Unless we start thinking a bit more like Dennis Kucinich and a lot less like Joe Lieberman, the draft will be back soon.

Don't look at Dennis Kucinich like he's crazy. We should concentrate our efforts to get our troops back home where they are needed.
The compliance of our Congress to give these billions so easily to Bush gives me icy chills. They are paving the way, felllow citizens of America, to an endless war and a draft that will take your boys...and mine.

Beware.








Sept. 5- A federal court in Massachusetts has dismissed a lawsuit seeking to make women eligible for a possible future military draft.


What happens when the "poverty draft" dries up? "In the Vietnam war, when the US military was still conscripting soldiers for compulsory service, the de facto characteristic of the men who did the fighting and dying was class. Poor people - whether black, white or Mexican - were much more likely to be drafted, and more likely to find themselves in the front line
Now the military operates what Mr Jahnkow calls a "poverty draft" - selling itself as an attractive career option or stepping stone to further education in communities that have few other options..."

"The American middle and upper classes haven't suffered much nor given up much in support of the war on terrorism. Enlistment offices weren't bursting at the seams on 9/12/2001. How likely is it that increasing recruitment goals for an all-volunteer military to restore the services to the Korean War or Vietnam War strength levels would succeed?"


"As the second anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks approaches and the U.S. military remains embroiled in conflict overseas, the role of national service in a democracy is as relevant as ever. In a new book, United We Serve: National Service and the Future of Citizenship, academics, lawmakers and former government officials engage in a vigorous debate about compulsory service for citizens, the reinstatement of the military draft and how the government can harness the patriotism that swept through the American public after the attacks.
“Why shouldn’t citizens be required to give something to their country in exchange for the full range of rights to which citizenship entitles them?” asks Robert Litan, vice president and director of economic studies at the Brookings Institution, in an essay supporting the idea of mandatory service..."

Sept 9- U.S. may not be able to sustain Iraq troop levels
Rotation schedules and a limited number of soldiers mean a change is inevitable, experts say.
By Jonathan S. Landay
Inquirer Washington Bureau

$87 Billion For Catastrophe

Article & Essay: $87 Billion For Catastrophe
-A Decent Debunking of Bush's Speech to the Nation Last Sunday-

"......despite all these lies, all this deceit, all this perfidy, despite an economy in shambles, George Bush enjoys an approval rating of 54 percent by the American people, according to the most recent polls. Are we as a nation so blinded by jingoism and hubris that we cannot see the havoc this man and his regime have wrought upon this country? Did 9/11 so blind us to reality?

How many body bags will it take? When George Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq on May 1, 137 Americans had died in combat; another 150 have been killed since then. Just yesterday, (Tuesday, September 9), one soldier died and seven were wounded in combat.

How many more soldiers will lose their lives or their limbs?

How many more Americans will lose their jobs?

How many more Americans will be thrown into poverty?

Just how many will it take?...."

This Says It All.
Today's N.Y.Times Editorial: Presidential Character


"George Bush's long-term plans for 2003 probably did not call for his August vacation to be followed by a national television address trying to justify a floundering policy in Iraq. Just about nothing, in fact, looks like what he must have hoped for in the run-up to an election. To many Americans, the economic recovery is anything but — 2.7 million private-sector jobs have been lost in the last three years. The number of people living below the poverty line is rising, the trade imbalance has reached unnerving proportions, and the federal budget deficits have grown so huge that even the International Monetary Fund has begun expressing concern. Most of the Bush domestic agenda is a sad deflated version of its earlier incarnation.

It is useful at times like this to look back on the road that brought a president into trouble and try to divide bad luck from bad guesses, and both from the wrong turns that stem from the innate nature of the presidency itself. In the case of Iraq, there is a little of each. Early in his term, Mr. Bush was stuck with trouble that was not of his making, including both the terrorist attack and the sinking economy. His judgment about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq appears to have been wrong — and, worse, hyped. But over all, it was a bad guess that was shared by intelligence experts from the Clinton administration and many allies.

Other wrong turns, however, were chosen because of a fundamental flaw in the character of this White House. Despite his tough talk, Mr. Bush seems incapable of choosing a genuinely tough path, of risking his political popularity with the same aggression that he risks the country's economic stability and international credibility. For all the trauma the United States has gone through during his administration, Mr. Bush has never asked the American people to respond to new challenges by making genuine sacrifices.

He committed the military to war, but he told civilians they deserved big tax cuts. He seems determined to remake the Middle East without doing anything serious about reducing our dependence on Middle East oil. His energy policy is a grab bag of giveaways to domestic oil and gas lobbyists. He refuses to ask for even the smallest compromise when it comes to fuel-efficient cars.

The pattern goes further. Mr. Bush rolled out a domestic agenda that included some ambitious programs aimed at lifting up America's least fortunate, particularly his No Child Left Behind education package. But in this — as in the African AIDS initiative and even his controversial faith-based initiative for social services — Mr. Bush has been content to take the credit for proposing, without paying the political dues necessary to get things done. Certainly most American parents, whose public schools are racked by state and local budget crises, are not feeling that their children are enjoying better educational opportunity. The AIDS program that got such a positive response when the president unveiled it has been underfinanced by Congress, with the White House's encouragement.

Even the administration's foreign policy reflects its tendency to go for quick gratification without much thought of the gritty long haul. The invasion of Iraq appears to have been planned by people who assumed that after a swift military assault, Saddam Hussein would be gone and Iraq would quickly snap into a prosperous, semidemocratic state that would be a model for the rest of the Middle East.

When it turned out that things were far more complicated, the president hedged on the price tag — apparently out of fear that if Congress knew how high the bill was going to be, there would not be enough votes for another round of tax cuts. Congress, however, was happy enough to be deluded until it was too late. Now we know the cost is going to be massive, with much of the tab to be paid by the future generations who will be saddled with the Bush debt.

The United States has no clear exit strategy from Iraq or immediate hope of a turnaround in a violent, complicated and expensive commitment. The hard realities of postwar Iraq have convinced Mr. Bush that he needs the United Nations support he snubbed before the invasion. But even there he is avoiding the hard choice of acknowledging his error and ceding real authority to other nations. Diplomats are wondering, with good reason, whether Mr. Bush is embarking on a new era of international cooperation or simply giving them permission to clean up his mess.

Mr. Bush is a man who was reared in privilege, who succeeded in both business and politics because of his family connections. The question during the presidential campaign was whether he was anything more than just a very lucky guy. There were times in the past three years when he has been much more than that, and he may no longer be a man who expects to find an easy way out of difficulties. But now, at the moment when we need strong leadership most, he is still a politician who is incapable of asking the people to make hard choices. And we are paying the price."

Salam Pax

A U.S. Soldier Converses With Salam Pax

Thanks to bloggers like Salam Pax, we see that, if handled correctly, this situation In Iraq could be turned around.
We will need wise American leadership and a demonstrable change in the tone of that leadership in order to restore international trust and secure international cooperation.
Political power should be shared internationally...all pride and greed cast aside.
I firmly believe nothing good will come of any of this until that happens....no matter how much money we throw at the problem.
Hope will grow and trust will take root once America mends its fences with the UN.
The Iraqi people deserve a better chance for hope and our troops deserve a chance to expect they will survive any particular Baghdad day.

The conversation below offers a glimmer of that hope....and a glimpse into some of the problems.

Thanks, Salam.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From 'Where is Raed' blog:

“I know what we have done is right and we had to do it but there must have been a better way to do it.”

When a soldier starts his conversation like this you can’t help but really really like him. He was standing in the heat, yesterday it was about 52C, guarding the entrance to building where our “governing council” meets. And he was on a roll, the next victims of his attack were the members of the governing council themselves.
“these guys, they work only four days and take the rest of the week off, they should be working 16 hour days to get their constitution going”. Give the man a cigar.
“they have huge lunches, throw tons of food out and they drive stolen cars”, by now we were laughing so loud in the car people were looking at us like we were crazy. He said that if his name is ever mentioned he will be in trouble and mentioned something about an “article 15”. We had 20 minutes with him while we were being OK-ed for meeting a Council member, he was so cool I wish the Americans didn’t freak out every time an Iraqi walks towards them I wanted to shake his hands and say thank you. He made sure I got my pieces of paper back and let us in. But he left us with one more pearl of wisdom:

“They tell you it’s the Oil but I know it is not the Oil, I just can’t figure out what the hell it is we are here for.”

He should be on TV.


Also: A recent Guardian article about Salam's blog

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Another voice from Baghdad: Baghdad Burning Blog

Excerpt from Post entitled "CHAOS":

Friday, August 29, 2003
Chaos

“[Iraq] is not a country in chaos and Baghdad is not a city in chaos.” – Paul Bremer


Where is this guy living? Is he even in the same time zone??? I’m incredulous… maybe he's from some alternate universe where shooting, looting, tanks, rape, abductions, and assassinations aren’t considered chaos, but it’s chaos in *my* world.

Ever since the occupation there have been 400 females abducted in Baghdad alone and that is only the number of recorded abductions. Most families don’t go to the Americans to tell about an abduction because they know it’s useless. The male members of the family take it upon themselves to search for the abducted female and get revenge if they find the abductors. What else is there to do?"

I'm Sorry, Senator Kerry, I'm Just Not Convinced.

In an interview today, John Kerry is quoted by the AP as saying that he would want to be able to tell families of dead soldiers that he did everything possible to avoid war and that U.S. interests required bloodshed. "I don't think the president passed that test,'' he said.

Now, I believe John Kerry is a brilliant man, but I have to be honest here.

Because I believe in his brilliance, I have to say he is being intellectually dishonest here.

John Kerry did not pass the test in October, 2002 when he voted "yes" to give this President he now so heavily criticizes free reign to send our troops to war on the wings of a dreadful lie.

This past June, he claimed to have been "deceived" by Mr. Bush's pre-war claims which have turned out to be lies.

If John Kerry had been interested in the truth, why did he refuse to meet with his Western Mass constituents before voting for the war resolution? Why did he close his Springfield office on October 11, 2002 - shutting out his constituents - in the aftermath of his vote in favor of war?

In October, 2002, 23 of his fellow Senators and 133 Representatives voted against the Bush Administration's war resolution.
John Kerry voted for it.
What did 156 Members of Congress know that Kerry did not know?
Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of his constituents had called him, urging him to vote against war.

Sorry, Senator Kerry.
You should have known far better.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In contrast, look at what was written about Howard Dean's prewar views:

From the American Reporter, March 2003:

On Native Ground
A DUTY TO SPEAK UP
by Randolph T. Holhut
American Reporter Correspondent
Dummerston, Vt.

DUMMERSTON, Vt. -- Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle expressed the views of many in America when he said: "I am saddened that this President failed so miserably
at diplomacy that we're now forced to war. Saddened that we have to give up one life, because this President couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country."
Predictably, the Republicans went berserk over this mild criticism of the failure of the Bush administration to avoid war.
"Is Tom Daschle the official Democrat hatchet-man or just a taxpayer-funded pundit?" House Majority Leader Tom DeLay asked. "Fermez la bouche, Monsieur Daschle."
House Speaker Dennis Hastert said he that he "was disappointed to see his comments. Those comments may not undermine the President as he leads us into war, and they may not give comfort to our adversaries, but they come mighty close."
We'll hear lots more comments like that in the coming days. We're all supposed to shut up and support this war.

My response to this kind of thinking is simple.

I will not keep quiet as I watch the land that I love turn into a rogue nation.

I will not keep quiet as I watch scheming men profit economically and politically from blood shed by others.

I will not keep quiet as I watch as nearly six decades of international law and institutions are crushed in an effort to bring a Pax Americana to the world.

I will not keep quiet as I watch my government manipulate the fears of the citizenry to grab more power for itself.

I will not keep quiet as we wage a war that is - by any objective standard - unjust, immoral, illegal and just plain stupid.

And I will not allow anyone to attempt to silence me, for I and others who are opposed to this unjust, immoral, illegal and stupid war still have the right to dissent and the obligation to speak up when our nation is doing something that is terribly, terribly wrong.

Dissent is the essence of democracy. The suppression of dissent is the essence of tyranny. Those who wish to shut up those who oppose this war do democracy a disservice.

This is a frightening time. Dissent is rarely appreciated in times of peace, but it is equated with treason in a time of war. We are but one terror attack away from martial law and a suspension of the Constitutional guarantees that have been in place for more than two centuries. And that attack became more likely to happen the moment the bombs and cruise missiles started falling on Baghdad.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told The Associated Press on Tuesday that the federal government has room to scale back individual rights during wartime without violating the Constitution.

"The Constitution just sets minimums," Scalia said after a speech at John Carroll University in suburban Cleveland. "Most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires."
Scalia didn't say what rights he believed are constitutionally protected, but said that in wartime, "the protections will be ratcheted right down to the constitutional minimum."

Given the record of Scalia and his conservative allies on the Supreme Court, I would say that the Bush administration has a blank check to do whatever it wishes to our civil liberties in the name of national security.

But we don't have to see this happen. It's not over yet.
The former governor of my adopted state of Vermont, Howard Dean, made these remarks after Bush's Mar. 17 speech that started the final countdown to Gulf War II. Dean is one of the few Democrats running for president that has the guts to challenge the Bush administration on this stupid war. Dean's remarks are words all of us should remember in the coming weeks.
"Those Americans who opposed our going to war with Iraq, who wanted the United Nations to remove those weapons without war, need not apologize for giving voice to their conscience, last year, this year or next year. In a country devoted to the freedom of debate and dissent, it is every citizen's patriotic duty to speak out, even as we wish our troops well and pray for their safe return. Congressman Abraham Lincoln did this in criticizing the Mexican War of 1846, as did Senator Robert F. Kennedy in calling the war in Vietnam 'unsuitable, immoral and intolerable.'
"This is not Iraq, where doubters and dissenters are punished or silenced - this is the United States of America. We need to support our young people as they are sent to war by the President, and I have no doubt that American military power will prevail. But to ensure that our post-war policies are constructive and humane, based on enduring principles of peace and justice, concerned Americans should continue to speak out; and I intend to do so."
As will I. And, I hope, as will every other American who right now is grieving for the death of the principles that once guided this once-great nation.

Randolph T. Holhut has been a journalist in New England for more than 20 years. He edited "The George Seldes Reader" (Barricade Books).
Copyright 2003 Joe Shea The American Reporter. All Rights Reserved.

al-Qaeda terrorist network is stronger than before the Sept. 11 attacks

The al-Qaeda terrorist network is stronger than before the Sept. 11 attacks-
U.S.-led war on terror has so far been a failure

From the AP: Academic: al - Qaida Stronger Than Pre - 9 / 11

"..Paul Rogers, a professor of peace studies at the University of Bradford in England, has said the U.S.-led coalition's military successes in Afghanistan and Iraq have failed to crush al-Qaida's structure or stem its recruitment.

Rogers' report was compiled for the Oxford Research Group, a think-tank specializing in arms control and nonproliferation issues.

In his report, Rogers said that while U.S.-led anti-terrorism efforts had succeeded in preventing some terrorist plots, al-Qaida linked attacks have killed more than 350 people and injured almost 1,000 in the two years since Sept. 11...."

The President's Speech

The Bush Speech-September 7, 2003
My questions and comments to Mr. Bush
Part I

1. "Nearly two years ago, following deadly attacks on our country, we began a systematic campaign against terrorism. These months have been a time of new responsibilities, and sacrifice, and national resolve and great progress. "

Iraq and its Saddam Hussein Regime never attacked us before your infamous pre-emptive strike, Mr. Bush.

Not two years ago. Not ever.


2. ".. we acted in Iraq, where the former regime sponsored terror, possessed and used weapons of mass destruction, and for 12 years defied the clear demands of the United Nations Security Council. Our coalition enforced these international demands in one of the swiftest and most humane military campaigns in history."


Not the 9-11 brand of terror, Mr. Bush. Not in the case of Iraq. There was no Al Qaeda connection.

The UN was proceeding with the renewed search for WMDs and/or evidence of existing programs for WMDs.

Iraq was cooperating...allowing them in.

You were childishly impatient, Mr. Bush.

You haven't found WMDs yourself, Mr. Bush.



You call your campaign "humane"? Do you realize at least 7,836 Iraqi citizens and soldiers are dead?

Have you seen the photos of what you have wrought, Mr. Bush?

Allow me to provide a few:




Credit: RobertFisk.com

Credit: latimes.com


credit:regulareveryday people.com



How do you feel now that you've burned so many international bridges with your ugly pride and hubris, Mr. Bush?



3. "For a generation leading up to September the 11th, 2001, terrorists and their radical allies attacked innocent people in the Middle East and beyond, without facing a sustained and serious response. The terrorists became convinced that free nations were decadent and weak."


We suspect, Mr. Bush, that you are gearing up for the September 11th anniversary. Milking the most sorowful day in American history and weaseling your way into blaming Bill Clinton for leading a decadent society. I implore you to "think Reagan" if you want to remember true decadence. You were hoping beyond hope to BE the new Reagan and to preside over a booming America. *I meant a booming economy, not the booming we experienced under your watch, Mr. Bush.

Speaking of the "2001 Bush boom", you are also weaseling your way into blaming Hussein's Iraq Regime for 9-11. Mr. Bush, you must take us for complete and utter fools.



4. A. "We have carried the fight to the enemy. We are rolling back the terrorist threat to civilization, not on the fringes of its influence, but at the heart of its power."

B. (appeared later in speech) "Two years ago, I told the Congress and the country that the war on terror would be a lengthy war, a different kind of war, fought on many fronts in many places. Iraq is now the central front. Enemies of freedom are making a desperate stand there -- and there they must be defeated."


The central front of a war on terror? Do you mean Pakistan? Saudi Arabia--where most of the 9-11 hijackers came from? Are you speaking of the Phillipines? Indonesia? Iran? Georgia? Azerbijan?

Are you saying the heart of terror was or is in Iraq?

Or are you saying you carefully CHOSE Iraq because she was the weakest nation, knowing you would "bring on" the terrorists from all these other regions once the pre-emptive attack began?

If that is the case, and it appears it IS the case from all you have said, then you were immoral and the cause of the Iraq war was unjust.

You told us, Mr. Bush, that Iraq's regime posed an "imminent threat". That is what you said.

You lied.



5.This work continues. In Iraq, we are helping the long suffering people of that country to build a decent and democratic society at the center of the Middle East. Together we are transforming a place of torture chambers and mass graves into a nation of laws and free institutions. This undertaking is difficult and costly -- yet worthy of our country, and critical to our security.


Worthy of us? It would be far more worthy of us to take care of the dangers and the basic needs we face right here at home, Mr. Bush. Our all-too-compliant Congress should tell you to eat your request for $87 billion...and go begging to the UN for it instead. Take your battle for desperately-needed cash to the central front--the heart of the world's hope...the UN.


6. Our enemies understand this. They know that a free Iraq will be free of them -- free of assassins, and torturers, and secret police. They know that as democracy rises in Iraq, all of their hateful ambitions will fall like the statues of the former dictator. And that is why, five months after we liberated Iraq, a collection of killers is desperately trying to undermine Iraq's progress and throw the country into chaos.


In the view of the Iraqi resistance, I would beg to differ. They do NOT seem to understand this as you say they do.To them, you are no more than an occupier, Mr. Bush. We realize that you wish the ideals of these real people were as easy to take down as the statue of Saddam Hussein. They do not see themselves as a collection of killers, but as a collection of patriots trying to undermine your occupation of them.


7. "Some of the attackers are members of the old Saddam regime, who fled the battlefield and now fight in the shadows. Some of the attackers are foreign terrorists, who have come to Iraq to pursue their war on America and other free nations. We cannot be certain to what extent these groups work together. We do know they have a common goal -- reclaiming Iraq for tyranny."



You represent tyranny to them, Mr. Bush. You have gone about this in a dangerous and entirely wrong way.


8. "Most, but not all, of these killers operate in one area of the country. The attacks you have heard and read about in the last few weeks have occurred predominantly in the central region of Iraq, between Baghdad and Tikrit -- Saddam Hussein's former stronghold. The north of Iraq is generally stable and is moving forward with reconstruction and self-government. The same trends are evident in the south, despite recent attacks by terrorist groups."



Sure, Mr. Bush...sure.

New explosion hits pipeline in northern Iraq


Ethnic Tensions Flare in Northern Iraq; at least 15 killed

US troops raid homes in Iraq's 'Sunni triangle'
27 August 2003
BAGHDAD: US troops hunting guerrillas and criminals raided homes overnight in Iraq's restive "Sunni triangle", the army said yesterday, as tension simmered among ethnic groups in the north and Shi'ite factions in the south.


10. " America has done this kind of work before. Following World War II, we lifted up the defeated nations of Japan and Germany, and stood with them as they built representative governments. We committed years and resources to this cause. And that effort has been repaid many times over in three generations of friendship and peace. America today accepts the challenge of helping Iraq in the same spirit -- for their sake, and our own."


Yes, we did this work before..in Europe. Unlike Iraq, 1940s Europe had been a place in which most basic structures (especially government-related) existed BEFORE the war.

A U.S. role in rebuilding Iraq should not exclude the assistance of and power-sharing with multilateral institutions. If you look at the period after World War II, we (the US) were the only nation that was able to rebuild Europe, so depleted of resources were the other countries that could possibly have helped at the time. If you look at history, however, the U.S. did the work in a rather new multilateral environment that included the UN, NATO, and what was once the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. In the case of Iraq, other nations and institutions are available to help. And they'd be ready if they believed our leader sincerely wished for an international cooperation based upon respect. The U.S. needs UN and international cooperation to lighten the overwhelming economic and military burdens.

Mr Bush, you also need desperately to counter these perceptions of U.S. unilateralism. Swallow this dangerous pride, Mr. Bush.
It's getting late.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WMD- New Explanations

HOW MANY "NEW EXPLANATIONS" WILL THERE BE FOR MAKING WAR UPON IRAQ?

From the Independent UK: Britain and US will back down over WMDs

"....Britain and the US have combined to come up with entirely new explanations of why they went to war in Iraq as inspectors on the ground prepare to report that there are no weapons of mass destruction there..."


Excuse me?
Would you mind repeating that?


Did you say come up with entirely new explanations......
do I have that right?

Nearly 300 American troops have died.

Many more have been severely wounded.

All will carry psychological wounds from which they may never recover.

Uncounted Iraqi citizens have died and are dying.

The country of Iraq lies in shambles.

Secularists there are coalescing with Fundamentalists to drive us out of their WMD-free land.

In the world, U.S. credibility and good faith have nearly been destroyed.

While we come up with new explanations.

Damn them and their new explanations!

First explanation...an imminent threat existed. Talk of "nucular" weapons that could strike within 45 minutes.
Great fear.

Next explanation....there were rusted parts under some guy's rose bush. So they HAD a weapons program.

Next explanation....they never actually had the weapons.

BUT THEY WANTED TO HAVE THEM!

Is anyone besides me deathly sick of the lies?

The Bush Administration is corrupt and has led the Blair government to slither down the credibility drain alongside them.

Dean Supporters- Angry or Concerned?

Dean Democrats aren't angry....we're genuinely concerned.
With perfectly good reason.
Sensationalist media are
more a distraction than they are a contribution to reason.


Personally, I'm sick to death of being portrayed as just an angry aimless hater by journalists. Are they really that clueless as to the plight of our nation today? If they are not clueless, then why are they being so incredibly intellectually dishonest?
To keep their jobs, perhaps?


Can you think of one historical example where the 'out' party has lost a presidential election "because it has come on too strongly against the incumbent"?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"This is beyond normal partisanship. The feeling in the Democratic base about Bush's presidency is that he's a dangerous leader, as opposed to a bad leader."
Simon Rosenberg/New Democrat Network

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


From the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Sept 6:

**Note: I agree with presidential historian Allan Lichtman:

Mobilizing the voters

"While the "angry Democrats self-destruct" scenario has some currency among political analysts and insiders, there's an alternative school of thought.

"I don't buy that for a minute," presidential historian Allan Lichtman said of the notion that anti-Bush passions are counterproductive for Democrats.

"I can't think of a historical example where the 'out' party has lost because it has come on too strongly against the incumbent," Lichtman said.

"You cannot win unless you get your base energized and mobilized. Let the Democrats nominate whoever they're most enthusiastic for and not worry about being too strident or too left-wing," he said.

In other words, the nominee will do what all nominees do: nail down the base, then adapt for the general election.

When it comes to Dean in particular, there's another dimension to the argument. Is he a stock liberal with niche appeal or - as he and his campaign contend - is he harder to pigeonhole, with some stands (balanced budget, gun rights, pro-death penalty) that defy stereotyping and a temperament (combative) that makes it hard for conservatives to define him as too soft to protect America?

Independent pollster John Zogby said that in the key nominating battleground of New Hampshire, Dean's support is just as strong right now among independents as among Democrats - that as an "outsider," he's appealing to many non-ideological voters.

"He's not just throwing red meat to liberals. He's the John McCain," Zogby said, referring to the Republican senator who defeated Bush in New Hampshire four years ago."

From Swagger to Stagger

MAUREEN DOWD: From Swagger to Stagger

to - - >

In today's NY Times, Maureen Dowd asks:

"...Does Mr. Bush ever wonder if the neocons duped him and hijacked his foreign policy?
....Some veterans of Bush 41 think that the neocons packaged their "inverted Trotskyism," as the writer John Judis dubbed their rabid desire to export their "idealistic concept of internationalism," so that it appealed to Bush 43's born-again sense of divine mission and to the desire of Mr. Bush, Rummy and Mr. Cheney to achieve immortality by transforming the Middle East and the military...."

I only have this to say:

Being "duped" would make GW Bush even more of a dangerous leader than he already appears to be.
What kind of a leader lets himself become "duped"?
You've got it! An ignorant leader without a mind of his own.
Not Presidential material.
He never has been.
He's the worst President in American history.
I need say no more. (But I probably will say more quite soon.)

Dean supports Davis

Howard Dean Talks Sense to Californians.
We are not the United States of the Right Wing.

Article: In an Appearance With Davis, Dean Denounces Recall Effort

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
NY Times

"LOS ANGELES, Sept. 6 — Howard Dean today became the first Democratic presidential candidate to appear alongside Gov. Gray Davis as he fights off a recall initiative, urging Californians to turn back a campaign that Dr. Dean said was orchestrated by President Bush and the White House.

"This is not about Gray Davis," Dr. Dean said, as a tieless Mr. Davis smiled at his side. "This is about whether America is going to continue being a democracy or whether we are going to be dominated by the far right, to serve their own purpose and not the purposes of America."

Asked if he thought the White House was orchestrating the recall, Dr. Dean said: "Absolutely. I think Karl Rove and George Bush have their hands in this."

*How refreshing to see Howard Dean take the lead!
I believe this is only the beginning of Governor Dean showing what democratic leadership really means.
Once again, he's giant-steps ahead of the pack.

Abbas Resignation

Piteous Development in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict--
Abu Mazen Resigns

From the Associated Press:
Abbas Resignation Leaves U.S. Groping for Formula to Keep Peacemaking Going
By Barry Schweid

"...Yet Abbas has shied away from repeated U.S. demands that he dismantle Palestinian extremist groups on the West Bank and Gaza and has limited his efforts to persuasion. Most anything more substantial, he has insisted, would lead to civil war.

Nonetheless, the Bush administration maintained a drumbeat of demands that the terror structure be dismantled. Otherwise, Powell insisted repeatedly that Palestinian aspirations for a state would not be fulfilled and peacemaking hopes would "go over the cliff."

Let me say this clearly.
Abbas' resignation has caused the road map to go "over the cliff"(and over the river and through the woods.)


OOPS!

As I posted last week, the Bush Administration was pushing Abu Mazen and the Palestinians into civil war with the unrealistic demands in their roadmap to "peace". It was a roadmap to "war". Abu Mazen, a very wise man, knew this.
The Associated Press writer Barry Schweid said it best:

"....Clearly the administration and its road map partners were at a loss on how to keep alive the plan for establishing a Palestinian state by 2005 to live side-by-side at peace with Israel..."

We need to hope, pray, and act for the sake of all innocent souls in that sad-but-beautiful land.
The prayer is for hope.
We're losing sight of hope.
The prayer, then the hope, will be translated to action.



I believe a good start would be to pray, hope, and act to install an American leader with a sound, keen mind and a truly compassionate soul to match.
We have the power.
We need a President who will use that power to answer our prayers and meditations for peace in a land with which so many of us have mystic connection.

Presidential Debate

The Debate


Credit: www.cagle.slate.msn.com

My first comment would be to say that all the candidates did a great job of showing how they would save our country from the mess that GW Bush has made of it. Dick Gephart drove the point home clearly and often, saying that Bush and his policies have been a miserable failure.

I appreciated the fact that John Kerry was secure enough in his own candidacy that he did not feel he needed to attack Howard Dean.
Kerry was in fine voice and he articulated his stand on the issues with clarity.
He may have been last night's "winner", if there was to be one.
Howard Dean held his own as well, reducing Senator Lieberman to a lame retreat after he initiated an attack on Dean.

I was disappointed to see those couple candidates who attacked fellow Democrat Dean (rather than concentrating on Bush). For those who participated in the attacks, let's just say it diminished their 'leadership-aura'.

Rep Dennis Kucinich (introduced by the moderator as"Kucinchi") looked incredibly dopey when he said to Howard Dean (regarding Dean's claim to keeping a balanced budget in Vermont):
"You can talk about balancing the budget in Vermont, but Vermont does not have a military ...And if you are not going to cut the military and you are talking about balancing the budget, then what are you going to do about social spending?Hello?"
I had thought Kucinich was rather dignified in his presence until then.
Not that what he said wasn't worth saying..the question was reasonable.
It was the time..the place..the WAY he said it.
Perhaps Rep Kucinich was feeling defensive and/or vulnerable about the idea of another candidate who could balance a budget.
I'm not sure why he did that..I only know he looked rather goofy doing so.


Senator Lieberman proved that he knew he has been low on candidacy fuel.
We could see it in his attack upon Dean.
He attempted to jump start his viability by snobbishly feigning that he was "stunned" by a Dean statement he'd read.
(I didn't think it was oh-so-stunning myself).

Lieberman said:
" . . . He would not have bilateral trade agreements with any country that did not observe fully American standards. That would cost us millions of jobs. If that ever happened, I'd say that the Bush recession would be followed by the Dean depression."

It sounded like a poor imitation of Johnny Cochran's "If it fits, you must acquit."
At least Cochran's statement raised rational doubt.
Senator Lieberman's statement was just a cheap and untrue shot.
We all know Lieberman is smart enough to know what he did was simply cheap.

Overall, I'd have to say Senator Lieberman was the big loser of the debate.
The DLC should turn into the Dump Lieberman Club
Hmm--what cute little rhyming arrow can I throw HIS way??

Joe is very much out of touch.
On the war, he's no Gore.
Closer to Bush--send him out on his tush.


Here's a real hoot.
Look at the headline...yes, I said the HEADLINE on an MSNBC article about the debates.
Do you think the headline is about the debate on the war?
Do you imagine it might be about corporate scandal discussion?
Healthcare?
No..the burning issue for America, according to MSNBC, is the issue of trade.
What IDIOTS our American pressroom editors have become!
It's no wonder we're so dumbed down in this country.
Those in journalism who could be helping Americans understand the issues better by reporting the relevant
points are instead reaching for the lowest common denominator.
Perhaps it sells, but it's gossip-quality schlock, pure and simple.
BOO! SHAME ON MSNBC.
Their article:
Lieberman opens anti-Dean offensive
Connecticut senator warns of ‘Dean Depression’ if trade accords must meet U.S. standards

Back to the debate.

I was comforted to see these candidates employing their fine sense of humor.
There has been so little of it in the press and from the Bush administration these past two years.
After 9-11, it seemed that humor was wiped away and replaced with fear-mongering by our Presidential leadership.
Dwight D. Eisenhower said that 'a sense of humor is part of the art of leadership, of getting along with people, of getting things done.'
If this is true, and I believe it is, then these candidates are "stand-up" leaders! (Pun intended).
America needs to get back a bit of levity and our right to laugh ... as well as our collective sanity.

Carol Moseley Braun did a fantastic job, in my opinion. She was dignified, rational, and had some great basic ideas for restoring health to our democracy. She would make an excellent President..or a wonderful running mate.
Why aren't we giving her the attention she deserves?

Howard Dean's opening statements were concise and exactly on-point. Overall, I would have liked to have seen him put more "meat" into his reasoning on the issues. Many of his statements sounded like stumptalk rather than spontaneous reasoning.
His statement about the Bush Administration "not paying any attention to Latin America, which is the most important hemisphere in American history" was a little scary. The average voter would not know what he meant by that statement. I'm not even certain myself. I'm sure this will be going around the
right-wing talk shows today (payback for Bushisms, perhaps).

Here's the difference, however:
Governor Dean has to work on giving clearer, more precise answers....NOT answers that have to be clarified later.
Debate responses shouldn't be left to a manipulative media's assumption and analysis.

I believe that Howard Dean is truly an intelligent and compassionate fellow.
We know different about the compassionate conservative Chimp, don't we?

By the way, with the exception of Dean, they all looked pretty silly when they dabbled (badly) in Spanish.





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the Albuquerque Tribune: 10 BEST THINGS ABOUT THE DEBATE

1. Best barb about President Bush: "The only jobs Bush has created are the nine of us running for president" - U.S. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.

2. Best catchphrase: "This president is a miserable failure" - U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri.

3. Best shot at making the first tier of viable candidates: Gephardt; Kerry; former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean; and U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.

4. Best shot at making the second tier: U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and former U.S. Sen. Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois.

5. Best shot at bidding an early exit: U.S. Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, U.S. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York. (Sharpton couldn't make it past the rainy East Coast to take part in the debate).

6. Best job at exceeding expectations: Braun, whose calm, firm and informed presentation forced reassessments from many debate watchers.

7. Best attack on a fellow Dem: "The Bush recession would be followed by the Dean depression" - Lieberman, describing the effect of Dean's economic policies.

*Jude's note:
I recall two such "attacks".
There was either Lieberman's attack or Kucinich's "Hello???"
Hmmm..not a tough choice.

8. Best flashback: "You remember: 23 million new jobs in seven years, unemployment was at 3 percent; we took a $5 trillion deficit and turned it into a $5 trillion surplus" - Gephardt, recalling the tenure of former President Clinton.

9. Best reality check: "You can talk about balancing the budget in Vermont, but Vermont doesn't have a military" - Kucinich to Dean.

10. Best audience: Albuquerque attendees politely applauded their favorites and refrained from disrupting the debate's flow with cheers, hisses or boos.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

God Not On Our Side--Pope John Paul II

To Catholics Who Support Bush's War on Iraq--
The Pope Gives It the Thumbs Down in the 'Just-War Theory Department'

From the Houston Catholic Worker:

Pope John Paul II calls War a Defeat for Humanity:
Neoconservative Iraq Just War Theories Rejected



Just?....say....no.

Fire Rumsfeld

It's time to fire Rumsfeld

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD

".....Every day, Iraq's troubles make it more certain that Rumsfeld was wrong in his assessment of troop needs. His rapid action plan brought quick victories. But just as Gen. Eric Shinseki warned, security requires several hundred thousand military..."


As I blogged about on July 11, Rumsfeld needs to go.


Give Rummy the boot!

Death of a Schoolboy

Death of a schoolboy

After years of being relentlessly bullied, last month Thomas Thompson took an overdose and died. He was 11 years old. Here, his mother Sandra talks to Libby Brooks

Monday August 25, 2003
From The Guardian / UK

".....More than 200 mourners packed St Paul's Church, Wirral, to say goodbye to Thomas Thompson, many of them children. By the day after the funeral, Sandra had received so many cards that she had to display some of them on the floor around the mantelpiece. "He was a lovely lad," says his grandmother, "and he touched a lot of people's hearts."

His mother is inevitably suspicious of the motives of the children who attended the funeral. "If Thomas had had all those friends then he wouldn't have been where he is. Where were they every Saturday morning, knocking on the door and asking him out? Where were they on the bus that morning? Where were they when my son was getting bullied?...."

Iraq War Pricetag--Winners and Losers

Winners and Losers

Loser: U.S.-- ".....A $20 million budget shortfall is forcing cuts at U.S. ports of entry that could impact security..."



~~~~~

Loser: U.S.-- Bush set to double price tag for Iraq....



~~~~

Loser: U.S.--"....Bremer himself revealed the enormous economic toll of the occupation when he told reporters that it will cost "several tens of billions" of dollars next year alone--money that will come from even deeper cuts in education, health care and other social services at home..."



~~~~

Loser: U.S.-- "Meanwhile, Taliban Terror Surges in Afghanistan.."


~~~~


Where is the winner, you ask?

Sorry.

I haven't a clue.

9-11: Bush let Saudis Run

This story should make you shiver, knowing what you now know about the quality and reliability of U.S. Intelligence
at the time of 9-11.


9-11: Thanks to Bush, it was time to say "goodbye" to Osama Jed and all his kin.
Was it the bum's rush or a rush to protect the Bush family assets?

New York Times
September 4, 2003
White House Approved Departure of Saudis After Sept. 11, Ex-Aide Says
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

".....Top White House officials personally approved the evacuation of dozens of influential Saudis, including relatives of Osama bin
Laden, from the United States in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks when most flights were still grounded, a former White House adviser said today..."

"...The adviser, Richard Clarke, who ran the White House crisis team after the attacks but has since left the Bush administration, said he agreed to the
extraordinary plan because the Federal Bureau of Investigation assured him that the departing Saudis were not linked to terrorism..."

Note: Mr. Clarke's recent statements have provided the first acknowledgment that the White House had any direct involvement in the plan and that senior administration officials personally signed off on it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This was far too great a risk.
Why did the President take it?
140 Saudis on 9-11.
Let go.
No questions asked.


"It's almost as if we didn't want to find out what links existed." Senator Charles Schumer

A season for sighs

A season for sighs



So, yesterday we learned that Wesley Clark is a Democrat.
Howard Dean is electable.
George Will is worried...
As he should be.
*Can you say: "running mates"?*

George Will: Don't underestimate chance of Dean victory

".....A Dean presidency is not inconceivable. Granted, it is unlikely for reasons that make it undesirable. He may not wear well with the public. If he is half as bright as he thinks he is, he is very bright. And his is no uncertain trumpet: the brio with which he proclaims his beliefs proves that he is not paralyzed by the difference between certitude and certainty.

But there is danger as well as benefit for Dean in his very Deanness. The obverse of his high opinion of himself is his low opinion of President Bush. So he probably would sigh, or do the functional equivalent.

If Al Gore had not expressed his disdain for Bush by those exasperated sighs during the first debate, Gore might be president. But Gore had to sigh. Expressing disdain of Bush was for Gore a sensual delight, almost a metabolic necessity. It might be for Dean, too. But most of the electorate would be unforgiving of bad manners toward any president...."~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

**HAHAHAHA! Hey, Dr. Dean---you're electable...just don't sigh!!

Seriously, if we had known THEN what we NOW know about Bush, we'd all have been sighing.
It's said: "To everything there is a season.."
This is a season for sighs.

Antiwar protest planned for Washington

OCTOBER 25, 2003
Mark your calendars.
Antiwar protest planned for Washington

".....Organizers predict the Oct. 25 march from the Justice Department to the White House and the Pentagon will attract tens of thousands of people."