tBlog - La Carte Blanche

La Carte Blanche

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
2004 January

My Links
Guerrilla News
MoveOn.Org
The Nation
Winston Smith's Daily Journal
Sam Adams' CounterPoint

tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images

Sponsored
Blog

Nobel Laureate Saramago Warns of Danger After Bush Reelection

11.27.04 (1:10 pm) [edit]

U.S. politics over the next four years will be rooted in patriotism and religion, an ”explosive combination” that will require Latin Americans to ”arm themselves with strength, courage and bravery,” according to Portuguese writer José Samamago, winner of the 1998 Nobel Prize for Literature.

Saramago spoke to writers and journalists this week in Caracas, and used the occasion to express his views on what a second term under U.S. President George W. Bush will mean for the region.

”Things will undoubtedly be very bad for Latin America,” the writer predicted. ”You only have to consider the ambitions and the doctrines of the empire, which regards this region as its backyard,” he said.

At an earlier speaking engagement in Bogotá, Colombia, Saramago called Bush ”the biggest liar on the planet.” He added that if the U.S. president ever decides to focus on the region, Latin America should tremble with fear. ”I could say the same about Africa, but I don't want to create an international panic,” he joked.

Turning his attention to the rest of the world, Saramago told his audience in Caracas that the United States will never leave Iraq, ”because it needs to control the Middle East, the gateway to Asia. It already has military installations in Uzbekistan.”

He also predicted, however, that the situation will become more complex when new competitors emerge to challenge U.S. power, such as China, India and perhaps Brazil.

”I am a person with leftist convictions, and always have been,” said the 82-year-old writer, adding that whenever he addresses the subject of international politics, ”I always ask two questions, and only two: How many countries have military bases in the United States? And in how many countries does the United States not have military bases?”

But he asked the journalists in Caracas a third question, to illustrate his point. ”Can you just imagine what Bush would say if someone like (Venezuelan) President Hugo Chávez asked him for a little piece of land to install a military base, even if it was way off in Alaska, and he only wanted to plant a Venezuelan flag there?” The question provoked an outburst of laughter from his audience.

Saramago was in Venezuela ahead of an international congress that will be held next month, a gathering of intellectuals in solidarity with the process of political and social reforms being undertaken by Chávez, which the president refers to as a peaceful ”social revolution”.

”It's not that I'm pro-Chávez, nor do I believe in strongmen or messiahs, but Hugo Chávez is someone who wants to make changes, and he has found the way to reach straight into the hearts and minds of the Venezuelan people,” he stated.

Saramago also had harsh words of criticism for the Venezuelan opposition. ”For someone like me, it is difficult to understand these people who democratically take part in elections and a referendum, but are then incapable of democratically accepting the will of the people. It is an insult to common sense, and I personally cannot comprehend it.”

The writer recalled that Chávez and his associates have won a majority of votes in eight elections over the last six years in Venezuela. These include the presidential recall referendum on Aug. 15, when voter turnout was exceptionally high and 59 percent of those who cast their ballots wanted Chávez to remain as president of their country.

Venezuela ”has had a highly troubled recent history,” noted Saramago, adding that he hoped Chávez would be able to bring ”this unique experience” to a successful conclusion, despite the fact that Latin America and the Caribbean are now facing ”four complicated years, which will be marked by tensions and neo-colonial aspirations.”

Chávez was unable to meet with Saramago, as he is on a presidential tour to Russia and the Middle East. However, Venezuelan public television provided viewers with a unique interview with the Nobel laureate conducted by Vice President José Vicente Rangel, formerly a prominent investigative journalist.

Saramago, who had just been in Rosario, Argentina to take part in the 3rd International Congress on the Spanish Language, emphasised that he speaks about politics ”willingly and deliberately.” He also noted that his most recent novel, Lucidity, is ”openly political, unlike the previous ones,” which include Baltasar and Blimunda, The Gospel According to Jesus Christ, and The Caves.

Lucidity is about an imaginary city (the same one in which his 1995 novel Blindness was set) where the majority of voters decide to cast blank ballots. Saramago stressed that he isn't promoting this kind of political stance, but he does believe in the need for a ”regeneration” of democracy.

Currently, ”it is economic power that determines political power, and governments become the political functionaries of economic power,” he maintained.

What can writers do to confront this situation? ”Not much more than any other citizen, because if they could change things, they would have already done so. Personally, what I try to do when I write is to get people thinking,” he said.

”I wouldn't like to leave this life without at least knowing that I tried to do something,” he added.

As to what should be done, ”I don't think there is anything more effective than demanding and keeping a vigilant watch over rigorous respect for human rights.” - http://www.commondreams.org/h...

Bush: When Even the Good News is Bad

11.27.04 (1:05 pm) [edit]

As the election recedes there's good news and bad news. And we're not going to like any of it.

Welcome to the world of investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, whose remarkable career has been bookended by two of the most shameful events in America's military history: My Lai in Vietnam, a story he broke as a free-lance reporter, and the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq, a story he broke for The New Yorker.

During his 38-year career, Hersh has written eight books, won the National Book Critics Circle Award, a Pulitzer and a host of other prizes. His sources serve at the highest levels of many governments, including our own.

In person, Hersh is tall, stooped, rumpled, gray-haired and bespectacled. He speaks rapidly and intensely in a deep voice. Currently touring to "pimp," as he put it, his newest book, "[i]Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib[/i]," http://www.amazon.com/exec/ob... he spoke last week at Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass., to a rapt audience of about 900 people. They greeted him with applause; he said, "Thank you, but you'll be less happy once I'm done."

Hersh's message is simple and frightening: "(George W.) Bush is an ideologue, a Utopian," Hersh said. "He wants to clean out the Middle East and install democracy. He doesn't care how many body bags come back home. There's nothing more dangerous than an ideologue who is completely bonkers and no one is going to tell him."

Bush is committed to perpetual war, Hersh said.

"He risked his presidency on this war," Hersh said. "He could have gotten more votes if he backed off. But he insisted he hasn't made any mistakes."

Hersh has talked privately with many in the military and CIA, including some who have recently resigned. All told him that if the Iraq war had gone "right" - say, if the Americans had been greeted as liberators - our military would have marched "right and left" - to Syria and Iran.

Oil is a big factor in this war, Hersh said, and so is Israel, but to Bush it's about ideology: "Whether this man communicates with God, or is on a crusade, or really is a neo-con, or if he thought that his father's not taking Baghdad was a mistake - in any case, I think he is absolutely committed to staying in Iraq to the end."

After 9/11, Hersh said, America had some good choices.

"Early in 2002, the Taliban was split," Hersh said. "About 50 percent of the Taliban leadership hated Osama bin Laden and wanted him out. We could have worked with them. But we went ahead and treated the Taliban as one entity. The Taliban has survived. Al Queda has survived. We wanted to eliminate crazy people who want to fly planes into buildings. But instead we dehumanized everyone in Afghanistan and Iraq."

After March 2002, the question about Iraq was not if, but when.

"They started moving secret units, the commandos, the Delta Force, secret British elite forces, into the Middle East staging areas," Hersh said. "They were pulling people away from a war which was much more important - against al-Qaida - and putting them in a staging area for Iraq."

How could the administration have made such a mistake?

"Inside, if you agreed that the road to ending international terrorism ended in Baghdad, you were a hero," Hersh said. "You were promoted. Bush didn't have to ask for information to be slanted his way. If you wanted promotions, or to sit in on the conferences with the big boys, you told him what he wanted to hear. If you disagreed, then your career stalled. Totally wacky."

This sorry state of affairs continues today. Bush is told only what he wants to hear, and since he doesn't read newspapers, he has become completely divorced from reality. For example, the people we're fighting in Iraq are not insurgents, Hersh said.

"They're the same people we fought in the beginning," he said. "It's not like we had a war, and then installed a government, and then gradually people rebelled and an insurgency sprung up and we have guerrilla operations. These are the people we went to war against. According to my sources, there are remarkably few foreign fighters in Iraq. And when has an occupying force ever won a war?"

Hersh pointed out that Fallujah was once famous for resisting British imperialism; it is also the ancient center of Sunni Wahaabism - the state religion of Saudi Arabia.

"Now Bush has guaranteed that the Saudi princes, no matter what they say, will be giving money to the insurgents," Hersh said. "We've basically committed ourselves to Saudi opposition."

We cannot win in Iraq, Hersh said. "We have no intel. We can't find the insurgents. When they bomb something, we only know about it afterward. We can't figure them out. Someone said, 'We play chess, they play Go.' All we can do is lose. All we can do is bomb."

The United States cannot afford this endless war, Hersh said. The dollar is already falling against the Euro, and the Chinese and Japanese hold trillions of dollars of U.S. debt.

"Soon China and Russia will start buying oil in Euros," Hersh said. "They'll stop buying American in Europe because they hate us so much - Disney in Paris is already going down. Large American corporations doing business abroad are going down. We could see more anti-American violence abroad. The dollar will fall. Billionaires are now telling other billionaires to get out of the stock market and buy foreign currency and stocks."

Then what could the good news be?

"The good side - and I promise you I'm not selling uppers - is that there will be direct attacks on the Supreme Court, a change in the filibuster rules, it's going to be down and dirty, a complete hoe-down, but there won't be anything subtle," Hersh said. "It's all going to be out in the open."

We must let events take over, Hersh said.

"We have put ourselves in an enormous hole," he said. "There's no magic story to get us out. The market will crash. Maybe people will come to their senses. Maybe some Democrat will step forward to do the right thing. And maybe the Easter bunny will turn out to be real."< >
[b]Joyce Marcel (joyrand@sover.net) is a free-lance journalist who lives in southern Vermont and writes about culture, politics, economics and travel.[/b] - http://www.commondreams.org/v...

Bush: When Even the Good News is Bad

11.27.04 (1:05 pm) [edit]

Bush: When Even the Good News is Bad

11.27.04 (1:03 pm) [edit]

Bush: When Even the Good News is Bad

11.27.04 (1:03 pm) [edit]

Bush's New Stealth Campaign to Kill Regulation of Harmful Air Pollutants

11.27.04 (1:00 pm) [edit]

Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency took several chemicals off its list of regulated, smog-forming, volatile organic compounds (VOCs). VOCs react in sunlight to form ground-level ozone, or smog, a major lung irritant. The agency decided that the newly delisted chemicals do not cause enough ozone to require regulation.

One of the chemicals, tertiary butyl acetate, known by its acronym TBAC, is used in making pharmaceuticals, pesticides and other products. The agency contended that TBAC is much less reactive than other VOCs and, as a result, does not significantly contribute to smog. The agency said it wants industry to use TBAC instead of more reactive solvents.

NRDC has taken a close look at the methodology EPA used to delist TBAC and found that it violates basic rules of chemistry. The organization is not alone in that view. Even the former director of EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards has said that the agency's methodology is wrong.

But the issue is much bigger than TBAC. Not only did EPA reward one company at the expense of public health, it set a precedent for future administration giveaways to industry.

[b]EPA's Regulation of VOCs[/b]

The Clean Air Act requires EPA to regulate emissions of chemicals that contribute to smog formation, including so-called volatile organic compounds. VOCs are carbon compounds that react with other chemicals in the atmosphere to form smog. EPA and states require companies to limit their emissions of VOCs, and to comply with various VOC reporting provisions.

EPA determines which compounds to regulate as VOCs by comparing each compound's reactivity to that of the agency's regulatory benchmark, ethane. Compounds that are more reactive than ethane are deemed VOCs; those that are less reactive are labeled "negligibly reactive" and exempted from VOC emissions limits and monitoring and reporting requirements.

To date, EPA has identified 48 negligibly reactive chemicals. For all but two, the agency performed the reactivity comparison on a molecule-by-molecule basis, analyzing whether a certain number of molecules of the compound would, under particular reaction conditions, produce more or less ozone than the same number of molecules of ethane.

[b]The Exceptions: Acetone and TBAC[/b]

In 1995 EPA unaccountably exempted a compound, acetone, which is more reactive than ethane on a per-molecule basis. To reach this insupportable decision, the agency focused on the fact that a gram of acetone forms less ozone than a gram of ethane. In other words, EPA changed its units from per-molecule to per-gram for this particular reactivity analysis.

The change is baseless. Reactivity depends solely on the number of molecules available for a reaction, not the weight of those molecules. Changing units enabled the agency to place fewer molecules of the heavier acetone in its imaginary reaction chamber (because one gram of acetone comprises fewer molecules than one gram of the lighter ethane), thus generating fewer imaginary molecules of ozone. Voila! Acetone appears less reactive than ethane.

In late 1999, the agency again proposed adopting this flawed per-gram approach to assessing reactivity, this time to exempt TBAC from VOC regulations. The TBAC proposal came in response to a petition submitted on behalf of the chemical's manufacturer, Lyondell, by the company's attorneys at Latham & Watkins - a group that included Jeffrey Holmstead, then a chemical industry lobbyist and now EPA assistant administrator for air. (Holmstead recused himself from the TBAC matter when he joined the agency.)

Responding to Lyondell's petition at a meeting of EPA officials and Lyondell representatives, John Seitz, then-director of EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, noted that the "reactivity per mole[cule] basis is the correct technical basis for comparing compounds to ethane for exemption purposes," and that "exempting TBAC on a gram basis" in reliance on the acetone rule "would be perpetrating an error." (Docket item III-E-04, summary of August 9, 2000, meeting.) The proposed TBAC rule made the same point: "[T]he per-mole[cule] basis is the proper scientific basis to use in comparing reactivity to ethane for decisions concerning negligible reactivity." (Air Quality: Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds - Exclusion of t-Butyl Acetate, 64 Fed. Reg. 52,731, 52,734.)

EPA even acknowledged the flaws in its reasoning in last week's final rule. The agency conceded that a " 'reactivity per mole[cule]' comparison is more consistent" with historical practice and "arguably more environmentally protective than a 'reactivity per [gram]' comparison" and admitted that using a reactivity-per-molecule approach would preclude an exemption for TBAC (which is 50 percent more reactive than ethane on a per-molecule basis). (Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds - Exclusion of t-Butyl Acetate, http://www.epa.gov/airlinks/p..., at 6, 13 (TBAC Exemption)).

In the end, however, EPA granted Lyondell's request that TBAC be exempted from VOC limits without providing any rationale, let alone a scientifically defensible one, for using a per-gram reactivity approach. As a result, public exposure to TBAC and TBAC-created smog will no longer be regulated.

[b]More Unscientific Mumbo Jumbo[/b]

EPA's unfounded reliance on the reactivity-per-gram approach is only one of many flaws in its recent decision to exempt TBAC from regulation. For example:

Splitting the baby: Acknowledging that on a per-molecule basis, TBAC is 50 percent more reactive than ethane, EPA compromised by continuing to define TBAC as a VOC for purposes of monitoring, reporting, and state VOC inventory purposes, while ceasing to define it as a VOC for emissions control purposes. In other words, the agency first used flawed science to justify lifting TBAC emissions limits, and then assuaged its conscience by observing that TBAC's " 'closeness' to EPA's [per-molecule] reactivity exemption line requires the agency to retain certain emission reporting requirements" for the chemical. (TBAC Exemption at 6-7.) EPA failed, however, to explain how this unprecedented and hardly Solomonic approach will protect the public from TBAC exposure - especially since the rule prevents states from taking credit for TBAC emissions reductions, thereby discouraging them from adopting TBAC-specific control measures.

Voodoo economics: EPA made additional missteps when it attempted to justify the TBAC exemption by resorting to "economics." Noting that TBAC is less reactive and possibly also less toxic than toluene and xylene, two common industrial solvents, the agency reasoned that exempting TBAC from VOC controls will encourage manufacturers to substitute TBAC for those solvents, producing net public health benefits. EPA pointed to no legal authority for deregulating one smog-forming chemical in the hope that it would prompt industries to reduce their use of other smog-forming chemicals - unsurprising, since no such authority exists. Moreover, the agency provided no data to support its speculation that manufacturers will substitute TBAC for toluene and xylene, rather than simply augmenting their use of those two highly regulated chemicals with the now-unregulated TBAC. Further, the agency responded to one commenter's observation that TBAC is considerably more expensive than either toluene or xylene (and is therefore an unlikely substitute for either chemical) with the following Economics 101 fallacy: If TBAC is exempted from VOC controls, "demand for TBAC is expected to increase, driving down costs." (TBAC Exemption at 20 (emphasis added)).

Pollute first, ask questions later: Finally, the agency conceded that it is "concerned" about TBAC's toxicity (TBAC Exemption at 18), but brushed aside those concerns and exempted the chemical from Clean Air Act controls rather than erring on the side of caution and keeping the controls in place until further toxicity research is completed. EPA then reassured the public (1) that Lyondell has promised to "work with EPA to perform the testing needed" to assess TBAC's toxicity, and (2) that the company will voluntarily "limit [its] annual production of TBAC until the testing program is completed and evaluated to ensure that significant chronic ambient exposures will not occur." (TBAC Exemption at 18-19.) Rest assured: Lyondell is guarding the henhouse door
In sum, the TBAC exemption is nothing short of a scientific and economic con job, coupled with a hollow PR announcement about Lyondell's public spirit.

[b]Is this Con Job Just the Beginning?[/b]

Of even more concern, the TBAC exemption likely is a strategic step in the Bush administration's larger campaign to undermine clean air protections. In the rule itself, EPA suggests that it may adopt the untenable reactivity-per-gram approach for all of its future VOC reactivity determinations, and that future petitioners that seek VOC exemptions "should expect their petitions to be reviewed under a new policy." (TBAC Exemption at 24.) In short, EPA clearly hopes the public will overlook the glaring flaws in its TBAC exemption, leaving the agency free to use that exemption as a precedent for future giveaways to companies like Lyondell.

[b]The Natural Resources Defense Council is a national, nonprofit organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. Founded in 1970, NRDC has more than 1 million members and e-activists nationwide, served from offices in New York, Washington, Santa Monica and San Francisco. [/b] - http://www.commondreams.org/n...

[b]CONTACT: [/b]Natural Resources Defense Council, http://www.nrdc.org/media/def...
John Walke, 202-289-2406

Bush's New Stealth Campaign to Kill Regulation of Harmful Air Pollutants

11.27.04 (12:55 pm) [edit]

Bush's New Stealth Campaign to Kill Regulation of Harmful Air Pollutants

11.27.04 (12:54 pm) [edit]

Nobel Laureate Saramago Warns of Danger After Bush Reelection

11.27.04 (12:50 pm) [edit]

Nobel Laureate Saramago Warns of Danger After Bush Reelection

11.27.04 (12:50 pm) [edit]

Nobel Laureate Saramago Warns of Danger After Bush Reelection

11.27.04 (12:46 pm) [edit]

Bush Regime Lies to America About EPA "Enforcement" (Cover-up of Corporate Pollution) ...

11.23.04 (6:22 am) [edit]

Earlier this week the Environmental Protection Agency released its annual report, which asserted that EPA enforcement during the past fiscal year would reduce pollution in America's air, land and water by one billion pounds. The report also stated that EPA sent 265 cases forward for action by the Justice Department, compared with 250 in the final year of the Clinton administration.

"The baloney about EPA abandoning enforcement is just that, baloney," said EPA enforcement head Thomas Skinner in an interview with the New York Times. [1]

But the EPA report was quickly challenged by Eric Schaeffer, director of the Environmental Integrity Project http://www.environmentalinteg... (EIP). A former top enforcement official at EPA, Schaeffer resigned three years ago in protest of what he said was EPA's weakening enforcement of the Clean Air Act and other laws.

"EPA's beleaguered enforcement staff should be congratulated for what they manage to accomplish despite the political handcuffs they are forced to wear under the Bush administration," Schaeffer said in a statement. The EPA report, he said, "suggests that efforts to weaken environmental enforcement are beginning to take their toll." [2]

Among other things, the EIP statement said that although cases are being referred to the Justice Department, many are not being brought to closure. For the first time, it said, the EPA annunual report did not include the number of judicial cases actually settled.

"And no wonder," said Schaeffer. "The agency's online data base shows that the Justice Department was able to conclude fewer than 160 enforcement actions in 2004, the lowest by far in the 10 years such data has been tracked." Schaeffer said Justice averaged over 230 settlements during each of the last six years of the Clinton administration.

On another front, EIP stated that civil penalties for enforcement of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, and others, dropped to $57 million--the lowest in the 15 years of recorded data. EIP also pointed out that of the $4.8 billion EPA claimed was won via injunctive relief, over three-quarters came as the result of just two cases.

One of those, in which the city of Los Angeles will spend $2 billion to clean up sewer systems, was actually filed before the Bush administration took office, "and was settled," said Schaeffer, "only after the judge threw the book at the city." The number of complaints filed by the Justice Department, said Schaeffer, has declined 75% over the past three years.

###

[b]SOURCES:[/b]

[1] "EPA Says Enforcement Shows Results," http://www.nytimes.com/2004/1... New York Times, Nov. 16, 2004.
[2] EIP response, http://www.environmentalinteg... Nov. 15, 2004.

Bush Regime Lies to America About EPA "Enforcement" (Cover-up of Corporate Pollution) ...

11.23.04 (6:22 am) [edit]

Bush Regime Lies to America About EPA "Enforcement" (Cover-up of Corporate Pollution) ...

11.23.04 (6:22 am) [edit]

Bush/Cheney Give Corporate Rapists Loopholes to Violate Clean Air Act!

11.23.04 (6:16 am) [edit]

A lawsuit filed late last week charges that the Bush
administration's finalized rule regulating toxic air emissions
for industrial boilers violates the Clean Air Act, and fails to
protect the public from hazardous pollutants.

The suit was filed by Earthjustice on behalf of the
Environmental Integrity Project http://www.environmentalinteg... (EIP), Sierra Club http://www.sierraclub.org/ and Natural
Resources Defense Counsel http://www.nrdc.org/ (NRDC).

The new EPA rule is supposed to regulate hazardous air emissions
from the nation's 58,000 boilers. But environmental groups
charge that under its approved "no control" standards, there
will be no required emission reductions for benzene, mercury and
other toxins.

Because of loopholes in the rule, industrial boilers will also
be able to evade clean-up of specific toxins such as lead,
acetaldehyde and formaldehyde. Adverse health effects of these
chemicals can include birth defects, developmental problems in
children, and cancer.

"The Bush EPA is allowing thousands of facilities across the
country to burn industrial waste without adequate controls,"
commented Jim Pew, an attorney for Earthjustice. "The waste is
burned in so-called 'boilers' and 'process heaters' that emit
tons of highly toxic pollution into communities, homes and
schools."

Industrial boilers indirectly generate electricity and heat for
refineries, manufacturing plants, shopping malls and
universities through the production of steam. The boilers burn
coal and industrial waste to produce the steam. The waste can
include sewage gas, wastewater treatment sludge, old tires,
paint sludge, toxic fly ash and chemically treated wood waste.

"EPA is on a mission is to shield the Bush administration's
industry backers from having to clean up their toxic pollution.
It has no interest in protecting public health, and views the
Clean Air Act as an inconvenience," Pew told BushGreenwatch http://www.bushgreenwatch.org... .

###

[b]SOURCES:[/b]

Earthjustice press release, http://ga3.org/ct/v71eOJs1tBV... Nov. 12, 2004.

Bush/Cheney Give Corporate Rapists Loopholes to Violate Clean Air Act!

11.23.04 (6:14 am) [edit]

Bush/Cheney Give Corporate Rapists Loopholes to Violate Clean Air Act!

11.23.04 (6:14 am) [edit]

Camouflaging Fear & Loathing (Superstition & Bigotry) as 'Moral Values'

11.23.04 (6:10 am) [edit]

One of my favorite teachers was a wiry little man with thick, horn-rimmed glasses who taught fifth grade. It's been 40 years, but I can still see his crooked grin and hear his voice cracking with excitement.

He made learning fun, constantly getting the class to act out skits to reinforce one lesson or another. His eyes were keen and his heart was big: He always made sure that kids from broken homes or the wrong side of the tracks got starring roles in our productions. He helped implant in me a lifelong love of history. I was out sick with the flu for a couple of days that year; he waited until I returned to resume class readings of a Civil War book that he knew I loved. He was everything a great teacher is supposed to be: unfailingly kind, considerate and dedicated.

He was, also, we learned much later, gay. But because this was the mid-1960s in a small town, he didn't dare live as such -- especially since he doubled as the school's principal. Only in his twilight years did he follow his heart, moving to a city to live as a gay American.

[b]Read article [/b]... http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...

Camouflaging Fear & Loathing (Superstition & Bigotry) as 'Moral Values'

11.23.04 (6:09 am) [edit]

Camouflaging Fear & Loathing (Superstition & Bigotry) as 'Moral Values'

11.23.04 (6:09 am) [edit]

The Enlightenment vs. Bush's Fascist America ...

11.23.04 (6:05 am) [edit]

Media commentators have been asking what role moral values and religion played in the presidential election's outcome. Democrats have been seeking to clearly define liberalism, explain the Democratic Party's moral values and determine the role religion should play in the party's public life.

A good start would be to remember American liberalism's roots and religious foundation. This country's founders developed their ideas during the Enlightenment, the historic period around 1650 to 1770, when science and reason began to supplant the barbarism, religious dogmatism and absolutism of the Middle Ages.

Thomas Jefferson expressed a personal religious faith, but he had many conflicts with a religiously intolerant clergy wanting to impose their specific dogma on the whole society. Jefferson and many other Enlightenment thinkers placed a high value on reason and opposed any form of religion or philosophical belief that oppressed rational thought.

In a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800, Jefferson declared, "They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

In "Notes on the State of Virginia" (1781-1785), Jefferson wrote, "Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error. Give a loose to them, they will support the true religion by bringing every false one to their tribunal, to the test of their investigation. They are the natural enemies of error, and of error only. Had not the Roman government permitted free inquiry, Christianity could never have been introduced. Had not free inquiry been indulged at the era of Reformation, the corruptions of Christianity could not have been purged away."

In "A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom," known as "The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1779)," Jefferson also denounced "the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others." He added, "Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics and geometry."

However, while resisting irrational or constraining dogma, Jefferson also expressed admiration for the moral teachings of Jesus, saying, "Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus." (Letter to W. Canby, September 18, 1813.)

When Patrick Henry proposed a bill affirming Christianity as the "established religion of this Commonwealth," James Madison kept the bill from becoming law. In his "Memorial and Remonstrance" (1785), Madison noted that the mix of government and religion gave rise to "pride and indolence in the Clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."

Today we're returning to religious dogmatism, absolutism and anti-scientific thought among some members of the religious right, including certain George W. Bush supporters such as Jerry Falwell. Though America was founded on the basis of rational thought and tolerance for religious diversity, we now find we're revisiting pre-Enlightenment era thinking.

Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect. In his article "An attack on American tolerance," http://www.commondreams.org/v... Kuttner says, "What is uniquely alarming in the United States today, among all the democracies and in our own history, is that a president of the United States is explicitly on the side of antimodernism. Never before has an American chief executive worked deliberately to foment a fundamentalist absolutism that is ultimately tribal, theocratic, antiscientific, and incompatible with pluralist democracy."

Bush has resisted scientific study involving stem cell research, professed belief that his decision to make war with Iraq is a divinely sanctioned crusade and embraced religious leaders who encourage intolerance, dogmatism and absolutism. Many Bush supporters on the religious right seem to think morals and values are almost entirely about sexual behavior and interpret the Bible in a way that justifies their prejudices against homosexuality.

In his article "Embattled faith needs enemies for focus," http://www.nwanews.com/story.... reporter Gene Lyons says, "Apart from the timeless topic of Other People's Sex Lives, nothing gets fundamentalist Christianity's spiritual entrepreneurs going like vengeful Old Testament tribalism. The basic con is to insist upon the literal, historical and scientific accuracy of every syllable in the Bible while focusing selectively on passages confirming pre-existing phobias. Hence, they rarely are more dogmatic than when they are ignoring, if not actively contradicting, the essence of Christ's teachings."

Lyons continues, "Yes, Leviticus calls homosexuality an abomination. Also wearing garments of two fabrics, eating pork and shellfish, and planting two crops in one field. It recommends stoning to death anybody who works on the Sabbath. Exodus stipulates how to sell your daughters into slavery."

While the religious right's morals and values center on sexual behavior, liberal morals and values historically center on actively loving other people, working to uplift the poor, reducing human suffering by (for example) opposing unjust wars, striving for equality and fair treatment for diverse ethnic groups and others, enhancing civil liberties, using good reasoning skills and staying informed and involved as citizens.

Liberalism is represented in Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, Lyndon Johnson's Great Society and the successful social movements of the 1960's including the civil rights and women's movements. American liberalism is also defined by the millions of ordinary people who have worked as activists throughout history, including those involved in various antiwar movements, the labor movement and abolitionism.

Liberalism is reflected in our country's literature - in Mark Twain's "The War Prayer;" Henry David Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience;" W. E. B. DuBois' "The Gift of Black Folk;" and many other works. (Conservatives in some parts of the country have banned some of these writers' books from public schools.)

In "Song of Myself," the poet Walt Whitman wrote about the pluralism and tolerance for diversity first advocated by the nation's founders. The "I" of the poem doesn't solely represent the poet himself but symbolizes all Americans:

"I am of old and young, of the foolish as much as the wise,
Regardless of others, ever regardful of others,
Maternal as well as paternal, a child as well as a man...
I believe in the flesh and the appetites,
Seeing, hearing, feeling, are miracles, and each part and tag of me is a miracle.
Divine am I inside and out, and I make holy whatever I touch or am touched from...
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)"

Making room for "multitudes," embracing ambiguity and contradiction are characteristic of liberalism. Jefferson and other Enlightenment thinkers also tolerated diverse "multitudes" and allowed for ambiguity, and this kind of thinking has been an integral part of our nation's character and of liberal thought since our beginnings. However, Bush and many of his supporters seem intolerant of this way of thinking, instead insisting on a rigid either-or view of the world. For example, Bush stated, "When it comes to the war on terrorism, you're either with us or you're with the terrorists."

We need Democrats who will strongly oppose Bush's most egregious policies. Though strategists from the Democratic National Committee or the Democratic Leadership Council might suggest the Democratic party needs a better gimmick of one kind or another to win voters, what the public most wants to see in the Democratic leadership is a genuine dynamic passion for serving the public's interests.

For the Democratic Party to define itself and clarify its own morals and values, it needs to review liberalism's history and integrate that historic identity into its current collective personality. The party also needs to find a way to create a larger place for itself in the media and use radio and TV talk shows and other outlets as a way to inform the American people that liberalism is a positive alternative to radical right politics.

In "Notes on the State of Virginia," Thomas Jefferson wrote about the relationship between political leaders and a self-governing public. He said, "Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories." If the Democratic Party reclaims its roots and becomes the party of the people, it has a chance to come alive and save itself and maybe even revitalize democracy in the process.

The Enlightenment vs. Bush's Fascist America ...

11.23.04 (6:04 am) [edit]

The Enlightenment vs. Bush's Fascist America ...

11.23.04 (6:04 am) [edit]

Media commentators have been asking what role moral values and religion played in the presidential election's outcome. Democrats have been seeking to clearly define liberalism, explain the Democratic Party's moral values and determine the role religion should play in the party's public life.

A good start would be to remember American liberalism's roots and religious foundation. This country's founders developed their ideas during the Enlightenment, the historic period around 1650 to 1770, when science and reason began to supplant the barbarism, religious dogmatism and absolutism of the Middle Ages.

Thomas Jefferson expressed a personal religious faith, but he had many conflicts with a religiously intolerant clergy wanting to impose their specific dogma on the whole society. Jefferson and many other Enlightenment thinkers placed a high value on reason and opposed any form of religion or philosophical belief that oppressed rational thought.

In a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800, Jefferson declared, "They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

In "Notes on the State of Virginia" (1781-1785), Jefferson wrote, "Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error. Give a loose to them, they will support the true religion by bringing every false one to their tribunal, to the test of their investigation. They are the natural enemies of error, and of error only. Had not the Roman government permitted free inquiry, Christianity could never have been introduced. Had not free inquiry been indulged at the era of Reformation, the corruptions of Christianity could not have been purged away."

In "A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom," known as "The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1779)," Jefferson also denounced "the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others." He added, "Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics and geometry."

However, while resisting irrational or constraining dogma, Jefferson also expressed admiration for the moral teachings of Jesus, saying, "Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus." (Letter to W. Canby, September 18, 1813.)

When Patrick Henry proposed a bill affirming Christianity as the "established religion of this Commonwealth," James Madison kept the bill from becoming law. In his "Memorial and Remonstrance" (1785), Madison noted that the mix of government and religion gave rise to "pride and indolence in the Clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."

Today we're returning to religious dogmatism, absolutism and anti-scientific thought among some members of the religious right, including certain George W. Bush supporters such as Jerry Falwell. Though America was founded on the basis of rational thought and tolerance for religious diversity, we now find we're revisiting pre-Enlightenment era thinking.

Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect. In his article "An attack on American tolerance," http://www.commondreams.org/v... Kuttner says, "What is uniquely alarming in the United States today, among all the democracies and in our own history, is that a president of the United States is explicitly on the side of antimodernism. Never before has an American chief executive worked deliberately to foment a fundamentalist absolutism that is ultimately tribal, theocratic, antiscientific, and incompatible with pluralist democracy."

Bush has resisted scientific study involving stem cell research, professed belief that his decision to make war with Iraq is a divinely sanctioned crusade and embraced religious leaders who encourage intolerance, dogmatism and absolutism. Many Bush supporters on the religious right seem to think morals and values are almost entirely about sexual behavior and interpret the Bible in a way that justifies their prejudices against homosexuality.

In his article "Embattled faith needs enemies for focus," http://www.nwanews.com/story....§ion=Editorial&storyid=9 9086 reporter Gene Lyons says, "Apart from the timeless topic of Other People's Sex Lives, nothing gets fundamentalist Christianity's spiritual entrepreneurs going like vengeful Old Testament tribalism. The basic con is to insist upon the literal, historical and scientific accuracy of every syllable in the Bible while focusing selectively on passages confirming pre-existing phobias. Hence, they rarely are more dogmatic than when they are ignoring, if not actively contradicting, the essence of Christ's teachings."

Lyons continues, "Yes, Leviticus calls homosexuality an abomination. Also wearing garments of two fabrics, eating pork and shellfish, and planting two crops in one field. It recommends stoning to death anybody who works on the Sabbath. Exodus stipulates how to sell your daughters into slavery."

While the religious right's morals and values center on sexual behavior, liberal morals and values historically center on actively loving other people, working to uplift the poor, reducing human suffering by (for example) opposing unjust wars, striving for equality and fair treatment for diverse ethnic groups and others, enhancing civil liberties, using good reasoning skills and staying informed and involved as citizens.

Liberalism is represented in Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, Lyndon Johnson's Great Society and the successful social movements of the 1960's including the civil rights and women's movements. American liberalism is also defined by the millions of ordinary people who have worked as activists throughout history, including those involved in various antiwar movements, the labor movement and abolitionism.

Liberalism is reflected in our country's literature - in Mark Twain's "The War Prayer;" Henry David Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience;" W. E. B. DuBois' "The Gift of Black Folk;" and many other works. (Conservatives in some parts of the country have banned some of these writers' books from public schools.)

In "Song of Myself," the poet Walt Whitman wrote about the pluralism and tolerance for diversity first advocated by the nation's founders. The "I" of the poem doesn't solely represent the poet himself but symbolizes all Americans:

"I am of old and young, of the foolish as much as the wise,
Regardless of others, ever regardful of others,
Maternal as well as paternal, a child as well as a man...
I believe in the flesh and the appetites,
Seeing, hearing, feeling, are miracles, and each part and tag of me is a miracle.
Divine am I inside and out, and I make holy whatever I touch or am touched from...
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)"

Making room for "multitudes," embracing ambiguity and contradiction are characteristic of liberalism. Jefferson and other Enlightenment thinkers also tolerated diverse "multitudes" and allowed for ambiguity, and this kind of thinking has been an integral part of our nation's character and of liberal thought since our beginnings. However, Bush and many of his supporters seem intolerant of this way of thinking, instead insisting on a rigid either-or view of the world. For example, Bush stated, "When it comes to the war on terrorism, you're either with us or you're with the terrorists."

We need Democrats who will strongly oppose Bush's most egregious policies. Though strategists from the Democratic National Committee or the Democratic Leadership Council might suggest the Democratic party needs a better gimmick of one kind or another to win voters, what the public most wants to see in the Democratic leadership is a genuine dynamic passion for serving the public's interests.

For the Democratic Party to define itself and clarify its own morals and values, it needs to review liberalism's history and integrate that historic identity into its current collective personality. The party also needs to find a way to create a larger place for itself in the media and use radio and TV talk shows and other outlets as a way to inform the American people that liberalism is a positive alternative to radical right politics.

In "Notes on the State of Virginia," Thomas Jefferson wrote about the relationship between political leaders and a self-governing public. He said, "Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories." If the Democratic Party reclaims its roots and becomes the party of the people, it has a chance to come alive and save itself and maybe even revitalize democracy in the process.

American Fascism

11.23.04 (5:59 am) [edit]

"[i]American fascism will not be really dangerous until there is a purposeful coalition among the cartelists, the deliberate poisoners of public information, and those who stand for the K.K.K. type of demagoguery[/i]."
-- Henry Wallace, "The Dangers of American Fascism," The New York Times, Sunday, April 9, 1944

"Third Worlders see it first," Buffy St. Marie sang on a recent album. And the first signs of the rise of Fascism in the U.S. could be seen in Colombia two years ago.

In 2002, Alvaro Uribe, backed by a narco-traffickers, multinational corporations, and unreconstructed Fallangists won Colombia's presidential election by exploiting middle class fears of guerilla kidnappings and urban car bombings. Uribe immediately launched a harsh crackdown on dissidents, workers, and campesinos, in the name of fighting terrorism and crime and making Colombia safe for investors. The Bush administration and its fellow travelers at the Miami Herald and similar daily rags praised Uribe for his dedication to imposing order in Colombia, and asserted that his critics were anti-democratic because Uribe was an elected leader. (1) In response, Hector Mondragon, one of Colombia's bravest and most insightful social critics, asked,

[b]More[/b] ... http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...

American Fascism

11.23.04 (5:57 am) [edit]

American Fascism

11.23.04 (5:55 am) [edit]

American Fascism

11.23.04 (5:54 am) [edit]

On to Iran: Won't get fooled again?

11.23.04 (5:52 am) [edit]

It is not yet Bush's second term. All available US troops are tied down in Iraq by a few thousand lightly armed insurgents. Go-it-alone Bush has isolated America from her allies. And the neocons want to spread their war to Iran.

The Bush administration is recycling the lies that it used to invade Iraq: Iran is acquiring nuclear weapons that will be given to terrorists. In a display of loyalty to a ruthless neocon administration calculated to win him appointments to corporate boards, outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powell told reporters that Iran was working on nuclear missiles.

The source for this effort to spread hysteria? One "walk-in" source with unverified documents. Most likely, the source is a member of an Iranian exile group given the assignment by neocons Richard Perle and John Bolton.

[b]Read article [/b]... http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...

On to Iran: Won't get fooled again?

11.23.04 (5:49 am) [edit]

Bush's Bloody Disaster: Violence Erupts Across Baghdad ...

11.20.04 (12:39 pm) [edit]

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Insurgents ambushed a U.S. patrol, killing a soldier, gunned down four government employees and clashed with American troops in neighborhoods across Baghdad on Saturday. Nine Iraqis died in fighting west of the capital -- another sign the insurgency remains potent despite the fall of its stronghold, Fallujah.

In Fallujah, where U.S. Marines and soldiers are still battling pockets of resistance, insurgents waved a white flag of surrender before opening fire on U.S. troops and causing casualties, Marine spokesman 1st Lt. Lyle Gilbert said Saturday without elaborating.

U.S. troops in the northern city of Mosul found the bodies of nine Iraqi soldiers Saturday, all shot in the back of the head. Seven of them were also decapitated, Lt. Col. Paul Hastings said. American and Iraqi forces detained 30 suspected guerrillas overnight in Mosul, the U.S. military said.

Four other decapitated bodies were found earlier in the week in Mosul and have not yet been identified, the military said Saturday.

In a positive development, a Polish woman abducted last month in Baghdad reappeared Saturday in Poland after being suddenly released. Teresa Borcz Khalifa, 54, refused to say how she was freed but said her captors treated her "properly" -- treatment that they told her was "motivated by their religious beliefs."

But the widespread clashes in Baghdad -- which broke out early Saturday in at least a half dozen separate areas -- and other areas of central and northern Iraq underscored the perilous state of security in this country after 18 months of American military occupation -- and just over two months before vital national elections. - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6...

Bush's Bloody Disaster: Violence Erupts Across Baghdad ...

11.20.04 (12:36 pm) [edit]

University Researchers Challenge Bush Win in Florida ... But Fascists Care Nothing for Truth ...

11.20.04 (10:29 am) [edit]

[i]'Something went awry with electronic voting in Florida[/i],' says the lead researcher

(COMPUTERWORLD) - Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, said today that they have uncovered statistical irregularities associated with electronic voting machines in three Florida counties that may have given President George W. Bush 130,000 or more excess votes. The researchers are now calling on state and federal authorities to look into the problems.

The study, "The Effect of Electronic Voting Machines on Change in Support for Bush in the 2004 Florida Elections," http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/ne... was conducted by doctoral students and faculty from the university's sociology department and led by sociology professor Michael Hout.

Hout is an expert on statistical methods at the Berkeley Survey Research Center and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

[b]More[/b] ... http://www.computerworld.com/...,10801,97614,00.html

No More Sham Elections

11.20.04 (9:28 am) [edit]

In Iraq shortly before the war, I had an icy conversation about Iraqi elections with one of Saddam's goons. "What do you mean by 'sham'?" he asked.

"Look, Saddam gets a lot of votes, but no one's running against him," I protested. "If you only have one candidate who can win, that's not a real election!"

Oops. I spoke too soon. The U.S. electoral system looks increasingly dysfunctional, and those of us who used to mock the old Soviet or Iraqi "elections" for lacking competition ought to be blushing.

In Arkansas, 75 percent of state legislative races this year were uncontested by either the Republicans or by the Democrats. The same was true of 73 percent of the seats in Florida, 70 percent in South Carolina, 62 percent in New Mexico.

And Congressional races were an embarrassment. Only seven incumbents in the House of Representatives lost their seats this month. Four of those were in Texas, where the Republican Legislature gerrymandered Democrats out of their seats.

Granted, gubernatorial and U.S. Senate races are often still competitive. But, increasingly, to be elected to the House once is to be elected for life. As David Broder of The Washington Post put it, the House is becoming like the British House of Lords.

So what's the cure for our electoral diseases? Here are three ideas:

Have nonpartisan experts draw up boundaries for Congressional districts after each census. Both Republicans and Democrats have shamelessly drawn boundaries to serve their own needs, and that's one reason Congressional races are so uncompetitive. Normally, state legislatures do the redistricting, but Iowa and Arizona have handed the responsibility over to independent commissions.

Eliminate the Electoral College, so that the president is chosen by popular vote. This was seriously discussed as a constitutional amendment after the 1968 election, when George Wallace's third-party candidacy could have prevented Richard Nixon from receiving a majority of the electoral vote. And in this election, if just 21,000 voters had changed their votes in Nevada, New Mexico and Iowa, the electoral vote would have been tied and the choice of the president would have gone to the House.

"We don't run elections well enough to have clear winners that we all accept if it's really close," said Rob Richie, executive director of the Center for Voting and Democracy. "I think if the winning side had been ahead by only 20,000 votes in Ohio, the losing side wouldn't have accepted it."

It's time for America to develop the kind of full-fledged popular-vote democracy that is enjoyed by, say, the good people of Afghanistan.

Funnel campaign donations through a blind trust. The funkiest idea in politics is to make donations anonymous even to the recipient. Citizens would make contributions through a blind trust, so that candidates wouldn't know to whom they were beholden.

If officials don't know who their major contributors are, they can't invite them to spend the night in the Lincoln Bedroom or write tax loopholes. A donor might boast about having made a contribution, but special interests will realize they can save money by telling politicians that they have donated when they haven't, and then politicians will doubt these boasts.

Such a system of shielding names of donors exists in 10 states, to some degree, for judicial candidates. A provocative book by Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres, "Voting With Dollars," makes an excellent case that the system be applied more broadly, but we need some innovative state (Oregon, do you hear that?) to take the leap.

Chile is a nice role model. While the U.S. was finishing campaigns that were another embarrassing roll in the hay for politicians and lobbyists, Chile was holding its first elections using a new law with a blind trust for campaign donations of more than $500. Patricio Navia, a Chilean elections specialist at New York University, says the system has loopholes but is a big improvement.

"It's a clever idea," he said. "It's a promising way of separating special interests and politicians."

Our nation's founders were forthright and creative in establishing our political system. Today we need to be just as forthright in recognizing that the system is often dysfunctional - and just as creative in fixing it. If we're willing to introduce vigorous, competitive democracies in Iraq, why not do the same at home? - http://www.nytimes.com/2004/1...

War and Peas: This Thanksgiving, America Should Show a Little Humility

11.20.04 (8:46 am) [edit]

"[i]And also that we may beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions[/i]..."
- George Washington, from the 1789 proclamation establishing Thanksgiving as a national holiday

Peace and peas. Many Americans will be praying for one this week and getting the other instead. My guess is that few in America's current political leadership will even silently ask for the divine national pardon envisaged by Washington in the original Thanksgiving proclamation. And that's precisely why peace isn't currently on the American menu and won't be for some time.

So what should America be asking forgiveness for? Well, there are a number of things that come to mind all of which fall under a single catchphrase: ignorance at home, arrogance abroad.

It would be convenient for the more liberally inclined among us to pin blame for these American attitudes entirely on Bush administration officials. They are after all the chief architects of a war built on hyperbole that has killed thousands of innocents, strained our key alliances, weakened our economy, and served as an effective recruiting tool for our enemies. They are also the ones who have backed out of and, in some cases, attempted to scuttle a number of international treaties designed to make the world healthier, more just, and sustainable. These acts alone would seem to justify a collective "sorry".

Yet, the roots of America's foreign policy arrogance reach back many years and enjoy fertile ground in both political parties. Recall that it was President Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright who declared that the United States is "the indispensable nation" that "stands taller" and "sees farther" than the rest of the world. You can guess how well that type of comment goes down in diplomatic circles.

Clearly, our arrogance comes at an international price in terms of lost credibility and damaged working relationships. So why not dispense with it and replace it with a foreign policy based on integrity and humility?

That's where the other side of the coin, domestic ignorance, comes into play. Many Americans think that the US really is superior to other nations, not only economically and militarily but morally. Seen in this context, President Bush’s failure to admit to a single mistake during his first term is not the least bit surprising. He is delivering exactly what the people expect from their highest-ranking civil servant: the warm feeling of infallibility.

Benjamin Franklin saw some of this coming a couple of hundred years ago with the selection of the Bald Eagle as the national emblem. He argued that the haughty bird was "of bad moral character" and that the American spirit would find a more suitable representative in the modest and industrious wild turkey.

Yesterday, the President went on the record with some turkey comments of his own when he rescued two plump birds from the White House chopping block. This got me thinking. Instead of granting pardons to innocent birds, perhaps President Bush should use this holiday season to ask for a few of his own. He could start with the thousands of innocent families, American and Iraqi, who have lost loved ones in a war that he could have avoided altogether or, failing that, better planned to prevent the unnecessary loss of life.

Similarly, in place of apple or pumpkin, the President and his new foreign policy team might try a slice of humble pie for a change. Although difficult to swallow, it may be the only way of putting peace back on the menu for next year's Thanksgiving celebration.

[b]Roger Doiron writes about food, agriculture, politics, and culture. He is the founder of Kitchen Gardeners International, a nonprofit organization promoting home-grown, hand-made foods in their many international forms[/b]. - http://www.commondreams.org/v...

###

Our Moral Values

11.20.04 (8:04 am) [edit]

We are the 55 million progressives who came together in this election, voted for Kerry and rejected the Bush agenda.

We came together because of our moral values: [i]care and responsibility, fairness and equality, freedom and courage, fulfillment in life, opportunity and community, cooperation and trust, honesty and openness[/i]. We united behind political principles: equality, equity (if you work for a living, you should earn a living) and government for the people--all the people.

These are traditional American values and principles, what we are proudest of in this country. The Democrats' failure was a failure to put forth our moral vision, celebrate our values and principles, and shout them out loud.

We must immediately convince our leaders to unite behind these values, express our common moral vision and hold the line against the Bush agenda because it is immoral! Bush will call them obstructionists. They must frame themselves as heading in the right direction, going forward not backward, defending the greatest of American ideals and moral principles, working against a radical right agenda that would lead our country to disaster and speaking for more than 55 million highly moral, patriotic Americans.

If we communicate our values clearly, most people will recognize them as their own, personally more authentic and more deeply American than those put forth by conservatives. At the very least they will see progressives as having deeply held, traditional American principles. This would be a huge step forward from the present state, in which conservatives are seen as having a monopoly on "values" and progressives are framed as the party of "if it feels good, do it," with no higher principles.

Moral values at the national level are idealized family values projected onto the nation. Progressive values are the values of a responsible nurturant family, where parents (if there are two) are equally responsible. Their job is to nurture their children and raise them to be nurturers of others. Nurturance has two aspects: empathy and responsibility--both for yourself and your children. From this, all progressive values follow, both in the family and in politics.

If you empathize with your children, you will want them to have strong protection, fair and equal treatment and fulfillment in life. Fulfillment requires freedom, freedom requires opportunity and opportunity requires prosperity. Since your family lives in, and requires, a community, community building and community service are required. Community requires cooperation, which requires trust, which requires honesty and open communication. Those are the progressive values--in politics as well as family life.

Take protection. In addition to physical protection, there is environmental protection, worker protection and consumer protection, as well as all the "safety nets"--Social Security, Medicare and so on. Equality means full political and social equality, without regard to wealth, race, religion or gender. Openness requires open government and a free, inquiring press. Progressive political ideals are nurturant moral ideals.

On the other hand, the strict-father family model assumes that evil and danger will always lurk in the world, that life is difficult, that there will always be winners and losers and that children are born bad--they want to do what feels good, not what's right--and have to be made good. A strict father is needed to protect and support the family and to teach his kids right from wrong. That can be done in only one way: punishment painful enough that, to avoid it, children will learn the internal discipline necessary to be moral. That discipline can also make them prosperous if they seek their self-interest and no one interferes. Mommy isn't strong enough to protect the family and is too soft-hearted to discipline the children. That's why fathers are necessary.

Apply this, via metaphor, to the nation: We need a strong President who knows right from wrong to defend the nation. Social programs are immoral because they give people things they haven't earned and so make them undisciplined--both dependent and less able to function morally. The prosperous people are the good people. Those who are not prosperous deserve their poverty. Taxes take away the rightful rewards of the prosperous. Wrongdoers should be punished severely. Government should get out of the way of disciplined (hence good) people seeking their self-interest. The President is to be obeyed; since he knows right from wrong, his authority is legitimate and not to be questioned. In foreign policy, he is also the absolute moral authority and so needs no advice from lesser countries.

The so-called "moral issues" are affronts to strict-father morality. Strict-father marriage cannot be gay; it must be between a man and a woman. For a wife to seek an abortion on her own or a daughter to need one is an affront to strict-father control over the behavior of the women in his family. They are not the main moral issues in themselves; rather they are symbolic of the entire strict-father identity as applied to all spheres of life. That's why they are so powerful for conservatives.

Swing voters have both models--in different parts of their lives--and are unsure about which to apply to politics in a particular election. The job of a candidate is to activate his model in the swing voters. Conservatives know this: By talking to their base, they are activating their base model in swing voters. When liberals move to the right, they are shooting themselves in both feet: They alienate their base and they activate the other side's models in the swing voters, thus helping the other side.

Democrats in Congress need to understand this. They must hold their ground, be positive and be aware that moving to the right is a double disaster. It will only help the radical right's agenda, break with values that unify us and make it harder to awaken our values in swing voters.

The only way to trump their moral values is with our own more traditional and more patriotic moral values. Proclaim them and live them, and we will find that there are many more than 55 million of us.

[b]George Lakoff, author of Moral Politics and the bestselling Don't Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate, is professor of linguistics at UC Berkeley and senior fellow at the Rockridge Institute[/b]. - http://www.commondreams.org/v...

What Another Black Writer Calls Condoleezza Rice ...

11.19.04 (2:24 pm) [edit]

[b]"Condoleezza Rice, a Sally Hemmings for the 21st Century"[/b]

Check-out "c u l t u r e k i t c h e n" on http://www.culturekitchen.com...

What A Black NYT Columnist Calls Condoleezza Rice ...

11.19.04 (2:20 pm) [edit]

[b]"Bush's Echo Chamber"[/b]

Colin Powell, who urged the president to think more deeply about the consequences of invading Iraq, is being shoved toward the exit. And Condoleezza Rice, who blithely told America, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," is being ushered in to take his place.

Competence has never been highly regarded by the fantasists of the George W. Bush administration. In the Bush circle, no less than in your average youth gang, loyalty is everything. The big difference, of course, is that the administration is far more dangerous than any gang. History will show that the Bush crowd of incompetents brought tremendous amounts of suffering to enormous numbers of people. The amount of blood being shed is sickening, and there is no end to the grief in sight.

Ironically, Ms. Rice was supposed to be the epitome of competence. She was the charming former provost of Stanford University, an expert on Soviet and East European affairs who was also an accomplished pianist, ice skater and tennis player, and the presidential candidate George W. Bush's tutor on foreign policy.

She was superwoman. They didn't come more accomplished.

She and Mr. Bush developed a remarkable bond, and he made her his national security adviser. Which was a problem. Because all the evidence shows she wasn't very good at the job.

Ms. Rice's domain was the filter through which an awful lot of mangled and misshapen intelligence made its way to the president and the American people. She either believed the nonsense she was spouting about mushroom clouds, or she deliberately misled her president and the nation on matters that would eventually lead to the deaths of thousands.

Secretary Powell's close friend and deputy at the State Department, Richard Armitage, viewed Ms. Rice's operation with contempt. In his book "Plan of Attack," Bob Woodward said Mr. Armitage "believed that the foreign-policy-making system that was supposed to be coordinated by Rice was essentially dysfunctional."

In October 2003, the president, frustrated by setbacks in Iraq, put Ms. Rice in charge of his Iraq Stabilization Group, which gave her the responsibility for overseeing the effort to quell the violence and begin the reconstruction in Iraq.

We see from recent headlines how well that has worked out.

A crucial mentor for Ms. Rice was Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser for the first President Bush. He appointed her to the National Security Council in 1989. Ms. Rice and the nation would have benefited if she had sought out and followed Mr. Scowcroft's counsel on Iraq.

Mr. Scowcroft's view, widely expressed before the war, was that the U.S. should exercise extreme caution. He did not believe the planned invasion was wise or necessary. In an article in The Wall Street Journal in August 2002, he wrote:

"There is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them."

Ms. Rice exhibited as little interest in Mr. Scowcroft's opinion as George W. Bush did in his father's. (When Bob Woodward asked Mr. Bush if he had consulted with the former president about the decision to invade Iraq, he replied, "There is a higher father that I appeal to.")

As I watch the disastrous consequences of the Bush policies unfold - not just in Iraq, but here at home as well - I am struck by the immaturity of this administration, whatever the ages of the officials involved. It's as if the children have taken over and sent the adults packing. The counsel of wiser heads, like George H. W. Bush, or Brent Scowcroft, or Colin Powell, is not needed and not wanted.

Some of the world's most important decisions - often, decisions of life and death - have been left to those who are less competent and less experienced, to men and women who are deficient in such qualities as risk perception and comprehension of future consequences, who are reckless and dangerously susceptible to magical thinking and the ideological pressure of their peers.

I look at the catastrophe in Iraq, the fiscal debacle here at home, the extent to which loyalty trumps competence at the highest levels of government, the absence of a coherent vision of the future for the U.S. and the world, and I wonder, with a sense of deep sadness, where the adults have gone.

[b]- By Bob Herbert, New York Times[/b], http://www.nytimes.com/2004/1...

Condoleezza Rice is Incompetent - So Is Bush - She is Black, He is White - So What???

11.19.04 (2:07 pm) [edit]

[b]Condi Rice is incompetent. She is also a proven liar and Bush toady. Bush is incompetent too. Condi is black. Dubya is white. So what??? BOTH are unfit to serve our nation, for they are traitors![/b]

Foreign policy in the next Bush administration threatens to be more of the same. As early as today, the president is expected to name Condoleezza Rice as his replacement for Colin Powell as the United States secretary of state. Rice was a seriously flawed national security advisor; the Washington Post points out that "many experts consider her one of the weakest national security advisers in recent history in terms of managing interagency conflicts." She is, however, a constant, loyal, dedicated Bush devotee, ready to work on "behalf of a boss whose sentences she can finish, and who trusts her totally to carry out his wishes." As the New York Times reports, "Ms. Rice seems unlikely to have any agenda but Mr. Bush's. She would be closer to her president …probably than any cabinet officer since Robert F. Kennedy served as his brother's attorney general." For his second term, President Bush is swiftly replacing many members of his cabinet with members of his close inner circle. Ivo Daalder, a special advisor for the Center for American Progress, states, "Her appointment means that the president wants to surround himself with the people he's most comfortable with, and who are most loyal to his view of what foreign policy's all about." Here's a look at Rice's record:

[b]INATTENTION TO TERRORISM:[/b] According to the 9/11 Commission report, chief White House expert on terrorism Richard Clarke sent Rice an urgent memo just days after she took office, stressing the severity of the terrorist threat. She did not respond, and although the national security leadership "met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks…terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions." The first meeting on al Qaeda did not occur until 9/4/01.

[b]MISLEADING STATEMENTS PRE-WAR:[/b] Rice was one of the primary perpetrators of misinformation in the push for war with Iraq. In September 2002, she claimed, "We do know that [Saddam] is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon." Weapons inspector David Kay and his successor, Charles Duelfer, debunked that outright, saying Saddam had no nuclear program. Rice also pushed the phantom nuclear threat by charging that certain aluminum tubes Saddam sought were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs." A 10/3/04 New York Times article exposed that as false.

[b]RICE GIVEN LEADERSHIP ROLE IN IRAQ, FIZZLES:[/b] In October 2003, President Bush announced he was "giving his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, the authority to manage postwar Iraq." With great fanfare, Rice was put in charge of the "Iraq Stabilization Group." Seven months later, the Washington Post reported "the four original leaders of the Stabilization Group have taken on new roles, and only one remains concerned primarily with Iraq." Even within the White House, "the destabilized Stabilization Group is a metaphor for an Iraq policy that is adrift." According to the White House website, the Iraq stabilization group hasn't been publicly mentioned for more than a year.

[b]MISLEADING STATEMENTS POST-WAR:[/b] Even after the invasion of Iraq failed to turn up any evidence of weapons of mass destruction, Rice continued a calculated effort to keep the nonexistent threat in the public eye. On 9/7/03, she ominously warned, "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." On 3/18/04, Rice said that "It's not as if anybody believes that Saddam Hussein was without weapons of mass destruction." In fact, the administration's handpicked weapons inspector, David Kay, had publicly said – two months earlier – that he didn't believe Saddam had WMD before the March 2003 invasion. When Kay resigned in January he said "he did not believe banned stockpiles existed before the invasion" and that pre-war intelligence that said Iraq possessed WMD was probably "all wrong."

[b]RICE UNDER OATH:[/b] Rice initially refused to appear before the 9/11 Commission. When she finally agreed to testify, she refused to play it straight. Called before the Commission to examine potential White House inattention to the al Qaeda threat before the attacks, Rice was asked about a Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) the president received on 8/6/01. In front of the Commission, Rice testified there was "nothing about the threat of attack in the U.S." in the PDB. Under further questioning, she admitted that, in fact, "the title [of the PDB] was, 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.'"

[b]POLITICIZING NATIONAL SECURITY:[/b] Breaking with the precedent that dictates the director of national security should remain above the political fray and away from the campaign trail, during the 2004 campaign National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice took time out from her busy national security duties to stump for the president across key battleground states. She was roundly criticized by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national security adviser under President Jimmy Carter, who "said the national security adviser is the 'custodian' of the nation's most sensitive national security secrets and should be seen as an objective adviser to the president."

...... National Lawyers Guild Urges Senate to Reject Alberto Gonzales

11.15.04 (12:13 pm) [edit]

[b]National Lawyers Guild Urges Senate to Reject Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General, Gonzales will Continue Ashcroft Policies that Threaten Constitutional Democracy [/b]

[b]WASHINGTON -- November 15 [/b]-- The National Lawyers Guild (NLG) announced that it opposes the nomination of Alberto Gonzales for the position of Attorney General.

The NLG condemned Gonzales for his approval of the torture of prisoners in memos he adopted as White House Counsel. The memos explained how American officials could escape legal liability for torture. Gonzales rejected the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to prisoners taken during the “war against terrorism,” terming some of the Geneva provisions “quaint.” The Guild said that Gonzales’s contempt for accepted international law principles rendered him unfit to serve as the head of the Justice Department.

NLG President Michael Avery declared that, “The Constitution requires that the United States treat international treaties that it has signed as the supreme law of the land in the United States. It is the solemn obligation of the Attorney General to make sure that the United States complies with international law. It would be outrageous for the nation’s top law enforcement officer to be contriving theories for American officials to avoid accountability for actions such as the torture of prisoners.”

The Guild also said that it was deeply concerned by Gonzales’s record in reviewing death penalty cases in Texas for then Governor Bush. An analysis of Gonzales’s memos to the governor demonstrated that he repeatedly suppressed crucial facts that Bush should have considered in determining whether to grant clemency, such as “ineffective counsel, conflict of interest, mitigating evidence, even actual evidence of innocence.”

The Guild said that Gonzales’s radical ideological positions were responsible for the right-wing litmus test that he employed to recommend judicial nominees to President Bush. Gonzales’s participation in the drafting of the USA PATRIOT Act demonstrates that he will continue the Ashcroft policy of sacrificing civil liberties in the name of the “war on terror.”

The Guild called upon the Democrats in the Senate to filibuster if necessary to block the Gonzales nomination. NLG President Michael Avery said, “The suggestion that has appeared in the media that Democrats may be afraid to oppose Gonzales because he is a Latino is offensive. If Gonzales were living in a Latin American country he would no doubt be a member of a repressive oligarchy. It would be wonderful to have a Latino Attorney General, but he or she should be someone who respects the rule of law.”

The National Lawyers Guild is an association of attorneys, law students and legal workers dedicated to the proposition that human rights are more important than property rights. - http://www.commondreams.org/n...

[b]CONTACT:[/b] National Lawyers Guild, http://www.nlg.org/
Michael Avery, mavery@suffolk.edu
617-335-5023

...... National Lawyers Guild Urges Senate to Reject Alberto Gonzales

11.15.04 (12:13 pm) [edit]

...... Bush Threatens Mankind, Says Nobel Peace Prize Nominee Dr. Helen Caldicott

11.15.04 (12:07 pm) [edit]

Nobel Peace Prize nominee Dr Helen Caldicott fears US President George Bush's re-election will lead to Armageddon and she isn't sure if mankind would survive another four years.

"This is the most serious election that has ever occurred in the history of the human race, without a scrag of doubt," she told smh.com.

"I don't know if we'll survive the next four years ... I don't think the Americans have, on the whole, the faintest idea - and I have to say also I don't think most Australians do either. But it's not just the threat from nuclear war. It's the threat of what's happening to the environment, the global warming which is occurring rapidly now, to ozone depletion, to species extinction, to deforestation - it's the whole thing."

Speaking from her son Will's Boston home, the Australian pediatrician, who runs the Nuclear Policy Research Institute in Washington, has just spent a frantic two-and-a-half months criss-crossing America to deliver her anti-nuclear and anti-Bush message. She discovered the country was more divided than at any time since she first stepped onto American soil in 1966.

Early on election day she was convinced Democratic challenger John Kerry would win but reality soon set in.

"This is what I've been afraid of and I actually can't believe it's happening," she said. "The voter turnout was so high, which should have supported Kerry.

"I don't think I've ever felt so personally, politically devastated in my life and that includes when [former president Ronald] Reagan won a second term of office - which was pretty devastating for me as I was so heavily involved in the anti-nuclear movement in those days.

"But this is worse, these people are much worse than the Reagan people."

Dr Caldicott rose to fame in the American peace movement during the '70s and '80s, her vehement antinuclear stance earning her many enemies, some of whom saw her as an apologist for the Soviet Union. She has long warned of the dangers of nuclear weapons, America's "first strike" policy and missile defense.

In her 2002 book The New Nuclear Danger, she detailed links between the Government and weapons makers and Mr Bush's will to militarize space.

Mr Bush's win meant "endless war and I think it could mean nuclear war", she said.

"In January 1995 we got to within 10 seconds of nuclear war when [former Russian president Boris] Yeltsin and the Russians made a mistake and thought they were under attack. The Americans still have a first-strike policy to win a nuclear war against Russia. The weapons are still in place both in America and Russia. Virtually nobody knows that in this country and that a mistake or a terrorist takeover of the command system - on either side - or errors being made could lead to the end of life on earth."

In a website interview two years ago, Dr Caldicott was asked why Mr Bush remained so popular. She replied she didn't believe it - that the polls were inaccurate [although that was before the invasion of Iraq].

Now she has to face the reality that more than half of Americans want Mr Bush back, despite [or because of] his policies. She puts it down to brilliance on the part of his campaign team, in particular Karl Rove, and the ignorance of much of the population.

"They [the Bush administration] have been able to con the American people with their extremely brilliant propaganda and brainwashing, with the help of the media ... they consistently lie. On the whole the American people don't really understand the dynamics of the right at all. They don't know that Bush et al want to go into Iran next and that they want to dominate the world militarily and that they want to put weapons in space.

"I don't think they [the American public] understand. It is a mandate for Bush to do absolutely anything he wants. I know people don't like me using this word but they're fascists."

Not firing all her ammunition at Mr Bush, she saved some for Australian Prime Minister John Howard. She said Australia was now the "51st state of the US".

"I've always been so proud of my country, now I'm not just ashamed by what's happening and embarrassed ... but I really fear for the future of Australia and the previous wonderful quality of life that we've always had." - http://www.commondreams.org/h...

...... Bush Threatens Mankind, Says Nobel Peace Prize Nominee Dr. Helen Caldicott

11.15.04 (12:07 pm) [edit]

...... Bush Threatens Mankind, Says Nobel Peace Prize Nominee Dr. Helen Caldicott

11.15.04 (12:05 pm) [edit]

...... Bush Threatens Mankind, Says Nobel Peace Prize Nominee Dr. Helen Caldicott

11.15.04 (12:05 pm) [edit]

...... Bush Threatens Mankind, Says Nobel Peace Prize Nominee Dr. Helen Caldicott

11.15.04 (12:05 pm) [edit]

...... Iran Agrees to Nuclear Curb:-- Thanks to the U.N., the French & the E.U.!!!

11.15.04 (12:00 pm) [edit]

[b]Iran has agreed to suspend most of its uranium enrichment, as part of a deal with the EU aimed at resolving the dispute over its nuclear programme[/b].

Chief Iranian negotiator Hassan Rohani said the suspension would be in force until a final settlement is reached.

The EU has offered Iran increased co-operation on trade and energy in exchange for the freeze.

Iran insists its nuclear activities are peaceful, but the US says they are part of a secret weapons programme.

Successful uranium enrichment could be seen as a key stage in the development of weapons-grade nuclear material.

[b]Sanction threat [/b]

Speaking in Tehran, Mr Rohani said Iran would suspend "almost all" its enrichment activities until a long-term agreement on Iran's nuclear programme is reached.

Talks will begin next month, he added.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) - the UN's Vienna-based nuclear watchdog - passed a resolution in September calling on Iran to stop enriching uranium.

Once confirmed by IAEA inspectors on the ground, the freeze means the agency's board it unlikely to take the dispute to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions when it meets later this month.

A deal reached last year between the EU and Iran on a uranium-enrichment freeze later unravelled.

Iran has said it has a legal right to nuclear energy - and in particular to securing their own source of fuel for power stations, rather than being dependent on outsiders. - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/mi...

...... Iran Agrees to Nuclear Curb:-- Thanks to the U.N., the French & the E.U.!!!

11.15.04 (12:00 pm) [edit]

...... Iran Agrees to Nuclear Curb:-- Thanks to the U.N., the French & the E.U.!!!

11.15.04 (12:00 pm) [edit]

....... MORAL B.S.

11.15.04 (11:55 am) [edit]

I'm in a bad mood. My back is out. I have a couple of old, sick dogs and I can't stand watching political pundits, anymore. They've gone beyond Monday morning quarterbacking for the last week or so. They've entered into tinfoil hat territory, gasbagging about the "moral mandate" given King George re: his "landslide" victory. They yammer bout how liberals are out of touch, how Kerry's "Hollywood connection" brought him down, how God-fearing people don't wind surf.

So, I keep the TV off. There are always those solid wire service stories to depend on, right? Nope. They're just as squirrely. An actual AP headline read: WOMEN SAY KERRY SHOULD HAVE WOOED THEM. Say whut? Because he didn't kiss collective ass and he actually promoted Democratic values, they voted against him? OH, YOU'VE COME A LONG WAY, BABY.

According to the article: "Leaders of several women’s groups said Tuesday that Democrat John Kerry fell short in his bid for the White House because he didn’t make a more direct appeal for support from women voters."

[b]Read entire article[/b]: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...

....... MORAL B.S.

11.15.04 (11:54 am) [edit]

....... MORAL B.S.

11.15.04 (11:54 am) [edit]

Green & Libertarian Presidential Candidates to Demand Ohio Recount

11.14.04 (6:23 am) [edit]

David Cobb and Michael Badnarik, the 2004 presidential candidates for the Green and Libertarian parties, today announced their intentions to file a formal demand for a recount of the presidential ballots cast in Ohio.

“Due to widespread reports of irregularities in the Ohio voting process, we are compelled to demand a recount of the Ohio presidential vote. Voting is the heart of the democratic process in which we as a nation put our faith. When people stand in line for hours to exercise their right to vote, they need to know that all votes will be counted fairly and accurately. We must protect the rights of the people of Ohio, as well as all Americans, and stand up for the right to vote and the right for people’s votes to be counted. The integrity of the democratic process is at stake,” the two candidates said in a joint statement.

The candidates also demanded that Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, a Republican who chaired the Ohio Bush campaign, recuse himself from the recount process.

The Ohio presidential election was marred by numerous press and independent reports of voter intimidation, mis-marked and discarded ballots, problems with electronic voting machines and the targeted disenfranchisement of African American voters. A number of citizens’ groups and voting rights organizations are holding hearings this Saturday in Columbus, Ohio to investigate voting irregularities and voter suppression in the Ohio 2004 general election. The hearings will be held from 1-4 p.m. at the New Faith Baptist Church, 955 Oak Street. Voters, poll workers, journalists and voting experts are invited to testify. A second hearing will be held on Monday at a location TBA, from 6-9 p.m.

The Cobb and Badnarik campaigns are in the process of raising the required fee, estimated at $110,000, for filing for a complete recount. The campaigns are accepting contributions through their websites. The Cobb-LaMarche website is http://www.votecobb.org. The Badnarik-Campagna contribution page is https://badnarik.org/.

The Cobb and Badnarik campaigns have displayed a level of cooperation and civility rarely found in electoral politics. The campaigns jointly participated in and/or sponsored a series of independent debates. Cobb and Badnarik were also simultaneously arrested in St. Louis protesting their exclusion from the restricted, two-party corporate-sponsored debates.

To see an investigative report by Greg Palast, author of The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, which asserts that the Ohio vote was improperly decided, see http://www.tompaine.com/artic...

For an article detailing a dozen ways in which the Ohio vote was potentially manipulated, see http://www.freepress.org/depa... - http://www.commondreams.org/n...

Green & Libertarian Presidential Candidates to Demand Ohio Recount

11.14.04 (6:22 am) [edit]

Green & Libertarian Presidential Candidates to Demand Ohio Recount

11.14.04 (6:22 am) [edit]

Americans Turn a Blind Eye to Elite Hypocrites

11.14.04 (6:19 am) [edit]

The election of 2004 proved once again what a tolerant and forgiving country this is. No, not just because of the re-election of George W. Bush, but because of the general overlooking of the latest example of public-figure hypocrisy, that of Bill O'Reilly.

O'Reilly's embarrassment erupted in the election's final weeks, so that too is responsible for some of the lack of impact. The sexual harassment lawsuit filed against O'Reilly and his employers by a young female subordinate -- the legal papers of which were made public -- painted an unflattering portrait, one at odds with O'Reilly's boastful straight-shooter image.

The lawsuit's timing, though, was in another way unfortunate. It came just as O'Reilly was attempting to enlarge his moral-exhortation market share by invading the world of children's literature with the publication of the book, The O'Reilly Factor for Kids.

[b]Read article article[/b]: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...

Americans Turn a Blind Eye to Elite Hypocrites

11.14.04 (6:19 am) [edit]

Americans Turn a Blind Eye to Elite Hypocrites

11.14.04 (6:17 am) [edit]

Americans Turn a Blind Eye to Elite Hypocrites

11.14.04 (6:16 am) [edit]

CIA to Purge All Those "Disloyal" to Nazi Dictator Herr Fuhrer Bush

11.14.04 (6:13 am) [edit]

[b]CIA plans to purge its agency

Sources say White House has ordered new chief to eliminate officers who were disloyal to Bush[/b]

WASHINGTON -- The White House has ordered the new CIA director, Porter Goss, to purge the agency of officers believed to have been disloyal to President George W. Bush or of leaking damaging information to the media about the conduct of the Iraq war and the hunt for Osama bin Laden, according to knowledgeable sources.

"The agency is being purged on instructions from the White House," said a former senior CIA official who maintains close ties to both the agency and to the White House. "Goss was given instructions ... to get rid of those soft leakers and liberal Democrats. The CIA is looked on by the White House as a hotbed of liberals and people who have been obstructing the president's agenda."

One of the first casualties appears to be Stephen R. Kappes, deputy director of clandestine services, the CIA's most powerful division. The Washington Post reported yesterday that Kappes had tendered his resignation after a confrontation with Goss' chief of staff, Patrick Murray, but at the behest of the White House had agreed to delay his decision till tomorrow.

But the former senior CIA official said that the White House "doesn't want Steve Kappes to reconsider his resignation. That might be the spin they put on it, but they want him out." He said the job had already been offered to the former chief of the European Division who retired after a spat with then-CIA Director George Tenet.

Another recently retired top CIA official said he was unsure Kappes had "officially resigned, but I do know he was unhappy."

Without confirming or denying that the job offer had been made, a CIA spokesman asked Newsday to withhold naming the former officer because of his undercover role over the years. He said he had no comment about Goss' personnel plans, but he added that changes at the top are not unusual when new directors come in.

On Friday John E. McLaughlin, a 32-year veteran of the intelligence division who served as acting CIA director before Goss took over, announced that he was retiring. The spokesman said that the retirement had been planned and was unrelated to the Kappes resignation or to other morale problems inside the CIA.

It could not be learned yesterday if the White House had identified Kappes, a respected operations officer, as one of the officials "disloyal" to Bush.

"The president understands and appreciates the sacrifices made by the members of the intelligence community in the war against terrorism," said a White House official of the report that he was purging the CIA of "disloyal" officials. " . . . The suggestion [that he ordered a purge] is inaccurate."

But another former CIA official who retains good contacts within the agency said that Goss and his top aides, who served on his staff when Goss was chairman of the House intelligence committee, believe the agency had relied too much over the years on liaison work with foreign intelligence agencies and had not done enough to develop its own intelligence collection system.

"Goss is not a believer in liaison work," said this retired official. But, he said, the CIA's "best intelligence really comes from liaison work. The CIA is simply not going to develop the assets [agents and case officers] that would meet the intelligence requirements."

Tensions between the White House and the CIA have been the talk of the town for at least a year, especially as leaks about the mishandling of the Iraq war have dominated front pages.

Some of the most damaging leaks came from Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit, who wrote a book anonymously called "Imperial Hubris" that criticized what he said was the administration's lack of resolve in tracking down the al-Qaida chieftain and the reallocation of intelligence and military manpower from the war on terrorism to the war in Iraq. Scheuer announced Thursday that he was resigning from the agency. - http://www.newsday.com/news/n...,0,707331.story?coll=ny-top-headlin es

CIA to Purge All Those "Disloyal" to Nazi Dictator Herr Fuhrer Bush

11.14.04 (6:12 am) [edit]

Bush's Bloodbath: 50 US Soldiers & Thousands of Iraqis Killed in Last Five Days

11.14.04 (6:08 am) [edit]

In a flurry of weekend press releases, the Department of Defense named another 20 US soldiers killed in Iraq. These deaths bring the total killed since November 8th to [b]fifty[/b]. [Thousands of Iraqis have been slaughtered also.] Such facts contradict the "official numbers" released to the unquestioning media.

The difference in the totals seems to stem from the ambiguity in press releases for US Marines. These concise releases never state specifics. Instead, the deaths are merely categorized as due to "enemy action" in "Al Anbar Province." Given the recent assault of Fallujah – located in Al Anbar– it is reasonable to pool these numbers with the total. Also, many of these Marines are part of the 1st or 3rd Marine Division, known to be in the city.

The fifty killed in five days is indicative of a growing insurgency likely to spread to previously peaceful cities. The other twenty deaths occurred in Baghdad, Mosul, Abu Gharb and Babli Province (just south of Baghdad). This indicates that the violence is only spreading. Although the military concedes that "winning" in Fallujah won't quell the insurgency, they continue to pursue policies that suppose there exists a static number of Iraqis willing to fight the occupation: if they could only kill them all, democracy and calm would flourish. Of course, it is more likely that these incursions will create more insurgency.

We have compiled the following list of the estimated thirty US soldiers and Marines killed in Fallujah:

Lance Cpl. David M. Branning Al Anbar Province, combat
Lance Cpl. Brian A. Medina Al Anbar Province, combat
1st Lt. Edward D. Iwan Fallujah, combat
Cpl. Nathan R. Anderson Fallujah, combat
Sgt. Morgan W. Strader Fallujah, combat
Lance Cpl. Justin D. Reppuhn Fallujah, combat
Lance Cpl. Thomas J. Zapp Al Anbar Province, combat
Lance Cpl. Abraham Simpson Al Anbar Province, combat
Lance Cpl. Erick J. Hodges Al Anbar Province, combat
1st Lt. Dan T. Malcom Jr Al Anbar Province, combat
Petty Officer Third Class Julian Woods Fallujah, combat
Cpl. Theodore A. Bowling Al Anbar Province, combat
Cpl. Romulo J. Jimenez II Al Anbar Province, combat
Command Sgt. Maj. Steven W. Faulkenburg Fallujah, combat
Staff Sgt. Todd R. Cornell Fallujah, combat
Sgt. Lonny D. Wells Al Anbar Province, combat
Lance Cpl. Nathan R. Wood Al Anbar Province, combat
Cpl. William C. James Al Anbar Province, combat
Staff Sgt. Gene Ramirez Al Anbar Province, combat
Lance Cpl. Kyle W. Burns Al Anbar Province, combat
Lance Cpl. Jeffrey Lam Al Anbar Province, combat
2nd Lt. James P. Blecksmith Al Anbar Province, combat
Staff Sgt. Theodore S. Holder II Al Anbar Province, combat
Lance Cpl. Aaron C. Pickering Al Anbar Province, combat
Sgt. Jonathan B. Shields Fallujah, non-combat
Lance Cpl. Nicholas D. Larson Al Anbar Province, combat
Lance Cpl. Juan E. Segura Al Anbar Province, combat
Sgt. David M. Caruso Al Anbar Province, combat
Staff Sgt. Russell L. Slay Al Anbar Province, combat
Cpl. Joshua D. Palmer Al Anbar Province, non-combat

[b]Where are the names of the Iraqis massacred by the bloodthirsty tyrant-cum-War Criminal Bush?[/b] - http://www.antiwar.com/ewens/...

Bush's Bloodbath: 50 US Soldiers & Thousands of Iraqis Killed in Last Five Days

11.14.04 (6:03 am) [edit]

... Bush's "Fuck-You" Agenda Must Be Resisted!!!

11.06.04 (6:29 am) [edit]

After this intensely fought election, both President Bush and Sen. John Kerry are speaking of the need to heal our divisions and come together as a single, united nation. They're wrong. Critics of the Bush presidency do not need to heal our divisions but to insist on them. President Bush has presided over an extraordinarily divisive and polarizing administration. The suggestion that we should now "heal our divisions" is really a suggestion not for unity but for capitulation.

In the aftermath of the 2000 election, it was entirely appropriate for Al Gore's supporters to stand firmly behind President Bush and to work hard to unify the country. As governor of Texas and as candidate for national office, Bush had proceeded as a moderate Republican in the mold of his father -- a compassionate conservative committed to creative thinking, innovative ways of helping those in need and novel methods for promoting economic growth and environmental protection. Of course many Gore voters reacted bitterly to the Supreme Court's decision in Bush vs. Gore. But candidate Bush had earned, by his words, his deeds and his considerable human grace, the right to the support of those who did not vote for him.

Bush's presidency, and his 2004 campaign, have been conducted in a radically different spirit.

[b]Read article on[/b]: http://www.salon.com/opinion/... ...

[b]Salon has a Free-Day-Pass in case you are not a subscriber ...[/b]

... List in Descending Avg IQ by State, and Who that State Voted For!!!

11.06.04 (6:23 am) [edit]

[b]Way to fuck up the country, morons![/b]

List in descending Avg IQ by State, and who that state voted for: http://www.personal.psu.edu/u...

[b]Thanks to angiekruger http://angiekruger.tblog.com for the great find ...[/b]

... Insane Neo-Con Agenda: Iran, China, Russia, Latin America...

11.06.04 (6:20 am) [edit]

An influential foreign-policy neo-conservative with long-standing ties to top hawks in the administration of President George W Bush has laid out what he calls ''a checklist of the work the world will demand of this president and his subordinates in a second term.''

The list, which begins with the destruction of Fallujah in Iraq and ends with the development of ''appropriate strategies'' for dealing with threats posed by China, Russia and ''the emergence of a number of aggressively anti-American regimes in Latin America,'' also calls for ''regime change'' in Iran and North Korea.

The list's author, Frank Gaffney, the founder and president of the Center for Security Policy (CSP), also warns that Bush should resist any pressure arising from the anticipated demise of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to resume peace talks that could result in Israel's giving up ''defensible boundaries.''

While all seven steps listed by Gaffney in an article published Friday morning in the 'National Review Online' have long been favored by prominent neo-cons, the article itself, 'Worldwide Value', is the first comprehensive compilation to emerge since Bush's re-election Tuesday.

It is also sure to be contested, not just by Democrats who, with the election behind them, are poised to take a more anti-war position on Iraq, but by many conservative Republicans in Congress. They blame the neo-cons for failing to anticipate the quagmire in Iraq and worry their grander ambitions, like those expounded by Gaffney, will bankrupt the Treasury and break an already-overextended military.

Yet its importance as a road map of where neo-conservatives -- who, with the critical help of Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, dominated Bush's foreign policy after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and the Pentagon -- want U.S. policy to go, was underlined by Gaffney's listing of the names of his friends in the administration who he said, ''helped the president imprint moral values on American security policy in a way and to an extent not seen since Ronald Reagan's first term.''

In addition to Cheney and Rumsfeld, he cited the most clearly identified -- and controversial -- neo-conservatives serving in the administration: Cheney's chief of staff, I Lewis ''Scooter'' Libby; his top Middle East advisors, John Hannah and David Wurmser; weapons proliferation specialist Robert Joseph and top Mideast aide Elliott Abrams, on the National Security Council (NSC).

Also on the roster are: Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Undersecretary for Policy Douglas Feith; Feith's top Mideast aide William Luti, in the Pentagon; Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, and for global issues, Paula Dobriansky at the State Department.

Virtually all of the same individuals have been cited by critics of the Iraq War, including Democratic lawmakers and retired senior foreign service and military officials, as responsible for hijacking the policy and intelligence process that led to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Indeed, in a lengthy interview about the war on the most-watched public-affairs TV program, '60 Minutes', last May, the former head of the U.S. Central Command and Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief Middle East envoy until 2003, retired Gen. Anthony Zinni, called for the resignation of Libby, Abrams, Wolfowitz and Feith, as well as Rumsfeld, for their roles in the attack.

Zinni also cited former Defense Policy Board (DPB) chairman, Richard Perle, who has been close to Gaffney since both of them served, along with Abrams, in the office of Washington State Senator Henry M Jackson in the early 1970s.

When Perle became an assistant secretary of defense under Reagan he brought Gaffney along as his deputy. When Perle left in 1987, Gaffney succeeded him before setting up CSP in 1989.

As Perle's long-time protégé and associate, Gaffney sits at the center of a network of interlocking think tanks, foundations, lobby groups, arms manufacturers and individuals that constitute the coalition of neo-conservatives, aggressive nationalists like Cheney and Rumsfeld and Christian Right activists responsible for the unilateralist trajectory of U.S. foreign policy since 9/11.

Included among CSP's board of advisers over the years have been Rumsfeld, Perle, Feith, Christian moralist William Bennett, Abrams, Feith, Joseph, former United Nations Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, former Navy Undersecretary John Lehman and former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director James Woolsey.

Woolsey also co-chairs the new Committee on the Present Danger (CPD), another prominent neo-con-led lobby group that argues Washington is now engaged in ''World War IV'' against ''Islamo-fascism.''

Also serving on its advisory council are executives from some of the country's largest military contractors, which -- along with wealthy individuals sympathetic to Israel's governing Likud Party, such as prominent New York investor Lawrence Kadish and California casino king Irving Moskowitz, and right-wing bodies, such as the Bradley, Sarah Scaife and Olin Foundations -- finance CSP's work.

Gaffney, a ubiquitous ''talking head'' on TV in the run-up to the war in Iraq, sits on the boards of CPD's parent organisations, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) and Americans for Victory Over Terrorism (AVOT). He was a charter associate, with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz and Abrams, of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), another prominent neo-conservative-led group that offered up a similar checklist of what Bush should do in the ''war on terrorism'' just nine days after the 9/11 attacks.

His article opens by trying to pre-empt an argument that is already being heard on the right against expanding Bush's ''war on terrorism'': that since a plurality of Bush voters identified ''moral values'' as their chief concern, the president should stick to his social conservative agenda rather than expand the war.

''The reality is that the same moral principles that underpinned the Bush appeal on 'values' issues like gay marriage, stem-cell research and the right to life were central to his vision of U.S. war aims and foreign policy,'' according to Gaffney.

''Indeed, the president laid claim squarely to the ultimate moral value -- freedom -- as the cornerstone of his strategy for defeating our Islamofascist enemies and their state sponsors, for whom that concept is utterly (sic) anathema.''

To be true to that commitment, policy in the second administration must be directed toward seven priorities, according to Gaffney, beginning with the ''reduction in detail of Fallujah and other safe havens utilized by freedom's enemies in Iraq''; followed by ''regime change -- one way or another -- in Iran and North Korea, the only hope for preventing these remaining 'Axis of Evil' states from fully realizing their terrorist and nuclear ambitions.''

Third, the administration must provide ''the substantially increased resources needed to re-equip a transforming military and rebuild human-intelligence capabilities (minus, if at all possible, the sorts of intelligence 'reforms' contemplated pre-election that would make matters worse on this and other scores) while we fight World War IV, followed by enhancing ''protection of our homeland, including deploying effective missile defenses at sea and in space, as well as ashore.”

Fifth, Washington must keep ''faith with Israel, whose destruction remains a priority for the same people who want to destroy us (and ... for our shared 'moral values) especially in the face of Yasser Arafat's demise and the inevitable, post-election pressure to 'solve' the Middle East problem by forcing the Israelis to abandon defensible boundaries.''

Sixth, the administration must deal with France and Germany and the dynamic that made them ''so problematic in the first term: namely, their willingness to make common cause with our enemies for profit and their desire to employ a united Europe and its new constitution -- as well as other international institutions and mechanisms -- to thwart the expansion and application of American power where deemed necessary by Washington.''

Finally, writes Gaffney, Bush must adapt ''appropriate strategies for contending with China's increasingly fascistic trade and military policies, (Russian President) Vladimir Putin's accelerating authoritarianism at home and aggressiveness toward the former Soviet republics, the worldwide spread of Islamofascism, and the emergence of a number of aggressively anti-American regimes in Latin America'', which he does not identify.

''These items do not represent some sort of neo-con 'imperialist' game plan'', Gaffney stressed. ''Rather, they constitute a checklist of the work the world will demand of this president and his subordinates in a second term.'' - http://www.commondreams.org/h...

... Insane Neo-Con Agenda: Iran, China, Russia, Latin America...

11.06.04 (6:19 am) [edit]

... List in Descending Avg IQ by State, and Who that State Voted For!!!

11.05.04 (7:29 am) [edit]

[b]Way to fuck up the country, morons![/b]

List in descending Avg IQ by State, and who that state voted for: http://www.personal.psu.edu/u...

... List in Descending Avg IQ by State, and Who that State Voted For!!!

11.05.04 (7:28 am) [edit]

[b]Way to fuck up the country, morons![/b]

List in descending Avg IQ by State, and who that state voted for: http://www.personal.psu.edu/u...

... List in Descending Avg IQ by State, and Who that State Voted For!!!

11.05.04 (7:27 am) [edit]

[b]Way to fuck up the country, morons![/b]

List in descending Avg IQ by State, and who that state voted for: http://www.personal.psu.edu/u...

... List in Descending Avg IQ by State, and Who that State Voted For!!!

11.05.04 (7:25 am) [edit]

[b]Way to fuck up the country, morons![/b]

List in descending Avg IQ by State, and who that state voted for: http://www.personal.psu.edu/u...

... List in Descending Avg IQ by State, and Who that State Voted For!!!

11.05.04 (7:22 am) [edit]

[b]Way to fuck up the country, morons![/b]

List in descending Avg IQ by State, and who that state voted for: http://www.personal.psu.edu/u...

... Don't Give Up or Give In: The Fate of America Rests in Our Hands ...

11.05.04 (6:03 am) [edit]

President Bush isn't a conservative. He's a radical - the leader of a coalition that deeply dislikes America as it is. Part of that coalition wants to tear down the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt, eviscerating Social Security and, eventually, Medicare. Another part wants to break down the barriers between church and state. And thanks to a heavy turnout by evangelical Christians, Mr. Bush has four more years to advance that radical agenda.

Democrats are now, understandably, engaged in self-examination. But while it's O.K. to think things over, those who abhor the direction Mr. Bush is taking the country must maintain their intensity; they must not succumb to defeatism.

This election did not prove the Republicans unbeatable. Mr. Bush did not win in a landslide. Without the fading but still potent aura of 9/11, when the nation was ready to rally around any leader, he wouldn't have won at all. And future events will almost surely offer opportunities for a Democratic comeback.

I don't hope for more and worse scandals and failures during Mr. Bush's second term, but I do expect them. The resurgence of Al Qaeda, the debacle in Iraq, the explosion of the budget deficit and the failure to create jobs weren't things that just happened to occur on Mr. Bush's watch. They were the consequences of bad policies made by people who let ideology trump reality.

Those people still have Mr. Bush's ear, and his election victory will only give them the confidence to make even bigger mistakes.

So what should the Democrats do?

One faction of the party is already calling for the Democrats to blur the differences between themselves and the Republicans. Or at least that's what I think Al From of the Democratic Leadership Council means when he says, "We've got to close the cultural gap." But that's a losing proposition.

Yes, Democrats need to make it clear that they support personal virtue, that they value fidelity, responsibility, honesty and faith. This shouldn't be a hard case to make: Democrats are as likely as Republicans to be faithful spouses and good parents, and Republicans are as likely as Democrats to be adulterers, gamblers or drug abusers. Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country; blue states, on average, have lower rates of out-of-wedlock births than red states.

But Democrats are not going to get the support of people whose votes are motivated, above all, by their opposition to abortion and gay rights (and, in the background, opposition to minority rights). All they will do if they try to cater to intolerance is alienate their own base.

Does this mean that the Democrats are condemned to permanent minority status? No. The religious right - not to be confused with religious Americans in general - isn't a majority, or even a dominant minority. It's just one bloc of voters, whom the Republican Party has learned to mobilize with wedge issues like this year's polarizing debate over gay marriage.

Rather than catering to voters who will never support them, the Democrats - who are doing pretty well at getting the votes of moderates and independents - need to become equally effective at mobilizing their own base.

In fact, they have made good strides, showing much more unity and intensity than anyone thought possible a year ago. But for the lingering aura of 9/11, they would have won.

What they need to do now is develop a political program aimed at maintaining and increasing the intensity. That means setting some realistic but critical goals for the next year.

Democrats shouldn't cave in to Mr. Bush when he tries to appoint highly partisan judges - even when the effort to block a bad appointment fails, it will show supporters that the party stands for something. They should gear up for a bid to retake the Senate or at least make a major dent in the Republican lead. They should keep the pressure on Mr. Bush when he makes terrible policy decisions, which he will.

It's all right to take a few weeks to think it over. (Heads up to readers: I'll be starting a long-planned break next week, to work on a economics textbook. I'll be back in January.) But Democrats mustn't give up the fight. What's at stake isn't just the fate of their party, but the fate of America as we know it. - http://nytimes.com/2004/11/05...

... Don't Give Up or Give In: The Fate of America Rests in Our Hands ...

11.05.04 (6:02 am) [edit]

... Don't Give Up or Give In: The Fate of America Rests in Our Hands ...

11.05.04 (6:00 am) [edit]

... Don't Give Up or Give In: The Fate of America Rests in Our Hands ...

11.05.04 (5:58 am) [edit]

... Don't Give Up or Give In: The Fate of America Rests in Our Hands ...

11.05.04 (5:58 am) [edit]

... Understanding the 2004 Presidential Election

11.05.04 (5:53 am) [edit]

A large number of Americans are very unhappy - indeed, many are extremely depressed - about the 2004 presidential election returns. Countless supporters of Senator John Kerry are literally scratching their heads, unable to fathom how seemingly rational people voted for President George W. Bush to serve a second term. Given our poor economy, and the disastrous Iraq war -- with its bogus justification and its thousands of American casualties - Kerry supporters find it hard to imagine, let alone understand, the case for casting a Bush vote.

Political pundits explain the election as the result of a deep division within America. They note that we are a culturally polarized nation, with the red states and the blue states providing a map of the divide. Pundits also explain the election as a result of voter turnout: Conservatives, they say, proved themselves superior at getting their voters to the polls on November 2nd.

These explanations are doubtless correct, to some extent. But they are also dreadfully incomplete. Books will be written deconstructing and biopsying this 2004 contest. Hopefully they will reach farther than these surface explanations to understand what occurred.

Pollster John Zogby appropriately dubbed this an "Armageddon Election" given the "closely-divided electorate with high partisan intensity on each side." But the word "Armageddon" suggests another explanation as well: I suspect religious overtones and undercurrents played a major role in the election.

[b]Kerry Voters' Question: What In The World Were Bush Voters Thinking?[/b]

A few days before the election, I got some insight into the thinking of Bush voters, when I listened to a call-in by a liberal community college instructor, to a conservative radio show.

The caller explained that she was a periodic listener who thought the host was honest, though she seldom agreed with his beliefs. She recounted a conversation with two of her colleagues. She said they were intelligent, politically active Bush supporters.

The caller had told her friends that no weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq, and that this had recently been confirmed in the report of President Bush's envoy Charles Duelfer. But her colleagues insisted there had indeed been WMD, and cited the same Duelfer report http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs... .

The caller had also told her friends that there was no connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq - and pointed out that Vice President Cheney had admitted as much in the Vice Presidential debate, and that the 9/11 Commission's report http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs... had so found. But her friends insisted there [i]had indeed [/i]been such a relationship; that Cheney had misspoken, and she was wrong about the 9/11 Commission's report.

Where did her two colleagues get their factually erroneous information? The caller explained that they attended the same evangelical church, and got their information from a sermon their minister had given on the subject.

The talk show host conceded that the caller was correct on all of the points she'd raised. And then he made a comment to this effect: "This isn't the first time I have had callers raise this nonsense being spread from the pulpit. Now I am a Christian, but I am not an ignorant Christian. What in the world are they thinking spreading this erroneous junk information?"

[b]Looking For Answers[/b]

What I had heard intrigued me. Were conservative religious leaders pushing junk information on their parishioners? I began listening to a wide cross-section of radio stations, to see what was being said.

Several Christian radio shows included frequent, unabashed proselytizing for Bush votes. Ministers, and their guests, regularly said that a vote for George Bush was the vote that God wanted cast. One minister advised listeners that "God's watchman" would be observing us all "in the polling booths," and reporting what we did directly to God.

Of course, this is anecdotal evidence. It was (and is) too soon for any reliable studies to have surfaced. But the religious influence in this election certainly accounts for at least part of the reason why Kerry supporters cannot understand Bush supporters. Conservative religiously leaders have been boasting of the massive turnout they instituted for the election.

Again, though, this is but part of the story. In truth, not only is there a culture divided between Bush and Kerry supports, but they seem to inhabit separate realities - and different views on religion's role in voting are only one dissimilarity between their two disparate worlds.

[b]The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters[/b]

The term "separate realities" isn't mine - it comes from an important and incisive October 21, 2004 report by the Program on International Policy Attitudes and the Center for Intentional and Security Studies at the University of Maryland, entitled "The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters." http://www.pipa.org/OnlineRep...

Importantly, this study wasn't funded by partisan political groups. To the contrary, it was underwritten by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Ford Foundation.

The report's findings are stark: Bush and Kerry supporters agree that the U.S. should not have gone to war if there were no weapons of mass destruction or if there was no support of Al Qaeda by Saddam. But - like the colleagues of the caller mentioned earlier - other Bush supporters have closed their eyes to the reality that, in fact, there were no WMD, and there was no Al Qaeda connection.

According to the report, Bush supporters have similarly rejected the reality that world opinion was against Bush - believing, contrary to facts, that it actually favored Bush. No neutral observer could possible dispute that, as a factual matter, world opinion strongly opposed, and continues to oppose, the United States's actions in Iraq - and would have preferred Kerry to Bush as President.

Indeed, Bush's own argument has been that he is unwilling to hold an international referendum on his policies - not that he would prevail were such a referendum held. The only supportive countries he has cited in the debates, among the "Coalition of the Willing" are the U.K. and Poland.

[b]Why Are Bush Supporters Resistant to Well-Established, Non-partisan Facts[/b]

The report shows that Bush supporters seem to simply ignore information they don't like - even if it is confirmed by the Bush Administration itself! They continue to believe in arguments even Bush and Cheney themselves have dropped - the WMD, and the Saddam/Al Qaeda connection, respectively. And this may be because they get their information from unreliable sources.

Steven Kull, the report's author, provides a rather benign explanation for why this is: "The roots of the Bush supporters' resistance to information," Steven opines, "very likely lie in the traumatic experience of 9/11 and equally in the near pitch-perfect leadership that President Bush showed in its immediate wake."

This bond between Bush and his supporters, Kull notes, interacts with some "idealized image of the President" that they hold. And the two, together, make "it difficult for his supporters to imagine that he could have made incorrect judgments before the war, that world public opinion could be critical of his policies, or that the President could hold foreign policy positions that are at odds with [those of] his supporters."

To study this report is to realize that Bush won reelection through blind faith and loyalty. Bush did not acquit himself well in the debates: Kerry won adherents each time he spoke. But it seems it did not matter: Bush supporters either weren't watching, or weren't really listening, when the debates occurred. This becomes more glaring because the University of Maryland study shows the Kerry supporters were living in the real world.

[b]A "Broad Nationwide Victory" And a New Bipartisanship -- Not Exactly[/b]

When introducing the President's victory appearance, Vice President Cheney said, "We've worked hard . . . and the result is now clear: [i]a record voter turnout and a broad, nationwide victory[/i]." (Emphasis added.) Forty-eight percent of the nation's voters -- all those (literally and figuratively) blue voters -- will take exception to Cheney's arrogant analysis.

Cheney's claim is all too reminiscent of 2000 when with no mandate whatsoever, the Bush Administration started by employing radical policies as if it had one - quickly burning bridges rather than building them. The first four years of this administration were devoted to winning a second through partisan hardball, and insiders tell me that the second term will seek to consolidate and expand Republican control through as much of the same as necessary.

In his victory speech, after thanking supporters, Bush said, "I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this nation stronger and better I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust." Yet the next day, in his first post-election press conference, he described working with his opponents as their agreeing with his goals and aims.

With four years of evidence, Kerry supporters - realists that they are, who have learned to watch what Bush and Cheney do, rather than what they say - will hardly be persuaded that this administration seeks a new era of bipartisanship. That is particularly true given that the President suggested at his recent press conference that the divisiveness will end when everyone agrees with his positions. Little wonder there is widespread depression.

The sensible take on the next four years will not be found in the President's faux offers of thorny olive branches with very short stems. Bush and Cheney are not going to trim their sails, and with the ship of state listing dangerously starboard, no one should expect smooth sailing for the next four years. Humility does not come easily to these men of hubris. Rancor should be expected. Indeed, it may be necessary to keep them from sinking us all.

[b]John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the president (Nixon)[/b]. - http://writ.news.findlaw.com/...

... Understanding the 2004 Presidential Election

11.05.04 (5:50 am) [edit]

... The Ultimate Felony Against Democracy: Privatizing Our Votes!!!

11.05.04 (5:41 am) [edit]

The hot story in the Blogosphere is that the "erroneous" exit polls that showed Kerry carrying Florida and Ohio (among other states) weren't erroneous at all - it was the numbers produced by paperless voting machines that were wrong, and Kerry actually won. As more and more analysis is done of what may (or may not) be the most massive election fraud in the history of the world, however, it's critical that we keep the largest issue at the forefront at all time: [i]Why are We The People allowing private, for-profit corporations, answerable only to their officers and boards of directors, and loyal only to agendas and politicians that will enhance their profitability, to handle our votes[/i]?

Maybe Florida went for Kerry, maybe for Bush. Over time - and through the efforts of some very motivated investigative reporters - we may well find out (Bev Harris of www.blackboxvoting.org just filed what may be the largest Freedom of Information Act [FOIA} filing in history), and bloggers and investigative reporters are discovering an odd discrepancy in exit polls being largely accurate in paper-ballot states and oddly inaccurate in touch-screen electronic voting states Even raw voter analyses are showing extreme oddities in touch-screen-run Florida, and eagle-eyed bloggers are finding that news organizations are retroactively altering their exit polls to coincide with what the machines ultimately said.

But in all the discussion about voting machines, let's never forget the concept of the commons, because this usurpation is the ultimate felony committed by conservatives this year.

At the founding of this nation, we decided that there were important places to invest our tax (then tariff) dollars, and those were the things that had to do with the overall "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" of all of us. Over time, these commons - in which we all make tax investments and for which we all hold ultimate responsibility - have come to include our police and fire services; our military and defense; our roads and skyways; our air, waters and national parks; and the safety of our food and drugs.

But the most important of all the commons in which we've invested our hard-earned tax dollars is our government itself. It's owned by us, run by us (through our elected representatives), answerable to us, and most directly responsible for stewardship of our commons.

And the commons through which we regulate the commons of our government is our vote.

About two years ago, I wrote a story for these pages, "If You Want To Win An Election, Just Control The Voting Machines," that exposed how Senator Chuck Hagel had, before stepping down and running for the U.S. Senate in Nebraska, been the head of the voting machine company (now ES&S) that had just computerized Nebraska's vote. The Washington Post (1/13/1997) said Hagel's "Senate victory against an incumbent Democratic governor was the major Republican upset in the November election." According to Bev Harris, Hagel won virtually every demographic group, including many largely black communities that had never before voted Republican. Hagel was the first Republican in 24 years to win a Senate seat in Nebraska, nearly all on unauditable machines he had just sold the state. And in all probability, Hagel run for President in 2008.

In another, later article I wrote at the request of MoveOn.org and which they mailed to their millions of members, I noted that in Georgia - another state that went all-electronic - "USA Today reported on Nov. 3, 2002, 'In Georgia, an Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll shows Democratic Sen. Max Cleland with a 49%-to-44% lead over Republican Rep. Saxby Chambliss. 'Cox News Service, based in Atlanta, reported just after the election (Nov. 7) that, "Pollsters may have goofed" because 'Republican Rep. Saxby Chambliss defeated incumbent Democratic Sen. Max Cleland by a margin of 53 to 46 percent. The Hotline, a political news service, recalled a series of polls Wednesday showing that Chambliss had been ahead in none of them.'" Nearly every vote in the state was on an electronic machine with no audit trail.

In the years since those first articles appeared, Bev Harris has published her book on the subject ("Black Box Voting"), including the revelation of her finding the notorious "Rob Georgia" folder on Diebold's FTP site just after Cleland's loss there; Lynn Landes has done some groundbreaking research, particularly her new investigation of the Associated Press, as have Rebecca Mercuri and David Dill. There's a new video out on the topic, Votergate, available at www.votergate.tv.

Congressman Rush Holt introduced a bill into Congress requiring a voter-verified paper ballot be produced by all electronic voting machines, and it's been co-sponsored by a majority of the members of the House of Representatives. The two-year battle fought by Dennis Hastert and Tom DeLay to keep it from coming to a vote, thus insuring that there will be no possible audit of the votes of about a third of the 2004 electorate, has fueled the flames of conspiracy theorists convinced Republican ideologues - now known to be willing to lie in television advertising - would extend their "ends justifies the means" morality to stealing the vote "for the better good of the country" they think single-party Republican rule will bring.

Most important, though, the rallying cry of the emerging "honest vote" movement must become: Get Corporations Out Of Our Vote!

Why have we let corporations into our polling places, locations so sacred to democracy that in many states even international election monitors and reporters are banned? Why are we allowing corporations to exclusively handle our vote, in a secret and totally invisible way? Particularly a private corporation founded, in one case, by a family that believes the Bible should replace the Constitution; in another case run by one of Ohio's top Republicans; and in another case partly owned by Saudi investors?

Of all the violations of the commons - all of the crimes against We The People and against democracy in our great and historic republic - this is the greatest. Our vote is too important to outsource to private corporations.

It's time that the USA - like most of the rest of the world - returns to paper ballots, counted by hand by civil servants (our employees) under the watchful eye of the party faithful. Even if it takes two weeks to count the vote, and we have to just go, until then, with the exit polls of the news agencies. It worked just fine for nearly 200 years in the USA, and it can work again.

When I lived in Germany, they took the vote the same way most of the world does - people fill in hand-marked ballots, which are hand-counted by civil servants taking a week off from their regular jobs, watched over by volunteer representatives of the political parties. It's totally clean, and easily audited. And even though it takes a week or more to count the vote (and costs nothing more than a bit of overtime pay for civil servants), the German people know the election results the night the polls close because the news media's exit polls, for two generations, have never been more than a tenth of a percent off.

We could have saved billions that have instead been handed over to ES&S, Diebold, and other private corporations.

Or, if we must have machines, let's have them owned by local governments, maintained and programmed by civil servants answerable to We The People, using open-source code and disconnected from modems, that produce a voter-verified printed ballot, with all results published on a precinct-by-precinct basis.

As Thomas Paine wrote at this nation's founding, "The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which all other rights are protected. To take away this right is to reduce a man to slavery."

Only when We The People reclaim the commons of our vote can we again be confident in the integrity of our electoral process in the world's oldest and most powerful democratic republic.

[b]Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk show. www.thomhartmann .com His most recent books are "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight," "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights," "We The People: A Call To Take Back America," and "What Would Jefferson Do?: A Return To Democracy." [/b] - http://www.commondreams.org/v...

... The Ultimate Felony Against Democracy: Privatizing Our Votes!!!

11.05.04 (5:39 am) [edit]

... The Ultimate Felony Against Democracy: Privatizing Our Votes!!!

11.05.04 (5:37 am) [edit]

... Bush's "Political Capital" is a Big Fuck-You to America! Fuck Bush!

11.05.04 (5:34 am) [edit]

[b]This is from the LA Times, http://www.latimes.com/news/p...,0,6447855.story?coll=la-home-headli nes but you can find the story anywhere:[/b]

Declaring that this year's election had armed him with fresh "political capital," President Bush said Thursday he would use that asset to try to fundamentally change Social Security and alter the federal tax code -- twin goals certain to provoke strong opposition.

Exuding confidence at his first news conference after his victory in a contentious election, Bush said he hoped to work with Democrats in pursuing his agenda. But he left little doubt that if need be, he would press ahead without them.

"I earned capital in the campaign -- political capital -- and now I intend to spend it," he said. "It is my style. That's what happened after the 2000 election: I earned some capital. I've earned capital in this election, and I'm going to spend it for what I told the people I'd spend it on."

The agenda, he said, included "Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror."

[b]So these assholes think we're simply going to shut-up and go away while Bush says "fuck-you" to America? HA HA HA! I say Fuck Bush![/b]

I heard it.

I knew I would.

John Kerry said it.

George W. Bush said it.

And myriad others will join the chorus.

They told us it's now a time of healing. But, I don't want to heal, and I don't intend to be healed.

"Healing" is merely code for shutting up and allowing the President to do whatever it is he plans to do. But we did that for four years.

[b]The full story[/b]: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...

[b]P.S. For those offended by the use of the word "fuck", don't forget your hero Cheney uses that word alot. So does Bush![/b]

... Bush's "Political Capital" is a Big Fuck-You to America! Fuck Bush!

11.05.04 (5:31 am) [edit]

..... The Red Zone: Ignorance, Fear, Superstition, Bigotry, Intolerance ...

11.04.04 (6:22 am) [edit]

With the Democratic Party splattered at his feet in little blue puddles, John Kerry told the crushed crowd at Faneuil Hall in Boston about his concession call to President Bush.

"We had a good conversation," the senator said. "And we talked about the danger of division in our country and the need, the desperate need, for unity, for finding the common ground, coming together. Today I hope that we can begin the healing."

Democrat: Heal thyself.

W. doesn't see division as a danger. He sees it as a wingman.

The president got re-elected by dividing the country along fault lines of fear, intolerance, ignorance and religious rule. He doesn't want to heal rifts; he wants to bring any riffraff who disagree to heel.

W. ran a jihad in America so he can fight one in Iraq - drawing a devoted flock of evangelicals, or "values voters," as they call themselves, to the polls by opposing abortion, suffocating stem cell research and supporting a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.

Mr. Bush, whose administration drummed up fake evidence to trick us into war with Iraq, sticking our troops in an immoral position with no exit strategy, won on "moral issues."

The president says he's "humbled" and wants to reach out to the whole country. What humbug. The Bushes are always gracious until they don't get their way. If W. didn't reach out after the last election, which he barely grabbed, why would he reach out now that he has what Dick Cheney calls a "broad, nationwide victory"?

While Mr. Bush was making his little speech about reaching out, Republicans said they had "the green light" to pursue their conservative agenda, like drilling in Alaska's wilderness and rewriting the tax code.

"He'll be a lot more aggressive in Iraq now," one Bush insider predicts. "He'll raze Falluja if he has to. He feels that the election results endorsed his version of the war." Never mind that the more insurgents American troops kill, the more they create.

Just listen to Dick (Oh, lordy, is this cuckoo clock still vice president?) Cheney, introducing the Man for his victory speech: "This has been a consequential presidency which has revitalized our economy and reasserted a confident American role in the world." Well, it has revitalized the Halliburton segment of the economy, anyhow. And "confident" is not the first word that comes to mind for the foreign policy of a country that has alienated everyone except Fiji.

Vice continued, "Now we move forward to serve and to guard the country we love." Only Dick Cheney can make "to serve and to guard" sound like "to rape and to pillage."

He's creating the sort of "democracy" he likes. One party controls all power in the country. One network serves as state TV. One nation dominates the world as a hyperpower. One firm controls contracts in Iraq.

Just as Zell Miller was so over the top at the G.O.P. convention that he made Mr. Cheney seem reasonable, so several new members of Congress will make W. seem moderate.

Tom Coburn, the new senator from Oklahoma, has advocated the death penalty for doctors who perform abortions and warned that "the gay agenda" would undermine the country. He also characterized his race as a choice between "good and evil" and said he had heard there was "rampant lesbianism" in Oklahoma schools.

Jim DeMint, the new senator from South Carolina, said during his campaign that he supported a state G.O.P. platform plank banning gays from teaching in public schools. He explained, "I would have given the same answer when asked if a single woman who was pregnant and living with her boyfriend should be hired to teach my third-grade children."

John Thune, who toppled Tom Daschle, is an anti-abortion Christian conservative - or "servant leader," as he was hailed in a campaign ad - who supports constitutional amendments banning flag burning and gay marriage.

Seeing the exit polls, the Democrats immediately started talking about values and religion. Their sudden passion for wooing Southern white Christian soldiers may put a crimp in Hillary's 2008 campaign (nothing but a wooden stake would stop it). Meanwhile, the blue puddle is comforting itself with the expectation that this loony bunch will fatally overreach, just as Newt Gingrich did in the 90's.

But with this crowd, it's hard to imagine what would constitute overreaching.

Invading France?

[b]Maureen Dowd, NY Times[/b], http://www.nytimes.com/2004/1...

..... The Red Zone: Ignorance, Fear, Superstition, Bigotry, Intolerance ...

11.04.04 (6:21 am) [edit]

..... The Red Zone: Ignorance, Fear, Superstition, Bigotry, Intolerance ...

11.04.04 (6:21 am) [edit]

..... The Red Zone: Ignorance, Fear, Superstition, Bigotry, Intolerance ...

11.04.04 (6:18 am) [edit]

..... The Red Zone: Ignorance, Fear, Superstition, Bigotry, Intolerance ...

11.04.04 (6:17 am) [edit]

..... World Reactions to U.S. Election ... Will Neo-Con Thuggery Continue Unabated???

11.04.04 (6:13 am) [edit]

Russian President Vladimir Putin: "I can only feel joy that the American people did not allow itself to be intimidated, and made the most sensible decision."

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi:"Bush will continue with the policy that assigns the United States the role of defender and promoter of freedom and democracy".

Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero:"I would like to express the desire of the Spanish government to contribute to a relationship based on efficient and constructive cooperation with the US government."

Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert: "Mr Kerry would have been a very friendly president to Israel as he proved to be for a long time in the Senate. now that Mr Bush is elected, we are very happy and we congratulate the American people for their choice."

Grigory Yavlinsky, Russian politician: "The Republicans will push even harder their extremely dangerous neo-conservative policy."

Gennady Zyuganov, Russian politician: "I see no principal difference for Russia. U.S. presidents have always been tough in pursuing policies defending their national interests and interests of national business. As far as Bush is concerned, he will continue his global sabre-rattling."

Portuguese Nobel Literature Laureate Jose Saramago: "The next four years are going to be catastrophic if Bush does not change his policy of trying to govern the world as if the United States was the only country."

John Kent, researcher in international relations at London School of Economics: "...in many ways this is worse than a Kerry victory for transatlantic and US-British relations and it makes British Prime Minister Tony Blair more vulnerable ... Blair will push to try to represent European views to President Bush and he will get nowhere, as he has got nowhere before ... "Nothing will change in the Middle East ... The U.S. position is that it supports Israel and (Prime Minister) Sharon and that policy will remain."

Greek analyst Thanos Veremis: Bush managed to convey to the people that terrorism and not economics, not the mismanaged war in Iraq, was the most important factor in the election. This certainly can be attributed to superior campaigning tactics. For Europe, a Bush victory means the problematic relationship between the U.S. and Europe will continue." -Reuters http://www.dawn.com/2004/11/0...

..... World Reactions to U.S. Election ... Will Neo-Con Thuggery Continue Unabated???

11.04.04 (6:13 am) [edit]

..... Collapse of Good Sense .....

11.04.04 (6:09 am) [edit]

Why is it so hard for politicians to behave with honesty or dignity in public forums? Television viewers in late September were treated to the sight of the US Congress rapturously applauding former CIA contact and now interim Iraq prime minister Iyad Allawi who told them that "we are succeeding in Iraq" and that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis were grateful to America.

He must have meant an 'overwhelming majority' minus one hundred thousand Iraqis, mostly women and children, who, a new Lancet study estimates, have died as a result of the utterly unnecessary invasion. It's one thing for members of the Congress to be diplomatic and quite another to fawn unashamedly over a pawn. The fawning, to be sure, was not for Allawi alone but for his masters in the White House.

Given the ovations interspersing Allawi's speech, one might imagine he had brought peace and harmony to Iraq. Yet a quick check back to planet Earth revealed that US casualties were mounting, innocent Iraqis were being slaughtered, hostages were being grabbed and beheaded, Shia and Sunni insurgents were battling implacably on, and that the whole grisly situation was out of control. Contrary to Allawi's happy talk, Iraq had not rolled over and asked the US neocons to tickle its belly. Still, the US Congress applauded Allawi.

The televised spectacle was nauseating because most Democrats, and a good few Republicans, in attendance knew full well that the Iraq invasion was a wildly misconceived catastrophe and that there is no graceful way out except to leave as fast as possible. These same congressmen and women had been deceived into war by a Bush administration that treated them with bemused contempt. All's fair and no holds barred.

Indeed in the televised October debates Bush and Cheney doggedly told the same old lies about WMD and Al Qaeda connections in the same folksy tones, occasionally throwing in a new whopper. No person with a smidgen of self-respect who knows the realities of the war could have hailed Allawi, and thereby approved the administration which concocted him.

While it's not hard to see why the Republicans want to whistle past the new graveyards they are creating every day in Iraq, why did many Democrats play along? The sad reason is that the US legislators were snared in a simple-minded yet powerful ideological trap. American politicians do not dare to appear to do anything that remotely can be construed as undermining 'the war effort,' as defined in stringent right-wing terms: 'Our country - right or wrong.'

That is why John Kerry trumpeted his military credentials ahead of any progressive policies on health, jobs, and welfare that he may (or may not) harbour. No matter how unjust or crazy or counterproductive a war may be, it is somehow a betrayal of 'our' troops to point out disturbing facts. Never mind that especially today neither the leaders themselves nor their privileged offspring have any combat experience.

Never mind that the Bush administration had tried to cut combat pay, slash support payments to military families, and cut health access to veterans. Never mind that self-styled patriots such as these are usually the very people who most betray the troops.

During the Vietnam war the sentiment that the right wing ideologues whipped up about "supporting our troops" enabled them to prolong that hideous war - which navy veteran John Kerry bravely denounced in 1971 - for several years beyond the clearest evidence of its total futility. In so doing, these truculent patriots, who sought to stamp out dissent through government repression and private harassment, were full accomplices in the deaths of many more American troops, and all for nothing but their precious pride.

But that is a hard truth that you will never ever encounter in the corporate controlled American media. No matter how stupid or ill-conceived the reason, once troops are on the ground there is nothing to do but more of the same. The key exception to this numb-skull rule is Republican Presidents like Reagan, who pulled American forces out of Lebanon in 1981 after a car bomb killed 256 Marines, or the Bush senior administration which skedaddled out of Somalia in 1992 after 18 soldiers died in street fighting. Right-wingers are extremely good at forgiving and forgetting their own sins and errors, but never those of others.

Perhaps one quarter to a third of the US population is hopelessly right-wing so there is great deal of reliance on media control. Over many decades half the American electorate, the poorer half, have been systematically discouraged from voting which leaves the electoral field to the more affluent half and plays entirely to Republican advantage. The Republican campaign was geared to voter suppression for they have nothing but empty promises and scams to offer to the far from wealthy majority.

An imperial leadership, of course, lauds its troops only so long as they are useful. The flap over the missing arms in the Al Qaeda dump stirred the Republicans like Rudolph Giuliani and Richard Armitage to blame the problem on the troops while Bush nonetheless blithely claimed that it was Kerry blaming the soldiers. In the latter years of the Vietnam war many Americans, the very sort who today believe that Saddam caused 9/11, imagined the US was fighting to get its prisoners of war back, as if those prisoners had been snatched off the streets of America by the Vietcong.

Pakistan is no exception to public hypocrisy. Recently in the Punjab Assembly a dialogue over the proper apparel of Musharraf - uniform or an expensive suit - wound up in a ridiculous climax where the parliamentarians hailed President Musharraf and beseeched him to wear his army uniform into what is an allegedly democratic decision-making institution.

Let us, by contrast, recall a television tape of Saddam Hussein in July 1979 slithering into the Iraqi Baathist Assembly and relishing the sight of his henchmen dragging one politician after another to execution. In the midst of this ghastliness frightened legislators leaped up to scream their undying (they hoped) devotion to Saddam, with terrifyingly sincere tears in their eyes and lumps in the throats they hoped he wouldn't cut. They at least had an excellent excuse we can all understand. What were the other politicians afraid of?

Any remark that a US right-wing media can portray as designed to demoralize "our boys" out in the Gulf still must be avoided at all costs. That is why in November 2001 many Senators who knew better, including John Kerry and Hilary Clinton, voted to award George W. Bush power to intervene wherever this utterly unfit leader saw fit.

Yet this craven collapse of good sense was nothing new. In August 1964 only two senators dissented from the Tonkin Gulf resolution that gave Lyndon Johnson permission to do whatever he pleased in Vietnam. LBJ was himself driven into stupid excesses by fear of the Right: "Don't pay attention to what those on the campuses do," he told an associate in the mid-1960s. "The great beast is the reactionary elements in the country. Those are the people we have to fear."

John F. Kennedy in 1960 played to the right of Nixon to win. With a complicit media, no one need tell the truth anyway. Lacking a courageous opposition, devious motives are prettily packaged in propaganda words like "freedom." Americans go on killing and dying for nothing. - http://www.dawn.com/2004/11/0...

..... Collapse of Good Sense .....

11.04.04 (6:09 am) [edit]

..... World Reaction to U.S. Election:-- Dismay in the Middle East

11.04.04 (6:05 am) [edit]

[b]Dismay in Middle East [/b]

CAIRO, Nov 3: People in the Middle East, with the exception of Israelis and some Iranians, reacted with resigned disappointment on Wednesday to President Bush's re-election.

One consolation for them was that few had high hopes of Democratic challenger John Kerry, who attacked the way Bush has handled the occupation of Iraq but did not promise action Arabs wanted to see on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Many said they feared another four years of Bush would bring more conflict and bloodshed to the Middle East, which has borne the brunt of Washington's doctrine of pre-emptive attacks.

A few said Bush was preferable because he now knew the region and would have time to adjust his policies, or because of his campaign for political reform in the Arab world.

Imad Shuaibi, a professor at Damascus University, predicted "four years of nightmare again" on the assumption that Bush would not learn from his first term.

"(A Bush victory) is likely to mean more violence in Iraq, in Afghanistan but not only there. Other hot spots could blaze up like Sudan, Iran, Syria. Dark clouds are gathering," said Ali Ammar, a lawyer in Morocco.

Jasim Ali, a Bahraini analyst, said: "This is not good news for the Middle East. Bush could take this as a sign that his foreign policy in the region is a success and he may harden his positions. There will be more killing and bloodshed."

"Four more years means ... more innocent people will be victims. Unless he has more sober people around him I don't know what is going to happen," added Khaled Maeena, editor in chief of the Saudi newspaper Arab News.-Reuters http://www.dawn.com/2004/11/0...

..... World Reaction to U.S. Election:-- Dismay in the Middle East

11.04.04 (6:02 am) [edit]

BUSH, GOD'S MESSENGER??? ... NOPE, A FRINGE-LUNATIC MULLAH OF THE "CHRISTIAN" RIGHT WHACK-JOBS!!!

11.02.04 (9:42 am) [edit]

The Rev. D. Bradley Murray, a Jesuit of considerable erudition and insight, once disappointed my wife at a Loyola High School football game when he informed her that no matter how hard she prayed on it, God did not care which team won.

Father Murray would have made the same observation about the bitterly contested presidential election to be decided Tuesday. But he would have been ridiculed by the standing president, who believes he is God's messenger, and possibly by his Democratic opponent, who has been trying to catch up by touting his own religiosity.

George W. Bush's single-minded messianism is by far the more disturbing because the evidence of its consequences is so painfully manifest.

On Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists motivated and directed by a religious fanatic from another mindset attacked targets in the United States and killed thousands. With or without Osama bin Laden's and his al-Qaida organization's religious convictions, this was an act of war. The president had the responsibility to go after bin Laden and al-Qaida with all of the resources at his disposal. God had nothing to do with this. If He had, 9/11 would not have happened.

In early October 2001, President Bush ordered the invasion of Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban regime that had acted as al-Qaida's host, and to pursue and destroy bin Laden and his al-Qaida fighters.

The United States had universal support for that mission, and many nations have cooperated in the fight in Afghanistan and the international campaign to get at al-Qaida wherever it operates. That campaign has had some great successes, though not even Mr. Bush would say the terrorists were licked.

But the unfinished war against al-Qaida became subordinate to another war, launched against Iraq in 2003, a war that was in the plans of Mr. Bush and his senior advisers even before 9/11. In order to justify the war against Iraq, the Bush administration created causes that did not exist. These, as we all know, included the accusation that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed weapons of mass destruction and the suggestion that it was tied to al-Qaida and thus complicit in 9/11.

Neither purported justification was true. But Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney would not admit it directly. Instead, they would point to the insurgency against America and its supporters in Iraq as evidence that terrorism thrives there and thus is as important an adversary in the war on terrorism as is al-Qaida.

Certainly, the anti-American insurgency has adopted terrorist tactics. Who would deny that when innocent people are being killed by the hundreds in bombing attacks and being executed in videotaped beheadings? Certainly, al-Qaida operatives are at work against Americans and their supporters in Iraq today. But who created the environment in which this is happening? The disruption of an invasion launched on false pretenses without any realistic plan for its aftermath created these conditions.

Faced with these brutal realities, Mr. Bush is in a state of denial. That state of denial is facilitated by his own belief that he was placed in the White House as the instrument of his God.

In planning the Iraq war, Mr. Bush told the author Bob Woodward, "I was praying for strength to do the Lord's will. ... I'm surely not going to justify war based upon God. Understand that. Nevertheless, in my case, I pray that I be as good a messenger of His will as possible."

If Mr. Bush believes he is God's messenger, what difference would it make to him that the causes asserted for going to war in Iraq and diverting vast resources from the war against al-Qaida were false? The Lord's will be done. If God did not approve, surely He would have sent a thunderclap into the Oval Office alerting his late-in-life recovered lamb that this was not His will.

Father Murray would be the first to say it just doesn't work that way -- even when the lives of millions are at stake. If it did, historic calamities far more devastating than 9/11 and the Iraq war would not have happened.

The way it works is that citizens go to the polls and determine in a decidedly secular arrangement who will be their next leader. Americans will do that Tuesday. But, Father Murray, excuse me, please, if on the way to the polls, I offer up a prayer. You never can tell how long it takes to put together a good thunderclap.

UNJUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE: Bush is a Mass-Murderer

11.02.04 (9:39 am) [edit]

[b]It's the War, Stupid [/b]

A broad majority of people around the globe share the same feeling about next week's American elections: Better the devil you don't know than the one you do.

The George Bush-Dick Cheney partnership has been the most radical presidency in memory. Their re-election in next week's tight election will likely produce an even more aggressive U.S. foreign policy driven by religious fundamentalists and the military-petroleum interests.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, humiliated and sidelined, is expected to resign and be replaced by one of Bush's neocons.

Scott McConnell, editor of American Conservative magazine, accurately sums up the Bush Doctrine: "His international policies have been based on the hopelessly naive belief that foreign peoples are eager to be liberated by American armies -- a notion more grounded in Leon Trotsky's concept of global revolution than any sort of conservative statecraft."

Recently, former U.S. National Security chief Brent Scowcroft, the dean of Republican foreign policy experts and adviser to Bush's father, warned of the baleful influence of Israel's far right over Bush. "(Ariel) Sharon has got him wrapped around his little finger," said Gen. Scowcroft.

A second Bush term could bring U.S. attacks on Iran and Syria, as Israel's PM Sharon has urged, and widening Mideast conflict. More troops and money will be poured into the Iraq quagmire. A military draft will almost certainly become necessary.

Neither Bush nor his opponent, John Kerry, are telling Americans two hard truths: First, the principal cause of anti-American terrorism is the oppression of Palestinians, and U.S. support for dictatorial regimes across the Muslim World.

Second, Bush's wars in Iraq -- which has caused 100,000 civilian deaths, according to a Johns Hopkins University study -- and Afghanistan are already lost. Not on the battlefield, but on the strategic level.

War is the extension of politics by other means, as Karl von Clausewitz postulated. Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan must be judged defeats because no viable solution is remotely in sight in either nation now run by unpopular U.S.-imposed puppet regimes. Soviet-style rigged elections will not legitimize them.

Kerry's plans for Iraq are specious, too: No important nations are likely to help the U.S. colonize Iraq. Kerry's biggest failings have been his spineless support for war in Iraq, and his pandering to special interests over the Mideast.

The best President Kerry could do is talk tough while finding a way out of Iraq. But he will be harassed by Republicans and neocons crying "treason," and forced to wrestle the huge budget mess Bush left behind.

In Asia, Bush is on a collision course with nuclear-armed North Korea. His neocons are pressing for a confrontation that could ignite a major war. Kerry will be far likelier to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the Korean crisis.

The pro-war neocons around Bush are also pressing a hard line against China that risks a clash over Taiwan. China will not allow itself to be bullied by anyone. Kerry has rightly called for co-operation rather than ideological antagonism towards China.

Europeans are dismayed and frightened by Bush and his aggressive polices. If Bush wins, Europe, led by France and Germany, will speed up its growing alliance with China, an entente that can quickly become an anti-U.S. pact.

Kerry would quickly restore relations with Europe and return America to its former course of internationalism.

Bush's entente with Russia's Vladimir Putin has tacitly encouraged restoration of dictatorship in Russia. It will be too late for Kerry to do anything about this grave development.

Unless the next U.S. administration imposes a just peace on Israelis and Palestinians and ends the occupation of Iraq, anti-U.S. terrorism will intensify.

Bush has debauched America's finances by his $290-billion US wars and $521-billion deficit. Whoever wins, the global economy will be hit by waves of inflation caused by Bush's ruinous spending.

Kerry is a weak candidate with a lacklustre record. But at least he is a sensible, educated man who will bring in a team of moderate advisers that do not want to launch catastrophic foreign crusades or spend like drunken sailors. Kerry is a cautious internationalist; Bush an unapologetic Bible-belt imperialist.

Most non-Americans believe the U.S. under Bush has become a dangerous rogue state that threatens world stability and peace. For them, anyone is better than George W. Bush. - http://www.commondreams.org/v...

EVEN RESPONSIBLE REPUBLICANS FEAR Herr Fuhrer Bush / Reich Marshall Cheney

11.02.04 (9:36 am) [edit]

[b]The most divisive election campaign in recent American history has not merely split the nation along party lines, it has split the Grand Old Party itself. Unfortunately, most Americans are wholly unaware of the loud dissents against Bush that has begun to be heard in Republican circles[/b].

If the United States had major media that covered politics, as opposed to the political spin generated by the Bush White House and the official campaigns of both the Republican president and his Democratic challenger, one of the most fascinating, and significant, stories of the 2004 election season would be the abandonment of the Bush reelection effort by senior Republicans. But this is a story that, for the most part, has gone untold. Scant attention was paid to the revelation that one Republican member of the U.S. Senate, Rhode Island's Lincoln Chafee, will refrain from voting for his party's president -- despite the fact that Chafee offered a far more thoughtful critique of George W. Bush's presidency than "Zig-Zag" Zell Miller, the frothing, Democrat-hating Democrat did when he condemned his party's nominee. Beyond the minimal attention to Chafee, most media has neglected the powerful, and often poignant, condemnations of Bush by prominent Republicans.

Former Republican members of the U.S. Senate and House, governors, ambassadors, aides to GOP Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush have explicitly endorsed the campaign of Democrat John Kerry. For many of these lifelong Republicans, their vote for Kerry will be a first Democratic vote. But, in most cases, it will not be a hesitant one.

Angered by the Bush administration's mismanagement of the war in Iraq, record deficits, assaults on the environment and secrecy, the renegade partisans tend to echo the words of former Minnesota Governor Elmer Andersen, who says that, "Although I am a longtime Republican, it is time to make a statement, and it is this: Vote for Kerry-Edwards, I implore you, on November 2."

Many of the Republicans who are abandoning Bush express sorrow at what the Bush-Cheney administration and its allies in Congress have done to their party: "The fact is that today's 'Republican' Party is one that I am totally unfamiliar with," writes John Eisenhower. But the deeper motivation is summed up by former U.S. Senator Marlow Cook, a Kentucky Republican, who explained in a recent article for the Louisville Courier-Journal newspaper that, "For me, as a Republican, I feel that when my party gives me a dangerous leader who flouts the truth, takes the country into an undeclared war and then adds a war on terrorism to it without debate by the Congress, we have a duty to rid ourselves of those who are taking our country on a perilous ride in the wrong direction. If we are indeed the party of Lincoln (I paraphrase his words), a president who deems to have the right to declare war at will without the consent of the Congress is a president who far exceeds his power under our Constitution. I will take John Kerry for four years to put our country on the right path."

In the end, of course, the vast majority of Republicans will cast their ballots for George w. Bush on Tuesday, just as the vast majority of Democrats will vote for John Kerry. But the Republicans who plan to cross the partisan divide and vote for Kerry have articulated a unique and politically potent indictment of the Bush administration.

Here are a dozen examples of what Republicans are saying about George W. Bush -- and John Kerry -- as the November 2 election approaches:

"[i]As son of a Republican president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration's decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry[/i]."

-- Ambassador John Eisenhower, endorsing Kerry in an opinion piece published in The Manchester Union Leader, September 28, 2004.

"[i]The two 'Say No to Bush' signs in my yard say it all. The present Republican president has led us into an unjustified war -- based on misguided and blatantly false misrepresentations of the threat of weapons of mass destruction. The terror seat was Afghanistan. Iraq had no connection to these acts of terror and was not a serious threat to the United States, as this president claimed, and there was no relation, it's now obvious, to any serious weaponry. Although Saddam Hussein is a frightful tyrant, he posed no threat to the United States when we entered the war. George W. Bush's arrogant actions to jump into Iraq when he had no plan how to get out have alienated the United States from our most trusted allies and weakened us immeasurably around the world... This imperialistic, stubborn adherence to wrongful policies and known untruths by the Cheney-Bush administration -- and that's the accurate order -- has simply become more than I can stand[/i]."

-- Former Minnesota Governor Elmer Andersen, a Republican, endorsing Kerry in an opinion piece published in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, October 13, 2004. Andersen argued in the piece that, "I[i] am more fearful for the state of this nation than I have ever been -- because this country is in the hands of an evil man: Dick Cheney. It is eminently clear that it is he who is running the country, not George W. Bush[/i]."

"[i]George W. Bush has come to embody a politics that is antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful conservatism. His international policies have been based on the hopelessly naive belief that foreign peoples are eager to be liberated by American enemies -- a notion more grounded in Leon Trotsky's concept of global revolution than any sort of conservative statecraft[/i]."

-- Scott McConnell, executive editor, The American Conservative, endorsing Kerry in the November 8, 2004 issue.

"[i]I am not enamored with John Kerry, but I am frightened to death of George Bush. I fear a secret government. I abhor a government that refuses to supply the Congress with requested information. I am against a government that refuses to tell the country with whom the leaders of our country sat down and determined our energy policy, and to prove how much they want to keep the secret, they took it all the way to the Supreme Court[/i]."

-- Former U.S. Senator Marlow Cook, Republican from Kentucky, endorsing Kerry in an opinion piece that appeared in The Louisville Courier-Journal, October 20, 2004.

"[i]My Republican Party is the party of Theodore Roosevelt, who fought to preserve our natural resources and environment. This president has pursued policies that will cause irreparable damage to our environmental laws that protect the air we breathe, the water we drink and the public lands we share with future generations[/i]."

-- Former Michigan Governor William Milliken, from a statement published in the Traverse City Record Eagle, October 17, 2004.

"[i]As an environmentalist who served as chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, I know that this administration has turned environmental policy over to lobbyists for the oil, gas and mining interests. On the other hand, I know first-hand of your commitment to a more balanced approach to environmental policy -- one where we can have both jobs and profit for industry as well as clean air and water. There is no stronger evidence of this than your outstanding leadership and support in the restoration of the Florida Everglades. John, for each of these reasons I believe President Bush has failed our country and my party. Accordingly, I want you to know that when I go into the booth next Tuesday I am going to cast my vote for you[/i]."

-- Former U.S. Senator Bob Smith, Republican from New Hampshire, from an endorsement letter sent to John Kerry, October 28, 2004.

"[i]Nixon was a prince compared to these guys[/i]."

-- Former U.S. Representative Pete McCloskey, R-California, from an article in the Palo Alto Weekly, September 8, 2004. McCloskey, who is active with Republicans for Kerry, says of members of the Bush administration, "[i]These people believe God has told them what to do. They've high jacked the Republican Party we once knew[/i]."

"[i]The war is just a misbegotten thing that's spiraling down. It's a matter of conscience for me. After 9/11, the whole world was behind us. That's all gone now. That's been squandered. Now we've made the entire Muslim world hate us. And for what? For what[/i]?"

-- Former State Senator Al Meiklejohn, Republican from Colorado and World War II combat veteran, explaining his decision to support John Kerry in an interview with The Denver Post, September 19, 2004.

"[i]We need a leader who is really dedicated to creating millions of high-paying jobs all across the country[/i]."

-- Former Chrysler chairman Lee Iacocca, who campaigned for George W. Bush in 2000 and appeared in television advertisements for the Republican Party of Michigan that year. Iacocca, who complains that under Bush deficit spending is "getting out of hand," endorsing Kerry on June 24, 2004.

"[i]In a dangerous epoch -- made more so by a president who sees the world in stark black and white because simplicity polls better and fits into sound bites -- John Kerry may seem out of place. He is, in fact, in exactly the right place at the right time to lead our country[/i]."

-- Tim Ashby, who served during the Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush administrations as director of the Office of Mexico and the Caribbean for the U.S. Commerce Department and acting deputy assistant Secretary of Commerce for the Western Hemisphere, endorsing Kerry in a Seattle Times, October 14, 2004.

"[i] I have always been, and I still am, a registered Republican, but I shall enthusiastically vote for John Kerry for president on November 2... If the Bush administration stays in power four more years, it will pack the Supreme Court with neocons who reject the idea that the Constitution is a living document designed to protect the freedom of the citizens[/i]."

-- Anne Morton Kimberly, widow of former Republican National Committee chair Rogers C.B. Morton, Secretary of the Interior during the Nixon administration and Secretary of Commerce during the Ford administration, endorsing Kerry in a an opinion piece that appeared in the Louisville Courier-Journal, October 14, 2004.

"[i]Mainstream Republicans believe in fiscal responsibility, internationalism, environmental protection, the rights of women, and putting middle-class families ahead of big business lobbyists. Moderate Republicans should not be asked to swallow the right-wing policies of George W. Bush[/i]."

-- Clay Myers, who was Oregon's Republican Secretary of State for 10 years and the state's Treasure, endorsing Kerry at a press conference for Oregon Republicans for Kerry, September 1, 2004.

"[i]The current administration has run the largest deficits in U.S. history, incurring massive debts that our children and grandchildren will have to pay. Two and a half million people have lost their jobs; trillions have been wiped out of savings and retirement accounts. The income of Americans has declined two years in a row, the first time since the IRS began keeping records. George W. Bush will be the first president since Hoover to have a net job loss under his watch... President Bush wanted to be judged as the CEO president, it is time to say, 'you have failed, and you're fired[/i]."

-- William Rutherford, former State Treasurer of Oregon, endorsing Kerry as a press conference for Oregon Republicans for Kerry, September 1, 2004.

"[i]I served 20 years in the Ohio General Assembly as Republican. People have asked me why I oppose George w. Bush for president. My first response is, 'He is incompetent.' His behavior, his bad judgment, his record, all demonstrate a failure as president. He certainly misled the country into a no-win war in Iraq. Following his preemptive invasion, he totally misjudged the consequences of his action. He made a bad situation worse, fomenting widespread terrorism, all done with a frightful loss of lives and money[/i]."

-- Former Ohio State Representative John Galbraith, a Republican legislator for 20 years, endorsing Kerry in a letter to The Toledo Blade, September 28, 2004.

" [i]Before the current campaign, it might have been argued that at least in affirming the importance of faith and respecting those who profess it the administration had embraced traditional conservative views. But in the wake of the Swift Boat ads attacking John Kerry, even this argument can no longer be maintained. As an elder of the Presbyterian Church, I found that those ads were not at all in the Christian tradition. John McCain rightly condemned them as dishonest and dishonorable. The president should have, too. That he did not undermines his credibility on questions of faith.

Some say it's just politics. But that's the whole point. More is expected of people of faith than "just politics."

The fact is that the Bush administration might better be called radical or romantic or adventurist than conservative. And that's why real conservatives are leaning toward Kerry[/i]."

-- Clyde Prestowitz, counselor to the secretary of commerce in the Reagan administration and an elder of the Presbyterian Church, from "The Conservative Case for Kerry," published in the Providence Journal and other newspapers, October 15, 2004.

AMERICA NEEDS KERRY'S REALISM ... NOT A'W'OL BUSH'S RECKLESS 'MACHO' TALK

11.02.04 (9:30 am) [edit]

We are members of the “reality-based community”, who’ve been overcome with the sorrows of what reality can bring. We are two ordinary Americans who’ve been brought together through tragedy. On Sept. 11th, 2001 Andrew Rice’s older brother David Rice was killed as he sat at his desk in the World Trade Center. He was 31 years old. On April 2nd, 2003 Lila’s son, Sgt. Michael Pedersen, was killed in Iraq in a helicopter crash. He was 26 years old.

David Rice was killed, in part, because of decisions by the Bush Administration not to take terrorism threats seriously between Jan. 2001 and Aug. 2001. Partisan spinners have tried to tell you otherwise, and the hamstrung, bi-partisan 9/11 commission bent over backwards not to point any fingers of blame at the Administration, but the facts are indisputable. Prior to 9/11: the Bush administration publicly mentioned Al-Qaeda one time, had National Security Council meetings on terrorism two times out of approximately 100 meetings. Meanwhile, the President made 104 public statements from Jan. 1st, 2001 to Sept. 10th, 2001 warning Americans about the mythical threat of Saddam Hussein while also trumpeting the “Star Wars” missile defense shield 101 times.

There is no record of Bush increasing airport security before 9/11. Quite the opposite. He threatened to veto a congressional effort to transfer $800 Million from missile defense to counter-terrorism. The list goes on. President Bush is running for re-election as if 9/11 was his finest hour. For families like Andrew’s, it was the worst day in their lives.

Michael Pedersen was sent to fight in a war based on a false premise, which was sold very effectively to an understandably jittery American public as a necessary step stave off an imminent threat. In fact, the American people were misled. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and no connection existed between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein, a secular leader, and Osama Bin Laden, a fundamentalist, were sworn enemies. The Bush Administration cherry-picked intelligence from the CIA to make its case for a war it had been planning even before 9/11.

In prior conflicts, thousands of brave American soldiers have given their lives in defense of our country and our freedom. But the tragic truth here is that heroes like Michael were not sent to Iraq to protect America. He was sent to prosecute a war in a country that, while ruled by an unjust dictator, did not pose an imminent threat to America. Today the results of Bush’s swat-the-hornet’s-nest foreign policy are clear. He has succeeded only in uniting our enemies and dividing our allies.

This president betrayed our trust in him and now we have the right to hold him accountable on Nov. 2nd.

John Kerry understands the complexities of the problems we face with terrorism and the occupation of Iraq. President Bush’s response to the daily bombings in Iraq is to say that “freedom is on the march.” How can he correct problems he can’t even acknowledge?

Kerry is our choice because he is a realist. He understands that an isolated nation can never win the war on terror. He knows that to be effective in preventing the next 9/11, we must work to earn back the trust and cooperation of nations around the world. John Kerry will never send our soldiers off to war unless it is absolutely necessary and he will be realistic about the complexities of exercising our power in the Middle East.

Americans in the swing states have been seeing a political TV ad showing President Bush giving a hug to a young girl who lost her mother on 9/11. We don’t need a hug from our leader right now. We need accountability, integrity and realism.

[b]Lila Lipscomb is the mother featured in Fahrenheit 9/11. Her son Michael died in Iraq in 2003. Andrew Rice’s brother, David Rice, died in World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. They recently traveled around Ohio together speaking to college students[/b]. - http://www.commondreams.org/v...

HOLD LIARS BUSH/CHENEY ACCOUNTABLE: ... VOTE FOR KERRY!!!

11.02.04 (9:25 am) [edit]

I often criticize statements by President Bush, so today let me praise some of his real wisdom:

• [i]Oct. 11, 2000: "If we're an arrogant nation, [foreigners] will resent us. If we're a humble nation but strong, they'll welcome us. ... We've got to be humble[/i]."

It's a good thing Mr. Bush tried to be humble, or the U.S. would have an approval rating even lower than 5 percent in Jordan, and Osama bin Laden's approval rating in Pakistan would be higher than 65 percent.

• [i]Feb. 27, 2001: "I hope you will join me to pay down $2 trillion in debt during the next 10 years. ... We should approach our nation's budget as any prudent family would[/i]."

But Mr. Bush, with the help of a weak economy, has transformed the Clinton budget surpluses into huge deficits. Since Mr. Bush took office, the federal debt has increased by $2.1 trillion, or 40 percent.

• [i]Sept. 25, 2000: "It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of our imports come from overseas[/i]."

Hmm. And many of our exports go abroad. Meanwhile, despite the lackluster economy, oil imports are 1.3 million barrels per day higher than in Mr. Clinton's last year in office.

• [i]June 11, 2001: "My administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change[/i]."

Great! Because America's carbon dioxide emissions, associated with global warming, have risen 1.7 percent since then.

• [i]June 26, 2003: "Notorious human rights abusers, including, among others, Burma, Cuba, North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe, have long sought to shield their abuses from the eyes of the world by staging elaborate deceptions and denying access to international human rights monitors[/i]."

It takes a big man to admit mistakes, like his administration's practice of hiding certain Arab prisoners from Red Cross and other inspectors.

• [i]Nov. 5, 2003: "In the debate about the rights of the unborn, we are asked to broaden the circle of our moral concern. ... We're asked by our convictions and tradition and compassion to build a culture of life, and make this a more just and welcoming society[/i]."

Abortions declined in the U.S. in the Clinton years; the abortion rate dropped by 22 percent in the 1990's. But while data are incomplete, abortions appear to have increased sharply since Mr. Bush took office. Glen H. Stassen, a Christian pro-life theologian, estimates that 52,000 more abortions occurred in 2002 than would have been expected based on the previous trend. Professor Stassen attributes the rise in abortions in part to the troubled economy and concerns among pregnant women that they cannot afford to have babies.

• [i]May 25, 2004: "One of the challenges we face is to make sure the health care system responds to the needs of the citizens[/i]."

But five million more Americans don't have health insurance, compared with when Mr. Bush took office.

• [i]Sept. 9, 2003: "We must focus early to make sure every child can read and write and add and subtract[/i]."

But Mr. Bush's budget guidelines translate into inflation-adjusted reductions in 2006 alone of more than $900 million for Head Start and childhood education.

• [i]May 24, 2003: "We will not tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea[/i]."

On Mr. Bush's watch, North Korea is generally believed to have gone from two nuclear weapons to about eight.

• [i]2001: "Not on my watch[/i]."

Scrawled note by Mr. Bush on a report to him about the 1994 genocide in Rwanda that had occurred under President Clinton.

That's reassuring to the 100,000 or more people in Darfur who have died in a spasm of murder and rape that Mr. Bush acknowledges as genocide.

• [i]Sept. 30, 2004: "The biggest threat facing this country is weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist network[/i]."

But the single most important step to reducing the risk that a nuclear weapon will destroy New York is to secure loose nukes abroad, and Mr. Bush has been lackadaisical about that. Only 135 out of 600 metric tons of Russian nuclear materials have been given comprehensive upgrades, and Mr. Bush initially proposed cutting funds for that program.

• [i]Sept. 2, 1999: "Effective reform requires accountability. ... It is a sad story. High hopes, low achievement. Grand plans, unmet goals. My administration will do things differently[/i]."

Oh?

[b]By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF[/b], http://www.nytimes.com/2004/1...

HOLD LIARS BUSH/CHENEY ACCOUNTABLE: ... VOTE FOR KERRY!!!

11.02.04 (9:24 am) [edit]

HOLD LIARS BUSH/CHENEY ACCOUNTABLE: ... VOTE FOR KERRY!!!

11.02.04 (9:20 am) [edit]

HOLD LIARS BUSH/CHENEY ACCOUNTABLE: ... VOTE FOR KERRY!!!

11.02.04 (9:19 am) [edit]

THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING: The Test for the West

11.02.04 (9:16 am) [edit]

[b]It is the future unity of the ''West'' that, more than any other basic factor in contemporary global affairs, is most at stake in Tuesday's presidential elections.[/b]

As Democratic challenger Senator John Kerry has stressed virtually from the outset of his campaign, trans-Atlantic relations -- which is at the core of the post-World War II, western-dominated international system -- have never been more strained than under U.S. President George W Bush.

No wonder: the coalition of aggressive nationalists, neo-conservatives and Christian Rightists that has driven Bush's foreign policy, particularly since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and the Pentagon, is unquestionably the most contemptuous of Europe since just before Washington's entry into World War II, when U.S. leaders still heeded the founders' admonition to avoid ''entangling alliances'' with European powers.

That contempt has been registered. According to a number of surveys taken in European countries -- including Britain -- over the past six months, Kerry is the overwhelming favorite of both ''Old Europe'', as Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld dismissively called Washington's core NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) allies last year, and of the ''new'' one -- the former Warsaw Pact nations of central and eastern Europe, which have sided with Bush on the war on Iraq and received virtually nothing in return.

The rise in hostile feelings towards Washington is based above all on Europeans' feeling that Bush, in his unilateralism, has disregarded their interests and advice -- from his summary rejection of the Kyoto Protocol to curb global warming and the International Criminal Court (ICC) to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

And while pollsters and political scientists say the unprecedented anger and resentment directed at Washington has been fundamentally anti-Bush, rather than ''anti-American'', his re-election Tuesday to a second term is very likely to move that contempt into the second category, cementing a permanent breach in the western alliance.

''This U.S. election will shape the future of Europe and the transatlantic West'', wrote Oxford University Professor Timothy Garten Ash in a column in the 'Washington Post' a week ago. ''If President Bush is re-elected, many Europeans will try to make the European Union a rival superpower to the United States''.

Such a result would, of course, have the most profound implications, not just for the two parties involved, but for the entire world.

For that very reason alone, it seems unlikely, particularly considering the durability of the western alliance since World War II and the fact that the economic, corporate and strategic interests of both the United States and Europe -- overseen by the elaborate multilateral structure that includes everything from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank to NATO and the United Nations Security Council -- are so similar.

But those interests might not be sufficient to keep the two sides from breaking apart. After all, the U.S. alliance with Europe dates only from the Cold War, when the fear of the Soviet Union welded the two together for what was effectively the first time in history. In many ways, Bush and the forces he has empowered represent a throwback to an earlier period.

Having claimed to represent the very best of ''western civilization'', Americans have, in fact, long been ambivalent about Europe. The first colonists, mostly religious Calvinists, saw themselves, like the ancient Hebrews out of Egypt, the ''chosen people,'' brought forth from a sinful, decadent and idolatrous Europe to found a ''new Israel''.

Over the decades and centuries that followed, ''Americans'' -- overwhelmingly European in origin until just the last few decades -- sought constantly to compare their achievements in the arts, industry and science with those of the great powers across the Atlantic while, at the same time, to contrast their moral and political values grounded in democracy, rugged individualism, civic-mindedness and straightforwardness with the autocracy, rigid hierarchies, corruption and mendacity of the ''Old World''.

This sense of moral and political superiority -- or ''exceptionalism'' -- was confirmed in a 150-year foreign-policy tradition, sometimes called ''isolationism'', which was directed above all at Europe -- as opposed to Latin America, the Caribbean or Asia, all of which have at one time or another constituted part of America's ''manifest destiny'' to spread the blessings of liberty southward and westward.

That the United States has enjoyed a virtually uninterrupted rise from 13 sparsely populated colonies hugging the Atlantic seaboard to its current status as the world's sole superpower also tends to confirm the sense that ''Providence'' (as U.S. Leaders referred to it from the mid-19th century to the early 20th century) has carved out a special role for the country apart from Europe, especially given the Puritan belief that God rewards the righteous.

These hoary old ideas have experienced an unprecedented resurgence under Bush, who has explicitly added the Middle East to those regions that stand to be redeemed by Washington's democratic ''mission''.

The focus on the Mideast is particularly compelling given the centrality of Israel as another morally ''exceptional'' nation in the ideologies of the Christian Right and neo-conservatism.

Indeed, under Bush Israel itself, and especially Washington's unprecedented backing for its Likud government, has become one of the most important sources of contention between Washington and Europe.

Bush, a Texan and fundamentalist Christian brought up in the heart of the U.S. ''Bible belt'', clearly falls into the ”exceptionalist” tradition that sees the United States as the morally redemptive force in the world. In his eyes, tying Washington to alliances and other multilateral mechanisms or instruments in ways that could constrain its power to act in the world is immoral.

It is in this sense that his open contempt for diplomacy and indifference to the views of European allies and international law -- constantly echoed and promoted by neo-conservative polemicists in particular -- harkens back to a much-earlier time in U.S. history, when Europe was both resented and despised and the unique moral mission of the United States was generally unquestioned by citizens and leaders alike.

Kerry, who actually spent much of his upbringing in Europe (and even France!), could not be more different.

Raised in the Atlantic-centered realism of his father, a ranking State Department diplomat who played important roles in the reconstruction and unification of western Europe and its integration into the NATO alliance, Kerry has long shown an instinctive distrust for any kind of political messianism, a distrust sharply honed, of course, by his own disillusionment as a highly decorated soldier in the Vietnam War.

Indeed, it was only in the 1990s, when the Clinton administration launched successive, but relatively modest -- and ally-approved -- interventions in Haiti and the Balkans, that it appears Kerry became persuaded that the exercise of U.S. military power could be a beneficial force under certain circumstances.

Even then, when former President Bill Clinton referred to the United States as ''the indispensable nation'', Kerry complained to a long-time aide, ''Why are we adopting such an arrogant, obnoxious tone''?

The senator's articulation of that belief as president -- that the United States is morally neither ''exceptional'' nor superior to Europe -- rather than any immediate changes in substantive policy, which could be made difficult or impossible by Congress, could at least begin to mend the breach between the United States and Europe that has become so enormous in the four years of the Bush presidency.

But even that might not be sufficient to put the alliance back together. - http://www.commondreams.org/h...

THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING: The Test for the West

11.02.04 (9:15 am) [edit]

THE WORLD IS WATCHING: The Test for the West

11.02.04 (9:11 am) [edit]

THE WORLD IS WATCHING: The Test for the West

11.02.04 (9:09 am) [edit]