John Kerry For President 2008

Bernanke: 'Pushing on a String'

2007-12-11T17:37:00.001-06:00

As cross-posted on Stock Picks Bob's Advice and Trading Goddess:

I join with other investors in disappointment of seeing a 1/4% drop in the Fed Discount Rate.

The market didn't like it and turned from about a 50 point gain in the Dow to a 220 point loss. And the market has another hour to trade.

But what can Bernanke do? Rate cuts drive the dollar down in value. And raise the risk of inflation as imported products climb in price.

The interest rate supports the value of the dollar which has plunged approximately 44% against the Euro in the past 7 years under President Bush's leadership. That means that in a global economy, the value of everything we own has been devalued by about 1/2. When we travel abroad, we can see the effect of the weak dollar when it takes $5 to buy a Coke in Italy.

Dollar/Euro price chart from Yahoo:

With the subprime mortgage mess unraveling and the derivatives and hedge funds shenanigans continuing to come to light, our economy needs a stimulus like a rate cut. But if we fail to support the dollar, the Chinese are likely to resist continuing to fund our debt instead turning to Euro-backed securities and the OPEC folks are likely to once again consider pricing oil in Euros and not dollars.

I am greatly concerned for our economic vitality and prosperity.

We have unfortunately continued to be led by politicians who subscribe to the Grover Norquist pledge of 'no new taxes'. Why taxes are bad --aren't they?

But can we continue to cut taxes and pour money and resources into military activity without paying the piper somehow? Should we really believe that tax cuts are essential to grow the economy when this endless printing of dollars in terms of an expanding budget deficit is a threat to our well-being.

Should we be concerned about the ever-growing disparity between the wealthy and the poor?
Even Henry Ford knew he needed to pay workers enough so they could buy a Model T.

We cannot depend solely on high-end retailers catering to the wealthy to sustain this economy.

Balancing the budget needs to be a national priority. Tax policy must not work to encourage the continued outsourcing of quality jobs overseas. Efforts to repeal the Estate Tax will only insure more of a continued Plutocracy in America with the wealthy getting richer and the poor poorer and out economy will suffer. Cuts to education will not help the poor rise up out of their economic morass.

This country has been headed in the wrong direction under this President and we are all paying the piper.

Bob

Nord Must Go

2007-11-03T22:04:00.000-05:00

As cross-posted on the Democratic Daily:

Does this President hate children?

Does the Decider think that being the “Leader” must mean he is an advocate of “Lead” in toys?

This week a large recall of lead-tainted toys was announced:

Yesterday’s toy recalls were just the latest in a long parade involving lead-tainted children’s toys. Since August, toy giant Mattel has issued 3 separate toy recalls for lead hazards and other problems. In June, the RC2 Company recalled more than 1 million lead-tainted Thomas and Friends toy trains. Children’s jewelry and character notebooks have also been recalled for the same reason. And earlier this month bookmarks, Halloween pails and children’s puppet theaters, along with toy animal figures sold at Wal-Mart have all been recalled for excessive amounts of lead. Lead can cause a wide range of health problems, including learning disabilities and brain damage, if it is ingested by small children.

And more recently:

And finally, just in time for Halloween, the CPSC recalled 43,000 sets of “Ugly Teeth” party favors sold at various retailers throughout the country from January 2007 through October 2007 for $2. The fake Halloween teeth, which children are supposed to put in their mouths, contain 100 times the permissible level of lead.

Lead poisoning may have very serious consequences:

There may be no noticeable symptoms of lead poisoning because the effects are subtle or may mimic other conditions. When lead poisoning levels are severe, some general symptoms can include digestive problems, fatigue, headaches, and higher rates of tooth decay.

Children with chronic lead poisoning may show slightly lower intelligence and may be smaller in size than children their age who do not have lead poisoning. Behavioral problems can include irritability or aggressiveness, hyperactivity, learning difficulties, lethargy, and loss of appetite.

In adults, behavioral symptoms can include irritability, mood and personality changes, changes in sleep patterns, difficulty concentrating, and memory loss.

At high levels, lead can affect the central nervous system, leading to poor coordination, weakness in hands and feet, headaches, and in severe cases, convulsions, paralysis, and coma.

So did our Congress fail us? Did they fail to fund the Consumer Product Safety Commission? As reported:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 — Over the objections of the Bush administration, a Senate committee unanimously adopted sweeping legislation on Tuesday that would extend the authority of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and sharply increase its budget and staff.

Objections?

The bill would increase the maximum penalties for safety violations and make it easier for the government to make public reports of faulty products, protect industry whistle-blowers and prosecute executives of companies that willfully violate safety laws. It would ban lead in toys and give state prosecutors the authority to enforce federal consumer safety rules. Ms. Nord has objected to those and other provisions in the measure.

Objected?

Why?

Ms. Nord, a former lawyer at Eastman Kodak and a former official at the United States Chamber of Commerce, recently sent lawmakers letters attacking the legislation as unworkable and counterproductive, mirroring concerns raised by manufacturers. Those complaints have been rebutted by the agency’s Democratic commissioner, Thomas H. Moore, who generally supports the Senate bill.

Mirroring concerns? Perhaps just maybe voicing their concerns? As their spokesman?

Maybe this Administration is concerned more about profits than protecting children. Maybe that is why they vetoed the SCHIP legislation. Especially the failure to cover minority children. After all, it is minority children that are also hardest hit by lead poisoning. Is it surprising that it was minority children that were hardest hit by Katrina as well?

Unfortunately, access to health care in the region—as in many other parts of the country—is deeply inequitable, as low-income people and communities of color face higher rates of unin-surance and highly fragmented health systems in which patients with private insurance are treated in better hospitals and health systems than those who are uninsured or have public sources of health insurance.⁸ Louisiana, in particular, operates a unique safety-net system, one in which a state-supported network of hospitals and clinics provides much of the uncompensated care, with the effect that health care is largely segregated along income and insurance status lines:

In New Orleans the Medical Center of New Orleans, which included historic Charity Hospital, provided two-thirds of the inpatient care to the uninsured in the city. Nearly three-quarters of its patients were African American, and 85% of all patients made less than $20,000 a year. By contrast, the other hospitals in the city provided only 4% of inpatient care for uninsured patients.⁹

But this isn’t about race. It isn’t about people of color. It is about the color of money.

Children and especially minority children are victims of greed.

The Industries she was paid to regulate paid for trips where they could lobby the former lobbyist. It wasn’t a hard sell.

But it isn’t surprising anymore.

This is a Government and an Administration with the ‘For Sale’ sign out front.

The Medicare Plan D was written by drug lobbyists to prevent the government from negotiating with Big Pharma for lower prices.

The bill passed, extending limited prescription drug coverage under Medicare to 41 million Americans. According to Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a non-partisan healthcare watchdog group, it purposefully allows drug companies to charge more by preventing Medicare from negotiating prices. As a result, one government agency will pay more for drugs than another will. “The [Veterans Administration] does bargain and they do it successfully,” says Pollack. “Medicare could do the same thing, but Medicare is prohibited from doing that as a result of this new Medicare legislation.”

Several lawmakers who worked on the bill have since joined firms that lobby for the drug industry, including the man who steered the legislation through the House, former Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La.), who also chaired the House committee that regulated the pharmaceutical industry. Tauzin retired to become the president of Pharma, the drug industry’s top lobbying group — a $2 million-a-year post.

But this is really old news.

President Bush has been hiring lobbyists as regulators for a long time.

As far back as 2004, The Denver Post reported on this cynical approach to managing the hen house with foxes.

The president’s political appointees are making or overseeing profound changes affecting drug laws, food policies, land use, clean-air regulations and other key issues.

Government watchdogs call it a disturbing trend, not adequately restrained by existing ethics laws.

Among the advocates-turned-regulators are a former meat-industry lobbyist who helps decide how meat is labeled; a former drug-company lobbyist who influences prescription-drug policies; a former energy lobbyist who, while still accepting payments for bringing clients into his old lobbying firm, helps determine how much of the West those former clients can use for oil and gas drilling.

This isn’t really new. It is even getting difficult to develop a sense of outrage over outrageous things.

Nancy Pelosi has said it best:

“Any commission chair who does not, in the face of the facts that are so clear, say we don’t need any more authority or any more resources to do our job, does not understand the gravity of the situation,” said Pelosi, who has been joined in her call for Nord’s resignation by other Democrats in the House and Senate. “I call on the president of the United States to ask for the resignation.”

Nord, in an Oct. 24 letter to the Senate Commerce Committee, said a Democratic bill doubling the agency’s funding and giving it greater authority to inspect and recall products “could have the unintended consequence of hampering, rather than furthering, consumer product safety.” She specifically complained that the additional responsibilities the bill adds will make it more difficult for the agency to do its job.

The White House also opposes the legislation passed unanimously by the Senate Commerce Committee Tuesday.

It is time for Nord to go. It is time for our leaders to protect our children, work to prevent the importation of unsafe toys laced with lead, provide our children with the insurance that they need to keep them healthy, work to prevent the continued trends in pollution that lead to global warming, and bring about fiscal responsibility that will prevent our children and grandchildren from having to bear unbelievable financial burdens from irresponsible tax cuts and deficit spending.

For a President who claims to be a values leader, why so much hate of our children?

Does Congress Have Anything Better to Do?

2007-09-21T14:02:00.000-05:00

As cross-posted on The Democratic Daily:

Time for Congress to ‘Move-On’!

Posted by Robert Freedland
September 20th, 2007 @ 8:19 pm

Something really awful happened in the Senate today.

The 1st Amendment was symbolically sacrificed to the alter of the Military and the War Machine.

On December 15, 1791, the 1st Amendment to the Constitution was ratified. It stated:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Yet today, the Senate took the time to pass a symbolic resolution defending the honor and criticizing the MoveOn.org ad on General Petraeus and stated that Petraeus
“deserves the full support of the Senate” and the Senate “strongly condemn(s) personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.”

However, moments earlier Senators failed to condemn the same kind of political activity, failing to support the ‘Boxer Amendment’, which also included condemnation against attacks on politicians and Veterans like Max Cleland, the Vietnam Veteran who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam who lost to Republican Saxby Chambliss who compared him to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Or Senator John Kerry, the multiple-decorated Vietnam Veteran whose reputation was slimed by the Swift Boaters.

But criticism of the so-called apolitical General Petraeus, who found time in the weeks before the 2004 election to write and submit a very political and misleading column about the success of the Iraq effort helped turn the tide for President Bush against Senator Kerry–that kind of criticism is simply unacceptable in America according to these America-love-it-or-leave-it Senators.

On September 26, 2004, just weeks before the Presidential Election, Petreus took the time to write about how well things were going in Iraq. He stated:

“Nonetheless, there are reasons for optimism. Today approximately 164,000 Iraqi police and soldiers (of which about 100,000 are trained and equipped) and an additional 74,000 facility protection forces are performing a wide variety of security missions. Equipment is being delivered. Training is on track and increasing in capacity. Infrastructure is being repaired. Command and control structures and institutions are being reestablished.”

And yet even Petraeus has a spotty record in Iraq.
As the Washington Post reported on August 6, 2007:

“The author of the report from the Government Accountability Office says U.S. military officials do not know what happened to 30 percent of the weapons the United States distributed to Iraqi forces from 2004 through early this year as part of an effort to train and equip the troops. The highest previous estimate of unaccounted-for weapons was 14,000, in a report issued last year by the inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.

The United States has spent $19.2 billion trying to develop Iraqi security forces since 2003, the GAO said, including at least $2.8 billion to buy and deliver equipment. But the GAO said weapons distribution was haphazard and rushed and failed to follow established procedures, particularly from 2004 to 2005, when security training was led by Gen. David H. Petraeus, who now commands all U.S. forces in Iraq.”

Oh, but there I go again being critical of Petraeus when it is Move-On.Org that is our nation’s biggest problem.

Our fearless President understands that if we criticize Petraeus, then it is the criticism of him that is treason. As was reported:

” Bush told reporters at a White House news conference that MoveOn.org’s ad in The New York Times about Gen. David Petraeus was a “sorry deal.” The September 10 full-page ad was titled “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?”

“I felt like the ad was an attack, not only on Gen. Petraeus, but on the U.S. military,” Bush said. “And I was disappointed that not more leaders in the Democratic Party spoke out strongly against that kind of ad.”

The Vice-President, even though he is not really part of the Executive Branch, felt compelled to jump in on the pile-on. Cheney stated:

“The attacks on him by MoveOn.org in ad space provided at subsidized rates in The New York Times last week were an outrage.”
But that is pure Cheney. The outrage is that somehow they got a good rate to make the attack. Maybe if they had paid a higher rate at the Times, Cheney wouldn’t have had any comment. Or maybe he would have been busy hunting and shooting somebody in the face instead.
Even though Giuliani ran an ad in the same paper the same day at the same rate, better to talk about the liberal media. The same blog in the NYTimes points out:

“Rudolph W. Giuliani, a Republican presidential candidate who is among those who criticized the MoveOn ad, paid the same rate for his own advocacy ad that ran in the Friday editions of The Times.”

But maybe all of the Congress is betraying us. They haven’t stopped the war that was started on false pretenses. The mission isn’t accomplished. And as a report in the Guardian today (9/21/07) noted:

The latest identifications reported by the military:

- Army Sgt. Edmund J. Jeffers, 23, Daleville, Ala.; died Wednesday in Taqqadum of injuries from a non-combat related accident; assigned to the 1st Battalion, 9th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colo.

- Army Pfc. Christian M. Neff, 19, Lima, Ohio; died Wednesday in Baghdad of wounds from an explosive; assigned to the 1st Battalion, 64th Armor Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, Ga.

- Army Spc. Aaron J. Walker, 23, Harker Heights, Texas; died Tuesday in Baghdad of wounds from small-arms fire; assigned to the 3rd Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment, 1st Armored Division, Vilseck, Germany.

- Three Army soldiers died Tuesday in Muqdadiyah of wounds from an explosion. All were assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division (Stryker Brigade Combat Team), Fort Lewis, Wash.

Killed were Spc. Joseph N. Landry III, 23, Pensacola, Fla.; Spc. Nicholas P. Olson, 22, Novato, Calif.; and Spc. Donald E. Valentine III, 21, Orange Park, Fla.

None of these young men and women died because somebody protested a war.

But 3,791 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March, 2003.

And Congress, including some intimidated Democrats, is now busy passing resolutions condemning those who protest this needless war as being somehow not supporting our troops. For them, it is necessary to send soldiers into harm’s way without honest justification as the only true way to show your support.

And please be quiet if you disagree, or you shall be labeled a traitor. Forget about the 1st Amendment. Forget about our freedoms. We are at war now. And those need to be saved for some future reference.

Taser Controversy and Senator Kerry!

2007-09-18T22:08:00.000-05:00

Watch HERE for the Video.

As reported:

"Meyer refused to leave the microphone after his allotted time was up, police said. He had asked Kerry about impeaching President Bush, why he didn't challenge the 2004 election results and whether he and Bush were members of the secret society Skull and Bones at Yale University.
After Meyer repeatedly and loudly refused to walk away, two officers took him by the arms. Kerry can be heard saying, "That's all right, let me answer his question."
Audience members applauded, though it was difficult to tell whether it was for the officers' action or Kerry's remark. The audience for the most part sat quietly and watched the fracas.
Meyer struggled for several seconds as up to four officers tried to remove him from the room. He screamed for help and tried to break away from officers with his arms flailing, then was forced to the ground and ordered to stop resisting.
As Kerry told the audience he will answer the student's "very important question," Meyer yelled at the officers to release him, crying out, "Don't Tase me, bro," just before he was shocked. He was led from the room, screaming, "What did I do?"
An officer, however, said in the police report that Meyer's "demeanor completely changed once the cameras were not in sight" and that he was "laughing" and "lighthearted" on the way to jail.
Kerry, D-Mass., said Tuesday he regretted that a healthy discussion was interrupted, and said he never had a dialogue end that way in 37 years of public appearances.
"Whatever happened, the police had a reason, had made their decision that there was something they needed to do. Then it's a law enforcement issue, not mine," he told The Associated Press in Washington.

Senator Kerry went further to explain the situation:

"In 37 years of public appearances, through wars, protests and highly emotional events, I have never had a dialogue end this way.
I believe I could have handled the situation without interruption, but again I do not know what warnings or other exchanges transpired between the young man and the police prior to his barging to the front of the line and their intervention.

I asked the police to allow me to answer the question and was in the process of answering him when he was taken into custody.

I was not aware that a taser was used until after I left the building. I hope that neither the student nor any of the police were injured.

I regret enormously that a good healthy discussion was interrupted."

I even received an email from Greg Palast who I greatly respect.

Palast wrote:

"We warned you: 'Armed Madhouse' is a dangerous book. Yesterday, Andrew Meyers, a University of Florida student was attacked by five cops, zapped with tasers and arrested after demanding that Senator John Kerry answer the question.

Meyers, just released from jail and now facing five years in prison for resisting arrest, held up a copy of the book and began,

Student to John Kerry: "I want to recommend a book to you. It's called 'Armed Madhouse by Greg Palast.' He's the top investigative journalist in America."

Kerry: "I have the book. I've already read it."

Student: "... In this book, it says there were 5 million votes and you won the election. ... How could you concede the election on the day?"

Meyers, a telecommunications student at the Gainesville campus, asked related questions including a query as to why Kerry refused to vote for impeachment. When he passed his alloted one minute mic time, five cops jumped him, threw him to the ground, shot him with taser shockers.

Kerry, true to character, stood immobile.

Now, I've given many talks. And some questioners have taken too long at the mic. But I've never done the Stalin thing of cops and electronic beating to limit the discussion. (Yes, it's true that Randi Rhodes recently threatened me with a taser when I've monopolized the mic in her studio.)"

But it really wasn't quite like that when you watch the video.

Andrew Meyers did raise important points and important questions.

But he certainly wasn't civil and orderly in his demeanor.

He didn't state a question, he attempted to make a speech. Senator Kerry was prepared to answer. But didn't have a chance.

Senator Kerry didn't order any tasering.

He didn't regulate what the police did.

But he is the whipping boy of the left. He refused to take the election to the streets when the 2004 results were announced. He chose to preserve the Republic rather than start a revolution.

I do not disagree with Palast's findings. John Kerry should have won in 2004 and would have won if all the votes were properly counted and allowed. And that the removal of voters and the caging of voters and the improper procedures hadn't occurred, we know the result.

Senator Kerry continues to work within the system at reform.

He is not the problem. He is part of the solution. We need to stop beating up on our own. We don't need more tasering of demonstrators. But we do need civility in our discussions.

I stand both with Greg Palast and with Senator John Kerry! There are so many things wrong that need to be made right in America! But let us not descend into the internal bickering and self-destruction that we seen to be heading into. Senator Kerry and Greg Palast as well as Andrew Meyers are part of the solution and not part of the problem. Let us all join together to work to confront those that have threatened our Constitution, challenged our system of government and have led us with lies and deceit. And let us not attack each other.

Bob

Protecting the "Sanctity of Hate"!

2007-05-06T15:28:00.000-05:00

As cross-posted in The Democratic Daily Blog

The House of Representatives has passed H.R. 1592, an act to extend hate crimes protection to individuals who are victims of crimes based on the "perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim".

What is new about this legislation is the extension of protection to individuals based on sexual orientation, or gender identity. What is not new is the response of the White House which is threatening a veto.

It is not enough to deny homosexuals the same rights as others by denying them the right to marriage or even the opportunity to enter into civil unions that the rest of us enjoy. It is also necessary for the Republicans who lead this nation to make sure that they are not receiving the needed protection that Matthew Shepard, the 21 year old gay college student failed to get after being beaten to death after being tied to a fence and left to die. That kind of special protection would be excessive.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council commented

"Criminalizing thoughts as well as actions, and creating special categories of victims is unconstitutional. The actions of a majority of the House today undermine the promise of equal protection under the law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

This legislation creates second-class victims and a legal system of 'separate and unequal.' "There has been no proof that violent crimes perpetrated against any of the groups listed in the bill have not been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, yet now Congress is asking the federal government to get
involved in issues that are, and should remain, local concerns.

"By far the most disturbing threat we face by this legislation -- is
the threat it poses to free speech and our religious liberties. In some jurisdictions that have adopted similar laws, 'hate crimes' have been defined to include not just physical acts of violence but merely verbal ones as well. When 'thought crimes' laws are interpreted this way, they pose a serious threat to freedom of speech and religious liberty.

"I strongly encourage people to let their Senators know to vote against this unconstitutional legislation and encourage President Bush to follow through with the White House statement issued today and veto any such measure should it reach his desk."

And yet this legislation clearly provides for protection of all First Amendment activity that is protected in the Constitution. This is about violent crimes not thought. This is not about religious freedom being impinged upon; this is about individuals suffering from society's neglect while organized hate groups act against them.

Focus on the Family's James Dobson also has jumped in to the discussion:

"We applaud the president's courage in standing up for the Constitution and the principle of equal protection under the law. The American justice system should never create second-class victims, and it is a first-class act of wisdom and fairness for the president to pledge to veto this unnecessary bill."

Courage? To exercise his third veto of his term to stand tall on the side of hate against those who seek to end persecution of minorities? Equal protection under the law? Is Dobson prepared to fight for the right of gay couples to get married? Or is that part of the 14th Amendment that he doesn't like? Remember it was the 14th Amendment that was turned topsy-turvy in the Bush v. Gore decision that resulted in this President being coronated by the Supreme Court in 2000.

And what was the White House response to this Bill? As reported:

"The White House, in a statement warning of a veto, said state and local criminal laws already cover the new crimes defined under the bill, and there was "no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement."

It also noted that the bill leaves other classes, such as the elderly, the military and police officers, without similar special status."

Huh? Are the military and elderly or police officers victims of hate crimes? Do they represent some sort of minority that we haven't realized before?

This is about the 14th Amendment. This is about the 1st Amendment. This is about all of the Amendments and all of the Articles and every last letter and punctuation mark in the Constitution. We have a sickness in this land. A sickness of hate and intolerance of those who are different than us. Those that worship God in a different fashion, those that have different colors to their face, a different language in which they speak and yes, even have a different approach to sex.

And there are people who wish to hurt other people in this nation. And this Government must act to protect the Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness of every American! That is what we have government for and that is why we have a Constitution.

So yes Mr. President. You need to sign this Bill. You need to stand up and tell the rest of the world that hate has no home in this nation. That you don't necessarily accept, don't necessarily approve of, don't necessarily agree with everything that is practiced in America. That's your right.

But it is your duty as President to protect the rights that every American is promised in this nation. That was part of your oath and yes part of your job. So make the right decison Mr. Decider. You still have the chance to show us you can.

Bob

Is it Time to Impeach the President?

2007-04-24T20:11:00.000-05:00

As reported today, President Bush has full confidence in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales:

"April 24 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush said he's confident that U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales did ``nothing wrong'' in the firings of eight federal prosecutors and said Iraq's leader is meeting U.S. expectations.
``Al could've done a better job and his department could've done a better job of just explaining why we did what we did,'' Bush said in an interview in New York today on PBS television's ``Charlie Rose'' show. ``Instead we've got hearings and testimonies based on something that was perfectly legal.''

Gonzales testified April 19 before the Senate Judiciary Committee to explain the circumstances behind the firing of the federal prosecutors. Bush has brushed aside calls from Democrats and some Republicans for Gonzales to resign over the dismissals, a stance he reasserted today.
``I've got confidence in Al,'' Bush said. ``He's caught up in Washington right now; it's what happens in that town a lot -- there's a lot of politics.'"

But this wasn't just "a lot of politics". This was lying. It is often not the act that gets the criminal--it is the lies and obfuscation that catches felons.
As Adam Cohen reported in the New York Times last week, some of the crimes that may have been committed include:

1. Misrepresentations to Congress. The relevant provision, 18 U.S.C. 3/5sctmark1 4/5 1505, is very broad. It is illegal to lie to Congress, and also to ''impede'' it in getting information. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty indicated to Congress that the White House's involvement in firing the United States attorneys was minimal, something that Justice Department e-mail messages suggest to be untrue.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made his own dubious assertion to Congress: ''I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney position for political reasons.''
The administration appears to be trying to place all of the blame on Mr. Gonzales's chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, who resigned after reportedly failing to inform top Justice Department officials about the White House's role in the firings. If Mr. Sampson withheld the information from Mr. McNulty, who then misled Congress, Mr. Sampson may have violated 3/5sctmark1 4/5 1505.
But Mr. Sampson's lawyer now says other top Justice Department officials knew of the White House's role. Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, said last week that ''Kyle Sampson will not be the next Scooter Libby, the next fall guy.'' Congress will be looking for evidence that Mr. Gonzales and Mr. McNulty knew that what they told Congress was false or misleading.
Convictions of this kind are not common, but they happen. Just ask former White House aide David Safavian, who was convicted last year of making false statements to a Senate committee.

How does this affect President Bush?

It was James Madison himself who argued about the basis of impeaching the President:

As noted in this 1974 Judiciary Committee Report on the heels of the Watergate fiasco:

"Madison argued during the debate that the president would be subject to impeachment for "the wanton removal of meritorious officers."⁷¹ He also contended that the power of the President unilaterally to remove subordinates was "absolutely necessary" because "it will make him in a peculiar manner, responsible for [the] conduct" of executive officers. It would, Madison said,
subject him to impeachment himself, if he suffers them to perpetrate with impunity high crimes or misdemeanors against the United States, or neglects to superintend their conduct, so as to check their excesses.⁷²"

In another comment in the report, the political firing of the U.S. Attorneys also is brought to mind:

"If, said Baldwin, the President "in a fit of passion" removed" all the good officers of the Government" and the Senate were unable to choose qualified successors, the consequence would be that the President "would be obliged to do the duties himself; or, if he did not, we would impeach him, and turn him out of office, as he had done others."⁷⁵

Whether Gonzales had the right to let the U.S. Attorneys go or not is no longer the only question this President needs to answer. It is his attempt to protect and shelter an Attorney General who has lied to Congress, denied knowledge of events, and has obstructed the very Justice he was sworn to protect.

Nothing surprises me anymore.

Bob

John Kerry for President in 2008!

2007-04-16T21:34:00.000-05:00

It has been reported that Senator Kerry is still leaving the door open for 2008.

Senator Kerry has always been ready to serve his country. As the news story reports:

The 2004 Democratic nominee told a crowd of more than 250 at the Tattered Cover bookstore in lower downtown Denver that he had no desire to endorse any candidate for the office right now, choosing to wait to see how they addressed the issue of global warming.

Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, are finishing up a nationwide tour to promote their book, "This Moment on Earth," which highlights successful efforts at the local level to better the environment.

Afterwards, while answering a question from a viewer on the program YOUR SHOW about why he chose not to run, Kerry said he had decided it wasn't the right time.

"Could that change?" Kerry said. "It might. It may change over years. It may change over months. I can't tell you, but I've said very clearly I don't consider myself out of it forever."

Our nation desperately needs new leadership. And Senator Kerry is up to the challenge. He is right on the Environment. He is right on Iraq. He is right on Education, Veterans Benefits, and simply the need to restore this nation to the path our Founding Fathers intended. A nation based on laws, that respects International Treaties, works with our Allies, and does not start wars based on lies and distortions.

We have your back Senator!

Bob

Republicans Live in a Parallel Universe

2007-04-13T21:41:00.000-05:00

Cross-Posted on The Democratic Daily:

Why is it not surprising that the White House is now embroiled in an email controversy over an entirely different set of email accounts run by the Republican National Committee for members of this Administration? A parallel email system to the authorized White House email system.

The Republicans live in a Parallel Universe.

They live in a world where they won the 2000 and 2004 elections. Where election fraud means people voting more than once rather than the thousands of voters suppressed in Florida, Ohio and elsewhere.

They live in a world where the insurgents are in their “last throes” and it is moral to rewrite global warming data to show that there is not a threat to our planet.

Freedom of Speech means not being able to say “Polar Bears” at international conferences.

For them torture is just a “little dip” instead of the horror the rest of us see.

The President lives in a world where Congress doesn’t really matter; signing statements can over-ride anything they pass anyhow.

The Geneva Conventions don’t really matter in their world; they are “quaint”.

To lower the deficit in their world you cut taxes and raise spending. Their new math only works in Washington.

To bring the soldiers home it is necessary to send more to war.

No child left behind means cutting funds for Public Education.

Regulating industry means appointing lobbyists to responsible positions.

Supporting the troops means not providing them with body honor or adequate veteran’s benefits, research for traumatic brain syndrome, or even paying for adequate maintenance at Walter Reed.

“Doing a Great Job” means Katrina.

Pharmacy benefits means not negotiating for drug discounts for Seniors.

Free trade means not allowing re-importation of drugs from Canada.

Addressing the Social Security Fund short-fall means diverting funds to private accounts.

National Security means revealing CIA Agents.

Reducing our dependence on imported oil means not raising mileage standards on automobiles.

So why am I not surprised that they should have their own email accounts at the White House? Our laws don’t apply to them…they are in a parallel universe not connected to our reality. But then, we are just reality-based Americans after all.

Bob

Draft John Kerry Petition Online!

2007-03-04T22:25:00.000-06:00

In order to facilitate the expression of a 'Draft John Kerry for President in 2008' list of supporters, I have started at online petition here. (http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/johnkerry2008draft/)

If you wish to add your name to the petition, click on the link and we shall start developing a list of supporters. I do not wish to diminish the efforts of any other supporters who are also working to establish a 'draft John Kerry' movement. I do not know where this goes and the magnitude of that support, but I have worked hard the past 2 1/2 years on this blog advocating his candidacy and defending his name against the smears of Swift Boaters.

I am prepared to Kerry On!

Bob

Draft John Kerry for President?

2007-03-04T20:16:00.000-06:00

As cross-posted on the Democratic Daily:

Inspired by a column by Kapil Komireddi on The Lone Star Iconoclast, discussion followed on the John Kerry blog, about whether a ‘draft’ of Senator Kerry for 2008 would be possible. As the author of the John Kerry for President 2008 blog, where I have been advocating for a Kerry candidacy in 2008 since November, 2004, I feel a special responsibiity to participate in this discussion.

This is what I wrote this morning:

Draft John Kerry for President?

Those of us who still find little solace in the remaining field of candidates for President, still wonder if a John Kerry 2008 campaign is still a possibility.

I remember another Senator from Massachusetts who spoke about the assassination of his brother, Robert Kennedy, and eulogized:

“Some believe there is nothing one man or one woman can do against the enormous array of the world’s ills. Yet many of the world’s great movements, of thought and action, have flowed from the work of a single man. A young monk began the Protestant reformation, a young general extended an empire from Macedonia to the borders of the earth, and a young woman reclaimed the territory of France. It was a young Italian explorer who discovered the New World, and the thirty-two-year-old Thomas Jefferson who proclaimed that all men are created equal.

“These men moved the world, and so can we all. Few will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation. It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.

“Few are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change. And I believe that in this generation those with the courage to enter the moral conflict will find themselves with companions in every corner of the globe.

“For the fortunate among us, there is the temptation to follow the easy and familiar paths of personal ambition and financial success so grandly spread before those who enjoy the privilege of education. But that is not the road history has marked out for us. Like it or not, we live in times of danger and uncertainty. But they are also more open to the creative energy of men than any other time in history. All of us will ultimately be judged and as the years pass we will surely judge ourselves, on the effort we have contributed to building a new world society and the extent to which our ideals and goals have shaped that effort.

“The future does not belong to those who are content with today, apathetic toward common problems and their fellow man alike, timid and fearful in the face of new ideas and bold projects. Rather it will belong to those who can blend vision, reason and courage in a personal commitment to the ideals and great enterprises of American Society.

We know that Senator Kerry has the courage, the wisdom, and the strength to accomplish much for America!

We know that America needs Senator Kerry at the helm far more than the junior Senator from Massachusetts desires to have that responsibility. But these times demand greatness from our leaders. And when our leaders have failed us, it demands that other leaders come forward who are willing to provide the vision that these times require.

Whether it is the health of our needy, the care of those afflicted by natural disasters, the stewardship of our very planet, the protection of our civil liberties, or the wisdom of our foreign policy, there has never been another time in history that challenged this nation to stay on its course as defined by our earliest patriots. There can be no satisfaction in watching wrongs remain un-righted. There can be no joy watching the Constitution of the United States trashed, the Katrina disaster unheeded, the very ice-caps of our planet being melted, and our special bond to even our allies across the globe being threatened.

It will not be an easy course for Senator Kerry to become the Democratic nominee. But nothing worth having is ever easy to reach. And our nation once more raises that call to leaders to come forth willing to lead and make those difficult decisions needed.

Senator Kerry we still have your back. America needs you to take charge.

If you are interested in Senator Kerry running for President 2008, and would like to encourage him to be a candidate, you can click HERE for a link that will open a form that goes directly to his United States Senate Office and you can fill in a message.

You can also click HERE for a link to the "Draft John Kerry for President in 2008" website which is also working to draft Senator Kerry. I am not affiliated with nor do I know who the operator to the Draft Kerry website is. But these are currently two venues for expressing your opinion on this matter.

Bob

The Wasting of American Common Sense!

2007-03-01T23:40:00.000-06:00

As cross-posted on The Democratic Daily.

It is time to play the apology game.

First you say something truthful then somebody figures you ought to apologize because it might be somehow construed as unpatriotic.

Obama had to apologize when he told a crowd in Iowa:

“We now have spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted.”

Somebody felt it would be hurtful to each of those soldier’s families to say that their lives had been lost for no particular good reason. Better to repeat the lie than deal with reality.

So Obama apologized.

And now Senator John McCain, another real war hero, has been caught saying the same thing.

On the David Letterman Show, Senator McCain said:

“We’ve wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives.”

So McCain apologized.

Shame on McCain and Obama for apologizing!

America has not been made safer due to our invasion of Iraq! Al Quaeda isn’t running for cover because Americans have died. Americans haven’t unearthed Weapons of Mass Destruction that Saddam was aiming at us. The Taliban isn’t on the run. And just saying that Americans died for a reason doesn’t make it so.

It does not demean Americans who have died to say that their lives were wasted. It demeans them and all of us to continue a lie because we do not have the courage to face the truth.

The death of Americans in unnecessary wars is not made more meaningful by playing games of rhetoric. The mothers and fathers of soldiers who have lost their loved ones are not made whole by continuing a lie. If their lives have been lost and that loss brings us to realize our mistakes then their lives will not have been in vain.

But if we fail to realize the real waste of a generation of young and brave and patriotic Americans, then we shall have failed those very same young people. If we hide under illusions of rhetoric and the comfort of denial, we haven’t helped anyone anywhere.

As Senator Kerry himself once famously said, ‘How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?’ In other words, how do we sit by and do nothing when American lives are being wasted? When we can’t even say it?

Senator Kerry delivers the Democratic Radio Address!

2007-02-11T08:38:00.000-06:00

Listen HERE for the John Kerry radio address!

John Kerry understands Iraq. He understands America! He serves America and the state of Massachusetts! Keep on Coming John! We have your back!

Bob

Still Supporting Senator Kerry!

2007-02-05T14:00:00.000-06:00

I read a particularly moving article in the New York Times today. About Senator John Kerry.

In case there is any question about where this blogger and others still stand that now he has announced he is not seeking the Presidency in 2008, I still stand with Senator Kerry!

I may not be regularly blogging here, but I shall write from time to time about the junior Senator from the great State of Massachusetts.

Senator Kerry has fought for this country in the waters of Vietnam and the waters of the United States Senate. And he is continuing that fight. He is working at Set a Deadline to do exactly that. Set a Deadline to end our involvement in the mistake that is Iraq.

It is time to stop sending Americans to die for another Mistake.

This is not about a President Kerry. This is about a brave Senator from Massachusetts who works hard for what he believes, who has been able to see the United States as others see us and is unwilling to hide under the false veneer of 'my country right or wrong', but rather who believes in my country if right and if wrong make it right.

Keep on coming Senator! We continue to have your back!

Bob

A new blog for me.

2007-01-25T11:59:00.000-06:00

I would like to say good-bye and hello to all of my friends.

As suggested, I have started a new blog called Making a Ripple on blogspot. I do not know whether this ripple I create in the blogosphere will ever amount to anything more than that. But together we can dream of the waves we can create when good people put their hearts to important purposes.

I do not know where this road will go. But you are welcome to visit and help me along the way.

Senator Kerry shall not be running for President in 2008. But his work is also just continuing in the Senate. From Katrina to Iraq, this nation is challenged each day with new problems that have been addressed in ways that need to be changed.

Hopefully, I shall be able to add to that discussion.

Thank you all for your visits, your participation, and the enthusiasm I have shared and continue to share with fellow Kerrycrats who shared dreams and enthusiasm for a great American Hero.

Bob

Thank You Senator Kerry!

2007-01-24T16:17:00.000-06:00

Senator Kerry has bowed out of the 2008 Presidential race.

As reported, he stated on the floor of the Senate:

"Two years ago I sought the presidency to lead us on a different course.
I'm proud of the campaign that we ran," Kerry said.
"We came close, Mr.
President, certainly close enough to be tempted to try again," he continued.
"There are powerful reasons to want to continue that fight now. But I've
concluded that this isn't the time for me to mount a presidential campaign. It
is the time to put my energy to work as part of the majority in the Senate, to
do all I can to end this war and strengthen our security.
"The people of
Massachusetts have given me an incredible privilege to serve, and I intend to
work here to change a policy in Iraq that threatens all that I have cared about
and fought for since I came home from Vietnam," he said."

Thank you Senator Kerry! You have given all of your energy to this nation. Whether it was in Vietnam, for the State of Massachusetts, or as the 2004 Democratic Nominee, you sacrificed your own interests for what you believed was better for America!

After serving in Vietnam, you came back to testify about the wrong-headedness of our war effort in Southeast Asia. It was the patriotic thing to do. Some people didn't understand. There will always be some who believe that dissent is unpatriotic. The rest of us understood and applaud you for your courage as a young man.

In 2004 you were attacked and smeared by a right-wing machine without scruples. You chose the high road. Maybe you would have gained votes by jumping into the mud with the swift boaters but you did not believe American politics would be better for it.

In November, 2004, when the election in Ohio was decided amid the foul-ups and voter machine problems, you also chose the high road. Choosing to move on from the election was an act of Statesmanship, not an act of weakness. It is the job of Americans to repair the electoral process. It was not the time or place to throw this country into chaos. You again chose the high road. Some may differ with me, but I applauded you for your courage at doing what you viewed as best for the nation, although not necessarily best for you.

In 2006, after a botched joke, the swift boaters came out in an organized fashion attacking and distorting your words. This attack was coordinated from the highest offices in the land. Initially lashing out, you became convinced that it was best to get out of the spotlight in order to insure that Democrats would be elected to office. That the Veterans you supported would succeed. You sacrificed your own future for the benefit of those Democrats and for the instruments of change to proceed in this nation. Some may criticize the wisdom of your decisions, but we understood that your priority was others. As it always has been.

So today, you once again have stepped away from the race for Presidency, accepting the wisdom of others that you could be more effective this election as a United States Senator from Massachusetts working to end our mistaken war in Iraq rather than pursuing the Presidency in a difficult race. Once again we applaud you.

We cannot help but be disappointed knowing that this nation will not be led by a certain John Kerry from Massachusetts. But we are heartened that you shall be there for us, leading this nation on the floor of the Senate with an effort to make America better for future generations.

We had your back on this website since November, 2004. We shall continue to have your back going forwards. That is the way it is with brothers.

Bob

Hope is On The Way!

2007-01-22T22:15:00.000-06:00

Recalling the 2004 election, I remember the thoughts of possibilities.

The possibility of having a President who was qualified to lead the nation. The possibility of restoring America to its rightful place in the world as a beacon of liberty and not an abuser of civil liberties. Restoring reason to an America that seemed to have become tone deaf to international relations. So many things that could have been that had to wait.

The Presidential field is crowded. John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and who knows who else will announce. And yet it is imperative that Senator Kerry join the race.

I really don't know which way the Senator from Massachusetts will decide on this difficult question. I only know that a lot is in the balance.

Senator Kerry has been the target of attacks from the right wing dating back to the days of Richard Nixon.
This is a photo of John O'Neill and Richard Nixon and Charles Colson at the time of the Nixon Presidency.

As reported about this creation of O'Neill:

"Former Nixon special counsel Chuck Colson has said that Kerry was an "articulate" and "credible leader" of those veterans calling for an end to the Vietnam War and therefore "an immediate target of the Nixon administration." As such, the Nixon administration found it necessary to "create a counterfoil" to Kerry. Colson recounted, "We found a vet named John O'Neill and formed a group called Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace. We had O'Neill meet the President, and we did everything we could do to boost his group." Articles from the April 21 edition of the Houston Chronicle and the June 17, 2003, edition of The Boston Globe confirm close ties between O'Neill and the Nixon administration."

Senator Kerry has been the victim of endless attacks originating with the Dirty Tricks of Richard Nixon and continuing on in the present with the Lee Atwater protege Karl Rove.

John Kerry's greatest crime was his ability to serve our nation and earn medals in combat only to return and tell America that it was a mistake.

There is nobody running for the Presidency that has that type of credibility.

The Swift-Boating of Senator John Kerry continues to this day. As he fights for America to stop sending young American men and women to die for another mistake--Iraq.

Nobody running for President has that level of credibility.

Senator Kerry has a Senate record. You probably can find evidence of votes on different sides of issues as votes are taken out of context.

But that doesn't really matter.

Senator Obama made a great speech at the 2004 election and it is said he has "charisma".

But that doesn't really matter.

Senator Hillary Clinton would be the first woman President.

But that doesn't really matter.

Senator Bill Richardson would be the first Hispanic in the White House.

But that doesn't really matter.

Nothing matters as much as the war. And nobody has the credibility of Senator John Kerry at once again leading our nation out of a war of choice, started on misrepresentations. Americans are again dying for a mistake.

Senator Kerry is right about the environment. He is right on Women's Issues, Katrina, Civil Rights, Abortion rights, and the proper role of science in our schools and the role of religion in government. He is right on all of these issues and more.

But his understanding of the war in Iraq is unmatched by any candidate.

John Kerry may not be the most charismatic candidate. But when I have heard him speak I have found him to be full of charisma. He may not be the most nimble in delivering his lines or jokes in speeches; but when I have heard him speak, I have heard insight into complex issues facing our nation. He may have a wealthy wife; but when I have heard him address poverty, I have heard him speak about the need to provide healthcare for children and to address the problems facing the hardest-hit after Katrina.

Senator Kerry may indeed demur on running. He may decide that the pundits and political hacks have destroyed his chance for the White House. If so, that shall be our loss.

It is my hope, it is my prayer, that Senator Kerry will find it in himself to make that sacrifice of time and money. To once again brush off those that would choose to smear an American hero, and instead wade ahead, through the mud of politics and the lies and smears to reach out to all of us once again, sharing with us once more his dreams, hopes and aspirations for America.

America can become America once more.

Keep on Coming John! Run John, Run! America is waiting!

Bob

Jonah Goldberg: "A Contrary Indicator"

2007-01-18T23:48:00.000-06:00

There is a wonderful scene in my old favorite movie Little Big Man where Custer asks Dustin Hoffman about going into Little Big Horn. Custer doesn't trust Hoffman because he is a white man who was captured by the Indians and then once again rejoined the cavalry as a scout.

Hoffman warns Custer not to go into Little Big Horn because he tells Custer, there will be Indians all along the ridges who will swoop down and kill all of the cavalry.

But Custer cannot be swayed by the scout played by Hoffman and assumes that since the scout had been living with the Indians, he should do the opposite. He figured Hoffman was trying to trick him, so he decided the wise thing was to go ahead and go into Little Big Horn. The rest as they say is 'history'.

Jonah Goldberg, the National Review Columnist has been wrong so many times, it is useful to read what he has to say, to find out the truth on matters.

Today, Jonah took the opportunity to throw some more mud at Senator John Kerry. Jonah Goldberg doesn't think Senator Kerry should run for President.

He states:

"The simple fact is that John Kerry never should have gotten the nomination in 2004 anyway. He stumbled into it after tripping over the crater left behind by Howard Dean's self-destruction. Democrats figured Kerry was the most "electable," forgetting that electability is often cover for spinelessness and, in voters, is usually based on the hope that someone else will like the guy even if you don't. Quick: Ask yourself what Kerry has accomplished after more than two decades in the Senate. Kerry himself couldn't even come up with a good answer to that. Even former Democratic National Committee chair Terry McAuliffe labels the Kerry campaign a case of "political malpractice."

In 2008, the election won't be a referendum on President Bush, and without Kerry's advantage of being "not Bush," renominating a dull-witted Boston aristocrat would be malpractice on the order of picking an accountant as your heart surgeon.
Democrats convinced themselves that Kerry was a war hero slandered by the Swift Boat Vets for Truth and Karl Rove. But the basic fact is that Kerry was a unique case. Fine, he served honorably in Vietnam. Good for him. But he returned home to disparage the troops and the United States and build a lifelong political career not on his service abroad but on his protest at home."

John Kerry earned the nomination in 2004.

It is amusing how this right-wing political pundit turns two decades of experience in the Senate as some sort of liability.

Terry McAuliffe attacked John Kerry's campaign strategy. He did not attack Senator Kerry.

Dull-witted? Aristocrat? Democrats convinced he was a war hero? Slandered? Do we need to debunk the lies once again?

But Goldberg has been wrong on so many other things.

Eavesdropping abuse by the President? What did Goldberg have to say?

"At first, I thought this NSA story was a big deal on the merits, and I wrote that Bush should have asked to fix the law rather than work his way around it. I still think that, in a perfect world, the White House would try to get the laws it needs from Congress. Nevertheless, after 9/11, Congress declared that "the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism" and authorized "all necessary and appropriate force" against al Qaeda. That strikes me as ample justification for tapping phone calls between al Qaeda associates in Cleveland and Cairo."

Wrong Mr. Goldberg. The President was required to go to the FISA courts. Violation of laws are indeed impeachable offenses when done by the President. In our country nobody is above the law.

And what did Goldberg have to say about Abu Ghraib? Did he condemn the abuse?

No. Jonah was wrong again! The biggest crime he could see was that the press actually released the photos.

"The Abu Ghraib images are so shocking, so offensive, and so sensational they will in all likelihood make America's job in Iraq and the Middle East immeasurably harder for a long time to come. That means more American deaths — such as Berg's — more Iraqi deaths and a diminished future for that country and that region.
I don't support censorship. The government has almost no role in this. But if CBS showed the same self-restraint it did for, say, the Danny Pearl video, it could still have reported the story shedding light instead of heat.

I originally wrote that CBS should be "ashamed" for airing the photos. I now concede that might be too harsh. But, in conceding that, I'm showing more reflection and self-examination than I've seen from the entire media establishment amid the Abu Ghraib hysteria."

And what about Global Warming? Is Jonah alarmed or annoyed at the "liberals"?

Jonah stated, discussing Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth:

"Hence the irony of the title An Inconvenient Truth. It is the green scare that has no patience for inconvenient truths. For example, Gore blames the disappearing snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro on global warming, but a study in Nature magazine identified the clear-cutting of surrounding moisture-rich forests as the culprit. In the famously fact-checked New Yorker, editor David Remnick pens a love letter to Gore in which he laments that Earth will "likely be an uninhabitable planet" if we don't heed Gore's jeremiads. Oh ... come ... on!
This is just a small taste of the millenarian battiness running through the green scare. Sure, a one- or two-degree-per-century rise in average global temperatures may have unpleasant consequences — with some pleasant ones as well — but in what study did The New Yorker's fact-checkers verify that Earth will become uninhabitable? Moreover, the greens' proposed solutions to global warming are even more otherworldly. Reducing global carbon-dioxide emissions to 60 percent of 1990 levels before 2050, while China, India, and (hopefully) Africa modernize, is inconceivable, ill-conceived and also immoral because it would consign generations to poverty."

Well wrong again Mr. Goldberg! Global warming is real and the Arctic ice is melting!

How about torture? Goldberg is wrong again! He uses 'double-speak' to justify torture by Americans.

He writes:

"Sullivan complains that calling torture “aggressive interrogation techniques” doesn’t make torture any better. Fair enough. But calling aggressive interrogation techniques “torture” when they’re not doesn’t make such techniques any worse.

Still, there is a danger that over time we may not be able to tell the difference.

Taboos are the glue of civilization because they define what is beyond the pale in ways mere reason cannot. A nation that frets about violating the rights of murder-plotters when the bomb is ticking is unlikely to violate the rights of decent citizens when the bomb is defused.

I suspect this is what motivates so many human-rights activists to exaggerate the abuses and minimize their effectiveness. Slippery-slope arguments aren’t as powerful as moral bullying. Still, their fears aren’t unfounded. Once taboos have been broken, a chaotic search ensues for where to draw the new line, and that line, burdened with precedent and manufactured by politics, rarely holds as firmly as the last. But that is where history has brought us."

How about a "little dunk" Jonah?

Or Katrina? Was it really the biggest failure of the Press as you suggest or perhaps the disaster that still remains of New Orleans is a disaster that should be put at the feet of our own government? Particular Mr. Bush in Washington!

Goldberg writes:

"On a recent edition of Larry King Live, liberal Republican Congressman Christopher Shays, eager to put some distance between himself and the president, explained what he thinks is George Bush’s real albatross. “Let me just say that I think the thing that has hurt the president most is not Iraq. It’s Katrina,” Shays said. “People saw an arrogant but confident administration, but when they saw Katrina, they saw arrogance and frankly incompetence, and that was very unsettling.”

This sentiment is pervasive among Democrats and the press. Time writes matter-of-factly that “the government’s inept response to Hurricane Katrina” is a major liability for Republicans in ‘06. Howard Dean and other Democrats mention Katrina as a staple talking point. That’s certainly fair, given that the bar is set pretty low for what constitutes fair in American politics these days. But it is worth reminding people that the Katrina they think they remember wasn’t the Katrina that actually took place. In fact, it is difficult to think of a bigger media scandal in my lifetime than the fraudulently inaccurate coverage of Hurricane Katrina."

Fraudulently inaccurate coverage? Have you been to New Orleans recently? While media mistakes were made, it is easy to attack the messenger rather than the underlying failure of President Bush. Sort of like attacking the poor fellow who used his cell phone to record the botched hanging of Saddam rather than criticizing the event itself.

Goldberg is even opposed to the government negotiating with drug companies for lower prices for seniors. What is wrong with a little negotiation like Wal-Mart does with its own suppliers. Jonah is wrong again and writes:

"The subtlety of mind behind the Democratic push to have the government “negotiate” — i.e. dictate — drug prices can be summarized in a statement by Robert M. Hayes, president of something called the Medicare Rights Center: “It only makes sense that if the industries do less well, the taxpayers and the consumers will do better.”

By all means then, let us burn these industries down and salt the earth where they stood, for then we will live in consumer nirvana!"

No Jonah. Not destroying drug companies. How about just asking them to give American seniors the best price they can? Why must Canadians have better prices and the 'free-traders' are all in a twit trying to prevent 're-importation' of drugs?

So when Jonah Goldberg says John Kerry shouldn't run, I fee confident knowing his prior track record, that this is a positive endorsement of Senator John Kerry!

Kerry is indeed a true war hero who has spent twenty years in the Senate in service to America! Senator Kerry understands what it is like to be sent into war for a mistake and will be working to correct our mistaken foreign policy. He understands the importance of healthcare for all Americans, he understands the need to have an environmental policy that addresses Global Warming! He is prepared to meet the needs of cities like New Orleans when they face national disasters. He will be appointing qualified people not cronies to higher office.

And above all he shall be following the dictates of the Constitution!

"Run John, Run!" We have got your back!

Bob

Art Buchwald (October 20, 1925- January 17, 2007)

2007-01-18T16:19:00.000-06:00

Art Buchwald has died.

America has lost a great writer who knew how to make you smile when you thought there was nothing funny left to laugh about. We shall miss him dearly.

Buchwald has a fascinating biography

"Art Buchwald was the son of Joseph Buchwald, a curtain manufacturer, with three sisters: Alice, Edith, and Doris. He grew up in a residential community in the Queens Borough of New York City. He did not graduate from high school, and ran away from home at age seventeen.

He wanted to join the Marines but was too young, so he lied about his age and bribed a drunk with half a pint of whisky to sign as his legal guardian. From October 1942 to October 1945, he served with the U.S. Marine Corps, attached to the Fourth Marine Air Wing. He spent two years in the Pacific Theater and was discharged from the service as a sergeant.

On his return, Buchwald enrolled at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles on the G.I. Bill. At USC he was managing editor of the campus magazine Wampus; he also wrote a column for the college newspaper, the Daily Trojan.

In 1948 he left USC, without having earned a degree, and bought a one-way ticket to Paris. Eventually, Buchwald got a job as a correspondent for Variety Magazine in Paris. In January 1949, he took a sample column, on which he had been working, to the offices of the European edition of The New York Herald Tribune. Titled Paris After Dark, it was filled with scraps of offbeat information about Parisian nightlife. Buchwald was hired and joined the editorial staff. His column caught on quickly, and Buchwald followed it in 1951 with another column, Mostly About People. They were fused into one under the title Europe’s Lighter Side. The column in which Buchwald explains Thanksgiving Day to the French people in 1953 is reprinted every November with ceremonial regularity. Buchwald’s columns soon began to recruit readers on both sides of the Atlantic. On August 24, 1959, TIME magazine, in reviewing the history of the European edition of The Herald Tribune, reported that Buchwald’s column had achieved an "institutional quality."

During this particular time, while in Paris, he became the only correspondent to substantively interview Elvis Presley, both at the Prince de Galles Hotel, where the soon-to-be Sgt. Presley was staying during a week-end off from his Army stint in Germany, as well in places like "Le Lido", where Buchwald witnessed, first hand, Presley's interaction and that of his entourage, with the girls at the world's most famous nightclub. Presley's impromptu performance at the piano, as well as his singing for the showgirls after most of the customers had left the nightclub, became legendary following its inclusion in Buchwald's bestselling book, "I'll always have Paris".

Buchwald returned to the United States in 1962 and is at present syndicated by Tribune Media Services. His column appears in some 300 newspapers."

One of the things he liked to write about was the political scene. I found this column that ran in the March 17, 2005, Washington Post. It is an interesting perspective on the dirt that we now call American politics.

Thank you Art.

It's a Mud Mud Mud Mud World

By Art Buchwald

Thursday, March 17, 2005; Page C02

The truth is that there is more mudslinging going on in the country than ever before. But where do people get the mud?

One of the most successful mud-making factories in America is in Washington. I visited it the other day. The head of marketing, Ike Seller, showed me around.

Next to the factory was a railroad siding, where a freight car was pouring unrefined mud into the basement.

"Where do you get the mud?"

"From all over," Seller bragged. "We make the best mud of any factory in the land. When our customers sling it, it sticks."

"How's business?" I asked.

"Better than ever. We're now working three shifts."

"Is there a shortage of mud in America?"

"There is always a shortage of mud, particularly in a democracy. We got a big surge during the 2004 elections, when the Swift boat veterans ordered tons of it to sling at John Kerry."

"I knew they were slinging mud at Kerry, but I didn't know where the mud came from."

"We have a $10 million contract with the same Swift boat people for mud they can throw at AARP, the senior citizens' lobby that's fighting Bush's Social Security plans."

"What are they doing with the mud?"

"They use it to show that AARP is for gay marriages and against our boys in the armed services."

"Does the president know about the contract?"

"No, because his Social Security advisers in the White House want him to pretend he is above slinging mud at anyone who doesn't agree with his reforms."

We were given photo ID passes, then we walked through a door marked "Top Secret."

Seller said, "This is where we manufacture our mud balls. Each has to be perfect. We don't want the slinger to miss his target."

"Who are those people over there?"

"That's where we test the mud balls."

"But aren't you throwing them at senior citizens?"

"Yes, but they're paid $10 a day to be targets. It supplements their Social Security checks."

"Do you provide mud for the Democrats as well?" I asked.

"Of course. Mudslinging is the mother's milk of politics. There are no great mudslingers in the Democratic Party, and their only real target at the moment is Congressman Tom DeLay. The party is still waiting to see what Howard Dean will do."

"Do you supply mud for nonpolitical clients?"

"Either mud or dirt, whichever they want. The scandal sheets will take any kind, as long they can use it against Hollywood stars."

I said, "The Star, Enquirer and Globe must be your best customers."

"They are, and the beauty is, they will buy rejects that People magazine won't use."

We were coming to the end of the tour. Our guide gave us a bag of dirt and said, "Just add water and throw it at anyone you don't like."

The bag of dirt is back in my office. I can't wait to mix it up and sling it at one of my targets.

© 2005, Tribune Media Services"

Buchwald was an inspiration to many who cared about what was going on in America and the need to make things better.

As Buchwald stated shortly before his death,

"What's beautiful about death is you can say anything you want to, as long as you don't lord it over others that you know something they don't," he wrote in his March 14 column. "The thing that is very important, and why I'm writing this, is that whether they like it or not, everyone is going to go. The big question we still have to ask is not where we're going, but what were we doing here in the first place?"

We will miss you Art. There will be a few more smiles in Heaven with you around.

Bob

Obama Exploring Presidential Bid for 2008

2007-01-16T22:15:00.000-06:00

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois is moving closer to announcing his candidacy for President.

As reported:

"At 10:06 a.m. Tuesday, Mr. Obama filed papers with the Federal Election Commission to open a presidential exploratory committee. After disclosing his decision on his Web site — a friendly venue where he would face no questions — he immediately began making telephone calls to key Democratic leaders in states with early contests in the party’s 2008 nominating calendar."

This blogger is a big fan of Senator Obama. He was the 2004 Keynote speaker whose choice was facilitated by the John Kerry campaign. He is indeed interested in many of the same issues supported by Senator Kerry.

While polls show him within striking distance of Hillary Clinton, we should all remember this poll that was taken in March, 2002, for the 2004 election:

"Al Gore (26 percent) Hillary Clinton (19 percent) Tom Daschle (8 percent) Joe Lieberman (7 percent) Dick Gephardt (7 percent) John Kerry (6 percent), John Edwards (2 percent) and Howard Dean (1 percent.)"

Of course, we are now even closer to the November, 2008, election than when that poll was taken before the 2004 election.

But the lesson is the same.

Polls are not to be ignored. But the public at this time is not locked into any particular candidate. Candidates rise and fall in the public's assessment.

As our nation continues to be tragically engaged in a war of choice based on distortions of the truth and as we continue to count our dead and wounded, more Americans will realize that there was only one candidate that has the first-hand experience of a young man going to war and returning asking our leadership to stop sending our young citizens to die for a mistake.

Senator John Kerry is uniquely qualified to be President! It does not detract from my respect for Senator Obama, my admiration for Senator Edwards, my appreciation for Senators Clinton or Dodd. It is just in these difficult times, it takes a special American to bring America back home. To bring us home to the American values and respect for our Constitution that has been cheapened by the current Administration.

Senator Kerry is up for that job!

"Run John, Run!"

Still Dreaming After All of These Years!

2007-01-15T21:48:00.000-06:00

Happy Martin Luther King Birthday!

If you haven't listened to the "I have a dream" speech, listen today.

Americans are still dreaming.

Dreaming of a day when love will replace hate and peace will replace war as the news of the day.

"Free at last, free at last. Thank God almighty! Free at Last!"

Bob

"The Tar Baby" Strategy

2007-01-10T14:37:00.000-06:00

President Bush is preparing to unveil his latest twist on military strategy for the Iraq conflict. According to this news report:

"President Bush will tell the American people tonight that the United States can safely withdraw its troops from Iraq only after it augments those who are already there with about 20,000 more, his aides said today."

This approach is contrary to the just released findings of the Iraq Study Group which reported:

"Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation. A senior American general told us that adding U.S. troops might temporarily help limit violence in a highly localized area. However,past experience indicates that the violence would simply rekindle as soon as U.S. forces are moved to another area. As another American general told us, if the Iraqi government does not make political progress, “all the troops in the world will not provide security.” Meanwhile,
America’s military capacity is stretched thin: we do not have the troops or equipment to make a substantial, sustained increase in our troop presence. Increased deployments to Iraq would also necessarily hamper our ability to provide adequate resources for our efforts in Afghanistan or respond to crises around the world."

In other words, the President's own bipartisan advisory panel advised against any increase in troop levels.

So where did the President get this idea? The surge idea probably came from Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute.

Mr. Kagan wrote about a possible "surge" of troops in the Washington Post on December 27, 2006, along with retired Army General Jack Keane. President Bush's privatization of war extends so far to include private consultants from the AEI, over the United States Institue of Peace, which according to their website is

"The United States Institute of Peace is an independent, nonpartisan, national institution established and funded by Congress. Its mission is to help:

* Prevent and resolve violent international conflicts
* Promote post-conflict stability and democratic transformations
* Increase peacebuilding capacity, tools, and intellectual capital worldwide"

But why should the President listen to anything as 'cuddly' as a Peace Institute, when he could listen to a former professor of Military History?

Back to Kagan's plan. And the President's.

Kagan and Keane's plan:

"U.S. forces working with Iraqi troops can clear neighborhoods fairly quickly. Unfortunately, past endeavors such as Operation Together Forward relied too much on that ability. We sent forces into the city that were large enough to clear a few neighborhoods at a time but not large enough to maintain the security they had established. Any plan for bringing security to Baghdad must include forces for the "hold" phase as well as the "clear" phase."

In other words, Kagan recognizes that American soldiers can clear areas but now is proposing that they "hold" them. In other words, act as police in the middle of the sectarian violence of civil war in Iraq.

This is a recipe for failure. A recipe for more death, more injuries, and more cost to the brave American men and women serving our nation in uniform.

One of my favorite columnists, Maureen Dowd, writes in the New York Times today of the "story" of Iraq. (subscription required) She comments:

" At times, the American-Iraqi relationship seems so cursed that the most apt metaphor would be a fairy tale like “The Golden Goose” of the Brothers Grimm, in which a girl sees a bling bird that belongs to a despised boy and tries to pluck a feather for herself, but instead her hand gets stuck fast to the goose. Her sister comes along, thinking she can snatch a feather, but she gets stuck as soon as she touches the first girl. Then there’s a Surge, when the third sister rushes to help but ends up stuck in a daisy chain of disaster.

With the Surge, as with the invasion of Iraq, W. is like the presumptuous date “who reserves a hotel room and then asks you to the prom,” as my friend Dana Calvo put it."

But the fairy tale isn't about a Brothers Grimm story. It is the famous Uncle Remus Tale of Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby.(Image from ClutterGirl.com)

As the Tar Baby story relates:

"One day Brer Fox thought of how Brer Rabbit had been cutting up his capers and bouncing around until he'd come to believe that he was the boss of the whole gang. Brer Fox thought of a way to lay some bait for that uppity Brer Rabbit.

He went to work and got some tar and mixed it with some turpentine. He fixed up a contraption that he called a Tar-Baby. When he finished making her, he put a straw hat on her head and sat the little thing in the middle of the road. Brer Fox, he lay off in the bushes to see what would happen.

Well, he didn't have to wait long either, 'cause by and by Brer Rabbit came pacing down the road--lippity-clippity, clippity-lippity--just as sassy as a jaybird. Brer Fox, he lay low. Brer Rabbit came prancing along until he saw the Tar-Baby and then he sat back on his hind legs like he was astonished. The Tar-Baby just sat there, she did, and Brer Fox, he lay low.

"Good morning!" says Brer Rabbit, says he. "Nice weather we're having this morning," says he.

Tar-Baby didn't say a word, and Brer Fox, he lay low.

"How are you feeling this morning?" says Brer Rabbit, says he.

Brer Fox, he winked his eye real slow and lay low and the Tar-Baby didn't say a thing.

"What is the matter with you then? Are you deaf?" says Brer Rabbit, says he. "Cause if you are, I can holler louder," says he.

The Tar-Baby stayed still and Brer Fox, he lay low.

"You're stuck-up, that's what's wrong with you. You think you're too good to talk to me," says Brer Rabbit, says he. "And I'm going to cure you, that's what I'm going to do," says he.

Brer Fox started to chuckle in his stomach, he did, but Tar-Baby didn't say a word.

"I'm going to teach you how to talk to respectable folks if it's my last act," says Brer Rabbit, says he. "If you don't take off that hat and say howdy, I'm going to bust you wide open," says he.

Tar-Baby stayed still and Brer Fox, he lay low.

Brer Rabbit kept on asking her why she wouldn't talk and the Tar-Baby kept on saying nothing until Brer Rabbit finally drew back his fist, he did, and blip--he hit the Tar-Baby on the jaw. But his fist stuck and he couldn't pull it loose. The tar held him. But Tar-Baby, she stayed still, and Brer Fox, he lay low.

"If you don't let me loose, I'm going to hit you again," says Brer Rabbit, says he, and with that he drew back his other fist and blap--he hit the Tar-Baby with the other hand and that one stuck fast too.

Tar-Baby she stayed still, and Brer Fox, he lay low.

"Turn me loose, before I kick the natural stuffing out of you," says Brer Rabbit, says he, but the Tar-Baby just sat there.

She just held on and then Brer Rabbit jumped her with both his feet. Brer Fox, he lay low. Then Brer Rabbit yelled out that if that Tar-Baby didn't turn him loose, he was going to butt her crank-sided. Then he butted her and his head got stuck.

Brer Box walked out from behind the bushes and strolled over to Brer Rabbit, looking as innocent as a mockingbird.

"Howdy, Brer Rabbit," says Brer Fox, says he. "You look sort of stuck up this morning," says he. And he rolled on the ground and laughed and laughed until he couldn't laugh anymore.

By and by he said, "Well, I expect I got you this time, Brer Rabbit," says he. "Maybe I don't, but I expect I do. You've been around here sassing after me a mighty long time, but now it's the end.

And then you're always getting into something that's none of your business," says Brer Fox, says he. "Who asked you to come and strike up a conversation with this Tar-Baby? And who stuck you up the way you are? Nobody in the round world. You just jammed yourself into that Tar-Baby without waiting for an invitation," says Brer Fox, says he. "There you are and there you'll stay until I fix up a brushpile and fire it up, "cause I'm going to barbecue you today, for sure," says Brer Fox, says he."

So tonight, the President of the United States is going to ask Americans to send some more soldiers to get stuck in the tar-baby of Iraq.

Maybe if we just butt our head into it, we can get our hands and feet out!

Or maybe we should be doing what Senator Kerry has suggested, redeploying our troops:

"We have already tried a trimmed-down version of the McCain plan of indefinitely increasing troop levels. We sent 15,000 more troops to Baghdad last summer, and today the escalating civil war is even worse. You could put 100,000 more troops in tomorrow and you're only going to add to the number of casualties until Iraqis sit down together at a bargaining table and compromise. The barrel of a gun can't answer the question of how you force Iraqi nationalism to trump sectarian loyalty.

The only hope for stability lies in pushing Iraqis to forge a sustainable political agreement on federalism, distributing oil revenues and neutralizing sectarian militias. And that will happen only if we set a deadline to redeploy our troops."

Thank you Senator Kerry for providing some reason in the midst of what appears to be a developing American tragedy.

We need Senator Kerry's leadership at the helm of this nation. To provide reason when folly is adopted as our foreign policy.

Keep on coming John! We have got your back!

Bob

"Run John, Run!"

2007-01-08T22:07:00.000-06:00

Senator John Kerry is deciding about another run for the Presidency.

As reported today in the Boston Globe:

WASHINGTON _ After two years of sending strong signals about a second run for the presidency, Senator John F. Kerry has held no public political events in more than two months, even as his potential rivals ramp up their own campaigns.

Behind the scenes, Kerry has been more active, hiring several top operatives and hosting several major fund-raisers with Democratic activists, including a breakfast yesterday in New York City and a birthday event at his Beacon Hill home last month where he raised $250,000. Aides to the Massachusetts Democrat said he is still mulling whether he should run again for president in 2008, with a decision likely to come before the end of the month.

But Kerry’s low public profile in recent weeks has fueled speculation in political circles that the 2004 presidential nominee will forego another run, in recognition of the difficult task he would have in convincing primary voters to turn to him a second time.

``I wouldn’t be surprised if he sees the handwriting on the wall,’’ said Alan Wolfe, a political science professor at Boston College. ``I don’t see any chance of him getting the nomination. The only question is, does he think he has a chance?’’

To that end, Kerry has kept up his contacts with major fund-raisers through a series of meetings with his finance committee. He has a top-tier Democratic operative, Ed Reilly, running his political operation, and has a potential campaign team in place that includes former top Democratic National Committee aides John Giesser and Jackson ``Jay’’ Dunn.

Through his Senate office and his political action committee, Kerry has recently signed on several prominent political aides. Theo Yedinsky, who ran Kerry’s New Hampshire operation in 2004, is joining the PAC, along with Erik Smith, who was a spokesman for former representative Richard A. Gephardt. Vincent Morris, a former New York Post reporter who was communications director for outgoing Washington mayor Anthony Williams,joined Kerry’s Senate staff yesterday.

There are plenty of nay-sayers.

The polls have not been kind to Senator Kerry. The Swift Boaters are still out there spinning their web of lies and distortions, ignoring Senator Kerry's leadership and military experience.

John, please run for President!

You cannot become President unless you enter the race. You will not be able to shape the discussion unless you are at the table. There really isn't anything to lose. But there is everything to gain.

As President Bush prepares to launch his "surge", only you will have the credibility of asking our leadership when they will stop sending brave young American men and women to Iraq to die for a mistake.

$100 billion for reconstruction in Iraq?

How much is being spent to reconstruct New Orleans? How much is being spent to bring the 9th Ward back to life? To repair the levees? To restore the wetlands preventing the loss of the Gulf Coast adjacent to New Orleans?

There are many goals in life that seem unreachable. You are a dark horse Senator Kerry! You have been written off by the pundits who check the latest polls on the latest rage for the Presidency. Many seek form for the Presidency while you offer substance. Many seek the newest fad, while you indeed were last year's nominee.

But our nation doesn't need trendy. Our nation doesn't need just a new face. Our nation needs wisdom that comes with experience. Understanding of war that comes from living through it as a soldier. Our nation needs your leadership at our helm to guide us through these troubled waters. America needs the very best that you offer our country!

You have navigated difficult waters in your past. You have trudged through the mud that was Vietnam and you shall have to trudge through the mud of American politics. But your journey started years ago and hasn't yet revealed its destination. We are here waiting to slog through the difficult time ahead to work to make your pursuit of the Presidency the success this nation deserves.

Keep on Coming John! And keep on Running! We have got your Back!

Bob

More on Purple Hearts!

2007-01-05T07:55:00.000-06:00

Senator John Kerry is a true American hero.

And I am sick and tired of those who lurk and attack American heros. Avoiding the important issues that face America. Issues like raising the minimum wage, dealing with global warming, supporting stem cell research to save disease, protecting religious liberty in America, and getting us out of Iraq. The Swift Boaters wear blinders, unable to see what is important in America today. They do not find it problematic that their candidate in 2000 and 2004 was a draft-dodger who used family influence to get into the Texas Air National Guard and then failed even to complete his obligations. They are more concerned about the depth of Senator Kerry's injury when he earned his first purple heart. Was it a gash or just a deep scratch?

This is from the USA Today and comes from another decorated Vietnam War veteran. You don't have to take my opinion on this, read his.

"The meaning of a Purple Heart
By David H. Hackworth
The patrol boat slipped quietly up the canal until the eerie silence was suddenly shattered by enemy automatic-weapon fire from both heavily vegetated riverbanks. The U.S. Navy crew instantly responded with a barrage of machine-gun, mortar and grenade-launcher fire while I looked for cover.

But I was in South Vietnam's Mekong Delta, stuck on the deck of the ultimate moving target, and there was no place to hide. The only protection I had from the singing slugs was my paper-thin U.S. Army jungle-fatigue jacket.

Soon, U.S. Navy helicopter gunships were hosing down the Viet Cong, who were dug in no more than 100 yards from us. Then we continued our surreal surf upstream through the miasma of cordite and smoke.

A Navy petty officer asked, "How's it going, colonel?"

"I gotta tell you, chief, this isn't my bag," I responded.

"What just happened is pretty much standard down here, sir," he replied. "Welcome to the Brown Water Navy."

This Apocalypse Now-type vignette took place in 1970, when I was running the advisory side of the 44th Special Zone. Along with primarily U.S. Army Special Forces and South Vietnamese Ranger units, a number of Brown Water naval units also fell under my control. Our combined job was to cut off the movement of communist troops and supplies out of Cambodia.

Staying close to troops

Since it was always my standard drill as a commander to stay in close touch with what was going down, I spent a lot of time in the boonies with the troops under my control. But during that year, I did the small-boat thing only twice. Why? Because as an infantry grunt, I simply didn't like the odds. And since those hair-raising trips, my steel pot has always been off to those sailors.

Now a number of war veterans have picked the campaign-stumping season to question the first Purple Heart that Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry received during his four months as a small-boat skipper — where one day out on Vietnam's rivers and canals was a lifetime, and four months had to have been an eternity.

That Purple Heart was one of three awarded to Kerry. (He also won Silver and Bronze stars.) His critics — who incidentally never served under Kerry on his swift boat — are saying his particular wound wasn't serious enough to warrant the award.

But the Pentagon regulation governing the Purple Heart reads: "A wound which necessitates treatment by a medical officer and which is received in action with an enemy."

So — minor or major — a wound is a wound.

Does that fact cheapen the value of the medal? During the ongoing conflict in Iraq, several U.S. military grunts have complained to me that while their bravery has gone generally unrecognized, the awards system has been unfairly tipped in favor of officers. In fact, I've written about an Army general who put himself in for a Silver Star merely for being in Iraq. And an Air Force bomber crew received the Distinguished Flying Cross for dropping a bomb from 30,000 feet onto a home where Saddam Hussein was believed to be hiding.

More recently, plans to award Bronze Stars to the Army's 800th Military Police Brigade were dropped after a report by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba and photographs were released about prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib.

The awards system has always been fraught with abuse, but for anyone who has ever served in combat, the difference between earning a Purple Heart and death is, indeed, very slim.

Former Navy doctor Louis Letson clearly recalls treating Kerry and removing a small piece of metal from his arm with forceps, bandaging that wound and returning him to duty. And when Kerry was hit, he was certainly engaged with the enemy and in harm's way.

In fact, if the fragment Letson removed had been slightly larger and struck the lieutenant between the eyes, Kerry's award would no longer be a current-events issue — since he'd be planted in Arlington National Cemetery instead of campaigning to be the next occupant of the Oval Office nearby.

Medals were prized

Reports say Kerry was an aloof, gung-ho, super-ambitious, young stud whose eye was already on the White House and whose role model was Navy war hero Jack Kennedy. Like a lot of soldiers and sailors who valiantly served in Vietnam, he was eager to come home, but probably just as eager to scoop up the golden gongs that came his way. It's also worth noting that medals for officers were especially prized as magic steppingstones that could help propel the recipients onward and upward.

Under the circumstances, it wouldn't have made sense for Kerry to ask his commander to rescind the automatic orders for a Purple Heart — our country's first decoration. (It was instituted in 1782 and awarded originally only for bravery in combat. Subsequently, it was changed to honor our wounded and dead.)

On an earlier tour in Vietnam, one of my gallant soldiers, a draftee named Don Wallace, picked up seven Purple Hearts in less than a year without ever being hospitalized. Most of "Ole Magnet Butt's" wounds were easily patched up by "Doc" Holley, our battalion surgeon. But any one of them could have shut off his lights forever.

Jerry Sullivan, another trooper in the same "Hardcore Battalion," was wounded just once. He spent five years in hospitals and still lives in agony.

Whose Purple Hearts were more deserved? Should Wallace have measured his hits and turned down Purple Hearts for his smaller wounds? I don't think so.

But I do think that Kerry's Purple Heart wouldn't be considered problematic if he weren't a presidential candidate. The grousers, to a man, seem to be simply passing on secondhand bilge that they ought to stow in their sea bags and lay off.

The Purple Heart deserves less petty quantifying and more respect.

No one should play politics with any warrior's wounds.

David H. Hackworth, a retired U.S. Army colonel, is a King Features syndicated columnist and author of the recent best seller about Vietnam, Steel My Soldiers' Hearts. He was awarded eight Purple Hearts during 26 years as a soldier."

Thank you Senator Kerry for your service to America!

America needs your leadership at the helm.

There will always be those who will throw mud and smear patriots that challenge the staus quo. But your voice is needed in America!

Keep on Coming John! We have got your back!

Bob

About Senator Kerry's First Purple Heart

2007-01-04T21:28:00.000-06:00

In the 2004 election, Senator John Kerry did not pay much or enough attention to the Swift Boat Veterans who were a front for the Republican Party attack machine.

As has been reported:

"A group funded by the biggest Republican campaign donor in Texas began running an attack ad Aug. 5 in which former Swift Boat veterans claim Kerry lied to get one of his two decorations for bravery and two of his three purple hearts.
But the veterans who accuse Kerry are contradicted by Kerry's former crewmen, and by Navy records.

One of the accusers says he was on another boat "a few yards" away during the incident which won Kerry the Bronze Star, but the former Army lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water that day backs Kerry's account. In an Aug. 10 opinion piece in the conservative Wall Street Journal , Rassmann (a Republican himself) wrote that the ad was "launched by people without decency" who are "lying" and "should hang their heads in shame."

And on Aug. 19, Navy records came to light also contradicting the accusers. One of the veterans who says Kerry wasn't under fire was himself awarded a Bronze Star for aiding others "in the face of enemy fire" during the same incident."

This report continues:

"Two who appear in the ad say Kerry didn't deserve his first purple heart. Louis Letson, a medical officer and Lieutenant Commander, says in the ad that he knows Kerry is lying about his first purple heart because “I treated him for that.” However, medical records provided by the Kerry campaign to FactCheck.org do not list Letson as the “person administering treatment” for Kerry’s injury on December 3, 1968 . The person who signed this sick call report is J.C. Carreon, who is listed as treating Kerry for shrapnel to the left arm.

In his affidavit, Letson says Kerry's wound was self-inflicted and does not merit a purple heart. But that's based on hearsay, and disputed hearsay at that. Letson says “the crewman with Kerry told me there was no hostile fire, and that Kerry had inadvertently wounded himself with an M-79 grenade.” But the Kerry campaign says the two crewmen with Kerry that day deny ever talking to Letson.

On Aug. 17 the Los Angeles Times quoted Letson as giving a slightly different account than the one in his affidavit. The Times quotes him as saying he heard only third-hand that there had been no enemy fire. According to the Times, Letson said that what he heard about Kerry's wounding came not from other crewmen directly, but through some of his own subordinates. Letson was quoted as saying the information came from crewmen who were "just talking to my guys … There was not a firefight -- that's what the guys related. They didn't remember any firing from shore."

Letson also insisted to the Times that he was the one who treated Kerry, removing a tiny shard of shrapnel from Kerry's arm using a pair of tweezers. Letson said Carreon, whose signature appears on Kerry's medical record, was an enlisted man who routinely made record entries on his behalf. Carreon signed as "HM1," indicating he held the enlisted rank of Hospital Corpsman First Class.

Also appearing in the ad is Grant Hibbard, Kerry’s commanding officer at the time. Hibbard’s affidavit says that he “turned down the Purple Heart request,” and recalled Kerry's injury as a "tiny scratch less than from a rose thorn."

That doesn't quite square with Letson's affidavit, which describes shrapnel "lodged in Kerry's arm" (though "barely.")

Hibbard also told the Boston Globe in an interview in April 2004 that he eventually acquiesced about granting Kerry the purple heart.

Hibbard: I do remember some questions on it. . .I finally said, OK if that's what happened. . . do whatever you want

Kerry got the first purple heart after Hibbard left to return to the US."

Salon.com gives a more complete explanation of Senator Kerry's first Purple Heart:

"Kerry and crewmates blew up the smugglers' beached sampans and then headed back to Cam Ranh Bay. "I never saw where the piece of shrapnel had come from, and the vision of the men running like gazelles haunted me," Kerry continued. "It seemed stupid. My gunner didn't know where the people were when he first started firing. The M-16 bullets had kicked up the sand way to the right of them as he sprayed the beach, slowly walking the line of fire over to where the men had been leaping for cover. I had been shouting directions and trying to un-jam my gun. The third crewman was locked in a personal struggle with the engine, trying to start it. I just shook my head and said, 'Jesus Christ.' It made me wonder if a year of training was worth anything." Kerry, never trying to inflate the incident, called it a "half-ass action." Nevertheless, the escapade introduced Kerry to the V.C. and earned him his first Purple Heart.

As generally understood, the Purple Heart is given to any U.S. citizen wounded in wartime service to the nation. Giving out Purple Hearts increased in 1968 as the United States Navy started sending swift boats up rivers in the Mekong Delta. Sailors -- no longer safe on aircraft carriers or battleships in the Gulf of Tonkin -- were starting to bleed, a lot. Vice Adm. Elmo Zumwalt himself would pin the medal on John Kerry at An Thoi about six weeks after the doctor at the Cam Ranh base took the shrapnel out of the young officer's right arm. "He called me in New York to tell me he had been wounded," his then girlfriend and later wife, Julia Thorne, remembered. "I was worried sick, scared to death that John or one of my brothers was going to die. He reassured me that he was OK."

As Salon explains, the 2004 election was about trying to destroy Senator Kerry, a true American Vietnam hero who was running against a draft-dodging pair of politicians. They continue:

"The name of the game is to find a conservative ex-Vietnam hand to say something negative about Kerry. It's an automatic newsmaker, guaranteed to get picked up by Newsmax.com, the Weekly Standard, Rush Limbaugh, the New York Post and other conservative outlets. At issue is an attempt to downgrade Kerry's Vietnam War heroism. The major anti-Kerry Vietnam War Internet complaint, it seems, echoes Hibbard: that his minor wounds weren't big enough to warrant Purple Hearts. Unfortunately neither the Boston Globe nor New York Post takes the time to explain to readers that Purple Hearts are not given out to soldiers/sailors for the size of the wound. Only by the grace of God did the hot shrapnel that pierced Kerry's arm not enter his heart or brain or eye.

For the record, Purple Hearts are given for the following enemy-related injuries:

a) Injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel or other projectile created by enemy action.

b) Injury caused by enemy-placed mine or trap.

c) Injury caused by enemy-released chemical, biological or nuclear agent.

d) Injury caused by vehicle or aircraft accident resulting from enemy fire.

e) Concussion injuries caused as a result of enemy-generated explosions.

Examples of injuries or wounds which clearly do not qualify for award of the Purple Heart are as follows:

a) Frostbite or trench foot injuries.

b) Heat stroke.

c) Food poisoning not caused by enemy agents.

d) Chemical, biological, or nuclear agents not released by the enemy.

e) Battle fatigue.

f) Disease not directly caused by enemy agents.

g) Accidents, to include explosive, aircraft, vehicular and other accidental wounding not related to or caused by enemy action.

Given the hurly-burly circumstance of Dec. 2, 1968, Kerry -- and the other men on the mission -- are not sure whether they were hit by enemy fire or if shrapnel from one of the other men on the Boston Whaler injured Kerry. It could have even been Kerry's own M-16 backfiring that caused the shrapnel wound. It doesn't really matter. The requirement makes it clear that you are awarded a Purple Heart for "Injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel or other projectile created by enemy action." Does anybody dispute that Kerry's wound was created by enemy action? As the stipulation also makes clear, Kerry would have been awarded a Purple Heart even if he never bled, if, for example, he had suffered a concussion from a grenade. So to set the record straight: Kerry deserved his first Purple Heart -- period. To say otherwise is to distort the reality of the medal.

Unfortunately, the Boston Globe and New York Post stories omit fully reporting the bylaws. They present Hibbard at face value, downplaying the fact that he is a Republican criticizing a fellow veteran hoping to cause him public embarrassment. According to the Globe, Hibbard -- in classic blowhard fashion -- said Kerry "had a little scratch on his forearm, and he was holding a piece of shrapnel." Adding further verbal insult, Hibbard apparently claimed: "I've had thorns from a rose that were worse." The straight-faced Globe reporter, in fact, claims that Hibbard told him that Kerry's wound resembled a "scrape from a fingernail." Not included in either newspaper account, however, is Kerry's medical report from the incident. He shared it with me last year when I was writing "Tour of Duty." It reads: "3 DEC 1968 U.S. NAVAL SUPPORT FACILITY CAM RANH BAY RVN FPO Shrapnel in left arm above elbow. Shrapnel removed and appl. Bacitracin. Ret. to duty." Is shrapnel removed from an arm really like a "scrape from a fingernail"? Or a thorn prick? The answer, of course, as any sensible person can surmise, is no."

The Salon article concludes:

"According to Kerry, who should know, the doctor wrapped a clean white bandage around his arm. After the procedure he rightfully put in for a Purple Heart. Kerry clearly met the requirements -- as listed above -- for deserving one. From the hospital room Kerry returned to duty. That's apparently when he held the shrapnel out in his palm for Hibbard to see.

The Globe, however, let Hibbard off the hook, no serious questions asked. On the one hand he claimed Kerry was holding his shrapnel and then he also claims it was a scratch. Are we to believe that following his surgical procedure Kerry went to Hibbard and ripped off his battle dressing to show him the wound that looked like a "scrape from a fingernail"? Or is Hibbard simply surmising it was a thorn prick? Worse still, Hibbard now claims that he was opposed to Kerry being awarded the Purple Heart. Really? Then why didn't he fight against it harder? His superficial answer can be found in the Globe: "I do remember some questions, some correspondence about it. I finally said, 'Ok, if that's what happened ... do whatever you want.' After that I don't know what happened. Obviously, he got it. I don't know how." Does this sound like a reliable source? Is that fuzzy-mindedness worth reporting as serious news? Why wasn't Hibbard asked why he stayed quiet for 35 years?

Let me offer Hibbard an answer to his question. The U.S. Navy chose to award Kerry a Purple Heart because he qualified for it. Only a fool -- or an exceedingly modest man -- wouldn't apply for a Purple Heart that was due him. Kerry was neither. But Kerry did not receive it because, as the Post claims, he had "strong ties to the Kennedy machine in Massachusetts (Bobby Kennedy speechwriter Adam Walinsky wrote Kerry's famous 1971 antiwar Washington speech)." Kerry's only tie to the "Kennedy machine" was that as a college student he slapped a "Ted Kennedy for U.S. Senate" bumper sticker on his VW and campaigned for a summer around Cape Cod. As for Walinsky writing Kerry's famous April 22, 1971, speech/testimony -- it's utter nonsense. Walinsky has consistently denied the rumor. At his Boston home Kerry has a file brimming with his various drafts of the speech/testimony. He, in fact, had delivered parts of the speech months beforehand. Why is it so hard to accept the fact that Kerry -- like thousands of other Vietnam Vets -- was awarded a Purple Heart as a small token of appreciation for risking his life for his country?

Back in 1964 Bob Dylan wrote a lyric for the song "It's Alright Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)." At one point in it he asks whether nothing in American life is "really sacred." When retired U.S. naval officers, 35 years after the fact, start whining to the press that a war wound wasn't big enough to warrant a Purple Heart -- and the Boston Globe goes along for the ride -- you realize Dylan's prophecy. Today the tabloids truly are king. Call me naive, or too pro-veteran, but it seems to me we should be thanking every Purple Heart recipient for their duty to country, not demanding of them explanations for why their wounds weren't bigger or fatal. Ridicule Kerry on his liberal Senate record, or so-called aloofism, or even his outspoken Vietnam Veterans Against the War protests, but leave his old battle scars alone."

Enough said.

Senator Kerry fought hard for America in Vietnam. I am proud of him.

He recognized injustice in Vietnam and fought against a misguided foreign policy that cost Americans 10's of thousands of American lives. I am proud of him for that too.

He backed the President early on in Iraq along with almost every Senator. He has admitted his mistake and wants America to set a timetable for withdrawal of our soldiers. I am proud of him for this as well.

He flubbed a line that was totally distorted by the right-wing, and when requested to drop out of sight by the Democratic leadership, he got out of the way. He was a good soldier in 2006, and against his own desire to confront the Swift Boaters, he got out of the public view. I don't agree with him doing this. But I am proud of his humility in seeking to act in the way that would forward the Democratic Party. I am proud of him for that as well.

But I am not proud of Americans who seek to denigrate his military record while overlooking the military record of their Republicans. No veteran should smear another veteran like the Swift Boaters are continuing to do.

When Senator Kerry spoke at the Winter Soldier testimony, he spoke about American Foreign Policy that had led to atrocities like My Lai.

When Senator Kerry protests the American policies in Iraq, when he asks for this nation to bring the soldiers home, he is not failing to support our troops. It is folly to believe that we must continue to support sending soldiers to die for a mistake...that we can express our greatest support for our fighting forces by sending them out on the streets of Baghdad to police a civil war between Muslim sects.

Senator Kerry brings first-hand experience as a Vietnam War Veteran to this discussion. But he has not been blinded by his service. He is not blinded by nationalism that knows no criticism of our own failures. He is wiser than that.

And for all of these things, I shall not be quiet when Swift Boaters are afoot once again, spreading their hate, spreading their lies, and spreading distortions of truth about a great American veteran who confronted an enemy abroad and who now has to be attacked by fellow Americans.

Keep on Coming John! We have got your back!

Bob

A Letter From Cindy Sheehan

2007-01-04T20:41:00.000-06:00

There are those who are still obsessed with Senator Kerry's botched joke. They feel that he has done a terrible thing to the soldiers. Imagine that an accidental comment that some might have improperly interpreted to be a slur on soldiers.

Senator Kerry was slurring our President who has involved us in an unnecessary war of choice. A war that has left over 3,000 young American men and women dead and thousands more injured. For nothing. So that we can see a lynch mob hang up the former dictator Saddam? So that we can turn the reins of power over to a Shiite government that seeks to form closer ties with Iran? For oil that is not flowing?

This is what Cindy had to say. With credit to the Gold Star Families for Peace website.

"A Mile of Flags
11:00 AM Jan 01, 2007

A Mile of Flags
In Search of Peace
with Cindy Sheehan

Gerald Ford is dead. Every time I get a chance to turn on the TV I am incessantly reminded of this fact.

His body is lying in state on the same structure that has held up every dead president’s body since Abraham Lincoln. His widow constantly has a military honor guard to support her, sometimes even physically. The flag draped coffin is never left alone: there is always a military presence there to guard and honor the body. We have seen Ford’s flag-draped coffin entering and exiting planes and cars. The tradition can be quite moving at times, but, to me, also quite frustrating and gut-wrenching.

On April 04, 2004, my son, Casey was killed in Iraq. Between April 04 and April 10, we had no idea how Casey was killed, or what condition his body was in. We heard from the son-in-law of a friend who was stationed at Dover Air Force base that he had “unloaded” Casey from the transport plane that brought him from God knows where. Baghdad? Germany? Ireland where he had just passed through alive barely 3 weeks earlier? On April 9 (Casey’s grandpa’s birthday) we heard that he would be delivered to San Francisco International Airport the following day.

The limo from the funeral home picked us up around noonish. Casey’s dad, brother, sisters, my Mom, his Auntie, I, and a few close friends took our final ride to pick Casey up from the airport on his final trip home. I couldn’t get it out of my mind that we had joyfully picked him up from the Sacramento airport less then 4 months earlier when he had come home for his last Christmas on earth.

The trip from Vacaville to the City by the Bay is never fun---there is always heavy traffic, but Saturdays are definitely the worst. San Francisco is certainly a popular weekend destination. This trip to “The City” as we Northern Californians call it, would be the most nightmarish trip of my life.

When we arrived at SFO, our limo pulled up to the United Airlines loading dock. Casey’s body in his coffin, wrapped in a box had already arrived so we stood around and watched the United dock workers load Casey into the back of the hearse. If I remember correctly, about 99% of Casey’s collected loved ones were sobbing uncontrollably and trying to comfort each other, the reamining 1% stood alone in anguished and shocked bewilderment. This is the “honorable” way that Casey was delivered to us. And to make matters worse, his “honor” guard wasn’t with us yet---so we had to sit on the curb under a 101 Freeway off ramp for over 30 minutes waiting for him.

On December 31st, our 3000th child was killed for the lies of another president. While Gerald Ford lies in state, our 3000th troop will be brought home on his final airplane flight in the cargo area. This fine young example of humanity will be sneaked into the USA as if he, and not his Commander in Chief, were a criminal. His family will be left to mourn alone and his body will not be guarded night and day. After the funeral (that Bloody George will not attend), he will be forgotten by the country that sent him to die in a war that is as corrupt as the day is long, but his family will never be able to recover from his loss.

The news channels are infusing us with coverage of Ford’s pomp and circumstance and CNN Headline News gave 10 seconds to the 3000th American casualty of the Iraq bloody blunder. Why is a soldier’s life less honorable than a president’s life? If our soldiers are worthless to the American people, where do the 655,000 innocent Iraqis that have been slaughtered by Bloody BushCo fit in to daily consumeristic consciousness?

Yesterday, Camp Casey in Crawford, Tx, placed 3000 American flags down Prairie Chapel Road. The flags, which we planted about 12-16 inches apart extended for approximately a mile on each side down the road. The visual was somber, touching, and very reverent. We decided that yesterday was not a day for politics, but a day to honor our young people that have been so dishonored by the man on that same road who spends his days clearing brush while contemplating signing more death orders and his nights sleeping like a baby.

Being a peace activist is not a very safe position in Crawford, Tx. One of our neighbors came out with a shot-gun and threatened to shoot if we put flags in front of her property. Since the ditches are public property, and we believe that we are honoring the brave souls who are brave and dedicated, we put some in front of her home. When one of our Camp Caseyites went back this morning to pick up the flags, she had broken every one of them that we had put in front of her house. We already knew that many people in Crawford hate the sight of crosses, but we thought that the American flag would be a safe symbol that all of us, being patriotic Americans every one, could agree upon. Apparently, some people don’t like to visualize a number that was made possible by their support of serial killers.

After we had finished our memorial to our fallen heroes, we ciphered out a very sobering visual. If we put a symbol for each Iraqi death along a road, it would take up 220 miles of road, on each side! That is a road that would stretch from Crawford to Houston. From Baghdad to Vacaville and from Falluja to Crawford, and many points along the way, the heartache and mayhem just continue. Sorrow for war is born by loving, caring families on both sides of the conflict and profit and satisfaction are born with callous disregard for humanity on the other side---while any kind physical, financial, emotional, or political risk is minimal to the war-mongers, to say the least.

While millions of Americans, ordinary citizens, politicians, or news media, were very busy NOT thinking of 655,000 plus lives stolen and millions more lives destroyed, we at Camp Casey spent all New Year’s Eve day with our sorrow and with our devastating and totally un-called for and unnecessary losses.

May 2007 make such memorials obsolete.

The sorrow for the ones already gone will always be with us, but only grass-roots activism that is unrelenting and heartfelt will prevent more sorrow.

May 2007 see a massive dedication, or re-dedication to a Peace Surge."

While I do not claim to agree with everything Cindy Sheehan does, she knows that her son paid the ultimate price of our involvement in Iraq.

She knows that Senator Kerry is working to prevent other mothers from paying that horrendous price for the war.

His joke didn't kill anyone.

Those that "fixed the facts" are responsible for the death and dismemberment of thousands of young American men and women. Not Senator Kerry's bad joke.

For those who would like to smear the Senator, a true decorated Veteran, and place blinders on their own eyes, avoiding staring at the reality that confronts us, let them wallow in the mud of their own invention.

As for me, I am continuing to support Senator John Kerry for President in 2008 as long as he is interested in the job. Keep on Coming John! We have got your back!

Bob

Coolest 'Cats' on the Web!

2007-01-03T21:16:00.000-06:00

If you haven't visited Democrafty and DreamingofKerry's website, We Love John Kerry, then please stop by today!

They have been kind enough to send many of you visitors here from there, and as we all wait for Senator Kerry to announce his 2008 plans, maybe it is time to return the favor and tell you those two are the coolest "cats" on the web!

Have a wonderful 2007 Kerrycrats!

Bob

3,000 Americans Dead in Iraq

2006-12-31T20:27:00.000-06:00

The year is ending with another milestone.

3,000 dead American soldiers.

For what?

Click HERE to see the "Faces of the Dead".

John Kerry once testified:

"We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? But we are trying to do that, and we are doing it with thousands of rationalizations...."

What Senator Kerry said in 1971 echoes today.

Echoes with a somber note of young American men and women making the ultimate sacrifice for a lie.

It is time for a new direction in America!

Keep on Coming John! We have got your back!

Bob

More Lies and the Truth about Senator Kerry!

2006-12-31T19:27:00.000-06:00

This site continues to be hounded by individuals advocating the Swift Boat Veterans, the Vietnam veterans group opposed to Senator Kerry.

But those who actually served alongside Senator Kerry and knew him best support him. There are many who hate Senator John Kerry for being the one to bring the bad news of Vietnam to the American people. But to besmirch his reputation because of his political views stinks.

John Kerry didn't choose to fight hard against those who would rather smear than talk issues. Just visit Snopes.com and read about the Urban Legend of the Swift Boat Veterans and the truth which is something quite different.

It is explained:

"John Kerry's service in Vietnam as an officer in command of a Swift boat and his subsequent activities as an anti-war protester have engendered a good deal of controversy, especially among those who also served in Vietnam. Many Vietnam veterans were angered by Kerry's anti-war stance after he returned to the U.S., viewing his anti-war activities — particularly his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971 — as unfairly and undeservedly smearing the reputations of all who served in Vietnam.

That said, the piece quoted above, in which a variety of veterans offer their views of John Kerry, isn't really something that can evaluated as "true" or "false." It's true that the men named do exist, that they served in Vietnam, and that they made the statements attributed to them, but the substance of most of these quotes is an expression of opinion, not something objectively classifiable as right or wrong.

The important point to note here is that this piece presents only one side of the story:

* Although the men quoted above are often identified as "John Kerry's shipmates," only one of them, Steven Gardner, actually served under Lt. Kerry's command on a Swift boat. The other men who served under Kerry's command continue to speak positively of him:

"In 1969, I was Sen. Kerry's gun mate atop of the Swift boat in Vietnam. And I just wanted to let everyone know that, contrary to all the rumors that you might hear from the other side, Sen. Kerry's blood is red, not blue. I know, I've seen it.

"If it weren't for Sen. John Kerry, on the 28th of February 1969, the day he won the Silver Star . . . you and I would not be having this conversation. My name would be on a long, black wall in Washington, D.C. I saw this man save my life."3

— Fred Short

"I can still see him now, standing in the doorway of the pilothouse, firing his M-16, shouting orders through the smoke and chaos . . . Even wounded, or confronting sights no man should ever have to see, he never lost his cool.

I had to sit on my hands [after a firefight], I was shaking so hard . . . He went to every man on that boat and put his arm around them and asked them how they're doing. I've never had an officer do that before or since. That's the mettle of the man, John Kerry."3

— David Alston

"What I saw back then [in Vietnam] was a guy with genuine caring and leadership ability who was aggressive when he had to be. What I see now is a guy who's not afraid to tackle tough issues. And he knows what the consequences are of putting people's kids in harm's way."2

— James Wasser

* Many of Kerry's Vietnam commanders and fellow officers also continue to speak positively of him:

Navy records, fitness reports by Kerry's commanders and scores of interviews with Swift boat officers and crewmen depict a model officer who fought aggressively in river ambushes and won the respect of many of his crewmates and commanders, even as his doubts about the war grew.

"I don't like what he said after the war," said Adrian Lonsdale, who commanded Kerry for three months in 1969. "But he was a good naval officer."2

"I don't know what conclusions you can draw about someone's ability to lead from their combat experience, but John's service was commendable," said James J. Galvin, a former Swift boat officer . . . "He played by the same rules we all did."1

* How well all of these men knew John Kerry is questionable, and discrepancies between how some of them described Kerry thirty-five years ago and how they describe him today suggest that their opinions are largely based upon political differences rather than objective assessments of Kerry's military record. For example, Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman is quoted above, yet the Los Angeles Times reported:

. . . Hoffman and Kerry had few direct dealings in Vietnam. A Los Angeles Times examination of Navy archives found that Hoffman praised Kerry's performance in cabled messages after several river skirmishes.1"

Politics should not be used to smear the reputation of an American veteran who was decorated several times in Vietnam.

But it does and it continues to be used to try to destroy an American who served his nation bravely and was decorated appropriately in Vietnam.

Shameful.

But there will always be people like that. People who climb out from under rocks and from spider holes, to say something nasty about someone else to advance their own political views. Damaged goods? Senator Kerry now unable to be elected? I think not.

Senator Kerry is tougher than that. He has waded through the mud of Southeast Asia, and he can handle the mud in America! Let us work to discuss issues, and not engage in the filth that has become the American political method. We may not choose to agree about policy, but let us base our political decisions on sound reasoning and not smears and innuendos.

Keep on Coming John! I have got your back.

Bob

Swift Boat Lies about Kerry!

2006-12-31T18:36:00.000-06:00

Do we need to fight the Swift Boat Lies anymore?

Apparently there are those who wish to smear, lie, spread misinformation, and otherwise defame the Senator. They do not like his opinion about Vietnam, preferring to live in the fantasy that never was. Senator John Kerry showed courage and leadership bringing the injustices of that Southeast Asia morass to the attention of Congress and pointing out the problems of such a war. His actions with Vietnam Veterans against the War has continued to produce a reaction that has followed him since.

For those interested, here is an excerpt from Factcheck.org on the 2004 election question:

"A group funded by the biggest Republican campaign donor in Texas began running an attack ad Aug. 5 in which former Swift Boat veterans claim Kerry lied to get one of his two decorations for bravery and two of his three purple hearts.
But the veterans who accuse Kerry are contradicted by Kerry's former crewmen, and by Navy records.

One of the accusers says he was on another boat "a few yards" away during the incident which won Kerry the Bronze Star, but the former Army lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water that day backs Kerry's account. In an Aug. 10 opinion piece in the conservative Wall Street Journal , Rassmann (a Republican himself) wrote that the ad was "launched by people without decency" who are "lying" and "should hang their heads in shame."

And on Aug. 19, Navy records came to light also contradicting the accusers. One of the veterans who says Kerry wasn't under fire was himself awarded a Bronze Star for aiding others "in the face of enemy fire" during the same incident."

Another report from the Boston Globe relates the retraction of a Swift Boater who realized that what was being done was entirely political, that those who sought to attack Senator Kerry besmirched the reputation of every American veteran.

As noted:

"Veteran retracts criticism of Kerry

By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | August 6, 2004

WASHINGTON -- A week after Senator John F. Kerry heralded his wartime experience by surrounding himself at the Democratic convention with his Vietnam ''Band of Brothers," a separate group of veterans has launched a television ad campaign and a book that questions the basis for some of Kerry's combat medals.

But yesterday, a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book. The affidavit was given to The Boston Globe by the anti-Kerry group to justify assertions in their ad and book.

Elliott is quoted as saying that Kerry ''lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."

The statement refers to an episode in which Kerry killed a Viet Cong soldier who had been carrying a rocket launcher, part of a chain of events that formed the basis of his Silver Star. Over time, some Kerry critics have questioned whether the soldier posed a danger to Kerry's crew. Crew members have said Kerry's actions saved their lives.

Yesterday, reached at his home, Elliott said he regretted signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star.

''I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott said. ''It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."

Elliott said he was no under personal or political pressure to sign the statement, but he did feel ''time pressure" from those involved in the book. ''That's no excuse," Elliott said. ''I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake."

The affidavit also contradicted earlier statements by Elliott, who came to Boston during Kerry's 1996 Senate campaign to defend Kerry on similar charges, saying that Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star.

The book, ''Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," is to be published next week. Yesterday it reached number one on the bestseller list on Amazon.com, based on advance orders, in part because of publicity about it on the Drudge Report.

The book seeks to undermine one of the central claims of Kerry's campaign -- that his Vietnam War heroism would make him a good commander in chief.

While the Regnery Publishing yesterday declined to release an advance copy of the book, Drudge's website quotes it as saying, ''Elliott indicates that a Silver Star recommendation would not have been made by him had he been aware of the actual facts."

Meanwhile, a television advertising campaign began yesterday featuring many of the anti-Kerry veterans who are quoted in the book, including Elliott. In the ad, Elliott says, ''John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."

Asked to supply evidence to support that statement, the anti-Kerry group provided a copy of Elliott's affidavit. Elliott said the same affidavit had been used in the production of the book.

It is unclear whether the work contains further justification for the assertion, beyond Elliott's statement.

Kerry won the Silver Star for his action on Feb. 28, 1969, in which he shot a Viet Cong soldier who had been carrying a rocket launcher and running toward a hut. All of Kerry's crewmates who participated and are still living said in interviews last year that the action was necessary and appropriate, and it was Elliott who recommended Kerry for the Silver Star.

In an interview for a seven-part biographical series that appeared in the Globe last year, Kerry said: ''I don't have a second's question" about killing the Viet Cong. ''He was running away with a live B-40, and, I thought, poised to turn around and fire it."

Asked whether that meant that he had shot the guerrilla in the back, Kerry said, ''No, absolutely not," adding that the enemy had been running to a hut for cover, where he could have destroyed Kerry's boat and killed the crew.

The forthcoming book is coauthored by Jerome R. Corsi and John O'Neill, a former Vietnam naval officer who in 1971 debated Kerry on the Dick Cavett show, challenging Kerry's assertion that US atrocities had been widespread in Vietnam. O'Neill met with then-President Richard M. Nixon for an hour before debating Kerry, and his efforts were encouraged by Nixon's aides.

O'Neill could not be reached for comment yesterday. President Bush's campaign denied working with O'Neill on the book or with the producers of the television advertisement.

Meanwhile, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, urged Bush yesterday to disassociate himself from what he called a ''dishonest and dishonorable" attack. In response, the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said, ''We have not and we will not question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam."

The Associated Press reported yesterday that Houston home-builder Bob J. Perry, a major Republican donor, gave at least $100,000 to the organization sponsoring the ad, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

The Kerry campaign spokesman, Michael Meehan, said none of those in the ad had served on a boat with Kerry. ''Some of these men defended John Kerry's honor on his military record in 1996 and so they were either lying then or lying now," Meehan said. ''Either way, it is gutter politics."

The book also raises questions about the action of March 13, 1969, for which Kerry was awarded a Bronze Star and his third Purple Heart, according to an advance chapter of the book.

The anti-Kerry group provided three affidavits from veterans on nearby boats questioning aspects of the award.

On that day, Kerry rescued James Rassmann, who went overboard as a result of an explosion. Rassmann appeared by Kerry's side during the Iowa caucus campaign and at last week's Democratic National Convention, telling the story of how Kerry pulled him out of the water while his boat was under fire.

As in the case of the Silver Star, it was Elliott who recommended Kerry for the Bronze Star. According to the recommendation signed by Elliott, a mine exploded under a boat accompanying Kerry's craft.

''Almost simultaneously, another mine detonated close aboard [Kerry's] PCF-94, knocking First Lieutenant Rassman [sic] into the water and wounding Lt. JG Kerry in the right arm."

Elliott then described how Kerry ''managed to pull Lt. Rassman aboard despite the painful wound in his right arm." Elliott concluded that Kerry had been ''calm, professional, and highly courageous in the face of enemy fire."

Elliott, in the interview yesterday, said that based on the affidavits of the veterans on other boats, he now thinks his assessment about the Bronze Star and third Purple Heart may have been based on poor information.

In one affidavit, for example, Van O'Dell, who said he had been in a boat near Kerry on that day, declared that Kerry had ''lied" about what happened on that day and said that Rassmann was not under enemy fire when Kerry pulled him aboard.

Elliott, asked about the contradiction between his recommendation and his new questioning of Kerry's third Purple Heart, responded, ''It makes me look kind of silly, to be perfectly honest."

But he said: ''I simply have no reason for these guys to be lying, and if they are lying in concert, it is one hell of a conspiracy. So, on the basis of all of the information that has come out, I have chosen to believe the other men. I absolutely do not know first hand."

Naval documents said that Kerry ''received shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on right forearm when a mine detonated close to PCF 94 while engaged in operations on river. Condition and prognosis excellent. Result of hostile action."

Rassmann, reached by telephone yesterday, said he has never had any question that Kerry deserved the Purple Heart. He said there were two separate events: One was earlier in the day, when he and Kerry blew up a rice cache, and the explosion caused some of the rice to hit Kerry, and perhaps some weapon fragments as well. The second involved a mine explosion as Kerry and Rassmann were on patrol. The explosion, Rassmann said, knocked him overboard and threw Kerry against the pilot house, injuring his arm.

Rassmann said that he has always believed that Kerry got the third Purple Heart solely for the injury to his arm as a result of the explosion in the water.

''If he got fragments in the buttocks due to the mine, that is new information to me," Rassmann said.

''I would say there is confusion. Maybe they did lump it together. It was my understanding he got it for the wound being thrown across the pilot house."

Either way, Rassmann said, Kerry deserved the third Purple Heart because such awards are given for injuries incurred in combat, and Kerry's arm injury qualified. He also stood by his recollection that he was under fire when rescued by Kerry.

Those questioning Kerry's medals, Rassmann said, are ''angry about John speaking out against the [Vietnam] war."

Those that attempt to discredit Senator Kerry are acting in a shameful and unAmerican fashion.

They do not like what Senator Kerry had to say about Vietnam.

They do not like what Senator Kerry has to say today about Iraq.

But America needs his courage, his leadership, and his ability to turn his boat into the face of hostile fire. America does not need another 'swell guy' who would be great to have a beer with. America needs Senator Kerry and this blogger pledges to stand with him.

Bob

"How Kerry got his Decorations"

2006-12-31T11:18:00.000-06:00

It is shameful the depth that some people will go continuing to try to destroy the reputations of decorated American Veterans.

Right here on this blog, I have a "swift-boater" who continues to try to drag down Senator Kerry's record.

Let's make something clear right now. Senator Kerry served in Vietnam. He was wounded in Vietnam. He was decorated in Vietnam. Those that criticize Senator Kerry have been silent when draft dodgers and deferment recipients declare war on lies and send more Americans to their unneeded deaths.

And when he came back to America, he testified to Congress about why Vietnam was the wrong war for America. He criticized what American soldiers did in Vietnam. We have plenty of evidence that atrocities occurred in Vietnam. Just as we know about atrocities in Iraq and elsewhere.

John Kerry had the courage to stand up to those who would advocate more Americans dying for a mistake. He has the courage today. And I support him for President for that reason.

The following article was published in Time in 2004:

"Sunday, May 2, 2004
How Kerry Earned His Decorations
By MITCH FRANK

Kerry is one of the Senate's most decorated veterans — though he has far fewer medals than friend John McCain — and his record is impressive for an officer who spent just 10 months in Vietnam. Each of the medals below came with a matching ribbon. Kerry wore his ribbons when he testified before a Senate committee in 1971; the next day, joining hundreds of other vets, he lobbed them at the Capitol.

Silver Star
What is it for? Gallantry in action

Why did Kerry get it? Kerry led three swift boats up a canal on Feb. 28, 1969, and ordered a daring attack on Viet Cong positions. When his boat took rocket fire, Kerry directed his crew to head straight for the beach, taking the guerrilla with the rocket launcher by surprise. Kerry jumped ashore and killed him

Bronze Star
What is it for? Heroic or meritorious service

Why did Kerry get it? On the Bay Hap River on March 13, 1969, a mine exploded under Kerry's boat, driving shrapnel into his arm and knocking Green Beret Jim Rassmann overboard. Despite heavy fire, Kerry turned the boat around and pulled Rassmann back on board with his good arm

Purple Heart
What is it for? Being wounded in action

Why did Kerry get it? He earned three Purple Hearts (the second and third are represented by gold stars), all for shrapnel wounds. His arm was scratched during a night patrol in December 1968. His left thigh was hit during a V.C. attack in February 1969. The March 13 injury, his third, entitled him to return home, and he did

Combat Action Ribbon
What is it for? Ground combat while serving in the Navy

Why did Kerry get it? As the commander of a Navy swift boat, he went ashore several times in pursuit of Viet Cong

Presidential Unit Citation Ribbon
What is it for? Heroism of a unit in combat

Why did Kerry get it? For participating in Operation Swift Raider, a campaign of boat attacks on enemy strongholds and sanctuaries

Navy Unit Commendation Ribbon
What is it for? Heroism of a unit

Why did Kerry get it? For participating in the Rach Gia interdiction, river patrols aimed at stopping Viet Cong infiltration from Cambodia

National Defense Service Medal
What is it for? Honorable active-duty service

Why did Kerry get it? For his service on the U.S.S. Gridley, a guided-missile frigate, from 1967 to 1968

Vietnam Service Medal
What is it for? Six months service in the Vietnam conflict

Why did Kerry get it? For his tour on the Gridley, which supported an aircraft carrier in the Gulf of Tonkin

Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross
What is it for? Awarded by South Vietnam to U.S. units for valorous combat achievements

Why did Kerry get it? For service on the swift boats

Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions
What is it for? Awarded by South Vietnam to U.S. units for meritorious civil-action service

Why did Kerry get it? For service on the swift boats

Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal
What is it for? Awarded by South Vietnam for six-months service in Vietnam

Why did Kerry get it? For his tour of duty aboard the Gridley."

Thank you John Kerry for Serving America!

America needs your leadership now as much as in 2004! Keep on Coming John!

We have got your back.

Bob

A Time for Political "Sportsmanship"!

2006-12-29T22:52:00.000-06:00

It is unfortunate that Americans have accepted the smear, the inuendo, and even the lies that destroyed Senator Kerry's campaign for the Presidency in 2004.

I recently submitted a column to the Ketchikan, Alaska SitNews site, which I would like to share with you regarding sportsmanship and what we can learn from our children and from Soccer.

"December 29, 2006
Friday

I learned a lot about sportsmanship watching my son and daughters play soccer. I recall the first time I saw a player injured on the team that didn't have possession of the ball and the team that did have the ball intentionally kick the ball out of bounds to stop the clock and allow medical assistance on the field. After that, the opposing team, in a sense of fair-play would throw the ball back in to the team that had the ball in the first place--their opponents. Even in soccer, winning wasn't everything. From time to time players and teams would know that the health of a player was of greater importance than winning at that moment.

Why is it then that we as adults cannot learn from soccer players a little bit of political sportsmanship when one of our leaders is injured or is suffering from a life-threatening illness?

Recently Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota, a Democrat, suffered from an intra-cranial hemorrhage due to a congenital malformation of the blood vessels in his brain. Speculation has been rampant about the possibility of him dying or resigning and then the Governor, who for South Dakota, Mike Rounds, is a Republican, would have the opportunity of appointing a fellow Republican shifting the power of the Senate back to the Republican Party--all on the basis of a hemorrhagic stroke.

Coincidentally, a Republican Senator also is dealing with a life-threatening illness that was discovered after the November election. Senator Craig Thomas of Wyoming was discovered to have Acute Myelogenous Leukemia shortly after the most recent November election. This possibly fatal disease would also result in the Democratic Governor of Wyoming, David Freudenthal, having the opportunity of shifting power towards the Democrats if in the event of Thomas' death or resignation, he needed to appoint a replacement.

Is this what Democracy is about? That we should ever be interested in the demise of an elected official so that our political party might advance their influence? Should we ever permit a system that discourages an individual suffering with disease to stay in office just to preserve his or her party's power in government?

It is time for a little political sportsmanship. Whenever any elected official, regardless of their political persuasion, takes ill, we should all be wishing for the speedy recovery of that person and should never be speculating about the effects of their demise. If they are a Democrat, let's replace them with a Democrat; same if they are Republican. Let them know that they may not worry about the political effect of their illness; there won't be any political gain or loss associated with Cancer, or Stroke, heart attack, or auto accident.

Let us take the ghoulish out of American politics today! Let us learn from our children and our sportsmen. Whenever an opposing political player is injured or ill, let the party with the 'ball' feel free to kick it out of bounds, knowing that the party who regains the ball will once again return it to the other side. Care of the injured, and concern about the well-being of our leaders is more important than political gain.

America can do better! And it is time for our leaders to learn that lesson.

Robert Freedland"

There have been those in America who choose to spend time destroying the men and women who seek higher office who do not share their particular political views. Attacks have been made quite successfully against Senator Al Gore, Senator John Kerry, and more recently, against Senator Hillary Clinton.

Many of us have chosen to "blame the victim", instead of dealing with this insidious development in American politics today. We assume something is indeed wrong with these people; we are easily convinced that we shouldn't support people like this, instead searching for somebody who can be "elected".

I reject these false assumptions.

America needs greatness in leadership. We cannot allow our political opponents to define who we are and determine our choice of leaders.

Senator Kerry continues to be the most qualified of all of the potential candidates in the Democratic field for President. He thus receives the greatest level of attacks from his opponents who try to bury him under the mud.

Kerry has walked through mud before. He has been decorated in combat going through the mud of Vietnam. He has the strength and the determination to make an outstanding President. But he cannot do it alone.

Do not accept the dictates of our political opponents who will part the sea to allow the least electable among the Democrats to advance. Stand with Senator Kerry.

America needs new leadership now more than ever.

Bob

Merry Christmas!

2006-12-25T09:17:00.000-06:00

If you haven't had a chance to see this video, well enjoy it today! From Youtube that great new phenomenon!

Thanks for visiting John Kerry for President 2008 this year!

Bob

A Time of War, And a Time of Peace

2006-12-24T22:05:00.000-06:00

Heraclitus (c. 535-475 BC) the Greek philosopher is attributed with the famous quote,

"Nothing endures but change."

A more famous interpretation of the need for different approaches at different times comes right from the Bible, Ecclesiastes Chapter 3, where it is written:

3:1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

3:2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

3:3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

3:4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

3:5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

3:6 A time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

3:7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

3:8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.

In other words, the world that we live in is full of change. Changing economic situations, changing political arrangements, and yes changing military involvements.

It is a wise man that can admit his errors. It is a fool who persists in making the same mistake over and over in order to deny his own fallibility.

Senator Kerry has written a wonderful piece in the Washington Post about change. About "flipping for a flop". Kerry, paraphrasing his own Winter Soldier Testimony writes:

"I'd rather explain a change of position any day than look a parent in the eye and tell them that their son or daughter had to die so that a broken policy could live."

Kerry criticizes this Administration's "stay the course" strategy by noting:

"Changing tactics in the face of changing conditions on the ground, developing new strategies because the old ones don't work, is a hell of a lot smarter than the insanity of doing the same thing over and over again with the same tragic results."

Also:

"The Iraq Study Group tells us that "the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating." It joins the chorus of experts in and outside of Baghdad reminding us that there is no military solution to a political crisis. And yet, over the warnings of former secretary of state Colin Powell, Gen. John Abizaid and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff, Washington is considering a "troop buildup" option, sending more troops into harm's way to referee a civil war."

Senator Kerry goes on to comment on his advocacy for negotiations with all of the parties in the region. Discussion is not capitulation.

Thank you Senator Kerry for your continued service to this nation. We need your voice in America now more than any recent moment in history. We need your experience, your insight, and your committment to an America which values peace, believes in a strong military, but is always prepared to try diplomacy before military intervention.

Keep on coming John! We have got your back!

Bob

Seriously

2006-12-21T23:29:00.000-06:00

Unlike some blogs, I have left comments open to the public. On rare occasions I have deleted comments that were of excessive length or simply inappropriate or off-topic. But for the most part, I give readers the opportunity
to sound-off and put their own 2 cents into the discussion.

Some people have written things like "are you kidding?" or "is this some sort of satire?" as if anyone with any brains would know what a 'joke' Senator Kerry was. Perhaps if you watched him botch the joke about 'getting stuck in Iraq' you would clearly know that he was not Presidential material. Any Presidential candidate, I guess, must have the ease of David Letterman or the wit of Johnny Carson.

But I am not joking.

It isn't funny what is happening in America.

Guantanamo wasn't a joke.

Haditha doesn't keep me up late laughing.

Abu Ghraib didn't tickle my funny bone.

Katrina didn't make me chuckle.

Ignoring the FISA Courts didn't leave me rolling in the aisles.

Editing Global Warming reports by lobbyists who leave to work for Exxon wasn't amusing.

Signing statements aren't exactly great 'punch lines'.

Phoney reporters in the White House Press pool wasn't entertaining.

Outing a CIA Agent wasn't good for a laugh.

Lying to get us into a war and fixing facts wasn't a great late night stand-up routine.

"What's a little dunk" and Americans endorsing torture doesn't bring a smile to my face.

Extraordinary Rendition of individuals from the United States to third world countries wouldn't make a great humor story.

The Mexico City Policy that denies financial support to African women who are at risk because the clinic mentioned abortion doesn't make me grab my ribs in glee.

A stem cell policy that requires fertility labs to throw unused frozen embryos into the garbage instead of using them to research into the causes of Parkinson's or cures for spinal cord injuries is not what I would call a great "ha ha ha".

No these things don't give me a big HO HO HO this Holiday Season.

So I am not joking. And I am not laughing.

I am still angry that America failed to see the wisdom of electing Senator John Kerry as President. I suspect he would have even won Ohio if voters weren't stripped from the rolls, if all of the voting machines worked as they should have, and if every voter had access to voting machines without having them limited in certain areas. But that is another story. Much like how Al Gore should have won Florida.

John Kerry was right and is right on the issues facing America. Issues that aren't funny. Issues that reach into the very core of what America means.

I supported Kerry in 2004. I shall continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with him as long as he is interested in the job for 2008. There is no candidate better suited and more qualified to lead us through these difficult times!

Keep on Coming John!

Bob

The Minimum President

2006-12-21T17:02:00.000-06:00

As reported:

"Washington - President Bush endorsed one of the Democrats' top priorities for the new Congress, a $2.10-an-hour minimum wage increase - and on a faster timetable than they have proposed.

But his support comes with a catch.

Bush said at a Wednesday news conference that any pay hike should be accompanied by tax and regulatory relief for small businesses, potentially a tough sell for Democrats, who are about to reassume control of the House and Senate."

Senator Kennedy commented on the President's offer:

"Minimum wage workers have waited almost 10 long years for an increase..."

But it really isn't about an increase for the minimum wage worker. It is about an adjustment for inflation. Those at the bottom rung aren't earning the same as 10 years ago. They are earning less. And the disparity in America continues to worsen as this President, as his comment indicates, feels no obligation to help the poor unless he can get something in return for those in far less need of financial assistance: small business owners.

As reported by the Economist this year:

"Even in a country that tolerates inequality, political consequences follow when the rising tide raises too few boats. The impact of stagnant wages has been dulled by rising house prices, but still most Americans are unhappy about the economy. According to the latest Gallup survey, fewer than four out of ten think it is in “excellent” or “good” shape, compared with almost seven out of ten when George Bush took office.

The White House professes to be untroubled. Average after-tax income per person, Mr Bush often points out, has risen by more than 8% on his watch, once inflation is taken into account. He is right, but his claim is misleading, since the median worker—the one in the middle of the income range—has done less well than the average, whose gains are pulled up by the big increases of those at the top."

Last month's retail sales figures gave a bleak picture of what is happening in America.

As reported in the December 1st Chicago Tribune:

"Wal-Mart posted a same-store sales decline of 0.1 percent in November from the year-ago period, the second month in a row of virtually unchanged sales. The Bentonville, Ark.-based company predicts that same-store sales will continue virtually unchanged for December at flat to a 1 percent gain. Sales at stores open at least a year are a key barometer of a retailer's health."

But things are doing much better for stores that cater to wealthier customers and not the hard-scrapple population that depends on Wal-Mart.

The report continues:

"Discounters in general fared poorly in November, with the exception of Minneapolis-based Target Corp., which caters to higher-income shoppers. Sales at stores open at least one year at Target rose 5.9 percent. Dollar General Corp. rose 2.2 percent and Family Dollar Stores rose 2.5 percent.

Gap Inc. also had a difficult month with same-store sales down 8 percent.

Upscale stores fared better. Sales at Saks Inc. rose 7.2 percent, Nordstrom Inc. rose 5.4 percent and Federated Department Stores Inc., owner of Macy's, rose 8.5 percent.

Tiffany & Co., the world's largest luxury jeweler, said earlier this week that holiday sales are exceeding expectations; it raised its annual profit forecast based on demand for $20,000 rings and necklaces.

Same-store sales at U.S. luxury retail stores will jump 6 percent in November and December combined from a year ago, the shopping center council saud. That's better than the 4 percent gain the trade group predicts for department stores, 2.5 percent for discounters and 1 percent for apparel chains.

At Mark Shale, the high-end apparel store owned by Woodridge-based Al Baskin Co., sales have been "very good" in October and November, without markdowns, President Scott Baskin said.

"My read is that the better sector is doing OK and the moderate sector isn't," he said."

You know. The rich are getting richer and the poor should just stop complaining about their poor treatment at the hands of the wealthy, or in this case the Republican leadership!

And by the way Mr. President, requiring businesses to pay higher wages might add to our income tax receipts. And if they don't they still are the right thing to be doing.

And you do realize that cutting taxes might just possibly add to the fiscal crisis facing this nation.

As reported by MacLeans:

"The Bush administration has a standard answer for this critique. In a time of war, they say, budget overruns are the inevitable cost of defending freedom and democracy at home and abroad. But that no longer holds water with Washington's budget hawks. They point out that federal spending has risen by $683 billion a year under Bush, less than a third of which has gone to national defence and homeland security.
As a result, the U.S. national debt has surged from $5.7 trillion in the last fiscal year before Bush took office, to over $8.3 trillion and counting. Brian Riedl, a budget analyst with the right-wing Heritage Foundation, says the Bush administration has played the benevolent uncle to every special interest that comes calling, using its spending power to win support in potentially vulnerable constituencies. The No Child Left Behind education bill, for example, was aimed at suburban families; the farm bill at Midwest rural voters; and the prescription drug benefit at the most active voting bloc of all, seniors. "No president since FDR has accelerated spending as fast as Bush has," he groans. "I'm shocked about it, but the numbers show what the numbers show.""

No Mr. President, not every tax cut is good for America.

And No Mr. President, not every upward adjustment of the minimum wage is bad for business.

And No Mr. President, being a compassionate conservative does not mean keeping poor people back.

America needs new leadership in the White House. Things would be so different if Kerry had won in 2004 and if he succeeds in 2008, America will once again have a new direction!

Keep on coming John! We have got your back!

Bob

Kerry to Tour Middle East: Developing Iraq Strategy!

2006-12-13T17:36:00.000-06:00

As more evidence of Senator John Kerry's continued interest in the 2008 elections, it was recently reported that he is planning to travel through the mid-east, meeting heads of state in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel. Kerry is continuing to "do his homework" to get us all unstuck from the morass of Iraq!

"Kerry says, "The Mideast policy as a whole is in tatters, and the situation is getting more dangerous, and there is a lot that's at play."
"This is the most compelling and important issue on the table today: the war on terror, how it would more properly be fought."
Kerry will visit Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Israel, and in an unlikely move, will meet with the head of state in all of those countries.
According to the Boston Globe, Kerry said he plans to venture outside the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad to talk to U.S. troops stationed in more volatile parts of the country, including the "Sunni Triangle."

Thank you Senator Kerry! The naysayers and critics are outnumbered by those of us who appreciate your sincere effort, real experience, and idealism that motivates you in these difficult hours facing America! We have got your back John!

Bob

Literacy Associated with Support for John Kerry!

2006-12-12T13:48:00.000-06:00

Not a big surprise for me.

Always seemed like it was obvious that if you read the news, kept up with world events, and had a good education, you would be supporting Senator Kerry!

Now comes this story from USA Today on America's "Most Literate Cities".

They report:

"•The most literate cities also tend to be more liberal, a
comparison with voter preferences in the 2004 presidential election suggests.
Miller found that cities that voted for Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., in general
rank higher than cities that voted for President Bush. The average ranking for
Kerry-voting cities is 27, vs. 51 for cities that voted heavily for Bush.
(Voting preferences for cities were provided by the California-based Bay Area
Center for Voting Research.)
Also, Kerry-leaning cities rank higher in five
of the six categories. The one exception: Cities that favored Bush rank higher
in average education levels."

So I guess, to paraphrase that now famous line, 'If you work hard, do your homework, and study..." you are likely to support Senator John Kerry for President!

Keep on coming John! You have an important message for America. There are those who would like to see your leadership unavailable to America. But don't worry, they probably haven't been reading much.

Bob

Dave Johnson and James Boyce Get It "Right" on Kerry!

2006-12-11T17:08:00.000-06:00

Why should I be staying with Kerry? Don't I realize that he "can't win". That he "speaks poorly" as I have been told. That he is "indecisive".

Because these are all lies and smears.

Because Senator John Kerry got it right in Vietnam. He gets it right on the Environment. And he gets it right on Iraq long before everyone else got it. He understands what real family values are. He respects the dignity of every American and can distinguish between Science and Religious dogma.

We are living in the Orwellian world of doublespeak. We are told lies and made to believe that truth must be incorrect.

It was therefore refreshing to turn to the Huffington Post this afternoon and read the wise words of Dave Johnson and James Boyce.

They write about Senator Obama and ask:

"With complete respect to Senator Obama, where are the long-time Democratic leaders who have dedicated their lives to the service of our country? Where are the other possible Presidential contenders? What about Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry? Where are Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid? Are they not leaders that deserve at the very least to have decent favorability ratings?
Why is Barack Obama "favorable" and not any of the better-known Democratic leaders? And why - of all people is Rudy Guiliani at the top of the list as the Number One leader in our country? The answer is simple, and dramatic.

This favorability poll proves the power of the Right Wing's ongoing and successful strategy of "SELL and SMEAR."

Of course, pundits and commentators fell over themselves to see who could be the first or the wittiest in their ridiculing of John Kerry for his place finish. They pondered Guiliani's victory and Senator Obama's high rating. But they missed the point.

With concentrated and coordinated efforts between the conservative movement organizations, political leaders and the press, we have been SOLD the myth of Rudy Guiliani as a strong leader just as they've SMEARED John Kerry to the point where he is, sadly, damaged goods contemplating the potential end of a thirty-plus year career of service.

Three Democratic leaders on the poll have faced the full wrath of the smear machine, two as the Democratic Presidential Nominee, the third as co-target of the attacks on President Clinton. And where are Al Gore, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton? All are near the bottom of the rankings with favorability of under 50%. That is the power of the smear machine. This is what the machine does to our leaders - the leaders of the party of the people. It smears and attacks and destroys them."

They create a hypothetical and suggest you go to a dinner party and state:

"John Kerry is an authentic American war hero."
Watch the reaction. At best, people will acknowledge that he served. At worst, they will laugh at you. But he is. If anyone can claim to be an authentic American war hero it's John Kerry. He volunteered for the Navy out of Yale. He volunteered for Vietnam. He volunteered for Swift Boat duty. He was wounded three times and received three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star and a Bronze Star with Combat V.

Wait a minute. We know what you're thinking. But call anyone you know who has served in combat with the Navy, in World War II, in Vietnam or since. And ask them: does the Navy just hand out Purple Hearts like jelly beans? They'll laugh at you and tell you 'Of course not. There are procedures and paperwork.' No one gave those medals to John Kerry - he earned them. He is a war hero. But people "just don't like him."

But the American public has been lead like sheep to slaughter. We have given up our leaders as we become convinced that they are no longer "electable". Get a "Red State Governor" is the common call. How could a Senator ever get elected? Especially from Massachusetts!

They continue:

"Now we are seeing the same pattern repeated with another 2008 hopeful, Senator Hillary Clinton. Every single American should have a favorable impression of Senator Clinton, regardless of whether or not they are supporting her as a potential candidate.

Hillary Clinton is the first woman in our nation's history, the very first, to have a legitimate shot at becoming President. She is an inspiration. She has the chance to make history. And yet, we repeat the Right Wing talking points about her. We say that she is "polarizing." And we say that she is "hated in her own party." And then there's that omnipresent, "I don't know, I just don't like her."

What about the image of the Democratic Party itself?

Have you ever wondered how exactly it is that the Democrats are perceived as "weak on defense" when Nixon was the one who surrendered in Vietnam, and Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy were Democrats? When so many of the leadership and candidates of the Democratic Party are veterans while so few of the Republicans are?

Did you know that George McGovern was a World War II bomber pilot? And remember, in the debate on Iraq, we have John Kerry, Jack Murtha, Max Cleland, Joe Sestak, Chris Carney, Patrick Murphy, Richard Holbrooke, Wesley Clark, and more - all veterans. Our party collects war heroes as leaders. Their leaders collect deferments. And yet? They're perceived as the party of National Security. Why? Because they have spent billions telling us that it is so.

Look at any stock market or economic historic growth charts. The second half of the 1990s, under the leadership of Bill Clinton and brilliant business minds like Bob Rubin and Erskine Bowles, gave us a time of incredible growth. And historically Democratic Presidencies have higher economic and stock market growth. And Democrats reduce budget deficits while Republican increase them. Yet people perceive that Democrats are bad for the economy? Why? Because they've spent billions telling us that it is so."

Because they tell us that it is so!

Oh I know, we haven't been struck again since 9/11 have we? We are told by the media that Republicans are good for defense. But it was a Republican President who failed to act when warned about Osama bin Laden. It was a Republican Administration that failed to catch Osama at Tora Bora when he was in the caves. We sent our surrogates in after him!

As for Senator Kerry:

"Imagine if John Kerry had been President the last two years. The Iraq Study Group's proposals contain many of the elements of John Kerry's 2004 Iraq plan he championed during the campaign. Would we be further along the road to a resolution in Iraq?
Absolutely."

They conclude:

"Finally, back to Senator Barack Obama. Or is that "Balak HUSSEIN Osama" - as some Right Wing commentators are saying it already? What will happen when he faces the wrath of the Right's machine? Will we still love him then?
Will our fellow Americans start saying, "I don't know, I just don't like him." Will we let him be smeared? Will we let Senator Clinton and Vice President Gore be smeared again? Will we let John Kerry's legacy be destroyed?

The answer has to be a resounding no. The Right's $mear machine is one of the most powerful, destructive and pervasive forces of our time. It has to be understood for what it is, fought back against, exposed and destroyed. Not just for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and everyone else who will or has faced its wrath. But for us, our children, our future and most importantly, our democracy."

This is a battle for the survival of our nation. For true Democracy that includes real votes with the ability to do recounts. True Democracy that punishes those who strip citizens of their right to vote by removing them from the voter rolls.

Is Senator Kerry damaged goods? It will take more than a smear to stop this Senator. But he cannot do it alone! We must elect our most-qualified leader as President. It is John Kerry who has the Vietnam experience to know it is time to stop sending Americans to die for a mistake! It is John Kerry who understands the importance of dealing with our allies, protecting our environment, and supporting women's issues.

Keep on Coming John! We have got your back!

Bob

Mark Barrett Gets it Right on John Kerry!

2006-12-04T21:44:00.000-06:00

Kudos to Mark Barrett who writes about Senator Kerry:

For the past four years now, the best voice on Iraq has been John Kerry. Starting with his floor statement on the Iraq War Resolution vote, through his opposition to the launch of the war before Bush pulled the trigger, right up to today, nobody has been more consistently accurate and engaged about what to do about Iraq than John Kerry.

But we can’t say that. We can’t notice that one person, again and again, gets it right.

Why?

Well, to begin with, he voted for the IWR. In the shorthand used by the brain-dead people who cover politics, that’s equivalent to voting for the war even though there was no actual vote to start the war. George Bush pulled the trigger on his own. But that’s too complicated for the pundits, so they simply say that John Kerry voted for the war, and of course anybody who voted for this war isn’t somebody we should listen to.

There’s also the fact that he lost to George Bush in 2004. Never mind the context, the Republican prostitution of 9/11, the cynical $300 tax cuts handed out to every voter, the slanderous attacks on Senator Kerry’s war record, and most importantly the wholesale lies told by the Bush administration about their own failing war policy. John Kerry lost the election, so that means he’s a loser. And we don’t take advice from losers in this country. We take advice from winners like George Bush.

More recently of course there’s the botched joke. Never mind that it was a mugging by the Bush administration and a piling on by the press that turned the story into a front-page saga. How dare John Kerry defend his good name? We don’t take advice from people who aren’t willing to have their noses rubbed in filth whenever the President and the press decide they need a break from confronting the realities of the Iraq War.

Then there’s the 2008 election, and how other candidates might not fare too well in comparison with Senator Kerry’s engagement on the issue. Hillary Clinton spent most of the past three years in hiding. Barack Obama didn’t have to vote on the IWR, but he and his disciples will tell you he was against the war from the beginning. Same goes for Al Gore. Those are all people we need to protect, and we can’t protect them if we notice that John Kerry has been right about Iraq while they’ve been playing politics.

Maybe the worst crime John Kerry has committed, however, is that he’s answered the questions people have asked in the context of the moment. And that’s a very serious crime. That’s a flip-flopper’s attitude, unlike the cool-hand certainty and unshakeable resolve of our victorious decider, George Bush. Unbelievably, John Kerry keeps modifying his advice as the facts change on the ground, which is obviously a sign of weakness and indecision. Why is it so hard for John Kerry to do what George Bush did and pick one inviolate course of action that’s perfect for every possible situation?

Finally, we can’t notice that John Kerry gets it right more than he gets it wrong because we don’t want him to run for president again. He had his chance, and now it’s time to pick somebody new that can help us forget about how right John Kerry was when we decided not to elect him in 2004. He’s not saying that himself, of course, because he’s focused on bringing the troops home and finding a political solution to the problem. But most of us here in the United States really haven’t felt the effects of the war, so we’re much more concerned with how we can get a good, guilt-free night of sleep. And we can’t do that if John Kerry doesn’t go away and let us forget.

So let’s just keep saying that nobody’s willing to have a serious discussion about Iraq, so we don’t have to notice that John Kerry has been having a serious discussion for four years, and getting it right all along. Let’s just keep saying there’s nobody who knows what’s going on or what to do about it, because that means we don’t have to know what’s going on or what to do about it.

And isn’t that the easy way out of Iraq we’ve all been looking for?

– Mark Barrett

Republican AIDS Policies Hurt Women!

2006-12-03T22:08:00.000-06:00

President George W. Bush and Health and Human Services Secretary celebrate World AIDS Day on Friday, December 1, 2006.

President Bush stated:

"It's a day, as well, for the United States to remember that we have a duty to do something about this epidemic _ this pandemic," Bush said about the disease, which has killed 25 million people."

While some of the funds from the United States have indeed been helpful to third world nations trying to cope with this medical disaster, many of America's policies have continued to hurt the poorest of the poor in Africa: African women struggling to obtain health care in an environment of extreme poverty and exploitation.

On January 22, 2001, as one of his very first acts as President, George W. Bush reactivated the "Mexico City Policy" that had been suspended by President Clinton with this memorandum:

"January 22, 2001
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT: Restoration of the Mexico City Policy
The Mexico City Policy announced by President Reagan in 1984 required nongovernmental organizations to agree as a condition of their receipt of Federal funds that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations. This policy was in effect until it was rescinded on January 22, 1993.
It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad. It is therefore my belief that the Mexico City Policy should be restored. Accordingly, I hereby rescind the "Memorandum for the Acting Administrator of the Agency for International Development, Subject: AID Family Planning Grants/Mexico City Policy," dated January 22, 1993, and I direct the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development to reinstate in full all of the requirements of the Mexico City Policy in effect on January 19, 1993.
GEORGE W. BUSH
# # #"

This policy, also known as the "Global Gag Rule", has been harmful to the very people it purports to protect. As noted in this article:

"The Gag Rule, also known as the "Mexico City Policy," denies U.S. international family planning funding to foreign non-governmental organizations that provide safe abortion services, counseling, referral, or information on safe abortion, advocate for changes in abortion law in their own country, conduct research on the effects of unsafe abortion, or otherwise work on safe abortion issues.*
The Global Gag Rule undermines efforts to prevent unintended pregnancies in the first place by crippling family planning programs that do so much as collect data on unsafe abortion. It also hobbles efforts to address the toll taken on women's lives worldwide by complications of unsafe abortion, sexually transmitted infections, complications of labor and delivery, and other leading causes of illness and death among women worldwide. According to conservative estimates by the World Health Organization (WHO), approximately 600,000 women worldwide die each year from complications of pregnancy and childbirth, of which at least 78,000 women worldwide die as a result of complications of unsafe abortion in a desperate effort to terminate unintended pregnancies. In Kenya, where abortion is illegal, complications of unsafe abortion are a leading killer of married women in their twenties and thirties. The Kenya Family Planning Association lost U.S. funding because it refused to forgo the right to discuss the toll of unsafe abortion on the lives of women in Kenya. "Loss of this funding has severely undermined efforts to reduce unintended pregnancy in Kenya through expansion of voluntary family planning as well as to prevent HIV infections in women," according to Dr. Godwin Mzenge, Executive Director of Family Planning Association of Kenya."

Shame on this President for hurting women in third world nations!

It has been up to private individuals and foundations to help fill in the gaping holes left by the backwards American foreign policy, a policy driven by far-right religious extremists that are more concerned with religious dogma than effective public health policy. As noted by the Palm Beach Daily News last month:

"The global gag rule prohibits the distribution of U.S. funds to any clinic that provides abortion services, referral or counseling. By law, no U.S. funds can be used to provide abortions in foreign countries.
"The full range of reproductive health services — their family planning needs, pre- and postnatal care needs — they all get intertwined and sacrificed by this if you will," said luncheon attendee Shirine Mohagheghpourp, acting vice president of international programs for Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
"The government can attach strings to the money it gives, that's perfectly fine, but now it's attaching strings to what organizations do with their own money."

As noted, implementation of this policy has limited the utility of funds:

"Proponents of the Bush initiative argue a three-pronged HIV prevention strategy _ emphasizing abstinence, fidelity and condom use _ offers people the best options to protect themselves from AIDS. Democrats in Congress have condemned a provision in the Bush initiative that requires that 33 percent of all money committed to prevention programs be spent to promote abstinence. That restriction, they say, has more to do with conservative ideology than scientifically proven successful programs."

More recently, litigation against a 2003 law which requires nongovernmental organizations to pledge their opposition to prostitution as a condition for receiving funds for international anti-AIDS work has threatened the work to deal with prostitutions who often may serve as unintending vetors for this disease.

As reported:

"Leading US and international health agencies working to fight HIV/AIDS have recognized the crucial role sex workers play in fighting HIV/AIDS, and found that strategies that approach sex workers in a respectful and nonjudgmental manner are vital to earning the trust of sex workers and engaging them in efforts to stem the spread of HIV. Forcing NGOs to sign an official pledge opposing prostitution will impede such efforts, exacerbate existing stigma, and perpetuate discrimination against sex workers, driving them further underground and away from existing HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment services."

This is not just theoretical. As noted in this case:

"The brief was filed in support of USAID v. DKT International. DKT International, a US-based NGO, was denied federal funding when it refused to adopt the policy because it would hamper its HIV/AIDS programs worldwide, including in countries with serious HIV/AIDS epidemics like Ethiopia, India, Brazil and Vietnam. On May 18, a federal court ruled that the pledge requirement violated fundamental free speech rights guaranteed by the US Constitution."

This past month, President Bush continued to flaunt his right-wing fundamentalist ideology, at the expense of women, with the appointment of Dr. Eric Keroack, an Obstetrician-Gynecologist, to direct fiderally funded planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services. Keroack headed "A Woman's Concern", an organization, which according to the Washington Post:

"A Woman's Concern is persuaded that the crass commercialization and distribution of birth control is demeaning to women, degrading of human sexuality and adverse to human health and happiness," the group's Web site says."

But some religious Conservatives are angered by the little that the Global AIDS fund is even able to accomplish with all of the strings attached by this Administration.

As reported:

"LAKE FOREST, Calif. -- Some leading Christian conservatives, angry over the Global Fund to Fight AIDS's promotion of condoms and its perceived lack of support for faith-based programs, are pushing Congress to cut US support for the AIDS initiative, which was initiated by President Bush in a Rose Garden ceremony five years ago with a $200 million commitment."

So where does it all stop? When can this nation once again address medical problems from a public health perspective? Are we to slide back into the dark ages and assign God's punishment against "evil" as the explanation of disease? Are we to interfere with the public health assessment that condom usage prevents disease. That we may be unable to impose our Puritanical views on abstinence upon a third world African nation without hurting innocent women and children?

Yes Mr. President, the time has arrived to do something about AIDS, a scourge facing our generation on every continent. But we need a President who is willing to use every contemporary method of fighting disease, and not just endorsing a program acceptable to the most religiously conservative supporters!

The time for change in America is now! We have a new Congress and we need a new direction from the White House. We cannot just mouth the words about curing AIDS while interfering with the delivery of health care to those women and children most at risk!

Senator Kerry understands this and is committed to delivering healthcare to women in need; not bogging down our aid with puritanical restrictions that interfere with success and deny science its rightful place in Medicine.

Bob

Kerry "Dead Last" in Likability Poll!

2006-11-28T07:27:00.000-06:00

It certainly was disappointing to read of a "likability" poll from the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute in Connecticut. This is not a news report that I can ignore. I support Senator Kerry for President in 2008. But I also, like the Senator, want to deal truthfully with the facts of our world and that includes the news stories like this one.

As reported:

"Monday, November 27, 2006; 5:00 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
Democratic Sen. John Kerry, mulling a second bid for the U.S. presidency,
finished dead last in a poll released on Monday on the likability of 20 top
American political figures.

Among those placing ahead of Kerry were about
a dozen potential 2008 White House rivals, including Democratic Sen. Hillary
Rodham Clinton of New York and Republican Sen. John McCain of
Arizona.

"This is bad bad news for Kerry," said Peter Brown, assistant
director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute in Hamden, Connecticut,
which conducted the survey.

"Americans know who he is, and have pretty
much decided they don't like him," said Brown. He noted the poll found that 95
percent of respondents said they had heard enough about Kerry, who lost the 2004
White House race to President Bush, to rate the Massachusetts
Democrat.

The poll of 1,623 registered voters was conducted after the
November 7 national elections, which saw Democrats win back control of the U.S.
Congress from Republicans."

This speaks well to the effectiveness of the swift-boat attack on Senator Kerry.

Kerry is quite a 'dark-horse' in the 2008 race.

As events develop in Iraq. As we see our economy struggle against the ill-thought policies of this Administration. As we see the unfolding effects of global warming. And the failures of a foreign policy that depends on confrontation and not diplomacy. Americans will once again see the wisdom of Senator Kerry!

Can he succeed from this deficit? Can he connect to Americans? We cannot choose our Presidents on the basis of "likability contests", otherwise we shall be reduced to selecting leaders like we pick the most popular toys for the Season...
this is not a selection of "Tickle me Elmos" or Furby.

We are looking to choose an American from among us who can lead us through these difficult times.

This blogger understands that Senator Kerry understands the issues and the solutions for this nation. This blogger is not interested in popularity polls but answers and leadership. Senator Kerry has never failed to deal with challenges directly whether as a Veteran in Vietnam, or as a Senator facing controversy in Washington.

Our world is full of nuance and Kerry has been attacked because he understands that the solutions to those problems are equally nuanced. It is never simply a question of just right and wrong. Black and white. Evil or good. These are "TV land" solutions to real world problems.

People laughed when he said he first voted for the appropriation then voted against it. Flip-flop they screamed. But anyone with half of a brain would realize that all of the Republicans first voted against it then they voted for it as well. They just didn't say it.

He was attacked because he stated he was in Cambodia and somebody thought he was JUST in
Vietnam. Well he served his nation in Southeast Asia and received Purple Hearts for his efforts. More than some Republicans in the highest office of this nation who send young men and women from this country to die and lose their limbs for a mistake and for a lie.

He filibustered Alito when the other Democrats said they didn't have the votes. But trying to stop this nominee was the right thing to do and Kerry was there to do it. Alito was the author of the paper about signing statements. He is the one who believed in an Executive who could take power from Congress. And Senator Kerry understood this. And this President has been usurping power from the legislative branch.

And he was attacked by his foes because he mentioned a "global test", suggesting we should consult with our Allies before implementing our foreign policy. The wisdom of this is shown time and time again as we become bogged down in the quagmire of Iraq that we decided to do with "go it alone" cowboy foreign policy.

While media attention is diverted from him, now is the time for him to speak out on the challenges facing our nation without concern to what is politically correct, politically expedient, or politically advantageous. Now is the time for statesmanship from the junior Senator from Massachusetts!

America is waiting John! We have your back. You are #1 on our list!

Bob

Give "Peace" A Chance!

2006-11-27T12:02:00.000-06:00

I came across a story that deserves attention.

Apparently, Lisa Jensen, of Pagosa Springs was causing too much trouble when she put up a modified Christmas wreath in the shape of a Peace Sign.

As Bob Kearns, president of the Loma Linda Homeowners Association in Pagosa Springs states:

"Somebody could put up signs that say drop bombs on Iraq. If you let one go up
you have to let them all go up,"

But as Lisa herself stated:

"Peace is way bigger than not being at war. This is a spiritual thing."

As reported:

"The association in this 200-home subdivision 270 miles southwest of Denver
has sent a letter to her saying that residents were offended by the sign and
the board "will not allow signs, flags etc. that can be considered
divisive."
The subdivision's rules say no signs, billboards or advertising are permitted without the consent of the architectural control committee. Kearns ordered the committee to require Jensen to remove the wreath, but members refused after concluding that it was merely a seasonal symbol that didn't say anything. Kearns fired all five committee
members."

Never thought of Peace being divisive.

It is the kind of thing that usually brings people together this time of year. You know, loving each other, not having wars, and "turning swords into plowshares!"

Must be some kind of liberal plot I guess.

Bob

President Bush: Failing to Learn the Lessons of History!

2006-11-22T22:28:00.003-06:00

President Bush visited Hanoi last week as part of a three-day Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit.

Our President was asked about the "lessons of Vietnam" in relation to our involvement in Iraq.

He stated:

"Yes, I mean, one lesson is, that we tend to want there to be instant success in the world, and the task in Iraq is going to take a while,''' he said. "But I would make it beyond just Iraq. I think the great struggle we're going to have is between radicals and extremists versus people who want to live in peace, and that Iraq is a part of the struggle. And it's just going to take a long period of time to -- for the ideology that is hopeful, and that is an ideology of freedom, to overcome an ideology of hate.
"Yet, the world that we live in today is one where they want things to happen immediately,'' he said. "And it's hard work in Iraq… We'll succeed unless we quit.''

Were these the real lessons of Vietnam?

That we could succeed "unless we quit"? Was this the extent of his understanding? That our ideology of "freedom" was struggling to overcome an ideology of "hate"?

Robert McNamara was Secretary of Defense during most of the Johnson Administration, and was involved in the development and implementation of Vietnam policy for this country.

In 1995, years before our current involvement in Iraq, Secretary McNamara summarized his understanding of the lessons and the reasons behind our failure in Vietnam.

McNamara stated:

"The important point is the decision was ours, not Eisenhower's. And we were wrong. We made the decision; he didn't make the decision. And to demonstrate how and why we went wrong, I review in key detail the key decisions that we faced over the ensuing seven years. And I discuss each of them. What the alternatives were, how we evaluated the alternatives, why we acted as we did, what might have happened if we'd chosen a different alternative. And it's from that review that I identify our failures, and it's from that review that I draw from the lessons, which I believe will be applicable and relevant to the 21st century. Now, I'm going to go through. There are eleven of them."

He states:

"The first point is we misjudged them, and I think we're misjudging today the geo-political intentions of our adversaries. In that case, it was the geo-political intention to North Vietnam and the Viet Cong supported by China and the Soviet Union. And we exaggerated the dangers to the U.S. of those adversaries. And I think we're continuing to do that."

Perhaps instead of the "domino theory", we are frightened into supporting this war with the lie that we will have to fight them here if we aren't fighting them there!

As Vice-President Cheney frequently points out:

"We can't guarantee there won't be another one, obviously, but we've gone over four years now. And I think it's been because we've been fighting them on their turf instead of having to fight them here on the streets of our own cities."

McNamara continued:

"Second mistake. We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience. We're still doing that. We saw them as having a thirst for a determination to fight for freedom and democracy. We totally misjudged the political forces within that country."

Again, we have made the same mistake. As President Bush himself stated after the last Iraq elections:

"Our efforts to advance freedom in Iraq are driven by our vital interests and our deepest beliefs. America was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and we believe that the people of the Middle East desire freedom as much as we do. History has shown that free nations are peaceful nations. And as Iraqi democracy takes hold, Iraqi citizens will have a stake in a common and peaceful future."

Do Iraqis really believe that all men are created equal? Are we reading into Iraq our own values? The answers are obvious.

Again, back to McNamara:

"Thirdly, we underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate people. In this case, the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong. Then we underestimate the power of ... (inaudible) to motivate a people to fight and die for their people."

and

"Fourthly, our misjudgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance of a history, culture and politics of the people in that area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders."

As reported on RAW STORY:

"In his new book, The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created A War Without End, Galbraith, the son of the late economist John Kenneth Galbraith, claims that American leadership knew very little about the nature of Iraqi society and the problems it would face after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
A year after his “Axis of Evil” speech before the U.S. Congress, President Bush met with three Iraqi Americans, one of whom became postwar Iraq’s first representative to the United States. The three described what they thought would be the political situation after the fall of Saddam Hussein. During their conversation with the President, Galbraith claims, it became apparent to them that Bush was unfamiliar with the distinction between Sunnis and Shiites.

Galbraith reports that the three of them spent some time explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam--to which the President allegedly responded, “I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!”

McNamara continued:

"Fifth, forsaken lesson. We failed then as we have since to recognize the limitations of modern high technology military equipment and forces in doctrine in confronting unconventional highly motivated people's movements."

As Dan Baum wrote in the New Yorker in January, 2005:

"In Iraq, the Army’s marquee high-tech weapons are often sidelined while the enemy kills and maims Americans with bombs wired to garage-door openers or doorbells. Even more important, the Army is facing an enemy whose motivation it doesn’t understand. “I don’t think there’s one single person in the Army or the intelligence community that can break down the demographics of the enemy we’re facing,” an Airborne captain named Daniel Morgan told me. “You can’t tell whether you’re dealing with a former Baathist, a common criminal, a foreign terrorist, or devout believers.”

McNamara continued:

"Sixthly, we failed and we came damn close to making this mistake in connection with the Gulf War. We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of large scale U.S. military involvement."
"And seventh, after the action got underway, and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course, we fail to retain popular support, in part, because we hadn't explained fully what was happening and why we had to do what we did."

The support for the Iraq war continues to plummet. As reported four days ago:

"Washington | Americans' approval of President Bush's handling of Iraq has dropped to the lowest level ever, increasing the pressure on the commander in chief to find a way out after nearly four years of war.

The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found just 31 percent approval on his handling of Iraq, days after voters registered their displeasure at the polls by defeating Republicans across the board and handing control of Congress to the Democrats. The previous low in AP-Ipsos polling was 33 percent in both June and August.

Erosion of support for Bush's Iraq policy was most pronounced among conservatives and Republican men - critical supporters who propelled Bush to the White House and a second term in 2004."

Back to McNamara:

"Eight, we didn't recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are on a mission. To this day we seem to act in the world as though we know what's right for everybody. We think we're on a mission. We aren't. We weren't then and we aren't today. And where our own security is at stake, I'm prepared to say act unilaterally, militarily. Where our security is not at stake, not directly at stake, narrowly defined, then I believe that our judgement of what is in another people's interest, should be put to the test of open discussion, open debate, and international forum. And we shouldn't act unilaterally militarily under any circumstances. And we shouldn't act militarily in conjunction with others until that debate has taken place. We don't have the God-given right to shape every nation to our own image."

and

"Ninth, we didn't hold to the principal that U.S. military action other than in response to direct ... (inaudible) to our own security should be carried out only in conjunction with international forces who are going to share in the cost. And I don't mean financial cost, although I certainly include financial cost, but I mean primarily the blood cost, the blood risk."

and

"Tenth, we failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems which there are no immediate solutions, certainly no military solutions."
"And finally underlying many of these ten mistakes lay our failure to organize the top echelons of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex range of problems that we were facing. Political issues, military issues."

No Mr. President. The lesson of Vietnam was far more complex than we can succeed if we don't quit.

The lessons include not trying to impose our way of life on others who might not share our cultural values. Includes understanding what those cultures are before we get there. Not assuming that high tech can defeat low tech as we have learned from the deaths from IED's. Not lying to Americans about WMD's or 'fixing the facts' to get us involved in the conflict. Not attacking with our military when we were not militarily at risk. And maintaining the communication and cooperation with Congress to maintain support for this effort.

No Mr. President, our failure is much due to your failures. And Americans continue to pay the ultimate cost.

We need a new direction in America. Senator Kerry understands what it means to send an American to die for a mistake. Senator Kerry supports our soldiers in ways far more real than the neoconservative cheerleading for "victory". He may not be able to tell a joke.

But he can tell the truth.

Bob

Senator Kerry 5th in Latest Presidential Preference Poll!

2006-11-21T19:26:00.000-06:00

CNN recently released the results of their 2008 Democratic Presidential Preference poll.

They reported:

"Clinton was ranked first among 10 potential Democratic candidates.
Second place for "likely" support was nearly even among Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois (15 percent), former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina (14 percent) and former Vice President Al Gore (14 percent), given the poll's margin of error or plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic nominee in 2004, lost support, dropping from 12 percent in late October to 7 percent in the latest poll.
Worse news for Kerry: a majority of registered Democrats say they do not want to see Kerry win the party's nomination in 2008."

So what are we to make of this? Should we fold this blog up? Should we go home and post some Hillary bumper-stickers? Or put up a new blog for Barack? These other Democrats are fine Americans. And I may well go on to support them in 2008 if indeed Senator Kerry is not the nominee.

But this blogger is convinced that Senator John Kerry has the 'right stuff' to be President! I am not a fair weather blogger, a fair weather activist, or a fair weather American.

Our nation is at a point in its history where our citizens will need to determine which direction we are going. Are we as a nation to continue with a foreign policy that allows for proactive wars on fixed facts? Are we as a nation to allow the compromise of voting, the lack of a paper trail, the suppression of registered voters stripped from voting lists, the implementation of voter I.D. requirements that work to deny the poor and the disadvantaged the right to vote? Shall voting be made entirely provisional?

Does this nation endorse torture? Are secret prisons acceptable? Can evidence obtained under torture and coercion be allowed in a court trial? Can accused individuals see the evidence arrayed against them? Is hearsay allowable in a trial? Does Habeas Corpus matter in America?

And our courts? Does the President have rights and powers above other Americans? Is he above the law? Do we change the laws to accommodate the President or do we require the President to follow the laws?

What about signing statements? Does the President have the right to change the law without a veto just by his signature? Will this Congress provide oversight?

My support of Senator Kerry is about what Senator Kerry stands for. He is the most qualified, the most knowledgeable, and the most courageous candidate for President for this election. There is no question that he is now a dark horse. He is not the front-runner. The odds are indeed long that he shall succeed. But I wouldn't bet against the junior Senator from Massachusetts.

America needs his leadership. His wisdom. His courage. And yes, his understanding of where America needs to go in this century depends on the right candidate for President. In November, 2004, when I started this blog, I asked the question, "Why Kerry?". In that entry I wrote:

"We need a leader with the understanding and capability to lead this nation back onto the right course. This nation cannot tolerate another four or eight more years without the leadership that Kerry can provide."

This is not about a popularity poll. This is about the future of our country.

Keep on coming John! We have got your back!

Bob

Bush Needs to Learn the Lessons of Vietnam!

2006-11-21T15:31:00.000-06:00

Keith Olbermann says it all.

Watch HERE for the video courtesy of Crooks And Liars.

Senator Kerry understands these lessons. He is attacked because he is the one who reminds us of those lessons.

Our foreign policy is not a grade-B movie as those in this Administration would like to believe.

The lesson of Vietnam was not that we will win in Iraq unless we quit.

No domino effect. No spread of Communism. No fighting them there or we will be fighting them here. No WMD's. No more lies.

We have got your back John! Keep on coming!

Bob

Kerry on Fox: Fending off Chris Wallace!

2006-11-19T23:40:00.000-06:00

Senator John Kerry went to Fox to face his toughest critics. He didn't run to his friendliest venue like Vice-President Cheney did after his shooting crisis.

He faced his conservative critics head-on!

Click HERE to watch the clip from Fox from Crooks and Liars.

Keep on coming John! 2008 is around the corner and we have got your back!

Bob

More Evidence on Getting "Stuck in Iraq"!

2006-11-11T01:43:00.000-06:00

Most of the smoke has cleared from Senator Kerry's unintentional mis-statement that was mis-interpreted by the right-wing hit-squads to suggest if students didn't study they might get 'stuck in Iraq'.

But what hasn't disappeared is the evidence that more and more brave young men and women are indeed getting stuck. Stuck in a war that we started. Stuck in a war advanced on false pretenses. This 'back-door draft' involves units of the military and now of the National Guard who are having their tours of duty extended and repeated, beyond the 'deals' they anticipated when they enlisted. As reported today in the USA Today:

""We are doing contingency planning for one or two (units), and we have contingency plans for more than two if necessary," Blum said on Wednesday. The North Carolina brigade, he said, is being considered since it was one of the first to go to Iraq after the war began in 2003.

Blum also said defense officials have been discussing whether they need to adjust their policy that limits the deployment of reserves in the war to 24 months.

"When that policy was originally formulated, I seriously doubt anyone thought we would be where we are today, at the level of commitment that is necessary today," he said.

Just last month, defense officials said the Marines are drawing up similar plans that would for the first time send some reserve combat battalions back to Iraq for a second tour.

Under the authority by which Bush ordered a call-up of the Guard and Reserve after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, troops could be mobilized an unlimited number of times as long as each mobilization is no longer than 24 consecutive months.

Until now, Pentagon officials have interpreted that as 24 cumulative months.

While the ultimate goal for the National Guard is to deploy one year overseas and spend six years at home, Blum said the current demands could force soldiers to deploy as often as one year every three or four years."

The repeated tours of our soldiers may be something they accept, for that is the chance they took when they enlisted, but it will likely adversely affect our ability to continue to attract talented young people to the service whether in the National Guard or the regular armed services.

Not only has this become an endless war for our nation, our soldiers are being asked to serve in an endless fashion for their country!

It is time for you to speak to America once again Senator Kerry! America needs your leadership at the helm.

Democrats now control the House and the Senate. We need a Democrat at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue who can work to bring America home once more. Home to a leadership that respects the Constitution, respects international laws, respects our Allies and who believes in the possibilities in the good of mankind that regardless of their religious or ethnic backgrounds also yearn for peace and a future for their children and their children's children.

Keep on Coming John!

Bob

John Kerry Jokebook: Great Editorial from Star Tribune

2006-11-08T21:27:00.000-06:00

This is a provocative editorial to be published in tomorrow's Minneapolis/St. Paul Star Tribune:

"A man went to his doctor, who informed him that he was overweight. The patient protested, "I want a second opinion." The doctor replied, "OK, under the Bush administration, Medicare is unfairly prohibited from negotiating with the pharmaceutical companies."

• • •

A couple in their 80s went to see a divorce mediator. The mediator said, "You've been married nearly 60 years! Why would you want to get divorced now?" The husband answered, "If we'd had children, they might be dead by now thanks to President Bush's refusal to fund embryonic stem-cell research."

• • •

A fellow who had been unemployed throughout the Bush administration came up to me on the street the other day and said he hadn't had a bite for a week. Then he bit me.

• • •

Knock, knock.

Who's there?

Banana.

Banana who?

Knock, knock.

Who's there?

Banana.

Banana who?

On second thought, I prefer oranges.

A duck went into a pharmacy and asked for some lip balm. The druggist asked what the duck wanted with lip balm, and the duck replied that he wanted to put it on his bill, especially in light of the high cost Americans must pay for health care.

There was a traveling salesman whose car broke down, so he approached a nearby farmhouse to ask whether he could spend the night. The farmer said, "All right, but you'll have to sleep in my daughter's bed. She's away at college, despite skyrocketing tuition."

I guess it is never too gloomy to laugh a little. Especially with the Democrats' terrific performance on midterm elections.

Campaign 2008 is now resuming! No joke.

Bob

Michael Reagan: The Kamikaze Columnist

2006-11-07T07:13:00.000-06:00

Michael Reagan, the eldest son of former President Ronald Reagan, works as a right-wing talk show host and columnist. His recent hatchet job on Senator John Kerry: John Kerry: The Kamikaze Kid was shameful and consistent with the usual pack of lies spread by those who find Kerry's frank discussion of America uncomfortable. They choose to 'kill the messenger' than seek to understand our nation's challenges.

Responding to Mr. Reagan, this was published today in SitNews in response:

"Why John Kerry Still Matters!
By Robert Freedland

November 07, 2006
Tuesday AM

Elizabeth Whittington writes (November 04, 2006): "I agree with Michael Reagan's column re: Sen. John Kerry. I am actually glad he finally made a complete fool of himself, both in his comment and 'apology'. He's one less Democrat to be concerned about."

Ms. Whittington may be right. Senator Kerry may have had his career destroyed by the Republican smears. But let's take a closer look at Michael Reagan's column, and we will see how Mr. Reagan spins his web of lies and distortions in his participation in the attack on a courageous American Veteran and Statesman.

First, Mr. Reagan starts out his name-calling by comparing Senator Kerry to a "vampire" recoiling from a cross. I suppose that Mr. Reagan believes that once again Senator Kerry and the Democrats are somehow heathens and that religion is on the side of the President. We know too well about the hypocritical, holier than thou Christians who have jumped in bed with the Republicans. Leaders like Ted Haggard, who while railing against gay marriage, was busy buying Methamphetamine and consorting with a homosexual prostitute.

Mr. Reagan claims Senator Kerry is like a "Kamikaze", alluding to the Japanese suicide pilots who attacked Americans. But it was Senator Kerry who served his nation in the military, and is a decorated Vietnam war veteran. We know that President Bush used his family influence to avoid the draft and get into the Texas Air National Guard, where his attendance is still questioned. And Vice-President Cheney used multiple deferments to avoid service! So why is this decorated military veteran being attacked by Mr. Reagan, who no doubt has an extensive record of service, as being a "Kamikaze", somebody who has undermined out military. Nothing could be further than the truth. But that is the point.

Mr. Reagan goes on to refer to the "L'affaire Kerry". This is another often-repeated slur about the Senator. That he speaks French. It is well-known that our President has difficulties with the English language. But that is considered amusing. The attack on a politician because he is fluent in a foreign language is the most anti-intellectual, xenophobic thinking that I can imagine. I guess the President is better because he speaks Texan. I suppose speaking French infers some sort of feminine attribute to Senator Kerry. Sort of like he must be limp-wristed if he speaks French? In any case, this is part of the standard pack of lies, and defamation of the Senator that is continued by Mr. Reagan.

Reagan goes on and states: "When John Kerry stands up and implies that the members of our armed forces now engaged in a bloody and dangerous war on behalf of the American people are a bunch of poorly educated high school dropouts, he is expressing what his colleagues in the Democrat leadership believe." This is a plain lie. Kerry never said this. Reagan knows this.

Let's look at his actual mis-statement (the text of his original speech is available). He stated: "Education -- if you make the most of it and you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well," said Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat. "If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." His entire set-up for this was his attack on Bush and not the Troops.

But what is the truth on this? Because of the endless war in Iraq, military recruiting is getting more difficult. And the Army has been allowing high-school dropouts to join. It isn't a bad thing; it is just the truth. As reported in the Army Times:

"The program allows recruiters to enlist a high school dropout, according to S. Douglas Smith, a spokesman for the U.S. Army Recruiting Command. But the enlistee must have the GED before shipping off to basic training. The Army will pay for individuals to attend a course to prepare for the GED test and will cover the cost of taking the GED exam."

Also as reported in Slate:

"Faced with repeated failures to meet its recruitment targets, the Army has had to lower its standards dramatically. First it relaxed restrictions against high-school drop-outs. Then it started letting in more applicants who score in the lowest third on the armed forces aptitude tests a group, known as Category IV recruits, who have been kept to exceedingly small numbers, as a matter of firm policy, for the past 20 years. (There is also a Category V those who score in the lowest 10th percentile. They have always been ineligible for service in the armed forces and, presumably, always will be.)"

These are unpleasant truths. But that doesn't make Mr. Kerry guilty of slurring the troops even if he did state the truth unintentionally.

And getting "stuck in Iraq"? Are our soldiers also stuck there? (Mr. Kerry was referring to this Administration being stuck, but for the sake of argume, let's see if our soldiers are getting stuck!)

As reported in the Los Angeles Times:

"WASHINGTON - In the latest sign of pressure on troop strength from growing violence in Iraq, the Pentagon said Monday that it had extended the combat tour of 4,000 soldiers, the second time in as many months that an Army brigade has seen its yearlong deployment lengthened.

The 1st Brigade of the 1st Armored Division, which is assigned to Ramadi, the capital of volatile Al Anbar province, will remain in Iraq an additional 46 days, defense officials said. Originally scheduled to leave Iraq in January, the brigade is now due to return to its base in Germany in late February."

This is not an isolated incident.

As reported in the Boston Globe:

"The Army and Marine Corps have carried much of the load. Of about 500,000 members in the active Army, more than half -- 279,393 -- have been sent overseas in the past three years. And of those, 34.6 percent have served multiple tours, some for a year or more and others several months at a time.

For the smaller Marine Corps, the percentage of the total force dispatched to Afghanistan or the Persian Gulf is greater -- 98,979 of about 120,000. Of those, 27.6 percent have done multiple tours, according to the Pentagon's count. The corps will be adding about 3,000 more troops to reduce the burden.

For part-time soldiers who leave jobs as well as families behind, the percentage serving multiple tours is even higher. Of the 90,649 Army National Guard soldiers deployed, 35.9 percent have been called up more than once.

For the Army Reserve, 34.6 percent of the 64,978 that have served since the Sept. 11 attacks have returned home, only to be redeployed within months.

Meanwhile, nearly half of the 41,093 members of the Air National Guard called to active duty have served two or more tours in the same period."

Americans are getting stuck in Iraq. Senator Kerry has been fighting to bring them home. That is how you support our troops.

So Senator Kerry wasn't really far off was he when he suggested inadvertently that failure in education could lead to one turning to the military for employment and that those same soldiers could get stuck in Iraq! Of course he was referring to the President, but nonetheless.

Michael Reagan continues with a quick reference to Senator Kerry's Winter Soldier testimony to Congress, by stating: "Remember, this is the man who came back from his brief four-month tour of duty in Vietnam to charge his fellow American servicemen with rape and murder."

Americans would rather feed on the Pablum of the Republican spinmeisters and believe that every American soldier was a good guy. That we never did atrocities in Vietnam or elsewhere. And that instead of pointing to the bad soldiers who do atrocities as the unAmerican ones, it is easier, according to Mr. Reagan and his ilk to point out to the brave and patriotic Americans like Senator John Kerry who bring our failures to our nation's attention. Maybe we all would prefer to pretend that things like this didn't happen. Who wants to eat the lunch given to us by Senator Kerry, wouldn't we all like to be dumb and stupid and feed on "happy meals"?

But atrocities, like rape and murder DID happen in Vietnam. It wasn't Kerry's mistake, it was the failur of our forces and their command. It isn't unpatriotic to be a whistle-blower. But we all would rather 'shoot the messenger' who in this case was Senator John Kerry, then a returning Vietnam war veteran.

Read what the Toledo Blade had to say about Vietnam atrocities among just one single unit. They wrote in 2003:

"Promising victory to an anxious American public, military leaders in 1967 sent a task force - including Tiger Force - to fight the enemy in one of the most highly contested areas of South Vietnam: the Central Highlands.

But the platoon's mission did not go as planned, with some soldiers breaking the rules of war.

Women and children were intentionally blown up in underground bunkers. Elderly farmers were shot as they toiled in the fields. Prisoners were tortured and executed - their ears and scalps severed for souvenirs. One soldier kicked out the teeth of executed civilians for their gold fillings.

Two soldiers tried to stop the killings, but their pleas were ignored by commanders. The Army launched an investigation in 1971 that lasted 41/2 years - the longest-known war-crime investigation of the Vietnam conflict.

The case reached the highest levels of the Pentagon and the Nixon White House.

Investigators concluded that 18 soldiers committed war crimes ranging from murder and assault to dereliction of duty. But no one was charged.

Since the war ended, the American public has been fed a dose of movies fictionalizing the excesses of U.S. units in Vietnam, such as Apocalypse Now and Platoon. But in reality, most war-crime cases focused on a single event, like the My Lai massacre.

The Tiger Force case is different. The atrocities took place over seven months, leaving an untold number dead - possibly several hundred civilians, former soldiers and villagers now say."

So was Senator Kerry really wrong in testifying what he did to Congress? I doubt it. But it was embarassing to American soldiers. So why didn't he just shut up? Why did he have to go and let everyone know about the ugly side of war and that Americans were involved? Didn't he hate the soldiers for doing this? I don't think so. Senator John Kerry was a patriotic young man when he went to Congress to testify. He wanted to help our nation fix some of the wrongs it had involved itself in. And for that he has been perpetually castigated by the right-wing fanatics who would rather Americans didn't hear the truth. That when they heard about Vietnam, they thought about some John Wayne movie where Americans were always the good guys and the Cong were the evil-doers. It wasn't always that way in reality. And John Kerry is about reality and not fantasy.

Reagan goes on to attack Kerry reporting that he spoke to CBS's Bob Schieffer, "And therre is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breakins sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs."

Was Senator Kerry defaming and lying about American Troops again, as Mr. Reagan infers? Was this another undermining of support for the soldiers? Did Kerry hate America?

Or was this a re-statement of actual events?

As the International Committee of the Red Cross reported:

"6. Arrests as described in these allegations tended to follow a pattern. Arresting authorities entered houses usually after dark, breaking down doors, waking up residents roughly, yelling orders, forcing family members into tins room under military guard while searching the rest of the house and further breaking doors, cabinets and other property. They arrested suspects, tying their hands in the back with flexi-cuffs, hooding them, and taking them away. Sometimes they arrested all adult males present in a house, including elderly, handicapped or sick people. Treatment often included pushing people around, insulting, taking aim with rifles, punching and kicking and striking with rifles. Individuals were often led away in whatever they happened to be wearing at the time of arrest - sometimes in pyjamas or underwear - and were denied the opportunity to gather a few essential belongings, such as clothing, hygiene items, medicine or eyeglasses. Those who surrendered with a suitcase often had their belongings confiscated. In many cases personal belongings were seized during the arrest, with no receipt being issued (see section 6, below).

7. Certain CF military intelligence officers told the ICRC that in their estimate between 70% and 90% of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake. They also attributed the brutality of some arrests to the lack of proper supervision of battle group units."

Senator Kerry was guilty of repeating unpleasant facts. Americans need to know the truth to make their own decisions. But to accuse Kerry, as some critics have done, as somehow making up stuff to discredit our soldiers is another big fat lie.

Reagan attacks the distinguished veteran Jack Murtha as accusing Marines in Haditha of cold-blooded murder. But what do we know about this a year later?

As reported by ABC News:

"Oct. 30, 2006 - Almost a year ago, 12-year-old Sofa Younis lost her entire family.

Her home in Haditha, Iraq, was raided by American Marines on Nov. 19, 2005.

"They broke into the bathroom. They detonated a hand grenade into the bathroom. We were all sitting in a room. Then comes the American soldier, and [he] shot us all," Sofa said. "I pretended to be dead, and he did not know about me."

Sofa survived, but 24 Iraqi civilians died that day, including six children and four women. All 24 were killed by U.S. Marines from the Kilo Company.

American military authorities have investigated the events of that day and have compiled a 3,500-page report that has yet to be released."

It doesn't sound very good for the Marines does it? But lets attack Murtha instead of investingating, or criticizing the execution of this war.

Or let's attack Senator Dick Durbin, who, according to Reagan, "...compared our interrogators at Guantanamo to the monsters who worked for Pol Pot, one of the greatest mass murderers in history, and those who worked in the inhuman Soviet gulags and in the Nazi death camps." Another irresponsible Democrat I suppose, or was Senator Durbin also guilty of revealing and highlighting unacceptable American behavior at Guantanamo?

And what was behind Senator Durbin's statement? Was he totally out of line?

This was based on an FBI report. Not some left-wing nutcase, as Mr. Reagan would prefer, it was an agent of our own Federal Bureau of Investigation who made observations at Guantanamo! As reported by CNN:

"The memo was written in July 2004 by Deputy Assistant Director for Counterterrorism Thomas Harrington, and was directed to Maj. Gen. Donald Ryder of the Army's Criminal Investigation Command.

In the first incident outlined by Harrington, an FBI agent was present in an observation room while an interrogation of a detainee was under way. A "Sgt. Lacey" (the memo says her first name is unknown) entered the room and ordered a Marine to duct tape a curtain over the observation window, thereby blocking the view of the interrogation.

On a monitor showing the view of a surveillance camera, the FBI agent saw the sergeant "apparently whispering in the detainee's ear, and caressing and applying lotion to his arms.... On more than one occasion the detainee appeared to be grimacing in pain, and Sgt. Lacey's hands appeared to be making some contact with the detainee," the memo states.

Later it says the Marine who had been in the room came out, and the FBI agent asked what had happened.

"The Marine said Sgt. Lacey had grabbed the detainee's thumbs and bent them backwards and indicated that she also grabbed his genitals. The Marine also implied that her treatment of that detainee was less harsh than her treatment of others by indicating that he had seen her treatment of other detainees result in detainees curling into a fetal position on the floor and crying in pain," the memo states.

The memo included another incident from October 2002 that involved a detainee being "gagged with duct tape that covered much of his head," according to an FBI agent's account. A contractor observing the detainee's interrogation told the FBI agent the detainee "had been chanting the Koran and would not stop."

The final case involves FBI agents allegedly observing a dog being used in an "aggressive manner to intimidate a detainee," who was subject to what the FBI official called "intense isolation" in a "cell that was always flooded with light."

Senator Durbin was not the embarassment. It has been our own policy of torture in Abu Ghraib, Guantanmo, and elsewhere that is the shame that was revealed. And yet it was this President, and his henchmen in Congress, who piled on Durbin to shut him up. And they did. And they got him to apologize. And they did it to Kerry this week. And they got him to apologize as well. But Durbin was right. And so was Kerry.

I support Senator Kerry and Senator Durbin and all Americans who fight for the truth. We can disagree with each other on foreign policy, but when we seek to attack Americans who reveal unpleasant realities, we are shirking our responsibilities as citizens to engage in the political process with all of the information available.

John Kerry is a brave American who has fought in war and has defended Veterans from attacks from chickenhawks like Michael Reagan who are living in a war dominated by Grade-B John Wayne movies where everything America does is good and everything everyone else does is bad.

America can be a better country. Let us join in fighting for those ideals. Let us not embrace torture, let us not embrace the tactics of our foes, and let us support politicians who have the courage to speak to us about the truth and not live in fantasies that are more comfortable but equally unreal.

Robert Freedland"

Please go out and vote and work for change in America! America is threatened as much by demagogues within as by terrorists without! It is time for a new direction!

Keep on coming Senator Kerry! Your brothers have not cut and run! We have got your back!

Bob

Like the Intrepid, Are We Stuck in the Mud?

2006-11-07T06:49:00.000-06:00

Like the USS Intrepid, the museum ship, the United States is finding itself stuck in the mud this election day.

Stuck in the mud of dirty politics that could only make a man like Karl Rove smile in glee.

A nation once again stuck in a quagmire of overseas military involvement with no end in sight.

A nation stuck in the mud of torture, rendition, secret prisons and illegal wiretapping.

A nation stuck in the mud of intolerance, with advocates crying to amend a Constitution written to defend liberty and freedom, with new restrictions on homosexuals in America.

Help push the Intrepid out of the mud. Be intrepid yourself! Vote for a new direction with another political party in the lead. We can and must do better!

Come on back John Kerry! We need your voice in these difficult times! We haven't cut and run on our brother. We have got your back!

Bob

Why John Kerry Still Matters

2006-11-06T22:53:00.000-06:00

I very much wanted to have something pithy to say tonight.

The election opens in just a matter of hours and I felt I needed to move on from The Simpsons to dealing with the awesome challenge we face in the upcoming days.

I am saddened by the silencing of Senator Kerry after his mis-statement and then his mauling by Republican partisans.

America needs his wisdom, his experience, and yes his courage at the helm. Maybe he does need a little work on delivery of his jokes, but I can live with that. Lord knows, we have lived with more and survived. I pray that after the election, we will hear once again Senator Kerry speaking for all of us for all of the things that matter.

At election time we often hear about how important it is for us to go out and vote. This time, I cannot think of anything more important for any of us who are concerned with the future of this Republic.

We have at our helm a President who scoffs at Congress, ignoring the will of our elected representatives, and who revises laws with 'signing statement' that makes him more of a King than an elected representative. And yet our Congress remains silent.

He disregards the courts, making a mockery of the FISA courts, set up by Congress, to monitor the actions of the President. He just goes and orders wiretaps anyhow. Even if FISA can keep this secret. Even if FISA can allow retroactive approval as long as it is done within 72 hours. And the Congress remains silent. Even further, they modify the law to accommodate his usurpation of power. Shame on them.

We have a President that believes he is able to define what torture is. And then does it. And a Vice-President who believes water-boarding is just a "little dunk". And then lies about it. And what does Congress do? Do they challenge this Administration that views the Geneva Conventions as "quaint"? No. They roll over, lick his feet, and change the law to accommodate his mad grab for power. They allow the suspension of Habeas Corpus, allow for torture, allow for evidence obtained by torture to be allowed in military courts, and allow the denial of evidence review by those who are accused of being "enemy combatants." Shame on them.

We have a "stay the course" President who believes like John Wayne, that victory is the only way. Even when we hear that our actions are increasing and not diminishing terror. A President who failed us when 9/11 occurred, an Administration which was deaf to the calls for action by Richard Clarke, and a President who sat for seven minutes staring at a children's book when the Towers were struck. Shame on them.

And if we fail at this important hour, to change the people who have failed us. If we fall prey to calls for greed instead of sacrifice, hate instead of tolerance, and fear instead of confidence, well then shame on us.

Senator Kerry, we need your voice! We do not cut and run on our support for you! You have worked to support our troops in the very best way possible, getting them out of harms way when being there is accomplishing nothing!

Keep on coming John! We have got your back! And we are going to be voting with our heart and soul for the future of this great Nation!

Bob

Wisdom from The Simpsons!

2006-11-06T07:43:00.000-06:00

Hat tip to Atrios for this video. I do not follow the Simpsons, but maybe I should! I hope you enjoy this clip. I did. Remember to vote tomorrow. It is time for a change!

Bob

Mitch Albom Comments on Kerry Controversy!

2006-11-05T23:01:00.000-06:00

I came across a provocative editorial from Mitch Albom that I would like to share with you:

"BY MITCH ALBOM
FREE PRESS COLUMNIST

November 5, 2006

With a week to go before a critical midterm election, the president, his supporters and most of the media acted as if the most important issue in America wasn't a costly war, failed international policies, failed domestic policies or the battle between religion and science. Instead, what apparently mattered most was a bad joke.

If you don't do well in school ... "you get stuck in Iraq." That was the punch line of an ill-advised, badly delivered attempt at humor by Sen. John Kerry, who has never been strong in that department.

He says he was trying to criticize the president, not the troops, and any careful reading of what he said supports that, as does common sense. Why would Kerry insult troops on foreign soil? For one thing, unlike George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, Kerry actually was one. Besides, what would such a crack gain him politically?

But instead of recognizing that, instead of being bigger than that, the president himself joined right in with the chorus of bloggers, radio hosts and bee-buzzing media who happily glommed onto a tempest in a teapot, rather than face anything difficult, like where did all those guns we sent to Iraq disappear to?

Words that come back to haunt

Within hours, Tony Snow, the president's press secretary, was demanding Kerry apologize. Soon, so were Sen. John McCain and other Republican lawmakers. Then Cheney. And finally, showing he can't resist returning to his few glory moments -- standing on the rubble of the World Trade Center or whipping up on the inept Kerry -- Bush did, too.

"The members of the United States military are plenty smart and plenty brave," Bush exhorted to a crowd of supporters, "and the senator from Massachusetts owes them an apology."

What's sad is that Bush, who is supposed to be the president of all of us, not half of us, can't pass an opportunity to thump on a dead horse while ignoring the ones running wildly through the barn door. John Kerry isn't even running for anything. Who cares what he says at this point?

Yet one sentence at one small college appearance suddenly is the biggest issue in America? Not nukes in North Korea or Iran? Not education? Not a 700-mile fence? Not the numbing numbers of newly dead in Iraq?

Call me simple. But if Bush, Cheney and the angry legions who tell us Kerry or Bill Clinton are the root of all this country's problems -- or that their occasional offensive remarks stand for anyone who ever disagrees the White House -- then perhaps those same people would take ownership of a few other words.

For example:

"Mission accomplished."

"We will be greeted as liberators."

"I'm a uniter, not a divider."

Anybody care to explain those?

Because they weren't jokes. At least they weren't supposed to be.

The dirty tricks of politics

Kerry's comment, even taken as he meant it, was rude and unnecessary. But the president knowingly sinking to the lowest interpretation and turning it into a national distraction was far worse. After all, last time I looked, Kerry wasn't running the country. Bush was.

And if we elected Bush because he was better than Kerry, then he ought to behave that way.

Instead, anything that gets your mind off the issues and back on hating the other guy is the strategy -- especially when one party owns the House, Senate and White House, because it can't pass the buck on those issues.

But a bad joke? A stupid remark? It's like pulling a fire alarm just before a history test. Yay! An escape hatch! You almost could hear the blog nation screaming "all hands on deck" the moments Kerry's words left his mouth.

Politics have long been ugly. But voters have a harder time than ever focusing on the issues because our politicians seem so intent of distracting us from them, and our media seem only too happy to oblige.

But we have to be smarter than all of them. And we ought to be able to tell an issue from a bad joke. After all, when it comes to the Iraq war -- the most divisive, expensive and dangerous issue of all -- Kerry can comment on it.

But Bush has to answer for it.

There's nothing funny about that."

Thank you Mr. Albom. No, this is not funny. The Iraq War is not funny. And Senator John Kerry has been a leading critic of the war, not a critic of the service of our soldiers.

Keep on coming John! We have got your back!

Bob

Joe Gandelman on Not Buying Bush Cigarettes!

2006-11-05T17:17:00.000-06:00

I found an interesting comment by Joe Gandelman who writes a terrific blog called The Moderate Voice. Gandelman writes a very serious piece about the importance of this election. Something is very rotten in our political system. We have a Congress that fails to provide oversight of this Administration, a President who feels he doesn't need to consult with the FISA Courts when wiretapping, and a President who doesn't feel he needs to follow the laws that are passed by Congress--writing 'signing statements' that amend law.

Gandelman writes:

"The feeling today is NOT the same as during the Vietnam era. The Vietnam war began to lose the public as campus turmoil erupted, generations turned against generations, and a mind-boggling body count began to pepper the front pages of daily newspapers and newscasts. In this war, anti-war demonstrations have largely been tepid, the campuses aren't erupting (not having a draft has something to do with that), there is no massive generational confrontation, and the tragically zooming body count has not (yet) reached Vietnam proportions.

In this war, the concerns boil down to three words: credibility, competence and oversight.

Many Americans of both parties and of no party are beginning to conclude this administration lacks all three and operates with virtually no controls or consequences.

Will Tuesday mark the day that changes?

Or will it be a day when we need to buy a bunch of bananas?"

Thank you Joe! It is too early for us to be writing off this great nation. But there are forces afoot that preach intolerance, xenophobia, disrespect for the law, and disdain for the Courts! America needs a new direction if it is to long survive.

Bob

"Freedom" Must Watch This Today!

2006-11-05T16:43:00.000-06:00

With thanks to Democratic Daily, who found it from Shakespeare's Sister, who got it from The Reaction, and Limbo, who got this from A Dark Planet, this is one heck of a great video! Especially if you are feeling a bit discouraged, this should pick you up and get you ready for Tuesday!

Get out there and vote on Tuesday! America needs your support more than ever!

Bob

Muhlstein: "War in Iraq no joking matter"

2006-11-05T16:05:00.000-06:00

Julie Muhlstein published a column in the Everett, Washington Herald today that deserves to be read. Iraq is no joke. Not even the conviction of Saddam two days before the election will bail out America or this Administration. It doesn't matter what Senator Kerry says or doesn't say because he isn't running for anything on Tuesday. But America had better pay attention to who is running. Vote for change on Tuesday!

"Published: Sunday, November 5, 2006

War in Iraq no joking matter

By Julie Muhlstein
Herald Columnist

Joke? A botched joke? I'm sorry. I know you're sick of this topic. There's no way I can let my thoughts about Sen. John Kerry's idiotic comments of last week go unsaid.

First off, that word. "Joke." A "botched joke" is what the Massachusetts Democrat called it when he first tried explaining away why he'd said this to college students last Monday:

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

It was supposed to be a joke about President Bush, Kerry said. There's nothing funny about the Iraq war. Nothing.

Someone sent me an e-mail suggesting I check out http://theleftshue.blogspot.com, a site with video of Bush, in a tuxedo at a fancy dinner in Washington, D.C., telling jokes about the search for weapons of mass destruction.

The Bush quips are interspersed with pictures of young Americans killed in Iraq - a 22-year-old private, a 26-year-old infantryman pictured with his new baby, and a 19-year-old woman soldier.

I repeat: There is nothing funny about the Iraq war. Nothing, not from either camp in a debate so contentious that one side can barely stand to listen to the other.

Now, about that Kerry comment - not the one he supposedly meant to say about Bush, but the one he did say.

At the risk of taking just the sort of heat now scorching Kerry, I'll admit this: In conversations with my 19-year-old son, I have linked academic achievement with finding oneself not necessarily "stuck in Iraq," but certainly joining the military.

My stern talks began with "If you mess up in school, you're joining the Navy" and continued to include the following points: He would grow up, get focus, possibly find a career and earn a salary and benefits.

The options I talked over with my son were in no way meant to discount military service - it was a way of pointing out a serious alternative.

With today's all-volunteer armed forces, serving our country in the military is a choice, and a noble one.

Young people make that choice for all kinds of reasons, from family tradition or strong support for the nation's current foreign policies to an interest in learning skills taught in the military. Those reasons are huge.

There is also economic need.

It's needing a job that would send my son to the Navy or the Coast Guard, if he didn't do well in college and was unable to support himself.

I suspect that money - which Kerry and Bush both have in abundance - is a driving force for thousands of people who find themselves "stuck in Iraq."

What's true for some is certainly not true for all. Among the many reasons Kerry's thoughtless words were so offensive is the broad-brush stereotype - you're not very smart, so you join the military.

On Wednesday, I went to church for the observation of All Saints' Day. There, I saw a mother whose three boys have all gone to the United States Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. The oldest son was in my daughter's grade school class.

A 2005 West Point graduate, he recently left for Army duty in Iraq. There's no doubt in my mind that this young man could have chosen any career path. He chose the toughest one.

That's courage, and nothing less.

On a day when Kerry's remarks dominated the news, I watched his mother in church. I imagined how furious her family must be over those "stuck in Iraq" comments.

I started to approach her, but didn't.

What would I have said? That I pray for her son? I do.

Instead, I went to the Everett Station, where I cast my ballot Wednesday afternoon.

That done, I am now tuning out both political parties' talking points, ugly name-calling and belittling barbs.

In a time when there's little cause to joke and so much to disagree about, we need to listen carefully before marking our ballots.

I suggest listening, but not to the politicians. Listen to your own head and heart."

Senator Kerry has been a victim of hate and scorn throughout his life because he has been the bearer of bad news. Somebody had to say what he has been saying; John Kerry has not shirked from the task. Whether in the Winter Soldier testimony, or more recently his tough criticism of the failures in Iraq, his criticism has been twisted to suggest he was criticizing our soldiers. While critical of a misguided foreign policy and not willing to cover-up for anyone's misdeeds, Senator Kerry has devoted himself to supporting soldiers, supporting veterans, and working tirelessly for veterans campaigning for public office.

Anyone who hasn't seen that hasn't been paying attention.

Meanwhile, let us realize that Iraq is not a joke. It cannot be reduced to slogans and simplified and misleading comments. Vote wisely on Tuesday. America deserves voters who can sift through the lies and see the truth that is blazing in our direction.

Bob

Jonathan Chait's Perspective!

2006-11-05T11:06:00.000-06:00

There was a good editorial in the Los Angeles Times reporting how the GOP political machine can quickly twist reality and divert attention from the 'man behind the curtain'. Wishing to divert attention from their failed policy in Iraq, the economy that isn't quite as strong as purported, the deficit in both our government and trade that is expanding, Senator John Kerry was used as the fall-guy after flubbing a joke!

Americans understand and won't be fooled.

"Jonathan Chait

November 5, 2006

I WROTE IN THIS space a week ago that the Republicans were desperate to avoid having Tuesday's election be a referendum on President Bush, Congress or even a comparison between the Republicans and the Democrats. Well, now we can see what they want the election to be: a referendum on John Kerry. When you go to cast your ballot Tuesday, the primary question Karl Rove wants you to have in mind is how much you dislike the guy who ran for president two years ago and lost.

There is no greater testament to the power of the Republican message machine than the fact that, for two days last week, the political news cycle came to be dominated by a bungled Kerry joke. Kerry, according to his prepared remarks, was trying to make a joke about Bush's lack of intellectual curiosity: "Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush." Alas, Kerry wandered off the prepared text and tried to put the joke in his own words. As all of us who survived the 2004 election know, bad things happen when he tries to do that. And so the joke came out: "You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Within moments, the entire apparatus of the Republican Party sprung into motion to convince the public that Kerry had slandered the troops. Bush berated Kerry for not understanding "the consequences of words." George W. Bush, grammar marm. Vice President Dick Cheney called it "another swipe at the U.S. military." Couldn't you just as easily have interpreted that as a swipe against Iraqis? (After all, much of the educated Iraqi middle class has fled the country in the postwar chaos.)

John McCain, continuing his descent into shameless hackery, chimed in: "The suggestion that only the least educated Americans would agree to serve in the military and fight in Iraq is an insult to every soldier serving in combat, and should deeply offend any American with an ounce of appreciation for what they suffer and risk so that the rest of us can sleep more comfortably at night."

Everybody in professional politics, conservative or liberal, understands that Kerry was trying to make a joke about Bush. And yet the GOP has succeeded in convincing the country that he was denigrating American soldiers.

In the classic fashion of political news, media outlets simply covered the "controversy," reporting that Bush insisted Kerry was slamming the troops and that Kerry denied it. Most news stories I saw did not include the prepared text of Kerry's remarks.

The point here isn't that Republicans are liars. Both parties are perfectly willing to shade the truth. The difference is that Republicans have a network of partisan outlets that can create a news story out of thin air. The fact that numerous Democrats have had to denounce Kerry is tribute to the power of this machine.

Consider a point of contrast. J. Dennis Hastert, the Republican who runs the House of Representatives, railroaded through Congress an "earmark" that increased the value of property he owns by several million dollars. Unless you live in Chicago, you probably haven't heard about this story.

But of course not only is Hastert's land deal vastly worse than Kerry's joke (and would be even if Kerry had intended to demean the troops), the more relevant fact is that Hastert, unlike Kerry, is on the ballot this week. And every Republican in the House is going to vote for him for speaker. Yet Kerry is the one dominating the news."

Thank you Mr. Chait.

And thank you Senator Kerry for everything that you have done for America! We are waiting to hear from you once again! We have not been fooled by the Republican spin machine. We understand and appreciate your patriotic service to this country!

We have got your back Senator Kerry! Keep on coming!

Bob

"What Really Demoralizes the Troops"

2006-11-04T17:14:00.000-06:00

There have been many attacks on Senator Kerry regarding his now well-known gaffe in California. Some may say that after manipulating Kerry's speech, that he was somehow criticizing the soldiers when in actuality he was criticizing the President. Some may add that this may help demoralize the troops. Senator Kerry has always been an advocate of soldiers and veterans. He understands what it likes to serve his nation in uniform, unlike many of the chickenhawks so quick to attack him.

I found this video of Geoffrey Millard, an Iraq War veteran, who answers the question, "What really demoralizes the Troops."

Let us all hope that Senator Kerry continues to speak out against the injustice of this President, the injustice of the war in Iraq, and the injustice against our young people serving in this endless war. We support the Troops! But we ask about the other side of that contract; the obligation of government to not send soldiers into harms way where they can lose their limbs or their lives unless it is absolutely necessary. And when doing so, make sure they are sent in adequate numbers, and are adequately supplied.

Keep on coming John! We have got your back!

Bob

Who Needs to Apologize?

2006-11-04T16:04:00.000-06:00

Like Dorothy's visit to Oz in the Wizard of Oz, the Republican National Committee is very anxious that you not look 'who is behind the curtain'. For if you look there you will see the quagmire of Iraq, the violation of Separation of Powers with Signing Statements, the suspension of habeas corpus, the approval of torture, the deficits that are overwhelming our government, Abramoff, Libbey, Rove, Ney, Cunningham, DeLay, Foley, Hastert, Jeff Gannon and phoney White House reporters, close relationships with Haggard, and lawyers who rewrite global warming reports prior to going to work for Exxon Mobil. No don't look there. Look over here at John Kerry who made a gaffe while working to elect Veterans to higher office across this great nation of ours.

The joke is on us if we fail to stand by Senator Kerry now!

Bob

Because of Iraq!

2006-11-03T23:03:00.000-06:00

A great video from American veterans and General Wesley Clark.

Because of Iraq, so many things have been threatened in America!

Bob

Dick Cheney: First he was For Water-Boarding before he was Against It!

2006-11-02T23:35:00.000-06:00

Vice-President Dick Cheney has not hesitated to try to get some mileage off of the Kerry gaffe. His contribution:

"Of course, now Senator Kerry says he was just making a joke, and he botched it up," Vice President Dick Cheney said in remarks prepared for a campaign appearance in Montana. "I guess we didn't get the nuance. He was for the joke before he was against it."

That is almost funny. Clearly the Vice-President is better at delivering lines than John Kerry!

Unfortunately, he isn't as well-controlled when talking to Scott Hennen at WDAY Radio:

"Friday, October 27, 2006; A09
Excerpts from an interview of Vice President Cheney in Washington on Tuesday by radio broadcaster Scott Hennen of WDAY in Fargo, N.D.

HENNEN : I've had people call and say, 'Please, let the vice president know that if it takes dunking a terrorist in water, we're all for it, if it saves American lives.' Again, this debate seems a little silly given the threat we face, would you agree?

CHENEY: I do agree. And I think the terrorist threat, for example, with respect to our ability to interrogate high-value detainees like Khalid Sheik Mohammed, that's been a very important tool that we've had to be able to secure the nation. Khalid Sheik Mohammed provided us with enormously valuable information about how many there are, about how they plan, what their training processes are and so forth -- we've learned a lot. We need to be able to continue that. . . .

HENNEN: Would you agree a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?

CHENEY: Well, it's a no-brainer for me, but for a while there I was criticized as being the vice president for torture. We don't torture. That's not what we're involved in. We live up to our obligations in international treaties that we're party to and so forth. But the fact is, you can have a fairly robust interrogation program without torture, and we need to be able to do that."

So I guess he was FOR water-boarding at that time.

The White House immediately DENIED that Vice-President Cheney was talking about water-boarding:

" Lee Ann McBride, a spokeswoman for Cheney, denied that Cheney confirmed that U.S. interrogators used water-boarding or endorsed the technique.

"What the vice president was referring to was an interrogation program without torture," she said. "The vice president never goes into what may or may not be techniques or methods of questioning."

But Scott Hennen himself indicated he was obviously talking about water-boarding of terror suspects:

"Bottom line: Water-boarding is NOT torture. We even use it in training our own troops. And according to a Brian Ross story on ABC, the use of the water-boarding technique with KSM produced key information that disrupted planned attacks and saved lives. So to the critics I ask this: Would you rather we not have a robust interrogation program, short of torture, and let people die? Not me!

Posted by: Scott Hennen on 10/27/2006 at 5:55 AM"

But Cheney denied that this discussion was about water-boarding at all. As was reported:

"Washington: Vice-President Dick Cheney has said he was not referring to an interrogation technique known as "waterboarding" when he told an interviewer this week that dunking terrorism suspects in water was a "no-brainer".

Cheney told reporters aboard Air Force Two on Friday night that he did not talk about any specific interrogation technique during his interview on Tuesday with a conservative radio host. "I didn't say anything about waterboarding. ... He didn't even use that phrase," Cheney said on a flight to Washington from South Carolina."

It is very hard to keep track of this Orwellian spin.

But it gets better. That story continues:

"Earlier on Friday, White House press secretary Tony Snow told reporters that the vice-president was talking literally about "a dunk in the water", though neither Snow nor Cheney explained what that meant or whether such a tactic had been used against US detainees. "A dunk in the water is a dunk in the water," Snow said.

Oh really?

Was the Vice-President talking about putting terror suspects in a carnival dunk tank?

I guess according to Snow he was.

But I don't think so.

What exactly is water-boarding? And is it torture?

As reported:

"6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.

"The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law," said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.

The techniques are controversial among experienced intelligence agency and military interrogators. Many feel that a confession obtained this way is an unreliable tool. Two experienced officers have told ABC that there is little to be gained by these techniques that could not be more effectively gained by a methodical, careful, psychologically based interrogation. According to a classified report prepared by the CIA Inspector General John Helgerwon and issued in 2004, the techniques "appeared to constitute cruel, and degrading treatment under the (Geneva) convention," the New York Times reported on Nov. 9, 2005.

It is "bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture's bad enough," said former CIA officer Bob Baer.

Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer and a deputy director of the State Department's office of counterterrorism, recently wrote in the Los Angeles Times, "What real CIA field officers know firsthand is that it is better to build a relationship of trust … than to extract quick confessions through tactics such as those used by the Nazis and the Soviets."

The report continued:

"According to CIA sources, Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi, after two weeks of enhanced interrogation, made statements that were designed to tell the interrogators what they wanted to hear. Sources say Al Libbi had been subjected to each of the progressively harsher techniques in turn and finally broke after being water boarded and then left to stand naked in his cold cell overnight where he was doused with cold water at regular intervals.

His statements became part of the basis for the Bush administration claims that Iraq trained al Qaeda members to use biochemical weapons. Sources tell ABC that it was later established that al Libbi had no knowledge of such training or weapons and fabricated the statements because he was terrified of further harsh treatment.

"This is the problem with using the waterboard. They get so desperate that they begin telling you what they think you want to hear," one source said.

So sometimes, the torture is so severe, that you get confessions of anything you want to hear. Now that is hard to believe! And yet this evidence is now admissable under the new Military Tribunal law.

Shame on this President and his Republican pals to pass such Medieval legislation!

Watch this video if you don't know what water-boarding is about!

It is time for change in America! It is time for a Vice-President who advocates torture to apologize to the American people and for America to investigate these unknown 'interrogation techniques'!

Keep on coming John! You may be 'for the joke before you were against it' but you were never for torture!

Bob

Jimmy Tingle on John Kerry...a great mp3!

2006-11-02T22:58:00.000-06:00

Here is a quick one if you are a Jimmy Tingle fan!

Listen HERE for a short comment by Jimmy Tingle on the John Kerry flub. And how he thinks President Bush owes America an apology!

Bob

"Dear World" A Great Letter by Debi Smith!

2006-11-02T22:31:00.000-06:00

Debi Smith has written a wonderful letter about Senator Kerry's need to apologize for something he didn't really do and the President's failure to apologize for things he really did do.

Debi wrote:

"Dear World,

How are you doing? What have you been up to lately? Sorry it's been so long since I've written.

I was actually in the middle of writing an open letter to President Bush when I thought of you.

I was asking him, respectfully of course, about his insistence that Senator John Kerry apologize for his botched joke. Perhaps you've heard of all this nonsense? You must think we're pretty ridiculous. I mean look at all that's going on in the world, and all Bush and his friends (including a mostly compliant media) want to talk about the past couple of days is a poorly thought out and delivered joke. Big deal. I'm sure that Kerry, a veteran himself, meant nothing disparaging against his fellow soldiers, past or present. Anyhow, I was asking him why he would insist Kerry apologize for a stupid joke when he himself so stubbornly refuses to apologize for anything/everything he has done wrong the past five plus pretty botched years of his presidency. Things that have had consequences of such greater magnitude that, to say the least, it boggles the mind.

Like refusing to apologize for not taking those pre 9/11 warnings seriously. Refusing to apologize for sitting in a classroom reading a story about a pet goat for seven long minutes after learning that the country was under attack. Refusing to apologize for the lies he told and cooked intelligence he used to start a war of aggression against a sovereign nation. He continues to bullheadedly refuse to apologize for all the miscalculations that have been made since, at every turn along the way, in that illegal war. Refuses to apologize for all the thousands and thousands and thousands of stolen Iraqi lives. Refuses to recognize, and then apologize for, the fact that his lies and deceptions have also directly led to the deaths of over 2800 (to date) brave men and women from the United States.

(By the way, speaking of bad jokes, what about those not so funny wmd jokes Bush told that one time?)"

She continues:

"There is so much to be sorry for. Especially so the past five years of Bush's presidency. Sorry that he and his administration didn't heed the warnings regarding an impending terrorist strike within the US. Sorry that he used the awful events of that day to justify a global and "long" (seemingly unending) war on terror that has, by all accounts, only increased terrorism. Sorry the good will that was directed at us immediately following 9/11 was so quickly squandered. Sorry that the will of hundreds of thousands of people around the world, saying no to war, went unheeded and unappreciated. I'm so sorry that we couldn't stop the war machine from its costly (yet so profitable to the warmakers) and oh so deadly crawl across Afghanistan and Iraq. Sorry that so many many innocent people were crushed in its path. Sorry that we invaded a country, under false pretenses, destroying its beauty, culture, infrastructure, lives.... Sorry that we then had the audacity to authorize no bid contracts for the rebuilding of it to the very people who destroyed it.

I'm sorry that we don't seem to appreciate the sickening absurdity of it all.

I'm sorry that our "leaders" don't seem to care about being good stewards of the earth. Sorry that they laugh in the very real face of global warming. (Especially since the US is such a big contributor.) I'm sorry for the very real problems around the world that they, and by extension-we, continue to ignore. Sorry that the focus continues to be mostly only in areas of the world that are abundant in valuable resources or that are deemed important for strategic reasons. Sorry that these reasons usually, if not always, have nothing whatsoever to do with humanitarian causes/crises.

Sorry that it might appear that we all, the people, permit these things, though I do hope you realize that appearances can be deceiving (maybe you've noticed that we have some issues with the integrity of our voting system).

I'm sorry for the exasperation and frustration and justified anger that you must feel when you observe our actions, and the actions of our government. I'm sorry for all the sleepless nights you might experience because of the big ass bully storming through your neighborhoods. (And, just to loudly clarify, I'm not referring to the mostly good men and women in uniform who are on the ground in these neighborhoods). I'm sorry that our current leadership is the bully. And that I and my fellow countrymen and women have so far failed to reign that bully in.

I'm sorry for all the things I don't know, and therefore can't act upon. And for all the things I do know and don't act upon.

I realize now that Bush and I are very much alike in one way. We both have many more things to be sorry for than we can list here."

Thank you so much Debi!

We are all so sorry about what has happened.

And I am sorry that I want Senator Kerry to continue the fight! I am sorry that the nation has been attacked not only by enemy terrorists in airplanes but by domestic demagogues intent on tearing apart our Constitution. Intent on ignoring the will of Congress by signing statements. Intent on ignoring the Courts by ignoring the need to go to FISA courts. Intent on ignoring the International Geneva Conventions and for the first time, suspending Habeas Corpus, allowing the President to define torture, and to allow evidence obtained under torture in military tribunals where the defendants won't be guaranteed access to the evidence.

I am so sorry for all of this.

But I am proud of Senator Kerry for his efforts on behalf of all of us. Hang low for a day or two Senator, but then come out swinging once more.

Our nation depends on you in so many ways!

Bob

Albany Times-Union Editorial: A Must Read!

2006-11-02T08:59:00.000-06:00

Here is an excerpt from today's editorial:

"But let's get this much straight. Mr. Kerry wasn't disparaging the American troops in Iraq. No one who has been in combat, as he has, would think of saying such a thing.

Here's what Mr. Kerry did say as he campaigned Monday for California gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides: "Education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

For that, Mr. Kerry is getting ambushed by the White House in a manner that's awfully reminiscent of the smearing of his Vietnam War record during the 2004 presidential campaign.

Here's President Bush: "The senator's suggestion that the men and women of our military are somehow uneducated is insulting and it is shameful. The senator from Massachusetts owes them an apology."

This, from the very president and commander in chief who last month suggested that the Iraq war will go down in history as just a comma. This, from a president and commander in chief who should be paying less attention to a defeated political rival and more attention to U.S. forces having to retreat, in essence, from the streets of eastern and central Baghdad.

Stuck? Did someone say stuck?

It's, yes, Mr. Kerry who sees this war for what it's become, and is refreshingly willing to say as much."

Thank you Times-Union!

You said what needed to be said.

That this President and his Administration has failed us miserably, getting us bogged down in an endless war while using this war as an excuse to grab powers from Congress, from the Courts, and yes from the American people!

Keep on coming John!

We have got your back!

Bob

Standing With Senator Kerry!

2006-11-01T22:24:00.000-06:00

I am proud to be standing with Senator John Kerry and continue to support him for President in 2008!

Keith Olbermann had an outstanding commentary tonight!

Click HERE to listen to Olbermann's comments.

Senator John Kerry speaks truth to power. He threatens those who are uncomfortable hearing about where America is going. He understands that America can not long survive if the Constitution is threatened and our civil liberties trashed.

They have ambushed you Senator Kerry! Through their hacks and operatives, they will spin lies, spread attacks and employ all of the tactics of the politics of personal destruction. They do this in 2006 because they are afraid. They see truth in your words and strength in your soul.

There will be times Senator Kerry when you might wish to not have this task that has been given to you. But this job is yours! It is your role to play!

America needs Senator John Kerry more today than ever before!

Keep on Coming John! We have got your back!

Bob

Time for Boehner to Apologize to the Troops!

2006-11-01T19:06:00.000-06:00

Senator John Kerry has formally apologized for his mis-spoken lines of his speech that were interpreted as offensive to soldiers.

He released a statement:

"I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform and I personally apologize to any service member, family member or American who was offended."

Thank you Senator Kerry!

Your turn Congressman Boehner!

You jumped all over Senator Kerry, spreading the false allegations of his alleged criticism of the intelligence of our soldiers. Even though you knew it wasn't true, but that was politics, right?

You stated:

"If Kerry doesn't apologize, we're going to beat him to death until he does," said House majority leader John A. Boehner, an Ohio Republican, on Fox News.

But you didn't botch a line did you?

In your enthusiasm to endorse the flagging popularity of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, you had this to say to Wolf Blitzer on CNN:

"House Majority Leader John Boehner: Wolf, I understand that, but let's not blame what's happening in Iraq on Rumsfeld.

Wolf Blitzer: But he's in charge of the military.

House Majority Leader John Boehner: But the fact is the generals on the ground are in charge and he works closely with them and the president.

CNN, 11/1/06"

The fact is Mr. Boehner that it is now you who have insulted our troops!

This wasn't a botched joke. This was a slur. About the Generals leading the Army and the soldiers who are bravely serving. John Kerry never intended to say what he said and you planned on beating up on him until he apologized. How about YOU?

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid is now leading the Democrats in asking for Congressman Boehner's apology.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander!

As reported:

"John Boehner ought to be ashamed. He's blaming our troops for failures in Iraq. If he wants to cast blame, he can start by looking in the mirror because he and his Congressional Republican colleagues have rubberstamped the Bush Administration's failed policy for nearly four years. Our troops in Iraq have performed bravely. It's political leaders like Congressman Boehner and Donald Rumsfeld, who have failed. I expect President Bush and Congressional Republicans, who demanded John Kerry apologize, hold their own party's majority leader to a much higher standard. There's no spinning his disparaging comments. He made them. He needs to apologize."

Thank you Senator Kerry for standing up to the abuse that the Republican spinmeisters heap on.

Thank you Senator Reid for pointing out the hypocrisy of leadership from the Right.
And Congressman Boehner, didn't you have enough trouble with the Foley scandal?

"But Hastert’s appearance followed that of Reynolds, who has said he learned of Foley’s inappropriate e-mails to the Louisiana teen last spring and discussed the matter with Hastert.

Hastert has said he didn’t recall that conversation. He has also assured conservative activist Paul Weyrich that Majority Leader John Boehner was wrong when Boehner said he and Hastert discussed Foley’s problems last spring."

But then you really would rather talk about John Kerry and his goof. Really shouldn't have said anything about the generals sir.

Keep on coming John! We have got your back!

Bob

Are American Soldiers 'Stuck in Iraq?'

2006-10-31T13:55:00.000-06:00

Senator John Kerry was roundly criticized by leading Republicans after mis-speaking at his appearance in San Gabriel, California, Monday.

According to the report, he stated to the students:

'He then said: "You know, education -- if you make the most of it, you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well.

"If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.'

Apparently, this wasn't the intended lines in his speech. Per a Kerry spokesman, the lines should have been:

"I can't overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq."

Tony Snow, the President's Press Secretary did not hesitate to jump all over Senator Kerry's mis-statement. He stated:

"This is an absolute insult," Snow said at a daily press briefing. "Senator Kerry not only owes an apology to those who are serving, but also to the families of those who've given their lives in this."

But was Senator Kerry wrong to say what he said?

Kerry fought back:

"I'm not going to be lectured by a stuffed-suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq."

He further expressed disgust with "Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country."

Kerry added that President Bush and Vice President Cheney "owe our troops an apology" because they "misled America into war."

Bush and Cheney "have given us a Katrina foreign policy that has betrayed our ideals, killed and maimed our soldiers, and widened the terrorist threat instead of defeating it," the senator said.

Sometimes we can speak the truth by saying something we never intended to say at all!

As early as 2004, during the last Presidential campaign, John Kerry recognized that our soldiers were getting "stuck" in Iraq! He pointed out:

"In a speech June 3, 2004, in Independence, Mo., Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry said, "The administration's answer has been to put Band-Aids on the problem. They have effectively issued a stop-loss policy as a back-door draft."

Today, the 'stop-loss' policy continues to keep our soldiers stuck in a conflict where thousands have lost their lives. As recently reported:

"September 26, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The Army is again extending the combat tours of thousands of soldiers in Iraq beyond the expected 12 months -- the second such move since August.

Soldiers of the First Brigade, First Armored Division had been expecting to return to their home base in Germany in mid-January. Instead, they will stay an extra 46 days in Iraq, the Pentagon said yesterday. The soldiers are operating in western Anbar Province, one of the most violent parts of Iraq.

The Pentagon also said the Fourth Brigade, First Cavalry Division will deploy to Iraq 30 days earlier than scheduled, starting in late October. The announcement did not say why the speedup was deemed necessary."

So Americans soldiers are getting stuck in Iraq....longer than their scheduled tours of duty!

And what about the idea that students who don't succeed might need to turn to the military for jobs or further training? That really isn't so far-fetched as the Republicans would like to make Senator Kerry sound.

As reported in June, 2005, the military is turning more and more to those young men and women who have problems with the traditional educational system:"WASHINGTON, June 10 - The Army is having to turn to more high school dropouts and lower-achieving applicants to fill its ranks, accepting hundreds of recruits in recent months who would have been rejected a year ago, according to Army statistics."
Further evidence that financial and educational pressures may lead to a young person's turning to the military career is reported:

""A lot of the high recruitment rates are in areas where there is not as much economic opportunity for young people," said Anita Dancs, research director for the NPP, based in Northampton, Mass.

Senior Pentagon officials say the war has had a clear impact on recruiting, with a shrinking pool of candidates forcing the military to accept less qualified enlistees -- and presumably many for whom military service is a choice of last resort. In fiscal 2005, the Army took in its least qualified group of recruits in a decade, as measured by educational level and test results. The war is also attracting youths driven by patriotism, including a growing fringe of the upper class and wealthy, but military sociologists believe that greater numbers of young people who would have joined for economic reasons are being discouraged by the prolonged combat."

So Senator Kerry, you don't have to apologize to us!

America knows that you know as a real veteran and a real decorated military hero who knows what war is really about! You know how young people who may not have other opportunities may be forced into military service due to economic pressures. You know that our patriotic soldiers have found themselves "stuck" in Iraq by the poorly planned policies, the misrepresentations, and the misexecution of a botched military plan! And you know that this Administration, through its misrepresentations that led us into this unnecessary war threatens the viability of the all-volunteer army as well!

America deserves better! You may not have stayed exactly on message in your speech but you once again spoke truth to an America that is starting to listen!

Keep on coming John! We have got your back!

Bob

Keeping our Eye on the Ball!

2006-10-31T06:56:00.000-06:00

I apologize.

I took the bait the Republicans were offering on the Gay Marriage Amendment.

As President Bush himself stated:

"For decades, activist judges have tried to redefine America by court order," Bush said Monday. "Just this last week in New Jersey, another activist court issued a ruling that raises doubt about the institution of marriage. We believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and should be defended."

President Bush wants to arouse the irrational fears of homosexuals among his base.

He wants you to believe like many in America, that if we allow same-sex couples rights, as they do in England, France, Spain, Denmark, South Africa, and elsewhere, that soon we will be allowing the legalization of bestiality or polygamy.

It aint true but people are easily manipulated.

So forget about Iraq if you wish. Only 101 G.I.'s died in October.

Forget about the Signing Statements and the violation of the Constitutional issues of balance of power. That is far too complex an issue for voters to grasp.

Forget about global warming.

Forget about the deficit and the tax cuts for the wealthy.

Forget about wiretapping without warrants.

Forget about secret prisons, rendition of people to third world countries for torture, and our own nation's adoption of torture techniques.

Forget about the loss of Habeas Corpus.

Because you have gays you can bash. People that want to get married! Now THAT is a crisis.

This nation needs new direction now more than ever in its history! Senator John Kerry offers that experience, wisdom, and honesty that we need today! Don't let them Swift Boat our nation Senator Kerry! Keep on coming! We have got your back!

Bob

More on "Hate, Greed, and Fear"

2006-10-30T21:50:00.000-06:00

I recently wrote of the article I had written on the exploitation of the emotions of hate, greed, and fear, by the Neocons who wish to manipulate the voters. I was fortunate to have a conservative response which I include here from Steven McLaren who wrote:

"October 28, 2006
Saturday

I, very strongly, disagree with most all the comments written by Robert Freedland. Please, read his entire letter first and then read mine. (I'm not going to quote everything that he wrote for my letter.)

I interpreted from Freedland s letter that much of society s ills, not just the same-sex issue, are a result of the conservatives, republicans, or religious folk within our society. (He seemed to lump all of these people into one group.)

LIKE IT OR NOT, MORALS ARE THE VERY FOUNDATION THAT SUPPORT ANY SOCIETY. AS THOSE MORALS DECAY, SO WILL A SOCIETY!!

Robert states, In Wisconsin this November, as has been and shall be in other states, are efforts to limit marriage to just "one man and one woman". In our state, this will also make civil unions illegal. Just yesterday the highest court in the State of New Jersey stated that same-sex families deserve equal protection under the law. Is this really the result of "activist judges" or is the justice system simply trying to be fair to every American?

Well, using this same philosophy/logic, let's be fair to every American and approve (among other things) PLURAL MARRIAGE and BEASTIALITY (sex with or union of man and animal). Don't tell me you don't approve! "The glue that holds these 'unions' together is not sin but love." We may get sick to our stomach thinking about it, but isn t this another non-traditional household?

Well, join the club, I also get sick to my stomach when thinking about same-sex unions. [It wasn t too long ago that same-sex unions could and would have never been considered as a civil union. Why not look to our future? Using this logic, we'll soon be confronting the EQUAL RIGHTS of those practicing in beastiality.]

Let s also accept all these other so-called unions (not just same-sex). Let's ACCEPT them/this in the name of EQUALITY, LOVE, and SOCIETAL PROGRESS! NOT!! EVER!!

He also placed the responsibility for many of our other societal problems on one party of our government. Government is, in reality, responsible for many of our problems, or lack of cures. However, don t just blame one party. There have been a lot of government officials from all parties get us to where we are today!!

Thanks for reading and considering the gravity of our current national situation. Vote wisely. America needs you now more than ever!! Fight for what is right, and fight for YOUR RIGHT to live in a society as free as possible from moral decay.

Sincerely,

Steven McLaren
Ketchikan, AK"

But how do we answer comments like Mr. McLaren's? Don't worry. I have not been short on arguments to debunk his comments. I responded last night with the following:

"October 30, 2006
Monday

Steven McLaren has written That he strongly disagrees with my letter: "Hate, Greed, and Fear." Within that letter, I advocated for the expansion of the understanding of marriage and family by including Civil Union Couples and same-sex couples within that tradition. I believe strongly in the institution of marriage and the stabilization of families that results. I understand that many benefits of marriage include hospital visitation, insurance coverage, inheritance for children, child support and custody of children in the case of divorce. There are other well-known benefits to marriage.

But Mr. McLaren has tried to use the powerful emotion of FEAR to dissuade the readers that what I said was reasonable. He brings up false issues, what are called "straw-man" arguments that are not even being considered as possibilities. He states my argument amounts to " Well, using this same philosophy/logic, let's be fair to every American and approve (among other things) PLURAL MARRIAGE and BEASTIALITY (sex with or union of man and animal). Don't tell me you don't approve! "The glue that holds these 'unions' together is not sin but love." We may get sick to our stomach thinking about it, but isn t this another non-traditional household?"

Did I suggest that multiple people should be considered marriage? Did I or anyone really advocate for marriages between farm animals and people? Of course not. But maybe it scared you just a little.

I do not necessarily approve of any couple's sexual habits and preferences. But that is a matter of privacy between two consenting adults. Does Mr. McLaren wish to have the government spy on people in the privacy of their bedrooms? I don't think so. Mr. McLaren finds same-sex activity disgusting. He writes: "Well, join the club, I also get sick to my stomach when thinking about same-sex unions."

Fortunately nobody is asking Mr McLaren for an endorsement of their sexual activity. Nor do I think he would like us to review and judge his sexual activity.

But unless Mr. McLaren is not aware of what is going on in America, the traditional marriage unit of biologic father, biologic mother, and biologic children is becoming more rare daily. And legislation to declare that a marriage is only one man and one woman will not improve this statistic. We can all share concerns about this fact; but we need to live in reality, not on a 1950's sit-com like "Father Knows Best" or "Leave it to Beaver".

The fact remains that today's family units often consist of just a single mother, a single father, mothers and fathers bringing children from prior marriages together, parents with adopted children or foster children, and yes families headed by same-sex parents. In the United States, as of the 2000 census, there were 701,733 same-sex parent households. (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908878.html)

So what are we as a society to do with these households which often include children? Should we attempt to harm them? Should we pass Constitutional Amendments to deny them legal status? To deny them insurance? To deny those children in these homes benefits?

We do not need to approve of these households, but these homes are real and they exist in Alaska and Wisconsin and every state between. Decency demands that we extend love and not hate to these people. That we work to pass laws and Amendments that help children and not hurt them. That we do not succumb to fear and ignorance and act in a shameful fashion that we shall regret in the future.

And what about morality? Morality demands that we have laws that respect the rights and privacy of every American citizen. Morality is not about your sexual orientation no matter how you want to spin it. Morality is about love, respect, decency, and yes concern about children. It is a moral thing to allow two people who love each other the right to be married. It is immoral to place laws to keep people apart and deny them legal benefits you reserve for yourself.

We will not improve the sanctity or morality of anything by passing additional laws to ostracize, demean, and hurt people who are different than us. And yes, I believe we will be damned not by what we tolerate but by how we respect our fellow human being on this planet. God, if anything, is about love and understanding. Those that distort his teachings to promote hate are misguided and unfortunate.

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter and for encouraging others to do so as well.

Robert Freedland"

Thank you Mr. McLaren for responding with the usual Republican talking points.

America needs a new direction. A leader that can move us ahead and address the problems of the world. A leader that recognizes the dignity and worth of every American regardless of their color, their sex, their sexual preference, their disability, or their religious or political orientation.

John Kerry is that leader! Keep on coming John! We got your back!

Bob

Hate, Greed, and Fear!

2006-10-27T07:25:00.000-05:00

I wanted to share with you this letter that I recently had published in SitNews out of Ketchikan, Alaska.

October 26, 2006
Thursday PM

What is wrong with Americans? It used to be that we were all determined to love our fellow citizen, give back to our nation even with out financial support, and confidently deal with the rest of the World. And yet today, our politicians seek to exploit our support for their programs by depending on the worst of our psyche, by exploiting the emotions of hate, greed, and fear. Let me explain.

Many of us, myself included, are in traditional marriage arrangements. My wife and I enjoy the many benefits (and responsibilities) of marriage as we seek to do the best for us and our children. I hope we have succeeded in this endeavor!

But across America there are many non-traditional households. And many of them struggle to do the best that they can do for themselves and yes for their children. Some of these households are led by single moms. Some by single dads. Some are in Civil Unions. And yes, some are led by same-sex parents.

In Wisconsin this November, as has been and shall be in other states, are efforts to limit marriage to just "one man and one woman". In our state, this will also make civil unions illegal. Just yesterday the highest court in the State of New Jersey stated that same-sex families deserve equal protection under the law. Is this really the result of "activist judges" or is the justice system simply trying to be fair to every American?

Many of our religious institutions have been instructing us to vote against these non-traditional households. They tell us they are sinners and are going to hell. But for these families, as in other families, the glue that holds them together is not sin but love. It isn't love that many of us understand or even accept or endorse. But it is a love that brings two people together that wish to have children and raise a family. And many do.

So why do politicians use hate instead of love? I don't understand and I don't accept this. Think about this when you have the opportunity to decide on this issue.

And what about greed? Politicians exploit this when all they talk about is how they are going to reduce your taxes. They don't tell you how they are going to balance the budget. They don't tell you how they are going to get this nation out of debt, deal with education, poverty, unemployment, or improve the quality of medical care for those who cannot even manage to pay for a doctor's appointment or fill a needed prescription. No. They just tell you how they are going to fill your wallet with greenbacks.

That is a nice thought, but isn't it time we consider what John Kennedy had to say about "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country!" Isn't greed going to only hurt our nation as each of us scramble to get our own piece of the pie?

And fear? Politicians are telling us to be afraid! They want us to justify their suspension of our civil rights because otherwise we are going to be attacked right here in our home town! I am ashamed at leaders who exploit the fears of our people to abuse our Constitution. There is no excuse for the President who failed to go to the FISA Courts to get a warrant before using a wiretap. It was simply illegal. but he wants us to be afraid so we won't ask questions.

America doesn't need to torture our captives. We don't need to suspend the Geneva Conventions. And we don't need to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus that guarantees everyone the right to know the charges against you or to have your day in court and not be detained indefinitely in secret prisons. Shameful. But fear is effective!

So this year, think about how you are being manipulated by exploitative demagogues who ask you to be hateful. Who ask you to be greedy. And ask you to be fearful.

Reject these claims. Vote out of love. Vote out of patriotism for this nation. And vote to be unafraid.

America needs you now more than ever!

Robert Freedland

Is that too much to ask?

Make sure that when you vote this Tuesday, that you do so with love in your heart, patriotism in your soul, and without fear!

America Needs to Support Embryonic Stem Cell Research!

2006-10-24T20:42:00.001-05:00

Michael J. Fox understands Parkinson's Disease.

Unfortunately, Republicans in power have put roadblocks in the way of scientists looking for a cure. Science and investigating the cures to diseases should never be politicized; but with these so-called 'family-values' fundamentalists calling the shots in Washington, people like Michael J. Fox must accept the despair that comes with the loss of hope---or work to change the political world to help bring cures to people with diseases. Michael J. Fox has chosen the latter.

Watch the video below and feel Michael's pain. This is not "Back to the Future". This is back to the dark ages when scientific investigation was suppressed.

Click HERE to go to Claire McCaskill's website to find out more about her campaign against Jim Talent.

An ad like this could make anyone uncomfortable. Especially a conservative who believes that "family values" includes interfering with research on cures using embryonic stem cells.

Listen to this mp3 from Rush Limbaugh on this ad. Listen and get sick.

As reported by the Washington Post:

"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh told listeners. "He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act....This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting."

But experts have pointed out the ignorance, and sheer insensitivity to Rush's mouthing off. As noted:

"Anyone who knows the disease well would regard his movement as classic severe Parkinson's disease," said Elaine Richman, a neuroscientist in Baltimore who co-authored "Parkinson's Disease and the Family." "Any other interpretation is misinformed."

Even the Mayo Clinic Website explains the complication of the disease and its treatment:

"Medications for Parkinson's disease also may cause a number of complications, including involuntary twitching or jerking movements of the arms or legs (dyskinesia), hallucinations, sleepiness, and a drop in blood pressure when standing up (orthostatic hypotension)."

But don't take my word for it.

Michael J. Fox has explained in an interview:

"Q. Your public familiarity also means people look to your illness as the typical case of Parkinson's.

A. But I'm not a test case. This dyskinesia you're seeing, it comes from too much L-dopa. It's tough to get the exact amount you need. So it's kind of a trade-off between being able to sit and talk to you in a fluid way or being kind of halted and rigid.

In my day-to-day life, my kids are used to me saying things twice, or kind of haltingly, so I don't feel the same impetus. But people with P.D. will see me on television and then come up to me on the street and say, You're taking too much medication. And I'll say, Well, if you had to sit in front of Larry King for 45 minutes, you'd take too much medication too. The disease is idiosyncratic, idiopathic, and my life is so idiopathic and idiosyncratic, and the combination of the two means I'm not a test case for anybody."

As The New Republic found out, Dr. William J. Weiner, professor and charman of the department of neurology at the University of Maryland Medical Center who is also the director of the Parkinson's clinic there stated, regarding the video:

"What you are seeing on the video is side effects of the medication. He has to take that medication to sit there and talk to you like that. ... He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance of Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look stiff, and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk. And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all of this movement, like what you see in the ad."

But this won't stop the Conservative bloggers and spinmeisters. As Hugh Hewitt complains:

"The most distasteful aspect of the ad is the way it exploits Michael J. Fox’s physical difficulties. Fox is an actor, and clearly knew what he was doing when he signed up for the spot - no victim points for him for having been manipulated by the McCaskill campaign. The ad’s aim is to make us feel so bad about Fox’s condition that logical debate is therefore precluded. You either agree with Fox, or you sadistically endorse his further suffering as Fox accuses Jim Talent of doing."

and...

"But it’s strange that Fox has so eagerly bought the promises of the stem cell research community. If Fox thinks that stem cell research offers him (or me) hope, he’s mistaken. Stem cell research, both embryonic and otherwise, right now represents nothing more than a promising theory. If it bears fruit, and that’s a huge “if”, it will likely do so too late to benefit Fox, me, and our contemporaries. In spite of the silky rhetoric of John Edwards-type politicians, dramatic medical innovations come slowly and take decades to pan out, not months."

Maybe Hewitt didn't see this article on ScienceDaily from 2003:

"New York, September 21, 2003 New research from Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), Cornell University, and The University of Connecticut describes a novel way of producing therapeutic nerve cells that can cure mice with Parkinson's-like disease. The work, which will be published in the October issue of Nature Biotechnology (available online September 21), provides the first evidence that cloned cells can cure disease in an animal model."

Oh and by the way, much of that research was sponsored by the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research.

The contrast between the Democrat McCaskill and the Republican Talent couldn't be clearer. As they responded regarding a proposed Missouri Amendment to guarantee stem cell research:

"AP: Do you support the state ballot initiative to protect federally allowed stem cell research in Missouri? Why or why not?

McCASKILL: I have been consistent on this issue from the beginning. I strongly believe in the lifesaving cures possible through stem cell research and I support the state ballot initiative to protect this research in Missouri. Sen. Talent, however, took 203 days after the announcement of the Missouri Cures Initiative ballot language to make up his mind. In the past year, Sen. Talent has co-sponsored a bill to criminalize doctors, patients and researchers who support this valuable research, has said that he would not take a position at all on the issue until it made it onto the ballot, and has said he is against federal and state measures to protect stem cell research.

TALENT: I cannot support the initiative because I've always been opposed to human cloning and this measure would make cloning embryos a constitutional right--without regard to medical necessity or changing technology. Missouri would be the only state to write this cloning procedure into its constitution. I respect opposing points of view and encourage every Missourian to consider the moral and scientific issues involved in the ballot initiative and reach their own judgment."

Oh yes it is blunt and uncomfortable to see a real person with Parkinson's suffering and asking politicians to support research.

But so much is riding on these elections in 2006.

Senator John Kerry understands this.

Back in the 2004 election campaign, in a radio address, he stated:

"Stem cells have the power to slow the loss of a grandmother's memory, calm the hand of an uncle with Parkinson's, save a child from a lifetime of daily insulin shots or permanently lift a best friend from his wheelchair,'' the Massachusetts senator said.

Stem cells from human embryos can form all types of cells, and scientists contend they could be used one day to replace cells damaged from such conditions as diabetes, spinal cord injury or Parkinson's disease."

Thank you Michael J. Fox! Thank you Senator John Kerry! And thank you Claire McCaskill!

And what to say about Rush and the rest of the Cons? Not much. Only that their values make me sick. And keep others without cures!

Fight disease! Fight Republican fundamentalists! Fight to take back America!

Keep on coming John! We have got your back!

Bob

First He was For Staying the Course Before He Was Against It!

2006-10-23T22:48:00.000-05:00

Another Bush "flip-flop"?

Watch this VIDEO from Crooksandliars.com!

And then read what thinkprogress.org says:

"BUSH: We will stay the course. [8/30/06]

BUSH: We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq. [8/4/05]

BUSH: We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We’re just going to stay the course. [12/15/03]

BUSH: And my message today to those in Iraq is: We’ll stay the course. [4/13/04]

BUSH: And that’s why we’re going to stay the course in Iraq. And that’s why when we say something in Iraq, we’re going to do it. [4/16/04]

BUSH: And so we’ve got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course. [4/5/04]"

On the same program, Senator John Kerry pointed out the folly of the Republican leadership and its Iraq policy:

" SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA): Yes, between Shia and Sunni. This is a civil war. Donald Rumsfeld said our soldiers will not be caught in a civil war. George Bush said we will not tolerate North Korea having the nuclear weapon. Both are happening, and they're just sitting there with the same-old, same-old. This administration doesn't have a policy. Their policy is stay to course. The president said again -- he misled America there.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You haven't --

KERRY: He said we won't stay the course. He said we'll stay the course again and again and again.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You do have --

KERRY: You have to set a date because it's the only way to get Iraqis to respond."

Thank You Senator Kerry!

You have had an honest policy on Iraq for quite awhile now.

And this President is trying to disavow "stay the course"?

And right before the election?

Keep on coming John! We have got your back!

Bob

Kerry Decries Loss of Habeas Corpus in America!

2006-10-21T14:55:00.000-05:00

On October 17, 2006, President George W. Bush signed new legislation establishing military tribunals and aggressive interrogation techniques.

As reported:

"The bill on interrogations and trials also would eliminate some rights common in military and civilian courts. For example, the commission would be allowed to consider hearsay evidence so long as a judge determined it was reliable. Hearsay is barred from civilian courts.

The legislation also says the president can "interpret the meaning and application" of international standards for prisoner treatment, a provision intended to allow him to authorize aggressive interrogation methods that might otherwise be seen as illegal by international courts."

This legislation allows the President to define torture. It allows evidence obtained under torture to be admitted in legal proceedings. It denies suspects the right to inspect evidence arrayed against them. And it even allows for indefinite detention of "unlawful enemy combatants" who have no recourse in court to sue for their own freedom.

This is a shameful development in America.

Bruce Ackerman, professor of law and political science at Yale had this to say:

"The president walked away with a lot more than most people thought," Ackerman said. He said the bill "further entrenches presidential power" and allows the administration to declare even a U.S. citizen an unlawful combatant subject to indefinite detention. "And it's not only about these prisoners," Ackerman said. "If Congress can strip courts of jurisdiction over cases because it fears their outcome, judicial independence is threatened."

As explained by the Jurist, from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law:

"Under the Military Commissions Act [CRS summary], the president is authorized to establish military commissions to try unlawful enemy combatants. The commissions are authorized to sentence defendants to death, and defendants are prevented from invoking the Geneva Conventions [ICRC materials] as a source of rights during commission proceedings. The law contains a highly-controversial provision stripping detainees of the right to file habeas corpus petitions in federal court and also allows hearsay evidence to be admitted during proceedings, so long as the presiding officer determines it to be reliable. The law addresses permissible interrogation methods, making US interrogators subject to only a limited range of "grave breaches" purporting to reflect the requirements of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, and clarifies [JURIST report] what actions would subject interrogators to liability under the existing federal War Crimes Act."

What is Habeus Corpus and why does it matter?

And what did our founding fathers have to say about habeus corpus and illegal detention?

As explained by BBC News,

" Habeas corpus (ad subjiciendum) is Latin for "you may have the body" (subject to examination). It is a writ which requires a person detained by the authorities be brought before a court of law so that the legality of the detention may be examined.

The name is taken from the opening words of the writ in medieval times.

Although rarely used nowadays, it can theoretically be demanded by anyone who believes they are unlawfully detained and it is issued by a judge.

It does not determine guilt or innocence, merely whether the person is legally imprisoned. It may also be writ against a private individual detaining another.

If the charge is considered to be valid, the person must submit to trial but if not, the person goes free.

The Habeas Corpus Act passed by Parliament in 1679 guaranteed this right in law, although its origins go back much further, probably to Anglo-Saxon times."

Thom Hartmann explains the long history of habeas corpus and its relationship to the Magna Carta better:

"The modern institution of civil and human rights, and particularly the writ of habeas corpus, began in June of 1215 when King John was forced by the feudal lords to sign the Magna Carta at Runnymede. Although that document mostly protected "freemen" - what were then known as feudal lords or barons, and today known as CEOs and millionaires - rather than the average person, it initiated a series of events that echo to this day.

Two of the most critical parts of the Magna Carta were articles 38 and 39, which established the foundation for what is now known as "habeas corpus" laws (literally, "produce the body" from the Latin - meaning, broadly, "let this person go free"), as well as the Fourth through Eighth Amendments of our Constitution and hundreds of other federal and state due process provisions.

Articles 38 and 39 of the Magna Carta said:

"38 In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.

"39 No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."

Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address in 1801 stated:

"Freedom of the person under the protection of the habeas corpus I deem [one of the] essential principles of our government."

And Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #84 had this to say:

"It may well be a question, whether these are not, upon the whole, of
equal importance with any which are to be found in the constitution of
this State. The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, the
prohibition of ex post facto laws, and of TITLES OF NOBILITY, to which
we have no corresponding provision in our Constitution, are perhaps
greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it contains.
The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other
words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they
were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary
imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable
instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious Blackstone,[1]
in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital: "To bereave a
man of life, [says he] or by violence to confiscate his estate, without
accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of
despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the
whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to
jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a
less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary
government." And as a remedy for this fatal evil he is everywhere
peculiarly emphatical in his encomiums on the habeas corpus act, which
in one place he calls "the BULWARK of the British Constitution."[2]

But what does the United States Constitution itself say about the Writ of Habeas Corpus?

In Article 1, Section 9, is stated very clearly:

" The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

I am proud that Senator John Kerry understands the need for the protection of our basic Constitutional freedoms.

He commented last month on the floor of the Senate with these words:

" The Constitution is very specific when it comes to Habeas Corpus. It says “[t]he Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” We are not in a case of rebellion. Nor are we being invaded. Thus, we really don’t have the constitutional power to suspend the Great Writ. And, even if we did, the Constitution allows only for the writ to be suspended. It does not allow the Writ to be permanently taken away. Yet, this is exactly what the bill does. It takes the writ away—forever—from anyone the Administration determines is an “enemy combatant.” Even if they are lawfully on US soil and otherwise entitled to full Constitutional protections and even if they have absolutely no other recourse.

Think of what this means. This bill is giving the administration the power to pick up any non-U.S. citizen inside or outside of the United States, determine in their sole and unreviewable discretion that he is an unlawful combatant, and hold him in jail—be it Guantanamo Bay or a secret CIA prison—indefinitely. Once the Combatant Status Review Tribunal determines that person is an enemy combatant, that is the end of the story—even if the determination is based on evidence that even a military commission would not be allowed to consider because it is so unreliable. That person would never get the chance to challenge his detention; to prove that he is not, in fact, an enemy combatant.

We are not talking about whether detainees can file a habeas suit because they don’t have access to the internet or cable television. We’re talking about something much more fundamental: whether people can be locked up forever without even getting the chance to prove that the government was wrong in detaining them. Allow this to become the policy of the United States and just imagine the difficulty our law enforcement and our government will have arranging the release of an American citizen the next time our citizens are detained in other countries."

But the bill Bush signed is even worse. The President can call any American Citizen an enemy combatant as well whereupon they shall lose many of their Constititutional rights we all hold so dear.

It has been said that the Republicans use fear to advance their agenda.

Fear of terrorists, fear of gays, fear of God, and yes fear of Democrats!

But for the first time I must tell you that they are succeeding. I am becoming afraid!

Afraid of an America that turns its back on the most basic of freedoms dating back to the Magna Carta. Fear of a nation that legislates torture, allows rendition to third world countries and endorses secret prisons.

It is time for America to look deep within its own heart to listen to the words of our founding fathers and patriots who gave their lives that we might enjoy the freedom they so longed for.

We cannot sacrifice the Constitution so easily. We cannot give up our freedoms without calling out for change in America! Thank you Senator Kerry for once again having the courage to speak truth to power. I find myself so ashamed of so many in Congress who accept less for us and our children. Our freedoms shall never be taken by forces from without this nation. But their are forces afoot that find expediency more valuable than judicial review. Who find torture acceptable and merely 'aggressive interrogation techniques'. And who do not share out love of what America means!

Come Home America!

The 2006 mid-term elections are near. And 2008 is just around the corner! We have your back John! Keep on coming!

Bob

John Kerry For President 2008

Bernanke: 'Pushing on a String'

Nord Must Go

Does Congress Have Anything Better to Do?

Time for Congress to ‘Move-On’!

Posted by Robert FreedlandSeptember 20th, 2007 @ 8:19 pm

Taser Controversy and Senator Kerry!

Protecting the "Sanctity of Hate"!

Is it Time to Impeach the President?

John Kerry for President in 2008!

Republicans Live in a Parallel Universe

Draft John Kerry Petition Online!

Draft John Kerry for President?

The Wasting of American Common Sense!

Senator Kerry delivers the Democratic Radio Address!

Still Supporting Senator Kerry!

A new blog for me.

Thank You Senator Kerry!

Hope is On The Way!

Jonah Goldberg: "A Contrary Indicator"

Art Buchwald (October 20, 1925- January 17, 2007)

Obama Exploring Presidential Bid for 2008

Still Dreaming After All of These Years!

"The Tar Baby" Strategy

"Run John, Run!"

More on Purple Hearts!

About Senator Kerry's First Purple Heart

A Letter From Cindy Sheehan

Coolest 'Cats' on the Web!

3,000 Americans Dead in Iraq

More Lies and the Truth about Senator Kerry!

Swift Boat Lies about Kerry!

"How Kerry got his Decorations"

A Time for Political "Sportsmanship"!

Merry Christmas!

A Time of War, And a Time of Peace

Seriously

The Minimum President

Kerry to Tour Middle East: Developing Iraq Strategy!

Literacy Associated with Support for John Kerry!

Dave Johnson and James Boyce Get It "Right" on Kerry!

Mark Barrett Gets it Right on John Kerry!

Republican AIDS Policies Hurt Women!

Kerry "Dead Last" in Likability Poll!

Give "Peace" A Chance!

President Bush: Failing to Learn the Lessons of History!

Senator Kerry 5th in Latest Presidential Preference Poll!

Bush Needs to Learn the Lessons of Vietnam!

Kerry on Fox: Fending off Chris Wallace!

More Evidence on Getting "Stuck in Iraq"!

John Kerry Jokebook: Great Editorial from Star Tribune

Michael Reagan: The Kamikaze Columnist

Like the Intrepid, Are We Stuck in the Mud?

Why John Kerry Still Matters

Wisdom from The Simpsons!

Mitch Albom Comments on Kerry Controversy!

Joe Gandelman on Not Buying Bush Cigarettes!

"Freedom" Must Watch This Today!

Muhlstein: "War in Iraq no joking matter"

Jonathan Chait's Perspective!

"What Really Demoralizes the Troops"

Who Needs to Apologize?

Because of Iraq!

Dick Cheney: First he was For Water-Boarding before he was Against It!

Jimmy Tingle on John Kerry...a great mp3!

"Dear World" A Great Letter by Debi Smith!

Albany Times-Union Editorial: A Must Read!

Standing With Senator Kerry!

Time for Boehner to Apologize to the Troops!

Are American Soldiers 'Stuck in Iraq?'

Keeping our Eye on the Ball!

More on "Hate, Greed, and Fear"

Hate, Greed, and Fear!

America Needs to Support Embryonic Stem Cell Research!

First He was For Staying the Course Before He Was Against It!

Kerry Decries Loss of Habeas Corpus in America!

Posted by Robert Freedland
September 20th, 2007 @ 8:19 pm