Bush vs Kerry on Iraq

Blogger Andrew Sullivan raises the oft-noted criticism that critics of Bush's handling of Iraq don't offer much of a strategy in return:

What I'm saying, I guess, is that as long as the anti-war critics continue relentless negativism without any constructive alternative, they will soon lose the debate. Americans want to know how to move this war forward, not why we shouldn't have started it in the first place. Right now, the president has the best plan for making this work. What does anyone else have?

I'm not sure I agree with Andrew's reasoning. Not that he's wrong about whether anyone has offered a plan better than Bush's (though I have yet to hear of a real plan from Bush as to how we can ever possibly leave), but rather, I disagree with Andrew as to whether Bush's opponent has to offer any plan at all, or at least whether offering a better alternative is a prerequisite for winning our votes.

Simply comparing Bush's plan to Kerry's plan leaves out a rather important element - namely, the fact that Bush got us into this mess in the first place, and the question of HOW he got us into this mess (by either lying or being supremely ignorant of the facts). Those two points are highly relevant in determining who's more qualified to be commander in chief. In my view, Bush has already proven he's not up to the job - by disappearing on September 11, by alienating the allies, by lying (or at least negligently misinforming) the nation about the pretext for going to war, and by his handling of the aftermath. Even if you give Bush "the aftermath" - i.e., you give Bush the fact that anyone would have trouble dealing with the aftermath of the invasion - Bush has already proven he's a bad leader when you look at the rest of the evidence.

Asking us to ignore the fact that Bush got us into this mess is a bit like asking me to go back to a dentist who accidentally cut off my leg while filling a cavity. True, no other dentist has a better plan for reattaching my now-gone leg, but it doesn't mean I'm dumb enough to go back to the same moron who cut it off in the first place. If Bush could lie to us, and quagmire us, once - he can do it again. The man has proven his character, and the character of those he chooses to surround himself with. They like to do things "their way." And we now know that their way doesn't work, and often leaves us worse off than before.

Fool me once, shame on me... Read More......

AP: Terrorists Planning Summer Attack

Funny, I'm not feeling safer after Bush's little war. Read More......

READ THIS - Study: War in Iraq & Afghanistan may have helped Al-Qaida, hurt war on terror

This study was done by the International Institute of Strategic Studies, one of THE top defense think tanks in the world. Any of you who don't work in this area need to know, this study coming from THIS source is a BIG BIG BIG deal. I don't even know where to begin. According to the study, Bush has:

1. Helped Al-Qaeda grow stronger

Far from being crippled by the U.S.-led war on terror, al-Qaida has more than 18,000 potential terrorists scattered around the world and the war in Iraq is swelling its ranks, a report said Tuesday.

Al-Qaida is probably working on plans for major attacks on the United States and Europe, and it may be seeking weapons of mass destruction in its desire to inflict as many casualties as possible, the International Institute of Strategic Studies said in its annual survey of world affairs....

The report suggested that the two military centerpieces of the U.S.-led war on terror - the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - may have boosted al-Qaida.

Driving the terror network out of Afghanistan in late 2001 appears to have benefited the group, which dispersed to many countries, making it almost invisible and hard to combat, the story said.

2. Taken resources AWAY from the war on terror

And the Iraq conflict "has arguably focused the energies and resources of al-Qaida and its followers while diluting those of the global counterterrorism coalition that appeared so formidable" after the Afghan intervention, the survey said.

3. We may need 500,000 troops to quell Iraq

It could take up to 500,000 U.S. and allied troops to effectively police Iraq and restore political stability, IISS researcher Christopher Langton told the news conference.

4. Al Qaeda wants to kill 4 million Americans

The United States is al-Qaida's prime target in a war it sees as a death struggle between civilizations, the report said. An al-Qaida leader has said 4 million Americans will have to be killed "as a prerequisite to any Islamic victory," the survey said.

The London-based institute is considered the most important security think tank outside the United States.

Read More......

Republican party calls gay marriage a "national crisis"

The DNC just released the following. It's pretty clear that the Republicans are planning to use gay-bating as a technique to rile their base, yet they'll do it in a way that they hope won't get national attention (so as not to appear homophobic). Well, not to appear homophobic to those audiences which aren't homophobic. They have no problem appearing homophobic to those who are in fact homophobes.

Republican Leaders Attack America's Families
Claim that "Alternative Family Forms" are Inadequate

Washington, D.C. - Last week, the Republican Party ratcheted up efforts to promote the discriminatory Federal Marriage Amendment when party leaders distributed talking points which called same-sex unions a "national crisis" and, in the process, criticized half of American families as inadequate. Included among the talking points was a statement claiming that it is "a terrible message to the next generation [that] alternative family forms are just as good as traditional families," an assertion that suggests that families led by single mothers, grandparents, or same-sex couples are invalid and, thus, detrimental to children.

Read More......

MTV to offer all-gay channel

Hire me! Hire me!

NEW YORK, May 25 /U.S. Newswire/ -- LOGO, a new cable television network targeted at lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) viewers will be launched by MTV Networks, a division of Viacom Inc. (NYSE: VIA, VIAB) on February 17, 2005. The new channel will be advertiser-supported, targeting primarily gays and lesbians, 25-49, and will provide a mix of original and acquired programming that is authentic, smart, inclusive and open-minded.

LOGO will launch in markets across America, including Los Angeles, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Atlanta and San Francisco, through national cable operators, including Time Warner Cable, RCN and additional distributors that will be announced in the coming weeks. LOGO joins
Viacom's roster of popular and highly-targeted cable networks which includes MTV, Comedy Central, BET and Spike TV.

"Creating a network specifically for the LGBT community is something we've wanted to do for a long, long time, and it's an idea we feel is overdue," said Tom Freston, chairman and CEO of MTV Networks. "Despite our nation's progress on civil rights and the growing visibility of gay people in business, society and even in television programming -- what has been missing is a full-time home for this important and influential audience on television. We have big plans and hopes for LOGO and I'm thrilled to finally announce its arrival."

Read More......

New problems in RSA with AIDS war

During my five plus months of travel in southern Africa last year, I heard similar complaints over and over and over. Lack of funding is often not the issue for many issues in South Africa. Failure to distribute money and resources has plagued the South African government for years. Mbeki has his strengths but fighting the war on AIDS is not one of them. The numbers down there are astounding and some days it's just impossible not to think about it because everywhere you go down there, AIDS is present. From the burial service businesses (which pop up every day and even advertise on TV), to fresh graves everywhere, to stories from locals, stories from doctors, children without parents, the newspapers, TV, etc., the problems is everywhere there. It is beyond comprehension that the government there can ignore such a critical issue when people are dieing all around them.

"South Africa has an estimated five million people infected with the AIDS virus -- the highest number in the world -- and has frequently been accused of moving too slowly to combat the epidemic.

Richard Feachem, head of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, told South African media this week that Pretoria was failing to get international grant money to organizations fighting the disease on the ground.

"It's intolerable that the money gets stuck in Pretoria and if Pretoria can't move it for any reason, we will simply withdraw it and establish direct relationships with the people actually doing the work," Feachem said." - Reuters

Read More......

Bush mispronounced Abu Ghraib, 3 times, during speech

I know it doesn't matter, but it is funny. From Reuters:

"Bush mispronounced Abu Ghraib each of the three times he mentioned it while announcing U.S. plans to tear down the infamous jail and replace it with a new facility."

Reuters notes that English speakers usually pronounce it "abu-grabe."

"But the Republican president, long known for verbal and grammatical lapses, stumbled on the first try, calling it 'abugah-rayp'. The second version came out 'abu-garon', the third attempt sounded like 'abu-garah'."

All joking aside, the Wash Post did a great job of summarizing the media response to Bush's speech. Among the best snippets:

NY Daily News

"The father of a New York soldier killed in Iraq said last night that President Bush failed to tell him what he wanted to hear most -- a date when our troops are coming home."

CNN:

Later, Brown asked CNN analyst Jeff Greenfield: "Can a speech like this without a dramatic headline survive a news cycle?"

Greenfield replied: "Maybe it can survive a news cycle, although in this sped-up period with cable news and the Web, maybe not. But I think the point you're making is absolutely right. You know there is this notion that political spin doctors and pollsters and media experts and the Karl Roves of this world can somehow create magic.

"I think in this particular story -- war and peace -- you can't do it. What the president says, even with the bully pulpit, is way, way less important than what we're going to be seeing and if, over the next few months, what the president tells us is going to happen, happens. That's when you're going to see a turnaround in public opinion."

Read More......

The Boston Globe goes soft on right wing nut cases

I really don't get it. Why do news organizations feel that they have to let every right wing hack receive space? I only read the Boston Globe online but this article is such a pathetic waste of time, I don't know why they bother with this clown. Drumming up the neocon script for the millionth time is really getting old and I do not understand why so many newspapers around the country feel like they have to give columns to people like this. Let the readers and viewers watch Faux News and read the Washington Times. They always think that every other news source is biased so why bother? Do they really think that their traditional readers are benefiting from their columns? Are they that confident that adding an extremist point of view in one or two columns is going to add new subscriptions?

JOHN'S ADDITION TO CHRIS' POST:

I just read the article Chris linked to, and it pissed me off. Basically, it's the same old tired "you're un-American for questioning Lord God Bush" bullshit:

TWO WEEKS ago Senator Ted Kennedy uttered what may turn out to be the single most disgusting remark made about the United States in the course of the Iraq War. The reaction to his slander - or rather, the lack of reaction - speaks volumes about the moral bankruptcy of the American left.

Speaking in the Senate on May 10, Kennedy had this to say about the Abu Ghraib prison scandal:

''On March 19, 2004, President Bush asked, 'Who would prefer that Saddam's torture chambers still be open?' Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management - US management.''

This was not a blurted, off-the-cuff comment - Kennedy was reading from a prepared text. It was not a shocked first reaction to the abuses at Abu Ghraib - the story had broken more than a week earlier. Incredibly, the senior senator from Massachusetts really was equating the disgraceful mistreatment of a few Iraqi prisoners by a few American troops with the unspeakable sadism, rape, and mass murder that had been routine under Saddam Hussein.

Ted Kennedy is absolutely right, and, I'll say it again, it's high time those of us who aren't members of the vast right-wing conspiracy stood up to these Republican McCarthyites and told them to shut the fuck up. They are on a rampage to shut off all legitimate debate in this country, under the guise of "un-American activities," and all too many of us are letting them get away with it. You can write a letter to the editor of the Boston Globe here:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/write/ Read More......

Blogger server is having problems

Thanks to those of you who let me know that blogger's server is having problems. It keeps making the site look like it's not here, when it is. I've let blogger know, hopefully they'll get on it. Also, in the future, bookmark the URL this way:

http://AMERICAblog.org

or

http://AMERICAblog.blogspot.com

I.e., do NOT use the www. Thanks, JOHN Read More......

Al Qaeda ranks still growing

Thank goodness we're breaking the bank in Iraq to fight terror. The ranks of al Qaeda are still growing and Iraq has been the advertising poster for recruitment. After last night's speech by Bush, I do not think that the guy "gets it."

"Any security offensive against al-Qaida must be accompanied with political developments, such as the democratization of Iraq and the resolution of conflict in Israel, it said.

Progress against al-Qaida “is likely to accelerate only with currently elusive political developments that would broadly depress recruitment and motivation,” the report said." - AP

Read More......

Militias to be included in Iraqi political process?

Despite what Tony Blair said today during his press conference about getting rid of militias who are fighting against US and British forces, there are increasing rumors about militias, such as al Sadr and his lot, being included in the new political system in Iraq. Considering the fighting that has gone on recently, this will be an interesting turn of events and I look forward to hearing how the administration is going to reverse its course on these terrorists of yesterday. Does this mean that al Sadr is no longer wanted dead or alive? Was he an evil man before as we were told or is he somehow a freedom fighter? Interesting days ahead.

"A senior allied official said Monday that the Americans were engaged in delicate negotiations with several of the country's main militias to disband and integrate them into the security forces. The official said the Americans hoped to announce an agreement with the militias as early as this week." - NY Times

This "integration" is going to be something to follow. Read More......