Will there be a war against the world

A serious and thoughtful warning: "Never have so many liberal hands been wrung over a candidate whose only memorable statements seek to out-Bush Bush."
We can only hope that Kerry's rhetoric was for campaign consumption only. If he plays to the audience to get re-elected, to be even "stronger" than Bush to a nation that is disinclined to reason, to a mob rallied by Fox and talk radio (and Limbaugh, who will host NBC election night)...
Ah, stupid Nader: he could have had some real influence if he hadn't gone to sleep for 4 years, some modern political Rip Van Winkle.

What else could George Bush do to not get re-elected?

George Bush: he has made a total shit pile out of EVERYTHING! He has done the equivalent of shooting the batter at before a crowd of 60 thousand! You name it, he's done it AND lied about it. And it's a tight race? Are you kidding?
What does a guy have to do in this country to not get re-elected?
Its like this thing below, from Mad Magazine. And the whole WORLD saw!

---

"We've got this guy Towne's cold, Burgerbits. He shot a batter at home plate in Yankee Stadium in the third inning of the opening day game. We've got 69,432 witnesses to the murder. We've got the murder weapon, Towne's fingerprints and a signed confession."
But when Burger(bits) finds he'll be up against Perry Mason?
"We're sunk", he says.



Perry Mason was a great TV murder/lawyer show, and Perry Mason ALWAYS won against the prosecutor, Burger. So MAD magazine (this is from a 1959 edition. Yeah, I had it, I read it, I was 18 years old, advanced for my age :-) made up this satire, where the prosecutor has an iron clad case.

What else could George Bush do to not get re-elected?

George Bush: he has made a total shit pile out of EVERYTHING! He has done the equivalent of shooting the batter at before a crowd of 60 thousand! You name it, he's done it AND lied about it. And it's a tight race? Are you kidding?
What does a guy have to do in this country to not get re-elected?
Its like this thing below, from Mad Magazine. And the whole WORLD saw!

---

"We've got this guy Towne's cold, Burgerbits. He shot a batter at home plate in Yankee Stadium in the third inning of the opening day game. We've got 69,432 witnesses to the murder. We've got the murder weapon, Towne's fingerprints and a signed confession."
But when Burger(bits) finds he'll be up against Perry Mason?
"We're sunk", he says.



Perry Mason was a great TV murder/lawyer show, and Perry Mason ALWAYS won against the prosecutor, Burger. So MAD magazine (this is from a 1959 edition. Yeah, I had it, I read it, I was 18 years old, advanced for my age :-) made up this satire, where the prosecutor has an iron clad case.

Yahoo! Groups : Big-Medicine Messages : the end is near

"...any honest effort toward dispassionate comprehension of our predicament will result sooner or later in a single inevitable conclusion. Reelecting Neocons means voting for the deliberate destruction of every last elusive remaining particle of what America was meant to become."
We are becoming Nazi's. We cannot say we were not told.
This is the sound of one hand clapping. This is the sound that will be made if we escape. Some will say there was never a chance, that it could not have happened. They will not have heard the sound.
We did not hear the sound of the bombs at the LA airport because the bomber was stopped at the Canadian border, we did not hear the sound of the Towers collapsing in 1993 when the van full of explosives went off a few inches from where they really needed to be...
The sound of one hand clapping is the sound that could be made if the other hand were there.
Listen to it.

What's in a word

from the 'where-the-fuck-is-the-news-in-all-this-shit" dept.
Consider
"He said it would rain."
"He revealed it would rain."
"He openly-admitted it would rain."
"He confessed it would rain."
"He reluctantly suggested that it would rain."
"He said with certainty in would rain."
(I'm tired, you do the rest...)
What happened?
He opened his mouth and made sounds forming the following words "it would rain".
Now, if we can agree to use the word "said" for "he opened his mouth and made sounds forming the following words" we have a place to start. Add any other words to the mix, and you have destroyed the value of the written word in reporting.
"He did not say it would rain hard or how long it would rain for or how this rain compared to other rain on this or any previous day. Very suspicious."
"When asked about other rainy days, he refused to answer, saying he did not recall."
Somebody is getting paid by the word?

IDEAlog.us - NASA Physicist says Bush was wired in first debate

I guess that settles it. For the reality based life forms.
For the Republicans: nope.
"This is a watchbird watching a Republican, this is a watchbird, watching you. Were you a Republican today?"

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Knesset votes to back Gaza plan

"According to the latest opinion poll, 65% of Israelis are in favour of the pullout, but religious settlers are fiercely opposed to the move.
They believe the whole of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was given to the Jews by God."
"Right!" says Noah/Bill Cosby.
What's funny is they do NOT have a deed! Nope. God gave it to them and said "nah, you don't need a deed. Just tell them God gave it to you."See, now, if the Palestinian, standing on his own land that he got from his grandfathers grandfather doesn't have a deed, well, that's too bad. And if he's fortunate enought to actually have a deed: well, that's also too bad.
You do NOT mess with God!

consider this picture

This image is a trick, it is a misrepresentation, it is without that terrible thing called "nuance".
It says that there are two and only two positions, that there are lots and lots of red and very little blue and the blue are oppressing the red. There is so much red, why can't the blue just leave them alone. And how do the blue do that? Well, they live in crowded noisy dirty godless places filled with crime and pollution and strangers and they live off all the hard work the the red people do while the blue people (eg, jew bankers) just trade on their (the reds) misfortune, control the prices, the markets, eat up all the taxes.
If I were in the middle of all that red and I was being affected by the blue I would say "fuck the blue!" How in hell does that little bunch of piss ant blue get to run my life? Look how big we are and how small they are! We could beat them!
And it's all in the picture.
Note it's a two party picture... that there is no light blue, no pink, and how do you color a evangelical conservative vs a fiscal conservative, how do you code a person concerned with population growth and pressure on the environment?
Use of color has some serious downsides: it would be far better if there were simply different hatch marks, or that they used R and D for the party... but to COLOR the state? To make it uniform and without regard to anything but political party: that is irresponsible and dangerous. This is one of the reasons we WILL see violence.
Chart and map making, like film, is an art. So is propoganda.
Here's a slightly better picture: at least a modicum of blending

Prediction: real violence on novemeber 2

In Ohio and Florida and other contested states there will be civil unrest to the point of serious violence and rioting. The police will be called out, the national guard will be called out, and there will be people killed.
George bush will attempt to seize the nation. He will call it terror.

prescott bush, business with the enemy

Your'e stupid if you vote for Bush

You're free to vote for Bush. Doesn't mean you're not stupid. Because you are.
Now, the question I come to is, are you stupid if you associate with stupid people, eg, people who will vote for Bush.
Why the hell would you do that? you ask. Sometimes its "don't ask, don't tell". But sometimes you really know, even if the people are quiet about it, but like, have a sign on their lawn, car, blouse.
Mea culpa. I think I'm gettings some stone delieverd by a Bush supporter. I didn't ask. But I think so.
So, would I deal with a racist? A skin head? A halocaust denier? An avowed hateful Hiter afficianado? I mean, really, Bush is that bad. At some point, one might have to take a stand and simply refuse to associate with people who so put this country in danger that they must be shunned.
So,I see: I REALLY needed that work done. For others, they REALLY need that job. They REALLY need that extra 100K (that's an easy one to grok). So when a client calls for computer work, I might have to ask: ummm, are voting for Bush? And maybe say, I'm sorry, but I really can't help you. It would be against my principles to help someone who supports someone who really should be in jail.
But I have to admit, Bush was right on one thing: things will get worse before they get better. Or maybe he meant to say things will get worse before they get worse and then they'll get better, and then they'll get worse...
Here's an example: oil prices have improved: they are down from their all time high of $55 a barell. How can you say that's not better?

Cheated: a personal note

Never before in my life I have ever felt so cheated, such opportunity squandered, like rich foods being shoveled off a plate into garbage, like lands wasted, people wasted.
The great advancement of mankind hostage to a religious despot, full of malcicious intent: he wants to kill evil, and that cannot be done: its stupid to try, and the result, if possible, would be boredom and blankness to the horizon.
Is the enemy us? Is this as far as we can go? Are we sailing toward the end of the earth?
Maybe. So what. When we are gone, there will be no witnesses, no sadness. There may not be anything at all.

Chicago Tribune | George W. Bush for president

This is interesting.
1) It is a non- faith based endorsement
2) It is ONLY about the war. There IS no other issue. The Tribune believes this is WW II.

Let us finally accept that WMD is an illusion: nuclear weapons are the threat. But Duh! no nukes, no threat.
If a bunch of pots are boiling over on the stove, turn-off-the-stove!
SWI is the real threat: Scary Weapons of Imagination.

Cobb/LaMarche '04 - Vote for hope. Vote for peace. Vote Green.

Better than Nader, building a third party.

Maher

In here is the answer: "The people in the rape room are better off without Saddam Hussein. The whole world is better?"
Umm, I don't think so.
That's like saying that I am better off because the used car dealer made some really good sales that day. No.
He is better off. His family might be better off. But the rest of us? The world? There is some very strange thinking we humans think we think.

Stewart on Crossfire

This is Jon Stewart. He is honest. Tucker Carson is a prick.
These guys: these need to be treated physically, as in, beat the living shit out of them.
No, I don't want to talk with them, discuss things. That demeans speech. When people are this dump, they should be simple beaten in silence and left to learn what has been conveyed.
(From an artistic point, I must note that this form of "comedy", the manner of speech, is also used by Lewis Black.)

for those shows and voices you missed but love

Blog for America
If you missed Governor Dean's interviews on Fresh Air with Terry Gross (NPR) or Charlie Rose (PBS), they are now available online. Click here for Charlie Rose, or here for the Fresh Air segment.

Charlie Rose also has excellent interviews with President Bill Clinton, Senator Joe Biden, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, filmmaker Michael Moore, former Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, the Daily Show's Jon Stewart, and Charles Unger (author of "House of Bush, House of Saud").

Kerry on liberalism

"Let's get right down to the meat of all this name calling. Like being called a liberal is a bad thing.
Am I a liberal compared to George Bush: you'd better believe it. On the issues of racial equality, protection of the forests, protection of the water, the air, proper regulation of corporations so that the interests of this nation are served, I am absolutely a liberal.
On fiscal matters, I don't know that you would call me a conservative, but I'm far more conservative than this president has been or will be. How can this man pretend to call himself a conservative? He runs a surplus into the ground and then digs a hole and creates a gigantic deficit: who is going to pay for it? You are. You, the majority of Americans, the middle class: the lower, middle and upper middle class. I'll tell you who is NOT going to pay for it: the extremely wealthy friends of George Bush and the energy industry which is making out like gangbusters and who heralded the beginning of the Bush regime by running California off a cliff with absolutely criminal market manipulations.
Not being conservative, he then uses the word anyway, and tacks "compassionate" onto it as well. Well, we know that's not true. We heard in in 2000, but where's the compassion? And now that it's 2004 and time to run again, well, that bit of phoney rhetoric is dusted off again and we have Mr. Bush dashing into a phone booth, and emerging in heroic cape and tights again: the compassionate conservative. My fellow citizens, some of you were fooled once. Some of you are going to get fooled twice.
As a candidate for the presidency, my staff and I have looked closely at the problems and we have solutions and despite what this man says, these plans are solid. But as an American citizen, just that, I am not happy with the way my country has been treated, I am not happy that years of hard won international cooperation has been trashed under what is simply irresponsible grandstanding and dismissed as simply a difference of opinion: nonsense.
And where you ask has all the money gone? Well, this man calls it a middle class tax cut. When 90% of the money goes to 1% of the population, and that 1% is about as far as one can be from any citizens wildest dream of what middle class might be, how can you get away with calling that a middle class tax cut? That's like a meatballs and spaghetti dinner when some people get all the meat balls, some people get just the spaghetti and every but the rich get a generous helping of red sauce. Lots of red sauce. Hosed with red sauce.
From the people that brought the that great vegetable, ketchup, comes a another great helping: the middle class tax cut.
As far as whose money it is lets be clear on that too: ALL the money you make is your money. And you will pay taxes because your government provides essential services, many many essential services consistent with the needs of people in the 21st century and that costs money. Roads, bridges, communication, medicines, transportation, research, space exploration, science, schools... it costs more because there is more and there are more of us each of us having more of everything.

The debates: number 3: IMHO

Bob Shaeffers questions totally sucked, AND they carried an agenda that was NOT objective.
Kerry, on simple debating style, got hammered: Bush got better each time, Kerry stayed the same.
Kerry NEVER got even slightly pissed at Bush, and he had every right to. Kerry repeated what he would NOT do (eg, would NOT ask for permission to defend the country) as opposed to what he would do: he would lay the groundwork.
I am confident: nobody moved their vote. And the Bush people drew strength, and this Kerry supporter did not.
Kerry: not enough fire in the belly. (Gore had absolutely none)
Goddammit!

U.S. to Direct Flu Shot Shipments (washingtonpost.com)

Are you safer? Is your water cleaner? Your air? The life of the oceans that surround us? Our forests? Do you like your energy prices and the direction you're getting in managing? Is your health care better? How about your job?
But don't forget to check under the bed!!! Terrorists!
America: a nation of scaredy cats.

Lifelong Collector of Data Can Bog Down His Staffs (washingtonpost.com)

Excellent insight into Kerry the politician and statesman

Sadr Followers Hand in Weapons (washingtonpost.com)

It's foolish to bet on constant and complete failure. Bush will have a field day with this success, the elections in Afghanistan. Reasonable people could find the war successful, if expensive, slow, badly managed. Reasonable people could feel safer. But the safety, like the danger, is an illusion.
One more thought: you know how even when Latin American countries completely fall apart? How the generals that the rich and the politicians manage just fine? That can work here, too, just fine.

US invasion of Muslim lands: Bin Laden's Excellent Adventure

There is not a Muslim nation that can trade with the west on an equal footing or join the EU. We had to deal with them because they have oil. We used them and did not disturb their medieval ways.
Nailing Afghanistan was cool. Neutralizing them was probably necessary. But Iraq?
In doing that, we have engaged the whole Muslim world. Is the west really willing to deal, on equal footing, with people who have not even adopted modern clothing?
Think of West Germany trying to absorb East Germany, and you get a picture of what happens when the West tries to absorb the East. Now, make that 10 times worse, as in, the East doesn't want to be absorbed, they don't want modern clothes. And that's what we're going to see. The real massive screw up is that George Bush, who never paid for anything out of his own pocket in his whole life, just bought the west a ton of problems. France and Germany already have a nasty taste of that.
Nonstop old fashioned people, steeped in religion, poverty and old clothes: a cultural disaster.

hey! look! there's a war!

Nobody is minding the store :-)
Seems I've seen that same plot in some bank robbery movie. But this is the whole country getting robbed.
And what's even funnier: when you alert them to the robbery, they say "Don't bother me! There's a war on!"
And after that?
Hey! Look! Gay people are getting married!

5 minutes after the second tower is hit...

Bush sits for 5 minutes after he is told the second tower is hit. But it strikes me that this site, and everyone else, has to take as fact that Bush was told a small plane had accidentally hit the first tower. Wow. How nuts is that.
No, Bush was told that a jet plane had smashed into the World Trace Center Towers. The clock starts right then, and NOT later, when the second plane hits. The clock starts at 8:45, when the first plane hit, and not 9:03 when Bush is told that the second plane hit.

From the wilderness

"9:06 a.m.: Police radio broadcasts 'This was a terrorist attack. Notify the Pentagon"

We were looking at the skies for an invasion (and Bush is still looking for a missle attack).
Pre 9/11: You are a cop, a fireman, the mayor. You witness a horrendous explosion, some catastrophic event. The sky is falling. Who do you call first, to inform and ask for an assessment?
Post 9/11: Who do you call?
Note that the call got to the president, who was reading stories to some gradeschool kids: he didn't have a clue, and the whole deer-in-the-headlights response is, hmmm, someplace preserved on the net?
(here's 5 minutes of Bush)

Everything goes nicer with "American"

Irish American, American Catholic, Muslim American.
What about Jewish American? Which means that like Muslim, Irish, Catholic: it don't cut shit if you haven't got American in front... so, maybe Jews are just a pain in the ass too? Unless they are American Jews.
Argentinian Jews? French Jews? South African Jews? Israeli Jews?
I don't know. But it would explain a whole lot.

Welcome to 20/20 Vision

These guys are trying to get Bush to admit he was wrong. EVERYBODY knows he was wrong. I see no reason to run his nose in it or even ask him for his opinion or excuses. OJ Simpson was guilty, and George Bush was guilty, not wrong! He herded a frightened nation to war: wrong war, wrong time, wrong place. There WAS no war to be fought: there were terrorists against whom we needed to retaliate, and, in fact, we did not: Al Qaeda was out there and still it, in larger numbers than ever and no less dangerous.
As the vote shows, Americans support the invasion of Iraq. They feel safer. Well, of course they do! Bush told them Sadam was going to attack us!
Saddam wanted to attack us. Lots of people do. They can't. Everybody: back to work, please.

"beyond any reasonable doubt"

Weapons That Weren't There (washingtonpost).
The operative word is reasonable: that leaves all the Republicans and Christians out. Time for the reasonable Christians to speak out. Like reasonable Muslims are supposed to.

"beyond any reasonable doubt"

Weapons That Weren't There (washingtonpost).
The operative word is reasonable: that leaves all the Republicans and Christians out. Time for the reasonable Christians to speak out. Like reasonable Muslims are supposed to.

Perfect should NOT be the enemy of the good!

Dean said it. And I'll say that too.
The elections in Afghanistan are not perfect. The elections in Iraq are not perfect. But goddam it, they are good.
And if not good, they are an attempt to be good.
Meantime, the elections in the US: far far far from perfect.

The New Language of NASCAR (washingtonpost.com)

Top Driver Punished For Cursing on TV.
Not only that, he was not wearing his official Nascar veil.
"I definitely saw some face skin," one primitive Christian zealot testified.

Report Discounts Iraqi Arms Threat (washingtonpost.com)

Now, when a man makes THAT kind of error AND he does not even know it, what the hell is he doing in office? This is the man we leave in office to now run military operation correctly? That kind of thinking is offensive, and downright primitive: leadership by supersition.
And if the American people put that man BACK in office, knowing what they do now I say this: I know Americans, and you are no American.

Where have all the (good) Muslims gone?

The New York Times > Mystery of the Islamic Scholar Who Was Barred by the U.S...
"the Jewish Council on Urban Affairs in Chicago expressed 'deep concern' that the unexplained visa revocation was 'one more horrific example of government suspicion, intimidation and exaggerated allegations against Muslims and Muslim communities.' "

The wacko Bush administration won't let ANYBODY with any common sense into this country!
I must say I am very pleased that the Jewish council spoke out. And of course, the catholics, Notre Dame selected the man for their university.

The prosecution of the war in Iraq

For the moment, let us set aside the notion of whether on principle or on strategy, the invastion of Iraq was the right thing to do. Let us ONLY concentrate on its prosecution.
1) Diplomatically, it is a disaster: that rationale for entering was bullshit, and that is simply not possible to dispute
2) Ecnomically, it is a disaster: 90% of everything is falling on the US
3) Militarily, it was terribly planned. We pounded them to defeat them: how dumb is that? They have NO power to strike us, we have all the power in the world, and we bombed the crap out of them. From that point on, we have done nothing but screw up, and the orders for that screwup come from the White House, the president, Cheney and staff. That furthur divides into
a) the immediate actions after the fall of Bahgdad
b) the prosecution of the occupation.

Should we have gotten in at all the way we did: absolutely not.
Do we need to try to find some success in this? Absolutely yes.
Is it possible? Really? To actually quell the insurgency in Iraq? That is seeming very very dim: we do not control the blankety blank borders! Oy.

Can I construct a rationale for invading Iraq: sure. But a bad military operation is a bad military operation is a bad military operation.

debates

Bush/Cheney worries about a nuclear weapon smuggled into the US, but
1) they don't watch the ports
2) they are looking for missles
3) the aren't looking for nukes, they are looking for WMD
Bush/Cheney are happy things are "getting better" but they never note how very very long it is going to take before they are ever good, eg 13 years to get the nukes handled (ie, 9 years AFTER the president is out of office) vs 4 years for Kerry (ie, on his watch, thus the economy, education, etc... getting better vs being good.
Bush/Cheney talk about tort reform which only caps the big ticket items... and that shows nothing about how that will affect premiums, but it WILL protect the very very deep pockets and prevent satisfaction on severe malpractice suits. Kerry/Edwards (and Edwards ought to know and could have been stronger here) keeping frivolous cases out of the courts up front will really stem the tide.
Gwen Ifil might/should have been totally pissed when neither talked about the 13X liklihood of black women to die of aids here in the US. Whoa, did THAT one suck!

Mr Kerry on taxes

Ques: Mr Kerry, how do you intent to pay for your programs. President Bush says that your programs will cost the taxpayers a great deal of money.


Mr Kerry answers: It seems quite astounding to be, quite beyond belief, in fact, that Mr. Bush should have anything to say about costing the taxpayers money for programs of any kind: none of his programs are funded, and the entire military operation in Iraq is without any prediction of expenses at all. His approach has been trust me, and his operations have been to continue spending whatever it takes to achieve whatever goal he has in mind at whatever date that might occur. That does not strike me as noble or decisive or determined. It seems incoherent, and no family, company or country can possibly exist on such a complete lack of fiscal responsbility.
I can give people tax cuts, heck, anyone can. Actually, I could just totally wipe out the income tax entirely, and skip all this gradualism. Of course, there would be a debt to pay, but we won't worry about that. Except, by just cutting to the chase, we would see the results, us, you and me, and not our children. The debt would fall due very quickly, in our own generation.
Mr. Reagan, as governor, sort of took that approach with taxes: he did not want people to be able to pay their taxes out of a payroll deduction, where the expense of taxes would not be so clearly seen and indeed, taxes could rise without a large annual impact, but only 1/12 the impact, taken monthly. Mr. Reagan said, no, the government should not anethsitize the public: government needs an awake and aware citizenry to keep its house in order. I agree. Let's just give the whole country away quickly, instead of piecemeal, and then perhaps the citizenry will awake to this pie in the sky plan that sometime, but not before this president is out of office, things will get better.
But I'm not going to do that. I am going to fund the programs this country and its citizens direly need, and I will reduce the deficits, a task not unlike cleaning out the Agean Stables thanks to 4 reckless years of giveaway. I will roll back the tax reductions that were given to the wealthiest of our citizenry, and indeed, I expect that I can do that largely without objection from those people. Indeed, many of the wealthiest people in this country are the most aware of what they owe to this country, that the peace and stability and health and safety of the citizenry, the lawfull nature of its society accounts for a large measure for their success and they do not begrudge paying what then can, grateful indeed that they can do this.
The wealthy Americans are NOT the enemy of the middle class nor indeed the lower income classes: they are strongly American and they do not shrink from their responsibility. Of course, they will be greatly concerned about how their money is spent, but they, like all of us, will want to see the financial house of this country kept in order.
I can do that. You know that this president has not. I fear for the security of this country should this man have 4 more years with his hands on the fortunes of this country. Should I not win this election, it will give me no relief, no gratification to be right, but right I fear I will be.

Americans R Bush: take the pledge

Americans and Bush are separate things as the world sees them: they like us, and do not like Bush.
If Bush is put in office, knowing what we know ("knowing what we know, we would do the same thing: elect Bush, invade Iraq, etc")I should think that distinction would and should be set aside.
Every American will reasonably be seen to carry the stigma of being one who supports, wilingly, the policies of George Bush.
I, Gerald Berke, American citizen, have voted against the policies of George Bush and I oppose, reject and oppose his presidency.

Mr. Bush speaks

Ques: Mr. Bush, why did you choose to invade Iraq when other countries present a far clearer danger?

Answ: This is one of the those things where a lot of people really know the answer, but you can't really just come out and say it because of diplomatic and political considerations. And you know that I am not given to complicated speech, but depend on people understanding the real situation without having it spelled out when simple common sense can take them there without my speaking every word. I don't mean to say absolutely that I will find agreement on every common sense argument, but my reasons can be reached that way. Surely, there can be another approach which also might see "self evident". But when I saw "you know where I stand", indeed you do, and I don't have to write a book on the subject.
There was a perfect example of that the other day: Mr. Kerry,in the debates, was asked if I was a liar, but there was no way he is going to touch that word: so far at least, that word is off limits. Similarly, the military real political and military reasons that are obvious must be spoken of with some measure of sensitivity.
For instance, one might ask, why take a more unilateral approach to Iraq as opposed to a more regional approach to Korea? Consider, simply, the strength of the others in the region: around Korea, there is Japan, China and South Korea. One would have to contrast with the troubled neighbors around Iraq, which includes Syria and Iran, hardly forces we could enlist to contain Iraq. In general, I will not subscribe to the notion that the same approach needs to be applied everywhere.
Consider the history of the region: Iraq only recently invaded a neighbor, in fact, going beyond threat and actually invading and destroying, and we have had to keep them over constant guard for a decade. To the degree that they were contained, that had to be due to the attention they were receiving: what might happen in just a few months of taking attention off, which mischief might occur.
Did we consider that Iraq while not possessing bomb capability, did have has and biological capability? The troops went through a lot of hell dressing for combat with them, and us, their commanders, facing the real fear that we could be gassed or poisoned. We were not. But both in 1991 and 2002, that was a real threat.
As to the bombs and gasses: none of this would be Iraqs first venture into those weapons: these were programs that had been shut down, but we were not, not in a decade, able to shut down Saddam Husseins desire to build the weapons. There was not the slightest indication that he had embraced the slightest change.
This is why I say that even if I knew Iraq did not have nuclear weapons near the ready, I would have gone in otherways. Were I completely certain that he did not have gas, we could have gone in a lot better. Could anyone be certain that he was bent on mischief and we could not turn our backs on him? NO.
The whole invasion thing: its a dead issue, and needs to be put to bed.
What is open to discussion now is ONLY how shall we proceed. And it is my feeling that we are making the progress we need to make. Is it costing us? yes, it is costing us dearly. And there simply is no way we can pull out until the job is done.
This is NOT Vietman. This is the center of the middle east, this is the center of the worlds oil production, not ours, but the worlds. We must bring stability to this country. And it is time for our cultures to engage, reconcile, and go forward.

Space Ship Prepares to Blast off for 'X Prize'

Private enterprise, sure. But mostly? It's Rutan.
Just him. Rutan.

It ain't ABB anymore

That's what changed in the debates: it isn't Anybody But Bush anymore. Suddenly, it's Kerry. ABB is dismissive and disrespectful after that debate. There is a name and a face to the new president, the man to depose Bush.

Christianity, the free market and the family

England, the US and Austrailia, our allies: yep, all in the throes of Christianity. A natural follow up to "family values"?
I would suggest that "family values" is a response to birth control, abortion, sexuality, alcohol, drugs, public behavior, and in general, the incursion of public life into the private in matters. Christianity is a furthur codification of those expressions.
On the other hand, it is not clear what policies let religion peacefully coexist with secular society. Like all of our other behaviors, religion works well in small doses. It can and does grow to be an aberration, a phobia, an obsession.

The Promised Land (washingtonpost.com)

"Many have been victims of what the USDA itself describes as 'indifference and blatant discrimination' against blacks in federal lending practices and programs from 1981 to 1996."

Holy shit. 1996. Blatant discrimination. And people get pissed about affirmative action.

Mr Kerry's priorities in the war on terrorism

Ques: Mr. Kerry, both you and the president seem to want to fight the war on terrorism the same way? Is there a difference.

Mr. Kerry answers: Yes, there are differences, and great ones. In one area, I am for rapid and complete control of nuclear weapons: that and that alone constitues the greatest threat to this nation.
Mr Bush is far less focused, both in target and again, the end date: when is this going to be done? Mr. Bush can only say "it will be done when it is done". Or he says, on the record, that the war cannot ever be won. And then, when faced with his own words, he goes back to and endless conflict to utterly rid the world of attackes.
But Mr. Bush is terribly unfocused: he looks at the broad and ill defined Weapons of Mass Destruction, which, depending on which day and which administrative office is adressing the question, includes gasses and biological weapons, which, plainly, are nowhere near the danger as a nuclear weapon, poised to detonate. In among these WMD is just about anything that is large and destructive, and that, simply, is everything in modern war.
No, the focus must be immediately on nuclear material.
And not on loose objectives of all weapons and certainly not on an anti missle system: this administration was focusing on the anti missle system when box cutters and hijacked airlines struck at our heart. And even after that attack, the administration has been unable, in 3 years, to correct course and still focuses on anti missle systems.
Mr. Bush only has some broad wants: I have objectives, goals and plans. And you can measure me on that.

Mr Kerry on where he stands

Ques: President Bush has stated that people know where he stand, and what he believes in. What is it you believe in and where do you stand?

Mr. Kerry answers: Mr Bush has made some quick decisions, and some hard ones, he has made the quickly and he has indeed stayed with them. I'm here to say that those decisions have been wrong at the start, and disasterous when clung to.
Mr. Bush ruled quickly on our participation in global warming studies, he opted out for the United States and he stuck with them, and that's wrong. He quickly decided not to intervene and control prices when California was on the ropes, and he stuck with that and he was oh so wrong, and we all payed for that. Mr. Bush set his eyes on anti missle defense and despite huge unanticipated demands on this countries resource and a much change view of how the terrorist works, he hasn't changed. Sometimes, you have to change you mind: it's also called knowing to come in from the rain.
People know where I stand on the broad issues but don't get that confused with my plans for persuing those interests: those plans can change.
I am for strong and wide international relations, with active engagement with other countries.
As with any and all leaders, my duty is to my country, and my country comes first: I will serve and protect this nation, and indeed, the world wants me to do that: the United States is a very important country and our people work and contribute greatly to the world.
I am for responsible world trade.
I am strongly for the world environment: if you travel the world, you see that the air we breath comes from other places and the air we use goes out to other people. As does the water. All the life on this planet is connected. Indeed, in a very profound manner, the internet is connection the people of the world in a way that was strictly science fiction only a decade ago.
I am for those broad principles that have been stated by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln. I am for the modern American conscience that Martin Luther King ennunciated. I am for the government as was Teddy Roosevelt. I am for international engagement and affection in those halcion days of John Kennedy. I am for the honest and strong military leadership of Roosevelt and Truman and Eisenhower. I am for that heady belief in the greatness of the idea of America that was preserved by Mr. Lincoln and brilliantly recalled by Mr. Reagan when he focused on international dangers that had been growing for far too long. By these president who I study and admire, you know where I stand.
You certainly need to know the programs of my administration, the particulars, but those are constrained by the posible: I cannot do everything I would want to do, and I cannot do everything you want me to and programs are but steps in a direction, they are not the direction itself. I am bound to no dogma in bringing health, education, and a good and safe life to all Americans. But I am bound to sustain and improve.

Mr. Kerry explains the differences

Ques: Mr Kerry, you want to remove troops from Iraq and you want international assistance an involvement. You do not want to precipitously withdraw. That position would seem to be the same as president Bush.

Mr. Kerry answers: Mr. Bush has set deadlines for events in Iraq, the latest being elections in January. While things have clearly deterioriated, Mr. Bush is attempting to hold to that date, and I agree whole heartedly and support him completely. You set a goal and it has to have a date, or it means little, and you drive for it.
Mr. Bush has not set a date for getting the job done, and that has been a signal problem with his entire conduct of the invasion: he has not set public goals of how much and when and has not been willing to provide an estimate of the costs. I cannot imagine allies coming in with similar open ended committments, with no time to drive for.
What delays Mr. Bush? I must be candid with the American people: the United States is taking the lions share of development and access to resources in Iraq. It is unavoidably true that while money is spent in war, there is money to be made, and indeed, it needs to be made: the conflicts must be funded and it would be irresponsible to do otherwise. But as others are being asked to contribute and pay, they must have a share in the making of money to offset their costs.
Indeed, one of the most important allies in the invasion is the Iraqis themselves! They, the people, that nation, has already borne the biggest burden of this battle, and we must more agressively turn over a free economy to the Iraqis. I'm willing to do that, the president is not. He is simply not going fast enough: lives and the fortunes of a nation are at stake.
I will set dates, I will drive toward those dates, and I will do what is needed to get the job done by that date.

Va. Judge Dismisses Case Against Muhammad

This is funny. In a sick sort of way.
See, you have to carefully prepare: but then, you can't have a speedy trial! Wow! And then, well, the jails are too crowded, uncomfortable, don't provide the health and rehabilitation required, and if that doesn't work, parole, and if that doesn't work, well, just screw up and let the guy out by mistake :-)
The only guy that nails is some schmuck that is a regular mind your own business guy: who gives a shit?
Tesing: liberals support the decision, conservatives do not. (Only, there is no party for conservatives, is there? Neo-cons? sure. And liberal thinking at that level?)
That's the old calling a tail a leg... it doesn't make it a leg.
Acting in a means you cannot support, cannot sustain, and is totally out of real practical reach, the result is a 5 legged dog (and there aren't any, are there.)

US terrorizes the whole fucking world!

"Do what we want" the country said "or we'll wreck the whole place. Yep. You've seen what we can do with the air, the economy, energy. Do it, or we'll ruin the whole planet. We are bringing you freedom and you'd better take it. Last warning."

Kerry talks

Mr Kerry is asked (NOW, with Bill Moyers): Mr Kerry, you say you can bring other nations into Iraq, to help the United States, based on renewed credibility, but do you believe countries would put their armies on the ground in a war they strongly disapproved of?

Mr Kerry answers: You are limiting the contributions of other countries only to troops, and you are limiting their motivation only on my credibility, and were I Washington himself, credibility is not sufficient, but it is a starting place.
Other countries really must come in and help because it is in their interest for a free world, and for their safety. And the truth is that if they have no economic participation in the middle east, in Iraq in particular, if they view their participation as not free and open but subject to unequal restriciton imposed by the United States which has been and is currently our stated policy, they will be not join us fast enough to get the job done: this must be a team effort in all phases.
As to troops, we have a job to do: we must control the borders, and we must insist on control from all sides: the Israelis surely have shown us that one sided control of a border, short of a wall, does not work well. We must contain the influx of militants and equipment.
Then we must deal with the insurgents and bring them into the fold and separate them from the foreign fighters, and much of our success depends, as contrary as it may seem, on our reducing our forces until we are clearly helpers and not occupiers. As was said a man in the south, when asked by a Union man, why are you fighting us, he answered: because you are here: people will fight an occupation. Indeed, the United States formed in a resistance to what we felt was an occupation by the country of which we were but a colony... we felt occupied, and we fought.
I am certain I can markedly change the pace of partipation by our allies for one because it is a priority and I am willing to work towards that end. Mr. Bush must change direction fast and hard to do that and against his will, some might say. But that is the direction I want to go, and I make that direction public and with my full will in that spirit.
The United States will not go into shared efforts as an underling, and I do not expect other nations who also see themselves as great would accept less.

Yahoo! News - Rumsfeld Raises Prospect of Limited Iraq Elections

Rumsfeld should not be dismissed as wrong. The liberal view would naturally be "hey, it's got to be perfect!"... liberals are NOT pragmatic by and large.
If you had elections in 5% of the country, well, not sure anyone would really be impressed. But these are substantial, and targetted for a date, and should be held to. They constitute that bird in the hand. Also, elections are a learning process, and a process in themselves, and are more than just the results, which, need we be reminded, can really suck.

Bush on Indian tribal sovereignty... rather painful.

Laughing at the president: you don't often see or hear that.

Transcripts, debate #1, 9-30-2004

KATU 2 - Portland, Oregon

Mr Kerry answers

Kristol asks: if you say this is the wrong war at the wrong time and the wrong place, how can you expect to ask others to join us?

Let me say that it is not my intent that as president I would disavow the actions of my predicessor, cut the mistakes off as belongin to him, and not to the nation.
When a mistake is made in within ones family, one is bound to correct it, to find the good that can yet be produced: we must find that good, ulitmately, in the middle east, but we cannot even begin until we recognize that a great mistake has been made.
This president simply cannot see anything but a rosy outlook, and rose colored lenses, however you wear them and wish to have the country look through them with you, that is not leadership.
Mr. Bush does not read the papers: he has told you that. How then, do you think he can know what you know? He is isolated and he cannot.
How would you like to be the man that brings in the coffee in the morning, and offer to the president that all hell broke loose in Iraq last night? This is going to be great and disturbing news to this man, new and different and quite opposed to what his trusted advisors tell him, and he is not going to let go of his advisors: you will not be bringing that man coffee tomorrow and you might find yourself on a no fly list if you remember the fear of being watched during Vietnam.
This man is isololated, and I would venture to say that 9 out of 10 people in this audience better know the realities of the situation in Iraq that does this man next to me, your president.
This man does not know that the invasion was a mistake. But more important, this man does not know it is going badly. And because of that, because of the thinking that gets him there, it is not important that he finally understand: it is important that we get him out of office.
For my country, for the people of Iraq who we are now bound to, and for the world, we must correct the mistake and bring this to a good and just conclusion and a lasting peace.

Bush on sovereignty.. (dumb, dumb, dumb)

THE BRAD BLOG: "Bushism of the Moment"
Read the whole thing. Or you can just listen to a mind running, badly, on 3 cylinders.

The handshake

I64174-2004Oct01
Originally uploaded by gberke.

Kerry dominates Bush here... live, he got even closer, and held the president in... with a little bit of "you gonna be my bitch"

The First Debate (washingtonpost.com)

"Despite rules designed to curtail direct exchanges, there were, under Jim Lehrer's skillful moderation, pointed and serious arguments"
Jim really caused a LOT of trouble! Whoa! Somebody is going to be really pissed at him, and anyone that looks like him!
I was really surprised at how confrontational Lehrer was, and he pressed Bush right into the fight and made him face his own words, and well, eat them.

Blue vs. Red: The Debate Wasn't Exactly a Tie (washingtonpost.com)

ON Bush "He's no Ronald Reagan, but he did strike a note of Reaganesque sloganeering eloquence when he told the audience, in reference to the war against terrorism, 'We climbed the mighty mountain and I see the valley below, and that's the valley of peace.'"
Umm, that's Martin Luther King who talked about mountains and valleys. We all knew Martin Luther King and we all know (altogether now): Bush is no Martin Luther King!
Oy.

Few Factual Errors, but Truth Got Stretched at Times (washingtonpost.com)

"Nuclear proliferation" and "Weapons of Mass Destruction" are NOT the same thing!
One is a great big fucking bomb. The other is anything that might go boom, make you sick, make a big hole and is the passkey that Bush & Co use to get into your life and the lives of everyone on that planet.
Same with that bullshit "terrorism": in Bush speak that means that you scared me! Yep. All you gotta do is scare somebody, and there is enough wiggle in Patriot Act to nail your ass.
Boo. Now that IS scary!