The SF Chronicle reported that Senator Kennedy said, "The president's handling of the war has been a toxic mix of ignorance, arrogance, and stubborn ideology". He also said that the president has misled the public with "happy talk" about prospects for peace. I couldn't have said it better.
September 2004 Archives
In what must be a new low in modern politics, the Republican National Committee sent out flyers in Arkansas and West Virginia that suggest the Bible will be banned if they don't re-elect George Bush.
Go to SFGate for more details.
Prior to the attack on Iraq, the National Intelligence Council predicted that an American led invasion of Iraq would increase support for political Islam and would result in a deeply divided Iraqi society prone to internal violence. Another assessment by the same group also predicted that such a war would increase sympathy across the Islamic world for some terrorist objectives.
Both of these things turned out to be true, and Bush had that information prior to invading.
Bush's medicare reform plan fails
According to the GAO, Bush's planned medicare reform, which uses preferred provider organizations (PPO), cost $650-$750 more per person than the traditonal Medicare program.
Yet another strike against the conservative idea that privatizing is always more effective than government run programs.
Iraq safe? Bush, Allawi say yes, nobody else does, though
Most of IRaq's countryside has become a lawless no man's land, truckers say, where criminals rob and kill with impunity.
truckers say the situation is getting worse, despite the optimism of Bush and the Iraqi PM.
Bush spins CIA report
A recent CIA report, not yet made public, details three scenarios in Iraq over the next 18 months.
- Tenous stability
- Further fragmentation and extremism
- Trending to civil war
Bush's take on the scenarios is odd. He said te senarios were
- life could be lousy
- life could be OK
- life could be better
Hmm, so clearly Bush scenarios 1 (life could be lousy) is scenario 3 (Civil war). Bush scenario 3 (life could be better) must equate to scenario 2 (Further fragmentation and extremism). Then Bush scenario 2 (life could be OK) must equate to scenario 1 (Tenous stability).
Isn't that interesting? Bush thinks that tenuous stability is OK.
I think he's spun these scenarios up a level or two. In other words, I think tenuous stability could be called, at best, "could be better", but I'm thinking that the people in the unstable regions would call it "lousy".
This is just one more attempt by Bush to use his folksy way to make Americans believe that everything in Iraq is going hunky dory (see, I can be folksy, too).
Things in Iraq are not going hunky dory. The CIA thinks that the current situation (tenuous stability) is the best we can hope for in the next 18 months.
It's time to get some honesty from the administration about Iraq. John Kerry will give us that. Bush won't.
Cat Stevens barred from entering the US
Yusef Islam, best known for his folk Music he recorded under the name Cat Stevens, has been denied access to the US.
Although he is spa devote Muslim Islam has publicly criticized terrorism and terrorist attacks, including the WTC attacks and the recent hostage taking in Russia.
Who will be denied access next? Bob Dylan (he did a lot of anti-Vietnam war protesting)? Pete Townsend of the Who ("Won't get fooled again" is clearly anti-Bush)?
Personally the only risk I see in admitting a peaceful well-known Muslim into the US is that when he speaks out against the war, the press will cover it. That's got to be pretty scary to the Republicans.
Bush spins CIA report
A recent CIA report, not yet made public, details three scenarios in Iraq over the next 18 months.
- Tenous stability
- Further fragmentation and extremism
- Trending to civil war
Bush's take on the scenarios is odd. He said te senarios were
- life could be lousy
- life could be OK
- life could be better
Hmm, so clearly Bush scenarios 1 (life could be lousy) is scenario 3 (Civil war). Bush scenario 3 (life could be better) must equate to scenario 2 (Further fragmentation and extremism). Then Bush scenario 2 (life could be OK) must equate to scenario 1 (Tenous stability).
Isn't that interesting? Bush thinks that tenuous stability is OK.
I think he's spun these scenarios up a level or two. In other words, I think tenuous stability could be called, at best, "could be better", but I'm thinking that the people in the unstable regions would call it "lousy".
This is just one more attempt by Bush to use his folksy way to make Americans believe that everything in Iraq is going hunky dory (see, I can be folksy, too).
Things in Iraq are not going hunky dory. The CIA thinks that the current situation (tenuous stability) is the best we can hope for in the next 18 months.
It's time to get some honesty from the administration about Iraq. John Kerry will give us that. Bush won't.
Bush campaign tactics affecting foreign policy
Last week, in a campaign speech in Wisconsin, Bush called Kim Jong II of Korea a tyrant.
He did this during the early stages of talks aimed toward decreasing Korea's nuclear threat.
Understandably, the Korean's were a bit upset. They showed up to the talks, called Bush a lot of names ("imbecile", "a tyrant that puts Hitler into the shade"), and walked out.
So, in other words, Bush, in a campaign moment, pushed disarming Korea, to the back burner.
Hey, why not? Who cares about Korea, right? It's not like they have WMDs like Iraq. Oh wait, they actually have chemical and Nuclear devices, and missles to launch them with.
Nice job, Mr. President.
Bush, same garbage, new campaign
The media appears to finally be catching on. Today's SF Chronicle had a front page article pointing out that the current attacks by the Swift Boat Vets for Truth are consistent with every campaign Bush has run.
Here's the MO - someone close to Bush funds a group to attack Bush's opponent. When the opponent responds, Bush, who's hands appear clean, doesn't disavow the attack but does speak another message. The end result is that voters hear the attack, Bush's opponent doesn't have the oppotunity to deny the charges, and Bush comes out looking like he took the high ground.
It's dirty politics, though, and it only suceeds when people dont't look at the real story.
Rather than cover the history of Bush's past campaign's (read the Chron article for that), I'm going to talk about the current one.
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are funded by a Bush backer from Texas. Their messages are attacks on Kerry's strength - his service to the cuntry. The attacks are opinions and memories dressed up as facts, are inflamatory, and difficult to refute. However, military records and sworn statements by people that served with Kerry, as well as statements by members of the swift Boat Veterens for Truth, make the attacks seem unlikley to have any merit.
Bush, in his constsntly repeated statement when asked about the attacks, says only that Kerry's service was "admirable". In other words, he doesn't deny the attacks, nor does he talk about the specifics of Kerry's service.
When the pressure really got strong for him to take a stand against these baseless attacks, Bush instead said that organizations like the Swift Boat Veterens for the Truth shouldn't exist.
In other words, by not dismissing the attacks, he tacitly agreed with them. That's why it's underhanded. He gets others to attack for him, then stumbles around, basically saying "What attacks? I'm not attacking anyone", then says, without saying it, the attacks may have merit.
Contrast this to Kerry. When a MoveOn.org ad called out Bush on his missin period when he was supposed to be serving in the Air National Guard, Kerry condemned the ad. It was soon after pulled.
So, once again the choice is clear - an underhanded politician (Bush), or a politician trying to avoid attack politics (Kerry). If character matters to you, the coice should be clear.
