- Peace Garden: 09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004

So what did we learn...

Thursday, September 30, 2004

- W likes Valdimir (Putin) - W works real hard - W is still very thirsty - W is a "pretty calm guy" (his words not mine) - W is still an idiot What are the buzzwords as illustrated by W's soundbites: - belief - core values - freedom W talks in soundbites - it is what the TV addled citizens love. The next four years will be fun. Congratulations idiot, I fear you are going to pull it out.

Read more...

After 1 hour...

we learn: - Kerry gets a little better with his comments on Iraq but still plays the "cop" by saying he will kill all terrorists - W works hard - W is very thirsty - drinking a lot of water - W likes Allawi - W is still an idiot

Read more...

What have we learned so far...

After 38 minutes we have learned: - Kerry will still fight this stupid war - Bad move John. - W is in his office everyday and talks to the head of the FBI - W talks to other leaders over the phone - W knows how bad war is because he reads the injury reports on his TV screen - A free Iraq will mean a safe America - W is an idiot - Kerry, with his stance on Iraq, is an idiot as well

Read more...

MSNBC - Ruling weakeningPatriot Act likelyto be challenged

... Two strikes against the disgusting Act but W still wants it and wants it stronger. Good thinking George. Way to protect the Constitution. Didn't your oath say something about protecting the Constitution?

Read more...

MSNBC - Preaching Violence

... W really screwed things up in Iraq. Even Blair is backing off. But this cleric condemning our occupation is big.

Read more...

Is Iran Next?: The Pentagon neocons who brought you the war in Iraq have a new target -- In These Times

Wednesday, September 29, 2004

...Read the article and be afraid - very afraid. I have been saying that Iran is next. Just look at what the media is touting lately - Iran's missile test, Iranina clerics' influence in southern Iraq.... Of course, they are one of the Axes of Evil characters. Why not attack them too. Tomorrow night's debate will be very interesting. I hope they ask the question of "who's next?". Of course we will never hear that question. We probably will not hear, from Kerry, that he will start pulling troops out in 30 days. It is beginning to look like a no-win situation - but clearly a lesser of two evils. If W wins we stay in Iraq, get involved in Iran, and then get involved with Syria. If Kerry wins we stay in Iraq. But why stay there? It clearly is becoming a focus of "terrorists". But not necessarily Al Quaeda. Instead we are in the middle of Sunni (Baath) groups who want to return back to power or at least avoid a Shiite-run government. The Shiite, as the majority and based on religious fervor, want control. The only group we are not battling, at least for now, are the Kurds. We called ourselves liberators, but now we are occupiers who have set up a puppet government. The solution - announce a pull-out and begin to DO IT! Do not necessarily abandon Iraq but get the UN involved. To get them interested Iraq cannot be our 51st state. W's companies cannot be taking the money out of Iraq. Foreign nations have to become involved in rebuilding projects, police and military training....

Read more...

Something Bad Has Begun

Tuesday, September 28, 2004

...Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam tells us what happened. It is not he who has changed but this country.

Read more...

On the Environment, the US Is the Rogue Nation

Monday, September 27, 2004

... but another reason to get rid of W.

Read more...

Yahoo! News - Abazaid Predicts Flawed Iraqi Elections

Sunday, September 26, 2004

This is great. The General compares the upcoming Iraq elections to our own 2000 election. He calls it "disputed". Well General, others call it stolen. So, Allawi will take his cue from W and steal the election. Well Florida's votes didn't count. Let's see - do we not count the Sunni votes, the Shiite votes or the Kurd votes? Just like our 2000 election... Well another despot to run a country into the ground. The only difference is Allawai doesn't need to run Iraq very far into the ground. With our war we already put it into some major sh*t.

Read more...

"FOUR WAR YEARS"

Click on the title for a moving video. Pretty graphic in spots but it clearly shows the suffering all sides are experiencing in Iraq. Let us stop the insanity.

Read more...

Read the "American Respect" Essay

A well written and "right on the mark" essay that was published as a full page ad in Sunday's New York Times.

Read more...

"A VOTE FOR BUSH-CHENEY IS A VOTE FOR

Saturday, September 25, 2004

.. As I said in a previous post - LaRouche scares me but sometimes he just says the right thing. LaRouche (a true nut) calls W a "mental case." It is the pot calling the kettle black but Lyndon you are so right!

Read more...

TomPaine.com - Closer to Civil War

... Iraq is looking more and more like Vietnam everyday. While some will argue that Vietnam was a war between two nations (North and South Vietnam), it was indeed a war between the Vietnamese people - a civil war that we were involved in for so long. Now we have the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites fighting for control. A triangle of armies with our troops right in the middle. Do we ever learn from history?

Read more...

Are you kidding?

Wednesday, September 22, 2004

...Yusuf Islam Cat Stevens is on the watch list. Taken off a plane and deported back to UK. Is he that much a threat that the flight is diverted to Bangor, Maine? Give me a break. Come on America. It is time to step away from the fear that this regime is spreading. Read Yusuf's words and his calls for pacifism. Listen to his recordings as Yusuf or as Cat Stevens. As i said before, rent "Harold and Maude" and listen to the music. IF he is a threat, then so was Mother Theresa.

Chomsky has said, "The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all people." Add to that fear of terrorists and you have W's motto in a nutshell.

Read more...

So Rather is being dragged

Tuesday, September 21, 2004

through the streets and has been villified by everyone. This is the perfect opportunity for W and his cronies and he is taking full advantage of the situation. With the media's attention focused on CBS and "Memo-gate", little attention is paid to the important issues of Iraq, unemployment, nuclear proliferation, environmental degradation... Why can't the media spend time on Bush and Kerry's differences and similarities as it relates to the important issues? Why can't we have some real news and important news about Iraq rather than Britney Spear's marriage or her pre-nup. Is she more important than the lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan (on both sides)? Based on the TV news and papers, she is. Are the majority of citizens so superficial that they are more interested in her or Trump's hair than what is happening to the U.S. and the world? It is time to wake up America. QUESTION authority, QUESTION the talking heads, QUESTION everything. MAKE up your own minds. Do not be lemmings. DEMAND the truth, DEMAND real news. DEMAND full coverage of the issues. Knowing about Britney's wedding will not affect your future. But knowing what is going on in Iraq or in Congress will.

Read more...

Election 2004: To Catch a Thief

Monday, September 20, 2004

Click on the title. Get ready for a rollercoaster ride in November. As stated before, W will be pulling tricks out of his hat and a**. Will we the people be ready to respond?

Read more...

John Kerry Must (Again) Make Love, Not War

Click the title to read a great article extolling Kerry to renew his anti-war vigor from the 70's.

Read more...

A letter from Kerry - Just wish you were against this war from the start - UN in, US out

Dear Pax, This election is about choices. The most important choices a president makes are about protecting America at home and around the world. A president's first obligation is to make America safer, stronger and truer to our ideals. Three years ago, the events of September 11 reminded every American of that obligation. That day brought to our shores the defining struggle of our times: the struggle between freedom and radical fundamentalism. And it made clear that our most important task is to fight and to win the war on terrorism. In fighting the war on terrorism, my principles are straight forward. The terrorists are beyond reason. We must destroy them. As president, I will do whatever it takes, as long as it takes, to defeat our enemies. But billions of people around the world yearning for a better life are open to America's ideals. We must reach them. To win, America must be strong. And America must be smart. The greatest threat we face is the possibility Al Qaeda or other terrorists will get their hands on a nuclear weapon. To prevent that from happening, we must call on the totality of America's strength -- strong alliances, to help us stop the world's most lethal weapons from falling into the most dangerous hands. A powerful military, transformed to meet the new threats of terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. And all of America's power -- our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, the appeal of our values -- each of which is critical to making America more secure and preventing a new generation of terrorists from emerging. National security is a central issue in this campaign. We owe it to the American people to have a real debate about the choices President Bush has made and the choices I would make to fight and win the war on terror. That means we must have a great honest national debate on Iraq. The president claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight. This month, we passed a cruel milestone: more than 1,000 Americans lost in Iraq. Their sacrifice reminds us that Iraq remains, overwhelmingly, an American burden. Nearly 90 percent of the troops -- and nearly 90 percent of the casualties -- are American. Despite the president's claims, this is not a grand coalition. Our troops have served with extraordinary bravery, skill and resolve. Their service humbles all of us. When I speak to them when I look into the eyes of their families, I know this: we owe them the truth about what we have asked them to do and what is still to be done. In June, the president declared, "The Iraqi people have their country back." Just last week, he told us: "This country is headed toward democracy. Freedom is on the march." But the administration's own official intelligence estimate, given to the president last July, tells a very different story. According to press reports, the intelligence estimate totally contradicts what the president is saying to the American people. So do the facts on the ground. Security is deteriorating, for us and for the Iraqis. 42 Americans died in Iraq in June -- the month before the handover. But 54 died in July -- 66 in August and already 54 halfway through September. And more than 1,100 Americans were wounded in August -- more than in any other month since the invasion. We are fighting a growing insurgency in an ever widening war-zone. In March, insurgents attacked our forces 700 times. In August, they attacked 2,700 times -- a 400% increase. Falluja, Ramadi, Samarra, even parts of Baghdad -- are now "no go zones" -- breeding grounds for terrorists who are free to plot and launch attacks against our soldiers. The radical Shiite cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, who is accused of complicity in the murder of Americans, holds more sway in the suburbs of Baghdad. Violence against Iraqis from bombings to kidnappings to intimidation is on the rise. Basic living conditions are also deteriorating. Residents of Baghdad are suffering electricity blackouts lasting up to 14 hours a day. Raw sewage fills the streets, rising above the hubcaps of our Humvees. Children wade through garbage on their way to school. Unemployment is over 50 percent. Insurgents are able to find plenty of people willing to take $150 for tossing grenades at passing U.S. convoys. Yes, there has been some progress, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our soldiers and civilians in Iraq. Schools, shops and hospitals have been opened. In parts of Iraq, normalcy actually prevails. But most Iraqis have lost faith in our ability to deliver meaningful improvements to their lives. So they're sitting on the fence instead of siding with us against the insurgents. That is the truth -- the truth that the commander in chief owes to our troops and the American people. It is never easy to discuss what has gone wrong while our troops are in constant danger. But it's essential if we want to correct our course and do what's right for our troops instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over again. I know this dilemma first-hand. After serving in war, I returned home to offer my own personal voice of dissent. I did so because I believed strongly that we owed it those risking their lives to speak truth to power. We still do. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure. The president has said that he "miscalculated" in Iraq and that it was a "catastrophic success." In fact, the president has made a series of catastrophic decisions from the beginning in Iraq. At every fork in the road, he has taken the wrong turn and led us in the wrong direction. The first and most fundamental mistake was the president's failure to tell the truth to the American people. He failed to tell the truth about the rationale for going to war. And he failed to tell the truth about the burden this war would impose on our soldiers and our citizens. By one count, the president offered 23 different rationales for this war. If his purpose was to confuse and mislead the American people, he succeeded. His two main rationales -- weapons of mass destruction and the Al Qaeda/September 11 connection -- have been proved false by the president's own weapons inspectors and by the 9/11 Commission. Just last week, Secretary of State Powell acknowledged the facts. Only Vice President Cheney still insists that the earth is flat. The president also failed to level with the American people about what it would take to prevail in Iraq. He didn't tell us that well over 100,000 troops would be needed, for years, not months. He didn't tell us that he wouldn't take the time to assemble a broad and strong coalition of allies. He didn't tell us that the cost would exceed $200 billion. He didn't tell us that even after paying such a heavy price, success was far from assured. And America will pay an even heavier price for the president's lack of candor. At home, the American people are less likely to trust this administration if it needs to summon their support to meet real and pressing threats to our security. Abroad, other countries will be reluctant to follow America when we seek to rally them against a common menace -- as they are today. Our credibility in the world has plummeted. In the dark days of the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy sent former Secretary of State Dean Acheson to Europe to build support. Acheson explained the situation to French President de Gaulle. Then he offered to show him highly classified satellite photos, as proof. De Gaulle waved the photos away, saying: "The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me." How many world leaders have that same trust in America's president, today? This president's failure to tell the truth to us before the war has been exceeded by fundamental errors of judgment during and after the war. The president now admits to "miscalculations" in Iraq. That is one of the greatest understatements in recent American history. His were not the equivalent of accounting errors. They were colossal failures of judgment -- and judgment is what we look for in a president. This is all the more stunning because we're not talking about 20/20 hindsight. Before the war, before he chose to go to war, bi-partisan Congressional hearings... major outside studies... and even some in the administration itself... predicted virtually every problem we now face in Iraq. This president was in denial. He hitched his wagon to the ideologues who surround him, filtering out those who disagreed, including leaders of his own party and the uniformed military. The result is a long litany of misjudgments with terrible consequences. The administration told us we'd be greeted as liberators. They were wrong. They told us not to worry about looting or the sorry state of Iraq's infrastructure. They were wrong. They told us we had enough troops to provide security and stability, defeat the insurgents, guard the borders and secure the arms depots. They were wrong. They told us we could rely on exiles like Ahmed Chalabi to build political legitimacy. They were wrong. They told us we would quickly restore an Iraqi civil service to run the country and a police force and army to secure it. They were wrong. In Iraq, this administration has consistently over-promised and under-performed. This policy has been plagued by a lack of planning, an absence of candor, arrogance and outright incompetence. And the president has held no one accountable, including himself. In fact, the only officials who lost their jobs over Iraq were the ones who told the truth. General Shinseki said it would take several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq. He was retired. Economic adviser Larry Lindsey said that Iraq would cost as much as $200 billion. He was fired. After the successful entry into Baghdad, George Bush was offered help from the UN -- and he rejected it. He even prohibited any nation from participating in reconstruction efforts that wasn't part of the original coalition -- pushing reluctant countries even farther away. As we continue to fight this war almost alone, it is hard to estimate how costly that arrogant decision was. Can anyone seriously say this president has handled Iraq in a way that makes us stronger in the war on terrorism? By any measure, the answer is no. Nuclear dangers have mounted across the globe. The international terrorist club has expanded. Radicalism in the Middle East is on the rise. We have divided our friends and united our enemies. And our standing in the world is at an all time low. Think about it for a minute. Consider where we were... and where we are. After the events of September 11, we had an opportunity to bring our country and the world together in the struggle against the terrorists. On September 12, headlines in newspapers abroad declared "we are all Americans now." But through his policy in Iraq, the president squandered that moment and rather than isolating the terrorists, left America isolated from the world. We now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and posed no imminent threat to our security. It had not, as the vice president claimed, "reconstituted nuclear weapons." The president's policy in Iraq took our attention and resources away from other, more serious threats to America. Threats like North Korea, which actually has weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear arsenal, and is building more under this president's watch -- the emerging nuclear danger from Iran -- the tons and kilotons of unsecured chemical and nuclear weapons in Russia -- and the increasing instability in Afghanistan. Today, warlords again control much of that country, the Taliban is regrouping, opium production is at an all time high and the Al Qaeda leadership still plots and plans, not only there but in 60 other nations. Instead of using U.S. forces, we relied on the warlords to capture Osama bin Laden when he was cornered in the mountains. He slipped away. We then diverted our focus and forces from the hunt for those responsible for September 11 in order invade Iraq. We know Iraq played no part in September 11 and had no operational ties to Al Qaeda. The president's policy in Iraq precipitated the very problem he said he was trying to prevent. Secretary of State Powell admits that Iraq was not a magnet for international terrorists before the war. Now it is, and they are operating against our troops. Iraq is becoming a sanctuary for a new generation of terrorists who someday could hit the United States. We know that while Iraq was a source of friction, it was not previously a source of serious disagreement with our allies in Europe and countries in the Muslim world. The president's policy in Iraq divided our oldest alliance and sent our standing in the Muslim world into free fall. Three years after 9/11, even in many moderate Muslim countries like Jordan, Morocco, and Turkey, Osama bin Laden is more popular than the United States of America. Let me put it plainly: The president's policy in Iraq has not strengthened our national security. It has weakened it. Two years ago, Congress was right to give the president the authority to use force to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. This president, any president would have needed the threat of force to act effectively. This president misused that authority. The power entrusted to the president gave him a strong hand to play in the international community. The idea was simple. We would get the weapons inspectors back in to verify whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And we would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam: disarm or be disarmed. A month before the war, President Bush told the nation: "If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail." He said that military action wasn't "unavoidable." Instead, the president rushed to war without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work. He went without a broad and deep coalition of allies. He acted without making sure our troops had enough body armor. And he plunged ahead without understanding or preparing for the consequences of the post-war. None of which I would have done. Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no -- because a commander in chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe. Now the president, in looking for a new reason, tries to hang his hat on the "capability" to acquire weapons. But that was not the reason given to the nation; it was not the reason Congress voted on; it's not a reason, it's an excuse. Thirty-five to forty countries have greater capability to build a nuclear bomb than Iraq did in 2003. Is President Bush saying we should invade them? I would have concentrated our power and resources on defeating global terrorism and capturing or killing Osama bin Laden. I would have tightened the noose and continued to pressure and isolate Saddam Hussein -- who was weak and getting weaker -- so that he would pose no threat to the region or America. The president's insistence that he would do the same thing all over again in Iraq is a clear warning for the future. And it makes the choice in this election clear: more of the same with President Bush or a new direction that makes our troops and America safer. It is time, at long last, to ask the questions and insist on the answers from the commander in chief about his serious misjudgments and what they tell us about his administration and the president himself. If George W. Bush is re-elected, he will cling to the same failed policies in Iraq -- and he will repeat, somewhere else, the same reckless mistakes that have made America less secure than we can or should be. In Iraq, we have a mess on our hands. But we cannot throw up our hands. We cannot afford to see Iraq become a permanent source of terror that will endanger America's security for years to come. All across this country people ask me what we should do now. Every step of the way, from the time I first spoke about this in the Senate, I have set out specific recommendations about how we should and should not proceed. But over and over, when this administration has been presented with a reasonable alternative, they have rejected it and gone their own way. This is stubborn incompetence. Five months ago, in Fulton, Missouri, I said that the president was close to his last chance to get it right. Every day, this president makes it more difficult to deal with Iraq -- harder than it was five months ago, harder than it was a year ago. It is time to recognize what is -- and what is not -- happening in Iraq today. And we must act with urgency. Just this weekend, a leading Republican, Chuck Hagel, said we're "in deep trouble in Iraq ... it doesn't add up ... to a pretty picture [and] ... we're going to have to look at a recalibration of our policy." Republican leaders like Dick Lugar and John McCain have offered similar assessments. We need to turn the page and make a fresh start in Iraq. First, the president has to get the promised international support so our men and women in uniform don't have to go it alone. It is late; the president must respond by moving this week to gain and regain international support. Last spring, after too many months of resistance and delay, the president finally went back to the U.N. which passed Resolution 1546. It was the right thing to do -- but it was late. That resolution calls on U.N. members to help in Iraq by providing troops, trainers for Iraq's security forces, a special brigade to protect the U.N. mission, more financial assistance, and real debt relief. Three months later, not a single country has answered that call. And the president acts as if it doesn't matter. And of the $13 billion previously pledged to Iraq by other countries, only $1.2 billion has been delivered. The president should convene a summit meeting of the world's major powers and Iraq's neighbors, this week, in New York, where many leaders will attend the U.N. General Assembly. He should insist that they make good on that U.N. resolution. He should offer potential troop contributors specific, but critical roles, in training Iraqi security personnel and securing Iraq's borders. He should give other countries a stake in Iraq's future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq's oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process. This will be difficult. I and others have repeatedly recommended this from the very beginning. Delay has made only made it harder. After insulting allies and shredding alliances, this president may not have the trust and confidence to bring others to our side in Iraq. But we cannot hope to succeed unless we rebuild and lead strong alliances so that other nations share the burden with us. That is the only way to succeed. Second, the president must get serious about training Iraqi security forces. Last February, Secretary Rumsfeld claimed that more than 210,000 Iraqis were in uniform. Two weeks ago, he admitted that claim was exaggerated by more than 50 percent. Iraq, he said, now has 95,000 trained security forces. But guess what? Neither number bears any relationship to the truth. For example, just 5,000 Iraqi soldiers have been fully trained, by the administration's own minimal standards. And of the 35,000 police now in uniform, not one has completed a 24-week field-training program. Is it any wonder that Iraqi security forces can't stop the insurgency or provide basic law and order? The president should urgently expand the security forces training program inside and outside Iraq. He should strengthen the vetting of recruits, double classroom training time, and require follow-on field training. He should recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq. He should press our NATO allies to open training centers in their countries. And he should stop misleading the American people with phony, inflated numbers. Third, the president must carry out a reconstruction plan that finally brings tangible benefits to the Iraqi people. Last week, the administration admitted that its plan was a failure when it asked Congress for permission to radically revise spending priorities in Iraq. It took 17 months for them to understand that security is a priority, 17 months to figure out that boosting oil production is critical, 17 months to conclude that an Iraqi with a job is less likely to shoot at our soldiers. One year ago, the administration asked for and received $18 billion to help the Iraqis and relieve the conditions that contribute to the insurgency. Today, less than a $1 billion of those funds have actually been spent. I said at the time that we had to rethink our policies and set standards of accountability. Now we're paying the price. Now, the president should look at the whole reconstruction package, draw up a list of high visibility, quick impact projects, and cut through the red tape. He should use more Iraqi contractors and workers, instead of big corporations like Halliburton. He should stop paying companies under investigation for fraud or corruption. And he should fire the civilians in the Pentagon responsible for mismanaging the reconstruction effort. Fourth, the president must take immediate, urgent, essential steps to guarantee the promised elections can be held next year. Credible elections are key to producing an Iraqi government that enjoys the support of the Iraqi people and an assembly to write a Constitution that yields a viable power sharing arrangement. Because Iraqis have no experience holding free and fair elections, the president agreed six months ago that the U.N. must play a central role. Yet today, just four months before Iraqis are supposed to go to the polls, the U.N. Secretary General and administration officials themselves say the elections are in grave doubt. Because the security situation is so bad and because not a single country has offered troops to protect the U.N. elections mission, the U.N. has less than 25 percent of the staff it needs in Iraq to get the job done. The president should recruit troops from our friends and allies for a U.N. protection force. This won't be easy. But even countries that refused to put boots on the ground in Iraq should still help protect the U.N. We should also intensify the training of Iraqis to manage and guard the polling places that need to be opened. Otherwise, U.S forces would end up bearing those burdens alone. If the president would move in this direction, if he would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and forces, train the Iraqis to provide their own security, develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people, and take the steps necessary to hold credible elections next year -- we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring all our troops home within the next four years. This is what has to be done. This is what I would do as president today. But we cannot afford to wait until January. President Bush owes it to the American people to tell the truth and put Iraq on the right track. Even more, he owes it to our troops and their families, whose sacrifice is a testament to the best of America. The principles that should guide American policy in Iraq now and in the future are clear: We must make Iraq the world's responsibility, because the world has a stake in the outcome and others should share the burden. We must effectively train Iraqis, because they should be responsible for their own security. We must move forward with reconstruction, because that's essential to stop the spread of terror. And we must help Iraqis achieve a viable government, because it's up to them to run their own country. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home. On May 1 of last year, President Bush stood in front of a now infamous banner that read "Mission Accomplished." He declared to the American people: "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." In fact, the worst part of the war was just beginning, with the greatest number of American casualties still to come. The president misled, miscalculated, and mismanaged every aspect of this undertaking and he has made the achievement of our objective -- a stable Iraq, secure within its borders, with a representative government, harder to achieve. In Iraq, this administration's record is filled with bad predictions, inaccurate cost estimates, deceptive statements and errors of judgment of historic proportions. At every critical juncture in Iraq, and in the war on terrorism, the president has made the wrong choice. I have a plan to make America stronger. The president often says that in a post 9/11 world, we can't hesitate to act. I agree. But we should not act just for the sake of acting. I believe we have to act wisely and responsibly. George Bush has no strategy for Iraq. I do. George Bush has not told the truth to the American people about why we went to war and how the war is going. I have and I will continue to do so. I believe the invasion of Iraq has made us less secure and weaker in the war against terrorism. I have a plan to fight a smarter, more effective war on terror -- and make us safer. Today, because of George Bush's policy in Iraq, the world is a more dangerous place for America and Americans. If you share my conviction that we can not go on as we are that we can make America stronger and safer than it is then November 2 is your chance to speak and to be heard. It is not a question of staying the course, but of changing the course. I'm convinced that with the right leadership, we can create a fresh start and move more effectively to accomplish our goals. Our troops have served with extraordinary courage and commitment. For their sake, and America's sake, we must get this right. We must do everything in our power to complete the mission and make America stronger at home and respected again in the world. Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

Read more...

Can It Happen Here? - Maureen Farrell at BuzzFlash.com

Sunday, September 19, 2004

... There are some books that were written about our times. W believes the Bible's Book of Revelations is the only one. I still think "1984" is relevant and a portent. And now I have to ass "It Can't Happen Here" to my list. W and Buzz may in reality be the same person.

Read more...

Newsgaming.com -- September 12th

Saturday, September 18, 2004

...Play this game. Try to see if you could figure out the message. Okay so the rest of this note is a spoiler. If you don't want to figure out the message yourself -STOP READING. Fire a few missiles and watch the number of terrorists. Get it? Our war in Iraq is the best recruitment tool for bin laden.

Read more...

Salon.com | The new Pentagon papers

... Our esteemed leaders - the Neo-Cons.

Read more...

Hal Lindsey Oracle - Politically Incorrect - Prophetically Correct

Friday, September 17, 2004

... Years ago Hal-baby wrote "Late Great Planet Earth". In that book he was predicting, based on the Bible, that the end-times were around the corner. Back then the evil was the Soviet Union and Communism. Now I hear that he has written a book saying Islam is the evil.

Could the neo-cons be fans of Hal? Could they believe that they are pushing Iraq, Iran and Syria so that the final battle takes place? I know W says that God talks to him, etc. Scary that they may think that they are working to bring the Book of Revelations to fruition.

Look at Hal's website and be prepared to be mad as hell. The jokes about Rather and the cartoon with Rather and purple hearts references were rather in poor taste and goes beyond "Politically Incorrect" and verges on obscene, sick, demented, anti-everything....

Read more...

"Who's the Boss" - starring W, Dick and Karl

Wednesday, September 15, 2004

... Less than 1 1/2 months until the election and it sure feels like W is going to pull this one out even without an October surprise (he doesn't need one). W's cronies are extremely adept at campaigning, slinging the mud, smoke and mirrors, distractions...

Rather than the economy, Iraq, environmental issues.... voters are more interested in whether CBS documents were real, forged, planted, laced with anthrax, written in Aramaic... 2 weeks ago it was all about Kerry's medals and military record. Some folks started talking about W and his military record. Then lo and behold - documents arise and are put on CBS that show W disobeyed orders and more. After the broadcast though the focus was not on his record at all but on the authenticity of the documents. Remember when the Dems tried to say the Swift Boat ads were false and more - deaf ears. But when W talked about the papers - front page news! W and his staff are true masters. Who knows maybe they planted the documents. They knew that his record is very suspect, so why not create false documents (that say the truth) but can be shown to be written on a PC.

If someone did plant them--then Who - Why? It had to be someone that had a vested intertest in... Oh W not again---

It sounds like a bad sitcom: Karl Rove: Mr. President, we have a problem! W: What? KR: Not you, I was talking to Uncle Dick. Dick Cheney: Oh, what did you say? KR: I said we have a problem. Some reporters are nosing around W's military record. W: I was in the military? I know I have those papers that talkedb about ... DC: W, shut up and get back to your fantasy baseball league. Now Karl, I thought all the reporters except for Air America and some other traitors are all set. KR: Well you know... DC: Okay. So here is what we do. Let's take W's real papers and retype them using Word. Leak them to someone... KR: Fox? DC: No, we'll use them later. No, CBS - yeah I hate Rather. Plant the fake papers. They'll air it and everyone will think W is a loser. KR: But that's true... DC: Karl. FOCUS! Right after they release the report we'll let FOX and a few others break the news that the papers are fake. The stupid voters will focus on the fake documents and not even pay attention to W and his - AHEM - military record - HAHA. This will be great. It'll work... W: Yahoo!! I'm in fourth place. I even traded for... DC: Oh W!!!!

Read more...

A movie blog?

Tuesday, September 14, 2004

... No this is not becoming a movie review blog, but I was thinking about my favorite movies recently. Both movies are about "different" people who were, in many ways, opposites of society or the organizations they found themselves in.

"Harold and Maude" is a classic. Two souls so different and maybe even odd. But they showed us how to live life to the fullest - live for the now. And of course the songs of Cat Stevens (Yusuf Islam). The film is still great, the songs are still great, the message is still great... And then there is "Serpico". Serpico fought the corruption of the NY Police force - a force he joined. Standing in opposition to corruption, he found himself standing in front of a loaded gun that went off in his face. I understand that he is now living in upstate New York - outside of Albany. And what could you say about Pacino. I think that this was his best performance ever.

So why movie posts -- well I was reading "The Future Dictionary of America" published by McSweeney's Books. This is a great book and CD to benefit progressive causes. One was of looking at it is that it is a dictionary of a post-Bush America. What caught my eye and brought me to thinking about my favorite movies was an entry for "Serpico - in final, undeniable widespread recognition of the badassness of the character...who can grow hair as s/he wants and/or party with models..all the while fighting the Man." This was penned by Benjamin Cohen.

A great book, great music CD that comes with the book, and two great movies.

Read more...

The Draft in Congress

... be very afraid. Here is the Senate bill for the re-instated draft. Forget exemptions folks. It is on hold in Congress but sitting in committee - waiting for the right moment?

Read more...

Yahoo! News - Doonesbury

Sunday, September 12, 2004

... So true. The use of fear and alert codes to keep the nation worried and dependent on W and his band of cronies.

Read more...

CultureJammers: The new face of revolution

... the revolution will not be televised. It is happening as we speak.

An interesting article, and encouraging one IMO.

Read more...

Election 2004: A Perspective from Veterans for Peace : July/August 2004 : Peacework

... a powerful article. "War is terrorism."

I recently saw the movie "Hero". This is a beautiful movie but it has, IMO, two lessons. One leeson I love is the idea to live honestly and within the framework of one's ideals. One of the main characters, the assassin Broken Sword, has realized that pacifism is the way. He sacrifices his own life and allows himself to be killed for this belief and ideal.

The second message is more controversial and related in a way to the above article. The main idea is that "the ends justifies the means." In the movie the war on small states is seen as justified since it will mean the unity of all states into one peaceful nation. The violence against the few is seen as acceptable based on the vision of the future.

This is an idea I cannot understand or condone. Since "War is terrorism", how can terrorism fight terrorism. How can the killing and destruction of cultures and civilizations justify the "hoped-for" freedom from terrorism? To fight a monster must we also become a monster. I hope and dream that it is not so.

Read more...

1,000 Dead

Wednesday, September 08, 2004

...W, I thought it was Mission Accomplished months ago. What went wrong? Do you still want to run for President with the blood of 1,000 (and countless civilians) on your hands?

When will the voters wake up and demand an end to the insanity?

Read more...

LaRouche is Right ....

Tuesday, September 07, 2004

No, I am not becoming a LaRouche-ite. He still scares me and I still can't figure out what his real story is. But...the other day I was walking out of a diner and there on the window seat was "The New Federalist" - a small newspaper. What really caught my eye was the headline that read "It's Time for Cheney to Go". The paper really lambastes W and especially Dick C. Lyndon LaRouche really has a bug up his a** about Uncle Dick. Goes so far as calling the regime "Children of Satan". But what really caught my eye was the following: "...you're looking at a threat which is dated about 2007, for a war involving Taiwan and the mainland of China. This is being engineered by Cheneyacs. You have a plan for a nuclear attack, on the power stations in Iran. You have a plan for an attack on Syria. You have similar kinds of plans for attacks, through the Cheney/neo-con apparatus." It looks like I will have to research a little more into LaRouche. Where is he really coming from? Though I think he has the future right.

Read more...

Bush Wins, We Invade Iran - by Gordon Prather

Monday, September 06, 2004

Here is another article that points to our (THEM's) reckless behavior and attitude to others. Another reason to not vote for W. I like his term neo-crazies. It really fits. They are blinded by some sense of "faith" or belief that the Bok of Revelations is a literal script for "the end of the world". They want to hasten the "end-times".

Their use of "fear" and terror alerts has been effective in luring many voters to their camp. Their actions are even creating a fear in me. A fear that if they get re-elected - ITEOTWAWKI (it's the end of the world as we know it).

Read more...

Stonewalk

Sunday, September 05, 2004

This is a great article about Dan Jones and the Peaceful Tomorrows organization. One point this article makes is the fact that Jones and the organization are the worst nightmare of war mongers. It is too easy for those advocating war and revenge to say that they have to avenge the loss of so many lives. Here are people who lost love ones saying "not in our names" and "justice not revenge". I was proud to alk with them.

Read more...

Was I dreaming?

The one night I watched the GOP convention I swore I heard someone from the floor say. "Next stop Iran". Did someone really say that or was I hearing things? I like to think the latter but if you visit the NEO-CON think(?)-tank website (Project for the New American Century) you can read for yourself their call for"...containment, pressure, accountability, and ultimately, regime change." Scary!!!

Our focus seems to be away from Syria. Why? Israel is now on a war footing with Syria over Hamas and their existence in Syria. This was according to an article I read (was it NYTimes or Common Dreams - I wish I could remember). Of course we are involved behind the scenes.

Read more...

  © Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP