Its funny cause its true

Courtesy of the Onion:

Bush To Iraqi Militants:

'Please Stop Bringing It On'
WASHINGTON, DC—In an internationally televised statement Monday, President Bush modified a July 2003 challenge to Iraqi militants attacking U.S. forces. "Terrorists, Saddam loyalists, and anti-American insurgents: Please stop bringing it on now," Bush said at a Monday press conference. "Nine months and 500 U.S. casualties ago, I may have invited y'all to bring it on, but as of today, I formally rescind that statement. I would officially like for you to step back." The president added that the "it" Iraqis should stop bringing includes gunfire, bombings, grenade attacks, and suicide missions of all types.

Lets Talk....

Since there has been so much discussion of late regarding Senator Kerry's actions during the 1970s, I was wondering if we could start examining what the current president was doing during the 1970s. And to be honest I really have no idea what Bush was doing, but its only fair if we compare and contrast the two candidates equally. So feel free to comment and fill me in, on what George W. was up to???

I'll do some research and check back in later.

Update: Here an excerpt from a Washington Post article that chronicles Bush's life in the early seventies,

"Bush maintains that he joined the National Guard not to avoid service in Vietnam but because he wanted to be a fighter pilot. Rather than be drafted and serve in the infantry – an assignment Bush has acknowledged he did not want – he agreed to spend almost two years in flight training and another four years in part-time service.

That commitment, in turn, was to frame a period of aimlessness and drift that Bush now calls his "nomadic" years: As the war and the youth culture of the 1960s rocked America, Bush partied and dated with gusto, dabbled half-heartedly in business and politics, and flew jets part time. Apart from his Guard commitment, he was unemployed for stretches that lasted for months. His last job before he returned to the East to attend Harvard Business School, as a social worker helping poor children, was arranged by his father after George W. drunkenly confronted him one night and challenged him to a fight.

Even after returning to the elite classrooms of the Ivy League, Bush seemed adrift compared with his classmates. But Harvard offered the beginnings of a self-discipline – his mother called it "structure" – that was to propel him back to Texas with an ambition to build his own future..."

Medals Medals Medals!!!

I really wish I didn't have to post anything with regards to this issue because it's absolute hogwash, but in an effort to clarify some of the media attention surrounding these allegations I present the following,

"Bush supporters have tried to turn Kerry's service in Vietnam -- a centerpiece of his Democratic campaign -- against him even as they say they honor his service to his country. Kerry released his medical records when questioned about the extent of his war wounds, including a report showing he still carries shrapnel in one leg. That criticism silenced for the moment, Bush adviser Karen Hughes turned to what Kerry did after returning from Vietnam. Hughes said Sunday she was offended by Kerry's anti-war activities in 1971 and accused him of not throwing back his medals when he and other veterans protested in Washington.

"He only pretended to throw his," Hughes said in a CNN interview. "Now, I can understand if, out of conscience, you take a principled stand, and you would decide that you were so opposed to this that you would actually throw your medals. But to pretend to do so -- I think that's very revealing."

Kerry has never said he pretended to throw away his medals. For years, he has said that he threw his ribbons over a fence at the Capitol, not his three Purple Hearts, Bronze Star and Silver Star. He also has said that after the protest he threw the medals of two other veterans [...]

Kerry told ABC on Monday that the terms ribbons and medals were interchangeable. He accused Republicans of trying to discredit his presidential campaign with a "phony controversy."

"The U.S. Navy pamphlet calls them medals," he said. "We referred to them as the symbols, they were representing medals, ribbons. Countless veterans threw the ribbons back.""


The facts: Senator John Kerry has said for years that he threw away his ribbons, not his three Purple Hearts, Bronze Star and Silver Star medals during the April 1971 protest. This is nothing new. In a television interview shortly after the protest Senator Kerry stated that he threw medals over the fence. He was refering to the aformentioned ribbons which at the time we widley reffered to as medals. In an effort to be more precise he has since reffered to them as ribbons.

These very same ribbons are reffered to in Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine pamphlets as medals.

Don't believe me, look here.

HOW IS THIS EVEN NEWS WORTHY, THERE IS NO CONTROVERSEY!!!!! THE ARMY, NAVY, AIR FORCE, AND MARINES all refer to these ribbons as medals!!!!

As to the claim that he pretended to throw his medals, but really only threw his ribbons, why don't we get a first hand account of what really transpired, Thomas Oliphant a reporter for the Globe, was right next to Senator Kerry at the actual protest. Here's what he has to say,

"ON THE WAY to the fence where he threw some of his military decorations 33 years ago, I was 4 or 5 feet behind John Kerry.
As he neared the spot from which members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War were parting with a few of the trappings of their difficult past to help them face their future more squarely, I watched Kerry reach with his right hand into the breast pocket of his fatigue shirt. The hand emerged with several of the ribbons that most of the vets had been wearing that unique week of protest, much as they are worn on a uniform blouse.

There couldn't have been all that many decorations in his hand -- six or seven -- because he made a closed fist around his collection with ease as he waited his turn. I recall him getting stopped by one or two wounded vets in wheelchairs, clearly worried that they wouldn't be able to get their stuff over the looming fence, who gave him a few more decorations. Kerry says he doesn't remember this.

It is true that Kerry was one of the veterans group's "leaders," but in this eclectic, aggressively individualistic collection of people who had been through a pointless war, there were no privileges of rank. Kerry was in the middle of a line of perhaps 1,000 guys -- only a third or even less of the total who had assembled on the Washington Mall that astonishing week.

At the spot where the men were symbolically letting go of their participation in the war, the authorities had erected a wood and wire fence that prevented them from getting close to the front of the US Capitol, and Kerry paused for several seconds. We had been talking for days -- about the war, politics, the veterans' demonstration -- but I could tell Kerry was upset to the point of anguish, and I decided to leave him be; his head was down as he approached the fence quietly.

In a voice I doubt I would have heard had I not been so close to him, Kerry said, as I recall vividly, "There is no violent reason for this; I'm doing this for peace and justice and to try to help this country wake up once and for all."

With that, he didn't really throw his handful toward the statue of John Marshall, America's first chief justice. Nor did he drop the decorations. He sort of lobbed them, and then walked off the stage [...]

From what I could observe firsthand about Friday, April 23, 1971, Kerry did not make even the slightest effort to pretend that he was throwing all of his military decorations over that fence. He did what he did in plain view, and in my case in the view of someone close enough to kick him in the shins."

"It almost crosses over from bravado into mental illness"

This is a fascinating segement of an interview with Republican Tucker Carlson regarding his book, "Politicians, Partisans and Parasites: My Adventures in Cable News,"

Interviewer: What about your profile of George W. Bush in Talk in 1999? That had to be the most damaging profile of him yet written -- swearing like a truck driver, making fun of Karla Faye Tucker's death penalty appeals, mimicking her saying, "Don't kill me!" -- because of its high profile, and because of your access to him. Did that bring you flak from conservatives?

Tucker: Well, it's always disconcerting when something you write is received in a way you don't expect. I have no problem hurting someone's feelings -- obviously, I work on "Crossfire" -- but when you don't expect to, it's disconcerting. As I put in the book, the day before I filed the piece my wife asked, "Aren't people going to think you're sucking up?" And that was my concern, that people would think it's a suck-up piece.

Interviewer: And the response from team Bush?

Tucker: It was very, very hostile. The reaction was, You betrayed us. Well, I was never there as a partisan to begin with. Then I heard that [on the campaign bus, Bush communications director] Karen Hughes accused me of lying. And so I called Karen and asked her why she was saying this, and she had this almost Orwellian rap that she laid on me about how things she'd heard -- that I watched her hear -- she in fact had never heard, and she'd never heard Bush use profanity ever. It was insane.

I've obviously been lied to a lot by campaign operatives, but the striking thing about the way she lied was she knew I knew she was lying, and she did it anyway. There is no word in English that captures that. It almost crosses over from bravado into mental illness."

This is Scary...

Karen Hughes said this,

"I think that after September 11, the American people are valuing life more and we need policies to value the dignity and worth of every life," she said. "President Bush has worked to say, let's be reasonable, let's work to value life, let's reduce the number of abortions, let's increase adoptions. And I think those are the kinds of policies the American people can support, particularly at a time when we're facing an enemy and, really, the fundamental issue between us and the terror network we fight is that we value every life."

So if your pro-choice your really on the same side as the terrorists?????

I'm speechless......

The Misguided War on Terrorism

"LUTON, England, April 24 — The call to jihad is rising in the streets of Europe, and is being answered, counterterrorism officials say.

In this former industrial town north of London, a small group of young Britons whose parents emigrated from Pakistan after World War II have turned against their families' new home. They say they would like to see Prime Minister Tony Blair dead or deposed and an Islamic flag hanging outside No. 10 Downing Street.

They swear allegiance to Osama bin Laden and his goal of toppling Western democracies to establish an Islamic superstate under Shariah law, like Afghanistan under the Taliban. They call the Sept. 11 hijackers the "Magnificent 19" and regard the Madrid train bombings as a clever way to drive a wedge into Europe.

On Thursday evening, at a tennis center community hall in Slough, west of London, their leader, Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammad, spoke of his adherence to Osama bin Laden. If Europe fails to heed Mr. bin Laden's offer of a truce — provided that all foreign troops are withdrawn from Iraq in three months — Muslims will no longer be restrained from attacking the Western countries that play host to them, the sheik said...

On working-class streets of old industrial towns like Crawley, Luton, Birmingham and Manchester, and in the Arab enclaves of Germany, France, Switzerland and other parts of Europe, intelligence officials say a fervor for militancy is intensifying and becoming more open.

In Hamburg, Dr. Mustafa Yoldas, the director of the Council of Islamic Communities, saw a correlation to the discord in Iraq. "This is a very dangerous situation at the moment," Dr. Yoldas said. "My impression is that Muslims have become more and more angry against the United States."

Hundreds of young Muslim men are answering the call of militant groups affiliated or aligned with Al Qaeda, intelligence and counterterrorism officials in the region say.

"Iraq dramatically strengthened their recruitment efforts," one counterterrorism official said. He added that some mosques now display photos of American soldiers fighting in Iraq alongside bloody scenes of bombed out Iraqi neighborhoods..."

In Slough, Sheik Omar spent much of his time Thursday night regaling his young followers with the erotic delights of paradise — sweet kisses and the pleasures of bathing with scores of women — while he also preached the virtues of death in Islamic struggle as a ticket to paradise.

He spoke of terrorism as the new norm of cultural conflict, "the fashion of the 21st century," practiced as much by Tony Blair as by Al Qaeda.

And he warned Western leaders, "You may kill bin Laden, but the phenomenon, you cannot kill it — you cannot destroy it.""

The War on Terrorism is truly becoming a "Clash of Civilizations". President Bush and Democratic Presidential Candidate Senator John Kerry have failed to raise the level of public discourse on this subject, which does not lend itself easily to a five second sound byte. But our failures to view the war on terrorism as not only a military conflict but a war of ideas, could prove disastrous in the near future. If this NY Times article is any indicator of how Muslim men and women view us in Europe, then we have much larger problems then Osama Bin Laden. The war on terrorism is quickly transforming into what many Muslims view as a 21st century crusade.

American no longer has a choice; we must act with humility and international legitimacy in all of our foreign policy decisions.

Kerry's Military Record II

"The Right's focus is gradually settling on Kerry's anti-war record as their point of attack. This is particularly peculiar since Vietnam is generally agreed upon to have been a mistake; our politicians lied to us, the war was bad for our people and economy, we achieved none of our objectives and suffered a huge blow to the national ego. But rather than defend the war or impugn his service we're seeing is the Right attempt to blur dissent and treason. Kerry's crime wasn't speaking out against a war he knew firsthand to be mistaken, it was to oppose a war effort when our troops were on the ground (well, actually it was to run against a Republican president, but that's neither here nor there).

This worldview necessitates an acceptance of any conflict where troops have entered battle, it's a malevolent manipulation of the rally-round-the-flag effect that occurs upon war's beginning and it suggests troop deployment as a strategy for ending debate and beginning battle atop questions and misgivings. We went through this last year but it's particularly instructive to watch them apply it retroactively to a conflict widely acknowledged to be misguided. The audacity required to attack a decorated veteran because, after having spent time in the field and seeing the problems firsthand, he attempted to stop the war from needlessly taking the lives of even more soldiers is as telling about their seriousness in supporting the troops as it is about their strategy for this election..."

by Ezra Klein

Well said!

If a soldier returned from Iraq; an honorably discharged soldier decorated for valor and bravery in combat; if this soldier came home and publicly decried American conduct in the war, citing war crimes, atrocious, ungodly war crimes that were committed in Iraq by American soldiers. If he stated that the military was not achieving it’s mission of promoting democracy but rather sewing the seeds of hatred and spawning a generation of suicide bombers. If these alleged war crimes were later proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and our failed experiment in democratization was proven mistaken; If this same soldier went before congress and pleaded that we withdraw from Iraq, pleaded that the selfless young men and women serving this country be spared the agony that so many soldiers were forced to endure. If 30 years down the road, all of these soldiers allegations proved legitimate and his criticism pertinent, how would you view him? As a hero, or a traitor who undermined the moral of the troops and went against his country?

Kerry's Military Record

Their hypocrisy knows no bounds. The National Review, which claimed any attempt to question President Bush's patriotism by investigating his military record, was completely unfounded and partisan in nature because he received an honorable discharge, is now questioning the first Purple Heart John Kerry was awarded in Vietnam.

Let me get this straight, its not ok to inquire about a six month absence in the National Guard, one in which the President skipped his annual physical and was ordered off flight status, but its perfectly ok to inquire about a decorated Vietnam veterans long and distinguished list of medals?? Its not like that is partisan in nature.......YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!!

Here's an excerpt from John Kerry's military record.

"Intelligent, mature and rich in educational background and experience, Ens Kerry is one of the finest young officers I have ever met and without question one of the most promising," wrote Capt. Allen Slifer, Kerry's supervisor aboard the USS Gridley.

For any inquiring minds here's is how John Kerry achieved all those awards:

"On Feb. 28, 1969, Kerry's craft and two other boats came under heavy fire from the riverbanks. Kerry ordered his units to turn into the ambush and sent men ashore to charge the enemy. According to the records, an enemy soldier holding a loaded rocket launcher sprang up within 10 feet of Kerry's boat and fled. Kerry leapt ashore, ran down the man and killed him.

Kerry and his men chased or killed all the enemy soldiers in the area, captured enemy weapons and then returned to the boat only to come under fire from the opposite bank as they began to pull away. Kerry again beached his boat and led a party ashore to pursue the enemy, and they successfully silenced the shooting. Later, the boats were again under fire, but Kerry initiated a heavy response that killed 10 Viet Cong and wounded another with no casualties to his own men.

He won the Silver Star "for gallantry and intrepidity in action" that day. Two weeks later, Kerry was engaged in another fire fight that resulted in a Bronze Star for heroic achievement and the third Purple Heart that would result in his reassignment out of Vietnam."

"He was recommended for early promotion, and when he left the Navy in 1970 to run for Congress, his commanding officer said it was the Navy's loss."

Quick tip for the Republican attack machine. You might want to avoid a comparison between the two candidates military records.

"Supporting the troops"

Even Republicans are outraged at Bush's "say one thing, do another" policies which have repeatedly hindered America's efforts to bring peace and stability to Iraq.

The Washington Post is reporting today that:

"Intense combat in Iraq is chewing up military hardware and consuming money at an unexpectedly rapid rate...

Since Congress approved an $87 billion defense request last year, the administration has steadfastly maintained that military forces in Iraq will be sufficiently funded until early next year.

But military officials, defense contractors and members of Congress say that worsening U.S. fortunes in Iraq have dramatically changed the equation and more money will be needed soon.

Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, charged that the president is playing political games by postponing further funding requests until after the election, to try to avoid reopening debate on the war's cost and future.

Weldon described the administration's current defense budget request as "outrageous" and "immoral" and said that at least $10 billion is needed for Iraqi operations over the next five months.

"There needs to be a supplemental, whether it's a presidential election year or not," he said. "The support of our troops has to be the number one priority of this country. . . . Somebody's got to get serious about this.""

It absolutely infuriates me, when republican blowhards like Sean Hannity accuse Ted Kennedy of not supporting the troops, (Kennedy said, "Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam) but remain silent when their Commander in Chief plays politics with funding that is vital to the safety and security of our troops.

This incessant bullshit Republicans keep spewing about “supporting the troops” needs to stop. There are many ways in which we as civilians can support the troops, i.e. purchasing phone cards so soldiers can talk to loved ones, giving a donation to the Army Emergency Relief Fund, or even volunteering at Veteran’s Hospitals, BUT NONE OF THEM INCLUDE THE UNEQUIVOCAL SUPPORT OF THE PRESIDENT!! Whether it be a Democrat or a Republican residing in the oval office.

To opine that citizens are somehow failing to support the troops, if they criticize the president during wartime is foolish and completely misguided. Challenging the direction of your government when you believe it to be wrong, IS THE BEST WAY TO SUPPORT YOUR COUNTRY AND THE TROOPS WHO DEFEND IT! The cornerstone of democracy is the ability to voice dissent. If one believes our nation’s leaders are wrong we can hold them accountable and force a change. Blind Allegiance is not support, its idiocy. Supporting your country and the brave men and women who defend it, is far more complex then simply agreeing with those in power.

If you would like to show your support for the troops go to this website.

Tough Questions??

A great number of conservative pundits and talk radio hosts have blasted the press for asking the President "unfair" questions in his most recent press conference.

Here's a few that have been disscussed:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Two weeks ago, a former counterterrorism official at the NSC, Richard Clarke, offered an unequivocal apology to the American people for failing them prior to 9/11. Do you believe the American people deserve a similar apology from you, and would you be prepared to give them one?

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, April is turning into the deadliest month in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad, and some people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam and talking about a quagmire. Polls show that support for your policy is declining and that fewer than half Americans now support it. What does that say to you and how do you answer the Vietnam comparison?

Q Mr. President, before the war, you and members of your administration made several claims about Iraq that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators with sweets and flowers, that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for most of the reconstruction; and that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said, we know where they are. How do you explain to Americans how you got that so wrong? And how do you answer your opponents, who say that you took this nation to war on the basis of what have turned out to be a series a false premises?

The following is a list of questions the Liberal media asked Bill Clinton right before he directed U.S. troops to stop the genocide occuring in Kosovo.

Q Mr. President, when Juanita Broaddrick leveled her charges against you of rape, in a nationally televised interview, your attorney, David Kendall, issued a statement denying them. But shouldn't you speak directly on this matter, and reassure the public? And if they are not true, can you tell us what your relationship with Ms. Broaddrick was, if any?

Q Mr. President, how long have you known that the Chinese were stealing our nuclear secrets? Is there any trust left between the two nations? And some Republicans are saying that you deliberately suppressed the information from the American people because of the election and your trade goals.

Q Sir, George Stephanopoulos has written a book that contains some tough and fairly personal criticism of you. Earlier, Dick Morris had written a somewhat similar book. How much pain do these judgments by former aides cause you? And do you consider it a betrayal for people to write books on the history of your administration while you're still in office?

Q Mr. President, your Vice President has recently been ridiculed for claiming the he invented the Internet and spent his boyhood plowing steep hillsides in Tennessee. I'm wondering what you think of those claims and what advice you'd give him about how to brag on himself without getting in so much trouble. (Laughter.)

Q Do you think the American people agree with you on the fact that we send armed soldiers to everyplace in the world where there's a conflict?

Q: Mr. President, speaking of issues, is there any reason to take seriously a promise from any politician of either party for campaign finance reform? To regard it as anything other than lip service when by actually voting for campaign finance reform in a way that would cause the bill to pass, they'd be facilitating challenges to themselves? I mean, do you believe that this is really possible.


It is the responsibility of the press to ask the president tough and poignant questions. They don't give anyone a pass, and they shouldn't.

The International Coalition? Or the Hired Guns?

According to Global Securities, the 34 countries that the Bush Administration touts as a coalition of the willing, is a bit misleading.

Of these 34 countries with troops stationed in Iraq:

25 of them have less then five hundred troops stationed there!

11 countries HAVE LESS THAN A HUNDRED!!!

Spain, one of the largest contributors, announced that they are withdrawing all their forces ASAP!!

National security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, said Sunday the United States expected other countries with troops in Iraq to reassess their position after Spain's decision.

"We know that there are others who are going to have to assess how they see the risk," Rice told ABC television. "We have 34 countries with forces on the ground. I think there are going to be some changes."

That doesn't sound very optimistic.

In a related side note, the associated press is reporting today that,

"Far more than in any other conflict in United States history, the Pentagon is relying on private security companies to perform crucial jobs once entrusted to the military. In addition to guarding innumerable reconstruction projects, private companies are being asked to provide security for the chief of the Coalition Provisional Authority, L. Paul Bremer III, and other senior officials; to escort supply convoys through hostile territory; and to defend key locations, including 15 regional authority headquarters and even the Green Zone in downtown Baghdad, the center of American power in Iraq.

With every week of insurgency in a war zone with no front, these companies are becoming more deeply enmeshed in combat, in some cases all but obliterating distinctions between professional troops and private commandos. Company executives see a clear boundary between their defensive roles as protectors and the offensive operations of the military. But more and more, they give the appearance of private, for-profit militias by several estimates, a force of roughly 20,000 on top of an American military presence of 130,000."

For anyone taking notes, 20,000 troops is about double the amount of soldiers our greatest contributor in the coalition of the willing, Great Britain, has stationed in Iraq.

So if as Rummy has contended all along, that we have sufficient troop levels in Iraq, WHY HAVE WE HIRED 20,000 mercenaries, at a cost of, "....up to 25 percent of the $18 billion budgeted for reconstruction..."

Furthermore the ap reports that this is a "huge and mostly unanticipated expense that could delay or force the cancellation of billions of dollars worth of projects to rebuild schools, water treatment plants, electric lines and oil refineries."

A DEMOCRATIC WORLD

The New Yorker is quickly becoming my favorite magazine. If you can get through this lengthy George Packer essay, it is without a doubt one of the best pieces on U.S. foreign policy I have ever read. HANDS DOWN! Here are some excerpts regarding the war on terrorism to give you a taste,

"...the President and his spokesmen have regarded the crisis as a test of personal will. Do you pass or not? So they’ve waged the war by self-assertion, guided by the assumption that American might always equates with freedom. But when promoting democracy seems in practice to mean bullying other people into doing what you want, the poetry is lost on the world, and not even the overthrow of tyrants is taken as proof of America’s sincerity...

...In treating the war on terrorism as a mere military struggle, the Administration’s mistake begins with the name itself. “Terrorism” is a method; the terror used by the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka is not the enemy in this war. The enemy is an ideology—in the German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer’s phrase, “Islamist totalitarianism”—that reaches from Karachi to London, from Riyadh to Brooklyn, and that uses terror to advance its ends. The Administration’s failure to grasp the political nature of the war has led to many crucial mistakes, most notably the Pentagon’s attitude that postwar problems in Afghanistan and Iraq would essentially take care of themselves, that we could have democracy on the cheap: once the dictators and terrorists were rooted out, the logic went, freedom would spontaneously grow in their place. As Lakhdar Brahimi, the former United Nations envoy to Afghanistan, recently told the Times, “There is now a very well-meaning and welcome Western interest in supporting democracy everywhere, but they want to do it like instant coffee.” Instead, in both countries the real struggle has just begun, and it will last a generation or more, with little international help in sight and victory not at all assured....

...The parallels between the early years of the Cold War and our situation are inexact. The Islamist movement doesn’t have the same hold on Westerners that Communism had. It draws on cultures that remain alien to us; the history of colonialism and the fact of religious difference make it all the harder for the liberal democracies of the West to effect change in the Muslim world. Waving the banner of freedom and mustering the will to act aren’t enough. Anyone who believes that September 11th thrust us into a Manichaean conflict between good and evil should visit Iraq, where the simplicity of that formula lies half buried under all the crosscurrents of foreign occupation and social chaos and ethnic strife. Simply negotiating the transfer of sovereignty back to Iraqis has proved so vexing that an Administration that jealously guarded the occupation against any international control has turned to the battered and despised United Nations for help in dealing with Iraq’s unleashed political forces. Iraq and other battlegrounds require patience, self-criticism, and local knowledge, not just an apocalyptic moral summons."

This guy's on point.

Idealism in Search of a Plan

David Broder gives this pointed critique of the Bush Presidency in today's Washington Post.

W

George W. Bush was also asked the following question in last nights press conference,

"Thank you, Mr. President. In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?"

His reponse was this,

"........(after a long pause)........I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it. (Laughter.) John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn't yet....

I hope I -- I don't want to sound like I've made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one."

More on this later, my thoughts might surprise some....

You set me up, I'll knock em down!

You've got to love our fair and balanced friends at fox news. Bill Sammon asked the president this whopper in last nights prime time news conference,

"You have been accused of letting the 9-11 threat mature too far, but not letting the Iraq threat mature far enough. First, could you respond to that general criticism?"

If I didn't know any better I'd think the White House planted this guy in the audience. Sadly, this is not the case, Bill Sammon does in fact work for both the Washington Times and Fox News.

More bad news....

The Washington Post is reporting today that,

"The U.S. Marine siege of Fallujah, designed to isolate and pursue a handful of extremists in a restive town, has produced a powerful backlash in the capital. Urged on by leaflets, sermons and freshly sprayed graffiti calling for jihad, young men are leaving Baghdad to join a fight that residents say has less to do with battlefield success than with a cause infused with righteousness and sacrifice....

Intense, sympathetic and often startlingly graphic coverage on Arab channels has deepened a vein of nationalism, stirred in part by still unconfirmed reports of high civilian casualties. Over the weekend, in the living room of a decidedly secular family, a woman wept over the images on a screen she finally leaned forward and kissed.

Headlines in Iraq's newly free press reinforce the video images: "Fallujah Wakes to a Grave Massacre" read the banner in Monday's edition of the daily Azzaman. Fresh graffiti sprayed in sweeping Arabic letters is turning up across the city. On one wall in the southern Baghdad neighborhood of Jihad, the messages were spaced 10 yards apart: "Long live Fallujah's heroes." "Down with America and long live the Mahdi Army," a Shiite militia. Then: "Long live the resistance in Fallujah." And finally, "Long live the resistance."

The popular response -- of Shiite and Sunni giving aid, shelter to refugees and even volunteers to the fight -- has pushed fears of an Iraqi civil war to the background. The fighters in Fallujah are said to include Mahdi Army militiamen loyal to the radical cleric Moqtada Sadr. A housewife in Baghdad's Salaam neighborhood told of a passionate argument with her husband, a Shiite who insisted on joining friends volunteering to fight in Fallujah.

"This is jihad," she quoted him as saying. She added: "It was the first time he ever slapped me."

Some here are already speaking with the sense of history -- that powerful, deeply symbolic myths are being created.

"What is striking is how much has changed in a week -- a week," said Wamid Nadhmi, a political science professor at Baghdad University. "No one can talk about the Sunni Triangle anymore. No one can seriously talk about Sunni-Shiite fragmentation or civil war. The occupation cannot talk about small bands of resistance. Now it is a popular rebellion and it has spread.""


We sure don't seem to be winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Quite the contrary, we seem to be creating a hotbed of anti-Americanism which more then likely will convince even more young Arab men to take up arms against America in whatever way they can.

The Fog of War

Wendell Steavenson, a former reporter for Time, now a foreign correspondent for slate, gives this chilling account of the events in Fallujah. Not much news has trickled out of Fallujah since the weekend, and its important for Americans to try and fully grasp what has really transpired there.

Preliminary Statistics show close to 600 Iraqis have been killed in Fallujah.

70 U.S. Forces have been killed since April 1.

Update: Another horrifying account of Fallujah.

I don't link to these stories to condemn the brave men and women fighting in Iraq, but rather to highlight the real difficulties our soldiers are having at identifying who the enemy truly is. By sheltering us from the horrors of warfare our press is doing us a great disservice.

I agree with Dick Cheney?

Actually yes. In a speech on April 29, 1991, regarding regime change, Dick Cheney gave the following remarks. They were in response to critics who claimed the U.S. had prematurely curtailed its military campaign in the first gulf war, short of toppling Saddam Hussein.

"once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place.

What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?

I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force."

I think so too.

Additional Comments

For the space below

Bush's own Words

When asked about the growing insurrection in Iraq yesterday our president responded, "You see....they hate freedom.....We Love Freedom."

I don't even know where to begin.

More on this later......

Spin City

USA Today is reporting that "Dealing with criticism that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice wouldn't testify in public before the 10-member commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, White House spokesman Scott McClellan complained last month that when she testified in private, "Only five members actually showed up, despite the fact that it was scheduled for the entire commission," he said. What's more, he added, "you had another national security official under Dr. Rice who met with the commission, and I think only four showed up."

Clearly implying that the 9-11 commission wasn't all that interested in what Condi had to say, if only five members showed up..........

Then the truth comes out, "What McClellan didn't tell reporters was that on Nov. 21 — long before Rice met with the five commissioners in February — the White House counsel's office had sent the commission a letter saying no more than three commissioners could attend meetings with White House aides of Rice's rank.

Given that demand, "we are a little surprised that the White House has repeatedly implied to the public that commissioners were uninterested in attending these meetings," commission spokesman Al Felzenberg said Tuesday.

Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, who did not attend the interview with Rice on Feb. 7, said she finds it "infuriating" that the White House would insinuate commissioners shirked their duty and didn't have a right to press for more time with Rice. "That's hooey," she said.


Scott McClellan, one of the key spokesman for the President, deliberately and intentionally misled the press, and the public.

Quite honestly, I'm sick of posting this garbage.

Dead Parrots Society ask this question, "If the White House spokesman is willing to mislead the country in an attempt to undermine the commission's credibility, are we supposed to continue believing that the administration has provided the commission with "unprecedented cooperation?"

In the words of Fox Moulder, "the truth is out there".

Reality Check

Kevin Drum has some more quotes today from Wolfowitz:

In his testimony(last feburary), Mr. Wolfowitz ticked off several reasons why he believed a much smaller coalition peacekeeping force than General Shinseki envisioned would be sufficient to police and rebuild postwar Iraq. He said there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq, as there was in Bosnia or Kosovo. He said Iraqi civilians would welcome an American-led liberation force that "stayed as long as necessary but left as soon as possible," but would oppose a long-term occupation force. And he said that nations that oppose war with Iraq would likely sign up to help rebuild it. "I would expect that even countries like France will have a strong interest in assisting Iraq in reconstruction," Mr. Wolfowitz said. He added that many Iraqi expatriates would likely return home to help.

....Enlisting countries to help to pay for this war and its aftermath would take more time, he said. "I expect we will get a lot of mitigation, but it will be easier after the fact than before the fact," Mr. Wolfowitz said. Mr. Wolfowitz spent much of the hearing knocking down published estimates of the costs of war and rebuilding, saying the upper range of $95 billion was too high....Moreover, he said such estimates, and speculation that postwar reconstruction costs could climb even higher, ignored the fact that Iraq is a wealthy country, with annual oil exports worth $15 billion to $20 billion. "To assume we're going to pay for it all is just wrong," he said.


No Paul, you were all wrong, on everything

Political Ad

I saw this today and had to post it! Its a proposed TV ad for the Kerry campaign. Its hilarious.

"If you were president, what would you do after the country was attacked by murderous thugs? Hunt them down and kill them?

Here's what George Bush did: In wartime he cut taxes for millionaires, cut funding for veterans, stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier and claimed operations were over while our young men and women were still being killed, and then he hired actors to pose as 9/11 firefighters for his re-election campaign commercials. He also gave a plastic turkey to our troops in Iraq.

Now we have a 7 trillion dollar debt, our soldiers and workers are still being killed, and we attacked a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorism.

And by the way, the government now can monitor what books you check out of the library.

No more plastic turkeys: Let's get rid of George Bush."

He really is a Turkey.

Afghanistan: Reloaded

Seymour Hersh writes this brilliant column in the latest issue of the New Yorker. It is a MUST read!

In short: Karzai is in effect, the mayor or Kabul. The remainder of the country is ruled by tribal warlords, and old remnants of the Taliban regime. Left largely unchecked in the absence of a strong U.S. Military presence, Al Queada is growing again at a rapid rate. Afghanistan is once again a breeding ground for terrorists.

HOW DOES THIS GET NO PRESS COVERAGE??????????? I guess that media is just too liberal to point out the gaping holes in Bush's steadfast leadership in the war on terror.

Good thing were fighting a war against terrorism in the wrong country.

George W. Bush. Wrong on taxes. Wrong on defense. Wrong man for the job.

Wrong Again

"Something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required [to occupy Iraq]. We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems."

-Gen. Eric K. Shinseki
Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee
February 25, 2003

"Some of the higher-end predictions that we have been hearing recently, such as the notion that it will take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq, are wildly off the mark."

-Paul Wolfowitz
Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee
February 27, 2003


"The starkest evidence that the U.S. position in Iraq has deteriorated was the Pentagon's decision Monday to suspend the rotation home of about 24,000 U.S. troops. After an emergency conference among military officials Monday, a top military official at U.S. Central Command said the Pentagon was holding the troops in place to help stop the violence in Iraq from spreading out of control. The Pentagon is also looking at options for bringing even more U.S. troops from bases overseas or in the United States."

USA Today
A delicate time for U.S. mission
April 6, 2004

I'm fairly certain that the Bush administration lives in a parallel universe where accountability does not exist.

Have they been right about one thing in Iraq?

Oh and by the way, the Republican Chairmen of the Senate Intelligence Committee stated yesterday that those "Mobile Weapons Labs" You remember.... the ones Cheney always cites as evidence of WMDs in Iraq. Those very same ones, HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WMDs!!!!!!!! David Kay said as much months ago, but Cheney refuses to back down from his previous claims. I wonder if he will now? Probably not.

Bumper Sticker

I think the Kerry campaign should start making JFK 2004 bumper stickers, i'd slap one on.

Flip Flops Revisted

The Center for American Progress has been kind enough to provide us with this detailed list of some of Bush's flips and flops. Enjoy.

"From the beginning, George W. Bush has made his own credibility a central issue. On 10/11/00, then Governor Bush said: "I think credibility is important. It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations." But President Bush's serial flip-flopping raises serious questions about whether Congress and foreign leaders can rely on what he says."

1. Department of Homeland Security

BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]

2. Weapons of Mass Destruction

BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories…for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]

...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons. And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]

3. Free Trade

BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03]

4. Osama Bin Laden

BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]

...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important." [President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

5. The Environment

BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to…establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]

...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]

6. WMD Commission

BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE... "The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE "Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04]

7. Creation of the 9/11 Commission

BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]

8. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission

BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION "The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work." [CNN, 2/4/04]

9. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony

BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR... "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04]

...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]

10. Gay Marriage

BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]

11. Nation Building

BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]

12. Saddam/al Qaeda Link

BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]

...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]

13. U.N. Resolution

BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03]

...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03]

14. Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict

BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03]

15. Campaign Finance

BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]

...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold singing ceremony, 03/27/02]

Good Ol W

Tag Team

I'm really glad Bush and Cheney are going to testify together in front of the 9-11 commission. Who knows what Cheney would have done if he didn't have Bush there to help him out.

How come no one else finds this tag team testimony both ridiculous and entirely too amusing.

On Point

I couldn't give a better account myself,

"Sometimes a poetic truth captures only ... well, only the poetic truth. And then sometimes a poetic truth turns out to be the real thing.

We've been describing for some days now the backdrop -- well-known then but somehow forgotten -- to Richard Clarke's accusations against the Bush administration. Namely, the fact that the Bush administration came to office with a fundamentally flawed conception of the threats facing the United States.

Transnational terrorist groups were almost off the radar. The real near-term threats were rogue states which could hit the US with WMD-bearing ICBMs -- longer-term the threat was China. And thus the centerpiece of our new national security strategy -- and the target of the biggest funding -- would be national missile defense.

Now in a front page piece in Thursday's Washington Post we learn that on September 11th, 2001 Condi Rice was scheduled to deliver a major foreign policy address on missile defense as the centerpiece of a new strategy to combat "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday."

Then reality intruded.

As the Post explains, the speech contained little real discussion of terrorism. The only mentions were swipes at the Clinton administration's supposed over-emphasis on transnational terrorism at the expense of more important priorities like missile defense.

Perhaps it goes without saying, but let's say it: It was as obvious four years ago as it is today that the most potent threats to America are asymmetric threats, particularly forms of attack that cannot easily be tied back to particular states which we can punish with our conventional military superiority.

In plainer speech, the biggest threats we face today are ones that don't come with a return address.

An ICBM, which has a launch point that can be determined down to the yard and requires a vast apparatus to get off the ground, really doesn't fit into that category.

In any case, this is just another example that they simply failed to understand where the real threat was coming from.

That in itself is forgivable. The problem is that they tried to shoehorn 9/11 into their existing paradigm rather than rethink that flawed analysis."

-Josh Marshal

I would ask those conservatives who still beleive Richard Clarke to be a partisan in disguise, to rexamine his claims. His assertion that the Bush Administration did not view terroism as a priority before 9-11 is beggining to seem all too real.

Going Ballistic!

The Washington Post is reporting, "On Sept. 11, 2001, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to outline a Bush administration policy that would address "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday" -- but the focus was largely on missile defense, not terrorism from Islamic radicals.

The speech provides telling insight into the administration's thinking on the very day that the United States suffered the most devastating attack since the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor. The address was designed to promote missile defense as the cornerstone of a new national security strategy, and contained no mention of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups, according to former U.S. officials who have seen the text."

Nice to see the Bushies really got their priorities straight.