So Bush Wants to Protect the American People

Bush is willing to spend billions, nay trillions, of dollars in order to "protect" the American people from attackers, yet is unwilling to protect the American people from disease--the result of not instituting a national health care system and not funding stem cell research. When you consider all the "casualties" from the onslaught of disease, compared to "foreign" attacks, it should be a "no-brainer" that disease would be the greatest danger to the American people.
Then brutal and insidious crimes, as a result of the invasion of foreign nationals crossing over our southern border, should be another priority in protecting the American people--yet it isn't.
What hypocrisy!
Other bogus reasoning is "outsourcing" is no problem because American workers can be retrained or re-schooled to learn how to do some other job--well, as one person who has done it many times it ain't easy, costs money and time, and is distruptive. In order to get an equal or better paying job a person would have to get a lot more education and that takes time, money, and ideal circumstances. Bush's attitude about the subject shows his ignorance, indifference, and contempt for the average American worker.

More Propaganda

It is really pitiful to think that the Republicans "feel" that if only they can get their "message" out that the people will flock to their doorstep. What they are really bemoaning is that their propaganda is getting stale, that people are finally seeing through all the crap that is being spread about. Propaganda only works for awhile, and ony works well if you have full control of the messengers. anad for awhile they did.
It is disgusting to see just how far this administration is willing to go in order to spread propaganda--the tent on the White House grounds is just such an example. It should be clear, but isn't, to the American public that this White House is not for the people but for themselves and who they represent--corporations and the wealthy. But that is changing. The big question will it be enough and will the change last?
One thing is sure--if the Democrats win one or both houses they had better start representing the Middle Class instead of special interests. If the Middle Class finds themselves there is going to be a different climate in Washington. The Revolution has begun. The only question is will it grow or falter?

Cut and Run

The Republicans are continually trying to "embarrass" the Democrats with the slogan "Cut and Run" and no one has so far flung it back in the Republicans faces--so I will, though I'm not a Democrat but an Independent.
Cut, I would think, implies a quick slash at an enemy, then lacking the courage to receive a counter from the enemy, runs away. I would say that engaging the "enemy" for three years, taking now 2800 deaths, and 20,000 plus wounded is much more than a "cut". How long is any people and country expected to engage an "enemy"? How many billions, and maybe trillions, of dollars are expected to be spent? Some situations are not winnable, no matter how much courage and money a country is willing to spend in that pursuit. Then there are those who are still fighting the Vietnam war--such as Representative Hunter, who never misses the opportunity to label others because they aren't as militantly patriotic as he would like everyone to believe he is. He is obviously unbalanced but because he is so aggressive in the expression of his ideology no one wants to confront him. There is a time and place for super patriots but the floor of Congress is not one of them. Passion is one thing but blind zealotry is another. It does not serve the "people" well.

Al Qaida is Winning--Big Time

When you consider that the "War on Terror" is going to exceed 1 Trillion dollars in no time at all and that we are quickly losing our freedoms because of an over reaction of an arrogant administration and a chief executive's paranoia, one would have to conclude that Al-Qaida has exceeded its wildest dreams as a result of the 9/11 attack. What should have been a common sense reaction to the attack?
Locking cockpit doors, air marshals, security at airports, reasonable and lawful communications between intelligence agencies and law enforcement are obviously the right actions to take; and are the actions that were taken for the most part. Examining every container coming into the U.S. for nuclear material or bombs seems over-kill when you consider how difficult it is to make a nuclear bomb or obtain nuclear material and how unreliable and difficult aiming a shipping container at some target is. "Nuclear" seems to be more of a rhetorical gimmick than a reality. Like "aluminum tubes" and bug carrying "drones". On the one hand the administration spends billions of dollars on a war and taking measures to take away our basic freedoms then on the other hand allows millions of foreign nationals to cross our borders and do whatever they want in our country. Then there are the "other" questions.
Where is all the money going? Who are the contractors, suppliers, manufacturers that are benefiting from all the money being spent on the war on terror and how much have they contributed to campaign funds?

North Korea's Nuke--On G.W. Bush's Watch

The Republicans made much about Clinton's "failure" about North Korea but it has been on G.W. Bush's watch that North Korea has gotten the bomb--after over five years that the Republicans have been in power. The failure has been due to this Administration's inability to compromise. They also lack imagination. History and precedent should have been a guide. Did Kennedy not get the Soviets and Cuba to get rid of nuclear missiles on our doorstep and diffuse some tension?
What are the options we now have open to us? First of all N. Korea is not going away with a whimper. That said how can we get them to give up their nukes? What they want most is what Israel wants, acceptance and security. The U.S. is the only one who can really assure North Korea. Like we did with Castro and the Soviets. For over 40 years the U.S. has kept its promise not to invade Cuba. Other options, such as military force, is not an option and strict embargoes might cause the North Koreans to become desperate and attack South Korea and Japan.
Unfortunately, if the N. Koreans have the bomb, to strike a deal with them at this point will cause us to lose face. Obviously the situation is much more complex than what is being stated here but from simple analysis comes complex solutions, or is it vis a versa?

North Korea--Fine Kettle of Fish!

North Korea's bomb is a testament to Bush's diplomatic failure--obviously not talking one to one is not working. Bush's administration lacks the diplomatic skills necessary for settling complex issues and not going one-to-one with other countries is just an attempt to cover up that fact. Getting other countries, like Iran and Korea, to capitulate on issues beforehand avoids the embarrassment of failure due to incompetence. Having other countries diplomats hold our hands at the negotiating table spreads and diffuses the blame of failure. Diplomacy is all about compromise and this administration is so locked into its ideology it is unable to grasp the meaning of compromise. This administration can't depend on Propaganda forever to sway people's opinions it has to perform at some level and point.

Columbia University Academic Thugs?

What can be said about the riot that took place against the leader of the Minutemen? Lots. There are a few places where discourse is expected to be orderly, logical, rational, and fair. A highly respected University is one of those. But in the case of Columbia University thuggery seems to be the accepted means by which to express a differing opinion.
Emotional appeals, verbal and physical intimidation, fallacious logic, and outright lies are the means that the illegal immigration advocates use in order to "sway" public and political opinion.
These methods in the past have been the means by which fascists, despots, and totalitarians have used to push their agendas on a weak minded and disorganized populace.
It is doubly troubling that a foreign country bordering ours does its best to intimidate, interfere, and manipulate in order to prevent our country from gaining control of our borders; all the while encouraging an invasion of its poorest into our country making us take on a burden it should be shouldering.
All of these events should be a warning to us that there are many in our country and abroad who care less about our citizens welfare and who feel no loyalty to us.
The vote in November is an important one to everyone and each citizen should have a clear understanding on where they stand on the issues and be informed about them: as well as very clear on where their potential representatives stand on the issues.
Be aware too that many of these potential reps are adept at side stepping questions and giving what appears to be an answer when in reality it is not the answer to the question.
When a person does not answer a question in one short sentence, but goes on and on without making it clear what they are saying--don't believe anything they say and do not, I say again, do not vote for that person. He or she is devious and not to be trusted. If we were to insist on yes or no answers to questions posed to our politicians, or anyone else who wants us to be swayed by their reasoning, everyone would be better off.
How about a signed contract or promisary by our candidates that they stand for such and such, will try to do such and such, and if not will resign if found going against the contract?

The Cat Is Out of the Bag

Bob Woodward's book is substantiating what I have been saying all along--Bush lies, Cheney lies, Condi Rice lies--they all lie. I guess people figure that if someone goes to church they will always tell the truth.
Half truths are the worst, because you cant tell where the lie ends and the truth begins, or vice versa. Like the Administration keeps harping about the Media always reporting the bad and none of the good--what good? If a reporter can't walk down a Baghdad street without getting kidnapped and later getting their heads cut off where is the good?
Then there is the big question about what to do in Iraq? The options are rather limited--we can stay the course and have the whole place blow up in our faces, declare victory and pull out, or give the Iraqi government the option of clamping down on the militias, insurgents, and Al Qaida types or give over security back to the U.S., where we send in another 50,000 troops and squelch the violence--at least from the Iraqis and Arabs.
Genghis Khan is a good example of establishing security. His tactic was simple. Set the rules and ruthlessly, but fairly, enforce them. It is said that a maiden could take a camel train of gold from one end of his domain to the other end without being robbed or molested. Justice was swift and certain. Anyone breaking his laws was relentlessly hunted down and punished.
How tons of shells are being carted around to make bombs is beyond my comprehension. That requires vehicles large enough to move them and people handling them. Curfews, dead zones, ferreting out weapons caches, etc. would do a lot towards stopping the making and placing of bombs. That requires more control and action, which means more troops. The "staying the course" strategy just means more troops being killed and more violence.