Bang up job!

Now that the United States has handed Iraq back to Iraq......I think it’s important to reflect on the state of affairs Iraqis have inherited.

A recent GAO report details the current situation in Iraq,

"The 105-page report by Congress' investigative arm offers a bleak assessment of Iraq after 14 months of U.S. military occupation. Among its findings:

In a few key areas electricity, the judicial system and overall security the Iraq that America handed back to its residents Monday is worse off than before the war began last year, according to calculations in a new General Accounting Office report released yesterday.

In 13 of Iraq's 18 provinces, electricity was available fewer hours per day on average last month than before the war. Nearly 20 million of Iraq's 26 million people live in those provinces..."

Senator Joe Biden put it perfectly,

"So while we've handed over political sovereignty, we haven't handed over practical capacity that is, the ability for the Iraqis themselves to provide security, defend their borders, defeat the insurgency, deliver basic services, run a government and set the foundation for economic progress," Biden said in a written statement. "Until Iraqis can do all of that, it will be impossible for us to responsibly disengage from Iraq."

The administration mishandled the Iraqi occupation every step of the way, and the people of Iraq have paid a high price.

%&$*#@!!!!!!!

A couple months ago, Moveon.org sponsored an ad contest in which every day American's submitted amateur ads, the winner of which would receive air time on national television. The response was overwhelming, Moveon.org received over 1,500 ads within a week and in a poor decision they posted all of these ads before screening their content. Some buffoon spliced images of Hitler and George Bush in an effort to compare the two leaders. Contrary to what many conservatives believe, THE AD DID NOT WIN THE CONTEST NOR WAS IT SPONSORED BY MOVEON.ORG!!!!!! In actuality, when Moveon.org was informed of the ad’s nefarious nature they removed it and denounced its message.

THE AD WAS IN NO WAY ENDORSED OR SUPPORTED BY ANY MEMBER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY…

Now to present day, the Bush Campaign has just released an ad titled, "Kerry's Coalition of the Wild-eyed.

The always astute writers at Slate take this ad to task,

“The Bush campaign, outraged by the mixture of Nazi images with images of an American politician, has decided that the best response to this offense is to repeat it.

The Bush video's opening white-on-black graphic says, "The Faces of John Kerry's Democratic Party. The Coalition of the Wild-eyed. " Next comes a parade of angry speakers: Al Gore, Hitler, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, Dick Gephardt, Hitler, Gore, and Kerry…

How does the Bush camp identify the Hitler footage? "Sponsored by Moveon.Org" says a label on the first Hitler clip, evidently put there by the miscreants who submitted the ad. "Images from Moveon.Org ad" says the Bush campaign's label on the second Hitler clip. The only organization that doesn't identify the clips as a "Moveon.org ad" is MoveOn.org, which denounced the ad and never "sponsored" it. But never mind. Instead of apologizing for this implicit misrepresentation of sponsorship, the Bush campaign has made the misrepresentation explicit. "The following video contains remarks made by and images from ads sponsored by Kerry Supporters," says a graphic appended to the beginning of the video.

The Bush campaign's claim that the amateur Hitler ads represent "John Kerry's Democratic Party" is laughable. Kerry didn't control MoveOn.org, and MoveOn.org didn't make the ads. When the ads were submitted, the membership of MoveOn.org largely supported Dean, the candidate who had nearly wiped Kerry off the map. Kerry had just mortgaged his house to get the cash Democrats were refusing to give him. The suggestion that he controlled the party is preposterous—but only slightly more preposterous than the suggestion that Kerry is responsible what Dean and Gephardt said while running against him, or what Gore and Moore said while supporting candidates who were running against him…

…Developing its argument that Nazism was basically a failure to relax, the ad attempts to tie its grotesque libel to the Bush campaign's theme of the month, which is that the incumbent's "optimism" is better than Kerry's "pessimism." "This is not a time for pessimism and rage," the screen text says, over an image of a not at all enraged John Kerry telling his camel joke. The noise and chaos and grainy footage of the Democrats jarringly dissolves into sunny music, accompanied by a clear, color photograph of a confident President Bush strutting around the White House. "It's a time for optimism, steady leadership and progress," the text continues.
This language pushes the facile notion that "optimism" is the most important of presidential qualities deep into the realm of the absurd. The implicit argument is a parody of syllogistic illogic: According to the premise of the ad, Hitler = rage and pessimism; Democrats = rage and pessimism; ergo, Kerry = Hitler. Is there any danger of any person in the United States taking this stuff seriously?
Comparing one's opponent to Hitler is not, in fact, the sign of a confident or optimistic candidate. To the contrary, it's the act of a fearful and cynical candidate who is willing to use any tactic to avoid defeat.
But in reaching so far down so early in, Bush has not improved his prospects. Aimed as it is at the surviving members of various John Birch splinter organizations, this ad will win over no one, while alienating and offending many potential Bush supporters. Republicans will spend much time on the defensive trying to explain why their ad is not as revolting and preposterous as it obviously is. This sets Bush back.
He's going to need better gutter tactics than this to stop Hitler in Ohio.”

I seriously hope that Republican leaders will denounce this ad the same way Democratic leaders denounced the ad placed on the Moveon.org website. I won’t hold my breath……

This is one of the sleaziest political ads I have ever seen, in fact its right up there with the Hitler ad Moveon.org removed from its contest. The difference is that ad was made by a rogue democrat resorting to absurdity in order to get his ad on the national television. In no way did the ad represent the democratic party or Moveon.org. This ad was made by, produced by, and approved by the Bush Campaign. Scary isn’t it.

See it for yourself here.

What a difference 1,460 days make

"Once upon a time, not so very long ago, there was a senator named John who found himself on Al Gore's short list of potential running mates.

The campaign press in the summer of 2000 was entranced with John. It tumbled all over itself to describe John as the perfect match for what it saw as the somewhat wooden, robot-like Gore. One newspaper described John as a man with "an easy manner and good looks," a politician whose "charisma [might] rub off on [Gore]," a person who could "bring some charm to the ticket." John's selection, it opined, would signal that Gore "thinks the election will be decided on personality." A television reporter also regarded this John as "charismatic." Another newspaper saw him as "younger and more telegenic than Dick Cheney." Yet a third newspaper called him "handsome," with "a record tailor-made to undermine the standard Republican attack on liberal Democrats."

This John's surname was Kerry -- though if you guessed Edwards, you are more than excused -- and the press outlets that offered the above descriptions were the St. Petersburg Times, NBC News, the Boston Globe, and the (New York) Daily News, respectively.

What a difference 1,460 days make..."

This is a fascinating "campaign desk" article, read this rest it's right here.

About Damn Time

The Supreme Court has ruled that, "that an American captured overseas in President Bush's war on terrorism cannot be held indefinitely in a U.S. military jail without a chance to contest the detention...

Four of the nine justices concluded that constitutional due process rights demand that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant must be given "a meaningful opportunity" to contest case for his detention before a neutral party.

Two more justices agreed that the detention of American citizen Yaser Hamdi was unauthorized and that the terror suspect should have a real chance to offer evidence he is not an enemy combatant."

More on this as it develops...

How the hell did the Bush Administration think they could get away with this?

This is truly fantastic news.

Regrets, I've had a few...

According to the Washington Post,

"Fahrenheit 9/11," director Michael Moore's scathing attack on President Bush and the administration's response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, was the hottest film in America over the weekend. If early estimates are correct, the movie instantly became the top-grossing documentary in the nation's history.

The film is believed to have earned $21.8 million on its opening weekend, a record for a documentary. Even more significantly, it managed to become the nation's No. 1 movie attraction, despite playing on only 868 screens, about a third what a big blockbuster would have.

...Fahrenheit's" opening was the highest ever for a movie under 1,000 screens..."

You think Eisner is just a little bitter?

Compassionate Conservative

Reuters is reporting today that,

"Vice President Dick Cheney blurted out the "F word" at Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont during a heated exchange on the Senate floor, congressional aides said on Thursday. The incident occurred on Tuesday in a terse discussion between the two that touched on politics, religion and money, with Cheney finally telling Leahy to "f--- off" or "go f--- yourself," the aides said.

"I think he was just having a bad day," Leahy was quoted as saying on CNN, which first reported the incident. "I was kind of shocked to hear that kind of language on the floor."

North Korea

The Bush Administration's unwavering refusal to negotiate with tyrannies seems to have flipped or perhaps it flopped.

The regional powers in east Asia have long since called for American involvement in bi-lateral discussions to bring an end to Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions. In December of 2003 Vice President Dick Cheney reportedly told the president's senior national security advisers late last year, "I have been charged by the President with making sure that none of the tyrannies in the world are negotiated with. We don't negotiate with evil; we defeat it."

Now as the election draws nearer, it appears there has been a change of heart at the White House,

June 22, 2004, "President Bush has authorized a team of American negotiators to offer North Korea, in talks in Beijing on Thursday, a new but highly conditional set of incentives to give up its nuclear weapons programs...The proposal would be the first significant, detailed overture to North Korea since Mr. Bush took office three years ago...

Under the plan, outlined by American officials on Tuesday evening, in response to pressure from China and American allies in Asia, the aid would begin flowing immediately after a commitment by Kim Jong Il, the North Korean leader, to dismantle his plutonium and uranium weapons programs. In return, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea would immediately begin sending tens of thousands of tons of heavy fuel oil every month, and Washington would offer a "provisional'' guarantee not to invade the country or seek to topple Mr. Kim's government.

It would also begin direct talks about lifting a broad array of American economic sanctions that have been in place against North Korea for more than half a century, and providing longer-term energy aid and retraining of nuclear scientists..."

The fact of the matter is, this is the right thing to do. I fully support Mr. Bush in this endeavor, unfortunately it took him three years to overcome American hubris and do it. Why is it a big deal that it took three year for President Bush to do what the world community pleaded with him to do years ago, because...

"in the past year, the country has probably fabricated enough plutonium fuel to make six or seven new nuclear weapons, and there is still unconfirmed evidence, gathered by the International Atomic Energy Agency, that the North may have shipped raw uranium to Libya for its bomb project...”

To summarize, Bush sat on this for three years, and is now finally realizing that he needs to give concessions to the North Koreans if he wants to see results. It' a shame we didn't try this before they built the seven new nukes....

We were busy getting rid of all of Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction, it's a good thing too.....

Our Fallen Comrades

Is it just me, or does anyone else kind of miss the cicada's.....

FOX NEWS

This is absolutely hilarious, our friends at fox news actually gave Michael Moore's new film, Fahrenheit 9-11, a positive review. I not kidding...read for yourself.

"It turns out to be a really brilliant piece of work, and a film that members of all political parties should see without fail.

As much as some might try to marginalize this film as a screed against President George Bush, "F9/11" as we saw last night is a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty and at the same time a indictment of stupidity and avarice.

Readers of this column may recall that I had a lot of problems with Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," particularly where I thought he took gratuitous shots at helpless targets such as Charlton Heston. "Columbine" too easily succeeded by shooting fish in a barrel, as they used to say. Not so with "F9/11," which instead relies on lots of film footage and actual interviews to make its case against the war in Iraq and tell the story of the intertwining histories of the Bush and bin Laden families...

But, really, in the end, not seeing "F9/11" would be like allowing your First Amendment rights to be abrogated, no matter whether you're a Republican or a Democrat.

The film does Bush no favors, that's for sure, but it also finds an unexpectedly poignant and universal groove in the story of Lila Lipscombe, a Flint, Mich., mother who sends her kids into the Army for the opportunities it can provide just like the commercials say and lives to regret it..."

A select group of conservatives have been fighting the release of this film every step of the way....well to those people I would say this,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

ITS THE FIRST AMENDMENT PEOPLE!!! Our country was founded on IT!!!!! These conservatives have a right to protest the film, Michael Moore has a right to make it. But they do not have a right to block it from the American public.

Disney's Michael Eisner is a clown.

Dick does it again...

June 17, 2004. Vice President Cheney talking to CNBC's Gloria Borger.

Borger: "Well, let's go to Mohamed Atta for a minute, because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, 'pretty well confirmed.' "

Cheney: "No, I never said that."

Borger: "Okay."

Cheney: "Never said that."

Borger: "I think that is . . . "

Cheney: "Absolutely not. What I said was the Czech intelligence service reported after 9/11 that Atta had been in Prague on April 9th of 2001, where he allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence official. We have never been able to confirm that nor have we been able to knock it down."


On Dec. 9, 2001. Cheney talking to NBC's Tim Russert.

Cheney: "Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that -- it's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack. Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point, but that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue."

If it wasn't so sad, it would be really funny.

Real Al Qaeda

The following countries have had well documented high level contact with senior members of Al Qaeda.

Afghanistan

Sudan

Iran

Saudi Arabia

Lebanon

Syria

Egypt

Pakistan

Why didn't we invade all of them?

The Official Statement

Diplomats and Military Leaders for Change:

"The undersigned have held positions of responsibility for the planning and execution of American foreign and defense policy. Collectively, we have served every president since Harry S. Truman. Some of us are Democrats, some are Republicans or Independents, many voted for George W. Bush. But we all believe that current Administration policies have failed in the primary responsibilities of preserving national security and providing world leadership. Serious issues are at stake. We need a change.

From the outset, President George W. Bush adopted an overbearing approach to America’s role in the world, relying upon military might and righteousness, insensitive to the concerns of traditional friends and allies, and disdainful of the United Nations. Instead of building upon America’s great economic and moral strength to lead other nations in a coordinated campaign to address the causes of terrorism and to stifle its resources, the Administration, motivated more by ideology than by reasoned analysis, struck out on its own. It led the United States into an ill-planned and costly war from which exit is uncertain. It justified the invasion of Iraq by manipulation of uncertain intelligence about weapons of mass destruction, and by a cynical campaign to persuade the public that Saddam Hussein was linked to Al Qaeda and the attacks of September 11. The evidence did not support this argument.

Our security has been weakened. While American airmen and women, marines, soldiers and sailors have performed gallantly, our armed forces were not prepared for military occupation and nation building. Public opinion polls throughout the world report hostility toward us. Muslim youth are turning to anti-American terrorism. Never in the two and a quarter centuries of our history has the United States been so isolated among the nations, so broadly feared and distrusted. No loyal American would question our ultimate right to act alone in our national interest; but responsible leadership would not turn to unilateral military action before diplomacy had been thoroughly explored.

The United States suffers from close identification with autocratic regimes in the Muslim world, and from the perception of unquestioning support for the policies and actions of the present Israeli Government. To enhance credibility with Islamic peoples we must pursue courageous, energetic and balanced efforts to establish peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and policies that encourage responsible democratic reforms.

We face profound challenges in the 21st Century: proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, unequal distribution of wealth and the fruits of globalization, terrorism, environmental degradation, population growth in the developing world, HIV/AIDS, ethnic and religious confrontations. Such problems can not be resolved by military force, nor by the sole remaining superpower alone; they demand patient, coordinated global effort under the leadership of the United States.

The Bush Administration has shown that it does not grasp these circumstances of the new era, and is not able to rise to the responsibilities of world leadership in either style or substance. It is time for a change."

I'm sure republicans will attack these brave men as partisan hacks, but listen to their credentials.....

"Among the retired officials signing the statement were Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Ronald Reagan and U.S. ambassador to the Court of St. James's under President Bill Clinton, and Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, named by President George H.W. Bush to lead U.S. forces in the Middle East.

The participants also include a pair of former ambassadors to the Soviet Union, two former ambassadors to Israel, two former ambassadors to Pakistan and a former director of the CIA."

A significant number of these men have voted Republican several times in the last 20 years.

"Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, speaking to al-Jazeera, rejected the criticism as a political act. He said the signers, most of whom he knows personally, "made it clear what they wish to see -- they wish to see President Bush not reelected."

Really!!!! Is that why they released this statement in the middle of an election year!!!!!! YOUR KIDDING ME....the nerve...Of course they don't want to see Bush re-elected that's the FREAKIN POINT!!!

They want what they beleive is right for their country....Does this make them simply political...ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

The Phantom Al Qaeda

The Times takes President Bush to task today in a scathing editorial entitled the PLAIN TRUTH,

"Of all the ways Mr. Bush persuaded Americans to back the invasion of Iraq last year, the most plainly dishonest was his effort to link his war of choice with the battle against terrorists worldwide...they should have known all along that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. No serious intelligence analyst believed the connection existed; Richard Clarke, the former antiterrorism chief, wrote in his book that Mr. Bush had been told just that.

Nevertheless, the Bush administration convinced a substantial majority of Americans before the war that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to 9/11. And since the invasion, administration officials, especially Vice President Dick Cheney, have continued to declare such a connection. Last September, Mr. Bush had to grudgingly correct Mr. Cheney for going too far in spinning a Hussein-bin Laden conspiracy. But the claim has crept back into view as the president has made the war on terror a centerpiece of his re-election campaign.

On Monday, Mr. Cheney said Mr. Hussein "had long-established ties with Al Qaeda." Mr. Bush later backed up Mr. Cheney, claiming that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a terrorist who may be operating in Baghdad, is "the best evidence" of a Qaeda link. This was particularly astonishing because the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, told the Senate earlier this year that Mr. Zarqawi did not work with the Hussein regime.

The staff report issued by the 9/11 panel says that Sudan's government, which sheltered Osama bin Laden in the early 1990's, tried to hook him up with Mr. Hussein, but that nothing came of it.

Mr. Bush is right when he says he cannot be blamed for everything that happened on or before Sept. 11, 2001. But he is responsible for the administration's actions since then. That includes, inexcusably, selling the false Iraq-Qaeda claim to Americans. There are two unpleasant alternatives: either Mr. Bush knew he was not telling the truth, or he has a capacity for politically motivated self-deception that is terrifying in the post-9/11 world."

International Law

The Post Editorial Page suggests today, that the torture in Iraq was a direct result of the Bush Administration's elastic view of International Law.

"SLOWLY, AND IN spite of systematic stonewalling by the Bush administration, it is becoming clearer why a group of military guards at Abu Ghraib prison tortured Iraqis in the ways depicted in those infamous photographs. President Bush and his spokesmen shamefully cling to the myth that the guards were rogues acting on their own. Yet over the past month we have learned that much of what the guards did -- from threatening prisoners with dogs, to stripping them naked, to forcing them to wear women's underwear -- had been practiced at U.S. military prisons elsewhere in the world. Moreover, most of these techniques were sanctioned by senior U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the Iraqi theater command under Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez. Many were imported to Iraq by another senior officer, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller...

...Several of the techniques that were banned in Guantanamo were adopted in Iraq. In late August and September 2003 Gen. Miller visited Abu Ghraib with the mandate to improve interrogations. Senior officers have testified to Congress that he brought "harsh" techniques from Guantanamo. Gen. Sanchez's command then issued a policy that included the use of stress positions and dogs, along with at least five of seven exceptional techniques approved by Mr. Rumsfeld in the revised Guantanamo policy. After further objections from uniformed lawyers, Gen. Sanchez modified the policy in mid-October, but interrogators and guards at Abu Ghraib went on using the earlier rules. They were committing crimes, but they were not improvising: Most of what they did originally had been sanctioned by both the defense secretary and U.S. Central Command.

It's not clear why interrogation techniques judged improper or illegal by a Pentagon legal team were subsequently adopted in Iraq. Nor is it clear what those standards are today, either in Iraq or elsewhere -- breaking with decades of previous practice, the Bush administration has classified them. Congressional leaders who have vowed to get to the bottom of the prisoner abuse scandal still have much to learn; they will not succeed unless the scale and pace of their investigations are stepped up."

The issue of torture needs to be brought to the forefront of public discourse. As a free and democratic society we as a nation need to decide if we condone the use of torture under any circumstance. I believe that we should follow our staunch ally in the Middle East's lead. When faced with routine suicide bombings and while under the constant threat of attack, the Israeli Supreme Court delivered this opinion,

"The State of Israel has been engaged in an unceasing struggle for both its very existence and security, from the day of its founding..[but a] democratic, freedom-loving society does not accept that investigators use any means for the purpose of uncovering the truth." The "destiny of democracy" is often to fight "with one hand tied behind its back," the opinion eloquently concluded, and "not all practices employed by its enemies are open before it."

Al Qaeda Connection

Not that this is a surprise to anyone that doesn't reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., but according to a staff report released this morning by the bi-partisan 9-11 commission, and in stark contrast to what the administration has been claiming, there is "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein collaborated with Al Qaeda on any attacks on the United States.

As the Washington Post reports, "The findings come in the wake of statements Monday by Vice President Cheney that Iraq had "long-established ties" with al Qaeda, and comments by President Bush yesterday backing up that assertion."

"Although Osama bin Laden briefly explored the idea of forging ties with Iraq in the mid-1990s, the terrorist leader was hostile to Hussein's secular government, and Iraq never responded to requests for help in providing training camps or weapons, the panel's report says.

The Sept. 11 panel, which opened its last two-day round of hearings this morning, said in a report on al Qaeda's history that the government of Sudan, which gave sanctuary to al Qaeda from 1991 to 1996, persuaded bin Laden to cease supporting anti-Hussein forces and "arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda." But the contacts did not result in any cooperation, the panel said.

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan [in 1996], but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report says. "Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

Our steady leadership however refuses to acknowledge this simple fact. Dick still thinks that there were "long established ties...." He probably also thinks that those mobile trailers were weapons labs...UNBELIEVABLE!!!

Jose Padilla

The Washington Post's Richard Cohen,

"I am obligated as a journalist to use the word "alleged" when writing about Jose Padilla, the former Chicago gangbanger the government says turned terrorist. He allegedly received terrorist training in Afghanistan. He returned to the United States as an alleged al Qaeda operative. He allegedly planned to detonate a dirty bomb and also allegedly hoped to use natural gas to bring down some apartment buildings in New York or another city. There, I have done my journalistic duty.

The government, on the other hand, is not similarly constrained. Although it has locked up Padilla for two years, although for a long time he was held in isolation and not allowed to see a lawyer or anyone else, he has never been charged with a crime or found guilty in a court of law. The worst I can do is libel the man. The government, though, has cast him into the contemporary version of a dungeon.

This is not to say that Padilla is innocent. The government not only maintains he is a dangerous terrorist but now says he has confessed to much of the above -- and, if it matters any, I believe the feds. But while I accept the government's case, I cannot accept the insistence that it can, when it so chooses, keep a U.S. citizen -- and Padilla is one -- detained for as long as it sees fit. If the man committed a crime, then try him. It's the American way.

...In a news conference this week, James B. Comey Jr., Attorney General John Ashcroft's deputy, outlined a bit more of the case against Padilla and explained why he had been held in isolation and denied counsel for so long. "He would very likely have followed his lawyer's advice and said nothing, which would have been his constitutional right. He would likely have ended up a free man, with our only hope being to try to follow him 24 hours a day, seven days a week and hope -- pray, really -- that we didn't lose him."

This is an astounding statement. First, the conjecture that Padilla would have been freed suggests that the government's case is something short of open-and-shut. Second, as we all know from watching "Law and Order," the invariable entry of a lawyer into the interrogation room always complicates the case, often ending the questioning right there and then. Yet, somehow, prosecutors make their case and the bad guys go to jail. Third, this mention of a "constitutional right" as something akin to a pesky regulation that should be nimbly sidestepped is downright troubling. The Constitution is our basic law. It both establishes the federal government and limits its authority. As the song says about love and marriage, you can't have one without the other.

I was nearby when the twin towers went down. Hardly a day goes by that I do not think about it. I fear terrorists -- in that they have succeeded. But I also fear a government that takes it upon itself to deprive a citizen -- any citizen -- of his basic rights. That holds for Timothy McVeigh (also a terrorist, no?) or a common street criminal and even an alleged al Qaeda associate like Jose Padilla. It's not just his rights that have been suspended. It's our own."

Exactly Right!

Lies and the lying liars who tell them:

Has the level of public discourse in America declined so rapidly that we allow our elected officials to make claims without holding them accountable for the validity of their statements? Almost but not quite, in part thanks to the excellent reporting of the Washington Post's Dana Milibank and Jim Vandehei who have been all over the latest round of political ads released by the President and his pack of attack dogs.

For the remainder of this election cycle I am going to actively research and detail the validity of both Senator Kerry and President Bush's television ads and public statements. To date, I have shown the repeated reluctance on the part of the Bush campaign to conform to any semblance of truth in their ads and on the stump. And although I think they are far more adept at these methods, Senator Kerry and his staff share some of the blame.

Let me re-cap last weeks events in the Bush War Room. Courtesy of our friends at the Post.

On Monday in Little Rock, Vice President Cheney said John Kerry "has questioned whether the war on terror is really a war at all" and said the Senator Kerry "promised to repeal most of the Bush tax cuts within his first 100 days in office."

On Tuesday, President Bush's campaign began airing an ad saying Kerry would scrap wiretaps that are needed to hunt terrorists.

The same day, the Bush campaign charged in a memo sent to reporters and through surrogates that Kerry wants to raise the gasoline tax by 50 cents.

On Wednesday and Thursday, as Kerry campaigned in Seattle, he was greeted by another Bush ad alleging that Kerry now opposes education changes that he supported in 2001.

According to the post,

"The charges were all tough, serious -- and wrong, or at least highly misleading. Kerry did not question the war on terrorism, has proposed repealing tax cuts only for those earning more than $200,000, supports wiretaps, has not endorsed a 50-cent gasoline tax increase in 10 years, and continues to support the education changes, albeit with modifications.

Scholars and political strategists say the ferocious Bush assault on Kerry this spring has been extraordinary, both for the volume of attacks and for the liberties the president and his campaign have taken with the facts. Though stretching the truth is hardly new in a political campaign, they say the volume of negative charges is unprecedented -- both in speeches and in advertising.

Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush's campaign have been attacks on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336 negative ads -- or 27 percent of his total. The figures were compiled by The Washington Post using data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group of the top 100 U.S. markets. Both campaigns said the figures are accurate."

Senator Kerry joined in the foray claiming,

"...several times last week that Bush has spent $80 million on negative and misleading ads -- a significant overstatement. Kerry also suggested several times last week that Bush opposed increasing spending on several homeland defense programs; in fact, Bush has proposed big increases in homeland security but opposed some Democratic attempts to increase spending even more in some areas...

But Bush has outdone Kerry in the number of untruths, in part because Bush has leveled so many specific charges (and Kerry has such a lengthy voting record), but also because Kerry has learned from the troubles caused by Al Gore's misstatements in 2000. "The balance of misleading claims tips to Bush," Jamieson said, "in part because the Kerry team has been more careful...

One constant theme of the Bush campaign is that Kerry is "playing politics" with Iraq, terrorism and national security. Earlier this month, Bush-Cheney Chairman Marc Racicot told reporters in a conference call that Kerry suggested in a speech that 150,000 U.S. troops are "universally responsible" for the misdeeds of a few soldiers at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison -- a statement the candidate never made. In that one call, Racicot made at least three variations of this claim and the campaign cut off a reporter who challenged him on it..."

Now lets take a look at the specific claims made by our President against his opponent.

In early March, Bush charged that Kerry had proposed a $1.5 billion cut in the intelligence budget that would "gut the intelligence services." Kerry did propose such a cut in 1995, but it amounted to about 1 percent of the overall intelligence budget and was smaller than the $3.8 billion cut the Republican-led Congress approved for the same program Kerry was targeting.

The campaign ads, which are most scrutinized, have produced a torrent of misstatements. On March 11, the Bush team released a spot saying that in his first 100 days in office Kerry would "raise taxes by at least $900 billion." Kerry has said no such thing; the number was developed by the Bush campaign's calculations of Kerry's proposals.

On March 30, the Bush team released an ad noting that Kerry "supported a 50-cent-a-gallon gas tax" and saying, "If Kerry's tax increase were law, the average family would pay $657 more a year." But Kerry opposes an increase in the gasoline tax. The ad is based on a 10-year-old newspaper quotation of Kerry but implies that the proposal is current."

And of Course Cheney had to get in on the fun,

"beginning Monday in Arkansas. "Senator Kerry," Cheney said, "has questioned whether the war on terror is really a war at all. He said, quote, 'I don't want to use that terminology.' In his view, opposing terrorism is far less of a military operation and more of a law enforcement operation."

But Kerry did not say what Cheney attributes to him. The quote Cheney used came from a March interview with the New York Times, in which Kerry used the phrase "war on terror." When he said "I don't want to use that terminology," he was discussing the "economic transformation" of the Middle East -- not the war on terrorism...

...On Wednesday, a Bush memo charged that Kerry "led the fight against creating the Department of Homeland Security." While Kerry did vote against the Bush version multiple times, it is not true that he led the fight, but rather was one of several Democrats who held out for different labor agreements as part of its creation. Left unsaid is that, in the final vote, Kerry supported the department -- which Bush initially opposed."

Anyway that's a short synopsis of the Post article, its a must read.

These distortions need to be brought to the attention of every day Americans who don't have time to or don't care to sort through the minutiae of political details.

I applaud the Post in their efforts.