Bin Laden Tape. Who does it help?

I think that it is clear that Bin Laden is trying to influence the upcoming election. We haven't heard from him in a year, and then he releases a new tape a few days before the election. So I think it is clear he is trying to have an impact. The real question is what is it that he is trying to achieve. I think there are three options.

First, he is trying to elect Bush. This may seem counterintuitive to some, because they have been told so many times that Al Qaeda attacked Spain right before their election in order to get them to vote out the incumbent pro-Bush government. I have never been convinced that this is the case. Why? Because you have to understand what Bin Laden's motives are. He is striving to create a war between Christianity and the Islamic world. He wants us to attack and kill Muslims, because that legitimizes his movement, and brings him new recruits. His ultimate goal is to force a worldwide war, a kind of Armageddon, and then Islam will emerge triumphant, over the whole world.

If this is the case, then he is much better off with Bush in power. Bush so far has done everything Bin Laden wanted him to. We invaded Iraq, and now more that ever, Muslims are sympathetic to his cause. So how would the tape help Bush win? Very simply. Most of the commentators talking about the tape have spoken about the boost it is expected to give Bush. When Bin Laden criticizes Bush, many independent voters may look at that, and rally around the commander in chief. They may also argue that if Kerry wins now, it is what Bin Laden wants (in their own naive view) and so they have to vote for Bush. Personally I think that this likely was the goal of the tape, and it will help Bush somewhat in these remaining days.

The second possibility is that Bin Laden wants Kerry to win. He is mad at Bush, and wants to humiliate him. This is possible, but only makes sense if Bin Laden has a naive view of the U.S. public. He had to know that the way most average Americans would take this was to turn to supporting Bush, if he didn't, then he is far less sophisticated than we have given him credit for. While I can see this as possible, it just doesn't make sense to me. Although honestly, trying to determine his aims is a murky proposition at best.

The third option was that he wants to be able to claim victory no matter who wins. This is actually very possibly the real goal. The fact that commentators are arguing about who this helps is a supporting factor in this argument. Since it is not clear who this helps, if Kerry wins, or if Bush wins, he can claim that he had an impact on the U.S. election.

The bottom line is that we really don't know who he wanted to help, but it does seem clear that it is going to end up helping Bush. I originally thought that just the fact that Bin Laden was alive and taunting us, 3 years after Bush declared him wanted, dead or alive, played directly into Kerry's argument about the ineffectiveness of Bush's war on terror. What I generally forget though, is that most Americans seem to act less on logic and reality, and more on emotion and gut feelings. Since this tape will likely scare a good portion of the American public, as well as reminding them of 9/11, I don't think that many of them will take the time to really think this through. I think in the short few days we have, the emotional aspect will be supreme, and it will help Bush.

Let's just hope that it isn't enough to regain the momentum he had lost over the last few days to Kerry.

Two important numbers from Iraq

There are two important numbers I wanted to talk about today, both from Iraq. The first is 377, the second is 100,000.

377 is the number of tons of highly dangerous explosives that went missing from the Al-QaQaa nuclear and munitions site in Iraq. These explosives were highly refined, and very dangerous. Just one pound of these explosives would be enough to bring down an airliner.

The accusations on both sides have been flying, and we really don't know everything yet, but there are a few things we do know. This article by the Associated Press helped sort out the facts:

- Al-QaQaa was an extremely important site. The U.N. nuclear monitors considered it the pre-eminent high explosive stockpile location in Iraq. In fact they moved explosives from other locations to this site so they could all be isolated together. The explosives were then sealed in the bunkers here, and last checked on March 15th, 2003, just 5 days before the invasion.

- This site was not a hidden site. The U.N. agency notified the world and the U.S. of its presence and of the material that was there.

- U.S. troops arrived first at the site on April 3rd. They were there for two days before leaving for Baghdad. While it would seem that they would have explored the entire compound, they didn't, the compound has over 100 buildings and bunkers.

- On April 10th, another group of U.S. soldiers arrived, and they had orders to search for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological weapons. They were not ordered to search for conventional weapons or explosives, and they were not ordered to secure the site after they left. They did not find any of the WMD they were looking for, but we currently have no details on whether or not they actually saw the conventional explosives there or not. They left after 24 hours, and the site remained unsecured.

- The second unit did say that the place was overrun with looters when they arrived. The first unit that passed through has not made that observation. It seems the first unit was really just part of the battle plans, and was not part of the inspection groups. It wasn't until the second group arrived on the 10th that any searches were done, and these were not for the conventional explosives.

Now Kerry is accusing Bush of being negligent, and not securing the explosives after the invasion. Bush counters with the argument that we don't know what happened to them, they may have all been moved before the U.S. troops got there. I think Bush's argument is actuality a reasonable one, it is possible that Saddam moved all the explosives, spread them around as it were, to ensure they weren't bombed or captured by the allies. He would have had a short time to do it, after March 15th, however it is possible.

The problem is that this is really beside the point. The most damaging aspect of this issue, is that fact that even though the U.S. knew that these explosives were at this site, they had no plans to secure the site, no plans to search for the explosives, no plans beyond possible WMD. As far as we can see, the orders were to find WMD and then move out. No orders were given to find the largest stockpile of conventional explosives in Iraq and secure them. When Bush says it is possible that they were moved before we got there, and he says that Kerry is jumping the gun before we know what really happened to them, this is a smokescreen. Because if Bush had been doing his job, then these explosives would have been a priority. We would have gone to the site, noticed that the explosives were gone, and identified that as an issue. The simple fact that the U.S. had NO IDEA what happened to these explosives and didn't even seem to realize they were gone until the Iraqi government gave their report this month to the Atomic Energy Commission is absolutely horrifying. It is not like they didn't know they were there. It just seems that they either didn't worry about them, or just forgot about them. Criminally negligent.

Secondly, the fact that they had no plans to secure a location which included the largest stockpile of explosives in Iraq is even more damning when you consider what they did secure. The Administration had extremely detailed plans on how to secure all the oil wells in Iraq, and had them secured almost immediately after the invasion. We managed to secure them, but failed to secure the largest stockpile of conventional weapons in Iraq??????

The second number I wanted to talk about is also from Iraq. The number is 100,000. This is the number of dead Iraqis that have died since the invasion that is above what you would normally see in Iraq during the same period. In other words, the number of dead Iraqis likely as a result of our invasion. This number seems very high to me, but it is reported in a survey by Johns Hopkins and Columbia University, in conjuction with a Baghdad University. The survey was a household survey, in other words they went and asked Iraqis how many people had died in their family, spoke with doctors and first responders, etc. That is why I think the numbers are likely high.

However, most estimates still place the number of Iraqi dead as a result of the invasion between 10,000 and 40,000. This is still a huge number of people, most of them civilians, many of them women and children. Iraqi civilians are dying every day, as a result of airstrikes and other action, yet we rarely hear about them, and that is a tragedy.

One thing we have to remember when we are trying to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis, is that every one of these dead Iraqis has a family, all of whom are likely devastated, and angry at the U.S. Every time we kill another Iraqi civilian, we likely create another 10 to 20 enemies of our occupation. It is a disaster. We wonder why we are not liked.

War on Terrorism and our Rights

Over the past three years, since 9/11, we have seen a major erosion of our rights. This erosion has been open and not hidden either, and is mostly encapsulated in the PATRIOT act. However it has also been seen in decisions to deny rights to those captured during the war on terror, both here and abroad. It has even been seen in decisions that deprive citizens of their constitutional rights, under the guise that it is protecting us from terrorism.

The argument for these dilutions of rights, was that they were necessary to fight terrorism. The American people, mostly, accepted the reduction if it made them safer. So the question then needs to be, has it? Has it been worth losing some of our rights?

Well this can probably be measured in two ways. The first would be to analyze how many terrorist attacks have been stopped because of the enhanced anti-terrorism capabilities. Unfortunately this is nearly impossible, since there is little evidence to analyze. Ashcroft will tell you that we have stopped hundreds of attacks, but the Bush Administration's credibility is shot right now, I don't believe a word they say anymore. Besides, if they had truly foiled some grand terrorist plan, they would have trumpeted the details from the rooftops by now, especially with the election so close.

So we have to look at the other measurement, which is terrorist convictions. One of the big arguments for these laws, was that it would make it easier for the government to build a case against the terrorists, and therefore they would be more likely to obtain a conviction. So what is the government's record on this? Absolutely poor. In fact they haven't obtained any lasting convictions. The one conviction they did get, was overthrown in court because the prosecutors withheld evidence. That is it. No convictions. None.

It is not for lack of trying. They have locked up thousands of "terrorists" here within the U.S. and thousands more overseas. They either still hold these guys without trial, they have let them go, or they have tried for a conviction and failed. The same holds true in Guantanamo. Once the Supreme Court declared that those held there needed access to legal assistance and needed an opportunity to defend themselves, they have had no success. They have let lots of them go, they have tried to have trials which have bogged down in a mess, the whole situation is a disaster.

This is what the Bush administration did with all these fancy new laws reducing our rights. Was it worth it? Honestly I don't know. But it seems to me that the evidence is pretty clear that either the Ashcroft Justice Department is incompetent, or they simply haven't found any really useful damning evidence using these new powers. If that is the case, then it was not worth the reduction in our civil liberties.

Outfoxed. Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism

My wife and I watched the documentary, "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism" last night. I was very impressed with the documentary, the detail and research that went into it was astounding. I have always known that Fox news was less than "Fair and Balanced", but the extent to which they manipulate and manage the news is incredible. From daily memo's instructing the talking heads with what spin they should put on the news, to the fact that they editorialize all the time, it is an amazing thing to watch. I would recommend the documentary highly.

The problem with Fox isn't so much that it is biased, that is ok in a free society, it is that it pretends to be mainstream. It pretends to be "Fair and Balanced." O'Reilly's (he of phone sex and Falafel fame!) show continually talks about how it is the "No Spin Zone", and he continually insists that his show is the one place where you can get the facts, and only the facts, without spin. The irony of the fact that his show is pretty much nothing but spin is lost on most of their viewers.

So why is this a problem? Well Fox viewers will see the viewpoints portrayed on Fox, and they will hear that they are mainstream ideas. They will hear that Fox is the middle of the road, and that all other media is far left wing. This leads Fox viewers to an incredibly distorted view of the world. Yesterday I was listening to an interview with Carol Cassady, a Republican candidate for the House of Representatives. She had indicated that she supported the war in Iraq because we had to attack the terrorists. The interviewer asked her if she discounted the findings of the 9/11 commission and the CIA reports that showed no significant terrorist connections between Iraq and the 9/11 attackers. Her response was a perfect example of the Fox effect. She said that most of the media was biased, and was anti American, and so they were trying to tell people that the reports didn't show the link, insinuating that they actually did. I have read the 9/11 report, and there is no connection. She however, has bought the Fox line that they are the only credible news outlet in America. It is really sad, because it allows people to ignore reality, and live in their fantasy world.

So in the spirit of journalistic exploration, I decided to go to www.foxnews.com, and see if I could find any examples of bias. Here goes.

Here is the main headline: "Kerry begins day in Wisconsin by bashing Bush on missing Iraq explosives; president elsewhere in same state." well it didn't take long. Notice how Kerry is the one bashing the President? This is common on Fox, Kerry is the negative campaigner, Bush the victim. Just the use of the word Bashing has a negative connotation.

Another story on the site, titled "Kerry's Final Sale" makes points about how Kerry is too formal, and only is really good in an academic setting. When he is quoted as making a friendly statement, "I've got your back", they criticize him by saying "there's a formality in the way that Kerry speaks, even when he's saying something as casual as this. He says the phrase slowly and carefully pronounces each word, so it doesn't sound like it would if it came from a friend or a teammate who made the promise in a huddle."

In contrast they say that Bush "has a completely different style than Kerry. He likes to tell jokes and deliver punchy one-liners that bring home his points." The whole point of the article is that Kerry, unlike Bush, tries to hard to be likeable, and often fails when he tries to connect with the crowd. This is of course right out of the Republican play book.

What are the other headlines on their main page? "PAC spending favors Kerry", "Kerry camp gives up on Missouri", and "Cheney: Kerry 'Misguided' on Iraq". Not exactly favorable reporting. PAC's are brought up because they are seen as unfair by Republicans, forget for a moment the fact that Bush currently has more money in the bank than Kerry, it is just that Kerry has more of his money from PACs. Kerry giving up on Missouri is intended to show that Kerry is struggling. Cheney's comments get headline status.

Want more? Another headline on the main page, "Bush: Our Base is United". Another one? "The British are Sliming". This latest is an article about how the British media is in the middle of airing a number of "Anti-American" television shows. Of course, they are on topics such as the fact that 9/11 and the War on Terror has polarized the American people, which of course it has. Much of the anger in the TV shows is aimed at American foreign policy and the Bush Administration in particular, but of course that is then painted as Anti-Americanism. Of course to Republican's, anything Anti-Bush is automatically ant-American.

More? How about "One Economy; Two Spins" which basically makes a case that out economy isn't as bad as everyone is saying it is, and that the problem (yet again) is media bias which dwells on the negative. How about "Activists, Not Global Warming, a Third-World Threat" which makes the point that it is environmental activism that is the problem, not Global Warming. Another? How about "Getting the Facts Straight on Iraq" which insists that Iraq is much better off that Kerry or Edwards are saying. Or "Saddam, Syria Colluded Under U.N. Watch" which puts the focus on France, Russia and Syria, as well as the U.N. for all the problems in Iraq. Or what about this one, "Who's Really Smarter?" which makes the case that Bush is actually smarter than Kerry. Me thinks they protest too much!

It gets even worse when you delve into the Bill O'Reilly section of the site. This so called "independent" voice, in his "no spin zone" is universally hostile to the Democrats and John Kerry. He blasts Kerry for attacking the President for saying "Whether or not we can be ever fully safe is up - you know, is up in the air." Kerry did blast him for this statement, but this was after Bush blasted Kerry for saying that we should reduce terrorism to a nuisance level. They are both basically saying the same thing, that this is not a traditional war, and there won't be a traditional end, but O'Reilly of course ignores the similarities.

Here is a list of headlines under the O'Reilly section of foxnews.com:

Kerry and the Swift Boat veterans
A Sin for Catholics to Vote for Kerry?
Senator Kerry's "Global Test"
Police officer is ordered to remove anti Kerry sign
CBS doc's flap effect on "Elite" media
etc etc etc

As I said before, this is all fine if it is presented as partisan. However Fox maintains the illusion that they are middle of the road and "Fair and Balanced". That is why this news organization is so dangerous. Besides the fact that Fox News viewers are less informed about the world and what is actually going on, they are also getting a distorted view of what they are told is "middle of the road" thinking.

Watch the documentary I mentioned at the beginning. It is very good.

Just one week to go. What to talk about?

Well here we are, just one week to go before the election. You have probably heard the election called the most important of our lifetime, and I believe it is. We have had a good look at how a George Bush Administration operates, and we have to wonder if that is how a second one will be. As President Bush constantly says, he doesn't change course because of popular opinion or any other reason, so I guess we can be sure that his second Administration will be a continuation of the first. So how was that first Administration?

Well lets take a look:

The economy is in shambles. Yes we are slowly improving right now, but the improvement has been sluggish, and many economists blame uncertainty, as well as the increasing federal debt for many of the problems. Millions more Americans are in poverty since Bush took office. Minorities have lost ground, they now have less wealth than they had when Bush took office. There are 500,000 less jobs since 2001, a huge loss when you consider that we need to add more than 100,000 jobs every month just to keep up with new job seekers. The deficit is at record highs, and we have gone from billions in surplus to billions in deficit.

The wealthiest Americans have received the vast majority of three tax cuts, when we could least afford them. Bush is the first President in history to cut taxes during war time. His tax cuts did provide stimulus, which is why we are slowly climbing out of recession, however it was a short term benefit, as our country will be dealing with the massive debt incurred for years to come. This debt will be a drag on our economy for the long term, and the effects are just beginning to be seen. Our children will end up having to pay off that debt; debt that was incurred in order to give millions back to those who already have millions.

The environment has suffered. Bush has scrapped or allowed to expire many environmental protections. He has often replaced these with voluntary protections, expecting businesses to put the common good over their bottom line. He has ignored the global warming issue, even going as far to say that we are not sure it is even happening. He scrapped the Kyoto accord, without suggesting any alternative. He has allowed snow mobiles back in our national parks. He has removed thousands of acres of wetlands from protection by adjusting the definition of watershed. He scrapped Clinton administration fuel efficiency standards, that would have reduced our pollution and reliance on foreign oil. He has invested in "clean coal" technology, instead of true environmental renewable energy. His Administration has named the least number of species as endangered species of any modern President. He has put aside the least amount of our wild areas for protection of any modern President. He has been an environmental disaster.

Bush has ignored science. He has hampered stem cell research that could help thousands of people. This is still years away, but under another Bush Administration, thousands more will die as the cures are delayed. He has denied climate research that shows global warming is an issue.

Americans have lost ground in regards to their privacy and personal security. The Bush Administration has illegally detained individuals without access to legal representation or even contact with their families, for years at a time without charging them with any crime. This includes American citizens. They have fostered an environment that lead to the crimes in Abu Ghraib prison. They have detained hundreds of people in Guantanamo Bay, in violation of international law and treaties.

He has done little to address the health care crisis. Millions more Americans are now without health care. Hospitals are going bankrupt from treating patients without insurance. Insurance costs are skyrocketing. Drug costs have gone through the roof. He made it illegal for Medicare to bargain for cheaper prices with the drug companies. He did introduce a prescription drug benefit that will kick in in a couple of years, but it does nothing to address drug costs, so will be a huge windfall to the drug companies. He introduced a plan to allow seniors to buy into private prescription discount cards, however the savings have already been wiped out on many drugs by price increases. He has refused to allow re-importing of drugs from overseas, so that Americans pay far more for drugs than most other nations. He has no plan for fixing the issue, other than allowing the wealthy to buy into their own savings plans, and going after trial lawyers.

He has been a disaster in the war on terror. While we did invade Afghanistan, and remove some of the ability for Al Qaeda to operate there, they are still there, and still working against us. Osama Bin Laden is still free, and still working to kill Americans. Bin Laden had one goal, to taunt the U.S. into invading the middle east, provoking a holy war. We fell into his trap. He wanted us to help him turn more Muslims to him, and we have succeeded. Previously unallied terrorist groups have recently announced alliances with Al Qaeda. More and more Muslims are fighting against us in Iraq. We are alienating a whole generation of Muslims, and that is exactly what Bin Laden wanted. We are less safe today, because instead of drying up support for Al Qaeda, we have increased it.

We invaded a sovereign nation, illegally. The only legal ways to invade another country are under U.N. approval or in self defense from attack. We did not have U.N. approval, and Iraq was not a threat to us. The Bush Administration told us that Iraq had WMD, and they were going to give them to Al Qaeda so they could use them in our cities. None of that was true. There were no WMD in Iraq, and Al Qaeda had no collaborative relationship with Iraq. We now own a country which is becoming increasingly hostile. The longer we are there, the more Iraqis join the resistance, and attack our troops. The more money that flows to the terrorists. The more our troops are in danger. We will spend thousands more lives and billions more dollars before we leave Iraq, and when we do, it will likely be not much better off than when we started, if not worse. It was a disaster of epic proportions.

He has spent billions of dollars on an unproven, ineffective missile defense program, that has yet to be shown to work in any fashion. This is money that could have been used to shore up our homeland security, or invest in any number of other ways.

Energy costs have gone through the roof. We now have the highest oil prices ever seen. Bush's family and friends in the oil business are taking home record profits.

Our international friendships and alliances are shot. We lost our credibility in the U.N. with Powell's remarkable false assertions. We lost our credibility with most of Europe. We have weakened NATO. We have a majority of people in the world who now hate our government, and want George Bush out of office. Who will believe us when we next turn up evidence that a regime is a threat?

We have ignored real threats while concentrating on bogus ones. We ignored the situation in North Korea for 2 years, and in the meantime they expanded their nuclear arsenal. We ignored the situation in Iran, and in the meantime they are closer to having a nuclear arsenal. We ignored the situation in Palestine, giving consent to Sharon to do anything he wanted to the Palestinians, likely extending that conflict, and increasing sympathy for the Palestinians and hatred for the U.S. and Israel.

Bush opposed the 9/11 commission that was investigating the errors and issues that lead to the 9/11 attacks. He refused to allow full access to member of his Administration, only allowing Rice to testify after the commission agreed they would not ask for any other members. He refused to appear alone and under oath.

He opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. He also failed to fully fund Clinton's COPS program that put 100,000 new police on the streets, many of which have now been let go. He has failed to fully fund first responders, including Firefighters. He has failed to improve inspection of containers being shipped into our country, and scanning of cargo areas on planes.

The Bush Administration has done all these things and more. There is ample evidence that they intend to continue on this disastrous course, and we as a nation can't afford it. It is time for a change. Never before has it been so critical. We cannot afford another 4 years of the same.

The ignorance gap grows!

Yesterday I spoke about a study that showed an alarming number of American's who had little knowledge about the policies of Bush and Kerry, and were often totally wrong in identifying which candidate supported which policy. This was scary, but yesterday's post pretty much laid the blame equally on Democrats and Republicans.

Not today.

A new study came out today, published by the Program on International Policy Attitudes. The study asked a number of important "reality" based questions, and then tallied the results based on whether an individual was a Republican or a Democrat. What they found is scary, but not that surprising to me. Democrats had a fairly good grasp of reality, while Republicans did not.

Want some examples?

Even after the recent Duelfer report to Congress which showed no WMD in Iraq, and even after Bush administration acceptance of this fact, 47% of Republicans surveyed still believe that Iraq had WMD. 25% still believe that Iraq had major WMD development programs. Now this is surprising in itself, since the report was from our own Weapons Inspection team, but you might think they are just ignoring the experts. But even this is wrong. 56% of Republicans actually still assume that most experts believe that Iraq had WMD. More than half!!! They must have either paid no attention over the last 6 months, or they are subconsciously blocking reality. 57% also believe that the Duelfer report concluded that Iraq had a major WMD program.

This is just astounding. The only thing I can think of as an explanation is Bush's comments that the Duelfer report supported their assertions, although if you looked at what Bush was actually saying, he was saying that the Duelfer report showed that Saddam still wanted WMD. In these voter's minds, they must have heard that assertion, and assumed it meant he had WMD. Just amazing.

WMD are just the beginning. 75% of Republicans still believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to Al Qaeda, contradicting the CIA, and even Donald Rumsfeld, who recently said he had seen no hard evidence of this. 63% believe that clear evidence of this has been found. Again though, even more astoundingly, 60% believe that most experts also believe this. 60%!!!! Since virtually no experts believe this, it is an incredible number. 55% assume that the 9/11 commission also found this, when in reality it had the exact opposite finding.

Another amazing finding. 58% of Republicans believe that we should not have invaded Iraq if they didn't have WMD and Al Qaeda connections. So in other words, if reality had managed to make it through their filter, they would be against the war.

They are incredibly ignorant about world opinion as well. Only 32% of Bush supporters recognize that the majority of the people in the world oppose us attacking Iraq. 42% believe that opinion is evenly divided, and 26% believe that most people think it was the right thing to do. The majority of people in nearly every country are opposed to the war, including in many of the members of the "coalition of the willing", however Bush supporters are oblivious.

The same goes for how the world views the Bush Administration. 57% of Bush supporters think that the majority of people in the world want Bush re-elected. In fact in recent polls, in nearly every country polled, the majority wanted Kerry elected, mostly as a vote against Bush. However only 9% of Republicans got this fact right.

The numbers just go on and on. Bush supporters got Bush's position on major international treaties and initiatives wrong nearly every time. For example 51% thought Bush supported the Kyoto treaty. How on earth can they think that? Do they not even listen to Bush when he speaks on these issues??

It all comes down to what I spoke about in a much earlier post. Just like a parent who has difficulty accepting evidence that shows their beloved child is a bully, many American voters, and obviously especially Bush supporters, have an extreme aversion to reality when it contradicts their internal perception of Bush and America. They must simply filter out anything that contradicts what they already believe.

What this really means though, is that we have a large population of our society that is voting based on an incredibly distorted understanding of reality. These people are obviously part of the "faith based" world that Suskind talks about, where reality is unimportant. This is an extremely disturbing trend for our future.

Our engaged electorate, or lack of it.

I must live in my own little world. I always recognized that I am more obsessed by politics and news than most people, that is just who I am. I recognized that to most Americans, politics is something they just think about every 4 years, if then.

However after reading the results of a new study by The Survey Group at Middle Tennessee State University, I now realize that I was overestimating the involvement of the average American.

The study doesn't surprise too much on the levels of support for Kerry and Bush. What really surprised me was the lack of knowledge about some of the most important issues in our current election. According to the study:

only about half of Tennessee adults can accurately name Kerry as the candidate who supports rescinding the recent federal income tax cuts for people earning over $200,000 a year. About a quarter (23%) incorrectly attributed the proposal to Bush, and 27% admit they don’t know which candidate supports the measure. Similarly, only about half (50%) rightly name Bush as the candidate who favors giving parents tax-funded vouchers to help pay private or religious school tuition. Thirteen percent attribute the plan to Kerry, who actually opposes it. Over a third (37%) admit they don’t know.

Knowledge levels are even lower on the other three issues. Well under half (42%) are aware that Bush wants to let younger workers put some of their Social Security withholdings into their own personal retirement accounts. Nineteen percent incorrectly think Kerry supports the measure, and 40% say they don’t know one way or the other. Just over a quarter (28%) rightly name Bush as the candidate who supports giving needy people tax breaks that would help buy health insurance from private companies. Thirty percent inaccurately name Kerry as the measure’s proponent, and 41% admit not knowing. Finally, just 39% know that Kerry advocates requiring plants and factories to add new pollution control equipment when they make upgrades. Fifteen percent wrongly attribute the policy to Bush, and 45% don’t know.

Not only are these polled citizens not knowledgeable about these important issues, they also often fail to support the same policies of their preferred candidate. I can only assume that this is because they really don't understand what their candidates believe in.

What does all this mean? I don't think the American electorate is stupid. I think it is more likely a simple reflection of the problems with our political process. We have devolved the election process to soundbites and attack ads. The media covers sensation and not substance. The people are saturated by what is not really important, and this blocks out the true substantial issues between the candidates, to the point that the American public just doesn't understand what is going on.

The scary thing to me is that these are the people we are relying on to elect our leaders! We need to change the process, help people to really understand the issues, and make sure that the campaign is waged on fact, not perception. I have little faith that we can do that in today's environment though.

Bush's Faith Based Presidency

Most of you might have heard by now of Ron Suskind's latest article in the New York Times, titled "Without a Doubt". (Link Here). It is an amazing in depth look at the President, and how he makes his decisions. It is extremely thorough, and every American should read it. The New York Times requires registration, but use www.bugmenot.com to get a free temporary login if you want one.

Suskind argues that Bush has a very simple decision making process, which basically boils down to following his gut instincts. Once he has made a decision, that decision is final, because he believes that he is directed by God in all that he does. There is no point in changing a decision if God was the ultimate author of that decision. It must be right, and no matter what the reality of the situation, it must work out in the long run, because it is God's will.

This is a good process if we can be sure that God is truly guiding Bush. However if he is simply deluding himself, this is extremely dangerous. He simply discounts evidence that his plans are faltering, not because he thinks his plans will work, but because he KNOWS his plans will work because they are God's plans.

The other interesting thing about the article is this exchange between Suskind and a Bush Administration official:

"In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

So we in the "reality based community" are being ruled by those who create their own reality. This makes so much sense when you consider Karl Rove's philosophy of always projecting the idea you are winning in the election, no matter what the reality is. Or Bush's insistence that everything is great in Iraq. He feels that if he says it, that is reality. It is kind of like the old idea of the "Power of Positive thinking" run amok.

Reality doesn't matter to these guys. It doesn't matter if Iraq is going bad, because God wanted them to invade Iraq so everything will work out. It doesn't matter if our deficits are skyrocketing, because God wants tax cuts for the wealthy, and it will work out. It is faith based policy making, and it is disastrous. The American people really need to decide if this is what they want.

Minorities still way behind and losing ground.

A surprising (at least to me) new report underlines the incredible difficulties so many minorities and poor have to struggle with. During the Bush term, the gap in wealth between white families and minority families has grown, and for these families, their wealth has even decreased.

According to the study by the Pew Hispanic Center, the median family wealth for a white family in 2002 (the last year the numbers are available) was $88,651. This includes all assets and income, so includes things like a home, cars etc. This was a modest increase since before Bush came into the Whitehouse. White families had wealth of $86,370 in 1999.

However the numbers become extremely dramatic when you look at the minority numbers. In 1999, Hispanic families had a median wealth of $10,495. This is startling by itself compared to the white family's numbers. However by 2002 they had dropped to $7,932. Black families went from $8,774 in 1999 to $5,998 in 2002.

Now granted, the main reason for this problem is the recession. Families with more wealth at the start of the recession are able to weather it much better than those without. Also granted, this wealth gap existed under Clinton, and wasn't improving dramatically, although it was improving. Regardless of whose problem or fault this is, it is something we HAVE to find some solutions to.

Many will say it is personal responsibility, that these people are to blame for their own situations. Personally I think that can be part of the equation. Equally important though, is the fact that most minorities still have to deal with discrimination on a daily basis. They also more likely to live in poor neighborhoods with poor school systems. They are more likely to live in crime ridden neighborhoods. Families working earning minimum wage have an increasingly more difficult time breaking out of that cycle.

It is a travesty, and we need to do something about it. As the wealthiest nation on earth, we should be ashamed to see this kind of disparity.

Bush... Really is a Uniter, not a Divider

Bush finally showed us what he meant when he said during the 2000 campaign that he was a uniter not a divider. I thought he meant in our country, but apparently he meant our enemies.

Since we invaded Iraq, the world united against us. Recent polls show that almost universally, people around the world despise our recent actions in Iraq, and even more so, want to see Bush out of office. So there was one great example of Uniting instead of dividing. He has also done a great job uniting the Democrats. This has to be the most united I have ever seen the Democratic party, all with an eye single to removing Bush from power.

While the war in Iraq has done wonders to unite people against us and the Republican party, it seems the best was yet to come. Over the weekend, Al-Zarqawi, our number one enemy in Iraq, the guy that has been beheading people left right and center, and who has been the mastermind of most of the terrible attacks we have recently experienced, finally put aside his friendly rivalry with Osama Bin Laden, and pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda.

While the Bush administration has tried to tie Zarqawi to Al Qaeda for years, their evidence has been poor, and the CIA (as well as the 9/11 commission) have said that no collaborative relationship exists. Until now that is. Zarqawi said in his statement that he and Al Qaeda have been negotiating for the past 8 months, and they have decided to work together. Now Al Zarqawi will take orders from Osama. Now Zarqawi will be his right hand man in Iraq. While most terrorism in Iraq used to be either Zarqawi or Iraqi nationalists, now we can truly say that Al Qaeda is behind it all.

Bush has managed to bring them together, and we will pay for it. They will benefit from Al Qaeda's organizational skills, coupled with Zarqawi's ruthlessness and men on the ground. It is a terrible mix.

Now what has the Bush Administration said about this? Well of course that this is again (isn't everything?) vindication for their position that Zarqawi and Bin Laden were working together. The sad fact is that they weren't, and since we invaded and conquered Iraq, they now are. The truth is that rivals can often come together, when they have a unified goal and a common enemy. Think about the United States and the Soviet Union during world war two. Zarqawi and Al Qaeda were rivals in the past, but the United States made them firm friends. We will regret that this ever happened.

Third and final Presidential Debate.

Last night was probably the most important debate in modern politics. Hyperbole? Maybe, but it was extremely important. The first two debates set the stage and pulled Kerry back to even with the President in the polls. This final debate would determine who gained momentum from the debate, and who would take that momentum with them into the home stretch.

Kerry took it home.

To be honest with you, I think stylistically it was Kerry’s weakest debate of the three; the lucky thing is he is debating George Bush, who, while he improved each debate, never reached even Kerry’s low point. Stylistically I think last night was a tie, but on the substance? The choice was exceptionally clear.

Bush hurt himself most dramatically by refusing to answer questions. Over and over he dodged the issue. All politicians do that, but Bush was doing it question after question, and even on series of questions in a row. It definitely hurt him.

One of the most striking examples of this is how he seems to think that the No Child Left Behind Act is the solution to every problem in America. If not the NCLB act, then tax cuts. When asked about the minimum wage, his answer was the No Child Left Behind Act. When asked about job outsourcing, his answer was the NCLB act. It seemed most of the time when he failed to answer the question, it was a question he answered with the NCLB act.

There was one really funny Dick Cheney answer. Kerry accused Bush of taking his eye of Osama bin Laden:

“Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, “Where is Osama bin Laden?” He said, “I don‘t know. I don‘t really think about him very much. I‘m not that concerned.” “

Bush’s response was very funny. “Gosh, I just don‘t think I ever said I‘m not worried about Osama bin Laden. It‘s kind of one of those exaggerations.”

Actually, he did say that, in pretty much those exact words. “"Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. ... And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him”

Very funny.

One of the questions that Bush also failed to answer was the question about how he is going to pay for his Social Security plan that allows young people to stop paying into social security. The CBO has estimated that it will cost between 1 and 2 trillion dollars. He was asked specifically how he was going to pay for it, and he refused to answer.

This is actually an extremely significant question, because with this 1 to 2 trillion dollars, Bush’s proposed spending increases mean he will be adding 2 to 3 trillion in new spending. This is incredible, considering he is not pushing for any tax roll backs. Kerry’s plan is expected to cost around 1.3 trillion, but at least he is rolling back the tax cuts for those over 200,000. Bush has never explained how he will pay for this, and he is getting away with it.

Overall it was an interesting debate. The good news is that most of the polls I have seen after the debate all show that Kerry won. In fact only one I saw showed that it was a statistical tie, but that one was the ABC poll which had significantly more Republicans watching than Democrats.

All in all I think Kerry benefited dramatically from the debates, and he now has the momentum. With only three weeks to go, and only the slimmest of margins between the two of them, it is going to be an interesting march to the election.

Debate Tonight... Important Fact Check Info IN ADVANCE!

Tonight is the third and final Presidential debate. The polls are so close you couldn't slip a piece of paper between them, nearly every poll shows the two candidates neck a neck within the margin of error. Even more importantly, in many of the important battleground states for the electoral college, the polls are the same way. This election could go either way right now. The debate tonight is incredibly important, because if Kerry can maintain momentum coming out of this debate, he could have the whitehouse.

To help you watch the debate tonight (9 Eastern, 6 Pacific, nearly every channel) I thought it would helpful to provide some fact checking in advance. A friend of mine sent me this New York Times article that is great for preparing to watch the debate. I will include the text and the link:

Here is the Link

Here is the text by Paul Krugman:

"It's not hard to predict what President Bush, who sounds increasingly desperate, will say tomorrow. Here are eight lies or distortions you'll hear, and the truth about each:

Jobs

Mr. Bush will talk about the 1.7 million jobs created since the summer of 2003, and will say that the economy is "strong and getting stronger." That's like boasting about getting a D on your final exam, when you flunked the midterm and needed at least a C to pass the course.

Mr. Bush is the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a decline in payroll employment. That's worse than it sounds because the economy needs around 1.6 million new jobs each year just to keep up with population growth. The past year's job gains, while better news than earlier job losses, barely met this requirement, and they did little to close the huge gap between the number of jobs the country needs and the number actually available.

Unemployment

Mr. Bush will boast about the decline in the unemployment rate from its June 2003 peak. But the employed fraction of the population didn't rise at all; unemployment declined only because some of those without jobs stopped actively looking for work, and therefore dropped out of the unemployment statistics. The labor force participation rate - the fraction of the population either working or actively looking for work - has fallen sharply under Mr. Bush; if it had stayed at its January 2001 level, the official unemployment rate would be 7.4 percent.

The deficit

Mr. Bush will claim that the recession and 9/11 caused record budget deficits. Congressional Budget Office estimates show that tax cuts caused about two-thirds of the 2004 deficit.

The tax cuts

Mr. Bush will claim that Senator John Kerry opposed "middle class" tax cuts. But budget office numbers show that most of Mr. Bush's tax cuts went to the best-off 10 percent of families, and more than a third went to the top 1 percent, whose average income is more than $1 million.

The Kerry tax plan

Mr. Bush will claim, once again, that Mr. Kerry plans to raise taxes on many small businesses. In fact, only a tiny percentage would be affected. Moreover, as Mr. Kerry correctly pointed out last week, the administration's definition of a small-business owner is so broad that in 2001 it included Mr. Bush, who does indeed have a stake in a timber company - a business he's so little involved with that he apparently forgot about it.

Fiscal responsibility

Mr. Bush will claim that Mr. Kerry proposes $2 trillion in new spending. That's a partisan number and is much higher than independent estimates. Meanwhile, as The Washington Post pointed out after the Republican convention, the administration's own numbers show that the cost of the agenda Mr. Bush laid out "is likely to be well in excess of $3 trillion" and "far eclipses that of the Kerry plan."

Spending

On Friday, Mr. Bush claimed that he had increased nondefense discretionary spending by only 1 percent per year. The actual number is 8 percent, even after adjusting for inflation. Mr. Bush seems to have confused his budget promises - which he keeps on breaking - with reality.

Health care

Mr. Bush will claim that Mr. Kerry wants to take medical decisions away from individuals. The Kerry plan would expand Medicaid (which works like Medicare), ensuring that children, in particular, have health insurance. It would protect everyone against catastrophic medical expenses, a particular help to the chronically ill. It would do nothing to restrict patients' choices.

By singling out Mr. Bush's lies and misrepresentations, am I saying that Mr. Kerry isn't equally at fault? Yes.

Mr. Kerry sometimes uses verbal shorthand that offers nitpickers things to complain about. He talks of 1.6 million lost jobs; that's the private-sector loss, partly offset by increased government employment. But the job record is indeed awful. He talks of the $200 billion cost of the Iraq war; actual spending is only $120 billion so far. But nobody doubts that the war will cost at least another $80 billion. The point is that Mr. Kerry can, at most, be accused of using loose language; the thrust of his statements is correct.

Mr. Bush's statements, on the other hand, are fundamentally dishonest. He is insisting that black is white, and that failure is success. Journalists who play it safe by spending equal time exposing his lies and parsing Mr. Kerry's choice of words are betraying their readers."

Liberal Media.... Yeah Right!

The Sinclair Broadcast Group has given thousands of dollars to the Bush Re-election campaign. They own 62 television stations around the nation. Earlier, they gained the ire of the left when they ordered their television stations to not show an edition of Nightline, because they were going to read the names of those killed in Iraq. They also banned their stations from airing ads from some anti-Bush groups.

Now they have sunk to a new low. They have their hands on a 90 minute documentary that basically calls Kerry a traitor. They have ordered their stations to air the documentary in prime time completely ad free. Two weeks before the election! This is inappropriate manipulation of the media to an incredible degree.

Television stations (at least the broadcast ones) are held to a high standard. We the people, GIVE them, for free, a certain portion of the publicly held spectrum in order to broadcast their channel. In return they are required to live up to certain standards. That is why the FCC can fine them for indecency, but they cannot do the same on Cable TV. Cable TV is paid for by the users, and doesn't use any public domain to get to them. Broadcast TV uses the public domain of spectrum, so has to live up to the requirements.

One of these requirements is to give equal opportunity to both sides of a political debate. What they are doing though, is airing an inflammatory documentary, which will denigrate one of the candidates, without giving equal time to the other side. They claim that they have an open invitation for Kerry to appear during the 90 minutes to answer the questions. Of course Kerry will not do that, as they will be able to edit his remarks and show only what they want. The DNC has asked that Kerry be given 90 minutes of his own to reply. They have of course refused.

This is blatant favoritism from a media company that is expected to act responsibly under the people's trust. They are failing dismally. Before you say "What's the big deal", think about the outrage that would accompany CBS deciding to block the swift boat veterans for truth ads, kill a news magazine story that was pro-Bush, and then air Fahrenheit 9/11 for free with no ads two weeks before the election. The right would be apoplectic, and you know they would pull out all the stops to fight it.

The problem in our country is that too few organizations own all of our media, and it is getting worse every year. Most of these organizations are owned by large corporations, (GE, Disney etc) and therefore are expected to contribute to the wellbeing of the corporation. When you have one candidate that is corporate friendly, and another that is less so, they will always have an underlying bias in what they focus on. It is a sad thing, but it is only getting worse.

Newly Registered voters. The Wild Card

Newly registered voters are the wild card in the upcoming election. Why? Because they are generally not counted in polls. Most polls are of likely voters, and newly registered voters are generally not included. That is because in order to determine how likely a person is to vote, the pollsters ask if you voted last time. If you say no, then they usually don't consider you a likely voter.

So when you are looking at the polls, often they don't include these people. In normal election cycles, this makes sense, however nearly every state in the nation is seeing record numbers of people registering to vote. The good news for Democrats is that in nearly every state new Democratic voters are also outnumbering new Republican voters. In the nation as a whole, it is as much as 2 thirds of new voters are Democrats.

(link to my source for much of the numbers)



What this means is that the Democrats could pull out a surprise on election day. When you currently look at the Electoral map, most of the close states have had a surge in new voters. If enough of these new voters vote Democrat, then the polls will be underestimating their impact, and some of these swing states could go to Kerry. Here is an interesting breakdown by state:

Florida: The big one. This was of course where we had all the problems in 2000, and it will be watched extremely carefully this year. Florida is even more volatile than you would think. Polls currently say that it is neck a neck in Florida, with a slight advantage to Bush. However Florida has had 600,000 new voters register since January, and that could make a huge difference. That along with the hurricanes that have battered the state make it extremely unpredictable.

Washington: Washington is currently polling with Kerry ahead, but not by a huge margin. However in Washington you have seen 330,000 new voters out of a total of 3.4 million. These new voters are more likely to be Democrats, so I would think Washington is more solid Kerry than the polls would indicate.

Oregon: This state was very close in 2000. Bush only lost the state by 6,700 votes. New registrations have been record breaking in Oregon however, and in Oregon, new Democrats outnumber Republicans 2 to 1.

Nevada: Most pollsters have Nevada in the Bush camp, just slightly. Registered Republicans have traditionally outnumbered registered Democrats, but this has changed with a swell of new enrollments this year. Now there are 4000 more registered Democrats than Republicans in Nevada.

Tennessee: Gore lost Tennessee by 80,000 votes in 2000, and Bush is polling slightly ahead in Tennessee as well. However there have been 329,000 new registered voters in Tennessee, and if two thirds of them vote Democrat, that will be enough to push it into the Kerry camp.

Ohio: Ohio is another close state, that most polls show will go to Bush by around a 3% margin. However they have also had a major surge in new registrations. There have been 608,000 new voters registered, enough to make the difference.

North Carolina: This is John Edwards home state, but it is not polling well for the Democrats. Kerry is down 7%, however this is again amongst likely voters. North Carolina has also seen a surge in new voters, and they have registered 563,000 new voters.

What this all means is that the race is far less predictable than you would think. It is important whenever you look at polls to understand the methodology behind them. I know that after the Vice Presidential Debate, there were two polls, one that showed that Cheney won, and one that showed that Edwards won. That would be confusing if you didn't understand the reality behind the numbers. The poll that showed Cheney won, had interviewed likely voters who had watched the debate. That poll found that more Republicans watched the debate, so they weighted the numbers more heavily to Republicans. Of course this makes it easier to see why Cheney won in their poll. The one where Edwards won was a poll of undecided voters. So the pool of people they were interviewing was very different.

In the same way we need to be careful when looking at our national and state by state polls. There are record numbers of newly registered voters, and they are Democrats more than Republicans. They could make the polls wrong by as much as 2 or 3 percentage points, and could make a huge difference in the election. I think considering the latest polls that show Kerry leading by 3% in the popular vote, as well as the fact that many of these close states could be more likely to vote Democrat when you include the new voters, I am feeling a lot more confident for Kerry. One more debate to go, if Kerry can continue to do a good job there, things could be great!

Presidential Debate #2

Well the second debate is behind us, and personally I was very pleased with Kerry's performance. I thought he commanded the room, he was relaxed and personable, he was obviously in command of the issues. He did a great job.

Bush did do better than the first debate, but honestly, he still didn't do as well as Kerry. I thought he came off as extra defensive, almost panicky at times, although he seemed to get better as time went on.

So how did they do specifically? Kerry nailed most of his questions. I think the only one that he had to struggle on, and that he appeared to temporarily lapse back into his old self, was the answer on Abortion. He made sense, but only if you really listened. However I thought his rejoinder after Bush's response was excellent. Bush stated that Kerry was obviously pro-partial birth abortion and anti-parental consent laws because he voted against them. However Kerry clearly stated that he felt they needed to include exceptions in the case of the life of the mother, and that there are times when judicial review rather than parental review is appropriate. What I wrote there doesn't seem like a great answer, but it was good in the debate.

As for Bush, it was more of the same. One of the commentators I saw stated that they thought Bush was preaching to his base, and maybe that is why I didn't think he did as well as many are saying. One of my favorite moments was when Kerry suggested that under Bush's criteria, he himself was a small business owner because he received $87 in payment from a timber company he partly owns. Bush responded incredulously, with a pretty useless joke about how it was news to him. However the joke is on him, since it appears that Kerry's statement is true.

I think Bush's worst answer was the last one. He was asked to name 3 specific mistakes he had made during his tenure, and he couldn't name one. He vaguely mentioned some possible tactical mistakes in Iraq, but said that overall the war in Iraq was worth it. Kerry could have easily come back, accused him of not answering the question, and named three mistakes for him. So on this question neither did very well, but I think it will reflect worse on Bush.

This is one of the largest problems with the Bush Administration, they refuse to admit any mistakes. And as Kerry says, if you can't even admit there is a problem, how are you going to fix it.

All in all I think Kerry won, but it is obviously still a very close race.

Final Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq Report

I have studied the full final report presented yesterday to Congress by the U.S. Weapons Inspection team in Iraq. (available here if you are interested). There are a few things that are abundantly clear from the report:

- Saddam had abandoned his programs, however he did hope to be able to restart the programs some time in the future. It is clear that he hoped to end the sanctions, and that once that occurred he felt he would be able to restart the programs.

However there were no plans drawn up, no groups researching feasibility, no ongoing programs to maintain technology. These were just Saddam's hopes and dreams.

- What is abundantly clear though, is that the sanctions were working. Saddam destroyed his Chemical stockpiles and dismantled his chemical infrastructure way back in 1991 at the conclusion of the gulf war. He also dismantled his nuclear program when it was clear the U.N. sanctions would not be lifted if he didn't. He did try and maintain a biological program for a few years after that, but abandoned that also under the sanctions and the continued U.N. inspections. So after 1991 he no longer had a chemical or nuclear program, and he created no more WMD. After around 1994 he no longer had a Biological program.

These changes were a direct result of the U.N. inspections, and his infrastructure and programs suffered significantly under the sanctions. The U.N. inspections and sanctions were successfully keeping him from rebuilding his weapons.

- He was complying. This is the biggest thing. Bush continues to claim that one of the reasons we had to invade was that he was not complying with U.N. resolutions. Actually the report shows that in the most part he was, and by 1994 he had already destroyed his stockpiles and dismantled his programs. So he was in compliance, the problem was we didn't believe him.

Anyway, read it for yourself, it is a stunning report. Just to give you a bit of perspective, remember, there were no WMD's in Iraq. There were no WMD programs. Saddam had dismantled his WMD stocks. In contrast, here is what the Bush Administration said in their own words over the last 3 years.

"Saddam will disarm, or we will disarm him!" George Bush

"There's strong evidence and no question about the fact there are weapons of mass destruction," Powell said, "We will find weapons of mass destruction."

"We have absolute confidence that there are weapons of mass destruction inside this country." Tommy Franks

"Weapons of mass destruction are what this war was about -- and it is about," Ari Fleischer.

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction” Dick Cheney

President Bush, in his State of the Union address, claimed that Iraq had the chemicals sufficient to produce:

"25,000 liters of anthrax"

"38,000 liters of botulinum toxin"

"500 tons of sarin, mustard [gas] and

"VX nerve agent"

He also claimed they had:

"An advanced nuclear weapons development program"

Rumsfeld Mar 30 ABC interview: "the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

"WE KNOW WHERE THEY ARE"

We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -Vice President Dick Cheney on NBC's Meet the Press, March 16

Remarks by the President Bush to the Nation on 17 March 2003

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”

The Cheney Road of Lies

Ok, I wanted to go through the Cheney debate transcript, and point out all the lies. Unfortunately I only got half way through the debate and gave up. It was too big a job!! Nearly every answer to every question, Cheney was lying. Anyway, read on if you dare, it is a long road to enlightenment :)

“Concern about Iraq specifically focused on the fact that Saddam Hussein had been, for years, listed on the state sponsor of terror, that they he had established relationships with Abu Nidal, who operated out of Baghdad; he paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers; and he had an established relationship with al Qaeda. Specifically, look at George Tenet, the CIA director‘s testimony before the Committee on Foreign Relations two years ago when he talked about a 10-year relationship.”

Yes Saddam was paying $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. These were Palestinians killing Israeli’s, this was not anti-American terrorism. Saddam did not have an established relationship with Al Qaeda. The 9/11 commission found that, as well as the CIA in their most recent report. George Tenent in his testimony did not say they had a ten year relationship, he said there had been contacts over a ten year period. Also, those contacts (according to the CIA and 9/11 commission) never led to any collaborative relationship.

“The effort that we‘ve mounted with respect to Iraq focused specifically on the possibility that this was the most likely nexus between the terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. “

This is laughable when you consider the two reports that came out in the last two days. The first was the final report of the U.S. Weapons Inspection team in Iraq, that concluded after a year of searching that there were no WMD in Iraq when we invaded, Iraq had not built any WMD since 1991, and their infrastructure for building WMD had been deteriorating since 1998. The other report was one commissioned by Cheney himself from the CIA, which recently AGAIN concluded that there was no evidence of any relationship between Saddam Hussein, Zarqawi and Al-Qaeda. So Iraq had to be invaded because it was the most likely place non-existent WMD might get into the hands on terrorists who had no relationship with Saddam. Ludicrous.

“The world is far safer today because Saddam Hussein is in jail, his government is no longer in power.”

Saddam was not a threat in any way to the U.S. before the war in Iraq, this has been proven conclusively and exhaustively. Without him in power, the U.S. is likely responsible for civil war in Iraq, thousands of new Al Qaeda recruits, and inflaming moderate Muslim opinion. We are not safer today, on the contrary, the world is a much more dangerous place today than it was when we invaded Iraq.

“They (Iraq) will have free elections next January for the first time in history.”

Virtually no-one believes this will happen, or if it does, they don’t believe they will be fair. Even Rummsfeld says he thinks that we can go ahead with the elections even if large parts of the country cannot participate. The U.N. is supposed to be organizing the elections, but they have only got 35 people there, they are being pressured by groups to pull out even those workers because of the danger that is posed to them, and Kofi Anan says that elections in January will be impossible.

“The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there‘s a connection between Iraq and 9/11”

This is also laughable. Cheney has been one of the main purveyors of the idea that there was a connection. At least three times on “Meet the Press” alone he has drawn this connection. Twice he did it by insisting that Mohammad Atta, the leader of the 9/11 plotters met with Iraqi intelligence officers right before the attacks. This has been disproved conclusively by intelligence agencies that place Atta in another country at the time. He also said on “Meet the Press” that Iraq was part of "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11” He has worked hard to draw that connection in people’s minds.

“Then, in the mid-‘80s, he ran on the basis of cutting most of our major defense programs.”

Kerry has voted against weapons systems. He has also voted for weapons systems. There were two defense programs he specifically ran against in the 80’s that had the highest profile, and that was the B-2 bomber, and Reagan’s Star Wars program. The B2 bomber was criticized by many because its initial rationale was a plane that could stealthily drop nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union. Many criticized the expense when we already had intercontinental ballistic missiles. As for Reagan’s star wars programs, they were a joke to begin with, were never really going to work, and were a colossal waste of money. Here is a good review of Kerry’s voting record on this issue: http://www.slate.com/id/2096127/

It is also extremely hypocritical for Cheney and the Bush Administration to talk about the weapons systems Kerry has supposedly voted to cut, since many of them were also voted against by Cheney himself, some even in bills Cheney sponsored.

“we‘ve never let up on Osama bin Laden from day one. “

The Bush Administration lost focus on Bin Laden almost immediately after 9/11 when they decided that the real battle would be with Iraq. They started moving resources and focus from Afghanistan even before the country had been fully captured. Also, the war in Iraq withdrew focus, money and manpower from the hunt for Al Qaeda. One of the main reasons why we now have Saddam in prison, and not Osama. If we had spent the resources on fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, rather than diverting them to Iraq, we truly might be safer today, and we might have caught Bin Laden.

“John Edwards, two and a half years ago, six months after we went into Afghanistan announced that it was chaotic, the situation was deteriorating, the warlords were about to take over.”

What Edwards actually said was that Afghanistan was "largely unstable," with much of the country "under the control of drug lords and war lords”. At the time that was true, and in fact it is even true today. Drug production is up dramatically in Afghanistan, and the Karzai government doesn’t control huge swathes of the country. Karzai, the likely winner of Saturday’s presidential election, cannot even leave his compound to campaign!! He has left twice, and the first time his helicopter was shot at with a missile. If that is not chaotic, then I don’t know what is.

“we‘re four days away from a democratic election, the first one in history in Afghanistan. We‘ve got 10 million voters who have registered to vote, nearly half of them women.”

This is actually strange. The number of estimated eligible voters in Afghanistan is 9.8 million, so we already have more registered voters than eligible voters. Also, only 42% of the registered voters are women. Considering that we are already over the 9.8 million eligible voters, and the fact that women make up 50% of Afghan society, it means we have a huge number of fraudulent registrations amongst men, in the very least.

Basically this means that registration fraud is a HUGE issue.

“We‘re standing up Afghan security forces so they can take on responsibility for their own security.”

When the interim President of the country cannot even go out and campaign because he is shot at, the security is not being “stood up”. The central Government’s security forces don’t even control much of the country outside the capital, Kabul. Most of that is run by warlords and drug lords, just as Edwards suggested.

“We have President Karzai, who is in power.”

Over the capital city, which he can’t even travel around.

“Young girls are going to school.”

A recent study I read found that this was the exception not the rule. In most of the country, girls still do not go to school, because of religious objections. They are eligible to go now, but their families do not send them.

“When you include the Iraqi security forces that have suffered casualties, as well as the allies, they‘ve taken almost 50 percent of the casualties in operations in Iraq, which leaves the U.S. with 50 percent, not 90 percent.”

Edwards was talking about Coalition casualties, and in that case he is correct. However even if you want to include Iraqi police and soldiers, you cannot have any accurate idea as to the numbers, because the U.S. military doesn’t keep figures on Iraqi security deaths, and the Iraqi Government refuses to make these numbers public. So we have no way to verify Cheney’s numbers.

“With respect to the cost, it wasn‘t $200 billion. You probably weren‘t there to vote for that. But $120 billion is, in fact, what has been allocated to Iraq. The rest of it‘s for Afghanistan and the global war on terror”

He is in one way correct on this, but what Edwards is saying is that the cost so far for the war is $200 billion. We haven’t spent all that $200 billion yet, but Congress has set aside that much, and it is what is estimated to need to be spent over the next year. So the money is not available for other purposes, in my book, that means it has been spent and allocated.

“The allies have stepped forward and agreed to reduce and forgive Iraqi debt to the tune of nearly $80 billion by one estimate.”

The allies have not agreed to this at all. There are discussions around this, but so far they are still discussions. The U.S. wanted them to forgive the debt, but the Europeans countered by asking the U.S. to forgive the debt of poor third world countries in return. Their point was that if Iraq (with its vast oil reserves) deserves to have its debt forgiven, then those poor countries deserve it also. The arrangement has not been agreed upon or finalized.

Also, Cheney is using this figure to make the point that the Allies have contributed 80 billion towards the costs of the war. This is ridiculous. The U.S. costs are not in any way defrayed by this debt forgiveness, it is the Iraqi’s who owe this, not us. If they forgive this debt it will not help us to pay for the war in any way.

“That, plus $14 billion they promised in terms of direct aid, puts the overall allied contribution financially at about $95 billion, not to the $120 billion we‘ve got, but, you know, better than 40 percent. So your facts are just wrong, Senator.”

The $14 billion they promised is wonderful. However they have only actually contributed $1 billion of that.

“You voted for the war, and then you voted against supporting the troops when they needed the equipment, the fuel, the spare parts and the ammunition and the body armor.”

Kerry and Edwards did vote against one version of the bill that would have provided the money for these things. They voted against it because it provided no way to pay for the appropriations. Kerry and Edwards supported and voted for a competing version of the bill, that repealed a portion of the tax cut for the wealthiest Americans to pay for the Bill. Many Republicans voted against that version.

So basically they are being accused of voting against the troops, when what they were doing was voting for financial responsibility AND the troops against financial ruin and the troops. It is nuanced, but it is not really that hard to understand. Think about it.

“it‘s hard to know where to start; there are so many inaccuracies there.

The fact of the matter is the troops wouldn‘t have what they have today if you guys had had your way.”

This was in response to Edwards saying that Cheney had sent the troops to Iraq without the needed body armor in the first place. Actually, if Edwards and Kerry had got their way, they would have had the body armor and ammunition. The only difference is that the deficit would be smaller, and the wealthy would have less tax “relief”.

“You made the comment that the Gulf War coalition in ‘91 was far stronger than this. No. We had 34 countries then; we‘ve got 30 today. “

There is no comparison between the coalitions. All of Western Europe was involved in the first coalition, and they brought real military and financial support. We also had numerous Middle Eastern countries involved. This time round there are no middle eastern countries of note, and the coalition includes countries like Tonga. Even the one country that Bush kept talking about, Poland, has a very small contingent in Iraq, and is already planning on pulling them out.

“A CIA spokesman was quoted in that story (recent report on terrorism/Iraq link) as saying they had not yet reached the bottom line and there is still debate over this question of the relationship between Zarqawi and Saddam Hussein.”

The report is clear that there is no evidence of the relationship that Cheney wants you to believe exists.

“We know he (Zarqawi) was running a terrorist camp, training terrorists in Afghanistan prior to 9/11. We know that when we went into Afghanistan that he then migrated to Baghdad. He set up shop in Baghdad, where he oversaw the poisons facility up at Kermal (ph), where the terrorists were developing ricin and other deadly substances to use.”

Zarqawi was in Iraq. He was holed up in a camp in Kurdish territory. Under the U.S. no fly zone. Where we had told Saddam he could not send troops or we would destroy them. Saddam had no control over this area, and the idea that Saddam was harboring him is ridiculous. In fact, since our allies, the Kurds controlled this region, and it was within our no fly zone, the real question that should be asked is why did we not ask them to shut it down?? The only reason I can think of is because we wanted the camp to remain so we could use it as evidence against Saddam. Nothing else makes sense, and that makes us even more responsible for him being there than Saddam.

“We dealt with Iran differently than we have Iraq partly because Iran has not yet, as Iraq did, violated 12 years of resolutions by the U.N. Security Council. “

These are the twelve years of resolutions that called for Iraq to disarm its WMD programs, and get rid of its stockpiles. Which according to the U.S.’s own recent report by the Weapons Inspectors, they did. So they actually had lived up to the resolutions.

“And if they (Iran) aren‘t (living up to the nuclear requirements), my guess is then the board of governors will recommend sending the whole matter to the U.N. Security Council for the application of the international sanctions, which I think would be exactly the right way to go.”

Those sanctions which the Bush Administration claimed over and over would not work on Saddam. Why do they think that they will now work on Iran?

“One of the great by-products, for example, of what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan is that five days after we captured Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gadhafi in Libya came forward and announced that he was going to surrender all of his nuclear materials to the United States, which he has done. “

This had little if anything to do with the U.S.’s capture of Saddam. The Europeans had been negotiating and working with Gadhaffi on this issue, and they had promised him certain concessions if he complied. The Bush Administration wants you to believe that out of the blue Gadhaffi changed his mind when he heard Saddam was captured. It is simply not true.

“We‘ve made major progress in dealing here with a major issue with respect to nuclear proliferation. And we‘ll continue to press very hard on the North Koreans and the Iranians as well.”

Iran and North Korea have both improved their nuclear capabilities dramatically under the Bush Administration. They have done little if anything, so there is no “continuing to press hard”. In Iran they have abdicated the responsibility to the Europeans, and in North Korea they are abdicating the responsibilities to the Chinese. We have done very little.

‘Well, the reason they keep mentioning Halliburton is because they‘re trying to throw up a smokescreen. They know the charges are false. “

The charges are false?? Why then were they fined for their illegal actions? This is not something that is questionable, it is something that is established fact. The only piece of Edward’s comments that is still under investigation is the overcharging of the U.S. taxpayer by Halliburton in Iraq. That is currently under investigation, however as Edwards said, Halliburton is not even suffering the normal hold up of money until the investigation is complete, which is a normal requirement. As for bribing foreign officials and the other crimes Edwards mentions, they have all been established and proven in court.

“And Senator, frankly, you have a record in the Senate that‘s not very distinguished. You‘ve missed 33 out of 36 meetings in the Judiciary Committee, almost 70 percent of the meetings of the Intelligence Committee.

You‘ve missed a lot of key votes: on tax policy, on energy, on Medicare reform.”

Edwards has missed quite a few votes over the last year and a half, but that is because he has been running for President and Vice President. Is he expected to not campaign but stay for every vote in the Senate? Most of these votes will not change based on his vote anyway, and those that are very close, he will generally attend and vote. As for the actual record, here are the actual numbers:

1999 Cast 371 out of 374 votes for a 99.2% voting record
2000 Cast 298 out of 298 votes for a 100% voting record
2001 Cast 377 out of 380 votes for a 99.2% voting record
2002 Cast 253 out of 253 votes for a 100% voting record
2003 Cast 281 out of 459 votes for a 61.2% voting record
2004 Cast 84 out of 198 votes for a 42.4% voting record

So yes he has been absent a lot recently, but as you can see, before he started running for President, he had a great record.

“Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I‘m up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they‘re in session.

The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.”

Cheney is suggesting that he should have met Edwards in the Senate, however Cheney rarely if ever meets with the whole Senate, he almost exclusively meets with only the Republicans. As for the statement that this is the first time they met, this has been debunked repeatedly in the media today. They met numerous times, and there is video footage of them sitting next to each other at one particular occasion.

“We‘ve added 1.7 million jobs to the economy.”

In the last year. We are still down about a million jobs since Bush took office. He is well on track to being the first President in 70 years to have less jobs in America when he leaves office than when he started. This is a huge indictment of the President’s policies.

“the Kerry record on taxes is one basically of voting for a large number of tax increases -- 98 times in the United States Senate. “

This is incorrect as well. Many of these were bundled in other bills, they are counting multiple tax increases in the same bills, and they are even counting when Kerry voted for modified versions of bills that didn’t cut taxes as much as the Republicans would like. It is simply false.

I am about half way through the debate, and I am tired and done with this. Cheney is so willing to simply mislead the American people, it is almost criminal. This is such a perfect example of the problems we face today in America. We no longer can expect honesty from our President and his Administration, and this is destroying our country.

There will be some who will claim that Edwards also stretched the truth on some points, and I concede that maybe he did in a few places. Mr. Cheney has lied in every single one of his answers however, and this is simply beyond the pale. We need new leadership asap.

Iraq... It is falling down around their heads

I am sure most of you were expecting me to comment on the Vice Presidential Debate. I do want to do a more extensive post on that, but it will take a little more research, so will have to wait. Let me say right now though, I think it was a good debate, substantial and very interesting. I think it was very close, and I might even give Cheney the edge, but I think Edwards held his own against a much more experienced opponent. That said however, about 50% of what Cheney said was a lie, which kind of makes it hard to say he won the debate. That will be the focus of the next post however.

Iraq is the topic I want to talk about now though. There were four very interesting things that happened over the last 2 days, all of which are extremely important.

- First, Cheney had commissioned a report three or four months ago to look into (again) the possible connections between Iraq and Al-Qaida. Guess what they found. (Link to Seattle Times) That there was no substantial connection between Iraq and Al-Qaida. Is anyone surprised at this point? One of the main points the Bush Administration has hung their hat on, is that Zarqawi (one of the worst terrorists we are fighting in Iraq right now) was in Iraq before the invasion, and that he was colluding with Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaida at the same time. The report shows no evidence of this. Also the report shows that while Zarqawi was in Iraq prior to the invasion, he was in a part of Iraq that was under the no fly zone, in Kurdish (our allies) territory, and not under Saddam's control.

Cheney was asked about the report last night, and he pretty much brushed it off. Once again he seems to want to ignore reality, no matter how often the reports that he commissions and asks for show conclusions that contradict his positions.

- Second, and this is talked about in the above article as well, Rummsfeld has now admitted that there is no connection between Al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein. Finally. Here is what he said:

"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."

This is a major admission by Rummsfeld. Now I have to admit, the next day he backed off the statement and said he was misquoted. Sorry to see he is such a flip flopper. The statement is significant though, as this is the guy who has said in the past that he had bulletproof evidence of the connection.

- Third, Paul Bremer, the former Coalition Authority head in Iraq, was speaking in a meeting yesterday and told the audience that the problems we are currently experiencing in Iraq come down to two mistakes made by the Administration earlier in the war in Iraq. The first was that we never had enough troops on the ground, the second was that we didn't do enough to stop the looting. These two things led to an expectation of lawlessness, and if we had sent in more troops originally, then we would have been seeing less of the current issues.

This is a HUGE admission by a Bush ally. You have to remember that the number of troops we were sending in to Iraq was a major element of contention before the war. General Shinseki, when he was testifying before congress before the war, claimed that we would need hundreds of thousands of troops. Afterwards, he was roundly criticized by the Administration, especially Rummsfeld, who said that the numbers were ridiculous. Well of course, now we now that Shinseki was right. Whenever the Bush Administration is asked about the number of troops in Iraq, they continually say that if the commanders on the ground need more troops, they will get more troops. Too bad that didn't apply to the commanders before the war. Too bad they also ignored Bremer when he asked for more troops.

- Fourth. ANOTHER report came out today, and this one is the nail in the coffin of the Administration's rationale for war. After a year of searching, the Chief U.S. Weapons Inspector in Iraq has released his final report (link here to MSNBC). The findings were not surprising, but damning to the Administration:

"Saddam Hussein posed a diminishing threat at the time the United States invaded and did not possess, or have concrete plans to develop, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons."

Even more damning, they found that his weapons programs were less advanced at the time of the invasion, than they had been in 1998 when the last major round of inspections occurred! So rather than a "gathering threat", he was a diminishing threat. They found that he had created no new weapons after 1991. It is apparent that the inspections and sanctions were working. So, once again, a major reason for us going to war is no longer valid.

How will these issues effect the Bush Administration? Probably very little. It seems that there is a major disconnect between reality and the fantasy world they live in, and no matter what evidence is presented to them, they insist that their fantasy world is right. What really amazes me though is that half of the American people seem to find this acceptable. Just amazing.