This is not what America is about. Our values are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. However, by his contempt for the Constitution, George W. Bush has convinced me that he is indeed an avaricous would-be emperor who cares nothing for the rule of law. Although I don't think Bush really wants to destroy Islam and humiliate Muslims, he doesn't seem to care if this happens.

What can we do? The images from Abu Ghraib will be associated with America for a generation; there is nothing we can do about that now. However, we can prove that George W. Bush is not America, nor does he stand for what Americans believe in, by voting him out of office.

Ann Wagner

"Our President is right, resolute, and standing firm. And America is stronger because of it."

George W. Bush has criticized Senator Kerry for flip-flopping. For instance, he told the Republican Governors' Association:

"The candidates are an interesting group, with diverse opinions: For tax cuts, and against them. For NAFTA, and against NAFTA. For the PATRIOT Act, and against the PATRIOT Act. In favor of liberating Iraq, and opposed to it. And that's just one senator from Massachusetts." [Source: The White House.]

Frankly, I would prefer someone who can change his mind in light of new evidence (as Kerry has) over someone who believes in being "resolute and standing firm" when the situation has changed (as Bush does.)

For instance: the infamous sixteen words in his 2003 State of the Union address. "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." [Source: The White House.]

It has been well-documented how George W. Bush heard that Saddam Hussein tried to purchase uranium from Niger, and even though the CIA twice warned him that this information was based on a proven forgery, he continued to believe it anyway. [Source: The Washington Post.]

This information had been proven wrong - but Bush continued to cite it as a reason we needed to go to war with Iraq. In retrospect, we now know that all the other reasons were equally wrong. But Bush cannot admit that going to war in Iraq was based on mistakes. He is equally committed to being "resolute" and "standing firm" in the face of overwhelming evidence that the Iraqis want us to leave. That means he might want to reconsider his position - but he refuses to accept that the circumstances have changed. [Source: USA Today.]

The invasion of Iraq has polarized a significant portion of humanity against the United States. To me, this doesn't seem to make our country stronger.

This argument isn't just academic. American soldiers are dying in Iraq. We need to bring them home as soon as possible.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, New York City

"Nearly two years ago, with the city's fate still a question mark in many minds, our President decided that this Convention would come to New York."

Personally, I am disgusted by how often the members of the Bush Administration invoke the memory of September 11th to justify just about everything they do, whether it has anything to do with fighting terrorists or not.

For instance, September 11th was ruthlessly exploited to justify the invasion of Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with it.

The crowning irony is that Bush was warned about the threat from Al-Qaeda in the first several months of his presidency. For example, there was the infamous August 6th memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US."

Could September 11th have been prevented? We will never know. But George W. Bush should have listened to the experts. He should have at least tried. Instead, he gave the Taliban $43 million to fight the opium trade. [Source: The Nation.]

Then he went on vacation. [Source: Slate Magazine.]

The Taliban played him for a fool. They did ban the production of opium, which caused the price to skyrocket... and made the opium they had on hand much more valuable.

Bush knew full well what kind of people the Taliban were. ("In Afghanistan, we see al Qaeda's vision for the world. Afghanistan's people have been brutalized -- many are starving and many have fled. Women are not allowed to attend school. You can be jailed for owning a television. Religion can be practiced only as their leaders dictate. A man can be jailed in Afghanistan if his beard is not long enough.") [Source: the White House.]

Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar is Osama Bin Laden's son-in-law.

Funding the Taliban, in and of itself, proves that Bush's Presidency is a dismal failure.

I do commend George W. Bush for his actions leading to the overthrow of the Taliban government in Afghanistan. This was the right thing to do, and I think it was done the right way... at least until he began to divert funds from fighting the Taliban to prepare for war with Iraq. [Sources: Plan of Attack; The Seattle Times.]

It's a psychological fact that, when a nation is attacked, its people rally around their leader. George W. Bush and his administration have sought to exploit this as much as possible by reminding us of 9/11 as often as possible. By using the deaths of 3,000 innocent people for his political gain, Bush has dishonored their memory.

"Our economy is growing, with 45,000 private sector jobs created in the last 12 months alone."

I am glad to hear that more jobs have been created in the city of New York. Alas, this hardly offsets the 3.2 million jobs that have been lost since Bush took office.

Although we have gained 1.2 million jobs, that leaves a net loss of 2 million jobs.

My wife and I were laid off within a week of each other in November 2001. She found a new job within a month - but had to take a $10,000 pay cut. I was unemployed for the better part of a year. I eventually found another job, but I am now making about a third of what I was making before.

Unfortunately for us, inflation continues to rise at the same rate. [Source: Inflation Data.]

I now have to pay more to buy the same staples, on a third of the salary.

There's a word for simultaneous high unemployment and high inflation: stagflation.

"Our streets are bustling, with a three-year, 15% reduction in crime that has defied the odds and made the nation's safest city even safer."

A pity that George W. Bush has let the assault weapons ban expire. This may well undo all the progress you've made. [Source: MSNBC]

"And our city is also where, on Independence Day, Governor Pataki and I laid the cornerstone for the Freedom Tower at the site of the World Trade Center. The terrorists hit us there."

There's September 11th again. George W. Bush happened to be in office during the time of a great tragedy. I'm sorry, but I need more of a reason to vote for a candidate than his bad luck.

"And we showed that our dreams, like our liberties, will never be lost to violence or hate."

Perhaps Mayor Bloomberg is not acquainted with the so-called PATRIOT Act.

He should be. According to CommonDreams.org, the New York City Counsel voted to ask Congress to "repeal of those sections of the USA PATRIOT Act ... and related federal actions that unduly infringe upon fundamental rights and liberties."

For information about the so-called PATRIOT Act, I recommend the American Civil Liberties Union. For a bit of perspective, I refer the reader to my essay George W. Bush Versus the Bill of Rights.

Protests.

According to the Act Now to Stop War and End Racism Coalition, they applied on January 7 to hold a protest in Central Park, near the Republican Convention. Mayor Bloomberg and the City waited until June 15, then denied the permit. The Mayor and the City did not explain the denial until August 6 - less than a month before the convention.

In court, the City explained that they couldn't hold ticketless events in the park - even though the Philharmonic does so regularly.

Then they claimed that the were would be too many protesters for the park's capacity - even though a concert last fall drew 10,000 more fans than protesters.

The City said that they couldn't have an event there unless there was a scheduled rain date - even though concerts have been held in the park in the rain.

Do these look like logical reasons to deny a permit? Or does it look like Mayor Bloomberg did not want the protesters "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances," as is their Constitutional right?

The protests went forward, of course. According to the New York Times, the demonstrations were the largest ever at any political convention. Conservative columnist David Gergen wrote:

"I've been going to Republican conventions since 1972, and I've never seen a convention with as many protesters in the streets. The protesters are stealing the story for the first day and drowning out the Republican message.
"The protests are anti-Bush, with heavy antiwar overtones..."

According to the New York Times, Wednesday would see 200 people arrested, even though they abode by an agreement with police about where they would march. Thursday would see ten to fifteen thousand people outside the convention protesting Bush's acceptance speech.

Did Mayor Bloomberg, or anyone else, think the American people would sit by and watch as the Republican National Committee honored a reactionary who stole their party away from its common-sense conservative roots and took the country into a pointless war?

According to CBS News, 81% of New Yorkers approved of demonstrations during the convention, and 70% of New Yorkers disapprove of George W. Bush.

Good luck on your re-election campaign, Mayor Bloomberg.

Mark Racicot, former Governor of Montana

"Led by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, Americans have moved our economy from recession to expansion."

If this is true, the expansion is so small it hasn't yet offset the recession.

George W. Bush's economics simply aren't working. His philosophy is that if you lower rich people's taxes, they are able to invest more, and this will make the economy stronger. His father once called this "voodoo economics." [Source: Information Please Almanac.]

The reality is that, under Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress, the absolute wealthiest Americans had their taxes raised. And what happened? Clinton balanced the budget and presided over the largest economic boom in American history.

When George W. Bush came to power, he abolished Clinton's tax increases. When the deficits returned, he promised they would be "small" and "short-term." [Source: The White House.] And after the 2002 elections, they cut the wealthiest Americans' taxes even further. Dick Cheney told a flabbergasted Treasury Secretary O'Neill that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

What Reagan proved is that the government can run on deficits if absolutely necessary. What Clinton proved is that a balanced budget strengthens the American dollar, and that stimulates the economy more than rich people having to pay less taxes.

In the long-term, the wealthiest Americans lose out under George W. Bush, too.

Let me use Bill Gates as an example. During the Clinton Administration, he was the wealthiest man in the world, with a net worth of $90 billion.

Ironically, Gates became the wealthiest man in the world even though his taxes were higher. How did he manage this? Because, in a strong economy, more people had the money to purchase his software. With Microsoft a successful company, Bill Gates earned a lot of money - high taxes notwithstanding.

Under the Bush Administration, Bill Gates' taxes were lowered. He was probably happy at having to pay less in taxes - but then he watched the Federal Government go from a surplus to the largest deficits in history in just two years.

Because of this, the value of the dollar dropped; a recession took hold; a lot of people were laid off in the tech industry (including me); and people no longer had the money to buy Microsoft products.

The result? Bill Gates is now the second richest man in the world. He had $90 billion; now he has $41 billion. At least he can console himself that he's paying lower taxes on the amount of money he's making today.

Fernando Mateo

"I want to thank President Bush for lifting the lives of immigrant families."

That is, unless you were a Muslim American, or an American of Middle Eastern descent, or an immigrant from the Middle East, after September 11th.

In his debate with Al Gore on October 11th, 2000, Bush specifically condemned racial profiling.

"I can't imagine what it would be like to be singled out because of race and stopped and harassed. That's just flat wrong, and that's not what America is all about. And so we ought to do everything we can to end racial profiling. One of my concerns, though, is I don't want to federalize the local police forces."

But that's exactly what happened after September 11th. [Source: the ACLU.]

I hate to remind you of this, Mr. President, but according to the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, you can't investigate someone because of their ethnicity or religion. You are only allowed to investigate someone if you have a reason to suspect them of a crime. It's not a crime to be Muslim. It's not a crime to be an immigrant.

"Our President has proposed reforms to our immigration laws that will match willing foreign workers with willing American employers, when no American can be found to fill the job."

I'm not an expert in immigration laws, so there might be some logic here I'm not seeing. But who in their right mind would want the government to bring in foreign workers when there are already 8.2 million people unemployed in this country?

"Just over 1,000 days ago, 2,605 of my neighbors were murdered at the World Trade Center -- men, women and children -- as they began their day on a brilliantly clear New York autumn morning, less than four miles from where I am now standing."

Yet again, we are urged to vote for George W. Bush because September 11th happened on his watch. I don't think he's to blame for it. I do think he should have taken the warnings about terrorism more seriously, but that's neither here nor there by now. Just because he led the country in the war against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban doesn't mean George W. Bush didn't abandon that war to invade Iraq. I want to be confident in the Presidency again. I want a President who battles current threats, not past ones.

I want a leader who will make fighting terrorists his top priority - especially the ones who attacked our country.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Saddam Hussein wasn't a ghastly oppressor whose regime killed hundreds of thousands. The United States should always oppose dictators, just as the United States should always oppose unnecessary wars.

"History shows that we are not imperialists..."

Yes, it does show that. For generations, America has sought to lead the world by inspiring it, not by dominating it.

Unfortunately, that's not what George W. Bush believes.

In September 2000, The Project for the New American Century published a report detailing their plan for America to dominate the world by force, starting with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. (This goal was also stated in a 1998 letter to President Clinton.) Current Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz contributed to the report. Other members of this organization are Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Pentagon advisor Richard Perle, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, Cheney aide Lewis Libby, and Florida Governor Jeb Bush.

"...but we are fighters for freedom and democracy."

Historically, this is true of America, and again, it's not true of George W. Bush and his administration. He has actively tried to restrict our Constitutional liberties. What's worse, history has shown that democracies grow from within; they cannot be imposed by force. George W. Bush and his administration seem to be painfully unaware of that.

Ron Silver

"Under the unwavering leadership of President Bush, the cause of freedom and democracy is being advanced by the courageous men and women serving in our Armed Services. The President is doing exactly the right thing."

Ron, you've been duped. For all Bush's high minded rhetoric, Iraq was not invaded to make the country democratic. Instead, the original plan was to replace Saddam Hussein with Ahmed Chalabi.

Ahmed who?

Ahmed Chalabi is, or was, a personal friend of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. He leads an organization called the Iraqi National Congress, a group of Iraqi exiles who sought the overthrow of Saddam. Chalabi hadn't lived in Iraq for many years, and he is wanted on embezzling charges in Jordan. [Source: the BBC.]

Chalabi was more than happy to provide Cheney with the information about Saddam's arsenal that the Vice President wanted, and he had his people tell Cheney tall tales about how Saddam was about to attack us with nuclear bombs.

At one point, it was seriously believed that Chalabi could be the new pro-American President of Iraq after Saddam was overthrown. He returned to Iraq in 2003 shortly after the invasion, and sat on the so-called Iraqi Governing Council. (Despite the name, the body was no more than a group of advisors - it had no governing powers.)

It turned out that Chalabi had no support inside Iraq, and the Iraqis consider him a stooge. The "Governing Council" was popularly known as "Ahmed Chalabi and the twenty thieves."

In August 2004, Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's government accused Chalabi of counterfeiting. It now looks like Ahmed might have been spying for Iran the entire time. [Source: The Guardian.]

In Bush's original plan, the Iraqi people were to be given practically no say in writing their constitution. [Sources: CNN, Common Dreams]

According to TruthOut, Dick Cheney's old firm Halliburton was given a $7 billion no-bid contract, and they overcharged the military by $186 million. Meanwhile, George W. Bush issued an executive order to ban anyone from suing the firm. [Source: The White House]

Bush and Cheney were planning to create a new pro-US government in the Middle East, much like the Shah of Iran had been in the 1970's. This government would welcome American corporations, and wouldn't have any of the fair labor or environmental protection laws we enjoy in America. Cheney thought the Iraqi people would be so grateful to the United States for having saved them from Saddam that they wouldn't have a problem with any of this. [Source: Meet the Press]

He was wrong.

Bernard Kerik, former New York City Police Commissioner

"In the attacks of September 11th, we witnessed the worst and the best in humanity."

I hate to sound cynical, but here is another obligatory invocation of September 11th. According to Voices of September 11th, some of the families of those killed in the attacks are offended by the decision to hold the Republican convention in New York City.

"The President responded by creating the Department of Homeland Security..."

Actually, according to CNN, Bush actually opposed the creation of the new Department of Homeland Security after 9/11, and flip-flopped when he realized the bill - proposed by Senator Joe Lieberman - was going to pass despite his opposition.

"...he enacted the PATRIOT Act and he has tripled our homeland security funding since 2001."

Believe it or not, according to globalissues.org, John Ashcroft was already working on the PATRIOT Act long before September 11th. At the same time, he refused to fund new FBI counter-terrorism initiatives. [Source: The Washington Post.]

The so-called PATRIOT Act was originally planned to fight organized crime. It repealed many regulations passed after the Civil Rights movement to protect Americans from government abuses of power, such as those committed in the McCarthy era, by the Watergate conspirators, and by J. Edgar Hoover. The law makes it easy for the President to harass his political opponents.

9/11 merely gave Ashcroft the excuse to propose this legislation to Congress, and the bill was repackaged as anti-terrorist legislation. ("PATRIOT" stands for "Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.") The legislators, 45 days after September 11th, were told that these laws would help fight terrorists, and enacted them. In reality, the so-called PATRIOT Act violates half the Bill of Rights, and tramples our civil liberties. The crowning irony: According to Gun Owners of America, Ashcroft admitted that the so-called PATRIOT Act couldn't have prevented the terrorist attacks anyway.

"And today in Afghanistan, the Taliban has been unseated from power and the Al Queda leadership is on the run."

Yes, the Taliban was driven from power in the winter of 2001. However, according to National Public Radio, the new Afghan government doesn't control much more than the capital, Kabul. And according to the CBC, the Taliban has reconquered parts of southern and eastern Afghanistan.

Whether we're paying attention to it or not, Afghanistan is in serious trouble. According to Bob Woodward's Bush at War, the Taliban is so closely linked with Al-Qaeda they could be considered the same organization. Bush's drive to invade Iraq diverted America's attention and resources to this new battle before we'd even finished helping the new Afghan government secure their country, and almost before we'd started helping them rebuild from twenty-two years of war.

[Sources: Plan of Attack; The Seattle Times.]

Al-Qaeda attacked us; Iraq didn't. It seems to me that stopping Al-Qaeda is more important.

The Taliban may have been "driven from power," as Mr. Kerik says, but they just killed three American soldiers a week ago. [Source: the New York Times] We still have troops in Afghanistan, and they need our help.

"Most importantly, it takes courage and inspirational leadership in the White House."

Yes, it does. It also takes common sense.

Zainab al-Suwaij

"...America, under the strong, compassionate leadership of President Bush, has given Iraqis the most precious gift any nation has ever given another --- the gift of democracy and the freedom to determine its own future."

That's only if you believe Iyad Allawi's unelected government is capable of delivering on that gift. As I said above, a democratic Iraq wasn't even part of George W. Bush's original plan. When it became clear there was no way to install Ahmed Chalabi as the new pro-US dictator, the Bush Administration turned to the United Nations. The UN chose Allawi - Bush's second choice - as the new Iraqi prime minister.

Allawi is a former supporter of Saddam Hussein. After Saddam betrayed him, Allawi opposed Saddam with car bombs. [Source: Common Dreams.]

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, Allawi has been accused of murdering six Iraqi prisoners personally before he took office.

For good or for ill, Allawi's government may not meet the standard definition of "sovereignty": it has no control over the 140,000 coalition troops operating in Iraq.

Senator John McCain

I was a McCain supporter. I voted for him in the primaries of 2000.

And I am bitterly disappointed in a man I once greatly admired.

According to intellectual J. Michael Straczynski, the Republican National Committee refused to fund any candidate who did not endorse George W. Bush during the 2000 primaries. [Article 1; Article 2]

In a primary debate in 2000, John McCain asked George W. Bush to apologize for disparaging statements he'd made. The clip is on John Kerry's website.

According to Al Franken's book Lies..., the Bush Campaign smeared McCain during the South Carolina primary.

When Bush was nominated by the Republican Party, I hoped that McCain would be nominated as Vice President - or that Al Gore would choose him to be Vice President for a truly centrist ticket. There were even rumors in 2004 that John Kerry would ask McCain to join the Democratic ticket.

But no. McCain endorsed George W. Bush, despite his firsthand knowledge of what kind of man Bush was.

In my essay George W. Bush versus The Bill of Rights, I point out instance after instance where Bush violated the letter and spirit of the Constitution. In this case, I truly feel like a lone voice shouting in the wilderness - for surely Senator McCain and other members of Congress believe in the Constitution, and believe that leaders who violate it should be impeached and removed from office.

After all, Congress impeached President Clinton on the grounds that he might have technically committed perjury. When did this perjury take place? Clinton was deposed on a matter not affecting his conduct as President by an investigation that had far exceeded its legal bounds.

But the Republican Party - the party of great Americans like Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan - has done nothing to stop an Administration that has trampled the basic tenets of American government. I hoped that Congressional Republicans' love of our country would take precedence over party - and I was dead wrong.

I still believe that John McCain is a man of personal integrity. He is a veteran and a war hero. I still believe him to be a patriot, and a man of wisdom and honor.

But I wish that he would lead the Republicans in Congress to value the Constitution over party loyalty.

McCain begins:

"This week, millions of Americans, not all Republicans, weigh our claim on their support for the two men who have led our country in these challenging times with moral courage..."

Senator McCain, was it moral courage that smeared you - and by extension all veterans - in South Carolina?

What kind of moral courage misleads a country into war?

Many Americans thought that Rumsfeld should resign, be fired, or get impeached after the revelations of torture at Abu Ghraib. Did George W. Bush show moral courage then?

"Mr. Secretary [Rumsfeld], thank you for your hospitality, and thank you for your leadership. You are courageously leading our nation in the war against terror. You're doing a superb job. You are a strong Secretary of Defense, and our nation owes you a debt of gratitude." [Source: Bush speaking to reporters outside the Pentagon, archives at the White House.]

I believe Bush Administration distortions connecting Iraq to September 11th are responsible for the revolting spectacle at Abu Ghraib. If someone's understanding of the facts leads them to a different conclusion, then they certainly have the right to their opinion. But even if Rumsfeld has no blame in creating the situation surrounding the torture at Abu Ghraib, he is still the Secretary of Defense. He is responsible for our military's conduct, and for putting them in that situation. Even if Rumsfeld isn't guilty of wrongdoing, he is certainly guilty of reckless incompetence. How are our soldiers to help the Iraqi people who can no longer trust them?

"... and firm resolve."

John Kerry has written, "Everyone outside the administration seems to understand that we are in deep trouble in Iraq." [source: John Kerry's Plan for America.]

According to Mother Jones, Iraqis still have trouble getting consistent electricity and clean water. They are seeing reconstruction jobs go to foreign contractors, and a staggering number of those contracted jobs haven't even begun, seventeen months after George W. Bush proclaimed the end of "major combat operations." Security there remains poor. But instead of re-evaluating America's presence or operations in the country, Bush has promised to "stay the course and complete the job." [Source: the US State Department.]

Standing by a failed policy doesn't sound like firm resolve to me. It sounds like stubbornness. And while Bush is stubborn, our soldiers are dying.

A Presidential candidate once wisely said that our soldiers should not be used for nation building. It was October 11, 2000.

"I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation building core from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops."

The candidate? George W. Bush.

Back to John McCain. The candidate I once supported next proceeds to invoke September 11th, just like the President he now supports.

"The awful events of September 11, 2001 declared a war we were vaguely aware of, but hadn't really comprehended how near the threat was, and how terrible were the plans of our enemies...
"It's a fight between right and wrong, good and evil."

I firmly believe that to win the battle of good versus evil, we must continue to be good. If we must fight, we must do it with honor and dignity. We must stand by our values. If we do not - if we defy the law in the name of stopping criminals, if we torture suspects in the name of fighting terror - then we lose our moral authority. We must not become the villains.

But Bush's conquest of Iraq has already convinced much of the world that we are.

Senator McCain, I call upon you to condemn the war in Iraq. I call upon you to condemn the so-called PATRIOT Act, and write a new counter-terror law that safeguards our civil liberties. I call upon you to demand that Jose Padilla and the "enemy combatants" held at Guantanamo Bay be charged as terrorists and put on trial. I call upon you to condemn Federal funding of religious charities.

Senator McCain, I salute you for condemning the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. I salute you for opposing a Constitutional amendment to regulate marriage. And I salute you for your efforts in campaign finance reform.

Senator McCain, if you don't feel you can condemn George W. Bush himself, you must at least condemn the wrongdoing that has been done on his watch. Furthermore, I ask you to demand the resignation of Vice President Cheney, of Secretaries Ashcroft and Rumsfeld, of Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz, and of Director Rice.

"I don't doubt the sincerity of my Democratic friends. And they should not doubt ours."

Senator McCain, I am disappointed that after your "straight talk" 2000 campaign, you became such a staunch supporter of George W. Bush and his party line - the line that has moved the Republican party from the center to the reactionary right.

I do not doubt your sincerity. I doubt very much the sincerity of the men you support.

"Our President will work with all nations willing to help us defeat this scourge that afflicts us all."

The way he worked with France, Germany and Russia to gain their support for the attack on Iraq? Bush presented flimsy evidence and a demonstrable lack of knowledge regarding the nature of Al-Qaeda and their wish to see to Saddam Hussein overthrown. When "old Europe" wouldn't go along with him, Bush dismissed them as cowards and invaded Iraq anyway.

"That's why I commend to my country the re-election of President Bush, and the steady, experienced, public-spirited man who serves as our Vice-President, Dick Cheney."

I remember Dick Cheney when he was Secretary of Defense for George Bush, senior. I remember how effective Cheney was in helping turn back Saddam Hussein's conquest of Kuwait. And when George W. Bush, a man who had failed in business and had no foreign policy experience became President, I told my wife: "Well, at least Dick Cheney won't let him make any major mistakes."

Boy, was I wrong.

In the three and a half years since, Dick Cheney hasn't prevented George W. Bush from making reckless missteps. He's helped cause them.

In The Price of Loyalty, Paul O'Neill also found himself wondering what had happened to change Dick Cheney, the public servant he'd known for years. Instead of balancing the budget, Cheney didn't care if he ran up huge deficits. And according to the New Yorker, Dick Cheney's office pressured the CIA to inflate intelligence suggesting Iraq was an imminent threat, ignore contrary intelligence, and accept the word of Ahmed Chalabi's cartel of Iraqi exiles.

Senator McCain, the Chalabi government that the neoconservatives thought they could install in Iraq would have done nothing to promote freedom. Replacing a brutal dictator with a pro-American one might have improved things for the Iraqi people. But the evidence today is clear. The Iraqi people resent a government imposed from outside - even one where Mr. Chalabi is not involved. [Source: USA Today.]

According to the Guardian, Dick Cheney continues to defy the September 11 Commission's conclusion that Saddam and Al-Qaeda never worked together. Democracy Now has documented a number of cases where Cheney has repeated evidence that had already been proven false.

Jon Stewart of the Daily Show showed what the news media did not - a video of Cheney contradicting himself.

Dick Cheney may be experienced, but something in the thirteen years since the last Gulf War changed him. Maybe it was a feeling of personal failure that Saddam Hussein was not unseated during the liberation of Kuwait. But whatever it was, Vice President Cheney was a driving force behind George W. Bush's rush to war.

Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States, as he might have had he not been defeated in 1991. But Cheney was convinced that he still did, even though the evidence was inconclusive. He was so sure of this that he asked Ahmed Chalabi to bring him evidence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Chalabi and his people readily conjured some up, hoping that the United States would overthrow Saddam and put them in charge of Iraq.

Cheney probably believed he would be proved right after the war.

Sending our troops into danger on the basis of these kind of assumptions would be ethically questionable, but might be understandable. What cannot be justified is Cheney and the Bush Administration tying the invasion of Iraq into the War on Terror - when the facts showed that Saddam and Al-Qaeda were enemies.

As Al Gore said,

"President Bush is now intentionally misleading the American people by continuing to aggressively and brazenly assert a linkage between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. If he actually believed in the linkage that he asserts, that would by itself, in light of the available evidence, make him genuinely unfit to lead our nation's struggle against al Qaeda. If they believe these flimsy scraps, then who would want them in charge of anything? Are they too dishonest or too gullible?"

This conclusion is supported by the September 11th Commission and the Levin Report.

I am bitterly disappointed that John McCain repeats Bush's party line.

"The international consensus that he [Saddam] be kept isolated and unarmed had eroded to the point that many critics of military action had decided the time had come again to do business with Saddam, despite his near daily attacks on our pilots, and his refusal, until his last day in power, to allow the unrestricted inspection of his arsenal."

This isn't true. In October 2002, Saddam agreed to resume weapons inspections. The policy of containment that George Bush, senior, began, that Clinton continued, and that George W. Bush considered sufficient for the first year of his presidency had worked. Of course, after the invasion we learned that the inspections had been completely successful. [Source: the BBC; the Duelfer Report]

I disagree with the Senator's assertion that the coalition was falling apart and that Saddam had the capacity to rebuild his weapons. Due to UN inspections and Clinton's bombs, Saddam's arsenal was completely destroyed. I don't understand why McCain thinks that Saddam would have been able to re-acquire weapons with the United States flying daily inspection flights over his country.

Saddam was a brutal dictator who butchered thousands. I'm no apologist for him. He should stand trial for genocide and war crimes. But he was 66 years old when he was unseated, and he wasn't going to live forever.

Saddam should have been overthrown by Iraqis or fellow Arabs. If we truly needed to go to war, the President of the United States would not have needed to tell lie after lie in order to make it happen.

What I have a problem with is this: 15,000 Iraqis have died in our attempt to liberate them. We thought we were doing the right thing - but most of the world doesn't agree with us. We have driven away our allies and made many friendly nations resentful.

When Senator McCain says the international consensus had eroded, it's possible that he's referring to multinational corporations trying to do business with Saddam. According to the San Francisco Bay Guardian, the worst offender was a firm called Halliburton. In the 1990's, Saddam Hussein's government paid Halliburton almost $24 million to service its oil industry. At the time, Halliburton's CEO was a man named Dick Cheney.

"And certainly not a disingenuous film maker who would have us believe that Saddam's Iraq was an oasis of peace, when in fact it was a place of indescribable cruelty: torture chambers, mass graves and prisons that destroyed the lives of the small children held inside their walls."

I'm sure Michael Moore is flattered that Senator McCain should make a passing reference to his anti-war documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 in a major speech.

But Senator McCain does not seem to understand Moore's point. The Senator is absolutely right when he describes Saddam's Iraq as "a place of intolerable cruelty." No one in their right mind would dispute that.

However, Moore is not an apologist for Saddam. He is merely trying to show the contrast between war and peace. McCain is referring to a brief scene in "Fahrenheit 9/11" where Moore shows Iraqi children playing. Those children were indeed growing up in an inhuman dictatorship - but one that was not at war before America attacked.

Senator, you have seen combat. Dictatorship is a form of slavery, but war is hell.

If it is America's duty to liberate any nation that lives under dictatorship, we must immediately invade Burma, North Korea, Cuba, Libya, Syria, and Turkmenistan, not to mention American allies Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan. Other nations with dismal human rights records include Iran and China - but I don't hear anyone calling for war with them.

Oh, wait. Iran and North Korea were both included in President Bush's "Axis of Evil." In the crowning irony, according to Against All Enemies, in the 1990's Iran was a severe terrorist threat to the United States.

Iraq, contrariwise, botched an attempt to assassinate former President Bush, senior. President Clinton responded with bombs. Saddam Hussein was so cowed by Clinton that he never sponsored any anti-American terrorism again. That was thirteen years ago.

Meanwhile, Kim Jong Il, North Korea's dictator, is relentlessly pursuing nuclear weapons, probably already has some, and is responsible for the deaths of more of his own people than Saddam Hussein ever was. Saddam's victims number in the hundreds of thousands. Kim Jong Il's number in the millions.

Of all the nations in the "Axis of Evil", Saddam was the least dangerous, and many believe the world is more dangerous with an anarchic Iraq than with Saddam's dictatorship. [Source: Time Magazine.]

"I believe as strongly today as ever, the mission was necessary, achievable and noble."

I don't find it noble to invade an oil-rich nation that posed no threat. The United States would have been better advised to confront nations that do - such as North Korea and Iran. If we really want to fight terrorism, we should help establish democratic governments in Somalia and Sudan.

"For his determination to undertake it, and for his unflagging resolve to see it through to a just end, President Bush deserves not only our support, but our admiration."

I don't find anything about the neoconservatives or Mr. Chalabi worthy of admiration.

Senator McCain may not be aware of the Project for the New American Century. The majority of President Bush's advisors belong to this organization, a body which called for the invasion of Iraq in 1998. Believe me, altruism had nothing to do with it. America should conquer Iraq, the argument went, for two purposes:

I've proposed in my essays regarding the Bill of Rights and the Ten Commandments that the invasion of Iraq was motivated by exactly what the neoconservatives said it would be: control of Iraq's oil resources. However, even I was surprised by the cynicism with which President Bush issued an executive order giving Dick Cheney's old company, Halliburton, blanket immunity from prosecution.

That's right. Bush issued an order making it illegal to sue Halliburton. [Source: The White House.]

The order also applies to any other firm that gets involved with the Iraqi oil industry. Under this order, it's also illegal to sue Condoleeza Rice's old company, Chevron.

W hen the Coalition Provisional Authority was the functioning government of Iraq, its head, Paul Bremer, issued the infamous Order 39. This order sold off Iraq's state owned-companies to foreign firms. [Sources: Tikkun Magazine, the Australian National Forum, and Environmentalists Against War]

Although the Iraqis were glad to be rid of the dictator who'd brutalized them for thirty years, they weren't prepared to sit by and watch as Bremer sold off their banks and oil companies.

The 8th Commandment says it best: "Thou shalt not steal." George W. Bush claims his faith is important to him, but I don't find this kind of blatant hypocrisy admirable at all.

For my last words to Senator McCain, I quote screenwriter Randall Wallace. For the movie Braveheart, Wallace wrote:

"Men don't follow titles, they follow courage. Now our people know you. Noble, and common, they respect you. And if you would just lead them to freedom, they'd follow you. And so would I."

Rudy Giuliani, former Mayor of New York City

"It was here in 2001 in lower Manhattan that President George W. Bush stood amid the fallen towers of the World Trade Center and said to the barbaric terrorists who attacked us, 'They will hear from us.'
"They have heard from us! They heard from us in Afghanistan and we removed the Taliban."

Although I salute Mayor Giuliani's leadership during and after the terrorist attacks, I have to wonder: will Republican leaders ever stop reminding us about 9/11? Are they still hoping that we will rally around the President because we were attacked by Al-Qaeda?

The evidence shows that fighting the war on terror is less important to George W. Bush than carrying out his neoconservative agenda. For instance, in March of 2002, Bush said:

"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

[Source: BuzzFlash.]

I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor. With all due respect, I disagree with you. The American people rallied behind George W. Bush when we were attacked by Al Qaeda. Why would we keep supporting him when he calls those terrorists unimportant?

I want a President who will take real steps to stop terrorists, and not quit when the Taliban are driven from Kabul.

"They heard from us in Iraq, and we ended Saddam Hussein's reign of terror."

Well, somebody heard from us in Iraq - but not anyone who had anything to do with attacking the United States.

Unfortunately for us, according to the International Institute of Strategic Studies, a lot of other people around the world heard how we attacked a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11. This strengthened Bin Laden's propaganda.

What does it mean when psychotic terrorists are more appealing to the world's people than the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave?

It means our country is in deep trouble.

Al-Qaeda certainly heard from us when we overthrew Saddam. George W. Bush did exactly what they wanted. Iraq is facing anarchy. With widespread resentment of occupying troops, Iraq is an ideal recruiting ground for Al-Qaeda.

"From the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, to President George W. Bush, our party's great contribution is to expand freedom in our own land and all over the world."

I refer the reader to my essay George W. Bush Versus the Bill of Rights. It demonstrates how Bush has trampled American principles of government with the so-called PATRIOT Act and by giving funds to religious charities. It also shows that he has denied freedom of the press to the Iraqis we fought to liberate.

President Lincoln fought to preserve the Union, not to impose "freedom" on other countries at the point of a bayonet. He is rolling over in his grave.

"It doesn't matter how he [Bush] is demonized. It doesn't matter what the media does to ridicule him or misinterpret him or defeat him."

What is Mayor Giuliani talking about?

I received a fund raising letter from George W. Bush this spring. The letter mentioned a "liberal bias in the press" and complained how the media doesn't treat President Bush fairly.

That's not true today. It's old news - kind of like Iraq being a serious threat to the United States.

The "liberal bias" claim was true back in the days of President Bush, senior. But does anyone in their right mind think the press had a liberal bias during the impeachment of Bill Clinton?

On the contrary, there's significant evidence that the media took George W. Bush's side and protected him after 9/11.

They thought it would be unpatriotic and hurt the country to show the evidence - that in the previous month Bush had taken one of the longest Presidential vacations in history, and that he ignored reports from the CIA with "historical" titles like "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." [Source: The Nation.]

The press believed that, under the circumstances, it would demoralize the country to learn that our President was a bumbling idiot. I understand this logic, although I don't agree with it.

When compiling "Fahrenheit 9/11", Michael Moore said it truly surprised him how much footage he saw that had never made it onto the network news.

But you don't have to take my word for it. In his book Lies..., Al Franken completely debunks the notion that today's press has a liberal bias.

"President Bush has the courage of his convictions."

No, Mr. Mayor. If George W. Bush truly had such courage, he could have made his case for the War in Iraq without having to lie about it. Instead, he pretended that the invasion was part of the War on Terror. He sowed fear by exaggerating Saddam's arsenal. And he made up wild stories about Saddam being "an ally of Al-Qaeda." [Sources: The White House; the Levin Report.]

"John Kerry has no such clear, precise and consistent vision."

In his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention, Kerry said:

"Today, our national security begins with homeland security. The 9-11 Commission has given us a path to follow, endorsed by Democrats, Republicans, and the 9-11 families.  As President, I will not evade or equivocate; I will immediately implement the recommendations of that commission.  We shouldn't be letting ninety-five percent of container ships come into our ports without ever being physically inspected.  We shouldn't be leaving our nuclear and chemical plants without enough protection.  And we shouldn't be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them down in the United States of America."

Looks "clear, precise and consistent" to me, Mr. Mayor.

"When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, John Kerry voted against the Persian Gulf War."

I personally believe that Senator Kerry was wrong in this instance, but I'm sure he was following his highest sense of right.

Now, what was George W. Bush doing during the first Gulf War in 1991?

When John Kerry was serving in the Senate, George W. Bush sat on the board of Harken Energy. He dumped his Harken Energy stock right before a big loss, and was accused of insider trading. [Sources: CNN; Slate Magazine, BuzzFlash.] Personally, I would rather have an decent man with whom I disagree as my President than a failed and incompetent businessman.

"Then in 2002, as he [Kerry] was calculating his run for President, he voted for the war in Iraq."

Again, I disagree with Senator Kerry on this issue. The war in Iraq has been a terrible mistake, and George W. Bush had to mislead the nation in order to justify it.

However, Kerry voted to give George W. Bush authorization to use force to disarm Saddam Hussein with the understanding that Bush was going to build a coalition through the United Nations as his father had. Kerry told USA Today that Bush "misled Americans in Congress about how he was going to go to war." Bush had deceived him "in the sense that any Senator or Congressman votes based on promises of the President. I [assumed] that he was going to do the things that he said he was going to do."

(Read my George W. Bush Versus the Bill of Rights essay to see a breakdown of what Senator Kerry actually voted for.)

Bush tried to enlist UN support for six months, and when this failed, decided to attack Iraq anyway.

And why did the United Nations not authorize an attack on Iraq? Maybe they looked at the same evidence Bush had and correctly concluded that Saddam's WMD were negligible and he had no ties to Al-Qaeda.

I'm tired of Bush's partisans. In March 2003, they labeled as "unpatriotic" anyone who didn't support the invasion of Iraq. Those who opposed the President's decision to needlessly send our troops into danger were somehow "not supporting our troops." Now, they are calling Senator Kerry a flip-flopper because he supported the President. You can't have it both ways.

John Kerry has stood up to Bush and his partisans and pointed out that the war in Iraq has been recklessly mismanaged. That demonstrates Kerry's strength of character. [See, for example, Kerry's speech at New York University.]

"And then just 9 months later, he [Kerry] voted against an $87 billion supplemental budget to fund the war and support our troops."

Mayor Giuliani was the first of many speakers at the convention who ridiculed Senator Kerry for voting against the $87 billion bill to fight the war in Iraq.

Crunchweb shows how much $87 billion actually is. What could that $87 billion buy instead? Ask TomPaine.com.

What did Senator Kerry's (and George W. Bush's) constituents think of this request? ABC News tells us.

Now, let's look at what that $87 billion was actually for. I got this little snippet from the Christian Science Monitor.

1. A 4-week business course for 2,000 Iraqis, $20 million ($10,000 per pupil)
2. 40 new garbage trucks, $2 million ($50,000 per truck)
3. $900 million to import gasoline into the world's second-largest oil producer
4. $10 million to hire 100 prison-building experts; they would be paid $100,000 apiece for 6 months of work
5. $100 million to construct 7 planned communities. These new towns would include 3,258 houses, roads, an elementary school, two high schools, a clinic, a mosque, and a market for each community.
6. $100 million to establish a witness protection program for 100 5-person families at $200,000 per person
7. $164 million to train the new Iraqi army
8. $400 million to build two new prisons with total capacity of 8,000 beds; that's $50,000 per bed
9. $100 million to bring in 500 experts to investigate crimes against humanity; that's $200,000 per expert
10. $20 million to protect 400 judges and prosecutors (that's $50,000 per lawyer)
11. $150 million to begin work on a hospital that will actually cost about $600 million
12. $9 million to establish a new ZIP code system in Iraq
13. $54 million to study the Iraqi Post Office

According to Common Cause, a lot of that went in no-bid contracts to Bechtel and Halliburton. Plus, all the money was discretionary: George W. Bush could spend it wherever he liked, without Congressional oversight.

Of course Senator Kerry voted against the bill. You'd have to be crazy to endorse a travesty like that.

"President Bush will not allow countries that appear to have ignored the lessons of history and failed for over thirty years to stand up to terrorists, to dissuade us from what is necessary for our defense."

Now how did Mayor Giuliani come up with this? As I recall, the French and Germans opposed the invasion of Iraq because Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda were enemies, even though George W. Bush was claiming the opposite. They also believed that Bush's claims about Iraq's WMD were too flimsy.

Were they wrong?

As a result of President Chirac's position, all French people were branded as cowards, and U.S. Government cafeterias renamed "French Fries" to "Freedom Fries." It seems to me that the French were trying to dissuade us from fighting an unnecessary war. Isn't that what friends do, try to protect friends from danger?

The Bush Administration's has blatantly claimed that enemies are friends, allies are cowards, and wars need to be fought to destroy nonexistent weapons. To me, these sound disturbingly similar to Nazi propaganda's "really big lies." The Nazis believed that if they lied brazenly enough and often enough, the public would buy it, because people wouldn't want to believe their leaders capable of such audacity.

The Nazis ruled Germany for twelve years. Hitler claimed, with a perfectly straight face, that Poland started it.

"John Kerry's record of inconsistent positions on combatting terrorism gives us no confidence he'll pursue such a determined course."

What is he talking about? Mayor Giuliani has accused Senator Kerry of changing his mind about the war in Iraq, when Kerry has done no such thing. Giuliani then says that Kerry would be a poor leader in the fight against terrorism, when none of the examples Giuliani cites relate to terrorism. The only person being inconsistent here is Mr. Giuliani.

"To liberate people, give them a chance for accountable, decent government and rid the world of a pillar of support for global terrorism is something for which all those involved from President Bush to the brave men and women of our armed forces should be proud."

I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor. The war in Iraq may have started out as a humanitarian intervention - as British Prime Minister Tony Blair called it - but it didn't stay that way. Iraqi companies were sold to foreign firms, civilians arrested by mistake were tortured at Abu Ghraib, and about 15,000 Iraqis have been killed. [Source: www.iraqbodycount.net.]

Some liberation.

(Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth also applied a little common sense. Roth said that Saddam's 1988 genocide of the Kurdish minority could have justified intervention. "But such interventions should be reserved for stopping an imminent or ongoing slaughter," he said. "They shouldn't be used belatedly to address atrocities that were ignored in the past.")

"It was critical to remove the pillars of support for the global terrorist movement."

Iraq did participate in international terrorism... thirteen years ago. Their last mistake was the failed assassination of former President Bush, senior. In response, President Clinton bombed Saddam's military targets.

Clinton's strike was so successful in cowing Saddam Hussein that the saber-rattler extraordinaire never tried anything again. The pillars of support for terrorism in the Middle East were Afghanistan, home base of Al-Qaeda, and Iran, whose agents and partisans the CIA fought in secret during the 1990's. [Source: Against All Enemies]

Despite Bush's and Cheney's claims otherwise, Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with international terrorism in the 21st century. Saddam did brutalize the people of Iraq, but this was nothing new for him. He'd been doing it since he came to power thirty years ago.

According to the Bush Doctrine - i.e. all dictators are terrorists and must be destroyed with military force, no matter the cost in money, security, or American lives - we should have attacked Saddam in the 1980's, when he was actually getting close to building a nuclear bomb. So why didn't we?

Oh, yes. In the 1980's, Iran was a major enemy of the United States. Remember Ayatollah Khomeini? Saddam Hussein launched an unprovoked attack on Iran, and the Reagan Administration didn't really have a problem with this. So they sent an emissary to explain to Saddam in person that the United States, who had just condemned any use of chemical weapons, wasn't referring specifically to him and that we would look the other way if he used them against Iran.

The emissary? Donald Rumsfeld.

[Source: Common Dreams. Image courtesy of AWOLBush.com.]

"...accountable, decent government..."

Well, let me see. The United States tried to prevent direct elections in Iraq after taking control of the country, because the indications were that Iran-style Shiite puritans would win. So, the Coalition Provisional Authority's original plan was to appoint a body who would write Iraq a new constitution. [Source: MSNBC.]

The Iraqi people objected, because they thought - imagine this - that they should have a say in who wrote their constitution. Eventually, the CPA reluctantly conceded.

Doesn't sound like an accountable government to me.

"Maybe this explains John Edwards' need for two Americas -- one where John Kerry can vote for something and another where he can vote against the same thing."

"Need for two Americas?" That's preposterous. Senator Edwards has pointed out that Bush's tax cuts have made the rich richer while making the rest of us poorer. George W. Bush is trying to create two Americas by warping the tax code.  Edwards thinks that's a bad idea.

So do I. We live in a democracy, not a plutocracy. All people, no matter the size of their income, have an equal voice in our government and our society.

Saying John Edwards has a "need for two Americas" is like saying George Washington had a need for the British King.

Senator Elizabeth Dole

"Led now by President Bush, this Grand Old Party is still guided by a moral compass, its roots deep in the firm soil of timeless truths."

As I argued in George W. Bush Versus the Ten Commandments, George W. Bush's actions indicate that he is not guided by any moral compass. Bush doesn't worship God; he worships wealth. He believes that it's okay to covet (Iraqi oil); that's it's okay to steal (Iraqi state-owned businesses); and it's okay to bear false witness against any neighbor who has the gall to question your actions or run for President against you.

The "timeless truths" that George W. Bush adheres to are not age-old standards of human decency. It's the age-old story that power corrupts.

"Today our economy is recovering."

The reader will recall my argument above that Bush's economic policies defy the lessons of history, and any economic recovery is despite him, not because of him.

"Four years ago, 911 was just an emergency phone number. Today, it is a call to arms."

I remember when I respected and admired Elizabeth Dole, and I am saddened to hear a moderate Republican touting George W. Bush's party line and trying to exploit Al-Qaeda's murder of 3,000 innocent people for political gain. This is disgusting.

"Ronald Reagan . . . called an empire evil and won the Cold War."

I am reminded of another moderate Republican, Alexander Haig, who has been more courageous in standing up to George W. Bush. As we remember, Haig was Ronald Reagan's chief of staff. In an interview after President Reagan's passing, Haig told CBN:

"We have made a little too much of this preemptive strike. [Reagan] did achieve victory in the Cold War without going to war to do it."

As Lloyd Bentsen might say, I admired Ronald Reagan. I respected Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was a great man. George W. Bush is no Ronald Reagan.

Senator Dole continues:

"As the President said, "If you want to help in the war on terror, love your neighbor. Love your neighbor."

Someone ought to tell Mrs. Dole that this isn't what George W. Bush and John Ashcroft truly believe. According to Congressman Ron Paul, Americans were encouraged to spy on their neighbors after September 11th.

Antonio Davis-Fairman

"Social Security and education must be preserved."

Mr. Davis-Fairman, if you believe that no child should be left behind, I recommend you find a candidate other than George W. Bush.

Bush intends to privatize social security, and the AFL-CIO reports how disastrous this would be.

Clinton LeSueur

"George W. Bush is fully committed to preserving our foundation."

His actions prove otherwise. He has shown neither a commitment to faith nor to the Constitution.

Rodney Alexander

"God Bless our Troops. God Bless President Bush. And God Bless America!"

I share Mr. Alexander's sentiments. I pray that God will protect our troops, and I think Americans should do our part by bringing them home, out of danger, as quickly as possible. I also pray God to guide George W. Bush in the path of wisdom and honor.

(Personally, I think the path of wisdom would be to immediately fire Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Rice. The honorable path would be to apologize to the world for the invasion of Iraq and the needless deaths it caused, and apologize to the American people for his defiance of our Constitution.)

I don't agree with Mr. Alexander's semantics, though. God blessing our troops and blessing President Bush are not the same thing.

It seems to me that God does not actually need to bless George W. Bush. Like all kleptocrats, Bush is using the Presidency to bless himself.

Tim Escobar

"We need an America in which our sacred traditions, such as the Pledge of Allegiance and traditional marriage, are honored -- not redefined."

President Bush once said he wanted to be a "uniter, not a divider." [Source: USA Today.]

But I fail to see how Bush could possibly unite our country by focusing national attention on issues on which many Americans disagree, and by adding injury to insult by attempting to amend the Constitution.

"We need an America in which those who condemn our country and our soldiers in time of war are taken to task."

Mr. Escobar, as a fellow Californian, I am sorry I do not live in your district. It would be a great pleasure to vote against you.

Opposing George W. Bush's unnecessary war is a very different thing than condemning our country. I love this country with all my heart. I love our Constitution and our flag. And I am deeply offended when someone like Mr. Bush shows disdain for our Constitution. I am affronted when he tramples our country's values as embodied in our Declaration of Independence and our Bill of Rights.

Mr. Escobar, I have a different dream than you do. I think we need an America in which those who start superfluous wars are taken to task. I dream of a nation in which those who send our soldiers into danger needlessly are held accountable.

The America you describe is one where those who wish to safeguard our troops' lives from a war based on lies are ridiculed as unpatriotic. I hope your "America" passes swiftly into history.

In your Republican Party, mainstream politicians tell outrageous right-wing perversions, such as this: that to oppose a war means to hate our country. I oppose the Iraq War because I love our country. In the Republican Party of Theodore Roosevelt, you would be booed off the stage.

I have a different understanding of what patriotism means than you do, sir. I believe the most patriotic act is to tell the truth.

"We will never turn against our military wherever they are."

Let's see. What kind of records do George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld have?

They have cut health benefits to both active duty soldiers and veterans. They have cut hazardous duty pay for soldiers in Iraq. They have cut funds for veterans' hospitals. And they refused to provide body armor for some of the soldiers in Iraq. [Source: Veterans for Peace.]

Americans will always support our troops. The Bush Administration has not.

Bill Manger

"We revived an economy and are creating good jobs. To continue this progress, we must make the tax cuts permanent."

Bush's economic policies have clearly failed. Look at the stagflation in our economy. Look at the weakness of the dollar. Look at the largest deficits in history.

Giving tax cuts to rich people but not to everyone else has done terrible damage to the economy. Everyone has lost money.

Does anyone really want to make the economy of George W. Bush's presidency permanent?

"Republicans are following the inspiration of New York's own Teddy Roosevelt to ensure our natural resources are protected for generations."

You really think that?

Let's see here. How has George W. Bush protected our natural resources?

Senator Kit Bond

"Ladies and gentlemen, we have seen a concerted effort by the Democratic smear machine attacking the President."

Senator Bond is projecting. George W. Bush has done so many things wrong no one needs to invent anything. Bush's critics can just point to the facts.

Contrariwise, Senator Kerry has had a distinguished career. So, several Bush financiers organized the so-called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," a group of Republican veterans. Although none of the group's members served with John Kerry thirty years ago, they claim that he did not deserve the medals he won in Vietnam. According to the Washington Post and Intervention Magazine, their claims are contradicted by the official military records and by veterans who actually served with Kerry.

Senator Bond has invented a "Democratic smear machine" when it's the Bush campaign that's done what he describes. There is a word for a person who declares "do as I say, not as I do": a hypocrite.

"There was never pressure put on analysts to change their assessments on Iraq."

That story wasn't reported by a "Democratic smear machine." It was reported by the New Yorker. Similar stories appeared in the Washington Post, Veterans for Peace, and Common Dreams. It was confirmed by the Levin Report.

"He will continue to strengthen our Intelligence network - not politicize it as John Kerry has tried to do. President Bush knows that Intelligence is too important to be politicized."

Senator Bond's statements reveal the audacious nerve of the Bush Administration. The truth was a casualty of Bush's warmongering: they rewrote the CIA's findings. Guesses were recast as facts, worst-case scenario possibilities as certainties, and anything they didn't want to hear was thrown out. Anyone who found fault with this was accused of trying to politicize our intelligence network. But the network had already been politicized. Bush and Cheney had already decided that war was necessary. To them, that ideology was more important than any facts.

John Kerry wants to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Is that "politicizing" it?

Congressman Jim DeMint

"John Kerry and the Democrats have tried to convince America that the sky is falling."

Contrast that with Condoleeza Rice's statement on Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Dick Cheney's opinion? "We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons... Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." [Source: The White House.]

President Bush said: "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent...
"From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors...
"The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb...
"The dictator of Iraq is not disarming." [Source: the White House - the 2003 State of the Union address.]

We now know, of course, that Saddam's nuclear program had been decimated. [Source: CNN; the Washington Post; the Duelfer Report]

Congressman DeMint is projecting, just like Senator Bond. He accuses "Democrats" of behavior typical of the Bush Administration.

Congressman John Thune

"With the help of thousands of South Dakotans, we are going to end Tom Daschle's obstructionism in the Senate. The common sense agenda of President Bush and our Senate Republican Majority has been obstructed too long.
"Judicial nominations are dying in the 'Daschle Dead Zone.' Permanent tax cuts and Welfare reform are dying in the 'Zone.' Repeal of the death tax and the marriage penalty are dying in the 'Daschle Dead Zone.' Medical liability reform is dying at the hands of trial lawyers in the 'Zone.' "

What planet is Congressman Thune living on? Surely not ours.

Mr. Daschle is the Senate Minority leader. The Republicans have a majority. They don't need Mr. Daschle's help to pass their legislation. Mr. Daschle isn't capable of blocking the will of the Republican majority.

What's more, it's not enough for the Republicans to always get their legislative way. According to Former Vice President Gore, Democrats have been excluded from key conferences.

When he was running for President, George W. Bush called himself a uniter who focused on bipartisanship. There has been no hint of bipartisanship since he took office.

What's even more ironic is this: most Democrats in Congress haven't opposed most of George W. Bush's programs, even though they're far to the right of mainstream Republicans (such as Bush's father.) Senator Trent Lott once denounced Senator Daschle for criticizing the President during the (perpetual) War on Terror.

Ironically, Daschle hadn't questioned the President or the war. He had only debated the necessity of some of Bush's deficit spending.

Senator Daschle hasn't tried to obstruct Bush's programs. Even if he had, he doesn't have the power to obstruct any of the things Mr. Thune claims he can. That's the problem when a single political party controls all three branches of government, and that party is led by a reactionary.

I wish Daschle would try. Those who were acquainted with Mideast politics were aware that al-Qaeda was trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Al-Qaeda was probably still at it when the Bush Administration claimed they were all working together. Osama Bin Laden doubtlessly found this claim to be hilarious.

The same information was available to members of Congress as it was to the Middle East experts (such as Brent Scowcroft) and the general public. But when Bush decided to invade Iraq using the War on Terror as a pretext, almost no Congressional Democrats had the courage to oppose it. In fact, top Bush advisor Karl Rove suggested Republican candidates "run on the war" during the 2002 congressional election.

They did, and it worked. The Republicans retook control of the Senate, and their majority in the House of Representatives grew.

I personally believe that had Congress engaged in a serious debate about the war, as Senator Byrd urged, they might have reached the same conclusions that the September 11th Commission reached more than a year later. Alas, by then it was too late. Nearly a thousand American soldiers had been killed in Iraq, and more than six thousand wounded. [Source: Iraq Coalition Casualties]

Some opposition party.

"An energy bill including a national commitment to renewable fuels is dying in the "Daschle Dead Zone."

National commitment to renewable fuels? Senator Daschle couldn't possibly block an attempt by George W. Bush to do this, because there hasn't been one. Bush's rhetoric hasn't been followed by action.

"We can pass this common sense agenda when we defeat Tom Daschle and reelect President George Bush in November."

Cutting taxes only for rich people doesn't seem like common sense to me.

Refusing to enforce environmental protection laws doesn't seem like common sense either.

Where's the common sense in passing a so-called "PATRIOT Act" that pretends that the Bill of Rights doesn't exist?

Going from America's unprecedented international support after September 11th to an America that is feared around the world looks like gross incompetence to me.

George W. Bush doesn't HAVE a common sense agenda.

Pete Coors

"I'll be a voice for Colorado families for lower taxes and lower spending, a strong military and a growing economy that creates real opportunity for men and women throughout our state and our nation. Let's all get to work and elect George W. Bush for four more years and let's make sure he has a majority in the U.S. Senate."

B does not follow A here. Electing George W. Bush will be an endorsement of his policies: higher spending and tax codes that discriminate against anyone who isn't rich. If you truly believe in tax cuts, lower spending, and a growing economy, you should be opposing Bush.

Monty Warner

"President Bush will continue to work to aggressively pursue terrorists worldwide."

The reader has probably gotten tired of reading me complain that the political costs of fighting a war in Iraq have almost destroyed not only our efforts to stop terrorists, but has convinced the people of other nations that the "War on Terror" is only a sham for George W. Bush to crown himself World Emperor. If so, I apologize. It's just that I've gotten weary of hearing speaker after speaker praise Bush's efforts against terrorists when he brought those efforts to a screeching halt by invading Iraq.

Only an idiot begins a second war when he's already fighting one.

The simple truth is that worldwide anger at the unprovoked attack on Iraq only served to make Bin Laden's deranged anti-American propaganda sound more reasonable. [Source: Time Magazine.]

We need to fight terror in a way that protects Americans - not Halliburton.

Mayor Pat McCrory, Charlotte, NC

"President Bush has helped cities by winning passage of the most successful urban environmental legislation of the past decade. Because of the so-called Brownfields legislation, our cities are transforming blighted and polluted industrial sites into beautiful parks and neighborhoods."

According to FindLaw, the Brownfields legislation McCrory refers to may create health risks and environmental hazards. Are we sure that's a good idea?

Pastor Greg Laurie

"But we have sinned against You."

Christianity and Judaism teach this. But they're not the only religions in this nation. Neither Buddhists nor Muslims believe in original sin. Nor does Hinduism, nor Wicca, nor Christian Science, nor Confucianism, nor Taoism.

Freedom of religion means that we all have the right to practice our faith in the way we think best. It means all Americans must respect each other's faiths. It also means that no one has the right to shove their religion down anyone else's throat.

"You loved us so much that You sent Your Son, Jesus Christ to live the perfect life, then voluntarily go to a Cross to receive the penalty for our sin by dying for us, so that if we will turn from our sin and turn to You, in faith, we can be forgiven."

When George W. Bush asked Congress to ignore the First Amendment and make laws giving government funds to religious establishments ("faith based charities"), at least Bush remembered that there is more than one religion practiced in this country. According to the White House, Bush said:

"Government has often denied social service grants and contracts to these groups, just because they have a cross or a Star of David or a crescent on the wall."

The Christian religion is a great and benevolent faith whose progenitor was a true pacifist, but it's not the only religion in this nation.

We all believe in a loving, merciful, and just God. But not all Americans are Christians.

Were there any Jewish delegates at the convention? Although Jews and Christians revere the same God, the Jewish faith does not believe that Jesus was the Messiah.

Zainab al-Suwaij spoke earlier tonight. Muslims worship the same God that Jews and Christians do. Jesus is revered as a great prophet, but he does not have the same role in Islam that he does in Christianity.

Were there any Buddhists present? There are about 1 million in America. Buddhism is a religion of peace that holds many of the same beliefs as Christianity, but a Buddhist would not agree with Pastor Laurie's invocation.

The United States of America is founded on religious freedom. But not all Americans believe in the First Amendment. Pat Robertson once said:

"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist."

I now understand why Mr. Robertson, who ran for President in 1988, did not speak at this year's convention. The Republican moderates made his case for him.

I honor and respect Pat Robertson's faith. But the compassionate and meek Jesus I read about in the New Testament wouldn't countenance Robertson's callous dismissal of other Christians.

Jesus taught his followers to honor Judaism. I don't believe Jesus would disrespect other faiths, either.

America respects and honors all faiths. It's time that the speakers at the Republican National Convention remembered that, and stop assuming that we all belong to the same denomination.

"Thank you for the fact that our President, George W. Bush looks to you for wisdom each and every day. Thank you for giving him that wisdom and guiding his steps."

I disagree with Pastor Laurie here. Although I pray that God will lead George W. Bush along the path of wisdom, it seems to me that Bush has already chosen his own path. Bush chose to start a second war before we had won the first. He chose such an unbalanced and irresponsible tax policy that we have the largest deficits in history. He has undermined our freedom of religion, our freedom of assembly, and our judicial system - the institutions that made America what we are today. This isn't the path of wisdom. This is the path of incompetence.