|
|
|
All this forthrightness -- why, it's enough to make one almost optimistic!
As long as we can get it reported in the U.S. media.
This is from Reuters.
U.K. envoy: Bush the best recruiter for al-Qaida
Italian media report ambassador's remarks at private conferenceROME -- Britain's ambassador to Italy described President Bush as "the best recruiting sergeant" for al-Qaida, Italian media reported on Monday.
The comment, made at a closed-door conference at the weekend, was denounced by one leading Italian newspaper editor, who issued an open letter snubbing the veteran ambassador, Sir Ivor Roberts.
Roberts was quoted as telling an annual Anglo-Italian gathering in Tuscany, "If anyone is ready to celebrate the eventual re-election of Bush, it’s al-Qaida."...
And those are the words of a representative of the (coughcough) Coalition of the Willing.
Are you experiencing, Mr. and Ms. Swing Voter, a sneaking suspicion that Vice-President Halliburton wasn't being entirely forthright with us during last night's debate?
Well, it's never a bad idea to trust your gut. But if you'd like to have your hunch confirmed, check out this from the Daily Reality Check.
...Debate moderator Gwen Ifill kicked off last night's proceedings by asking the vice president about former administrator of Iraq L. Paul Bremer's recent assertions that we simply didn't have enough troops on the ground in Iraq to secure the region. Cheney "answered" the question without ever using the word "troops" – in other words, he ducked it.It was a sign of things to come: When asked about Afghanistan, Cheney talked about El Salvador; when asked about jobs, he tried to bring up education; when he was pressed on Halliburton, he directed people to a (wrong) website that doesn't answer any of the questions raised.
When he wasn't deflecting attention away from the administration's awful policy record (an arduous task, mind you), Cheney distorted the records of his opponents, distorted the Bush administration's records, and even distorted his own record. It was a busy night....
There's much more here. They break it down for you, misstatement by misstatement, lie by lie.
Who says Bush, Inc.'s economic policies are bad for Americans, bad for the United States, bad for the world?
169 tenured and emeriti business school professors, that's who.
From today's New York Times:
Iraq Chief Gives a Sobering View About Security
By Edward WongBaghdad, Iraq -- In his first speech before the interim National Assembly here, Prime Minister Ayad Allawi gave a sobering account on Tuesday of the threat posed by the insurgency, saying that the country's instability is a "source of worry for many people" and that the guerrillas represent "a challenge to our will."...
In his speech, Dr. Allawi, who has cast himself as a tough leader since taking office in late June, insisted that elections would go ahead in January as planned, but he acknowledged that there were significant obstacles standing in the way of full security and reconstruction. The nascent police force is underequipped and lacks the respect needed from the public to quell the insurgency, he said, and American business executives have told him that they fear investing in Iraq because of the rampant violence here.
His tone was a sharp departure from the more optimistic assessment he gave to the American public on his visit to the United States last month. At his stop in Washington, Dr. Allawi made several sweeping assertions to reporters about the security situation in Iraq, including saying that the only truly unsafe place in the country was the downtown area of Falluja, the largest insurgent stronghold, and that only 3 of 18 provinces had "pockets of terrorists."
He did not directly contradict those statements on Tuesday, but his latest words reflected a darker take on the state of the war....
There's more here.
Remember when Vice-President Halliburton claimed to have never met John Edwards until just before the debate began?
That, like so many other "facts" VP Halliburton presented, was a blatant lie.
The proof is here.
And here:
Are you listening, Mr. and Ms. Swing Voter?
Tonight's vice-presidential face-off was less of a slam dunk than Thursday's first presidential debate, but that's no surprise. Dick Cheney may be a lying slimeball (okay, okay, I'll jump off the fence -- he is a lying slimeball), but he can handle himself better than Incurious George.
The thing is, Cheney entered this debate with one arm tied behind his back. Cheney's at his "best" when he's in attack dog mode, but polls show he's already a drain on the ticket. The public simply doesn't like or trust Uncle Dick (and they really don't like his connections to Halliburton).
So Cheney was forced to stifle the sneers and forego the F-bombs that are his stock in trade.
I'm sure Cheney and the rest of Bush, Inc,, were counting on a combination of gravitas and (faux) avuncularity serving to make John Edwards appear callow and unsophisticated -- adolescent, even.
He did nothing of the kind. He took the fight to Cheney from the jump, refusing to let Uncle Dick once again connect the nonexistent dots between Baghdad and Ground Zero. And on those occasions when Cheney did draw a little blood -- when he attacked Edwards' attendance record in the Senate, for example -- Edwards showed a willingness and ability to counterpunch (citing, for example, Uncle Dick's hard-right voting record during his years in the House -- a record only the true right-wing Kool-Aid drinkers could get behind).
Edwards came off as intelligent, informed, enlightened (who wouldn't when compared to Vice-President Halliburton?), energetic, positive, and forceful -- in short, he appeared presidential, which is exactly what one looks for in a man who will be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
We're still nearly a month away from November 2nd, and anything could happen between now and then, but right here, right now? I'm feeling very good about the people's chances of wresting America back from this bunch of lying, thieving skunks.
This is pretty sweet.
Ex-key aide to McCain gives support to Kerry
by Billy House
Republic Washington BureauWASHINGTON -- A man who until last week was one of Sen. John McCain's top aides is endorsing John Kerry for president, asserting that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have "waged an unprecedentedly cynical and divisive campaign."
Led by Kerry, Democrats now can seize the opportunity to reach out to disaffected moderate Republicans and independents to build "a new political coalition of national unity," Marshall Wittmann writes in the upcoming edition of Blueprint Magazine, published by the Democratic Leadership Council.
"I am an independent McCainiac who hopes to revive the Bull Moose tradition of Theodore Roosevelt, and I support the Kerry-Edwards agenda," Wittmann writes.
"This unreconstructed Bull Moose will run with the donkey in November."...
There's more here.
Now, if only his former boss had the nerve to step up to the plate.
From today's Progress Report:
Key Cheney Claim Blown Apart: Vice President Cheney still asserts, "[Saddam] had a relationship with al Qaeda," in an ongoing attempt to plant "the idea that Hussein was allied with the group responsible for the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001." As his primary evidence, the vice president repeatedly has said terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi was an associate of bin Laden and received safe haven from Hussein, stating that Zarqawi "is an al Qaeda associate who took refuge in Baghdad, found sanctuary and safe harbor there before we ever launched into Iraq." Today, a new CIA assessment -- which Cheney himself requested months ago -- blew apart this claim. The report stated, "there is no conclusive evidence that the regime harbored terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi." One U.S. official said, "The evidence is that Saddam never gave Zarqawi anything."...
The truth justs keep raining down on Bush, Inc's lies. Are you paying attention, Mr. and Ms. Swing Voter?
I urge all those still convinced that we were right to invade Iraq (I'm talking to you, Mr. and Ms. Swing Voter), that Bush, Inc., was straight with the American people -- and with the world -- in the lead-up to war, that they viewed war as a last resort, and that the United States and the world were truly threatened by Saddam Hussein to read Maureen Farrell's essay for BuzzFlash.com, The New Right and Old Wrongs:The Quagmire, A to Z.
To pique your interest, here's just one entry:
A is for AgendaMarch 2002: "Saddam Hussein is not a threat to the U.S. ... The experts say that Saddam doesn't have the capacity to manufacture weapons of mass destruction (WMD) -- and even if he could and even if he could somehow acquire that capacity, he certainly doesn't have the capacity to deliver them. ... The whole weapons inspection issue is really just a ruse. The real agenda of the Bush administration is a regime change. ... It has nothing to do with the U.N. or weapons inspectors or even human rights." -- Former U.N. official Denis Halliday, Salon.com, March 20, 2002 (a year before the start of the war in Iraq).
Update: While prewar speculation about the Bush administration's real agenda was rampant, by the time Colin Powell tried to sell the war to our allies, few were buying. "We think the Iraqi people would be a lot better off with a different leader, a different regime," Powell said, mindful that "regime change" violated both allies' trust and international law. "But the principal offense here is weapons of mass destruction, and that's what this [U.N.] resolution is working on. ... All we are interested in is getting rid of those weapons of mass destruction," Powell fibbed.)....
There is much, much more for your consideration, Mr. and Ms. Swing Voter. The article is truly a must-read.
Donald Rumsfeld slipped and spoke the truth again yesterday during a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.
"To my knowledge," the Secretary of Defense said of a possible connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network, "I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."
It may come as no suprise to you to learn that today he's furiously trying to disassociate himself from that outburst of honesty.
Rumsfeld's not the only Bushie who got caught with his pants up yesterday.
"We paid a big price for not stopping [looting] because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," said Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, administrator for the U.S.-led occupation government until the handover of political power on June 28, yesterday. "We never had enough troops on the ground."
Bremer was speaking for a fee at an annual meeting sponsored by the Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers.
Bremer claims that he thought he was speaking off the record, but that raises another question in my mind: Should an administration official accept payment to share information and opinions with private groups that he's unwilling to reveal to the electorate for free?
This video is a wise and witty look at the Republcan convention and that party's reliance on stoking fear and anxiety in the electorate in order to remain in power.
Jobs? The cost of heath care? The ever-increasing deficit? The environment? Global warming? Little time and few words were devoted to these vitally important. Nope, as the video ably illustrates, these days the Republicans are all about propogating fear.
And, of course, making sure the rich get richer -- but that's a given.
The Federal Election Commission has granted permission to the Kerry-Edwards and Dubya-Halliburton campaigns to raise funds now to cover any expenses incurred during a possible recount. The Republicans really wreaked havoc during the weeks after November 2nd, 2000, and it's key that the Democrats are better prepared -- and better funded -- to counter and combat such dirty tricks this time around.
I hope and trust you've been donating what you can to the Kerry-Edwards campaign -- and to regional and local candidates, too -- but it's well worth endeavoring to scrape together a few more bucks to fund a potential post-election legal battle (how sad that it's come to this).
You can contribute to the Kerry-Edwards 2004 GELAC (General Election Legal and Accounting Compliance fund) here. Please give whatever you can.
Our unduly appointed misleader had very little to say last Thursday night during the first debate, instead devoting most of his energies to convincing the American people that mismanaging the United States and bungling the "liberation" of another country are "hard work."
And, as will come as a surprise to no one who's been paying attention, the vast majority of those statements he did make were misleading or even false.
Here's a video that does a good job of illuminating Dubya's lies.
It's becoming clearer and clearer, Mr. and Ms. Swing Voter -- they lied through their teeth in the lead-up to war. The following is from today's New York Times:
How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence
by David Barstow, William J. Broad and Jeff GerthIn 2002, at a crucial juncture on the path to war, senior members of the Bush administration gave a series of speeches and interviews in which they asserted that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program. Speaking to a group of Wyoming Republicans in September, Vice President Dick Cheney said the United States now had "irrefutable evidence" -- thousands of tubes made of high-strength aluminum, tubes that the Bush administration said were destined for clandestine Iraqi uranium centrifuges, before some were seized at the behest of the United States.
Those tubes became a critical exhibit in the administration's brief against Iraq. As the only physical evidence the United States could brandish of Mr. Hussein's revived nuclear ambitions, they gave credibility to the apocalyptic imagery invoked by President Bush and his advisers. The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, explained on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity....
There's more here.