tBlog - Anti-Neoconservative Weblog

Anti-Neoconservative Weblog

Blog For Free!

Archives
Home
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February

My Links
Project for the OLD American Century
Winston Smith's Daily Journal
Sam Adams' CounterPoint

tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images

Sponsored
Blog

KERRY WINS THE 1st DEBATE!!!

09.30.04 (10:25 pm) [edit]

Bush proved he is an incompetent buffoon without a clue about what is going on-- Bush repeats the same tired ole' cliches and bullshit over and over again. Bush's interest is enriching Halliburton and he doesn't give a rat's ass how many Americans die to do so. Bush lied about WMDs. Bush isn't fit to be president. Bush isn't fit to wipe toilets in Abu Ghraib. [Bush is the one who is inconsistent, idiotic and his "certainty" is dim-witted "certainty" to run the ship into the rocks into a major disaster!]

Contrast Dubya's insanity and diversion into Iraq (having nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorism) with strong, smart John Kerry who couldn't be led by the nose by neo-con crooks. Dubya has fucked-up Iraq big-time!

Kerry is strong. Kerry advocates working with other nations to defeat the REAL causes of terrorism-- not the bogus fabrications of Bush's corporate cronies. Kerry is smart enough to extricate us from Bush's many miserable failures.

Kerry understands international relations. Kerry understands the threats. Kerry understands what has to be done.

Kerry can instill credibility again to the White House. Kerry is a strong, smart man!!!

Presidential Debates: Kerry is Smart-- Bush is a Lying Asshole!!!

09.30.04 (10:03 pm) [edit]

It is clear to anyone who knows the FACTS, that Dubya is a complete and utter asshole, liar and dim-witted buffoon!

It's too dangerous to keep such an idiot Bush in office.

Kerry is smart-- Kerry knows the facts-- Kerry won't make the same bungling mistakes that Dubya makes over and over again. Dubya ain't even smart enough to learn from his many, many disastrous mistakes! (Maybe because other people pay the price!)

Hey, DimWit Dubya: Where are the WMDs you asshole???

09.30.04 (9:50 pm) [edit]

Geez! Dubya is so god-damn dumb!

It's an embarrassment to watch the asshole dribble the same ole' Karl Rove cliches; mind-numbing rehearsed bullshit and phony lies!

Where are the WMDs, you asshole Dubya???

Defensor has Head up Butt-- Kerry isn't talking about Vietnam!!!

09.30.04 (9:47 pm) [edit]

Kerry isn't talking about Vietnam!

Kerry is talking sense about a plan to fix the fuck-up by Bush in Iraq!

Defensor should take his head out of Rush Limbaugh's butt!!!

PEACE? Bush's Bloodbath: TODAY!

09.30.04 (9:03 pm) [edit]

U.S. forces have launched a major offensive on the rebel stronghold of Samarra after a series of horrific car bombings in Baghdad Thursday that killed 41 people, mostly children.

Residents of Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, told Reuters by telephone that big explosions were shaking the city, one of several places where the U.S. military has vowed to wrest control from insurgents to enable elections in January.

The residents, speaking early on Friday morning Iraq time, said there were more than two hours of airstrikes and most residents were sheltering indoors.

CNN’s reporter in Iraq, Jane Arraf, in a live broadcast from Samarra, said she was accompanying U.S. forces engaged in the attack, which she described as “an entire brigade-size operation into Samarra to root out insurgents.”

Arraf said the forces, accompanied by Iraqi national guards, were moving “sector by sector through the city to secure it.” Power had been cut off and her report was punctuated several times by what she said were explosions of rocket-propelled grenades and mortars.

The U.S. military has said it wants to retake Samarra, Fallujah, Ramadi and the Baghdad neighborhoods of Sadr City and Haifa Street, which are in the hands of insurgents, by the end of the year to create the right conditions for the election.

In Fallujah, 50 kilometers west of Baghdad, U.S. forces on Thursday destroyed a building they said was being used by fighters loyal to al-Qaida ally Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Iraqi doctors said at least three people were killed and eight wounded in the attack. - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6...

Cheney & his puppy Bush: Fascists, Crooks & War Criminals-- Definitely NOT Good Christians!!!

09.30.04 (8:55 pm) [edit]

[b]George Bush and the Rise of Christian Fascism

Rev. Rich Lang [/b]

The men who wrote the Constitution of the United States knew that we human beings have a tendency to 'not get along with each other'. They knew that if power accrued into the hands of an elite the experiment of democracy (power spread out into the realm of the people) would be over. So they created a system of checks and balances which blocked access to any one person, or any one special interest or elite gaining too much power over others. Thus our executive, legislative and judicial branches of government "checked" each other. The media was yet another "check" on the accrual of too much power as was the Bill of Rights which was written into the Constitution. The system wasn't perfect but it kept alive the possibility of true democracy. It kept alive the dream that one day "we the people" could live in a peaceful commonwealth where every person has what they need to survive and thrive.

That dream died in December 2000 when the checks and balances of our Constitution collapsed and George Bush was inserted into the Presidency of the nited States. September 11, 2001 furthered the atrophying of democracy handing the country into the hands of an emerging Corporate (and I say Christian) Fascism.

Since that time we have witnessed and have been unable to prevent the emergence of an Imperial Presidency that has the unrestricted power to declare war against any country he chooses. The Imperial Presidency has brought to an end the Constitutional mandate that 'ONLY CONGRESS' has the authority to declare war. It has furthered weakened international law and has undermined the potential of the United Nations to spread democracy throughout the earth.

The President has also gained unrestricted power to round up unlimited numbers of American citizens and incarcerate them in military brigs or concentration camps for the rest of their lives. He can keep them from ever again communicating with friends, families, and attorneys, simply on the president's certification that the incarcerated are "terrorists," as he has done with Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi. The President may also now kill American citizens abroad solely on the basis of his certification that the one killed is a "terrorist". Just ask the family and friends of Ahmed Hijazi, anAmerican killed with a U.S.-fired missile in Yemen. Therefore suspending the Constitutional right: "no person shall be denied life, liberty or property without due process of law."

Ominous signs are all around us concerning the accrual of power into the hands of the Presidency. If Mr. Bush stays in office I think our future will continue to witness shrinking political rights, financial collapse and endless war. Part of the power and seduction of this administration emerges from its diabolical manipulation of Christian rhetoric. I want to flesh out the ideology of the Christian Fascism that Mr. Bush articulates. It is a form of Christianity that is the mirror opposite of what Jesus embodied. It is, indeed, the materialization of the spirit of antichrist: a perversion of Christian faith and practice.

This country, like it or not, is overwhelmingly dominated by the ideology of the Christian story. It is not so much that our founders were all Christians. Rather, they lived in an atmosphere scented throughout by Christian thought and rhetoric. Just as most of us can't imagine how to keep things cold without refrigeration; so too our founders couldn't help but think through the lens of the Christian story. And what they saw was that America had become the New Israel (the new Promised Land) of God. America has understood itself as a benevolent nation seeking only the good of all. We have understand our wealth as a blessing given to us as a sign that we are a "chosen, special people" whose larger meaning is to help the world into an era of peace, prosperity and justice. Every politician draws on this "civil religion story" which gives authority to the politicians ambition and agenda. Another way of saying this is: every nation needs sacred legitimation. It needs the authority of transcendence: of a story larger than itself . a story that connects past with present and future. An Empire needs an even broader story: one that connects with cosmic and/or historical redemption and new creation.

Martin Luther King understood this sacred American civil religion and was able to wed it brilliantly with the prophetic religious teachings of the Bible. He drew upon Biblical narratives which limited the power and authority of the elite while calling for economic redistribution of wealth. He drew upon teachings rooted in the personal morality of nonviolence and compassion. George Bush, on the other hand, also understands this sacred American 'civic gospel' and has brilliantly merged it with Biblical Holiness and Holy War traditions. These traditions call for the emergence of the Righteous Warrior who will cleanse the land of its impurity. These traditions are rooted in the personal morality of righteous zeal and obedience.

For example:

1.. Mr. Bush consistently sends signals to his right wing religious base. In last year's State of the Union he exhorted: "there's power, wonder working power, in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people". It's a phrase from a well known Communion hymn "there's power, wonder working power in the blood of the lamb". Bush brings together the holiness zeal of Christian evangelicalism with patriotic fundamentalism. The core belief system of this 'civic gospel' goes something like this: The United States was founded as a Christian nation with free enterprise as the only economic system truly compatible with Christian beliefs. These religious values are today under attack in America. The danger is that without faith in God America will lose its blessing. Therefore, the government needs to act to protect the nation's religious heritage.

2.. Mr. Bush's teachings on terrorism: "you are with us or against us" cements for the hearer the apocalyptic world of good versus evil. There can be no neutral ground. You have to make a decision. Patriotism is now all or nothing: it is either total agreement or a slippery slope towards treason. In the Church you come to Jesus alone for salvation. In the state you obey the God-annointed leader and are thereby secured. Renana Brooks writes (The Nation June 24, 2003: Bush Dominates A Nation of Victims):

"Bush is a master at inducing learned helplessness in the electorate. He uses pessimistic language that creates fear and disables people from feeling they can solve their problems. In his September 20, 2001 speech to Congress on the 9/11 attacks, he chose to increase people's sense of vulnerability: 'Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. . I ask you to live your lives, and hug your children. I know many citizens have fears tonight . Be calm and resolute, even in the face of a continuing threat.' (Subsequent terror alerts .. have maintained and expanded this fear of unknown, sinister enemies.)"

The terror threat itself can only be combated with increases in military force, domestic security and curtailment of civil rights through Patriot Acts. There are no other options nor any dialogue or debate that would create an alternative way to deal with terrorism.

3.) Mr. Bush certainly sees himself as a Messiah figure. Listen to his language after 9-11: " I will not forget this wound to our country or those who inflicted it. I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people." Or, in his 2003 State of the Union speech: "I will defend the freedom and security of the American people". He has become the nation. He is its embodiment. According to Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, - Bush told him: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." This is Biblical language . it isn't political script. This is Bush's soul language. He understands himself as a man with a Divine mission. It also means that for him leadership is not "representing the people" rather leadership means transcending the will of the people. George Bush already knows the truth before the evidence is presented. He is guided by God and must blaze the trial even if the people are reluctant.

Iraq, for example, was a necessary war whether or not Saddam had nukes. Saddam, for Bush, was a bad guy who tried to kill "my dad". The war, for Bush, was holy and justified and necessary. Purging evil is necessary in the Holiness/Holy War tradition of the Bible. The righteous will purge evil but the unrighteous will be consumed by it. Think of an alcoholic: it's all or nothing. The whole world is all or nothing.

Like all religions the Bible has various narratives within its pages: Jesus drew on the prophetic traditions that called upon the people to change their way of life even as it critiqued and called upon the elites to decentralize their power. Jesus himself role modeled a lifestyle of service. Mr. Bush, on the other hand, draws on traditions that call for purity and cleansing. It is a language of hostility towards enemies and a strident call for obedience. It calls forth a lifestyle of the RIGHTEOUS ONE who will purge evil from the world through sacred violence.

All of this is not to say that the political world is of less importance. We know that the planning for the Iraq war was at least a decade in preparation. We know that America has had imperial designs and has intervened militarily throughout the world. And we've known for 25 years that Corporations have been savagely reducing labor rights while looting the treasury. We know that Mr. Bush is not the cause of our problems. Rather, the point I am making is that Mr. Bush is a sincere front man for an emerging fascism. His religious rhetoric is an authentic merging of Holiness Christianity with Imperial Americanism. The emphasis on security, law and order is necessary to maintain the "high calling" of the American people. The policies of fascism, in other words, are consistent with religious holiness and holy war narratives. And fascism, woven underneath Christian Holiness/Holy War traditions, is a powerful symbolic narrative that speaks to the American people as evidenced by Mr. Bush's 58% approval rating.

The coming election will not be decided because of political policy. It will not be decided in a debate over free markets versus fair markets; tax cuts or no tax cuts, Patriot Act or no Patriot Act; war with Syria or no war. None of these issues will determine the election because the candidates are all for free markets, tax cuts, domestic security and a strong global military presence. The election will be determined by the candidate who can embody the deeply felt, often unarticulated religious yearnings of the populace. Yearnings such as "who will save us, secure us, lead us??? who will connect us with a power greater than the power of others?" Bush speaks this language. Democrats are stuck in political nuance. Or, in other words, Democrats cannot speak the language of Martin Luther King who understood that social transformation requires a transcendent authority.

The problem comes down to this: Democrats, liberals, and social progressives have simply not grasped how afraid, insecure and how deeply in despair the populace is. They keep speaking as if objective analysis and idealistic vision can win the day. What Bush and Rove, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Pearls, Abrams and Bolton, DeLay and Rice etc, have clearly understood is that truth is subjectivity. Unfortunately, the inner person of America today is a hollowed out consumer who lacks the will power, stamina and imagination to do anything more than be overwhelmed. Therefore, a politics of crisis, a politics of fear will keep us locked into a state of conformity.

On the "civic side" of things America is being inundated with a rhetoric of insecurity. Most of Bush's State of the Union was taken up with war themes reminding us all of the horrible new world we live in post 9/11. We know that further increases in the military and police budgets are on the way; we know that the Patriot Act is going to be extended and strengthened; we know that Homeland Security will continue to be a growth industry. We know that this administration wants to break down the wall between church and state with faith-based initiatives. The world is in chaos and the Bush-men will fix it bringing us peace, prosperity, purity and purpose.

On the religion side of things apocalyptic theology is booming. This is also a worldview of crisis and insecurity. It is a theology rooted in the Holiness/Holy War traditions and it dominates the spirituality of this current administration. More to the point, this is the dominant theology of the mass media expression of Christian faith. It is a theology of despair that has given up on the possibilities of redemption.

One of the most popular fiction series making the rounds these days is the LEFT BEHIND series written by Tim LaHaye & Jerry Jenkins. Multiple millions of people are reading these books which fictionalize the end of life as we know it. It used to be that the Church could control people through the fear of eternal damnation. Today it is through fear of the future. The theology is basically this: The Bible is a code book that when rightly interpreted reveals that we are living at the end of history. History is scripted and is about to come to a catastrophic conclusion. The only hope is to accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior so that you can be "saved" from the future apocalypse. God will "snatch you up" (Rapture) right before a seven year series of horrible events that will see the rise of Antichrist and the rebuilding of the Jewish temple. There will be world war with most of humanity dying. At that point Jesus will return to restore law and order. This theology of despair "fits" our current culture of powerlessness and fear. From SARS to weapons of mass destruction to the ongoing Palestinian-Israeli conflict, to ecological collapse, the whole world seems to be on a "no exit" slide into an end times abyss. The theology of despair is very seductive. It is shaping the spirituality of Christians which provides a strong core from which Bush draws political strength.

And it has, at least, five political implications that affect each one of us here today. FIRST: Israel is to be exalted and defended no matter what they do to the Palestinian people. They are God's chosen people and must reside in their Biblically anointed Land for the "end time clock" to tick to its final minute. Israel has a Biblical mandate to conquer and control all of the land from the Nile River to the Euphrates. Behind the politics of oil lie the religious passion to fulfill God's will: Syria must fall.

Secondly: institutions like the United Nations are not to be trusted because they are tools of the Antichrist. The Antichrist is thought of (not as a spirituality or ideology) but as an personal embodiment of evil. The Antichrist will be a living person who will come to power at the end of history and proclaim himself to be god on earth. The theory has it that his power will be generated from within a coalition of nations. Thus . America, as God's chosen nation, will need to go it alone so as not to be duped by Antichrist. Our destiny is to take the gospel to all the nations: a benevolent gospel of therapeutic salvation for all.

Thirdly: since the world is passing away the environment is not of great importance. There is no need to worry about issues of sustainability because the world is in its final countdown. Part of the unconcern towards global warming and other ecological crisis is the religious belief that we aren't going to be around in 100 years. We're in the end times now . every moment is merely preparation for eternity. Whether Bush himself believes this or not is irrelevant. This is the religious worldview of those who exalt him and the voter-bloc to which he plays. For Bush to act for sustainability would require a major shift in his religious narrative. . As an aside this past summer the National Park Service was instructed to approve the display of religious symbols and Bible verses, as well as the sale of creationist books at the Grand Canyon National Park. In December 2003 the Park Service was ordered to develop a "more balanced" version of an 8 minute video shown at the Lincoln Memorial Visitor Center. Conservative Christians wanted the removal of footage of gay rights, pro choice and anti-war demonstrations replacing it with footage of Christian rallies and pro-war demonstrations.

Fourth: the trust that Jesus died for "my sins" is far more important than the teachings of Jesus. This fosters a domesticated therapeutic religious expression that insists that "jesus in my heart" is more important than my lifestyle. It's like the Mafia don who could order his enemies killed while he himself was celebrating the baptism of his nephew. There is a disconnect between one's inner experience of God's loving grace and embodying that experience outwardly through one's politics. This leads to a discounting of following Jesus in a lifestyle of nonviolence, economic justice and compassion. Again as an aside . while Governor of Texas Mr. Bush was interviewed by Talk Magazine concerning the impending execution of fellow Christian Karla Faye Tucker. Bush imitated Tucker's appeal for him to spare her life . pursing his lips, squinting his eyes, and in a squeaky voice saying, "please don't kill me".

Fifth: a leader who loves Jesus is to be followed as God's man for the hour. The Christian leader is God's shepherd over the American flock. As stated before Bush sees himself as a Messiah figure (annointed by God for a special redemptive purpose). When he decided on running for the Presidency he called a group of evangelical Pastors together announcing to them "I have heard the call" and then receiving from them the "laying on of hands" which corresponds to divine ordination for the task ahead. On September 14, 2001 he stated: "our responsibility before history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil". He then launched the crusade Operation Infinite Freedom against Afghanistan. Yet other messainic statements from Bush:

"History has called America to action. . The great hope of our time, and the great hope of every time, now depends on us." ..

"We must also remember our calling as a blessed nation to make the world better . and confound the designs of evil men."

"Our nation has been chosen by God and commissioned by history, to be a model of justice before the world."

*** According to Vice-President Cheney: America "has the duty to act with force to construct a world in the image of the United States."

In return for this messianic leadership evangelical Christians have returned an annointing of prayer. During the Afghanistan crusade thousands of "Presidential Circles of Prayer" and "Wheels of Prayer" were organized on the Internet, running 24 hours a day.

[b]WHEEL OF PRAYER FOR OUR SOLDIERS[/b]

Lord hold our troops in your loving hands. Protect them as they protect us.

Bless them and their families for the altruistic actions they are performing

for us in our time of need. This I ask in the name of Jesus, our Lord and Savior. Amen

This prayer was so popular and was hit so often that the website crashed within days.

Pastor Charles Stanley distributed among Marines as they entered into combat thousands of pamphlets entitled "Duty of a Christian in Time of War". With the pamphlet went a card instructing them to sign and send directly to Mr. Bush. The card says: "I have committed to pray for you, your family and your Administration." Specific prayers for the President were included for each day.

[b]CONCLUSION:[/b]

The point I'm trying to make is that we are not dealing simply with politics when it comes to the Bush administration. The progressive left, which often pays little attention to Christianity, will be making a huge mistake if they overlook the religious ideology at the core of Mr. Bush personally and the movement he represents. And we are talking about a "movement" (a movement of 'the people' not just the elites). We are seeing today the emergence of a "fascist movement". It is bankrolled and organized by Corporations, articulated through the ideology of neo-conservativism. but is fueled by the right-wing church drawing upon Holiness/Holy War Biblical narratives.

When Dave Korten (author of When Corporations Rule the World) says that we need a "new story"; he is talking about needing a transcendent authority in which we root our political culture. Human beings cannot live in societal form without a sacred narrative. Neither anarchy nor atheism can construct a house that will hold our future. The Republicans know this well. But the Democrats seem clueless.

In Biblical language the Republicans have become Pharaoh whose house is strong because of economic exploitation of the populace and military repression of the people. The populace is being asked to make bricks without straw. We are seeking a "savior" . a Moses who can rally us out of these mudpits towards the promise of a land flowing with milk and honey. Unfortunately most Democrats are simply offering Pharaoh-lite: they still will keep us in the mudpit making bricks.

What we need is a movement of spiritual justice. We need the language of those who can wed America's civil religion with Biblical prophetic narrative. We need to expand that language so that it can include the language and stories that are emerging from the antiwar, fair trade and human rights movements. Together this language can form a unique new narrative that has the power to inspire imagination and courage. A language that call forth a new coalition powerful enough to leave behind the mudpit and to enter the promise of a new beginning. A coalition that understands that "we are the ones we are looking for". Indeed, the new narrative will proclaim "God with us" not "God above us". - http://www.opednews.com/lang0...

Jobless Claims Jump by 18,000 (Neo-Con Hypocrites Don't Care, So Long as the Rich Get Richer!)

09.30.04 (6:59 pm) [edit]

[b]Jobless claims jump by 18,000

Initial claims for unemployment insurance rise to 369,000, coming in above estimates.[/b]

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The number of Americans filing for unemployment assistance rose by 18,000 last week, the government reported Thursday, as the figures that have fluctuated with the series of hurricanes on the East Coast came in above estimates.

Initial claims for unemployment insurance rose to 369,000 in the week ended Sept. 25, up from a revised 351,000 the previous week, the Labor Department reported. Economists expected 340,000 people to file for assistance, according to Briefing.com.

The weekly readings on jobless claims have fluctuated dramatically in August and September as the Southeast has been mauled by four hurricanes in six weeks.

The four-week moving average of initial claims, which is meant to smooth out some of those swings, came in at 343,500, up from a revised 341,250 the previous week.

Friday's report on the unemployment rate and payroll changes for September may add more clarity to the job market and become a focal point for the remaining two presidential debates as it will be the last report before the Nov. 2 election.

Continuing claims, or those people who have already received one week of assistance, fell to 2,873,000 in the week ended Sept. 18, the latest figures available, down from 2,876,000 the previous week.

States along the East Coast topped the list for the highest numbers of initial claims. Florida, which has been hit by Hurricane Charley, Frances, Ivan and Jeanne reported 8,797 new filings.

States that felt some of the residual effects of the hurricanes, including Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Delaware, New Jersey and New York, rounded out the list with California, the country's most populous state. - http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/...

Britain's Deputy Prime Minister Dope-Slaps Bush

09.30.04 (6:56 pm) [edit]

Like a Class 5 hurricane, George W. Bush destroys everything in his path. He's even ripped the roof of the "special friendship" between the United States and Britain. Ripping the political right for lack of compassion, Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott singled out the current U.S. government for treating compassion as a mere sound bite.

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...

"Bush Lied, My Son Died" ... Sorry, But Bush Doesn't Give A Rat's Ass About Your Son!!!

09.30.04 (6:36 pm) [edit]

[b]"Bush Lied, My Son Died"[/b]

[b]In excruciating new TV ads, family members of soldiers killed in Iraq speak out about the horrible waste of their loved ones' lives[/b].

In a TV commercial released Wednesday, Cindy Sheehan, a 47-year-old woman from Vacaville, Calif., whose 24-year-old son was killed in Sadr City in April, speaks directly to George W. Bush.

Shot in black-and-white, her soft voice cracking, she says, "I imagined it would hurt if one of my kids was killed, but I never thought it would hurt this bad, especially someone so honest and brave as Casey, my son. When you haven't been honest with us, when you and your advisors rushed us into this war. How do you think we felt when we heard the Senate report that said there was no link between Iraq and 9/11?"

This is one of four new ads featuring relatives of soldiers killed in Iraq, produced by a new political action committee called RealVoices.org. At a time when soldiers' parents have been arrested at Bush rallies and thrown out of the Republican National Convention for trying to make themselves heard, Real Voices was formed to broadcast the excruciating messages of those who feel that their loved ones' lives were wasted in Iraq.

Real Voices is spending $200,000 on its initial ad buy while trying to raise more money. Each one of the spots is bitter and searing. In one, Raphael Zappala, whose 30-year-old brother was killed in Baghdad while searching a warehouse for weapons of mass destruction, says, "My brother died trying to make an honest man out of George W. Bush, needlessly. He was betrayed by the lies of his commander in chief. And the troops still in Iraq are being betrayed." Another features a California mother named Jane Bright, who remains livid about Bush's rash "Bring 'em on!" challenge. "Mr. Bush," she says, "I have no way of knowing whether the insurgent who killed my son ever heard your foolish taunt. But thanks to you, Mr. President, I have the rest of my life to wonder about it."

Sheehan tells Salon that she has never been politically active before. But speaking out against Bush is a way to assuage a tiny bit of the futility she feels about her son's death. "I need to speak out for what I think is right, and I have this chance right now because people want to listen to me," she says. "If I didn't do that, I wouldn't be able to get up in the morning or face a new day, because every day for me is like a new April 4, when my son was killed."

Since her son died, Sheehan has tormented herself for not doing more to fight Bush four years ago. "My biggest regret in my entire life is that when Bush was selected as president by the Supreme Court that I didn't go out and say, 'No, this is B.S., we can't stop this election until we count every single vote.' I just regret it so much. I don't know if I did something more maybe my son would still be alive."

One might think that Sheehan's sacrifice would protect her from assaults by the right-wing patriotism police, but one would be wrong. Since she started speaking out, she's been attacked as a political opportunist and accused of treason.

"I have had people tell me that what I'm doing is supporting terrorists and that my son would be ashamed of me," she says. "I was on a radio call-in show on Sunday morning, and I had a lot of people call me a traitor."

Still, she plans to continue speaking out, joining a growing list of people channeling their grief into activism. There's Lila Lipscomb, the bereft mother from "Fahrenheit 9/11." There's Fernando Suarez del Solar, who crashed the Republican National Convention with a poster bearing a picture of his son, a Marine named Jesus, and the words, "Bush lied, my son died." There's Sue Sapir Niederer, who wore a T-shirt saying "President Bush You Killed My Son" to a campaign rally featuring Laura Bush, and ended up being arrested and charged with "defiant trespassing," even though she had a ticket for the event. And there are more like them coming forth every day.

Speaking about those who want her to shut up, Sheehan says, "I think those people are traitors, because my son and millions of brave Americans before him have died for my right to speak out against the government." - http://www.salon.com/news/fea...

The KKK Rides again through GOP in US Voting Manipulation and Intimidation

09.30.04 (2:18 pm) [edit]

[b]Think that headline's an exaggeration?[/b] "In the 2000 Florida elections, thousands of black voters were unlawfully denied the right to vote; Postcards were mailed to minority voters in Passaic County, NJ, threatening fines up to $1000 and imprisonment of up to five years...and warning of "armed law enforcement officers" at the polls; In Wharton County, TX, a white woman had her home vandalized, received phone threats, and was victim to a cross burning that lit her home on fire for her support of an African American candidate;. John Pappageorge, a GOP state Representative from Troy, MI was quoted in the Detroit Free Press on July 16, 2004 saying, "If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we're going to have a tough time in this election cycle." During a special election in South Dakota on June 1, 2004 many Native Americans were sent to the wrong polling places or given incorrect information about new laws." All these offenses were perpetrated in the interests of the GOP.

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.movingideas.org/ac...

Bush's Corruptions: Republicans' Lack of 'Wisdom' Horrifies Allies

09.30.04 (7:23 am) [edit]

[b]London Review of Books:[/b] "America is now offering lessons in what little wisdom it takes to govern the world. Confounded in Iraq, isolated from its traditional allies, shamed over Abu Ghraib, soaked in corporate corruption and the backwash of environmental harm, sustaining an uninherited budget deficit while preparing more tax rewards for the rich, as dismissive of the unhealthy as the foreign, as terrified of the unfolding truth as of mailed anthrax, it is a society made menacing by a notion of God's great plan. America is tolerance-challenged, integrity-poor, frightened to death, and yet, beneath its patriotic hosannahs, a country in delirium before the recognition that it might have spent the last three years not only squandering the sympathy of the world but hot-housing hatreds more ferocious than those it had wished to banish for ever from the clear blue skies."

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n18/...

Bush's Corruptions: Republicans' Lack of 'Wisdom' Horrifies Allies

09.30.04 (7:20 am) [edit]

Bush's Corruptions: Republicans' Lack of 'Wisdom' Horrifies Allies

09.30.04 (7:18 am) [edit]

Bush's Corruptions: Republicans' Lack of 'Wisdom' Horrifies Allies

09.30.04 (7:16 am) [edit]

STOP THE PRESS! Swaggering A'W'OL Bush was Grounded for 'Fear of Flying'

09.30.04 (7:11 am) [edit]

[b]Bob Fertik blogs[/b], "Since Walter Robinson published his groundbreaking story '1-year gap in Bush's guard duty' on May 23, 2000, journalists and researchers have been trying to find out WHY Bush stopped flying in 1972... Now, FINALLY, we have a simple answer: Bush developed a 'fear of flying,' possibly influenced by his drinking. Below are two articles based on interviews with Janet Linke, the widow of the F102A pilot (Jan Peter Linke) who had to replace Bush when he quit flying in 1972. Jerry Killian told her and her husband about Bush's flying problems. Linke's story is confirmed by several of her friends. It is also confirmed by the few records that remain, including Bush's grounding order and his flight logs. Finally, it is confirmed by Bush's fellow pilot Deane Roome: 'You wonder if you know who George Bush is. I think he digressed after a while. In the first half, he was gung-ho. Where George failed was to fulfill his obligation as a pilot. It was an irrational time in his life.'"

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://community.democrats.co...

STOP THE PRESS! Swaggering A'W'OL Bush was Grounded for 'Fear of Flying'

09.30.04 (7:09 am) [edit]

STOP THE PRESS! Swaggering A'W'OL Bush was Grounded for 'Fear of Flying'

09.30.04 (7:07 am) [edit]

Bush's BIG Flip-Flop: Record Shows Dubya Continues to Spin & Shift on Iraq

09.30.04 (6:47 am) [edit]

[b]Record shows Bush shifting on Iraq war

President's rationale for the invasion continues to evolve [/b]

President Bush portrays his position on Iraq as steady and unwavering as he represents Sen. John Kerry's stance as ambiguous and vacillating.

"Mixed signals are the wrong signals,'' Bush said last week during a campaign stop in Bangor, Maine. "I will continue to lead with clarity, and when I say something, I'll mean what I say.''

Yet, heading into the first presidential debate Thursday, which will focus on foreign affairs, there is much in the public record to suggest that Bush's words on Iraq have evolved -- or, in the parlance his campaign often uses to describe Kerry, flip-flopped.

An examination of more than 150 of Bush's speeches, radio addresses and responses to reporters' questions reveal a steady progression of language, mostly to reflect changing circumstances such as the failure to discover weapons of mass destruction, the lack of ties between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network and the growing violence of Iraqi insurgents.

A war that was waged principally to overthrow a dictator who possessed "some of the most lethal weapons ever devised'' has evolved into a mission to rid Iraq of its "weapons-making capabilities'' and to offer democracy and freedom to its 25 million residents.

The president no longer expounds upon deposed Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein's connections with al Qaeda, rarely mentions the rape and torture rooms or the illicit weapons factories that he once warned posed a direct threat to the United States.

In the fall of 2002, as Bush sought congressional support for the use of force, he described the vote as a sign of solidarity that would strengthen his ability to keep the peace. Today, his aides describe it unambiguously as a vote to go to war.

Whether such shifts constitute a reasonable evolution of language to reflect the progression of war, or an about-face to justify unmet expectations, is a subjective judgment tinged by partisan prejudice.

Yet a close look at the record makes it difficult to support Bush campaign chairman Ken Mehlman's description of the upcoming debate as a "square-off between resolve and optimism versus vacillation and defeatism.''

A careful reading of Bush's statements on Iraq reveals many instances of consistency, just as The Chronicle's examination of Kerry's words found consistency in the Democratic challenger's statements. Over and over, Bush stated that the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, changed the way Americans -- including the commander in chief -- viewed the threat of terrorism and lowered the threshold of risk Americans were willing to accept.

"Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take,'' Bush said in a well-received speech before the U.N. General Assembly on Sept 12, 2002.

Bush echoed those words earlier this month as he accepted his party's nomination for president a few miles away, at Madison Square Garden in New York:

"Do I forget the lessons of September the 11th and take the word of a madman, or do I take action to defend our country? Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time.''

Yet the more specific explanation of a mission that has cost more than 1, 000 American lives, thousands of Iraqi lives and well over $100 billion has undergone a transformation.

Prior to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, Bush focused on weapons of mass destruction and stated the U.S. goal in straightforward terms.

"Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. And in order to disarm, it would mean regime change,'' Bush said at a news conference two weeks before he took the nation to war.

"And our mission won't change,'' Bush continued. "Our mission is precisely what I just stated.''

Six weeks later, speaking to workers at an Army tank plant in Ohio, the goal seemed to expand.

"Our mission -- besides removing the regime that threatened us, besides ending a place where the terrorists could find a friend, besides getting rid of weapons of mass destruction -- our mission has been to bring humanitarian aid and restore basic services and put this country, Iraq, on the road to self- government.''

Last month, speaking to supporters at a campaign event in Wisconsin, Bush put it more plainly: "The goal in Iraq and Afghanistan is for there to be democratic and free countries who are allies in the war on terror. That's the goal.''

In the course of the campaign, such shifts have been characterized by Bush's opponents as lies.

"He failed to tell the truth about the rationale for going to war,'' Kerry said during a speech at New York University last week in which he said Bush has offered 23 different rationales for going to war. "If his purpose was to confuse and mislead the American people, he succeeded.''

The count comes from a study conducted by an honors thesis written by a University of Illinois student, which actually attributed 19 rationales -- none mutually exclusive -- to Bush and four others to members of his administration.

Most of the rationales were on the table from the beginning. What changed was the emphasis.

Bush voiced no doubt from the beginning that Hussein possessed chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons.

"Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks, to build and keep weapons of mass destruction,'' Bush said in his State of the Union address in January 2003.

By the following year, after no such weapons had been discovered and evidence suggested that much of the intelligence was wrong, Bush had toned down such talk and begun to speak of the "threat'' of Hussein developing such weapons.

In his State of the Union address last January, Bush spoke of Hussein's "mass destruction-related program activities."

"Look, there is no doubt that Saddam Husein was a dangerous person,'' the president told ABC's Diane Sawyer in an interview several weeks before that speech. "And there's no doubt we had a body of evidence providing that. And there is no doubt that the president must act, after 9/11, to make America a more secure country.''

Sawyer asked the president about the distinction between the "hard fact that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons.''

"So what's the difference?'' Bush responded. "The possibility that he could acquire weapons, if he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger.''

"What would it take to convince you he didn't have weapons of mass destruction,'' Sawyer persisted.

"Saddam Hussein was a threat,'' Bush responded. "And the fact that he is gone means America is a safer country.''

In the months since, Bush has changed his standard speech to reflect that failure to discover the weapons.

"Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq,'' Bush said in July in Tennessee. "We removed a declared enemy of America who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them. In the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take.''

There are a few instances where the president's words contradict developments or his previous statements.

On March 6, 2003, for example, Bush insisted during a prime-time news conference that he would offer a resolution before the United Nations calling for the use of force against Iraq even if other nations threatened to veto it.

"No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote,'' Bush said.

A few days later, after it became apparent that the measure would not only be vetoed but might fail to win a majority of the Security Council, the Bush administration dropped its demand for a vote.

The president also said last month on NBC's "Today Show'' that "I don't think you can win'' the war on terrorism, explaining instead that the nation could greatly minimize the likelihood of terrorist attacks. The comment came after months of asserting the United States was winning, and would ultimately triumph, in its war on terror. The statement appeared to be little more than an inelegant way of adding nuance to his explanation, and the president quickly retreated from the words the following day.

Some statements now look off-base after developments in Iraq, such as Bush's response in the first days of the war after learning that Iraqis may have captured some Americans.

"I do know that we expect them to be treated humanely, just like we'll treat any prisoners of theirs that we capture humanely,'' Bush said, many months before American soldiers committed the atrocities at the Abu Ghraib prison.

------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- -----

President Bush on Iraq
Sept. 12, 2002

Speech before the U.N. General Assembly

"Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.''

Sept. 19, 2002

Response to a reporter's question

"If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force. ... This is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It's a chance for Congress to say, we support the administration's ability to keep the peace. That's what this is all about.''

Oct. 7, 2002

Speech before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Cincinnati

"Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. ... Knowing these realities, American must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.''

March 6, 2003

News conference

"Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. And in order to disarm, it would mean regime change.''

March 17, 2003

Address to nation (two days before invasion)

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other.''

May 1, 2003

Aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. ... The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on."

Nov. 11, 2003

Veterans Day address

"Our mission in Iraq and Afghanistan is clear to our service members -- and clear to our enemies. Our men and women are fighting to secure the freedom of more than 50 million people who recently lived under two of the cruelest dictatorships on earth. Our men and women are fighting to help democracy and peace and justice rise in a troubled and violent region. Our men and women are fighting terrorist enemies thousands of miles away in the heart and center of their power, so that we do not face those enemies in the heart of America.''

Aug. 16, 2004

Speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Cincinnati

"Even though we did not find the stockpiles that we thought we would find, Saddam Hussein had the capability to make weapons of mass destruction, and he could have passed that capability on to our enemy, to the terrorists. It is not a risk after September the 11th that we could afford to take. Knowing what I know today, I would have taken the same action." - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin...

Bush's BIG Flip-Flop: Record Shows Dubya Continues to Spin & Shift on Iraq

09.30.04 (6:47 am) [edit]

High Time for Bush to Start Telling the Truth for a Change

09.30.04 (6:41 am) [edit]

It's not an "if." It's a "when." Pentagon officials have indicated that they plan to send as many as 15,000 additional troops during the first four months of 2005, and the President George W. Bush continues to insist "we will stay the course" until Iraq is stabilized. (I do wish his advisers would provide a different vocabulary so that those of us steeped in the mistakes regarding Vietnam could be spared painful flashbacks.)

Where will the additional troops come from? The Bush administration insists there will be no draft, but its credibility has been badly tarnished. The "backdoor draft" that has kept so many from the Reserve and National Guard on active duty has backfired, as quotas for new enlistments have not been met. So plans are already advanced for fully mobilizing the Reserve and National Guard.

Senator John Kerry states the obvious in calling such steps "temporary measures" that have increased the burden on our troops and their families without addressing the basic reality that the active-duty Army is too small. He proposes adding 40,000 troops to the Army and offsetting the cost by reducing expenditures on highly expensive projects like national missile defense (NMD). (Kerry might have added that the NMD boondoggle, for which Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and defense contractors have pushed so hard and so long, is now actually being deployed without having been adequately tested – not to mention its dubious utility in the priority struggle against terrorism.)

[b]Let's Be Honest, Finally[/b]

But how many troops would be needed to stabilize Iraq? The well respected International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, before which the president spoke last November, says 500,000. Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki told Congress publicly before the war that "several hundred thousand" troops would be needed. It turns out he was asking for 400,000, fully aware that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was planning to attack and occupy Iraq with just a fraction of that. Rumsfeld gave him the back of his hand.

At this point, to be unaware of the requirement for additional troops while watching the burgeoning chaos in Iraq requires a Ph.D. in denial and a childlike, faith-based trust in the administration's PR rhetoric. Indeed, cracks can be seen within the president's own camp regarding what is happening in Iraq and what to do about it. And some truth is now peeking through those cracks.

While the president promotes the bromide of "months of steady progress" in Iraq, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R, Neb.) calls this a "grand illusion." And on Sunday, Secretary of State Colin Powell gave tacit, but unambiguous, support to the gloomy conclusions reached in the recent National Intelligence Estimate.

President Bush says he will provide more troops if commanders ask for them. But it would mean early retirement for any general making such a request before the election. And, sadly, as was the case in Vietnam, the top military brass appear to be giving priority to their careers over their duty to support and protect the troops they send into battle.

[b]Who's the Enemy?[/b]

We also need honesty about whom we're fighting in Iraq. Disingenuousness persists about the resistance to U.S. occupation. The president assured us last week that there are only "a handful of people who are willing to kill" in order to thwart U.S. aims. And those interested in learning more about these people are malnourished by "intelligence." Instead, they are forced to resort to Iraqi newspaper listings of the various groups who have claimed credit for hitting the invader.

The reality in Iraq was far better captured by retired Army Special Forces Col. W. Patrick Lang, former Defense Intelligence Officer for the Middle East and a member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. In an informal e-mail, Col. Lang wrote:

"The sad thing is that US combat intelligence in Iraq does not seem to know who the insurgents are, where they are, how many they are, or what they plan to do. This in spite of all the happy campaign talk about how well things are going."

Another retired Army colonel, a well respected military strategist and educator, Sam Gardiner, writing recently for Salon.com, reacted bitterly to reports – now confirmed by Secretary Powell – that military operations into the "no-go" areas in Iraq have been postponed until after the election.

"There is certainly no commander in the field saying, 'Let's give the bad guys another 60 days to operate freely inside their sanctuaries before we attack.' Such a decision would be particularly bizarre when attacks against coalition forces are more frequent than ever, attacks on oil pipelines are on the rise, and the U.S. is suffering increased casualties."

[b]Needed: Patriotic Leaks[/b]

Daniel Ellsberg makes a poignant appeal to conscience in an op-ed in Tuesday's New York Times, noting with great regret that he wished he had made unauthorized disclosures 40 years ago as he worked on plans to expand the war in Vietnam even as President Lyndon Johnson campaigned for president on a platform of "no wider war."

Ellsberg neglects to mention a key juncture four years later when he, with the help of another patriotic leaker, was able to prevent a disastrous widening of the war that threatened to bring in China as an active combatant.

In the election year of 1968, Gen. William Westmoreland, commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam, was proving a master at playing the political game. He put an artificial limit on the count of armed Vietnamese Communists. As a result, U.S. Army Intelligence carried on its books less than half the actual number of 500,000. The countrywide Tet offensive in early 1968 gave the lie to Westmoreland's fictitious figures – at great cost to our troops.

Still, Westmoreland and President Lyndon Johnson dissembled, as the general secretly asked for 206,000 more troops to widen the war into Cambodia, Laos, and up to the Chinese border – perhaps even beyond. They then ran into the troubled conscience of Ellsberg, who leaked the 500,000 figure to the New York Times after another patriot had leaked the 206,000 request.

On March 25, 1968, Johnson complained to a small gathering:

"The leaks to the New York Times hurt us. . . . We have no support for the war . . . I would have given Westy the 206,000 men."

The moral of the story? Leaking can be patriotic; can prevent a wider, longer war.

[b]The Next Four Years[/b]

Some say that perhaps the administration's plan, if it gets four more years, is to "clean out" Fallujah and other resistance strongholds, despite the heavy casualties that would result, and then turn the fight over to Iraqi forces and withdraw.

Not a chance. If, as I believe to be the case, the actual objectives of the war on Iraq have mostly to do with achieving military dominance over that oil-rich region and eliminating any conceivable threat to the security of Israel, four more years will mean a still larger U.S. military force there for the duration. Among other things, to leave sooner would leave Israel less safe than it was before the war, something the president's advisers are very loath to do.

President Bush insists, "You can understand how hard it is, and still believe we'll succeed." No you can't – not if you really understand how hard it is and are honest about what would be required.

No matter how much the president may try to disparage as "just guessing" the more accurate intelligence estimates he is now getting, this time the experts have got it right. Even Colin Powell acknowledged on Sunday "we have seen an increase in anti-Americanism in the Muslim world" since the war began, and the insurgency in Iraq is "getting worse."

It is high time the administration explained how it is going to "win" this war with a troop force widely recognized as inadequate to the task.

[b]Ray McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years – from the John F. Kennedy administration to that of George H. W. Bush[/b] - http://www.antiwar.com/orig/m...

High Time for Bush to Start Telling the Truth for a Change

09.30.04 (6:41 am) [edit]

Remember When Bush Said US Troops Would Free Iraq & Leave? IT'S A LIE!!!

09.30.04 (6:36 am) [edit]

[b]Bush plans US bases in Iraq forever... Or, at least for decades to come!!![/b]

[u][b]US bases in Iraq: sticky politics, hard math[/b][/u]

If a new Iraq government should agree to let American forces stay on, how many bases will the US request?

One, as the United States Army currently maintains in Honduras? Six, the number of installations it lists in the Netherlands. Or maybe 12?

The Pentagon isn't saying.

But a dozen is the number of so-called "enduring bases" located by John Pike, director of GlobalSecurities.org. His military affairs website gives their names. They include, for example, Camp Victory at the Baghdad airfield and Camp Renegade in Kirkuk. The Chicago Tribune last March said US engineers are constructing 14 "enduring bases," but Mr. Pike hasn't located two of them.

Note the terminology "enduring" bases. That's Pentagon-speak for long-term encampments - not necessarily permanent, but not just a tent on a wood platform either. It all suggests a planned indefinite stay on Iraqi soil that will cost US taxpayers for years to come.

The actual amount depends on how many troops are stationed there for the long term. If the US decides to reduce its forces there from the 138,000 now to, say, 50,000, and station them in bases, the costs would run between $5 billion to $7 billion a year, estimates Gordon Adams, director of Security Policy Studies at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. That's two to three times as much as the annual American subsidy to Israel. Providing protection for Israel is one of several reasons some analysts cite for the US invasion of Iraq.

If more troops are based in Iraq for the long haul, the cost would be higher. US Army planners are preparing to maintain the current level of forces in Iraq at least through 2007, The New York Times reported this week. But no decision has been made at the political level.

So far, the Bush administration has not publicly indicated that it will seek permanent bases in Iraq to replace those recently given up in Saudi Arabia, a possibility mentioned by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz before US forces moved into Iraq. The US already has bases in Kuwait and Qatar.

At an April 2003 press conference, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said any suggestion that the US is planning a permanent military presence in Iraq is "inaccurate and unfortunate." With the presidential election weeks away, he is unlikely to alter that pronouncement on such a politically touchy matter. Such a move would almost certainly attract fire from Democratic candidate John Kerry.

Nonetheless, several military experts in Washington assume Iraq's new government will need the support of American troops - and thus "permanent" bases - for years, perhaps decades, to come.

The US already has 890 military installations in foreign countries, ranging from major Air Force bases to smaller installations, say a radar facility. Perhaps bases in Iraq would enable the Pentagon to close a few of those facilities. As part of a post-cold-war shift in its global posture, the Defense Department has been cutting the number of its installations in Germany, which total more than 100. Last week Mr. Rumsfeld testified about a global "rearrangement" of US forces to the Senate Armed Forces Committee.

"Who needs Germany when we have Iraq?" asks Mr. Pike of GlobalSecurities.org.

Building bases in Iraq has risks. Two Americans beheaded last week were working as civil engineers constructing the Taji military base north of Baghdad, one of the bases Pike lists as "enduring."

The bigger risk: Polls find that at least 80 percent of Iraqis - whatever their views on the insurgency, democracy, the removal of Saddam Hussein, and other issues - want US armed forces to leave their nation. Making the bases permanent could stir up more opposition to the US occupation.

Another fear, however, is that without US bases, the various Iraqi factions - the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds - would fall into civil war. In turn, this conflict could drag in Iran, Syria, and Turkey, leading to a widespread conflict in the Middle East. Hope of establishing a democracy in an Arab nation would fade.

To avoid these risks, an Iraq government will accept a US military presence despite popular disapproval, Pike says. "An indefinite American presence in Iraq is the ultimate guarantor of some quasi-pluralistic government."

Also, withdrawal of US forces would be seen by Iraqi insurgents as a victory, prompting them to redouble their efforts to kill Americans, says Thomas Donnelly, a military expert at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.

The US can afford maintaining bases in Iraq, he argues. US defense spending now amounts to a bit more than 4 percent of gross domestic product, the nation's output of goods and services. It might rise as a result of Iraq bases to 5 percent of GDP, still less than the 6.5 percent of GDP in the cold war or the 10 percent during the Vietnam War.

Not everyone agrees. Permanent bases in Iraq are a "disastrously bad idea," says Jessica Mathews, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. It reinforces Iraqi suspicions that the US launched the war to get a hand on Iraqi oil, control the region, and wants to maintain a puppet government in Baghdad.

The total cost of the Iraq war has reached $125 billion to $140 billion, estimates Mr. Adams. Reconstruction boosts the total to as high as $175 billion. Permanent bases would keep the tab running for years to come. - http://csmonitor.com/2004/093...

Remember When Bush Said US Troops Would Free Iraq & Leave? IT'S A LIE!!!

09.30.04 (6:34 am) [edit]

Bush can Lie, Drool, Smirk, or Fall Comatose - the Media Will Still Declare Him the Winner

09.29.04 (7:45 pm) [edit]

[b]Paul Krugman writes:[/b] "Let's face it: Whatever happens in Thursday's debate, cable news [AND networks, too, we might add] will proclaim Bush the winner. This will reflect the political bias so evident during the party conventions. It will also reflect the undoubted fact that Bush does a pretty good Clint Eastwood imitation.But what will print media do? Let's hope it isn't what they did four years ago But as Adam Clymer pointed out Monday on the Op-Ed page of The Times, front-page coverage of the 2000 debates emphasized not what the candidates said but their "body language." After the debate, the lead stories said a lot about Gore's sighs but nothing about Bush's lies. And even the fact-checking pieces "buried inside the newspaper" were, as Clymer delicately puts it, "constrained by an effort to balance one candidate's big mistakes" -- that is, Bush's lies -- "against the other's minor errors."

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://seattlepi.nwsource.com...

Intelligence Professionals Say Bush is Lying to America about Iraq, Continuing to Ignore Reality

09.29.04 (7:36 pm) [edit]

This underlying truth in this Pentapost article, which is spun using the "sweetened lemon" approach, is that Bush is LYING TO AMERICA about Iraq and continuing to ignore intelligence reports. Yet what does the minimizing, almost empty headline say? "Growing Pessimism on Iraq." Which, of course, could mean anything. What the article says is: "While Bush, Rumsfeld and others have delivered optimistic public appraisals, officials who fight the Iraqi insurgency and study it at the CIA and the State Department and within the Army officer corps believe the rebellion is deeper and more widespread than is being 'publicly acknowledged."".' A Bushie media euphemism for LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. "People at the CIA "are mad at the policy in Iraq because it's a disaster, and they're digging the hole deeper and deeper and deeper," said one former intelligence officer who maintains contact with CIA officials."

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.washingtonpost.com...

A'W'OL Bush is Responsible for the Massacre of Thousands of Innocents due to "Incompetence"

09.29.04 (5:09 pm) [edit]

[b][u]U.S. kills 40 civilians in village attack[/u]

BLUNT ASSESSMENT: S.F.'s Pelosi calls Bush 'incompetent' and lacking in judgment [/b]

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco offered her strongest condemnation yet of President Bush on Wednesday, assailing him as incompetent and declaring that the only way for the United States to triumph in Iraq is to replace him as commander in chief.

"Bush is an incompetent leader. In fact, he's not a leader,'' Pelosi said. "He's a person who has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon.''

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin...

[u][b]Top Republicans calling Bush incompetent[/b][/u]

Leading members of President Bush (news - web sites)'s Republican Party on Sunday criticized mistakes and "incompetence" in his Iraq (news - web sites) policy and called for an urgent ground offensive to retake insurgent sanctuaries.

In appearances on news talk shows, Republican senators also urged Bush to be more open with the American public after the disclosure of a classified CIA (news - web sites) report that gave a gloomy outlook for Iraq and raised the possibility of civil war.

"The fact is, we're in deep trouble in Iraq ... and I think we're going to have to look at some recalibration of policy," Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

"We made serious mistakes," said Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), an Arizona Republican who has campaigned at Bush's side this year after patching up a bitter rivalry.

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.sjsharks.com/shark...

New Study Shows that Bush Supporters are Idiots Stuffed with Misinformation

09.29.04 (5:02 pm) [edit]

A new study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes reveals that Bush supporters "have many incorrect assumptions about his foreign policy positions. Kerry supporters, though, are largely accurate in their assessments. The uncommitted also tend to misperceive Bush's positions, though less than Bush supporters, and to perceive Kerry's positions correctly. Majorities of Bush supporters incorrectly assumed that Bush favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements (84%), and the US being part of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (69%), the International Criminal Court (66%), the treaty banning land mines (72%), and the Kyoto treaty (51%). They were divided between those who knew that Bush favors building a new missile defense system now (44 percent) and those who incorrectly believe he wishes to do more research until its capabilities are proven (41%)." In short, these folks ain't too bright!

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.pipa.org/

Over 100 US Cities to Hold 'Run against Bush' (the War Criminal) Events in October

09.29.04 (4:59 pm) [edit]

Run against Bush: "Organizers of Run Against Bush, a movement to raise money and awareness to defeat George W. Bush, proclaimed National Run Against Bush Day on September 18 "a rousing success" and announced Saturday, October 23 as the date for "National Run Against Bush Day II: Run Against Bush Strikes Back!" "The sequel will be twice as big as the original," said Rich Khoe, a co-founder of the group. Thousands of joggers, walkers, and bikers assembled in 111 cities across the country and in international locations such as Dakar, Paris, Tokyo, and Darfur. Here in the United States, National Run Against Bush Day events were held in cities such as Missoula, Ames, Tampa, Phoenix, South Bend, Boise, Minneapolis, Buffalo, Seattle, Houston, Chicago, Knoxville, Milwaukee and Washington, DC, where more than 300 runners and walkers gathered on The Ellipse in front of the White House. "

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.commondreams.org/n...

Three Dozen Leading Pediatricians Say the Bush Regime is Hurting America's Children

09.29.04 (4:57 pm) [edit]

[b]Yahoo:[/b] "Three dozen eminent pediatricians and social workers attacked the Bush administration on Wednesday for policies they said leave too many children without health insurance. The doctors, including some well-known authors of manuals for parents and professionals, said they were taking the unusual step because they were worried about the state of U.S. health care. "The Bush administration's policies are moving us away from effective and longstanding federal commitments that improved the health of children, commitments proudly initiated and supported by previous Republican and Democratic presidents," reads their statement, signed by 36 child experts. "If not reversed, these ill-advised tax and budget policies will erode decades of hard-won health gains for children, while still leaving unaddressed such critical problems as child abuse, mental health, and alcohol and other drug abuse."

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...

NEO-CON Assholes Lie About Kerry (Again)-- No Connection Between Iraq & Al Qaeda Existed!!!

09.29.04 (4:51 pm) [edit]

[b]No Evidence Connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda, 9/11 Panel Says [/b]

There is "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq collaborated with the al Qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the United States, according to a new staff report released this morning by the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.washingtonpost.com...

More Iraqis Killed by U.S. Than By Terror ...

09.29.04 (11:24 am) [edit]

[b]More Iraqis killed by U.S. than by terror

Civilian deaths are undermining efforts to win over people [/b]

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Operations by U.S. and multinational forces and Iraqi police are killing twice as many Iraqis -- most of them civilians -- as attacks by insurgents are, according to statistics compiled by the Iraqi Ministry of Health.

According to the ministry, which provided the Free Press with the figures Friday, the interim Iraqi government recorded 3,487 Iraqi deaths in 15 of the country's 18 provinces from April 5 -- when the ministry began compiling the data -- until Sept. 19. Of those, 328 were women and children. Another 13,720 Iraqis were injured, the ministry said.

While most of the dead are believed to be civilians, the data include an unknown number of police and Iraqi national guardsmen. Many Iraqi deaths, especially of insurgents, are never reported, so the actual number of Iraqis killed in fighting could be higher.

During the same period, 432 U.S. soldiers were killed.

Iraqi officials said the statistics proved that U.S. air strikes targeting insurgents also were killing large numbers of civilians. Some of the officials say these casualties are undermining popular acceptance of the U.S.-backed interim government.

The U.S. command is planning more aggressive military operations to clear the way for nationwide elections scheduled for January, the Bush administration has said.

Lt. Col. Steve Boylan, a U.S. military spokesman, said the insurgents were living in residential areas, sometimes in homes filled with munitions.

"As long as they continue to do that, they are putting the residents at risk," Boylan said. "We will go after them."

Boylan said the military conducted intelligence at a home to determine whether it housed insurgents before striking it. While damage would happen, the air strikes were "extremely precise," he said. And he said that any attacks conducted by the multinational forces were done "in coordination with the interim government."

The Health Ministry statistics indicate that more children have been killed around Ramadi and Fallujah than in Baghdad. U.S. air strikes and ground combat have been heavy in both places, particularly in April and May.

According to the statistics, 59 children were killed in Anbar province, a hotbed of the Sunni Muslim insurgency that includes the cities of Ramadi and Fallujah, compared with 56 children in Baghdad. The ministry defines children as anyone younger than 12.

"When there are military clashes, we see innocent people die," said Dr. Walid Hamed, a member of the operations section of the Health Ministry, which compiles the statistics.

Juan Cole, a history professor at the University of Michigan who specializes in Iraq and Shi'ite Islam, said the widespread casualties meant that coalition forces already had lost the political campaign: "They lost the hearts and minds a long time ago.

"And they are trying to keep U.S. military casualties to a minimum in the run-up to the U.S. elections" by using air strikes instead of ground forces, he said.

U.S. military officials say they're targeting terrorists and are aggressively working to spare innocent people nearby.

Nearly a third of the Iraqi dead -- 1,122 -- were killed in August, according to the statistics. May was the second deadliest month, with 749 Iraqis killed, and 319 were killed in June, the least violent month. Most