Why don't people see the truth???

My wife and I were talking tonight, and she asked a very important question. Why don't more American's see what is going on with the Bush Administration? Why are so many people willing to vote for a leader who has so obviously misled us so many times, and has led us to disaster?

I was thinking about this, and I think I have a possible answer. People have self perceptions. They have a self image, and it is very hard to dissuade someone of that self image. It has usually been built up over a long period of time, and it can be hard to chip away at.

In the same way that people have a self image about themselves, they also have an ingrained image of their country. Americans are taught from a young age that they live in the greatest country on earth. It is the most free, the most filled with opportunity, the most peaceful country. We are taught that we never go to war except as a last resort. We are taught that when we fight it is always for a good cause. We are taught that we are moral and honorable as a nation. We are taught to revere our leaders.

While this can sometimes be a good thing, it also sets in stone a certain self image of our nation that is hard to counteract. People don't want to believe that we could go to war for less than good reasons. People want to believe the President when he says that we are spreading freedom and democracy. Because it fits into their image of our country.

When you see evidence that counteracts that perception, it is very easy to shrug it off. A good example is a parent of an unruly child. Often this parent will have a hard time seeing the evidence of their child's problems, because they are blinded by their image of their perfect child. It can take an awful lot of evidence before they finally abandon their perception and image, and see their child for what they really are.

In the same way, most Americans are likely to give the President the benefit of the doubt, because he is telling them things that fit with their national self image. He is telling them that we are making Iraqi lives better, that we only fought there because we had to. He is telling them that we are spreading democracy and freedom. This fits perfectly with the image ingrained in them as a child, so they accept it willingly.

When they see evidence to the contrary, it is very easy for them to simply discount it. It is too painful to have your self image destroyed. If you have always believed America to be altruistic in all things, then you will have a hard time believing that we could perpetrate Abu Ghraib. If you believe that America only attacks as a last resort, you will easily discount evidence that shows that the Bush Administration were eager to invade. If you believe that we only improve the lives of others, you will discount evidence that shows that Iraqis are in a worse shape now than they were when we started. If you believe that we only fight noble wars, then you will resist all suggestions that this was not noble. Part of that is because you would then have to accept some of the responsibility for the actions. You would have to accept that American soldiers are dying every day for something less than noble. You would have to accept that thousands of Iraqis are dead, men, women and children at our hands.

That is simply too painful for the average American to take.

Debate, or at least simultaneous press conferences.

I have been reading the latest information to come out about the formats for the debates, and I am really disappointed. I knew Bush would push for as controlled a debate situation as possible, however I didn't expect Kerry to acquiesce. According to this review of the debate parameters, there are a number of restrictions on this "debate" that pretty much render the whole thing useless.

The biggest shock for me is that they are not allowed to address each other at all. Not allowed to ask each other questions, or followups; not allowed to even respond directly to each other. I thought this was supposed to be a debate? They are not even allowed to rebut their opponent's responses. This is absolutely stupid. This basically means that both candidates will simply answer their questions using their prepared answers, and then we move on to the next question. We may as well simply have watched their campaign ads.

Bush generally does well in debates, he is usually straightforward, he usually give short concise answers, and he usually comes off as a likeable character. His biggest weakness is his grasp of reality. He will say things are peachy kean and rosy, even though things are not, and he will say it with conviction. Kerry's greatest hope would have been to actually ask Bush for some substantive answers, but he will not have the opportunity.

Kerry has to do well in these debates. But somehow the Bush Administration managed to get the exact debate format they would be comfortable with. Kerry accepted the regulations. Once again, what was Kerry thinking???

Bush's continued pattern of lies

We are closing in on the first debate, and I think I can safely make one prediction already. Bush will freely spill half truths, exaggerate, obfuscate, and basically lie his way through the debate. Bush is fairly convincing when he does this, until you actually look at reality, and I think it may just be because he is told this stuff so often by his advisors that he actually believes it.

So my prediction for the debates? Kerry will do a passable job, he will attempt to hit Bush with reality, and Bush will simply sidestep the difficult issues by simply insisting that everyone else is wrong, and he must be the only one seeing the way things "really are"

An example? Well just earlier this week, while Bush was making friends with Allawi of Iraq, Bush told the American people that things are wonderful in Iraq, because we have now "fully trained 100,000 police in Iraq. Well someone actually checked, and it turns out that only 8,169 Iraqi police have actually finished their training. When the Whitehouse was called on this, they replied that the numbers are in fact correct, because the White House defines "Fully Trained" as someone who has started their training. I am not making this up!!!

So according to the Bush Administration, every first year intern is a fully trained surgeon. Every first year law student is a fully trained legal expert. Every college freshmen is fully trained already!! Think of the money we could save on education. Why waste all the rest of that time in college when these people could be out working!

Want another one? Bush also claimed that we will spend 9 billion on reconstruction in Iraq over the next 3 months. Well guess what? No one says he can do it, except for the Bush Administration. Democrats and Republicans both have claimed that there is no realistic way this goal can be met under the current circumstances. In fact in this whole year, only 1.2 billion has been spent on reconstruction. So Bush wants us to believe that in the last three months of the year we will spend 9 billion, under the increasing violence that has pretty much halted all such efforts?

But then again, Bush is telling us that things are improving on the ground in Iraq, that real progress is being made. Guess what, another obfuscation. This month looks like it will end as one of the worst months in terms of violence, U.S. deaths, Iraqi deaths etc since the beginning of the war. However Pollyanna Bush wants us all to ignore the reality, and join him in the power of positive thinking.

Want one more? Bush seems to want us to think that the elections scheduled for January will be free, fair and just. Nearly everyone else outside the Bush Administration is a little more skeptical. Even Colin Powell has expressed his doubts, along with Kofi Anan, and most of the rest of the world. Bush continues to insist everything is underway, even insisting that the U.N. preparations for the election are well under way. The truth? Of the 232 million in funds set aside for the election commission, only 7 million has even been received by them. The U.N. is refusing to send the number of Election officials that will be needed because of the deteriorating security situation. And even Rumsfeld is telling people that there is a good chance that some parts of the country may not even participate in the election.

Bush will use these kinds of half and un-truths over and over in the debates. Kerry will try to call him on it, and Bush will simply brush him aside as a pessimist, while telling the American people to trust him. The American people need to wake up, start thinking for themselves, and realizing that he no longer deserves their trust.

Links:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6093447/
http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=927142&tw=wn_wire_story
http://www.world-crisis.com/news/805_0_1_0_M/

Hamdi - The name that should make you fear for your civil rights

With all the violence in Iraq, and obsession over forged documents, a news story slipped through the cracks yesterday, but one that has a huge impact on our lives.

Yaser Esam Hamdi, an American citizen who had been held in solitary confinement for 3 years without access to legal assistance or having been charged with any crime, was finally released yesterday. Three years. In solitary confinement. Without any access to the courts, lawyers or family. He was not allowed to challenge his confinement. The Bush Administration had labelled him an enemy combatant, and claimed that he was a threat to the United States. Even though he was an American citizen, the Bush Administration felt he did not deserve the right of due process, because of the threat he held for America.

That was until the Supreme Court stepped in. The supreme court recently made two important rulings, the first was that the United States cannot hold citizens without access to courts, and the the other was that the prisoners in Guantanamo were allowed access to mainland U.S. courts and needed to be given tribunals.

So the supreme court says that the Bush Administration needs to give Hamdi a lawyer, and a trial. Guess what happens then?? The Bush Administration decides that he really isn't a threat any more, and releases him. WHATTTTTTTT!!!!!!

So he was such a threat that he had to be held in solitary confinement for three years, but when the Supreme Court calls their bluff they let him go because he is no longer a threat? What exactly changed? This should frighten every American, as their civil liberties are under attack by the Bush Administration. He was an innocent man, (or at least they were unable to find enough evidence to try him in THREE YEARS) and they would have continued to keep him in custody if the Supreme Court hadn't stepped in. Remember the Bush Administration fought against giving him a trial, I can only assume it was because they knew they would have to let him go if he was given one.

This would be bad enough if it was an isolated case, but it isn't. After the Supreme Court also ruled that the "enemy combatants" in Guantanamo Bay deserved legal access, the Bush Administration also released a number of those prisoners as "no longer a threat" as well. What this means to you an me is that in our names, innocent people have been kept in prison, for three years without anything more than a suspision of guilt. We need to hold the Bush Administration accountable. Next time it could be you, or someone you love.

Iraq - What do we do next?

I have been traveling on business for a couple of days, so I apologize for the lack of updates. Since I last posted, Bush has appeared before the U.N., and Kerry has come out fighting on Iraq. However nothing has really changed.

The only real change is that the violence in Iraq is getting worse every day. The insurgency is growing, the violence is increasing, and the situation is getting closer to a boiling point. Bush of course continues to insist that "things are improving on the ground" with absolutely no evidence to back up his incredible claims while reality shows him for the liar that he is.

This all begs the question though, what exactly would Kerry do differently than Bush at this time? What can be done?

While the entire fiasco is Bush's fault, (he was the one who made the choice to invade based on hopes that a threat would be found even though intelligence was vague on the issue) Kerry will still need to deal with it when he is elected President. He will have to deal with the issues, bring peace and Democracy, and hopefully leave the Iraqis better off than they were when we arrived. We cannot simply cut and run, as that would now be a human rights disaster, and we would have blood on our hands. Even though we should never have invaded in the first place, we now "own" Iraq, and we have a responsibility to at least stabilize it.

What that means though, is that we will have to find some solutions to some incredibly intractable problems. When Kerry lays out his plan for Iraq, it is basically the following:

• Bring in more allies to help shoulder the burden, both militarily and financially.
  
• Increase training for Iraqi security forces so they can support the reconstruction and pacification of the country
• Improve spending on reconstruction projects in Iraq
• Bring Democracy to Iraq.
  

While these are all admirable aims, they are pretty much exactly the same thing that Bush is doing. So we are unable to really judge the plan based on its elements, since they are the same elements for both candidates. What we then have to judge it on is who is more likely to succeed in each element.

The first item on the list is the desire to bring in more allies. In this, Kerry clearly has an advantage. Bush has spent 4 years burning bridges, and destroying alliances. He goes to the U.N. begging for help, after having disparaged the U.N. repeatedly in the past as obsolete and unneeded. He has alienated our allies in Europe, and he has even made it politically difficult for leaders who have supported him, such as Blair in Great Britain and Howard in Australia. I believe that many countries are willing to assist in the reconstruction of Iraq, but are waiting to do so until after the election. They are afraid to give Bush any kind of victory, because they want to see him out of office. Any help they give now could be construed as support for Bush's doctrine of preventative war, and they are not willing to go that far. Kerry would likely have an easier time extracting this support, as it could then be given without fear that the support would appear to be supporting the initial invasion.

The second item is the Iraqi security forces. This will be tough for either Kerry or Bush, and neither has a major advantage over the other. With recruits being killed every day, joining the security forces is not going to be a popular option for Iraqis.

The third item is reconstruction spending. While neither Kerry nor Bush has an inherent advantage on this issue, Bush has a history of failing that has to be considered. Bush has so far spent less than ten percent of the reconstruction money that congress approved for Iraq. Even Republican Congressmen are calling this reprehensible and indefensible. This money has languished for months, during which time it could have been used to make a real difference in Iraqi's lives, thus reducing the support for the insurgency. However Bush has failed dismally in spending this money, whether because of incompetence, lack of focus, lack of organization, I don't know. What I do know is that Kerry couldn't do worse than Bush on this issue if he tried. We have the money, we need to be spending it.

The final option is Democracy. As with the issue above, neither candidate has an inherent advantage on this issue, but Bush has also done a dismal job with this. Bush is continually insisting that elections will occur in January, while ignoring the reality of the situation on the ground in Iraq. I think Bush is so convinced that God is directing his every move, that he feels he doesn't have to do anything substantial in Iraq, because God will make everything Ok. Elections are not going to happen in January, unless the violence is contained pretty much immediately. The Bush administration has even talked about holding the election but simply excluding those regions in the grip of the insurgency. All that this will accomplish is an elected Government with little legitimacy, that has no real Sunni involvement, and will lead to civil war. We need to recognize the reality of the situation, and start resolving some of the security and infrastructure needs of the people, before we even start thinking about the election.

The bottom line is that Kerry probably only has a marginally better chance of success in Iraq over Bush. That is a sad thing to admit, but the situation there is so bad now, that there is little chance of a fully happy outcome. Of course none of this is Kerry's fault, and that is the real bottom line. Bush is responsible for this disaster, and he should be held accountable. That is what we need to do in November.

Iraq war was illegal, and it is getting much worse.

Back before the war in Iraq, there was some debate as to the legitimacy of the war. Once the war began, that debate died down, as most wanted to show support in a time of war. However the validity of the discussion over the legality of the war never diminished.

Under international law, there are only two valid (and legal) reasons to go to war. The first is self defense, and the second is U.N. Security Council approval. The U.S. tried to get U.N. Security Council backing, but unlike what the Republicans would like you to believe, we never got it. There were resolutions calling for Saddam to disarm his WMD's, and to come out with evidence to support the fact that he had no WMD, but there was no Security Council Resolution authorizing the war. The U.S. actually attempted to get the resolution, but when it became obvious that we weren't going to get it, we withdrew and started planning unilateral action.

That was why the whole idea of WMD and Al Qaida connections were so important, because they gave the only other legitimate rationale for war; that Iraq was an immediate threat to Americans. Well that has of course since be shown to be false, so will not work as a reason for war.

So where does that leave us? Well it leaves us in a position of tenuous legality as regards to international law, which we are of course signatories to. Today however, the stakes raised even higher, as U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan weighed in, stating that clearly under U.N. rules and international law, the invasion of Iraq was illegal. This is an amazing statement from him, but it is fully in line with the reality of the situation. You can argue the merits of the invasion, but it is much harder to argue the legality without severely distorting the facts.

According to Kofi Annan:

“If the United States and others were to go outside the Security Council and take unilateral action they would not be in conformity with the charter.”

On Wednesday, after being asked three times whether the lack of council approval meant the war was illegal, Annan said: “From our point of view and the [U.N.] charter point of view, it was illegal.”

So where does this leave the U.S. and its allies (Australia and Great Britain)? Well of course they are strenuously disagreeing, and stating that they indeed had the legal right to invade, because Iraq was not responding to U.N. sanctions. Their argument falls apart however, when you remember that they were U.N. sanctions. The U.N. was responsible for determining the consequences of inaction on the part of Saddam, and the U.S. short circuited that process. An analogy would be a lynch mob. Those lynched may be guilty, and they may have been hanged in any case, but the lynch mob doesn't have the legal authority to do what it does, only the state does. In the same way only the U.N. Security Council had the authority, the U.S. was failing to gain its approval, and so decided to act unilaterally.

That was not the only stunner in Annan's statements yesterday however. He also stated (the pretty obvious) fact that elections are unlikely to be able to go ahead in January in Iraq. If the current instability continues, then the chances of the election being fair and effective are very slim. Now the U.S. could decide to go ahead with elections anyway, and there is some talk of us doing that, damn the torpedoes. However if the U.N. doesn't participate and lend its legitimacy to the process, it will not be effective. We have an amazing amount of work to do in the next couple of months if we want to see the election take place.

How likely is it that things will clear up? Well according to a brand new intelligence assessment, not very. The National Intelligence Council yesterday released a classified intelligence assessment of the situation in Iraq. The contents of the assessment were meant for the eyes of the President and his advisors, but unfortunately for them, they were also leaked to the press.

Bush has been telling us for months, in spite of the obvious evidence to the contrary, that things are getting better every day in Iraq. Well the intelligence assessment he was provided yesterday says exactly the opposite. Basically it states the obvious, that the insurgency is growing on the ground, and that the best outcome would be a tenuous security situation, and the worse would be all out civil war. It was not an optimistic document.

So here we are, thanks to George Bush. We are involved in an illegal war. (which by the way, makes George Bush a war criminal). We have a deteriorating situation on the ground in Iraq, which by all indications is going to get worse, costing us more in money and lives. The hoped for elections in January are unlikely to proceed, or if they do, it will be without the legitimacy of U.N. participation.

And Bush has the temerity to tell us he has done all the right things and deserves reelection.

The War..... But not that War

Last month, the Census Bureau released new figures that showed that poverty in America is increasing. An additional 1.3 million Americans (including 700,000 children) were added to those in poverty, making a grand total of 35.9 million Americans. What is the definition of poverty? For a family of four, it is $18,000 a year. That is very low. Not low enough for the Bush Administration, who want to lower the bar to improve the numbers (that is another story) but still very low.

This morning I read an article by Anna Quindlen of Newsweek, that reminded me of what we should be doing. She reminds us of the war on poverty that was launched by L.B.J. in 1964. As he said, "the richest nation on earth can afford to win it." While we spend so much time talking about the war in Iraq, or the war on terror, or even the war on drugs, we seem to have capitulated on the war on poverty.

One of the problems is that we haven't defined what it means to be poor in the U.S. today very well. Even Democrats I like haven't done the best job of it. Edwards is fond of speaking in his "Two Americas" speech about not having enough to eat, or enough clothing to keep you warm. This isn't really the problem with most of our poor today. Yes there are those without shelter, without clothing, and without good food. And yes it is a disaster and something we need to do something about immediately. However the majority of the poor do have enough to eat, most of the time, and do have clothes to wear, most of the time. What they are most poor in is time and security.

The majority of those considered in poverty have at least one member of the household in a job. The problem is that those jobs pay little, and include no health insurance. For these families, it takes just one financial disaster, (a sick kid, an unexpected expense) and they cannot make the rent, or they choose between food and medicine. They are poor in time, because to make ends meet, the wage earners are working two or three jobs at minimum wage, and have no time for their family or themselves. The impact this has on children is devastating. They are sicker, because they only go to the doctor for medical care when they have no other choice. They are in school districts where their children do not get the educational opportunities other children get. They struggle to make ends meet every month, and never have any savings or wiggle room in case of emergencies.

This is the face of the majority of poverty in America today. It might not fit the classic mold of a family living in a tin shack down by the river (although those families do exist) but it is still a tragedy in today's society, and in our wealthy nation.

The worst part is the children. 12 million children are in poverty today in America. These children are disadvantaged from the start. They are more likely to have poor nutrition, poor education, poor health care, lack of parental involvement, lack of recreational activities, lack of stability, lack of security. These children are getting a poor start in life, and their opportunities are less because of it. We live in a country where the conceit is that everyone can have the same opportunities if they work hard. This is a wonderful goal, but we have not achieved it yet. While it is not impossible for a poor child to reach great heights, the climb is going to be incredibly more difficult.

We have spent 200 billion dollars this past year on the war in Iraq. 200 Billion dollars on a war that was fought on false pretenses, and has likely made us less secure not more. If we had taken that 200 billion dollars and spent it instead on the children in poverty in America, it would have been $16,666 dollars for every child. In one year. We could have paid for all of their access to the best health care we have. We could have improved their schools dramatically. We could have provided quality after school programs. We could have increased the wages of their parents. We could have cleaned up their neighborhoods. We could have made a real difference in their lives.

When people say we don't have enough money to win the war on poverty, they are full of it. We have enough money, what we don't have enough of is will. If we can come up with 200 billion dollars for a war on another country, then we can come up with money for a war on poverty. The problem is that our leaders (and the voters who elect them) value the war more than those children in poverty. Shame on them, and shame on us.

Lots to talk about today.

Some days it seems like I have to struggle to find something to talk about (although not very often :)), but some days I just feel like talking about everything. Well today, it is one of those days. I read the Seattle Times, and was just flooded with stuff I want to talk about.

- Yesterday, I talked about the new evidence about Bush's service in the national guard. Well today it has been picked up by a much larger number of media outlets. The really important news for today, is that more information is now available. According to this article in the Seattle Times, one of the new memos is from one of Bush's superiors, claiming that Bush directly refused a superior's order to take a physical, and also includes one of his superiors complaining about being ordered to "Sugar Coat" Bush's record. The chickens are coming home to roost.

- The Seattle Times is also reporting that a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, who had been in custody for three years has finally been released after it was determined by a military tribunal that he was not connected to terrorists. Hello!! It took three years to review this guy's case and release him? What you have to remember is that these reviews of status have only started because of the recent court decision in the U.S. that allowed the prisoners review under U.S. law. Before that the Bush Administration insisted that they not be allowed this kind of review. Well now they have started their reviews and have found that this guy is innocent. Wouldn't it have been nice if we had reviewed this three years ago? I know we have to protect our citizens from terrorists, but removing rights from others does not help. How many other guys have been in custody and are still waiting for their reviews? How many innocents have we locked up. Makes me sick.

- Also according to the Seattle Times, Bush has decided to delay his decision on whether or not to re-open roadless forest areas for road building and development, until after the November election. He has consistently supported the reopening of these roadless areas to development, and now he says he needs more time to decide? Well maybe he just doesn't want to give an easy obvious campaign ammunition to Kerry. This way he can say he has yet to decide, even though it is obvious this will be one of the first things he does after re-election. Very smart politically, but it still frustrates me, because most people will fall for it.

- Yesterday also saw the announcement of the Russian adoption of the Bush Doctrine. i.e. we will pre-emptively attack terrorists or those that harbor them where-ever they may be. If I was Georgia, or some of the other former Soviet states, I would be very nervous. The Russians probably aren't likely to mount a full invasion of another country, however they will likely use assassination as a tool, as they have been suspected already of a number of these actions.

However if Russia does decide to invade Georgia, what will we say? We will not be able to criticize them at all, since we did the same thing in Iraq. In fact there is probably more Georgian involvement with Al Qaida that there was Iraqi involvement. The Bush Doctrine sounds great to us when it is US that is making the decisions of who to attack and when. As soon as it is every country in the world, the weakness of the doctrine is manifest. Russia is just the first to take this route, just wait until Indonesia, China, Pakistan, India, Egypt, Turkey etc etc are all using pre-emptive attacks as part of the regular course of their "Wars on Terror".

- The final piece of new news is that Colin Powell today actually used the word Genocide in talking about the Sudanese killings in Darfur. For those of you who might not be fully informed of the issue (not surprising considering the small amount of coverage this has had), there is currently ongoing genocide in Sudan. Sudan is populated by an Arab Muslim population in the north, and a black Christian and Native Religious south. The Arab north has had control of the country, but has been fighting insurgency by the south for many years now. While the government troops have had their share of atrocities, the worst has come from Arab militias (supposedly not connected to the government) who have been actively slaughtering whole villages of black Sudanese. While this is known, and the world has condemned it, the Sudanese government has refused to let in outside troops to stop the genocide, claiming that they are protecting the people there. Well Powell just called them out on that today, basically accusing them of supporting the militias and protecting them so they can do their grisly job.

While the use of the word Genocide might not seem significant, in reality it is hugely significant. By claiming Genocide is occurring, and placing the blame on the Sudanese government, the Bush Administration is now pretty much obliged to do something. Most likely this will be further sanctions against the Sudanese government, but could possibly be more. The hypocritical side of the Bush Administration will likely win out though, and little will really be done. Remember how we invaded Iraq to protect its people from Saddam and his mass graves? (After WMD, Al Qaida connections, immediate threat to Americans etc etc didn't pan out). Well if Saddam was worth taking out because he had killed thousands of people years ago, then why are we not attacking Sudan to stop genocide that is actually happening now!! Could it be oil? Could it be that the victims are black Africans? Could it be that there is no strategic advantage? Maybe yes to all of the above.

New evidence about Bush's National Guard service

Bush and his campaign have recently made a big deal out of Kerry's military duty, accusing him of exaggerating his wounds and service in order to gain political points. The fact that Bush has a very spotty record himself, doesn't seem to make them cautious. Maybe it should.

The Boston Globe recently reviewed all the documents that are available regarding Bush's National Guard service. Basically they show that Bush failed to fulfill his commitments, and should have been severely penalized, but wasn't.

"Bush fell well short of meeting his military obligation, a Globe
reexamination of the records shows: Twice during his Guard service -- first when
he joined in May 1968, and again before he transferred out of his unit in
mid-1973 to attend Harvard Business School -- Bush signed documents pledging to
meet training commitments or face a punitive call-up to active duty.

He didn't meet the commitments, or face the punishment, the records show. The 1973 document has been overlooked in news media accounts. The 1968 document has received scant notice."

Bush had a commitment to the country. In return for an estimated Million dollars worth of training, he was required to serve his country. He failed to do that.

On July 30, 1973, shortly before he moved from Houston to Cambridge, Bush signed
a document that declared, ''It is my responsibility to locate and be assigned to
another Reserve forces unit or mobilization augmentation position. If I fail to
do so, I am subject to involuntary order to active duty for up to 24 months. . . "
Under Guard regulations, Bush had 60 days to locate a new unit.
But Bush never signed up with a Boston-area unit.

Also

early in his Guard service, on May 27, 1968, Bush signed a ''statement of
understanding" pledging to achieve ''satisfactory participation" that included
attendance at 24 days of annual weekend duty -- usually involving two weekend
days each month -- and 15 days of annual active duty. ''I understand that I may
be ordered to active duty for a period not to exceed 24 months for
unsatisfactory participation," the statement reads.
Yet Bush, a
fighter-interceptor pilot, performed no service for one six-month period in 1972
and for another period of almost three months in 1973, the records show.

So what should have been his punishment? What was he spared? He was supposed to be sent to Active duty in Vietnam. However I guess the Guard leadership in Texas and other areas didn't feel that it would be expedient to send such a connected young man to the front. So Bush scraped through, not receiving disciplinary action, or the required punishment. Instead he was given an honorable discharge, something that military reviewers have now said was probably not warranted.

Major General Paul A. Weaver Jr., who retired in 2002 as the Pentagon's director of the Air National Guard, says:

"It appears that no one wanted to hold him accountable"

Not bad for a guy who says he received no special treatment.


This coupled with the new allegations from Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes, who was the guy who pulled the strings to get into the National Guard, as well as other documents coming to like, it definitely appears that this is something that needs to be fully examined, and the voters should expect an explanation from Bush. If he is willing to criticize Kerry's service, then he needs to expect examination and criticism in response. Kerry's service definitely appears to be just a touch stronger than Bush's. :)

1000 Soldiers now killed in Iraq.

It is now official, the 1000th soldier was killed today in Iraq. I was going to make this a diatribe against the Bush Administration, but this is just too sad to make political hay out of.

To the soldiers, rest in peace. To their families, thanks for making the ultimate sacrifice. And to Bush, how dare you.

Final Day of the Convention

Well it was the final day of the Republican Convention. After three days of mostly attacks on Kerry and terror mongering, we finally get to hear from Bush himself. After Schwartzenegger telling us all that to be good patriots, we need to be Republicans. After Giuliani telling us that we should thank God George Bush was in power after 9/11. After Zell Miller's rant and red faced rage and hatred of Kerry. After Laura Bush's impassioned plea for us to remember the good her husband has done, even if she had to tell half truths and exaggerations to do so. After the Bush twin's giggly high school performance. After Cheney's outright lies.

Here is the main event. Warm up was provided by Pataki, who did a serviceable job with a noted lack of charisma. He basically repeated a lot of what had already been said, i.e. we are all in danger, 9/11, Bush is decisive, 9/11, Kerry is a flip flopper, 9/11. One of his recurring themes was the phrase "and he did it". So he said things like "Bush wanted to improve education accountability, and he did it." The implication of course is that when he says something, he will do it. Kind of like when he said we would catch Osama Bin Laden, Dead or Alive. Or when he said he would fight the formation of the 9/11 commission, or the department of homeland security. Or when he said we would find WMD. Or when he said his tax cuts would help the middle class.

The most notable thing about Pataki's speech though was that he actually mention Bin Laden by name!!!! He was the only one I saw throughout the entire week. Enemy number one. The guy who actually attacked us. Actually mentioned. Amazing!

Finally however we get to the main event. Bush is introduced by Senator Thompson (You know, the guy from Law and Order and Hunt for Red October) and a nice biographical movie; a slick production. I am assuming it is supposed to highlight Bush's achievements, but all it actually shows is that Bush is good at organizing photo ops. I am not kidding. The entire 5 to 10 minute movie focuses on three events, 9/11, Bush's photo op with the firemen three days later on ground zero, and then Bush's photo op at the world series where he threw the first pitch. In four years, according to the Republican media guys, that is all he did that was notable.

Now we get to the speech. Actually Bush does a good job, for Bush. He is reasonably articulate, and even gets emotional at one time. I actually think he did a fine job. Too bad the content of his speech was so awful.

I believe every child can learn, and every school must teach -- so we passed the most important federal education reform in history. Because we acted, children are making sustained progress in reading and math, America's schools are getting better, and nothing will hold us back.

This has been a favorite of the Bush camp this convention. And it has mostly been a disaster. Bush has underfunded the act, while providing no additional funds to schools and no additional funds to teachers, and no additional training or tools to help them meet the goals. They are simply told to meet the new standards (which by the way increase every year until they reach the impossible standard of 100% of students passing) or the schools will shut down. Since every school will fail under the impossible 100% standard, we will finally get the republican dream of a fully privatized education system. As for results??? Well some schools have gotten better, some have not. But overall this act simply teaches our schools to focus solely on passing the tests. Not a good way to a well rounded education.

I believe we have a moral responsibility to honor America's seniors -- so I brought Republicans and Democrats together to strengthen Medicare. Now seniors are getting immediate help buying medicine. Soon every senior will be able to get prescription drug coverage, and nothing will hold us back.

The prescription drug benefit has been a joke. The discount cards that seniors have to buy have already had their advantage erased by drug companies raising their prices. Without some kind of price controls, the drug companies are having a field day. As for the actual drug benefit Bush wants to implement in Medicare, it is confusing, strangely designed, and doesn't really make a big enough dent, in the face of rising health care costs.

I believe in the energy and innovative spirit of America's workers, entrepreneurs, farmers, and ranchers -- so we unleashed that energy with the largest tax relief in a generation. Because we acted, our economy is growing again, and creating jobs, and nothing will hold us back.

Too bad that only 1 out of the 4 groups of Americans he mentioned actually got any reasonable tax relief; the entrepreneurs, and only the wealthy ones at that. As for the economy growing? It is, but extremely anemically, and we are still down nearly a million jobs from when Bush took office, not to mention the fact that in the meantime millions more Americans have joined the workforce. Tax cuts do provide stimulus, and they have had some effect. The problem is the stimulus is generally short lived. Also the tax cuts went to the wrong people, the wealthiest do not spend their cuts, they save them or use them on luxuries if they do spend them. Finally, the deficit we have generated with the tax cuts will be a long term drag on our economy for years to come, not worth any short term short lived benefit of the tax cuts.

Another drag on our economy is the current tax code, which is a complicated mess -- filled with special interest loopholes, saddling our people with more than six billion hours of paperwork and headache every year. The American people deserve -- and our economic future demands -- a simpler, fairer, pro-growth system. In a new term, I will lead a bipartisan effort to reform and simplify the federal tax code.

This scares the hell out of me. Yes, our tax code is a complicated mess with loopholes for special interests. But the ones exploiting those loopholes are companies like Enron, that didn't pay taxes for 4 out of the last 5 years. You heard that right, NO TAXES. I paid more tax than Enron did. The loopholes and those who take advantage of them are the wealthiest Americans who can afford to invest in tax deferred ways, who can afford the best accountancy advice, who can afford to take advantage of every opportunity for them to save. So why is it such a bad deal that Bush wants to reform this system?

Well because when Bush is talking loopholes, he is not talking about Enron or the wealthy. He is talking about the poor. Bush's economic team have already been quoted saying that the poor don't pay their fair share of taxes, because they "use most of the services provided by the government" and they often pay no tax. Bush's economic team also has indicated they are interested in pursuing a national sales tax. This of course hurts the poor the most, as sales taxes like this are regressive. When Bush says he wants to reform the tax code, expect more of what we have already seen, a shift of the tax burden from the wealthiest Americans to the lower rungs of society.

To stand with workers in poor communities -- and those that have lost manufacturing, textile, and other jobs -- we will create American opportunity zones. In these areas, we'll provide tax relief and other incentives to attract new business, and improve housing and job training to bring hope and work throughout all of America.

This is itself is not a bad idea, but with Bush's record, the emphasis will not be on how these zones can improve the lot of the poorest amongst us, it will be on how can Halliburton and other connected companies make more money by hiring cheap labor tax free. It is instructive to look at how these zones have worked in foreign countries. Places like India have these kinds of prosperity zones, and basically the attract businesses they give the businesses all kinds of incentives, like weakened labor laws, like weaker environmental regulations, like lower wages and lower taxes. It can work if protections are provided for the environment and workers, however that will not be Bush's priority.

We will offer a tax credit to encourage small businesses and their employees to set up health savings accounts, and provide direct help for low-income Americans to purchase them. These accounts give workers the security of insurance against major illness, the opportunity to save tax-free for routine health expenses, and the freedom of knowing you can take your account with you whenever you change jobs. And we will provide low-income Americans with better access to health care: In a new term, I will ensure every poor county in America has a community or rural health center.

In other words we will provide Americans with tax free savings accounts to save and pay for their own medical care. Sounds good in theory, but it really only works for the wealthiest of us. One catastrophic illness, and an account is exhausted and a family bankrupt. It also tends to make families have to make tough choices between health care and other essentials. It also means that routine preventative care usually falls by the wayside, as families try to save for emergencies, but in the process, we end up with an inefficient health care system where we only end up treating people later in the disease, not earlier when more good can be done. Finally, with every American basically purchasing their own medical care, without any kind of group bargaining, medical care costs will continue to go through the roof.

As for the community or rural health centers? Well that is a great example of an empty campaign promise. What exactly is he proposing? Free health clinics? This is an easy thing to say, and then forget.

In this time of change, government must take the side of working families. In a new term, we will change outdated labor laws to offer comp-time and flex-time. Our laws should never stand in the way of a more family-friendly workplace.

Yeah, those pesky laws like overtime laws, and worker protections.

In an ownership society, more people will own their health plans, and have the confidence of owning a piece of their retirement. We will always keep the promise of Social Security for our older workers. With the huge Baby Boom generation approaching retirement, many of our children and grandchildren understandably worry whether Social Security will be there when they need it. We must strengthen Social Security by allowing younger workers to save some of their taxes in a personal account -- a nest egg you can call your own, and government can never take away.

This is also very scary. Not only will we be paying our own health care costs, but we will be paying our own retirement costs as well. Young workers will be investing in the stock market instead of contributing to the Social Security trust fund, which is already short of money, which will of course hasten the demise of social security, another Republican hope and wish. As for these wonderful personal accounts, they will be at the mercy of the stock market. All you need is a crash or depression in the value of the market, and all of a sudden millions of retiring workers are on the streets. Or make a few bad decisions and investment choices and watch your retirement going down the drain.

We live in the wealthiest society on the planet. We can afford to take care of those who have served society throughout their lives.

Senator Kerry opposed Medicare reform and health savings accounts. After supporting my education reforms, he now wants to dilute them. He opposes legal and medical liability reform. He opposed reducing the marriage penalty, opposed doubling the child credit, and opposed lowering income taxes for all who pay them. To be fair, there are some things my opponent is for -- he's proposed more than two trillion dollars in new federal spending so far, and that's a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts. To pay for that spending, he is running on a platform of increasing taxes -- and that's the kind of promise a politician usually keeps.

Kerry does not oppose Medicare reform, just the reform Bush wants. Kerry does oppose health savings accounts, for the same reasons I mentioned above. Kerry does not want to "Dilute" no child left behind, he wants to change it enough so that it is not predesigned to fail. He did not oppose doubling the child credit and removing the marriage penalty, in fact he supported these measures. He simply voted against the overall tax package that Bush was pushing that included these items. It is true he opposing lowering income taxes for ALL who pay them, he wants to repeal the tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. As for new spending? Yes he has proposed a lot, but Bush is proposing a very high amount as well, and at least Kerry is showing how he will pay for the increases, repealing the tax cuts for the wealthiest. (By the way, repealing tax cuts that went too far is not the same as increasing taxes, but that is another discussion)

Because religious charities provide a safety net of mercy and compassion, our government must never discriminate against them.

This will make it so that in order to get charity in America, you have to profess a religious belief and attend religious services. This can work, but only if churches are prohibited from expecting any kind of religious proselytizing or religious change in those seeking their help. That is not the case today.


The majority of the rest of the speech was the war on terror. Bush's claims here are nothing new, and while he did give an impassioned speech, which could likely sway some, it was not full of truth and realism.

One more absolute Bush lie:

I proposed, and the Congress overwhelmingly passed, 87 billion dollars in funding needed by our troops doing battle in Afghanistan and Iraq. My opponent and his running mate voted against this money for bullets, and fuel, and vehicles, and body armor. When asked to explain his vote, the Senator said, "I actually did vote for the 87 billion dollars before I voted against it." Then he said he was "proud" of that vote. Then, when pressed, he said it was a "complicated" matter. There is nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat.

Kerry did vote for and against the 87 billion dollars. That was because there were two opposing bills that would provide the 87 billion dollars. Most Republicans voted for the one that provided the 87 billion, but gave no way to pay for it, so it simply added to the deficit. Most Democrats voted for the alternative bill, that also provided the 87 billion, but that repealed a portion of the tax cut for the wealthiest Americans to pay for it. So in truth, pretty much every member of congress voted for and against the 87 billion. Kerry was not voting to deny body armor for the troops (which they should have had already by the way) he was voting to provide it in a fiscally conservative way. I wish Kerry had explained himself better, but it is not like Bush and his speechwriters (as well as all the other Repubs repeating this slander) don't understand the reality of Kerry's votes.

Finally I want to make a mention of the MSNBC coverage of the convention. I was appalled at the partisanship shown by the commentators after Bush's speech. Not only did they praise Bush for his speech, his speaking style etc, but they also belittled Kerry! They were basically parroting GOP talking points, saying that Bush is always decisive, and Kerry has not yet had a solid opinion about anything. At first I thought maybe this was Bush's communications staff speaking, but it was Chris Matthews and the MSNBC commentary team. It was absolutely blatantly partisan, and I am so incredibly frustrated with the state of journalism in America.

So that was the Republican convention. We finally had Bin Laden mentioned, but not by Bush, by Pataki. We finally heard some of the actual domestic issues and policies the GOP will be pushing the next four years, after three days of nothing but Kerry bashing, patriotism questioning, and terror mongering. We now see what Bush is running on. He wants us to remember the good feelings we had after 9/11 when we all rallied around him as our leader. He wants us to be scared of other attacks and accept that only he and his policies can protect us. And he wants us to believe that Kerry (the decorated war hero) is a wimp, is unpatriotic, is indecisive and would invite terrorists into our country to kill your children.

Fun huh!

Day 3 of the Convention

Well we are now three days into the convention. Now granted, I have only watched the main speakers for each day, but I think I can honestly say that not once have we yet heard a policy prescription. Not once have we heard any detail about anything except for the war on terror. I am assuming Bush will address some policy issues, but so far this has been a pretty much content free convention.

Zell Miller was the keynote speaker today, and boy, that guy is about to have an aneurysm. He is obviously a very bitter, angry man. Maybe he wanted to be President by now? Anyway, the basic point of his speech was that (once again) we are in mortal peril, and the Democrats will not do anything to save us. His big zinger line of the night was: "Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations. Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. I want Bush to decide."

So according to Zell, if the North Koreans were lobbing missiles at us and massing troop ships off the coast, we would be on the phone to Paris looking for go ahead. But I have to give him props for sticking to message. It has been all terror all the time at the GOP convention, and he probably scared people more than most.

The highlight last night though was of course Dick Cheney. Dick gave an impassioned speech, full of optimism, full of excitement, full of life... actually I guess that wasn't his speech. His was the one where he misled the American people time after time after time.

President Bush reached across the aisle and brought both parties together to pass the most significant education reform in 40 years. With higher standards and new resources, America's schools are now on an upward path to excellence and not for just a few children, but for every child.

The no child left behind act was significant, and helpful if flawed. However the fact that Bush then underfunded the act every year since passing, is kind of important. The other important thing to remember, is that with the poor economy and the tax cuts, our schools have less resources than ever. My own kid's school has cut back on field trips, music and art education and many other things, all because of lack of funding. Cheney has a gall to say things are better in our schools.

President Bush delivered the greatest tax reduction in a generation, and the results are clear to see. Businesses are creating jobs. People are returning to work. Mortgage rates are low, and home ownership in this country is at an all-time high. The Bush tax cuts are working.

Businesses are creating jobs? Well yes they are, but at a lower rate than ever. Bush is going to leave office the only President since the Great Depression, to leave office with less jobs in America than when he started. Some people are returning to work, but more are losing it. As for Mortgage rates, they are low because Greenspan and the Federal Reserve have kept them low artificially for years, because of the need to jump start the poor economy. Having low interest rates in this case is nothing to brag about, it is something to be ashamed of. The Bush tax cuts have been a disaster.

Our nation has the best healthcare in the world, and President Bush is making it more affordable and accessible to all Americans. And there is more to do. Under this President's leadership, we will reform medical liability so the system serves patients and good doctors, not personal injury lawyers.

Umm yes, it is the best in the world, if you can afford it, which millions of new families can't now under the Bush Administration. Since he took office, millions more families are now without health insurance. As for affordable???? Is he kidding? Insurance premiums have been skyrocketting. Is this guy on drugs? The only thing they have done with any impact to health care was their prescription drug plan. This plan allowed seniors to buy discount cards that would give them a percent discount off of the drugs they buy. Only problem is that the drug companies have already erased the discounts by increasing the prices of the drugs. These guys are a health care disaster, but they want you to think they have made it affordable and accessible.

Anyway, that was the extent of his talk about domestic issues. Look at all the great things we have done, destroyed education, health care and the economy. Now lets get to the important stuff, you should be afraid, very afraid.

"We are under attack, we are safer today than we were on 9/11 but we will be attacked again, and Kerry will let Al Qaida kill your children. Kerry would rather give back massages to Saddam Hussein, would rather listen to terrorists than kill them. He is a weak pacifist, a girlie man in the words of Ahnuld. He would rather not kill every Muslim, even though that would make the world a safer place. "

I might be paraphrasing, but that was the gist of the rest of his speech.

What we all need to remember, and what the GOP is desperately trying to hide, is that invading Iraq has not made us safer, it has created terrorists, given them new bases, increased their appeal. We went there to protect us from an immediate threat, a man with WMD who was willing to give them to Al Qaida. None of which was true. What we also need to remember is that if we had used all of the resources we have wasted on Iraq in the pursuit of Al Qaida, then we would likely be safer today. If we had committed 130,000 men and women, 200 billion dollars, and our worldwide diplomatic efforts to actually combatting the real threat, we would be safer today. Maybe we would have even caught the real villain of 9/11, most of us seem to have forgotten Osama Bin Laden, but say it with me, Saddam did not attack us on 9/11.

The GOP has forgotten Osama Bin Laden. They moved the focus. They changed the agenda. They expanded the war on terror beyond the terrorists. We are in more peril because of it.

Bush isn't Hitler. But it appears the Republicans would be fine if he was.

To a Republican, what is the most important aspect of a leader? If you have been watching the GOP convention, then you have your answer.

Arnold: Being a strong leader is "about making decisions you think are right and then standing behind those decisions."

Giuliani: "There are many qualities that make a great leader but having strong beliefs, being able to stick with them through popular and unpopular times, is the most important characteristic of a great leader."

Laura Bush: "He'll always tell you what he really thinks. You can count on him, especially in a crisis. His friends don't change - and neither do his values."

John McCain: "We need a leader with the experience to make the tough decisions and the resolve to stick with them; a leader who will keep us moving forward even if it is easier to rest."

There is a reason they have emphasized this characteristic, and that reason is Kerry. They believe that this is what distinguishes Kerry from Bush. Bush will make the tough decisions quickly and decisively. Kerry on the other hand will (according to them) spend too much time overanalyzing a problem, and never get to the final decision. When Bush makes a decision, he will stick with it through thick and thin.

Now whether or not this is truly a characteristic of Bush (he changed his position on the 9/11 commission, or McCain/Feingold, etc etc) is this really something you want in a leader? A man who makes "gut" decisions after minimal consideration and then sticks with them forever because he is solid in his convictions? A man who never second guesses himself?

Now as I said in the title of this item, I am not saying Bush is Hitler. But under the guidelines for a good leader that have been parrotted over and over this week by Republicans, Hitler would have been a good leader. He was solid in his convictions, he wasn't swayed by what was popular, or by what the people wanted. He knew what he wanted and he stuck by it no matter how much he was reviled and despised. According to the Republican spin lately, he would have to be considered exactly what we want in a President. The same could be said for Stalin, or for Mao.

Of course, Republicans will say that they are different, because the decisions they were sticking by, and their principles that never changed, were wrong. Well that is my point exactly. Blindly following a leader who is valiantly standing by wrong decisions in the face of all public opposition and new found evidence is not loyalty, it is insane. Making mistakes and then continuing to follow the same path blindly because you already made up your mind once before is not a virtue. Sometimes what you need to do is step back and re-evaluate. Sometimes you need to carefully consider the consequences of your actions. Sometimes you need to understand the issue more that a quick briefing followed by a gut decision will let you. Sometimes you need to change your position based on new realities.

But if you are a Republican this week, you don't agree. All that matters is unswerving force of character, and unchanging principles. All that matters is the ability to stick by your decisions right or wrong. What an amazing principle to follow.

Ahnuld, Jenna, Barbara, Laura and Ben Barnes

Who the hell is Ben Barnes? I will get to that in a moment.

For now, I want to talk about the second night of the GOP Convention. Lets get this out of the way right up front. Jenna and Barbara are obviously their father's daughters. They were awful. I couldn't believe they were graduated college students, they actually looked and sounded like high school girls. The contrast between them and the Kerry daughters is phenomenal. However we don't vote for first families (thank heavens) but they were just bad, bad, bad.

Arnold Schwarzenegger also spoke. He is THE Republican celebrity, and added some needed star power to their convention. He was animated, had a good origin story, and did a reasonable job making a speech. However his speech was really pretty much content free. His main points were that even if you don't like everything that the Republican's support, if you are a patriotic American, you should be Republican. He also tried to appeal to the immigrant communities, using himself as an example. Of course he is atypical, not typical of the overall immigrant experience, but that didn't stop him.

Laura Bush tried to put a compassionate face on her husband. Remember Compassionate Conservatism? As was mentioned on the Daily Show last night, it is something that comes around every 4 years, kind of like the Olympics. She tied to list her husbands accomplishments. She mentioned the No Child Left Behind Act. This is the same act that her husband has failed to fully fund every year since it was enacted. It is also the same act that is basically a republican ploy to close down public schools so that education can be turned over to the private sector. She also mentioned that home ownership is at record levels. She failed to mention that this is because interests rates have been at record lows, and that is because the economy has been atrocious. She also failed to mention that a lot of the reason more people own homes is because the mortgage industry has lessened its requirements to such an extent that Americans now pay the highest percentage of their income on housing costs than ever before.

She also mentioned the millions now free from dictatorship, and especially the girls in Afghanistan who are now able to go to school. What she failed to mention is that only about 5% of afghanistani children have been able to go to school. The majority live in tribal areas with no rights whatsoever. She also mentioned the Afghanistani runner who competed in long pants and a t-shirt, as someone who has newfound freedom to compete, and still honors the traditions of her homeland. She failed to mention that this girl has also been condemned in her homeland, because she is even appearing.

She mentioned the tax cuts that have helped families and small business owners expand and create new jobs. She failed to mention that the tax cuts went mostly to the very wealthy, and that there are now less jobs than when her husband took office.

So basically she did a nice job, but her speech was full of half truths and deception.

So now, who is Ben Barnes? He is a guy who will be getting lots of press attention soon (at least he should.) In about a week and a half he will be interviewed on 60 minutes. Right now many major news organizations are writing up stories about him. Who is he?

He was the former lieutenant Governor of Texas, and he was the man who gave special treatment to our own dear George W to get him into the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam. Not only is he admitting that he did this, but he is going public and apologizing, saying that it was wrong and he has felt guilty about it for years.

Now the important thing to remember is that the Bush Administration and the Kerry Campaign have so far made this election pretty much about Kerry's military service. Another important thing to remember is that Bush has adamantly denied for years that he received any special treatment in his entrance to the guard. Once again, Bush is about to be caught in his lie.

Expect the Republican Smear Campaign to start with full force against Barnes. Expect to soon find out that he is a homosexual pedarist communist, who eats babies and tortures kittens. Because this will be highly embarrassing for Bush, especially after so much of his effort has recently been spent repudiating Kerry's service. Let the games begin!