a mess that is now impossible to get out of cleanly, and as more time passes, the prognosis becomes worse and worse, so that even Republicans in an election year are criticizing Bush. It is less about the inevitable painful endgame in Iraq, and more about judgment: do we want to give Bush another four years so he can make many more fatal errors? Kerry has it right when he says what he would have done:

I would have concentrated our power and resources on defeating global terrorism and capturing or killing Osama bin Laden. I would have tightened the noose and continued to pressure and isolate Saddam Hussein – who was weak and getting weaker -- so that he would pose no threat to the region or America.

And in Iraq, Kerry's ideas are better than Bush's.

First, an expanded international role could bring the benefits of true legitimacy to the forces working there--people would know it would less about the oil, the business, and the bases for America, and more about putting Iraq on its feet. Bush could never rally that support having alienated the world, but Kerry could achieve it. There is no denying Kerry's advantage there.

Second, a large contingent of Iraqi soldiers must be fully trained, not the pathetic handful Bush achieved, and then later lied about their numbers.

Third, the reconstruction plan must be aimed at helping the people of Iraq; Bush has failed to spend what he was authorized to accomplish this goal, and has left the vastly unemployed Iraqi labor force out of it (so that Halliburton can overcharge us to obscene extremes). Push through "high-visibility, quick-impact projects" to encourage the people.

And fourth, bring about real elections as soon as possible, not the sham without even giving people in huge swaths of the country the chance to vote.

I will be the first to agree that these goals don't stand a great chance of succeeding to the point where we can painlessly withdraw, but I cannot imagine a better plan considering what damage Bush has done--and Kerry would certainly be more able and credible in the effort than Bush could ever hope to be. Half a chance is better than none.

Kerry pointed out what anyone with an objective, informed view already knows: Bush misled us, committed gross errors in judgment, failed to plan properly, and bungled the post-invasion occupation. As a result, our people are being cut down with no hope in sight. I know people personally who have family members in the military who are scared to death at what they believe to be their loved ones' inevitable assignment to Iraq. The soldiers are game, they want to perform their duty. But we owe it to them not to subject them to this.

Bush's strategies in Iraq have failed miserably. A change is essential. Bush's credibility is nil. Only Kerry can bring the right credentials to the table. Bush has done little more than fail and than lie about it. Kerry could not help but do far, far better.

Kerry ended on this important note:

I believe the invasion of Iraq has made us less secure and weaker in the war against terrorism. I have a plan to fight a smarter, more effective war on terror – and make us safer.

Today, because of George Bush’s policy in Iraq, the world is a more dangerous place for America and Americans.

If you share my conviction that we can not go on as we are …that we can make America stronger and safer than it is… then November 2 is your chance to speak... and to be heard. It is not a question of staying the course, but of changing the course.

I’m convinced that with the right leadership, we can create a fresh start and move more effectively to accomplish our goals. Our troops have served with extraordinary courage and commitment. For their sake, and America’s sake, we must get this right. We must do everything in our power to complete the mission and make America stronger at home and respected again in the world.

Kerry's New York Speech

John Kerry is back on track. He's often been known as a strong finisher, and it seems like that's what we're beginning to see here. His speech at NYU is now considered a turning point, seen as strong, decisive, and capable of steering the issues in this campaign.

He started with a compelling vow on fighting terrorism, noting that he now has the official endorsement of the "Jersey Girls," the widows of 9/11 victims now famous for dragging Bush, kicking and screaming, into allowing the 9/11 Commission to be formed. Kerry is backing its recommendations (which Bush has been dragging his feet on as well).

In the speech, Kerry focused on his strengths: the potential to form international alliances (in contrast with Bush's ability to alienate the world against us), necessary if we want to fight effectively. In the wake of 9/11, there is no doubt that Kerry would have cultivated the sympathy and support of the world and used it soundly to implement a profoundly better offensive against al Qaeda, instead of pissing it away and insulting the world while letting a personal war sap our ability to focus on the real and dangerous enemy. Kerry has made it clear (to those who read or hear his entire quotes) that he would not have invaded Iraq. He would only have done so if inspections had shown that Hussein was a threat, and they wouldn't have. But I digress--back to the speech.

Kerry outlined his ideas for fighting terrorism: strong alliances (vital!), a powerful military (not one sapped by a needless quagmire which has made America unable to fight another war elsewhere), diplomacy, and a true application of American values in the Islamic world (not the abortive attempts by the Bush administration to make a few lame videos and then give up). Bush has failed in all four of these areas, but it is clear that they are invaluable to our security. Kerry can make them happen.

But the cornerstone of Kerry's speech, and to a great degree what made it so notable--in the media, finally--was his focus on Iraq. Kerry points out what should be obvious, but needs to be pointed out:

• Iraq was not related to terrorism, and diverted our focus away from al Qaeda;
• the Iraq war threatens to be a war with no end in sight;
• we have sacrificed the lives of too many good American soldiers;
• Bush failed to create anything close to a true coalition;
• Iraq is not headed towards freedom or democracy, it is deteriorating into chaos;
• American dead and wounded are rising to record numbers as violent attacks by insurgents soar;
• Bush has ceded large areas to the insurgents, "no go zones";
• conditions for Iraqis grow worse and worse, with fewer jobs and a destroyed infrastructure;
• Iraqis are not coming to our side, they resent us.

Furthermore, Bush has made "a series of catastrophic decisions" in Iraq:

• Bush lied about why we went to war (he gave 23 different rationales);
• his main rationales (WMD & al Qaeda ties) have been proven false;
• he lied about what it would cost us;
• he lied about what kind of commitment was involved (taking years, hundreds of billions of dollars);
• he lied about forming a true coalition;
• he lied about our chances of success.

Kerry pointed out Bush's devastating mismanagement of our image in the world, and our current lack of credibility; how our allies used to trust us implicitly (an excellent example in de Gaulle's trust in Kennedy's word), and how few would trust Bush today.

Kerry pointed out that seeing the errors Bush made in Iraq is not hindsight, but that all were seen in advance of the war. That's where he used the now-famous phrase, "colossal failures of judgment." Among them:

• We'd be greeted as liberators;
• looting would not be a problem;
• Iraq's infrastructure would not be a problem;
• we had enough troops to handle the aftermath of the invasion;
• we could rely on people like Chalabi;
• the Iraqi police, army, and civil service would be able to take over security functions and run the country.

Kerry goes on to describe how things have deteriorated under Bush:

"Nuclear dangers have mounted across the globe. The international terrorist club has expanded. Radicalism in the Middle East is on the rise. We have divided our friends and united our enemies. And our standing in the world is at an all time low."

North Korea is building nukes, as is Iran; Russian WMD are not secure; Afghanistan is destabilizing. Osama bin Laden is more popular in most places in the Middle East than America is.

And while Osama got away, Bush diverted resources away from fighting al Qaeda so we could invade a country which had not attacked us and posed no real threat.

That's just the beginning of the speech. I'm not finished here, I'll be back tomorrow. But I would urge you to read the speech in its entirety--you'll see why some called it a campaign masterpiece, and you'll see why the media had little choice but to pick this one up and run with it. It's got the Kerry campaign energized.

Bush the Flip-Flopper

Bush has been accusing Kerry of flip-flopping, primarily based upon gross distortions of Kerry's voting record in Congress. When these accusations are looked at closely, they do not hold up at all--but Bush is on record as one of the biggest flip-floppers of all time. One prominent example is his position on the Iraq war and WMD:

First Bush claimed that he did not need Congressional approval to go to war with Iraq. Then he flip-flopped and decided he did need their approval. Then Bush decided he would not go to the U.N. for a resolution on the matter, and then he flip-flopped and decided he would go. But soon after, he flopped on his flip-flop and decided that he didn't need the U.N. after all.

Then there was his ever-flipping position on WMD. At first he was consistent: in November 2002, before he invaded, he said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and that's why we had to invade. Then after the invasion, in May 2003, he said that he had actually found weapons of mass destruction. But then he had to flip-flop and admit we hadn't found actual weapons yet, really.

But then he switch-flopped in June and said that Hussein had a weapons of mass destruction program, and that was why we went into Iraq. But then he had to admit that there was no evidence that Hussein had such a program since a decade ago. And by the State of the Union speech last January, he flip-flopped again with a backwards twist and a triple gainer, this time claiming we had found "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities." Finally, when he had no choice but to face the facts, he admitted that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and upon doing so, did a huge, monolithic, record-breaking warp-speed flip-flop and claimed that the reason we went into Iraq was for humanitarian reasons.

An then let's not forget one of his most gigantic flip-flops, so sudden and absolute that Bush must have gotten whiplash:

December 13, 2001: We will get Osama bin Laden, no matter how long it takes, "dead or alive — either way. It doesn't matter to me."

March 13, 2002 (exactly three months later): "I don't know where [Osama bin Laden] is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important." And on the same day: "I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."

It's hard to get more flip-floppy than that. But Bush has a long record of flip flops. The major ones are covered in many places, like here, here, here, and a long list here.

Depressing News from Iraq

Meanwhile, the situation in Iraq continues to spin out of control. American casualties have been steadily increasing for four months now. At this rate, September will become at least the third deadliest month of the war with a hundred or more U.S. soldiers killed.

And now more and more analysts are beginning to come out and say it outright: we are losing the war in Iraq. Or, more specifically, Bush is losing the war in Iraq. The soldiers fight on, doing their best, but all a soldier can do is just that--their best. If their commander-in-chief chooses the wrong battle or mishandles his strategy, then there's little that any soldier can do.

Before the war started, the Arab league predicted that if Bush invaded, it would "open the gates of hell in the Middle East," and now they're saying that the gates of hell are indeed open; some analysts see the was as already lost; and this writer notes that the correspondence between Bush's rosy assessments and the reality on the ground are becoming more and more dissonant.

The question now is, will the realization of Bush's horrific blunder sink in with the populace in time to do something about it, or will a jingoistic, crowd-pleasing, gung-ho "if you diss me then you diss the soldiers" song-and-dance routine by Dubya sway voters enough to lock us into four more years in Iraq? If Bush gets voted in, then we're in Iraq for good, because his inability to admit to error will force him to drive us into the ground there.

The war was a mistake from the start, and many of us saw it before the whole thing started:

Contrary to the rosy the-Arabs-will-love-us-for-saving-them pipe dream that Cheney has been hawking, the Arab people do not and never have reacted kindly to U.S. intervention, even when their governments allow it; should we go in with everyone opposing us, tempers will flare further still. Cheney argued that "extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of jihad." Is he truly so utterly naive? An unsupported attack by America on an Arab nation would generate such fear and hostility in so many people that extremists would be swamped with volunteers willing to die for their cause. It would fire the call for a greater jihad, not frighten the extremists into impotency. Conflict is the friend of the terrorist.

That's from a pre-Movable-Type blog entry of mine from August 27th, 2002. I was hardly batting 1000 in the entirety of the post, but a lot of what I predicted came to pass, and a lot of other people were closer to the truth than I was. It's not like it was really that hard to see coming. But Bush and his handlers were either blind to it or didn't even care.

The sad thing is, it may already be too late. Bush has ceded huge swaths of territory to the insurgents (like he did in Afghanistan when he depleted forces there to fight in Iraq), who now know that a victory is possible. A great deal of that was made possible by things like the prison torture fiasco, turning hearts and minds against us.

The solution would have been for America to go to the United Nations and work out a real coalition, with strong cooperation by Arab nations, to send in a multinational force under U.N. control. Had that been implemented a year ago perhaps, it might have worked. But now Bush has wrecked the Iraq car, totaling it beyond any hope of repair, and we are probably left with the unsavory and yet very real choice of either leaving Iraq to the insurgents and letting it descend into hell, or staying there and still have it descend into hell. The way Bush has taken us in, there is not painless way out. In fact, there is no way out that is not going to be excruciatingly painful.

Bush will inevitably talk about where to go from here, and that is indeed relevant. But even more relevant in deciding the next president is this: what kind of decisions has Bush made, and where have they taken us--because if he gets re-elected, we will be in for more and more decisions just like it.

A Famine Where Abundance Lies

Some days it's just hard to write. You see clearly what is going on, but stand in almost despair as others look the other way. You see a man who had everything paid for and handed to him, everything taken care of for him all his life, who drank, almost certainly used drugs; a man who broke the law many times, though arrested only three times that we know of; a man who has spoken outright lies too many to count; who evaded service while admonishing his peers not to do the same--engaging in hypocrisy, cowardice, and then lying about it. A man who displayed cruelty to many people, including a woman about to be put to death on his own watch.

And yet, despite all of these facts, millions of people who see character, dignity, and honor as critical somehow are able to see this man as strong in character. You wonder in disbelief how they can possibly think that.

You see a man who started a war that didn't need to be fought, sent a thousand young men and women to die and Lord knows how many thousands more to be maimed and cut up, all based on lies about how dangerous the other country was, lies proven wrong beyond any doubt whatsoever; a man who still forwards many of these same bald-faced lies. A man who hides behind the honor of fallen soldiers. A man who did all of this at the cost of fighting an effective war on terror, when from the very start he began to draw resources away from the hunt for those who had actually attacked our people. A man who has allowed and even caused by his words and actions the enemy numbers to swell, while still refusing to adequately fund real defense at home.

And yet, to so many patriotic Americans who see their children's lives as sacred and the security of our nation as paramount, this same man is somehow seen as a strong, decisive leader who is our only chance for peace and safety.

You see a man who has treated the people with disdain, stealing away their rights in the dead of night, and yet to many who cherish our freedoms and liberties, this man is somehow a protector.

You see a man who has taken a massive surplus and turned it into an unheard-of deficit, a man whose spending has gone far beyond control, and yet among people to whom small government and financial responsibility is essential, somehow this man is seen as a trustworthy manager of the treasury.

You see a man who has presided of massive job losses, over the lowering of uncounted jobs to minimal pay, who has done nothing for education or health care, and yet so many people seem to think he is the best man to accomplish these things and raise our standards of living, tasks which he has proven he cannot accomplish.

And then we turn and see the other man. A man also born to wealth and privilege, and yet he chose to serve, and did serve in combat, with such stature and bravery that a band of his comrades have given up a year of their lives to follow him and declare to anyone who will listen that they owe their lives to him, that he is a man who will lead with honor and dignity. And yet many people who respect military service and honor bravery would sooner listen to political hacks funded by wealthy partisan donors who attack this man with easily punctured lies and thinly veiled hypocrisy--and yet believe them instead. You see the first man attack not just the second, but many others (think of McCain and Cleland) who served and sacrificed with honor, attacking them with bitter lies and calling these patriots traitors, and somehow many people believe the coward who never fought, and disbelieve the men who offered their lives for their country.

You see the other man come forward with workable, sensible and fair plans where the first man has nothing but failures. You see the other man spell out his plans for education in detail, for health care that benefits the people and not the pharmaceutical corporations, a man who would tax fairly, use taxes fairly, and who would reduce the deficit, build better jobs and turn us around from four years of economic failure. But you see that nobody hears of any of this because though the man is speaking of these plans often, the cameras and the journalists do not pass them on as they are supposed to; they instead focus on what the first man is saying without questioning his veracity, and then only how the other man responds to that, and little else. You see the other man trying to tell a country how he can help, how he wishes to serve, but you only read stories and see reports buried low on the page and far into the broadcast, and even then more often than not focusing on how he's being berated or not being angry enough.

Just today, two of the top half dozen major media sites don't even mention Kerry's name on their main pages, though they all name Bush; two more of that number do not mention him until near the bottom of the page. And yet we are less than two months away from an election.

You may or may not share my views or judgments, and I am far from being without bias. There are other things to be said that oppose what I have written above, to be certain. But even taking all that into account, I still cannot fathom how so many can dismiss so much which is vital in a leader and accept a man such as Bush; I cannot believe how a man like Kerry, who, for all his faults, fought for his nation and fights for it still, a man of ambition and yet still of conscience, can be so beaten in the media and disbelieved and unheard by so many who value the things that he has accomplished and promises to do.

You look at the papers and read the news and listen to the broadcasts, and sometimes it hurts to see how the truth is being played with by veterans of spin, how you know what is right and yet also see how millions will see it as wrong, or wrong as right.

This does not mean that I am giving up, however. It does not mean I have abandoned hope, far from it. My hope is that those who fear what will come from another four years, and those who hope for what a new administration could bring, will be galvanized by the blind eye of much of the country and the jaded eye of the media. My hope still remains in my mantra now quite long in speaking: turnout, turnout, turnout.

I fear for my country, but above all I hope for it.

...And He Lied Back Then As Well

You might or might not be aware the George W. Bush once ran for Congress. It was 1978, and after winning the primary race, he lost to Democrat Kent Hance. What is interesting is that in his campaign materials, Bush claimed to have served in the Air Force as well as in the Texas Air National Guard.

Of course, this is nothing new. In his 1999 biography, he stated that after June 1970, "I continued flying with my unit for the next several years," which is now known to be false. In 1999 and 2000, Bush lied--twice--about his drunk driving arrest. And then there was the time that Bush, as Governor of Texas in 1999, lied under oath (isn't that an impeachable offense now?) in a criminal investigation.

Ah, but those were five years ago, and so were just youthful indiscretions. After all, he wouldn't ever lie as president, would he?

Last Nails in the Bush National Guard Coffin

Not that diehard Bush supporters will care, but the evidence has now mounted to prove that Bush (a) got into the guard through family influence, not merit, and did so in order to avoid serving in Vietnam; (b) he did not fulfill his service; and (c) he received special treatment in the guard and escaped punishment because of who he was.

The story is often confusing because it is often told in a disjointed way, often just focusing on a few specifics and rarely told in full. A fully-detailed telling of the story could probably fill a book, but here are the highlights:

When Bush applied for the Texas Air National Guard (TANG), there was a long waiting list--usually one and a half years long--and absolutely no guarantee of a spot. Bush checked "do not volunteer" for overseas assignment on the application forms. Bush admits to having called Colonel Walter Staudt, commander of the TANG, to ask about getting into the Guard.

Sid Adger, oilman and Bush family friend, asked then-Lt. Governor Ben Barnes to get young Bush into the TANG. Barnes contacted General James Rose, head of the TANG, and asked him to take Bush in. Barnes just recently recounted that story on 60 Minutes.

Bush joined the TANG just 12 days before his college deferment ran out. Col. Staudt immediately became Bush's mentor and guardian. Staudt held a special ceremony to swear Bush in, complete with photographers--even though Bush had already been sworn in. Staudt held another ceremony for the cameras when Bush was made an officer, with the Elder Bush in attendance.

Bush was made a Lieutenant despite not having accomplished any of the requirements for the rank; Bush was made a jet pilot despite getting only a 25% score--the lowest possible without failing--in his aptitude test. Bush was elevated into the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron over the heads of far more qualified pilots. Col. Staudt insisted that there was no favoritism. Bush was assigned to an F-102, which was being phased out and would never be called to Vietnam. (additional source)

The above rather clearly proves that Bush used connections and family influence to get into the Guard, and once he was in, he was rather blatantly guided into a position of status, safety, and comfort.

The next stage of the whole affair comes in 1972, when Bush is still a few years away from completing his comfy service in Texas:

In the spring of 1972, George H. W. Bush, then the U.S. Ambassador the to U.N., directly called Jimmy Allison, Bush family political guru and manager of the Blount campaign in Alabama. The elder Bush asked Allison to take young George under his wing, and get him to work on the Blount campaign. Said Allison's widow in a recent interview, "The impression I had was that Georgie was raising a lot of hell in Houston, getting in trouble and embarrassing the family, and they just really wanted to get him out of Houston and under Jimmy's wing."

In April 1972, all overseas and stateside military services started instituting drug testing.

A new document, just released, shows that on May 4, 1972, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, then Bush's commanding officer, gave Bush a direct order to have his annual physical exam no later than May 14. It was previously assumed that Bush was due for his exam in August. The question is, why was he ordered to have his exam two to three months earlier than normal? This memo also shows that the Bush camp lied when they claimed Bush did not take the exam because Bush was in Alabama and his family physician was in Texas--Bush was in Texas when ordered to take the exam.

Another new document shows that on May 19, Bush called Killian to see if he could get out of performing his duties and go to Alabama. Killian noted that Bush had not taken his physical, and reminded Bush of the $1 million investment the TANG had made in training him. Killian wrote that he suspected Bush was "talking to someone upstairs."

On May 24, Bush put in a request to be transfered to an inactive postal Reserve unit in the Alabama Guard; Killian recommends the transfer for Bush. One week later, his request was turned down by the National Guard Bureau headquarters. Bush remained in Alabama, however, and did not return to Texas as was required. Doing so could be considered going AWOL (it is desertion if it is more than 30 days).

Bush 'campaigns' for Blount in Alabama; according to the widow of Jimmy Allison, Bush constantly showed up late, shirked regular work, bragged about his heavy drinking, and that the only work he did during that time was "contacting people who were impressed by his name and asking for contributions and support." Allison also had no idea Bush was in the Guard and never saw or heard of Bush attending drills.

On August 1st, Killian suspends Bush for not taking his physical exam. A mandatory report by a Flight Inquiry Board detailing Bush's situation is still missing from the documents released from the Bush administration.

On August 18, Killian wrote a memo titled "CYA," almost certainly standing for "Cover Your Ass." This is one of the most damning memos; in it, Killian notes that Bush's superior officers (Lt. Cols. William D. Harris Jr. and Bobby Hodges) are being pressured by Staudt to go easy on Bush and "sugar-coat" his reviews. Killian writes that he'll falsify the date of a report on Bush but will not rate him better than he deserves. Staudt was clearly going to a great deal of trouble to get Bush off the hook for his failure to follow orders or even show up for duty.

On September 5, 1972, Bush was ordered to start service in an active but non-flying Alabama Guard unit, but it is doubtful that he ever served there at all. Of all the people on the base, only one man, James "Bill" Calhoun, ever claimed to have seen Bush there--but Calhoun's story was shown to be a lie when records showed that Calhoun claimed to have seen Bush on dates when Bush was not even assigned to the unit. Other witnesses (the base commander Lt. Col. William Turnipseed and then-Lt. Bob Mintz) state definitely that Bush would have stood out like a sore thumb, and yet they never saw him, despite having looked. The only evidence Bush even went to the base is a dental exam--which only proves that he got free medical treatment, not that he served.

Bush's absence at this time violates a ''statement of understanding" which he signed in which he swore to achieve ''satisfactory participation" which "included attendance at 24 days of annual weekend duty -- usually involving two weekend days each month -- and 15 days of annual active duty." (source)

In November 1972, Bush finally returned to Houston Texas, but did not report for duty with his home squadron.

In December 1972, Bush inexplicably began working as a counselor with black youngsters in Houston, in a community service stint--often a punishment for offenders who are let off easy. His public criminal record for that period was wiped clean when Bush became governor of Texas and had his driver's license number changed. (Rumors suggest that Bush was either caught with cocaine or for a second drunk driving offense.)

In May 1973, Bush was ordered to serve "nine certain duty days" in person at Ellington Air Force Base in Montgomery between May 22 and June 7; he never showed up. In fact, Bush never returned to duty in Texas; Lt. Col. Hodges said that "If he had come back to Houston, I would have kept him flying the 102 until he got out, but I don't remember him coming back at all."

On July 30, 1973, when he was cleared to go to Harvard, Bush signed a document reading, "It is my responsibility to locate and be assigned to another Reserve forces unit or mobilization augmentation position [in Massachusetts]. If I fail to do so, I am subject to involuntary order to active duty for up to 24 months..." Bush never did so, and therefore disobeyed a direct command and failed to serve duties he swore to uphold.

Upon leaving the Guard in the summer of 1973, Bush was awarded 35 "gratuitous" inactive Air Force Reserve points, which means that he did not attend his duties but was credited with serving anyway. This was not normal, and went directly against the rules at that time. In essence, Bush did not complete his duties, so higher-ups simply gave him credit for the service so he could receive an honorable discharge.

October 1, 1973: Bush is honorably discharged eight months before his duty is scheduled to end.

(extra sources: 60 Minutes, Bush's TANG Timeline, and this BlogD post)

The White House has been trying to explain this away, mostly by simply lying--claiming Bush served when not only do they have no proof, but when there is substantial evidence showing Bush did not complete his duties. White House spokesman Bartlett summed it up thusly: "The bottom line is, is that President Bush would not have received the honorable discharge that he was granted when he returned from Alabama if he had not met his requirements."

However, the new evidence, in addition to a great deal of prior evidence, clearly shows that Bush was being given special treatment, that his superiors were being pressured to falsify records, and that he was given far more breaks, promotions, positions and credits than he deserved. All of this proves without question that he very well could have received the honorable discharge without fulfilling his duties, and--as detailed above--he did in fact NOT fulfill his duties on many separate occasions.

Bush has lied about this. His people have lied constantly about this. Which begs the question, what else are they holding back? There are still a great many documents that should exist but which the Bush administration has not yet revealed.

What does all this mean? What relevance does it have? It means that Bush is and was dishonest; that his character is and was unacceptable; and that he cannot be trusted to carry out his responsibilities. If honesty, character, and reliability are important in a president, then all of this is of great importance for voters considering whom to elect to the nation's highest office.

Count Slowly

The milestone was reached and passed while I slept. Here is the editorial from the Seattle PI.

Count to 1,000, slowly

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD

We probably won't know which American was the thousandth to die in the war on Iraq or precisely when or where he or she fell, nor do we need to know. The grisly milestone was reached yesterday, according to records compiled by The Associated Press.

In a news conference earlier in the day, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld appeared to downplay the looming tick in the death tally. He contended that terrorism's death toll was already well over 1,000 by counting the roughly 3,000 who were lost in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

It was a cynical attempt to renew the discredited connection between terrorism and Iraq. Indeed, Rumsfeld said, our 1,000 dead in Iraq fell to "a combination of terrorists, former regime elements and criminals."

It's no time to engage in the ghoulish calculus of how many American deaths are too many. Even one life lost in an errant cause is one too many. The validity of their sacrifice can never be questioned, but the wisdom of those who called them to make that sacrifice must be.

This is a war whose cost has been borne by so few, waged by a nation that has cut taxes for the wealthy and in which a spike in gas prices is as close as most of us have come to sacrifice. So, for today, it's essential to stop and stand quietly beside this milepost on the road of war -- and count to one thousand, slowly.

I find it incomprehensible, what Rumsfeld was trying to say. Comparing the soldiers lost to those lost in 9/11? Furthering the lie that Iraq was somehow connected to that terrorist attack? And comparing our people lost--how is that supposed to tie in? What, is he trying to match the number? Or to say that 1,000 is not so many, so we shouldn't grieve so much?

Incomprehensible.

Bad News Bush

More news out:

Remember the Congressional Report on 9/11 which the Bush White House ripped 27 pages out of? We always knew that the redacted pages were about Saudi Arabia, but we probably assumed that it just talked out secondary relationships between the terrorists and that country.

Not quite. According to Florida Senator Bob Graham, part of the 27 pages censored by Bush spoke of two 9/11 hijackers who got support from Saudi agents--and the Bush administration blocked an investigation into the matter. Omar al-Bayoumi and Osama Bassan worked for the Saudi government when they gave substantial financial support to Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhdar (hijackers on AA Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon), and found them apartments in San Diego when they began flight training there.

When the staff tried to conduct interviews in that investigation, and with an FBI informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who also helped the eventual hijackers, they were blocked by the FBI and the administration, Graham wrote.

The administration and CIA also insisted that the details about the Saudi support network that benefited two hijackers be left out of the final congressional report, Graham complained.

Bush had concluded that "a nation-state that had aided the terrorists should not be held publicly to account," Graham wrote. "It was as if the president's loyalty lay more with Saudi Arabia than with America's safety."

Bush's statement about nations that aide terrorists is completely opposite to Bush's post-9/11 policy which he used to justify invading Afghanistan.

Graham also reveals that, according to General Tommy Franks, the Bush administration started shifting resources out of Afghanistan and into a position to be used against Iraq as early as February 2002, just four months after the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and more than a year before the invasion of Iraq--not to mention long before Bush had congressional authority to do anything of that nature. Franks told Graham at one point, "Senator, we are not engaged in a war in Afghanistan."

All of this gives even more credence to the case made in Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11, in which the extensive ties between the Bushes and the Saudis is outlined; far more detail is given in the Craig Unger book, House of Bush, House of Saud. The short story is, Bush is covering up the Saudi connection, perhaps even illegally so, committing obstruction of justice.

What odds you want that the mainstream press ignores the story?

---

Fighting in Iraq has surged, bringing the 1000th death of an American soldier close to reality frighteningly faster than expected. 12 fatalities in the past 36 hours have brought the toll to 998. It is sad that only this milestone may bring even a little attention to how badly things are going for our people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly 7,000 more have been wounded, many losing limbs or otherwise becoming handicapped. And still, they're being short-changed and left in the cold (make that heat) in regards to everything from bottled water to body armor, while looking at Bush administration VA funding cuts of almost a billion dollars. These among a host of issues plaguing the troops. We say we support them, but few seem willing to focus on these vital issues. To know more about what's happening straight from the source, visit Operation Truth, a web site by soldiers in Iraq.

Was Saddam Hussein worth the lives of 1,000 Americans?

---

Concern has been growing over the quick-and-dirty post-convention polls from TIME and Newsweek which show Bush enjoyed a double-digit bounce. Not so fast, though; Rasmussen polls, tracking the numbers day by day, see only a 4 to 5 point lead over Kerry, which is backed up by reports of internal poll numbers from both campaigns. Rasmussen attributes the discrepancy between TIME & Newsweek and the new numbers to the news magazines' giving more weight to Republicans' responses in the polling data; the L.A. Times, apparently, made the same mistake by counting too many Democrats when the paper reported a huge Kerry lead earlier in the year.

A new CNN/USA Today Gallup poll shows an even smaller bounce: according to this poll, Bush got no more than a 2% increase in the poll numbers relative to before the convention. If true, this would equal the bounce Kerry got after the Democratic convention.

---

More dirt on Bush?

Well, it looks like it. More and more people have been noticing the long-known fact that the Bush National Guard document dump may have had lots of pages, but it left out key documents, such as the mandatory report detailing why Bush missed his physical exam. The White House response? Texas Air National Guardsmen were sloppy record-keepers. Really, that's what they're saying. This as Ben Barnes' 60 Minutes interview is getting ready to air.

And now Kitty Kelley, author of the Nancy Reagan Bio, is publishing a book on the Bushes, in which she reports witnesses who say that Bush used cocaine at Camp David when his father was president, and that he and Laura Bush both smoked marijuana. The 700-page book titled "The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty" is reported to contain "five bombshells," including the drug information and apparently new information on Bush and the National Guard.

Bush has still not answered the cocaine issue save to say that he didn't use illegal narcotics after 1974; frankly, it is rather obvious he did use cocaine, else the clumsy obfuscation he attempted in 2000 about how he would clear background checks in former white house administrations makes absolutely no sense at all.

New allegations of cocaine use won't really affect those already voting against Bush much, but it could hurt his support among his base, fundamentalist voters who might be less inclined to go to the polls in November if this gets enough coverage in the press.

A Look at Two Convention Speeches: Part Two

And finally, on to Bush's convention speech.

Naturally, he opens with references to the bravery of others, on 9/11 and in the invasion of Iraq; in essence, he is saying, if you honor them, then you honor me. An easy sell, but dishonest as well; their honor is not his, their actions are divorced from his, not representative.

But then, he lapses into a strange metaphor of hills and valleys. 9/11 was a hill? And how is now a valley? Not exactly "morning in America" or even "the shining city on the hill." Anyway, he goes on to praise Dick Cheney, his wife, his father, and then name-drops Ronald Reagan. But he quickly ventured into policy; according to some observers, the idea was that if anyone happened to flip through and momentarily watch the speech, they'd hear at least a few policy point.

In education, he claims progress--but there is no evidence that progress is being made. Bush continues to massively underfund NCLB, and those students who do attend Bush's "magic bullet" charter schools have scored worse than students at public schools (probably exactly because Bush has failed to fund them). And instead of trying to fix the system, Bush is simply getting his Department of Education to stop collecting information on charter schools so no one will be the wiser, and instead hopes people will simply buy his unsupported line about how education is "improving."

He then spoke of strengthening Medicare, but he has only done a spectacular job of destroying it. He lied to Congress and the people about the costs of the program he pushed through Congress. He illegally used government funds to create a Bush campaign commercial under the guise of "educating the public" about his plan. He cornered seniors into committing to a single plan for buying drugs, which the pharmaceutical companies can renegotiate whenever they like; he blocked the government from negotiating better prices for drugs, like many countries do to great affect; and now, we find out that Bush's medicare prices are jumping by 17%, the greatest rise in premiums ever for medicare. In short, he's done an abysmal job, and yet crows about how he's some kind of Medicare Savior.

He goes on about his tax cuts, claiming that it benefitted "America's workers, entrepreneurs, farmers, and ranchers." Bull. He only shifted the tax burden onto the middle class while dangling a plastic carrot "tax cut" for the middle class that was nothing more than a tax hike in disguise, while slashing taxes for the rich. "Farmers and ranchers" are a suggestion that his plan to eliminate the estate tax saves farms, when nothing of the sort is true--the individual farmer and rancher already have protections; the Bush changes only benefit the wealthy. And after three years, his magic solution to the weak economy is still ineffectual; the economy is still anemic, and the job market is destitute.

He recycles "compassionate conservatism," with the term being just as ambiguous and without real meaning as it was four years ago. He claims that "government should help people improve their lives, not try to run their lives," while at the same time spending money like a madman, tearing down our civil liberties, forcing fundamentalist religious policy into national laws, while refusing to be accountable to the people, veiling his administration in secrecy, thus giving Americans less power over government and our lives than ever before. He lied about Iraq to get Americans to agree to go to war, and now we find we've been suckered, and our young men are killed every day. That's putting us in control of what happens to us? And yet he has the gall to speak of "expanding liberty," whilst giving no clue as to what that supposedly means.

He even spoke of today's economic woes of having multiple jobs and being laid off frequently as "a time of great opportunity for all Americans." Incredible. He uses this as a prelude about how he wants to change government systems to "take the side" of the American people, when he has shown every intention of doing the opposite. Is stiffing seniors while giving huge benefits to pharmaceutical corporations "taking your side"? Is stiffing you at the gas pump while letting Big Oil write the nation's energy policy "taking your side"? I don't think so.

After four years of horrifically bad performance in jobs--the worst since Hoover and the Great Depression--he claims that his policies will get you more and better jobs. His performance so far, with the freedom to do practically anything he wants with minimal opposition, has resulted not only in massive losses of jobs, but also has resulted in what jobs we do have being worse than ever before, with salaries low, workload high, and very little job security--except for those at the top of the ladder, Bush protects them. But for you? Remember, this is the administration that wanted to redefine "manufacturing jobs" to include burger-flipping.

But Bush claims that his plan will "encourage investment and expansion by restraining federal spending, reducing regulation, and making tax relief permanent." Good lord. "Restraining federal spending"? Bush has been on an unprecedented four-year spending spree. "Reducing regulation"? Where has he done that, except to allow for oil drilling in national parks or to remove roadblocks to corporate corruption? And making "tax relief" permanent? We've had this "relief" for close to four years now, and it's only driven us deeper into the hole.

He goes on to say that he "will make our country less dependent on foreign sources of energy." Really? How? What's he done so far? He's given good lip service, but the only way he's tried to act to accomplish this goal is to drill in ANWAR, which, even if successful, will hardly solve any energy dependency problems--it would be 10 years before the oil would really start running, and would hardly be enough to make us oil-independent. Hey, maybe if he told Dick Cheney to let the public see how the Gas, Oil and Coal lobbies wrote our nation's energy policies, maybe we'd get a better idea then!

Oy vey. That's enough for tonight. And I'm not even halfway through the speech yet. In short, practically everything in the speech was either an outright lie, or had major elements of untruth, exaggeration, misdirection and other shades of dishonesty.

But Bush knows the drill: claim something is true long enough, strongly enough, and the American people will believe it to be true, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. 70% believed that Saddam was in on 9/11. How many believe Bush's current load of bull?

The Assault on the Middle Class Continues

In their continued attack against the middle class, the GOP and President Bush ponder how they will institute a national sales tax, probably at around 25%. The anti-progressive tax would, in theory, replace the federal income tax, and would represent the greatest tax cut for the wealthy imaginable, a veritable Death Star for tax cuts for the rich. It would shift the tax burden squarely on the middle class and the poor.

Bush and the GOP are already spinning like mad, giving the new plan the name "Fair Tax" and claiming that it would make the middle class "invisible" to taxes. Invisible?? When you pay 25% extra on everything you buy? In addition to whatever state sales taxes you might pay?

The GOP stance is an absolute fraud, pure and simple. Wealthy people would be paying a miniscule proportion of their income for the tax--and would likely be rewarded immediately with big-ticket exemptions (under the guise of aiming those exemptions at the middle class, of course--SOP). The poor would find their tax burden skyrocketing, as just about everything they purchase would become about 25 % more expensive--including food, which for obvious reasons has always been exempt from state sales taxes. Everyone in the middle class would suffer similarly.

The idea has been so unpopular that Bush almost immediately flip-flopped on the issue, saying he didn't want people to think he was raising taxes. No, we've got to get those tax hikes through in stealth mode.

This is a seriously bad idea--not just for the above reasons, but because it will target taxes at purchases, which will hurt sales and be poison to the economy. Japan instituted a 3% federal consumption tax back in 1989, and hiked it to 5% in 1997--and both times, their economy dragged, contributing to a decade-long recession.

---

On another front, the Bush administration, after losing four congressional votes on the issue, decided to use strict executive authority to enact their overtime overhaul. Republicans are trying to paint it as something that will just take overtime away from a few thousand wealthy people earning over $100,000 a year, and that a lot of other people will get more overtime. Few people getting overtime now believe this, however.

One thing is for certain: it's not what the Bush administration wants you to think. First of all, how many people who make over $100,000 a year get time-and-a-half? Like the law that says that rich people have the right to sleep under bridges, one can only suspect that this is a false-front way of making it look like a burden only on the wealthy.

Workers earning less than $24,000 will be exempt, but that leaves a huge hole between $24K and $100K, occupied mostly by the middle class. Who in that hole will lose overtime? That's the problem: the rules are torturously labyrinthine in that area, and even experts say they're unclear. Some examples of people getting their overtime pay cut include "pharmacists, funeral directors, embalmers, journalists, financial services industry workers, insurance claims adjusters, human resource managers, management consultants, executive and administrative assistants, purchasing agents, registered or certified medical technologists, dental hygienists, physician assistants, accountants, chefs, athletic trainers with degrees or specialized training, computer system analysts, programmers and software engineers." See the pattern? No? What, are you blind? Obviously the pay cut is aimed at.. er,... uh, whah?

And what if your job is not on that list? Does your pay get cut, or not? You'll probably find out when your employer cuts your pay--the rules are so unclear that they say employers should determine who gets the cuts on a "case-by-case basis."

Now, the claim is that this is intended to cut down on lawsuits concerning overtime pay, but this is doubtful: the vague and seemingly random targeting of the pay cuts will, in all likelihood, create countless more disputes and spark a tidal wave of suits. The real aim of the law, it would seem, will be to cut down on the chances of employees actually winning the overtime claims so many businesses despise.

The fact is, the rules confuse a great many people, but many distrust the new regs on the basis of its source--the anti-labor administration--and its backers, the people who pay the wages:

Monday's change is the culmination of decades of lobbying by business groups representing retailers, restaurants, insurance companies, banks and others that have been hammered by workers' overtime lawsuits, many of them successful.

I can relate to that. When I worked at a movie theater in college, my own employers withheld overtime pay, claiming they just didn't have the money for it (businesses never 'have the money' to pay employees), and promising future redresses that of course never materialized. I sued them in small claims court, and won.

I would be willing to bet good money that far, far more than the 107,000 workers will lose overtime, and apart from savaging middle-class wage earner's income, this stands as the first step of many to do away with overtime completely.

Add to this the refusal of conservatives to allow for even a mild increase in the minimum wage, and their incessant drive to give more, more, and even more tax cuts to the wealthy, and it becomes all too evident that the GOP is the friend of the wealthy only, and has nothing but contempt and abusive intent towards the poor and middle class.

Ten Words

"There it is. That's the ten-word answer my staff's been looking for for two weeks. There it is. Ten-word answers can kill you in political campaigns. They're the tip of the sword. Here's my question: What are the next ten words of your answer? Your taxes are too high? So are mine. Give me the next ten words. How are we going to do it? Give me ten after that, I'll drop out of the race right now. Every once in a while... every once in a while, there's a day with an absolute right and an absolute wrong, but those days almost always include body counts. Other than that, there aren't very many unnuanced moments in leading a country that's way too big for ten words."

--President Bartlet, in the West Wing episode "Game On"

In the game of "Ten Words," Bush has been winning the game.

Last September, after several weeks of claiming that he could invade Iraq without the permission of Congress (his staff even put together a list of legal justifications for doing so), Bush flip-flopped and put before the Senate a request to grant him war powers. Kerry agonized over whether or not to grant those powers; as other Democrats such as Barbara Boxer were saying that we should not trust the president, Kerry finally decided to back the resolution, but not without conditions or reservations:

"Let there be no doubt or confusion," Kerry said. "I will support a multilateral effort to disarm [Hussein] by force, if we ever exhaust those other options as the president has promised. But I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible."

There was nothing in the resolution that guaranteed those conditions would be met. Nonetheless, he was one of 29 Democrats to vote for the resolution, which passed 77 to 23.

In his Senate speech, Kerry had said, "I will be among the first to speak out" if Bush failed to seek international support and go to war as a last resort.

It is important to remember that these were words Kerry spoke on the floor of the Senate last October, not this summer; it is important to remember that Bush had promised to exhaust all diplomatic options, to allow the w