With friends like this, who needs enemies?

One of my biggest problems with the Bush foreign policy is its inconsistency and shortsightedness. In their efforts to fight terrorism they have aligned themselves with brutal dictators who serve their short-term goals. Have they learned nothing from history? Although the press refuses to drudge up the past, it bears repeating. After their failure to find any semblance of actual WMDs, and in an effort to justify their War, the Bush administration has rattled off various human rights abuses and crimes against humanity that Saddam Hussein committed against his people. What they’ve failed to mention, was that a vast majority of these heinous crimes were committed, ironically enough, during the 1980’s when the United States provided aid and weapons worth billions of dollars, as well as communication and industrial technology to the Iraqi government and Saddam Hussein. The Washington Post's Bob Woodward reported on (12/15/86), that in 1984 the CIA began giving Iraq intelligence which it used to "calibrate" its mustard gas attacks against Iranian troops. A decade later the Bush Administration uses these gross human rights violations that the United States helped facilitate, as justification for invading Iraq. There’s a great picture of Rummy and Saddam that I think says it all. I digress; America supported Iraq in the war against Iran, to stem the threat of Khomeini, but in doing so, we propped up an evil dictator who has now come back to haunt us. You’d think we might have learned something from our foreign policy blunders during the cold war, but we are repeating the very same mistakes today.

The latest issue of the Economist details some of the Bush Administration’s current missteps.

“EXPLOSIONS and gunfire echoed through a suburb of Tashkent on Tuesday March 30th, as Uzbekistan's security forces attacked what they said was the hideout of an Islamist militant group. The government said 20 “terrorists” and three policemen were killed. The crackdown came a day after 19 people were reportedly killed in a series of bomb attacks—some by female suicide bombers—in the Uzbek capital and in the ancient city of Bukhara. The country’s authoritarian president, Islam Karimov, was almost killed in a wave of bombings by Islamists in Tashkent five years ago and, as he did last time, he is likely to respond to the latest attacks with a wave of brutal repression. His government has been vilified for its appalling record on human rights and political freedom—while being praised by America for its co-operation in the war on terrorism.

There are an estimated 6,500 political and religious prisoners in Uzbekistan, and the United Nations’ rapporteur on torture, Theo van Boven, concluded after a visit in 2002 that torture was “institutionalised, systematic and rampant” there…

...The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) says that, in spite of the lifting of official censorship, Uzbekistan still has no press freedom to speak of, and there has been no substantial progress over the past year. Genuine opposition parties have been unable to register and operate, while those non-governmental organisations which had been allowed to register have now been asked to reapply. Human-rights activists are still harrassed or arrested, and Muslims trying to practise their faith outside the state-endorsed religious entities are labelled as terrorists and persecuted. Last August, a court sentenced Ruslan Sharipov, an independent human-rights activist and journalist, to five-and-a-half years in prison for “homosexual conduct”…

Despite the government’s claims to the contrary, human-rights groups say torture is still widespread, and that none of the UN rapporteur’s recommendations has been fully implemented—though the government has issued an action plan. The death of a prisoner in 2002, who appeared to have died after being immersed in boiling water, shocked many other countries. Last month, his mother was jailed for six years for “religious extremism”, after having campaigned for a formal inquiry into her son’s death. She was released, and her penalty reduced to a fine, just before a visit to Tashkent by Donald Rumsfeld, the American defence secretary.

As Mr Rumsfeld noted during his visit, since America’s military intervention in Afghanistan, Uzbekistan has become a key ally in George Bush’s war on terror. It now hosts an American military base. On Tuesday, Colin Powell, the secretary of state, telephoned his Uzbek counterpart to offer American help in investigating the latest terrorist attacks in the country.

It seems that, in its desire to keep Mr Karimov onside in the war on terror, the Bush administration still holds to the maxim said to have been used by President Franklin Roosevelt to describe an American-backed dictator in Nicaragua: “He may be a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch.”

Sound strikingly familiar, Rummy meeting with a brutal dictator that has an abominable record on human rights in hopes of promoting shortsighted goals. Is this Déjà vu? So let me get this straight, one of our key allies in the war on terror, systematically deprives his people of democratic freedoms, crushes any dissent, imprisons men and women at will, and brutally tortures them. Including and not limited to boiling them alive. What kind of message does this send to the rest of the world? We claim to be promoting democracy in Iraq, making it a beacon of freedom for the rest of the Arab world. BUT WHAT THE HELL ARE WE DOING IN UZBEKISTAN?

The brutal oppression against Muslims in Uzbekistan is exactly what fosters the resentment and humiliation in young Arab men that spawns suicide bombers and breeds terrorism. We should be condemning this wicked leader for his acts of brutality and rallying the international community against such a man. Instead, we are giving him huge amounts of financial and military aid because he permitted the use of military bases in Uzbekistan for the U.S. attack on Afghanistan.

If we are ever going to win this war on terrorism, we must be steadfast in our commitment to the promotion of democratic ideals. We must not succumb to shortcuts or easy quick-fix solutions that are contradictory to the values we stand for. We cannot continue to support countries that stifle democratic expression and repress the will of their people. If we show to the world, that only those countries who demonstrate a true commitment to democracy will earn the full support of the United States both militarily and financially, then maybe we can begin to fight terrorism at it roots. But if we continue to repeat the mistakes of the past, then we are doomed to reap the carnage that we sew.

update 4-1-04: The lead editorial in the Washington Post today, boasts similiar claims as what I stated yesterday.

Iraq or Bust!

The morning of September 11 Richard Clarke led the Counterterrorism Security Group meeting in which State, Defense, the Federal Aviation Administration, and others grounded jets, roused rescue workers, and protected the president. He has worked for Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, serving as counterterrorism chief for the last two. He voted Republican in the last election.

This is an excerpt from Richard Clarke's new book, in which he describes the conversation he had with the president the evening of September 12.

""Look," he told us. "I know you have a lot to do and all … but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way."

I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed.

"But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."

"I know, I know, but … see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred."

"Absolutely, we will look … again." I was trying to be more respectful, more responsive. "But, you know, we have looked several times for state sponsorship of Al Qaeda and not found any linkages to Iraq. Iran plays a little, as does Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, Yemen."

"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us."

Whether or not you think the War in Iraq was justified, and there are valid arguments to be made for both sides on this issue; if in reading this segment you are not struck with an overwhelming sense that President Bush was grasping for a reason to invade Iraq then are blinded by your own partisanship. If you think it coincidental that two high level members of the Bush Administration have written in detail about his preoccupation with attacking Iraq, then you're fooling yourself.

Why then I ask you, when given the knowledge that Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Yemen all sponsored Al Qaeda, did Bush persist in requiring information on a possible Iraq link.

A president is well within his rights to examine all possible culprits when a crime of this magnitude is committed against his country. Asking if Saddam was in any part responsible for 9-11 was a valid question. This was different. The president was being told the facts, the possible culprits, and was ignoring reality, looking for any shred of evidence to incriminate Saddam. There are good arguments to be made for the war in Iraq, including and not limited to the threat they may well have posed one day; however using 9-11 as a veil to cloak your previous intentions is reprehensible.

350 Tax Increases oh MY!

President Bush's latest attack ads falsely accuse Democratic Presidential Nominee Senator Kerry of voting to raise taxes 350 times during his tenure in the Senate. Bush's relentless barrage of half-truths and lies meant to scare middle America are simply not going to work. Any half-witted monkey, with an hour of free time and a congressional record could prove these latest accusations untrue.

Here's Michael Kinsley's take on the subject:

"The purpose of a phony statistic such as this one isn't to convince people of its own accuracy. The purpose is to trap your opponent in a discussion he doesn't want to have (in this case about his past votes on taxes), bog down the discussion in silly details that few people will follow, and leave a general impression that where there's smoke there must be fire. And certainly, if what matters to you above all else is paying fewer taxes, you'd be a fool to choose Kerry over Bush. But this isn't about taxes; it's about honesty. Honesty means more than factual accuracy, it means avoiding disingenuousness: not talking rot when you know it's rot.

......the first item asserts that "In 1995, Kerry Voted For [a] Resolution That Said Middle Class Tax Cuts Were Not Wise." This turns out to be a vote in the midst of that nearly forgotten frenzy, the Gingrich revolution. It was a vote against a particular tax cut of $700 billion, on a resolution declaring with almost tautological justice that subtracting $700 billion from revenue would make it harder to balance the budget. The resolution passed the Republican-controlled House and Senate, but a decade later the Republican president uses it to tar his Democratic opponent.

The documentation on the GOP Web site about Kerry's supposed 350 votes to increase taxes lists only 67 votes "for higher taxes." Most of these are votes against a tax cut, not in favor of a tax increase. The 67 include nine votes listed twice, three listed three times, and two listed four times. The logic seems to be that if a bill contains more than one item (as almost all bills do), it counts as separate votes for or against each item. The Bush list also includes several series of sequentially numbered votes, which are procedural twists on the same bill. And there are votes on the identical issue in different years. The only tax increase on Bush's list (counted twice, but hey . . . ) is Kerry's support for Clinton's 1993 deficit-reduction plan. That's the one that raised rates in the top bracket and led to a decade of such fabulous prosperity that even its most affluent victims ended up better off."

The President is completely distorting reality to serve his political goals and in doing so he is insulting our intelligence. I wonder why Pres. Bush is so scared to present the real facts about Senator Kerry's record?

Like Father Like Son!!

Say it ain't so

Roll Call is reporting today that:

"House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) has begun quiet discussions with a handful of colleagues about the possibility that he will have to step down from his leadership post temporarily if he is indicted by a Texas grand jury investigating alleged campaign finance abuses.

...Republican Conference rules state that a member of the elected leadership who has been indicted on a felony carrying a penalty of at least two years in prison must temporarily step down from the post."

We can only hope......

Just an observation....

Dick Cheney is saying that Richard Clarke is just upset because he wasn't "in the loop." Considering Clarke was the administration's top counter terrorism expert, if Clarke was in fact "out of the loop" doesn't that just prove Clarke's point that the Administration was not taking the threat of terrorism seriously.

Ad Hominem....

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, his circumstances, or his actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

I bet you know where I am going with this.

Paul Krugman is dead on in his analysis of the latest defection from the Bush Administration and the subsequent smear campaign that they have engaged in to discredit Richard Clarke. Republicans love the Ad Hominem.

"It's important, when you read the inevitable attempts to impugn the character of the latest whistle-blower, to realize just how risky it is to reveal awkward truths about the Bush administration. When Gen. Eric Shinseki told Congress that postwar Iraq would require a large occupation force, that was the end of his military career. When Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV revealed that the 2003 State of the Union speech contained information known to be false, someone in the White House destroyed his wife's career by revealing that she was a C.I.A. operative. And we now know that Richard Foster, the Medicare system's chief actuary, was threatened with dismissal if he revealed to Congress the likely cost of the administration's prescription drug plan.

The latest insider to come forth, of course, is Richard Clarke, George Bush's former counterterrorism czar and the author of the just-published "Against All Enemies."

On "60 Minutes" on Sunday, Mr. Clarke said the previously unsayable: that Mr. Bush, the self-proclaimed "war president," had "done a terrible job on the war against terrorism." After a few hours of shocked silence, the character assassination began. He "may have had a grudge to bear since he probably wanted a more prominent position," declared Dick Cheney, who also says that Mr. Clarke was "out of the loop." (What loop? Before 9/11, Mr. Clarke was the administration's top official on counterterrorism.) It's "more about politics and a book promotion than about policy," Scott McClellan said.

Of course, Bush officials have to attack Mr. Clarke's character because there is plenty of independent evidence confirming the thrust of his charges.

Still, the administration would like you to think that Mr. Clarke had base motives in writing his book. But given the hawks' dominance of the best-seller lists until last fall, it's unlikely that he wrote it for the money. Given the assumption by most political pundits, until very recently, that Mr. Bush was guaranteed re-election, it's unlikely that he wrote it in the hopes of getting a political job. And given the Bush administration's penchant for punishing its critics, he must have known that he was taking a huge personal risk.

So why did he write it? How about this: Maybe he just wanted the public to know the truth."

THE TRUTH???? What a novel idea.

Looking Beyond Tax Cuts!

I don't mean to go off on a rant here, but let me get this straight. Something I will never understand is the conservative mantra that tax cuts are undoubtedly the best and only way to pump money into a struggling economy which in turn will foster job creation. While evidence that clearly contradicts this widely held conviction mounts, conservatives refuse to expand their view of the economy. Taxes bad, bottom line good. Company make money, company make new jobs. This simplistic view is not grounded in reality. While decreases in tax rates have in the past increased job growth, the present problem is clearly not being solved by the previous solution. Other remedies to job loss need to be explored and evaluated more carefully by both parties. Democrats and Conservatives alike owe Americans a realistic strategy for job growth creation. Neither has yet to offer any semblance of a substantive plan that looks beyond preconceived notions of party platforms. Republicans need to admit tax cuts for big business and the wealthy don’t cure all of life’s problems, and Democrats need to stop using protectionist rhetoric to criticize free trade. Repealing parts of the egregious Bush tax cut is a great start, but it is only part of a much more complex solution. Liberals and Conservatives should engage each other in a real discussion on how best to put Americans back to work. In an effort to win re-election, our representatives are short changing America by intentionally simplifying the problems facing our economy. In doing so, they are failing to address their constituent’s biggest concern, getting a job.

The following op/ed in USA Today disccusses this dilemma facing our nation’s law makers and offers one solution. Take note of the paragraph in bold. The article states,

"While Washington has showered tax cuts on U.S. businesses to spur them to grow, executives have not created new jobs or shared their increased prosperity with workers. Instead, the tax benefits largely have fattened companies' bottom lines. The growing disparity between corporate and worker fortunes requires a re-examination of strategies for stimulating the economy.

Corporate profits are up 30% since the end of the 2001 recession, according to the Commerce Department. And dividends paid by the Standard & Poor's 500 companies have increased 19% in the past two years. By contrast, 2.3 million jobs have disappeared since 2001. And weekly earnings for the average worker in 2003 rose just half of one percent in two years, after adjusting for inflation, the Labor Department reports.

Those were not the results corporate lobbyists promised in 2003 when they won $148 billion in pro-business tax cuts over five years. Among them:

Lower capital gains taxes. Businesses said reducing the tax on stock-sale profits from 20% to 15% would stimulate investment in their growth and create high-paying jobs. Instead, much of the money has paid for new technology that lets firms produce more with the same or fewer workers. The efficiency gains have fattened profits more than paychecks, government data show.

In light of business' failure to deliver on earlier promises of job and wage growth, worker-friendly ways to stimulate the economy are worth exploring first. One example: extending unemployment benefits for 760,000 people who have exhausted benefits. According to Economy.com, a consulting firm, every $1 invested in extended benefits generates $1.70 of increased economic activity because the money is spent quickly. By contrast, each $1 spent cutting dividend taxes pumps just 9 cents into the economy, the firm says. The benefits' $14.5 billion annual cost could be offset partly by eliminating some business tax breaks and subsidies.

Business groups say strong economic growth soon will pay off as companies hire new workers and give current employees raises so they don't look for jobs elsewhere.

But similar predictions a year ago that jobs are just around the corner still haven't come true. Until those jobs materialize, corporate claims that policies good for business are good for the country will ring hollow."

The Washington Post is catching on!

The Washington Post claims Bush Exaggerates Kerry's Position on Intelligence Budget!

This story has legs and its not going anywhere!

Are American's finally getting fed up with Karl Rove's erroneous spoon-fed soundbytes? Lets hope so.

Update: The Post's editorial page claimes, "...voters are entitled to a minimum level of honesty in the argument. On that score, Mr. Bush's initial attacks fall short."

In other words, President Bush's first round of attack ad's didn't even meet a minimum level of honesty. When a statement doesn't meet a minimum level of honesty, It is a lie. At the opening of these attack ad's George W. Bush states. "Im George W. Bush, and I approve of this message."

Should Senator John Kerry apologize for his recent statement's, "the most lying, you know, crooked......."

Maybe the Post editorial page should apologize, they're claiming the republican attack machine is distorting the truth as well.

Or maybe, we can elevate the political discourse of this coming election beyond playground taunts and half-truths.

Republicans distorting the facts...again

Various news agencies are reporting that Republican's intentionally withheld information from Members of Congress that would have significantly altered the outcome of the recent vote regarding Medicare. According to Richard S. Foster, the chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, after his office estimated the cost for the Bill to be upward of 550 Billions dollars, he was threatened with the loss of his job.

"When the House of Representatives passed the controversial benefit by five votes last November, the White House was embracing an estimate by the Congressional Budget Office that it would cost $395 billion in the first 10 years. But for months the administration's own analysts in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services had concluded repeatedly that the drug benefit could cost upward of $100 billion more than that."

Foster wrote this in an email just before the first congressional vote:

"This whole episode which has now gone on for three weeks has been pretty nightmarish, I'm perhaps no longer in grave danger of being fired, but there remains a strong likelihood that I will have to resign in protest of the withholding of important technical information from key policy makers for political reasons."

13 Republican representatives vowed to vote against the Medicare Bill if it cost more then 400 Billion dollars. If you recall, the bill passed my a margin of five votes.

Maybe John Kerry is on to something, "the most crooked, lying........"

Republican Mud Slinging

The latest accusations from RNC attack dogs against democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, include charges he consistently voted against weapons systems while serving in the Senate. These attacks are an effort to impugn the Senators stance on national defense and they deserve a closer examination.

Lets take a look at some quotes from the days of yore.

"After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office."

Was this John Kerry going soft on national defense again. Nope. In actuality, the above quotation comes from former President George H. Bush's 1992 State of the Union speech. Was he soft on defense?

Or how about the following remarks,

"Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. And now we're adding to that another $50 billion of so-called peace dividend.

Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. You've directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16sall great systems but we have enough of them."

John Kerry right? Wrong. That was Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney speaking to Congress. He's defintely soft on defense.

Votes must be looked at in the context of which they are cast.

There he goes again...

At a campaign rally yesterday in Houston,

"President Bush told a crowd of supporters that after the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, Sen. John Kerry introduced legislation to cut the intelligence budget by $1.5 billion. "Once again, Sen. Kerry is trying to have it both ways," the president said. "He's for good intelligence; yet he was willing to gut the intelligence services. And that is no way to lead a nation in a time of war." Bush further charged that Kerry's bill was "so deeply irresponsible that he didn't have a single-co-sponsor in the United States Senate."

Needless to say, this is a gross misrepresentation of the actual facts.

Slate's Fred Kapalan says that, "Bush and his operatives are making a practice of mischaracterizing the voting record of the presumptive Democratic nominee. Two weeks ago, the Republican National Committee put out a "Research Brief" that flagrantly distorted Kerry's votes on weapons systems. Bush's remarks yesterday are more dishonest still.

One thing is true: Kerry did introduce a bill on Sept. 29, 1995—S. 1290—that, among many other things, would have cut the intelligence budget by $300 million per year over a five-year period, or $1.5 billion in all.

First, would such a reduction have "gutted" the intelligence services? Intelligence budgets are classified, but private budget sleuths have estimated that the 1995 budget totaled about $28 billion. Thus, taking out $300 million would have meant a reduction of about 1 percent. This is not a gutting.

Second, and more to the point, Kerry's proposal would have not have cut a single intelligence program.

On the same day that Kerry's bill was read on the Senate floor, two of his colleagues—Democrat Bob Kerrey and Republican Arlen Specter—introduced a similar measure. Their bill would have cut the budget of the National Reconnaissance Office, the division of the U.S. intelligence community in charge of spy satellites.

According to that day's Congressional Record, Specter said he was offering an amendment "to address concerns about financial practices and management" at the NRO. Specifically, "the NRO has accumulated more than $1 billion in unspent funds without informing the Pentagon, CIA, or Congress." He called this accumulation "one more example of how intelligence agencies sometimes use their secret status to avoid accountability."

The Kerrey-Specter bill proposed to cut the NRO's budget "to reflect the availability of funds … that have accumulated in the carry-forward accounts" from previous years. Another co-sponsor of the bill, Sen. Richard Bryan, D–Nev., noted that these "carry-forward accounts" amounted to "more than $1.5 billion."

This was the same $1.5 billion that John Kerry was proposing to cut—over a five-year period—in his bill. It had nothing to do with intelligence, terrorism, or anything of substance. It was a motion to rescind money that had been handed out but never spent.

By the way, the Kerrey-Specter bill—which called for the same intelligence cut that George W. Bush is attacking John Kerry for proposing—passed on the Senate floor by a voice vote. It was sheer common sense. It also led to major investigations into the NRO's finances, both by the White House and by the CIA's general counsel.

Kerry's campaign office has thus far been a bit off-the-mark in responding to Bush's outlandish charges. A Kerry spokesman, Chad Clanton, is quoted in today's Times as saying that the senator had "voted against a proposed billion-dollar bloat in the intelligence budget because it was essentially a slush fund for defense contractors." Not quite. The NRO had a slush fund, but not for "defense contractors." It's difficult to correct the distortions of a 10-second sound bite. Usually, it takes a minute or so to set the record straight, and that's too long for the networks. But this one should have been easy. How about something like: "Sen. Kerry was merely trying to return unspent money to the taxpayers. Shame on President Bush for twisting a simple bookkeeping adjustment to make it look like an act of treachery."

A Senator's voting record is fair game in any election, but does our President really think we're this stupid. He must not hold the American public's intelligence in very high esteem. These statements were made to decieve and distort and don't reflect reality whatsoever. They are dishonest plain and simple.

Glad to see we have a real straight shooter as our President.

Comments

Re: Economics

Additional Comments

Changing the tone in Washington

Cal Pundit says this today:

"You know, I always thought the "scandal" about Bill Clinton inviting supporters to spend a night in the Lincoln Bedroom was a crock. Who cares? Political supporters of all stripes get special treatment from politicians of both parties and always have.

Still, it was talked to death by the Republican Talking Points Death Squad in the 90s, and the Bush campaign did make it into an issue four years ago:

During the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush sanctimoniously accused Clinton of "virtually renting out the Lincoln bedroom to big campaign donors." He condemned the use of the "hallowed" chamber for political payoffs.

Sigh. You know where this story is going already, don't you?" -Cal Pundit

The Associated Press is reporting today that at least nine of Bush's biggest fund-raisers appear on the latest list of White House overnight guests.

In the first Presidential debate of 2000, Governor Bush blasted Clinton on this issue:

"I believe they've moved that sign, "The buck stops here," from the Oval Office desk to "The buck stops here" on the Lincoln bedroom, and that's not good for the country. It's not right. We need to have a new look about how we conduct ourselves in office."

Glad to see President Bush is not flip-flopping!

THATS WHAT I CALL STEADY LEADERSHIP!

Jobless Recovery is no Recovery at all

Jay Bookman, from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, states this very eloquently:

"So far, President Bush has responded to that concern with a studied air of defiance, insisting that the economy is doing fine and that his policies are working. "The economy is getting stronger," he said last week in California. "Inflation is low; interest rates are low; manufacturing is up; home ownership is strong. The entrepreneurial spirit in America is alive and well, and one of the reasons why I think we're doing so good here in America is because of the tax relief we passed."

Notably missing from the president's description of why "we're doing so good here in America" is any mention of jobs. Yes, the stock market is up, as are corporate profits. If you work on Wall Street, these are indeed good times. But to most Americans, the primary function of an economy is not to drive up stocks, but to put people to work so they can support themselves and their families and contribute to their country. By that very human measure, a jobless recovery is not a recovery at all."

Bush Flip-Flops

While we're on the subject, I thought I would discuss some of Bush's flip-flops. The Daily Kos posted this on Saturday.

"So Bush has a site somewhere that tracks Kerry's "flip-flops". Reader TK probably spent three seconds coming up with this list of Bush flip flops. It's not like they're hard to find:

Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.

Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.

Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.

Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.

Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.

Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.

Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.

Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.

Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.

Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.

Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits

Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.

Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.

Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.

Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will

Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have.

Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote

Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team.

Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, says he's against it."

There's plenty more were that came from!!!

Flip-Flop or Not?

The Senate vote in October 2002, on a resolution to use force IF necessary against Iraq was largely a symbolic show of support. The Senate wanted to afford President Bush the opportunity to legitimately threaten military force should Iraq refuse the return of weapons inspectors. President Bush himself stated that, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice." Certain Senators still felt compelled to state explicit conditions under which they would exclusively approve the use of force against Iraq. Among them was Senator John F. Kerry, who stated this in his floor statement the day of the Senate vote:

"In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out......

.Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust all other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

.An administration which made nation building a dirty word needs to develop a comprehensive, Marshall-type plan, if it will meet the challenge. The President needs to give the American people a fairer and fuller, clearer understanding of the magnitude and long-term financial cost of that effort.

...As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice."

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet..."

Less then a month after the Senate approved the threat of force, the Bush administration drafted Resolution 1441. Its chief goal, to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq, was stated clearly throughout the document. Upon this premise the Security Council voted unanimously in support of the resolution. But in a strange development, Iraq actually accepted the conditions placed upon them in Resolution 1441 and weapons inspectors returned to Iraq. Almost immediately the administration began to question the credibility of reports from the weapons inspectors while simultaneously transporting thousands of troops to the Iraqi border. Iraq then refused to allow inspectors access to presidential palaces, and began to waffle on other conditions specified within the resolution. But weapons inspectors insisted they needed more time to thoroughly evaluate the WMD capacity of Iraq. Hans Blix pleaded with the United Nations, citing real progress in their work; he claimed U.S. estimates of weapons programs within Iraq were unrealistic and unfounded. The Bush administration was undeterred, and America was set on a course for war.

Did President Bush's preemptive attack on Iraq meet the standards for military intervention that Senator Kerry specified in his floor statement before the vote? Had President Bush exhausted all options available to him? Should he have given the inspectors more time to evaluate Iraq's weapons capability? Did the President prepare and present an effective plan to govern post-war Iraq? Was a multi-lateral effort proven impossible under any circumstances? Did Iraq pose an imminentnent and grave threat that would have justified a preemptive military strike?

No. No. Yes. No. No. And No.

Can Senator Kerry legitimately criticize the way in which the President took our nation to war even though he voted for the resolution to use force if necessary?

Yes absolutely.

Did he flip-flop on the war?

I report you decide.

Additional Comments

Space for additional commentary on the state of our economy.

Additional Comments

Space for additional commentary on the state of our economy.

Big Al tells it like it is....

Alec Massey's guest commentary on the economic state of our Union.
Reference: Tax Cuts and Job Growth

These statistics are not surprising – when considered with this administration’s economic record. The Bush team has demonstrated nothing but complete ineptitude when it comes to the economy. There is no denying that peak and trough economic cycles exist and cannot be avoided. Yet, it is the administration’s role (along with Greenspan&Co.), to expand the peaks in duration while shortening the troughs. Yet this administration has done the exact opposite. This economy has sat at or near trough conditions for the entirety of Bush’s presidency! Their tax cuts, passed in three consecutive years, have had almost zero positive effect. The economic trough lasted significantly longer than the average of the 5 previous recessions – check www.bls.gov if you want to do your own research. Now, finally, after three attempts, meager process is being made. But this progress is coming at the expense of many social programs and has thrown fiscal responsibility out the window.

Liberals should spend more time focusing on the failures of this administration’s tax policies than they do. These “help the rich” tax policies are not growing our economy. My goodness, it’s taken 3 HUGE tax cuts to generate any economic response – paltry as it may be. A college economics student could get some economic progress when choosing three successive gigantic tax cuts. I’d hope that student would consider the tradeoffs with social programs and the deficit though – unlike this President and his advisors. It’s time to let liberals take a shot at the economy – they surely can’t do any worse.

W

William Saletan's critique of President Bush's bombastic demeanor.

Tax cuts + tax cuts + more tax cuts= Job Growth ?????

Unfortunately for America, not if you live in reality.

"The U.S. economy added a paltry 21,000 jobs last month, according to a surprisingly weak government report on Friday that turned up the heat on President Bush as he seeks re-election.
The Labor Department report was the latest to dash hopes that employment was following the rest of the economy higher, leaving some economists to warn that robust hiring may still be some way off.

It also showed job creation in December and January was weaker than previously thought. The count of job gains for January was revised to 97,000 from 112,000 and for December to just 8,000 from 16,000.

The Bush administration released a forecast last month that looked for average growth of about 300,000 jobs a month this year -- well above most private forecasts. But with each disappointing employment report, that projection looks increasingly pie-in-the-sky."

It is worth noting that according to today's February employment release, job "growth" in America is running 1.07 million behind the pace of the Bush job forecast.

So maybe tax cuts aren't the solution to all of America's problems.

Comments

Additional comment space for the post below.

Missed Opportunity

NBC Nightly news is reporting a disturbing story on Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant, who is thought to be responsible for a majority of the terrorist attacks in Iraq. Most recently the attack on Tuesday which killed hundreds.

According to NBC news, "....long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself but never pulled the trigger.

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe. The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

"People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the presidents policy of preemption against terrorists," according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

Military officials insisted their case for attacking Zarqawi's operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone. "Heres a case where they waited, they waited too long and now we're suffering as a result inside Iraq," Cressey added.

And despite the Bush administration's tough talk about hitting the terrorists before they strike, Zarqawi's killing streak continues today."

Zarqawi's bombings are believed to have killed close to 700 men, women, and children including American soldiers.

Some may say, incorrectly I might add, that this provides evidence Saddam Hussein was supporting Al Queda and other terrorist organizations. In reality, this camp was operating against the will of Hussein in a remote region of Iraq not under the control of the Iraqi dictator. This does provide evidence that the Bush Administration was so preoccupied with overthrowing Saddam that they missed a clear opportunity to crush the efforts of REAL terrorists and save the lives of hundreds.

Nadar Poll

In the first poll since Senator John Kerry sealed the Democratic nomination, third party candidate Ralph Nader once again proved he had spoiler potential.

MSNBC POLL

Bush -46%

Kerry-45%

Nader-6%

While this is discouraging for Democrats, a much better indication of the effect Nader's candidacy is going to have on the upcoming election will be polls conducted in swing states such as NH and OH.

The Home Stretch

With the Bush Team amassing the largest war chest in campaign history, this eight month stretch prior to the 2004 Presidential election is going to be an uphill Battle for Senator John Kerry. According to Andy Barkan, Senior political editor for the Columbia Political Review, here are a few of the reasons why....

"Kerry must, before anything else, articulate a response to rogue totalitarianism--be it from Stalinist North Korea, Wahhabist Saudi Arabia or theocratic Iran. What will he do about Pakistani nuclear bazaars and elusive al-Qaeda cells? If John Kerry lets George Bush and Karl Rove shape the election as a choice between an aggressive Republican foreign policy and a wimpy Democratic one, you can bet your ballot Americans will choose the former....."

"Second, the senator will have to address the holy trinity of America's culture wars: guns, gays, and God. He'll have to disarm the National Rifle Association, whose attacks probably cost Al Gore Tennessee and West Virginia....."

"Finally--and this is perhaps his greatest challenge--Kerry will have to beat Bush on character. How does he plan to raise the issue of Bush's credibility and record without coming across as angry or mean? Can he talk about Bush misleading us about the war and stonewalling the Sept. 11 commission without sounding like a conniving politician? Can he talk about tax cuts for the rich without sounding like he's playing class warfare? Can he talk about job losses compassionately and sincerely? And, probably most importantly of all, can he deflect the criticisms that he's a waffling, unprincipled Washington politician? Eight months from now, we'll have our answer."

I think he's up for the challenge. Let's play ball!

That's NOT what I'm talking about!

Update: Legislation to curb lawsuits against the firearms industry was aburpty terminated yeseterday once the provisions listed below were added to the bill. The ban on assault weapons will expire in September, giving the general public access to military style weapons once again. Congress needs to act now.

By a margin of 52-47 the Senate voted today on an amendment to a Bill which would extend the ban on 19 types of semi-automatic guns. The Senate also approved an amendment , 53-46, requiring criminal background checks for purchases at gun shows.

This is very good news.

For anyone that's curious, these were the sensible Republican Senators that voted for the bills.

Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Susan Collins of Maine, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Richard Lugar of Indiana, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Olympia Snowe of Maine, George Voinovich of Ohio and John Warner of Virginia.

Super Tuesday

Update: Here are the early returns according to slate.

Connecticut
Kerry 63
Edwards 26
Dean 5

Georgia
Kerry 50
Edwards 39
Sharpton 7

Maryland
Kerry 59
Edwards 28
Sharpton 4

Massachusetts
Kerry 75
Edwards 16
Dean 3
Kucinich 3

New York
Kerry 61
Edwards 21
Sharpton 10

Ohio
Kerry 58
Edwards 30
Kucinich 10

Rhode Island
Kerry 70
Edwards 21
Dean 5

Vermont
Dean 63
Kerry 33
Kucinich 3

Fiscal Responsibility

With the Congressional Budget Office predicting a record 478 billion dollar budget deficit, even some Republican Senators have recently withdrew their support for President Bush's proposals to make the 2001 tax cuts permanent. Ranking members of the Senate Budget Committee have wisely concluded that the long term fiscal health of the American economy is more important than playing politics.

The Washington post reports that, "...the discussions mark a growing shift in GOP and conservative attitudes about taxes and spending as Congress begins to grapple with projections of record deficits. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office told Congress last Friday that Bush's 2005 budget proposal would generate $2.75 trillion of additional federal debt over the next decade, while failing to cut the deficit in half by 2009, as the president has promised."