September 25, 2004
Destroying the National Guard
by William S. Lind
The unit knew it would soon be shipped to the front. Some soldiers responded
by deserting. Others got drunk and fought. In response, officers locked the
unit in its barracks, allowing the troops out only to drill, not even to
smoke a
cigarette, until it could be put on the transport that would take it into
combat.
It sounds as if I am describing some third echelon Soviet infantry regiment
in, say, 1942. In fact, I am talking about the 1st Battalion of the 178th
Field
Artillery Regiment, South Carolina National Guard, in September 2004.
According to a front-page story in the Sept. 19 Washington Post, the unit
was
disintegrating even before it was deployed to Iraq. One shudders to think
what will
happen once it gets there and finds itself under daily attack from skilled
enemies it cannot identify.
One of the likely effects of the disastrous war in Iraq will be the
destruction of an old American institution, the National Guard. Desperate
for troops as
the situation in Iraq deteriorates, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is using
the National Guard in a mission for which it was never intended: carrying on
a
"war of choice" halfway around the world. Most Guardsmen enlisted expecting
to
help their neighbors in natural disasters, or perhaps maintain order locally
in the event of rioting. They never signed up for Vietnam II.
Yes, the Guard was mobilized and deployed overseas in both World Wars, but
those were true national wars, in which the American people were all
involved
one way or another. Cabinet wars, as they used to be called, are something
altogether different. As Frederick the Great said, cabinet wars must be
waged in
such a manner that the people do not know they are going on.
But National Guardsmen are the people. To send them into a cabinet war is to
misuse them in a way that will destroy them. Even in the American
Revolution,
militiamen were seldom asked to fight outside their own state. When they
were,
they usually responded by deserting.
The fault does not lie with the soldiers of the National Guard. Even within
their units, they are being horribly misused. One of the Guard's strengths
is
unit cohesion: members of a unit come from the same place and usually know
each
other well, both in the unit, where they serve long-term, and often in the
local community as well. In the case of the 1st Battalion, 178th Field
Artillery, the Post reports that "to fully man the unit, scores of soldiers
were pulled
in from different Guard outfits, some voluntarily, some on orders." Cohesion
went out the window. One soldier in the unit said, "Our moral isn't high
enough for us to be away for 18 months. I think a lot of guys will break
down in
Iraq." That is always what happens when unit cohesion is destroyed, in every
army in history.
For many Guardsmen, deployment to Iraq means economic ruin. They have
mortgage payments, car payments, credit card debt, all calculated on their
civilian
salaries. Suddenly, for a year or more, their pay drops to that of a private
The families they leave behind face the loss of everything they have. What
militia wouldn't desert in that situation?
The real scope of the damage of Mr. Rumsfeld's decision to send the Guard to
Iraq 40% of the American troops in Iraq are now reservists or Guardsmen
will probably not be revealed until units return. One of the few already
back
saw 70% of its members leave the Guard immediately.
What the Washington elite that wages cabinet wars does not understand, or
care about, is the vital role the National Guard plays on the state and
local
levels. Once the Guard has been destroyed, who will provide the emergency
services communities need when disaster strikes? One would think that in a
so-called
"war against terror," where the danger to the American homeland is readily
acknowledged, someone in the nation's capital would care about the local
first
line of defense.
The fact of the matter is that Versailles on the Potomac does not care about
the rest of the country in any respect, so long as the tax dollars keep
coming
in.
My old friend King Louis XVI might be able to tell Rumsfeld & Co. where that
road eventually ends up.
Sunday, September 26, 2004
Bush Rejected Plans to Go After Top Terrorist Zarqawi
THE DAILY MIS-LEAD
< www.Misleader.org >
===============================
BUSH REJECTED PLANS TO GO AFTER TOP TERRORIST
In his effort to claim he is the strongest candidate on national security,
President Bush has lately been speaking a lot about how he is doing
everything possible to track down terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi[1] - the
man thought to be responsible for escalating attacks on U.S. soldiers in
Iraq.[2] But according to NBC News, it was Bush who in 2002 and 2003
rejected three plans to strike and neutralize Zarqawi because he believed a
successful strike would undermine the public case for targeting Saddam
Hussein.
As NBC News reported, "Long before the war, the Bush administration had
several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi
himself - but never pulled the trigger." In June 2002, the Pentagon drafted
plans to attack a camp Zarqawi was at with cruise missiles and airstrikes.
The plan was killed by the White House. Four months later, as Zarqawi
planned to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe, the Pentagon drew up a
second strike plan, yet "the White House again killed it." In January 2003,
the Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the
White House killed it.[3]
According to NBC, "Military officials insist their case for attacking
Zarqawi's operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying
the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against
Saddam."[4]
Zarqawi is thought to be at least indirectly responsible for hundreds of
U.S. casualties. Just yesterday, Zarqawi's terrorist group beheaded an
American civilian in Baghdad.[5]
Sources:
1. "President's Remarks to the General Conference of the National Guard
Association of the United States," The White House, 9/14/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1270027&l=56809.
2. "Going after Iraq's most wanted man," The Christian Science Monitor,
9/21/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1270027&l=56810.
3. "Avoiding attacking suspected terrorist mastermind," NBC News, 3/02/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1270027&l=56811.
4. Ibid, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1270027&l=56811.
5. "Zarqawi Group Beheads U.S. Hostage Armstrong," Reuters, 9/20/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1270027&l=56812.
< www.Misleader.org >
===============================
BUSH REJECTED PLANS TO GO AFTER TOP TERRORIST
In his effort to claim he is the strongest candidate on national security,
President Bush has lately been speaking a lot about how he is doing
everything possible to track down terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi[1] - the
man thought to be responsible for escalating attacks on U.S. soldiers in
Iraq.[2] But according to NBC News, it was Bush who in 2002 and 2003
rejected three plans to strike and neutralize Zarqawi because he believed a
successful strike would undermine the public case for targeting Saddam
Hussein.
As NBC News reported, "Long before the war, the Bush administration had
several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi
himself - but never pulled the trigger." In June 2002, the Pentagon drafted
plans to attack a camp Zarqawi was at with cruise missiles and airstrikes.
The plan was killed by the White House. Four months later, as Zarqawi
planned to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe, the Pentagon drew up a
second strike plan, yet "the White House again killed it." In January 2003,
the Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the
White House killed it.[3]
According to NBC, "Military officials insist their case for attacking
Zarqawi's operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying
the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against
Saddam."[4]
Zarqawi is thought to be at least indirectly responsible for hundreds of
U.S. casualties. Just yesterday, Zarqawi's terrorist group beheaded an
American civilian in Baghdad.[5]
Sources:
1. "President's Remarks to the General Conference of the National Guard
Association of the United States," The White House, 9/14/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1270027&l=56809.
2. "Going after Iraq's most wanted man," The Christian Science Monitor,
9/21/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1270027&l=56810.
3. "Avoiding attacking suspected terrorist mastermind," NBC News, 3/02/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1270027&l=56811.
4. Ibid, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1270027&l=56811.
5. "Zarqawi Group Beheads U.S. Hostage Armstrong," Reuters, 9/20/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1270027&l=56812.
1000 Brave Americans Can't Vote Now
1000 brave Americans can't vote against the man who sent them to die
in Iraq for his lies.
But YOU can.
Honor our soldiers.
Vote November 2.
Brooke Campbell lost her brother, Sergeant Ryan M. Campbell, in Iraq
on April 29, 2004. In his last letter to her, Ryan wrote, "Just do me
one big favor, OK? Don't vote for Bush. No. Just don't do it. I would
not be happy with you." - To Whom it May Concern by Brooke M. Campbell
9-3-04
Vote for them - sign the pledge.
http://democrats.com/1000
in Iraq for his lies.
But YOU can.
Honor our soldiers.
Vote November 2.
Brooke Campbell lost her brother, Sergeant Ryan M. Campbell, in Iraq
on April 29, 2004. In his last letter to her, Ryan wrote, "Just do me
one big favor, OK? Don't vote for Bush. No. Just don't do it. I would
not be happy with you." - To Whom it May Concern by Brooke M. Campbell
9-3-04
Vote for them - sign the pledge.
http://democrats.com/1000
A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN
Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.
All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.
He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.
In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.
Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.
He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.
Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.
If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.
It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.
Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.
Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads.
He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.
The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.
He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.
Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."
, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy libe"
All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.
He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.
In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.
Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.
He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.
Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.
If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.
It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.
Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.
Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads.
He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.
The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.
He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.
Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."
, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy libe"
Mr. Bush and his 10 ever-changing positions on Iraq
Mr. Bush and his 10 ever-changing positions on Iraq
Michael Moore - michaelmoore.com
09.23.04 -
Dear Mr. Bush,
I am so confused. Where exactly do you stand on the issue of Iraq? You, your
Dad, Rummy, Condi, Colin, and Wolfie -- you have all changed your minds so
many times, I am out of breath just trying to keep up with you!
Which of these 10 positions that you, your family and your cabinet have
taken
over the years represents your CURRENT thinking:
1983-88: WE LOVE SADDAM. On December 19, 1983, Donald Rumsfeld was sent by
your dad and Mr. Reagan to go and have a friendly meeting with Saddam
Hussein,
the dictator of Iraq. Rummy looked so happy in the picture. Just twelve days
after this visit, Saddam gassed thousands of Iranian troops. Your dad and
Rummy
seemed pretty happy with the results because The Donald R. went back to
have another chummy hang-out with Saddams right-hand man, Tariq Aziz, just
four
months later. All of this resulted in the U.S. providing credits and loans
to
Iraq that enabled Saddam to buy billions of dollars worth of weapons and
chemical agents. The Washington Post reported that your dad and Reagan let
it be
known to their Arab allies that the Reagan/Bush administration wanted Iraq
to
win its war with Iran and anyone who helped Saddam accomplish this was a
friend
of ours.
1990: WE HATE SADDAM. In 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, your dad and his
defense secretary, Dick Cheney, decided they didn't like Saddam anymore so
they
attacked Iraq and returned Kuwait to its rightful dictators.
1991: WE WANT SADDAM TO LIVE. After the war, your dad and Cheney and Colin
Powell told the Shiites to rise up against Saddam and we would support them.
So
they rose up. But then we changed our minds. When the Shiites rose up
against
Saddam, the Bush inner circle changed its mind and decided NOT to help the
Shiites. Thus, they were massacred by Saddam.
1998: WE WANT SADDAM TO DIE. In 1998, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others, as
part
of the Project for the New American Century, wrote an open letter to
President Clinton insisting he invade and topple Saddam Hussein.
2000: WE DON'T BELIEVE IN WAR AND NATION BUILDING. Just three years later,
during your debate with Al Gore in the 2000 election, when asked by the
moderator Jim Lehrer where you stood when it came to using force for regime
change,
you turned out to be a downright pacifist:
I--I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my
approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I
think
we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president
[Al Gore] and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in
nation building. I--I would be very careful about using our troops as nation
builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and,
therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place. And so I take
my--I take
my--my responsibility seriously. --October 3, 2000
2001 (early): WE DON'T BELIEVE SADDAM IS A THREAT. When you took office in
2001, you sent your Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and your National
Security
Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, in front of the cameras to assure the American
people they need not worry about Saddam Hussein. Here is what they said:
Powell: We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be
looking at those sanctions to make sure that they have directed that
purpose. That
purpose is every bit as important now as it was 10 years ago when we began
it.
And frankly, they have worked. He has not developed any significant
capability
with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project
conventional power against his neighbors. --February 24, 2001
Rice: But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his
country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his
country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not
been
rebuilt. --July 29, 2001
2001 (late): WE BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US! Just a few months later,
in the hours and days after the 9/11 tragedy, you had no interest in going
after Osama bin Laden. You wanted only to bomb Iraq and kill Saddam and you
then
told all of America we were under imminent threat because weapons of mass
destruction were coming our way. You led the American people to believe that
Saddam had something to do with Osama and 9/11. Without the UN's sanction,
you
broke international law and invaded Iraq.
2003: WE DONT BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US. After no WMDs were found,
you changed your mind about why you said we needed to invade, coming up with
a
brand new after-the-fact reason -- we started this war so we could have
regime change, liberate Iraq and give the Iraqis democracy!
2003: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! Yes, everyone saw you say it -- in costume, no
less!
2004: OOPS. MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED! Now you call the Iraq invasion a
"catastrophic success." That's what you called it this month. Over a
thousand U.S.
soldiers have died, Iraq is in a state of total chaos where no one is safe,
and
you have no clue how to get us out of there.
Mr. Bush, please tell us -- when will you change your mind again?
I know you hate the words "flip" and "flop," so I won't use them both on
you.
In fact, I'll use just one: Flop. That is what you are. A huge, colossal
flop. The war is a flop, your advisors and the "intelligence" they gave you
is a
flop, and now we are all a flop to the rest of the world. Flop. Flop. Flop.
And you have the audacity to criticize John Kerry with what you call the
"many positions" he has taken on Iraq. By my count, he has taken only one:
He
believed you. That was his position. You told him and the rest of congress
that
Saddam had WMDs. So he -- and the vast majority of Americans, even those who
didn't vote for you -- believed you. You see, Americans, like John Kerry,
want to
live in a country where they can believe their president.
That was the one, single position John Kerry took. He didn't support the
war,
he supported YOU. And YOU let him and this great country down. And that is
why tens of millions can't wait to get to the polls on Election Day -- to
remove
a major, catastrophic flop from our dear, beloved White House -- to stop all
the flipping you and your men have done, flipping us and the rest of the
world
off.
Michael Moore - michaelmoore.com
09.23.04 -
Dear Mr. Bush,
I am so confused. Where exactly do you stand on the issue of Iraq? You, your
Dad, Rummy, Condi, Colin, and Wolfie -- you have all changed your minds so
many times, I am out of breath just trying to keep up with you!
Which of these 10 positions that you, your family and your cabinet have
taken
over the years represents your CURRENT thinking:
1983-88: WE LOVE SADDAM. On December 19, 1983, Donald Rumsfeld was sent by
your dad and Mr. Reagan to go and have a friendly meeting with Saddam
Hussein,
the dictator of Iraq. Rummy looked so happy in the picture. Just twelve days
after this visit, Saddam gassed thousands of Iranian troops. Your dad and
Rummy
seemed pretty happy with the results because The Donald R. went back to
have another chummy hang-out with Saddams right-hand man, Tariq Aziz, just
four
months later. All of this resulted in the U.S. providing credits and loans
to
Iraq that enabled Saddam to buy billions of dollars worth of weapons and
chemical agents. The Washington Post reported that your dad and Reagan let
it be
known to their Arab allies that the Reagan/Bush administration wanted Iraq
to
win its war with Iran and anyone who helped Saddam accomplish this was a
friend
of ours.
1990: WE HATE SADDAM. In 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, your dad and his
defense secretary, Dick Cheney, decided they didn't like Saddam anymore so
they
attacked Iraq and returned Kuwait to its rightful dictators.
1991: WE WANT SADDAM TO LIVE. After the war, your dad and Cheney and Colin
Powell told the Shiites to rise up against Saddam and we would support them.
So
they rose up. But then we changed our minds. When the Shiites rose up
against
Saddam, the Bush inner circle changed its mind and decided NOT to help the
Shiites. Thus, they were massacred by Saddam.
1998: WE WANT SADDAM TO DIE. In 1998, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others, as
part
of the Project for the New American Century, wrote an open letter to
President Clinton insisting he invade and topple Saddam Hussein.
2000: WE DON'T BELIEVE IN WAR AND NATION BUILDING. Just three years later,
during your debate with Al Gore in the 2000 election, when asked by the
moderator Jim Lehrer where you stood when it came to using force for regime
change,
you turned out to be a downright pacifist:
I--I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my
approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I
think
we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president
[Al Gore] and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in
nation building. I--I would be very careful about using our troops as nation
builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and,
therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place. And so I take
my--I take
my--my responsibility seriously. --October 3, 2000
2001 (early): WE DON'T BELIEVE SADDAM IS A THREAT. When you took office in
2001, you sent your Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and your National
Security
Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, in front of the cameras to assure the American
people they need not worry about Saddam Hussein. Here is what they said:
Powell: We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be
looking at those sanctions to make sure that they have directed that
purpose. That
purpose is every bit as important now as it was 10 years ago when we began
it.
And frankly, they have worked. He has not developed any significant
capability
with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project
conventional power against his neighbors. --February 24, 2001
Rice: But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his
country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his
country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not
been
rebuilt. --July 29, 2001
2001 (late): WE BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US! Just a few months later,
in the hours and days after the 9/11 tragedy, you had no interest in going
after Osama bin Laden. You wanted only to bomb Iraq and kill Saddam and you
then
told all of America we were under imminent threat because weapons of mass
destruction were coming our way. You led the American people to believe that
Saddam had something to do with Osama and 9/11. Without the UN's sanction,
you
broke international law and invaded Iraq.
2003: WE DONT BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US. After no WMDs were found,
you changed your mind about why you said we needed to invade, coming up with
a
brand new after-the-fact reason -- we started this war so we could have
regime change, liberate Iraq and give the Iraqis democracy!
2003: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! Yes, everyone saw you say it -- in costume, no
less!
2004: OOPS. MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED! Now you call the Iraq invasion a
"catastrophic success." That's what you called it this month. Over a
thousand U.S.
soldiers have died, Iraq is in a state of total chaos where no one is safe,
and
you have no clue how to get us out of there.
Mr. Bush, please tell us -- when will you change your mind again?
I know you hate the words "flip" and "flop," so I won't use them both on
you.
In fact, I'll use just one: Flop. That is what you are. A huge, colossal
flop. The war is a flop, your advisors and the "intelligence" they gave you
is a
flop, and now we are all a flop to the rest of the world. Flop. Flop. Flop.
And you have the audacity to criticize John Kerry with what you call the
"many positions" he has taken on Iraq. By my count, he has taken only one:
He
believed you. That was his position. You told him and the rest of congress
that
Saddam had WMDs. So he -- and the vast majority of Americans, even those who
didn't vote for you -- believed you. You see, Americans, like John Kerry,
want to
live in a country where they can believe their president.
That was the one, single position John Kerry took. He didn't support the
war,
he supported YOU. And YOU let him and this great country down. And that is
why tens of millions can't wait to get to the polls on Election Day -- to
remove
a major, catastrophic flop from our dear, beloved White House -- to stop all
the flipping you and your men have done, flipping us and the rest of the
world
off.
If America were Iraq, What would it be Like?
If America were Iraq, What would it be Like?
Juan Cole
09/2/04 "ICH" -- President Bush said Tuesday that the Iraqis are refuting
the
pessimists and implied that things are improving in that country.
What would America look like if it were in Iraq's current situation? The
population of the US is over 11 times that of Iraq, so a lot of statistics
would
have to be multiplied by that number.
Thus, violence killed 300 Iraqis last week, the equivalent proportionately
of
3,300 Americans. What if 3,300 Americans had died in car bombings, grenade
and rocket attacks, machine gun spray, and aerial bombardment in the last
week?
That is a number greater than the deaths on September 11, and if America
were
Iraq, it would be an ongoing, weekly or monthly toll.
And what if those deaths occurred all over the country, including in the
capital of Washington, DC, but mainly above the Mason Dixon line, in Boston,
Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, and San Francisco?
What if the grounds of the White House and the government buildings near the
Mall were constantly taking mortar fire? What if almost nobody in the State
Department at Foggy Bottom, the White House, or the Pentagon dared venture
out
of their buildings, and considered it dangerous to go over to Crystal City
or
Alexandria?
What if all the reporters for all the major television and print media were
trapped in five-star hotels in Washington, DC and New York, unable to move
more
than a few blocks safely, and dependent on stringers to know what was
happening in Oklahoma City and St. Louis? What if the only time they
ventured into
the Midwest was if they could be embedded in Army or National Guard units?
There are estimated to be some 25,000 guerrillas in Iraq engaged in
concerted
acts of violence. What if there were private armies totalling 275,000 men,
armed with machine guns, assault rifles (legal again!), rocket-propelled
grenades, and mortar launchers, hiding out in dangerous urban areas of
cities all
over the country? What if they completely controlled Seattle, Portland, San
Francisco, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Denver and Omaha, such that local
police and
Federal troops could not go into those cities?
What if, during the past year, the Secretary of State (Aqilah Hashemi), the
President (Izzedine Salim), and the Attorney General (Muhammad Baqir
al-Hakim)
had all been assassinated?
What if all the cities in the US were wracked by a crime wave, with
thousands
of murders, kidnappings, burglaries, and carjackings in every major city
every year?
What if the Air Force routinely (I mean daily or weekly) bombed Billings,
Montana, Flint, Michigan, Watts in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Anacostia in
Washington, DC, and other urban areas, attempting to target "safe houses" of
"criminal gangs", but inevitably killing a lot of children and little old
ladies?
What if, from time to time, the US Army besieged Virginia Beach, killing
hundreds of armed members of the Christian Soldiers? What if entire platoons
of
the Christian Soldiers militia holed up in Arlington National Cemetery, and
were
bombarded by US Air Force warplanes daily, destroying thousands of graves
and
pulverizing the Vietnam Memorial? What if the National Council of Churches
had to call for a popular march of thousands of believers to converge on the
National Cathedral to stop the US Army from demolishing it to get at a rogue
band
of the Timothy McVeigh Memorial Brigades?
What if there were virtually no commercial air traffic in the country? What
if many roads were highly dangerous, especially Interstate 95 from Richmond
to
Washington, DC, and I-95 and I-91 up to Boston? If you got on I-95 anywhere
along that over 500-mile stretch, you would risk being carjacked, kidnapped,
or
having your car sprayed with machine gun fire.
What if no one had electricity for much more than 10 hours a day, and often
less? What if it went off at unpredictable times, causing factories to grind
to
a halt and air conditioning to fail in the middle of the summer in Houston
and Miami? What if the Alaska pipeline were bombed and disabled at least
monthly? What if unemployment hovered around 40%?
What if veterans of militia actions at Ruby Ridge and the Oklahoma City
bombing were brought in to run the government on the theory that you need a
tough
guy in these times of crisis?
What if municipal elections were cancelled and cliques close to the new
"president" quietly installed in the statehouses as "governors?" What if
several of
these governors (especially of Montana and Wyoming) were assassinated soon
after taking office or resigned when their children were taken hostage by
guerrillas?
What if the leader of the European Union maintained that the citizens of the
United States are, under these conditions, refuting pessimism and that
freedom
and democracy are just around the corner?
Juan Cole is Professor of History at the University of Michigan
Copyright: Juan Cole. http://www.juancole.com
Juan Cole
09/2/04 "ICH" -- President Bush said Tuesday that the Iraqis are refuting
the
pessimists and implied that things are improving in that country.
What would America look like if it were in Iraq's current situation? The
population of the US is over 11 times that of Iraq, so a lot of statistics
would
have to be multiplied by that number.
Thus, violence killed 300 Iraqis last week, the equivalent proportionately
of
3,300 Americans. What if 3,300 Americans had died in car bombings, grenade
and rocket attacks, machine gun spray, and aerial bombardment in the last
week?
That is a number greater than the deaths on September 11, and if America
were
Iraq, it would be an ongoing, weekly or monthly toll.
And what if those deaths occurred all over the country, including in the
capital of Washington, DC, but mainly above the Mason Dixon line, in Boston,
Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, and San Francisco?
What if the grounds of the White House and the government buildings near the
Mall were constantly taking mortar fire? What if almost nobody in the State
Department at Foggy Bottom, the White House, or the Pentagon dared venture
out
of their buildings, and considered it dangerous to go over to Crystal City
or
Alexandria?
What if all the reporters for all the major television and print media were
trapped in five-star hotels in Washington, DC and New York, unable to move
more
than a few blocks safely, and dependent on stringers to know what was
happening in Oklahoma City and St. Louis? What if the only time they
ventured into
the Midwest was if they could be embedded in Army or National Guard units?
There are estimated to be some 25,000 guerrillas in Iraq engaged in
concerted
acts of violence. What if there were private armies totalling 275,000 men,
armed with machine guns, assault rifles (legal again!), rocket-propelled
grenades, and mortar launchers, hiding out in dangerous urban areas of
cities all
over the country? What if they completely controlled Seattle, Portland, San
Francisco, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Denver and Omaha, such that local
police and
Federal troops could not go into those cities?
What if, during the past year, the Secretary of State (Aqilah Hashemi), the
President (Izzedine Salim), and the Attorney General (Muhammad Baqir
al-Hakim)
had all been assassinated?
What if all the cities in the US were wracked by a crime wave, with
thousands
of murders, kidnappings, burglaries, and carjackings in every major city
every year?
What if the Air Force routinely (I mean daily or weekly) bombed Billings,
Montana, Flint, Michigan, Watts in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Anacostia in
Washington, DC, and other urban areas, attempting to target "safe houses" of
"criminal gangs", but inevitably killing a lot of children and little old
ladies?
What if, from time to time, the US Army besieged Virginia Beach, killing
hundreds of armed members of the Christian Soldiers? What if entire platoons
of
the Christian Soldiers militia holed up in Arlington National Cemetery, and
were
bombarded by US Air Force warplanes daily, destroying thousands of graves
and
pulverizing the Vietnam Memorial? What if the National Council of Churches
had to call for a popular march of thousands of believers to converge on the
National Cathedral to stop the US Army from demolishing it to get at a rogue
band
of the Timothy McVeigh Memorial Brigades?
What if there were virtually no commercial air traffic in the country? What
if many roads were highly dangerous, especially Interstate 95 from Richmond
to
Washington, DC, and I-95 and I-91 up to Boston? If you got on I-95 anywhere
along that over 500-mile stretch, you would risk being carjacked, kidnapped,
or
having your car sprayed with machine gun fire.
What if no one had electricity for much more than 10 hours a day, and often
less? What if it went off at unpredictable times, causing factories to grind
to
a halt and air conditioning to fail in the middle of the summer in Houston
and Miami? What if the Alaska pipeline were bombed and disabled at least
monthly? What if unemployment hovered around 40%?
What if veterans of militia actions at Ruby Ridge and the Oklahoma City
bombing were brought in to run the government on the theory that you need a
tough
guy in these times of crisis?
What if municipal elections were cancelled and cliques close to the new
"president" quietly installed in the statehouses as "governors?" What if
several of
these governors (especially of Montana and Wyoming) were assassinated soon
after taking office or resigned when their children were taken hostage by
guerrillas?
What if the leader of the European Union maintained that the citizens of the
United States are, under these conditions, refuting pessimism and that
freedom
and democracy are just around the corner?
Juan Cole is Professor of History at the University of Michigan
Copyright: Juan Cole. http://www.juancole.com
Put Away Your Hankies...a message from Michael Moore
9/20/04
Dear Friends,
Enough of the handwringing! Enough of the doomsaying! Do I have to come there and personally calm you down? Stop with all the defeatism, OK? Bush IS a goner -- IF we all just quit our whining and bellyaching and stop shaking like a bunch of nervous ninnies. Geez, this is embarrassing! The Republicans are laughing at us. Do you ever see them cry, "Oh, it's all over! We are finished! Bush can't win! Waaaaaa!"
Hell no. It's never over for them until the last ballot is shredded. They are never finished -- they just keeping moving forward like sharks that never sleep, always pushing, pulling, kicking, blocking, lying.
They are relentless and that is why we secretly admire them -- they just simply never, ever give up. Only 30% of the country calls itself "Republican," yet the Republicans own it all -- the White House, both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court and the majority of the governorships. How do you think they've been able to pull that off considering they are a minority? It's because they eat you and me and every other liberal for breakfast and then spend the rest of the day wreaking havoc on the planet.
Look at us -- what a bunch of crybabies. Bush gets a bounce after his convention and you would have thought the Germans had run through Poland again. The Bushies are coming, the Bushies are coming! Yes, they caught Kerry asleep on the Swift Boat thing. Yes, they found the frequency in Dan Rather and ran with it. Suddenly it's like, "THE END IS NEAR! THE SKY IS FALLING!"
No, it is not. If I hear one more person tell me how lousy a candidate Kerry is and how he can't win... Dammit, of COURSE he's a lousy candidate -- he's a Democrat, for heavens sake! That party is so pathetic, they even lose the elections they win! What were you expecting, Bruce Springsteen heading up the ticket? Bruce would make a helluva president, but guys like him don't run -- and neither do you or I. People like Kerry run.
Yes, OF COURSE any of us would have run a better, smarter, kick-ass campaign. Of course we would have smacked each and every one of those phony swifty boaty bastards down. But WE are not running for president -- Kerry is. So quit complaining and work with what we have. Oprah just gave 300 women a... Pontiac! Did you see any of them frowning and moaning and screaming, "Oh God, NOT a friggin' Pontiac!" Of course not, they were happy. The Pontiacs all had four wheels, an engine and a gas pedal. You want more than that, well, I can't help you. I had a Pontiac once and it lasted a good year. And it was a VERY good year.
My friends, it is time for a reality check.
1. The polls are wrong. They are all over the map like diarrhea. On Friday, one poll had Bush 13 points ahead -- and another poll had them both tied. There are three reasons why the polls are b.s.: One, they are polling "likely voters." "Likely" means those who have consistently voted in the past few elections. So that cuts out young people who are voting for the first time and a ton of non-voters who are definitely going to vote in THIS election. Second, they are not polling people who use their cell phone as their primary phone. Again, that means they are not talking to young people. Finally, most of the polls are weighted with too many Republicans, as pollster John Zogby revealed last week. You are being snookered if you believe any of these polls.
2. Kerry has brought in the Clinton A-team. Instead of shunning Clinton (as Gore did), Kerry has decided to not make that mistake.
3. Traveling around the country, as I've been doing, I gotta tell ya, there is a hell of a lot of unrest out there. Much of it is not being captured by the mainstream press. But it is simmering and it is real. Do not let those well-produced Bush rallies of angry white people scare you. Turn off the TV! (Except Jon Stewart and Bill Moyers -- everything else is just a sugar-coated lie).
4. Conventional wisdom says if the election is decided on "9/11" (the fear of terrorism), Bush wins. But if it is decided on the job we are doing in Iraq, then Bush loses. And folks, that "job," you might have noticed, has descended into the third level of a hell we used to call Vietnam. There is no way out. It is a full-blown mess of a quagmire and the body bags will sadly only mount higher. Regardless of what Kerry meant by his original war vote, he ain't the one who sent those kids to their deaths -- and Mr. and Mrs. Middle America knows it. Had Bush bothered to show up when he was in the "service" he might have somewhat of a clue as to how to recognize an immoral war that cannot be "won." All he has delivered to Iraq was that plasticized turkey last Thanksgiving. It is this failure of monumental proportions that is going to cook his goose come this November.
So, do not despair. All is not over. Far from it. The Bush people need you to believe that it is over. They need you to slump back into your easy chair and feel that sick pain in your gut as you contemplate another four years of George W. Bush. They need you to wish we had a candidate who didn't windsurf and who was just as smart as we were when WE knew Bush was lying about WMD and Saddam planning 9/11. It's like Karl Rove is hypnotizing you -- "Kerry voted for the war...Kerry voted for the war...Kerrrrrryyy vooootted fooooor theeee warrrrrrrrrr..."
Yes...Yes...Yesssss...He did! HE DID! No sense in fighting now...what I need is sleep...sleeep...sleeeeeeppppp...
WAKE UP! The majority are with us! More than half of all Americans are pro-choice, want stronger environmental laws, are appalled that assault weapons are back on the street -- and 54% now believe the war is wrong. YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO CONVINCE THEM OF ANY OF THIS -- YOU JUST HAVE TO GIVE THEM A RAY OF HOPE AND A RIDE TO THE POLLS. CAN YOU DO THAT? WILL YOU DO THAT?
Just for me, please? Buck up. The country is almost back in our hands. Not another negative word until Nov. 3rd! Then you can bitch all you want about how you wish Kerry was still that long-haired kid who once had the courage to stand up for something. Personally, I think that kid is still inside him. Instead of the wailing and gnashing of your teeth, why not hold out a hand to him and help the inner soldier/protester come out and defeat the forces of evil we now so desperately face. Do we have any other choice?
Yours,
Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com
mmflint@aol.com
Dear Friends,
Enough of the handwringing! Enough of the doomsaying! Do I have to come there and personally calm you down? Stop with all the defeatism, OK? Bush IS a goner -- IF we all just quit our whining and bellyaching and stop shaking like a bunch of nervous ninnies. Geez, this is embarrassing! The Republicans are laughing at us. Do you ever see them cry, "Oh, it's all over! We are finished! Bush can't win! Waaaaaa!"
Hell no. It's never over for them until the last ballot is shredded. They are never finished -- they just keeping moving forward like sharks that never sleep, always pushing, pulling, kicking, blocking, lying.
They are relentless and that is why we secretly admire them -- they just simply never, ever give up. Only 30% of the country calls itself "Republican," yet the Republicans own it all -- the White House, both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court and the majority of the governorships. How do you think they've been able to pull that off considering they are a minority? It's because they eat you and me and every other liberal for breakfast and then spend the rest of the day wreaking havoc on the planet.
Look at us -- what a bunch of crybabies. Bush gets a bounce after his convention and you would have thought the Germans had run through Poland again. The Bushies are coming, the Bushies are coming! Yes, they caught Kerry asleep on the Swift Boat thing. Yes, they found the frequency in Dan Rather and ran with it. Suddenly it's like, "THE END IS NEAR! THE SKY IS FALLING!"
No, it is not. If I hear one more person tell me how lousy a candidate Kerry is and how he can't win... Dammit, of COURSE he's a lousy candidate -- he's a Democrat, for heavens sake! That party is so pathetic, they even lose the elections they win! What were you expecting, Bruce Springsteen heading up the ticket? Bruce would make a helluva president, but guys like him don't run -- and neither do you or I. People like Kerry run.
Yes, OF COURSE any of us would have run a better, smarter, kick-ass campaign. Of course we would have smacked each and every one of those phony swifty boaty bastards down. But WE are not running for president -- Kerry is. So quit complaining and work with what we have. Oprah just gave 300 women a... Pontiac! Did you see any of them frowning and moaning and screaming, "Oh God, NOT a friggin' Pontiac!" Of course not, they were happy. The Pontiacs all had four wheels, an engine and a gas pedal. You want more than that, well, I can't help you. I had a Pontiac once and it lasted a good year. And it was a VERY good year.
My friends, it is time for a reality check.
1. The polls are wrong. They are all over the map like diarrhea. On Friday, one poll had Bush 13 points ahead -- and another poll had them both tied. There are three reasons why the polls are b.s.: One, they are polling "likely voters." "Likely" means those who have consistently voted in the past few elections. So that cuts out young people who are voting for the first time and a ton of non-voters who are definitely going to vote in THIS election. Second, they are not polling people who use their cell phone as their primary phone. Again, that means they are not talking to young people. Finally, most of the polls are weighted with too many Republicans, as pollster John Zogby revealed last week. You are being snookered if you believe any of these polls.
2. Kerry has brought in the Clinton A-team. Instead of shunning Clinton (as Gore did), Kerry has decided to not make that mistake.
3. Traveling around the country, as I've been doing, I gotta tell ya, there is a hell of a lot of unrest out there. Much of it is not being captured by the mainstream press. But it is simmering and it is real. Do not let those well-produced Bush rallies of angry white people scare you. Turn off the TV! (Except Jon Stewart and Bill Moyers -- everything else is just a sugar-coated lie).
4. Conventional wisdom says if the election is decided on "9/11" (the fear of terrorism), Bush wins. But if it is decided on the job we are doing in Iraq, then Bush loses. And folks, that "job," you might have noticed, has descended into the third level of a hell we used to call Vietnam. There is no way out. It is a full-blown mess of a quagmire and the body bags will sadly only mount higher. Regardless of what Kerry meant by his original war vote, he ain't the one who sent those kids to their deaths -- and Mr. and Mrs. Middle America knows it. Had Bush bothered to show up when he was in the "service" he might have somewhat of a clue as to how to recognize an immoral war that cannot be "won." All he has delivered to Iraq was that plasticized turkey last Thanksgiving. It is this failure of monumental proportions that is going to cook his goose come this November.
So, do not despair. All is not over. Far from it. The Bush people need you to believe that it is over. They need you to slump back into your easy chair and feel that sick pain in your gut as you contemplate another four years of George W. Bush. They need you to wish we had a candidate who didn't windsurf and who was just as smart as we were when WE knew Bush was lying about WMD and Saddam planning 9/11. It's like Karl Rove is hypnotizing you -- "Kerry voted for the war...Kerry voted for the war...Kerrrrrryyy vooootted fooooor theeee warrrrrrrrrr..."
Yes...Yes...Yesssss...He did! HE DID! No sense in fighting now...what I need is sleep...sleeep...sleeeeeeppppp...
WAKE UP! The majority are with us! More than half of all Americans are pro-choice, want stronger environmental laws, are appalled that assault weapons are back on the street -- and 54% now believe the war is wrong. YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO CONVINCE THEM OF ANY OF THIS -- YOU JUST HAVE TO GIVE THEM A RAY OF HOPE AND A RIDE TO THE POLLS. CAN YOU DO THAT? WILL YOU DO THAT?
Just for me, please? Buck up. The country is almost back in our hands. Not another negative word until Nov. 3rd! Then you can bitch all you want about how you wish Kerry was still that long-haired kid who once had the courage to stand up for something. Personally, I think that kid is still inside him. Instead of the wailing and gnashing of your teeth, why not hold out a hand to him and help the inner soldier/protester come out and defeat the forces of evil we now so desperately face. Do we have any other choice?
Yours,
Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com
mmflint@aol.com
Saturday, September 25, 2004
taxpapers pay for bush political speach
pResident Bush visited my city - Janesville, WI - on Friday.
His visit was taxpayer financed because it was claimed to be a "policy address" on "No Child Left Behind" in spite of the fact he never even uttered those words. It was clearly a full politicized campaign visit.
Ironically - or appropriately, our VERY conservative, Republican-corporate daily newspaper had the following front page today:
Janesville Gazette Saturday 9/24:
http://www.gazetteextra.com/
Top of the front page headline:
"Miracle, a Symbol of Peace, Passes Away"
The white buffalo, died last night - sick since Fri., cause unknown She was born in '94 - the symbol of the coming of an ancient Native American prophesy of the birth of a white buffalo who would bring global peace and prosperity
The headline mid-page:
"Bush Courts Janesville"
Sub-heads:
President touts his economic, health plans; asks voters for help
UAW members lead way in protesting President Bush's visit
Ironic, we have Miracle (hope, peace, prosperity) the same day Bush (Dark Ages, death and destruction) comes to our city. I think this front page is one for Jay Leno's "Headlines".... Ages, death and destruction) comes to our city. I think this front page is one for Jay Leno's 'Headlines'.... "
His visit was taxpayer financed because it was claimed to be a "policy address" on "No Child Left Behind" in spite of the fact he never even uttered those words. It was clearly a full politicized campaign visit.
Ironically - or appropriately, our VERY conservative, Republican-corporate daily newspaper had the following front page today:
Janesville Gazette Saturday 9/24:
http://www.gazetteextra.com/
Top of the front page headline:
"Miracle, a Symbol of Peace, Passes Away"
The white buffalo, died last night - sick since Fri., cause unknown She was born in '94 - the symbol of the coming of an ancient Native American prophesy of the birth of a white buffalo who would bring global peace and prosperity
The headline mid-page:
"Bush Courts Janesville"
Sub-heads:
President touts his economic, health plans; asks voters for help
UAW members lead way in protesting President Bush's visit
Ironic, we have Miracle (hope, peace, prosperity) the same day Bush (Dark Ages, death and destruction) comes to our city. I think this front page is one for Jay Leno's "Headlines".... Ages, death and destruction) comes to our city. I think this front page is one for Jay Leno's 'Headlines'.... "
IMHO Open Debate Forum
This group encourages the lively and diverse exchange of ideas, beliefs, philosophies and points of view in a civil forum. Religion, Politics, Law, Social and World Events are all open for discussion.
Status: Public Founder: Sean Lewis VirtualTruth
Status: Public Founder: Sean Lewis VirtualTruth
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)