The White House finally relents. Any bets on whether she tells the truth? I would bet she doesn't, if only to protect her boss...
Sam has yet another reason Dr. Rice's arguments were specious: we still live in a republic, despite the President's attempts to expand the powers of the Imperial Presidency. The whole concept of checks and balances requires that the Executive branch answer to the Legislative branch, just as the Executive branch can veto acts of Congress.
Philip Zelikow, a Bush Administration official that directs investigations into the attacks on the World Trade Center, gave a speech back in September, 2002, in which he stated that, ""Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990--it's the threat against Israel."
Excuse me?
We went to war because we were worried that Iraq might develop WMDs and use them against Israel? That's why 600 Americans have died and another 5,000 - 10,000 been wounded (not to mention thousands of Iraqi civilians killed)? To protect a country that has proven itself quite capable of protecting itself and, by the way, likes to sell American military technology to Peoples Republic of China?
If this is in anyway true, all of the decision makers in the Bush White House should be jailed for treason. All of them. Without exception. Period.
Of course, this report is the first and only one to suggest this particular connection. It may turn out to be overstated, or the opinions of only Zelikow. Let's hope so. The other (false) reasons we've been given for the war have been bad enough by themselves.
It seems that Condoleeze Rice, who has already spoken to the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 attack on the Pentagon and World Trade Center behind closed doors, would like to do so again. And she refuses to do so under oath. Her excuse is that she needs to protect the President's "Executive Privilege".
Sure.
What about all of the other Cabinet-level and below officials and aides that advise the President that have testified before Congress over the past two decades? What about President Clinton? If Secret Service Agents can be forced to testify regarding his activities, surely Dr. Rice can testify under oath regarding President Bush's knowledge of al Qaeda.
Dr. Rice needs to testify under oath, in the light of day. She needs to do so because she has spent so much time slandering Richard Clarke on television. She needs to do so because she has already had one chance with the commission behind closed doors. The American people and the President's critics must have the opportunity to judge for themselves whether her testimony is just more or the same made up garbage.
It is time for Condoleeza Rice to come clean regarding the advice she gave the President and the content of the briefings he receieved vis a vis al Qaeda. Richard Clarke is not the first person to come forward and say that she was uninterested in al Qaeda and terrorism. Former Clinton NSA Sandy Berger has indicated this as well.
The other thing that needs to come out of this is the release of the President's Daily Brief for the first nine months of his Presidency. This should be given, in unaltered form, to the commission so it can begin the task of evaulating what information regarding al Qaeda was available to the nation's top officials.
There's no other way to get to the bottom of this mess.
If no one else in the U.S. can do business in Burma (Myanmar), why is it ok for George W. Bush's website to do so? After all he's the one who put the sanctions against Burma in place.
Despite his campaign's claims to the contrary, it is exceedingly diffilcult to imagine a set of circumstances where NewsDay just happened to receieve the only fleece pullover made in Burma out of all of the merchandise available through the website.
So what's the big issue? I see a couple of them. First, is shows that the President's re-election campaign doesn't care where it gets its merchandise. It isn't interested in following its own trade regulations, and it certainly isn't interested in using American-made products.
Combined with joblesses in many sectors of the economy due to offshoring and outsourcing, this episode is particularly damning. Thousands of textiles jobs across the country have been lost to overseas locations, particulaly in the Carolinas. Using cheap products from nations with questionable human rights records and sweat shop labor clearly shows where the President's priorities lie. And they aren't with American workers.
This thing is supposed to help seniors? First come the accusations that it'll cost an additional $100 million and that an analyst was threatened with losing his job if he told Congress, and now this:
" The law provides limited prescription-drug coverage for about 40 million seniors. It also makes it easier for cheaper generic drugs to reach the marketplace.
The law's centerpiece is the drug benefit, which will not be available until 2006. Until then, seniors would get drug-discount cards that could net savings of 10 percent to 25 percent off market prices.
Under the full drug benefit, seniors would pay a $250 deductible, a $34 monthly premium and 25 percent of the cost of drugs between $250 and $2,250. Seniors would encounter a gap in coverage after $2250 until their out-of-pocket expenses reaches $3,600 or $5,100 in total drug expenses. At that point, they'd pay only 5 percent of their additional drug costs."
This is, of course, in addition to charges that Republicans attempted to bribe members of Congress to get their support, and reports that the vote in the Senate was held open for three hours, rather than the normal fifteen minutes so Republican leaders could find more votes.
Didn't politicians used to keep this sort fo thing from being quite so obvious?
Sure doesn't seem like it to me...
Someone sent me a joke yesterday with a punchline that said that a clock powered by the Presiden't lies could be used as a ceiling fan. This article debunking the President's claims that Senator Kerry voted to raise taxes 350 times is an illustration of why that joke is believable.
A quick summary is that the President seems to think that voting against a tax cut is the same as voting for a tax hike. That's the same tortured logic that says that not making the current tax cuts permanent is that same as raising taxes. That's not quite the same thing. It isn't even in the same ballpark, and arguing that not cutting taxes equals raising taxes is just dishonest.
It's also an argument that can be turned back against the President: the article mentions that under this rationale, the President chose to raise taxes 16 times per year in office. If that's extended over all four years, that 64 tax hikes that the President voted for, if you accept his own twisted logic.
I'll be picking this up later this week due to a sudden, but small, windfall here at work. From everything I've heard or seen it is at least worth a careful consideration. Given the tenor of personal attacks by the Bush Administration against Mr. Clarke, He might be hitting pretty close to the mark.
This stpry is sadly indicative of how The President and his advisers view the American people. It's a quote from three years ago when a voter told him that he thought he was doing a lousy job.
Even if he didn't care, a more appropriate response would have been along the lines of, "I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm doind what I think is best for all Americans." Or words to that effect.
I wonder if the Kerry campaign is going to pick up on this?
Next time someone tells you that the President is honest, or has integrity, point this one out...
Why'd the Brits let them go?
Holding people with no access to the Red Cross, no access to lawyers, and no terms of release is inhumane, un-Constitutional, and against the Geneva Convention. It's also un-American.
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, even people designated as "unlawful enemy combatants" have rights and must be so designated by a military tribunal functioning under rules similar to a courts-martial. By going against that ruling, the President is breaking our law and making us look bad internationally.
And then there's the issue of whether these people really did anything wrong.
As I've said before, people are brave everywhere. You don't have to be an American, unlike what people liked to claim after the attacks on the World Trade Centers and Pentagon.
What I want to know is why empty ambulances were leaving the scene and why American soldiers were preventing Iraqis from assisting in rescure efforts. We dont; earn any friends in Iraq by aiming guns at people trying to dig victims out of the rubble of buildings.
Check out Sam's site for reasons to vote for John Kerry, rather than against George Bush. I personally like to vote for a cause than against one. It just feels better.
I lifted this from Atrios, but it's quite interesting. I just wonder if it really came from al-Qaeda...
Here's the relevant passage:
WE WANT BUSH TO WIN
The statement said it supported President Bush (news - web sites) in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry (news - web sites), as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."
In comments addressed to Bush, the group said:
"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization."
"Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."
At least there's one honest Republican around. Senator McCain says that he may disagree with Kerry, but that he's not soft on defense, and that there are otgher issues to be addressed...like Medicare.
Below I've posted John Kerry's speech advocating a Military Families Bill of Rights. If you think he's soft of defense, just take a read.
And for all you Hawks out there who think the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld group is so great, why don't our soldiers have the right body armor, and why are local communities donating steel plate to armor Guard unit Hummers? This is the same group who made sure that ROTC battalions had LBE's and canteens that coupld be used while wearing gas masks during Desert Storm, but couldn't do the same for active duty U.S. Air Force units deployed to the Gulf. How do I know? Because I had the equipment issued to me at USF, while my Dad's unit couldn't even get boots in Bahrain.
"Protecting Our Military Families in Times of War"
A Military Family Bill of Rights
March 17, 2004
As Prepared for Delivery
One year ago this week, American soldiers raced across the desert to Baghdad. Ten months ago, George Bush stood on an aircraft carrier and proclaimed "mission accomplished."
But today we know that the mission is not finished, hostilities have not ended, and our men and women in uniform fight on almost alone with the target squarely on their backs. Everyday, they face danger and death from suicide bombers, roadside bombers, and now ironically, from the very Iraqi police they are training.
We are still bogged down in Iraq - and the Administration stubbornly holds to failed policies that drive potential allies away. What we have seen is a steady loss of lives and mounting costs in dollars, with no end in sight.
We were misled about weapons of mass destruction. We are misled now when the costs of Iraq are not even counted in the President's budget. But having gone to war, we have a responsibility to keep and a national interest to achieve in a stable and peaceful Iraq. To leave too soon would leave behind a failed state that inevitably would become a haven for terrorists and a threat to our future, a problem for the Middle East, and a dangerous setback in the war against terror.
But the answer is not a stubborn pursuit of the same arrogant policies; the answer to failure is not more of the same. Instead we must return more effectively to the international community, and share the authority and the burdens with other nations. We need to use the tools of diplomacy as well as the tools of war. All of us support our troops. But if we had built a true coalition, they would not have to fight almost alone - and Americans would not have to bear almost all the costs in Iraq. This President is so committed to tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that he refused to ask them to sacrifice even a small portion of that tax cut to give our soldiers the weapons and equipment they need.
The lesson here is fundamental: At times, conflict comes, and the decision must be made. For a President, the decision may be lonely, but that does not mean that America should go it alone.
And while we should seek allies, we must never give anyone else a veto over our national security. At this decisive time in our history, when we confront ongoing challenges in Afghanistan as well as Iraq - and the mortal challenge of those that would use terror as a weapon and religion as a shield, there is no greater imperative for a President than the Constitution's command to provide for the common defense. If I am President of the United States, we will do whatever it takes to ensure that the 21st century American military is the strongest in the world. I will not hesitate to use force when it is needed to wage and win the War on Terror.
At the heart of that force must be a fully prepared, fully equipped, fully staffed, state-of-the-art military ready to face any adversary, anywhere. Four years ago, George Bush said that our troops lacked the support they needed. Four years ago, he promised them: "Help is on the way." He sent that message to the same military that had been built up in the 1990s and was soon to perform so brilliantly in Afghanistan and Iraq. Well, I say this today: George Bush can't have it both ways. He can't decry the military's readiness in 2000 and then take credit for its success in 2001, before he even passed his first defense budget. Now, in 2004, our armed forces are more extended than at any time in a generation -- and at this time, they are still waiting for help.
Twenty-five hundred of them are still waiting for medical care. Helicopter pilots have flown battlefield missions without the best available anti-missile systems. Civil Affairs personnel, almost all of them reservists, are stretched to the breaking point, building schools and hospitals. Unarmored Humvees roll toward the next perilous turn in the road. The 428th Transportation Company had to ask local businesses back home to donate the steel to armor their vehicles, and when this President heard about it, instead of saying, "never again," he said, "good idea." And tens of thousands of troops were deployed to Iraq without the most advanced bullet proof vests that can literally make the difference between life and death. Lives and blood will always be the cost of war, but we should never send young American's into harm's way more exposed to danger than they have to be.
This President has had his chance; and this President has not delivered.
So, let me say here today, to every soldier and every soldier's family: This time help is on the way, and it won't be coming from George Bush.
If I am President, never again will parents or husbands or wives of soldiers have to send them body armor instead of photographs and care packages. Last month a young newlywed in Virginia who, as her husband was about to ship out to Iraq, gave him a bullet proof vest for Valentine's Day. I can tell you right now: in a Kerry Administration, no one will be getting body armor as a gift from a loved one; it will come from the Armed Forces of the United States of America. We will supply our troops with everything they need -- and we will reimburse each and every family who has had to buy body armor because this Administration made Valentine's Day part of the procurement process.
Our military is about much more than moving pins on a map or amassing expensive new weapon systems. A strong military depends first of all on the courage of the men and women who stand a post or go out on patrol in places around the globe and who carry on every day until the mission is accomplished for real. We need a Commander-in-Chief who honors and supports them, for real; a Commander-in-Chief who repays their risks on the battlefield by providing them with the best weapons and protections as they go into battle, a Commander-in-Chief who recognizes their commitment and sacrifice, and offers their families a decent life here at home.
To all of the military families who are here today, we say thank you. And to my fellow veterans, the band of brothers who have been with me for so long and to whom I owe so much, I pledge that unlike the time when we fought side by side, I will be a President who does what's right for our men and women in uniform.
I will never forget that our true power is measured not only by the strength of our weapons, but by the spirit of our soldiers.
To me, that is not just rhetoric; it is the reality I lived - and it is central to the work of my life. So I come here today to propose a Military Family Bill of Rights - real and specific guarantees - that will keep faith with those who served and the families who share in their sacrifice.
Our military families have the right to expect real leadership of the armed forces from the Commander-in-Chief. They have a right to competitive pay and quality housing, decent health care and dental care. Quality education for their children. First rate training. The best possible weaponry and state-of-the-art equipment. They have a right to timely deployment information. And they have a right to know that, in the event of tragedy, help will be there to care and provide for their families and for them.
America needs a President who will do all that it takes to create the most modern fighting force on earth. When the 4th Infantry Division found Saddam Hussein, they had an unmatched wealth of knowledge about their surroundings and they were connected in an unprecedented way to their commanders. They're known as the "digital division," transformed in the Clinton Administration, when the decision was made to outfit the 4th Division with the latest advances in information technology. Their vehicles in the field have keyboards and touch screen monitors so that troops can access real time maps, track battlefield movements, and even send commands by e-mail. We need to do this across the board. We need to revolutionize our military capability. Our enemies don't use the old tactics and -strategies -- neither should we.
Our emphasis has do be on empowering soldiers to fight more precisely, on reducing the incidents of friendly-fire and on building a military fit for the future, not the past. That means pushing technology down to the smallest units. When we took on the Taliban, precision bombs onboard planes flying from aircraft carriers in the Indian Ocean were guided to their targets by U.S. Special Forces riding horses across the hills of Afghanistan. They could do that because of what we did to strengthen the military in the last decade, but there is so much more to do. By pushing real-time information, and the ability to take action, into the hands of those closest to the frontlines, we can prepare ourselves for the perils and possibilities of the years ahead.
The war in Iraq taught us that a lightening-fast information-age military can drive to Baghdad in three weeks, but the instability that follows requires a large force -- and we cannot rely on reservists alone to make up the difference. I propose to add 40,000 troops to the regular Army, not to send to Iraq, but to ease the burden on troops who have been deployed from one global hot spot to the next with no end in sight. This doesn't mean we have to spend more on the military; instead, we have to be smarter about what we spend by shifting priorities within the defense budget, and scaling back some programs that do more for defense contractors than for the national defense.
We are weaker today militarily than we should be, but this Administration stubbornly refuses to admit it. Soldiers in Iraq are paying the price everyday because our forces are spread too thin. There simply aren't enough of them to provide a prudent reserve of active-duty troops to respond if they have to in other hotspots. More than 180,000 members of the National Guard and Reserves are on active duty. Stop-loss programs have kept more than 30,000 troops in the ranks after their enlistments expired. If I am President, I will instruct my Secretary of Defense to conduct a long-range review of the nation's military force structure. And until that review is completed, I will not appoint a Base Closure Commission.
We should not begin that work until we are clear that we are not wasting resources on excess bases, and until we know what our future needs will be at home and around the world.
And as we expand the size of the active-duty Army, we must also recognize that more numbers alone are not enough. The threats of terrorism and the conflicts of the future can only be met with more engineers, more military police, more psychological warfare personnel and civil affairs teams - more special operations forces and more training for peace keeping missions. We need a force that is as well prepared, well-trained, and well-equipped to stabilize a failed state as it is to wage war in an open desert or on urban streets.
America's strength is not found in our military alone, but in every area of American life. In small towns and cities across this country, there are judges, public administrators, educators, economists, civil engineers, and public safety professionals. They represent a vast untapped reserve of citizens capable - and I believe willing - to make their contribution to national security. It is time to marshal their skills and experience in service to America. They are an army unto themselves; and today I propose that we enlist thousands of them in a Civilian Stability Corps, a reserve organization of volunteers ready to help win the peace in troubled places.
Like military reservists, they will have peacetime jobs; but in times of national need, they will be called into service to restore roads, renovate schools, open hospitals, repair power systems, draft a constitution, or build a police force. A Civilian Stability Corps can bring the best of America to the worst of the world -- and reduce pressure on the military.
Yet in the end, at the core of our defense are the men in women who wear the uniform, their families, and all those who I call my brothers and sisters, the veterans of this nation. Their concerns are as critical to our strength as the weapons systems we buy or the troop numbers we deploy. We have a sacred obligation to do our part for those who have borne the burdens of battle. This is about the character of our nation and who we are as a people; it is about keeping America's promise, about love of country, and the debt we owe to those who defend it.
America entered into a covenant with those it drafted and those who enlisted, but the truth is that, with every story of a veteran who goes without adequate health care every day, that covenant is broken. There are countless veterans who fought our wars who are now fighting year after year for the benefits they earned. Last year they had to defeat a Bush Administration proposal to increase fees and co-payments, which was nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt drive an additional one million veterans from the VA health care system. The President then came back with a plan to drive 500,000 from the system by 2005. And then he submitted a similar proposal this year.
If I am President, as part of a Military Families Bill of Rights, we will fully fund veterans health and veterans benefits - and our veterans will no longer be the neglected soldiers of America.
And we have to secure the rights not only of those who served in the past, but of patriots all across this country who serve today - in the active duty military, the Reserves, or the National Guard.
Twenty-percent of our Reservists and their families don't have health care coverage. But George Bush threatened to veto funding for Iraq if it included more money for health care for Reservists, and then tried to cut the pay of soldiers in the field and school aid for children of military families. If I am President, our men and women in uniform will get the benefits they deserve.
This Administration also attempted to cut family separation allowances, imminent danger pay, and impact aid -- the help local schools depend on to give military kids the best possible education. I will protect them all -- and as President, I will sign legislation to provide for those families who suffer a loss in war and to protect the livelihood of reservists who are called up and have to leave their jobs. This legislation will include $250,000 on top of their present life insurance policies for all service members who die in the line of duty.
I will honor the family members of those who fall in service not just with words, but with deeds. People like Cyndi Stever and her ten year old daughter Nichole. When Tony Stever was killed by enemy fire in Iraq last April, Cyndi said she felt she had lost her whole life. But more loss was to come - not just from an enemy, but from her own government. Not long after she buried her husband, Cyndi was told she and Nichole would have to leave their home. Military housing - they were told - is for military families. And since Tony made the ultimate sacrifice, they were no longer a military family.
How can this happen in the United States of America? It's not right to tell a family that has just received that knock on the door, "Oh, by the way - you have to pack up your home and move." Move where? Who among us thinks it's right to say such a thing? Who among us could move on short notice when you don't even know where your paycheck will come from? If this Administration says we can afford to throw massive tax cuts at the wealthiest Americans, then don't tell us to throw bereaved military families out of their homes without a chance to pull life back together.
So the Military Family Bill of Rights, will allow the spouses and children of those killed in action to remain in military housing for up to a year after the loss of a loved one. It will offer help to move on to a new life. It will provide one year of pay to military dependents of soldiers killed in action. It will make permanent increases in family separation allowances, and permanent guarantees of reservist access to military healthcare. For reservists who are called up, it will also permit penalty free withdrawals from their IRAS to cover the unexpected expenses of lengthy activations and deployments. This is the least we can do for those who give the most they can to our country.
To me, guaranteeing these rights and organizing our armed forces accordingly is personal; it is in my soul and it's been a large part of my life. This commitment goes back more than 35 years to the years of my own service. It was then that I learned, together with some of you here today, about our obligations to each other and our country's obligation to those in uniform. And since then, from the struggle for care in our VA hospitals, to post-traumatic stress disorder, to Agent Orange, to the battle for military strength and military pay, to the struggle for answers as we kept faith with our obligations to find the truth about POW/MIA, I have tried to be a voice and a champion for those in uniform who serve our country.
I make this simple pledge: If I am President, I will fight for a constant standard of decency and respect for those who serve their country in our armed forces - on active duty and as veterans. It should be no other way and if I am president, it will be no other way.
Below I've posted John Kerry's speech advocating a Military Families Bill of Rights. If you think he's soft of defense, just take a read.
And for all you Hawks out there who think the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld group is so great, why don't our soldiers have the right body armor, and why are local communities donating steel plate to armor Guard unit Hummers? This is the same group who made sure that ROTC battalions had LBE's and canteens that coupld be used while wearing gas masks during Desert Storm, but couldn't do the same for active duty U.S. Air Force units deployed to the Gulf. How do I know? Because I had the equipment issued to me at USF, while my Dad's unit couldn't even get boots in Bahrain.
"Protecting Our Military Families in Times of War"
A Military Family Bill of Rights
March 17, 2004
As Prepared for Delivery
One year ago this week, American soldiers raced across the desert to Baghdad. Ten months ago, George Bush stood on an aircraft carrier and proclaimed "mission accomplished."
But today we know that the mission is not finished, hostilities have not ended, and our men and women in uniform fight on almost alone with the target squarely on their backs. Everyday, they face danger and death from suicide bombers, roadside bombers, and now ironically, from the very Iraqi police they are training.
We are still bogged down in Iraq - and the Administration stubbornly holds to failed policies that drive potential allies away. What we have seen is a steady loss of lives and mounting costs in dollars, with no end in sight.
We were misled about weapons of mass destruction. We are misled now when the costs of Iraq are not even counted in the President's budget. But having gone to war, we have a responsibility to keep and a national interest to achieve in a stable and peaceful Iraq. To leave too soon would leave behind a failed state that inevitably would become a haven for terrorists and a threat to our future, a problem for the Middle East, and a dangerous setback in the war against terror.
But the answer is not a stubborn pursuit of the same arrogant policies; the answer to failure is not more of the same. Instead we must return more effectively to the international community, and share the authority and the burdens with other nations. We need to use the tools of diplomacy as well as the tools of war. All of us support our troops. But if we had built a true coalition, they would not have to fight almost alone - and Americans would not have to bear almost all the costs in Iraq. This President is so committed to tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that he refused to ask them to sacrifice even a small portion of that tax cut to give our soldiers the weapons and equipment they need.
The lesson here is fundamental: At times, conflict comes, and the decision must be made. For a President, the decision may be lonely, but that does not mean that America should go it alone.
And while we should seek allies, we must never give anyone else a veto over our national security. At this decisive time in our history, when we confront ongoing challenges in Afghanistan as well as Iraq - and the mortal challenge of those that would use terror as a weapon and religion as a shield, there is no greater imperative for a President than the Constitution's command to provide for the common defense. If I am President of the United States, we will do whatever it takes to ensure that the 21st century American military is the strongest in the world. I will not hesitate to use force when it is needed to wage and win the War on Terror.
At the heart of that force must be a fully prepared, fully equipped, fully staffed, state-of-the-art military ready to face any adversary, anywhere. Four years ago, George Bush said that our troops lacked the support they needed. Four years ago, he promised them: "Help is on the way." He sent that message to the same military that had been built up in the 1990s and was soon to perform so brilliantly in Afghanistan and Iraq. Well, I say this today: George Bush can't have it both ways. He can't decry the military's readiness in 2000 and then take credit for its success in 2001, before he even passed his first defense budget. Now, in 2004, our armed forces are more extended than at any time in a generation -- and at this time, they are still waiting for help.
Twenty-five hundred of them are still waiting for medical care. Helicopter pilots have flown battlefield missions without the best available anti-missile systems. Civil Affairs personnel, almost all of them reservists, are stretched to the breaking point, building schools and hospitals. Unarmored Humvees roll toward the next perilous turn in the road. The 428th Transportation Company had to ask local businesses back home to donate the steel to armor their vehicles, and when this President heard about it, instead of saying, "never again," he said, "good idea." And tens of thousands of troops were deployed to Iraq without the most advanced bullet proof vests that can literally make the difference between life and death. Lives and blood will always be the cost of war, but we should never send young American's into harm's way more exposed to danger than they have to be.
This President has had his chance; and this President has not delivered.
So, let me say here today, to every soldier and every soldier's family: This time help is on the way, and it won't be coming from George Bush.
If I am President, never again will parents or husbands or wives of soldiers have to send them body armor instead of photographs and care packages. Last month a young newlywed in Virginia who, as her husband was about to ship out to Iraq, gave him a bullet proof vest for Valentine's Day. I can tell you right now: in a Kerry Administration, no one will be getting body armor as a gift from a loved one; it will come from the Armed Forces of the United States of America. We will supply our troops with everything they need -- and we will reimburse each and every family who has had to buy body armor because this Administration made Valentine's Day part of the procurement process.
Our military is about much more than moving pins on a map or amassing expensive new weapon systems. A strong military depends first of all on the courage of the men and women who stand a post or go out on patrol in places around the globe and who carry on every day until the mission is accomplished for real. We need a Commander-in-Chief who honors and supports them, for real; a Commander-in-Chief who repays their risks on the battlefield by providing them with the best weapons and protections as they go into battle, a Commander-in-Chief who recognizes their commitment and sacrifice, and offers their families a decent life here at home.
To all of the military families who are here today, we say thank you. And to my fellow veterans, the band of brothers who have been with me for so long and to whom I owe so much, I pledge that unlike the time when we fought side by side, I will be a President who does what's right for our men and women in uniform.
I will never forget that our true power is measured not only by the strength of our weapons, but by the spirit of our soldiers.
To me, that is not just rhetoric; it is the reality I lived - and it is central to the work of my life. So I come here today to propose a Military Family Bill of Rights - real and specific guarantees - that will keep faith with those who served and the families who share in their sacrifice.
Our military families have the right to expect real leadership of the armed forces from the Commander-in-Chief. They have a right to competitive pay and quality housing, decent health care and dental care. Quality education for their children. First rate training. The best possible weaponry and state-of-the-art equipment. They have a right to timely deployment information. And they have a right to know that, in the event of tragedy, help will be there to care and provide for their families and for them.
America needs a President who will do all that it takes to create the most modern fighting force on earth. When the 4th Infantry Division found Saddam Hussein, they had an unmatched wealth of knowledge about their surroundings and they were connected in an unprecedented way to their commanders. They're known as the "digital division," transformed in the Clinton Administration, when the decision was made to outfit the 4th Division with the latest advances in information technology. Their vehicles in the field have keyboards and touch screen monitors so that troops can access real time maps, track battlefield movements, and even send commands by e-mail. We need to do this across the board. We need to revolutionize our military capability. Our enemies don't use the old tactics and -strategies -- neither should we.
Our emphasis has do be on empowering soldiers to fight more precisely, on reducing the incidents of friendly-fire and on building a military fit for the future, not the past. That means pushing technology down to the smallest units. When we took on the Taliban, precision bombs onboard planes flying from aircraft carriers in the Indian Ocean were guided to their targets by U.S. Special Forces riding horses across the hills of Afghanistan. They could do that because of what we did to strengthen the military in the last decade, but there is so much more to do. By pushing real-time information, and the ability to take action, into the hands of those closest to the frontlines, we can prepare ourselves for the perils and possibilities of the years ahead.
The war in Iraq taught us that a lightening-fast information-age military can drive to Baghdad in three weeks, but the instability that follows requires a large force -- and we cannot rely on reservists alone to make up the difference. I propose to add 40,000 troops to the regular Army, not to send to Iraq, but to ease the burden on troops who have been deployed from one global hot spot to the next with no end in sight. This doesn't mean we have to spend more on the military; instead, we have to be smarter about what we spend by shifting priorities within the defense budget, and scaling back some programs that do more for defense contractors than for the national defense.
We are weaker today militarily than we should be, but this Administration stubbornly refuses to admit it. Soldiers in Iraq are paying the price everyday because our forces are spread too thin. There simply aren't enough of them to provide a prudent reserve of active-duty troops to respond if they have to in other hotspots. More than 180,000 members of the National Guard and Reserves are on active duty. Stop-loss programs have kept more than 30,000 troops in the ranks after their enlistments expired. If I am President, I will instruct my Secretary of Defense to conduct a long-range review of the nation's military force structure. And until that review is completed, I will not appoint a Base Closure Commission.
We should not begin that work until we are clear that we are not wasting resources on excess bases, and until we know what our future needs will be at home and around the world.
And as we expand the size of the active-duty Army, we must also recognize that more numbers alone are not enough. The threats of terrorism and the conflicts of the future can only be met with more engineers, more military police, more psychological warfare personnel and civil affairs teams - more special operations forces and more training for peace keeping missions. We need a force that is as well prepared, well-trained, and well-equipped to stabilize a failed state as it is to wage war in an open desert or on urban streets.
America's strength is not found in our military alone, but in every area of American life. In small towns and cities across this country, there are judges, public administrators, educators, economists, civil engineers, and public safety professionals. They represent a vast untapped reserve of citizens capable - and I believe willing - to make their contribution to national security. It is time to marshal their skills and experience in service to America. They are an army unto themselves; and today I propose that we enlist thousands of them in a Civilian Stability Corps, a reserve organization of volunteers ready to help win the peace in troubled places.
Like military reservists, they will have peacetime jobs; but in times of national need, they will be called into service to restore roads, renovate schools, open hospitals, repair power systems, draft a constitution, or build a police force. A Civilian Stability Corps can bring the best of America to the worst of the world -- and reduce pressure on the military.
Yet in the end, at the core of our defense are the men in women who wear the uniform, their families, and all those who I call my brothers and sisters, the veterans of this nation. Their concerns are as critical to our strength as the weapons systems we buy or the troop numbers we deploy. We have a sacred obligation to do our part for those who have borne the burdens of battle. This is about the character of our nation and who we are as a people; it is about keeping America's promise, about love of country, and the debt we owe to those who defend it.
America entered into a covenant with those it drafted and those who enlisted, but the truth is that, with every story of a veteran who goes without adequate health care every day, that covenant is broken. There are countless veterans who fought our wars who are now fighting year after year for the benefits they earned. Last year they had to defeat a Bush Administration proposal to increase fees and co-payments, which was nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt drive an additional one million veterans from the VA health care system. The President then came back with a plan to drive 500,000 from the system by 2005. And then he submitted a similar proposal this year.
If I am President, as part of a Military Families Bill of Rights, we will fully fund veterans health and veterans benefits - and our veterans will no longer be the neglected soldiers of America.
And we have to secure the rights not only of those who served in the past, but of patriots all across this country who serve today - in the active duty military, the Reserves, or the National Guard.
Twenty-percent of our Reservists and their families don't have health care coverage. But George Bush threatened to veto funding for Iraq if it included more money for health care for Reservists, and then tried to cut the pay of soldiers in the field and school aid for children of military families. If I am President, our men and women in uniform will get the benefits they deserve.
This Administration also attempted to cut family separation allowances, imminent danger pay, and impact aid -- the help local schools depend on to give military kids the best possible education. I will protect them all -- and as President, I will sign legislation to provide for those families who suffer a loss in war and to protect the livelihood of reservists who are called up and have to leave their jobs. This legislation will include $250,000 on top of their present life insurance policies for all service members who die in the line of duty.
I will honor the family members of those who fall in service not just with words, but with deeds. People like Cyndi Stever and her ten year old daughter Nichole. When Tony Stever was killed by enemy fire in Iraq last April, Cyndi said she felt she had lost her whole life. But more loss was to come - not just from an enemy, but from her own government. Not long after she buried her husband, Cyndi was told she and Nichole would have to leave their home. Military housing - they were told - is for military families. And since Tony made the ultimate sacrifice, they were no longer a military family.
How can this happen in the United States of America? It's not right to tell a family that has just received that knock on the door, "Oh, by the way - you have to pack up your home and move." Move where? Who among us thinks it's right to say such a thing? Who among us could move on short notice when you don't even know where your paycheck will come from? If this Administration says we can afford to throw massive tax cuts at the wealthiest Americans, then don't tell us to throw bereaved military families out of their homes without a chance to pull life back together.
So the Military Family Bill of Rights, will allow the spouses and children of those killed in action to remain in military housing for up to a year after the loss of a loved one. It will offer help to move on to a new life. It will provide one year of pay to military dependents of soldiers killed in action. It will make permanent increases in family separation allowances, and permanent guarantees of reservist access to military healthcare. For reservists who are called up, it will also permit penalty free withdrawals from their IRAS to cover the unexpected expenses of lengthy activations and deployments. This is the least we can do for those who give the most they can to our country.
To me, guaranteeing these rights and organizing our armed forces accordingly is personal; it is in my soul and it's been a large part of my life. This commitment goes back more than 35 years to the years of my own service. It was then that I learned, together with some of you here today, about our obligations to each other and our country's obligation to those in uniform. And since then, from the struggle for care in our VA hospitals, to post-traumatic stress disorder, to Agent Orange, to the battle for military strength and military pay, to the struggle for answers as we kept faith with our obligations to find the truth about POW/MIA, I have tried to be a voice and a champion for those in uniform who serve our country.
I make this simple pledge: If I am President, I will fight for a constant standard of decency and respect for those who serve their country in our armed forces - on active duty and as veterans. It should be no other way and if I am president, it will be no other way.
Benito Mussolini used to define Facism with the merger of government with big business. If so, we are increasingly approaching a radical change in political philosophy in the United States.
The corporate ties of the major political parties is well-known, particularly in the case of the Bush Administration. President Bush and Vice President Cheney began rewarding their corporate allies almost immediately with Cheney's "Energy Task Force", which still has not released its documents despite multiple court orders. Indeed, the non-partisan GAO was told that if it continued to push for information related to attendees to Energy Task Force meetings that its budget would be cut.
The most recent example of the corporation running government comes from California, where a look at the MS Word Meta Data from a recently released draft letter shows that the MPAA is writing memos for the state Attorney General.
While this document spans multiple issues, including copyright and intellectual property issues, the biggest issue is that it is a blatant attempt by industry to write government policy, and that government meekly assenting. This is not how the democratic process should work. This is about a powerful corporate entity forcing governmental policy on the American people. This must change.
If these types of activities are allowed continue, they spell the end of American Democracy. The will of the people will continue to be subverted by unelected corporate interests. This represents one of the many problems with Justice Powell's argument that corporations are people and have free speech rights. When a corporation can be executed, imprisoned, sent to war via the draft, pay their fair share of the tax load, or vote, then they will have the rights of citizenship. Then they can have legitimate political influence and free speech.
Why on earth would Kerry do it? Because the President wants to know who doesn't like him? Kerry's response so far has been to tell Mr. Bush that it's none of his business. Which it isn't.
Kerry should further ask the President why he wants to know so badly. Is it so the Bush Administration can punish those pesky foreign leaders who think they're dangerous? What would that say about Kerry's integrity?
The President needs to get over his little conniption fit and grow up. It doesn't matter which foreign leaders want him out, because it isn't going to change relation with them any, unless we make some diplomatic stink about it.
I'm not sure why Kerry actually divulged that he had meetings with the leaders of (presumably) European nations that want a regime change here, though. Was it supposed to be a political coup that the President is not considered to be a man other leaders want to deal with?
Despite his election campaign promise to bring honor and integrity back to the White House, the President has once again shown that facts take a back seat to politics. Previous events are well-documented, if not often the object of press reports, but the newest example of the President's dishonesty is getting a least a little attention.
Now that the President has pushed his farce of a Medicare Prescription Plan through Congress, it seems that he threatened Richard S. Foster, the chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, with losing his job if he released budget information that put the cost of the plan at $551 billion dollars, substantially higher than the $395 billion that the White House claimed it would cost.
In an additional example of the Bush Administration's attitude toward honesty and integrity, it responded by calling Foster a "liar".
Are we really sure this is an improvement over Bill Clinton's Oval Office antics? At least President Clinton wasn't lying about policy issues.
It looks more and more like large portions of 1st Lt. George W. Bush's military records have been cleaned up. Dennis Neiwert at Orcinus has all the juicy details, but here's just a bit to get you going.
It appears, on the surface, that the President may have been considered not trustworthy enough, for undocumented reasons, to fly his nuclear-capable fighter-interceptor. And now he controls more than 10,000 of the things on his own authority. If I thought his advisers wre responsible people, I'd be glad for the law that requires another Senate-confirmed official to launch.
I'm sure there are a great many principled conservatives out there that despise the methods of Republican party hacks and their lap dogs in the daily talk shows, but they still follow the party line and rarely call their ideological cohorts to task fo their methods.
Finally someone has taken up Hillary Clinton's "vast wight-wing conspiracy" complaint and pushed it forward. Candidate (and Senator) John Kerry "slipped" and called Republicans "the most crooked, you know, lying group I’ve ever seen.” Considering what we've seen the past ten years from those guys, he isn't far off.
Further, Mr. Kerry refuses to apologize, as well he shouldn't. An apology gives the methods of the Republicans credence and says that it isn't right to call them on their dirty-dealing, obfuscation, and lying to the American public. Think he's wrong? Where are all those WMDs again?
It's about time the Dems came out swinging.
The Bush Administration is trying to make political points out the release of official jobless numbers at 5.6%. What the Bushies don't like to talk about is the large number of people that are no longer eligible for unemployment, are underemployed, or stop looking for new work without finding a job.
According to this L.A. Times article (courtesy of Balta), the Dept. of Labor says 392,000 people stopped looking for work in January. These folks are not part of Mr. Bush's 5.6%. The times claims the real unemployment rate is approximately 7%, though I've seen claims closer to the 12% range (of course, that was last year).
The full L.A. Times bit is below:
EDITORIAL
The Jobless Need Help Now
Times Headlines
A Suspect Stays on the Job
Hard Lessons From Spain
Easing the Textbook Pinch
Schools: Keep the Ax Sharp
The Jobless Need Help Now
more >
In the movie "50 First Dates," Drew Barrymore's character wakes up each morning with no memory of what occurred the previous day. Every day she meets Adam Sandler and falls in love with him all over again. Critics found it dreadful.
Congress has been acting as if it suffers from a similar ailment, one that most economists find as horrible as Barrymore and Sandler's performances: Each session it forgets about the deficit, then embraces new tax cuts. But last Thursday, Congress started to take its critics to heart and step away from tax-cut delusions.
The Senate rebuffed President Bush's plans for making $1.7 trillion in tax cuts permanent, approving a "pay as you go" amendment. The measure would require that any new or extended tax cuts be paid for by reducing spending, raising taxes or otherwise garnering new revenue. Centrist Republicans Lincoln Chafee (R.I.), Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins (both of Maine) and John McCain (Ariz.) joined Democrats in backing the amendment. Sens. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) bailed out at the last minute under intense White House pressure. The amendment might not make it past a final House-Senate budget agreement, but it shows that the ground is shifting quickly.
The next step that lawmakers should take is to help keep the hope of real job growth alive by restoring the temporary unemployment benefits it allowed to lapse in December. The United States has lost more than 2 million jobs since Bush entered office. Though the unemployment rate has held steady at 5.6%, the number is deceptive. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 392,000 unemployed people quit looking for work in January. The overall size of the labor force has actually declined in six of the last eight months.
Once people drop out of the labor market, it's difficult to get them back. They increase the burden on social services and may end up in the underground economy — which means they no longer pay many taxes. Economists say the unemployment rate would be more than 7% if those who had stopped looking for a job were included.
Temporary federal supplemental insurance helped the unemployed in previous recessions bridge the gap when they exhausted state benefits and hadn't found a new job yet. Such payments, unlike many of the Bush tax cuts, do stimulate the economy by pumping money to individuals who spend it immediately on basics like groceries and clothing. In January alone, Labor Department data show that about 350,000 unemployed across the nation exhausted their benefits. California has more than any other state, nearly 60,000.
Congress should not withhold temporary benefits that, because they come from a dedicated rainy day fund, won't even add to the deficit. Bush and his presidential rival, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), can argue loftily about taxes and trade, but the unemployed need a helping hand now.
I haven't seen it yet, but I thought I would pass on some of the commentary I've seen recently. There is some very interesting reading.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0302-04.htm
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040308&s=wieseltier030804
http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/passion.html
Also see Orcinus for a lot of really insightful analysis.
Check this article on what happens if you don't have insurance and can't pay a hospital bill. I guess we're gonna need some debtors' prisons. Welcome to the 17th century.
When even the ultra-conservative Washinhton Times complains about the arbitrary abuse of power by the TSA, you know that there is a serious problem.
Like everyone else, I want to know why the people at Deibold, who make loads of ATMs can't give us a paper receipt for our ballots. Here's a nifty article on why getting vote verification and doing audits is so important. And here's another.
According to this article, it is fairly obvious that the President really didn't honor his commitment -- to the tune of at least 24 absences which were not made up within the regulation time frame. I know what happens to me if I don't show up for work for 24 days, and I know what would happen to most GI's who disappeared for 24 days during Vietnam...
Documents prove that Bush ignored his commitment to the United States military
By Paul Lukasiak
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Download a .pdf file for printing.
Adobe Acrobat Reader required.
Click here to download a free copy.
March 4, 2004—On Tuesday, February 10, the White House released copies of George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard "retirement points" and payroll records from the years 1972 and 1973. During the daily press briefing that day, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan asserted no less than 12 times that the documents that were released showed that "the president [sic] fulfilled his duties.".
This is simply false. The criteria McClellan used had nothing to do with "fulfillment" of Bush's duty. And the documents demonstrate that Bush failed to do his duty under the laws and regulations of the United State and its Air Force during the last third of his six-year term.
The documents also demonstrate that, even under McClellan's incorrect criteria, Bush failed to do his duty during his last full year of service.
Bush's Real Obligation and His Failure to "Do His Duty"
Under Air Force regulations at that time, Bush (as a member of the Texas Air National Guard) had a six-year "Military Service Obligation" (MSO) to the "Ready Reserve" of the US Air Force. Those regulations defined "satisfactory participation" as 48 periods of Inactive Duty training, and 15 days of Active Duty training, each fiscal year. (The fiscal year during the period in question ran from July 1-June 30.) Only four absences from Inactive Duty Training were allowed. If there were more than four absences, the airman was deemed to have "failed to satisfactorily participate."
These Air Force Reserve requirements were based on both federal statutes (which defined required training as 48 assemblies for "drill and instruction" and 15 days of "training at encampment, maneuvers, outside target practice or other exercises") as well as the extant Code of Federal Regulations. Up to 10 percent of scheduled training periods and drills could be missed as "unexcused absences." But an "excused absence" was defined only as an absence that was due to "sickness, injury, or some other circumstances beyond the individuals control and . . . the training is made up by performance of equivalent drills or training period—all other situations are considered unexcused absences." (emphasis added) Failure to meet these standards was defined as "unsatisfactory participation."
Air Force Reserve regulations at that time prescribed that "excused absences" had to be made up either 15 days before a scheduled training period, or 30 days after a scheduled training period.
In other words, at the time that Bush was a member of the Texas Air National Guard and the United States Air Force Ready Reserve, he was absolutely required to attend at least 44 "Inactive Duty Training Periods." In FY 1972-73, Bush was credited with only 36 such training periods and thus had at least 12 "unexcused absences." In FY 1973-74, Bush was credited with only 12 such training periods in the 10 months and 26 days remaining in his six-year military service obligation. Because of the limits on making up missed training periods, Bush would have had, at minimum, 24 unexcused absences during FY 1973-74.
Thus under federal statutory law, federal regulations, and Air Force regulations, Bush was guilty of unsatisfactory participation during his last two years of service in the United States military.
Under the regulations at that time, this "failure" should have resulted in Bush being reported to Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC), and ordered to Active Duty for up to 24 months.
A Note About the "Lloyd Memo"
The White House based its claim that Bush had "fulfilled his duty" on a memo written for the 2000 Bush campaign by Albert Lloyd, a retired Air Force Personnel Specialist. Lloyd based his claim that Bush had "satisfactory years for both 72-73 and 73-74 which proves he completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner" on the completely erroneous premise that Bush's "military obligation" was based solely on whether or not Bush got credit within the Air Force retirement system for a year's worth of service. Lloyd completely ignored the requirements set down by US statutory law, the Federal Code of Regulation, and the Air Force's own regulations in drawing his conclusions in a display that can only be characterized as the effects of advanced senility or partisan hackmanship.
Simply put, whether one qualifies for a "good year" in the retirement system is completely irrelevant within the Air Force Reserve system to whether those who, like Bush, had an outstanding military service obligation and Ready Reserve obligation managed to fulfill those obligation. This was especially true for those whom the Air Force had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars training to be pilots.
Ironically, the documents themselves demonstrate that, even under the Lloyd standard, Bush would have failed to have fulfilled his military obligation. According to the documents, Bush was placed on "Inactive Status" effective September 15, which made him ineligible for "gratuitous membership points" which were only awarded to those who had "Active Status." Bush required all 15 available "gratuitous points" in order to get to 50 points—-and being placed on "Inactive" status denied him the full 15 points.
See the documents that are contained in a printable version of this article in .pdf format.
FAIR was kind enough to send out a bulletin responding to Republican attacks on John Kerry's defense voting. It looks like the ladies and gentlemen of the press are too lazy to look into this stuff on their own.
Click on the link or read below for the details, but in general, the Republicans are playing fast and loose with the facts. As usual.
FAIR-L
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
Media analysis, critiques and activism
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kerry-military-votes.html
MEDIA ADVISORY:
GOP Rhetoric on Kerry's Voting Record Goes Unchallenged
March 8, 2004
After John Kerry emerged as the likely Democratic nominee for
president,
the Republican National Committee (RNC) began criticizing his record on
military spending. The campaign against Kerry's record escalated on
February 22 when the RNC released a list of weapons systems that Kerry
allegedly "voted against."
Republican spokespeople used this list to make sweeping claims about
Kerry
in the media: "I think the more that the president and the Republicans
describe accurately-- they don't have to exaggerate at all; they just
have
to describe accurately and calmly-- what it means...to have voted
against
every major weapon system," Newt Gingrich declared on Fox's Hannity and
Colmes (2/26/04), "I think if they stick to that and stick to the
facts,
Senator Kerry will react by saying that he's being smeared by his own
record."
Partisan TV pundits like Sean Hannity quickly echoed these charges:
"He's
voting against every major weapons system we now use in our military,"
Hannity told his Fox News audience (3/1/04). Hannity's participation
in
the RNC's attack was perhaps to be expected, but he was not the only
media
figure to simply pass on the Republican allegations without
examination.
CNN anchor Judy Woodruff (2/25/04) framed the issue this way in an
interview with Rep. Norm Dicks (D.-Wash.): "The Republicans list
something
like 13 different weapons systems that they say the record shows
Senator
Kerry voted against. The Patriot missile, the B-1 bomber, the Trident
missile and on and on and on."
Embarrassingly, Dicks had to explain to Woodruff that most of the
weapons
"votes" weren't individual votes at all, but a single vote on the
Pentagon's 1991 appropriations bill. Woodruff responded with surprise
to
this information: "Are you saying that all these weapons systems were
part
of one defense appropriations bill in 1991?"
But Woodruff wasn't alone. Appearing on CNN (2/3/04), Bush-Cheney
campaign strategist Ralph Reed explained to anchor Wolf Blitzer that
Kerry's record was one of "voting to dismantle 27 weapons systems,
including the MX missile, the Pershing missile, the B-1, the B-2
stealth
bomber, the F-16 fighter jet, the F-15 fighter jet, cutting another 18
programs, slashing intelligence spend by $2.85 billion, and voting to
freeze defense spending for seven years." Blitzer responded by
pointing
out to guest Ann Lewis of the Democratic National Committee, "I think
it's
fair to say, Ann, that there's been some opposition research done."
For many reporters, the charges against Kerry's record were recorded as
just part of the back-and-forth of a campaign: Fox News Channel's Carl
Cameron (2/27/04) explained: "With the GOP attacking John Kerry's votes
to
cut defense over the years, the Democratic front-runner, once again,
counter-attacked what he calls the president's 'mishandling' of the war
on
terror."
Associated Press reporter Nedra Pickler (2/27/04) noted that "the Bush
campaign has criticized Kerry in recent days for voting against some
increases in defense spending and military weapons programs during his
19-year congressional career. Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot said
Kerry's policies would weaken the country's ability to win the war on
terror."
NBC anchor Tom Brokaw (3/2/04, MSNBC) also seemed to accept the charges
at
face value, noticing that "the vice president just today was talking
about
his votes against the CIA budget, for example, intelligence budgets and
also weapons systems. Isn't he [Kerry] going to be very vulnerable
come
the fall when national security is such a big issue in this country?
One of the few reporters to take a serious look at the RNC's list-- on
which 10 of the 13 items refer to the single 1991 vote-- was Slate's
Fred
Kaplan (2/25/04). Kaplan noted that 16 senators, including five
Republicans, voted against the bill. Kaplan concluded that the claim
against Kerry "reeks of rank dishonesty."
Kaplan also pointed out that at the time of the 1991 vote, deeper cuts
in
military spending were being advocated by some prominent Republicans--
including then-President George H.W Bush and Dick Cheney, who was
secretary of defense at the time. As Kaplan noted, Cheney appealed for
more cuts from Congress: "You've squabbled and sometimes bickered and
horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that
don't
fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new
requirements."
Cheney went to name the M-1 tank and the F-14 and F-16 fighters-- all
of
which appear on the RNC's list-- as "great systems" that "we have
enough
of."
Ironically, Cheney made the rounds on the cable channels on March 2,
criticizing Kerry's record in terms parallel to the RNC's release.
During
an interview with Fox News Channel's Brit Hume, Cheney said: "What
we're
concerned about, what I'm concerned about, is his record in the United
States Senate, where he clearly has over the years adopted a series of
positions that indicate a desire to cut the defense budget, to cut the
intelligence budget, to eliminate many major weapons programs."
Unfortunately, Hume failed to raise an important follow-up: Why was
Cheney
now criticizing Kerry for having essentially the same position Cheney
advocated back in 1991?
The Bush/Cheney campaign plans to spend $133 million over the next
several
months in an effort to "redefine" Kerry (Sydney Morning Herald,
3/4/04).
If this charge is an indication of the Republicans' approach, then the
media would perform a valuable service if they took a keen interest in
evaluating the accuracy of such campaign rhetoric.
----------
Your donation to FAIR makes a difference:
http://www.fair.org/donate.html
SUBSCRIBE TO EXTRA! AND GET FAIR'S NEW BOOK FOR FREE:
The Oh Really? Factor
http://www.fair.org/ohreally.html
FAIR SHIRTS: Get your "Don't Trust the Corporate Media" shirt today at
FAIR's online store:
http://www.merchantamerica.com/fair/
FAIR produces CounterSpin, a weekly radio show heard on over 130
stations in the U.S. and Canada. To find the CounterSpin station nearest you,
visit http://www.fair.org/counterspin/stations.html
Feel free to respond to FAIR ( fair@fair.org ). We can't reply to
everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate
documented examples of media bias or censorship. And please send copies of
your email correspondence with media outlets, including any responses,
to fair@fair.org .
You can subscribe to FAIR-L at our web site: http://www.fair.org . Our
subscriber list is kept confidential.
FAIR
(212) 633-6700
http://www.fair.org/
E-mail: fair@fair.org
I haven't updated this site for quite a while because life took a temporary turn for the worse.
Most people who read the site don't know that last October my wife Heather found out she was pregnant, which was a huge surprise. The reason the pregnancy was a surprise was not so much timing, as the belief that it was extremely unlikely that she could get pregnant. We had gone through two years of infertility treatments and finally given up. We were saving money to pay for adoption fees.
Heather was sick during most of her pregnancy -- she had infections, morning sickness, bronchitis, colds, etc... from October untl the middle of February. On February 11th, I took her to the ER at the local hospital because she was dehydrated and confused (she was actually hallucinating a bit). At the ER the treated her for dehydration and ran some blood work, which came back very strange. The ER staff also couldn't find the baby's heart beat, which had been great at the last ultrasound (January 28th). At 2:00 am, February 12th, they admitted her to the ICU.
Over the next few hours we learned that the baby had died and Heather's medical condition deteriorated drastically. After 9 days in the ICU, Heather was sent to a more normal floor where they could monitor her vital signs and start physical therapy. After 6 more days, Heather was allowed to go home. Since then, she's been getting physical therapy at home and someone has been with her all the time. Luckily my employer has been really flexible with my work hours.
Needless to say, my perspective has been altered by this experience. We both realize that without our excellent medical insurance, Heather wouldn't be here. Fifty-eight percent of the people with the condition she had die within the first 48 hours at the hospital. With lesser insurance (or Medicaid), the initial blood tests that revealed the seriousness of her condition might not have been run. With lesser insurance we would have had to pay much more out of pocket for her stay. Even ten percent (about $50,000) would have caused us to file for bankruptcy. My opinion regarding universal health care has been radically changed by this experience.
There should be no circumstance where a seriously ill person could go into a hospital and not receive whatever treatment they need. Period. There should be no question whether appropriate tests will be run because your don't have insurance, or because you have bad insurance. Everyone should have equal access to health care. does this mean socialized medicine? If that's what it takes, then absolutely.
We also had problems getting information from my wife's physicians, even to the point of finding out who they were. For a fair amount of time, I had no idea what they thought was wrong, what the prognosis was, or what treatment they would try. They performed procedures without consent -- including inserting a central line, taking X-rays and a CAT scan. After Heather was out of the ICU, we had a difficult time finding out what criteria they were using to determine when she could come home.
Our avenues for remedying this were few. We talked with patient representatives three separate times to try to get the information issue resolved. Each time it got better for a few days, and then slowly worsened. The hospital's options for dealing with it were few. Unlike nurses, orderlies, and technicians, the doctors do not work for the hospital. They are generally in their own practices. The same goes for physical/occupational/speech therapists. So all that the hospital can do is organize meetings and present concerns.
All of this could be remedied, in part, with health plans like those used in France and Sweden, where costs are controlled, but everyone still gets good care on demand. I certainly don't advocate the Canadian or British methods, where you can wait for months to get a problem fixed.
This experience has also affected my stance on religion somewhat. This episode has pretty much shown me that God does not take an active hand in the world. A benevolent and loving God would not have put a woman that desperately wants children through this, just as a benevolent and loving God would not tolerate the injustice and suffering in the world. This isn't just a free will argument, nor is it a discussion fo whether anyone is more deserving than anyone else. And for the record, I don't believe Lucifer is the source of the wrold's problems. Lucifer is just a convenient excuse for people who need someone to blame things on.
Regardless, Heather is now recovering, and I'll be back to blogging as time permits.