"A Land of Opportunities (to Slander John Kerry)"
Archbishop Demetrios
"We thank You [God] especially for the gifts of liberty and prosperity and for the call to be defenders and promoters of justice and freedom for all peoples."
Why should the Iraqi people, of all the people in the world who deserve freedom, be the ones to get an American invasion to give it to them?
The Iraqis certainly deserved better than Saddam Hussein. Every human being in the world deserves to be free and to live their lives without a brutal tyrant like Saddam dominating their lives and the lives of their families.
But what about the North Korean people? Two million of them have starved over the last decade because their dictator, Kim Jong Il, is obsessed with building nuclear weapons. Unlike Saddam Hussein, he probably has them. [Source: CNN.]
And what about the people of Burma, whose military rulers are just as amoral as Saddam?
What about the Iranians? According to counter-terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke
The liberation of the Iraqi people was undoubtedly a good thing, but was it worth 1,100 American lives? Aren't nations like North Korea and Iran far more dangerous?
"Remember now your servants, President George W. Bush, and Vice-President Richard Cheney. Give them at all times the wisdom from above; the dedication to justice..."
I hope that Archbishop Demetrios' prayer is answered, and that Jose Padilla and the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are charged and convicted of crimes... instead of being arrested and locked up in cells for years without ever being charged with terrorism or access to legal counsel.
"...the knowledge of the truth that sets us free..."
Knowledge of the truth is a beginning, but in and of itself it is not enough. One must use that knowledge to act with wisdom.
Dick Cheney continues to insist that there was cooperation between Saddam Hussein and the Al-Qaeda terrorists who armed his enemies. [Sources: CNN, TruthOut.]
The Vice President lied about this to justify the war, and continues to lie about it despite the 9/11 Commission's report proving otherwise.
I'm sure he knows the truth. I just don't think he cares.
"...above all, the love for this nation and for all people, both friend and foe alike."
Does Senator Kerry count among the foes the Archbishop mentions?
I call upon the President and Vice President to honor the truth about their own records and about Senator Kerry's. I'm sure they honestly disagree about some things, but they should make their case on the merits, not by misrepresenting other candidates.
Governor Linda Lingle of Hawaii
"President Bush pulled our nation's economy out of the recession he inherited, and put us on the right track."
George W. Bush did not inherit this recession. The economy was very strong during the later years of the Clinton administration. Things started to go sour soon after the election in November 2000.
I believe that the debacle with the electoral college caused some Americans to lose faith in their government.
George W. Bush's economic policies may not have caused the recession, but it began as soon as his name was heard in the same sentence as "president-elect."
"The economy is strong and getting stronger."
Tell that to the 2 million people who were employed when George W. Bush took office, and are unemployed now.
Tell the people - like myself - who had to take jobs that paid less in order to continue working. Unfortunately for me, inflation didn't slow down when the job market did.
"The President's policies of a limited, but effective government..."
George W. Bush signed the bill creating the Homeland Security department - the largest government bureaucracy in American history. Although the Homeland Security department may be necessary, it doesn't make any sense to create more bureaucracy and then cut taxes.
The Homeland Security Department is so underfunded that they don't have the money to actually protect our homeland - all the money is tied up in paperwork.
I love low taxes. Everyone does. But I'm not fooled by George W. Bush's contradictions. First he increases the size of government to record levels. Then he claims he believes in "limited government," and justifies this claim by cutting taxes for rich people. That's not conservatism. That's incompetence.
"...Tax cuts to allow families to keep more of their hard-earned money..."
What tax cuts? Unless you make more than $200,000 per year, you didn't get one. I certainly didn't. I did pay less taxes in 2003 than I did in 2002, though - because I was unemployed for part of that year.
The only thing that Bush's deficits have done is weaken the dollar. [Sources: The Christian Science Monitor; The Guardian.]
The evidence is there. Although there is some merit to "supply side" economics, Clinton's economic policy was more effective in making the economy stronger. Only an idiot cuts taxes and fights two wars at the same time. As John Kerry said, "We didn't need that tax cut. America needed to be safe."
It seems to me that any economic recovery is happening despite George W. Bush, not because of him.
"The President's policies... have created a climate for growth and job creation."
According to Paul O'Neill, Dick Cheney thinks that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
They do matter. George Bush, senior, continued the economic policies he once called "voodoo economics," and got voted out of office partially because they didn't stop the recession of the early 1990's. Now we have the same policies on steroids, and a climate of stagflation.
Clinton's economics worked. He eliminated the deficit. This strengthened the dollar and improved the economy. He did raise taxes on the ultra-wealthy - people like Bill Gates and the Waltons - and that helped everyone. Even the very wealthy ended up making more money, despite their higher taxes.
"He [Bush] has turned our country around by following his strong convictions and doing what he believes is right, rather than changing his beliefs in response to the latest opinion poll."
Yes, that's true. George W. Bush has no interest in opinion polls. I honestly don't think he cares what the American people think.
That started on day one. After the closest election in modern history, Al Gore won the popular vote, but didn't become President - because George W. Bush won the electoral college.
George W. Bush would not have won the electoral college if he hadn't won Florida - votes he was awarded despite the scandals there. [More on this later.]
But nobody suggested that George W. Bush bow to popular opinion and concede to Gore.
Two years later, George W. Bush decided to attack Iraq. Before the war even started, people began to protest in dozens of countries.
As Al Franken put it,
"...Bush's response to whether the largest simultaneous antiwar protests in human history had made any sort of impression on him. 'Size of protest,' he said, 'it's like deciding, well, I'm going to decide policy based upon a focus group.' A ten million person focus group." The anti-war protesters realized that Saddam Hussein wasn't in league with the September 11th terrorists, and - although we all thought Saddam had at least some WMD - we knew he wouldn't give them to Al-Qaeda, because they'd be used against him. We also suspected that George W. Bush was exaggerating Saddam's arsenal beyond any reasonable proportion.
The protesters were proven right, of course, by David Kay, the September 11th Commission, the Duelfer Report, and the Levin Report.
What can George W. Bush possibly say to the families whose loved ones he sent to their deaths on the basis of doctored intelligence?
No, George W. Bush doesn't change "...his beliefs in response to the latest opinion poll." But the last time I checked, the President was the servant of the people.
History will remember Bush as the President who started a war the country didn't want, didn't need, and made us weaker.
"Thanks to the leadership of our President, America is safer for our children. It's safer for the rest of us too."
America is only safer if you don't think it's a problem that the unprovoked invasion of Iraq has convinced people around the world who once admired the United States that we are a greedy, hypocritical empire. [Source: the Christian Science Monitor.]
It might be just me, but I think this might one day be an issue.
Brian Sandoval
"From Project Safe Neighborhoods to the President's fight against identity theft, from his anti-drug strategy to his plan to eradicate gun crime in America, this President has demonstrated an ability to lead."
Does this plan include letting the assault-weapons ban expire, as it did in September 2004? [Source: MSNBC]
Senator Rick Santorum
"Our best hope - will not be found in the laws of men..."
This statement truly frightens me. Is Senator Santorum suggesting that our nation's laws aren't important?
Perhaps he is only suggesting - as a Justice Department memo has - that the President is above the law so long as he is acting in his capacity as Commander in Chief. (In other words, all the time.)
But we are a nation of laws, and the legal precedent of 200 years of American democracy has demonstrated that no one - not Richard Nixon, not Bill Clinton, not George W. Bush - is above the law.
Now, if I were to break the law, I would be caught, tried, and convicted. I might do jail time.
Is Senator Santorum suggesting that George W. Bush should not be held to the same standard that everyone else is? Someone should remind him that in the United States we elect Presidents, not Kings. I'm sorry, Senator. Laws mean nothing if they don't apply equally to everyone. We cannot have one law for George W. Bush and another law for everyone else. The Declaration of Independence declares that "all men are created equal."
I know there's at least one person in this nation who agrees with me: former Vice President Gore.
"John Kerry... joined Senate Democrats in blocking the President's... faith-based initiatives."
The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
John Kerry helped defeat the President's efforts to give Federal money to religious organizations? Thank God.
"He says he's "concerned" about the separation of church and state."
A member of my government just went on national television and said we should get rid of the First Amendment.
What happened to my country??
Oh yeah. George W. Bush came to power.
I, too, am concerned about George W. Bush's blatant defiance of the Constitution. The Federal Government cannot give money to churches, period. If George W. Bush is permitted to choose which religious charities to fund and which not to, he will favor some churches over others... and discriminate against most of America. If churches receive Federal funding, then the Federal government will have a say on how they spend their money. If the government doesn't like what your faith-based charity is doing with our tax dollars, they will give the money to someone else.
May I see a show of hands for how many people want the government giving money to someone else's church? Ok, thank you.
May I also see how many people want the government to tell their church how to spend its money? Thanks.
Everyone who didn't raise their hand, please vote for John Kerry.
I do not agree with Senator Kerry on everything, but I love the Constitution. A candidate doesn't have to agree with me in order to be President. He or she does have to believe in the Constitution.
President Kerry will uphold the Constitution, and George W. Bush has already said that he won't. Senator Kerry gets my vote. It's that simple.
The problem isn't that Senator Kerry is concerned about the Constitution - it's that George W. Bush and Rick Santorum are not. The First Amendment is patriotic - and I call upon the people of Pennsylvania to vote this un-American bigot out of office.
"George Bush has shown his compassion by advancing his faith-based initiatives, strengthening marriage..."
If Senator Santorum refers to the President's attempt to amend the Constitution to control marriages, then I see nothing compassionate about that. The President of the United States has no right to tell anyone in this nation whom they can and cannot marry. Does anyone want to empower the Federal Government to decide that for you?
It's a wonderful idea, Senator, to debate the definition of "marriage" instead of the war in Iraq, when American soldiers are dying there.
"Senator Kerry should worry more about the separation of children from their fathers."
He is. As Kerry said in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, "it is time for those who talk about family values to start valuing families." [Source: MSNBC]
The war in Iraq has separated children from fathers. Right now, 140,000 American soldiers are serving there, 7,000 have been wounded, and 1,100 have been killed. [Source: Iraq Coalition Casualties]
If Senator Santorum is truly concerned about children being separated from their fathers, he should fight to bring those thousands of fathers home from Iraq. He should work to reunite our troops - both male and female - with their families. And he should strive to ensure that no American soldier is sent into battle unnecessarily.
"...fighting to let the American people define marriage, not left-wing judges."
I seem to remember a situation in November 2000 when the American people chose a president, and some right-wing judges overrode the popular vote by letting some disputed electoral votes stand.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that the American people actually do want the Federal government to tell them whom they're allowed to marry. So, Senator - it's permissible for a right-wing judge to override the American people's choice, but not for a left-wing judge to do so?
Elaine Chao, Secretary of Labor
"President Bush has appointed record numbers of Asian-Pacific Americans to the highest levels of his Administration."
Well, according to womensenews.org, in the first year of his Administration, Bush appointed 37% less women than Bill Clinton had during his first year.
"President Bush began by transforming our nation's public schools, and by extending Pell Grants to one million additional college students."
George W. Bush did this by taking grants from other students. That's not "extending." That's reallocating.
"Yet this President will not rest until every American who wants a job can find one."
And this is why he wants to bring in more immigrant workers when we already have 8.2 million unemployed Americans already in this country?
Give me a break.
Since George W. Bush came to office, 2 million people who had jobs are now unemployed.
Given this record, President Bush will be able to single-handedly keep all the coffee farmers in the world employed as long as he's in office. He's going to need a LOT of coffee to go without sleep indefinitely.
Congressman Rob Portman
"This President inherited an economy spiraling into recession, and already losing jobs in states like Ohio."
Maybe he did, maybe not. Economics is not an exact science.
Budgeting, however, is. A responsible person knows that you have to limit your spending based on your income, or you'll get into trouble.
George W. Bush has run the government the same way he ran his businesses: into bankruptcy. [Source: CorpWatch.org.] You can't fight a war, increase spending, and cut taxes at the same time. What's more, according to Citizens Against Government Waste, the government wastes obscene amounts of our tax dollars as it is.
Government must be run responsibly. If you need to spend more on something, you should spend less on something else. You can't increase your spending when you decrease your income. You don't need to be an economist to understand that.
"They know government doesn't create jobs, regardless of how many promises Senator Kerry makes."
Well, the government CAN hire more bureaucrats, but we all know that's a bad idea. 
Honestly, the government can promote a healthy economy by keeping taxes within reasonable levels and balancing the budget. It can also battle inflation by changing interest rates. These actions can strengthen the dollar, which in turn strengthens the economy.
Look at what the largest deficits in history have done to the economy. There are 2 million people unemployed today who had jobs when George W. Bush came to power. Then there are people like me, who were laid off - and had to take lower paying jobs in order to keep working.
Portman would like me to believe this is a coincidence.
I don't think so.
"These Ohio workers get it... This means continuing the Bush tax cuts, not raising taxes just as jobs are coming back!"
I don't get it. Congressman Portman is talking about Ohio workers, then talks about Senator Kerry raising taxes. Kerry won't raise taxes for Ohio workers. (That is, unless those Ohio workers are the richest 1% of the population, in which case I'm moving to Ohio.)
Now what did John Kerry really say?
"We won't raise taxes on the middle class. You've heard a lot of false charges about this in recent months. I will cut middle class taxes."
Portman continues:
"This means a fair judicial system, not job-destroying frivolous lawsuits!"
Well, let's look at George W. Bush's judicial record, shall we?
First of all, he became President because the Supreme Court decided who should get the disputed Florida electoral votes, even though, according to the Constitution, the House of Representatives is supposed to make that decision. The Supreme Court has four Democrats and five Republicans. They voted along party lines, so Bush won.
The problem was, Justice Thomas' wife worked for the Bush Campaign, and Justice Scalia's son's law firm was representing George W. Bush's case to the Court. Both those Justices were ethically obliged to recuse themselves from the decision - but they did not.
If they had, the vote (still along party lines) would have been 4-3 in favor of Al Gore - the winner of the popular vote.
In my opinion, the Supreme Court should have ignored party lines and voted for whomever won the popular vote. Al Gore should have won, 7-0. But instead, they voted 5-4 to let any wrongdoing in Florida stand.
Doesn't sound like a fair judicial system to me.
It gets worse. According to the Washington Post, after September 11th, the Justice Department prepared a legal opinion to guide interrogations of inspected terrorists. This document declared that the President wasn't obliged to follow the law so long as he was Commander in Chief.
You read that right. The Justice Department says the President doesn't have to obey the law so long as he's President, by virtue of his being President.
The Justice Department opinion declared that accused terrorists aren't entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. It also altered the common definition of how much you're allowed to beat someone up before it's considered "torture."
George W. Bush nominated Jay Bybee (the author of this legal mockery) to a judgeship, where he now serves.
Is this the America we want to live in?
Congressman Paul Ryan
"When George Bush entered the White House, he inherited an economy that was sliding toward recession."
That's your opinion, and apparently the official party line. Congressman Ryan is parroting the previous speaker.
"In response, President Bush delivered broad tax relief for all Americans because he understands that people, not government, start the businesses and create the jobs that drive our economy."
George W. Bush's tax relief did not help "all Americans." He did send a tax refund check of $300 to a number of taxpayers, a decision that I can't fault. Bill Clinton created that surplus. Bush didn't.
The only people whose taxes Bush cut were the richest one percent of the nation - guaranteeing that the government would never be able to afford to send rebate checks again.
As a member of Congress, Mr. Ryan should know that.
"He pushed Congress to accelerate the tax cuts to boost growth and job creation."
The Republican Congress loyally obeyed George W. Bush's will, and millionaires' taxes were cut even more. Mr. Ryan is mistaken, though. There is no solid proof that this resulted in any new jobs being created.
"During the past year, we've created over 1.5 million new jobs."
Creating new jobs is great, but it's not happening fast enough to help the 2 million other people who were employed at the time George W. Bush came to power, lost their jobs, and are still unemployed. We're losing them faster than we're gaining them.
"And we all know how he [Senator Kerry] would pay for this explosion in new spending...he would need to raise your taxes."
Let me get this straight. According to Congressman Ryan, Kerry will cause an "explosion in spending" and will have to raise taxes to pay for it. However, George W. Bush has already created a spending explosion, and lowered taxes at the same time, thus rendering himself unable to pay for it. Unfortunately for George W. Bush, you can't spend money that doesn't exist. Eventually, someone will have to pay for Bush's skyrocketing spending.
Our children.
In his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention, Senator Kerry said:
"Our plan will cut the deficit in half in four years by ending tax giveaways that are nothing more than corporate welfare, and will make government live by the rule that every family has to follow: pay as you go."
This makes sense to me. Given George W. Bush's record, I'm inclined to give John Kerry the benefit of the doubt. I have no reason to doubt Kerry's word. I have every reason to doubt Bush's.
Kerry believes that it will take eight years to fix the problems George W. Bush caused in two. Now let's assume that George W. Bush takes the oath of office again in January. How long do you think it will take to fix the deficits caused by eight years of Bush's economic recklessness?
Ryan continues:
"John Kerry believes that government can spend our money better than we can."
That isn't true.
As I said in my Open Letter to Governor Schwartzenegger, John Kerry is the most conservative politician to win the Democratic nomination in half a century. Kerry doesn't believe what Congressman Ryan claims he does. I'm sure there are plenty of things on which Congressman Ryan and Senator Kerry actually disagree. Mr. Ryan should focus on those, instead of making things up.
"Anger is not a governing philosophy."
No, it's not, and neither is lying about your opponent. Congressman Ryan, please put your money where your mouth is and stick to the issues.
"Class warfare is not an economic policy."
Funny, I haven't heard a politician use that phrase since the fall of the Soviet Union! Is Congressman Ryan suggesting Senator Kerry is a communist? Wake up, Congressman. It's the 21st century, and the Cold War is over. Senator Kerry wants to return tax levels to what they were in 1999, when we had a huge economic boom and balanced the budget. George W. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy have made the rich richer at the expense of everyone else. Bush's programs sound a lot more like "class warfare" to me than Kerry's do.
"The politics of division will not make America stronger and it will not lead to prosperity."
I wish Congressman Ryan would tell that to his party's leader.
George W. Bush wants to store the nation's nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, even though Nevadans overwhelmingly oppose that. [Source: the State of Nevada]
George W. Bush insisted on opening the debate on a Constitutional Amendment to change the dictionary during an election year.
George W. Bush's rush to attack Iraq triggered the largest simultaneous antiwar protests in human history.
George W. Bush claimed to believe in unity and bipartisanship in the 2000 Presidential campaign - but the only unity he's championed since becoming President is the supposed "duty" of every American to do what he says and ask no questions.
Mr. Ryan is correct when he says that division has neither led to strength nor to prosperity. That's why I'm voting for John Kerry. Politics is the art of compromise. George W. Bush isn't a compromiser. He's a bully.
"...We offer a more hopeful vision to America by reaffirming our Party's commitment to freedom and opportunity for all. "
Well, according to Global Security, the United States has tried to prevent direct elections in Iraq.
If we went to war to liberate them, doesn't it make sense to let them choose their own government?
As far as freedom goes in this country: Jose Padilla was arrested in Chicago and has been held without charge, counsel or trial ever since. Padilla is an ex-convict, but the Justice Department hasn't provided a shred of evidence that Padilla even thought about planning the crime they say he did. Couple that with the FBI's counter-terrorism department infiltrating anti-war organizations - and we've got a problem.
If investigating pacifists is more important than investigating terrorists, this country is in serious trouble. If they can imprison someone forever with no evidence of the crime suspected, and anyone who protests a war is a suspect, it's the end of freedom in this country.
Michael Reagan
"Ronald Reagan didn't win the Cold War and ignite our economy with funny stories and beautiful words!"
This is true. He was a great, inspiring speaker, a man of moral principles who articulated them. When he made mistakes - as he did in the Iran-Contra scandal - he admitted them, and apologized for them.
George W. Bush isn't worthy to lead the party of Reagan. Bush is a hypocrite, who's championed education, freedom, and peace - and undermined all three. Bush has made countless mistakes - ignoring the threat from Al-Qaeda [Sources: CNN, BuzzFlash] and the real cost of occupying Iraq, for instance.
It was 949 days into his presidency before Bush could admit a single "miscalculation."
This just happened last week, and is entirely unprecedented. I'm surprised it happened in time to be included in this essay.
"He [Reagan] believed America was placed between the oceans to be a beacon of freedom for the world..."
Yes, he did - and he believed that America should lead by example. Reagan would never have countenanced laws like the so-called PATRIOT Act. As Alexander Haig said, Reagan won the Cold War - without firing a shot. Reagan opposed the Soviet Union with his strength of character, and didn't try to impose democracy at gunpoint.
"...A place where man was not beholden to government, government was beholden to man."
By contrast, Dick Cheney believes that the Presidency should be unaccountable. [Sources: Time Magazine, John Dean's Worse Than Watergate
Lt. Governor Kerry Healey of Massachusetts
"The truth is that John Kerry - and not Ted Kennedy - is the most liberal Senator in the United States."
That is plain ridiculous. There were ten Democrats vying for the Presidential nomination: the conservatives (Kerry, Edwards and Lieberman); the moderates (Clark, Gephardt and Graham); and the liberals (Braun, Dean, Kucinich, and Sharpton.) The conservatives easily won the primaries. My first choice for President was Congressman Kucinich. That's right - I'm a centrist, and I voted for a left-wing radical. I supported him because he had the courage to stand up to George W. Bush's warmongering. Kucinich ran for President because he knew someone had to tell the truth about the war in Iraq. He was brave enough to state out loud that the war would damage our efforts against Al-Qaeda, and to say that North Korea was a far greater threat. He did this back when fear of being labeled unpatriotic had silenced all Republicans, almost all Democrats, and the entire mainstream press. I supported Kucinich not because I agree with all his proposals - I don't think we need a Department of Peace, for instance - but because I admired him for telling the truth.
Kucinich did not gain much popular support. The majority of Democrats united behind Senator Kerry, one of the three conservatives in the race. Kerry then chose John Edwards as his running mate - one of the remaining two conservatives.
"He is simply out of the mainstream..."
I don't agree with Senator Kerry on everything, either. He doesn't oppose the war in Iraq in principle. He does believe George W. Bush should not have attacked without UN approval. He does understand that the occupation has been a disaster.
But Kerry has won my support, and not just because he's the alternative to Bush. Kerry talks sense on economics. He believes in protecting the environment. He wants to explore alternate fuel sources and phase out America's dependence on Mideast oil. He is pro-choice without being pro-abortion.
Kerry is a textbook example of a mainstream politician. The Senator is a conservative Democrat. George W. Bush is a reactionary.
Bush has pushed the Republican party that I was raised in so far to the right that it borders on fascism. No longer does the GOP embrace the moderate conservatism of George Bush, senior.
Because of the Republican party's sprint rightwards, America's political center has moved to the right along with it. Being a centrist no longer means what it did four years ago.
At least one person in the House of Representatives agrees with this assessment: Congressman Major Owens. [Source: CBS News.]
"...He [Kerry] shifts with the tides..."
Changing your mind when the situation changes is a mark of wisdom. It's not the mark of a great leader to stand by a failed policy, as Bush has done on Iraq. [Source: MSNBC.]
"Sticking to the truth takes the courage to make tough choices."
It also takes the courage to tell the truth. In that arena, George W. Bush is severely lacking. See: Bush Lies, Bush Flip Flops, Bush Watch, Iraq Lies... etc.
Governor Mitt Romney
"If you want cuts in intelligence funding, then yes, send him [Senator Kerry]."
According to the Washington Post, John Ashcroft cut the FBI's counter-terrorism budget in the months before the terrorist attacks of September 11th, and refused to restore it shortly afterwards. There's no critic quite like a hypocrite, Governor.
"He voted NO on Desert Storm in 1991 and YES on Desert Shield today. "
Many Democrats in Congress voted no on Desert Storm. That was thirteen years ago.
By the way, "Desert Shield" wasn't today - it was in 1990.
Remember what George W. Bush was doing thirteen years ago? [Ask CNN.]
"Then he [Kerry] voted NO on troop funding, just after he had voted YES."
I don't know why they keep droning on about this. Remember what the bill that Kerry voted against actually did?
Of course, the Republicans control Congress, and the bill passed anyway.
"He's campaigned against the war all year, but says he'd vote YES today."
This isn't true. Senator Kerry has campaigned against George W. Bush's handling of the war. Kerry does not oppose the war itself. [Source: JohnKerry.com]
"I want George W. Bush! We need unwavering leadership."
The world has had other unwavering leaders, too - such as George Armstrong Custer. Custer's unwavering leadership led to his own death and the deaths of those under his command. There are also unwavering leaders in fiction, like Captain Ahab. Ahab's drive for revenge cost him his life and his ship.
But no one is suggesting that Bush go fight in Iraq personally.
"We have been attacked by murderous, crazed terrorists, even in this great city."
Ah yes, September 11th again.
Has anyone heard the conspiracy theories? That George W. Bush actually knew about the Al-Qaeda plot beforehand and did nothing to stop it?
Personally, I think that's absurd, although I've met perfectly rational people who believe that. But let's apply a little bit of Bush's own logic to this.
George W. Bush assumed that Saddam Hussein had vast stockpiles of WMD because Saddam couldn't prove he'd destroyed them. Furthermore, according to Colin Powell, during the weapons inspections, Saddam went to outrageous lengths to hide... something. [Source: The White House.] Obviously, the dictator must have had something to hide, right?
The Bush Administration fought the creation of the 9/11 Commission tooth and nail, and only relented when the families of 9/11 victims intervened. [Source: CBS News.]
As Bush and company worked so hard to prevent any investigation, by their own logic they must have had something to hide. Maybe those wild-eyed conspiracy theorists are on to them.
"Our employers and jobs are threatened by low cost, highly skilled labor from abroad."
And this is why George W. Bush wants to bring in more foreign workers?
Maybe he needs to see a psychiatrist.
"American values are under attack from within."
Governor Romney is more correct than he knows. See George W. Bush Versus the Bill of Rights.
This is America. Dissent is patriotic.
"We step forward by insisting on Ronald Reagan's vision of a compassionate and fiscally conservative government that promotes the opportunity of ownership and leaves more money in the hands of the taxpayers."
It makes no sense to talk about Reagan's values at a convention held to nominate a man whose record is one of fiscal recklessness.
Who in politics would call George W. Bush compassionate? The immigrants of Arab and Muslim descent who were arrested and held incommunicado for months after 9/11 for minor paperwork errors?
Maybe Valerie Plame, whose career was ruined in order to punish her whistle-blowing husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
Maybe John Kerry, whose record has been distorted relentlessly by the speakers at this convention.
Or maybe Richard A. Clarke, Secretary Paul O'Neill, General Eric Shinseki, and Army Secretary Thomas White should be asked about Bush's compassion. They all told the truth about their experiences working for Bush's administration, and had their characters smeared as a result.
Perhaps the Iraqis tortured at Abu Ghraib by the army ostensibly sent to liberate them would have some insights on Bush's compassion.
"We step forward by entering marriage before we enter parenthood. We step forward by expressing tolerance and respect for all God's children, regardless of their differences and choices."
Governor Romney has a logic all his own. In one sentence he disparages widows, then condemns discrimination in the next. And he calls Kerry a flip flopper!
Cartoonist Tom Tomorrow pointed out that, as recently as 1967, sixteen states refused to recognize the validity of mixed-raced marriages.
Today it's George W. Bush's quest to empower the Federal Government to tell you who to marry.
He won't stop there.
Let's see what the Republican Party platform has to say.
"...We believe that neither federal nor state judges nor
bureaucrats should force states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage.
"We further believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage."
They're not only calling for a Constitutional amendment. They want to ban all civil unions, regardless of gender.
Regardless of one's position on homosexualty, are these decisions the government's to make?
But that's not all. The Republican platform also reads:
"We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions."
Regardless of one's position on abortion, will making it the new Prohibition solve anything?
Do you really want the President to decide what you and your doctor are allowed to talk about?
What else does the Republican platform call for?
"We... deplore the deliberate desecration of our flag and state that its deliberate desecration is not 'free speech,' but rather an assault against both our proud history and our greatest hopes. We therefore support a Constitutional amendment that will restore to the people, through their elected representatives, their right to safeguard Old Glory.'
Interesting circumlocution here. This proposed Constitutional amendment to criminalize actions that endanger no one will somehow "restore" rights.
Does anyone want to fill our overcrowded prisons with flag burners?
If any rights have been somehow "denied" because we've had 250 years of freedom of expression, who denied them in the first place? James Madison and the other founding fathers?
It doesn't work that way. Our flag is a noble symbol of our land because it stands for the Constitution that enshrines our freedoms. If we ban flag burning, then our flag will no longer stand for freedom of speech. It will become a symbol of censorship.
That isn't what George Washington fought for.
The American People already act to protect our flag. For every protester who burns an American flag, millions of us send a different message by flying that flag from our homes every day. Is that no longer enough?
George W. Bush decided to make these election year issues while Americans are fighting and dying in Iraq in a war that is increasingly unpopular. Looks like a diversionary tactic to me.
Governor Romney continues:
"We step forward by never forgetting that America is a force for good in the world, fighting for freedom and human rights."
In order for this nation to fight for freedom, we must first be free at home. When reviewing the Bush Administration's position that the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are in a legal no man's land and have no human rights or legal recourse, Justice O'Connor wrote: "We must preserve our commitment at home to the principles for which we fight abroad."
Justice Scalia concurred when he wrote about the Bush Administration's proclamation that they can arrest and imprison anyone indefinitely, without proof of wrongdoing, charge, counsel or trial, simply by declaring them a suspected terrorist. "The very core of liberty," Scalia wrote, "has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the executive." [Source: The Denver Post]
As Americans, we trust our soldiers with the safety and the honor of our nation. In return, our government must trust our soldiers - and the public - with the truth. Saddam Hussein was a monstrous tyrant, but he had no WMD, and never had anything to do with September 11th or Al-Qaeda.
Senator Zell Miller
"And he [Wilkie] made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue... Where are such statesmen today?"
Senator Miller is the most hypocritical speaker I've heard so far. He asks "Where are such statesmen today?"
Miller is not one of them. In the same speech that he praises Wendell Wilkie for not making a campaign issue of national security in 1940, he does so himself.
"Where is the bi-partisanship in this country when we need it most?"
What is Senator Miller talking about? Congress unanimously voted to empower the President to fight Al-Qaeda. Most Democrats in Congress also voted to give George W. Bush the authority to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. Bipartisanship is alive and well, if your definition of "bipartisanship" means the President's party won't stand up to him even when he tramples the Constitution.
Bipartisanship is with us today, if you mean the opposition party is too scared to oppose the President even when he lies.
"Our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our Commander-in-Chief."
Miller's right! Let's cancel the election!
Please forgive my sarcasm.
Miller's words border on paranoia. Democratic leaders have no such obsession, manic or otherwise. It's a figment of Miller's imagination.
I considered myself an independent until George W. Bush misled the country into a needless war with Iraq. I then joined the Democratic party because - even although almost no Democrats in Congress had dared stand up to Bush - they are the largest opposition party, and the only chance to stop him.
Yet I am disappointed in the Democratic Party. Where were the leaders telling the truth about Saddam and Al-Qaeda being enemies when Bush was proclaiming the opposite?
Aside from left-wingers like Congressman Kucinich and Governor Dean, they were in other countries. We called the French and Germans traitors because they were voices of reason. Leaders like Senate Minority Leader Daschle, House Minority Leader Gephardt, former President Clinton... presidential candidates like Senator Lieberman... they were all silent.
Former Vice President Gore spoke out, but after the United States was already tangled up in occupying Iraq.
Who did speak out? Ordinary Americans. Organizations like Act Now to Stop War and End Racism, Not in Our Name, MoveOn.org, the American Civil Liberties Union, Veterans for Common Sense, and so on. We all spoke out when our leaders would not.
At the Democratic National Convention, John Kerry asked that the speakers refrain from personal attacks on George W. Bush - even though Bush is (in my opinion) the worst President in history.
I will vote for John Kerry - but not because he has some "manic obsession to bring down our Commander-in-Chief." I will vote for him even though he doesn't.
I will vote for Kerry because he is a fine choice to be President.
Senator Miller, the reason this country is being "torn apart and made weaker" is because George W. Bush is tearing apart the Constitution.
"I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny."
All Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike, believe in freedom and hate tyranny.
George W. Bush insisted war was the only way to stop Saddam Hussein from arming Al-Qaeda terrorists who wanted to kill him with WMD that didn't exist. He made this ludicrous claim with utter conviction. Few Democrats had the courage to stand up and tell the President that he was wrong. And now 1,100 of our brave soldiers are dead. [Source: Iraq Coalition Casualties]
Even though many Democrats will not stand up to Bush for fear of being labeled unpatriotic, I will. The fight against tyranny begins at home. The war in Afghanistan was ours to fight, because we were attacked. The war in Iraq was not, because Iraq had not and could not threaten us. I firmly believe that America must use all the resources at our disposal to oppose dictators - but this does not mean we must immediately use military force against every dictator in the world without a moment to lose. War is sometimes the answer if our nation is in danger; but it is not always the only answer.
The people of Iran and Burma live under tyranny. Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba are still ruled by communists.
Shall we attack North Korea at once? It is ruled by a brutal despot who has WMD.
The peaceful people of Tibet were conquered by Communist China fifty years ago, and are still persecuted today for practicing their religion. China constantly threatens Taiwan. Moreover, China executes more convicts than the rest of the world put together.
Surely we must immediately attack China to liberate its billion people from their communist leaders?
Americans will always fight for freedom. But there are more ways to fight than war.
I'm sorry, Senator Miller. Believing in freedom is not the exclusive domain of the Republican Party.
Nor is fighting tyranny the exclusive domain of the Republican Party.
And patriotism is not the exclusive domain of the Republican Party.
"Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator."
Senator, according to USA Today, 70% of the Iraqi people see the United States as an occupier, not as a liberator. I've seen polls where the percentage is as high as 90%. If we wish to resolve the situation in Iraq, we must not close our eyes to the facts.
Understanding that the occupation of Iraq is deeply unpopular there is of critical importance to the lives of our troops and the security of our nation. We can't afford to ignore that. Lives depend on our leaders being aware of all the facts while making decisions.
"And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators."
70% of the Iraqi people believe that. Senator, are you advocating that we kill the people we went to liberate?
George W. Bush himself acknowledged the feelings of the Iraqi people when he said: "They're not happy they're occupied. I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either." [Source: the White House.]
Bush's words must have really infuriated you, Senator.
Even though few Democrats have opposed President Bush's war in Iraq, you are accusing all Democrats of dirty politics for acknowledging the facts about the Iraqi people's view of the occupation - a fact that George W. Bush has himself acknowledged. You can't have it both ways.
"No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home."
Senator Miller is on a roll. This speech must be the political equivalent of "shock and awe" tactics.
In 2000, a Presidential candidate said, "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."
That candidate was George W. Bush. I believe he was correct when he spoke those words - words he proved that he didn't really mean.
Am I unpatriotic for agreeing with Bush's stated position?
"In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution."
Ronald Reagan once said "Govern a great nation as you would cook a small fish: do not overdo it." But George W. Bush has brought us the so-called PATRIOT Act.
Australian politician Robert Garran has written: "The advocates of war also seriously misjudged the prospects of turning Iraq into a democracy by invading it. The war has taken a country that was not a terrorist threat and turned it into one." The invasion of Iraq exacerbated the very problem Bush claimed it would solve.
Senator Miller, America isn't the problem. George W. Bush is.
"Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.
"The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40% of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.
"The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.
"The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.
"The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.
"I could go on and on and on: Against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel, against the Aegis air-defense cruiser, against the Strategic Defense Initiative, against the Trident missile, against, against, against.
"This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces? U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?"
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Whatever. Zell waxeth gross. There is one problem with this part of Senator Miller's speech: it isn't true.
Let me say that one more time:
None of that stuff is true.
All those claims of Mr. Miller's are taken from a hoax email that circulated around the internet this summer and has been thoroughly proven false.
As Snopes.com explains:
"Senators and Representatives might vote against a defense appropriations bill for any numbers of reasons: because they object to the presence or absence of a particular item, because they feel that the government is proposing to spend too much or too little money on defense, or anything in-between. Maintaining, as is the case here, that a Senator who voted "nay" on one year's defense appropriations bill therefore voted to "kill" a variety of specific weapons systems is like claiming that any Congressman who has ever voted against a defense appropriations bill has therefore also voted to abolish the U.S. military."
Ironically, some of those weapons systems that Senator Miller wants to fault Senator Kerry for "opposing" were indeed cancelled - by George Bush, senior's, Secretary of Defense.
Dick Cheney.
Cheney favored canceling the Apache helicopter, and also complained that Congress bought the military some F-14's and F-15's it didn't need. [Source: Slate Magazine.]
"Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations."
Senator Miller doesn't know his colleague very well. Senator Kerry has gone out of his way to say exactly the opposite. Here are his words, from his speech to the Democratic Convention.
"I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as President. Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response." I'm sorry to have to say this, Senator Miller, but you are lying. If you wish to disagree with Senator Kerry, be my guest. There are many issues on which you could disagree with him.
But none of the criticisms you've levelled against Senator Kerry are true. You don't really disagree with him, do you? If you did, you wouldn't give a speech lying about his positions and his record. You couldn't find anything to criticize - so you made stuff up.
I honor your military service, sir. But your speech is juvenile. Grow up, and stick to the facts.
"Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending . . . John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security."
Hogwash. Once again, you are putting words in Kerry's mouth when Kerry has said the precise opposite. Who do you think he is? George W. Bush?
What Kerry really said is this: "I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security. And I will build a stronger American military."
Senator, your attacks are not working. Right now, I am so appalled by your lies that, if I were undecided, I'd vote for Senator Kerry just to spite you. No one deserves to be maligned in this way. These attacks are making me more sympathetic to the Democratic nominee, not less.
Miller continues:
"I want Bush to decide."
Why?
He's called our troops occupiers rather than liberators, and nothing makes you madder than that.
But maybe you're right, and we really should attack anybody that Bush claims has ties to Al-Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction, even dictators that Al-Qaeda is trying to overthrow. If the facts don't matter to Bush, why should they matter to the rest of us?
George W. Bush's record so far proves him to be an excellent person to trust with those choices. If you think the Emperor has no clothes, you must be unpatriotic.
"As a war protestor, Kerry blamed our military."
As David Corn wrote in The Nation:
"That wasn't true either. During the famous testimony Kerry delivered to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee-- which has been mischaracterized by the Swift Vets--Kerry blamed the Johnson and Nixon administrations for screwing up the war and placing American GIs in an impossible situation."
The war in Vietnam was the greatest foreign policy disaster in American history until the war in Iraq.
John Kerry volunteered for service in Vietnam. While there, he learned the truth about the war: it was a mistake. When he came home, he tried to stop it.
That sounds patriotic to me, Senator.
"John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday's war."
You're not describing John Kerry, Senator - you're describing George W. Bush.
George Bush, senior, chose to end the first Gulf War when its stated aim - driving Saddam Hussein's army from Kuwait - were completed. But Dick Cheney thought this was a mistake, and he spent the next twelve years convincing himself that Saddam was still an imminent threat. The Project for the New American Century, of which Cheney was a member, made calls for war with Iraq throughout the 1990's - even though weapons inspections and Clinton's bombs had, we now know, permanently ended the threat from Saddam.
Then Cheney became Vice President. According to Paul O'Neill and Richard A. Clarke
This propaganda convinced a majority of the American people that Saddam was complicit in the September 11th attacks, and few leaders dared dispute this ludicrous assertion for fear of being ridiculed as unpatriotic. So Bush launched America into a war against a "threat" that had been defeated thirteen years ago, when we were already at war with Al-Qaeda... while countries like Iran and North Korea are far more dangerous.
"From John Kerry, they get a "yes-no-maybe" bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends."
George W. Bush has engaged in the most arrogant foreign policy in living memory. After September 11th, the people of the world overwhelmingly supported the United States. There were so many offers of help we didn't know what to do with them all.
Bush and his administration then spent a year mentioning Iraq and 9/11 together on every possible occasion. They sent Colin Powell to the United Nations with intelligence that Powell himself later criticized as flimsy.
It now turns out that much of it was fabricated by Ahmed Chalabi and his organization. The rest was, according to the Levin Report, dreamed up by Douglas Feith.
The original neoconservative plan was to simply replace Saddam with Chalabi, thus creating a "shining beacon of democracy" in the heart of the Middle East ruled by a convicted embezzler who could well be an Iranian spy.
Our NATO allies - primarily France and Germany - tried to dissuade us, but nothing would stop George W. Bush. He was driven to complete what his father started and destroy the dictator who'd tried to have his father killed. When France and Germany wouldn't go along with the younger Bush's brilliantly self-destructive plot, they were dismissed as traitors and cowards.
The attack on Iraq has helped Al-Qaeda, just as the Mideast experts warned and Osama Bin Laden had hoped.
Senator Miller, you're not describing John Kerry when you talk about a man who "encourage[s] our enemies and confuse[s] our friends." You're describing George W. Bush.
"He [Bush] is not a slick talker but he is a straight shooter and, where I come from, deeds mean a lot more than words."
You don't give George W. Bush enough credit, sir. He's a much slicker talker than anyone would have given him credit for, considering how often he makes verbal missteps.
For over a year, Bush made sure to mention Iraq and September 11th in the same breath, while very rarely slipping up and actually claiming that Saddam was responsible. For instance, in the 2003 State of the Union Address, he said:
"Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein."
Nine months later, on September 7, 2003, Bush finally admitted that "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th" attacks. [Source: USA Today]
I, too, believe that deeds mean a lot more than words. That is why I have evaluated George W. Bush's deeds, and found that they are usually in diametric opposition to his rhetoric. [For instance: Bushlies.com; my Letter to Republican Governors]
That's why I'm voting for John Kerry. He wasn't my first choice for the job, but he's an honest, decent, intelligent man, and would make a fine President.
John McCain agrees with my assessment of Kerry's qualifications. According to NBC News' Tom Brokaw, "John McCain said to me that he believed that John Kerry is qualified to be commander in chief. He said, we are not enemies. We are friends, Republicans and Democrats, and that's the face that we have to turn to the world."
For an different opinion on John Kerry: one of his colleagues in the Senate once gave him ample praise at a dinner in Georgia.
"John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington... He fought for balanced budgets before it was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so. John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment." The speaker? Senator Zell Miller, in 2001. [Source: Zell Miller's Website.]
Lynne Cheney
"In the weeks and months after September 11, I had so many people come up to me and say how glad they were that George Bush and Dick Cheney were in the White House."
Here we go again, praising Bush and Cheney because a terrible tragedy happened on their watch.
Maybe, had they not completely ignored the threat from Al-Qaeda (as Al Franken pointed out), September 11th could have been prevented.
Or maybe there is nothing anyone could have done to prevent it. We will never know.
I agree with the analysis in Bush at War
Despite his initial efforts against Al-Qaeda, George W. Bush soon abandoned that battle in order to attack Iraq.
Despite what the Bush Administration has been repeating ad nauseam over the last two years, conquering Iraq was NOT part of the War on Terror, and has actually helped the terrorists who attacked us. [Source: Time Magazine.]
Bush and Cheney hijacked their own war against terrorists to pursue a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein, to take control of Iraq's oil, and to dominate the Middle East and the world.
Is the world better off without Saddam Hussein? Undoubtedly. But the war has made our nation less safe and the Middle East less stable.
In my opinion, the world would be better off had we gone after Kim Jong Il instead. He probably already has nuclear bombs, is working on building more, and is responsible for killing two million of his people. [Source: CNN]
Plus, a democratic South Korea is standing by ready to help their northern neighbors. There is no such nation that can help Iraq.
Call me old-fashioned, but I think we should have finished off Al-Qaeda before starting any more wars.
Vice President Dick Cheney
"America's schools are now on an upward path to excellence and not for just a few children, but for every child."
In your dreams, pal. The No Child Left Behind Act doesn't have the money to implement any reforms.
"As President Bush and I were sworn into office, our nation was sliding into recession..."
We've heard this so often this week that it has become a mantra. There's just as much evidence to support the theory that the selection of George W. Bush as President-elect triggered the recession as there is that Clinton's balanced budget did it. (Which is to say, very little on either side. Economics is a difficult science, and there's no single best way to interpret economic data. But the Vice President shouldn't be repeating his own economic theories as if they were facts.)
"...American workers were overburdened with federal taxes."
They still are, and you haven't done anything to change this, sir.
"Then came the events of September 11th, which hit our economy very hard."
The tragedy of that date has been mentioned so often at this convention I'm starting to wonder if the Bush Administration wants to take credit for it.
"So President Bush delivered the greatest tax reduction in a generation..."
Yes, but it was NOT for the American workers, as you imply. Misleading statements is Mr. Cheney's standard method of operation. Next thing you know, he'll be telling us that Iraq had ties to Al-Qaeda, after all.
"... and the results are clear to see."
What results? Let's assume a direct causal relationship between cutting rich people's taxes and the state of jobs in this country, as Cheney does. In that case, his tax cuts made me lose two-thirds of my salary.
I'm not blaming George W. Bush for my getting laid off. But if Dick Cheney's going to make these ridiculous statements, I'll tell it how it looks from my perspective.
"Businesses are creating jobs."
Some businesses are. Unfortunately, they're not being created as quickly as they're being lost. [Source: Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers.]
And the jobs that have been created don't pay as well as the jobs that were lost.
I should know. I used to be a marketing consultant. I was laid off almost exactly two months after September 11th. After that, I took any job I could get. Now I'm a file clerk. My wife used to work at a bank; now she works at a school. I'm very proud that she's working in education, but she is making less money today than she did in 2000 - even though she's doing more and working harder.
Our story is not unique. I've been hearing the same story from a lot of people - and John Kerry validated it at the Democratic Convention.
"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.
Cheney goes on:
"People are returning to work."
Yes, some people are - and for a lot of us, for less pay.
"The Bush tax cuts are working."
Yes, and "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." [Cheney's words in The Price of Loyalty.]
According to Information Please Almanac, the Vice President makes $202,900 per year. So you cut your own taxes, Mr. Cheney - even though you're already a millionaire. [Source: the Associated Press.]
My taxes weren't cut.
"September 11th, 2001, made clear the challenges we face. On that day we saw the harm that could be done by 19 men armed with knives and boarding passes. America also awakened to a possibility even more lethal: this enemy, whose hatred of us is limitless, armed with chemical, biological, or even nuclear weapons."
This is the kind of story that Vice President Cheney has been repeating for the last three years: trying to make us so afraid of terrorists that we'll give him a blank check to do whatever he wants. We'll look the other way as the Bush Administration passes the so-called PATRIOT Act. We'll simply trust that the Bush Administration has our best interests at heart when they prepare legal memorandums justifying torture and denying due process.
We'll think its acceptable that when the President decides to attack another country - one that had no chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons - that the Republican
majority Congress passes a resolution supporting the President's action and supporting our troops, as if they were the same thing. [Source: the US State Department.]
Open your eyes, Mr. Cheney. The American people are more afraid of a repressive government than we are of terrorists.
We must battle terrorists with all of our resources. We must use intelligence, finances, and diplomacy, as well as our military. However, despite our best efforts, there's always a chance that a terrorist will slip through the cracks and injure someone or something. We can only do our best.
But repressive government can affect everyone's daily lives in the way terrorists cannot. Americans fought government repression in 1776. Americans protested the Alien and Sedition Acts in the 1790's and the internment of Japanese-Americans during the Second World War. Americans fought against McCarthyism and demonstrated against the Vietnam War. Americans of all skin colors marched in the Civil Rights movement to protest Jim Crow laws.
And we protest the "PATRIOT" Act and the War in Iraq. Dissent is not unpatriotic.
"In Iraq, we dealt with a gathering threat, and removed the regime of Saddam Hussein."
Mr. Cheney, you viewed Saddam Hussein - who had been completely defeated - as a gathering threat. You helped defeat him in the first Gulf War. President Clinton's bombs and the UN Weapons inspectors decimated his arsenal. When he was overthrown, Saddam Hussein was older than you are now, and you've had four heart attacks. You and George W. Bush rightly pressed for the return of weapons inspectors. Those inspections were all we needed to make sure Saddam did not once again become a threat.
The danger was not imminent, as your old mentor Donald Rumsfeld suggested. Calling Saddam a "gathering threat" is also contradicted by the facts. The war in Kuwait is over, sir. It is time for you to move on with your life.
"Tonight he [Saddam] sits in jail."
I'm sorry to have to ask this question, and it may make me sound like a liberal fanatic. But it has to be asked.
Was it worth killing 1,100 American soldiers and 15,000 Iraqis to arrest Saddam?
"Under President Bush we have put in place new policies and created new institutions to defend America, to stop terrorist violence at its source, and to help move the Middle East away from old hatreds and resentments and toward the lasting peace that only freedom can bring."
Yes, we have: the bankrupt and impotent Homeland Security Department, for instance, which is so mired in paperwork that it can't do anything to secure our homeland.
The September 11th Commission has finally given its recommendations, recommendations that your Administration has refused to carry out. I can understand why; you and George W. Bush fought the Commission's creation in the first place.
If you and President Bush have helped to "move the Middle East away from old hatreds and resentments," you've only created more. America is now hated and feared because of Abu Ghraib.
Who's to blame for Abu Ghraib? The soldiers who were put in that ghastly position and tortured innocent Iraqis?
Or was former Vice President Gore right, when he talked about your "abuse of the truth that characterized the Administration's march to war?" Cheney continues:
"The president is working with many countries in a global effort to end the trade and transfer of these deadly technologies. The most important result thus far and it is a very important one is that the black-market network that supplied nuclear weapons technology to Libya, as well as to Iran and North Korea, has been shut down. The world's worst source of nuclear weapons proliferation is out of business, and we are safer as a result."
Senator John Edwards' response: "He said that with a straight face on the same day that the Iranians themselves were declaring that they were moving forward with their nuclear weapons development program." [Source: MSNBC.]
"...In this time of challenge, America needs and America has a president we can count on to get it right."
Like he got it right about Iraq's vast WMD arsenal, you mean?
Like he got it right about Saddam's ties to Al-Qaeda?
All the reasons George W. Bush gave to justify his rush to war were mistakes, either careless or deliberate.
Mr. Vice President, wars kill. No one with that kind of record should be the Commander in Chief of the most powerful military in history.
"Senator Kerry began his political career by saying he would like to see our troops deployed 'only at the directive of the United Nations.'"
According to Slate Magazine,
"Yes, Kerry did say this - in 1971, to the Harvard Crimson. He has long since recanted it. Is there evidence that George W. Bush said anything remarkable, whether wise or naive, in his 20s?"
Unlike yourself, sir, Senator Kerry had first hand experience of the Vietnam War. He fought in it, and his experiences taught him that America's involvement there was wrong. If you can criticize John Kerry for protesting the Vietnam War - a war that ended thirty years ago - your own record must also be called into question.
The Vietnam War was a terrible mistake. Did you protest it?
No?
Why not?
You pressed hard for the attack on Iraq. Have you ever been in the military yourself?
According to the New Hampshire Gazette, you haven't.
Neither did your Chief of Staff and fellow PNAC Hawk, Scooter Libby. Neither did two of your other friends from the PNAC who are now in high places, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle.
Your old mentor and PNAC buddy Donald Rumsfeld was in the military during the Korean war. He never left the United States, though.
George W. Bush was in the military during Vietnam, but never left the United States either, and there are still questions about whether he actually served all the time he signed up for. (See: AWOL Bush, the Washington Post, TomPaine.com.)
One of your most vocal partisans in Congress, Trent Lott, never served in Vietnam either. Neither did the author of the so-called PATRIOT Act, John Ashcroft.
Not only did none of you serve, I've never heard that any of you protested. Bill Clinton was ignoble when he protested in another country, but at least he opposed a terrible war. Not only did you never serve, but according to ABC News, you received five deferments.
John Kerry understands my perspective. The day after the convention ended, he said, "I'm not going to have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have, and by those who have misled the nation into Iraq."
"Senator Kerry voted against Operation Desert Storm."
I don't see why the speakers at the convention keep harping on this. Senator Kerry voted against the first Gulf War, but that was thirteen years ago. I don't agree with that vote - but a number of people did at the time, including a large number of his colleagues in the Senate. If the people of Massachusetts opposed it, Kerry had good reason for his vote.
Remember what was George W. Bush doing thirteen years ago? He was accused of insider trading when he sold his Harken Energy stock at full value right before the company reported a huge loss. For some reason, the SEC did not investigate the President's son. [Source: BuzzFlash.]
Now how did Bush end up on Harken's board? According to Famous Texans, he started a company called Arbusto. (That's Spanish for "Bush.") Ar-bust-o went bust-o, and the firm was acquired by Spectrum 7. Bush became CEO. Then Spectrum 7 went bust, and it was acquired by Harken.
See any patterns?
"He [Kerry] talks about leading a 'more sensitive war on terror,' as though Al Qaeda will be impressed with our softer side."
Mr. Cheney is taking Senator Kerry's words out of context here. (Translation: Cheney's trying to make us think Kerry meant something he didn't.) According to the Washington Post, what Kerry actually said was:
"I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history."
If Kerry wants to fight the War on Terror in way that will be more sensitive to the law as laid out in the Constitution, I'm all for it. If he wants to fight it more strategically - i.e. only attack countries that actually support and harbor terrorists - I'm for that too. If he wants to recruit allies for our cause instead of going it alone, I'm with him. If he wants to be strategic and thoughtful - to study the best way to win instead of relying on Cold War ideology - that sounds pretty smart. Your record on the War on Terror shows a number of disastrous mistakes, Mr. Vice President.
"Senator Kerry denounces American action when other countries don't approve as if the whole object of our foreign policy were to please a few persistent critics."
This isn't true. At his speech at the Democratic Convention, Senator Kerry said:
"I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as President. Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security. And I will build a stronger American military."
If it's permissible to claim that a candidate believes something when he's really stated the opposite, then hey! I will make stuff up too. You once said that Al
Qaeda and Iraq worked together! Oh, whoops, you actually did say that, never mind. For a long while you continued to insist that they did, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Honestly, if we're going to lie about people's records, I would like to direct the reader to Bush2004.com: The 2004 Re-Defeat Site for President George W. Bush. This is a parody - but a hilarious one.
Earlier in this very convention, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney correctly pointed out that Kerry voted to authorize Bush to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. Mr. Cheney, it doesn't make sense to criticize Kerry for opposing your war when he didn't - and your own people confirm it.
But Cheney wants it both ways. He wants us to think Kerry opposed the war, so Cheney can call him unpatriotic.
Secretary of State Colin Powell, once the most admired man in America, has said that he didn't know if he'd recommend an invasion of Iraq had he known no weapons actually existed. [Source: CBS News.]
If Bush's own advisors think that, then why is Cheney criticizing Kerry for saying the occupation's been mismanaged?
Oh, and one more thing. As far as "a few persistent critics" goes - I wouldn't call ten million antiwar protesters "few." "President Bush has brought many allies to our side."
Ok, I will follow in the footsteps of Michael Moore. Who's in the Coalition of the Willing? Here's the White House list.
Now here's Crikey, an Australian web site that says how those coalition countries are actually helping with the war effort.
Since that site was written, the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Norway, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Spain, and Thailand - who joined the coalition against the wishes of their populations - have all bowed to popular pressure in their own countries and withdrawn from Iraq. [Source: Global Security.]
Afghanistan is in the coalition? Now this is ironic. Afghanistan's government doesn't control much more than Kabul, and efforts to defeat the Taliban there are ongoing. Maybe their position is honorary.
Australia and the UK are important coalition partners with the United States, but the war is deeply unpopular in those countries. According to the Globe and Mail, the same is true of Japan, Italy, and Portugal. All five of these countries joined the coalition despite such high opposition at home that we can expect their governments to be voted out of power in the next election.
Costa Rica doesn't have an army. Neither does Iceland, nor the Solomon Islands.
The Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau are former Pacific possessions of the United States. They don't have armies either.
Turkey shouldn't be on the list, as they refused to allow Bush to attack Iraq from their territory. Because the Turks ruled Iraq in the 1800's, any direct Turkish involvement in the country would be viewed by the Iraqis as an attempt to reconquer their country and lead to an all-out war. (As a matter of fact, the so-called Iraqi Governing Council unanimously voted against allowing Turkish troops into Iraq. [Source: Occupation Watch.] Although Administrator Paul Bremer said the "Governing" Council didn't have any say in the matter, Turkey decided, under the circumstances, not to send troops.)
Do you notice anything strange about Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan? What do all these countries have in common?
That's right - they were all satellites of the Soviet Union.
It's time for a political reality check. After being ruled by communist Russia for over half a century, it's in their interest to ally with the United States in case a hostile government comes to power in Moscow. That may also be true of Albania, which was also ruled by communist dictators.
What else is true of post-communist nations? After half a century of command economies, they're all relatively poor by American standards.
What's notably missing from the coalition? Arab nations. The only one on the White House's list is Kuwait.
I think it would be poetic justice to put the Emir of Kuwait in charge of post-Saddam Iraq. Pity that Mr. Cheney's first choice was Ahmed Chalabi.
"But as the President has made very clear, there is a difference between leading a coalition of many, and submitting to the objections of a few."
There's no point in submitting to the objections of a few, is there, Mr. Cheney? Not even when the "few" number ten million. Not even when the "few" are proven right. Not even when the "many" are three large nations and a couple dozen others, each making a tiny contribution.
"Senator Kerry also takes a different view when it comes to supporting our military. Although he voted to authorize force against Saddam Hussein, he then decided he was opposed to the war..."
Senator Kerry has never said he opposes the war - much to my chagrin, I might add. He is opposed to Bush's incompetent handling of the war. Kerry is an honest man, so I will vote for him.
I used to respect you, Mr. Cheney. I remember your government service during the first Gulf War, when you helped President Bush, senior, drive Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. I remember how you got the job as Secretary of Defense in the first place. President Bush, senior, nominated you because you'd never been involved in any scandals.
I wish this were still true, sir. I wish Halliburton hadn't been awarded several no-bid contracts in Iraq, and I wish your old firm hadn't overcharged the United States military. [Source: CBS News.]
I also wish George W. Bush hadn't issued an executive order granting them immunity from all prosecution. [Source: the White House.]
I also wish you would give us an honest reason why you and George W. Bush are a better team to lead this nation than John Kerry and John Edwards. I would be very interested in hearing it. But all you're doing is lying about John Kerry. Maybe you're doing it because you're a bitter man who believes in negative campaigning. Or maybe your record is so horrible that you can't defend it without lying. Or maybe both are true.
"[Kerry] voted against funding for our men and women in the field. He voted against body armor, ammunition, fuel, spare parts, armored vehicles, extra pay for hardship duty, and support for military families."
Just to be sure no one misses it, MSNBC compiled a list of what that $87 billion actually went for. Almost none of the things Cheney lists were on it. And for the record, Bush cut extra pay for hardship duty personally. [Sources: the San Francisco Chronicle, the International Herald Tribune]
I'd have voted against that $87 billion too. I'm surprised that even Cheney had the audacity to propose it.
"Senator Kerry is campaigning for the position of commander in chief. Yet he does not seem to understand the first obligation of a commander in chief and that is to support American troops in combat."
Dick Cheney says that because he did not vote for that preposterous $87 billion bill, Senator Kerry does not support our troops. But who sent American soldiers into battle without adequate body armor in the first place? Bush and Cheney, of course. [Source: ABC News.]
But most of all, Bush and Cheney sent our troops into battle when it wasn't necessary. The Commander in Chief's greatest responsibility is to preserve the lives of the soldiers under his command. Bush - at Cheney's urging - sent our troops into combat against a defeated enemy who had never attacked the United States and posed no threat whatsoever to our country. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and had not participated in any international terrorism for thirteen years. And now eleven hundred of our soldiers are dead. [Source: Iraq Coalition Casualties.]
Dick Cheney is distorting Kerry's record because he doesn't want anyone to focus on his own. Bush and Cheney are guilty of disregarding the safety of the American soldiers whom they were trusted to command. But they hope that their lies about John Kerry will make Kerry so unpopular that we'll vote for Bush as the lesser of two evils.
But hey, the man who tried (and failed) to have George W. Bush's father assassinated is now behind bars. We have installed a friendly government in Baghdad at the point of a gun, and foreign firms are tightening their grip on the Iraqi oil industry. [Source: Australian National Forum.] And though the Iraqis suffer with inconsistent electricity and no clean water, Halliburton is looking into the problem. This was surely worth the lives of 1,100 American soldiers, wasn't it?
"And in this time of challenge, America needs and America has a president we can count on to get it right."
Yes, and George W. Bush is such a man, isn't he? After all, he was spot on about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. The September 11th Commission's report demonstrated how correct he was regarding Saddam Hussein's collaborative partnership with Al-Qaeda. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy have helped the economy by eliminating 3.8 million jobs. And he kept his word about deficits being "small and short-term," didn't he?
"His [Kerry's] back-and-forth reflects a habit of indecision, and sends a message of confusion."
This "back and forth" claim is a Bush Administration invention. John Kerry is a career politician, who has changed his mind in the past - but is no worse than any other member of Congress. [Source: the Christian Science Monitor.] According to Slate Magazine, John Kerry has been entirely consistent with what he thinks about Iraq. Any argument to the contrary is composed of statements taken out of context.
Kerry does change his mind when circumstances change. He wouldn't keep insisting that Saddam Hussein tried to purchase uranium from Niger if the CIA warned him that the only evidence for this was a proven forgery. [Source: the Washington Post.]
I want a President whose decisions will reflect facts.
"He [Kerry] has, in the last several years, been for the No Child Left Behind Act and against it."
If Cheney means that the No Child Behind Act should be funded instead of existing only on paper, he's right - I'm sure Senator Kerry believes that.
"He is for the PATRIOT Act and against it."
John Kerry is on record as wishing to amend the so-called PATRIOT Act - the most unpatriotic document I've ever read - to protect our civil liberties. I think this is a splendid idea. He has said:
"We will strengthen some parts of the PATRIOT Act, like the restrictions on money laundering, and improve other aspects of it, like information sharing. At the same time, we will revise parts of the PATRIOT Act such as the library provisions to better protect our freedom. We will ensure government can take all needed steps to fight terror. Our government should never round up innocent people only because of their religion or ethnicity, and should always honor our Constitution. We believe in an America where freedom is what we fight for, not what we give up."
Apparently Dick Cheney doesn't understand that one can agree with some parts of a 300-page bill and disagree with other parts. Maybe that's why he's no longer in Congress.
"I have seen him [Bush] face some of the hardest decisions that can come to the Oval Office and make those decisions with the wisdom and humility Americans expect in their president."
The reader already knows my opinion on the wisdom of invading Iraq. Dozens of experts - including former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft,who served under George Bush, senior - warned that this would help al-Qaeda. Millions of laymen took to the streets in protest, partially for that reason. General Eric Shinseki argued that it would take many more troops to secure Iraq than Bush and Rumsfeld were prepared to send. So Rumsfeld fired him.
Expert opinion wasn't important to George W. Bush. He had his ideology, and what the experts warned about actually had to happen for Congress and the mainstream press to realize that something was going wrong. And we still have to deal with ideologues like Dick Cheney insisting that night is day.
Bush called for humility in his 2000 Presidential Campaign, and then ran the most arrogant foreign policy in a century. The antiwar protesters tried to warn him, but he wouldn't listen. Nor would Bush listen to Jacques Chirac, who was branded a coward for telling him the truth.
But it's natural for Dick Cheney to think George W. Bush makes decisions with wisdom and humility. Bush always takes Cheney's advice.
"He [Bush] is a person of loyalty and kindness and he brings out these qualities in those around him."
I can't agree with Cheney's assertion here. Maybe it's just because I haven't met George W. Bush personally. But Bush's father understood the need for Arab allies when battling Saddam Hussein. George Bush, senior, understood that to work for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians would benefit not only the Middle East, but American respect and prestige in the world. George W. has shown no loyalty to his father.
Nor has Bush shown any loyalty to people like Richard A. Clarke, Secretary Paul O'Neill, General Eric Shinseki, Secretary Thomas White, and Ambassador Joseph Wilson. All these people tried to help him - either directly, or through their positions in the government or the military. They then spoke out about their experiences working for his administration and had their characters smeared as a result.
How did Bush show loyalty to Deputy National Security Adviser Steven Hadley and CIA Director George Tenet? Bush blamed them for the "African uranium" nonsense in the 2003 State of the Union address. Bush finally took responsibility for the mistake when it turned out that Hadley and Tenet had tried to take the claim out of the speech.
And, of course, John Kerry and John McCain had their characters smeared too. Surely Bush should show some loyalty to common ethical standards?
According to The Price of Loyalty, George W. Bush defines loyalty as telling him what he wants to hear. And none of his former friends did that. Clarke told him invading Iraq would help Osama Bin Laden. O'Neill tried to prevent the deficits. Shinseki and White said it would take more soldiers to secure Iraq. Wilson told Bush that Saddam hadn't tried to buy uranium from Niger. They all thought the President deserved to hear the truth rather than what he wanted to hear. To Bush, this was a certain sign of disloyalty. And, of course, McCain and Kerry had the nerve to run for the office Bush thought he'd earned.
(The reader may have noticed that I refer to Mr. O'Neill and Mr. Clarke a lot in this essay. I do so because their experiences are at odds with the outrageous claims made at this convention. I would like to point out, though, that O'Neill and Clarke did not collaborate on writing their books. Clarke only mentions having met O'Neill once, in passing. O'Neill's book doesn't even mention Clarke.)
What was John Kerry's response to Cheney's speech?
"You all saw the anger and distortion of the Republican Convention. For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and my fitness to serve as Commander-in-chief. We'll, here's my answer. I will not have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and by those who have misled the nation into Iraq.
"The Vice President called me unfit for office last night. Well, I'll leave it up to the voters to decide whether five deferments makes someone more qualified to defend this nation than two tours of duty.
"Let me tell you what I think makes someone unfit for duty. Misleading our nation into war in Iraq makes you unfit to lead this nation. Doing nothing while this nation loses millions of jobs makes you unfit to lead this nation.
"Handing out billions of government contracts to Halliburton while you're still on their payroll makes you unfit."
"Our national elections are always a time when the differences between political parties and individual candidates are shown in sharp relief, especially with regard to truth."
No kidding. I've counted 58 outright lies in the speeches given at the Republican Convention so far - and I haven't even written about George W. Bush's remarks yet.
I might also mention that Bishop Gracida's superior - His Holiness, Pope John Paul II - strongly opposes the war. He sent Cardinal Pio Laghi to Bush to make the case for peace before the war began. His Holiness also spoke out against the war after it started.
According to CapitolHill Blue, "Pope John Paul II has a strong message for President George W. Bush: God is not on your side if you invade Iraq. But the President told the Pope's envoy the leader of the world's Catholics is wrong."
"We can do better and we will... We value jobs that pay you more, not less, than you earned before."
Bishop Rene Gracida
Politics Page | Convention: Day One | Convention: Day Two | Convention: Day Three | Convention: Day Four | The Last Word | Postscript: Kerry Won, by Greg Palast