Doesn't seem very compassionate to me.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist

"So here's the choice: do we grow the bureaucracy and gouge you with higher taxes, as Mr. Kerry will do?"

President Bush has already created the largest bureaucracy in history by signing the bill creating the Homeland Security department (which, unfortunately, doesn't have enough money to protect our homeland.) [Source: Congressman Ron Paul, Republican of Texas]

The Homeland Security department may be necessary in principle, but I doubt anyone, much less Senator Kerry, could whip out as much bureaucracy as fast as George W. Bush can.

Senator Frist claims Senator Kerry wishes to increase bureaucracy, but Bush already has. John Kerry has said nothing of the kind, and I'm inclined to give him a chance.

"But I'll tell you what Senator Kerry's prescription will be: take a handful of tax increases and don't call me in the morning."

If Senator Frist had been as careless reading his patients' charts as he has been reading Senator Kerry's record, he'd have been disbarred.

Senator Kerry has said repeatedly that all he plans to do is return the tax rates of the wealthiest 1% of Americans to their 1999 levels.

"Let me tell you what we won't do: we won't raise taxes on the middle class. You've heard a lot of false charges about this in recent months. So let me say straight out what I will do as President: I will cut middle class taxes. I will reduce the tax burden on small business. And I will roll back the tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals who make over $200,000 a year, so we can invest in job creation, health care and education." [Source: John Kerry's Website]

Kerry's proposals actually include a middle class tax cut, something that George W. Bush has talked about but not actually done. [Source: Kerry's Plan for America.]

I can't foretell the future, but given how good the economy was under Clinton, I would guess that wealthy people will make more than enough money from their investments to offset any tax increases.

I'm sure Senator Frist has many legitimate policy disagreements with Senator Kerry. I call upon Mr. Frist to debate Kerry's proposals on their merits, not lie about them.

"In 2000, before someone borrowed his line, George Bush promised that "help is on the way."

George W. Bush delivered another classic line when speaking to Swedish Prime Minister Perrson in June, 2001. "It's amazing I won. I was running against peace, prosperity, and incumbency."

"John Kerry claims that the President has put a "sweeping ban" on stem cell research. I challenge Mr. Kerry tonight: what ban? Shame on you, Mr. Kerry."

What ban? Well, the ban that 48 of your colleagues in the Senate asked him to lift. [Source: CNN]

That ban.

Elizabeth Hasselback

Ms. Hasselback presents a moving case for breast cancer research, a vitally important cause. I don't understand why she supports President Bush, though.

"The President is proposing nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars to assist researchers."

Alas, Bush's record on fighting this disease isn't that great. [Source: BushWatch.]

With President Bush, proposals don't translate into actions. George W. Bush believes so strongly in helping big corporations make profits at any cost, he's ended many of the environmental protections we've enjoyed in this country for thirty years. [Source: the Sierra Club.]

I'm not an expert in health issues, but doesn't pollution cause health problems? Having a clean environment - drinking water that's free from the mercury and arsenic President Bush doesn't consider dangerous - is a health issue. I don't see any concern for anyone's health in Bush's environmental record.

"That's why President Bush is increasing funding by over 20% to provide screening services for disadvantaged women many who will have access to life-saving technologies for the first time."

According to the Independent Weekly, Bush also blocked the publication of breast cancer research he thought would be bad for industry.

I don't recommend trusting Bush with health issues. To him, ideology - and profits - are more important than facts.

Secretary Rod Paige

Just so we all know what kind of person we're dealing with here, Secretary Paige once called the National Education Association a "terrorist organization." He later apologized for using those words, but not for the criticism. [Source: CNN.]

"Support for education under President Bush has gone up 36 percent with more funds requested for disadvantaged students than during the entire Clinton administration."

"Requested" is the operative word here. According to American Progress, George W. Bush called for a $2 billion increase after demanding a $1.6 billion cut. Even if he is actually spending more on education, he can't take credit for the entire $2 billion. The net increase is only $400 million.

"President Bush also increased Pell Grants funding so one million more young adults can afford college."

According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, Bush took Pell Grant money away from some students in order to give it to others. What an astounding achievement! He didn't increase any funding - he just changed the distribution.

"Our opponents voted for No Child Left Behind. They praised it then. Now they attack it."

Why, of course they attack this hypocrisy. The so-called No Child Left Behind act leaves every child behind because it's so underfunded it doesn't really do anything.

President Bush's supporters applaud him for proposing this bill, but he doesn't want to fund it, and the Republican-controlled Congress won't overrule him. It doesn't make sense to praise someone for creating grandiose-sounding programs and then not funding them.

Congressional Democrats have been asking the President to fund his proposals for a couple of years. Is this request what Mr. Thune called "Daschle's Dead Zone?"

"They say ... some children just can't learn."

Maybe I'm naive, but who in their right mind would say such a horrible thing? I don't know who Secretary Paige thinks he's talking about, but making this claim about Democrats is plainly absurd.

Lt. Gov. Michael Steele of Maryland

"We must continue to be vigilant in our fight against the blight of poverty, poor education and lost opportunity."

The "blight of poverty" grew by 1.3 million people in 2003. George W. Bush has shown no leadership in reversing this trend, and his irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthy probably helped cause it. Why would we want him in power for another four years? [Source: CNN.]

"President Bush didn't just hope for dramatic education reform, he turned that hope into No Child Left Behind, and our children are learning again."

See my response to Secretary Paige's similar statement, above.

America's students never stopped learning. Of course, many of our schools need help - but if any school in America is doing better, it's despite the Presidency of George W. Bush, not because of it.

"Just a year after the first attack on the World Trade Center..."

Ah, there we go ­ the obligatory reference to September 11th. Aren't Americans getting tired of being reminded about the social response to rally around a leader during a time of crisis? Somewhere in there, this stopped being a natural response and got turned into a patriotic duty.

Professor Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times: "His [Bush's] administration has sought to perpetuate the war psychology that makes such exploitation possible. Step by step, the fight against al-Qaida became a universal 'war on terror,' then a confrontation with the 'axis of evil,' then a war against all evil everywhere. Nobody knows where it all ends."

I would like to believe that Mr. Steele would similarly be rallying support for Al Gore had he been President on September 11th, 2001. (I also imagine that, should Mr. Steele ever read this, he'd laugh in my face.)

"...Most Most Senate Republicans and Senate Democrats voted to give our combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan the funding necessary for things like body armor. But not John Kerry."

First of all, the War in Iraq has nothing to do with Afghanistan, September 11th, terrorism, or al-Qaeda.

According to factcheck.org, "the body-armor money amounted to just over 1/3 of 1 percent of the $87 billion supplemental bill that Kerry opposed."

John Kerry asked that Bush pay for that $87 billion bill by canceling some of his tax cuts for the wealthy. Bush disagreed, and the President's version passed anyway. Lt. Governor Steele is criticizing Kerry for asking that the government spend our tax money responsibly.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

"...One of my movies was called "True Lies." It's what the Democrats should have called their convention."

I'm sorry, Governor. You're describing the wrong convention.

Schwarzenegger does not agree with George W. Bush on some key issues. Schwarzenegger is pro-choice, and opposes a Constitutional amendment to control marriages. Yet here he is, praising a man who wants to change our highest law to reflect his narrow-minded opinions.

As Senator Hillary Clinton told the Washington Post:

"They will have people on the stage who don't run the Congress, don't run the administration, but are going to be putting the kinder and gentler, compassionate-conservative look on this administration. The show that the Republicans will put on is not going to fool the American people this time."

I also read the speeches given at the Democratic convention. How many lies and misleading statements were there?

I only found one.

John Kerry said it in his acceptance speech on July 29, 2004.

"We're told that new jobs that pay $9,000 less than the jobs that have been lost is the best we can do. They say this is the best economy we've ever had. And they say that anyone who thinks otherwise is a pessimist."

I don't know of anyone in the Bush administration who has said this. But considering the dozens of lies and slanders the Republican convention hosted, I'm willing to forgive Kerry for this goof.

Schwarzenegger continues:

"One thing I learned about America is that if you work hard and play by the rules, this country is truly open to you."

Alas, this is not President Bush's America. In his world, you don't have to play by the rules in order to get ahead. You don't even have to be a successful businessman. You just need a famous name and a rich family. (Check out Bush's resume.)

You don't even have to play by the rules or abide by the Constitution when you become President. [See: George W. Bush Versus the Bill of Rights] You just have to be asleep at the wheel when our nation suffers a vicious terrorist attack, and everyone will rally around you and ignore your shortcomings.

"If you believe that government should be accountable to the people, not the people to the government...then you are a Republican!"

Arnold Schwarzenegger certainly believes this, as he became Governor of California after his predecessor was recalled for gross incompetence. Would that we could recall the President of the United States for the same reason!

Governor Schwarzenegger is talking about the traditional values of the Republican party, values that George W. Bush has trampled on.

According to Time Magazine, in Vice President Cheney's opinion, the Watergate scandal was the worst thing that ever happened to the Presidency. Not because President Nixon's aides broke the law, and Nixon broke it in trying to cover for them. Because they got caught, and were made to answer for their crimes.

Cheney believes the President should not be accountable to the people he serves. He believes that the President should be able to do what he likes, and if the law gets in the way, well, that's just too bad.

Apparently you don't even need the popular vote to get this kind of mandate.

Vice President Cheney has been doing everything he can to revive the so-called Imperial Presidency. For instance, the Bush Administration fought tooth and nail to prevent the creation of the 9/11 Commission. [Sources: CBS News, John W. Dean's Worse Than Watergate.]

As Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times,

"No administration since Nixon has been so insistent that it has the right to operate without oversight or accountability, and no administration since Nixon has shown itself to be so little deserving of that trust."

Schwarzenegger continues:

"Don't be economic girlie men!"

The San Francisco Chronicle responded: "Call us humorless, but it's neither witty nor accurate to equate femininity with weakness."

"America's economy is moving ahead in spite of a recession they inherited and in spite of the attack on our homeland."

If Bush inherited this recession - one that no one expected until the Supreme Court decided to halt the Florida recount and award him that state's electoral votes - than please provide some proof. I personally believe that Supreme Court decision shook the American People's faith in their government. After all, a failed businessman and former alcoholic had just become President-Elect.

I might be wrong. It's possible to look at the same economic evidence and come to a different conclusion. However, when the Federal surplus disappeared, President Bush promised: "Our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short term, so long as Congress restrains spending and acts in a fiscally responsible manner." [Source: The White House.]

Then, in record time, they became the largest deficits in history.

The Administration's response?

Dick Cheney told an incredulous Treasury Secretary O'Neill: "deficits don't matter."

"Ladies and gentlemen, America is back! back from the attack on our homeland..."

Here comes another reminder of September 11th. The Bush Administration is gambling their future on the psychology of an attacked nation rallying around the President.

Of course, the opposite is also possible. Bush might not want to remind the public that he presided over the largest security failure in American history.

"But leadership isn't about polls. It's about making decisions you think are right and then standing behind those decisions."

The President is the servant of the people. Surely starting a war in defiance of popular opinion means you should get voted out of office?

If going to war in Iraq was the right thing to do, then I might be able to agree with Schwarzenegger's statement regarding character. But I believe a real leader wouldn't need to lie in order to make his case.

I am reminded of another leader from history who held steadfast to his course, despite receiving new information that warned him it might not be wise to do so.

The captain of the Titanic.

Barbara Bush, daughter of the President

"Our parents taught us about being open-minded and treating everyone with respect."

I salute Miss Bush's loyalty to her father, but I must disagree with her.

I think my example regarding decisions, above, demonstrates how open-minded George W. Bush really is. His hatred of Saddam Hussein became an obsession. He believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and believed it so blindly that no matter how much the CIA or the UN weapons inspectors told him otherwise, he would not entertain a single doubt.

Bush's path led us to ruin in Iraq. We need to withdraw our solders from that country as quickly as is realistically possible without making the situation worse.

As far as "respect" goes: General Eric Shinseki and Army Secretary Thomas White told President Bush (and Secretary Rumsfeld) that 130,000 soldiers would be too few to conquer and hold Iraq. They were laughed at and fired. [Sources: Common Dreams; the New Yorker.]

Since the occupation began, a number of American leaders came to the same conclusion, including General Anthony Zinni and Senator John McCain.

Given how many of our soldiers' lives the Bush Administration's incompetence has already cost, I can't understand why an experienced soldier and war hero like Senator McCain supports him.

Laura Bush, First Lady

Mrs. Bush, did you get the copy of the Lysistrata I sent you a year ago last March?

"It [the campaign] has reminded me of our very first one, 26 years ago. George and I were newlyweds, and he was running for Congress."

It's funny, but understandable, that the First Lady wouldn't mention that her husband actually lost that race. George W. Bush never served in Congress.

"Last fall the President and I walked into an elementary school in Hawaii, and a little 2nd-grader came out to welcome us and bellowed, 'George Washington!' Close, just the wrong George W."

The differences between our first President and our current one could not be plainer.

George Washington believed that the President's role is to carry out the will of Congress.

George W. Bush thinks that Congress' role is to obey the will of the President.

Washington risked his life fighting to establish a government accountable to the people.

Bush sent other people to risk their lives, and claims to be accountable to no one. [Sources: Bob Woodward, John W. Dean's Worse than Watergate.]

George Washington and the other Founding Fathers brought us the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

George W. Bush and his colleagues brought us the Torture Memos and the so-called PATRIOT Act.

Close? George Washington would be horrified by George W. Bush.

"I could talk about the fact that my husband is the first President to provide federal funding for stem cell research."

The research he banned, you mean? [Source:CNN]

"The No Child Left Behind Act provides historic levels of funding with an unprecedented commitment to higher standards, strong accountability and proven methods of instruction."

And no empty promise beaten to death, either.

"We are determined to provide a quality education for every child in America."

You are? That's fantastic!

Then why don't you do it?

George W. Bush ran on a platform in 2000 that said he would improve education and protect the environment, not use our troops for nation building, cut taxes for the middle class, end our dependence on Mideast oil, and unite the country with bipartisanship.

In the past four years, George W. Bush has done the exact opposite, on education, the environment, nation building, taxes, oil, and bipartisanship.

But instead of admitting this, Bush claims he's steadfast, trustworthy, and keeps his word. He also disparages John Kerry as a flip-flopper.

So, let me get this straight. In 2000, Bush made a number of campaign promises. When he came to power, he did the precise opposite of everything he promised. Now he again promises he's going to leave no child behind - in other words, completely contradict everything he's done for the last four years. All the while, he claims to be a straight talker whose word is impeccable.

Mr. Bush expects that the American people will actually elect him to the office he holds based on this kind of duplicity.

Just how naive does he think we are?

I'm sorry, Mr. Bush. A great leader of the party you claim to represent once said, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."

Another American President once said: "The Republican candidate and the Republican Congress do not trust the people. They just work along at their old problem of trying to fool the people into voting for the interests of the few."

That was Harry Truman, in 1948. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

"These last three years since September 11, have been difficult years in our country's history..."

There we go, the yet another reference to September 11th. But, alas, before we'd even finished fighting the Taliban, George W. Bush started preparing for war with Iraq. [Sources: Plan of Attack; The Seattle Times.]

Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. There were far more serious threats, such as Iran. The war in Iraq was a huge propaganda victory for Osama Bin Laden, for the United States conquered an oil-rich Arab Muslim nation ostensibly to destroy weapons that didn't exist. When it turned out the weapons weren't there, the Bush Administration started following Tony Blair's example and touting the invasion as a humanitarian intervention. The people of the world have trouble believing that, though, due to the rising casualties there and the stories and pictures that came out of Abu Ghraib.

I wouldn't keep harping on about this point if Bush's supporters would stop exploiting the murder of 3,000 people for political gain.

A lot more could be said - and has been said - about the Bush Administration's hypocrisy. I direct the reader to the links on my Politics Page.

By the way, the First Lady may be interested in history, but her husband isn't. According to Bob Woodward, when asked how history would judge the Iraq war, Bush replied:

"We don't know. We'll all be dead."

The First Lady continues:

"No American President ever wants to go to war."

Sure he did.

Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill wrote about the first cabinet meeting of the new Bush Administration, in February, 2001. At this meeting, the Bush team - the new President, along with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, and Rice - had already decided that they were going to war with Iraq some time in the next four years. O'Neill - along with Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet, and NSA Officer Richard Clarke - tried to reason with them, but no amount of logic could dissuade them.

Mrs. Bush wasn't at that meeting, so I suppose she might not be aware of this. But it's impossible to reconcile her statement with O'Neill's (and Clarke's, and Woodward's) version of events. How well does Mrs. Bush know her husband? Is she ignorant, or is she lying?

"George and Prime Minister Tony Blair were discussing the threat from Saddam Hussein."

The threat your husband deliberately exaggerated, you mean?

"I knew he was wrestling with these agonizing decisions that would have such profound consequence for so many lives and for the future of our world."

Let me get this straight.

In 1998, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle decided that the United States must use military force to conquer Iraq. [Source: Project for the New American Century]

Two years later, George W. Bush chose Cheney for the Vice Presidency, and nominated Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz to run the Defense Department.

In 2001, at one of the first cabinet meetings, George W. Bush announced that he completely agreed with their assessment, and they'd be going to war some time during his administration. [Source: Paul O'Neill]

On September 11th, Donald Rumsfeld suggested blaming Saddam Hussein for Osama Bin Laden's terrorist attacks. [Source: the Sunday Herald.] Wolfowitz agreed. [Source: Richard Clarke.]

George W. Bush couldn't possibly have been "wrestling" with the decision to attack Iraq in 2002-2003. He'd already made it at least two years previously.

You don't know your husband's advisors very well, do you?

"After years of being treated as virtual prisoners in their own homes by the Taliban, the women of Afghanistan are going back to work. After being denied an education, even the chance to learn to read, -- the little girls in Afghanistan are now in school."

This is correct. After living for several years under Taliban tyranny, the Afghan people are starting to emerge from the dark ages. And I'm sure they're grateful for America's help.

Mr. Bush does not seem to realize that they still need it, though. The Taliban still controls part of Afghanistan - I once read an estimate that they've reconquered a third of the country - and it's becoming increasingly difficult for NATO to provide security there. The United States is unable to offer more help than we already have, though, because our military is stretched to the breaking point with occupying Iraq.

"Almost every eligible voter - over ten million Afghan citizens - have registered to vote in this fall's presidential election. More than 40 percent of them women."

As Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times, "Mr. Bush and other administration officials often talk about the 10.5 million Afghans who have registered to vote in this month's election, citing the figure as proof that democracy is making strides after all. They count on the public not to know, and reporters not to mention, that the number of people registered considerably exceeds all estimates of the eligible population. What they call evidence of democracy on the march is actually evidence of large-scale electoral fraud."

"Some people hate us because we stand for liberty, religious freedom and tolerance."

To have this kind of naivete on the part of the First Lady of the United States is terrifying.

It's hardly her fault, though. After September 11th, President Bush said "Americans are asking, why do they hate us? ... They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." [Source: The White House.]

That is wildly inaccurate. Al-Qaeda attacked us because they wanted to demonstrate that the United States was vulnerable, and thus show that the United States' Islamic allies - like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan - are also vulnerable. Al-Qaeda's causus bellum was the presence of American troops deployed in Saudi Arabia, past American support for dictators such as the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein, and American support for Israel.

Ironically, one of Osama Bin Laden's objectives has been achieved. American soldiers are no longer stationed in Saudi Arabia; they're now occupying Iraq. The problem is, the bloodshed there has only made Bin Laden's anti-American call to arms more appealing.

The only way for our nation to truly be victorious against Bin Laden and those like him is to fight terror at its roots. We must fight poverty and injustice. We must work with our allies to promote human rights. And we must engage other nations and prove that we respect their cultures.

Regardless of anyone's feelings on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the fact is that the peoples of many Arab and Muslim nations believe Israel to be in the wrong. America must use our prestige and financial power to urge the Israelis and the Palestinians to negotiate a mutually acceptable peace. A settlement that one side imposes at gunpoint won't solve anything. Presidents Bush, senior, and Clinton proved that working for peace will reward us with support and respect among the Arab and Muslim peoples.

The only reason for Bin Laden's hatred that George W. Bush and his people will acknowledge is the difference in political philosophy. But George W. Bush won't even acknowledge the reasons that Arabs and Muslims may find Bin Laden's perversion of Islam appealing. According to Zogby International, a polling company, majorities in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates all have positive views of American people, movies, television, products, freedom, and democracy. But a majority said that they disapproved of American foreign policy towards Israel and the Palestinians.

The September 11th Commission agrees, concluding that "support for the US has plummeted" in the Muslim world.

Any soldier will tell you: you can't fight an enemy that you don't understand. And Bush's obsession with Saddam Hussein has crippled our ability to fight America's real enemy, Al-Qaeda.