|
|
|
I'll have to ask for your forebearance and understanding given the preachy nature of some of my posts today. I'm torn now between feeling quite optimistic about Kerry's chances -- as Krugman said, if all the vote are counted, and fairly, there's no doubt in my mind that Kerry would win, and perhaps handily -- and fearing that, once again, the Oval Office will be stolen from its rightful occupant.
The constant reports of Republican attempts at voter fraud and supporession have me feeling quite angry and disheartened. I imagine I'll bounce back and forth between optimism and pessimism right up to (and probably in the days after) the election.
Think about it -- in the United States of America, we're about to have an election that few honest and knowledgable observers expect to be conducted fairly and accurately. It's almost a given, barring a Kerry landslide (and I'm not sure such an event is possible, given the scams the Republicans are pulling) that this election will again be decided in the courts.
That's so distressing.
Let's fight hard down the stretch to see that every vote is counted. And I'll try to limit the sermons.
Here's an exercise for a Friday afternoon: Add up the number of states in which Republican operatives have been accused of resorting to illegal actions to suppress the Democratic vote this election (hint: You might want to remove your shoes and socks. Your ten fingers won't cover it -- you're going to need your toes, too).
Here's one of the latest:
Six face charges in absentee ballot probe
by Carson Walker, Associated Press WriterSIOUX FALLS -- Six people face charges in connection with absentee ballot applications that were filled out on some South Dakota college campuses, Attorney General Larry Long and other officials said Friday.
They were identified as Joseph Alick, 28; Nathan Mertz, 20; Todd Schlekeway, 27; Rachel Hoff, 22; and Eric Fahrendorf, 24.
Fahrendorf had been listed as a Republican Party employee.
Those five face charges in Minnehaha County. Jennifer Giannonatti faces a similar accusation in Pennington County, authorities said.
All had resigned earlier from a GOP get-out-the-vote effort after questions arose as to whether some absentee ballot requests were signed by the student in the presence of the notary public whose seal was affixed to the request....
There's more here.
"So, what's the big deal?" you might be asking. "They resigned -- so they're out of the picture now, right?"
Nope. As Josh Marshall of the indispensible Talking Points Memo reports, "[t]he Bush campaign promptly brought Russell and several of his newly-resigned staffers to Ohio to run the get-out-the-vote effort there."
Just so we're clear -- this Republican staffer and a number of his volunteers resigned under a cloud of scandal when they were accused of voter fraud. Did the Republican Party then disassociate themselves from this band of creeps? Hell, no -- they moved them to a hotly contested swing state.
Why, I wonder, is that not front page news? John Kerry "outs" an already out lesbian, and it's all the talking heads can talk about for days. The Republicans keep workers accused of voter fraud on staff, and no one cares.
Now, they're under indictment in South Dakota. What do you suppose the odds are the Republicans will cut all ties with them?
No more than fifty-fifty, I'd say.
And what are the chances the media will give this story the coverage it warrants? Absolutely nil. Zero. Zip.
This is not an isolated example, Mr. and Ms. Swing Voter. It's happening in state after state after state. These are not accidents, they are not misunderstandings -- they are crimes, crimes that rob American citizens of their lawful right to make their voice heard on Election Day. What could matter more? What could be more appalling? What could be more un-American?
Open your eyes, please. Pay attention. Come down off the fence and spend the final few precious days working hard to make up for yout (I'm sorry to have to say it, but it's true) inexcusable, indefensible, utterly inexplicable refusal to aknowledge Bush, Inc., and its henchmen around the country for the lying, thieving anti-American thugs they are.
Fight back against these creeps, or watch democracy die at their hands -- those are your only options.
Paul Krugman on Republican dirty tricks and the inept, ever-spinning mainstream media:
Voting and Counting
by Paul KrugmanIf the election were held today and the votes were counted fairly, Senator John Kerry would probably win. But the votes won't be counted fairly, and the disenfranchisement of minority voters may determine the outcome.
Recent national poll results range from a three-percentage-point Kerry lead in the A.P.-Ipsos poll released yesterday to an eight-point Bush lead in the Gallup poll. But if you line up the polls released this week from the most to the least favorable to President Bush, the polls in the middle show a tie at about 47 percent.
This is bad news for Mr. Bush because undecided voters usually break against the incumbent -- not always, but we're talking about probabilities. Those middle-of-the-road polls also show Mr. Bush with job approval around 47 percent, putting him very much in the danger zone.
Electoral College projections based on state polls also show a dead heat. Projections assuming that undecided voters will break for the challenger in typical proportions give Mr. Kerry more than 300 electoral votes.
But if you get your political news from cable TV, you probably have a very different sense of where things stand. CNN, which co-sponsored that Gallup poll, rarely informs its viewers that other polls tell a very different story. The same is true of Fox News, which has its own very Bush-friendly poll. As a result, there is a widespread public impression that Mr. Bush holds a commanding lead....
Here's the rest of the article, which is a must-read.
Thousands of Americans, a disproportionate number of them Democrats and/or people of color, are again going to be cheated out of their right to vote on November 2nd. It's a national disgrace. But unless and until we demand these issues be addressed -- that the creeps and crooks behind these appalling acts be booted out of office and thrown in jail -- perhaps we deserve just the government we'll get.
Complacency in the face of the theft of voter rights cannot be excused. Thousands were cheated of their lawful rights in 2000, but it went underreported and mostly underprotested. These illegal, immoral actions are continuing today. If we're not up in arms, if we're not talking this issue up with everyone we speak with, if we're not volunteering to be a poll monitor, if we're not donating money to ACT, MoveOn, and the many other groups who are working to ensure that every rightful voter is given his or her proper voice, if we're not calling and writing our local officials and representatives in Congress, we are, to be blunt, part of the problem. Republican, Democrat, independent, Green, or otherwise, we must not look the other way as hardworking, decent, honest Americans are stripped of their lawful right to vote.
More on the aforementioned cluelessness of the Kool-Aid drinkers:
Ninety percent of them believe the rest of the world either supports, or is neutral about, Bush being re-elected.
Think about that. Consider just how little attention you'd have had to pay over the past four years to accept that Dubya is liked and admired by the people of the world.
I'd be inclined to feel sorry for these poor deluded souls, but we don't have the luxury. In their ignorance, they're prepared to sell our democracy down the river.
There's more: 69% of these confused individuals support -- and believe Bush supports -- the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (he doesn't), 72% support (and are mistakenly convinced that Dubya does, too) the land mine treaty, and 51% incorrectly believe Dubya favors US participation in the Kyoto treaty on global warming (he does not).
Despite the fact that Dubya denounced the International Criminal Court during the recent debates, 53% of his supporters continue to believe that he favors it.
A staggering 74% assume that Dubya is in favor of including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements (he isn't).
What's more, in every one of the above examples a majority of Bush supporters favors the position they're convinced Dubya holds.
In short, not only are they out of touch with what Dubya stands for -- they're freaking liberals -- on these issues, at least -- and they don't even know it!
You really must read this report. It's astonishing. You can download it here (it's a .pdf file).
From the Boston Globe:
Divide seen in voter knowledge
by Alan Wirzbicki, Globe CorrespondentWASHINGTON -- Supporters of President Bush are less knowledgeable about the president's foreign policy positions and are more likely to be mistaken about factual issues in world affairs than voters who back John F. Kerry, a survey released yesterday indicated.
A large majority of self-identified Bush voters polled believe Saddam Hussein provided "substantial support" to Al Qaeda, and 47 percent believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the US invasion. Among the president's supporters, 57 percent queried think international public opinion favors Bush's reelection, and 51 percent believe that most Islamic countries support "US-led efforts to fight terrorism."
No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, the Sept. 11 Commission found no evidence of substantial Iraqi support for Al Qaeda, and international public opinion polls have shown widespread opposition to Bush's reelection.
In contrast, among Kerry supporters polled only 26 percent think Iraq had such weapons, 30 percent say Iraq was linked to Al Qaeda, and 1 percent said foreign public opinion favors Bush.
The polls results, said Steven Kull, the head of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, which conducted the survey, showed that Americans are so polarized two weeks before the election that many lack even a common understanding of the facts....
It certainly comes as no suprise that Bush supporters are misinformed.
But it's somehow not particularly comforting to have it confirmed. I simply don't know how these nimrods (and I say that with the love and the respect) can be reached. They're simply not paying attention -- or, perhaps, they're paying attention only to sources that make a regular practice of lying to them.
Yes, the mainstream media is appallingly bad, but even they have managed to get enough factual info out there to sway any reasonable human being from even considering a vote to reinstall Bush, Inc.
So these people -- these millions of otherwise decent Americans -- are willfully avoiding relatively reliable, legitimate sources of information and turning instead to the likes of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.
Frankly, these people deserve whatever they get, but the rest of us don't, dammit.
BuzzFlash.com calls this piece in the Village Voice a must-read. I concur.
The End of Democracy
Losing America's birthright, the George Bush way
by Rick PerlsteinOnce upon a time, not too long ago, the president of the United States declared that the war on terrorism was the most important issue in this year's presidential campaign.
Then every time his opponent brought up this most important of issues, George W. Bush cried foul, accusing John Kerry of hindering the war on terrorism. (America might be a democracy, but that doesn't mean the Democrat has a right to campaign.)
The president's campaign enlisted the taxpayers' servants as agents of his re-election, with Secret Service officers submitting attendees at Bush rallies to ideological X-rays, and election officials systematically suppressing the franchise of groups most likely to vote Democratic. Meanwhile the president, who earned some 500,000 votes less than his opponent, busied himself ramming through a radical legislative program as if he had won by a landslide -- his congressional deputies all but barring deliberative input from the opposition party in order to do it and gaming the legislative apportionment system in ways, as the counsel to one Texas representative bragged in an e-mail to colleagues, that "should assure that Republicans keep the House no matte[r] the national mood."
In Washington, it has turned some once calm souls into apocalyptics.
Thomas Mann is a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, noted for his deliberateness of manner, his decency, and his near religious devotion to the ideal of bipartisan comity. Now, he says, "I see the damage to our system and our sense of ourselves as a democratic people as really quite substantial. ... The consequences of both the policies and the processes have been more destructive of our national interest and our democratic institutions than any president I know." When someone as level-headed as Tom Mann begins to worry for the future of our democracy, that's news....
There's much more here.
From the Boston Globe:
The art of stealing elections
by Robert KuttnerThe Republicans are out to steal the 2004 election -- before, during, and after Election Day. Before Election Day, they are employing such dirty tricks as improper purges of voter rolls, use of dummy registration groups that tear up Democratic registrations, and the suppression of Democratic efforts to sign up voters, especially blacks and students.
On Election Day, Republicans will attempt to intimidate minority voters by having poll watchers threaten criminal prosecution if something is technically amiss with their ID, and they will again use technical mishaps to partisan advantage.
But the most serious assault on democracy itself is likely to come after Election Day.
Here is a flat prediction: If neither candidate wins decisively, the Bush campaign will contrive enough court challenges in enough states so that we won't know the winner election night....
They'll stoop to anything, people. I'm no tough guy, believe me, but you'd better vote -- and make sure everyone you know votes -- or I swear I'll kick your ass(es)!
Still have a few bucks you could spare to ensure we rid ourselves of Bush, Inc.?
Putting them toward getting the new ad from MoveOnPac.org and the Band of Sisters on the air is one way to go.
View the ad and donate your dough here.
Here's an account of still more dirty tricks undertaken by Sproul & Associates, who were (and are still) being paid by the Republican National Committee:
Campaign 2004: Voter registration workers cry foul
by Dennis B. Roddy, Pittsburgh Post-GazetteAn ostensibly nonpartisan voter registration drive in Western Pennsylvania has triggered accusations that workers were cheated out of wages and given instructions to avoid adding anyone to the voter rolls who might support the Democratic presidential nominee.
Sproul & Associates, a consulting firm based in Chandler, Ariz., hired to conduct the drive by the Republican National Committee, employed several hundred canvassers throughout the state to register new voters. Some workers yesterday said they were told to avoid registering Democrats or anyone who indicated support for Democratic nominee John F. Kerry.
"We were told that if they wanted to register Democrat, there was no way we were to register them to vote," said Michele Tharp, of Meadville, who said she was sent out to canvass door-to-door and outside businesses in Meadville, Crawford County. "We were only to register Republicans."...
There's much more here.
How can all the faithful who profess to believe that Dubya represents "God in the White House" look past these inexcusable actions? You'd have to be in serious denial not to see how immoral, un-American and -- yes, I'll say it -- un-Christian this behavior is.
Is this really someone you'd have lead the country for the next four years, Mr. and Ms. Swing Voter? Is this really the America you wish to live in?
From The Los Angeles Times:
The 9/11 Secret in the CIA's Back Pocket
by Robert ScheerIt is shocking: The Bush administration is suppressing a CIA report on 9/11 until after the election, and this one names names. Although the report by the inspector general's office of the CIA was completed in June, it has not been made available to the congressional intelligence committees that mandated the study almost two years ago.
"It is infuriating that a report which shows that high-level people were not doing their jobs in a satisfactory manner before 9/11 is being suppressed," an intelligence official who has read the report told me, adding that "the report is potentially very embarrassing for the administration, because it makes it look like they weren't interested in terrorism before 9/11, or in holding people in the government responsible afterward."
When I asked about the report, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice), ranking Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, said she and committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) sent a letter 14 days ago asking for it to be delivered. "We believe that the CIA has been told not to distribute the report," she said. "We are very concerned."
According to the intelligence official, who spoke to me on condition of anonymity, release of the report, which represents an exhaustive 17-month investigation by an 11-member team within the agency, has been "stalled." First by acting CIA Director John McLaughlin and now by Porter J. Goss, the former Republican House member (and chairman of the Intelligence Committee) who recently was appointed CIA chief by President Bush.
The official stressed that the report was more blunt and more specific than the earlier bipartisan reports produced by the Bush-appointed Sept. 11 commission and Congress.
"What all the other reports on 9/11 did not do is point the finger at individuals, and give the how and what of their responsibility. This report does that," said the intelligence official. "The report found very senior-level officials responsible."...
There's much more here.
Is this the way you want your government to operate, Mr. and Ms. Swing Voter? Don't we deserve all the facts as we approach November 2nd? This has been the most secretive administration in the history of our country, and they're tightening the screws even further in crunch time.
From today's Washington Post:
No Flu Vaccine Shortage at Capitol
Hill's Doctor Urges Members to Get Shots
by Charles Babington and David Brown
Washington Post Staff WritersWhile many Americans search in vain for flu shots, members and employees of Congress are able to obtain them quickly and at no charge from the Capitol's attending physician, who has urged all 535 lawmakers to get the vaccines even if they are young and healthy.
The physician's office has dispensed nearly 2,000 flu shots this fall, and doses remained available yesterday. That is a steep drop from last year's 9,000 shots, a spokesman for attending physician John F. Eisold said, because many congressional employees have voluntarily abided by federal guidelines that call for this season's limited supply to go mainly to the elderly, the very young, pregnant women, long-term-care patients and people with chronic illnesses.
But people of all ages who are credentialed to work in the Capitol can get a shot by saying they meet the guidelines, with no further questions asked, said the spokesman, who cited office policy in demanding anonymity....
There's much more here.
Hmm. Maybe I'll run for congress next election cycle.
Sure, John Kerry is racking up dozens of endorsements from newspapers across the country, but who needs the backing of newspaper editors when you've won over a key member of the Axis of Evil triad?
Iran endorses Bush for president
Security council chief: 'We haven't seen anything good from Democrats.'TEHRAN, Iran -- The head of Iran's security council said Tuesday that the re-election of President Bush was in Tehran's best interests, despite the administration's "axis of evil" label, accusations that Iran harbors al-Qaida terrorists and threats of sanctions for the country's nuclear ambitions.
Historically, Democrats have harmed Iran more than Republicans, said Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top security decision-making body.
"We haven't seen anything good from Democrats," Rowhani told state-run television in remarks that, for the first time in decades, saw Iran openly supporting one U.S. presidential candidate over another....
Hasan Rowhani has just rocked my world. I just might have to change my views on the upcoming election.
Nah...
As reported in the Los Angeles Times:
Sinclair Retreats on Kerry Film
The broadcaster plans a special with portions of 'Stolen Honor' after an outcry and stock losses.
By Elizabeth Jensen, Times Staff WriterNEW YORK -- Facing advertiser defections, a viewer boycott and a plummeting stock price, as well as strong opposition from Democrats, Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. scrapped its plan to air a film that attacks the 1970s-era antiwar activities of Sen. John F. Kerry, and will instead run a special produced by its news division incorporating parts of the movie.
The decision not to run all of "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" came after several shareholder complaints against the company were announced Tuesday, sending Sinclair shares down 3.5% after a nearly 8% slide Monday.
Sinclair, which owns or controls stations that reach nearly a quarter of all American homes with televisions, also scaled back the number of outlets that would air the revised program, called "A POW Story: Politics, Pressure and the Media." It will air Friday on 40 of Sinclair's 62 stations, including three each in the crucial swing states of Ohio and Florida.
According to a Sinclair news release issued late Tuesday, the program would look at the use of documentaries to influence voting in the 2004 campaign, as well as at media bias and the content of "certain of these documentaries." "Stolen Honor" was the only film cited in the news release.
Sinclair's announcement caps 10 days in which the company found itself under assault as a symbol of the effects of media consolidation. Its plan to air the film -- never announced publicly but communicated widely to its employees, its stations, its network partners and "Stolen Honor" filmmaker Carlton Sherwood -- drew sharp criticism after it was disclosed in The Times, partly because the proposed air date fell so close to election day in an intensely fought presidential race....
As usual, money talks.
This is scary and infuriating.
Robertson: I warned Bush on Iraq casualties
President's response: 'We're not going to have any' NEW YORK (CNN) -- Pat Robertson, an ardent Bush supporter, said he had that conversation with the president in Nashville, Tennessee, before the March 2003 invasion. He described Bush in the meeting as "the most self-assured man I've ever met in my life.""You remember Mark Twain said, 'He looks like a contented Christian with four aces.' I mean he was just sitting there like, 'I'm on top of the world,' " Robertson said on the CNN show, "Paula Zahn Now."
"And I warned him about this war. I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, 'Mr. President, you had better prepare the American people for casualties.' "
Robertson said the president then told him, "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."
Robertson, the televangelist who sought the Republican presidential nomination in 1988, said he wishes Bush would admit to mistakes made.
"I mean, the Lord told me it was going to be A, a disaster, and B, messy," Robertson said. "I warned him about casualties."
More than 1,100 U.S. troops have died in Iraq and another 8,000 troops have been wounded in the ongoing campaign, with the casualty toll significantly increasing in the last six months as the insurgency there has deepened....
Self-assured? Delusional, I'd say.
Hey, Mr. and Ms. Reasonable Republican -- embarrassed by the ineptitude and arrogance of the jackbooted thugs currently representing your party (and our nation), but finding the notion of slipping out of lockstep a little daunting? Afraid of the company you might find yourself in if you vote for John Kerry?
You need worry no more. You'll be in perfectly fine company. To prove it, the good folks at BuzzFlash.com have compiled this helpful list of prominent people who have endorsed Kerry (or, in some cases, spoken out against Dubya).
It's a list that includes 12 retired U.S. admirals and generals, 48 Nobel-Prize-winning scientists, 169 business school professors, 180 former U.S. ambassadors, 26 senior ex-diplomats, a former top aide to Republican Senator John McCain, and many, many more.
Join us, just this once. Place love of country above party loyalty. And there'll be no hard feelings if you return to your party once it's regained its sanity.
Tell it, Brother Al!
"The widespread efforts by Bush's political allies to suppress voting have reached epidemic proportions. ... Some of the scandals of Florida four years ago are now being repeated in broad daylight even as we meet here today. ... I have no doubt that Bush's religious belief is genuine, and that it is an important motivation for many things that he does in life, as it is for me and for many of you. Most of the problems he has caused for this country stem not from his belief in God, but from his belief in the infallibility of the right-wing Republican ideology that exalts the interests of the wealthy and of large corporations over the interests of the American people. Love of power for its own sake is the original sin of this presidency." -- Al Gore, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., October 18, 2004
You can read the full text of the speech here.
From the Baltimore Sun:
Sinclair employee decries planned program on Kerry
D.C. bureau chief calls it 'biased political propaganda'
by David Folkenflik, Sun StaffThe Washington bureau chief for Maryland-based Sinclair Broadcast Group's news division angrily denounced his employer last night for plans to air an hourlong program that is to include incendiary allegations against Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry for his anti-war activism three decades ago.
"It's biased political propaganda, with clear intentions to sway this election," said Jon Leiberman, Sinclair's lead political reporter for more than a year. "For me, it's not about right or left -- it's about what's right or wrong in news coverage this close to an election."...
And then -- surprise, surprise! -- comes this from the Associated Press:
Sinclair Fires Washington Bureau Chief
by Kasey Jones, Associated Press WriterBALTIMORE -- The Washington bureau chief for Sinclair Broadcast Group said he was fired Monday after he criticized the company's plans to produce a news program based on a documentary critical of John Kerry's Vietnam-era anti-war activities.
Jon Leiberman said he was fired by Joseph DeFeo, Sinclair's vice president for news, and "escorted out of the building."...
The New York Times regarding the unit that refused to carry out a delivery they insisted was a suicide mission:
Whatever the facts turn out to be concerning this unit of the 343rd Quartermaster Company, based in South Carolina, it is painfully clear that from the very start of the Iraq war, Pentagon planners have failed to provide enough troops, armor and training to the young men and women who are bravely risking their lives for their country.It is these soldiers and marines, in both active-duty and Reserve units, who have paid the price for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's flawed vision of warfare on the cheap, which disastrously misjudged the hard realities of occupying Iraq. By stubbornly overriding the Army leadership's correct professional judgment of how many troops would be needed to secure the country, the Pentagon allowed chaos and resistance to get off to a crucial head start. The catastrophic effects remain with us today....
None of these points lessen the seriousness of uniformed soldiers' refusal to carry out legal orders. An Army where discipline breaks down can neither accomplish its mission nor protect its own troops. Once the facts have been established, the men and women who refused the mission can expect to be held accountable. It seems far less likely that Mr. Rumsfeld and his civilian associates will ever have to answer for their egregious failures of planning, imagination and leadership.
Read the rest. The Times editors nailed it.
The very conservative Tampa Tribune has pointedly declined to endorse Dubya.
They didn't go so far as to endorse John Kerry, but they did take Bush, Inc., to serious task.
Here's a bit of what they had to say:
Why We Cannot Endorse President Bush For Re-Election...As stewards of the Tribune's editorial voice, we find it unimaginable to not be lending our voice to the chorus of conservative-leaning newspapers endorsing the president's re- election. We had fully expected to stand with Bush, whom we endorsed in 2000 because his politics generally reflected ours: a strong military, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and small government. We knew him to be a popular governor of Texas who fought for lower taxes, less government and a pro-business constitution.
But we are unable to endorse President Bush for re- election because of his mishandling of the war in Iraq, his record deficit spending, his assault on open government and his failed promise to be a "uniter not a divider" within the United States and the world....
There's much more here.
What more do you need, Mr. and Ms. Swing Voter? Even the choir isn't buying what these preachers are selling.
I've been linking for weeks to stories about Bush, Inc.'s un-American practice of limiting who is allowed to attend purportedly public campaign events. The Bushies have been doing their damnedest to limit Dubya's contact with anyone who's not wearing a Kool-Aid mustache.
Now BuzzFlash, bless their hearts, have gone me one better and compiled a long list of these stories.
Look it over, Mr. and Ms. Swing Voter, and ask yourself: Is this the way a political campaign should be handled in the United States of America? Is this the American way? Has John Kerry similarly insulated himself from contact with those who don't necessarily support him?
The answer to each of those questions is, of course, a resounding no.
The Knight-Ridder news service has done some remarkable reporting through our occupation of Iraq -- and during the build-up to the invasion, too.
Their new report on the planning (or lack thereof) that went into the post-invasion period is insightful, enlightening, and infuriating.
Post-war planning non-existent
by Warren P. Strobel and John Walcott, Knight Ridder NewspapersWASHINGTON -- In March 2003, days before the start of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, American war planners and intelligence officials met at Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina to review the Bush administration's plans to oust Saddam Hussein and implant democracy in Iraq.
Near the end of his presentation, an Army lieutenant colonel who was giving a briefing showed a slide describing the Pentagon's plans for rebuilding Iraq after the war, known in the planners' parlance as Phase 4-C. He was uncomfortable with his material -- and for good reason.
The slide said: "To Be Provided."
A Knight Ridder review of the administration's Iraq policy and decisions has found that it invaded Iraq without a comprehensive plan in place to secure and rebuild the country. The administration also failed to provide some 100,000 additional U.S. troops that American military commanders originally wanted to help restore order and reconstruct a country shattered by war, a brutal dictatorship and economic sanctions.
In fact, some senior Pentagon officials had thought they could bring most American soldiers home from Iraq by September 2003. Instead, more than a year later, 138,000 U.S. troops are still fighting terrorists who slip easily across Iraq's long borders, diehards from the old regime and Iraqis angered by their country's widespread crime and unemployment and America's sometimes heavy boots.
"We didn't go in with a plan. We went in with a theory," said a veteran State Department officer who was directly involved in Iraq policy....
There's much more here.
I can't imagine that anyone still on the fence regarding this election (for that matter, I can't imagine there anyone is still on the fence, frankly, but I'm assured by the experts that millions still are, which makes the mind reel) could read this report and not come to an immediate conclusion that we must rid ourselves of this inept regime.
Thousands of innocent lives lost, and the administration's "plan" for the post-invasion period was summed up in three maddening, inexcusable words: To be provided.
Wake up, fencesitters. Buy a clue. And get active. Otherwise, it could next be your son, daughter, niece, or nephew who is sent to risk his or her life without proper planning or protection.
The reasons to rid ourselves of the jackbooted thugs that make up Bush, Inc., are, of course, legion, but the very future of our nation rests on one key issue: the likelihood that the next president will be nominated one (and very probably more than one) Supreme Court justices.
Our unduly appointed misleader has shown no interest in appointing moderate, centrist judges. On the contrary, judicial nominations is the area in which his extremist, radical views have been most blatantly on display.
Dubya is primed and ready, should he be re-elected (or allowed to again steal the election) to nominate one, two, or even three justices who would make reactionary activists like Anthony Scalia and Clarence Thomas look like thoughtful moderates.
If you've been busy, Mr. and Ms. Swing Voter, working two jobs (if you're fortunate enough to have a job), taking the kids to soccer practice, and the like, it behooves you to familiarize yourself with the actions and attitues of Scalia and Thomas via this editorial in the New York Times.
Here's a bit of it to whet your interest:
...If Justices Scalia and Thomas become the Constitution's final arbiters, the rights of racial minorities, gay people and the poor will be rolled back considerably. Both men dissented from the Supreme Court's narrow ruling upholding the University of Michigan's affirmative-action program, and appear eager to dismantle a wide array of diversity programs. When the court struck down Texas' "Homosexual Conduct" law last year, holding that the police violated John Lawrence's right to liberty when they raided his home and arrested him for having sex there, Justices Scalia and Thomas sided with the police.They were just as indifferent to the plight of "M.L.B.," a poor mother of two from Mississippi. When her parental rights were terminated, she wanted to appeal, but Mississippi would not let her because she could not afford a court fee of $2,352.36. The Supreme Court held that she had a constitutional right to appeal. But Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented, arguing that if M.L.B. didn't have the money, her children would have to be put up for adoption.
That sort of cruelty is a theme running through many Scalia-Thomas opinions. A Louisiana inmate sued after he was shackled and then punched and kicked by two prison guards while a supervisor looked on. The court ruled that the beating, which left the inmate with a swollen face, loosened teeth and a cracked dental plate, violated the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. But Justices Scalia and Thomas insisted that the Eighth Amendment was not violated by the "insignificant" harm the inmate suffered.
This year, the court heard the case of a man with a court appearance in rural Tennessee who was forced to either crawl out of his wheelchair and up to the second floor or be carried up by court officers he worried would drop him. The man crawled up once, but when he refused to do it again, he was arrested. The court ruled that Tennessee violated the Americans With Disabilities Act by not providing an accessible courtroom, but Justices Scalia and Thomas said it didn't have to.
A Scalia-Thomas court would dismantle the wall between church and state. Justice Thomas gave an indication of just how much in his opinion in a case upholding Ohio's school voucher program. He suggested, despite many Supreme Court rulings to the contrary, that the First Amendment prohibition on establishing a religion may not apply to the states. If it doesn't, the states could adopt particular religions, and use tax money to proselytize for them. Justices Scalia and Thomas have also argued against basic rights of criminal suspects, like the Miranda warning about the right to remain silent....
Again, Dubya has shown throughout his years in office that he is inclined to nominate federal judges that make Scalia and Thomas look like moderates.
Be afraid, Mr. and Ms. Swing Voter -- be very afraid. Then get off the freaking fence, commit to Kerry/Edwards, and do everything you can between now and November 2nd to see that they are elected.
"When America puts our troops in combat, I believe they deserve the best training, the best equipment, the full support of our government." -- Dubya, October 2004, Manchester, N.H.
Oh, really?
General Reported Shortages In Iraq
Situation Is Improved, Top Army Officials Say
by Thomas E. RicksThe top U.S. commander in Iraq complained to the Pentagon last winter that his supply situation was so poor that it threatened Army troops' ability to fight, according to an official document that has surfaced only now.
The lack of key spare parts for gear vital to combat operations, such as tanks and helicopters, was causing problems so severe, Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez wrote in a letter to top Army officials, that "I cannot continue to support sustained combat operations with rates this low."...
There's much more here (free registration required).
Remember, Mr. and Ms. Swing Voter, that our unduly appointed misleader opted to rush into this war. Inspectors were on the ground; Saddam was no threat.
So, even if one believes the invasion was the right thing to do, can anyone possibly argue that rushing into it, without first making sure our soldiers had all the armor, all the weapons, all the ammunition, all the equipment they would require was the right thing to do?
This whole mess could have been avoided. Thousands have died needlessly. And you're hearing it from the horse's mouth in Sanchez's letter. Bush, Inc., now insists that many of the shortages Sanchez cites have been addressed, but even if you're willing to buy that, how can one defend sending our troops into harm's way underarmed, underarmored, undersupplied, and underprotected for an invasion that could have waited (if in fact it needed to be launched at all)?
It's disgusting.
No armor, no armed escort, slow, broken-down trucks delivering contaminated fuel that had already been rejected by one base -- are we truly willing to look the other way while teenagers and twenty-somethings are ordered into harm's way on such ridiculous missions?
If you've not read Mary Jacoby's story on mutiny at Salon.com, you should. Use the day-pass option, if you're not a subscriber (though, really, you should consider subscribing -- Salon covers many important stories the mainstream press can't be bothered with).
The ineptitude of this entire invasion and occupation is appalling.
It's no surprise at all that the Boston Globe would endorse John Kerry for president, but what's notable is how compelling and convincing an argument the editors make.
It comes as perhaps no surprise that the New York Times has endorsed John Kerry for president.
Still, the paper's eloquent explanation of the reasons for that endorsement is a worthy read -- particularly for anyone still on the fence.
If you find yourself, Mr. and Ms. Swing Voter, unable to decide about our unduly appointed misleader's suitability for a second term, you simply must read Ron Susskind's article in today's New York Times Magazine.
Here's a bit of it to whet your interest. Read it and shudder:
In the Oval Office in December 2002, the president met with a few ranking senators and members of the House, both Republicans and Democrats. In those days, there were high hopes that the United States-sponsored ''road map'' for the Israelis and Palestinians would be a pathway to peace, and the discussion that wintry day was, in part, about countries providing peacekeeping forces in the region. The problem, everyone agreed, was that a number of European countries, like France and Germany, had armies that were not trusted by either the Israelis or Palestinians. One congressman -- the Hungarian-born Tom Lantos, a Democrat from California and the only Holocaust survivor in Congress -- mentioned that the Scandinavian countries were viewed more positively. Lantos went on to describe for the president how the Swedish Army might be an ideal candidate to anchor a small peacekeeping force on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Sweden has a well-trained force of about 25,000. The president looked at him appraisingly, several people in the room recall.''I don't know why you're talking about Sweden,'' Bush said. ''They're the neutral one. They don't have an army.''
Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly reply: ''Mr. President, you may have thought that I said Switzerland. They're the ones that are historically neutral, without an army.'' Then Lantos mentioned, in a gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough national guard to protect the country in the event of invasion.
Bush held to his view. ''No, no, it's Sweden that has no army.''
The room went silent, until someone changed the subject.
A few weeks later, members of Congress and their spouses gathered with administration officials and other dignitaries for the White House Christmas party. The president saw Lantos and grabbed him by the shoulder. ''You were right,'' he said, with bonhomie. ''Sweden does have an army.'' ...
Okay, Mr. and Ms. Swing Voter, pick your jaw up off the floor, read the rest of the article, then spend the next two weeks, please, doing all you can to ensure that John F. Kerry is elected the next president of the United States.