street228 Posted October 8, 2004 Report Posted October 8, 2004 For Those Who Are Still Undecided Madeline Salocks When George W Bush became president, I feared that this man was in way over his head. But despite that trepidation, and even with the suspect vote count, I figured the jury was still out. However, as the disturbing facts have piled up week by week over the past 3 and a half years, my fears have been far more than confirmed. I now feel that we have an administration with no conscience. And no measure of feel-good images, upbeat promises, spin-doctoring, or smoke and mirrors can erase his record. I do agree with Dick Cheney however on just one point - this next election may be one of the most important in our nationÔÇÖs history. And therefore I appeal to anyone still considering voting for Bush - please take a few minutes to consider the following questions. How can the Bush administrationÔÇÖs invasion of a country that never attacked the US, and the deception of the American public to rally support ever be justified? The deceptions began with statements linking Al Qaeda with Iraq, and with enough repetition over time, Bush succeeded in leading many to believe Iraq was involved in the 9/11attack. Then, to frighten people into believing the world was in imminent danger, Bush asserted that Iraq was rapidly producing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Of course, never mind that the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq had found nothing. Then, Bush asserted that the US must invade Iraq in order to liberate their people from Saddam Hussein. Of course, never mind other countries around the world with ruthless dictators, or those posing a real threat in terms of WMD - such as North Korea, barely on BushÔÇÖs radar. And along with these rationalizations, Bush assured that there would be a strong international coalition, and that our forces would be greeted with ÔÇÿflowersÔÇÖ. The reality is that no Iraq involvement in 9/11 has ever been established. The 9/11 commission reported in June 2004 that ÔÇ£it found no ÔÇÿcollaborative relationshipÔÇÖ between Iraq and Al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.ÔÇØ [Washington Post 6/17/04] And the reality is that no WMD (or the means to create them) have been found in Iraq. In January 2004, David Kay stepped down as leader of the weapons search in Iraq, stating that he believed there were no Iraqi stockpiles to be found [Reuters 1/23/2004]. And the reality is that the ÔÇÿcoalitionÔÇÖ is not a true coalition - the non-US troops have been a tiny fraction of the total troops, and many have pulled out. And the reality of the Iraqi reception has been anything but flowers. The Iraq invasion and occupation have been a disastrous mess with continued warfare and no end in sight. Were plans and exit strategies at least in place? Apparently not. Even some who originally supported the Iraq invasion now recognize the incompetence of this operation. Furthermore, a lot of information has surfaced about numerous pre-invasion warnings that were provided but ignored by the Bush administration. And meanwhile, Osama Bin LadenÔÇÖs name is not even mentioned by this administration anymore. How is that possible? So Bush lied to the American people in order to recklessly wage an unjustified war. Why? Two words ÔÇô oil, and domination. And for how long was this war plan in the works? The answer is most likely found in ÔÇÿThe Project for the New American CenturyÔÇÖ, a neo-conservative organization that has recommended expansion of US dominance in the world - including the overthrow of Saddam Hussein - since the 1990ÔÇÖs. And some of its key members just happen to be Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. It is true that Saddam Hussein was known to be a ruthless dictator, but he was at least contained, and other approaches should have been used to work toward his removal. The terrible tragedy is that this lie has now lead to the death of over 1000 troops and many thousands of Iraqi citizens. To see updates on the troop and Iraqi death tolls, see the following websites respectively: http://icasualties.org/ and http://www.iraqbodycount.net/.. Polls show 4 out of 5 Iraqis oppose the U.S. occupation [Washington Post 5/13/04]. If you were an Iraqi citizen, how would you feel surrounded by continuous destruction, violence, and death? It is also not surprising that troop morale has sunk to new depths, with a suicide rate 35 percent higher than elsewhere [Newsweek 4/2/04]. If you were a soldier, how would you feel being asked to put your life on the line for a lie? In Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore tried to ask congressmen a fundamental and critical question ÔÇô ÔÇ£Would you send your own son or daughter to fight in Iraq?ÔÇØ. If you are still considering voting for Bush, please ask yourself that simple question, ponder its significance, and be completely honest with yourself. To me, the reckless rush to a war on lies constitutes more than sufficient reason to jettison Bush from the White House - regardless of anything else. But in fact, his record fails on every front. If you are still undecided, please read on. How can the Bush administrationÔÇÖs response to 9/11, and the war on terror be viewed as anything but complete ineptness? Though Bush initially sent troops to Afghanistan where Bin Laden and Al Qaeda groups were known to be hiding, he soon shifted focus away from those efforts in order to invade a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, thereby spreading our forces thin and allowing more terrorist camps to survive and even thrive. Does this sound like a focused resolve to ÔÇÿsmoke outÔÇÖ Al Qaeda to you? Consider too that now, with our dismal approval rating around the world, the global team effort necessary to combat terror worldwide will require far more effort and persuasion. Then (hard to believe, but true), Bush fought the creation of the 9/11 commission. In fact, it is uncertain if the commission would ever have come into existence had it not been for pressure from family members of the 9/11 victims. Bush also opposed the creation of a cabinet agency for homeland security until Congress passed legislation creating it. Furthermore, Bush cut funds for state and local homeland security, fire departments, and first responder training, and has left airports, shipping ports, chemical plants, nuclear power plants, and other sensitive areas under-protected. Does this sound like a focused resolve to shore up holes in national security to you? What good is accomplished with those ÔÇÿorangeÔÇÖ alerts? Nothing - unless you happen to count improved revenues for duct tape manufacturers as an accomplishment. The sole purpose of those alerts seems to be the generating of fear. A fearful public is a weaker public, more susceptible to suggestion and manipulation. (Also, interestingly, timelines have shown a correlation between the alerts and low points in BushÔÇÖs approval rating.) Note that twenty six former diplomats and military commanders (some having served in key positions under Reagan and Bush senior) issued a joint statement that Bush has damaged our nationÔÇÖs security and should be defeated [LA Times 6/13/04]. And not surprisingly, most Americans now say that our nation is less safe from terrorism [uSA Today 6/24/04]. How do you feel about the special ties at the top of the Bush administration rife with cronyism, corruption, and corporate greed? Are you disturbed at the long-standing personal and financial relationship between the Bush family and the Saudi royal family with its large holdings in this country? Were you shocked at the confirmed reports that dozens of Saudis ÔÇô including members of the Bin Laden family itself ÔÇô were allowed to leave this country just a couple of days after 9/11? Consider that the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were themselves Saudis ÔÇô what does that say? Do the hurried exit and the omission of any inquiry sound like the decision of truth and justice seekers? Or, does it sound more like the decision of good old oil boys concerned only with corporate interests, the rich and powerful, and cronyism? What about Cheney and Halliburton? Are you disturbed that Cheney, while receiving ÔÇÿdeferred compensationÔÇÖ from Halliburton and possessing more than 433,000 stock options in Halliburton [CNN 1/23/04], brazenly proceeds to grant no-bid contracts to Halliburton in Iraq? Could this be viewed as anything but unfair practice and a conflict of interest? And to add insult to injury, what about allegations from former Halliburton employees such as ÔÇ£the abandoning of an $85,000 truck because of a flat tire, paying $45 for a case of soda, and providing laundry service for a cost equivalent to $100 per 15-pound bagÔÇØ? [Houston Chronicle 6/15/04] And now we learn that ÔÇ£Halliburton has failed to account for $1.8 billion of work in Iraq and KuwaitÔÇØ. [Forbes.com 8/11/2004] Does the term war profiteering come to mind? And do you ever wonder why we donÔÇÖt hear about any big reconstruction contracts going to Iraqi companies? Does it bother you to know that former Enron CEO Kenneth Lay has been a long-time friend and backer of Bush, and that Enron executives have attended many White House events and have been contacted on many occasions regarding national energy policies ÔÇô including advice on administration posts? How about Ahmad Chalabi, insider with Pentagon officials who was considered important enough to be seated behind Laura Bush at the 2004 State of the Union? This Bush ÔÇÿfreedom fighterÔÇÖ buddy is now under investigation for leaking damaging military secrets to Iran. How about the Bush administrationÔÇÖs lack of concern with jobs in this country? Sadly, Bush has become the first president since Hoover to preside over a net loss of jobs - over a million. So clearly, tax cuts for the rich do not stimulate jobs. (DoesnÔÇÖt Bush remember that Reagan already tried that trickle-down theory and it didnÔÇÖt work?) Furthermore, the Bush administration clearly does not care about keeping jobs here, blocking legislation that would offer incentives for companies to keep jobs in this country, and refusing to repeal tax loopholes that reward companies for moving jobs out of the US. And itÔÇÖs not just fewer jobs. ItÔÇÖs also less pay. A recent survey by the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that ÔÇ£almost two-thirds of displaced workers had taken another job at lower pay (30%) or remained jobless (35%)ÔÇØ. And ÔÇ£for those lucky enough to land a new full-time job, the median pay rate fell from $681 per week in their old job to $572 per week in their new job.ÔÇØ [www.jobwatch.org] Just recently we have learned too that Bush is trying to disallow overtime pay for many workers. If you are actually better off than 4 years ago, you are in a small privileged minority. How about the Bush administrationÔÇÖs contempt for the environment? A friend to polluters, Bush has weakened protections against toxic mercury, weakened restrictions on power plants (the largest source of US global warming pollution contributing 40% of carbon dioxide emissions), weakened enforcement of clean water laws, weakened controls on factory farms and livestock waste (thereby allowing greater contamination of rivers and groundwater), weakened controls on mining waste, and weakened safeguards for park lands. And always a buddy to big oil, Bush has made drilling of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (established in 1960 by President Eisenhower) a top priority, despite US Geological Survey (USGS) and National Academy of Sciences reports warning that such drilling would harm wildlife and cause widespread environmental damage, USGS estimates that it would have little or no impact on oil imports, as well as the polls showing opposition by the American public. Other national treasures where Bush is pushing for energy drilling include the Alaskan coast, the California coast, the Rocky Mountains, the Padre Island National Seashore in Texas, various areas of the desert southwest including sites bordering on national parks, and more. At the same time, the Bush administration has done nothing to cut down on the countryÔÇÖs oil dependence, enforce fuel economy standards, or support new clean energy sources. But Bush misleads the public over and over - for example, claiming that his ÔÇÿClear Skies InitiativeÔÇÖ would cut air pollution by 70% over the next 15 years, while the White House and EPA's own analysis shows that the plan will result in more pollution than if we simply enforce the existing Clean Air Act. [www.environment2004.org] Note that four thousand scientists including 48 Nobel Prize winners ÔÇô with ties to both democratic and republican administrations - have signed a statement opposing the Bush administration for ÔÇ£misusing, suppressing and distorting scientific adviceÔÇØ [AP 8/15/2004]. In the words of President Nixon, who established the Environmental Protection Agency and signed the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act and the United Nations Environment Program Participation Act, ÔÇ£We hold the Earth its environment and its resources--in trust for future generations. We must not violate that trustÔÇØ. Bush is violating the trust. And remember that assaults on the environment can be insidious ÔÇô the effects are not always obvious until it is too late. Does the Bush administration respect and support our troops? I donÔÇÖt think so. Sure, talk is cheap and Bush can easily say things like, "We're doing everything we can to protect the troops, and it's important for their loved ones to understand that." But the reality is that the troops have been spread thin, have had to serve extended tours of duty, and have been woefully under-equipped. How infuriating has it been to hear stories such as families having to raise the money to provide their soldier sons or daughters with body armor? How depressing was it to hear that the Bush 2004 budget proposed a 14% cut in funds to military family housing/medical facilities? And what about BushÔÇÖs ban on news cameras from photographing the ceremonies held when coffins of U.S. troops are removed from planes in the United States? ShouldnÔÇÖt it be known to all Americans the price in lost lives that we are paying for the Bush administrationÔÇÖs arrogant and irresponsible military adventurism? Does the Bush administration respect our veterans? I donÔÇÖt think so. The Bush administration has supported rescinding lifetime health benefits for World War II and Korean War veterans. [boston Globe 12/22/2002]. The Bush administration has opposed changing the Disabled Veterans Tax that currently reduces retirement pay by disability pay, dollar for dollar, for full military career veterans. [Knight-Ridder 7/27/2003] And veteran leaders and a VA workers union have voiced strong criticism of Bush's fiscal 2005 budget plan, asserting that ÔÇ£the budget would only worsen the backlog in processing disability claims, reduce the number of VA nursing home beds just as the number of veterans who need long-term care is swelling, and force some veterans to pay a fee simply to gain access to the VA health care system.ÔÇØ [Washington Post 3/3/2004] What about BushÔÇÖs ties to the smear campaign regarding John KerryÔÇÖs Vietnam service? A top lawyer in the BushÔÇÖs reelection campaign admitted to advising the so-called ÔÇÿSwift Boat Veterans for TruthÔÇÖ [Washington Post 8/25/2004]. Large funding for the ÔÇÿSwift BoatÔÇÖ group has come from Texan Bob Perry, a longtime Bush supporter. Then there was retired Air Force Col. Ken Cordier, a member of the Bush-Cheney campaign veterans' steering committee who appeared in the Swift Boat fabrications. And just recently some more dots have been connected: Retired naval Rear Admiral William L. Schachte Jr, backer of the Swift Boat fabrications, has been found to be a ÔÇ£long-standing supporter of President Bush and a lobbyist whose client FastShip Inc. recently won a $40 million grant from the federal government.ÔÇØ [Washington Post 8/31/2004] How these people have the nerve to trash a decorated war hero who had the courage to serve in Viet Nam (and then the courage to speak out on how wrong that war was) is unbelievable. And BushÔÇÖs failure to condemn those lies shows him as once again the taker of the low road. If Bush were a man of integrity, and if he respected veterans, he would have immediately condemned the Swift Boat ads, just as John McCain requested. How about the Bush administrationÔÇÖs disregard of health care? Under the Bush watch, the cost of health care and health insurance has steadily risen, and the number of uninsured has skyrocketed. And when the Bush Medicare initiative made it illegal for the government to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry, prescription drug prices remained costly and the drug companies were given a green light to profit by an extra $139 billion. From the Wallstreet Journal on BushÔÇÖs Medicare Drug Plan: ÔÇ£Corporate lobbying groups are emerging as winnersÔǪÔÇØ In addition, the Bush administration has ÔÇ£overturned or blocked dozens of important workplace protections and weakened job safety programs, leaving workers in dangerÔÇØ [www.ufcw.org] How about the irresponsible fiscal policies resulting in the current 422 billion dollar record deficit? In contrast, recall that under the Clinton administration, the government balanced the budget and began running surpluses to the point where they were able to make payments on the long-term national debt. What a painful reversal we have had under Bush. ÔÇ£After only three years in office, President Bush may be headed to the record books as one of the biggest spending presidents." [National Journal's Congress Daily, 01/29/04] ItÔÇÖs a case of out of control credit card spending on a massive scale, the equivalent of looting the treasury. Would you choose these people to handle your personal finances? (If you want to see how the Bush deficit affects your particular state, see web page http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/2005budget/.. And if you want to see the national debt increasing by the minute as well as the share of that debt owed by each citizen, see web page http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/.) How about BushÔÇÖs famous education slogan turned empty promise - ÔÇÿNo Child Left BehindÔÇÖ? Are you concerned with the report that federal budgets have not come close to funding the amount specified by the act? In 2003, the bipartisan National Governors Association voted to label Bush's ÔÇÿNo Child Left BehindÔÇÖ (NCLB) Act an unfunded mandate. Funding has been $8 billion short of the levels prescribed. Furthermore, ÔÇ£Bush recently asked Congress to cut funding for NCLB in the 2004 federal budget by an additional $300 million. That means that the burden for implementing NCLB will ultimately fall on the cash-strapped states and localities.ÔÇØ [Miami Herald 11/15/2003] ItÔÇÖs more difficult to go to college now too. Federal and state budget cuts have caused the largest tuition increases at public colleges and universities in a decade, and Bush has now proposed a change that would deny Pell grants to 84,000 students. How about those tax cuts that were supposed to give everyone such a boost? This was a major deception. According to a recent report from the Congressional Budget Office, ÔÇ£The average after-tax income for people in the top 1 percent of income earners climbed 10.1 percent, while that of those in the middle 20 percent climbed 2.3 percent, and that of those in the bottom fifth only 1.6 percent.ÔÇØ [Washington Post 8/13/04] BushÔÇÖs tax cuts were not for you and me - they were for the wealthy. And they have not resulted in jobs, so can you name any other way in which they have benefited the country? I have not heard of anything. Besides, I ask ÔÇô why would the wealthiest people need a tax break? ShouldnÔÇÖt those who have benefited most from the opportunities our country offers give back a little more? (Note too that John Kerry has only proposed rolling back the tax rates on the rich to the level of a couple years back. Do you think people earning over 200K per year were having such a tough time back then?) How could anyone accept the Bush administrationÔÇÖs disastrous human rights policies? Take the Abu Ghraib prison torture scandal - characterized by beatings, tauntings, and sexual humiliations where, according to the Red Cross, the majority of the prisoners were in fact innocent of any crime. And given the scale of these horrors, who could really be duped into believing this was just ÔÇÿa few rogue bad applesÔÇÖ? No, the scale is clearly indicative of an organized policy. According to a Newsweek investigation, ÔÇ£Bush, along with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft, signed off on a secret system of detention and interrogation that opened the door to such methods. This was an approach that they adopted to sidestep the historical safeguards of the Geneva Conventions, which protect the rights of detainees and prisoners of warÔÇØ [Newsweek 5/24/2004]. Remember that the same Geneva Conventions also protect captured US soldiers. These protections cannot be safeguarded when the US itself refuses to abide by the convention. Do you not worry that under the Bush administration, civil liberties and basic democratic principles are being eroded? Sadly, the growing list of diminishing rights includes: detaining citizens indefinitely without access to counsel, permitting the taping of attorney-client communications, permitting the monitoring of library withdrawals and internet communications, and putting forward a plan to amend the Constitution that mandates withholding of rights from a specific group. What do you think about the Bush notion (with some help from the media) that dissent is somehow unpatriotic? BushÔÇÖs famous line ÔÇÿYouÔÇÖre either with us or youÔÇÖre against usÔÇÖ, besides being indicative of simplistic thinking, implicitly promoted the notion that dissent was unpatriotic, and his remark seemed to grip and intimidate people for a long time. It is frightening to hear such an attack on one of the essential aspects of a democracy ÔÇô freedom of speech and dissent. And since we supposedly live in a democracy ÔÇô where openness should rule over secrecy, it is disturbing to hear that the Bush administration has exhibited a ÔÇ£penchant for secrecy that has been striking to historians, legal experts and lawmakers of both partiesÔÇØ [NY Times 1/3/03]. For example, in late 2001, Ashcroft announced a new policy in regard to the Freedom of Information Act where federal agencies are encouraged to reject requests for documents if there is any legal basis available for the rejection, in contrast to the earlier Clinton policy of making documents available (even if a legal basis existed for rejection) as long as their release posed no danger. Like the environmental erosions, these erosions of liberties can also be insidious. You might not notice them until you are personally affected. Does the Bush administration reject dirty tactics? No. Of course, lying to wage an unjustified war is as low as it gets, but there have been other kinds of dishonest tactics that are worth mentioning. For example, take the publicizing of an undercover CIA agent, the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Joseph Wilson had investigated claims that Iraq purchased materials for WMD from Niger, and had concluded in March 2002 that the claims were unfounded. But this counterindicated BushÔÇÖs aim to rush to war, so Bush evidently chose to ignore the report, proceeding in his State of the Union address the following January to insist that Iraq sought unanium in Niger. Then, in July of 2003 when Wilson made public his earlier findings, it was just a matter of days when, according to the Washington Post, ÔÇ£two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife." Such identification of a CIA operative is a criminal act, and can be punished with up to ten years in federal prison. The syndicated columnist who leaked the identity (and why a columnist would do this I do not understand) stated that the sources were 2 senior Bush administration officials. [Washington Post 9/28/2003] Have you heard of any heads rolling so far on that one? And what about those single moments that can sometimes speak volumes? There was BushÔÇÖs famous photo op where he had the audacity to appear on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit, proclaiming ÔÇÿMission AccomplishedÔÇÖ. How ludicrous and offensive was it that this man with his questionable military service (and mysteriously lost military records) would have the nerve and bravado to make such an appearance, prancing around the ship as if he were some sort of military hero? In retrospect, given the continuing disaster in Iraq, it was more than ludicrous and offensive ÔÇô it was fraudulent. Could anyone see that image and conclude that this man has a firm grip on reality and is mindful of his words and actions? How about the April 2004 press conference where Bush was asked to cite any mistake he had made since 9/11, and all he could do was to stand there tongue-tied for an embarrassingly long time. Of course, Bush is famous for his verbal deficiencies. And truth be told, I often get the distinct impression with his awkward pauses and misspeaks that he does not even understand half of the scripts he delivers. But this was more than embarrassing ÔÇô it was frightening to see that Bush has so much arrogance and so little capacity for self-examination that he could not admit to a single mistake. Could anyone view that moment and conclude that this man can think and evaluate? Who could watch without serious doubts BushÔÇÖs famous ÔÇÿdeer in the headlightsÔÇÖ expression as he sat for several minutes in an elementary school classroom after being advised of the 9/11 attack? Could you envision any previous president with such a look on his face at such a critical moment? And could you imagine any previous president not immediately politely excusing himself, and hastening to do his job when faced with such a crisis? Could anyone see that image and actually conclude that this man is a leader? And here is one that was not publicized much, but struck me all the same. At a dinner/slide show for journalists, as pictures were displayed showing Bush looking around the oval office, he would joke, "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be here somewhere", or "Maybe under here?" An Iraq war veteran, not amused, understandably had this to say, "War is the single most serious event that a president or government can carry its people into. This cheapens the sacrifice that American soldiers and their families are dealing with every single day."[bBC News 3/26/2004] Do you think that if one of BushÔÇÖs loved ones was facing combat in Iraq, he would be as inclined to make those ÔÇÿjokesÔÇÖ? As John Kerry commented, this is indicative of how out of touch this president is. Is Bush presidential? There are many characteristics I want in a president, but some of the key traits that come to mind include honesty, courage, intelligence, curiosity about the nation and the world, the ability to handle complexity, the ability to think clearly and critically and to make sound well-informed decisions, responsiveness, the ability to communicate effectively and to speak extemporaneously, and a deep compassion and concern for every American citizen and indeed for the citizens of the world. Do you share this list? If so, where has Bush demonstrated these traits? I cannot find a single example. You might say, ÔÇ£Yes, but we are in a war, and you cannot change horses in mid stream.ÔÇØ I say to the contrary. If a disaster course has been set, you must change horses in order to avoid being swept down the river and over the waterfall. Or, do you simply like this president because he appears to be a regular everyday ÔÇÿfolksyÔÇÖ kind of guy that spends time doing things like you do? If so, I ask ÔÇô is that an important criterion for a weighty and serious position of great consequence such as president of the United States? Or, have you supported Bush because of his supposed religious leanings? If so, I ask - why should a personÔÇÖs religion be a determining factor for the presidency? But even if you insist that aspect is still important to you, I ask ÔÇô what have you seen in this president that shows you he lives the values of a man of faith? Or, have you always voted Republican and you cannot see departing from the tradition? If so, I would ask you to consider whether the values of this current Republican party are really in your best interest anymore, and indeed whether its values are still in line with what was traditionally considered republican (surely you cannot say that the traditional republican value of ÔÇÿfiscal responsibilityÔÇÖ is demonstrated by the Bush administration). Sometimes change is not only good but crucial. Are you one of those that say, ÔÇ£ItÔÇÖs a lost cause because the republicans and democrats are all the same.ÔÇÖ They are not the same. There is a huge difference in this election. Look at the facts, and do not be influenced by that myth. Are you perhaps supporting Bush because of his stand against the much discussed issue of stem cell research? If so, I would ask you to read Ron ReaganÔÇÖs eloquent speech at website http://www.doctorsandnursesforkerry.org/tr...gan_at_demo.htm.. But if that does not convince you, then at least think about the relative weight of that single issue against the weight of the multitude of Bush administration failures. Or, you might say, ÔÇÿI keep hearing about John Kerry being such a flip-flopper. I want a leader with strong resolve.ÔÇÖ If so, realize that the ÔÇÿflip-flopÔÇÖ idea has been part of an attack machine. The consummate flip-flopper is Bush, and you can see this clearly if you compare his claims against his record. A good web page with some of these comparisons is Claim vs Fact at http://www.americanprogress.org/site/apps/...JRJ8OVF&b=45294 . The Bush administration has no conscience and is breaking this country. The way they have been allowed to run amuck is astonishing. How has this happened? I suppose many were asleep at the wheel (though fortunately many are now waking up). But more importantly, I think that after 9/11, many people were anxious to believe we had strong leadership, and put their complete faith in the president. In fact, when you ponder that trust and support, it is especially devastating the way Bush has let the country down. Expect from Bush a sea of sunny optimistic assurances, platitudes, slogans, and heart-warming stories over the next couple months ÔÇô the type of production you saw at the RNC. They might even sound good to you on the surface, but realize that these are scripted sound-bites. Do not give Bush a pass as he avoids discussing his record and acts as if he would be starting out fresh. When you look at BushÔÇÖs performance over the past 4 years as compared to what he said in 2000, how can you possibly trust in what he says he will do in the future? After all, wasnÔÇÖt it Bush himself who said, ÔÇ£Fool me once, shame on ÔÇö shame on you. Fool me ÔÇö you can't get fooled againÔÇØ? (Although I believe he was actually trying to say ÔÇÿFool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.ÔÇÖ) The wisdom of this little slogan is one thing on which I agree with Bush, and it should guide us all in voting this coming November. Do not be fooled again! And who knows, as we get closer to the election, Bush might even do something that gives the appearance things are on track. But watch out for any eleventh hour last-ditch efforts. Look at his record and HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE. John Kerry is the only candidate with a realistic chance to beat George W Bush. If you see his website at www.johnkerry.com, you will see many plans to bring the United States greater security, greater prosperity, and greater respect. Included are such things as setting a goal of 20% energy based on renewals by 2020; more investment in hydrogen research, clean coal, and efficient vehicle production; reductions in health care and prescription drug costs; a ÔÇÿschoolÔÇÖs open till 6ÔÇÖ initiative with after-school programs; college tuition tax credits; increased port, border, and vulnerable target security; increased support of first defenders; a new community defense service; intelligence service reform; creation of 10 million new jobs and closure of incentives for outsourcing; support of the Fairness Act to reverse damage to civil liberties; reversal of current environment-hostile policies, and new commitments and comprehensive new policies for environmental protection; the securing of nuclear weapons and a cleanup of bomb material within 4 years; internationalization of the security and reconstruction effort in Iraq; and much much more. And another point to remember about John Kerry that cannot be overemphasized is this ÔÇô John Kerry knows first hand what it means to go to war. Bush and Cheney, in contrast, know only about escaping military service, and they seem to find it easy to put other peopleÔÇÖs kids in harmÔÇÖs way. Kerry has offered to report for duty as president. And I donÔÇÖt know about you, but I am grateful that someone with KerryÔÇÖs background, ability, and vision is willing to take on this massive mess the Bush administration has created. Madeline Salocks
Guest Posted October 8, 2004 Report Posted October 8, 2004 The entire premise is wrong. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Just ignore the actual facts and make them up as you go along... These poor liberals, just desperate, absolutely desperate....
street228 Posted October 8, 2004 Author Report Posted October 8, 2004 The Primise, is accurate. Bush is the ONLY one who has ACTED on FALSE primise, and intentionally refuses to admit his ignorance. I see what you have in common with him.
Guest Posted October 8, 2004 Report Posted October 8, 2004 OK, let's have some fun with this little waste of neurological activity. quote: How can the Bush administrationÔÇÖs invasion of a country that never attacked the US, and the deception of the American public to rally support ever be justified? They invaded another country in 1990, and we kicked them out, and gave them conditions for a cease fire, which they VIOLATED!!! But that's just one of MANY reasons. quote: The deceptions began with statements linking Al Qaeda with Iraq, and with enough repetition over time, Bush succeeded in leading many to believe Iraq was involved in the 9/11attack. Only if you were an IDIOT!!! Read the 911 report, Saddam had NUMEROUS connections to terrorists. quote: So Bush lied to the American people in order to recklessly wage an unjustified war. Why? Two words ÔÇô oil, and domination. And for how long was this war plan in the works? The answer is most likely found in ÔÇÿThe Project for the New American CenturyÔÇÖ, a neo-conservative organization that has recommended expansion of US dominance in the world - including the overthrow of Saddam Hussein - since the 1990ÔÇÖs. And some of its key members just happen to be Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. It is true that Saddam Hussein was known to be a ruthless dictator, but he was at least contained, and other approaches should have been used to work toward his removal. Total and uttter BS..... Get your tinfoil beanie out folks, she's gonna blow, those brainwave controllers are gonna get ya!! ROFLMAO!! quote: How can the Bush administrationÔÇÖs response to 9/11, and the war on terror be viewed as anything but complete ineptness? Oh maybe because 3/4 of Al Quaedas leadership is either in jail or DEAD, there have been NUMEROUS attempts for a terrorist attack on the US and ALL have been foiled. Because the Taliban is gone, Saddam is gone, and the terrorists are desperate? Maybe because your liberal BS is just that, BS.... quote: How do you feel about the special ties at the top of the Bush administration rife with cronyism, corruption, and corporate greed? How do you feel about the special ties that the Democrats have with China, and Korea and other enemies of the United States? How do you feel that Kerry wants to go to the UN and get "permission" before defending us, how do you feel when enemy intelligence agents are able to give money to Democrat campaigns and the media and everyone else turns a blind eye? How about because she's again, full of Crap.... She has been watching farenhiet 911 too many times, it has turned her brains to mush. quote: How about the Bush administrationÔÇÖs lack of concern with jobs in this country? Considering that unempolyment is DOWN, and MORE people are now employed then during Clintons administration, tells me that Bush hasn't been ignoring it. Yeah, just ignore the facts and go with the emotional premise of what she believes. Brain full of mush..... quote: How about the Bush administrationÔÇÖs contempt for the environment? Again, absolute, unmitigated BS!! The environamental laws are now forced to go with scientific evidence, NOT feel good emotionalism. Beauracrats are now controlled by scientific evidence, not special interest groups that want us all back in the 17th century. quote: And always a buddy to big oil, Bush has made drilling of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (established in 1960 by President Eisenhower) a top priority, despite US Geological Survey (USGS) and National Academy of Sciences reports warning that such drilling would harm wildlife and cause widespread environmental damage, USGS estimates that it would have little or no impact on oil imports, as well as the polls showing opposition by the American public. We would be drilling in less then 1% of the wildlife refuge and our oil drilling technology is some of the cleanest and least damaging in the world, and it would actually make us LESS dependent on foreign oil!!! Again, brain full of mush, don't let actual facts get in the way of all that emotional BS... quote: Does the Bush administration respect and support our troops? Now this just pisses me off, what a crock of crap... Our troops have every piece of equipment they need, including flak jackets etc. The ones that have begged for them are not the ones on the front lines but the support troops that are most likely NOT going to see combat, we give the troops that need the equipment first crack, then we give the ones behind them AFTER that. Again, a bunch of emotional claptrap, no facts at ALL. quote: Does the Bush administration respect our veterans? Considering he has RAISED the veterans budget by over 25%, and it will be over 60% more then it was when he took office this year, the actual backlog of Veterans waiting for medivcal treatement is now GONE!! I would have to say that Bush DOES respect our veterans!! Again, a bunch of emotional claptrap, she doesn't even BOTHER to go look for the facts, because it would toss her argument on it's head. quote: What about BushÔÇÖs ties to the smear campaign regarding John KerryÔÇÖs Vietnam service? A top lawyer in the BushÔÇÖs reelection campaign admitted to advising the so-called ÔÇÿSwift Boat Veterans for TruthÔÇÖ [Washington Post 8/25/2004]. Large funding for the ÔÇÿSwift BoatÔÇÖ group has come from Texan Bob Perry, a longtime Bush supporter. Ahh, yes, we are going to attack Bush for this, but Kerry gets a pass, even though a NUMBER of his cmapaign workers have DIRECT links with both his campaign, and NUMEROUS 527's. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.... Don't let facts get in the way.... quote: How about the Bush administrationÔÇÖs disregard of health care? Oh let's see, prescription drug coverage comes ot my mind immediately, and what about the cost to the companies that give those workers jobs, did you ever think about them? If those companies are unable to get their health coverage under control, or pass some of that cost to their workers, there won't be ANY jobs to support. What an IDIOT this woman is. quote: How about BushÔÇÖs famous education slogan turned empty promise - ÔÇÿNo Child Left BehindÔÇÖ? Excuse me, if anyone takes the blame for this little disaster it's BOTH republicans and Democrats. It was a bipartisan program, I disliked it in the first place, but to lay the blame squarely on Bush, shows me that this woman is about as biased as they come. It's ALL Bushes fault, even though it's a bipartisan program that will not work without the continued support of the Democrats. quote: How about those tax cuts that were supposed to give everyone such a boost? This was a major deception. According to a recent report from the Congressional Budget Office, ÔÇ£The average after-tax income for people in the top 1 percent of income earners climbed 10.1 percent, while that of those in the middle 20 percent climbed 2.3 percent, and that of those in the bottom fifth only 1.6 percent.ÔÇØ [Washington Post 8/13/04] BushÔÇÖs tax cuts were not for you and me - they were for the wealthy. And they have not resulted in jobs, so can you name any other way in which they have benefited the country? I have not heard of anything. Besides, I ask ÔÇô why would the wealthiest people need a tax break? ShouldnÔÇÖt those who have benefited most from the opportunities our country offers give back a little more? (Note too that John Kerry has only proposed rolling back the tax rates on the rich to the level of a couple years back. Do you think people earning over 200K per year were having such a tough time back then?) Did she ever think that maybe it's because htye make MORE money, and therefore it will show that they got a BIGGER boost then the rest of us. This is economics 101 people, it doesn't take a genius to figure out if you make more money, that a tax cut will net you more money. Another class warfare rhetoric BS... Geez, this woman bats a thousand in the emotional rhetoric without facts batting average so far.... See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. What a perfect little monkey she is.... quote: How could anyone accept the Bush administrationÔÇÖs disastrous human rights policies? Take the Abu Ghraib prison torture scandal - characterized by beatings, tauntings, and sexual humiliations where, according to the Red Cross, the majority of the prisoners were in fact innocent of any crime. And given the scale of these horrors, who could really be duped into believing this was just ÔÇÿa few rogue bad applesÔÇÖ? No, the scale is clearly indicative of an organized policy. According to a Newsweek investigation, ÔÇ£Bush, along with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft, signed off on a secret system of detention and interrogation that opened the door to such methods. This was an approach that they adopted to sidestep the historical safeguards of the Geneva Conventions, which protect the rights of detainees and prisoners of warÔÇØ [Newsweek 5/24/2004]. Remember that the same Geneva Conventions also protect captured US soldiers. These protections cannot be safeguarded when the US itself refuses to abide by the convention. Oh, some out of control CIA agents and gurads show the ENTIRE military to be deformed and AWFUL... oh no, not that, we put panties on their heads, but it's not a human rights violation when they cut off the heads and slaughter innocent human beings. What a bunch of nonsense. this woman is incredible. Such mind numbing nonsense, and she was able to put it all in one article, amazing.... quote: Do you not worry that under the Bush administration, civil liberties and basic democratic principles are being eroded? She states this as fact, and yet can come up with no examples. Come on, give us some examples here Madeline, just one would be fine, but she can't, because there haven't been... Another bit of emotional rhetoric with NO facts to back her up, just opinion. quote: Does the Bush administration reject dirty tactics? Again, her entire premise is wrong, and based on faulty thinking, and analysis of the situation. But, she's a liberal, I don't expect logical thinking skills out of them. I am going to ignore some of the rest, because it is all emotionally based nonsense, with little or no basis in reality. This I find terribly amusing. quote: Are you perhaps supporting Bush because of his stand against the much discussed issue of stem cell research? If so, I would ask you to read Ron ReaganÔÇÖs eloquent speech at website Bush has no stand AGAINST stemcell research, it is the FIRST TIME EVER that federal grants have EVER been given for this research, he just kept it to the EXISTING lines that were already created, but stemcell research continues, and he has NOT made it illegal. So to say that Bush was the first EVER to go against stemcell research is ignoring the ACTUAL facts, and going with a bunch of emotional nonsense. quote: And another point to remember about John Kerry that cannot be overemphasized is this ÔÇô John Kerry knows first hand what it means to go to war. Bush and Cheney, in contrast, know only about escaping military service, and they seem to find it easy to put other peopleÔÇÖs kids in harmÔÇÖs way. Kerry has offered to report for duty as president. And I donÔÇÖt know about you, but I am grateful that someone with KerryÔÇÖs background, ability, and vision is willing to take on this massive mess the Bush administration has created. Adn of course the emotionally charged and nonsensical closing.... Oh yes, can't miss an opportunity to show that Kerry saw 4 months of combat, compared to Bush and Cheney. This lady is INCREDIBLE in her nonsensical, nonfactual, and emotionally charged propaganda. I don't think she missed one Democrat talking point, or one Demcorat lie in the entire article. Either she's a robot that just spouts what she is told by Terry, or she is a genius propagandist without a concience. It was amazing to see such a pack of lies jammed into one article like that. Chilling, absolutely chilling...
street228 Posted October 8, 2004 Author Report Posted October 8, 2004 if your rebuttles were anything more than REPEATS of twisted lies, your post would be worth interaction.....as it is...MORE OF THE SAME. Garbage, pulled directly from the BUSH PIT or complete and TOTAL RUBBISH
Guest Posted October 8, 2004 Report Posted October 8, 2004 My rebuttals are based on facts. You remember what those are don't you Street? Facts? things actually backed up by evidence? That's right, I keep forgetting, if the FACTS disagree with you, you ignore them. Poor Street, hates Bush so much, he'll believe ANYTHING and anyone that hates him too, no matter how nonsensical it is, or how shallow the thinking. Hey, if I hate Bush too, could I sell you a bridge? Cheap?
street228 Posted October 8, 2004 Author Report Posted October 8, 2004 YOU have NO "FACTS", only republican dogma and opinion, based on FALACY presented by a presidential administration which has you completely brainwashed with irrelevant pieces of misleading LIES. WASHINGTON -- Bush administration failures to shut down al-Qaida and rebuild Iraq have fueled the insurgency and made the United States more vulnerable to a nuclear attack by terrorists, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy says. In a speech prepared for delivery at George Washington University on Monday, Kennedy said that by shifting attention from Osama bin Laden to Iraq, President Bush had increased the danger of a ``nuclear 9/11.'' He said it was a good thing Bush was not in charge during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, a nuclear confrontation with Russia when Kennedy's brother was president. ``The war in Iraq has made the mushroom cloud more likely, not less likely,'' Kennedy said. Using imagery from the Vietnam War, he said U.S. soldiers are bogged down in a quagmire with no end in sight. Kennedy said that the administration's failure to distribute billions of dollars in reconstruction funds and create enough local Iraqi jobs may have been the biggest factors leading to the rise of the insurgency there. The Massachusetts senator has been criticizing the Bush administration in daily speeches in the Senate, serving as one of the most aggressive boosters of Democrat John Kerry's presidential campaign. Bush, meanwhile, has accused Kerry of changing positions on Iraq. Kennedy's Monday speech listed 13 reasons he said Bush's policies have not made the United States safer from terrorism. He said the war in Iraq created a new breeding ground for terrorists, distracted from efforts to eliminate al-Qaida, alienated America's allies and allowed North Korea and Iran to pursue nuclear weapons.
Guest Posted October 8, 2004 Report Posted October 8, 2004 Oh no, NOT TEDDY!! I hope he was sober and didn't drive across any bridges.... ROFLMAO!!! I know that the Democrats are not capable of chewing gum and walking at the same time, but so far the Bush administration has done a pretty good job of multitasking. We have Osama and Al Quaeda hiding, we have killed 3/4 of the leadership, we have a 6 nation panel at the table talking with North Korea, we have inspectors in Iran, and we have sanctions against Iran in place. We are also doing a MYRIAD of other things as well. So to say the eye is off the ball is ignoring the evidence, and not having a real clue as to what is ACTUALLY going on. I feel bad for the Dem's, it seems they can't count to 21 without their zipper down, nor do 2 things at once, let alone 10. Poor little Dem's.... Clueless, just clueless, or else just straight up treasonous. I really don't know which is worse.
street228 Posted October 8, 2004 Author Report Posted October 8, 2004 you seem to have a low down SLAM for every individual who disagrees with your position. Thats ok, though. Shows your self illision of superiority is still intact.
Guest Posted October 8, 2004 Report Posted October 8, 2004 Come on Street, If I am so delusional, HOW ABOUT you supporting your BS with facts. I see a lot of opinion and rhetoric, and that is ALL I see. I see NO facts at all. The article above was so chalk full of lies and straight up BS that it was insane. BACK IT UP WITH FACTS STREET. You seem so convinced. Convince me with facts...... You can't, because you have NONE....
street228 Posted October 8, 2004 Author Report Posted October 8, 2004 published by Informed Comment Bombings Signal Failures in War on Terror Three major bombs went off between the Nile and the Indus rivers on Thursday. Do they have anything in common, and what do they tell us about the world that Bush has made? In Baghdad, guerrillas fired Katyusha rockets into the Sheraton Hotel, frequented by foreign contractors. They don't appear to have killed anyone, but we may be assured that they succeeded in their aim of scaring at least some of the contractors away from investing in the new Iraq. In Multan, a Pakistani city in southern Punjab with a rich Shiite heritage, an unknown group attacked a gathering of radical Sunni Muslims early on Thursday with a car bomb, killing 40 and wounding dozens. The group, Millat-i Islamiyyah, had been known as the Sipah-i Sahabah or The Army of the Prophet's Companions of the Prophet. It was commemorating the death of its leader, Maulana Azam Tariq. The Army of the Prophet's Companions originated as an anti-Shiite organization in Jhang Siyal, an area of northern Punjab long dominated by wealthy Shiite landowners, often from Sufi lineages, but which Azam took over. It developed a death squad arm and assassinated Shiites. It allied with the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and received training in al-Qaeda terror camps. Yet Maulana Tariq Azam, although briefly arrested, had been allowed by military dictator Pervez Musharraf to sit in the Pakistani parliament until Azam's assassination last year. The bombing in Multan almost certainly comes in revenge for the explosion at a Shiite mosque in Sialkot only a few days earlier, and signals that the long-running conflict between radical Sunni Muslim groups with al-Qaeda ties and radical Shiite groups aligned with Tehran is heating up. At the Egyptian resort town of Taba, car bombs collapsed ten floors of the Hilton Hotel, as well as hitting less upscale backpacker resorts. They killed at least 35 and wounded at least 160. (Unfortunately, the toll is likely to rise as bodies are pulled from rubble). A spokesman for the Palestine Liberation Organization said that the bombings were not the work of Palestinian organizations, which where committed to waging their struggle in Palestine rather than abroad. Israeli officials speculated that the attacks were the work of al-Qaeda. The organization's number two man had called recently in a videotape for those countries to be punished, that supported Israel, and Egypt has long been blamed in this regard. The bombings at Taba almost certainly came in response to Israeli military actions in Gaza, which targeted militants who had fired many rockets into Israel but killed many civilians. The UN Security Council was unanimous in condemning the indiscriminate Israeli attacks, except for the US, which vetoed a resolution supported by virtually all the other countries in the world. If we analyze these violent, destabilizing attacks, one thing becomes abundantly clear: The Bush administration is losing the war on terror. If, 3 years after September 11, Ayman al-Zawahiri can arrange for al-Qaeda to blow up yet another building, this time in Egypt, killing scores, that is a sign of failure. If an al-Qaeda-aligned group like the Army of the Prophet's Companions is permitted by the Pakistani state to gather freely in Multan, to blow up Shiite mosques, and to incur a violent Shiite counter-strike, that is a sign of failure. If radical Sunni groups, or ex-Baathists aligned with them, are able at will to fire Katyusha rockets into the Baghdad Sheraton at a time when the US has militarily occupied Iraq, that is a sign of failure. By taking his eye off the ball and failing to finish the fight against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Bush perpetuated dangerous instability in South Asia. By giving in to the Likud Party's aggressive settlement of the West Bank and encroachment on Palestinians there, which end any chance of a Palestinian state ever being established--and by failing to pursue a just peace that would bestow security on both Israelis and Palestinians-- Bush perpetuated dangerous instability and virulent anti-Americanism in the Mideast. By creating a failed state in Iraq, and mismanaging the aftermath of the war so as to allow the rise of an audacious guerrilla war there, Bush perpetuated dangerous instability in the oil-rich Persian Gulf. All three bombings on Thursday spoke eloquently of the Bush administration's failure to create a safer world with less terrorism. The Bush administration announced a "war on terror" in fall of 2001, but it has never been clear what exactly a war on terror was. Terror is not itself a concrete enemy. It is a tactic. As horrible as the tactic of inflicting deliberate harm on noncombatants is, it has been widely used in world history in all sorts of struggles. Warring on a tactic is a meaningless phrase. The actual wars fought by the Bush administration have only been two. The first was against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, with mixed results. The Taliban regime was overthrown, but Afghanistan was not substantially rebuilt and remains unstable. The top leadership of al-Qaeda escaped capture and has continued to encourage terrorist actions. Ayman al-Zawahiri, the number two man in the organization, is said to have suggested the bombings in Istanbul last winter, and is probably behind Taba. The second was against the Baath regime in Iraq. It was not a purveyor of anti-American international terrorism and was so weak and ramshackle as to pose no conceivable threat to the United States. That war was won handily, but the subsequent guerrilla war and political struggle continues and appears to be growing in scope and influence. Bush opened the floodgates to terrorism in Iraq. This is a poor record for Bush to run on. Half of Afghanistan's gross national product derives from opium sales, creating the threat of major narco-terrorism. The Taliban are resurgent in some Pushtun areas of the south. The Afghan vice president was nearly assassinated earlier this week. National parliamentary elections were postponed nearly a year and only a presidential election is being held on Saturday. Usamah Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are at large, along with several other important leaders. Worse, al-Qaeda has morphed into a headless set of asymmetrical terrorist organizations, such as the Fizazi group based at al-Quds mosque in Tangiers, which hit both Casablanca and Madrid. The Bush administration thinks the problem is rogue states. But the real problem is radical terrorist groups. Bush has done all too little about the latter. Most of the al-Qaeda officials captured have been taken by the Pakistani military, so that this vital task has actually been outsourced. But where the Pakistani military wants to coddle an al-Qaeda-linked group, like the Army of the Prophet's Companions, it does, and Bush seems too weak to stop it. Bush and Cheney want now to overthrow Syria and Iran, pushing them into the sort of instability we have seen in Iraq. If you were a company that brought in terror consultants to work on this problem, and after 3 years you saw the sort of results we saw on Thursday, would you really rehire them?
Guest Posted October 8, 2004 Report Posted October 8, 2004 Oh no, 3 bombings and we are losing the war on terror. Oh no!! The sky is falling, the sky is falling, Run for your lives, run for your lives!!! OMG..... ROFLMAO!!! The guy took some bombings, went with his emotional feeling and went with it. Ignoring facts about the ACTUAL war on terror and picking and choosing things that backed him up. OMG, I really do feel for these guys, this desperation is just NOT pretty at all.
street228 Posted October 8, 2004 Author Report Posted October 8, 2004 9/11 three years on: 'War on terror' has not stopped terrorism Rohan Pearce & Alison Dellit The appalling end to the hostage crisis in Beslan, Russia on September 4, which left more than 300 dead, had people all over the world horrified. The killing of so many children helped neither the Chechens fighting the Russian occupation of their country, nor those of us fighting war and state-sponsored terrorism all over the world. The only people who were really aided by the slaughter were those pursuing the misnamed ÔÇ£war on terrorÔÇØ, in particular US President George Bush. We should make no mistake: the terror inflicted by the Beslan crisis did not come from nowhere. At least 80,000 Chechens have been killed since then-President Boris Yeltsin launched a war on their country in 1994. Chechnya is occupied by 80,000 poorly paid Russian soldiers, and the fighting has been, according to Amnesty International in 2001, marked by atrocities ÔÇö torture and rape in particular. In recent years, Russian President Vladimir Putin has increasingly used indiscriminate aerial bombing and artillery shelling of towns and villages, escalating the death toll. But all the taking of hostages has done is to alienate working people ÔÇö maybe millions of them ÔÇö from the ChechensÔÇÖ cause. And it has played straight into the hands of those who justify their wars and terror by claiming that they are fighting terrorism. In the three years since two aeroplanes ploughed into the World Trade Center in New York, Bush's gang has finely honed the art of whipping up fear among the US population. As he heads into a tightly fought election campaign, it is certain that Bush will try to use the Russian school tragedy to convince more voters to support his endless ÔÇ£war on terrorÔÇØ, a key part of his election strategy. Until now, he has mainly relied on reminding people of the toll of September 11 ÔÇö and painting his administration as the only thing standing between the US and the terrorist hordes at the gates. In reality, of course, the opposite is true. You cannot militarily fight terrorism. Such attacks, even on the scale of 9/11 or Beslan, are not only cheap and require only a relatively small group of people to carry out; they are born out of the anger at the blatant injustices inflicted on Third World peoples, by the US and imperialist allies. BushÔÇÖs argument that, in visiting mass horror on Iraqis and Afghans, he will actually reduce the amount of terrorism in the world is absurd. Just as Putin's argument, that a renewed effort to subdue Chechnya is needed, is. The only real way to reduce terrorism is to reduce the conditions that breed it ÔÇö the misery, poverty and military attacks inflicted on so much of the worldÔÇÖs population, overwhelmingly by imperialist countries ÔÇö or build real, people-powered, grassroots movements that provide effective avenues for mass social change. The ÔÇ£war on terrorÔÇØ is just a campaign to further the US rulersÔÇÖ war agenda, while pretending to be protecting workers. It justifies a war against workers and the poor in the US, and abroad a war against any Third World nation that defies the US empire. The horrific attack on the World Trade Center killed around 2700 people, and shattered the lives of tens of thousands of others. But in the three years of the ÔÇ£war on terrorÔÇØ, it has achieved nothing but more suffering. Muslims and people with an Arabic background have been viciously repressed in a state-promoted lynch-mob mentality. Illegal immigrants have been swept up and ÔÇ£disappearedÔÇØ by immigration authorities. Worst of all, Iraqis and Afghans are dying for a crime that they had nothing to do with the commission or execution of. The Council on American-Islamic Relations received 1717 reports of discrimination, harassment and violence in the six months after 9/11. A CAIR report released on September 5, 2002, ÔÇ£American Muslims: One Year After 9-11ÔÇØ, reported that while attacks had dropped sharply since then, it still logged 326 incidents ÔÇö a 30% increase over pre-9/11 levels. These attacks have not been limited to mere verbal abuse. CAIR's report noted that ÔÇ£on August 30, 2002, an anti-Muslim hate-rape took place in California, perhaps the first such attack on record in US history. An 18 year-old man raped a 15-year-old girl inside Palo Alto Longs Drugs store while making anti-Muslim comments, according to the Palo Alto Police Department.ÔÇØ In addition, ÔÇ£A dozen murders have been reported, including a handful of incidents in which the victims were simply mistaken for Muslims and Arabs because of their appearance.ÔÇØ Despite the claimed opposition of the Bush administration to the torrent of hate unleashed on the Islamic community in 9/11's aftermath, the atmosphere of hysteria was fuelled by the White House. For example, a February 27, 2002, Progressive Media Project op-ed by Riad Abdelkarim recounted how it had been ÔÇ£revealed that Attorney General John Ashcroft told syndicated columnist Cal Thomas during an interview last November that `Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him. Christianity is a faith in which God sends his son to die for you.' After initially refusing to clarify or deny these comments, Ashcroft's office issued a statement confirming that our nation's top law enforcer made the remarks, but contending that they were taken out of context.ÔÇØ In a similar, albeit even blunter vein, Republican member of Congress Saxby Chambliss, a member of the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, was quoted in the November 20, 2001, Valdosta Daily Times as commenting: ÔÇ£We should just turn the sheriff loose and have him arrest every Muslim that crosses the state line.ÔÇØ The racist offensive continues today. For example, Womenwallstreet.com carried a July 13 article by Annie Jacobsen recounting the ÔÇ£terrorÔÇØ suffered by her because her Northwest Airlines carried a group of 14 Middle Eastern men. A July 21 response by Salon.com's Patrick Smith summarised Jacobsen's ÔÇ£ordealÔÇØ: ÔÇ£As a matter of fact, nothing happened. Turns out the Syrians are part of a musical ensemble hired to play at a hotel. The men talk to one another. They glance around. They pee. That's it? That's it.ÔÇØ (Smith doesn't particularly parody Jacobsen's piece either. Here's a sample of her breathless prose: ÔÇ£Five minutes later, several more of the Middle Eastern men began using the forward lavatory consecutively. In the back, several of the men stood up and used the back lavatory consecutively as well.ÔÇØ) Unsurprisingly, while the US State Department has classified the burning-down of an ATM in March 2003 in Greece as terrorism in order to boost the figures they need to convince US citizens they are in danger, the murders, bombings and arson attacks suffered by the Arab American and Muslim communities in the US don't make the cut. Nor does the state-sponsored terror unleashed by the US and its client states and allies. At its heart, the ÔÇ£war on terrorÔÇØ is moral hypocrisy: somehow the terror and violence inflicted by states, providing they have Washington's sanction, are beyond reproach. By the time of that ÔÇ£significant international terrorist incidentÔÇØ the bombing of the Greek ATM, the US-led invasion of Iraq had already killed several hundred Iraqi civilians. On March 23, the day after the ATM was destroyed, it was reported that 10 civilians had been killed after the US dropped cluster bombs on the Iraqi city of Nasiriya. Washington's illegal use of the brutal bombs in the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan has been repeatedly condemned by human rights groups. According to UNICEF, between May 1, 2003, when Bush infamously declared the end of ÔÇ£major combat operationsÔÇØ in Iraq, and mid July of that year, more than 1000 Iraqi children were injured by ÔÇ£bombletsÔÇØ, the payloads of US cluster bombs, which act as anti-personnel mines if they fail to explode on impact. This is the case with some 15% of illegal and barbaric weapons according to the British-based Mine Action Group. In Afghanistan, more than 248,000 bomblets were scattered throughout the country by US bombs between October 2001 and March 2002. Human Rights Watch estimates that at least 12,400 of them would have failed to explode on impact, although no doubt they will only maim and kill terrorists and enemies of freedom. Crimes committed by bastions of ÔÇ£democracyÔÇØ don't count however. If, on the hand, the impoverished and oppressed indiscriminately lash out at their oppressors, as sometimes happens, for example, in the case of Palestinians, it is an indescribably heinous crime. Woe betide anyone who questions the role of Palestinian dispossession at the hands of the Israeli state in creating suicide bombers, or the morality of the US-subsidised, and grotesquely misnamed, Israeli ÔÇ£DefenseÔÇØ Forces' slaughter of Palestinian civilians! Of course, the atrocities of Israel and other senior US allies such as Saudi Arabia are well known and documented. Attracting less scrutiny, however, are the former Soviet republics that ÔÇ£liberatedÔÇØ Afghanistan joins in Central Asia whose appalling human rights records are overlooked by the US because of their cooperation with Washington's ÔÇ£war on terrorÔÇØ. Countries like Uzbekistan, whose police and secret service employ methods of torture including beating, suffocation, electric shock and rape and other sexual abuse; or Turkmenistan, whose President Saparmurat Niyazov's term in office was extended indefinitely in December 1999 and who has constructed a personality cult about himself, including writing his own sequel to the Bible and the Koran. Drawing any connection between the White House's support for the repressive regimes that comprise many of its allies and Washington's imperial foreign policy and terrorism provokes outrage from commentators in the corporate media. However, the Democrat and Republican parties, both of which back the occupation of Iraq and the broader ÔÇ£war on terrorÔÇØ are free to exploit the deaths of people who suffered the blowback of US foreign policy on September 11. Such an approach has been condemned by many of those whose families have been directly affected by terrorist attack. In March, when the Bush campaign released an advertisement that featured imagery of Ground Zero in New York, Andrew Rice, whose brother was killed in the 9/11 attacks, commented: ÔÇ£To use these images of a scene of destruction and murder in a political campaign is inappropriate at best, and politicians from across the spectrum should know that there is bipartisan opposition among 9/11 families to this type of offensive exploitation.ÔÇØ Washington has used people's fear of terrorist attacks to silence critics of government policies, at the same time as pursuing policies that promote terrorism. At the August 30-September 2 Republican National Convention, talk of god, terrorism, 9/11 and the ÔÇ£liberation of IraqÔÇØ was frequent and interconnected. But outside the convention, hundreds of thousands of protesters were doing far more to end terrorism ÔÇö by demanding a better, more just world.
Guest Posted October 8, 2004 Report Posted October 8, 2004 OMG!!! This can't be for real? ROFLMAO!! These people are delusional, just straight up nuts. Again, this desperation is NOT pretty. And your desperation Street, is beginning to look like a veiled threat, so I would advise you to chill out.
street228 Posted October 8, 2004 Author Report Posted October 8, 2004 Your saying, MORE THAN HALF the people in this country fall into your "slanderous, and offensive" catagorization..... You seriously, need to take a look at your own position, with some objectivity.
Guest Posted October 8, 2004 Report Posted October 8, 2004 I am being objective, I look at facts, take away the propaganda and come to a conclusion based on those facts. I do not hate Kerry, I find him to be a liberal without a clue of what his base principles are, except that he wants to be president, and will say and do anything to get there. Bush, I see as a man with principles, who believes with all his heart that what he is doing is right, and what I see happening, the information that I am recieving, the reports that are being released, all of these things, tell me that he is indeed correct. Facts back up my conclusions, I do not listen to propaganda, I look for the facts. Fact: Saddam supported terrorism in all it's forms. Fact: Saddam had the capability to create WMD's. Fact: WMD's have been found, not the stockpiles that we were expecting, but evey intelligence agency in the world thought the same thing. Saddam had WMD's, even though he promised to destroy them in return for a cease fire during the Gulf War. Fact: A fleet of vehicles crossed the Syrian border from Iraq, eyewitnesses have said that those trucks contained Saddams WMD's, his scientists, and guards, and the lab equipment etc to create those WMD's. Fact: The mobile trailer labs have been found, and their use is NOT in doubt, they were mobile labs for creating biological and chemical weapons. Fact: The serial number tags have the dates of 2001 and 2002 for the building of these trailers. Fact: Saddam payed 25,000 dollars to suicide bombers families, to kill Israeli citizens. Fact: Saddams intelligence agencies met with Osama Bin Laden, telling him that he could take refuge in Iraq. Osama chose to remain in Afghanistan. Fact: Al Quaeda operatives were given safe haven within Iraq, and given medical treatment for wounds sustained in Afghanistan. Fact: Precursor chemicals have been found within Iraq for Chemical weapons, Chemicals that as stated by the ceasefire were illegal for Saddam to have. Fact: It was obvious that Saddam could have gotten his WMD production back into full swing within months of Sanctions being lifted, and there is a 99.99% chance that he would have. Fact: Saddam used the Oil for food program to bribe officials within the UN, and was able to use that money to support the creation of the mobile labs, the buying of components for long range missiles, and used the money EVERYWHERE BUT where it was supposed to be going, to his people, to feed them and give them medical care. Fact: Syria is trying it's best to make a deal with Iran, to send the scientists from Iraq'a nuclear weapons program OUT of Syria and into Iran. Fact: Syria has used WMD's within Sudan, killing civilians, with that governments support and full cooperation. I can go on and on and on, but I think that I have made my point.
street228 Posted October 8, 2004 Author Report Posted October 8, 2004 First off, let me say this. I will be the first to admit, being a complete ass toward you, but NOT without justifiable reason. So I concede, we have nothing to discuss. Second : You and I can not seem to discuss issues, without childish and rediculous slamming remarks coming forth. If its good for the goose, it should be good for the gander,(IMHO) but I am aware, this idea, isnt the accepted norm around here; So(AGAIN)I concede, we have nothing to say to each other. Third: For any rational debate, to come out of anything...there must first be agreement that the statement is (in fact) a debate. There seems to be some real confusion, on your part, the difference between debate, and posted perceptions, concerning issues... and further confusion, as to properly dividing FACT from OPINION. THUS: I again concede: we have nothing to discuss. FOURTH:You think I am a radical, You are 100% correct!! I am a 45 year old man, who has worked REALLY hard, to be 100% physically, the same man I was, when I was injured in the military, and have succeeded. You know nothing of my life, and what has molded my opinions..and are not remotely interested in anyone else's opinions: thus we have nothing to discuss FIFTH: You think, I am Emotional. Again you are 100% correct, when it comes to military, war,and murder of innocent civilians. SIXTH: you think I am Insane? I have a couple of military shrinks, who would agree with you. Maybe you should slow down a little before attacking people...there are more radical and insane people in this world than I, but not many who could afford my attorney. thus: we have nothing to discuss SEVENTH: So, for the LOGICALLY deduced reason, at hand.... do your thing, and Ill do mine. But dont think for a second, I will address "YOU", HERE, again.. in regard TO any statement you make. We have gone past the point of no return here. This I promise you. thus we have nothing to discuss FINAL: THEREFORE: YOU and I cannot discuss ANY issue rationally, so you need to move on and get off my back. I intend, to direct my comments, to the reading audiance, not YOU. So do not feel obligated to say anything directly to me, it will be ignored, in regard to giving you any direct response. SERIOUSLY !!!!! THUS: YOU and I have NOTHING to DISCUSS
Guest Posted October 9, 2004 Report Posted October 9, 2004 quote:Originally posted by nomad: Hum hum... The two mobile labs recovered did not achieve a positive WMD beep even against mass spectrometers. It is now believed that they were employed to process hydrogen used in atmosferic globes. At least that's the conclusion of US specialists who analyzed them. The experts are of 2 opinions, some the scientists believe that they are indeed mobile WMD labs. They are VERY well put together for that purpose. They can both freeze and heat, they have covered exhaust vents to purify the exhaust as it is released. Unnecassary for Hydrogen production, they have tanks that are capable of holding liquid and powder, again, not necassary for hydrogen production, and each was cleaned with some sort of caustic agent, that removed any and all traces of ANY chemical or biological compound that was in the trailer or created there. Again, it would be unnecassary to clean them with caustic agents of ANY sort for hydrogen production. More and more are coming around to the fact that these are indeed mobile WMD labs. These were also mentioned in the Deufler report, although it said that no great quantities could be created there, so were probably used for Intelligence and experimental purposes. BUT, how much Anthrax do you need to kill a whole lot of people?
jamotto Posted October 9, 2004 Report Posted October 9, 2004 quote: quote: And always a buddy to big oil, Bush has made drilling of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (established in 1960 by President Eisenhower) a top priority, despite US Geological Survey (USGS) and National Academy of Sciences reports warning that such drilling would harm wildlife and cause widespread environmental damage, USGS estimates that it would have little or no impact on oil imports, as well as the polls showing opposition by the American public. We would be drilling in less then 1% of the wildlife refuge and our oil drilling technology is some of the cleanest and least damaging in the world, and it would actually make us LESS dependent on foreign oil!!! Again, brain full of mush, don't let actual facts get in the way of all that emotional BS... I think this is one of the studies being referred to Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain Terrestrial Wildlife Research Summaries
Guest Posted October 9, 2004 Report Posted October 9, 2004 I believe that you are correct. But, that was over 10 years ago, and the oil drilling technology has gotten better in the last 10 years. We drill down, sideways, up, and we can do it for miles. We no longer have to have a rig on top of the oil reserve, we can be miles from it. THe oil platforms and rigs are some of the cleanest on earth, because of environamental restrictions, even the vehicles are not allowed to leak oil, each and EVERY vehicle must have some sort of dropcloth or sponge under it to catch ANY leaking oil. Also, the environamental damage of the pipeline was thought to be great when it was built, but the caribou herds have flourished ALL around the pipeline. The heat from the pipeline itself allows grass to grow where it never grew year round before. THe herds are thricing BECAUSE of the pipeline. The environmental impact on the wildlife etc would be negligible, if any at all. The 1% would have the rigs, the processing centers, and the dericks, but the rest of it would be pristine wasteland, just as it is now. It would also allow the aboriginal peoples that live on that land, to get a major financial boost. SO, what you have is negligible environmental impact because of our advanced Oil drilling technology, and a major financial boost for the people that actually live there, and you remove about 1-5% of our dependence on foreign oil. Everybody wins, the people, the environment, because MORE people will be there to see it and protect it, because we will have Environmental impact scientists on site, and we get less dependent on foreign oil, and of course the oil companies themselves.
jamotto Posted October 9, 2004 Report Posted October 9, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: The experts are of 2 opinions, some the scientists believe that they are indeed mobile WMD labs. They are VERY well put together for that purpose. They seem to be missing some stuff. 1.)System sterilization 2.)Media/water sterilization 3.)Aseptic growth conditions 4.)Agitator/stirrer 5.)Aeration sparger 6.)Process control instrumentation & sensors 7.)Addition and sampling ports 8.)Sight glasses 9.)Provision of sterile air 10.)Sterile filtration of off-gas 11.)Provision of steam for sterilization purposes all this info can be found in the Deufler report linked by Jaguar on page 81.
jamotto Posted October 9, 2004 Report Posted October 9, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: I believe that you are correct. But, that was over 10 years ago, and the oil drilling technology has gotten better in the last 10 years. depends at what part of the study you are looking at. The caribou, polar bear and muskox study was done from 1995 to 2001. quote: We drill down, sideways, up, and we can do it for miles. We no longer have to have a rig on top of the oil reserve, we can be miles from it. THe oil platforms and rigs are some of the cleanest on earth, because of environamental restrictions, even the vehicles are not allowed to leak oil, each and EVERY vehicle must have some sort of dropcloth or sponge under it to catch ANY leaking oil. Also, the environamental damage of the pipeline was thought to be great when it was built, but the caribou herds have flourished ALL around the pipeline. The heat from the pipeline itself allows grass to grow where it never grew year round before. THe herds are thricing BECAUSE of the pipeline. The environmental impact on the wildlife etc would be negligible, if any at all.I don't think it's all about the oil. Some of the worst "contamination" is not done by the oil, but by the presence of people around these oil facilities. The vehicle traffic, airplane traffic, the foot traffic etc. The animals move away from this traffic in droves.
Guest Posted October 9, 2004 Report Posted October 9, 2004 Worldnetdaily Yeah, you're not gonna like the source, but it's the only one that I can give you, it is not complete, but it gives the basics of what these trailers look like and what they were used for.
Guest Posted October 9, 2004 Report Posted October 9, 2004 This is what a debate is supposed to be, by the way..... I am still unconcerned about the animals in that 1% of the land that we will be using. Just as it is in rural areas, at first the animals will be frightened, and in the short term, they will stay away, but as they get used to it, you will see them hanging out under the oil derricks. Just as occurred with the pipeline, shor term it got them a bit upset, but they got used to the construction, and the work had to stop sometimes as some animal came within the construction zone. Also, as with most of what happens in Alaska, the work will be done during the winter months, while there is perma frost. The tractors come in after the snows, build the roads on top, and then at the end of the winter, the work stops, the roads melt away, and you have the same land that you had before, undisturbed. We are getting MUCH better, much cleaner, and the fact of the matter is, will only upset a small portion of the reserve with the drilling, 1% was the last estimate that I saw. We work during the winter months, shut down during the thaw and summer, about 4 months, then start up again after the ground freezes. THis is the actual plan by the way. The oil companies have this figured out to a fair thee well, and the aborigines that live there do not want their land forever scarred, and they really want that infusion of cash, it would help them a great deal. The oil companies have figured out a way to take out the oil will very little impact on the reserve, the people that live there get a HUGE cash infusion, and the animals will get used to it, and probably prosper because of the cash infusion as well, the people there do not want the habitat destroyed. Yes, there is a profit motive, but we think about the long term as well now, not just the short term profits.
Wolferz Posted October 9, 2004 Report Posted October 9, 2004 Jag 'ol buddy, Just for the edification of the masses, could you please post copies of all of your Phds? You speak with such unmitigated authority on all of these issues and it leads myself and others to believe that you are the quintessential authority on everything.Are all of your doctorates pulling the sheetrock off your walls? Now, before you get the urge to go all blustery on me and I'm not saying that you will..... I only feel the need to address one of the points That you, in your all-knowing manner, made above regarding troop equipment for our soldiers in Iraq. The statement was the biggest load of crap I have ever heard issue forth from your fingers. I, for one, don't give a flying fornication what a soldiers MOS is, if that soldier is sent into a war zone, that soldier SHOULD!!!! be fully equipped with every technological marvel that has ever come out of Aberdeen. PERIOD!!! Think about that statement long and hard.WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT?over. The first of our troops to be killed in Iraq were not so much in the front line units. Were they or weren't they a bunch of guys and gals in one of the "trains"? Not actually combat troops, but found themselves in the middle of the excrement.Did they have the new Flak Jackets? Did any of their replacements get Flak Jackets? I can tell you with a certain degree of certainty, that supply probably passed these people over, thinking that,"They're just a bunch of reserves. give the good stuff to the Regular Army joes." Don't even think about rebutting my statement because I've been there and experienced it with my own eyes and ears. The RAs were always riding us out for being Weekend Warriors And in their own words, we weren't worth spitting on. You can think what you will about everyone who opposes Your ideal Emperor and all of his little Senators and it won't change the fact that Bush has been running amok with OUR money for the sole purpose of making a profit. Time will eventually reveal who has the mushy brains.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now