According to Gallup, there are two likely possibilities that could decide the Presidential election this year. In both scenarios, the assumption is that the candidate wins the same states as his party's candidate in the last election if that state was won by more than 5% points. Everything then depends on a handful of states, most notably Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, and New Mexico.
From most recent Gallup polling, it looks as though Bush wins Florida and Kerry wins Pennsylvania. That means Ohio is hugely important. At the time the article was written, Kerry was leading Ohio and the polls were shifting in his favor. If he wins Ohio, then Bush must win two of Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, and New Mexico. If Kerry wins three of those four, then he wins the election. Bush has been in the lead in both Wisconsin and Iowa for most of the year.
Of course, if Kerry wins Florida or Bush wins Pennsylvania, then the complexities become exponentially greater. Ohio remains a key state, along with the upper midwest. It will be hard to predict the results of this election, and many pundits and pollsters are saying that the results of this election could easily not be known until late November or early December.
Sunday, October 31, 2004
And from Today's New York Times, Maureen Dowd on Bush and Osama
In her Sunday column in the NYTimes, Maureen Dowd, the vivacious and articulate W. basher, says that the appearance this week of Osama bin Laden looking fit and healthy and speaking directly to the American people about their future safety has pundits arguing that this may help GWBush in Tuesday's election. She takes a rather different viewpoint--
The Bushies' campaign pitch follows their usual backward logic: Because we have failed to make you safe, you should re-elect us to make you safer. Because we haven't caught Osama in three years, you need us to catch Osama in the next four years. Because we didn't bother to secure explosives in Iraq, you can count on us to make sure those explosives aren't used against you.
You'd think that seeing Osama looking fit as a fiddle and ready for hate would spark anger at the Bush administration's cynical diversion of the war on Al Qaeda to the war on Saddam. It's absurd that we're mired in Iraq - an invasion the demented vice president praised on Friday for its "brilliance" - while the 9/11 mastermind nonchalantly pops up anytime he wants. For some, it seemed cartoonish, with Osama as Road Runner beeping by Wile E. Bush as Dick Cheney and Rummy run the Acme/Halliburton explosives company - now under F.B.I. investigation for its no-bid contracts on anvils, axle grease (guaranteed slippery) and dehydrated boulders (just add water) .
Osama slouched onto TV bragging about pulling off the 9/11 attacks just after the president strutted onto TV in New Hampshire with 9/11 families, bragging that Al Qaeda leaders know "we are on their trail."
Maybe bin Laden hasn't gotten the word. Maybe W. should get off the trail and get on Osama's tail.
W. was clinging to his inane mantra that if we fight the terrorists over there, we don't have to fight them here, even as bin Laden was back on TV threatening to come here. The president still avoided using Osama's name on Friday, part of the concerted effort to downgrade him and merge him with Iraqi insurgents.
[...]
In their ruthless determination to put Mr. Bush's political future ahead of our future safety, the White House and House Republicans last week thwarted the enactment of recommendations of the 9/11 commission they never wanted in the first place.
From Saturday's New York Times--
October 30, 2004
Taking Bush at His WordBy NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
I often criticize statements by President Bush, so today let me praise
some of his real wisdom:• Oct. 11, 2000: "If we're an arrogant nation, [foreigners] will resent us. If we're a humble nation but strong, they'll welcome us. ... We've got to be humble."
It's a good thing Mr. Bush tried to be humble, or the U.S. would have an approval rating even lower than 5 percent in Jordan, and Osama bin Laden's approval rating in Pakistan would be higher than 65 percent.
• Feb. 27, 2001: "I hope you will join me to pay down $2 trillion in debt during the next 10 years. ... We should approach our nation's budget as any prudent family would."
But Mr. Bush, with the help of a weak economy, has transformed the Clinton budget surpluses into huge deficits. Since Mr. Bush took office, the federal debt has increased by $2.1 trillion, or 40 percent.
• Sept. 25, 2000: "It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of our imports come from overseas."
Hmm. And many of our exports go abroad. Meanwhile, despite the lackluster economy, oil imports are 1.3 million barrels per day higher than in Mr. Clinton's last year in office.
• June 11, 2001: "My administration is committed to a leadership role
on the issue of climate change."Great! Because America's carbon dioxide emissions, associated with global warming, have risen 1.7 percent since then.
• June 26, 2003: "Notorious human rights abusers, including, among others, Burma, Cuba, North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe, have long sought to shield their abuses from the eyes of the world by staging elaborate deceptions and denying access to international human rights monitors."
It takes a big man to admit mistakes, like his administration's practice of hiding certain Arab prisoners from Red Cross and other inspectors.
• Nov. 5, 2003: "In the debate about the rights of the unborn, we are asked to broaden the circle of our moral concern. ... We're asked by our convictions and tradition and compassion to build a culture of life, and make this a more just and welcoming society."
Abortions declined in the U.S. in the Clinton years; the abortion rate dropped by 22 percent in the 1990's. But while data are incomplete, abortions appear to have increased sharply since Mr. Bush took office. Glen H. Stassen, a Christian pro-life theologian, estimates that 52,000 more abortions occurred in 2002 than would have been expected based on the previous trend.
Professor Stassen attributes the rise in abortions in part to the troubled economy and concerns among pregnant women that they cannot afford to have babies.
• May 25, 2004: "One of the challenges we face is to make sure the health care system responds to the needs of the citizens."
But five million more Americans don't have health insurance, compared with when Mr. Bush took office.
• Sept. 9, 2003: "We must focus early to make sure every child can read and write and add and subtract."
But Mr. Bush's budget guidelines translate into inflation-adjusted reductions in 2006 alone of more than $900 million for Head Start and childhood education.
• May 24, 2003: "We will not tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea."
On Mr. Bush's watch, North Korea is generally believed to have gone from two nuclear weapons to about eight.
• 2001: "Not on my watch."
Scrawled note by Mr. Bush on a report to him about the 1994 genocide in Rwanda that had occurred under President Clinton.
That's reassuring to the 100,000 or more people in Darfur who have died in a spasm of murder and rape that Mr. Bush acknowledges as genocide.
• Sept. 30, 2004: "The biggest threat facing this country is weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist network."
But the single most important step to reducing the risk that a nuclear weapon will destroy New York is to secure loose nukes abroad, and Mr. Bush has been lackadaisical about that. Only 135 out of 600 metric tons of Russian nuclear materials have been given comprehensive upgrades, and Mr. Bush initially proposed cutting funds for that program.
• Sept. 2, 1999: "Effective reform requires accountability. ... It is a sad story. High
hopes, low achievement. Grand plans, unmet goals. My administration will do
things differently."Oh?
Saturday, October 30, 2004
Osama is back and looking healthy
Osama bin Laden made his first televised appearance in over a year yesterday, looking healthy and spouting his rhetoric. The pundits immediately came down on one side or the other in the debate over whom this appearance will help the most in the Presidential election. Will it Bush re-elected, or will it allow Kerry to pull off the upset?
Some pundits argue that because Bush is seen as stronger on the anti-terrorism issue, he will most greatly benefit. Others argue that bin Laden's appearance provides visual evidence of Kerry's ongoing argument that Bush has failed to capture or kill America's number one enemy (bin Laden) while embroiling our troops in a continuing struggle against insurgents in a war we need not have fought if diplomacy had been relied upon--after all, we have demonstrated that the diplomatic solution had worked to disarm Saddam, we just didn't know it until we got there!
I would argue that bin Laden's appearance proves my argument--al Qaeda wants Bush to win re-election because they know that he can be more easily manipulated because of his tendency to react emotionally rather than rationally. Of course, I think bin Laden is a smart enough guy (or he is surrounded by smart enough advisors) to realize that most Americans have a tendency to react emotionally as well--in his mind, then, this means that his appearance at the eleventh hour before the election will guarantee a victory for Bush. Let us all hope that al Qaeda has underestimated American's ability for rational thought!
Here's my prediction--if Bush wins, America will be attacked again within ten months of his inauguration, perhaps not within our borders, but certainly a MAJOR attack against our citizens. Al Qaeda will make this attack because they have been able to anticipate Bush's response--bin Laden's rhetoric has repeatedly been proven true by the actions of this administration.
Bin Laden had hoped with the attacks of 9/11 that the U.S. would invade Afghanistan and find itself embroiled in the same type of war that the Soviets faced in the 1980s in that country. Little could bin Laden have anticipated that we would attack Iraq, a country that had no ties to the 9/11 attacks, but which WAS a sovereign Muslim nation with vast oil reserves that bin Laden and al Qaeda could then point to and say to the rest of the Muslim world, "See what we have been saying about the Americans? They want to control Arab and Muslim lands (and thus Arabs and Muslims) so that they can control oil. What have I told you? We must rise up against the arrogance of the Americans and defeat their imperial designs against our Muslim brothers and sisters!" If you don't believe what I am saying, read Imperial Hubris by Anonymous or either of the books by Robert Baer. Apparently, Chalmers Johnson has made many of the same arguments as these two men as well. All three of these writers have experience with the Middle East through their work in the CIA!
My argument with this post, however, is just to say that you should NOT let bin Laden's rhethoric affect the way you were planning to vote. Perhaps he hoped that he would be able to change the outcome of the U.S. election with his message, but I think more than that bin Laden wanted to emphasize to the citizens of the United States that our policies in the Arab/Muslim world are what he despises about us. He wants us to understand that it is our policies that have brought al Qaeda and their allied groups to hate us, and that we can change our policies toward the Muslim world regardless of whom we elect as President. It is up to us to make our policies throughout the world more fair and more respectful of all cultures--not seeking to impose our own will on everyone else, but seeking to work in international cooperation for the good of the world.
Some pundits argue that because Bush is seen as stronger on the anti-terrorism issue, he will most greatly benefit. Others argue that bin Laden's appearance provides visual evidence of Kerry's ongoing argument that Bush has failed to capture or kill America's number one enemy (bin Laden) while embroiling our troops in a continuing struggle against insurgents in a war we need not have fought if diplomacy had been relied upon--after all, we have demonstrated that the diplomatic solution had worked to disarm Saddam, we just didn't know it until we got there!
I would argue that bin Laden's appearance proves my argument--al Qaeda wants Bush to win re-election because they know that he can be more easily manipulated because of his tendency to react emotionally rather than rationally. Of course, I think bin Laden is a smart enough guy (or he is surrounded by smart enough advisors) to realize that most Americans have a tendency to react emotionally as well--in his mind, then, this means that his appearance at the eleventh hour before the election will guarantee a victory for Bush. Let us all hope that al Qaeda has underestimated American's ability for rational thought!
Here's my prediction--if Bush wins, America will be attacked again within ten months of his inauguration, perhaps not within our borders, but certainly a MAJOR attack against our citizens. Al Qaeda will make this attack because they have been able to anticipate Bush's response--bin Laden's rhetoric has repeatedly been proven true by the actions of this administration.
Bin Laden had hoped with the attacks of 9/11 that the U.S. would invade Afghanistan and find itself embroiled in the same type of war that the Soviets faced in the 1980s in that country. Little could bin Laden have anticipated that we would attack Iraq, a country that had no ties to the 9/11 attacks, but which WAS a sovereign Muslim nation with vast oil reserves that bin Laden and al Qaeda could then point to and say to the rest of the Muslim world, "See what we have been saying about the Americans? They want to control Arab and Muslim lands (and thus Arabs and Muslims) so that they can control oil. What have I told you? We must rise up against the arrogance of the Americans and defeat their imperial designs against our Muslim brothers and sisters!" If you don't believe what I am saying, read Imperial Hubris by Anonymous or either of the books by Robert Baer. Apparently, Chalmers Johnson has made many of the same arguments as these two men as well. All three of these writers have experience with the Middle East through their work in the CIA!
My argument with this post, however, is just to say that you should NOT let bin Laden's rhethoric affect the way you were planning to vote. Perhaps he hoped that he would be able to change the outcome of the U.S. election with his message, but I think more than that bin Laden wanted to emphasize to the citizens of the United States that our policies in the Arab/Muslim world are what he despises about us. He wants us to understand that it is our policies that have brought al Qaeda and their allied groups to hate us, and that we can change our policies toward the Muslim world regardless of whom we elect as President. It is up to us to make our policies throughout the world more fair and more respectful of all cultures--not seeking to impose our own will on everyone else, but seeking to work in international cooperation for the good of the world.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
The Terrorists Want Bush to Win!
I am getting so tired of hearing from right-wing commentators how al Qaeda wants John Kerry to win in November because they think it will be easier for them to defeat the U.S. in Iraq if Kerry is President. The latest comments I have seen come from a former Clinton advisor who has turned into a reactionary wacko--Dick Morris. His original argument, back in May, was that al Qaeda would attack the U.S. again leading up to election day in order to swing the vote in favor of John Kerry. He now argues that the terrorists are remaining silent and will not attack again before the election because they have realized that an attack in the U.S. would guarantee the re-election of Bush--and they don't want that because they are afraid of Bush. What tripe!
The reality is that al Qaeda and their affiliated terrorist organizations see Bush as a tremendous recruiting help. The Republicans want us to believe that Bush strikes fear in the hearts and minds of the terrorist groups, but there is no evidence to support their claim. In fact, the opposite argument has come from these terrorist groups. From a March 2004 Reuters report about the terrorist attacks in Spain, the group claiming responsibility for the train bombing in Madrid had the following to say about the election (as reported by Reuters):
The organization to whom this quote is attributed claims to be closely affiliated with al Qaeda, and is in fact named in honor of Mohammed Atef, one of bin Laden's closest allies in establishing al Qaeda. Does this group speak for al Qaeda or bin Laden? Probably not, but they most likely share the same objectives and sum up the general feeling of the Islamist insurgency worldwide.
Just a little something for my reader(s) to think about leading up to the BIG DAY on Tuesday.
The reality is that al Qaeda and their affiliated terrorist organizations see Bush as a tremendous recruiting help. The Republicans want us to believe that Bush strikes fear in the hearts and minds of the terrorist groups, but there is no evidence to support their claim. In fact, the opposite argument has come from these terrorist groups. From a March 2004 Reuters report about the terrorist attacks in Spain, the group claiming responsibility for the train bombing in Madrid had the following to say about the election (as reported by Reuters):
WE WANT BUSH TO WINThe statement [by the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades] said it supported U.S. President George W. Bush in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, 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 civilisation.""Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."
The organization to whom this quote is attributed claims to be closely affiliated with al Qaeda, and is in fact named in honor of Mohammed Atef, one of bin Laden's closest allies in establishing al Qaeda. Does this group speak for al Qaeda or bin Laden? Probably not, but they most likely share the same objectives and sum up the general feeling of the Islamist insurgency worldwide.
Just a little something for my reader(s) to think about leading up to the BIG DAY on Tuesday.
Monday, October 25, 2004
New Rasmussen three-day tracking poll
The Oct25 Rasmussen poll has Kerry leading Bush for the first time since Aug23. The poll shows Kerry with 48.4% and Bush with 46.4% nationwide. The 48% for Kerry is his highest poll number on the Rasmussen poll since Aug17. Are the tides shifting Kerry's way? Is there a surge happening here near the end of the campaign that will propel Kerry into the White House, or will the surge be brief and die just before Nov2? It is all up to you.
Can you really say that as a nation we are better off now than we were four years ago? I have two brothers who work in the coal-mining industry who credit Bush with an improved economy for coal. I must disagree with them. In the last ten years, the U.S. has produced only 10% more coal, much of that increased coming in the last three years of the Clinton administration. Today, coal prices are up because they are directly tied to oil prices. As the price of a barrel of oil has increased, so too has the price of a ton of coal--has Bush really had any positive effect on the economy?
I truly believe that if GWBush is re-elected on Nov2 then our economic situation will become exponentially worse in the next four years. The sad thing is that the Bush team can just make up reasons for downturns in the economy, or reasons why the tax cuts have not done more to stimulate the economy, and the big media give a pass to their assertions. I have learned one important thing in the last four years--question EVERYTHING, and DO NOT trust this administration to tell you the whole truth.
Can you really say that as a nation we are better off now than we were four years ago? I have two brothers who work in the coal-mining industry who credit Bush with an improved economy for coal. I must disagree with them. In the last ten years, the U.S. has produced only 10% more coal, much of that increased coming in the last three years of the Clinton administration. Today, coal prices are up because they are directly tied to oil prices. As the price of a barrel of oil has increased, so too has the price of a ton of coal--has Bush really had any positive effect on the economy?
I truly believe that if GWBush is re-elected on Nov2 then our economic situation will become exponentially worse in the next four years. The sad thing is that the Bush team can just make up reasons for downturns in the economy, or reasons why the tax cuts have not done more to stimulate the economy, and the big media give a pass to their assertions. I have learned one important thing in the last four years--question EVERYTHING, and DO NOT trust this administration to tell you the whole truth.
The ideals of the neocons have been deflated by continuing difficulties in Iraq
Moises Naim argues in the Sept/Oct 2004 issue of Foreign Policy that neoconservative ideals have suffered greatly from the debacle in Iraq as a result of massive intelligence failures, apparent misunderstanding of the situation in the country prior to invasion, continuing failures of analysis and evaluation of the situation on the ground, and the failure to resolve a peaceful situation once the apparent 'major combat operations' were over.
Naim argues that the neoconservative agenda, that has included the pre-eminence of military solutions to diplomatic solutions has proven ineffective and in some cases defective, "harkens back to the Cold War." The mindset of the leadership of the Bush administration has been to respond to the terrorist threat with the old Cold War paradigm. The neocons attacked not only Afghanistan, but also Iraq, returning to the decades old theory that nation-states are responsible for the acts of their citizens. Certainly Afghanistan was a legitimate target because it was so directly allied with al Qaeda, however Iraq was another issue entirely--it more resembled the communist states with which most of this administration has been accustomed to dealing. We have entered a new era of international conflict in which attacks are conducted by organizations that are independent of state sponsorship, and this new era requires a new way of thinking about international relations--something that the Bush administration may not be capable of doing.
I recommend this brief commentary from one of the editors of Foreign Policy.
Naim argues that the neoconservative agenda, that has included the pre-eminence of military solutions to diplomatic solutions has proven ineffective and in some cases defective, "harkens back to the Cold War." The mindset of the leadership of the Bush administration has been to respond to the terrorist threat with the old Cold War paradigm. The neocons attacked not only Afghanistan, but also Iraq, returning to the decades old theory that nation-states are responsible for the acts of their citizens. Certainly Afghanistan was a legitimate target because it was so directly allied with al Qaeda, however Iraq was another issue entirely--it more resembled the communist states with which most of this administration has been accustomed to dealing. We have entered a new era of international conflict in which attacks are conducted by organizations that are independent of state sponsorship, and this new era requires a new way of thinking about international relations--something that the Bush administration may not be capable of doing.
I recommend this brief commentary from one of the editors of Foreign Policy.
Cache of Explosives Vanish in Iraq
It must be a miracle! 380 tons of explosives have disappeared from their location on an Iraqi military base. Where could they have gone? Hmmmm....let's see. They might be in the hands of terrorists. No, that wouldn't be possible because the only terrorists in Iraq are foreigners, so they wouldn't really know where to look for these caches of weapons. Maybe the Baathist loyalists that we hear so much about knew exactly where the weapons were and just drove up, loaded them in a truck, and drove away...but wait, wasn't this valuable stash of Iraqi explosives being guarded? Surely! I imagine that one of the Coalition Partners were responsible for guarding these explosives--Poland probably!
Maybe aliens landed their spacecraft on top of the weapons bunker and transported the explosives to their cargo hold so that they could fight the rebels on their home planet of Znafrov, or not... Give me a minute, I will think of someone who could have stolen these explosives...who would have known precisely where they were located...could have cleared security checkpoints. I know! Ahmed Chalabi! The perfect foil for the crime. No, no. He was once America's ally...he wouldn't have stolen these weapons. Maybe it was the insurgents led by Moqtada al Sadr.
It is really hard to know who the culprit could have been; however, we DO know that the military base was supposed to have been guarded by the AMERICANS!! Hmmm...could WE have these powerful explosives stashed away at a different location? Could WE have forgotten to inform the Iraqis that we were moving them for safe keeping? Or, could WE have simply decided they weren't worth guarding and left them for the looters? Silly us; what were we thinking? Can we count this episode as another example of the fine work we are doing in Iraq to control the country and to help create a peaceful environment? Who needs additional troops? We can just let the looters and the insurgents have the place!
Maybe aliens landed their spacecraft on top of the weapons bunker and transported the explosives to their cargo hold so that they could fight the rebels on their home planet of Znafrov, or not... Give me a minute, I will think of someone who could have stolen these explosives...who would have known precisely where they were located...could have cleared security checkpoints. I know! Ahmed Chalabi! The perfect foil for the crime. No, no. He was once America's ally...he wouldn't have stolen these weapons. Maybe it was the insurgents led by Moqtada al Sadr.
It is really hard to know who the culprit could have been; however, we DO know that the military base was supposed to have been guarded by the AMERICANS!! Hmmm...could WE have these powerful explosives stashed away at a different location? Could WE have forgotten to inform the Iraqis that we were moving them for safe keeping? Or, could WE have simply decided they weren't worth guarding and left them for the looters? Silly us; what were we thinking? Can we count this episode as another example of the fine work we are doing in Iraq to control the country and to help create a peaceful environment? Who needs additional troops? We can just let the looters and the insurgents have the place!
Saturday, October 23, 2004
You Have to Read THIS ONE!!
I was scanning a couple of blogs today that I haven't visited in a while, and I came across the following posting on the Antiwar.com blog. Some of the material they publish is a bit too Libertarian for my taste, and it is often over the top. However, this one is amazing. If you would like to comment on the article at their blog, the title is a link.
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Reality Debased
If you thought Ron Suskind manufactured that quotation, Pat Robertson erases all doubts:
The founder of the U.S. Christian Coalition said Tuesday he told President George W. Bush before the invasion of Iraq that he should prepare Americans for the likelihood of casualties, but the president told him, "We're not going to have any casualties."
The most charitable reading of this I can muster is that Bush thinks casualty means fatality. Oh sure, Reverend, the boys might get a few flesh wounds . . .
Pat Robertson, an ardent Bush supporter, said he had that conversation with the president in Nashville, Tennessee, before the March 2003 invasion. He described Bush in the meeting as "the most self-assured man I've ever met in my life."
"You remember Mark Twain said, 'He looks like a contented Christian with four aces.' I mean he was just sitting there like, 'I'm on top of the world,' " Robertson said on the CNN show, "Paula Zahn Now."
"And I warned him about this war. I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, 'Mr. President, you had better prepare the American people for casualties.' "
Robertson said the president then told him, "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."
But for God's sake, still! This lunatic thought it would be possible to conquer a nation of 25 million, a nation he had endlessly pronounced a threat to world peace, WITHOUT A SINGLE DEATH? Or did he think he could simply decree such an outcome?
Saddam Hussein just moved down a spot on my list of people who shouldn't have nukes.
U.S. Officials Have Revised Estimates on the Number of Insurgents in Iraq
According to a report by the New York Times, U.S. officials have revised their estimates from 2000 - 7000 insurgents up to 12000 - 20000, essentially tripling previous estimates. These estimates cover approximately 50 various groups that are receiving 'unlimited money' from former Baathists and Saddam relatives. The financing is supported by wealthy Saudis and money from Islamist groups coming through Syria. There is no tally of money that is coming through Syria, but officials say the amount is 'significant.'
From the Times article--
Top Army officers in Iraq tell the NYTimes that the real threat is that the U.S. is not faced with a single insurgent force, but multiple forces that have loosely banded together against the U.S. occupation. The senior intelligence officer in Iraq, Brig. Gen. John DeFreitas, told the NYTimes that it becomes difficult for the U.S. military to use conventional weapons and planning against an insurgent force. He summed up his position by saying, "Insurgents don't show up in satellite imagery very well."
A prime example of 'banding-together' can be seen in Falluja where U.S. officials say there are at least five insurgent groups, all with varying goals including anti-Americanism, criminal organization, kidnapping for ransom, and Baath Party loyalty. These five groups have banded together loosely without a single common purpose, but rather "as marriages of convenience," according to Col. Ron Makuta, the chief intelligence officer for the First Marine Expeditionary Force, stationed outside of Falluja.
It does seem apparent, however, that regardless of their individual purposes, these groups have identified a common enemy in the U.S. military, and are indeed working with a common purpose to drive the U.S. out of the country. I argued to those who would listen before the war began that if we invaded Iraq, we would have a significant force there for at least ten years. This force will be one that will be pre-occupied with minor insurgencies, and these banded-together insurgencies, while they could be in various parts of the world hunting al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The Bush administration has no grasp on the scope of the President's decision to wage war on Iraq, and they continue to deny the obvious. Vote on November 2 to remove this administration from power to send a message that they were wrong on Iraq, and they are wrong in their approach to the Islamist insurgent threat worldwide. Even more importantly for us, they are wrong about the economy and about committing young men and women to a war that was not necessary for the security of our nation!
From the Times article--
[T]he International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, in releasing its annual global military survey, said perhaps 1,000 Islamic jihadists have entered Iraq to join the fight, and it estimated that it would take five years for the American military to prepare Iraqi forces to take over fully from the forces of the United States and its allies.If this estimate is correct, then one-quarter to one-half of the entire U.S. military will be tied up in Iraq until the year 2010. All the while our military is facing a well-funded and expanding insurgency backed by Saudis, Syrians, Iranians, al Qaeda, etc. U.S. officials have also altered their discussion regarding where the insurgents are from. For many months, we have been told that the insurgency has been led by foreign mujahadeen fighters like Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Now, it seems, officials say that few foreigners have entered the country and although they tend to be more violent in their attacks, the real threat comes from Iraqis themselves.
Top Army officers in Iraq tell the NYTimes that the real threat is that the U.S. is not faced with a single insurgent force, but multiple forces that have loosely banded together against the U.S. occupation. The senior intelligence officer in Iraq, Brig. Gen. John DeFreitas, told the NYTimes that it becomes difficult for the U.S. military to use conventional weapons and planning against an insurgent force. He summed up his position by saying, "Insurgents don't show up in satellite imagery very well."
A prime example of 'banding-together' can be seen in Falluja where U.S. officials say there are at least five insurgent groups, all with varying goals including anti-Americanism, criminal organization, kidnapping for ransom, and Baath Party loyalty. These five groups have banded together loosely without a single common purpose, but rather "as marriages of convenience," according to Col. Ron Makuta, the chief intelligence officer for the First Marine Expeditionary Force, stationed outside of Falluja.
It does seem apparent, however, that regardless of their individual purposes, these groups have identified a common enemy in the U.S. military, and are indeed working with a common purpose to drive the U.S. out of the country. I argued to those who would listen before the war began that if we invaded Iraq, we would have a significant force there for at least ten years. This force will be one that will be pre-occupied with minor insurgencies, and these banded-together insurgencies, while they could be in various parts of the world hunting al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The Bush administration has no grasp on the scope of the President's decision to wage war on Iraq, and they continue to deny the obvious. Vote on November 2 to remove this administration from power to send a message that they were wrong on Iraq, and they are wrong in their approach to the Islamist insurgent threat worldwide. Even more importantly for us, they are wrong about the economy and about committing young men and women to a war that was not necessary for the security of our nation!
Iraqi Religious Leaders Top Latest Election Poll
The U.S.-financed poll was conducted by the International Republican Institute, an organization dedicated to the development of democracy worldwide. The poll found that Iyad Allawi has lost ground in his battle to maintain power for the US/UN appointed government. The people of Iraq seem to favor candidates from religious parties--the two most prominent names from the poll being Abdel Aziz Hakim, the leader of an anti-Saddam Shiite group who once received backing from the US and now receives money from Iran, and Moqtada al Sadr, the leader of the most prominent Shiite rebel group in Iraq. 51% of those polled named Hakim as someone they would like to see on the future Iraqi Assembly, and his name received nearly 80% recognition. Iyad Allawi had the highest name recognition of any politician and received 49% on the question asking whom people would most like to see on the Assembly. Moqtada al Sadr received 47% in this category.
The Bush administration has said that it would prefer the future government remain non-religious largely because it will be responsible for establishing the new Iraqi constitution. Donald Rumsfeld said at one point last year that the US would not allow a theocratic government to take hold in Iraq, and GWBush has said recently that a theocratic government would "disappoint him" but that he would accept the decision of the Iraqi people.
I personally think this is just another example of the Bush administration's lack of understanding of the Middle East region. As important a role as religion allegedly plays in Mr. Bush's life, one would think he could understand the importance of faith to the Islamic world and better understand why religious leaders are given a more prominent role in society. If the US leadership could work WITH this tendency rather than AGAINST it, the perception of the US in the Islamic world could slowly change.
I hope that the Iraqi people get the type of government that they want rather than one imposed upon them by outside forces. When we think about the history of our own country, it was exactly this type of imposed government that caused the American Revolution so that we might determine our own government and make our own decisions. Should we not expect anything less from the people of Iraq? Should they not be given the same chance to decide their own future rather than having our nation impose its will yet again? Let us hope that the Iraqi people are able to become a truly sovereign nation.
Read more about this story in the Washington Post.
The Bush administration has said that it would prefer the future government remain non-religious largely because it will be responsible for establishing the new Iraqi constitution. Donald Rumsfeld said at one point last year that the US would not allow a theocratic government to take hold in Iraq, and GWBush has said recently that a theocratic government would "disappoint him" but that he would accept the decision of the Iraqi people.
I personally think this is just another example of the Bush administration's lack of understanding of the Middle East region. As important a role as religion allegedly plays in Mr. Bush's life, one would think he could understand the importance of faith to the Islamic world and better understand why religious leaders are given a more prominent role in society. If the US leadership could work WITH this tendency rather than AGAINST it, the perception of the US in the Islamic world could slowly change.
I hope that the Iraqi people get the type of government that they want rather than one imposed upon them by outside forces. When we think about the history of our own country, it was exactly this type of imposed government that caused the American Revolution so that we might determine our own government and make our own decisions. Should we not expect anything less from the people of Iraq? Should they not be given the same chance to decide their own future rather than having our nation impose its will yet again? Let us hope that the Iraqi people are able to become a truly sovereign nation.
Read more about this story in the Washington Post.
Friday, October 22, 2004
Would you prefer using the Popular Vote or the Electoral College Vote to elect the President?
The Gallup Organization conducted a poll recently to determine whether Americans would prefer to elect their President via the popular vote, or via the electoral college vote. The total numbers show that the general population would prefer to elect the President using the popular vote by a margin of 61% to 35%.
Meanwhile, Republicans would prefer using the electoral college vote by a margin of 51% to 46%, Democrats favor the popular vote by a margin of 73% to 23%, and Independents favor using the popular vote by a margin of 66% to 29%. These results are currently posted on the front page of the Gallup website.
In my personal opinion, being the Democrat/Liberal that I am, I favor the electoral college vote. I believe that the electoral college helps to offset the overwhelming population numbers of states like New York, California, and Texas. Although those states get more electoral votes, those states alone cannot decide the Presidential election. Do we really believe that if the Presidential election were decided by popular vote that either of the candidates would spend any time at all in states like Iowa (except maybe for the caucuses in January), Missouri, Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming, Vermont, Virginia, or the Carolinas? Why would they really need to? All one candidate would have to accomplish would be to swing 65-70% of the population of New York, New Jersey, Texas, California, Illinois, and Florida his/her way. Keep in mind that at this early hour, I have not laid out a map and calculated precise figures, but I imagine that I will indeed do that in the coming days. In the meantime, let me hear some arguments in opposition to the electoral college.
If we really want to overhaul the Presidential election process, here's my take on it. I believe that the minority party in the House of Representatives should get to choose three candidates from their party (Senators, governors, business leaders, etc) as nominees to run unopposed by the majority party in the House. The populace would then vote on their choice of these three candidates, thus assuring that the legislative branch and the executive branch are not controlled by the same party. It is my opinion that our country operates more soundly when the executive and legislative branches are not completely in sync. Of course, I think third party candidates should be allowed to participate in the general election against the three House-minority candidates. This process would alter much of the fundraising issues that we currently observe, and would offer third parties a greater voice in the election process.
Just my two cents worth. VOTE KERRY!!
Meanwhile, Republicans would prefer using the electoral college vote by a margin of 51% to 46%, Democrats favor the popular vote by a margin of 73% to 23%, and Independents favor using the popular vote by a margin of 66% to 29%. These results are currently posted on the front page of the Gallup website.
In my personal opinion, being the Democrat/Liberal that I am, I favor the electoral college vote. I believe that the electoral college helps to offset the overwhelming population numbers of states like New York, California, and Texas. Although those states get more electoral votes, those states alone cannot decide the Presidential election. Do we really believe that if the Presidential election were decided by popular vote that either of the candidates would spend any time at all in states like Iowa (except maybe for the caucuses in January), Missouri, Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming, Vermont, Virginia, or the Carolinas? Why would they really need to? All one candidate would have to accomplish would be to swing 65-70% of the population of New York, New Jersey, Texas, California, Illinois, and Florida his/her way. Keep in mind that at this early hour, I have not laid out a map and calculated precise figures, but I imagine that I will indeed do that in the coming days. In the meantime, let me hear some arguments in opposition to the electoral college.
If we really want to overhaul the Presidential election process, here's my take on it. I believe that the minority party in the House of Representatives should get to choose three candidates from their party (Senators, governors, business leaders, etc) as nominees to run unopposed by the majority party in the House. The populace would then vote on their choice of these three candidates, thus assuring that the legislative branch and the executive branch are not controlled by the same party. It is my opinion that our country operates more soundly when the executive and legislative branches are not completely in sync. Of course, I think third party candidates should be allowed to participate in the general election against the three House-minority candidates. This process would alter much of the fundraising issues that we currently observe, and would offer third parties a greater voice in the election process.
Just my two cents worth. VOTE KERRY!!
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has declared allegiance to Osama bin Laden
The leader of the primary Sunni resistance/insurgent movement in Iraq, al-Zarqawi has declared via the internet that his organization, Tawhid and Jihad, has dedicated itself to the leadership of bin Laden. Although there have been reported ties between al-Zarqawi and al Qaeda for several years, including allegedly acting as a liason between al Qaeda and Ansar al-Islam in Iraq prior to the US invasion, this is the first time that al-Zarqawi has subjugated his own leadership role to that of Osama bin Laden.
Most observers of the Islamist-insurgent world prior to 9/11 believed that al-Zarqawi saw himself as a competitor to bin Laden for leadership of the defenders of Islam against the 'crusaders, zionists, infidels and apostates.' It is only now that al-Zarqawi has committed his organization to the leadership of bin Laden and al Qaeda in the hopes of encouraging more resistance and insurgency in Iraq against the interim government and the US military--if more al Qaeda fighters join the effort in Iraq, al-Zarqawi could give the US and the Iraqi government more trouble than they have yet experienced.
It seems at this point that there is NO exit strategy for Iraq. We are embroiled in a continuing war against the resistance/insurgency that could very well last for decades. Both Presidential candidates argue that we MUST succeed in Iraq. I would agree that is true, but I would remind everyone of Colin Powell's argument to the President before we invaded Iraq--"if you break it, you own it." This President 'broke it', and the next President will have to clean up the mess. If this President is still in office, I can only imagine that he will end up breaking the pieces into smaller parts. There is no forseeable means of putting the pieces back together with this President in charge.
It will take a unique vision to fix what has gone wrong, and I am not certain that we can be clear of our committment to Iraq for years to come, but we must start on November 2 to try and fix the things that have gone wrong. Maybe John Kerry does not have the unique vision that is needed to fix the difficulties, but I will be voting for him because I am extremely confident that the current administration does not have the ability to even acknowledge its mistakes, let alone fix them!
Most observers of the Islamist-insurgent world prior to 9/11 believed that al-Zarqawi saw himself as a competitor to bin Laden for leadership of the defenders of Islam against the 'crusaders, zionists, infidels and apostates.' It is only now that al-Zarqawi has committed his organization to the leadership of bin Laden and al Qaeda in the hopes of encouraging more resistance and insurgency in Iraq against the interim government and the US military--if more al Qaeda fighters join the effort in Iraq, al-Zarqawi could give the US and the Iraqi government more trouble than they have yet experienced.
It seems at this point that there is NO exit strategy for Iraq. We are embroiled in a continuing war against the resistance/insurgency that could very well last for decades. Both Presidential candidates argue that we MUST succeed in Iraq. I would agree that is true, but I would remind everyone of Colin Powell's argument to the President before we invaded Iraq--"if you break it, you own it." This President 'broke it', and the next President will have to clean up the mess. If this President is still in office, I can only imagine that he will end up breaking the pieces into smaller parts. There is no forseeable means of putting the pieces back together with this President in charge.
It will take a unique vision to fix what has gone wrong, and I am not certain that we can be clear of our committment to Iraq for years to come, but we must start on November 2 to try and fix the things that have gone wrong. Maybe John Kerry does not have the unique vision that is needed to fix the difficulties, but I will be voting for him because I am extremely confident that the current administration does not have the ability to even acknowledge its mistakes, let alone fix them!
Ralph Nader and Sancho Panza
Ralph Nader has become the election year Don Quixote. His campaign has become exclusively about sticking it out so that he can stick it to the big parties, the big corporations, and the big pie-in-the-sky. He rides his stallion against the threats of the evil windmills hoping to unseat the two-party system in America. The only likely outcome for this election is that his tilting might allow the Bush administration another four years to continue their miserable policies.
With Nader and his Sancho Panza in the election, Kerry loses 1-2% in several battleground states that he would likely otherwise capture in his effort to defeat the incumbent President. This analysis encompasses the opinions of several major polling organizations including Zogby, Rasmussen, and Gallup. As the election draws nearer, Don Quixote battles the demons all around him in the hopes of revolutionizing the United States. How can he remain focused on his objectives, you might wonder, if his continued challenge threatens to bring down the very objectives for which he fights?
Our Quixote, just as the literary Don Quixote, has lost touch with the world around him. Ralph Nader deserves praise and acclamation for his work on behalf of consumers, bringing to light injustice and abuse by corporations and government. However, in the more recent past, Nader has allowed his personal ego to keep him from the truth that his campaign works only to keep those he most dislikes in power. Most pundits agree that Nader cost Gore the election in 2000, and as long as he remains in the race this year, the truth is that he may cost Kerry this election as well. We must hope that Ralph wakes up to the truth before it is too late and he has helped to re-elect the greatest single threat to the US economy in the last fifty years.
With Nader and his Sancho Panza in the election, Kerry loses 1-2% in several battleground states that he would likely otherwise capture in his effort to defeat the incumbent President. This analysis encompasses the opinions of several major polling organizations including Zogby, Rasmussen, and Gallup. As the election draws nearer, Don Quixote battles the demons all around him in the hopes of revolutionizing the United States. How can he remain focused on his objectives, you might wonder, if his continued challenge threatens to bring down the very objectives for which he fights?
Our Quixote, just as the literary Don Quixote, has lost touch with the world around him. Ralph Nader deserves praise and acclamation for his work on behalf of consumers, bringing to light injustice and abuse by corporations and government. However, in the more recent past, Nader has allowed his personal ego to keep him from the truth that his campaign works only to keep those he most dislikes in power. Most pundits agree that Nader cost Gore the election in 2000, and as long as he remains in the race this year, the truth is that he may cost Kerry this election as well. We must hope that Ralph wakes up to the truth before it is too late and he has helped to re-elect the greatest single threat to the US economy in the last fifty years.
ABC Nightline interviews Vietnamese witnesses to John Kerry's swift boat actions
Ted Koppel and his Nightline crew visited areas along the Bay Hap river in Vietnam to interview people who might have witnessed various US actions along the river. Many of the interviewees remembered events that have been related by John Kerry -- including his medal-winning actions that came under question by the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" organization.
The interviews revealed that Kerry's recollections and after-action reports were accurate to the events that actually occurred. Only one interviewee had ever heard of John Kerry. Apparently, when Ted Koppel confronted the leader of the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", John O'Neill, with the results of his interviews, Mr. O'Neill had no comment and reacted very poorly to the news.
The interviews revealed that Kerry's recollections and after-action reports were accurate to the events that actually occurred. Only one interviewee had ever heard of John Kerry. Apparently, when Ted Koppel confronted the leader of the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", John O'Neill, with the results of his interviews, Mr. O'Neill had no comment and reacted very poorly to the news.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Debate FACT CHECK from CNN
CNN has issued a list of fact checks from the debate. How accurate were statements made by each side? Check out the candidates' claims at CNN online at this link.
Bush claimed that he had never said that he was not concerned about Osama bin Laden. Here is the actual quote from a press conference on March 13, 2002--
Kerry claimed that Bush had never met with the Congressional Black Caucus. In fact, Bush met with the CBC on two occasions at the White House, but has never spoken at their national conference. Also, Bush is the only President since Herbert Hoover to not speak at the NAACP convention.
Kerry claims that 5 million people have 'lost' their health insurance under Bush. Actually, the number of uninsured people increased by 5.2 million from 2001 to 2003--this number includes people who have recently entered the workforce, people who have recently entered the country, and others who did not previously have health insurance. The number does not reflect only those people who previously had health insurance and 'lost' it during the three year period.
Kerry said that 1.6 million jobs have been lost under Bush. That number actually reflects only private sector jobs. When public sector jobs are included, just over 800,000 fewer jobs exist today than when Bush took office. Of course, we also need to realize that this means that the party that believes in limited (small) government has actually added almost a MILLION more government jobs than when Clinton left office!
Bush claims that Kerry's spending plans would cost $2.2 trillion. Bush is apparently working from an outdated report from the American Enterprise Institute (a conservative think tank!). Meanwhile, the Concord Coalition estimates that BOTH candidates' spending plans would cost about $1.3 trillion dollars! UGH!!
Bush claimed that he had never said that he was not concerned about Osama bin Laden. Here is the actual quote from a press conference on March 13, 2002--
Bush's response: "Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. ... And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban. But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins.
Kerry claimed that Bush had never met with the Congressional Black Caucus. In fact, Bush met with the CBC on two occasions at the White House, but has never spoken at their national conference. Also, Bush is the only President since Herbert Hoover to not speak at the NAACP convention.
Kerry claims that 5 million people have 'lost' their health insurance under Bush. Actually, the number of uninsured people increased by 5.2 million from 2001 to 2003--this number includes people who have recently entered the workforce, people who have recently entered the country, and others who did not previously have health insurance. The number does not reflect only those people who previously had health insurance and 'lost' it during the three year period.
Kerry said that 1.6 million jobs have been lost under Bush. That number actually reflects only private sector jobs. When public sector jobs are included, just over 800,000 fewer jobs exist today than when Bush took office. Of course, we also need to realize that this means that the party that believes in limited (small) government has actually added almost a MILLION more government jobs than when Clinton left office!
Bush claims that Kerry's spending plans would cost $2.2 trillion. Bush is apparently working from an outdated report from the American Enterprise Institute (a conservative think tank!). Meanwhile, the Concord Coalition estimates that BOTH candidates' spending plans would cost about $1.3 trillion dollars! UGH!!
Checking the domestic facts
The following items come from a recent column by my favorite moderate (he worked for Reagan) economist (although his politics are not necessarily moderate) Paul Krugman--
JOBS
The economy needs approximately 1.6 million jobs per year to keep up with population growth. Since June 2003, the economy under GWBush has added 1.7 million jobs--not quite keeping up with population growth. Bush would have us believe that this period of time has been the fastest growth period in the economy in the history of our country. In fact, that is a totally misleading statement. Actually, the period of fastest growth happened during the 1990s following Clinton's tax increases on the richest 2% of Americans while cutting the taxes for the lower and middle classes.
UNEMPLOYMENT
Bush and the Republicans tout the declining (or at least stable) unemployment rate since January of this year--right around 5.6%; however, the fraction of the population who are 'employed' has not increased. The unemployment rate has decreased largely because some of those without jobs have stopped actively pursuing jobs. The labor force participation rate--those working or actively looking for work--has fallen under Bush. If this rate had stayed at its January 2001 level, the official unemployment rate would today be 7.4%!!
THE DEFICIT
Bush claims that the recession and 9/11 are primarily responsible for his administration's record budget deficits. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Republican tax cuts caused 2/3 of the 2004 deficit--the largest budget deficit in the history of the United States.
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
Bush likes to claim that Kerry's economic proposals will cost $2.2 trillion to implement. According to Krugman, that number is a highly "partisan number and is much higher than independent estimates." He further mentions that "The Washington Post pointed out after the Republican convention [that] the administration's own numbers show that the cost of the [Bush] agenda...'is likely to be well in excess of $3 trillion' and 'far eclipses that of the Kerry plan.'"
SPENDING
According to Bush in the 'town hall' debate, he has increased nondefense discretionary spending by only one percent per year. The actual number is about 8 percent per year after adjusting for inflation. Krugman says, "Mr. Bush seems to have confused his budget promises - which he keeps on breaking - with reality."
HEALTH CARE
Bush continually attempts to paint Kerry's health care plan as a socialized system because Kerry wants to offer the option to people that they may buy into the same health care system as the Congress. The biggest point against Bush's argument is that the Congressional health care system is not a government-provider system. The government pays for health care for Congress members and Senators, but the legislators are free to choose the type of plan that they want from a variety of group plans. Kerry's proposal would offer to all Americans a buy-in to the group plans used by Congress.
SOME COMMENTS ABOUT TAXES (from The Office of Social Justice)
According to Andrew Tobias--
JOBS
The economy needs approximately 1.6 million jobs per year to keep up with population growth. Since June 2003, the economy under GWBush has added 1.7 million jobs--not quite keeping up with population growth. Bush would have us believe that this period of time has been the fastest growth period in the economy in the history of our country. In fact, that is a totally misleading statement. Actually, the period of fastest growth happened during the 1990s following Clinton's tax increases on the richest 2% of Americans while cutting the taxes for the lower and middle classes.
UNEMPLOYMENT
Bush and the Republicans tout the declining (or at least stable) unemployment rate since January of this year--right around 5.6%; however, the fraction of the population who are 'employed' has not increased. The unemployment rate has decreased largely because some of those without jobs have stopped actively pursuing jobs. The labor force participation rate--those working or actively looking for work--has fallen under Bush. If this rate had stayed at its January 2001 level, the official unemployment rate would today be 7.4%!!
THE DEFICIT
Bush claims that the recession and 9/11 are primarily responsible for his administration's record budget deficits. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Republican tax cuts caused 2/3 of the 2004 deficit--the largest budget deficit in the history of the United States.
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
Bush likes to claim that Kerry's economic proposals will cost $2.2 trillion to implement. According to Krugman, that number is a highly "partisan number and is much higher than independent estimates." He further mentions that "The Washington Post pointed out after the Republican convention [that] the administration's own numbers show that the cost of the [Bush] agenda...'is likely to be well in excess of $3 trillion' and 'far eclipses that of the Kerry plan.'"
SPENDING
According to Bush in the 'town hall' debate, he has increased nondefense discretionary spending by only one percent per year. The actual number is about 8 percent per year after adjusting for inflation. Krugman says, "Mr. Bush seems to have confused his budget promises - which he keeps on breaking - with reality."
HEALTH CARE
Bush continually attempts to paint Kerry's health care plan as a socialized system because Kerry wants to offer the option to people that they may buy into the same health care system as the Congress. The biggest point against Bush's argument is that the Congressional health care system is not a government-provider system. The government pays for health care for Congress members and Senators, but the legislators are free to choose the type of plan that they want from a variety of group plans. Kerry's proposal would offer to all Americans a buy-in to the group plans used by Congress.
SOME COMMENTS ABOUT TAXES (from The Office of Social Justice)
The top 1% [of earners] paid 34% of all federal income taxes and 25% of ALL PERSONAL FEDERAL TAXES (when the payroll tax is factored in) BUT HOLDS 38% OF ALL WEALTH IN THIS COUNTRY.
The top 5% paid 53% of all federal income taxes and 38% of ALL PERSONAL FEDERAL TAXES (when the payroll tax is factored in) BUT HOLDS 59% OF ALL WEALTH IN THIS COUNTRY.
According to Andrew Tobias--
The census bureau tells us that in 2001, the top 5% earned 22.4% of total U.S. income. So if the tax rate were proportional and not progressive, the top 5% should be paying 22.4% in total federal tax because they are earning 22.4% of the income.
But, because those in the top 5% pay so much less than 22.4% of the total payroll tax (the self-employed plumber with $87,900 in income pays $13,448; the retiree with $5 million in investment income pays nothing) - the top 5% should be paying a significantly larger share of the income tax just to bring their total federal tax burden back to proportionality.
But a lot of us believe in a progressive income tax. The guy making $5 million, we believe, should pay a higher percentage of his income in federal tax than the guy making $35,000.
Thus, we believe, the top 5% earning 22.4% of all the income should pay more than 22.4% of the total federal tax burden....While there is no precise magic number, I think the percentages we had under Clinton/Gore were about right. Everyone did pretty well. And we worked ourselves out of the giant Reagan/Bush budget deficits that we have now so quickly worked ourselves back into.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
To fix a single corporate tax of $5 billion, Congress gives corporations $137 billion in breaks
In order to fix a $5 billion tax break that the World Trade Organization had declared an unfair advantage to U.S. exporters, the U.S. Congress passed a bill yesterday that will give various U.S. corporations in excess of $137 billion in tax breaks. The breaks will go to such corporations as BP Amoco and Exxon Mobile, as well as smaller companies like Home Depot and several companies based in the home district of Senate Majority Leader (and well established legislative-ethics violator!) Tom DeLay. Once again our Congress has proven that there is no pork that they do not like in an election year! From all indications, the members of the legislative branch of government were falling over each other to add greater and greater amounts of special interest tax breaks for their corporate sponsors.
Today is a sad day for Americans everywhere--most of them just won't know it! Read the full NYTimes coverage of the bill's passage here.
WAKE UP, AMERICA!! Find out whether your Representative and Senators voted for this legislation or not. If they did and they are up for re-election, you might want to decide if each of them deserves your vote.
Today is a sad day for Americans everywhere--most of them just won't know it! Read the full NYTimes coverage of the bill's passage here.
WAKE UP, AMERICA!! Find out whether your Representative and Senators voted for this legislation or not. If they did and they are up for re-election, you might want to decide if each of them deserves your vote.
IAEA director Mohamed Elbaradei says that nuclear materials in Iraq are missing
The BBC News reports that the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency says that nuclear materials are no longer in Iraq where they were prior to the U.S. invasion and that entire buildings have been dismantled. This would not be significant except that the U.S. has made no disclosure to the IAEA of their actions regarding these issues. The IAEA investigators have not been allowed back into the country since the invasion, and have relied solely on satellite images to analyze the location of materials and the status of buildings.
According to Elbaradei, many of the former storage locations (buildings) have been torn down or dismantled, while much of the nuclear material is missing. In addition, sensitive technology related to nuclear proliferation has come up for sale on the international market or has gone missing from Iraq. The list of missing items includes rocket engines, milling machines, electron beam welders, and high-strength aluminum. Read the details at the link above.
The real question for the U.N. and for the American people becomes the extent to which the U.S. government and its contractors have been involved in the dismantling of the nuclear sites, in the removal of sensitive items from Iraq, and in the failure of the U.S. and the Iraqi interim government to make consistent and thorough reports to the IAEA. As the agency of the U.N. tasked with oversight of nuclear weapons proliferation, one must question why the inspectors have been denied access to the Iraqi nuclear facilities, and why the agency must rely on satellite imagery to gather information.
This just seems to me like another example of the U.S. government running roughshod over the processes of international law and international cooperation. Continually the current administration uses the U.N. to justify the war on Iraq by citing security council resolutions, but alternately denies neutral inspection teams of the U.N. the ability to conduct full reviews of the existing technologies, financial conditions, and health conditions of Iraq. The U.N. can offer assistance to the Iraqi people that the United States alone is currently not prepared to provide. Should we not take greater advantage of the various agencies that could help to bring peace, food, and healthcare to the citizens of the newly 'free' Iraq?
According to Elbaradei, many of the former storage locations (buildings) have been torn down or dismantled, while much of the nuclear material is missing. In addition, sensitive technology related to nuclear proliferation has come up for sale on the international market or has gone missing from Iraq. The list of missing items includes rocket engines, milling machines, electron beam welders, and high-strength aluminum. Read the details at the link above.
The real question for the U.N. and for the American people becomes the extent to which the U.S. government and its contractors have been involved in the dismantling of the nuclear sites, in the removal of sensitive items from Iraq, and in the failure of the U.S. and the Iraqi interim government to make consistent and thorough reports to the IAEA. As the agency of the U.N. tasked with oversight of nuclear weapons proliferation, one must question why the inspectors have been denied access to the Iraqi nuclear facilities, and why the agency must rely on satellite imagery to gather information.
This just seems to me like another example of the U.S. government running roughshod over the processes of international law and international cooperation. Continually the current administration uses the U.N. to justify the war on Iraq by citing security council resolutions, but alternately denies neutral inspection teams of the U.N. the ability to conduct full reviews of the existing technologies, financial conditions, and health conditions of Iraq. The U.N. can offer assistance to the Iraqi people that the United States alone is currently not prepared to provide. Should we not take greater advantage of the various agencies that could help to bring peace, food, and healthcare to the citizens of the newly 'free' Iraq?
Monday, October 11, 2004
Kerry leads Bush in new Zogby poll
According to the latest Reuters/Zogby three-day tracking poll, John Kerry now leads GWBush by a three-point margin, 47% to 44%. Kerry continues to increase a lead that he has held over the weekend. It appears that the two debates have greatly affected voter opinion of both candidates.
Interestingly enough, in a question regarding whether the country is headed in the right direction, 48% responded that we are headed in the WRONG direction while 45% responded that we are headed in the RIGHT direction. Once again, I ask the simple question if you believe we are not headed in the right direction, then shouldn't you be willing to make the change to move us in a different direction. Whether you believe that Kerry's direction will be the right one or not, you have to admit that it will definitely be different. I, for one, do not believe that it could possibly be a bad thing to be headed in a different direction from Mr. Bush.
Interestingly enough, in a question regarding whether the country is headed in the right direction, 48% responded that we are headed in the WRONG direction while 45% responded that we are headed in the RIGHT direction. Once again, I ask the simple question if you believe we are not headed in the right direction, then shouldn't you be willing to make the change to move us in a different direction. Whether you believe that Kerry's direction will be the right one or not, you have to admit that it will definitely be different. I, for one, do not believe that it could possibly be a bad thing to be headed in a different direction from Mr. Bush.
Sunday, October 10, 2004
The Iraq Survey Group Report
All the evidence gathered by the Iraq Survey Group shows that Saddam Hussein was far from being an imminent threat to the U.S. when we invaded Iraq. The latest report released this past week (see the CSMonitor article) describes how Saddam had ended his WMD programs in order to satisfy U.N. sanctions in the 1990s, but refused to admit that he had done so for fear of tipping off Iran to his weakness.
The report chronicles how Saddam sought to end the U.N. sanctions in the hope of someday restarting his WMD programs. He saw Iran and Israel as his top two enemies with the U.S. the third threat on his list simply because he thought we would eventually seek to oust him. The lack of WMDs in Iraq at the time of the American invasion just further proves how far out of touch the current U.S. administration remains. U.N. sanctions had been effective--they had worked!!
Of course, the reality also remains that Saddam was abusing the U.N. oil-for-food program by bribing officials of the U.N., Germany, France, and Russia. He had accumulated over $11 billion from the U.N. program, mostly to keep his government afloat. His eventual goal was to convince Germany, France, and Russia to help remove the U.N. sanctions. The evidence here suggests, however, that U.N. sanctions do indeed work if all the major players get on board and stay on board in the process.
There are many things we can learn from this report, and from U.S. actions leading up to the war on Iraq. The greatest of these must be that international cooperation and unified multilateral international actions are more effective than unilateral American actions in dealing with rogue states. We must take this lesson with us to the table in dealing with Iran and North Korea. Mulitnational efforts can be effective if all nations operate in a unified voice against WMDs and the threat of nuclear proliferation, in particular.
The report chronicles how Saddam sought to end the U.N. sanctions in the hope of someday restarting his WMD programs. He saw Iran and Israel as his top two enemies with the U.S. the third threat on his list simply because he thought we would eventually seek to oust him. The lack of WMDs in Iraq at the time of the American invasion just further proves how far out of touch the current U.S. administration remains. U.N. sanctions had been effective--they had worked!!
Of course, the reality also remains that Saddam was abusing the U.N. oil-for-food program by bribing officials of the U.N., Germany, France, and Russia. He had accumulated over $11 billion from the U.N. program, mostly to keep his government afloat. His eventual goal was to convince Germany, France, and Russia to help remove the U.N. sanctions. The evidence here suggests, however, that U.N. sanctions do indeed work if all the major players get on board and stay on board in the process.
There are many things we can learn from this report, and from U.S. actions leading up to the war on Iraq. The greatest of these must be that international cooperation and unified multilateral international actions are more effective than unilateral American actions in dealing with rogue states. We must take this lesson with us to the table in dealing with Iran and North Korea. Mulitnational efforts can be effective if all nations operate in a unified voice against WMDs and the threat of nuclear proliferation, in particular.
Potentially new giant ape found in Democratic Republic of Congo
According to BBC News, a potentially new species of giant ape that has characteristics of both gorillas and chimpanzees has been spotted in the Congo. Scientists are excited about the possibilities of this discovery and the ramifications for the region.
THOMAS FRIEDMAN WRITES IN SUNDAY'S NYTIMES OF 'ANOTHER INTELLIGENCE FAILURE'--
For the past few decades there has been "a surge of Islamic identity, not just in Iraq, but all over the Arab world," said Yitzhak Nakash, the Brandeis University expert on Shiite Islam and author of the upcoming "Shiism and Nationalism in the Arab World." "We definitely ignored it. We were in denial." But Saddam recognized its potential, Nakash said. On the Shiite side he allowed Moktada al-Sadr's father to lead Friday prayers in hopes of soaking up the religious energy among Shiites and directing it away from the regime. When the elder Sadr turned it on Saddam instead, Saddam had him killed in 1999. On the Sunni side, Nakash added, Saddam went on a mosque-building spree, to bolster his legitimacy, and he tolerated an infusion of Wahhabi Islam from Saudi Arabia to counterbalance the Shiites. By the time the U.S. invaded Iraq, "Islam was a potent force," Nakash said. "Iraq was no longer a largely secular country, waiting to embrace America, as many of the exiles remembered it." Does this mean all is lost in Iraq? Not necessarily, Nakash argues. It does mean that we have to alter our strategy and narrow our short-term expectations. The Shiites and the Kurds, who are 80 percent of Iraq's population, still want a democratic Iraq. That is a foundation for hope. However, the first manifestation of any democratic Iraq will almost certainly be strongly influenced, if not dominated, by religious figures. We will not go from Saddam to Jefferson without going through Sistani - the ayatollah we can work with. You just hope that the road will be short.
The argument that Friedman seems to make is one of practicality and reason. An argument that I am afraid the government of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz will not be willing to consider. This administration distrusts the Arab world except for the Saudis--and most of the Arab world distrusts the Saudis!
The argument that Friedman seems to make is one of practicality and reason. An argument that I am afraid the government of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz will not be willing to consider. This administration distrusts the Arab world except for the Saudis--and most of the Arab world distrusts the Saudis!
Saturday, October 09, 2004
PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE NUMBER TWO
Once again, John Kerry effectively addressed his grievances with the way the Bush administration has handled Iraq, and Kerry was also able to address his differences with Bush on domestic policy. I thought GW handled himself much better in this debate than in the first one. The scowl was certainly turned down, but the rhetoric continued to be repetitive and tired. (He really likes that "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" quote!)
I think it was more difficult to ascertain a decisive victor in this debate than it was in the first one. Kerry dominated Bush in the first one; I think the battle was a bit more even this time around. I was informed this week that it is very easy for Kerry to just pick the things that he thinks Bush has done wrong and to say, "I can do it better" without actually having to prove that. The argument is that any incumbent has a record that can be picked apart without any evidence on the challenger's part that he/she has a better plan. I would argue in this instance that Kerry has laid out specific plans to achieve policies in which Bush has failed, while pointing out grievous errors that the Bush administration fails to acknowledge.
Even some of Bush's key personnel (namely General Eric Shinseki and more recently L. Paul Bremer, former head of the U.S. occupational authority) have said that the U.S. went into Iraq with too few boots on the ground to achieve a successful peace. Kerry's argument continues to be that the Bush administration spent sufficient energy on the plan to win the war, but failed to put the same effort into the plan to win the peace. The experts in the State Department who have repeatedly been tasked with nation-building in the sixty years since the end of WW2 were largely ignored and asked to remain silent on the issue of rebuilding Iraq. Those plans were left up to the Dept of Defense who completely failed in that regard. The State Dept was not asked to offer assistance and advice until the middle of this past summer, some 15 months after the initial invasion, and some 14 months after Bush's declaration that 'major combat operations' were over.
As much as the Republican campaign attempts to paint Kerry as a 'flip-flopper', it becomes more and more obvious to more and more people that those words are just more tired rhetoric and cheap 'trash talk' from the Bush/Cheney campaign. The sooner that people realize the significance of this election, the better off this country will be.
WAKE UP!
I think it was more difficult to ascertain a decisive victor in this debate than it was in the first one. Kerry dominated Bush in the first one; I think the battle was a bit more even this time around. I was informed this week that it is very easy for Kerry to just pick the things that he thinks Bush has done wrong and to say, "I can do it better" without actually having to prove that. The argument is that any incumbent has a record that can be picked apart without any evidence on the challenger's part that he/she has a better plan. I would argue in this instance that Kerry has laid out specific plans to achieve policies in which Bush has failed, while pointing out grievous errors that the Bush administration fails to acknowledge.
Even some of Bush's key personnel (namely General Eric Shinseki and more recently L. Paul Bremer, former head of the U.S. occupational authority) have said that the U.S. went into Iraq with too few boots on the ground to achieve a successful peace. Kerry's argument continues to be that the Bush administration spent sufficient energy on the plan to win the war, but failed to put the same effort into the plan to win the peace. The experts in the State Department who have repeatedly been tasked with nation-building in the sixty years since the end of WW2 were largely ignored and asked to remain silent on the issue of rebuilding Iraq. Those plans were left up to the Dept of Defense who completely failed in that regard. The State Dept was not asked to offer assistance and advice until the middle of this past summer, some 15 months after the initial invasion, and some 14 months after Bush's declaration that 'major combat operations' were over.
As much as the Republican campaign attempts to paint Kerry as a 'flip-flopper', it becomes more and more obvious to more and more people that those words are just more tired rhetoric and cheap 'trash talk' from the Bush/Cheney campaign. The sooner that people realize the significance of this election, the better off this country will be.
WAKE UP!
Friday, October 08, 2004
NEW SEPTEMBER JOB REPORT ISSUED TODAY
According to the latest Job Report issued by the Dept. of Labor, even economists who had been predicting a relatively poor showing in the job market were woefully disappointed. In the U.S. each month, the economy needs to produce 200,000-250,000 new jobs just to keep pace with the number of new workers entering the job market. Economists have been predicting each month for the last five months job creation numbers of about 150,000. The market has exceeded that number significantly only once since January of this year. For the month of September, the government reports that only 96,000 jobs were created. Certainly one should expect that number to be revised upwards as new information continues to be collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics; however, one should not expect it to exceed the 150,000 mark, nor should one expect the total to even approach the 250,000 mark I mentioned above. For a complete summary of the numbers, see the Bureau of Labor Statistics news release. Notice that the initial narrative attempts to spin the numbers so that it seems the labor force has grown steadily in a productive way, averaging 103,000 jobs added per month in the last three months. While it is true that the number of jobs does continue to increase, these are not significant enough to keep up with the number of new workers entering the workforce!
DEAR VOTERS OF FLORIDA--
Like so many of your fellow Americans, many of you voted in 2000 for GWBush because you thought he was God's candidate. Perhaps you further thought that GWBush had indeed been chosen by God because of his role as President of the United States after 9-11-2001. To those of you who see Divine guidance in the election of GWBush, I ask you this one simple question...Why is it, do you think, that Florida has been hit this year by FOUR hurricanes? These occurrences themselves are unprecedented in the state of Florida, although four hurricanes have hit a single state in one year before--TEXAS in 1886.
Do you, the voters of Florida, think that perhaps God is sending your state a message? Could it be that God wants you to wake up and realize that it was not HE who encouraged you to vote for Bush in 2000, but some other guiding force. God might now be sending you the message that you need to make a change in the way you voted four years ago. FOUR HURRICANES!! Surely God is sending you a sign.
Wake up and make the right choice, make the choice that God wants you to make. Do not choose again to deny God--vote the way he wants you to vote. Can four hurricanes in one season possibly be just a coincidence? Surely you--who believe in Divine intervention--see the truth in the message. VOTE FOR KERRY and satisfy the will of God, or at least don't make the same mistake again. If Florida votes for Bush in 2004, I would be afraid to live near the coast for the next four years!!
AND TO THE VOTERS OF THE OTHER FORMERLY RED STATES--
Don't think that just because you don't live near an ocean that God cannot reveal his wishes to you as well. Think about what has happened to you in the last four years. Do you really think that God intended for GWBush to be the President of our nation? How many jobs have been lost in your state? How many Guard and Reserve units have gone to serve on active duty in Iraq? How many soldiers have died for Bush's Iraq war? How many of your friends and neighbors have suffered because of Bush's policies?
Okay, sure...if you live in an affluent neighborhood, you probably can answer "none" to most of my questions. If you live in rural America (God's country) or urban America, I want you to think about the sons and daughters that have suffered or died. I want you to think about the families who have lost health care, jobs, steady incomes. Those who have fallen into poverty. Was it God's plan for you (and them) to suffer while the richest in America grew richer on the blood and sweat of people just like you? Can you honestly believe that God wants the poor man and woman, the working man and woman, the average child, or the average family to suffer while the richest 1% of Americans get as much tax refund as the 80% of those working families? WAKE UP, AMERICA before GWBush bankrupts our country and puts the working men and women completely out of work.
If you truly believe that God works in mysterious ways, you need to ask yourself, "Would God really want 80% of Americans to suffer increased hardships while 1% of Americans get even richer than they already are?" Does God want to make rich men richer, or did Jesus tell his disciples, "It is harder for a rich man to enter Heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle"? It is time for each of you to think carefully about what God wants from you, and what God wants for mankind. Does God want four million more Americans to go without healthcare while GWBush's friends and former business partners make millions of dollars in profit as the price of oil increases? Do not just look at the words of Bush, but look also at his actions. A man can stand up each day and quote the Bible, but if he doesn't live the teachings can he truly be a just man?
WAKE UP!!
Do you, the voters of Florida, think that perhaps God is sending your state a message? Could it be that God wants you to wake up and realize that it was not HE who encouraged you to vote for Bush in 2000, but some other guiding force. God might now be sending you the message that you need to make a change in the way you voted four years ago. FOUR HURRICANES!! Surely God is sending you a sign.
Wake up and make the right choice, make the choice that God wants you to make. Do not choose again to deny God--vote the way he wants you to vote. Can four hurricanes in one season possibly be just a coincidence? Surely you--who believe in Divine intervention--see the truth in the message. VOTE FOR KERRY and satisfy the will of God, or at least don't make the same mistake again. If Florida votes for Bush in 2004, I would be afraid to live near the coast for the next four years!!
AND TO THE VOTERS OF THE OTHER FORMERLY RED STATES--
Don't think that just because you don't live near an ocean that God cannot reveal his wishes to you as well. Think about what has happened to you in the last four years. Do you really think that God intended for GWBush to be the President of our nation? How many jobs have been lost in your state? How many Guard and Reserve units have gone to serve on active duty in Iraq? How many soldiers have died for Bush's Iraq war? How many of your friends and neighbors have suffered because of Bush's policies?
Okay, sure...if you live in an affluent neighborhood, you probably can answer "none" to most of my questions. If you live in rural America (God's country) or urban America, I want you to think about the sons and daughters that have suffered or died. I want you to think about the families who have lost health care, jobs, steady incomes. Those who have fallen into poverty. Was it God's plan for you (and them) to suffer while the richest in America grew richer on the blood and sweat of people just like you? Can you honestly believe that God wants the poor man and woman, the working man and woman, the average child, or the average family to suffer while the richest 1% of Americans get as much tax refund as the 80% of those working families? WAKE UP, AMERICA before GWBush bankrupts our country and puts the working men and women completely out of work.
If you truly believe that God works in mysterious ways, you need to ask yourself, "Would God really want 80% of Americans to suffer increased hardships while 1% of Americans get even richer than they already are?" Does God want to make rich men richer, or did Jesus tell his disciples, "It is harder for a rich man to enter Heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle"? It is time for each of you to think carefully about what God wants from you, and what God wants for mankind. Does God want four million more Americans to go without healthcare while GWBush's friends and former business partners make millions of dollars in profit as the price of oil increases? Do not just look at the words of Bush, but look also at his actions. A man can stand up each day and quote the Bible, but if he doesn't live the teachings can he truly be a just man?
WAKE UP!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
