Republicans are abandoning ship left and right. We've brought you several anguished editorials written by life-long Republicans who feel that George Bush has betrayed them and their principles.

Here's an AP story about how moderate Republicans in Colorado are planning to vote for John Kerry rather than endure four more years of George Bush's radical governance.


**********

"Moderate Colorado Republicans breaking ranks"
By Judith Kohler
The Associated Press
10/21/2004, 3:39 p.m. PT


DENVER (AP) -- A rebellion of sorts is under way among some of Colorado's moderate Republicans, led by a retired tax lawyer who worked in the Nixon White House and says she is fed up with the direction of her party.

Mary Lou Halliburton, 66, is a lifelong Republican and a relative of Earl Halliburton, who founded the company once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney and now criticized for a $7.5 billion no-bid contract to work in Iraq.

Halliburton doesn't think her late cousin would approve of the circumstances surrounding the contract. And she doesn't like how President Bush has handled the Iraq war, so she is supporting Democrat John Kerry.

More than anything, Halliburton doesn't like the direction of the GOP. She said the party's rejection of fiscal conservatism, respect for differences and other long-held principles could help explain why Bush hasn't sewn up Colorado after winning here easily four years ago.

"Our issues and concerns are everything from foreign policy to deficit spending to choice to stem cell research to the Iraq war -- and on and on," Halliburton wrote in an e-mail to more than 200 people who contacted her after a newspaper column about disaffected Republicans.

The interest encouraged Halliburton and like-minded party members, including former state Sens. Dottie Wham and Al Meiklejohn, to form "Republicans Who Want Their Party Back," whose aim is to return the party "to the mainstream of American politics."

The Colorado Republicans aren't alone. Party members in Oregon, including relatives of former GOP Gov. Vic Atiyeh, have announced their support for Kerry. The former governor, however, supports Bush.

Ty Pettit, president and chief executive of a medical device company in Portland, Ore., recently switched to the Democratic Party after 30 years as a Republican. His complaints include the deficit, Iraq and the president's stances against abortion and stem-cell research.

"The party of George Bush needs to be challenged," Pettit said.

An Internet site run by Republicans for Kerry echoes his concerns, claiming Bush "has acted so contrary to our values."

They join John Eisenhower, son of Republican President Eisenhower, who announced in September that he backs Kerry and is upset with Bush and the GOP over the budget deficits, the war and social policies. Former Minnesota Gov. Elmer Anderson supports Kerry for the same reasons.

"I think it's the sign of the times, with Bush going as far as he has, that there are more of us," Halliburton said.

The question, however, is how deep the opposition really is.

Nancy Martorano, a political science professor at the University of Dayton in Ohio, said there is a certain amount of crossover between both parties in every election. She doesn't think the numbers this year add up to a revolution in the ranks.

"If anything, we're actually seeing less crossover in 2000 and 2004," Martorano said.

She acknowledged some Republicans are unhappy with the deficits, Iraq and "the impact that the hard-core Christian right has on Bush."

But she said she believes most would prefer Bush's policies to Kerry's.

Colorado GOP chairman Ted Halaby said some of the high-profile defections have caught a lot of attention. "I don't like to lose any Republican votes," he said.

But Halaby predicted more Democrats will vote for Bush than Republicans will vote for Kerry because of national security concerns. He expects Bush's modest lead in Colorado polls to hold or grow.

"I subscribe to the big-tent philosophy of Ronald Reagan. I think there's plenty of room for moderates," Halaby said.

Former Colorado Secretary of State and U.S. Senate nominee Mary Estill Buchanan is among the moderate Republicans who feel there is no room for them. Buchanan said she will likely vote for Kerry.

"We all feel we've compromised too much," Buchanan said. She said the breaking point for her was the prospect of Bush appointing new justices to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The tone for the next 40 years, for another generation, can be set by just two appointees," she said

Desperation. That's what this is. Not a single issue that can be defended and what do you guys come up with. Lies & distortions. Anyway do not worry. You all will be relieved of your misery in about 10 days.

deleted

Kerry Campaign Response to Sinclair Smear
Sinclair executives have given more than $100,000 to George W. Bush and the Republican Party. Tonight they supported him with millions of dollars of air time devoted to an anti-Kerry smear aimed at influencing the election. Sinclair gave lip service to the first amendment but fired an honest journalist working for Sinclair who spoke out against their smear. Sinclair's shameful actions can't obscure the plain truth -- John Kerry was a war hero who was decorated for bravery. People will see this for what it was: one of George W. Bush's big corporate cronies trying to distract voters from his record of failure.

THE FACTS: Sinclair's Smear Fact Check

SHOW TITLE: "A POW Story"
DATE: 10/22/04

First a Little Background on Sinclair--Longtime Friends of the Bush Family

Right Wing Broadcaster & Strong Bush Supporter Airs Anti-Kerry Pseudo-Documentary

"Several High-Ranking Officials of Sinclair" Gave the Maximum to Bush. "[S]everal high-ranking officials of Sinclair Broadcast Group gave the maximum donation to the George Bush re-election campaign" [CNN, American Morning, 4/20/04]

Sinclair Executives Are "Major Donors to Bush and the GOP. "Sinclair Broadcast Group's employees give almost exclusively to Republicans, and its executives are major donors to Bush and the GOP, according to Federal Election Commission records. [Richmond Times Dispatch, Williams, 5/3/04]

Sinclair's Editorialist Mark Hyman Donated To the Maryland Republican Party. Mark Hyman donated $2,061 to the Republican State Central Committee of Maryland in 2000. [FEC, tray.com]

Sinclair Fired Washington Bureau Chief for Protesting Their Anti-Kerry Smear.

"Sinclair, which fired its Washington bureau chief, Jon Lieberman, on Monday for telling the Baltimore Sun that plans to show Sherwood's 42-minute film amounted to ‘biased political propaganda.'" [Philadelphia Inquirer, 10/20/04]

Sinclair Ownership Are Big Bush Supporters. Sinclair general counsel Barry Faber confirmed the company told its ABC affiliates not to air Friday's "Nightline." "We find it to be contrary to public interest," he said. "ABC News will continue to report on all facets of the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism in a manner consistent with the standards which ABC News has set for decades," it said. Sinclair's statement said ABC is politicizing the war. "Mr. Koppel and 'Nightline' are hiding behind this so-called tribute in an effort to highlight only one aspect of the war effort and in doing so to influence public opinion against the military action in Iraq," the statement said. According to campaign finance records, four of Sinclair's top executives each have given the maximum campaign contribution of $2,000 to the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. The executives have not given any donations to the campaign of Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee, the records showed. [CNN.com, 4/30/04]

CBS News: Sinclair CEO Gave the "Largest Personal Check Allowed By Law" to Bush. "In the past eight years, Sinclair has given the lion's share of its political contributions to Republican candidates. This year, the company's CEO wrote out the largest personal check allowed by law to President Bush's re-election campaign." [CBS Evening News, 10/10/04]

Sinclair's Friendly Filmmaker Is Actually Disgraced Journalist & was Arrested for Illegally Recording Conversation

Sinclair Gave Time to Discredited Journalist Turned Anti-Kerry Filmmaker--Who Charged for Illegally Taping Private Conversations. "nvestigative reporter Carlton Sherwood was charged before a Maryland District Court commissioner in Silver Spring with illegally taping a conversation. He was released on his personal recognizance. A preliminary hearing on the charge, which is a felony in Maryland that carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison or a $10,000 fine." [Washington Post, 11/7/83]

Sherwood Friend & Fellow Vet Claims Politics Behind His Movie. A Jefferson County veteran who served in Carlton Sherwood's platoon in Vietnam, and who kept in contact with him in the 1990s, said he thinks the producer of ‘Stolen Honor' is ‘using it to further his [political] agenda' against Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. ‘I know his political views,' said Paul Wilson, who is the Jefferson County coordinator for Veterans for Kerry. ‘He has some very strident political views. If I knew somebody who was going to watch' Sherwood's video, Wilson said, ‘I would say first realize ... it's made by someone who's definitely not nonpartisan or unbiased.'" [Charleston Gazette, 10/22/04]

Fact Check on Sinclair's Dirty Work for Bush for Bush

False Claim - Sinclair Offered Kerry Equal Time

Sinclair's False Claim: "We offered the Kerry campaign equal time." [Sinclair's "A POW Story", 10/22/04]

FACT: Sinclair Only Offered John Kerry a Chance to Take Part in a Panel Discussion.

"Mark Hyman, a vice president of corporate relations for Sinclair who also is a conservative commentator for the company, said Monday the show would contain some or all of the 42-minute film as well as a panel discussion of some sort." [AP, 10/11/04]

False Claim - Kerry Lied About Atrocities in Vietnam

Sinclair's False Claim: Kerry Spoke for All Vietnam Vets & Lied About Atrocities in Vietnam

Kerry Spoke About Testimony He Had Heard From Vietnam Veterans and Told the Unfortunate Truth--That Atrocities Occurred in Vietnam. "I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do." - John Kerry [Senate Foreign Relations Committee Testimony, 4/22/71]

Toledo Blade Won 2004 Pulitzer Prize for Series Exposing American Atrocities in Vietnam. "Three [Toledo] Blade reporters won the Pulitzer Prize - journalism's highest honor - for uncovering the atrocities of an elite U.S. Army fighting unit in the Vietnam War that killed unarmed civilians and children during a seven-month rampage." [Toledo Blade, 4/6/04]

Newsweek: "Record Shows Atrocities Did Occur." "The historical record shows that atrocities did occur in Vietnam, as in the My Lai massacre or the so-called Tiger Force activities that were recently uncovered." [Newsday, 2/22/04]

Vietnam Historian Says There's No Question Atrocities Occurred. "Stanley Karnow, author of ‘Vietnam: A History,' said there is no question that atrocities occurred on both sides in the Vietnam War. [Boston Globe, 5/13/04]

Gen. Tommy Franks: Certain That Atrocities in Vietnam Did Take Place. "I think we had a lot of problems in Vietnam. One was the lack of leadership of young people like in - - in John Kerry's position. He was a young officer over there, and I'm not sure that -- that activities like that didn't take place. In fact, quite the contrary. I'm sure that they did. ...I wouldn't say that the things that Senator Kerry said are undeniable about activities in Vietnam. I think that things didn't go right in Vietnam." [Hannity and Colmes, 8/3/04]

False Claim - Kerry Indicted Fellow Veterans

Sinclair's False Claim: Sinclair's Broadcast Claimed John Kerry Blamed Fellow Veterans for Atrocities in Vietnam [Sinclair's "A POW Story", 10/22/04]

FACT: Kerry's Testimony Was an Indictment of America's Political Leadership--Not Fellow Veterans. "We are also here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We are here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatric and so many others. Where are they now that we, the men whom they sent off to war, have returned? These are commanders who have deserted their troops, and there is no more serious crime in the law of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded. The Marines say they never leave even their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They have left the real stuff of their reputation bleaching behind them in the sun in this country." - John Kerry [Senate Foreign Relations Cmte Testimony, 4/22/71]

BUSH-CHENEY AD FACT CHECK - Wolves
These are desperate days for the Bush campaign with the president's job approval in the danger zone. They are desperately using the politics of fear to try and distract from President Bush's failed record on the economy and Iraq. But it won't work. This only reminds people that it's time for a fresh start and a new direction in America.

THE FACTS:

AD TITLE: "Wolves"

DATE: 10/22/04

TYPE: :30 TV

PAID FOR BY: Bush-Cheney '04

FALSE NEGATIVE ATTACK AD SCRIPT

Narrator: "In an increasingly dangerous world…Even after the first terrorist attack on America…John Kerry and the liberals in Congress voted to slash America's intelligence operations. By 6 billion dollars. Cuts so deep they would have weakened America's defenses. And weakness attracts those who are waiting to do America harm."

BUSH-CHENEY CREDIBILITY GAP

Narrator: "In an increasingly dangerous world…Even after the first terrorist attack on America…John Kerry and the liberals in Congress voted to slash America's intelligence operations. By 6 billion dollars."

FACT CHECK: Bush's Hand-Picked Choice for Head of the CIA Called for Huge Cuts in Intel

Porter Goss, Hand-Picked By Bush to Head CIA, Wanted to Cut Intel More Than Kerry, And Specifically Targeted "Human Intelligence." "The Bush reelection campaign has been blasting Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry as deeply irresponsible for proposing intelligence cuts at the same time. A Bush campaign ad released on Aug. 13 carried a headline: ‘John Kerry...proposed slashing Intelligence Budget 6 Billion Dollars.' But the cuts Goss supported are larger than those proposed by Kerry and specifically targeted the ‘human intelligence' that has recently been found lacking. The recent report by the commission probing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks called for more spending on human intelligence." [Washington Post, 8/24/04]

· Goss Cuts Would Have Cut Intelligence Personnel By 4% or More. "But three months earlier, on June 22, Goss was one of six original co-sponsors of legislation titled H.R. 1923, called the Restructuring a Limited Government Act. Among other things, the legislation, written by then-Rules Committee Chairman Gerald B.H. Solomon (R-N.Y.), directed that "the president shall, for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000, reduce the total number of military and civilian personnel employed by, or assigned or detailed to, elements of the Intelligence Community by not less than 4 percent of the baseline number" of employees on Sept. 30, 1995. There are believed to be about 20,000 employees of the CIA, and an unknown number of others in the military intelligence agencies. [Washington Post, 8/24/04]

Bush Administration Proposed Intelligence Cuts AFTER 9-11. In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows. The document, dated Oct. 12, 2001, shows that the FBI requested $1.5 billion in additional funds to enhance its counterterrorism efforts with the creation of 2,024 positions. But the White House Office of Management and Budget cut that request to $531 million. Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, working within the White House limits, cut the FBI's request for items such as computer networking and foreign language intercepts by half, cut a cyber-security request by three quarters and eliminated entirely a request for "collaborative capabilities." [Washington Post, 4/13/04, 3/22/04]

Bush Provided Only One-Third Of Counter-Terrorism Funding In 2005 Budget. Bush's FY05 intelligence budget only provided a third of the counter-terrorism funding that our intelligence agencies said they needed to fight terrorism next year. The CIA Counterterrorism Center is only funded at 20% in the President's budget request. The other 80% of the money it needs to fight al Qaeda will have to come from supplementals. The bill would authorize an estimated $40 billion for intelligence spending, including roughly $30 billion for defense intelligence agencies and $5 billion for the CIA. Exact funding levels are classified. [CQ, 6/25/04; House Intelligence Committee Minority Staff, Rep. Harman release, 7/8/04]

Washington Post: Republican Criticism on Kerry Intel Record is Wrong. "President Bush, in his first major assault on Sen. John F. Kerry's legislative record, said this week that his Democratic opponent proposed a $1.5 billion cut in the intelligence budget, a proposal that would ‘gut the intelligence services,' and one that had no co-sponsors because it was ‘deeply irresponsible'….In fact, the Republican-led Congress that year approved legislation that resulted in $3.8 billion being cut over five years from the budget of the National Reconnaissance Office -- the same program Kerry said he was targeting." [Washington Post, 3/12/04]

In 1995, a Secret Billion Dollar Slush Fund was Found in the Intelligence Budget Which Served as a Opportunity To Cut Waste And Abuse. "The White House said yesterday it was "inexcusable" that the top secret agency that manages U.S. spy satellites had reportedly hoarded $ 1 billion in unspent funds…The unspent funds were discovered after the Senate intelligence committee questioned a luxurious $ 300 million headquarters the NRO was building in a Washington suburb." Kerry was part of bipartisan effort to cut waste & abuse in the NRO. The $1.5 billion cut Kerry proposed represented about the same amount Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), then chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, told the Senate that same day he wanted to cut from the intelligence spending bill based on unspent, secret funds that had been accumulated ‘without informing the Pentagon, CIA or Congress.' [Washington Post, 3/12/04; Washington Post, 9/25/95]

Kerry Strongly Supports Increased Intelligence Funding - Including $250 Billion in the Previous 8 Years - A 50% Increase Since 1996 - John Kerry has strongly supported recent increases in Intelligence funding, and, in the wake of 9/11, has supported the bipartisan call for an even larger increase in intelligence funding. According to a report issued by the Center for Defense Information entitled "Intelligence Funding and the War on Terror" John Kerry has supported approximately $250 billion in Intelligence funding over the past eight years alone. The report concludes that Kerry has supported a 50% increase in intelligence funding since 1996. [Senate Intelligence Authorization Funding voice votes 9/25/02, 12/13/01, 12/6/00, 11/19/1999, 10/8/98 & 9/25/96; 1997, Senate Roll Call vote # 109; Jewish News Bulletin of Northern California, 4/5/02]

BUSH-CHENEY CREDIBILITY GAP

Narrator: "Cuts so deep they would have weakened America's defenses. And weakness attracts those who are waiting to do America harm."

FACT CHECK: John Kerry Defended This Country As A Young Man and Will Defend it As President

Kerry Strongly Supports Increased Intelligence Funding - Including $250 Billion in the Previous 8 Years - A 50% Increase Since 1996 - John Kerry has strongly supported recent increases in Intelligence funding, and, in the wake of 9/11, has supported the bipartisan call for an even larger increase in intelligence funding. According to a report issued by the Center for Defense Information entitled "Intelligence Funding and the War on Terror" John Kerry has supported approximately $250 billion in Intelligence funding over the past eight years alone. The report concludes that Kerry has supported a 50% increase in intelligence funding since 1996. [Senate Intelligence Authorization Funding voice votes 9/25/02, 12/13/01, 12/6/00, 11/19/1999, 10/8/98 & 9/25/96; 1997, Senate Roll Call vote # 109; Jewish News Bulletin of Northern California, 4/5/02]

Kerry Has Supported $4.4 Trillion in Defense Spending Including the Largest Increase Since the 1980's, and 16 of 19 Defense Authorization Bills. John Kerry is a strong supporter of the U.S. Armed Services and has consistently worked to ensure the military has the best equipment and training possible. In 2002, John Kerry voted for a large increase in the defense budget. This increase provided more than $355 billion for the Defense Department for 2003, an increase of $21 billion over 2002. This measure includes $71.5 billion for procurement programs such as $4 billion for the Air Force's F-22 fighter jets, $3.5 billion for the Joint Strike Fighter and $279.3 million for an E-8C Joint Stars (JSTARS) aircraft. Kerry's vote also funded a 4.1% pay increase for military personnel, $160 million for the B-1 Bomber Defense System Upgrade, $1.5 billion for a new attack submarine, more than $630 million for Army and Navy variants of the Blackhawk helicopter, $3.2 billion for additional C-17 transports, $900 million for R&D of the Comanche helicopter and more than $800 million for Trident Submarine conversion. [2002, Roll Call Vote # 239; Websites of Senators Daschle, Dodd accessed 7/25/03; Def. Auth 1985-2004; Congressional Quarterly Almanacs, 1986-2002; House Armed Service Committee Authorization Conference Report Summaries FY98- present]

John Kerry Defended This Country As a Young Man--Served in the U.S. Navy and is a Veteran of the Vietnam War. John Kerry first learned the importance of national service from his father who volunteered for the Army Air Corps in World Ward II. Kerry volunteered for the United States Navy after college and served from 1966 through 1970 rising to the rank of Lieutenant, Junior Grade. Afterwards, Kerry continued his military service in the United States Naval Reserves from 1972 through 1978. Kerry served two tours of duty in Vietnam--one tour as commander of a Navy Swift Boat in the Mekong Delta. Kerry's action during the Vietnam War resulted in his being awarded the Silver Star, the Bronze Star with Combat "V", three Purple Hearts, the Presidential Unit Citation for Extraordinary Heroism, the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, three Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medals and the Combat Action Ribbon. [Selective Service System National Headquarters]

FACT CHECK: Bush Running the Most Negative Campaign in Modern American History

"From Bush, Unprecedented Negativity; Scholars Say Campaign Is Making History With Often-Misleading Attacks" "Scholars and political strategists say the ferocious Bush assault on Kerry this spring has been extraordinary, both for the volume of attacks and for the liberties the president and his campaign have taken with the facts. Though stretching the truth is hardly new in a political campaign, they say the volume of negative charges is unprecedented -- both in speeches and in advertising. Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush's campaign have been attacks on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent of his advertising." [Washington Post, 5/31/04]

"An Un-American Way to Campaign" "President Bush and his surrogates are taking their re-election campaign into dangerous territory. Mr. Bush is running as the man best equipped to keep America safe from terrorists - that was to be expected. We did not, however, anticipate that those on the Bush team would dare to argue that a vote for John Kerry would be a vote for Al Qaeda. Yet that is the message they are delivering - with a repetition that makes it clear this is an organized effort to paint the Democratic candidate as a friend to terrorists." [NYT, Editorial, 9/25/04]

BUSH-CHENEY CREDIBILITY GAP


Narrator: "And weakness attracts those who are waiting to do America harm."

FACT CHECK: The World Is Less Safe After 4 Years of George W. Bush

Terrorism Reached A Twenty Year High In 2003. The State Department's Patterns of Global Terrorism showed significant terrorist attacks worldwide reached a two-decade high in 2003. According to the report, there were 175 "significant" terrorist attacks last year, the most in two decades, and that the number of individuals injured by international terrorism jumped to 3,646 from about 2,000. [Chicago Tribune, 6/23/04; Knight Ridder, 6/23/04]

Bush Said Bin Laden Had Been Marginalized, Yet He Continues To Plan Attacks.

In the weeks following the September 11 attacks, Bush said he wanted Bin Laden "Dead or Alive." Yet in March of 2002, Bush said "[Osama Bin Laden is] just - he's a person who has now been marginalized. His network is -- his host government has been destroyed. you know, I just don't spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you. I…I truly am not that concerned about him." Yet his own administration admits that "…bin Laden not only remains at large but also may already have ordered up another major attack." [Bush Remarks, 9/17/01; 3/13/02; TIME, 8/16/04; New York Times, 9/15/04]

Sen. Chuck Hagel Says Iraq Is A Terrorist Training Ground. According to Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), the American occupation of Iraq "put in motion a new geographic dispersion [of the terrorists]. It's harder to deal with them because they're not as contained. Iraq has become a training ground." [San Francisco Chronicle, 6/30/04]

FACT CHECK: Kerry Will Fight A Smarter, Tougher War on Terror

AS THE NEXT PRESIDENT, JOHN KERRY'S STEADY COMMAND WILL MORE EFFECTIVELY DEFEND US FROM TERROR

John Kerry Will "Stop At Nothing To Kill The Terrorists Before They Kill Us. "Global terrorism is increasing, not receding. Since 9/11, the number of significant terrorist attacks has jumped to the highest level in 20 years. The President took his eye off the terrorists. I will stop at nothing to kill the terrorists before they kill us… and prevent others from taking their place." [John Kerry, Waterloo, IA, 10/20/04]

John Kerry Will Lead the Fight to Protect U.S. With a Comprehensive Strategy to Secure the Homeland. John Kerry's comprehensive homeland security strategy addresses the critical security gaps that continue to remain after 4 years of ineffective leadership by George W. Bush. As president, Kerry will secure America's ports, step up border security and create a single integrated terrorist watch list, enhance screening of airline passengers and cargo, expand rail and subway security, implement mandatory standards to secure America's chemical plants and other critical infrastructure, defend against bio-terrorism, and provide our first responders the resources they need. [Kerry-Edwards Plan to Win the War on Terror, press release, 9/24/04]

John Kerry Has A Plan To Fight A Tougher, Smarter War On Terror. Kerry will use military force to kill terrorists and destroy their networks, and ensure that our military is fully prepared to meet the new security challenges we face. Kerry will also act immediately on the 9-11 Commission recommendations and reform our intelligence services to better prevent terrorist attacks. He will act swiftly to deny terrorists sanctuary in Afghanistan, which has become a forgotten front in the war on terror, and secure and reduce nuclear stockpiles where Bush has failed. Finally, he will address the critical gaps in homeland security that continue to remain after 4 years of ineffective leadership by George W. Bush

In case you missed this .. An eye opener (for you I mean).

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=4313157

The New Republic Endorses Kerry
Newspapers are not the only place where John Kerry is picking up endorsements: today the editors of the venerable political magazine The New Republic endorsed John Kerry. The magazine found much to be wanting in George Bush's tenure, and concluded that "John Kerry deserves a chance to do better."


**********

"John Kerry for President"
by the Editors
The New Republic
Issue date: 11.01.04

There was a time, in the aftermath of September 11, when this magazine liked what it heard from George W. Bush. He said America was at war--not merely with an organization, but with a totalitarian ideology. And he pledged to defeat Islamist totalitarianism the same way we defeated European totalitarianism, by spreading democracy. For a publication that has long believed in the marriage of liberalism and American power, this was the right analysis. And its correctness mattered more than the limitations of the man from which it came.

Three years later, it has become tragically clear that the two cannot be separated. The president's war on terrorism, which initially offered a striking contrast to his special interest-driven domestic agenda, has come to resemble it. The common thread is ideological certainty untroubled by empirical evidence, intellectual curiosity, or open debate. The ideology that guides this president's war on terrorism is more appealing than the corporate cronyism that guides his domestic policy. But it has been pursued with the same sectarian, thuggish, and ultimately self-defeating spirit. You cannot lead the world without listening to it. You cannot make the Middle East more democratic while making it more anti-American. You cannot make the United States more secure while using security as a partisan weapon. And you cannot demand accountable government abroad while undermining it at home.

And so a president who promised to make America safer by making the Muslim world more free has failed on both counts. This magazine has had its differences with John Kerry during his career and during this campaign. But he would be a far better president than George W. Bush.



In domestic policy, Bush has been Newt Gingrich without the candor. Like Gingrich, he envisions stripping away many of the welfare-state protections that shield economically vulnerable Americans from the vagaries of the free market (while insulating corporations ever more from those same forces). But, rather than explicitly opposing popular government programs, as Gingrich did, Bush has pursued a more duplicitous strategy: He is eviscerating the government's ability to pay for them. His tax cuts, while sold as short-term measures to revive the economy, actually represent long-term assaults on the progressive tax code. If allowed to fully take effect, they will substantially shift the tax burden from unearned wealth to income, dramatically increasing inequality. And they will produce what Bush's former Treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, has privately called a "fiscal crisis"--a collapse in government revenue just as the baby-boom retirement sends Medicare and Social Security costs skyrocketing. This crisis will sap America's ability to wage the war on terrorism--since government will lack the funds to adequately safeguard homeland security or expand the military. It will create enormous pressure to eviscerate the government protections that guarantee poor and middle-class Americans even the meager economic security they enjoy today. And it will be entirely by design.

The tax cuts are typical of a president who cloaks a relentlessly ideological domestic agenda in moderate, problem-solving language--and gets away with it by distorting the facts. In 2001, Bush presented his policy on stem cells as a pragmatic compromise--in which research on preexisting stem-cell lines would be funded but research on new ones would not. But the supposed compromise was based on a falsehood. Bush vastly exaggerated the number of viable preexisting stem-cell lines, thus pretending he was facilitating the medical research most Americans support while actually crippling it in obeisance to his conservative Christian base.

On prescription drugs, the story is similar. With elderly Americans demanding that the government cover their prescription-drug costs, Bush endorsed a bill that administered such coverage not through Medicare but through the private sector in which his administration harbors a near-theological faith. Since private insurers had to be lured into the market with large subsidies, Bush's plan offered less coverage, at greater cost, than it would have under Medicare. But, when Medicare's chief actuary tried to estimate the bill's true cost, his superiors threatened to fire him. Only after the legislation passed did the Bush administration admit that it would cost $134 billion more than it had previously acknowledged.

By contrast, John Kerry has a record of fiscal honesty and responsibility that continues the tradition of Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin. Unlike most Democrats, he supported the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit-reduction plan. Unlike most Republicans, he supported Clinton's 1993 deficit-reduction package. And, unlike President Bush, he supports the "pay as you go" rules that, in the 1990s, helped produce a budget surplus.

It is true that, in this campaign, Kerry has proposed more spending than his partial repeal of the Bush tax cut will fund. But he has also said that, if the repeal does not bring in enough revenue, he will scale back his proposals. In fact, one of the virtues of Kerry's health plan is that, unlike Clinton's, it can easily be broken down into modest reforms. Even if Kerry merely makes good on his pledge to dramatically expand Medicaid and schip, programs that offer health coverage to poor children and adults, he will have done more to help struggling Americans than Bush has in his four years.


In foreign policy, Kerry's record is less impressive. His vote against the 1991 Gulf war suggested a tendency to see all American military action through the distorting prism of Vietnam. And his behavior in the current Iraq debate has not been exemplary. To be fair, his position has been more consistent than his detractors give him credit for. Republicans mock him for "voting for the war" before opposing it. But Bush himself urged congressional authorization for war as a way to force U.N. inspectors back into Iraq and to disarm Saddam Hussein peacefully. It was reasonable to believe that only a credible U.S. threat of force would produce an intrusive new inspections regime (which it did). And Kerry is right that, if Bush had allowed those inspections to continue, they would have eventually revealed that Saddam lacked weapons of mass destruction and eviscerated the rationale for war.

Kerry's greater failure was his vote against the $87 billion supplemental to equip American troops and rebuild Iraq. He was right to support funding the supplemental by repealing part of the tax cut (particularly since Bush officials like Paul Wolfowitz had shamelessly suggested that the war would cost America virtually nothing). But, once that effort failed, he should have supported the legislation anyway, as Senator Joseph Biden did. Building "firehouses in Baghdad"--a notion Kerry has repeatedly mocked--is not only something we owe the Iraqi people, it stems from the fundamentally liberal premise that social development can help defeat fanaticism. Abandoning that principle under pressure from Howard Dean is the most disturbing thing Kerry has done in this campaign.

But Kerry's critics are wrong to cite his opposition to the Gulf war--and his criticism of the current Iraq war--as evidence of his supposed reluctance to forcefully wage the war on terrorism. It is conceivable that, in the coming years, the United States might need to launch military action against another Muslim regime (though, given how greatly Bush has overextended the military, it is hard to see how we would do so). But the war on terrorism is far more likely to require military action within states, to secure lawless areas that terrorists have exploited.

The Bush administration's misguided tendency to see Al Qaeda as the instrument of rogue governments made it more willing to use force against Iraq but less willing to use force in Afghanistan after the Taliban fell. Kerry, by contrast, seems inclined to use American power where it could genuinely damage Al Qaeda. Even during the Democratic primaries, he attacked the Bush administration for not sending U.S. troops into Tora Bora to destroy Al Qaeda and Taliban remnants in the waning days of the Afghan war. He has proposed doubling U.S. Special Forces for operations just like that. And he has proposed strengthening America's capacity to act--including even militarily--to prevent nuclear proliferation, an issue on which the Bush administration has proved astonishingly passive.

Kerry's apparent willingness to act within states is particularly important because the U.N.'s obsession with sovereignty renders it impotent in such circumstances. His support for the Kosovo war, waged without U.N. approval, is encouraging in this regard, as is his openness to using U.S. troops--presumably without the Security Council's blessing--in Darfur, Sudan. These encouraging signs counterbalance his worrying tendency to describe multilateralism--and U.N. support--as an end in itself rather than instrument of American power. If elected, this tension will likely be a theme of his presidency, as it was of Clinton's.

Critics also call Kerry a narrow realist uninterested in battling Al Qaeda in the realm of ideas. But he has suggested an ambitious effort to support democratic civil society in the Muslim world. And, while we don't know whether Kerry would actually carry out such a campaign, we know that Bush--for all his grand rhetoric--has not. The administration's Greater Middle East Initiative, supposedly its signature effort to promote democracy in the Muslim world, was gutted after protests from the very autocracies President Bush pledged to reform. And, while the Iraq war was supposed to inspire liberals throughout the region, it may be doing the opposite. Anti-Americanism has reached such toxic levels that dissidents in Muslim countries seem increasingly fearful of any association with the United States. This is the bitter fruit of an occupation conducted with such shocking arrogance and carelessness that it calls into question whether the Bush administration's pledge to turn Iraq into a model democracy was ever really sincere.

But the war against Islamist totalitarianism is not merely a struggle for Muslim minds; it is a struggle for American ones as well. In the weeks after September 11, Bush presided over a country more united--with more faith in its government--than at any other time in recent memory. He has squandered that unity and trust for the cheapest of reasons. His administration has used the war on terrorism as a bludgeon against congressional Democrats and has implied that its critics are aiding the enemy. And it has repeatedly misled the public--touting supposed evidence of Iraq's nuclear program that American intelligence analysts knew was highly dubious, rebuking General Eric Shinseki for telling the truth about how many troops it would take to occupy Iraq successfully, and firing Lawrence Lindsey for saying how much it would cost.

The result is a country bitterly divided, distrustful of its government, and weaker as a result. The next time an American president tries to use force in the war on terrorism, he will not merely lack the world's trust, he will lack much of the American people's as well. That may be Bush's most damning legacy of all. He has failed the challenge of these momentous times. John Kerry deserves a chance to do better.

Interested Parties: Welcome Back to Ohio
On Friday, George W. Bush returns to Ohio after a 20 day absence that his campaign blames on a scheduling glitch. A scheduling glitch? Huh?


His campaign is spinning his absence by saying that he has built up so much support in the Buckeye state that he could afford to skip it for three weeks and go elsewhere to shore up support - like Colorado. Forgive us for being cynical, but we think something else might be at play.


Ohio has been ground zero for the job losses that have occurred under Bush, a fact punctuated not just by John Snow's dismissal of those losses as a myth but also by the Timken story. (Bush visited Timken in April 2003 to tout the success of his tax plan. But exactly one year after Bush's visit, Timken announced it would terminate 1,300 Ohio jobs while it continues to build facilities in Asia.)


So far Bush has failed to come clean with the workers at Timken about his support for tax policies that encourage companies to create jobs overseas instead of here at home. But tomorrow he will have a unique opportunity to do so. His event at the Canton Palace Theater is just 3.47 miles away from a Timken property.


We're guessing Bush won't stop by since there is no way he would have the audacity to look the workers there in the eye and say with a straight face that he's done everything he can to keep American jobs here in America.


TIMKEN AD: Kerry-Edwards is unveiling a new ad to run in Ohio on Friday. The ad hits Bush for providing a tax breaks that encourage companies like Timken to open plants overseas, and leading them to lay off 1,300 people. Here's a link to the ad: http://www.johnkerry.com/video/102104_timken.html.


OHIO POLLING: John Kerry has an edge in multiple new polls. An ABC poll (ending 10/17) gives Kerry a 50-47 lead. The internals in this one are not good for Bush: The economy and jobs are the top issues here, and those voters go to Kerry overwhelmingly (73%). The Ohio Poll (ending 10/17), finds Kerry leading 48-46, with leads among both men and women. His lead among independents is 55-36. SurveyUSA (ending 10/18) has Kerry leading 49-47. The most recent CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL (ending 10/20) gives Kerry a slight lead.


INTERVIEW GEORGE: If you get a chance, listen to Univision's interview with the President. There's news in there.


INTERVIEW GEORGE II: Bush has done or will do interviews with, among others, ABC, FOX, Univision, Telemundo, AP or Reuters. Maybe someone will ask him if he told Pat Robertson that he thought there'd be no casualties in Iraq. Or maybe someone will ask him about the bulge?


TRAVELLING TOMMY: Tommy Thompson heads to Kansas City, Des Moines and Minneapolis on Friday with the CDC Director in tow to talk flu. We didn't know that traveling to battleground states help locate additional flu shots. So to sum up the week: Condi Rice and Tom Ridge are on the stump at a time when we are threatened by terrorism in the lead up to the election. John Snow and Don Evans are campaigning instead of trying to get back the 800,000 jobs Bush has lost. And now Tommy Thompson and the head of the CDC are stumping during a flu shot shortage.


IS THIS A JOKE? This was posted on the White House website.

"Q: Katy from Orange, New Jersey: I heard this morning that Scott McClellan has not met with reporters for more than a month now. What's up with that?

"A: Scott McClellan, White House Press Secretary: Katy, unfortunately the truth can be a casualty in an election year. Be wary of nonsensical and inaccurate diversionary tactics. The fact is I participate in question and answer sessions with White House reporters on a daily basis. They include formal and informal briefings at the White House, on the road or at the Crawford, Texas briefing center, and one-on-one interviews throughout the day and into the evening. In fact, there have been more than 37 formal or informal briefings since the beginning of August. Most, but not all, are posted on our White House website at www.whitehouse.gov/news/briefings. You can imagine I would have heard something from reporters at the white house if only the assertion were true."

You can call him anything you want. But he is putting your republican pants on fire. Huge following at all his "slacker" tour to date..

Kerry left off some absentee ballots
http://www.cincypost.com/2004/10/18/absen101804.html

The 9/11 Secret in the CIA's Back Pocket
By Robert Scheer
The Los Angeles Times

Tuesday 19 October 2004

The agency is withholding a damning report that points at senior officials.


http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/102004V.shtml

Fiery Filmmaker Rocks the Hall in Staid Utah County


By Derek Jensen / The Salt Lake Tribune

OREM - If Michael Moore has his way, Utah would be shaded blue - the color of a Democratic majority - when he wakes up Nov. 3.

"That would send the strongest message ever," he told a roaring crowd of more than 8,000 at Utah Valley State College on Wednesday.

Why would the controversial "Fahrenheit 9/11" director take a break from battleground states to bash Bush in Utah - one of the nation's most conservative?

"Because, when you're in Utah, you believe in miracles," he said.

His appearance - supplemented with a brief onstage visit by Utah native and television performer Roseanne Barr, who cracked a series of anti-Bush one-liners - started an hour late.

But when Moore took his act - one part stand-up comedy and one part political rally - to a rowdy David O. McKay Events Center, the excitement was palpable. The majority of the sell-out crowd reacted favorably to Moore, though more than 100 left during the speech.

Wearing jeans, black T-shirt and UVSC ball cap, the documentarian-turned-folk hero immediately thanked the student leaders for their courage.

"They [the student leaders] have this radical belief that Utah is still in the United States of America," Moore said in a tongue-in-cheek tone that became a staple during the 90-minute event.

A Utah County resident offered $25,000 last week to the students to cancel the event; Moore was told Wednesday that the amount reportedly was raised to $40,000. They refused the money.

Before the speech, Moore was asked if he felt safe in Utah County - a reference to a month-long backlash that included angry letters, a student-government recall petition and a lawsuit filed Monday to void his speaking contract.

"Why wouldn't I feel safe here?" the Midwesterner said. "I haven't seen a lot of Utah gangs. I haven't seen a lot of Mormons with chains and knives."

Moore spent much of the time criticizing the Bush administration's rush to war. He read letters from soldiers serving in Iraq, who now question its rationale. Moore also called on military veterans to stand, then led the crowd in an extended ovation.

Midway through, the moviemaker sat in an easy chair on stage, while the audience watched a series of political ads that take satirical swipes at Bush. "I just felt the swift boat ads just didn't go far enough," he quipped.

In one clip, Bush is shown giggling while Moore's voice-over says Kerry is too sensitive to be president. "Vote Bush," it says. "He's already on his way to another 1,000 body bags."

Moore also criticized consumer advocate Ralph Nader, who, like four years ago, is on the presidential ticket as an independent, for "striking a match to your own legacy."

And he tipped the audience on his latest film: an investigation into the abuses of HMOs and the nation's pharmaceutical companies.

And, after winning the hearts and minds of the majority, Moore appealed to the basic needs of the student body: underwear and Ramen noodles - a standard gimmick in his nationwide "Slacker Uprising Tour." The rumpled rebel offered packages of the dried noodles and three packs of underwear "to share," to students over 22 - who didn't vote in the last election, but who would promise to vote Nov. 2.

Within seconds of his finale, Moore disappeared behind a wall of security, but his words seemed to linger.

Melissa Cook, a UVSC student and self-described undecided voter, said she is leaning toward the Democratic ticket after Moore's speech.

"He included the audience a lot," she said. "He had a lot of really, really strong ideas you just can't deny."

Why Did My Son Die? Military Mom Lila Lipscomb Demands an Answer


Policy Experts and Popular Performers Join Lila Lipscomb on a Mother's Tour of Duty Around the Nation to Inspire Americans to Question the Iraq War

"Mr. Bush is under no obligation to answer Mr. Moore's charges, but he will have to answer to Mrs. Lipscomb."
-- The New York Times, June 23, 2004.

WASHINGTON - October 11 - "How do you think it feels for a grieving mother to hear Charles Duelfer, the top CIA weapons inspector for Iraq, state last week that Iraq destroyed its weapons of mass destruction years ago and had no ability to produce more, under sanctions? How do you think it feels to hear White House officials now admit that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11? I want to know: did Michael die for a lie?" asked Lila Lipscomb, the military mother from Flint, Michigan, who is featured in Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" reading from the last letter her son, Michael, sent home from Iraq before he died.

Heartbroken and angry, Mrs. Lipscomb has embarked on a Tour of Duty around America, imploring audiences to question why we invaded Iraq and why our troops are still there. Lipscomb is being joined by popular performers, leading activists and policy experts at a nationwide series of public educational events.

Lipscomb spoke before hundreds yesterday in San Francisco along with Fernando Suarez del Solar, whose son, a Marine, was also killed in Iraq. Folk music legend Joan Baez and former CIA analyst Melvin Goodman will join Lipscomb in Cleveland, OH October 19th. Lipscomb and whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg (invited) will speak at the New York Society of Ethical Culture Concert Hall in New York City October 29th.

Also lending their support for the Tour, with appearances pending confirmation, are Martin Sheen, Rickie Lee Jones, former ambassador to Iraq Edward Peck, Woody Harrelson, former assistant secretary of defense Lawrence Korb, Tim Robbins, former State Department intelligence director Greg Thielmann, comedians Greg Proops, Jimmy Tingle, and Rick Overton, and documentary director Robert Greenwald, among others.

Lipscomb is asking the questions over one thousand American mothers are asking about family members who returned in coffins, and thousands more mothers are asking about the more than 7,500 wounded American servicemen and women.

"My son completed his tour of duty by sacrificing his life for his country," said Lipscomb. "I now have a duty to wake up this country to stop the war, stop the killing. Maybe, if by speaking out I can prevent other American and Iraqi sons and daughters from dying, I can find some meaning in my son's death."

Tour of Duty is being sponsored by Win Without War, the nation's largest anti-war coalition; Black Voices for Peace; the Fourth Freedom Forum; Peace Action, the nation's largest grassroots peace organization; Physicians for Social Responsibility; and Women's Actions for New Directions.

Tour of Duty is an educational, strictly nonpartisan project which takes no position on the outcome of the presidential or any other political race. This project aims to enlighten the public on foreign policy and security issues, and motivate people to vote. More information at www.ustourofduty.org.

Lila Lipscomb is available for interviews. Please contact Jeff Norman 310-842-8794 or 310-621-4659 cell.

More Conservatives opting for Kerry.

Kerry's the one.
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html

The Civil Rights Record of the George W. Bush Administration, 2001-2004

Civil rights problems remain entrenched in American society, the stubborn result of unequal
treatment over time. Discrimination in housing, employment, and the voting booth, unequal
educational opportunity, and other problems still stand between some Americans and true equality.
Presidential leadership is necessary to break down obstacles and realize the promise of civil rights.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) examined the George W. Bush administration's
commitment to that end. What follows are the results of the Commission's examination, expressed in
terms of:
(1) whether civil rights enforcement is a presidential priority;
(2) federal efforts to eradicate entrenched discrimination;
(3) expanding and protecting rights for disadvantaged groups; and
(4) promoting access to federal programs and services for traditionally underserved populations.
This report finds that President Bush has neither exhibited leadership on pressing civil rights issues,nor taken actions that matched his words. The report reaches this conclusion after analyzing and summarizing numerous documents, including historical literature, reports, scholarly articles, presidential and administration statements, executive orders, policy briefs, documents of Cabinetlevel agencies, federal budgets and other data.


http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/bush/bush04.pdf


http://www.usccr.gov/

Misleading in Mason City
Fact Checking Bush in Iowa: October 20, 2004

Considering that George Bush has been stretching the truth the entire campaign, it should come as no surprise that he did so again today. The fact is that the president is running a fundamentally dishonest campaign that is based on falsehoods and below-the-belt charges that have no place in American politics. It's time for a fresh start.

BUSH CLAIMS ¾ OF AL-QAEDA WIPED OUT, BUT ORGANIZATION RESURGING

· BUSH CLAIMED KERRY DID NOT THING WAR ON TERROR WAS A WAR - JUST PLAIN WRONG

· BUSH SAYS THAT KERRY SAID 9-11 HAD NOT CHANGED HIM, LEAVES OUT THAT KERRY WAS ALREADY INVOLVED IN THESE ISSUES

· BUSH SAID THAT KERRY THINKS PURSUING TERRORISTS IS A DIVERSION, KERRY NEVER SAID THAT

· BUSH'S CLAIM ON KERRY RAISING TAXES WIDELY DEBUNKED BY MEDIA

· BUSH CLAIMS ON KERRY SPENDING OUTDONE BY HIS OWN SPENDING

· BUSH CLAIMED ACCOMPLISHMENT ON ACHIEVEMENT GAP, YET GAP HAS NOT CLOSED UNDER BUSH

· BUSH CLAIMS HE WILL HELP CHILDREN WITH HEALTH CARE, BUT LET FUNDING EXPIRE

· BUSH WRONG ON KERRY'S PLAN - 97% OF PEOPLE KEEP EXISTING HEALTH CARE PLAN

· BUSH WRONG ON KERRY HEALTH CARE PLAN - NO NEW MANDATES

· BUSH CLAIMS HE WILL KEEP THE PROMISE OF SOCIAL SECURITY, BUT CUTS BENEFITS.

· BUSH WRONG IN SAYING JOHN KERRY IS THE MOST LIBERAL SENATOR

· BUSH CLAIMS SUCCESS ON INTEL, BUT DRAGGED FEET ON REFORM.

BUSH MAKES EXCUSES ON THE ECONOMY, YET OTHER PRESIDENTS DID FINE WITH ADVERSITY. When I came into office, the stock market had been in serious decline for six months, and the American economy was sliding into a recession.

· Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and George Bush Sr. All faced Wars And Managed To Create Jobs. Franklin Roosevelt led America toward victory in World War II, after recovering from a devastating attack upon Pearl Harbor. Yet Roosevelt still managed to create jobs: from 1941 until his death in 1945, FDR created 5,567,000 private sector jobs. Truman led the United States to victory over Japan in World War II, and acted to prevent Communist North Korea from taking over South Korea, yet he managed to create 6,452,000 private sector jobs during his term. LBJ committed the United States to the divisive war in Vietnam, yet managed to create 9,458,000 private sector jobs during his term. Nixon faced the Vietnam War, yet created 7,117,000 private sector jobs during his term.The first Bush's recession lasted July 1990-March 1991. George H.W. Bush led a victorious world coalition against Iraq after Iraq invaded Kuwait. Yet George H.W. Bush created 1,465,000 private sector jobs during his term. [Bureau of Labor Statistics; National Bureau of Economic Research]

BUSH CLAIMED SUCCESSFUL FARM ECONOMY, BUT FARM INCOME DOWN UNDER BUSH. Over the last three years, our economy has grown at the fastest rate of any major industrialized nation. (Applause.) The home ownership rate in America is at an all-time high. . In the past 13 months we've added more than 1.9 million new jobs. (Applause.) The unemployment rate in America is 5.4 percent, lower than the average rate of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. (Applause.) Farm income is up. This economy is moving forward, and we're not going to go back to the days of tax and spend. (Applause.)

· Farm Income is Down about $1,000. While Bush maintains that, "farm income is at an all-time high," he is using old data. The USDA shows farm income is declining, forecasting that 2004 farm income is almost $1000 less than 2003. [Bush Remarks, 10/7/04; AmberWaves, Economic Research Service, USDA 9/04]

· 8 Million Americans Are Looking For Work. Unemployment has increased by 2 million since Bush took office and over 8 million are unemployed, looking for work. [Bureau of Labor Statistics]

BUSH SAID HE HAS EXTENDED CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM, BUT HE IS NOT FUNDING THE PROGRAM.

· Bush Cheating Farmers Out of Funding for Land Conservation. "Under [the Conservation Reserve Program], farmers receive annual payments for taking land out of agricultural production for 10 to 15 years and establishing grass, tree or shrub cover on the land. Established as an erosion control program in 1985, the program has provided a tremendous boost for pheasants and other wildlife by providing habitat." Farmers owning 4 million acres of land applied to CRP in 2003, and only 2 million acres were accepted. However, the program was budgeted for preserving 2.8 million acres of land. [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 12/21/03]

BUSH SAYS HE HAS SUPPORTED BROADBAND TECHNOLOGY, YET U.S. LAGS IN BROADBAND

The United States Is Eleventh In the World in Broadband Adoption. The United States lags behind 10 other countries, including Korea, Canada and Taiwan. In 2001, the U.S. was fourth in broadband adoption. [Federal Communications Commission, "Availability of Advanced Telecommunications Capability in the United States: Fourth Report to Congress" 9/9/04; National Journal's Technology Daily, 10/24/01]

Bush Administration Content With Slow Pace of Adoption. "Section 706 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act directs both the Commission and the states to encourage deployment of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans on a reasonable and timely basis… Like the previous three reports, this Fourth Report concludes that the overall goal of section 706 is being met, and that advanced telecommunications capability is indeed being deployed on a reasonable and timely basis to all Americans." [Federal Communications Commission, "Availability of Advanced Telecommunications Capability in the United States: Fourth Report to Congress," 9/9/04]
Bush Doesn't Just Set the Bar Low; He Puts The Bar "In The Ground." "We have universal availability" already, he said, with satellite services. He said he's heard of setting an achievement bar low, but the Bush Administration "is putting it in the ground." [Blair Levin, Washington Internet Daily, 9/20/04]

BUSH CLAIMS SUPPORT OF ETHANOL AND RENEWABLES, BUT CUT FUNDING

· Bush Cut Funding for Renewable Energy by $50 Million. Bush's FY 2005 budget underfunds farm-based renewable energy, such as ethanol, biodiesel and windpower, by $50 million. These grants are used for developing businesses in rural areas, businesses which are often times ethanol plants. For the FY 2004 budget, Bush gutted "value-added" grants from $40 million in 2003 to $2 million for 2004, saying the administration had "other priorities." [Office of House Democratic Leader, 2/12/04; Omaha World-Herald, 2/3/04; Des Moines Register, 2/12/03; Greenwire, 1/17/03]

· In 2000, Bush Blamed Ethanol for High Gas Prices. "In what is shaping up to be a close contest between Vice President Al Gore and Texas Gov. George W. Bush, [gas] prices that remain high could prove to be a pivotal factor in the election, analysts say....Bush and the Republicans, meanwhile, are blaming the Clinton administration's energy policy and myriad environmental regulations, including a mandate that requires a cleaner-burning blend of gas and corn-based ethanol in Midwest cities such as Chicago and Milwaukee." [Los Angeles Times, 6/24/00]

BUSH CLAIMED HE IS FIGHTING FOR WORKERS, BUT HAS FAILED TO ENFORCE TRADE LAWS.

· Bush's Has Failed To Enforce Trade Laws And Fight For American Jobs. Bush has failed to enforce trade laws and represent US interests at the World Trade Organization. In fact, the Clinton Administration brought more cases to the WTO each year than the Bush Administration has brought in more than three years in office, bringing 65 cases total compared to 12 cases under Bush. Bush has also failed to take active steps to address China's trade violations. A unanimous report to Congress by the bipartisan U.S.-China Commission found that the Administration had not taken active steps to address China's currency manipulation or surges of textile imports. As a result, the trade deficit has hit a record $490 billion, our economy has hemorrhaged 2.7 million manufacturing jobs, exports are down for the first time since Herbert Hoover's term in office, and foreign investment in the US has dropped 50 percent between 2001 and 2003. [BEA & Census, Treasury; U.S. China Commission Report to Congress, June 2004; BEA; BLS]

· The Bush Administration Has Failed To Address China's Unfair Trade Practices Despite The Lost of 2.7 Million Manufacturing Jobs and A Growing Trade Deficit. In 2003, the US-China trade deficit reached a record $124 billion and the total number of manufacturing jobs lost since 2000 topped 2.7 million. Yet the Bush Administration waited until election year to take token action to enforce trade laws. In 2001, 2002, and again in 2003, the administration took only limited and partial action against China, and waited until March 2004 to file its first WTO case against China. Each year of inaction has sent the wrong message to China in the critical first three years of its WTO membership. In fact, a unanimous report to Congress by the bipartisan U.S.-China Commission found that the Administration had not taken active steps to address China's currency manipulation or surges of textile imports. [Freeman, Charles. "Testimony to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, February 2004; US Census Bureau; U.S. China Commission Report to Congress, June 2004]

BUSH'S CLAIM ON KERRY RAISING TAXES WIDELY DEBUNKED BY MEDIA

· Attack Widely Debunked By Media, Far From Truth Of Kerry's Record: "Dubious Claim," "Wrongly Claimed," "Iffy," "Misleading," "Exaggeration," "Padded," "Baffling," "Questionable," and "Inflated" are just some of the phrases newspapers and independent analysts have used to describe this bogus charge. The truth? Kerry has gone on the legislative record over 640 times for lower taxes. [Factcheck.org, 9/17/04; AP, 10/6/04; NBC Nightly News, 10/5/04; Knight Ridder, 10/9/04, Washington Post, 9/26/04, LA Times, 10/9/04, CNN.com, USA Today, 10/8/04; Congressional Quarterly Votes; CQ's Congress And The Nation; CQ Almanacs; Senate Republican Policy Committee Vote Analysis; Congressional Research Service Bill Summaries (via thomas.loc.gov), bill texts (via thomas.loc.gov)]

· George W. Bush has Never Proposed Repealing the Social Security Tax Increase Despite $2.5 Trillion in Tax Cuts and When John Kerry Voted to Do So, Republicans Blocked the Effort. Despite pushing for $2.5 trillion in tax cuts, George W. Bush has never proposed repealing the increase. His failure to lead has shaved 10 years off the life expectancy of Medicare. Just last year, John Kerry voted for an amendment to repeal the 1993 income tax increase on Social Security benefits, cutting taxes by $1,500 for nearly 8 million seniors but Republicans more interested in tax cuts for the wealthy killed the proposal 49-51. [Vote #149, 5/15/03; Grand Forks Herald, 5/15/03; Congressional Budget Office]

· Dick Cheney Voted to Raise Social Security Taxes. In 1983, Cheney voted for the Social Security Amendments of 1983. The legislation taxed Social Security benefits, increased taxes for those who are self-employed and increased Social Security payroll taxes. [1983 CQ Almanac p. 219; vote #43, 18-H; HR 1900; tax descriptions from the 1983 Congressional Quarterly Almanac]

BUSH CLAIMS ON KERRY SPENDING OUTDONE BY HIS OWN SPENDING

· Bush Plans Would Cost $3 Trillion "Bush, making his case that Kerry is a tax-and-spend liberal, charged that he has promised more than $2.2 trillion in new spending over the next 10 years. Kerry has disputed that estimate, and Bush's own tax-cut proposals and plan to create private Social Security accounts -- and his spending proposals -- would add more than $3 trillion to the deficit, according to administration figures." [Washington Post, 10/14/04]

BUSH ATTACKS RICH WHO USE LOOPHOLES, YET HE DOES NOT CRACKDOWN ON THE PRACTICE

· Part Of The Reason Rich Get Out Of Taxes Is Because George Bush Refuses To Crack Down On Tax Loopholes And Offshore Tax Havens. George Bush has consistently defended tax breaks for companies that ship jobs and profits overseas, resisting bipartisan Senate legislation to close a loophole that allows companies to move their headquarters overseas to avoid paying taxes. And Bush has even pushed for more tax breaks for companies that export our jobs - to be paid for by raising taxes on companies that export our products and create jobs in America.

· Independent Studies Confirm The United States Loses At Least $40 Billion In Annual Revenue, And Losses Accelerating Under Bush. A GAO report documented $20 to $40 billion annually is lost to abusive offshore schemes that are illegal yet barely addressed by the Internal Revenue Service. One tax expert "conservatively" estimates revenue losses accelerating by "$10 billion and perhaps as much as $20 billion annually" from the increased off-shoring of income under the Bush administration. [Martin Sullivan, "Shifting of Profits Offshore Costs U.S. Treasury $10 Billion or More," Tax Notes, 9/27/04] [GAO, "Enhanced Efforts to Combat Abusive Tax Schemes - Challenges Remain," 4/11/02]

BUSH NOT KEEPING HIS PROMISE ON EDUCATION

Bush Broke His Promise to Leave No Child Behind--By More Than $27 Billion. Bush said "the resources will be there," and even Rod Paige said Bush "promised to provide the resources to make this law work." Bush's last four budgets have cumulatively provided $27 billion less than what was pledged under NCLB. [Contra Costa Times, 525/03; Rod Paige, Back-to-School Address, National Press Club, 9/24/04; budget data at www.ed.gov]
States Burdened by Increased Costs. "The Bush administration nearly capsized the law when it gave the cash-short states new educational burdens without providing the money it had promised." A September GAO report found that the Department of Education has failed to give schools the guidance they need to meet the goals of NCLB. The National Governors Association voted unanimously to label No Child Left Behind an unfunded mandate. Ohio estimated that NCLB would cost $149 million per year. Utah estimated that NCLB would cost $18 million per year to implement, while the state currently receives $2.2 million per year in federal funding. The state of Tennessee found that it would need to spend $1 billion more per year--a 20 percent increase--than it currently does to meet NCLB requirements. The GAO found that the law's testing requirements alone are underfunded by $3 billion. That's a broken promise. [NYT, 10/10/04; GAO, 9/30/04; WSJ, 2/23/04; National Conference of State Legislatures; FactCheck, 5/12/04; AP, 10/18/04; GAO, May 2003]
Kerry Addresses Drop Out Crisis--Bush Does Nothing. While thirty percent of American high school students drop out--including almost half of African-American and Hispanic students--Bush allows schools to "push out" low performing students through lax reporting requirements. Kerry believes the way to increase graduation rates is not to lower expectations, but to make sure students

BUSH CLAIMED ACCOMPLISHMENT ON ACHIEVEMENT GAP, YET GAP HAS NOT CLOSED UNDER BUSH

· Nationwide Achievement Gaps in Reading Have Not Closed Since NCLB. Although many groups began to close the achievement gap from 1998 to 2002, there is no nationwide evidence that the gaps in reading have closed after No Child Left Behind. In fact in 2003, the Nation's Report Card shows that in grade 4, the gap between white and African American students grew slightly larger, while the achievement gap for

· Hispanics was unchanged. In grade 8, the gap between white and Hispanic students grew slightly larger while the achievement gap for African Americans was unchanged. [National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress]

· Bush Exaggerates Evidence of Minority Gains. "There is fragmentary data to support Bush's claim that the additional federal dollars to schools and the new accountability standards have helped minority students improve their test scores relative to white students, but education specialists agree there is not yet enough evidence to declare the act a nationwide success. Besides, the 'achievement gap' has been getting narrower for roughly the past decade, said Paul Peterson, director of the Program in Education Policy and Governance at Harvard's Kennedy School." [Boston Globe, 9/24/04]

BUSH CLAIMS TO BE SUPPORTING RURAL HEALTH CARE, YET SHORTCHANGES RURAL STATES

· George Bush Continues to Shortchange Rural States When it Comes to Medicare. Americans living in rural areas and small towns pay the same premiums and deductibles for hospital stays and doctor's visits, yet the doctors and hospitals that care for them are shortchanged. For example, the per-beneficiary reimbursement in Louisiana is $7,200. In New York City, it's $8,000 and in Miami, it's $9,200. In Iowa, it's $4,033; in Wisconsin, it's $4,200; in Minnesota, it's $4,296 -- all less than national average in Medicare dollars per beneficiary, which is $5,360. [CMS; Super, Nora. The Geography of Medicare: Explaining Differences in Payments and Costs. National Health Policy Forum Issue Brief, Number 792, July 3, 2003.; Kaiser Family Foundation, 50 State-Comparison Medicare Spending Per Beneficiary, 1998; Iowa Medical Society]

BUSH CLAIMS HE WILL HELP CHILDREN WITH HEALTH CARE, BUT LET FUNDING EXPIRE

· Bush Is Letting $1.1 Billion in for Children's Health Insurance Coverage Expire. According to USA Today, "Unless Congress acts and President Bush relents in the next week, states will have to return more than $1 billion in money intended to pay for health insurance for children from low-income families." On September 30, 2004, nearly $1.1 billion in federal funds for the SCHIP program expires and go back to the federal Treasury. These are unspent SCHIP funds originally allocated to the states in 1998, 1999, and 2000. Because it took time for states to implement their SCHIP programs, Congress extended the availability of these funds for covering uninsured children in both 2000 and 2003. This year's Bush Administration budget would do nothing to save the $1.1 billion in federal SCHIP funds from expiring at the end of this month. According to an analysis by Families USA, the $1.1 billion expected to revert back to the Treasury Department "approximate the annual cost of providing health coverage for almost 750,000 uninsured children….The loss of approximately $1.1 billion in federal SCHIP funds--occurring at the same time that states are experiencing severe fiscal shortfalls--will have a direct, negative impact on states' abilities to provide health coverage for low-income children." [USA Today, 9/24/04; Congressional Budget Office, 3/3/04; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 8/31/04; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2/4/02; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2/3/03; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2/2/04;

BUSH CLAIMED SUPPORT FOR COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE, BUT IS CUTTING FUNDING

· Bush is Pushing to Reduce Federal Medicaid Funding By Over $20 Billion That is Crucial to Community Health Centers. Bush's latest budget reduces federal reimbursements for Medicaid administrative costs and reduces the federal match for Medicaid information and claims management systems, resulting in a $23.6 billion reduction in Medicaid spending over the next decade. By limiting intergovernmental transfers and federal reimbursements to the actual cost of care for public health providers, these "integrity initiatives" would decrease Medicaid spending $9.6 billion over the next five years alone. [House Budget Committee Democratic Caucus, 2/6/04, www.house.gov/budget_democrats]

BUSH CLAIMS HE WILL LOWER HEALTH CARE, BUT PLAN RAISES COSTS

· AHPs Could Raise Premiums for 4 out of 5 Small Businesses. Studies show that AHPs will increase the cost of insurance for many small businesses and will increase the number of uninsured. The CBO estimated that AHPs could raise premiums for 4 out of 5 small businesses that keep traditional insurance. [CBO, "Increasing Small-Firm Health Insurance Coverage through Association Health Plans and HealthMarts," January 2000.]

· Opponents of AHPs Include Range of Groups Including the National Governors Association, American Diabetes Association, National Council of La Raza, and 41 State Attorneys General. Over 470 local and national groups including the National Governors Association, 41 state attorneys general, American Diabetes Association and National Council of La Raza oppose the legislation from consumers groups to state officials to insurance groups to physicians to local chambers of commerce to labor groups. [http://www.sbhealthequity.org/uploads/master_list.pdf.]

BUSH WRONG ON KERRY'S PLAN - 97% OF PEOPLE KEEP EXISTING HEALTH CARE PLAN

· One Study Bush Campaign Cites Shows 97% of Americans Keep Existing Health Plans. "Lewin's vice president John Sheils told FactCheck.org that his computer model projects that only 8.2 million (of the 243 million who currently have private or government health insurance) would change their insurance plans under Kerry's plan." [FactCheck.org, 10/4/04]

BUSH WRONG ON KERRY HEALTH CARE PLAN - NO NEW MANDATES

· Washington Post: "No Employer Mandates" Under the Kerry Health Plan. Under the Kerry-Edwards health care plan, no employer is required to participate. Employers are not required to cover every employee, and employers can choose to maintain their existing coverage. According to the Washington Post: "What's striking about Mr. Kerry's approach is the degree to which it builds on the existing system. There are no employer mandates, no price controls, no premium caps." [www.johnkerry.com; Washington Post editorial, 9/16/04]

· "New Mandates" Taken from Existing Federal System Bush Praised Last Year. The Bush-Cheney campaign takes their count of so-called new mandates primarily from the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) - an existing system that George W. Bush himself praised last year: "Medicare need[s] to have a choice of affordable plans, all of which provide prescription drug benefits. Every federal employee, including every member of Congress, gets to choose the health coverage that best fits their needs. If it's good enough for the employees and the members of Congress to have choice, it's good enough for our seniors to have choice when it comes to health care plans, as well." [Levinson and Tozzi, Center for Regulatory Effectiveness, The Business-Specific Elements of the Proposed Kerry-Edwards Health Plan, 10/04, pg. 11; Bush Remarks on Medicare (New Britain, CT), 6/12/03]

BUSH CLAIMS HE WILL KEEP THE PROMISE OF SOCIAL SECURITY, BUT CUTS BENEFITS.

· Bush's Plan Will Eliminate Benefits for Seniors. According to CBO, the President's plan "would reduce expected retirement benefits relative to scheduled benefits, even when the benefits paid from IAs under CSSS Plan 2 are included… For example, benefits for the 1980s birth cohort would be 30 percent lower, and benefits for the 2000s cohort would be 45 percent lower." [CBO, "Long-term Analysis of Plan 2 of the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security," 7/21/2004, pp. 11 and Figure 2A]

BUSH WRONG IN SAYING JOHN KERRY IS THE MOST LIBERAL SENATOR

· Liberal Ratings Create "Misleading Impressions". Republicans have used ratings by National Journal and the ADA to call Kerry the most liberal senator. But even the groups themselves deem that the ratings can be distorted. "These organizations warn that their liberalism indexes can, for a variety of reasons, create misleading impressions."[Washington Post, 7-19-04]


DESPITE RHETORIC, BUSH HAS FAILED ON HOMELAND SECURITY

· Bush's Failed "Commitment" To Homeland Security Lacks Resources and Strategy. Since 9/11, Bush has opposed the creation of a Department of Homeland Security, failed to secure the nation's ports and borders, properly screen air and sea cargo, or create a unified terror watch list. Today, only 5 percent of the cargo coming into the nation's ports is physically inspected, less than 5% of air cargo goes unscreened for explosives, and only one border agent is available per every 5 miles of the U.S./Canadian border. What's more, Bush's 2005 budget has cut funding for first responder training by nearly half, cut port security grants, and he has plans to cut DHS funding by $1 billion in his 2006 budget. [National Journal, 6/5/02; www.omb.gov
BUSH CALIMS SUCCESS ON INTEL, BUT DRAGGED FEET ON REFORM.

· Bush Dragging Feet On Intel Reform. 9-11 Commission Chairman Kean said, "I would certainly urge the president to do everything in his power to get a final bill to his desk before the election… I would hope that he would urge his friends in Congress to act," Mr. Kean said of the president. "I will reach out to the White House to urge them to do everything they can." [NYT, 10/15/04]

· Bush Stonewalled The Independent 9-11 Commission At Every Possible Turn. Bush opposed an independent inquiry into 9/11, arguing it would duplicate a probe conducted by Congress. He finally agreed to support an independent investigation into the 9/11 attacks after "the congressional committees unearthed more and more examples of intelligence lapses." Bush then fought the extension of the 9-11 Commission, and refused to provide it with the funding it needed. He subsequently tried to limit amount of time the commission would have to testimony from himself, and tried to prevent Condelezza Rice from having to testify under oath. [Statement of Administration Policy, Executive Office of the President, 7/24/02; Los Angeles Times, 11/28/02; Los Angeles Times, 11/28/02; [New York Times, 1/28/04; White House Press Briefing, 1/27/04, emphasis added; Washington Post, 3/27/03; Associated Press, 2/28/04; 3/9/04; Washington Post, 3/26/04]

· America still Vulnerable Because Bush Has Failed to Finish Integrating Terrorist Watch Lists. According to news accounts, the terrorist aviation list only includes those who are a danger to aviation. "Now, in a report obtained by NBC News, a government watchdog warns the problem is still not fixed. The "No-fly" list still includes only suspected terrorists "who pose threats to civil aviation" - not all suspected terrorists. "It's just plain wrong," says 9/11 commissioner Slade Gorton. "The potential consequences are that terrorists can still get on aircraft in the United States," says Gorton." On 9/11, only a dozen names were on the "No-fly" list. Now there are about 3,500. But that's only a fraction of more than 300,000 names on the government's main list of suspected terrorists and associates...."They could be couriers or they could be operatives or they could be suicide bombers. It doesn't matter. You have to keep them all off," says terrorism expert and NBC News analyst Roger Cressey." [MSNBC, ‘No-fly' list still lacking, 9/23/04 - citing Department of Homeland Security - Office of Inspector General. "DHS Challenges in Consolidating Terrorist Watch List Information." OIG-04-31. August 2004]

BUSH CLAIMS STRATEGY IN WAR ON TERROR IS WORKING, BUT AL-QAEDA RESURGING.

· Bush Not Facing Reality that Taliban And Al Qaeda Are Resurging, Country Is Reverting to a Terrorist Breeding Ground: According to the operational commander of U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan, Maj. Gen. Eric Olson, the "Taliban has regrouped and sustained an insurgency across the south and east of the country" and is supported by foreign fighters. The New York Times reported that "new evidence suggests that [al Qaeda] is regenerating and bringing in new blood." "Relatively high ranking" members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda have been holding a series of meetings in Pakistan for discussions on how to disrupt the October elections, according to the U.S. military. And the United Nations warns that Afghanistan is on the brink of again becoming a terrorist breeding ground. [Associated Press, 9/11/04; 9/20/04; New York Times, 8/10/04; United Nations Development Report, 3/30/04]

· 9-11 Commission: Bush Administration Has Failed To Combat Terrorist Financing And Coordinate Counterterrorism Efforts. "The report reserved the bulk of its criticism for the government's performance before Sept. 11, 2001. But it was also critical of several high-profile Bush initiatives adopted since the attacks to try to combat terrorist financing and to coordinate counterterrorism. Specifically, it questioned the effectiveness of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, a repository of specialists from the FBI, CIA and Departments of Defense and Homeland Security. The report found the center and counterterrorism units of each of the agencies were duplicating work and spreading such assets as analysts and translators too thin. The report also criticizes U.S. efforts to halt terrorist financing since the attacks. The commission found that efforts to designate terrorist financiers and freeze their assets, in the United States and through the United Nations, have been ineffective. The intelligence agencies have had trouble linking individuals directly to terrorist groups, and the administration has had difficulty persuading foreign countries to fully cooperate, it said." [The Baltimore Sun July 23, 2004]

· Libya's Decision To Disarm Preceded The Bush Administration And War In Iraq. According to Tony Blair, Libya first approached the US and Britain regarding its weapons question as the Iraq war approached. Blair said, "Libya came to us in March [2003] following successful negotiations on Lockerbie to see if it could resolve its weapons of mass destruction issue in a similarly cooperative manner." The son of Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi dismissed any link in his father's decision to the war in Iraq or the capture of the former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Saif Al-Islam Gadhafi told CNN that "the capture of Saddam or the invasion of Iraq is irrelevant" to Libya's announcement. Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment believes that Libya's decision "goes back over 10 years of international pressure on the Qaddafi regime…[the] whole move precedes the Bush administration and precedes the war in Iraq." [Washington Times, 12/20/03; CNN.com, 12/20/03]

BUSH CLAIMS ¾ OF AL-QAEDA WIPED OUT, BUT ORGANIZATION RESURGING

· Bush Claims To Have Wiped Out 3/4 Of Al Qaeda, Yet The Organization Is Resurging And Morphing. Despite Bush's claims over the past several months that "much of Al Qaeda's leadership has been killed or captured," new evidence from Al Qaeda double-agent Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan's computer, seized in Pakistan, shows that a "new generation of operatives…[appears] to be filling the vacuum created when leaders were killed or captured." According to intelligence analysts, "Al Qaeda's upper ranks are being filled by lower-ranking members and more recent recruits." Al Qaeda is "more resilient than was previously understood and has sought to find replacements for operational commanders like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Walid Muhammad Salih bin Attash, known as Khallad, all of whom have been captured." Although several major leaders have been captured, "the new operatives appear as committed to striking the U.S." [Bush Remarks, 9/14/04; New York Times, 8/10/04; Wall Street Journal, 8/16/04]

BUSH CLAIMS THERE WILL BE ELECTIONS IN IRAQ, BUT MAY BYPASS MANY AREAS.

· Elections May Bypass Some Areas, Staff Not on the Ground. The United Nations is "unable to secure enough troops to protect a U.N. contingent headed to [Iraq] to help with elections and rebuilding." Kofi Annan has only dispatched 35 U.N. election workers to Baghdad to help organize the Iraqi elections and the U.N is having trouble recruiting the needed 70,000 election workers since many Iraqis are too fearful to sign up, as insurgents are targeting Iraqis working with foreigners. Annan has warned that violence may threaten elections and he reported to the U.N. Security Council that "the security environment in Iraq had not improved much since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003." Due to the increasing violence, the E.U. decided not to send election monitors to Iraq, saying a decision to do so would be dangerous and foolhardy. "Lt. Gen. Thomas F. Metz, operations chief of more than 150,000 mostly U.S. troops, said in an interview that there was a "contingency" plan to bypass Fallujah and perhaps other violent enclaves in the elections. Rumfeld told Congress that "If there were to be an area where the extremists focused during the election period, and an election was not possible in that area at that time, so be it." [Los Angeles Times, 7/21/04, 9/6/04; USA Today , 9/24/04; AP, 9/23/04; Reuters, 9/8/04; Boston Globe, 9/15/04]

BUSH'S ATTACK ON TROOP FUNDING MISSES FACTS

· John Kerry Voted to Fund Iraq's Reconstruction Through Shared Sacrifice - Not a Blank Check for a Failed Policy. After witnessing the way in which the president went to war - without our allies, without properly equipping the troops, without a plan to win the peace - John Kerry supported a responsible plan to pay for George Bush's $87 billion Iraq reconstruction plan, co-sponsoring and voting for an amendment to rescind the tax cut for the wealthiest Americans in order to pay for Iraq. The amendment failed, and the Bush administration still has no plan to win the peace or a way to pay the bill. "The best way to support our troops and take the target off their backs is with a real strategy to win the peace in Iraq - not by throwing $87 billion at George Bush's failed policies," Kerry said. "I am voting ‘no' on the Iraq resolution to hold the President accountable and force him finally to develop a real plan that secures the safety of our troops and stabilizes Iraq." [SA 1796, Kerry original cosponsor 10/1/03; Vote #373, 10/2/03; Vote #400, 10/17/03; Kerry statement, Congressional Record, 10/17/03]

· Military Leaders: George Bush Sent Troops To Iraq Without Proper Protection.

"Many members of Congress have expressed anger over Defense Department estimates that more than 40,000 troops, most notably Reserve and National Guard combat support units, were not outfitted with the new "Interceptor" body armor before deploying to Iraq." [Stars and Stripes, 10/31/03]

"In reference to armored vests, there was a shortage. … This is a long-term problem that should have been fixed, however, well before the Iraq war started." [Brigadier General David Grange (ret.), CNN, 3/14/04, emphasis added]

"I visited one of these units in December that was getting ready to deploy. That was December, they were deploying in January, and they were short basic equipment: radios, vests, armored Humvees, et cetera. We're better than that as a nation, and we're better than that as a military." [General George A. Joulwan (ret.), CNN, 3/14/04, emphasis added]

"Everybody had flack jackets and some body armor, but not the new body armor. They showed us the schedule, and said it was going to be done. They were short at that time, I believe, around 1,400 up-armored Humvees that were coming into the country … it does leave you wondering why couldn't we have done this before the war, and we simply didn't." [General Don Sheppherd (ret.), CNN, 3/14/04, emphasis added]

Could not "answer for the record why we started this war with protective vests that were in short supply." [Gen. John Abizaid, House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing, in Washington Post, 10/4/03, emphasis added]

· White House Threatened to Veto $87 Billion if Congress Made the Funds a Loan. George Bush repeatedly says on the campaign trail that "There is nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat." But "The White House threatened … to veto its own spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan if Congress made reconstruction aid a loan, taking its most forceful stand on the issue even as more lawmakers supported a reimbursement by Iraq. … ‘If this provision is not removed, the president's senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill,' Joshua B. Bolten, the White House budget director, wrote in a letter to Congressional leaders." [Bush remarks, 9/13/04; New York Times, 10/22/03]

· White House Admitted It Did Not Need $87 Billion "Before the End of the Year." Asked in a "background" conference call briefing whether the administration would be "okay" if Congress did not complete action on the $87 billion until just before it adjourned in December, an unnamed "senior administration official" said that "in terms of the need for the money, though, it does not arise before the end of the year." Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) administrator L. Paul Bremer told Senate Democrats in late September that Congress's initial $79 billion appropriation for Iraq would not run out until December 1, two months later. [Senior Administration Official, White House Background Briefing Conference Call on Supplemental Budget Request for Operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, 9/8/03; Durbin statement, Congressional Record, 9/24/03]

BUSH CLAIMED KERRY DID NOT THING WAR ON TERROR WAS A WAR - JUST PLAIN WRONG

· John Kerry Will Lead Using Military Action, Diplomacy, Law Enforcement, And All Available Tools And Resources In Our Arsenal to Win the War on Terror. "We cannot win the War on Terror through military power alone. If I am President, I will be prepared to use military force to protect our security, our people, and our vital interests. But the fight requires us to use every tool at our disposal. Not only a strong military - but renewed alliances, vigorous law enforcement, reliable intelligence, and unremitting effort to shut down the flow of terrorist funds." [John Kerry, 2/27/04]

· Bush Agrees With John Kerry: War on terror misnamed: "We actually misnamed the war on terror; it ought to be the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies, who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world." [Bush Remarks, 8/6/04]

BUSH SAYS THAT KERRY SAID 9-11 HAD NOT CHANGED HIM, LEAVES OUT THAT KERRY WAS ALREADY INVOLVED IN THESE ISSUES

· What Kerry really said about how 9-11 changed him - He Had Already Been On The Issue of Terrorism: "When I asked Kerry how Sept. 11 had changed him, either personally or politically, he seemed to freeze for a moment. ''It accelerated -- '' He paused. ''I mean, it didn't change me much at all. It just sort of accelerated, confirmed in me, the urgency of doing the things I thought we needed to be doing. I mean, to me, it wasn't as transformational as it was a kind of anger, a frustration and an urgency that we weren't doing the kinds of things necessary to prevent it and to deal with it.'' [New York Times, 10/10/2004]

BUSH SAID THAT KERRY THINKS PURSUING TERRORISTS IS A DIVERSION, KERRY NEVER SAID THAT

· Kerry says Bush's invasion of Iraq was a diversion from the pursuit of terrorists like Osama bin Laden and Zarqawi: "The President claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight." [John Kerry, 9/20/04]

· Gen. Tommy Franks: Resources Were Being Diverted To Iraq 14 Months Before The Invasion. In an excerpt read NBC's "Meet the Press," Senator Bob Graham said Gen. Tommy Franks told him in February 2002 that "his men and resources were being moved to Iraq, where he felt that our intelligence was shoddy. This admission was coming almost 14 months before the beginning of combat operations in Iraq and only five months after the commencement of combat in Afghanistan." [AP, 9/5/04]

· Special Forces, Intelligence Personnel Pulled Out of Afghanistan to Support the Iraq War. In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. The CIA, meanwhile, was stretched badly in its capacity to collect, translate and analyze information coming from Afghanistan. US Intelligence officials said that as much as half of the intelligence and special forces assets in Afghanistan and Pakistan were diverted to support the war in Iraq. [USA Today, 3/29/04; KnightRidder, 9/5/03]

· New Report Shows War in Iraq is a Distraction from the War on Terror. A new report by the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Israel's leading strategic think tank, concluded that the war in Iraq has become a distraction from the international war on terror. Jaffee Center director Shai Feldman "said that the vast amount of money and effort the United States has poured into Iraq has deflected assets from other centers of terrorism, such as Afghanistan." And retired Israeli army general Shlomo Brom said the war in Iraq was "drawing Islamic extremists from other parts of the world to join the battle against the occupiers. ‘On a strategic level as well as an operational level,' Brom concluded, ‘the war in Iraq is hurting the war on international terrorism.'" [Associated Press, 10/11/04]

But hello they are standing for the elections not Rice.

I suppose he does in fact come under the "high risk" category. A very high risk for America.

What Condi Has Been Neglecting on Her Battleground Tour
Condi Rice, Bush's National Security Advisor, has been making an unprecedented series of trips into battleground states. Here are 4 key points to remember about her political travel.


1) ALL OF RICE'S VISITS ARE TO SWING STATES

After this week, Rice will have given nine political speeches in two months - ALL in battleground states.


2) RICE DID NOT VISIT SWING STATES PRIOR TO THIS YEAR

In previous years, Condi Rice delivered her "outside-the-beltway" speeches in major metropolitan areas like Chicago and New York or understandable locations like her home state of California or Bush's home state of Texas. Recently, her travels have taken her to Oregon, Washington, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.


3) RICE RARELY LEFT DC BEFORE THIS YEAR

In September and October of 2001, 2002, and 2003, Rice gave two or fewer speeches outside Washington.


4) RICE'S POLITICAL ACTIVITY IS UNPRECEDENTED

In the past, National Security Advisers have not given more than a couple speeches during presidential election season, and none have traveled into the field to make their boss's case as Condi has done.


RICE PUTS ASIDE NATIONAL SECURITY DUTIES TO CAMPAIGN FOR BUSH


Rice Has Been Traveling To Swing States. "In the weeks leading up to the Nov. 2 election, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice has traveled across the country making speeches in key battleground states, including Oregon, Washington, North Carolina and Ohio. In the next five days, she also plans speeches in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida. The frequency and location of her speeches differ sharply from those before this election year -- and appear to break with the long-standing precedent that the national security adviser try to avoid overt involvement in the presidential campaign… [C]ounting next week's speeches, Rice will have made nine outside Washington since Labor Day." [Wash Post, 10/20/04]


NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES HAVE INTENSIFIED SINCE CONDI STARTED HER BATTLEGROUND TOUR


Rice Given Authority Over Post-War Iraq; Republican Senators Blast Bush Administration Over Managerial of Post-War Iraq and Afghanistan. In October 2003, it was reported "President Bush is giving his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, the authority to manage postwar Iraq and the rebuilding of Afghanistan." Recently, Senator Chuck Hagel described the reconstruction of Iraq as "beyond pitiful, it's beyond embarrassing; it's now in the zone of dangerous." Senator Dick Lugar complained about the "incompetence" of the Bush administration in the managing of post-war Iraq. [Fox News Sunday, 9/18/04; USA Today, 10/7/03; Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, 9/15/04; ABC This Week, 9/19/04]


---On Same Day Rice Gave a Political Speech In Ohio, U.S. Military Conducted Operations Against Zarqawi. On the same day Rice was in Ohio, the U.S. military conducted air strikes on Zarqawi. [LAT, 10/16/04]


On Same Day Rice Gave a Political Speech In Ohio, Poland Announced It Would Be Pulling Troops From Iraq. "The prime minister of Poland told the nation's Parliament on Friday that he would begin drawing down Polish troops in Iraq in January, another blow to a U.S.-led coalition that already has lost nearly one-third of its members this year." [LAT, 10/16/04]


On Same Day Rice Gave a Political Speech In North Carolina, U.S. Was Accused of Doling Out Hundreds of Millions In Unaccountable Iraqi Projects. "U.S. and Iraqi officials doled out hundreds of millions of dollars in oil proceeds and other moneys for Iraqi projects earlier this year, but there was little effort to monitor or justify the expenditures, according to an audit released Thursday." [AP, 10/14/04]


Rice Declared Point Person On Middle East Peace Process; World Leaders Agree That U.S. Has Become Uninvolved In Middle East Peace Negotiations. Bush named Condoleezza Rice his "point person on the peace process" in June 2003. Recently, Palestinian Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath said that the U.S. presidential election was stalling the Middle East peace process and urged other countries to increase their efforts. "I keep saying really that we have many times to pay for these American elections unfairly," Shaath told a news conference. British Prime Minister Tony Blair acknowledged the Middle East peace process was badly stalled. He said: "The problem is made worse by the tremendous lack of any form of progress being made at the moment." Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Gheit complained about the lack of U.S. involvement in the peace process. "But thank God that the 2nd of November is approaching fast," he said. [Wash Post, 9/23/04; AP, 10/18/04; Press Association, 9/30/04; National Journal, 6/14/03]


Rice Travels While Al Qaeda Plots Pre-Election Attack. While Rice has been traveling around to battleground states, fears of a pre-election attack have remained. One intelligence official with access to intelligence reports said, "We are concerned because a number of different threat reports we've received over the past few months indicate terrorists plan to disrupt the democratic process." The AP reported, "By all accounts, many hundreds of law enforcement agents are working around the clock to prevent al-Qaida from pulling off the major attack that intelligence suggests the terror network wants to carry out before the Nov. 2 election." [CNN, Late Edition, 8/8/04; AP, 10/19/04]


9-11 Families Appeal to Rice to Stop White House Stalling of 9-11 Commission Reforms. "Two Connecticut women who lost family members in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks expressed dismay Thursday after the White House opened a door for Congress to delay action on recommended changes to the U.S. intelligence community… The family members said they asked for a meeting with Gonzalez, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Chief of Staff Andrew Card to enlist their help in getting the House and Senate together." [Connecticut Post, 10/15/04]


On Same Day Rice Gave a Political Speech In Oregon and Washington, Bipartisan 9-11 Bill Was Introduced In Congress. "An influential bipartisan group of members of Congress, backed by leaders of the Sept. 11 commission, said on Tuesday that they were offering a bill in the House and Senate to enact virtually all the commission's recommendations, including its call for a national intelligence director to oversee all of the government's spy agencies." [NYT, 9/8/04]


North Korean Nuclear Capability Has Reportedly Quadrupled Under Bush. Bush initially said he would "not tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea," yet since he took office, North Korea's nuclear capability has "quadrupled," with U.S. intelligence services estimating that Pyongyang now has fuel for up to eight nuclear weapons. [ABC, "This Week, 9/12/04; Christian Science Monitor, 9/15/04; Associated Press, 8/5/04; NYT, 9/12/04]


Iran Developed New Strategic Missile While U.S. Failed To Win Over Allies To Deal With Iranian Nuclear Threat. Iran said in September that it had added a "strategic missile" to its military arsenal after a successful test. Also, the Washington Post reported, "The Bush administration failed [in September] to persuade its closest allies and other members of the International Atomic Energy Agency to increase diplomatic pressure on Iran, settling instead on another request that Tehran voluntarily drop its nuclear program." [NYT, 9/25/04; Wash Post, 9/18/04]


On Same Day Rice Gave a Political Speech In Ohio, Europeans Negotiated With Iran To End Nuclear Program. On the same day Rice campaigned in Ohio, the Europeans announced they were negotiating with Iran on their nuclear program. [LAT, 10/16/04]

Vice President Cheney gets a Flu Shot

Kerry-Edwards campaign spokesperson Phil Singer released the following statement today in response to reports that Vice President Cheney received a flu shot:

"Once again the Bush administration proves that it is the ‘Do As We Say, Not As We Do' White House. The very week that Secretary Thompson is telling Americans to keep calm, Dick Cheney, John Snow and Bill Frist are getting flu shots. It is unfortunate that the Bush administration failed to do the work necessary to ensure that all Americans, including those most at risk, had been able to get shots as well."

Kerry Campaign Statement on Sinclair Broadcasting
Sinclair's latest spin on this premeditated political attack is just a panicked attempt to appear fair and reasonable. Sinclair Broadcasting's only motivation is political - they are committed to a one-sided smear. Their actions make it clear that promoting the fortunes of George W. Bush trumps any sense of obligation to the public trust. When their own top political reporter had the courage to speak up, they fired him - that tells you everything you need to know about them. The Kerry campaign is in no way cooperating with this discredited, partisan effort that Sinclair is poorly disguising as news.

FACT SHEET:

Sinclair Broadcasting Group: Consistent Anti-Kerry, Pro-Bush Programming
Sinclair Broadcasting Group Ordered Preemptions To Air Anti-Kerry Program Days Before Election. According to the Los Angeles Times, "The conservative-leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group, whose television outlets reach nearly a quarter of the nation's homes with TV, is ordering its stations to preempt regular programming just days before the Nov. 2 election to air a film that attacks Sen. John F. Kerry's activism against the Vietnam War, network and station executives familiar with the plan said Friday." [Los Angeles Times, 10/9/04]

Sinclair Executives Max-ed Out to Bush Campaign. "According to campaign finance records, four of Sinclair's top executives each have given the maximum campaign contribution of $2,000 to the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. The executives have not given any donations to the campaign of Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee, the records showed." [CNN.com, 4/30/04]

"Stolen Honor" Stars Noted Partisans

Republican Stars of "Stolen Honor". While the website for Stolen Honor Lists the medals of the movie's participants, it does not list some of their other credentials, including their previous Partisan activities and their ties to the Bush administration. Five of the 17 stars of the partisan attack film being billed as a news story, were either Republican activists or Bush appointees. [Salon.com 10/20/04]

* George Day: "Past Florida State Republican Committeeman. ... He was a delegate to Republican Conventions, Chairman of the Reagan Committee in Okaloosa County, Florida. In 1984, he was National Chairman of Veterans for Reagan and campaigned extensively for and with the President. He campaigned nationally for President Bush in 1992, and Jeb Bush for Governor of Florida 1998, John McCain for President and Bill McCollum for Senate in 2000." [Salon.com 10/20/04]

* Leo Thorsness: Thorness was twice a Republican candidate for US Senate from South Dakota, losing to George McGovern in 1974 and to Tom Daschle in 1978. After his double loss in South Dakota, Thorness moved to Washington State where he won a seat in the house of Representatives in 1988. [Salon.com 10/20/04]

* Thomas McNish: McNish appointed by Bush as the Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of War under the Department of Veterans Affairs. [Salon.com 10/20/04]

* Kenneth Cordier: Was forced to resign from the Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of War, after he appeared in one of the original Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads, attacking John Kerry. [Salon.com 10/20/04]

* Paul Galanti: Galanti was the Virginia chairman of John McCain's presidential campaign. Galanti also appears in the latest misleading Swift Boat attack ad. [Salon.com 10/20/04

THE THREE BIGGEST MISSTATEMENTS IN BUSH'S SPEECH
BUSH: It's a Government-Run Program

REALITY:

· "Outright Fabrications." "In campaign ads, Mr. Bush cautioned that his opponent wants a system run by ‘government bureaucrats,' who are, presumably, more threatening than the insurance bureaucrats now running most insurance plans. Even allowing for the usual election-year hyperbole, Mr. Bush's allegations are wildly inaccurate. They aren't half-truths; they're outright fabrications." [St. Louis Post-Dispatch Editorial, 9/27/04]

· Bush Attack Ad is "Fiction." "This week the Bush campaign unveiled an ad accusing Mr. Kerry of advocating ‘a government-run healthcare plan' that puts ‘Washington bureaucrats in control.' This is not a caricature of Mr. Kerry's plan -- it's fiction." [Washington Post editorial, 9/16/04]

· Bush's Charge is "Not True … Far From It." PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: "I'm running against a fellah who has got a massive, complicated blueprint to have our government take over the decision-making in health care." . . . TERRY MORAN: (Off Camera) "But, but that's not true. John Kerry's plan does not call for a government takeover of the health care system. Far from it." [ABC News, World News Tonight, 9/13/04]

BUSH: Eight Out of Ten People Go Into Government Programs

REALITY: Expansions in Coverage Come from Children's Health Insurance Program and The Federal Employees Health Benefit Program is Private Sector Plans that Bush Has Supported in the Past.

Bush has praised that FEHBP. Just last year Mr. President you said: Every federal employee, including every member of Congress, gets to choose the health coverage that best fits their needs. If it's good enough for the employees and the members of Congress to have choice, it's good enough for our seniors to have choice when it comes to health care plans, as well."

Bush Has Praised CHIP. This attack is based on the same plan the president says he himself wants to expand, SCHIP. Like Kerry, Bush has been a supporter of SCHIP and said he intends to start an "aggressive" outreach effort to sign up a few million more children." [Washington Post, 10/9/04]

BUSH: Kerry's Plan Puts New Mandates on Small Businesses

REALITY: Totally Voluntary

Kerry's Plan Is "All Totally Voluntary." Howard Kurtz reported, "Kerry isn't pushing a government-run health plan. He would use the current system of private health insurance but offer tax incentives to companies, even state governments to expand coverage, all totally voluntary. Doctors and patients wouldn't lose their say in treatment." [CNN's Inside Politics, 9/14/04]

New York Times: "Pushed the Limits of Subjective Interpretation." "Mr. Bush pushed the limits of subjective interpretation … unlike what Mrs. Clinton proposed in 1993, it would not create any big new federal bureaucracy and would retain the current employer-based system, and Mr. Kerry said he was averse to any kind of national health care plan." [New York Times, 10/8/04]

Republicans, Wake up! Some of you have.

See Mesg #75489

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=4338588

Moore on Republicans: 'they only have a few weeks left'


By Joe Ireland / Portland State University Vanguard

Documentary filmmaker Michael Moore spoke at a rally at PSU yesterday, his speech marked with calls to vote out President George W. Bush and fierce attacks on the right-wing, the crowd responding with keyed-up hollering and applause.

The rally, intended to encourage people to vote, especially students, was organized by the Young Voters Project and College Democrats. Sierra Club helped organize and provided the funding.

"We're the majority and they're the minority," said Moore, "and on Jan. 20, they're going to be the official minority."

At the rally, which took place at the Urban Plaza at noon, Moore criticized Bush and the Republican Party for everything from negative politicking to anti-gay marriage efforts to the war in Iraq.

"They would much rather send the poor, the Hispanic, the African-Americans from Portland to Iraq, than their own sons and daughters," said Moore, touching on a familiar theme from his record-selling documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11".

"They'll never send their children to die in a foreign country when they can send the children of the working people of this country to line the pockets of Halliburton and the oil companies."

The free event was the thirty-third of 60 dates on Moore's Slacker Uprising Tour. Attendees with filled-out ballots were given priority for admission.

Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope also spoke at the rally.

At a press conference before the rally, Pope explained the Sierra Club's decision to support Moore and the Young Voters Project in funding this event, and why the club has endorsed Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry in his bid for president.

"Young Americans in particular have not been stepping up to the plate," said Pope, "and Michael Moore has a particular power and a particular message for young Americans that, in fact, they do make a difference, that, in fact, their vote is important and is valuable."

"[Kerry] is probably the member of the United States Senate who has most steadfastly stated a really important truth: our continued dependence on fossil fuels and oil is bad for our national security, is bad for our economy, is bad for our health, is bad for the environment."

Moore defended Kerry against critics that label him a flip-flopper when it comes to the Iraq war.

"So Kerry and 70 percent of the American people were wrong. What was their crime? They believed the president of the United States. You're supposed to be able to believe the president of the United States," Moore said to the delight of the audience.

"You know," continued Moore, "all Kerry needs to say to Bush is, 'You know, Mr. Bush, I've only had one position on this war: I believed you, and you didn't tell the truth. You let us down, and now you have to go!'"

A small group of Bush supporters, flagging Bush/Cheney signs and T-shirts, gathered at one corner of the rally to protest the filmmaker's appearance.

Though Moore repeatedly referred to the Bush supporters during his speech, there were no immediate reports of threats, abuse or assault.

"Be nice to them, they only have a few weeks left," said Moore, "That's the difference between our rallies and the Bush rallies. Everyone is welcome at our rallies."

"I thought it was good for Democrats," said Andrew Ross, a Republican. "Michael Moore made his point, he stands and believes in what he wants to believe in. I admire Michael Moore's cause, but I disagree with his politics, and that's the beauty of America."

PSU student and Democrat Willian Hollaway shared this view.

"It was nice to see that there was a diverse crowd of all different ages, different looks, different types of people, and that people out here really care," said Hollaway. "Even the Bush supporters were out here fighting for what they believe in, although they may be different from my personal beliefs."

The event, which was scarcely advertised due delays in securing funds, was set up by the Young Voter's Project, an organization that works to encourage youth voting, in conjunction with PSU Democratic political group, College Democrats.

According to Molly Woon, president of the College Democrats, Moore spoke at PSU for free, whereas he usually charges a speaking fee.

"He devoted his time to the Young Voters Project," said Woon.

At the press conference Moore illustrated his intentions for his movie and this tour.

"This year there's a clear choice and we're hoping, through our efforts, to remove George W. Bush from the White House," Moore said.

On the matter of voter-fraud, Moore said he and his wife are contributing money to a lawyers' group, which will send over 3,000 lawyers to Florida, as well as encouraging concerned Floridians to form an "army of video cameras" to watch over the election in case of foul play.

And if Bush wins, Moore said, "I and others will call for mass nonviolent civil disobedience. I will not allow our White House to be taken from us again. The right to vote, and the right to have all the votes counted, is a precious right. It is the cornerstone of a democracy. We will not sit back this time, and I regret we did the last time."

Moore also talked of his plans for his next film about HMOs and pharmaceutical companies and read passages from his new book, "Will They Ever Trust Us Again?" which is a collection of letters to Moore from disgruntled soldiers in Iraq.

At the press conference, Moore made a point to mention Fahrenheit For Free, a program starting next week in which numerous independent video stores across the country will be renting "Fahrenheit 9/11" free of charge up until the election. Representatives were present from Beverly Hills Video and Video Underground, both of which are participating in Fahrenheit For Free.

Information on participating video stores are available on his web site, www.michaelmoore.com.

At the rally, Moore spoke out against the mass media and their role in the war. "My question is to the media, and some of them are here today: Where were you?" Moore asked, pointing his finger at the press people in their closed off area. "Why didn't you ask the hard questions and demand the evidence?"

"It's absolutely embarrassing and disgusting," he said

Filmmaker Moore Slams Bush as Get-Out-the-Vote Tour Rolls Into Seattle


By Christine Frey / Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Filmmaker Michael Moore brought his nationwide get-out-the-vote campaign to Seattle last night, telling a boisterous KeyArena audience that President Bush's days in office are numbered.

"Two more weeks. Two more weeks," he said after walking onto the stage to a standing ovation from the nearly full house. "It's been a long four years, hasn't it?"

During his two-hour appearance, the "Fahrenheit 9/11" director delivered sharp criticism of Bush for his handling of the war in Iraq.

He also used the evening to poke fun at the president and at conservative pundits such as talk show host Bill O'Reilly.

Moore entertained the crowd with spoof campaign ads for the Bush-Cheney ticket and a mock reading of "My Pet Goat," the book the president was reading at a Florida elementary school when he was informed about the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

Having traveled to more than 30 cities on the tour, Moore said he was heartened by the number of people who have turned out to hear him speak.

He said that the American public was a "liberal public" and that most Americans support a ban on assault weapons, equal pay for women and women's reproductive rights.

"We're the majority, and they're the minority," he said.

Moore received some of the loudest applause of the night while blaming the news media for not challenging the Bush administration before the war in Iraq.

The No. 1 comment he heard from people who saw his film was about the news footage that hadn't been shown on television, he said.

"The movie 'outed' our national press for not doing the job it's supposed to be doing," he said to a standing ovation.

Moore visited Seattle as part of his 61-city "Slacker Uprising Tour," which will end Nov. 2 in Florida.

He asked those in the audience who didn't vote in 2000 to stand up, and said if they pledged to vote this year, he would give them the food of slackers, Ramen noodles, and clean underwear.

"That's a three-pack -- so share it," he said. "I got a feeling you hang out with a couple of other people who don't vote."

The event included an appearance by U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., who warned that if Bush is re-elected, another Patriot Act would threaten the Bill of Rights.

Pearl Jam's Eddie Vedder opened the event, singing Bob Dylan's "Masters of War," Cat Stevens' "Don't be Shy" and the Beatles' "You've Got to Hide Your Love Away."

Like the filmmaker, the tour has sparked controversy. A California university canceled his campus appearance, citing his partisan politics. And the Republican Party in Michigan asked prosecutors there to file charges against Moore, saying the giveaways to college students amounted to a bribe to vote. His next tour stop is in Utah.

Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," which was released in summer, is a scathing critique of the Bush administration. It has grossed more than $100 million, making it the top-earning documentary movie.

Dozens of supporters of Bush and presidential candidates John Kerry and Ralph Nader lined the street outside KeyArena before Moore's appearance last night.

Bush backer Daniel Villanueva, 48, of Seattle held a sign that said, "Michael Moron," and was among those protesting the filmmaker's visit.

"He just edits certain parts of things," said Villanueva, who has not seen Moore's latest movie. "It's not real. It's not a documentary."

To those who question the truthfulness of his film, Moore had this to say: "Prove it."

"My movies are the anti-propaganda," he said during a news conference before last night's event.

Cable pay-per-view company iN DEMAND announced last week that it would not broadcast the film on the eve of the presidential election. Moore has said that he is considering legal action.

He also offered the movie for free to Sinclair Broadcasting Group Inc., which wants to air part of an anti-Kerry documentary before the election.

But if the company doesn't take him up on the offer, Moore said he would go to Sinclair's headquarters or one of its affiliates and show the movie on the side of the building.

And Moore is partnering with independent video stores around the country, including several in Seattle, to rent his movie for free starting Tuesday.

It's just good to know that there are some sane Republicans out there.

Conscience of a Conservative
The New Republic's October 25 issue contains the latest anguished letter from another Republican who has decided to vote for John Kerry. In a truly impassioned plea, New York Post editorial writer Robert A. George lays out a damning case against George Bush for violating the fundamental tenets of conservatism, including fiscal responsibility, smaller government, and accountability for all of the activities of the executive branch, even in a time of "war.".

*********

"Conscience of a Conservative":
Robert A. George
The New Republic


Sixteen years ago, just out of college, I volunteered at the Republican National Convention as a man named George Bush prepared to begin a fall campaign that would see him defeat a Democrat from Massachusetts. The sparkling words of an acceptance speech crafted by Peggy Noonan--and delivered almost flawlessly--helped him inspire his party and a country that saw him as an extension of Ronald Reagan. It fell to that George Bush to "close out" the cold war and launch a different one in the Persian Gulf.

Now, sixteen years later, after tenures working for the party and a couple of Republican members on Capitol Hill (including a speaker named Newt Gingrich) and becoming an earnest fellow traveler of the conservative movement, I find it impossible to support the current George Bush--whom his party sees as the ideological extension of Ronald Reagan--as he faces his own showdown with a Democrat from Massachusetts and oversees a war centered n the Middle East.

At the Republican National Convention, George W. Bush mocked John Kerry's claim of having "conservative values." But what are conservative values? Two of the core principles at the heart of modern conservatism are a belief in the virtue of smaller government and a conviction that government must be accountable to the public. Those principles were enunciated ten years ago in the Contract with America, which helped Republicans take full control of Congress for the first time in four decades. That document sought "the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money." In this context, Bush's first term has represented a betrayal of conservative values.

It's not simply a matter of outrageous spending or enlarged government programs--both offenses of which this administration is guilty, as manifested in a 25 percent domestic discretionary spending hike, a half-trillion-dollar Medicare expansion, and the ripping away of free-market agricultural reforms enacted over the past decade. The president continues to pursue tax cuts, as any conservative president would. But a government that cuts taxes and continues to spend ultimately becomes as amoral as one that raises taxes and spends.

Yet the Bush administration's free-spending fiscal record only hints at its larger rejection of conservative principles. The more fundamental betrayal arises from the administration's central focus: an ill-defined "war on terror" that has no determinable endpoint and that is used to justify an unprecedented expansion of executive power. To make matters worse, this administration shows little inclination to demand accountability from those who serve within it. In turn, the Republican Congress--ignoring its 1994 vow to "restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives"--appears disinclined to check the powers of the executive. Together, these factors endanger the long-term health of the republic.

It is a good thing Bush has an idealistic streak that informs his vision of the world. That idealism leads him to a belief that "freedom is not America's gift to the world; freedom is the Almighty God's gift to each man and woman in this world." But, without demanding accountability from his administration, that messianic zeal is being corrupted, and his policies are lurching out of control. Without a defined, limited overall vision of the war on terrorism and a corresponding commitment to government accountability, Bush can hardly claim to be the champion of "conservative values."

Speaking about the war on terrorism as the GOP convention kicked off, Bush told Matt Lauer on the "Today" show, "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world." The White House immediately backpedaled from Bush's apparent gaffe, saying this was just a variation of what the president has always said--that the war on terrorism is a "different kind of war." But, as a former editor of this magazine, Michael Kinsley, once stated, "A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth." And that's just what Bush was doing.

The past four decades have seen "wars" on social conditions ("poverty"), inanimate objects ("drugs"), and physical states ("teenage pregnancy"). (Each has met with limited, if any, success.) What is different now is that, this time, a president has asserted that we are in an actual war that must be fought with the full wartime powers of the presidency. With vague congressional approval, this assertion grants the president--and, more importantly, the presidency--powers deeply disturbing from a civil liberties perspective. Indeed, this expansion of presidential prerogative is anathema to the conservative belief in limited government.

The dangers of this new, unlimited power were plain to see at a tough congressional hearing in June. Attorney General John Ashcroft squared off against the Senate Judiciary Committee as it looked into whether Ashcroft's office provided legal cover to the Department of Defense on issues involving torture. The Wall Street Journal and other papers ran stories based on a heavily redacted 100-page memo, dated March 6, 2003. Written by a Defense Department working group, the memo seemed to outline ways to justify the use of aggressive interrogation techniques on detainees at Guantanamo without running afoul of international treaties forbidding torture. The Journal reported:

"In order to respect the president's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign ... (the prohibition against torture) must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his commander-in-chief authority," the report asserted. ...

To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a "presidential directive or other writing" that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."

In essence, the authors of the Defense Department memo were arguing that, in wartime, getting around inconvenient laws is "inherent in the president." The memo's existence raised the possibility that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were, in fact, an extension of official policy.

At the hearing, Ashcroft denied that President Bush approved of torture. But, in refusing Democratic senators' demands to turn either the full memo or similar ones written by the Justice Department over to the Judiciary Committee, he said, "We are at war. And for us to begin to discuss all the legal ramifications of the war is not in our best interest and it has never been in times of war." Ashcroft was essentially asserting that Congress--whose oversight powers give it authority to demand accountability from the executive--should not be allowed to inquire about the quality of legal advice being given to the president. This, even though the apparent result of that advice "trickled down" to the abuse of prisoners in Guantanamo, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

If the answer to every legitimate congressional inquiry concerning presidential powers is that "we are at war" and that legislative questions concerning executive behavior are inappropriate, it becomes impossible for Congress to fulfill its constitutional mandate as a co-equal branch of government. At what point do the American people ask the obvious: What sort of war is this and exactly how long should a president have virtually indeterminate powers to wage it?

Yes, it is true that past presidents have taken on extraordinary wartime powers: In the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus; in World War II, Franklin D. Roosevelt approved the internment of Japanese citizens. But, in both cases, there existed a defined foe. With each, there was a sense of what victory meant and over whom that victory would be won. The Union would defeat the Confederacy; America and her allies would defeat the Axis powers. Even in the cold war, the ideology of communism had a clear home in the Soviet Union. Those conflicts would end with the defined enemy surrendering, being defeated, or the motivating ideology collapsing. However long it took, the American people knew there would be some sort of definite conclusion.

But, in President Bush's vision, the terrorist enemy remains amorphous. After September 11, Osama bin Laden was wanted "dead or alive." Then, as the Iraq war developed, Saddam Hussein became the ace of spades in the terrorist card deck. Now, Abu Musab Al Zarqawi is the new face of evil. The war, we are told, will not end with any one of these men's capture or death. It will continue until ... until ... until when, exactly? Thus, the comparisons many make to previous U.S. conflicts are hardly applicable. Neither are the comparisons to decisions of previous commanders-in-chief who put aside civil liberties. For the 40 years of the cold war, the United States held off a Soviet enemy that had the power to destroy the country several times over--yet civil liberties were never curtailed to the extent they are now. In the current struggle, which some call World War IV, Americans are being asked to sacrifice liberties in the face of an enemy that has less ability to damage us than the Soviets did. This is not to minimize the threat of Islamist fundamentalism, but it is essential to put the capabilities of the enemy in perspective.

The Supreme Court gave some shape to these questions in a series of rulings on the rights of Guantanamo detainees and American "enemy combatants" Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla. What is broadly at stake could be seen in the vociferous end-of-the-spectrum minority statements by regular antagonists Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia. Scalia found the detention of Hamdi, captured in Afghanistan, unconstitutional, but disagreed with how the Court chose to resolve it--i.e., by saying that the September 13, 2001, congressional war resolution gave Bush the power to declare individuals enemy combatants. Scalia asserts that the Constitution provides only two options--either Congress could vote to suspend habeas corpus or Hamdi could be charged with a crime, such as treason. Otherwise, Hamdi couldn't be held indefinitely. "The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive," concludes Scalia.

On Padilla, the court declined to hear the case on a technicality--Padilla's lawyer sued Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in federal court, rather than the warden of the Louisiana jail in which Padilla was held. Stevens (who, in a man-bites-dog moment, also signed onto Scalia's dissent in the Hamdi case) railed against the Court decision not to hear the case:

At stake in this case is nothing less than the essence of a free society.... Access to counsel for the purpose of protecting the citizen from official mistakes and mistreatment is the hallmark of due process.

Executive detention of subversive citizens ... may sometimes be justified to prevent persons from launching or becoming missiles of destruction. It may not, however, be justified by the naked interest in using unlawful procedures to extract information. Incommunicado detention for months on end is such a procedure.... For if this Nation is to remain true to the ideals symbolized by its flag, it must not wield the tools of tyrants even to resist an assault by the forces of tyranny.

It is cold comfort that the furthest left and the furthest right justices on the Court are the ones arguing most vigorously about the dangers of an unchecked executive. But neither they nor any of their colleagues appear interested in pondering the hard questions of an American president with extra-constitutional "wartime" powers that could continue ad infinitum. Would these powers be automatically transferred to a hypothetical President John Kerry? President Hillary Rodham Clinton? President Jeb Bush? Should the American people simply take on faith the latest commander-in-chief's definition of who is or is not a terrorist? Would the American people have accepted such a refined status quo for the 40 years the cold war lasted? Or, in the formulation of adviser Karl Rove, the 30 years of Great Britain's conflict with the Irish Republican Army? (Even in that conflict, bargaining partners eventually emerged to craft an unsteady peace agreement, whereas Rove has dismissed the idea of ever signing a peace treaty with Al Qaeda.) How can the American people expect to stay on a war footing when the commander-in-chief has given them no concept of what "victory" would eventually look like? And how can they be expected indefinitely to tolerate an expansion of executive power that threatens the liberties upon which the nation was founded?

Permanent war would be dangerous enough if the public could be confident in its execution. But we cannot. That's because President Bush has failed to live up to the second key tenet of conservative government: accountability.

Take, for example, the Pentagon's disastrous planning for postwar Iraq. The lack of troops for the post-invasion period enabled the insurgency to bloom and put American soldiers at risk. Worse, while memos from Ashcroft's Justice Department seemingly provided legal cover for the abuse at Abu Ghraib, the material causes could be found, again, in the underdeployment of troops: "What went wrong at Abu Ghraib prison?" asked The New York Post's Ralph Peters, one of the more earnest supporters of invading Iraq. Pointing to the two independent reports examining the scandal, he concludes: "Woefully deficient planning for post-war Iraq, too few troops and inadequate leadership at the top." Peters is among the conservatives who believe the Abu Ghraib fiasco should have been the final straw for Rumsfeld.

But it didn't happen. And it won't happen, because accountability is a foreign word in this administration. To demonstrate how little he has learned, Rumsfeld observed, "Does [the abuse] rank up there with chopping off someone's head on television? It doesn't. It doesn't. Was it done as a matter of policy? No." Forget that the abuse was far more pervasive than just the handful of servicemen that first popped up in photographs; when the secretary of defense basically says, "Hey, what the terrorists do is much worse," the moral foundation upon which America stands begins to crumble. The president's stated goal was to try to bring democracy to the Middle East--not to allow us to become tainted by the barbarism so prevalent in the region we are attempting to liberate. So Rumsfeld stays on--even as the situation rapidly deteriorates.

Then again, this shouldn't come as a surprise: George Tenet remained in his position following the worst intelligence failure in U.S. history, enabling him to tell the president later that evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was a "slam dunk." The first failure helped lead to the deaths of thousands of Americans; the second failure led us into a conflict from which there exists no clear exit strategy and that has rendered the word of the United States suspect. Yet Tenet stayed on, too.

And no wonder. As Bob Woodward writes in Plan of Attack, "[S]everal things were clear from the president's demeanor, his style and all that [Colin] Powell had learned about Bush. The president was not going to toss anyone over the side.... The president also made it clear that no one was to jump ship.... They were a team. The larger message was clear: Circle the wagons." The larger message is that loyalty is prized above all, regardless of the results and regardless of the effect on U.S. standing in the world.

The same pattern is evident in the other WMD scandal, a.k.a. the Wretched Medicare Debacle. As is well-known now, the prescription-drug-enhanced Medicare "reform" will cost a full quarter more--at least--than the originally announced $395 billion over ten years. Within weeks of the president's signing the bill into law, the measure ballooned to $534 billion. The re-estimation contributes to a record annual deficit for 2004. The Post reported that the larger numbers were known for "months" and that "the president's top health advisers gathered such evidence and shared it with select lawmakers"--while rank-and-file members of Congress were kept in the dark.

The deception on the numbers was combined with raw, hard politics that danced right up to the ethical and legal lines that supposedly govern the House. The legislation--the largest entitlement expansion in nearly 40 years--just squeaked by. Republican leaders in the House of Representatives kept the vote open for an unprecedented three hours in order to twist the arms of reluctant conservatives. Retiring Michigan Representative Nick Smith alleged that Republicans threatened the political future of his son if he didn't support the bill. Smith held his ground, despite the de facto extortion--actions that sparked an internal House inquiry that has resulted in House Majority Leader Tom DeLay having his hand slapped by the Ethics Committee for improperly trying to influence Smith's vote.

Ultimately, on both foreign and domestic policy, the public's trust has been betrayed. Why should the public trust its leaders with future policy if those leaders deceive and manipulate the people's elected representatives to get a favored policy passed? If the American public and the world at large now react skeptically to future presidential claims that the United States faces a foreign threat, who can blame them?

Similarly, the president's intent to reform Social Security will now be judged by the still-emerging costs of the Medicare reform--to say nothing of the political backlash from some seniors incensed at having to pay 17 percent more in premiums. The mishandling of domestic spending, of which Medicare is the prime example--whether because of ignorance, incompetence, or deceit--casts the same pall over Bush's domestic agenda that the collapse of Iraq does over his foreign policy. The president who dismisses criticism of the cost of Medicare is the same one who "miscalculated" the costs for rebuilding Iraq by at least $100 billion--and submitted a subsequent budget that omitted even an estimate of spending for the current military campaigns. Medicare actuary Richard Foster was threatened with firing if he told the truth about the costs of the reform bill, while his boss who pushed forward the lower numbers, Thomas Scully, departed quietly to a cushy health care-related policy job at a Washington, D.C., law firm. That was, of course, the same pattern we witnessed with the management of the Iraq war. Individuals who got the prewar details right--either in terms of troop strength (General Eric Shinseki) or in estimated fiscal costs (former National Economic Council Director Lawrence Lindsey)--were publicly rebuked or dismissed. Those who got the prewar details wrong remain in positions of authority. Conservatives--who fear unchecked, unaccountable government--should be especially appalled.

It would be wonderful to believe the president's promise that the war in Iraq will lead to democracy in a troubled region. An immigrant--I was born in the West Indies--tends to absorb the earnest, spiritual myths of his adopted nation even more than those native-born. Democracy is indeed a human value. But initiating a war to "liberate" an entire region far from our shores can hardly be called a conservative cause. It will be impossible to restrain a government kept on a permanent war footing. And, in liberty's name abroad, liberty at home will inevitably be compromised. It already has been.

No, a Kerry administration would not be any conservative's ideal. But, on limited government, a Democratic president would, arguably, force a Republican Congress to act like a Republican Congress. The last such combination produced some form of fiscal sanity. And, when it comes to accountability, one could hardly do worse. Of course, a conservative can still cast a libertarian vote on principle.

At crucial points before and after the Iraq war, Bush's middle managers have failed him, and the "brand" called America has suffered in the world market. In any other corporate structure plagued by this level of incompetence, the CEO would have a choice: Fire his middle managers or be held personally accountable by his shareholders. Because of his own misguided sense of "loyalty," Bush won't dismiss anyone. That leaves the country's shareholders little choice.

Bush's Significant Failures In The War On Terror
Monday in New Jersey, George Bush gave what his aides said was a "significant" speech on the war on terror. The only thing significant about Bush's policy on the war on terror has been his significant failure to focus on terrorism before September 11, his significant failures to protect America through homeland security, his significant failure to stay focused on the war on terror by shifting attention and resources to Iraq, and his significant failure to build a real coalition and provide American troops with proper equipment for battle.

Bush Team Ignored Terrorism Before September 11

Clinton Administration Warned Bush Team That Al Qaeda Would Be The Biggest threat. The 9-11 Commission report "quoted Clinton as telling the commission that he told Bush in their transition meeting that ‘I think you will find that by far your biggest threat is bin Laden and the al Qaida.'" In his book My Life, "When he and President Bush have a meeting just as Bush is about to take over, Clinton writes that he cited Al Qaeda as the nation's No. 1 foreign policy concern. Sandy Berger, Clinton's NSC advisor told the 9-11 Commision that : "I told my successor [Condi Rice] that she would be spending more time on terrorism and al Qaeda than any other issue. I did my best to emphasize the urgency I felt." [Boston Globe, 7/23/04; Chicago Tribune, 6/27/04; Sandy Berger, Testimony Before The 9-11 Commission, 3/24/04]

Bush Ignored the August '01 PDB That Warned Of An Imminent Al Qaeda Attack Inside the US. Bush received a Presidential Daily Briefing on August 6, 2001, entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in US." However, Bush did not hold a cabinet meeting on terrorism until September 4, even though his counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke had requested one in January 2001. [Associated Press, 4/8/04; Richard Clarke, Against All Enemies, pp. 231-237; CBS "60 Minutes," 3/21/04]

Cheney Was Told Al Qaeda Had Hit the USS Cole - But Chose Not to Respond: "At least twice, Bush conveyed the message to the Taliban that the United States would hold the regime responsible for an al Qaeda attack. But after concluding that bin Laden's group had carried out the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole -- a conclusion stated without hedge in a Feb. 9 briefing for Vice President Cheney -- the new administration did not choose to order armed forces into action." [Washington Post, 1/20/02]


Bush Has Left Key Gaps In America's Homeland Security

Bush's Failed "Commitment" To Homeland Security Lacks Resources and Strategy. Since 9/11, Bush has opposed the creation of a Department of Homeland Security, failed to secure the nation's ports and borders, properly screen air and sea cargo, or create a unified terror watch list. Today, only 5 percent of the cargo coming into the nation's ports is physically inspected, less than 5% of air cargo goes unscreened for explosives, and only one border agent is available per every 5 miles of the U.S./Canadian border. What's more, Bush's 2005 budget has cut funding for first responder training by nearly half, cut port security grants, and he has plans to cut DHS funding by $1 billion in his 2006 budget. [National Journal, 6/5/02; www.omb.gov


Chairman Kean Has Said Bush Is Not Acting Fast Enough On Intel Reform

Kean Urged Bush To Get Involved In Intelligence Reform. Kean: "I would certainly urge the president to do everything in his power to get a final bill to his desk before the election… I would hope that he would urge his friends in Congress to act," Mr. Kean said of the president. "I will reach out to the White House to urge them to do everything they can." [NYT, 10/15/04]


Bush Cut Intelligence Funding After 9-11

Bush Administration Proposed Intelligence Cuts AFTER 9-11. In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows. The document, dated Oct. 12, 2001, shows that the FBI requested $1.5 billion in additional funds to enhance its counterterrorism efforts with the creation of 2,024 positions. But the White House Office of Management and Budget cut that request to $531 million. Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, working within the White House limits, cut the FBI's request for items such as computer networking and foreign language intercepts by half, cut a cyber-security request by three quarters and eliminated entirely a request for "collaborative capabilities." [Washington Post, 4/13/04, 3/22/04]

Bush Provided Only One-Third Of Counter-Terrorism Funding In 2005 Budget. Bush's FY05 intelligence budget only provided a third of the counter-terrorism funding that our intelligence agencies said they needed to fight terrorism next year. The CIA Counterterrorism Center is only funded at 20% in the President's budget request. The other 80% of the money it needs to fight al Qaeda will have to come from supplementals. The bill would authorize an estimated $40 billion for intelligence spending, including roughly $30 billion for defense intelligence agencies and $5 billion for the CIA. Exact funding levels are classified. [CQ, 6/25/04; House Intelligence Committee Minority Staff, Rep. Harman release, 7/8/04]


Bush Said He Was Not Concerned About Bin Laden

Bush Said He Wasn't Concerned About Bin Laden. In 2002, Bush said "[Osama Bin Laden is] just - he's a person who has now been marginalized. His network is -- his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match…So I don't know where he is. Nor -- you know, I just don't spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you. I…I truly am not that concerned about him." [Bush News Conference, 3/13/02]

Bush Claims To Have Wiped Out 3/4 Of Al Qaeda, Yet The Organization Is Resurging And Morphing. Despite Bush's claims over the past several months that "much of Al Qaeda's leadership has been killed or captured," new evidence from Al Qaeda double-agent Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan's computer, seized in Pakistan, shows that a "new generation of operatives…[appears] to be filling the vacuum created when leaders were killed or captured." According to intelligence analysts, "Al Qaeda's upper ranks are being filled by lower-ranking members and more recent recruits." Al Qaeda is "more resilient than was previously understood and has sought to find replacements for operational commanders." Although several major leaders have been captured, "the new operatives appear as committed to striking the U.S." [Bush Remarks, 9/14/04; New York Times, 8/10/04; Wall Street Journal, 8/16/04]

Up To Half Of Intelligence and Special Forces Diverted To Iraq. "U.S. intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because intelligence matters are classified, said that as much as half of the intelligence and special forces assets in Afghanistan and Pakistan were diverted to support the war in Iraq." [KnightRidder/Tribune News Service 9/5/03, emphasis added]


Bush Protected Saudi Arabia, Who Gave Support To The 9-11 Hijackers

Graham Said Bush Administration Is Responsible For Concealing Saudi Arabia's Complicity In 9-11 Plot. Former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham: "We submitted a [Joint Intelligence Committee] report which had a 27-page section on this issue of the Saudi connections to terrorists. Guess what part of the report was totally censored? That's it. So, this administration has denied to the American people information that would allow them to assess Saudi Arabia's role in terrorism." [CNN, 9/8/04]

Former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Said Saudi Arabia Helped The 9-11 Hijackers. Former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham: "In fact, in August of '02, a CIA agent said there was incontrovertible evidence that the Saudi government was involved in assisting the terrorists in the United States." "In my judgment, there is a trail that starts from a Saudi governmental organization, goes through a company which is owned by a major supporter of al Qaeda, through a firm which had been paying a ghost employee, who ends up being a Saudi agent in San Diego, who was the conduit for $30,000 to $40,000 going to the two terrorists." [CNN, 9/8/04, 9/12/04]


There Was No Relationship Between Iraq And Al Qaeda, Terrorist Threat Is Now Growing

9-11 Commission Report Said No "Collaborative Operational Relationship" Existed Between Iraq and Al Qaeda. "We have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States." [9-11 Commission Final Report, 7/22/04]

Experts Say Al Qaeda Is Operating in 60 Countries. According to conservative intelligence estimates quoted by the IISS, the group is present in more than 60 countries and has "18,000 potential terrorists at large". The IISS says the war in Iraq has focused the energies and resources of al-Qaeda and its followers, while diluting those of the global counter-terrorism coalition. U.S. forces in Iraq present al-Qaeda with what the report calls its most attractive "iconic" target outside the United States itself. [BBC, 5/25/04]


Bush Himself Said The War On Terror Was A Law Enforcement Task

Bush: War on Terror Is Intelligence/Law Enforcement. Bush: "All our successes in the war on terror depend on the ability of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies to work in common purpose. In order to better protect our homeland, our intelligence agencies must coexist like they never had before. In order to hunt the terrorists down one by one, our intelligence agencies must cooperate fully with agencies overseas." [Bush, remarks at FBI, 2/14/03]


American Soldiers Are Carrying The Burden Of The Coalition

U.S. Provides 90% Of The Troops In Iraq, Suffers 90% Of The Casualties. "There have been 1,235 coalition deaths, 1,096 Americans, 68 Britons, six Bulgarians, one Dane, two Dutch, one Estonian, one Hungarian, 19 Italians, one Latvian, 13 Poles, one Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai, nine Ukrainians and one soldier whose nationality has not been identified, in the war in Iraq as of October 17, 2004." Of the 160,000 troops in Iraq, nearly 140,000 are American. [CNN.com, 10/18/04; Brookings Institution, "Iraq Index," 10/15/04]

Coalition In Iraq Has Been Steadily Shrinking. Poland's Prime Minister has announced that the country would begin to draw down the number of Polish troops in Iraq. The coalition has "already has lost nearly one-third of its members this year." Since February, eight other countries have withdrawn their troops from Iraq, including the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Nicaragua, Norway, the Philippines, Singapore, Spain and Thailand. Of the 30 allied nations, only six have 1,000 or more troops in Iraq." [Los Angeles Times, 10/16/04]


Bush's National Security Strategy Endorses The Global Test

Bush National Security Strategy Endorses The Same Test. According to the National Security Strategy published in September 2002, the Bush Administration doctrine states: "We will always proceed deliberately, weighing the consequences of our action. To support preemptive options, we will: coordinate closely with allies to form a common assessment of the most dangerous threats." [National Security Strategy, 9/02]


Global Views Of America Are Dangerously Low

Musharraf Says Iraq War Has Made The World More Dangerous: "[The world] is more dangerous [because of the war in Iraq]. It is not safer, certainly, not…it has aroused the passions of the Muslims more. This arouses certain sentiments of the Muslim world. And then the response is the latest phenomenon of explosives, remotely controlled bombs and suicide bombings. This phenomenon is extremely dangerous." [CNN, 9/25/04]

Poll Shows Global Attitude Of The United States At An All Time Low. "The nonpartisan Pew Research Center, which conducted the survey, said the image of the United States in the world has never polled lower. ‘This poll says to me the discontent with America is a long-term problem that U.S. leaders have to confront,' said poll director Andrew Kohut. ‘We've never seen ratings as low as this for America.'" [Washington Post, 3/17/04]


Bush Has Failed To Provide For America's Troops

Senior Ground Commander In Iraq Suffered From Body Armor Shortage. On Dec. 4, 2003, Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez wrote in a letter "to the number two officer in the Army, with copies to other senior officials, that his soldiers still needed protective inserts to upgrade 36,000 sets of body armor, but that their delivery twice had been postponed in the month before he was writing." [Washington Post, 10/17/04]

Sanchez Said Combat Operations Could Not Be Sustained Due To Failure of Equipment. Sanchez said, "I cannot sustain readiness without Army-level intervention." He said units were waiting an average of 40 days for critical spare parts, almost three times the Army's average. "In some Army supply depots in Iraq, 40 percent of critical parts were at ‘zero balance,' meaning they were absent from depot shelves." [Washington Post, 10/17/04]


Cheney Opposed Weapons Programs Bush Accused John Kerry Of Opposing

Cheney Opposed Weapons Vital To The War On Terror, Including the Following:

- Cheney proposed to cut the F-16

- Cheney proposed to cut the F-14D

- Cheney proposed to cut the F-14A

- Cheney proposed to cut the F-15

- Cheney proposed to cut the B-2

- Cheney proposed to cut the AH-64 Apache Helicopter

- Cheney proposed to cut the M-1 Abrams tanks

- Cheney proposed to cut the C-17 Air Cargo transport planes

- Cheney proposed to cut the B-52 bombers

[Washington Post, 1/13/90; Boston Globe, 1/30/90; Chicago Tribune, 1/30/90; Boston Globe, 4/27/90; NY Times, 1/8/91; Newsday, 2/5/91; Chicago Tribune, 2/20/91; Boston Globe, 2/5/91; Star-Tribune, 2/2/92; Aerospace Daily, 8/17/92]

Bush on the Run: BUSH GOES ON DEFENSE IN FLORIDA TODAY
George Bush is clearly on the run, trying to hide from the fact that his administration has sent America in the wrong direction. You just need to watch the last few nights of network newscasts to see that. It's time for a fresh start with a president who is forthcoming about what he's doing to address the issues facing Americans here at home and abroad.

Bush on Defense Over FLU CRISIS:

Claimed Today He Was Addressing the Flu Vaccine Crisis, But…

A 2001 Report Found the Bush Administration Was "Generally Unprepared for … an Influenza Pandemic". "The government and the pharmaceutical industry are unprepared for a flu pandemic or vaccine shortages, according to a federal investigation into the delay of this winter's flu vaccine. … The GAO report found the United States is generally unprepared for vaccine delays or an influenza pandemic and had no system for making sure those most likely to die from a bad case of the flu receive the shots." [Santa Fe New Mexican, 5/16/01]

And The Head of the CDC Admits That Even People At High Risk Will Not Necessarily Get Vaccinated This Year. "Still, [CDC official Julie] Gerberding acknowledged that it was unlikely that everyone who wanted a flu shot -- even those in high-risk groups -- would be able to get one. The government estimates that 100 million Americans fall into the high-risk categories. ‘There will be some people who will not be able to get vaccine who need it,' Gerberding said." [Washington Post, 10/13/04]

Bush on Defense Over SOCIAL SECURITY

Bush Says His Social Security "Reforms" Will Protect the System, But…

Social Security Administration Announced COLA Today, But Medicare Will Eat Up Half of the COLA for the Typical Senior. Today the Social Security Administration announced that next year's COLA would be 2.7 percent. For most seniors this will be a $25 increase each month. This year, the Bush administration announced the largest Medicare premium increase in the history of the program - 17 percent. This increase of $11.60 a month will eat up nearly half of the COLA. For over 2 million seniors, their entire COLA will be eaten up by their Medicare premium increase, leaving them no extra money to cover the other costs that increased this year like heating oil, food or prescription drugs. [Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; Associated Press, 10/19/04; Joint Economic Committee Democratic Staff, 10/04]

Bush's Economic Report Of The President 2004 Said His Social Security Plan Will Drain $2 Trillion From Social Security Over Ten Years. According to George Bush's Economic Report of the President 2004, "personal retirement accounts widen the deficit by design." In total, the Social Security plan presented in the Economic Report of the President (Plan #2 from the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security) would increase the deficit by $2 trillion over ten years. This plan proposes individual accounts that average about 2 percent of payroll (technically, 4 percent of payroll up to a maximum $1,000 annual contribution). [Council of Economic Advisers, Economic Report of the President 2004, pp. 143 and Social Security Administration, Office of the Actuary, "Estimates of Financial Effects for Three Models Developed by the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security," January 31, 2002]

The Congressional Budget Office Estimates That Bush's Plan Will Force Benefit Cuts (Even When You Include The Value Of The Individual Accounts) That Grow From 23 Percent To 45 Percent. According to CBO, the President's plan "would reduce expected retirement benefits relative to scheduled benefits, even when the benefits paid from IAs [individual accounts] under CSSS Plan 2 are included… For example, benefits for the 1980s birth cohort would be 30 percent lower, and benefits for the 2000s cohort would be 45 percent lower." [CBO, "Long-term Analysis of Plan 2 of the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security," 7/21/2004, page 15 and Table 2]

Bush on Defense Over the DRAFT:

Bush Promised to Never Institute a Draft, But…

He Has Already Instituted a Backdoor Draft. In May, it was reported, "The U.S. Army is scraping up soldiers for duty in Iraq wherever it can find them, and that includes places and people long considered off-limits. The Army… confirmed that it pulled the files of some 17,000 people in the Individual Ready Reserve, the nation's pool of former soldiers." In June 2004, Rumsfeld issued "an order preventing thousands of soldiers designated for duty in Iraq or Afghanistan from leaving the military even when their volunteer service commitment expires…The move to extend the service of some soldiers involuntarily was the latest sign of increasing stress on the Army as the Pentagon strives to maintain adequate troop levels in the two conflicts." [Reuters, 6/2/04; Knight Ridder, 5/19/04]

And Today It Was Revealed Selective Service Is Preparing For A Draft of Medical Professionals. "The Selective Service has been updating its contingency plans for a draft of doctors, nurses and other health care workers in case of a national emergency that overwhelmed the military's medical corps. In a confidential report this summer, a contractor hired by the agency described how such a draft might work, how to secure compliance and how to mold public opinion and communicate with health care professionals, whose lives could be disrupted… Richard S. Flahavan, a spokesman for the Selective Service System, said: ‘We have been routinely updating the entire plan for a health care draft.'" [NYT, 10/19/04]

Bush on Defense Over the ECONOMY:

Bush Asserted the Economy Was Doing Just Fine, But…

Bush is 7 Million Jobs Short of His 2002 Prediction, the First President in Over 70 Years To Preside Over a Net Job Loss. Annual projections in the 2002 Economic Report of the President implied 6.5 million new jobs between January 2001 and September 2004. Instead, we have lost 821,000 jobs. As a result, we are 7 million jobs short of the prediction which President Bush made after 9/11, the tech bubble, and the recession. Jobs are shifting to lower-paying industries paying $8,848 less. Nationwide jobs are growing in industries with low-paying jobs and shrinking in industries with higher-paying jobs. On average, jobs in growing industries pay $8,848 less than jobs in shrinking industries - that is 27 percent less. [Analysis of BLS data from January 2001 through August 2004; Economic Report of the President, 2002]

GEORGE BUSH MIGHT LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY FROM HIS OWN ECONOMIC REPORT
George Bush's economic advisers analyzed one and only one Social Security plan: Plan 2 put forward by his Social Security. This is also the only plan that the Congressional Budget Office analyzed. But now the Bush campaign is whining that John Kerry is analyzing this very same plan.

Here are the facts:

George Bush's Plan Costs $2 Trillion - According to His Own Advisers

The Economic Report of the President 2004 says that "personal retirement accounts widen the deficit by design." Chart 6-4 shows the "change in the deficit" as a share of nominal GDP, these numbers correspond to $2 trillion in nominal dollars. The precise numbers are available in a Memorandum from the Social Security actuaries, they show that the current dollar cost is $2.004 trillion from 2005-14. [Council of Economic Advisers, Economic Report of the President 2004, pp. 143-144 and Social Security Administration, Office of the Actuary, "Estimates of Financial Effects for Three Models Developed by the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security," January 31, 2002]

New York Times: "The analyses [Congressional Budget Office and Economic Report of the President] showed that the plan would cost the government $2 trillion - the number Mr. Kerry used." [10/19/04]

Washington Post: "[Bush's] proposed changes in Social Security to allow younger workers to invest part of their payroll taxes in stocks and bonds could cost the government $2 trillion over the coming decade, according to the calculations of independent domestic policy experts." [9/14/04]

Financial Times: "Social Security actuaries estimate that Mr Bush's reform would cost Dollars 2,000bn (Pounds 1,120bn) over 10 years, based on a plan put forward by the commission on presidential reform that Mr Bush appointed in 2002." [10/15/04]

George Bush's Plan Cuts Benefits By Up to 45 Percent

CBO estimates that Bush's plan will force benefit cuts (even when you include the value of the individual accounts) that grow to up to 45 percent. According to CBO, the President's plan "would reduce expected retirement benefits relative to scheduled benefits, even when the benefits paid from IAs [individual accounts] under CSSS Plan 2 are included… For example, benefits for the 1980s birth cohort would be 30 percent lower, and benefits for the 2000s cohort would be 45 percent lower." [CBO, "Long-term Analysis of Plan 2 of the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security," 7/21/2004, page 15 and Table 2]

Even compared to a scenario with benefit cuts to extend solvency, Bush's plan would still cut benefits. CBO analyzed a hypothetical scenario with benefits to ensure Social Security is solvent. Specifically, CBO assumes that benefits are paid by payroll taxes after Social Security's projected insolvency in 2052. Bush's plan has lower benefits than even this scenario.

New Jersey's Solution to the Bush Flu Shot Crisis: A Lottery

Yesterday, Secretary Thompson said that the shortage of flu vaccines is not a crisis' even though we only have about half the vaccines that are necessary.

HERE'S THE REALITY:

A Lottery for Flu Shots: After nearly two weeks of hearing about long lines, near riots and frantic senior citizens lining up for flu shots, one New Jersey community has said enough and scrapped the clinic it planned for Thursday. Instead, at the same time and place, Bloomfield officials will register residents for a lottery. The winners will receive the town's 300 precious flu vaccinations. [Flu shots by luck of the draw, Sunday, October 17, 2004 Star-Ledger Staff]

Flu Vaccine Rationing. The elderly and at risk lined up as early as 3 am at a local Publix supermarket, hoping to get one of the 400 doses available last week at one public immunization spot. By 11:30 am, Publix employees had reached the end of their supply, forcing some choose between themselves and their neighbors. As many 150 people were turned away. [St. Petersburg Times, 10/15/04]

Seniors Forgoing Vaccinations. The sudden shortage in flu vaccines has forced Ohio clinics to cancel programs to give seniors vaccinations. ‘"It's another one of those years," Pat Burg, director of the Butler County Health Department, said. ‘It's one of the bigger glitches we've had. It caught us by quite a surprise.'" [The News-Messenger, 10/9/04; Fairfield Echo, 10/7/04]

Pharmacies Fall Prey to Price Gouging. A study found that pharmacies are falling prey to price gouging. Some secondary suppliers are offering the vaccine at four times the market price. "A few pharmacy directors surveyed by the organization reported vendors selling a 10-dose supply for $800, more than 10 times the market rate." [Morning Call, 10/15/04]

Health Officials Tell Pregnant Women to "Hold Off" on Vaccinations. "The state Health Department is asking some people at high risk of the flu to hold back on getting vaccinated so the state's scarce supply can go to those that need it most….But we're asking some high risk groups to voluntarily hold off.' Those groups are: pregnant women, 65- to 75-year-olds and direct caregivers of children under 6 months old, provided those people are otherwise healthy, … [Department spokeswoman Beth] Velasquez said." [Albuquerque Tribune, 10/15/04]

Thompson's own CDC recommended that approximately 90 million Americans who are considered high-risk (elderly, ill, young children) receive the vaccine. However, with only 53 million flu vaccines expected to be available this season, all high risk people won't be able to get the vaccine. [Fox News: Tommy Thompson Interview, 10/17/04; Rocky Mountain News, 10/6/04]

Every once in a while, a TV news show doesn't go according to plan, goes off the script, and that happened Friday on CNN's Crossfire.

The programme has two hosts, one from the right and one from the left, and asks guests to debate - and often shout - about the political topic du jour.


Jon Stewart has the ears of many young Americans
In conversation, I often refer to these folks as part of the "shouting classes" as opposed to what once was once called the "chattering classes".

Crossfire's hosts probably thought they would score a ratings coup by having Jon Stewart on the programme.

Jon Stewart hosts cable channel Comedy Central's news satire show, The Daily Show.

The Daily Show proudly says on its website: "The one news organisation with no credibility to lose."

It might be a stretch, I don't have the numbers to back this up, but I would have to say that Jon Stewart and the Daily Show is easily one of the most influential political programmes with young voters this election.

But instead of Jon Stewart being a deferential guest, he skewered Crossfire and its hosts as "partisan hacks".

He said he made a special effort to be on the show because he has often publicly that Crossfire is a bad show.

"I felt that wasn't fair, and I should come here and tell you that it's not so much that it's bad, as it's hurting America," he said.

Conservative Crossfire host Tucker Carlson wasn't having any of it.

Tucker accused Jon Stewart of lobbing softball questions to John Kerry. "Why not ask him a real question instead of just sucking up to him?" he asked the comic newsman.

But Jon Stewart fired back: "I didn't realise - and maybe this explains quite a bit - that the news organisations look to Comedy Central for their cues on integrity."

Liberal host Paul Begala tried to defend his show as a debate programme.

Jon Stewart said: "To do a debate would be great. But that's like saying pro wrestling is a show about athletic competition."

After that, it just got ugly, albeit still entertaining.

A very tetchy Tucker then said: "I do think you're more fun on your show. Just my opinion."

To which, Jon Stewart said: "You're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show."

Washington Post TV critic Lisa de Moraes said: "Isn't CNN lucky that FCC Chairman Michael Powell can't touch it because it's a cable network? 'Cause these days, that line alone would've cost them about a million bucks."

While I'm sure there were some red faces over at CNN - some out of embarrassment and some out of anger - this was the best debate of the political season.

It's scary and highly entertaining when truth breaks out on television. Wow, something real on TV as opposed to reality TV!

'Moore' to Offer Than Political Views

By Erin Roth / Bonanza News

I never would have thought that in attending a political lecture, I would be handed underwear and a pack of Top Ramen Noodles. Why I was given these items is embarrassing and shameful, but I will tell you anyway.

I didn't vote in the last presidential election.

It wasn't because I didn't want to, was lazy or forgot. It was because I was irresponsible (when I went to the polls in Boulder County, Colo., where I thought I was registered while in college, I discovered I was still registered in Los Angeles County, and thus was unable to cast my ballot), but that's beside the point.

Because I now have my registration straight and promise to vote on Nov. 2, Michael Moore gave me a pack of underwear and Top Ramen Noodles at his talk Wednesday at the University of Nevada, Reno.

With all the hype about Moore coming to Reno last week on his "Slacker Uprising Tour", I thought I'd see what the fuss was about. I hadn't seen his movies or known enough about him to develop a strong opinion, so I thought I'd take a chance and check him out.

I was in for a surprise.

I was expecting a ton of Bush bashing and slanderous speech, but what Moore concentrated on was encouraging America's youth to seek awareness on world issues, effect change and most importantly - vote.

"Michael Moore has injected new life into politics," Brian Hutchinson, chairman for Democracy for Nevada that proposed Moore's visit to the university, told the audience of nearly 10,000.

In the "largest event in student government history," according to Jeff Champagne, a student and vice president for the programming committee for the Associated Students of the University of Nevada, Moore spoke to a cheering, shouting and roaring crowd.

"People have come alive, they are more interested in politics than ever before," Moore said. "This is a more activist, active, energized public than ever before."

Yes, Moore called the president incompetent, said Americans are less safe in this world as a result of George W. and deemed Republicans increasingly irrelevant as each day goes by, but I was more impressed by his advocacy than his political views.

"Fifty percent of the public does not vote," Moore said. "That is the largest political party in America. And young-adults are the largest non-voting group."

"Well not anymore," he boomed into the microphone.

Moore had everyone in the audience over the age of 22 who didn't vote in the last election stand.

Instead of boo-ing these so-called "slackers" (myself, sadly, included), Moore said, "let's hear it for our non-voting friends who promise to vote this year."

Moore didn't make anyone promise who they were going to vote for, he just made them promise they were going to vote.

And to all those "slackers" who are too lazy to do their laundry, cook a nutritious meal and, let alone, vote, Moore handed out clean underwear and Top Ramen Noodles.

Whatever it takes, I guess.

Regardless of your personal, political persuasion, it's hard to argue that having everyone participate in the political process is anything but a good idea.

HHS WEBSITE DEBUNKS BUSH EFFORT TO BLAME FLU SHOT SHORTAGE ON LIABILITY
During the debate, George Bush tried to deflect criticism that he is responsible for the flu shot shortage by blaming lack of vaccine availability on liability. Unfortunately, his own Department of Health Human Services has decided to make up for the fact that it lied about the Medicare bill by telling the truth about the vaccine shortage: It has nothing to do with liability issues. It's all on the website in plain English.


BUSH IN THE DEBATE: "We have a problem with litigation in the United States of America. Vaccine manufacturers are worried about getting sued, and so, therefore, they have backed off from providing this kind of vaccine. One of the reasons I'm such a strong believer in legal reform is so that people aren't afraid of producing a product that is necessary for the health of our citizens and then end up getting sued in a court of law. [Bush, Third 2004 Presidential Debate, 10/14/04]

HHS WEBSITE: A Report of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee said: "The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) enacted in the late 1980s has been of immense value in stabilizing the vaccine market. Prior to its enactment, litigation led to national shortages, withdrawal of manufacturers from the marketplace, and instability of supply of essential childhood vaccines. The VICP was designed to compensate individuals who suffered a serious adverse event as a result of administration of a covered vaccine in a manner that was rapid, simple, generous and appropriate. The VICP has assisted in stimulating the availability of new vaccines since its inception in 1988. Despite the success of the program, criticism of the VICP could lead to significant legislative changes, including a more relaxed burden of proof standard for determining eligibility for compensation. Today, litigation again threatens stability of the vaccine program in the form of class action law suits, exemplified by those that have been filed involving vaccines that contain thimerosal. The VICP is currently understaffed to meet the new increased numbers of claims. While current vaccine shortages do not appear to be liability related, the VICP should be maintained and strengthened as supported by scientific evidence, including continuing expansion of VICP to include additional vaccines as they are recommended for routine administration to children. The VICP coverage of vaccines should recognize that "vaccine" includes the active ingredient as well as preservatives, additives and other excipients. Strengthening the VICP would benefit manufacturers, providers and consumers and further safeguard the nation's vaccine supply." [http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/bulletins/nvac-vsr.htm#liability]

GEORGE BUSH FAILS THE TROOPS
Bush: "Just like I've said all along, that when our commanders say that they need support, they'll get support, because we're going to succeed in this mission." [Bush, 9/23/04]

General Ricardo Sanchez: "I cannot continue to support sustained combat operations with rates this low."[Wash Post, 10/17/04]

Letter From Top Army General Shows The Troops Lacked Equipment

Senior Ground Commander In Iraq Suffered From Body Armor Shortage. On Dec. 4, 2003, Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez wrote in a letter "to the number two officer in the Army, with copies to other senior officials, that his soldiers still needed protective inserts to upgrade 36,000 sets of body armor, but that their delivery twice had been postponed in the month before he was writing." [Wash Post, 10/17/04]

Next Day, Bush Said Military Was Prepared. Bush on December 5, 2003: "Three years ago, our military was not receiving the resources it needed and morale was beginning to suffer. So we increased the defense budgets to prepare for the threats of a new era. And today, no one in the world can question the skill and the strength and the spirit of the United States military." [Bush, 12/5/03]

Sanchez Said Combat Operations Could Not Be Sustained Due To Failure of Equipment. Sanchez said, "I cannot sustain readiness without Army-level intervention." He said units were waiting an average of 40 days for critical spare parts, almost three times the Army's average. "In some Army supply depots in Iraq, 40 percent of critical parts were at ‘zero balance,' meaning they were absent from depot shelves." [Wash Post, 10/17/04]

Sanchez Said Key Combat Systems Lack Readiness. Sanchez "said in his letter that Army units in Iraq were ‘struggling just to maintain … relatively low readiness rates' on key combat systems, such as M-1 Abrams tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, anti-mortar radars and Black Hawk helicopters." [Wash Post, 10/17/04]

Tanks Were Not Operating At Proper Readiness. According to Lt. Gen. Claude V. Christianson, the senior logistics officer on the Army staff at the Pentagon, problems "were caused by a combination of problems in the supply pipeline and an unexpectedly high pace of combat operations as the Iraqi insurgency flared last year." Furthermore, "the readiness rate for M-1 Abrams tanks fell to 78 percent last October…compared to an Army standard of 90 percent." Gary Motsek, deputy director of operations for the Army Materiel Command said reported that the readiness rate for the tanks dropped from 95 percent to 83 percent." [Washington Post, 10/17/04]

In 2000, Bush Campaigned On Supporting The Troops

Bush Complained of Shortage of Spare Parts and Equipment: "But even the highest morale is eventually undermined by back-to- back deployments, poor pay, shortages of spare parts and equipment and rapidly declining readiness, I make this pledge to our men and women in arms: As President, I will preserve American power for American interests. And I will treat American soldiers with the dignity and respect they have earned." [Bush, 5/31/00]

Bush Has Repeatedly Claimed To Provide Military With Equipment It Needs

Bush: "I've made a commitment to the men and women of our military. America's asking a lot of you and you deserve a lot in return. You deserve our praise and our thanks and we will give you the resources you need to fight and win the war on terror." [Bush, 2/5/04]

Bush: "You have done your duty. America owes those who do their duty -- our military -- our gratitude. We owe you more than gratitude. We also owe you the material support you need to do your job." [Bush, 3/18/04]

Bush, Kerry win papers' endorsements
N.Y. Times goes for senator; Chicago Tribune picks president

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/17/election.endorsements/index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/opinion/17sun1.html?hp

Read On and you will be enlightened. I promise it's much better than the conservative trash that you must be used to reading.

Fact Checking the Latest RNC Ad
Responding to the latest misleading ad from the RNC, Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton said, "One more ad from President Bush's party with insults, distortions and untruths, and not a single idea on how to create jobs or cut the cost of health care."

THE FACTS:


Title: "Risky" FINAL"

Type: :TV/30

Date: 10-15-04

Paid for By: Republican National Committee



RNC CREDIBILITY GAP



Ad Script: John Kerry...The most liberal man in the Senate. The most liberal person to ever run for President. He voted to cut our military....To severely cut our intelligence agencies...He voted for higher taxes 350 times....And now he wants to be our President....

We live in a dangerous world that requires strong and steady leadership. John Kerry is a risky choice for America...a risk we cannot take.


RNC CREDIBILITY GAP


Narrator: John Kerry...The most liberal man in the Senate. The most liberal person to ever run for President.


The Reality



The Liberal Label Is Misleading And Disingenuous: John Kerry Opposed His Party to Vote for Deficit-Reduction, Supported Landmark Welfare Reform, Supports Middle Class Tax Cuts, Led the Fight to Put 100,000 Cops on the Street, And Supports Increasing Our Military. These Attacks are False.


John Kerry Has Voted For Deficit-reduction Measures Sponsored by Conservatives: John Kerry was one of the first Democrats to sign onto the landmark Gramm-Rudman-Hollings bill. Only four other Democrats joined with the 36 Republicans to cosponsor the bill to impose spending caps on federal spending. He has also not shied away from politically difficult plans to cut wasteful spending, often joining with Republican John McCain to tackle government waste. [S.1702, 99th Congress; McCain press release, 10/24/95; Senate Vote #121, 7/10/91; Senate Vote #166, 8/3/92; Senate Vote #296, 9/30/93; Senate Vote #337, 10/27/93; cosponsor of S. 463 in 1993; cosponsor of SA 983 to HR2445 in 1993; Boston Globe, 10/8/85]


Meanwhile, Under Bush the Federal Deficit Will Be Record $415 Billion In 2004. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the federal budget deficit will be a record $415 billion in 2004; the deficit will be $348 billion in 2005. Both figures dwarf the previous record of $290 billion posted by Bush's father in 1992. The $5.6 trillion ten-year surplus projected in January 2001 is gone, replaced with $2.3 trillion in deficits over the next ten years-a fiscal decline of $7.9 trillion in just three years. [OMB, 7/30/04; CBO, The Budget And Economic Outlook: An Update, 9/04, "Monthly Budget Review," 10/6/04;CBO, The Budget And Economic Outlook: An Update, 9/04]



John Kerry Voted for Landmark Welfare Reform: John Kerry voted for the landmark 1996 Welfare Reform legislation that created time limits and work requirements on recipients of welfare. [Vote #232, 7/23/96, Welfare Reconciliation Bill (S. 1956) passed 74-24, Kerry: Yes]


"Conservative" Bush Has a $3 Trillion Spending Gap, According To His Administration's Own Projections. According to the Washington Post, "The expansive agenda President Bush laid out at the Republican National Convention was missing a price tag, but administration figures show the total is likely to be well in excess of $3 trillion over a decade… [T]he cost of the new tax breaks and spending outlined by Bush at the GOP convention far eclipses that of the Kerry plan. Bush's pledge to make permanent his tax cuts… would reduce government revenue by about $1 trillion over 10 years, according to administration estimates. His proposed changes in Social Security to allow younger workers to invest part of their payroll taxes in stocks and bonds could cost the government $2 trillion over the coming decade… And Bush's agenda has many costs the administration has not publicly estimated… The war in Iraq alone costs $4 billion a month, but the president's annual budget does not reflect that cost." [Washington Post, 9/14/04]


Kerry "Designed Much of the 1994 Crime Bill, Including the Hiring of 100,000 New Police Officers" in the COPS Program. "In the Clinton years, Kerry has taken a pivotal role with both Democrats and Republicans in charge of the Senate. It was Kerry who designed much of the 1994 crime bill, including the hiring of 100,000 new police officers nationwide." [Boston Globe, 10/30/96]


However, Bush Made "Deep Cuts" to COPS Program. "At the same time, the Bush administration has made deep cuts in federal grant programs to finance local police personnel, equipment and training, with hundreds of millions of dollars of cuts in the COPS program, launched by the Clinton administration, proposed in the administration's current budget. Groups like the National League of Cities say that such cutbacks represent 'a drastic mistake' for hard-pressed local communities." [New York Times, 7/18/04]


Liberal Ratings Create "Midleading Impressions". Republicans have used ratings by National Journal and the ADA to call Kerry the most liberal senator. But National Journal stated that use of their rating is, "Disconcerting because the shorthand used to describe our ratings of Kerry and Edwards is sometimes misleading -- or just plain wrong." [ The National Journal, 8/3004]


RNC CREDIBILITY GAP


Narrator: He voted to cut our military....


The Reality


Kerry Has supported $4.4 Trillion in Defense Spending Including the Largest Increase Since the 1980's, and 16 of 19 Defense Authorization Bills. John Kerry is a strong supporter of the U.S. Armed Services and has consistently worked to ensure the military has the best equipment and training possible. In 2002, John Kerry voted for a large increase in the defense budget. This increase provided more than $355 billion for the Defense Department for 2003, an increase of $21 billion over 2002. This measure includes $71.5 billion for procurement programs such as $4 billion for the Air Force's F-22 fighter jets, $3.5 billion for the Joint Strike Fighter and $279.3 million for an E-8C Joint Stars (JSTARS) aircraft. Kerry's vote also funded a 4.1% pay increase for military personnel, $160 million for the B-1 Bomber Defense System Upgrade, $1.5 billion for a new attack submarine, more than $630 million for Army and Navy variants of the Blackhawk helicopter, $3.2 billion for additional C-17 transports, $900 million for R&D of the Comanche helicopter and more than $800 million for Trident Submarine conversion. [2002, Roll Call Vote # 239; Websites of Senators Daschle, Dodd accessed 7/25/03; Def. Auth 1985-2004; Vote #167, 7/30/1985, S.1160 Passed 94-5, Kerry-Y; Vote #167, 7/30/1985, S.1160 Passed 94-5, Kerry-Y; Vote #207, 8/9/86, bill passed 86-3, Kerry-Y, conference report passed by voice vote, 10/15/86; Vote #384, 11/19/87, HR 1748, passed 86-9, Kerry-Y; Vote #252, 7/14/1988, HR 4264 Passed 64-30 Kerry-Y; Vote #299, 11/15/1989, HR 2461 Passed 91-8, Kerry-Y; Vote #265, 11/22/1991, HR 2100 Passed 79-15, Kerry-Y; S 3114 passed by voice vote, 9/19/92, HR 5006 passed by unanimous consent, 10/5/92; Vote #380, 11/17/1993, HR 2401 Passed 77-22, Kerry-Y; Vote #297, 9/13/1994, S.2182 Passed 80-18, Kerry-Y; Vote #296, 11/6/97, Fiscal 1998 Defense Authorization (S. 936/H.R. 1119), conference report adopted 90-10, Kerry: Yes; Vote #293, 10/1/98, HR 3616, Passed 96-2, Kerry-Y; Vote #284, 9/22/99, S1059, Passed 93-5, Kerry-Y; Vote #275, 10/12/00, HR 4205, Passed 90-3, Kerry-Y; Vote #369, 12/13/01, S 1438, Passed 96-2, Kerry-Y; Vote #165, 6/27/02, S 2514, bill Passed 97-2, Kerry-Y; Senate agreed to conference report on HR 4546 by voice vote, 11/13/02; Vote 194, 5/22/03, S 1050 passed 98-1, Kerry ANNOUNCED For; Defense Authorization Conference Reports, FY86-present; Congressional Quarterly Almanacs, 1986-2002; House Armed Service Committee Authorization Conference Report Summaries FY98- present]


RNC CREDIBILITY GAP


Narrator: To severely cut our intelligence agencies...


The Reality


Kerry Strongly Supports Increased Intelligence Funding - Including $250 Billion in the Previous 8 Years - A 50% Increase Since 1996 - John Kerry, a former member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has strongly supported recent increases in Intelligence funding, and, in the wake of 9/11, has supported the bipartisan call for an even larger increase in intelligence funding. According to a report issued by the Center for Defense Information entitled "Intelligence Funding and the War on Terror" John Kerry has supported approximately $250 billion in Intelligence funding over the past eight years alone. The report concludes that Kerry has supported a 50% increase in intelligence funding since 1996. Recently, Kerry stressed the need for greater intelligence in order to protect the country from terrorism: "The best single defense we have today, the most important weapon in the war against terrorism, is intelligence, good intelligence. We're way behind the curve in terms of human intelligence-gathering capacity as well as mutual legal-assistance efforts. You've got to know who they are, where they are what their plans are and hit them before they hit you. That's intelligence." [Senate Intelligence Authorization Funding voice votes 9/25/02, 12/13/01, 12/6/00, 11/19/1999, 10/8/98 & 9/25/96; 1997, Senate Roll Call vote # 109; Jewish News Bulletin of Northern California, 4/5/02]


Porter Goss, Hand-Picked By Bush to Head CIA, Wanted to Cut Intel More Than Kerry. "The Bush reelection campaign has been blasting Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry as deeply irresponsible for proposing intelligence cuts at the same time. A Bush campaign ad released on Aug. 13 carried a headline: ‘John Kerry...proposed slashing Intelligence Budget 6 Billion Dollars.' But the cuts Goss supported are larger than those proposed by Kerry and specifically targeted the ‘human intelligence' that has recently been found lacking. The recent report by the commission probing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks called for more spending on human intelligence." [Washington Post, 8/24/04]


RNC CREDIBILITY GAP


Narrator: He voted for higher taxes 350 times....


The Reality


Gross Exaggeration," "Simply Isn't True," "Misleading," "Bogus Number"& "Procedural Trickery," "Not Quite Right, "Unfair", "Ridiculous", "Phony," "False," "Padded," "Misleading," "So Off Base," "Bogus" "Magic Number," "Poofery, "Exists Only In Minds Of Spinners" "Checkered" "Inaccurate," "Incredulous" Fails "Straight Face Test:" These are some of the reactions of a wide range of newspapers and independent experts. [ABC World News Tonight, 10/4/04; NBC Nightly News, 10/5/04; Washington Post, 5/31/04; Cincinnati Inquirer, 5/26/04; NBC Nightly News, 4/6/04; Factcheck.org; Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 5/19/04; Kinsley, Washington Post, 3/24/04; Political Finance, The Newsletter, May 2004; Charleston Gazette, 4/12/04;Charleston Gazette, 4/11/04; AP, 4/9/04; 4/8/04; USA Today, 4/6/04; LA Times, 3/30/04; New York Times, 5/25/04; factcheck.org]


The Truth About Kerry's Record: The truth? Kerry has gone on the legislative record over 640 times for lower taxes. [Congressional Quarterly Votes; CQ's Congress And The Nation; CQ Almanacs; Senate Republican Policy Committee Vote Analysis; Congressional Research Service Bill Summaries (via thomas.loc.gov), bill texts (via thomas.loc.gov)]


John Kerry's Plan Cuts Taxes For 98 Percent of Americans. John Kerry's plan would extend the middle-class tax cuts, cutting taxes for over 98 percent of taxpayers. John Kerry would roll back the tax cuts for families making over $200,000 annually; according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, only 1.4 percent of families would be affected by the Kerry tax rollback. [www.johnkerry.com]


George Bush's Plan Shifts the Tax Burden to the Middle Class. In contrast, under the Bush plan the "Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle" according to a Washington Post headline, and "middle America - average annual income $75,600 - saw its share of the federal tax burden increase from 18.5 percent to 19.5 percent." In addition, George Bush has imposed a tax of thousands of dollars on families through higher costs for health care, gasoline, college tuition, and state and local taxes. [Tax Policy Center, "Kerry Plan vs. Current-Law, Size of Individual Income Tax Change, 2005," 9/16/2004 and Washington Post, 8/13/04]


The Bush Tabulation Is Bogus; Applying It to Cheney Shows He Supported Higher Taxes 144 Times - Including the Largest Peacetime Tax Increase in History. Factcheck.org has said that "Bush Still Fudging the Numbers on Kerry's Tax Votes." Michael Kinsley pointed out in the Washington Post that applying the same logic would show that George Bush has proposed dozens of tax increases as President. And an analysis of Cheney's voting record shows that using the same methodology shows that Cheney voted for higher taxes 144 times, including the largest peacetime tax increase in history in 1982. [Factcheck.org, "Bush Still Fudging the Numbers on Kerry's Tax Votes," 8/30/2004; Washington Post 3/24/2004; HR 4961, 1982 CQ Almanac, vote #289, 84-H; Wall Street Journal, 10/26/94; FY85-90 Federal Budgets, internal calculations; Tax descriptions from the 1982 Congressional Quarterly Almanac]


RNC CREDIBILITY GAP


Narrator: And now he wants to be our President...We live in a dangerous world that requires strong and steady leadership.


The Reality


Leadership & Integrity. John Kerry's More Than 30 Years of Leadership & Service - 1966, John Kerry Enlisted in the U.S. Navy; November 1968 through March 1969, Served in Vietnam; 1970-1978, Served in U.S. Navy Reserves; 1976-1979, Middlesex County District Attorney's Office; 1983-1985, Lt. Governor of Massachusetts; 1985-2004 U.S. Senator from Massachusetts.


Keep Our Families Safe.

John Kerry Will Make America Stronger at Home and Abroad: John Kerry "will act militarily when necessary, build strong alliances with other nations and enhance our intelligence and law enforcement capabilities." Kerry will address "the root causes of terrorism and offers a real plan to secure our homeland by safeguarding our chemical and nuclear facilities, bolstering port and aviation security, restoring 100,000 COPS on the street and adding 100,000 new firefighters in our communities." [Speech to the UCLA International Institute; Kerry for President, press release 2/27/04]


Only John Kerry & John Edwards Have a Comprehensive Plan to Win the War on Terror. John Kerry and John Edwards recognize that victory in the war on terror requires a combination of American might, skill, and determination. We must also maximize international cooperation. Key elements of the Kerry-Edwards plan to win the war on terror include: Directing Military Action to Destroy and Disrupt Terrorist Networks; Keeping Weapons of Mass Destruction Out of Terrorist Hands; Strengthening America's Intelligence Capabilities; Leading Relentless Efforts to Shut Down the Flow of Terrorist Funds; Preventing New Terrorist Havens; Preventing Recruitment of New Terrorists.



RNC CREDIBILITY GAP


Narrator: John Kerry is a risky choice for America...a risk we cannot take.


The Reality


John Kerry. A New Direction for America: "This nation is demanding for leadership that takes us in a new direction. And George Bush has made it clear that he's not going to provide it. George W. Bush is running on the slogan of ‘steady leadership.' But after four years of the same old failed policies, what we've seen is ‘stubborn leadership.' George Bush stubbornly proposes tax cut after tax cut for the wealthiest Americans while we steadily lose millions of jobs. So tonight we say: Change is coming to America. George Bush stubbornly refuses to help families afford health care while premiums steadily rise through the roof. And tonight we say: Change is coming to America. This President stubbornly continues to let polluters rewrite our environmental laws while children steadily breathe dirtier and dirtier air. Tonight we say: Change is coming to America. George Bush stubbornly insists on a foreign policy where we go it alone and young Americans in uniform steadily pay the price. And so once again tonight we say: Change is coming to America." - John Kerry Election Night Remarks [Chicago, 3/9/04]

Michael Moore's Patriotism

The Capital Times

Filmmaker Michael Moore is a controversial figure. The left loves him for having the courage to shine the light of truth on the abuses of power and privilege that have defined the past 3 years of American history.

For exactly the same reason, the right hates him. And most of America's elite media have a hard time figuring out what to do with him - they cannot dismiss the most successful documentary filmmaker in American history, yet they do not feel comfortable giving the man and his ideas the attention that is usually afforded so successful and broadly recognized a commentator on the Zeitgeist.

When Moore appears in Madison tonight, for an 8 p.m. get-out-the-vote rally at the Memorial Union Terrace, all of the passions and conundrums associated with the man who made the film "Fahrenheit 9/11" will be on display. There will be fans, there will be protesters, and there will be folks trying to make sense of the phenomenon. And, as is the case everywhere that Moore goes, there will be passionate debate about not just the issues of this election but the direction of this country.

Michael Moore tries hard to keep things light - and there is certainly a great deal of humor to be found in his films, books and public pronouncements. But he is not a joke. Indeed, the stir he has created nationally, and internationally, is worthy of note. In much of the world, Michael Moore is the best-known critic of the Bush administration's reign of error. And, frankly, we couldn't think of a better representative of American opposition to military adventurism, crony capitalism and democratic decay.

Yes, of course, there are even some of the left who would prefer that Moore be a little more cautious in his comments, a little more mainstream in his critique. There are a lot of liberals who get scared when their tribunes start talking too much about issues of race, class and empire building.To our view, however, it is when Moore is blunt that he sounds most American.

This country was not founded by polite people. The American revolution did not follow Robert's Rules of Order. The America experiment was launched in revolt against the existing order, against corrupt kings and their equally corrupt business partners. Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and their kind rejected the divine right of kings; they did not believe that power should pass from one King George to another. And the best of their number, Tom Paine, preached the healing power of revolution - not just for America but for the world.

Fifty years after the minutemen of Lexington and Concord fired the shots heard 'round the world, Daniel Webster would look back at that event and suggest, "The great wheel of political revolution began to move in America."

Reading the writings of the founders and their true descendants is a lot like watching a Michael Moore film. Often, Moore seems to channel the founders. When Moore speaks against military misadventures like the U.S. occupation of oil-rich lands such as Iraq, he echoes the stern warning of Thomas Jefferson that "if there be one principle more deeply written than any other in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest."

And how similar are Moore's incitements against presidential war making to the observation of James Madison: "War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. ... The strongest passions, and the most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honorable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace."

Nothing would horrify Moore's critics more than the suggestion that he might well be the best upholder of the revolutionary spirit in the current day - and thus the greatest patriot. But, then, Moore's critics tend to confuse patriotism with blind obedience. And if Jefferson and Madison teach us anything, it is that the true patriot must always stand against King George.

As Oprah Slaps Bush
With 30 states poised to smack down women's rights again, the one true savior emerges

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2004/10/13/notes101304.DTL