Wall Street's enthusiasm for US President George W. Bush appears to have cooled as the presidential race tightens and concerns grow about foreign policy and fiscal deficits.
Some leading fundraisers of Mr Bush's re-election bid have stopped active campaigning and others privately voice reservations.
"I think George Bush is going to win in a walk. I really believe I'm hearing from the Lord it's going to be like a blowout election in 2004. The Lord has just blessed him.... It doesn't make any difference what he does, good or bad." - Pat Robertson (source)
Everett -- When the Prophet Elijah sat at his piano to play, witnesses say, the members of the Gatekeepers sect knew what to expect. The voice of God was about to speak.
As Elijah played, eerie music filled the room, and strange sayings tumbled from their lips. Sometimes the voices spoke through Elijah. Sometimes through the clan. Always, though, it was Elijah -- Christopher Turgeon to the rest of the world -- who told them what it meant.
One day, the voice told them to beat the children. Another day, to shoot a dog. Finally, it told them to kill a man. (source)
Deanna Laney called police a little after midnight on Mother’s Day weekend last year. In a calm, flat,and markedly cooperative voice she told police that she had just killed her three children.
The 911 tape is eerie in its details. Perhaps the youngest wasn’t quite dead, she said, and perhaps maybe she wasn’t actually supposed to kill him. When asked who told her to do it, she responded that ''God'' did. (source)
She knows it was wrong now, but Deanna Laney was unremorseful and sincerely believed she was carrying out God's will even six days after she stoned two of her sons to death last year, jurors learned from a videotaped interview Thursday. (source)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The number of Americans living in poverty increased by 1.3 million last year, while the ranks of the uninsured swelled by 1.4 million, the Census Bureau reported Thursday.
It was the third straight annual increase for both categories. While not unexpected, it was a double dose of bad economic news during a tight re-election campaign for President Bush.
Approximately 35.8 million people lived below the poverty line in 2003, or about 12.5 percent of the population, according to the bureau. That was up from 34.5 million, or 12.1 percent in 2002.
Dang, the Bush list of failures just keeps growning.
Oops! A welcome e-mail that was sent to hundreds of volunteers for the Republican National Convention inadvertently included the name, address, Social Security number, race and other personal information of those volunteers.
The e-mail, with a subject header of "Transportation Volunteer Information - Final Email Before Your Arrival to NYC," was sent out yesterday across the country and apparently was to serve as a checklist for transportation volunteers' arrival on Saturday.
At the end of the e-mail, two attachments, which when opened, display private information such as volunteers' home, work and mobile phone numbers as well as their birthdates, rooming information and other personal information. The information, if it landed in the wrong hands, would be a security concern.
"The attachment was inadvertent," Leonardo Alcivar, spokesman for the Republican National Convention, said yesterday. "As a precaution, security [personnel] has been alerted and will take any additional steps necessary to protect the integrity of anyone listed."
As they are volunteering for the GOP convention I think it is a little bit too late to protect their integrity.
BRIDGEVILLE -- The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has established a hot line to answer questions about the growing number of incidents of vintage ordinance found in clamshell driveways of several Delaware homes this year.
Rob Williams, project manager for the Corps of Engineers Baltimore District, said Tuesday the move was to help people worried that deliveries of crushed clamshells -- used to create driveways around the Delmarva Peninsula -- could also contain unexploded grenades.
The pilot facility, called the Aberdeen Chemical Agent Disposal Facility, will use chemical neutralization and biological processes to treat the 1600 tons of mustard agent stored in ton containers at the Edgewood Area of APG. Unlike incineration, which releases toxic chemicals into the environment through smokestacks, the neutralization/biological process will contain byproducts, and only release them into the environment after they have been proven safe. Non-incineration technologies will also be employed for disposal of nerve agents stored in Newport, Indiana. ... Earlier this month, the Arkansas state environmental agency gave the Army the green light to build and operate an incinerator to destroy chemical weapons stored at the Pine Bluff Arsenal. The incinerator permit was awarded despite years of citizen protest, hundreds of pages of written comments, and a Congressionally-mandated program identifying other non-incineration disposal technologies. The CWWG's Williams adds, "With 80% of the Arkansas chemical weapons stockpile identical to Maryland's, the fact that the Army continues to move forward with incineration in Arkansas is ludicrous."
I'm not sure what the army has against the citizens of Arkansas.
Athens - Top International Olympic Committee officials are furious at what they see as US President George Bush's hijacking of the Olympic name for his re-election campaign.
JON STEWART: Now how-- how are you holding up? This has been a-- it's been a rough couple weeks. I've been following-- I watch a lot of the cable news shows. So I understand that apparently you were never in Vietnam. (LAUGHTER) JOHN KERRY: (LAUGHTER) That's what I understand, too. But I-- I'm trying to find out what happened. ... JON STEWART: Is it a difficult thing not to take personally when-- when they come out and-- and your word, it's-- it's in the public files. So-- JOHN KERRY: You know what it is, Jon? It-- it-- it's disappointing because I think most Americans would like to have a much more intelligent conversation about where the country's going. And-- (APPLAUSE) yeah, I think that-- you know, and-- and, yeah, it's a little bit disappointing. But believe it or not, I've been through worse.
Bright blue tarps, painted with glaring yellow letters, are going up on dozens of rooftops in Brooklyn, under the flight paths into busy New York airports. Thousands of delegates and convention guests peering down at the city might see messages like "No more years" and "Re-defeat Bush."
"We just hope that they'll look down and ask themselves, 'Why, why do they feel so strongly? Why is it that New York feels this way?'" said Genevieve Christy, who has painted more than 80 banners since thinking of the idea a few weeks ago.
Occasionally I'll hear a Bush apologist point out that "no one could have foreseen this Iraqi Mess."
Okay I can understand that he'd consider many CIA, State Department, and crazed Bloggers "No One." But as a reminder there are two other "no one's" that foresaw exactly what is happening now in Iraq:
George H.W Bush and James "get your freak on" Baker
"Incalculable human and political costs" would have been the result, the senior Bush has said, if his administration had pushed all the way to Baghdad and sought to overthrow Saddam Hussein after the U.S.-led coalition ousted the Iraqi army from Kuwait during the Persian Gulf war in 1991.
"We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect rule Iraq," Bush wrote. "The coalition would have instantly collapsed. ... Going in and thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations mandate would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish.
"Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different - and perhaps barren - outcome."
It is amazing how much more I respect Bush the elder when I realize how bad he could have been as reflected in his son. Though I do begin to wonder about his parenting abilities.
And yes I know we printed about Bush the elder's comments back in November, 2003, but it is worth repeating, especially now that it has made finally the press again (which is especially nice considering Time Magazine mysteriously deleted any reference to "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" (by George H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft) from its website).
The governor, a Methodist, has upset Jewish leaders who questioned a statement he made five years ago [1994ish]. The then-candidate for governor told a reporter that those who do not accept Jesus Christ cannot go to heaven. Before a trip to Israel last year [1998ish], he joked that he would tell Israeli Jews they were all "going to hell." In a post-trip news conference, Bush declared he would let God decide who goes to heaven.
Did you catch that? Bush: Israeli Jews are all "going to hell."
Not something you hear from decent folks everyday is it?
NAJAF, Iraq (Reuters) - Iraq's top Shi'ite cleric made a sudden return to the country on Wednesday and said he had a plan to end an uprising in the "burning city" of Najaf, where fighting is creeping ever closer to its holiest shrine.
This could be very very good. He is a moderate voice, and this needs to be handled also as a diplomatic issue rather than just a military victory. If we are just military victory there will just be more scenarios happening like this elsewhere.
"We ask all believers to volunteer to go with us to Najaf," Sistani said in a statement read out on his behalf in Basra by his aide Hayder al-Safi. "I have come for the sake of Najaf and I will stay in Najaf until the crisis ends."
Sistani's aides said he would depart for Najaf at 7 a.m. (0300 GMT) on Thursday with his supporters. They urged U.S. forces encircling the gold-domed mosque to leave.
Sistani, 73, reached Basra from Kuwait in a convoy of more than a dozen vehicles led by police cars with sirens wailing.
His hospitalization in London coincided with the outbreak of the three-week revolt by Sadr, a young cleric who has challenged the collegiate leadership of the Najaf clergy headed by Sistani.
The call to march appears to be an attempt by the Iranian-born cleric to reclaim some of the political ground captured during the uprising by Sadr, who has painted himself as the face of anti-U.S. resistance and icon to the poor masses.
Or this could be very very bad. Much could go wrong here. We aren't dealing with logic, we are dealing with religious passions, a large group of "true believers" could turn in unexpected ways, and what if an Iraqi or American soldier mistakenly wounds a Sistani follower, or true horror, wounds Sistani himself... then it'll just start all over again. Worse then before. Or whose to say a Sadr aide kills Sistani, or worse yet does so but blames America. Scary possibilities.
I hope this goes well for Iraq (meaning we back away, Sistani gets Sadr's folks to also leave and disarm).
CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - Democrat John Kerry will dispatch two fellow Vietnam veterans to President Bush's secluded Texas ranch on Wednesday to press him to condemn television advertisements accusing Kerry of lying about his wartime service.
The move comes one day after it was disclosed that a top lawyer for Bush's re-election campaign has been providing legal advice to the group behind the ads, the so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Kerry is sending to Crawford former Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia, a frequent companion of Kerry's on the campaign trail and a fellow Vietnam War veteran who lost three limbs during the war.
Cleland and former Army Green Beret Jim Rassman, whose life was saved by Kerry during a Vietnam war firefight, will try to deliver a letter protesting the ads to Bush at his heavily guarded ranch, Kerry aides said.
Hello? Bush's top lawyer for re-election was providing legal advice to the swift boat liars? Can anyone say "direct connection to Bush campaign." I knew you could. Of course the press can't. And what was his advice anyway "go ahead slander's cool in the 21st century."
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A lawyer for President Bush's re-election campaign disclosed Tuesday that he has been providing legal advice for a veterans group that is challenging Democratic Sen. John Kerry's account of his Vietnam War service.
"I cannot begin to express my sadness that my legal representations have become a distraction from the critical issues at hand in this election," Mr. Ginsberg told the president in a letter distributed today by the Bush-Cheney campaign. "I feel I cannot let that continue, so I have decided to resign as national counsel to your campaign to ensure that the giving of legal advice to decorated military veterans, which was entirely within the boundaries of the law, doesn't distract from the real issues upon which you and the country should be focusing."
So... just making stuff up about what happened over thirty years ago is what Mr. Ginsberg considers a critical issue in the election? I didn't realize.
Send a loud and clear message to this administration and the country!
Since George W. Bush took office, there are 1,200,000 fewer jobs for American workers - the greatest sustained job loss since the Great Depression!
And yet the President still continues to campaign with the slogan that "we've turned a corner" in this economy.
We, and the 8,200,000 currently unemployed Americans, disagree.
On September 1, the third day of the Republican National Convention, join us as we stand corner to corner -- from the corner of Broadway and Wall all the way up to the Republican National Convention at Madison Square Garden -- to form the World's Longest Unemployment Line.
You would have thought that if the issue of who served under fire during the Vietnam War became a big deal at this point in the presidential campaign, it would be a major advantage to John Kerry.
After all, there is no dispute that Kerry served in Vietnam's combat zones while both President Bush and Vice President Cheney avoided the war. Bush served stateside in the National Guard (it's still not clear how much of his duty time he missed) and Cheney avoided the military altogether. The hawkish veep has explained blithely, "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service." ... To their credit, several news organizations -- the New York Times, Chicago Tribune and The Post among them -- have run reports exposing the distortions, inconsistencies and fabrications of the anti-Kerry crowd, and the links between this operation and the Bush machine.
But this hasn't stopped the run of unproven innuendo. Even highly respected Republicans have jumped in. "There's got to be some truth to these charges," Dole, a true war hero, said on CNN.
Alas, this is the classic course a smear campaign takes. A group throws up accusations that, when subjected to scrutiny, prove to be full of holes. Supporters of the attack campaign say that, well, those charges may not pan out, but there must be something here. Let's just keep attacking.
The media have to do more than "he said/he said" reporting. If the charges don't hold up, they don't hold up. And, yes, now that John Kerry's life during his twenties has been put at the heart of this campaign just over two months from Election Day, the media owe the country a comparable review of what Bush was doing at the same time and the same age.
If all the stories about what Kerry did in Vietnam are not balanced by serious scrutiny of Bush in the Vietnam years, the media will be capitulating to a right-wing smear campaign. Surely our nation's editors and producers don't want to send a signal that all you have to do to set the media's agenda is spend a half-million bucks on television ads.
"A lot of television viewers -- more, quite frankly, than I'm comfortable with -- get their news from the Comedy Channel on a program called 'The Daily Show,' " "Nightline" anchor Ted Koppel whined to his viewers in a telecast from the Democratic convention in Boston. (During that telecast, Stewart took issue with Koppel's comment, saying "Daily Show" fans watch "for comedic interpretation" of the news. "To be informed," Koppel replied, refusing to budge from his position. "They actually think they're coming closer to the truth with your show." Stewart shot back: "Now that's a different thing, that's credibility, that's a different animal.")
Yep, that's the truth, and sad truth it is, but the daily show does have more credibility then any "real" news source today. Because, despite it being hilarious, it is truthful. The shock of hearing actual truth being spoken is sometimes where the comedy comes from.
Earlier, before being clawed by Kerry's reps, we spoke to "Daily Show" executive producer Ben Karlin, a charming man who did not take offense at our questions and who promised that the Comedy Central program would try especially hard to resemble an actual TV news show tonight during its Kerry encounter.
"We're going to focus exclusively on events of 30 years or more ago . . . and not on anything relevant to anything beyond 1964," Karlin said.
He's referring, of course, to the previously mentioned attack ad campaign, which has been funded in part by a top GOP donor in Texas, featuring Vietnam veterans who question Kerry's war record and criticize his congressional antiwar testimony (though that actually took place in the 1970s).
Actually he was being sarcastic in that actual tv news shows are spending time on false stories from over thirty years ago.... Real news is unaware of there is a war going on. The Daily Show is aware, it is however also versed in sarcasm... which I guess this reporter is not.
"All of us [on 'The Daily Show'] are just blown away by the turn the campaign has taken," Karlin said. "We cannot believe that this is what is being talked about at this juncture. It's so astounding to us. We are trying to work through our amazement and to conduct a meaningful conversation absent of incredulity, because [the interview] is not going to go anywhere if you just say, 'What the [expletive] is going on?' "
Karlin said he will nonetheless suggest that that be the first question Stewart puts to Kerry tonight.
"If you just want to pinpoint the success of the Republican Party and Bush, this is a perfect case study," Karlin continued, "because George W. Bush has put a moratorium on talk about his behavior under the age of 40 and everyone [in the press] is abiding by it. 'Were you or were you not an alcoholic or did you just have a drinking problem?,' 'Were you or were you not a drug abuser?' Meanwhile they're debating whether [Kerry's war] wounds drew blood or were they superficial, or occurred in the same day, or whether he shot a guy wearing a toga. . . . How is that possible?"
Under growing pressure to ship Marines to Iraq, the Marine Corps is cutting in half the rigorous field combat training it gives units preparing to deploy, senior officers say.
Bush does not support our military. He does, however support the military industrial complex... he seems to think they're the same thing.
Here's what Bush isn't telling you: That he hasn't done dick to protect us. Bloggery, you say? I know some people are really convinced by the tough talk and "shock and awe" -- but how many know the details, and the true devil in them? Paul Krugman has this to say:
After 9/11, Mr. Bush had a choice: he could deal with real threats, or he could play Rambo. He chose Rambo. Not for him the difficult, frustrating task of tracking down elusive terrorists, or the unglamorous work of protecting ports and chemical plants from possible attack: he wanted a dramatic shootout with the bad guy. And if you asked why we were going after this particular bad guy, who hadn't attacked America and wasn't building nuclear weapons - or if you warned that real wars involve costs you never see in the movies - you were being unpatriotic.
As a domestic political strategy, Mr. Bush's posturing worked brilliantly. As a strategy against terrorism, it has played right into Al Qaeda's hands. Thirty years after Vietnam, American soldiers are again dying in a war that was sold on false pretenses and creates more enemies than it kills.
Just a Commie columnist spewing out a wretched opinion based on sheer anti-Bush sentiment? That Bush has, in fact, made our country stronger and safer with the war on terrorism, and in the words of one reader of this page, "has sure done a hell of a lot more to protect your sorry ass then you have done for anyone else!"? Let's see what Senate Appropriations Committee senator Robert Byrd has to say on the subject of homeland security and Bush's contribution to protecting American citizens from terrorist attacks, written only a few months ago:
While we now have the new department [of Homeland Security], we still do not have adequately funded efforts to protect our homeland. In fact, most of my efforts over the past three years to make our homeland safer have been blocked by the White House or by Republicans in the Congress acting at the direction of the White House. The creation of a Homeland Security Department is no substitute for adequate funding. The track record of blocked funding by this White House is clear:
1. On November 14, 2001, the White House opposed the inclusion of $15 billion for homeland security in an economic security package, including $4 billion for bioterrorism and food safety, $4.6 billion for emergency first responders and computer improvements at the federal level, $3.3 billion for transportation security for airports and ports, $1.1 billion for border security, $2 billion for security at nuclear power, water, and other facilities and mail screening, warning that such spending "will only expand the size of government." All Senate Republicans voted to block the funding;
2. On December 4, 2001, the Senate Appropriations Committee unanimously sent the fiscal year 2002 defense appropriations bill to the Senate floor for action. The bill included $13.1 billion for homeland security. Responding to a Bush threat to veto the defense bill if it contained this additional homeland security money, Republicans raised a parliamentary point of order which reduced the funding to $8.5 billion. House-Senate conferees on that bill were further pressured by the White House to reduce the money to $8.3 billion;
3. On June 6, 2002, the Senate passed by a vote of 71 to 22 a supplemental money bill that contained $8.3 billion for homeland security. The funding was allocated based on a series of five hearings held by the Senate Appropriations Committee after testimony from governors, mayors, police, medical, and other emergency first responders. On June 17, the president's senior advisor recommended a veto of that bill because it contained "excessive" homeland security spending. The money was for food safety, cybersecurity, radio interoperability problems among first responders, nuclear security, increased capacity for labs to deal with biological and chemical weapons, airport security, and port security;
4. In August 2002, the president failed to make an emergency designation for $2.5 billion for homeland security to specifically address shortcomings identified by the Rudman/Hart Report on terrorism vulnerabilities, meaning that the money could not be spent. Bush said at the time, "I made my opposition clear. We were pretty plain-spoken. ... I understand Congress's position, and today, they're going to learn mine. We'll spend none of it";
5. In October 2002, the White House, the Senate, and the House could not come to an agreement on arbitrary spending limits demanded by the president, and Congress adjourned for the November elections without providing additional homeland security funding. Seaports, airports, border security, nuclear facilities--all had to put plans on hold. The White House celebrated this irresponsible governmental dysfunction. Ari Fleischer said, "There's a new sheriff in town, and he's dedicated to fiscal discipline";
6. On December 2, 2002, the Justice Department announced it was not going to release money to state and local law enforcement agencies for first responders;
7. On January 16, 2003, Senate Republicans, "whipped into line by Bush," voted to defeat an amendment I offered to add $5 billion for security activities at ports, airports, borders, and nuclear plants, and for implementing a smallpox vaccine plan. When I reduced the amount of the amendment by $2 billion, hoping to at least get some help for homeland security, the amendment was again defeated;
8. On April 2 and 3, 2003, I asked my staff to prepare five amendments for boosting homeland security programs for the emergency Iraq/Afghanistan war supplemental bill. In total, the amendments provided $9 billion, $4.8 billion more than Bush requested. All of the amendments were defeated;
9. On July 22, 2003, I offered an amendment to the fiscal year 2004 homeland security appropriations bill to add $1.75 billion to security programs. The amendment was defeated;
10. On July 24, 2003, I offered an amendement to the homeland security bill that would have provided $292 million for activities such as port security grants, grants to train firefighters to respond to a terrorist attack, funds to help the Coast Guard provide security at our ports, funds for locating terrorism vulnerabilities at chemical plants. My amendment was defeated;
11. On September 17, 2003, in the House-Senate conference on the same homeland security appropriations bill, I again tried to add homeland security money, $1.25 billion for port, aviation, Coast Guard, customs, first responders, and chemical facility programs, and my amendment failed on a party-line vote.
Nobody can convince me that this White House is serious about homeland security. I have broken my pick, threatened, cajoled, pleaded, and lost sleep countless nights because I know how underfunded these security programs are. I believe that we can do much, much more to address at least the obvious easy targets for terrorists, and I am at a total loss to explain why this pigheaded White House steadfastly opposes amendments to add funds to protect our own citizens. -- from Losing America, pp. 111-15
So don't give me this crap that Bush is protecting my ass. I live less than an hour's drive from Indian Point, and nothing at all has been done to make it less vulnerable to attack by air or sea. My two senators, Schumer and Clinton, have been shouted down and refused funds time after time by their Republican colleagues. Compare that with the hundreds of billions spent so far in the war in Iraq. Today we're closing in on a holy shrine in Najaf, where a Shi'ite cleric and his followers are holed up. Do you actually believe these pathetic bastards represent a domestic threat? How do you like your money being wasted, Mr. "protect my ass"? I'm sleeping a lot more soundly at night knowing that a follower of Moktada al-Sadr doesn't stand a chance of hijacking one of our jumbo jets and crashing it into Indian Point. That's not to say that virtually anybody else can't do it though, thanks to this president.
4. George W. Bush So, while he's not clandestinely backing shadowy smear groups, how is Our Great Leader doing running the country? If the recent meteoric rises in oil prices are anything to go by, not very well. According to the AFP, "World oil prices could sally past 50 dollars a barrel and hold at high levels for the foreseeable future on a combination of tight, unstable supplies and rising demand, notably from Asia." Hmm... unstable supplies. I wonder why that could be? Of course, George doesn't seem too concerned about the price of oil right now since he's kinda busy slandering John Kerry. But it might be worth taking a look at what Bush said back in 2000 when he criticized Bill Clinton for not being tough enough on oil producers. "I think the President ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say: 'We expect you to open your spigots.' The President of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price," said candidate Bush. It's probably worth pointing out that while Dubya was talking tough about OPEC and bashing Clinton for high gas prices, oil prices were $28 a barrel. Four years of Bush, and oil is now almost $50 a barrel. Now that's the kind of leadership that surely deserves reelection! ... 8. Deal Hudson Some say that the Top Ten is not the Top Ten without a prominent member of the GOP getting into trouble for sexual harassment. So here it is: a prominent member of the GOP getting into trouble for sexual harassment! Deal Hudson, an adviser to Team Bush and "leader of GOP efforts to reach out to Catholics" resigned last week after it was revealed that he settled an harassment case for $30,000 in 1996. Apparently Hudson developed a relationship in 1994 with an 18-year-old student (who had been in and out of foster care since the age of seven), took her under his wing ("He was extremely attentive and genuinely concerned," she said), got her drunk, and then, uh, boinked her in his car. It seems that Hudson then begged her to keep her mouth shut before creating an "'extraordinarily hostile' classroom environment that 'emotionally devastated' her," according to the Boston Globe. To be honest though, I really don't know why Team Bush are letting this guy go - he sounds like he would be an excellent addition to an administration which bases most of its policies on fucking the vulnerable.
Iraq's successful Olympic football team has launched an outspoken attack on US President George W Bush. Midfielder Salih Sadir said the team - which won its group stage in Greece - was angry it had been used in Mr Bush's re-election campaign ads.
One accused the US leader of committing "many crimes", and another said he would be fighting US troops if not for Athens. ... Another star player, 22-year-old Ahmed Manajid, asked: "How will [Mr Bush] meet his god having slaughtered so many men and women? He has committed so many crimes."
A Bush supporter at work actually said to me "what are they complaining about, after all we've done for them." I guess the Iraqi soccer players are unaware that a lot of schools have opened.
4. George W. Bush So, while he's not clandestinely backing shadowy smear groups, how is Our Great Leader doing running the country? If the recent meteoric rises in oil prices are anything to go by, not very well. According to the AFP, "World oil prices could sally past 50 dollars a barrel and hold at high levels for the foreseeable future on a combination of tight, unstable supplies and rising demand, notably from Asia." Hmm... unstable supplies. I wonder why that could be? Of course, George doesn't seem too concerned about the price of oil right now since he's kinda busy slandering John Kerry. But it might be worth taking a look at what Bush said back in 2000 when he criticized Bill Clinton for not being tough enough on oil producers. "I think the President ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say: 'We expect you to open your spigots.' The President of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price," said candidate Bush. It's probably worth pointing out that while Dubya was talking tough about OPEC and bashing Clinton for high gas prices, oil prices were $28 a barrel. Four years of Bush, and oil is now almost $50 a barrel. Now that's the kind of leadership that surely deserves reelection!
7. George W. Bush Is that the sound of clucking I hear? There's a marked difference in the campaign styles of George W. Bush and John Kerry, and it's a difference that makes Our Great Leader out to be, well, a bit of a chickenshit. It seems that while John Kerry is out and about holding public rallies in front of thousands of people, George W. Bush is hiding himself away in smaller venues, ensuring that not only will he be able to avoid protesters (see Idiots 165), but he won't even have to face questions from people who are genuinely curious about what what he might do for them during the next four years. For example, these are the kind of "questions" that Bush faced recently at one of his butt-kissing sessions: "Mr. President, I just want to say I'm praying for you and God bless you." Follow up question... "I would just like to say that I agree with this gentleman, that we should all pray for you." Pretty incisive, huh? Or take this exchange... QUESTION: "Mr. President, you were a fighter pilot and you were with the 147th Fighter Wing?" ANSWER: "Yes." QUESTION: "And flew a very dangerous aircraft, the Delta F102?" ANSWER: "Right, and I'm still standing." QUESTION: "I want to thank you for serving our country." Brilliant! Let's do a quick recap...
Bush campaigning in Oregon:
Kerry campaigning in Oregon:
Bush chose the runway to make himself look taller; either that or he just likes to look down on people. Kerry needs a stage so that people half a mile away can get a glimpse.
Okay besides allowing us to mock Bush that old photo of Bush might actually contain some real information. Those medals he is showing may not have ever actually been awarded him. For more on that, join in this discussion: Daily Kos - Bush's medals
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - At least $8.8 billion in Iraqi funds that was given to Iraqi ministries by the former U.S.-led authority there cannot be accounted for, according to a draft U.S. audit set for release soon.
Newly obtained military records of one of Sen. John F. Kerry's most vocal critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying about his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own version of events.
In newspaper interviews and a best-selling book, Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has strongly disputed Kerry's claim that the Massachusetts Democrat's boat came under fire during a mission in Viet Cong-controlled territory on March 13, 1969. Kerry won a Bronze Star for his actions that day.
But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day, and the citation praises him for providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."
"yeah," says Thurlow, "looking back on it now, those weren't bullets but bugs... dang annoying things."
``It's not that he's a coward,'' he added. ``He's just had it up to here.''
The Army has issued ``stop-loss'' orders preventing tens of thousands of soldiers designated to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan from leaving the military if their volunteer commitment ends during their deployment. The Pentagon has relied heavily on reservists to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.
``The order violates Doe's right to due process and the terms of his enlistment contract, and is contrary to law,'' the lawsuit reads. ``The involuntary extension of Doe's military enlistment constitutes a serious infringement on his liberty protected by the Constitution.''
The San Francisco-area man, who filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for Northern California, fought during the invasion of Iraq last year. Married with two young daughters, he is seeking a release from service when his Army National Guard term ends in December.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Over two decades, the income gap has steadily increased between the richest Americans, who own homes and stocks and got big tax breaks, and those at the middle and bottom of the pay scale, whose paychecks buy less.
The growing disparity is even more pronounced in this recovering economy. Wages are stagnant and the middle class is shouldering a larger tax burden. Prices for health care, housing, tuition, gas and food have soared. [emphasis mine]
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Relatives of the U.S. soldier who sounded the alarm about abuse of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison said on Monday the family was living in protective custody because of death threats against them.
I've been out of touch for a while, but it unfortunately seems things are pretty much the same in Iraq (though I'm sure there are lots of schools open!!!)
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Authorities have halted oil export flows from the main pipeline in southern Iraq after intelligence showed a rebel militia could strike infrastructure, an oil official said Saturday.
The shutdown kept loadings at southern oil terminals at half their normal level, undermining the government's effort to raise revenue as oil prices hit record highs, partly in response to the instability in Iraq.
``The situation in Basra is bad. Management ordered the pipeline shut late yesterday,'' said the South Oil Company official, who declined to be named.
Thank you Michael for keeping TCS current while I was away.
This will be the second Monday in a row where we won't have a new bumpter sticker at the TCS store. I apologize, but next week we'll have a new one.... I know you're excited.
While in Maine and waiting for a calzone, a man looks up at the TV and sees an ad for Kerry. "Truth is I can't stand either one of them, but I don't want to look at that goddamn smirk anymore." Another vote for Kerry. (I later learned the man has been working the Bath shipyards for 22 years making ships for the Navy).
Some Things You Ought to Know About Who's in Charge
The name of Nixon may not resonate too strongly with many younger readers of this web page, but suffice to say, the bungled burglary at the Democratic National Headquarters in an election year led to the worst political scandal in American history:
In dealing with the Bush crowd, I was getting eerie flashbacks to the Nixon years and the furtive air that pervaded that White House. President Gerald Ford has called Watergate a "long national nightmare," and nightmare it was, with twenty of President Nixon's chief lieutenants indicted, convicted, and sentenced. Three articles of impeachment voted by the House Judiciary Committee charged President Nixon with obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress, and President Nixon was driven from office in disgrace. ...
Other Nixon-like behaviors had begun to bother me. There was the same arrogance and the same outright contempt for Congress. Like Nixon, Bush had attempted to "personalize" the office, to create an "administrative presidency" which would shift the work of government to an imperial White House. The executive branch departments and agency heads, for all practical purposes, were made subordinate to Nixon's advisors, all conveniently immune from accountability before Congress.
I'm getting eerie flashbacks too. I wonder why? Here's why:
I saw many of the same attitudes and tactics with this second Bush administration. And why was I not surprised? Consider the players. Bush's secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, served as director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, counselor to the president, and director of the Cost of Living Council during the Nixon years. Vice President Cheney had been special assistant to the Office of Economic Opportunity director, White House staff assistant, and assistant director of the Cost of Living Council under Nixon. And Bush's first secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neill, was his chief of the Office of Management and Budget's Human Resources Program, and an assistant director and associate director in the Office of Management and Budget. According to the New York Times, O'Neill had a lot to do with President Nixon's plan to use the OMB "as a kind of supermanager that would give the president formalized control of his administration without having to work the levers of power on a daily basis."
I had seen it all before--the secrecy and the contriving to bypass Congress, the contempt for constitutional checks and balances. Historically, it had produced dreadful results. Nixon resigned in disgrace. Johnson fabricated information and misled Congress to secure the unlimited authority of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. The Reagan administration used the National Security Council to end-run Congress in foreign relations, and wound up selling weapons to a terrorist nation and funding an illegal war in Central America. -- from Senator Robert C. Byrd, Losing America
All the same people, folks. Just that much older, that much harder, that much more resolved to destroying the fire walls and important civil service laws that were put in place "to prevent the consolidation of information and the massing of too much police power by the federal government" after Watergate. The congressionally established Federal Election Commission, the Congressional Budget Office, the War Powers Resolution, and the Presidential Materials and Preservation Acts have all been successfully overwhelmed, circumvented, and sidestepped by the Bush administration. The Constitution itself is under attack.
I'm back in the saddle again Out where a friend is a friend Where the longhorn cattle feed On the lowly gypsum weed Back in the saddle again
Ridin' the range once more Totin' my old .44 Where you sleep out every night And the only law is right Back in the saddle again
Whoopi-ty-aye-oh Rockin' to and fro Back in the saddle again Whoopi-ty-aye-yay I go my way Back in the saddle again
This one on the doctrine of preemption, by Representative Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to his partner in their Illinois law firm, while serving as a member of the U.S. House, refuting the latter's view that Polk's annexation of Texas from Mexico was necessary to repel invasion:
Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose--and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probability of the British invading us" but he will say to you, "Be silent; I see it, if you don't."
The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.
This one, from Dwight D. Eisenhower, from 1953, on the costs of such a doctrine:
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold, and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than thirty cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more the 8,000 people.
These figures are quaint by today's standards. Here he is again, in his farewell address to the nation on January 17, 1961, bringing Lincoln's point and his earlier quote together in one ominous warning:
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.... In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
If Machiavelli wrote 500 years ago that it was best to be feared and loved, he also meant that it is the worst of all possible worlds to be feared and hated.
Now we have a new film genre: the completely depressing 9/11 movie. Without ruining it for anyone who hasn't seen it yet, let's put it this way: two yuppie professionals, a man and a woman, living their boring lives, suddenly holding hands and forced to jump off the top of the World Trade Center with the flames tickling their ass. In this case America is no longer at the top of the food chain. And the underlying message is that all of us paid a huge chunk of our hard-earned cash to put ourselves in this very spot, where we are most vulnerable and susceptible to attack, which can come at any time. "Open Water" doesn't pull its punches: it's not a matter of if but when. The Bush America zeitgeist.
I haven't read a single review, so maybe this has all been said already. I thought this was going to be a great movie when I saw the trailer, it really scared me. When I went to go see it I was hyped and in an upbeat mood. When I came out I was seriously bummed and felt as though I had been kicked by a horse.
Thanks for that, Lion's Gate. Anyone who wants to know what it felt like for those poor fuckers in the towers, go see Open Water.
Wall Street's biggest fear is that rising energy prices will further increase the costs of shipping goods to market, thus driving up prices for consumers who are themselves hard hit by high gasoline prices. With fewer consumers shopping and higher costs for corporations, earnings for the current quarter, which ends next month, could falter.
Oil prices are now up 57 percent in the past 12 months, although when adjusted for inflation, oil is still roughly $8 less per barrel than it was leading up to the first Gulf War.
Market watchers said some investors had started to whisper about the possibility of a $60 barrel, even as the head of producers' cartel OPEC made soothing-but-vague comments about ``a significant outcome'' from its next members' meeting in September.
Iran's defense minister, Vice Adm. Ali Shamkhani, has warned that Iran may resort to pre-emptive strikes to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities.
"We will not sit to wait for what others will do to us," he said. "Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly. Any nation, if it feels threatened, can resort to that."
A commander of Iran's hard-line Revolutionary Guards warned this week that Iran would strike Israel's reactor at Dimona if Israel attacked Iran's nuclear sites.
Admiral Shamkhani said Iran was certain that Israel would not carry out such an attack without a green light from the United States. "So you cannot separate the two," he said.
Thank you George Bush, for your doctrine of preemption. You've given a present to the world.
Why doesn't the government just build an electrified wall around America and turn it into one big Alcatraz? Your name could show up anywhere, and when it does, watch out, even if you're Senator Edward Kennedy. You know how many people in this country have my name? Do you know how easy it is for someone to steal it? Don't you think this is exactly what real terrorists are doing? The government sure thinks so. So what are they doing about it? Compiling great big lists of everyone with that name and targeting you. What's to stop the Justice Dept. from getting ahold of every name on every petition opposing the administration's views and putting them on an Enemies List of potential "terrorists"? Nixon used to do this: he'd sic the IRS on anyone who signed such petitions and have their income taxes audited, going all the way back to the statute of limitations, which in those days was seven years. But this crowd has already gone much much further than Nixon ever even dreamed about. If Ted Kennedy can't fly, what's next I wonder? What about you and me? Are you going to keep your mouth shut and pretend to be invisible for the rest of your life, out of fear of your own government, hoping they don't show up at your door one day and cart you off?
Instead of acknowledging the craggy-faced, silver-haired septuagenarian as the Congressional leader whose face has flashed across the nation's television sets for decades, the airline agents acted as if they had stumbled across a fanatic who might blow up an American airplane. Mr. Kennedy said they refused to give him his ticket.
Mr. Kennedy said his situation highlighted the odyssey encountered by people whose names had mistakenly appeared on terrorist watch lists or resembled the names of suspected terrorists on such lists. In April, the American Civil Liberties Union sued the government on behalf of seven airline passengers who said they had wrongly been placed on no-fly lists or associated with names on the lists and could not find a way to clarify their identities.
Just days after Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge called Mr. Kennedy in early April to apologize and to promise that the problems would be resolved, another airline agent tried to stop Mr. Kennedy from boarding a plane yet again. The alias used by the suspected terrorist on the watch list was Edward Kennedy, said David Smith, a spokesman for the senator.
Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union said they did not know how many people had been mistakenly placed on watch lists. But they said the sluggish responses from the airline and the government to Mr. Kennedy's efforts to clear his name demonstrated the absurdity of the no-fly system.
"It demonstrates all those things that we found problems with in the first place, " said Reginald Shulford of the A.C.L.U. "If you're Ted Kennedy, you can call a friend," Mr. Shulford said. "If you're an average citizen you cannot. You can complain to the Department of Homeland Security, but to no avail."
Doesn't that make you feel warm and fuzzy all over? It's like the 1919 Red Scare Palmer raids, McCarthyism, and Nixon rolled into one big crushing ball.
I knew it was only a matter of time before Democrats became "terrorists" -- or maybe we were targeted for termination from day one.
This is a "team" blog. We are a bunch of
Americans, who's rising distress
in our leader's decisions brought us together to make this site.
As Bush said, he's a "uniter." Many of us have never even met.
That's the internet for you.
Kerry winning is not enough, the House and the Senate need to be ripped out of the cold dead hands of the Republican party. The two campaign committees direct your money to regional campaigns where the
democrats feel they have a good chance of taking a seat. Try to help out.
Some More Site Mottos
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the
president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the
American people."
- Teddy Roosevelt
"Government has a final responsibility for the well-being of
its citizenship. If private cooperative endeavor fails to provide work
for willing hands and relief for the unfortunate, those suffering
hardship from no fault of their own have a right to call upon the
Government for aid; and a government worthy of its name must make
fitting response."
- Franklin Delano Roosevelt
"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have
become the instruments of tyranny at home."
"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain
degree."
- James Madison
More Sites we often
like:
more coming...
Hey, this is what our banner looks like. You like it?
Hey, feel free to put it on your site and link it to here.
We'd really appreciate it.
you don't have to of course, but if you do that's great.