Slashdot Mirror

Doesn't it bother you that

republicans don't even have that tenant. That they don't believe in helping the disadvantaged?

You haven't heard of Compassionate Conservatism, have you?

George W. Bush on August 3, 2004, at a Knights of Columbus convention in Dallas, Texas(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004 /08/20040803-11.html)

We're moving forward on another initiative which is mentoring for the children of prisoners. I mean, if the job of government is to try to set priorities, a priority is to help children of prisoners find love. Imagine what a tough life it is for a young boy or girl to go see his or her mom or dad behind prison bars. These are children who need help. They're vulnerable to gains and crime and despair. They're desperate for responsible adults in their life who can give them what many of them long for, which is love and tenderness.

The best way to do that is to encourage all groups, including faith-based groups, to provide mentors. And it's happening in America. For those of you who are mentoring the children of prisoners, thank you for what you're doing to make America a more welcoming place. We've awarded grants -- today we've unleashed another $45.5 million of grants to programs, all aimed at doing this.

For a broader list, check out http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/compassionate/ and http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/achievement/chap 13.html, which contains highlights such as the following:

Supporting Faith-based and Community Charities

Immediately upon taking office the President established the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, which rests on a basic principle: when it sees social needs in America, the Federal government will look to faith-based programs and community groups to help.

The President signed an Executive Order to end discrimination against faith-based groups, helping bring down barriers that had prevented faith-based organizations from being considered in the Federal grants process. As a result of the President's efforts, more than $1.1 billion in Federal discretionary grants were awarded to faith-based groups in 2003.

President Bush launched Access to Recovery, a proposed three-year, $600 million drug treatment voucher initiative, which will give addicts expanded access to a full range of faith-based and community providers.

In 2003, the President's Compassion Capital Fund provided $30 million in grants to more than 80 faith-based and community organizations. Nearly $50 million in grants are available in 2004.

President Bush proposed a three-year, $450 million initiative to provide mentors for disadvantaged youth, including the children of prisoners.

To help former prisoners contribute to society and stay away from crime, the President proposed a four-year, $300 million initiative to provide job training and placement services, transitional housing assistance, and mentoring to 50,000 former inmates.

Combating HIV/AIDS Domestically

President Bush proposed $17.1 billion in spending in his 2005 budget to expand prevention, care and treatment, and research efforts to combat HIV/AIDS within the United States.

The President proposed more than $2 billion for the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program, which provides care and treatment for those living with HIV/AIDS, and $2.7 billion for HIV/AIDS research, a 21 percent increase over 2001 funding.

Battling Homelessness

In 2003, the Bush Administration announced the largest amount of homeless assist

Doesn't it bother you that

republicans don't even have that tenant. That they don't believe in helping the disadvantaged?

You haven't heard of Compassionate Conservatism, have you?

George W. Bush on August 3, 2004, at a Knights of Columbus convention in Dallas, Texas(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004 /08/20040803-11.html)

We're moving forward on another initiative which is mentoring for the children of prisoners. I mean, if the job of government is to try to set priorities, a priority is to help children of prisoners find love. Imagine what a tough life it is for a young boy or girl to go see his or her mom or dad behind prison bars. These are children who need help. They're vulnerable to gains and crime and despair. They're desperate for responsible adults in their life who can give them what many of them long for, which is love and tenderness.

The best way to do that is to encourage all groups, including faith-based groups, to provide mentors. And it's happening in America. For those of you who are mentoring the children of prisoners, thank you for what you're doing to make America a more welcoming place. We've awarded grants -- today we've unleashed another $45.5 million of grants to programs, all aimed at doing this.

For a broader list, check out http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/compassionate/ and http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/achievement/chap 13.html, which contains highlights such as the following:

Supporting Faith-based and Community Charities

Immediately upon taking office the President established the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, which rests on a basic principle: when it sees social needs in America, the Federal government will look to faith-based programs and community groups to help.

The President signed an Executive Order to end discrimination against faith-based groups, helping bring down barriers that had prevented faith-based organizations from being considered in the Federal grants process. As a result of the President's efforts, more than $1.1 billion in Federal discretionary grants were awarded to faith-based groups in 2003.

President Bush launched Access to Recovery, a proposed three-year, $600 million drug treatment voucher initiative, which will give addicts expanded access to a full range of faith-based and community providers.

In 2003, the President's Compassion Capital Fund provided $30 million in grants to more than 80 faith-based and community organizations. Nearly $50 million in grants are available in 2004.

President Bush proposed a three-year, $450 million initiative to provide mentors for disadvantaged youth, including the children of prisoners.

To help former prisoners contribute to society and stay away from crime, the President proposed a four-year, $300 million initiative to provide job training and placement services, transitional housing assistance, and mentoring to 50,000 former inmates.

Combating HIV/AIDS Domestically

President Bush proposed $17.1 billion in spending in his 2005 budget to expand prevention, care and treatment, and research efforts to combat HIV/AIDS within the United States.

The President proposed more than $2 billion for the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program, which provides care and treatment for those living with HIV/AIDS, and $2.7 billion for HIV/AIDS research, a 21 percent increase over 2001 funding.

Battling Homelessness

In 2003, the Bush Administration announced the largest amount of homeless assist

Doesn't it bother you that

republicans don't even have that tenant. That they don't believe in helping the disadvantaged?

You haven't heard of Compassionate Conservatism, have you?

George W. Bush on August 3, 2004, at a Knights of Columbus convention in Dallas, Texas(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004 /08/20040803-11.html)

We're moving forward on another initiative which is mentoring for the children of prisoners. I mean, if the job of government is to try to set priorities, a priority is to help children of prisoners find love. Imagine what a tough life it is for a young boy or girl to go see his or her mom or dad behind prison bars. These are children who need help. They're vulnerable to gains and crime and despair. They're desperate for responsible adults in their life who can give them what many of them long for, which is love and tenderness.

The best way to do that is to encourage all groups, including faith-based groups, to provide mentors. And it's happening in America. For those of you who are mentoring the children of prisoners, thank you for what you're doing to make America a more welcoming place. We've awarded grants -- today we've unleashed another $45.5 million of grants to programs, all aimed at doing this.

For a broader list, check out http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/compassionate/ and http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/achievement/chap 13.html, which contains highlights such as the following:

Supporting Faith-based and Community Charities

Immediately upon taking office the President established the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, which rests on a basic principle: when it sees social needs in America, the Federal government will look to faith-based programs and community groups to help.

The President signed an Executive Order to end discrimination against faith-based groups, helping bring down barriers that had prevented faith-based organizations from being considered in the Federal grants process. As a result of the President's efforts, more than $1.1 billion in Federal discretionary grants were awarded to faith-based groups in 2003.

President Bush launched Access to Recovery, a proposed three-year, $600 million drug treatment voucher initiative, which will give addicts expanded access to a full range of faith-based and community providers.

In 2003, the President's Compassion Capital Fund provided $30 million in grants to more than 80 faith-based and community organizations. Nearly $50 million in grants are available in 2004.

President Bush proposed a three-year, $450 million initiative to provide mentors for disadvantaged youth, including the children of prisoners.

To help former prisoners contribute to society and stay away from crime, the President proposed a four-year, $300 million initiative to provide job training and placement services, transitional housing assistance, and mentoring to 50,000 former inmates.

Combating HIV/AIDS Domestically

President Bush proposed $17.1 billion in spending in his 2005 budget to expand prevention, care and treatment, and research efforts to combat HIV/AIDS within the United States.

The President proposed more than $2 billion for the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program, which provides care and treatment for those living with HIV/AIDS, and $2.7 billion for HIV/AIDS research, a 21 percent increase over 2001 funding.

Battling Homelessness

In 2003, the Bush Administration announced the largest amount of homeless assist

You make a very valuable point, and it begs the question (for Americans at least): How does this compare to political spokespersons? Having worked in DC I can say that most people in Washington really are motivated primarily by ideology and a desire to improve the country. They differ in their belief about how the country should operate.

But I do wonder how much of what (for example) Scott McLellan says is what he truly believes? My guess is that like the representative of any large organization, he believes most of it, but certainly not all of it. He is the mouthpiece, and his job is to speak for the organization as a whole, not as an individual.

After all, we don't hear much these days about Bush's promise in 2002 to "[balance] the budget by 2005 without endangering the war against terrorism and homeland security efforts and without raising taxes."

These days, he likes to blame his inability to keep this promise on the 2000 stock market correction and the 2001 terrorist attacks, neither of which he could reasonably have foreseen in 2002. I'd like to see Bush have four more years of opportunity to be a man and take responsibility for his stewardship over the federal budget.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20 030916-4.html

Bush is at least being honest about the situation when he says that he doesn't know if there will be an end to terrorist acts. Kerry just throws out a blanket statement that he's going to end terrorism.

You're giving your best shot, long hours, all your brainpower, to win a war that we're going to win. President Bush - Speech to CIA

We will win this war. President Bush - State of the Union Address

Today at the Legion I said, "We're winning the war on terror, and we will win the war on terror." There's no doubt in my mind, so long as this country stays resolved and strong and determined. President Bush - Interview with Rush Limbaugh

Stop believing all that hype! He was born in New New Haven, Connecticut.

First let me prefix all of this by saying that I do agree with parts of the Libertarian platform I do not think that it is a good solution as a whole.

First of all, we have to pay off our national debt before we can lower taxes to the level that you propose. I do not believe we should lower taxes at all until we have severely reduced our debt. This is because, once we are paying less in interest, we can afford to reduce taxes even lower.

Second of all, I'm not convinced that government spending can be reduced to the level that you propose. According to Table 3.2 on this site the cost of legislative functions alone was 2.8 billion in 2003. Even assuming that most of that cost is due to horrific extravagance, your goal is extremely ambitious.

There are also some functions of the government that I do not believe can be privatized. In my view, the goal of the government is to accomodate any problems that the market cannot solve on its own and I think this set of problems is larger than you think. The most important thing that needs to be done in order to insure that the market serves its participants is to do what we can to make sure that people know what they are buying. That is to say, we need things like the FDA and other such agencies. Perhaps the spending of these agencies can be reduced, but I would not want to live in a country where they do not exist.

The Libertarian solution of creating competing private regulatory bodies isn't feasible. If that were implimented, I would not only have to research every product I use, but also every regulatory company for that industry. Companies could also set up regulatory companies just for the sake of approving their products (perhaps using names remarkably similar to more trustworthy ones) and if the ruse were publically exposed, they can just create a new one. The public has a short memory for this sort of thing and in the worst cases the company can just change its name for a (somewhat) fresh start in the court of public opinion. What do you do if a trustworthy regulatory company comes under new management that is less scrupulous? How long will it take for people to find out that they can no longer be trusted?

Government spending should be reduced and I think this can be done by having the government only focus on simpler goals. We need to keep the government on a much shorter leash, but we should recognize that it has its uses beyond maintaining basic order.

Or whether the bandits are the government.

What good is the latest nerve regeneration treatment when stem cells are illegal in the US?

Contrary to what the opponents of the current administration would have you believe, stem cell research is legal in the US. The federal government will not fund research on new embryonic stem cell lines, however.

Here is President Bush's speech explaining it.

So, if new embryonic stem cell lines are likely to cure diseases, private industry will probably jump in so they can patent the resulting cures.

For the lazy, the full text of the "presidents management agenda" can be found here. The outsorcing of jobs in government starts on page 17. Here is a quote... "Nearly half of all federal employees perform tasks that are readily available in the commercial marketplace - tasks like data collection, administrative support, and payroll services." Another good quote is "Government should be market-based -- we should not be afraid of competition, innovation, and choice. I will open government to the dicipline of competition. GWB". And if you are interested, here are "scorecards" of how things are going. India, here we come! See, its not only programming, its our entire government. They must all go to the same conferences.

"why not privatize all of government?"

Have you heard of something called "the presidents management agenda" that the Bush administration has been touting since it came into office. This president has been seeking to outsource all "non inherently governmental" jobs in the US executive branch for quite some time now. The thinking for this is that private corporations will save the taxpayers money by finding efficiencies in doing business that government cannot. But yes, beware of where your personal information may end up!

1. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands.
2. 
   ...
   We will plan carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail.

I signed up. It's a neat concept. I'd normally vote for Badnarik, but I'm in a "swing state" so that vote might help miserable failure win. I can trade votes with someone who is in a democrat "safe" state like Massachusetts. We both win. They basically cast their vote which wouldn't make a difference in my state, and I cast mine for a third party candidate in their state, upping the percentage for the third party candidate and helping swing my state away from Bush.

It seems like an awesome idea!

The War on Terror. Yep that's working: so far two countried fucked up and Iran's next.

Its almost amusing how many people think that Iraq (I'm assuming thats the other country of the two) was an act of a war on terror. That was about WMDs, no, thats right, it was to "liberate" the poor people or something, noone really knows.

The US Government: the world's leading terror organisation for the last 50 years.

Heh.

Check this out: President Declares "Freedom at War with Fear".

Here's the official FBI definition of terrorism:

Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. ...

He doesn't share your your beliefs. This is why he doesn't go insane. That you lack an understanding for his position shows that you are lacking in empathy.

LOL. The reason his position(s) are not capable of being understood by a rational person is my fault? That's a new one. If you can explain it, go ahead. You can start with the stem cell research bit:

Bush: Research on embryonic stem cells also raises profound ethical questions because extracting the stem cell destroys the embryo, and thus destroys the potential for life.

But then, fertility clinics, by law, are required to dispose of thousands of these same embryos.

If Bush really gives a shit about destroying embryos, why doesn't he pull federal support for these fertility clinics? Why doesn't he ban invitro fertilization? How many people like Christopher Reeve have to beg, plead, and die before Bush removes his head from his ass on this issue?

President George Bush Responds:

In little over a generation, we have witnessed the swiftest advance of freedom in the 2,500-year story of democracy. It is no accident that the rise of so many democracies took place in a time when the world's most influential nation was itself a democracy.

[...]


That sure looks familiar -- it's recycled from a year-old speech.

Not to mention a mostly-repeat answer from here.

And so on...

Way to go, word-processing speechwriter monkeys!

Deny, deny, deny.

And in any case, you're arguing against a fallacy. Nowhere did I articulate that we needed a government regulation to prevent people from running for President, only that the third party candidates should (and I mean should in terms of what they ought to do themselves) have been elected on a more local level before running for President.

My argument clearly only applies to modern times, and your reference to colonial-era presidents just shows exactly how nitpicky you have to be not to understand my point. And my point isn't to say that third party candidate ought not to run, period, only that they should have some experience on a more local level. It's a Recipe for Success, if you will.

It seems Bush is prompted through an earpiece.

More here: http://www.isbushwired.com/

For a voice over, go here and listen. Forward to around 22:39. A voice says a line and Bush repeats it:

I'm always seeing these kind of suggestions. "Why are we spending money to do X when it could be spent on Y". Often the cost of X is a tiny fraction of the cost of Y.

The federal education budget was $59.5 billion in 2003. Maybe $10 million fighting spyware (which imposes costs on the economy through crime and lost productivity) isn't such a bad deal.

More information here. Hey, you did ask!

I am now finished with work.

I agree. But some of President Bush's programs seem more classically liberal in nature than following the ideal of "personal responsibility".

Hmm. Equality of opportunity. I found an interesting article that argues not for Equality of Opportunity, but for Freedom of Opportunity. By using the phrase Equality of Opportunity your are assuming that someone (the government, I presume?) will be defining what is "equal".

Even so, I can't just trust a random web site from someone who may be more libertarian than conservative. So, with some reservations, I'll give you the equality of opportunity line as a "conservative value".

And exactly how does that differ from what a "liberal" believes?

OK. But again, is that "conservative value"? That's just basic economics. It is accepted that small business provides most of the jobs in this country. How can that be a "conservative value"?

While there have been economic arguments in favor of tax cuts, I still do not understand how those tax cuts work in balance with huge budget deficits. Under budget deficits, someone has to pay, eventually. And, making our children pay is not a "conservative value".

I would disagree that is a conservative value. Why? here and here. Also, AFAIK, the first President to try to spend his way out of an economic downturn was FDR. Not exactly a conservative icon.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

1) The deferred compensation is cash, not options, so I think the reference to the 433,000 options is not referring to deferred compensation. All the stories I've read on both sides of the issue support this interpretation.

2) While the Guardian says that the deferred compensation is "up to 1m a year", I believe the actual figures have been around $150,000/year and *have* been disclosed by the Cheneys at least in some years. The factcheck article cited earlier shows Cheney has received $398,548 in deferred compensation so far (for 2001-2003 tax returns, with a payment coming for 2004 and one for 2005) while VP. (Here's the 2003 disclosure from the Cheneys.)

3) Even being generous and taking the critics' attacks on Cheney via the Congressional Research Service's ethics standards as "still having a financial interest" seriously, when you read the fine print in those same attacks, they are basically arguing that the financial interest is limited to the fact that if Halliburton goes bankrupt then Cheney doesn't get the 2004/2005 deferred compensation. Since Cheney has already earned $20+ million from Halliburton, I personally find it extremely dubious that he would make some decision to keep an extra few hundred thousand... especially given the microscope this stuff is under.

I call it smear, smear, smear. I'm still waiting for some credible evidence.

John Adams

... of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. The second and third presidents of the USA, who both died on July 4th, 1826, 50 years to the day after Independence Day.

... of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. The second and third presidents of the USA, who both died on July 4th, 1826, 50 years to the day after Independence Day.

By going to war against Iraq, the US stopped Saddam's ongoing war on the people of Iraq.

People sure do like to bring that up. The funny thing is, it is NOT the point. The point is, that's not why we were told we're going to war. It was that Iraq had massive amounts of WMDs (Big fucking deal) and it was stated by Bush that Iraq had ties to al-Qaeda (see http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20 030319-1.html) to garner public support.

These were both LIES. That is the point. This current administration lied to all of us, and now its supporters want to go around and say "but that's ok, because there's other good reasons for the war". Yea, if these reasons are that good then why lie to us in the beginning? Maybe it's because this administrationg prefers to us fear to sway public opinion?

That's not enough actually. You can't just picture yourself in another country's shoes, as this is the same as doing something without asking, and may actually be considered more insulting. You can't as an American president, presume to know how a certain country would feel about U.S. military action anywhere. You have to go before the rest of the world, put forth a resolution, and tell them that this is what you want to do. At least that's the procedure that is currently in place.

And that's just the problem. I don't think Bush & co. have been taking seriously any of the input from the rest of the world.

The current administration tried to take the rest of the world seriously. They tried to play by the rules and Colin Powell went before the U.N. to try to convince them to support our resolution for action in Iraq. Multiple times, we tried to get the U.N. security council to back us unconditionally. Furthermore, many U.S. citizens desired U.N. support before taking military action in Iraq, so it was important for the administration to try to achieve this. They did not take the rest of the world lightly in this case.

However, as we all know, these attempts to gain support failed, and at this point maybe that's when the "global test" should have failed. This is when Colin Powell started his tour to find supportive nations, and when he had 49, the "global test" passed for the administration. That is where the controversy lies. There were supportive nations, but the fact that none of them were France, Germany, and Russia was a major issue. Probably the largest sticking point, was the fact that the U.N. Security Council did not back our actions, and we did not have support of all the permanent members.

That being said, the administration felt that it had enough global support to pass its definition of "global test", and made its decision to attack.

The Global Test is more of an abstract concept than a strictly defined set of rules.

And therein lies the problem, and why Bush appeared upset. Bush and Kerry have very different interpretations of what constitutes a "global test". The administration feels that they had enough support globally, but Kerry feels that this was not enough.

So what constitutes a global test? Is it enought to have N number of nations supporting your actions? Is it enought to have only the U.N. Security Council supporting your actions? Do you need more than this? It's a very slippery slope.

It appears, though, that no matter what we do, at least some of the rest of the world will not support us. If, for instance, Canada suddenly just bombed Detroit, I would find it had to believe, even in this case, that we would get overwhemling support in the U.N. to retaliate. Canada would most certainly be condemned by the U.N. for attacking the U.S., but it is doubtful whether the U.N. would support a U.S. attack on Canada. Furthermore, we wouldn't have the support of all the U.N. Security Council in this case. Most of Europe would probably not support action. So now what do we do? Retaliate, or just ignore the attacks?

You cannot take the opinion of the world upon any of your actions lightly, and this is why we went before the U.N., and why it was necessary to consult congress first before any action was taken.

You'll find a mixture of ancient history (chemical weapon use by Iraq from the late 80's when the US was still broadly supportive of Saddam, and tried to blame it on Iran), shaggy dog stories (tales from an Iraqi "defector" of 20 secret WMD facilities which have since mysteriously evaporated) and flawed intelligence presented as fact (the famous cylinders), and so on.

Even though the US has long had control of Iraq, freedom of movement, and plenty of reasons to look, zero credible evidence has been found to substantiate a significant threat to the US by Iraq as implied by that page.

With hindsight, the point isn't that wholesale deception was practised on the electorate (and still is) but that every scrap of "evidence" from faked up accounts of Iraqi uranium provisioning to the wild fantasies of "defectors" with vested interests has been martialed in support of a foreign policy decision that had already been made.

This lying on an industrial scale, in order to take the country to war, for goodness' sakes, shows most clearly the contempt in which the US electorate are held by the elected, imho.

Incidentally, a look at how the NYT originally reported the cylinders story makes an interesting comparison with their recent 16-page splurge. Since this was (AFAIK) how the cylinder story broke, you'd think it might have got more of a mention.. ;-)

HA HA Your link where Bush describes his plan for education... check it out, he has a misspelling in the third paragraph of a paper about education!

Bush says: It doesnt have to be this way.

So much for "no child left behind". It's truly.

I hate the spelling police, but this one was too tempting.

Remember, the Greens also advocate cutting the military budget in half (which is currently half of our entire national budget).

No.

The total spending on National Defense for 2003 was estimated at 322 billion dollars out of an estimated 2,016 billion (2.016 trillion) dollars. Social Security was estimated at 477 billion, Income Security at 263 billion, Medicare at 230 billion, and Health at 175 billion. (Interest payments on the National Debt was estimated at 188 billion.)

Simply put, we spend at least 3.5 times more on social programs than we do on national defense.

And the last foreign language speaking leader to give a speech before a joint congress and senate was...? Tony Blair is the only other foreign leader to give a speech before a joint congress in my memory. Other visiting foreign leaders appear with the President in joint press conferences, and give other interviews to the media.

Speeches before joint sessions of congress are very rare and should be held to a very high standard. It is absolutely appropriate that Allawi had help with phrases and delivery of his speech to live up to that standard.

Allawi only received help writing and delivering his speech, and there is no evidence that he did not agree with anything in the speech. The content of the speech matches what he has said in many other interviews and press conferences. Anyone who would ignore everything Allawi has said and done in the past and in the future because he was helped with his speech, who did not attend the speech, insults Allawi, and disrespects the contributions of our allies, gives me no confidence that they are interested in bringing freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people.

Remember: Allawi and his speech-writers write in Arabic for an Iraqi audience. Of course he is going to get help on a speech delivered in English for an American audience. If you want more authentic Allawi, read his speech to the U.N. General Assembly he gave the next day. The Arabic translated into English is far more bland and unappealing but the content is the same. You can also read the press conference he gave afterward, or an interview to the Washington Post, or anything else you can google if you want to read what Allawi says without assistance from American speech writers.

It's funny that those same blogs don't fact-check the Bush administration as much as they do the Kerry campaign. Here is an administration that has told more lies to the public (in the few press conferences that they've had; they're also very secretive) than any that I can remember (Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II).

"Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, and we know where they are."
"Saddam is in cahoots with al Qaeda, and could give WMD to them."
"We went to war for the freedom of the Iraqi people."
"These tax cuts are going to stimulate the economy and create many new jobs by stimulating investment."
"We've inherited a recession from Clinton."
"You don't need to know who Cheney spoke to in his secret energy policy meetings."
"We're going to whole-heartedly support fighting AIDS in third-world countries."

It's so funny that I could cry.

1. Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.

"you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror" - GWB

President Bush routinely tacks the following paragraph onto the end of almost every executive order, to attempt to evade judicial oversight of that order.

• This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees or agents, or any other person.

Quit saying you can't vote for whatever candidate that you want, and just do it.

The issue isn't whether or not it's physically possible to mark a ballot for a third party. Such thinking is a deceitful red herring.

For chrissakes, fifty years ago Maurice Duverger showed that elections conducted by"first-past-the-post" principles tend -- by their very mechanics -- toward a political system that's perpetually dominated by two political parties.

Alternatives exist, to be sure. But it's more than disingenuous to suggest that malcontent against an artificial two-party state is somehow attributable purely to apathy and not also to what's nearly a mathematical certainty.

The system is rigged. (And not just for this reason and in this way.) What motivation have the present set of players to change it of their own volution?

Do you mean this 42 is the answer?

It amazes me they are both (Bush and Kerry) so fearful of getting a question they aren't ready for or being upstaged by someone actually in touch with true American feelings that they are their debate-fixing group make it impossible to find out anything that resembles the truth.

I have never actually watched Kerry be interviewed by anyone and stumble through the questioning but I have watched (and read) through this interview where the questions were submitted in advance and yet the President still did not look prepared for the questions/style he was presented with.

It made me feel like we were being led by someone completely unprepared to lead this country when we need it most (ie when he stared like a deer in headlights in the classroom after hearing of the second plane hitting the WTC).

While I have mentioned that the American public may seem to side even more with someone that has problems during an interview I don't think that it gives him any more credibility to those of us that may still be sitting on the fence.

Must.. get.. facts... straight... arrrg...

Don't worry. If you can't get your facts straight, you're in good company these days.

(Meant to be humorous, not insulting...)

Rewriting: In regards to social security, as a professional 25-year-old worker I'm concerned that I'm paying into a system, which is severely over-taxed and will be non-existent when I reach retirement. I would like to know what steps will be taken to either ensure I will get similar benefits to what I would receive if I retired today, or to allow me to no longer contribute to Social Security in any way.

Bush sort of explained the answer in his 2004 State of the Union address: "My administration is promoting free and fair trade to open up new markets for America's entrepreneurs and manufacturers and farmers -- to create jobs for American workers. Younger workers should have the opportunity to build a nest egg by saving part of their Social Security taxes in a personal retirement account. We should make the Social Security system a source of ownership for the American people. And we should limit the burden of government on this economy by acting as good stewards of taxpayers' dollars."

So, from my limited understanding, you can choose to have Social Security put into the market, pre-tax, similar to what 401(k)s and Roth IRAs are doing. By changing the question to not contributing at all, you remove this option.

Personally, I'd like to see Social Security phased out in the next 30 years. That's right, today's 35-45 year olds. You better start saving.

I like this sort of brazan challenge to common sense. How do we know that the world is round?

Well:
It would take me all night to list all Bush's lies, but here's a few. The falsehoods told by George Bush (and most other politicians) can fall into five categories: Self-contradictions, falsehoods stated while ignorant or with a plausible after-the-fact claim to ignorance, statements that are only technically or half-true, lies by implication, and outright lies.
Some outright lies:
The single worst lie Bush has told, I think, is that the terrorists attacked us "because they hate our freedom," and that "America has been called to defend its freedom." That isn't true (defend it from what? Radical Muslims cannot take away an American's freedom; the government can), and it's clear that he said it mainly because if you can invoke the word "freedom," you've got a pretty good soundbite. If you can get Americans united in what they believe is the cause of freedom, you can get most of us to blindly play 'follow the leader' even to the point that we will eschew freedoms and the right to privacy in the name of freedom.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20 020409-8.html
"They ["the people we're dealing with"] hate our freedoms."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20 020328.html "They ["an enemy that are nothing but a bunch of cold-blooded killers"] hate what America stands for. They hate our religious tolerance. They hate our freedom of speech. They hate freedom of the press. They despise freedom. They despise freedom."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20 010920-8.html
" On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. ... freedom itself is under attack. ... They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other. ... This is not, however, just America's fight. And what is at stake is not just America's freedom. This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom. ... Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom -- the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time -- now depends on us."
In fact, the Al Qaeda group attacked us because it is a group of Islamic extremists that believes that the force of what they call "jahiliyya" (infidelity), represented by the West and epitomized by America, is on a crusade against Islam. Usama Bin Ladin turned his focus from the Soviet Union to the United States when he became aware that the U.S. had stationed troops in Saudi Arabia, home of the Muslim holy lands. He came to see the United States as "the head of the snake," ultimately responsible for all the regional conflicts in the Middle East, citing America's apparent support for Israel in the Arab-Israeli conflict, the growing global effect of American culture, and other influences. In 1998, Bin Ladin issued a fatwa declaring it the duty of what he believed to be "real Muslims" to kill Americans.
They don't give a shit about freedom. There was no terrorist group sitting around in a cave at one point that suddenly decided, "Hey, you know? America is way too free. Let's go hijack some airplanes and let's show 'em." Freedom doesn't enter into it. What they hate is what they percieve as our "imperialism" and what they call our "crusade against Islam." It's quite irrational, but that is the al Qaeda assessment of the world. If there is a madman on the loose, you should at least want to know what has driven him mad so that

I like this sort of brazan challenge to common sense. How do we know that the world is round?

Well:
It would take me all night to list all Bush's lies, but here's a few. The falsehoods told by George Bush (and most other politicians) can fall into five categories: Self-contradictions, falsehoods stated while ignorant or with a plausible after-the-fact claim to ignorance, statements that are only technically or half-true, lies by implication, and outright lies.
Some outright lies:
The single worst lie Bush has told, I think, is that the terrorists attacked us "because they hate our freedom," and that "America has been called to defend its freedom." That isn't true (defend it from what? Radical Muslims cannot take away an American's freedom; the government can), and it's clear that he said it mainly because if you can invoke the word "freedom," you've got a pretty good soundbite. If you can get Americans united in what they believe is the cause of freedom, you can get most of us to blindly play 'follow the leader' even to the point that we will eschew freedoms and the right to privacy in the name of freedom.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20 020409-8.html
"They ["the people we're dealing with"] hate our freedoms."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20 020328.html "They ["an enemy that are nothing but a bunch of cold-blooded killers"] hate what America stands for. They hate our religious tolerance. They hate our freedom of speech. They hate freedom of the press. They despise freedom. They despise freedom."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20 010920-8.html
" On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. ... freedom itself is under attack. ... They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other. ... This is not, however, just America's fight. And what is at stake is not just America's freedom. This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom. ... Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom -- the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time -- now depends on us."
In fact, the Al Qaeda group attacked us because it is a group of Islamic extremists that believes that the force of what they call "jahiliyya" (infidelity), represented by the West and epitomized by America, is on a crusade against Islam. Usama Bin Ladin turned his focus from the Soviet Union to the United States when he became aware that the U.S. had stationed troops in Saudi Arabia, home of the Muslim holy lands. He came to see the United States as "the head of the snake," ultimately responsible for all the regional conflicts in the Middle East, citing America's apparent support for Israel in the Arab-Israeli conflict, the growing global effect of American culture, and other influences. In 1998, Bin Ladin issued a fatwa declaring it the duty of what he believed to be "real Muslims" to kill Americans.
They don't give a shit about freedom. There was no terrorist group sitting around in a cave at one point that suddenly decided, "Hey, you know? America is way too free. Let's go hijack some airplanes and let's show 'em." Freedom doesn't enter into it. What they hate is what they percieve as our "imperialism" and what they call our "crusade against Islam." It's quite irrational, but that is the al Qaeda assessment of the world. If there is a madman on the loose, you should at least want to know what has driven him mad so that

I like this sort of brazan challenge to common sense. How do we know that the world is round?

Well:
It would take me all night to list all Bush's lies, but here's a few. The falsehoods told by George Bush (and most other politicians) can fall into five categories: Self-contradictions, falsehoods stated while ignorant or with a plausible after-the-fact claim to ignorance, statements that are only technically or half-true, lies by implication, and outright lies.
Some outright lies:
The single worst lie Bush has told, I think, is that the terrorists attacked us "because they hate our freedom," and that "America has been called to defend its freedom." That isn't true (defend it from what? Radical Muslims cannot take away an American's freedom; the government can), and it's clear that he said it mainly because if you can invoke the word "freedom," you've got a pretty good soundbite. If you can get Americans united in what they believe is the cause of freedom, you can get most of us to blindly play 'follow the leader' even to the point that we will eschew freedoms and the right to privacy in the name of freedom.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20 020409-8.html
"They ["the people we're dealing with"] hate our freedoms."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20 020328.html "They ["an enemy that are nothing but a bunch of cold-blooded killers"] hate what America stands for. They hate our religious tolerance. They hate our freedom of speech. They hate freedom of the press. They despise freedom. They despise freedom."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20 010920-8.html
" On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. ... freedom itself is under attack. ... They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other. ... This is not, however, just America's fight. And what is at stake is not just America's freedom. This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom. ... Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom -- the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time -- now depends on us."
In fact, the Al Qaeda group attacked us because it is a group of Islamic extremists that believes that the force of what they call "jahiliyya" (infidelity), represented by the West and epitomized by America, is on a crusade against Islam. Usama Bin Ladin turned his focus from the Soviet Union to the United States when he became aware that the U.S. had stationed troops in Saudi Arabia, home of the Muslim holy lands. He came to see the United States as "the head of the snake," ultimately responsible for all the regional conflicts in the Middle East, citing America's apparent support for Israel in the Arab-Israeli conflict, the growing global effect of American culture, and other influences. In 1998, Bin Ladin issued a fatwa declaring it the duty of what he believed to be "real Muslims" to kill Americans.
They don't give a shit about freedom. There was no terrorist group sitting around in a cave at one point that suddenly decided, "Hey, you know? America is way too free. Let's go hijack some airplanes and let's show 'em." Freedom doesn't enter into it. What they hate is what they percieve as our "imperialism" and what they call our "crusade against Islam." It's quite irrational, but that is the al Qaeda assessment of the world. If there is a madman on the loose, you should at least want to know what has driven him mad so that

here you go.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?

THE PRESIDENT: I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it. (Laughter.) John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn't yet.

I would have gone into Afghanistan the way we went into Afghanistan. Even knowing what I know today about the stockpiles of weapons, I still would have called upon the world to deal with Saddam Hussein. See, I happen to believe that we'll find out the truth on the weapons. That's why we've sent up the independent commission. I look forward to hearing the truth, exactly where they are. They could still be there. They could be hidden, like the 50 tons of mustard gas in a turkey farm.

One of the things that Charlie Duelfer talked about was that he was surprised at the level of intimidation he found amongst people who should know about weapons, and their fear of talking about them because they don't want to be killed. There's a terror still in the soul of some of the people in Iraq; they're worried about getting killed, and, therefore, they're not going to talk.

But it will all settle out, John. We'll find out the truth about the weapons at some point in time. However, the fact that he had the capacity to make them bothers me today, just like it would have bothered me then. He's a dangerous man. He's a man who actually -- not only had weapons of mass destruction -- the reason I can say that with certainty is because he used them. And I have no doubt in my mind that he would like to have inflicted harm, or paid people to inflict harm, or trained people to inflict harm on America, because he hated us.

I hope I -- I don't want to sound like I've made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.