Sunday, September 05, 2004

Advice, advice..Everyone Has Advice for Kerry

Advice, advice..Everyone Has Advice for Kerry

Adam Nagourney and Jodi Wilgoren write in Sunday's N.Y.Times about various Democrats' reactions to the recent state of the presidential race.

Advice, advice, advice.
Everyone's got advice for John Kerry.

I was screaming for someone to listen to my advice a year ago. The secretive misleaders in the Bush administration, from the time they took the Oval Office, were never showcased in a completely truthful journalistic light and now the media's incomplete details lead to more complicated lies about Bush's "strength" in Foreign Policy and National Security today.

Why should Bush's focus on terror be considered a strength when he's been a lying failure?
I'll tell you why.
Warped media has been doling out misinformation to the public.
Bush has been honeymooned from the day he got into office by the media and reporters have been intimidated into writing propaganda these past three years.
Bush has also been strangely protected by DLC skunks concerned only about their re-election chances.

Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana has said that John Kerry has 'spent too much time talking about national security, including his own views on the Iraq war, and overplayed his Vietnam war experience', inviting the attacks that have dominated debate in recent weeks.

Can I be honest?
I think Evan Bayh is a snooze and a dead skunk.
I think he's wrong and I think he's a wimp of a politician.
No one invites attacks from the Bushites.
They're junkyard dogs and you have to be tough to keep up with them.
Trust me.
No one will ever win taking Evan Bayh's advice.

Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm of Michigan has it right when she says, "I think it is very critical that you don't answer a tuba with a piccolo. If he's hit, and he will be, he needs to stand up and fight."

National security is the A-One priority issue for Americans come November.
John Kerry can't slip it in his back pocket and change the subject.
No, no, no, no, no.

If he does, the Bush team will squish him like a bug.

The best advice:
Let John Kerry be John Kerry.

Osama October Surprise Would Be Too Obvious

Osama October Surprise Would
Be Far Too Obvious

And the Bushites are so bold they are indifferent to public distrust

I am not aware of who wrote the following article. I do know that I agree with the content:

Osama bin Laden - What makes US counter-terrorism so confident?
(Sept 5, 2004)

Cofer Black, State Department coordinator for counter-terrorism, has stated "Programs are in place and what I tell people is I would be surprised but not necessarily shocked if we wake up tomorrow and he (Osama bin Laden) has been caught along with all his lieutenants"

He has also been quoted as saying "Success against people that you know about, Osama, could happen tomorrow, could happen the day after, a week from now, or a month from now"

We find it interesting that his comment does not seem to stretch beyond one month and George Bush has been heard saying that he "guarantees" that Osama bin Laden will be caught!

There seems to be a lot of confidence out there and his "capture" could very well be announced in October?

Our earlier article reported that Osama bin Laden had already been caught (4 weeks ago, according to our sources) and that this was going to be officially announced in October (see here).

The report, which can not be confirmed, made no reference as to who might conceal such information (if anyone) and we can only make guesses as to who and why.

There is no doubt at all that George Bush would benefit from the announcement of his "capture", if it was made just a few weeks before the election and the timing would be a remarkable coincidence. Especially as the US have been looking for him for almost 3 years.

But politics are full of "surprises" and you can never be sure what to believe. For his supporters it probably makes no difference if bin Laden has been waiting around somewhere for the "right time".

This election campaign (no matter who wins) will be remembered as been very "dirty" and some of the tactics that have been employed do not belong in a country like America.
But perhaps the saddest part is the inability of some to see it and the eager acceptance of others who can.
The golden days of America, it would seem, may soon be coming to an end.
This may not be so obvious to those who will support this course in November, but it will be later.
Please don't complain about it afterwards!

Please see my history of blogposts about the alleged surrounding of Bin Laden last January...then watch as it drops off the media's radar.

January 23, 2004--Bin Laden Captured?
January 29, 2004--Hmmmmmm....they are apparently"sure"of where Osama is now...why not go and grab him?
February 4, 2004--Grassley oddly confident about catching bin Laden "before November 2nd election
February 21, 2004--Bin Laden Found?
February 25, 2004--Osama In the House?

Also see my own comments from March 15, 2004 titled How the capture of Osama Bin Laden may turn out to be a meaningless symbol

The capture of Bin Laden will surely happen, but the songs of joy will ring hollow as we see the disease which he caused to spread..the fires he lit...spread thousands and thousands of miles out ahead of him... coming closer to us by the moment.

If we love our own children and the children of this world, it's time to find a real and meaningful way to cooperate with the nations of the world and give the utmost respect to the rule of law.
It is the only thing that separates us from the terrorists, you see.
For God's sake, let's put an end to this madness....together.

Like Dorothy's ruby slippers, Bush has held the awesome power of the rule of law all the time..and I don't think he ever realized it.
I pray this nation finds its way.


Kerry Needs to Paint Clear Path to Iraq Security

Kerry Needs to Paint Clear Path to Iraq Security

Unless we pick up the pace of progress substantially--something that neither President Bush nor Sen. John F. Kerry has convincingly explained how to do--Iraq is unlikely to become a peaceful democracy in the near future..

..those who suffered from Hussein's atrocities need fear him no more. That is no small accomplishment. But unless current trends change substantially, the administration's goals of making Iraq a beacon of democracy, stability and prosperity in the Middle East appear increasingly out of reach.

-Michael O'Hanlon and Adriana Lins de Albuquerque
LA Times, Sept 5, 2004


The Path Ahead

Last week Mr. Kerry laid out a strong and mostly convincing critique of all that Mr. Bush had done wrong in Iraq, from failing to deploy enough troops to refusing to internationalize the occupation. None of these failings were acknowledged in Mr. Bush's account. But Mr. Kerry's own plan boils down to enlisting allies who can "reduce the cost" to American taxpayers and soldiers--an unlikely prospect. He says he will "get the job done and bring our troops home," perhaps many of them within six months. But what is "the job?"
Washington Post Editorial, 9-5-04

Key Questions: Why Kerry Is Far Wiser Than Bush

Key Questions: Why Kerry Is Far Wiser Than Bush

"The soldier above all other people prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war."

-General Douglas MacArthur

From today's Washington Post:

Did Bush Miss Vietnam's Lessons?
By Jeffrey H. Smith
Former general counsel of the CIA

• Kerry, who first criticized the Vietnam War in 1971, should also ask a more relevant question. What was the view of Air Force National Guard Lt. George W. Bush on the Vietnam War in 1971?

• Did he, like Navy Lt. John F. Kerry, realize it was a folly?

• Did he have the wisdom and foresight to understand that the United States had gotten itself in a terrible quagmire and lacked the fortitude and leadership to get out without further useless loss of life?

• What is the record of the young George Bush's view of Vietnam?

• Former defense secretary Robert S. McNamara has recently written that "we could have ended the war as early as 1962, and not later than 1967, without any significant loss in our strategic position." A young Kerry recognized that in 1971. Did a young Bush?

• [In Iraq], we did not find weapons of mass destruction, and we have generated a deep and pervasive hatred of the United States that will take generations to overcome. That makes us less safe, not more. Kerry recognizes that. Does Bush?

• It takes a special courage to speak out against a cause for which you were once prepared to die -- a cause that, as a combat leader, you asked others to be prepared to die for. Kerry has that kind of courage. Does Bush?

• The debates of 1971 have echoes in our current one. We have gotten deeply involved in a region that we do not understand, and we have unleashed forces we cannot control. We must have a president who can recognize our strengths and our shortcomings, who will ask hard questions and who will challenge advice, even intelligence information that is presented to him. Did Bush ask those hard questions before making the decision to send our forces to war?

• Who is better equipped to lead us: Bush, who rigidly insists that he is right, or Kerry, who has charted a new direction?

Censored: 10 Stories Media Has Ignored

The 10 big stories the
national news media ignore

• 1. Wealth inequality in 21st century threatens economy and democracy

• 2. Ashcroft versus human rights law that holds corporations accountable

• 3. Bush administration manipulates science and censors scientists

• 4. High uranium levels found in troops and civilians

• 5. Wholesale giveaway of our natural resources

• 6. Sale of electoral politics

• 7. Conservative organization drives judicial appointments

• 8. Secrets of Cheney's energy task force come to light

• 9. Widow brings RICO case against U.S. government for 9/11

• 10. New nuke plants: taxpayers support, industry profits