Check out Al Franken on Air America Radio.

http://www.airamericaradio.com/" title="http://www.airamericaradio.com/" target="_blank"http://www.airamericaradio.co...

Freedom from What?


In the United States all we ever hear about is freedom. We are told we have a right to this and that type of freedom. But, do we really have any freedom at all. In order to understand this we need to know what freedom really is.


Ask your friends what freedom is and you will find a universal response, freedom is the ability to do whatever we want to do whenever we want. Then ask your friend if he has freedom, and he will say yes, of course, I can do whatever I want. Now, you need to ask your friend what he wants to do in order to exercise his freedom. Can he play football for the 49ers? Can he drill for oil in his backyard? Can he quit his job and travel the world? Can he get fools to send him their money? Can he walk down the street nude? What does this freedom pertain to?
American society has created an elaborate web of laws and social norms that control what we are allowed to do. These laws and social norms put limitations on our freedom. Then how does American society differ from other countries? We freely give up so many freedoms. So, which freedoms are we worried about loosing?


If we put this in perspective, then the only freedom that really matters is the freedom to change the restrictions on our lives. We pass laws and restrictions in order to make life easier in general. These laws and restrictions limit our freedom, but we give up our freedom in favor of having a society we want to live in. In addition to written law we have social law, which is an implied law which effects us just the same. Social law is subtle, because these restrictions are based on cultural norms. We don’t chew our food loudly. We don’t fart indiscriminately. We don’t write ‘fart’ in the newspaper. There are no laws about these actions, but our freedom is limited none-the-less through social norms.


Social norms change when different cultures merge. For example, the culture of high tech cell phones users is beginning to impact the general public. Some people may choose to preserve social norms by passing laws such as fining people who talk loudly on cell phones in public places. Or, others may choose to be scornful of cell phone users by giving dirty looks. At some point the balance of social and legal restrictions will control our freedom.


The most ironic time in American History concerning freedom must have been the 1950s and 1960s. One segment of society fought vigorously to protect American Freedom from Communism by trying to control freedom of expression. Communism was a threat to those who had established themselves with cash and property. Those who wanted to talk about the inherent unfairness in the unequal distribution of wealth and power were restricted from expressing themselves. The argument was that communism would take away your freedom. At the same time social norms pertaining to drugs and sex began to change. Likewise, the same segment of society fought to restrict sex outside of marriage or drug use, although they stood for American freedom.


The more things change, the more they stay the same. The Internet is here. People have begun to express themselves online and there are those who would wish this free speech restricted. The Internet by its nature is a Hydra, and for each decapitation there are three more heads grown. So, maybe we still have a chance to preserve American Freedom. Perhaps the Internet will be the answer. The Internet will enable many more people to voice their opinions and drive the conversation in directions that are not favored by the established social norms. The Internet could become the tool to provide a voice for those who don’t have the cash.

Bush's Job Approval rating is at 50% and his disaproval rating is up to 49%. There isn't much middle ground here.
This is the lowest its been for his entire presidency. Hopefully it will dip to it's lowest level on November 2! As he rightly deserves based on his Job performance.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm" title="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm" target="_blank"http://www.rasmussenreports.c...

Some Good Books to Read

* Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq by Sheldon Rampton, John Stauber

* Bushwhacked : Life in George W. Bush's America by Lou Dubose (Author), Molly Ivins (Author)

* Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth by Joe Conason (Author)

* Thieves in High Places: They've Stolen Our Country--And Its Time to Take It Back by Jim Hightower

* The Bush - Haters Handbook: A Guide to the Most Appalling Presidency of the Past 100 Years by Jack Huberman (Author)

* Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda by Noam Chomsky

* The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq by Christopher Scheer (Author), Lakshmi Chaudhry (Author), Robert Scheer (Author)

Christopher Scheer and Robert Scheer were interviewed by Michael Kazney on KQED today and you can listen to the interview at:

http://www.kqed.org/programs/program-land ing-local.jsp?progID=RD19" title="http://www.kqed.org/programs/program-land ing-local.jsp?progID=RD19" target="_blank"http://www.kqed.org/programs/...

White House, 4/01: Focus on Bin Laden "A Mistake"


A previously forgotten report from April 2001 (four months before 9/11) shows that the Bush Administration officially declared it "a mistake" to focus "so much energy on Osama bin Laden." The report directly contradicts the White House's continued assertion that fighting terrorism was its "top priority" before the 9/11 attacks1.

Specifically, on April 30, 2001, CNN reported that the Bush Administration's release of the government's annual terrorism report contained a serious change: "there was no extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden" as there had been in previous years. When asked why the Administration had reduced the focus, "a senior Bush State Department official told CNN the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden."2.

The move to downgrade the fight against Al Qaeda before 9/11 was not the only instance where the Administration ignored repeated warnings that an Al Qaeda attack was imminent3. Specifically, the Associated Press reported in 2002 that "President Bush's national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions"4. Meanwhile, Newsweek has reported that internal government documents show that the Bush Administration moved to "de-emphasize" counterterrorism prior to 9/115. When "FBI officials sought to add hundreds more counterintelligence agents" to deal with the problem, "they got shot down" by the White House.

Sources:

1. Press Briefing by Scott McClellan, 03/22/2004.
2. CNN, 04/30/2001.
3. Bush Was Warned of Hijackings Before 9/11; Lawmakers Want Public Inquiry, ABC News, 05/16/2002.
4. "Top security advisers met just twice on terrorism before Sept. 11 attacks", Detroit News, 07/01/2002.
5. Freedom of Information Center, 05/27/2002.

America learned this week that tuna, and many other fish, can contain harmful levels of toxic mercury. Forty-five states already post warnings of mercury contamination in their lakes and streams. So why is President Bush trying to weaken controls on mercury pollution?

It’s déjà vu all over again. Early in his presidency, George Bush tried to allow more arsenic in drinking water. Now, he wants the EPA to let coal fired power plants treat their mercury pollution as “non-hazardous”even though mercury threatens pregnant women and children. The Bush administration’s ploy would allow coal-fired power plants to put more mercury into the air, where it rains down on lakes and oceans, is swallowed by fish, and could wind up on your plate. Exposure to mercury can cause learning disabilities and neurological damage in kids and the developing fetus.

Guess who is praising this scheme? Coal power companies, who are big mercury polluters and big political contributors, too. The big mercury polluters and their trade associations are aggressive political players in Washington. Their executives and PACs are also generous political donors. It’s no surprise that the Bush administration is following the industry’s script for weakening mercury regulations. Last time around, President Bush had to back down on arsenic in the face of a massive outcry from people across the political spectrum. Let’s make history repeat itself.

I saw this and I just had to comment.

"Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney will also meet with the full commission but in private and not under oath."

Of course they would not testify under oath. Mark my words, there will never be another president to testify under oath. They know that impeachment is an option, because all Republicans know that perjury is a high crime or misdemeanor. No president fully tells the truth at any time, and any questioner would be able to come up with questions that the president would choose not to answer because they contradict things that they have said before. Cheney himself was caught in his lies on TV, Sunday morning when no one was watching, but caught nonetheless. So, in order to avoid being put into a sticky spot they will lie about what they know but at least it won’t be under oath.

Religion is a place where people go to find comfort and understand their place in the world. Not all religions approach this problem in the same way. Science can not offer comfort by it’s very nature, but instead it offers us the facts of the world as we see it.

The Fundamentalist approach to this problem is based on having a handbook with all the answers – The Bible. People drawn to this religion would like to have all the answers with out the need to think about the questions. Having a book with both the answers and the questions in it simplifies this whole problem. (Not everyone may know this, but fundamentalist Bibles often have both the common questions and the answers written together in the book.) In this mad paced world, the quicker that you know the answer the quicker you can get on with your life. Put this together with the common perception that knowledge is the same as memorization we have an America that is ripe for Fundamentalism. It is surely strange that these same people are so vehemently opposed to Fundamentalists of other religions when they profess their faith.

The truth is much harder to understand and it takes some effort. People need to spend time thinking about their relationship with God and the world in which we live in. People need to take into account the new scientific understanding of our world and the Universe. There are still things that even scientists don’t understand and that is where religion offers comfort and aids in helping people to understand the point of life. Even modern philosophers still wonder what IS the point of life. Unfortunately, every person who comes to grip with this question needs to come up with answers relevant to their own life. Those who are attracted to Fundamentalism are happy to have quick answers and move on with their life. Those with a scientific background may need other answers. People with a mystical background require other explanations. The point is that humans are not privy to God’s intentions – if there is a God. And, if there isn’t a God there still needs to be a purpose to life so that we know what we need to do with our free will – even if pleasure is our only goal.

So, what do other people think on this subject?

Why is it that Conservatives align themselves with the Religious Right?

Basically Conservatives and Fundamentalists both want to restrict your personal freedoms. They want to do this for different reasons, but they both want to do this all the same. It is pretty straightforward why the Fundamentalists want to restrict your personal freedoms. This is because Fundamentalists believe that God told them to make sure no one sins and He gave them a list of sins in the Bible. Well, the Bible has more than list of Ten Commandments and it tells you how men should cut their hair and not cut it. How women should shave their heads for their weddings. And, of course all fundamentalists follow these rules. Not only that, but they also want YOU to follow these rules as well.

Now conservatives (from the business side) also want to restrict your freedoms. This is more from the point of view of a business owner. They would like to hire the best workers who don’t question what they are told to do. This matches exactly with the Fundamentalist point of view: Don’t question authority. Business owners need workers who will not be distracted with drugs, alcohol, sex or idle chitchat. The more they control your personal freedoms the more productive they will be.

So, just keep this in mind…

[b]The Republican Congress shares the blame for 9/11. [b]

During the Clinton administration the Congress went running down the road of impeachment. So strong was their rally that they were blinded by the threat of terrorism. In fact, they claimed “Wag the Dog” which is a B-grade movie about a President that uses an invasion to divert attention from a scandal. In an atmosphere like this a President would feel reluctant to use force unless he were 100% certain it was required. In most cases the evidence is not that clear. Just ask the current president about this, in the case of Iraq. It is quite obvious that the Republican Congress needs to share the blame.

* RICE CLAIM: "Our [pre-9/11 NSPD] plan called for military options to attack al Qaeda and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other targets -- taking the fight to the enemy where he lived." National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

* FACT: 9/11 Commissioner Gorelick: "There is nothing in the NSPD that came out that we could find that had an invasion plan, a military plan." Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: "Right." Gorelick: "Is it true, as Dr. Rice said, 'Our plan called for military options to attack Al Qaida and Taliban leadership'?" Armitage: "No, I think that was amended after the horror of 9/11." [Source: 9/11 Commission testimony, 3/24/04]

* RICE CLAIM: "The fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this before 9/11." National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

* FACT: President Bush and Vice President Cheney's counterterrorism task force, which was created in May, never convened one single meeting. The President himself admitted that "I didn't feel the sense of urgency" about terrorism before 9/11. [Source: Washington Post, 1/20/02; Bob Woodward's "Bush at War"]

* RICE CLAIM: "In June and July when the threat spikes were so high…we were at battle stations." National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

* FACT: "Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft's 'Strategic Plan' from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department's seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs. By contrast, in April 2000, Ashcroft's predecessor, Janet Reno, called terrorism 'the most challenging threat in the criminal justice area.'" Meanwhile, the Bush Administration decided to terminate "a highly classified program to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04; Newsweek, 3/21/04]

* RICE CLAIM: In May 2002, Rice held a press conference to defend the Administration from new revelations that the President had been explicitly warned about an al Qaeda threat to airlines in August 2001. She "suggested that Bush had requested the briefing because of his keen concern about elevated terrorist threat levels that summer." [Source: Washington Post, 3/25/04]

* FACT: According to the CIA, the briefing "was not requested by President Bush." As commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed, "the CIA informed the panel that the author of the briefing does not recall such a request from Bush and that the idea to compile the briefing came from within the CIA." [Source: Washington Post, 3/25/04]

* RICE CLAIM: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice,
5/16/02

* FACT: On August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." In July 2001, the Administration was also told that terrorists had explored using airplanes as missiles. [Source: NBC, 9/10/02; LA Times, 9/27/01]

Why can't you post something to more than one topic? I think that this blog should go into Religion, Science and Politics.

Science

We live in a time of great scientific enlightenment. Scientists are learning more about the world in ten years than all of mankind has learned up to the dawn of the twentieth century. Now we are about to start another 100 years of even more accelerated discovery. How can these scientists learn new things at such an accelerated pace when there are people sitting at home unable to learn how to program their VCR clock?

This simple answer is: We live in a bifurcated society. Bifurcated means there is a split of the whole where part goes one way and part goes another way. This is what has happened to our society. The ironic situation is how society is divided. There are those who ask questions and those who want answers and those who don't care about the questions.

At first glance one may believe those who ask questions are one in the same as those who want answers, but there is a catch. Those who want answers want the questions as well. Those who ask questions only find more questions as they continue to ask them.

As you may have guessed, the scientists are leading the group of those who ask the questions and the religious right is leading those who want the answers. The scientists are skeptical and continue ask questions of every answer they get. On the other hand the religious right has a list of questions and answers that covers the scope of everything any "normal" person would want to know.

Scientists are trained to look for inconsistencies and problematic answers. If the answers work in some cases, do they work in all cases? What if parameters are changed? Does it work at all times past? Will it work for all times in the future? Scientists will come to a consensus on the answers they agree with based on experimental observations and they will tend to disagree on inconsistent experimental observations.

Religious fundamentalists are not all Christian, but Jewish, Moslem or any other group placing total knowledge and understanding in some type of declarative authority. Groups using different authorities will disagree with each other based on the differences in their authorities. These groups can never agree with each other unless they alter the interpretation of their authority.

Now, the rest of us tend to align ourselves with one of these two groups. We may not agree completely with either group on all issues. In fact most of us do not agree completely with either group, even though not committing to one group or the other is a totally inconsistant. However, being human allows us to be inconsistent in our mind and still feel as if we are being reasonable. Our emotional attachment to ideas or ideals will pull us in different directions, even though we know deep down we can solve these inconsistencies by either asking questions or searching an authority for the answers.

As it turns out, the majority of us would rather not be bothered with the questions or the answers as long as we don't need to know. We base our actions on our feelings. If we feel like it we'll do it, if we don't we won't. If it's to much trouble finding the answer don't feel like asking the question. So, that's why so many people don't care if their VCR clock is programmed, because it's to much trouble to find out how to program it.

Like it or not, the groups that care about the questions are asking: How can we get more support for our way of thinking? The answer is to pursued the great mass of people in the middle to your way of thinking. Now remember, the people in the middle are the ones who don't care about the questions let alone the answers. The two groups are fighting for support from a majority of lazy people who don't care. Who do you think will garner more support?

Well, these people would prefer to have both the questions and the answers placed on a silver platter and handed to them. Why would they want to spend the time thinking about such matters. And that is what is happening today with the growth in popularity of fundamentalist groups all around the world. A fundamentalist group will force its way into government and pass laws promoting their document of authority. They pass laws forbidding or restricting the promotion of scientific ideas contrary to their document of conformity.

In the end, the scientists don't have a chance. We can see this in our very own country, the good ole' USA. Christian Fundamentalists are pushing their ideas of Creationism, God and Morality. The scientists are busily answering their own questions with only feeble attempts to garner support from the masses. After all, people will know the truth when they see it. This is what Socrates thought as he defended himself at his trial.

For those interested, less than 25% of the Voting age population voted for Bush in 2000.

From this web site:

http://www.fec.gov/pages/2000turnout/reg &to00.htm" title="http://www.fec.gov/pages/2000turnout/reg &to00.htm" target="_blank"http://www.fec.gov/pages/2000...

51.3% of the Voting age population voted.

Of that population, 47.87% voted for Bush.

See http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/200...

Multiply those numbers together and you get: 24.56% voted for Bush.

We need to get the other 75% to vote against him in November.

Kerry is back up on top. This is mainly due to the 9/11 hearings. Check out the poll every day at:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking _Poll.htm" title="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking _Poll.htm" target="_blank"http://www.rasmussenreports.c...

Here are a few of Clarke’s statements and the Sources:

* Clarke repeatedly warned the Bush Administration about attacks from al Qaeda, starting in the first days of Bush's term. "But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on."1 According to another Bush administration security official, Clarke "was the guy pushing hardest, saying again and again that something big was going to happen, including possibly here in the U.S." The official added that Clarke was likely sidelined because he had served in the previous (Clinton) administration.2

* In face-to-face meetings, CIA Director George Tenet warned President Bush repeatedly in the months before 9/11 that an attack was coming. According to Clarke, Tenet told the President that "A major al-Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead."3

* On September 12, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld pushed to bomb Iraq even though they knew that al Qaeda was in Afghanistan. "Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.'"4

* Also on September 12, 2001, President Bush personally pushed Clarke to find evidence that Iraq was behind the attacks. From the New York Times: "'I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything,' Mr. Clarke writes that Mr. Bush told him. 'See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way.' When Mr. Clarke protested that the culprit was Al Qaeda, not Iraq, Mr. Bush testily ordered him, he writes, to 'look into Iraq, Saddam,' and then left the room."5

* The Bush Administration knew from the beginning that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, but created the misperception in order to push their policy goals. "[Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush] did know better. They did know better. They did know better. We told them, the CIA told them, the FBI told them. They did know better. And the tragedy here is that Americans went to their death in Iraq thinking that they were avenging September 11th, when Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. I think for a commander-in-chief and a vice president to allow that to happen is unconscionable."6

* The war on Iraq has increased the danger of terrorism. In his book, he writes that shifting from al Qaeda to Iraq "launched an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq that strengthened the fundamentalist, radical Islamic terrorist movement worldwide."7

And – Richard Clarke’s a Quote:

"Frankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know. . . I think the way he has responded to al-Qaeda, both before 9/11 by doing nothing, and by what he's done after 9/11 has made us less safe, absolutely. I think he's done a terrible job on the war against terrorism."8

Condi Rice’s Lie: "Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to." -- National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

FACT: Clarke sent a memo to Rice principals on 1/24/01 marked "urgent" asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending Al Qaeda attack. The White House acknowledges this, but says "principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat." No meeting occurred until one week before 9/11. -- White House Press Release, 3/21/04

For the whole document, go to:
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=39828" title="http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=39828" target="_blank"http://www.americanprogress.o...

Footnotes:

1. "Clarke's Take On Terror," CBS, 3/21/04
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60 minutes/main607356.shtml" title="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60 minutes/main607356.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.cbsnews.com/storie...

2. "Ex-Bush Aide Sets Off Debate as 9/11 Hearing Opens," New York Times, 3/23/04
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/politics/2 3CLAR.html?hp" title="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/politics/2 3CLAR.html?hp" target="_blank"http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... (Registration required)

3. "60 Minutes" interview; see 1, above.

4. "Sept. 11: Before And After," CBS News, 3/20/04
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/20/60 minutes/main607622.shtml" title="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/20/60 minutes/main607622.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.cbsnews.com/storie...

5. "Excerpts from 'Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror' by Richard A. Clarke," posted on NYTimes.com, 3/23/04
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/politics/2 3CWOR.html" title="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/politics/2 3CWOR.html" target="_blank"http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... (Registration required)

6. "60 Minutes" interview; see 1, above.

7. "Memoir Criticizes Bush 9/11 Response," Washington Post, 3/22/04
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1360 7-2004Mar21.html" title="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1360 7-2004Mar21.html" target="_blank"http://www.washingtonpost.com... (Registration required)

8. "60 Minutes" interview; see 1, above.

Richard Clarke said a lot of interesting things about the current administration that should put fear in the hearts of all Americans. One point is how the higher level staff shields the president from information they deem he does not want to know. This had been pointed out in Paul O’Neill’s account and it comes through loud and clear in Richard Clarke’s. In fact, some people on the right that I have had discussions with still think that Iraq was a good idea. When faced with the facts of no linkage to al-Qaeda or no WMDs the common response is: “I don’t know what the facts were, but the president did and he made his decision based on those facts.” Well, it is becoming very clear that the president did not know what the facts were, because his staff kept the facts from him.

One example keeps rolling around in my mind. After 9/11 Clarke met the president in passing and they had a short discussion where the president told Clarke to find the linkage with Iraq. Clarke told the president that there was no linkage. The president got angry and told Clarke to find it. Well, Clarke went off and re-examined the facts and found no linkage. He wrote his report and sent it up the chain of command. Later Condi Rice came back to him with the memo and told Clarke to create a new memo with the latest information. He said that this was the latest information. Condi said to redo the memo. Clarke went off and did more research and rewrote the memo showing that there was still no linkage between Iraq and al-Qaeda. He sent the memo up the chain again and the president never received it.

Assuming the president was open minded about the issue, how could he make a reasonable decision based on a lack of information. This insight into the White House workings should send a chill up the spin of every fair minded American.

If you thought his Testemony was good you should listen to his interview with Terry Gross.

Listen: http://freshair.npr.org/day_f...

Does anyone know where I could post mp3 clips of stuff like this?

It looks like Bill Frist is in the Pocket of Microsoft. I wonder if his campaign contributions will go down after Microsoft pays it's fines.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&s toryID=4649674" title="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&s toryID=4649674" target="_blank"http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...

Is Bush an extremist?

In my earlier blog I defined what a political extremist is. Basically it doesn’t matter if you are on the left or on the right an extremist is someone who doesn’t have a dialog with the other side. Extremists don’t listen to the other side and they aren’t willing to change their minds. Based on this definition I believe that the current Bush administration is an extremist administration. They had the objective of invading Iraq from the outset and they did. They didn’t listen to the war protesters in the streets - they didn’t even acknowledge them. The Bush administration was focused on cutting taxes for the wealthy and even when the war and the economy were draining the budget he insisted on cutting taxes on dividends that mainly effected the wealthy. Based on these two issues alone I would say that Bush falls into the category of an extremist.

The current two-party system in the United States works for the following reason. One group wants to implement changes and the other group wants to prevent unnecessary changes. Therefore, every issue brought forth needs to stand the test of scrutiny before it is implemented into law. Conservatives can sometimes be persuaded that an issue has merit and will vote to change the law. Liberals can be persuaded that a law that was passed has outlived its usefulness, or had unintended consequences and will vote to repeal the law. This works well as long as everyone in the system is willing to listen to the other side.

However, there are people in the population with narrow vision. They can only see one way to do things and they will not be persuaded no matter what the other side says. These are the extremists. There are extremists on both the right and the left. By right we mean conservative and left we mean liberal in the current nomenclature.

Extremists on the left believe that the population’s problems stem from the privileged group. They are the “haves” and they prevent the “have-nots” from attaining a meaningful life. Karl Marx and other philosophers wrote that the working class majority needed to rise up against the ruling class wealthy and redistribute the wealth and create a fair system where everyone could live a meaningful life. This happened around the world in Russia, Cuba, China and other places. Of course what seemed to be obvious on paper didn’t pan out in real life, because the laziness of human nature needs motivation to be productive. So, the Socialist and communist extremists are most likely regrouping and evaluating the situation. However, other extremist groups on the left are fighting for other issues important to the left. For example, eco-terrorists believe that the environment is being destroyed so fast that democracy will never be able to repair the damage because it is to slow. Human rights extremists believe that free trade is exploiting people in less prosperous countries and lowering wages in the wealthy countries. On the left, most extremists pick a cause and fight for that cause with blinders on. Even the broad socialist cause had as a goal the equalization of wealth. However, at the farthest end of the spectrum is the anarchist that wants to destroy all rule of law and change everything.

Extremists on the right have the opposite problem. They don’t want anything to change, or more likely they want to put things back to the way they used to be. Of course, the way things used to be is in the eye of the beholder. Like extremists on the left, extremists on the right usually find something that has changed and focus their energy on changing it back to the way it was. There is no compromise and they don’t listen to the other side. For example, the right to life group believes that abortion is wrong and there is no other option. Abortion was illegal in before the 1960s in most places and they want to turn the clock back. Some people in this movement feel so strongly about it that they went out and bombed abortion clinics and shot doctors. Another example of this extremist behavior is the white-power group. This group believes that the white group has a birthright to a bright future in America. They may find themselves in many cases worse off than their parents were at their age. This could be because of the lack of high paying factory jobs in our current economy. But, these white groups focus on immigrants who they believe have come into the country and taken their predestined jobs from them. These groups focus on the hatred of foreigners and often results in violence against immigrant groups. Since there are laws restricting what these groups can do they begin to also focus their hatred on the government as well. And the farthest end of the spectrum is the group or individual that believes that the government is preventing him from living his life the way it was intended and therefore the government should be destroyed. So, the most extreme position of both groups is the same – Anarchy.

Who is Liberal?

Liberal is a trickier label to describe than conservative. Conservative doesn’t want change, but that doesn’t mean that Liberal wants everything to change. Instead, Liberal means that they are liberal in what things that they are willing to try in order to make life better. Liberals in other words would like to try new ideas and test them to see if they work. If the ideas improve life then they should be implemented on a wide scale and improve life for many. The draw back of course is that sometime new ideas don’t work, by definition and someone may be harmed.

Usually only very few things are changed at a time. These ideas are brought forth in government and voted on and those that have support are implemented. It is not always obvious which things need to be changed and which things are the most important. In the recent past Civil rights and Labor rights have been the main issues up for discussion. Labor won many rights at the beginning of the century that could be argued hurt businesses because workers demanded to be paid more and they demanded that they should be given benefits such as health or retirement. Conservatives fought liberals on each and every issue until we have the system in place today. On civil rights, liberals asked that all men, women and children be treated fairly, which was a change from the standard practices where voting rights, working rights and living rights were fought for and challenged every step of the way. Many argue that this battle continues with gay rights and racial issues that have not been solved yet. Conservatives fought these changes in many ways, including withholding of education, and demoralization of the underprivileged classes. By keeping those apart from the whole conservatives were able to maintain their lifestyles for themselves and their families by reducing the competition for places in schools and jobs.

So who are the liberals?

Group #1: Those who have been repressed by any of the old laws that kept people of one class from participating in full democracy. Since these methods of repression were also social norms and not always laws there are many groups who didn’t specifically have laws against them, but were repressed as well. So, these classes largely contain immigrants, blacks, women and those from the underprivileged classes.

Group #2: Those from the privileged classes that feel guilty about their privilege, or are enlightened to the greater good that society can amount to.

These groups are easily the majority of Americans and that is why the conservatives bend backward trying to show the nostalgic promotion to their cause. The wealthy who fear that they would loose their wealth if they were forced to compete fairly with the underclass go out of their way to promote the good old times and how things would be better if only we could go back there. Little do the underclass realize that the good old times is a bill of goods trying to be sold to protect the wealth and property of the Wealthy. The wealthy conservatives would like to return to the times of servants and slaves if they could. These people are not stupid (not all of them) and they know that they should not say these things in public. They know that they could not change things that radically or that quickly. Conservatives don’t like change. Instead, they would like to nudge things slowly in that direction, and that’s the danger of conservatives – THEY ARE NOT HONEST ABOUT THEIR MOTIVES. Oh, they will give you a story that you would most likely want to hear, but they have their own self-interest behind what they tell you. So, beware.

Let’s look at Israel from the Bush perspective.

Hamas is a terrorist organization from Israel’s perspective and they have every right to attack Hamas preemptively.

Israel is a terrorist organization from the Palestinian perspective and they have every right to attack Israel. They don’t even have to wait to attack them, because they were attacked. And, they have every right to attack anyone that might help their enemy Israel. Hamas has every right to preemptively attack the US, Great Britain and anyone else who might help Israel because they have weapons of mass destruction and they could use them.

Didn’t Bush set a great example for the world to follow?

Why are conservatives Warmongers?

Of course, not all conservatives are Warmongers. However, some conservatives think that one method to keep things the same is to defend the property they have with force. This, of course, is a very animalistic tendency and modern culture teaches us that force is base and should be avoided until the last possible moment. Even conservatives acknowledge this. The argument comes down to “when is the very last moment.” The more base your anger the more likely you are to want to strike your enemy first. This all comes from the deep-seated fear that someone is going to come in and take what you have. It turns out that the more you have the more fear you have that someone is going to come in and take it away. Hence, the wealthier and the more uncivilized you are the more likely you are going to sound the march to war.

Well, just look at whom we have for president: The rich uncivilized hick from West Texas. There shouldn’t be any question that he would have sounded the call to war, even before he took up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania.

George W. Bush says that its OK to invade another country and kill or capture a Terrorist. Why can't Israel go and kill a Terrorist? They are just following his example.

Right?!

In general a conservative is someone who doesn’t want “change” or they want things to change back to the way they remember them to be. I would like to classify three major groups of conservatives. There are other ways to do this, but all ways need to be able to encompass “all” conservatives. Since people don’t always wear their preference on their sleeve it is not always possible to know what camp people fall into, but when they vote and take surveys they make their preferences known. Each election people decide whether change is needed or not based on his or her experience since the last election. When I say change, I mean people vote a person into office who will either defend the current laws, or change the current laws. After saying all this, who are the people who want things to stay the same?

Group #1 – The Wealthy. The wealthy people are currently wealthy because the system has worked for them either now or in the recent past. They do not want things to change, because things are going well for them.

Group #2 – The Farmers. The farmers don’t want change because of their experience with nature. In general farmers know from experience that change never makes things better, only worse.

Group #3 – The Nostalgic. This is the largest conservative group. The nostalgic are those who believe things were better in the recent past and we need to revoke the recently passed laws to put things back to they way it was when times were good. If you put this entire group together they would never agree as to which time they should revert their clocks. In general this group is influenced on an issue by issue case. New tax laws may have effected them or new regulations that make it much more difficult to do business. In recent years the largest segment of this group are the Fundamentalist Christians who believe that the morals in our country need to be regulated by the government. They are nostalgic for a fictional time that they believe existed after World War II and before the Civil Rights movements of the 1960’s.

Recently much of the energy among conservatives is spent trying to convince Group #3 to go along with Group #1 on financial issues and Group #1 to go along with Group #3 on moral issues. Since Group #1 controls the money they spend quite a bit of it to enlarge group #3 by making them pine for the old days when life was good. This is why Reagan’s “Morning in America” commercial was able to influence such a large number of people. This is also why Liberals don’t use the same kind of patriotic rhetoric that Conservatives use. Patriotic Rhetoric plays on bringing back the nostalgic memories of the way things used to be.

I’ll write a blog on Liberals at a later time.

Let’s take a step back and look at Liberal and Conservative philosophy and try to see how we find our selves in the current situation. If anyone has any comments I’m sure you’ll post them, so thanks in advance.

First of all, Conservatives are Law based. This means that Conservatives feel that Justice is served based on whether or not laws are followed. This means that finding loopholes in laws and exploiting them reward Conservatives. The Conservative mindset is that everyone has an equal opportunity to find the loopholes in the law and everything is fair.

Now, the Liberals are Fairness based. It doesn’t matter what the law says, if it isn’t fair it should be changed. Therefore, Liberals are motivated to change laws so that they can be fair to everyone. Loopholes are problems in the laws that need to be changed.

This overall dichotomy in the view of the law sets up many of the battles between Conservatives and Liberals. Conservatives generally argue NOT to change laws because these are the laws we have been working with and understand. Liberals generally argue to change laws to make them fair to everyone once the unequal application of the laws are observed in practice.

You can take many of the current issues and put it into this context in order to understand why each side has chosen its position. For example, the Gay Marriage issue is based on the Conservative believing that the law has always been against such unions and should remain so. Liberals suggest that, yes the law has been this way, but it isn’t fair for people who have chosen a different lifestyle than the norm. Another issue could be gun control. Conservative want to keep the laws the same and Liberals believe that perhaps guns have become more dangerous and therefore the laws need to be changed. I could go down a long list of issues.

It turns out, however, that not everyone finds himself or herself in either one camp or the other. Usually there are several foreground issues that determine where any one person would classify himself or herself. In fact, you may find that you classify yourself as Liberal on one class of issues and Conservative on another class of issues. Conservatives now days actually find themselves on the Liberal side of the education issue in many cases because laws were changed 30 years ago and they don’t seem to be working in the ways they would like to see them work. In this case, Conservatives argue to change the laws and Liberals are happy with them the way they are.

In a future blog I’ll discuss some issues and illustrate the Liberal and Conservative point of view – and maybe even another way to look at the same old thing.

Bush wanted to know which foreign leaders would prefer Kerry to Bush. Of course, protocol dictates that it is improper to name names while the president is still in office because it would undermine any ongoing negotiations. But, we know of at least two leaders that fall into the category of desiring a new administration. First, Poland suggested publicly that it was mislead by the president. Second Honduras said that they agreed with the newly elected Spanish Prime Minister – if the UN doesn’t go into Iraq they would pull their troops. Of course the Spanish government obviously supports Kerry to Bush based on its realignment. These are just the countries that sent troops to Iraq. I would guess that Russia and France aren’t very happy with the current administration based on their slight at the UN last year.

If you are a Liberal and a Christian you most likely feel isolated. This is because of the method in which Fundamentalist Religious organizations push forth their ideas. Fundamentalists search for people who are looking for answers. Not only do Fundamentalists have the answers they also have the questions. They hand out books with questions and answers for all those interested. This allows them to control the discussion and focus it on ideology. This also eliminates the possibility of bringing up different equally valid answers to the same questions. If you already have the answer in front of you, how likely are you to page through the Bible to search for another alternate answer? This is quite interesting because Jesus himself faced the same authoritarian system 2000 years ago. Two thousand years ago they didn’t have the little booklets, but instead they had the Pharisees to instruct those with questions. If people had questions they were told to ask an elder, not to think about it themselves. Jesus on the other hand began to think about the laws and question them.

So, how did Christians go from questioning authority to blindly following authority again. Well Saint Paul can be thanked for this backlash to Christ’s teachings. Saint Paul was a young rich Jewish man who persecuted the Early Christians. He had a Greek education, so he was familiar with the cutting edge of Greek thought.

So, after Saul was knocked off his horse and changed his name to Paul he realized that the Early Christian religion could spread more easily if he were to create a set of rules or laws to live by. You see, up to this point the Christians realized that the Jewish Law didn’t have all the answers and it was quite wrong and unfriendly toward the innocent in many cases. Jesus taught us that the over arching law was, “Love one another and Love God above all others.” Well, this was a good stick to use to point out the bad laws, but it didn’t point out how to really live in a practical sense. The Gentiles wanted to know if they had to be circumcised in order to convert to Christianity. This doesn’t clearly fall under the love one another law. Well, to answer questions like this Paul went back to Plato and began to pull from this. Unfortunately, when you follow Plato to its conclusion you destroy many important liberal points of view. Plato has the women as lesser than men. He also places high importance on the military, power and strength. He values laws above logic, as opposed to Socrates or Aristotle. He places low importance on curiosity and discovery through experiment. Plato’s forms tend to focus more on the mystical and unknown.

Taking this and Saint Augustian’s teachings 300 years later Europe was plunged into the dark ages. Questioning became a problem and not a strength. People assumed what authority told them was the only answer. People became tide to their culture as unquestionable fact. It wasn’t until Aristotle was reintroduced to the West from the Islamic teachers who protected these works that Europe emerged from the dark ages. People began to question the flat earth and other ideas steeped in culture.

Dick Cheney must be the anti-Christ. It all makes sense. Cheney is pure evil and he gets dupes to work for him. He has no qualms about killing people to make a profit and to get others to take the fall for it. He even manipulates the Religious to get his mission accomplished. He bribes the Supreme Court to first win the election and then to avoid prosecution for his energy price manipulation.

How can anyone who actually read the Bible believe that the right wing is the ideology of choice. The religious right ideology actually corresponds to the ideology of the Pharisees in the Bible. It is quite interesting that the Religious Right has created a world of unquestioning ideology that the Pharisees of 2000 years ago had created and Jesus had fought against. The success of Jesus was to teach the people that they should think for themselves. Jesus performed a miracle on the Sabbath and the Pharisees condemned him. “How could you be a man of God and perform a miracle on God’s day of rest?” they asked. Doesn’t this sound similar to the attitude of the current Christian Right? Jesus’ response to this is that people need to realize what is more important, the law or the miracle. Obviously the miracle – or he wouldn’t have performed it.

Well, here we are today and the Religious Right quotes Bible verses to persuade “non-believers” that they know the one true way. Unfortunately, the Religious Right almost exclusively quotes Saint Paul when they are being so vehement in their forcefulness. Saint Paul has twisted many of Jesus’ teachings to the right. Saint Paul tells us how we can not think for ourselves and follow our heart as Jesus initially taught us. Paul is responsible for turning Christians back to the right ideology because of his grounding in Plato. Unfortunately Paul ignored Aristotle’s teachings of curiosity and is largely responsible for leading the Christian West into the dark ages, but I will write more about that in another blog at another time.

Did you know that in Margaret Atwood ‘s book “The Handmaid's Tale” she actually predicted the method that the right wing would use to take over the government. In the book terrorists attack the White House and the government creates a department very similar to the department of Homeland security. Through this department the religious right gradually erodes the rights of the citizens in the name of national security. Fortunately Margaret wrote her book and many people recognized the similarity between her fiction and the reality that was happening and stood up against the erosion of our rights. One of the key tip-offs was the initial symbol of the Department of Homeland Security was the “All Seeing Eye.” This was the identical symbol Margaret used in her book, written years before 9/11. The Department of Homeland Security later changed their symbol when this fact was pointed out to them.

Statements that Iraq Posed an Urgent Threat
This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq posed an imminent threat despite the fact that the U.S. intelligence community had deep divisions and divergent points of view regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. As Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet noted in February 2004, "Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an 'imminent' threat."

10/2/2002
President George W. Bush
"On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . it has developed weapons of mass death."
Source: President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution, White House.


11/20/2002
President George W. Bush
"Today the world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq. A dictator who has used weapons of mass destruction on his own people must not be allowed to produce or possess those weapons. We will not permit Saddam Hussein to blackmail and/or terrorize nations which love freedom."
Source: President Bush Speaks to Atlantic Youth Council, CNN.


8/26/2002
Vice President Richard Cheney
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."
Source: Vice President Speaks at VFW 103rd National Convention, White House.



Statements about Iraq’s Nuclear Capabilities

Claims about the Status of the Iraqi Nuclear Program
This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was actively pursuing its nuclear program.

10/2/2002
President George W. Bush
"The regime has the scientists and facilities to build nuclear weapons, and is seeking the materials needed to do so."
Source: President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution, White House.

10/7/2002
President George W. Bush
"Saddam Hussein . . . is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon."
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House.

This statement was misleading because it starkly evoked a threat of Iraq detonating a nuclear bomb when there was deep division in the intelligence community on the issue of whether Iraq was actively pursuing its nuclear program.

10/7/2002
President George W. Bush
"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House.


This statement was false because there were deep divisions within the intelligence community on the issue of whether Iraq was actively pursuing its nuclear program. The statement also failed to mention weeks of intensive inspections conducted directly before the war in which United Nations inspectors found no sign whatsoever of any effort by Iraq to resume its nuclear program.

7/13/2003
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
"We said they had a nuclear program. That was never any debate."
Source: This Week with George Stephanopoulos, ABC.


Claims about the Aluminum Tubes
This statement was false. The government’s most experienced technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy concluded that the tubes were "poorly suited" for this purpose, and intelligence officials at the State Department concurred in this view.

9/8/2002
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice
"We do know that there have been shipments going . . . into Iraq . . . of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to -- high-quality aluminum tools [sic] that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs."
Source: Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, CNN.


This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq sought aluminum tubes for use in its nuclear weapons program, failing to mention that the government’s most experienced technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy concluded that the tubes were "poorly suited" for this purpose.

9/8/2002
Vice President Richard Cheney
"VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: And what we've seen recently that has raised our level of concern to the current state of unrest, if you will, if I can put it in those terms, is that he now is trying, through his illicit procurement network, to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium to make the bombs. QUESTION: Aluminum tubes. VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Specifically aluminum tubes."
Source: Meet the Press, NBC.


2/5/2003
Secretary of State Colin Powell
"[H]e has made repeated covert attempts to aquire high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries, even after inspections resumed. These tubes are controlled by the Nuclear Suppliers Group precisely because they can be used as centrifuges for enriching uranium. By now, just about everyone has heard of these tubes and we all know that there are differences of opinion. There is controversy about what these tubes are for. Most US experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium."
Source: Remarks to the United Nations Security Council, United Nations.


12/19/2002
Secretary of State Colin Powell
"We also know that Iraq has tried to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes which can be used to enrich uranium in centrifuges for a nuclear weapons program."
Source: Press Conference on Iraq Declaration, State Dept.

Claims about Uranium from Africa
This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq sought uranium from Africa despite the fact that the CIA expressed doubts about the credibility of this claim in two memos to the White House, including one addressed to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. CIA Director George Tenet also warned against using the claim in a personal telephone call to Ms. Rice’s deputy. In addition, the statement fails to mention that State Department intelligence officials also concluded that this claim was "highly dubious."

1/28/2003
President George W. Bush
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House.


1/23/2003
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice
"For example, the declaration fails to account for or explain Iraq’s efforts to get uranium from abroad . . ."
Source: Why We Know Iraq Is Lying, NYT.


1/29/2003
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
"His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Source: Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Myers Hold Regular Defense Department Briefing, Defense Department.

Statements about Iraq’s Chemical and Biological Weapons Programs

Claims about Chemical and Biological Weapons
This statement was misleading because it professed certainty when the intelligence community provided only an "estimate." According to CIA Director George Tenet, "it is important to underline the word estimate. Because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute proof." In addition, the statement failed to acknowledge the Defense Intelligence Agency position that: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

9/8/2002
Secretary of State Colin Powell
"We destroyed some after the Gulf War with the inspection regime, but there is no doubt in our mind that he still has chemical weapons stocks and he has the capacity to produce more chemical weapons."
Source: Interview by Tony Snow and Brit Hume on Fox News Sunday, Fox News.

9/18/2002
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
"He has, at this moment, stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons."
Source: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld before the House Armed Services Committee, House Armed Services Committee.

5/19/2002
Vice President Richard Cheney
"We know he's got chemicals and biological [weapons] . . ."
Source: Meet the Press, NBC.

11/4/2002
President George W. Bush
"He said he wouldn't have chemical weapons, he's got them."
Source: Remarks by the President at Missouri Welcome, White House.


2/5/2003
Secretary of State Colin Powell
"How do I know that? How can I say that? Let me give you a closer look. Look at the image on the left. On the left is a close-up of one of the four chemical bunkers. The two arrows indicate the presence of sure signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions."
Source: Remarks to the United Nations Security Council, United Nations.

3/30/2003
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
"The area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is, is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat. Second, the kernel facilities, there are dozens of them, it is a large geographic area . . . I would also add that we saw from the air there were dozens of trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press, and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them away. So there may be nothing left. I don't know that. But it's way too soon to know. The exploration is just starting."
Source: This Week with George Stephanopolous, ABC.


This statement was misleading because it evoked a lethal threat to millions of individuals from Iraq's biological weapons but failed to acknowledge that the U.S. intelligence community had reported on Iraq's biological weapons capabilities with qualifiers and lack of specificity. For example, the October 2002 NIE estimated simply that Iraq had "some" BW agents that were lethal and incapacitating, "including anthrax."

10/7/2002
President George W. Bush
"In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions."
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House.


Claims about Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
This statement was misleading because it claimed that Iraq’s UAVs were intended and able to spread chemical or biological weapons, including over the United States, but failed to mention that the U.S. government agency most knowledgeable about UAVs and their potential applications, the Air Force’s National Air and Space Intelligence Center, had the following view: the "U.S. Air Force does not agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery platforms for chemical and biological (CBW) agents."

10/7/2002
President George W. Bush
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States."
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House.

2/6/2003
President George W. Bush
"All the world has now seen the footage of an Iraqi Mirage aircraft with a fuel tank modified to spray biological agents over wide areas. Iraq has developed spray devices that could be used on unmanned aerial vehicals with ranges far beyond what is permitted by the Security Council. A UAV launched from a vessel off the American coast could reach hundreds of miles inland."
Source: President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House.


Claims About Mobile Biological Laboratories
This statement was misleading because it claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons without disclosing that engineers from the Defense Intelligence Agency who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.

5/29/2003
President George W. Bush
"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."
Source: Interview of the President by TVP, Poland, White House.

5/21/2003
Secretary of State Colin Powell
"The intelligence community has really looked hard at these vans, and we can find no other purpose for them. Although you can’t find actual germs on them, they have been cleaned and we don't know whether they have been used for that purpose or not, but they were certainly designed and contructed for that purpose. And we have taken our time on this one because we wanted to make sure we got it right. And the intelligence community, I think, is convinced now that that's the purpose they served."
Source: Remarks with Bahrain's Crown Prince Shaikh salman bin Hamad Al-Khalifa After Meeting, State Dept.


5/22/2003
Secretary of State Colin Powell
"So far, we have found the biological weapons vans that I spoke about when I presented the case to the United Nations on the 5th of February, and there is no doubt in our minds now that those vans were designed for only one purpose, and that was to make biological weapons."
Source: Interview with French Television 1, TF-1.

Statements about Iraq’s Support of al Qaeda
This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.

11/7/2002
President George W. Bush
"He's a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint."
Source: President Outlines Priorities, White House.


This statement was misleading because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing weapons to al Qaeda. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario.

1/28/2003
President George W. Bush
"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help develop their own."
Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House.

This presentation was misleading because it heavily emphasized reports supporting the assertion that a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda existed that posed a real threat to the United States, when in fact the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship. While Secretary Powell, unlike several other top administration officials, included a reference to the fact that "some believe" that the contacts "don't amount to much," he did not make clear that this was a view within the U.S. intelligence community, and further he was dismissive of this position.

2/5/2003
Secretary of State Colin Powell
"But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants. . . . From his terrorist network in Iraq, Zarqawi can direct his network in the Middle East and beyond. . . . We are not surprised that Iraq is harboring Zarqawi and his subordinates. This understanding builds on decades-long experience with respect to ties between Iraq and al-Qaida. . . . A detained al-Qaida member tells us that Saddam was more willing to assist al-Qaida after the 1998 bombings of our embassies . . . . Some believe, some claim, these contacts do not amount to much. They say Saddam Hussein's secular tyranny and al-Qaida's religious tyranny do not mix. I am not comforted by this thought. Ambition and hatred are enough to bring Iraq and al-Qaida together, enough so al-Qaida could learn how to build more sophisticated bombs and learn how to forge documents, and enough so that al-Qaida could turn to Iraq for help in acquiring expertise on weapons of mass destruction."
Source: Remarks to the United Nations Security Council, United Nations.


This statement is misleading because it describes a Czech government report of a meeting between Mohammed Atta and Iraq intelligence official Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani in April 2001 and states that there hasn’t been more information on that, despite the fact that Czech intelligence officials were skeptical about the report; U.S. intelligence had contradictory evidence regarding this report, such as records indicating Atta was in Virginia at the time of the meeting; and the C.I.A. and F.B.I. had concluded the meeting probably didn’t occur.

9/14/2003
Vice President Richard Cheney
"With respect to 9/11, of course, we've had the story that's been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohammed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we've never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know."
Source: Meet the Press, NBC.

Cheney said today that he thought that if Kerry was Commander in Chief that Saddam would still be in Kuwait. This is ridiculous, because the world supported the first gulf war. The administration clearly doesn't see the difference. They certainly are idiots.

Catch the interviews with Terry Gross on "Fresh Air" or on the "News Hour" tonight. Hans Blix says that both Washington and London lacked critical thinking. Do you want an administration that lacks critical thinking in the future? Think about it – critically.

There was a very informative show today on the importance of the swing vote. If you are on the fence in 2004 listen to this show.

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1773917" title="http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1773917" target="_blank"http://www.npr.org/features/f...

Check it out!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=6 15&e=4&u=/nm/20040317/pl_ nm/iraq_halliburton_dc" title="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=6 15&e=4&u=/nm/20040317/pl_ nm/iraq_halliburton_dc" target="_blank"http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...

Everyone hates to say that Bush went to war to make money, but it sure looks like Cheney did. His pals at his old company want to rip our GIs off.

Well, it makes sense seeing that GW's grandfather build their fortune off making money in WWI.

Anyone who wants to know what Bush is up to should listen to this:

http://wacsf.vportal.net/detail.cfm?fileid=3284" title="http://wacsf.vportal.net/detail.cfm?fileid=3284" target="_blank"http://wacsf.vportal.net/deta...

Check it Out!

http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo /" title="http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo /" target="_blank"http://www.moveon.org/censure...

How can he get away with this?

So, the Bush administration lied 237 times about Iraq.

Clinton lied once about an intern.

Don't you think it's about time to get rid of this guy?

The Republicans thought one lie was important enough.

And thats just one issue.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=5 84&e=4&u=/nm/20040317/pl_ nm/politics_iraq_statemen ts_dc" title="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=5 84&e=4&u=/nm/20040317/pl_ nm/politics_iraq_statemen ts_dc" target="_blank"http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...

The General Accounting Office (GAO) makes it official.

They can't blame it on Clinton or the Democrats.

Hans Blix was interviewed today on NPR.

Hans Blix Interview

Obviously he believes that the US made a huge mistake by going in unilaterally. But on the topic of the British bugging of the UN he was quite laid back. He said that he didn't care if the office was being bugged, because they were saying the same thing in private as they were in public. In fact, he said that he would have hoped that they might have paid a bit more attention to what they were saying.

Who thinks that if the UN had a bug in the White House the administration would be saying the same thing in Private as they were in Public?

What's the deal with the poll released today?

Of course the Iraqis are happier without Saddam. The people in Spain are happier without their previous leader as well. But should GW have gone into Spain and taken him out?

I know a lot of Britians that would be happier without Tony Blair as the PM, should GW go in there and take him out?

In fact, I know a lot of Americans that would be happier with GW out of office. Should the French and Germans come over here and take GW out of office?

There is no way the Republican gang around POTUS would ever allow Bush to debate in nine debates. He wouldn't have a chance and they know it. They are worried about putting Bush in two debates. I am sure that their reasoning is something like - Hey let him loose a couple of debates and we'll blitz the ad machine to make up for the lost ground.

I think it's a good strategy by Kerry to push the matter, because the middle of the road guys are saying - what's the deal with this wimp?

What would Jesus be: a Democrat or a Republican?

If Jesus were alive today preaching on the hillside he would most likely be a Green. He would not want to desecrate his Father's house - which he would consider to be the entire planet. At the time of Christ the world view was much more centered about the Sea of Galilee, but with all we know now about the Universe I am sure that Jesus of Galilee would be a Green.

Jesus was anti-establishmentarian. He believed that the established Jewish religion was stuck in the quagmire of laws that made no sense. He was for the worker - the fishermen of the Sea where he grew up.

He may have leaned toward the Democratic Ideals of helping each other out of poverty with his love one another Sermon on the Mount.

However, he would never associate himself with the moneychanger Republicans in the Temple. He would not associate with the Right Wing Pharisees who believed that they alone could understand the laws of His religion. He had sympathy for the sinners of his day and acceptance of those who turned away from his Father.

Is this a scary set of books or what?

This is a very anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic set of books. Number 12 in the series is about to be released.

They are preaching this objectionable material to children in the children’s edition. These are the same people who are ready to censor books with secular humanist themes from school libraries.

These people claim that Jews have two choices: convert to Fundamentalist Christianity and be saved, or be damned. They say the same about Catholics, because Catholics are the whores of Babylon.

I may be wrong on this one, but it seems to me that:

Republicans think the people are basically evil and corporations are basically good.

On the other hand Democrats think that people are basically good and corporations are basically evil.

Let me elaborate. Republicans want to pass laws that control peoples behavior. Like laws against gay sex, what can be broadcast on the radio or TV, what you can do with the US flag.... Democrats want to make sure that companies are fair to their employees, don't pollute the environment, and don’t cheat investors. Republicans want everyone to own a gun to protect themselves against the evil people around them. Democrats want to help those in hard times and aren't so concerned as to whether they are cheating the system. Republicans know people will cheat the system, so they want strict controls on who gets the aid.

The examples can go on. Maybe if we approach problems with this in mind it will help society come too reasonable compromises.

Then again I could be way off base.

We all know the POTUS, AKA Dubya, declared the we all need to scrap all our scientific research and aim for Mars. NASA responded by telling congress that we will need to cancel the Hubble program so that they can concentrate on our new "mission."

Well, today at a hearing of a Senate subcommittee on NASA and other federal agencies, subcommittee chairman Christopher Bond, R-Mo., asked O'Keefe to request a study of the Hubble plan by the National Academy of Sciences.

Maybe we shouldn't be so hasty to send people to Mars?

Letters to the Battalion

In 1985, the Texas A&M campus was dealing with two issues that had been solved in much of the country. The first of which was a court ruling forcing the school to allow women participate in the Aggie Band. The second of which delt with the Gay Student Society, an organization for gay students. So, after only 18 months on the campus I decided to voice my opinion with reguard to these issues in the school newspaper, "The Battalion."

Tuesday, April 2, 1985

Infantile problems plague Aggies

EDITOR:

Where is the public concern at Texas A&M University? Have we all forgotten that we are the future? The world is not the cozy place that some (Good Ags) might lead us to believe. Aggieland is not perfect either, and we shouldn't run those multidimensional perceptions out of town with: " Highway 6 runs both ways." How can a place improve when people are brainwashed into believing that imperfections are traditional?

Public concern is tradition in our democratic society. We should fix things that are wrong, which corresponds to righting injustices. An obvious example of this is the recent uproar about letting women in the band. Can you really tell that a woman or a man is marching if we consider that they are wearing unisex uniforms and have their hair pinned up. With the addition of these new members we may even improve the band. I believe women can play musical instruments just as well as men. Would anyone like to argue?

On to more important things: From the looks of the Battalion opinion page I would have guessed that this is a high school paper. I haven't heard the overwhelming misconceptions about gays since at least that long ago. Then again, I am from the North which may be beyond this infantile cooty mentality.

There are, however, issues that we should all be discussing -- for example, the major public policies, such as arms control and nuclear war. Yes, Aggies, there is an Atomic Bomb. These bombs are dangerous. There are many other nuclear weapons as well. Our environment is begining to wilt before our eyes, and we ask "...can a fraternity exist at Texas A&M?" I think that we should not waste space in this editorial page to discuss the restriction of human rights, rather we should enhance our well-being by discussing public concern.

Michael Forbush

Monday, April 8, 1985

'Dumb Aggie' has opinions about A&M

EDITOR:

I would like to thank Mr. Forbush for his inspiring letter in the April 2 edition of The Batt. I am comforted in knowing that we have such an enlightened Northerner on the A&M campus to show us stupid Ags the better way to a better, more productive life.

But Mr. Forbush speaks of tolerating different opinions, so I beg him to bear with this stupid Ag's opinion on the problems he mentioned at A&M. On the Band, no Sir I do not want women in the Aggie Band. This is not a statement on women's rights, but if you knew anything about the Aggie Band you would know that the reason they are so good is because they eat, sleep and think as one. A woman would break that bond, not because she is better or worse, but because she would require special treatment such as different living quarters and formation of special units. They would never really be part of the Band, destroying the bond that makes the Band the Band. But this is only a dumb Southern Aggie's opinion.

And as far as recognizing the GSS on campus, I have nothing against them but why should there be a club to recognize what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms? Gays have stated over and over that it is no one's business what they do in private. I agree, so why should there be a special club that tells us what kind of partners they prefer? But this is only the questioning of an "infantile cooty mentality."

So rejoice Ags, we now have someone to show us how the schools up there in "Yankeeland" do things. Now instead of worrying about Frats on campus we can have riots and sit-ins, like the big schools up North, so we can inhance the well-being and public concerns of Texas A&M.

Danielle Garner, '86

Tuesday, April 9, 1985

Texas A&M's future important to Aggies

EDITOR:

Dear Michael "The know-it-all-yankee".

We are sincerely thankful for your enlightening editorial. We had never heard of the existence of nuclear bombs, let alone their dangers (but hey, we're only unenlightened southerners, not a northerner of infinite wisdom)! You mentioned that you wanted a serious editorial on such issues as nuclear arms: Well, here it is. We've got 'em, they've got 'em. It's a fact of life.

Based on the recent Soviet history of military aggression (i.e. since the Bolshevik revolution), world peace can only be achieved if a balance of power is maintained. This can only be achieved if the US is willing to match the Soviet Union in both nuclear and conventional hardware.

Now, before all of you nuclear freeze advocates get out your pens and paper to reply to this editorial, let a mere fact be known: Power increases the odds of survival. We agree that defense spending could be used in better ways -- for schools, hospitals, roads, etc. However, in a world in which chemical warfare is currently used on non-combatants (Afghanistan), a nation must be willing to protect its interest by developing its defenses. (But, in the event of nuclear war, look on the bright side: maybe the editorial board of this "high school" paper will get nuked!)

Since we can't realistically change some facts of life, maybe we should try to change those things over which we have some control. Although these small changes may seem to have no lasting of earth-shaking implications, together they do add up.

Some of us worry about the direction that this University takes, although this may seem immaterial to you. So try to understand that people take stands on issues (i.e. GSS, Greeks, Women in the Band, the Board of Regents, Tuition increases, etc.) because they are concerned about the future of this University, just remember Highway 6 runs North.

Mike Head

Mike Neben

Clay Paulos

Class of '87

Tuesday, April 9, 1985

Will Aggies ever accept gays here?

EDITOR:

Before Aggies would accept gays, the Pope would have a harem.

Bart Braden

Wednesday, April 10, 1985

Co-ed housing would solve the band problem

EDITOR:

I would like to congratulate Ms. Garner on her letter of April 8. It shows that there is intelligent life at this University.

I appreciate her taking her time to argue against two issues that the courts have already guaranteed. These problems should be beyond us, therefore I propose that we look to the future.

There is a new problem on the horizon at this school, and I would like to draw our attention to it before it gets out of hand. As most of you know by now the Zentgraf ruling will have significance this coming fall. The attitude toward the new female members will have a significant effect on the performance of the band.

Garner states that she does not want women in the Aggie Band because women would break the bond that made them "...eat, sleep, and think as one." I believe that she has a good point. If popular attitude follows as she suggests, destruction of the Aggie Band's unity is unavoidable.

When will Texas A&M leave the 1950's? If we would not need to provide different living quarters or special units our problem would be solved. It is obvious that we need to introduce the idea of co-ed housing for the band. Why not let the Aggie Band begin a new tradition of cooperation?

I speak from personal experience when I say that co-ed housing builds comraderie that goes deeper than single sex dorms. The men and women tend to take on a brother-sister relationship that lets both groups grow. The common fear among the more conservative Aggies is that the children will behave like animals. From experience, I can say the opposite is true. The men of the dorm tend to protect the women from strangers. At my previous school co-ed housing was voluntary, and there was always a waiting list for these dorms.

Garner further illuminates the GSS issue by suggesting that the gays should keep to themselves. How, might I ask, should they keep to themselves if they never find each other?

The GSS would reduce the uncomfortable situation of a gay person trying to pick up a straight person. Besides this, the GSS would play an important role in distributing information on AIDS to its members, as well as non-members in the A&M community. Why should we fear such an organization? They don't want to recruit non-gays like the army wants to recruit non-regs.

Finally, I take offense to Garner's misconceptions of "Yamkeeland." Yankee schools no longer use civil disobedience tactics of the late 1960's. Recently, the conscience raising tactics have included more subdued forms of disapproval. For example, silent marches for arms control, or against apartheid in South Africa. How many Aggies know what apartheid means? Furthermore, how many care?

Michael Forbush

What’s the deal with Republicans?

They want the Church to dictate how we live.

They want to spend as much money as we have to build up the military so that we can invade little countries.

They claim that we are being taxed to much so they demand that we cut taxes.

So, we don’t have any money to pay for education.

They want states rights, but they also want a federal amendment to control who can be married.

They want the government in your bedroom, but not in the company boardroom.

They don’t want the government to protect the environment, because it would effect the economy.

They want to give money to rich businesses in the form of tax credits.

When they tried to stimulate the economy they refused to put money into the economy by reducing the social security withholding. Instead they reduced taxes on dividends, which gave the wealthy a windfall, but it didn’t put any money into the economy.

So, what is the deal with Republicans?

Read how the a high-ranking military officer reveals how Defense Department extremists suppressed information and twisted the truth to drive the country to war.

Pentagon Cooked the Books

Do you want a president that listens to your needs and thinks about how a policy or law will effect the big picture? Of course not, that would be flip-flopping on an issue. It is much better to have a president that sets his sights on something and keeps going with out thinking.

For example, George W. Bush would make a great president. He got into office in January 2001 without a mandate of the people, but that didn’t matter. He hired a few moderates to show that he was going to respect the vote of the people. Then, he refused to keep the moderates in the loop. When issues arose he decided what the plan would be by consulting his right wing constitutes and did what ever they said. He ignored advice from Christy Todd Whitman and Paul O’Neill because it went against his predisposed plan.

In the first week of his administration he set in motion his plan to overthrow Iraq. He didn’t listen to the CIA when they told him that they didn’t have evidence for Weapons of Mass Destruction. He didn’t listen to the UN when they told him Unilateral Action was against the law. He didn’t listen to protesters in the streets when they knew this was a big mistake. He didn’t listen to France and Russia when they voted against the invasion.

But Iraq isn’t the only thing that he didn’t listen too. He didn’t listen to Paul O’Neill and Alan Greenspan when they told him how to stimulate the economy. He didn’t listen to Christy Todd Whitman when she told him to adopt the Kyoto protocol.

Finally, he didn’t listen to himself when he said “we are not the worlds policeman!”

Anyone with a brain knows that flip-flopping on issues is not a sign of weakness, but a sign of thinking. When a law is proposed there are many ramifications of the law and implementations of the law that are not always apparent from the start. There are actually many congressmen that have submitted bills and then voted against them when they came to the floor. This is usually because someone places an amendment to the bill that changes the way in which the bill can or will be used.

Somehow we need to get our message out the just because John Kerry voted one way or another on a particular bill it doesn't mean that he supported or disagreed with a particular law. In fact, many bills have misleading names that don't mean what the title says.

For example, the Defense of Marriage Act was against Marriage. . Some bills have very weak methods of implementation, or don't have adequate funding. Many times the laws have more subtle problems – like pork barrel projects that have nothing to do with the bill.

The key is for Kerry to articulate this subtleness without boring an audience with the minutia. Kerry has a much better chance of doing this than Al Gore did – and hopefully we can help by pointing it out in our blogs. At least I know that I will.

I read the article that DianneMaire posted:

Dick Cheney's Fictional World



I couldn't read it on her page, but I'd like to comment here. Dick answers Richards question about his daughter being gay by saying that he doesn't agree or disagree with the president. I love it! It shows how he is a puppet of the Religious Right - Just like POTUS.

Then he reveals the he is having same-sex lunch with the president. I knew they were in bed together but I didn't think that they would admit it. Then he admits how the fundamentalist Christians are telling them what to do on social issues. This interview is a "must read" for everyone. Everyone needs to know who we sent to Washington.

I also like the imagery: In their same-sex lunches they just sit at the table and nod at each other. This is much like the meetings that O'Neill describes in "The Price of Loyalty." Another "must read" book.

BTW - If we are going to take back the White House we are only going to win if we educate the public with the truth. As the Fundamentalists Christians are so found of saying but not believing: "The Truth will set us free!"

The Religious Right hates education because they don't want people to think for themselves. They are trying to destroy the public education system by withdrawing support for public schools. Under the guise of cutting spending and cutting taxes the right is trying destroy the American education system.

If the Religious right succeeds in destroying the education system they will become the defacto voice of authority and our children won't know how to reject the garbage that they spew! It’s too bad that the Religious right needs to resort to this tactic. Basically logic doesn't support their religious arguments.

MoveOn was doing a good job of pointing out the lies of the Bush administration. POTUS is putting forth a public face while doing the opposite behind the scenes. The administration counters with the blanket statement that MoveOn is a radical left wing group and should be discredited by virtue of the fact that the group is liberal -- so don't listen.

This crazy right wing administration presents itself in public as if they have moderate views. The country made a mandate for a moderate administration in 2000 by voting for Al Gore by the slimmest of margins. Unfortunately POTUS took office and hired several Moderates: Powell, O'Neill, Whitmann... etc. Then POTUS, Cheney, Rove and the others met together and planned the real right wing agenda.


Cheney, who seems to actually be driving the administration, scripts what is to be presented at these meetings. Since POTUS doesn't read newspapers, memos, reports etc.... he may not even know that the Cheney group is manipulating POTUS and rest of the administration. He doesn't even answer reporter’s questions at press conferences. The question becomes: How would POTUS even know that he is being manipulated?

This is so reminiscent of the Iran Contra situation where Ronny could claim plausible deniability because he really didn't know anything that was happening. The Republicans have latched on to this method of isolating the office of the president in such a way that no matter what the office does POTUS can claim that he doesn't know what was done.

By suggesting that this what the administration is doing will draw catcalls from the right. This is because it is very difficult to prove either the motive or the fact. Everything that is known is circumstantial evidence, because anyone that is part of the inner group has to much to loose and therefore would never reveal the inner workings of the group. (It sounds a bit like the Skull and Bones society.)

So, what happened to MoveOn.org? They haven't been posting any new lies from the administration. Has POTUS been able to paint MoveOn.orq in such a bad light that they are loosing credibility? Or, has POTUS switched from lie mode to Campaign mode? Or, has MoveOn run out of money or man power?

For all you who don’t know, POTUS is the nickname that George W. Bush calls himself. It is used throughout the White House now. Official memos refer to George W. Bush as POTUS. If you haven’t figured it out already, POTUS stands for President Of The United States. Am I the only one or does this just seem weird? This behavior reminds me of a group of kids with an exclusive club trying to exclude the kids they don’t want to associate with. It also bothers me that ol’ POTUS has time to worry about coming up with nicknames for everyone and making them important, but he doesn’t have time to read reports or memos. That’s right, POTUS makes up nicknames for his staff. This just has the feel of Buffy and Josh and all their buddies forming a club just to keep the undesirables out.

I hope everyone on either side of the political spectrum picks up the book: “The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill “ by Ron Suskind. If you’re a died in the wool Republican it will make you aware of the bizarre nature of George W. Bush. If you are a died in the wool Democrat it will verify what you already knew. If you are in the middle it should help you understand one of the choices you need to make by November.

A couple of days ago mmajamis wrote this in response to a post I made:

[i]Wow... looks like you have Reagan pretty much wrapped up... too bad the american people are too stupid to figure it out huh? Stupid Americans, do you know they voted Reagan as the Greatest president ever? Hunh... shows you how much smarter you are than almost all americans because they are stupid and you are smart because reagan is forest gump.... geee whiz buddy, stick with your day job and engineer me something....[/i]

Based on this comment I believe that I am supposed to say, “Whoa some people voted that Ronny Reagan was a great president – I better back off.” Well, I don’t think that the criteria for judging a President should be a popularity contest. This contest only tells us what people think that they know about Ronny, and what they don’t know about other presidents. People don’t know everything about the president. They know what was done by his administration and they know what the Republican’s PR has told them about how great Ronny was. People don’t remember that Ronny or his administration participated in the Iran Contra affair. If Ronny didn’t know anything about it then he was out of the loop, which supports my case for a Forest Gump type Presidency. If he did know about it then he lied. If he lied he is as bad a President Clinton – to which Republican’s tried to impeach him for lying. I think the Forest Gump type Presidency makes more sense. After all the Republicans are doing the same thing with George W. Bush during this presidency.

Finally, the point is that everyone loved Forest Gump. He would win a popularity contest as Ronny did. So I really don’t see mmajamis’s point.

I was thinking about Ronald Reagan. It's a sad thought. He was the champion of all I hated when I was in school. He was the guy that thought appearance was everything and thinking about life was a weakness. This is from his biography which has just recently been released. He was the king of the Jocks. He lead the solders. The more I learn about him the more I dislike him.

Reagan was a shell of a man fighting for an ideal which was frozen in him when he was young. However, I am beginning to see myself in this same light. My ideal is different than Reagan's, but I too have an ideal which was frozen in my soul at an early age.

As I imagine Reagan living his life I see Forest Gump tripping through life and always falling the right way. It makes me angry when I think of those guys behind the scenes manipulating the man whose main concern was how many interruptions from applause and standing ovations he received during his speeches. It makes me angry knowing the American people are continuously being duped into voting for the marketing genus and not the diplomatic genus.

From what I've learned, there isn't anything evil about Ronny, just like there wasn't anything evil about Forest Gump. Similarly, Ronny wasn't a hero just like Forest Gump wasn't a hero. Ronny was the guy who wanted to build the appearance of being a hero, without the thought usually required of a hero.

But, what can I say. Ronny was president for eight years and I am an engineer.

I am still reading this book and it makes me wonder.

Now, everyone knows that the Republicans got together six or so years ago and decided that Dubya would be the gold plated nominee for the Republican Party. Of course there is a group of Republicans who still think and John McCain is from that wing of the party, but the group that is behind Dubya must have learned from Ronny. “We don’t need no thinkin’ POTUS”, is what they said. If POTUS asks to many questions we may not get our job done, is what they are thinking. Obviously money is behind their plan and secrecy is above all.

Now, I’m not pushing any conspiracy theories, I’m just looking at the facts. Dubya doesn’t read reports and he doesn’t read memos. So how does he know what’s going on? He doesn’t care to have anyone voice the other side of the argument on any issue, so how does POTUS know how to make the “right” decision? On top of that add the fact that the Cabinet level meetings are scripted. How can this be good for our country?

An administration run like this is only good for the group calling the shots. So, what’s the deal?

Hey Howard has gone from supporting Bush to going against him. Let's hear some other talk show hosts go this way! How about O'Reilly - He's suposedly fair and Balanced.


Stern

This map looks pretty odd. I've got North America covered, as well as some of Europe, but I really haven't been anywhere.



create your own visited country map
or write about it on the open travel guide

I found this at whoisjohngalt's blog and I thought that I'd post mine.



create your own personalized map of the USA
or write about it on the open travel guide

What the H*** is the problem with same sex marriage?

Who does it effect?

Suppose I am a fundamentalist christian in Kansas. I don’t like same sex marriage. Hey, that’s fine with me, then don’t marry your boy friend (or girl friend). Your religion doesn’t like same sex marriage – then don’t marry same sex couples in your church. I’m not gay and I don’t care to marry a guy, but why should I tell someone else what they may or may not do, when it doesn’t effect me, my family, and it may actually improve my community. I just don’t get it.

Isn’t it true that Republican’s are supposedly the more patriotic party by their own admission? Well, let’s be patriotic and defend the co