It’s pathetic that the best argument for Kerry is that Bush isa lousy President and the best argument for Bush is that Kerry will probably be a lousy president.

They both suck. The Bush administration is dishonest, shrouded in secrecy, and extremist. Kerry doesn’t exactly project confidence, and has yet to really define a platform beyond “I’m not Bush.” Granted, I think the “I’m not Bush” gets him half the way there in my book.

Still, the case against Kerry is mostly a vague smattering of inuendo and character assasination. The case against Dubya is 4 years of pathetic extremist leadership, an avoidable war, and an occupation in a terrorist infested nation with absolutely no exit strategy.

With the terror alert raised, we are hearing the gripping start again that the release of this information is being timed to give a political advantage to the Bush campaign.

*yawn*

I am really sorry that you guys picked a sorry presidential candidate. But where your mistake was, was in being so focused on “hating” Bush, and “anybody but Bush”, that you nominated a poor candidate.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Are you one of the anti-war candidates?”
KERRY: “I am — Yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 1/6/04)

You can’t really say he is the Anti war candidate since he voted FOR the war in Iraq. In September of 2002, Kerry goes into this long speech about War as a last resort [1] . Since he voted for the war, I guess that means he felt the case had been made.
But if you mean he is the Anti War Candidate because he voted against the Gulf War, you know the one that the entire planet was behind, then I guess he is [2].

He is for the troops in Iraq, he is just against funding them [3]. But if elected, he promises that he will fully fund the troops in Iraq.

He is against violating our civil liberties with dangerous legislation like the Patriot Act. Kerry says….
“We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night…. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time. ” [4 ]

Yet he voted for the patriot act. Interesting enough, you used to be able to get the quote above from the Kerry site itself… now it is a “broken” link hmmmmmm….

And this is a guy who, at the same time he is running his campaign on the fact that he is a Vietnam war hero, is trying to play a semantics game over whether he THREW AWAY his medals or his ribbons!

PLUS

The guy is a war criminal! He self admittedly committed atrocities in Vietnam. And he admitted to it when it was politically expedient for him to do so [4]. Now, when he is beating the “Bush” about possible war crimes in Iraq, he seems to have soften his admission as the words of a young man.

1 http://www.cfr.org/campaign2004/pub5596/kerry/we_still_have_a_choice_on_iraq.php
2 http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/7/31/214732.shtml
3 http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Politics/tapper_kerry_040319-1.html
4 http://hnn.us/articles/3552.html

from www.misleader.org, 8/4

Earlier this week, President Bush claimed “we all thought we would find stockpiles of weapons”[1] in Iraq, and claimed that he had no inkling that his pre-war claims about the Iraqi threat were weak. But as a major new story released today shows, the President and other top administration officials were repeatedly warned before the invasion that its case for war was weak.

The cover story for this month’s In These Times analyzes declassified government documents and intelligence reports given to the White House before the war. These documents either warned the administration about its WMD and Iraq-al Qaeda claims, or totally debunked them. In some cases, intelligence experts explicitly warned top officials not to make the claims they were making, and yet they were ignored. The story wholly refutes assertions by the White House and Republicans that it was the intelligence community to blame. In fact, as the data shows, the White House deliberately ignored intelligence to mislead America.

Read the full article, with direct links to all source material, at www.inthesetimes.com.

Sources:

1. Presidential Remarks, Whitehouse.gov, 8/02/2004.

Couldn’t find a jpg/mpeg. If MaxLead can find one, feel free to insert it here.

from MaximOnline, here’s the story

Joe Theisman

The Game: Nov. 18, 1985, Washington vs. N.Y. Giants.

The Play: In the Titanic of all gridiron gross-outs, 36-year-old QB Theisman handed the ball off to John Riggins, who flipped it back to Thiesman on the flea flicker. The play didn‚ÄövÑv¥t fool the Giants. Lawrence Taylor sacked Theisman; then Gary Reasons fell on top of both players. Theisman‚ÄövÑv¥s leg folded backward like a cheap card table. While lying on the field with his tibia and fibula clearly poking out of his leg, he told coach Joe Gibbs, ‚ÄövÑv Hey, I‚ÄövÑv¥m sorry.‚ÄövÑvp At least he didn‚ÄövÑv¥t have to watch 35 replays in super slo-mo.

The Aftermath: Theisman never played again and is now a remarkably annoying analyst with ESPN.

Hail to the Redskins

Oink Oink. Enuf said.

Sure, if you like such arbitrary stats as wins, TDs, Yards, and Championships, others may rank higher. But who else could hight the ball behind a hefty beer gut facilitating amazing play action. My vote goes to Sonny Jurgensen

In my entirely biased opinion, the best RB ever has to be John Riggins.

Never mind the impressive stats, the 4th and 1 game winning run in Super Bowl 17, the Hall of Fame career, the following vignette illustrates why he was one of a kind.

At the 39th annual Washington Press Club “Salute to Congress” Dinner in 1985, Washington Redskins running back John Riggins was seated at a table with Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. As usual, he had not missed attitude adjustment hour. Sometime before he passed out under the table, he managed to respond to what he considered boring dinner conversation by giving some advice to Mrs. Justice O’C. “Lighten up, Sandy baby,” he said.

(Some accounts of the event allege he actually said, “loosen up,” but the difference may have been unable to detect, given the quality of his diction at the moment, and it’s a cinch Riggo himself doesn’t remember.)

link to article not about Riggins, it just opens with the story)

So walking around downtown Silver Spring today, I was stopped by Kerry Supporters.

“Would you like to help support John Kerry for President?” they asked.

I thought for a minute.

“No thanks.” I said, and walked on.

I abhor Bush as president. I think he’s an attrocious president, and I think his administration is as corrupt as any we’ve seen in a log time. I think Cheney is one of the most offensive individuals we’ve had in any administration. I feel that time will tell that Bush was a misguided, simplistic, yet honest individual who was a pawn of the Cheney’s and Wolfowitz’s of the world. I also believe that in time the depths of the corruption of this administration will be brought to light. It smells like a duck, quacks like a duck, leaves duck droppings, and has webbed feet. All we’re missing is a polaroid of the duck. Everything from policy in fields like Energy, and Taxation stinks. The lack of disclosure stinks. The handling of contracts in occupied Iraq stinks of pork. Probably another reason the Muslims resent the US occupation is we’re introducing pork into a culture that eats Kosher.

Still, I can’t bring myself to think that Kerry would be much better. Different, yes. Better? Ultimately, I can’t bring myself to believe that Kerry will be a good president. Yes, I’m gonna vote for him, but I’m treating my vote as a “No” vote on the Bush presidency rather than a “Yes” vote on Kerry . Anyway, living in the Peoples Republic of Maryland, I’m fairly confident that Kerry will take this state hands down.

Ultimately it will come down to the wire, and I feel that because the Dems chose a real loser, Bush will win again by a whopping couple hundred thousand votes. Maybe one state making the difference electorially. Either way, we’re screwed for the next four years. And unfortunately I feel we’ll be screwed far beyond in terms of the quality of leadership we’re given to pick from.

Still, I’d rather be here than anywhere else.

Hail to the Redskins
Hail Victory
Braves on the Warpath
Fight for all DC!

Run or pass or score we want a lot more
Beat ‘em, Swamp ‘em, Touchdown, let the points soar.

Fight on, Fight on, ’til you have won
Sons of Washington

God Bless Joe Gibbs

from www.misleader.org, 7/29

Vice President Dick Cheney claimed yesterday that under the President’s leadership we “closed down the training camps [in Afghanistan] where terrorists trained to kill Americans.”[1] His comments are not only bold, but a look at the record shows they are deliberately misleading. Just two weeks ago the Bush administration essentially contradicted the claim, warning Americans of an imminent attack on the U.S. homeland from terrorists operating in Afghanistan. As CNN reported on July 8, Bush administration officials are warning that “a plot to carry out a large-scale terror attack against the United States in the near future is being directed by Osama bin Laden and other top al Qaeda members.” According to the administration, these terrorists are operating in the Afghan-Pakistan border region.[2]

Unfortunately, in 2002, the Bush administration shifted key special forces out of Afghanistan, effectively removing them from the hunt for al Qaeda. These troops were sent to prepare for an Iraq invasion.[3] That leaves the U.S. with only about 15,000 troops in Afghanistan hunting down al Qaeda, whom they now say are plotting an imminent attack against the country.[4] Meanwhile, the Pentagon has designed plans to add troops to the 140,000 already stationed in Iraq[5] - a country that never had any collaborative relationship with al Qaeda[6] or connection to the 9/11 terrorist attacks[7] (even though the Bush administration has claimed both).[8]

Sources:
1. The Vice President Delivers Remarks at a Reception for Senatorial Candidate Bill Jones, WhiteHouse.Gov, 7/27/04.
2. “Officials: Bin Laden guiding plots against U.S”, CNN.com 7/08/04.
3. “Shifts from bin Laden hunt evoke questions ,” USA Today, 3/28/04.
4. “Afghanistan: ‘Unrelenting Battle’,” CBSNews.com, 5/26/04.
5. “U.S. force in Iraq to grow as Marine deployment pushed up,” USA Today, 6/08/04.
6. “Administration Moves to Regain Initiative on 9/11 “, New York Times, 8/27/04.
7. “Bush rejects Saddam 9/11 link”, BBC News, 9/18/03.
8. “Cheney Link of Iraq, 9/11 Challenged”,The Boston Globe, 9/16/03.

Your Minister of Propaganda is in agreement with the Air Marshal concerning the rationale and methodology of the Bush administration concerning the Iraq war. He might however, offer another point of view concerning Iraq’s contributions to terrorism. The Foreign Minister’s easy linking of the War in Iraq with the War on Terror is exactly what the Bush administration would like all Americans to do, without the benefit of debate or contrary opinion. In fact, the invasion of Iraq has created more of a terrorist problem than it solved.

Your Minister of Propaganda served in the military and has no issue, moral or practical, with the killing of terrorists. He also believes that the U.S. military is excellently equipped and prepared for the task. Given the correct intelligence, our military has the technology and expertise for precise attacks on terrorist targets. This is the true battleground of War on Terror, and it’s a war that we’ll be fighting for the next 20 years. Tactically, however, we have sacrificed all of our military advantages over terrorists: providing security in Iraq requires massive amounts of troops (140,000, and growing) in fixed positions throughout the country. Now the terrorists have the upper hand: al-Qaeda can commit minimal resources against our most vulnerable targets, choosing to attack ill-prepared reservists rather than special forces operatives. Consequentially, our military is forced to take ever-increasing force protection measures that make is incrementally more difficult to actually win the ‘hearts and minds’ of everyday Iraqis.

It’s a collosal strategic failure that our military would never have made unless forced. Only a blind belief in the neocon world order — with Iraqis throwing rose petals in the street to welcome U.S. armor — would have made Bush lack of war planning even remotely acceptable from a military perspective. The Foreign Minister, in his August 2nd post, jumps from generalization to generalization until is leads to a new, shiny Middle East. The reality, already, is far different. Our heavy-handed tactics in Iraq have instead given birth to a whole new generation of terrorists. The prison abuses, and the Bush administration’s decision to abandon the Geneva Conventions in our dealings with the enemy, will haunt us forever. “Democracy” in Iraq, where they have no tradition like the checks and balances once visible in our system, will most likely lead to a theocracy like Iran and a civil war with the Kurdish minority. By overthrowing a secular Arab governent, we’ve done exactly what Osama bin Laden wanted us to do: created a chaotic vacuum that looks to every Islamic observer like a imperialistic use of American power. Nice work, Wolfowitz.

Meanwhile, a slew of unanswered questions remain. If you’re fully committed to the war on terror, why shift forces away from Afghanistan, where we know Osama bin Laden is still hiding? If you’re truly committed to rebuilding Iraq and integrating it into the world community, why use economic contracts to punish the French and Germans for not supporting our invasion and instead funneling dollars to companies who support Bush’s reelection? Why pressure Pakistan to capture ‘high-value’ terrorist targets specifically during late July, when the Democrats are having their convention? Why release a terrorist warning, like the Bush administration did yesterday, that is actually based on three-year-old intelligence? Why play such blatant politics with the most serious threat our country is likely to face for the next 50 years?

President Kerry is not going to withdraw from Iraq. Even if he shifted in that direction after the election, you can damn well bet that we’ll have more debate than we did before invading. It’s ass-backwards, but it’s the situation that Bush has stuck us with. Your Minister of Propaganda strongly endorses voting him out of office. At the very least, it’s an opportunity to back away from the self-serving and catastrophically dangerous jingoism of this administration.

Believe.

Oh God, please, not subtlety!!! I’m used to Neo Cons with black and white reality, not shades of grey and textures.

Anyway, regarding Iraq, I believe the UN had a right, and a responsibility to deal with Iraq. I believe the UN utterly failed in this case. In fact, I believe the UN is pretty much an abject failure in many ways, and this situation is typical. The UN has become a forum for despots to air anti-American grievances in a very real way. Go back and read the UN Charter and it becomes obvious that the UN has either lost it’s way, or abandoned it’s purpose. Either way, it F-ed up big time in dealing with Saddam.

As most of us are parents here, let me ask you what happens if you continualy threaten your kid with punishment, yet consistantly fail to follow through? The kid learns your threats are meaningless, and ignores them, right? Sound familiar? At some point, you have to take the toy away, put them in Time out, turn off the TV, or whatever. Same thing with the UN.

Here’s the however… just cuz the UN should have gone in there, doesn’t mean the responsibility falls to us once the UN fails.

If the UN resolutions were the reason behind the war, then Bush should have prosecuted the war through the UN. Skilled diplomacy and sensitive handling of other nations interests could have pulled it off. Bush’s father could have done it. Dubya decided to go it alone. He made it clear we were going to war even if noone went along with us. That fits the definition of unilateral. Tony Blair decided to find some balls, as did a couple dozen other nations. We could very easily have found ourselves stuck in Mesopotamia all alone. We still would have won the war. But it all makes the occupation that much harder.

If the reasoning behind the war was 9/11, then the Bush administration acted on a lie. Iraq wasn’t tied to 9/11 in any way, that much is obvious now.

The whole WMD thing is nebulous. As an argument in and of itsself, it fails. However, we know Saddam had them at one point, and used them in combat against his own people, as well as the Iranians. So to deny their existence is naive. Yet to prosecute a war based on inflated claims that can’t be backed up is wrong, plain and simple. Yes, there is a glorious and wonderful history of trumped up events that lead to war, from the Maine to the Gulf of Tonkin. It doesn’t make any of it right.

The argument that Iraq was a terrorist node is valid. Iraq was funding and suppoting terrorism, and Iraq is one of about half a dozen states that can be construed as real terrorist threats. This line of reasoning in my oppinion makes a very valid case for the war against Iraq. The Bush administration chose not to make this argument.

In any event, there exists a greater argument for war against North Korea, and Saudi Arabia…. Maybe even Syria and Iran than Iraq. We went to war with Iraq because Wolfowitz is stuck in 1991, and Dubya decided to listen to him.

To re-iterate

Yes, the UN should have gone to war, but didn’t. This represents a failure of the UN on a huge scale.

The failure of the UN to go to war doesn’t justify an American unilateral decision to invade Iraq.

The Bush administration put together a shoddy case for war based on crappy intelligence. And I’m giving Dubya and his cronies the benefit of the doubt here. A legit case COULD have been made for war in the framework of a global war on terror, but it wasn’t.

Saddam was a bad man, but there are many other bad men running bad nations. Many of whom are probably greater threats to the US. The fact that Saddam’s regime was brutal, evil, and a threat, doesn’t single him out as a target for war.

I can’t believe you people. Do the UN’s resolutions mean nothing to you? There were UN resolutions on the books that authorized war if Saddam (Iraq) was non-compliant.

World Wide intelligence sources stated that Saddam had WMDs and was working on Nuke capability. EVERYONE believed this including Clinton, Kerry, France, the UK etc.

The middle east is a festering pustule of inhumanity (and has been LONG before Bush was elected).

WAKE UP FOLKS… they are not just burning our flag anymore they are trying to KILL AMERICANS and END AMERICAN DOMINANCE FOREVER.

Maybe you like that idea… I can’t speak for you but their intention was and is not to stop with 9/11 but to make that pale in comparison to what they do next.

And once we are not the dominant world power… Who do you think will fill the void? Oh what benevolent society will show the world the way to peace and enlightenment… ?

Maybe it will only make sense to some when it is Los Angeles that gets itself OsamA-Bombed.

The only way we can win this thing is the democratization of the Middle East. There is not going to be peace in Israel/Palestine until there is freedom and democracy in the region.

We can’t afford to ‘wait’ until the people rise up…. by that time LA may be a glass parking lot (or whatever else AL-Qaeda has up its sleeve) so we had to get the ball moving ourselves.

Since we already had a green light from the UN because of non-compliance to resolutions, and the worlds intelligence communities believed that IRAQ had WMDs, that is where our president decided to strike.

You might not like the thought of pre-emptive war, but we were forced with no alternative. What happens if the next terrorist disaster takes place and there is no Afghanistan to attack? What if they are just 21 Saudi Nationals? Is it ok then to go to war with Saudi Arabia?

Great changes are happening in Iraq. Their people are tasting freedom and will soon be enjoying he fruit of their own democracy. This in turn is putting ENORMOUS pressure on Iraq’s neighbors. Syrians, Jordanians, Saudis, and Iranians are asking themselves ‘why are Iraqi doctors/teachers making more money than I am?’ As freedom, hope and prosperity take over from tyranny and despair, there will be a paradigm shift and a change in the region.
But the forces of ‘evil’ and those that benefit from a repressed Middle East are not going to sit back and let it happen. That is why they are congregating in Iraq to impede Iraqi/US progress for freedom.

To me, the next election will be the most important election of our lives (as John Kerry says it will). The war against terror will be the deciding issue for me as I see that future of a prosperous America depends on winning that war. Not just finding an exit strategy.

I believe that George Bush, if re-elected, will do everything in his power to win the war on terror and that we WILL WIN THE WAR ON TERROR.

On the other hand, I think that John Kerry is building a campaign upon an Iraq exit strategy and not winning in Iraq.

So I am voting for Bush in November.
And God will help the future of Democracy, not just in America, but in the world.

Back to the trenches…..