Saturday, October 9

Battling Green Eye Shades

I really have no idea what the heck that was a reference to. Lets look at the quote in context.
BUSH: He's just not credible when he talks about being fiscally conservative. He's just not credible. If you look at his record in the Senate, he voted to break the caps -- the spending caps -- over 200 times.

And here he says he's going to be a fiscal conservative, all of a sudden. It's just not credible. You cannot believe it. And of course he's going to raise your taxes. You see, he's proposed $2.2 trillion of new spending. And you say: Well, how are you going to pay for it? He says, well, he's going to raise the taxes on the rich -- that's what he said -- the top two brackets. That raises, he says $800 billion; we say $600 billion.

BUSH: We've got battling green eye shades.

Somewhere in between those numbers -- and so there's a difference, what he's promised and what he can raise.

Now, either he's going to break all these wonderful promises he's told you about or he's going to raise taxes. And I suspect, given his record, he's going to raise taxes.

Is my time up yet?
Yeah I'm still clueless, I mean I tried, kind of anyway, to make sence of the balttling greden eyshades, but cant. Who knows someone out there on one of them dagblamed internets will have a satisfactory explanation.
I'll be back if I can find one. Oh, and by the way President, the answer to your last question is a resounding YES.


The battling geen eyeshades was apparently a reference to the green tinted visors that used to be worn by accountants in the olden days.
Gone are the days when accountants in green visors labored over large journal sheets trying to find the bottom line and make everything balance. The personal computer and intuitive software have taken some of the mystique and anxiety away from bookkeeping and accounting.
So in a clumsy way he was referring to battling accountants. Well thank goodness that it wasn't some new fundy code speak. lets see if eyeshades turn up in a google search.
Yes they do. They are those things you wear when trying to sleep with the lights on. So maybe George was talking about blind accountants doing battle. Who knows. but that closes the book on this obscure reference.

Dred Scott = Roe V. Wade

Some of us were confused for a moment when in a question about the supreme court and who he might appoint, mr bush mentioned a pre civil war Supreme Court Case about slavery and the rights of property owners. I mean what the hell was he talking about. We know how he feels about people of color, because he demonstrates an abiding sensitivity the the African American Culture, for example:

BUSH: Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.

That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.

And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists.

So what in gods name could he have been on about with that reference? Well it seems that the anti-choice adherents, tend to think of themselves as modern day abolitionists, and make many references to Dred Scott when arguing their case. So while some of us where confused, it should be clear that Bush was telling the faithful that he would appoint judges that were opposed to Roe V Wade, which makes the following blather about a litmus test, a lie.

And I suspect one of us will have a pick at the end of next year -- the next four years. And that's the kind of judge I'm going to put on there. No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution.

Lie might have been too harsh, then again, no.This statement "how they interpret the constitution" is about choosing judges who would employ the logic of the Dred Scott case in a reinterpretation of Roe V Wade, in other words judges that would find the latter unconstitutional.


Them pesky rumors on them pesky internets, you can't trust anything on 'em, so trust me when I say that my daddy should have waited until '92 to use the read my lips bit, cause then it wouldn't matter if he changed his mind, tee hee hee. So you can read my lips when I say there will not be a draft. (unless there is a grave and gathering threat)

FARLEY: Mr. President, since we continue to police the world, how do you intend to maintain our military presence without reinstituting a draft?

BUSH: Yes, that's a great question. Thanks.

I hear there's rumors on the Internets that we're going to have a draft. We're not going to have a draft, period. The all- volunteer army works. It works particularly when we pay our troops well. It works when we make sure they've got housing, like we have done in the last military budgets.
It works when we make sure they have housing? Is that only an optional part of the deal or are you just trying to take credit for that which has always been done, as is often your want. Well I should say "always been done [until Iraq that is] maybe he was referring to this.

Or this

or this

Looks like good housing to me. I can see how it "just works", and I am glad that yu are resolute and know how the world works. I can also appreciate the fact that it would be nearly impossible for you to articulate this knowledge in a way that could be understood by this humble servant. I know, everything is just fine and those few things that are less than fine, well, I know you are working on it.

Friday, October 8

Ya'll know I love the Simpsons

Something rarely mentioned: Troop Strength Gulf war I

One of the things that I questioned in the run up to war in Iraq was the suggestion that 130,000 troops were all that woulb be required to secure our goals. While I understood at the time that Iraq in 2003 was a shadow of it's former glory, I rememberd that we had 500,000 or so boots available for a much less substatial mission, getting Saddam out of Kuwait. There is an interesting rundown of the history of the first gulf engagement at this site, and for the record the following pertains to the number of US forces available when that war started.
Jan. 16 CENTCOM announces 425,000 US troops in theater, supported by ground forces of 19 nations and naval efforts of 14 nations. First elements of USAFE Joint Task Force Headquarters deploy from Ramstein AB to Incirlik AB, Turkey, and prepare to establish USAF's first wartime composite wing. Seven B-52Gs, launching from Barksdale AFB, La., become first aircraft to take off on Desert Storm combat mission; BUFFs of 596th Bomb Squadron, 2nd Bomb Wing, carry supersecret, never-before-used AGM-86C Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missiles.
So what kills me is that we had half a million forces available for a mission to restore Kuwaiti sovereignity, and this time around we it was thought that we could do a much larger job with less than 30% of the number of troops. lets take a look at a map for a second.

Iraq area = total: 437,072 sq km
Kuwait area = total: 17,820 sq km

So 30% of the troops to osccupy and control a country nearly 25 times larger than Kuwait. Yeah right. Anyone who listened to me in Feb '03 would have been warned that this was a big assed mistake, but then I wasn't blogging and well, people have a tendancy to avoid me when I launch into an occasional tirade about justice and the American way. Stoopid is as Stoopid does.

Wednesday, October 6

CNN debate poll games.

Kos and Atrios both mentioned that CNN had pulled the original poll asking "who do you think won the vice presidential debate?" and as you can see here, Edwards had a substatial lead before they flopped and changed the question to " Did the vice presidential debate help you decide which way you will vote?" which you can find here. Then I find out (thanks Marlon) that CNN has a new poll (bottom right side of page) asking this question: Who do you think won last night's vice presidential debate? Results can be found here.

The first poll showed Edwards winning 78% to 18% with 4% claiming draw.
The next poll shows 50%-50%
The final poll shows Edwards with a 63% to 37%

Wonder if they'll pull this poll and try something else. Feel free to vote.

The Facts and their Bias Seem To Be Jumping the Bush Admin' Lately

So was Saddam really trying to aquire Weapons of Mass Destruction, or maybe not. This would seem to be the last nail in the, "Saddam was a threat", coffin. Thanks to dividedandconquered for the tip. From Yahoo.

By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Undercutting the Bush's administration's rationale for invading Iraq (news - web sites), the final report of the chief U.S. arms inspector concludes that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) did not vigorously pursue a program to develop weapons of mass destruction after international inspectors left Baghdad in 1998, an administration official said Wednesday.

In drafts, weapons hunter Charles Duelfer concluded that Saddam's Iraq had no stockpiles of the banned weapons but said he found signs of idle programs that Saddam could have revived once international attention had waned.

"It appears that he did not vigorously pursue those programs after the inspectors left," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity in advance of the report's release.

Damn, that is a rather clear indictment of the Bush administration cassus belli, as well as directly in conflict with recent statements by dear leader. Wonder if this will get any play.

The Russert/Brokaw post debate badinage

I am getting better at this or I should say it is becoming easier, but still leaves me with a sleasy kind of feeling and a bad taste in my mouth. But for your edification, the following is my transcript of the post debate commentary of two Big Time Media Blowhards. After I wash my brain out, I may feel like disecting some of the finer points, until then....

Brokaw: While I think it is always premature for us to make a decision about who won the debate, uh chris, I mean I know it's uh, it's part of the sporting moment after the debate, but uh, the people really will decide after the next couple of days and they'll piece it together with last week and what they see again on Friday night, but I absolutely agree, and I was not suprised by this having covered him for more than 30 years now that uh Dick Cheney was extremely
well prepared and earlier on NBC I uh compared him to george foreman uh he kind of shuffles across the ring and then he unleashes a powerful right hand. He had any number of memorable lines "you couldn't stand up to howard dean how can you stand up to terror" "He doesn't believe John Kerry has the conviction to carry through on the war on terror" "He said you were for the war when the headlines were good and against it when the polls were bad" Those are all not only memorable lines, but those are soundbites that are going to get repeated again and again Tim.

Russert: I thought Senator Lindsay Graham the Republican from South Carolina had a very interesting point, Tom, he said that last Thursday was not George Bush's best night.

Brokaw: Right

Russert: And they were very much afraid that if this debate went the same way as last Thursday's, there would be an extraordinary momentum for the Kerry Edwards ticket going into Friday. They do believe that tonight they blunted some of that momentum, because dick cheney was able to rally the Republican base at least by putting forward a very instructive and heartfelt case for the Bush Cheney administration. uh I think John Edwards, when he said your'e not being straight on Iraq was trying to frame this campaign on Iraq, and Dick Cheney kept saying it's broader than Iraq, it's the war on terror and if you want to win the war on terror you've gotta re-elect George Bush. And then when he turned to John Edwards and basically said to him you know what you're a young man in too much a hurry, I never met you before in my life until you walked on the stage tonight,(pundits laughing in the background) it was basically saying to the American people, you may disagree with me but I'm steady and I'm resolute and I have alot of experiance, and you don't have to worry about the government if I'm a heartbeat away.

Brokaw: But here's here's the tough part and I think this is where senator Edwards to his credit performed very well tonight. He stayed after the case that you've got an empty portfolio that you're defending here, that you are not being straight with the American people, it is more of the same and he cited what Paul Bremer was saying this week about needing more troops, he cited the question about what Don Rumsfeld raising about al Quaeda and the terra and the ties between Saddam Hussien and uh whats going on in Iraq. So I think that really becomes the issue for them. Dick Cheney put up a formidable uh defence of the
administration and turned it into an offence whenever he could, but then the question that will become in the minds of the American public, alright do we want more of the same is it going well now is it going in the direction that we need to

Russert: And does a long resume mean good judgement quote unquote John Edwards

Brokaw: Right

Russert: I think the soundbite we'll hear from edwards over and over again is You're not being straight with the American people on Iraq, the soundbite we're gonna hear from Dick Cheney, is saying you can't win the war on terror without George Bush and If you can't stand up to Howard Dean how can you stand up to Al Quaeda. Now what I felt uh Chris uh I think especially towards the last month or so this is a Campaign that is really being driven by events on the ground in Iraq on the ground in Afghanistan in the economy here much more than it was earlier than that coming out of the Republican Convention in which they really were able to frame the debate but now its I do think that these issues that are unfolding across this country and across the Middle East are driving this debate in a way that the political strategists no longer have the control that they did just a short time ago.

Matthews: Blah blah blah.

Documenting the Atrocities MSGOP

Just got Back From Digby's place and find to my great pleasure that his observations of the Hardball post debate spin mirrored my own (couple posts down).
As for the whores, I have to give extra special kudos to Joe Scarborough for the biggest slurpy Cheney blowjobs of the night, although it was difficult to choose from among his colleagues. But apparently, somebody put a horses head in Joey's bed after his little "mistake" in calling the debate for Kerry last week because he really went the extra mile tonight.
That stated, lets move on to Scarborough and his special feelings about Cheney's performance. First Ron Reagan, remarks about the lie that Cheney told when denying having ever conflated Saddam and Osama.
Ron Reagan: I will mention the one remark that Dick Cheney made that was so extraordinary at the beginning, where he denied ever drawing a parallel between 9/11 and Saddam. All of us, our jaws hit the table.
Yes Ron, I believe that a woop escaped my mouth when I heard that one drop. Scarborough follows dismissively.

Joe Scarborough
Speak for yourself, Ron.

You know, I got in trouble last week when I said George Bush lost that debate.

It is unfortunate to get hammered for telling the truth Joe, I feel for you. You rightly state that Bush lost the first debate, and get mauled by a bunch of koolaid drinking retards. A normal person might stand firm knowing that the truth is on his side, and choose to take arms against the sea of trouble and by opposing, end them, but sir you are not Hamlet, and want to get yourself out of the hot water of truth and back into favor with the faithful which is why truth be damned comes the following.

I tell you, tonight, no doubt about it. Edwards got obliterated by Dick Cheney. This is the most surprising part:This debate actually turned in Cheney's direction when they started talking about domestic issues.
On gay marriage, John Edwards talked about gay marriage for, what, five, six minutes?

First, I guess we saw different debates, Cheney spewing falsehood after misrepresentation, and getting called to the mat for it. I have to credit cheney for his ability to lie pathologically. And I understand that you are using hyperbole to try to make some point, but Edwards had at most 2 minutes to discuss the Gay Marriage issue. Lets see what Tweety has to say and if he can keep his metaphor's straight.
Chris Matthews
I think the analogy would be a water pistol against a machine gun. Every once in a while, Edwards would take a squirt at the vice president, and then the vice president would just turn the Howitzer on the guy.
Not so much on the metaphorical concistancy, Chris, instead of howitzer (which is a peice of artillery) you might have been better served with a hat tim to the Browning Automatic Rifle or BAR, considered among the finest maching guns ever designed. But even then you would still be wrong. Will return with Russert and Brokaw's observations.

Cheney caught in a Lie

Dick "Bag of Bullshit" Cheney was leaving steaming piles all over the stage, so many that the guys at Media matters are probably still shoveling themselves out of it fact checking the lies. Cheneyy claimed to have never said that Saddam and Al Quaeda were related, there will only be hundreds of statements to the contrary. Told us how fantastic things were in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but the big one was Cheney's assertion that in four years he had only met Edwards last night. Well Atrios has a picture of the Both of them at a prayer breakfast in 2001.

Image Hosted by

Thank you very much. Congressman Watts, Senator Edwards,
friends from across America and distinguished
visitors to our country from all over the world,
Lynne and I honored to be with you all this morning.
As I alluded to last evening
the media whores were climbing all over themselve and needed drool buckets to keep from sliming each other as they clamored to praise Cheney's performance. I only saw the atrocities unfold on MSGOP, but the Russert/Brokaw Badinage is soemthing to behold. Those guys were tacking right "Cheney was great, very statesman like, etc and Left "Edwards made some pretty good points." Of course if the players were reversed, the media would have been all over the multitude of misrepresentation, or as MoDo put it recently The vermin flying out of Dick's mouth.

Just checked out Hardball, and while they havent finished with the transcript, they do have the "initial impressions" gush-athon posted. Cheney showed skill, experience And he showed his Fat Lying Ass off as well, but that wouldn't make
a proper family values heasline. In shusters corner there is a word count (same page as the atraocities)

VP Cheney-----------------Sen. John Edwards
John Kerr—15--------------Pres. Bush—7
--------------------------Health Care—14

Tuesday, October 5

The media in overdrive

I watched an amazing tornado in the post debate coverage on HardBall. Tweety and Scarborough were fighting over cheney's cock like it was the last polish sausage on the grill. They were also hanging around to see if any sourkraut might fall from cheney's ass.

I have the post-game gore on tape and may visitate more on the details tomorrow. Cheney was a man who's pants where so on fire they were leavin' vapor trails. --more to follow.

Little LuLu is prescient

Michelle Malkin in her pre debate torrent of anti-Kerry invective shared with us a moment of amazing clarity.
But in America's living rooms, a man's unvarnished character -- how he carries himself, how he treats others, how he responds to adversity -- speaks volumes over the stilted platitudes and smoothly memorized factoids that come out of his mouth.
The hilarity of course is that she was talking about Kerry. BTW I saw this somewhere this weekend and had planned to post it, but then I forgot. Thanks Michelle, you remain my favorite pony.

Journalistic integrity out the whazzooo

You may remember that e-mail that I posted about from a reporter in Iraq, and the fact that, well, stated that things weren't, like, going so well. Well according to Laura Rozen at War and Piece, Farnaz Fassihi will be leaving Iraq and won't be writing anything about it until after the elections.
Christie forwarded Steiger's response by e-mail: "Ms. Fassihi is coming out of Iraq shortly on a long planned vacation. That vacation was planned to, and will, extend past the election."

A follow-up question seemed in order and was sent to Steiger, through Christie, by e-mail: "If this correspondent wishes to write about Iraq for the Wall Street Journal, is she free to do so?"

Steiger's reply, via his spokesman, was this: "She is going on a long-scheduled vacation outside Iraq and has no plans to work during that time."

Fair-minded readers can make of that what they will.
In this not so fair minded assesment, this coincidence does not pass the smell test. It is possible that I am wrong, but as James Wolcott said recently, "THE SUREST WAY TO BE PROVEN WRONG IS TO GIVE GEORGE BUSH THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT." and that would include his sub-ordinates, like the editors of the Wall Street Journal.

And if you have not seen this yet, do so now

Thanks to Sid and his fishbowl, and many other sources, go sheck out this video (quicktime) composed of soundbites collected during the RNC. A nice piece of work from Brennan Houlihan. Just a taste. Lot's of 9/11, terrorism and fear. Hosted at Olliver Willis's fine site.

Strange winds Blowing

Thanks to eschatonian Holden (also of First-Draft), The Washington post publishes something I did not think I would see, An administration admission of conflict. What with this following on the heals of several recent statements by Pro Consul Bremer regarding a lack of necessary forces during the early days of the post conflict occupation. Then Rummy is Yammering on and contradicting Cheney's continued assertions of a link between Saddam and Al Quaeda, and then complaining he had been missunderstood. So where to begin, Oh yes the admission, that Bremer did ask for more troops.
By Robin Wright and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, October 5, 2004; 2:24 PM

President Bush's campaign, reacting today to a report that the former U.S. official who governed Iraq after the invasion said more troops had been needed to subdue the country, today acknowledged that L. Paul Bremer had clashed with military leaders over troop levels.

In an unusual public acknowledgment of internal dissent, campaign spokesman Brian Jones said, "Ambassador Bremer differed with the commanders in the field. That is his right, but the president has always said that he will listen to his commanders on the ground and give them the support they need for victory."
Unusual to say the least, followed by the oft spoken platitudes that Bush "listens" "to" "his" "commanders" "on the ground".The following suggests fairly strongly one of two options, someone is lying, or someone is talking out of their ass, either way its not pretty and demonstrates a rift in the unified message management campaign.
The campaign statement contradicted a senior defense official who, speaking on the condition of anonymity, yesterday denied that Bremer has asked for more troops.
Next up Rummy V. Rummy. We'll start with Rummy1
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Monday he knew of no "strong, hard evidence" linking Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Al-Qaeda, despite describing extensive contacts between the two before the Iraq invasion.

Rumsfeld, during a question-and-answer session before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, was asked to explain the connection between Saddam and Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network, blamed for the Sept 11, 2001, attacks on America.

"I have seen the answer to that question migrate in the intelligence community over a period of a year in the most amazing way. Second, there are differences in the intelligence community as to what the relationship was," Rumsfeld said.

"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," Rumsfeld added.

Okie Dokey, thats pretty clear. Now on to Rummy2.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Tuesday he was misunderstood when he stated hours earlier that he knew of no "strong, hard evidence" linking Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al-Qaeda.

"I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq," Rumsfeld said in a Web site statement issued following remarks he made to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York Monday. "Today at the Council, I even noted that 'when I'm in Washington, I pull out a piece of paper and say "I don't know, because I'm not in that business, but I'll tell you what the CIA thinks" and I read it'."

In the new statement, issued on the Pentagon Web site, Rumsfeld listed what he said were arguments for suggesting links between al-Qaeda and Iraq under Saddam, including what the CIA regarded as "credible evidence" that al-Qaeda leaders had sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction.

Oh and by the way, the contacts Rumsfeld speaks of were low level and rebuffed, by the secular Saddam, who prior to the invasion was involved in a mutual lack of admiration society with the fundimentalist Bin Laden. But hey, in the Cover your Assministration, the fact that a couple of people had a conversation that went no where can become a full blown connection. It's pretty amazing how many different sides the mouths of Administration officials have.

Dead Soldier, Angry Parent, A Letter to the President.

Got the tip from a Kos diary.Form the Cincinatti Enquirer.
Dear Mr. President,

As the father of a soldier serving in Baghdad, I have a few questions about "staying the course" in Iraq. When my son was born in 1984, President Reagan was providing Iraq with weapons and intelligence in its war with Iran. Weren't they our friends and allies back then? In the first Gulf War, Vice President Cheney, who was your dad's secretary of defense, was the biggest defender of your father's decision not to invade Iraq, arguing that removing Saddam from power and getting "bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq" wasn't worth the loss of U.S. lives. What changed the vice president's mind?

You may criticize Sen. Kerry's "internationalist" approach to Iraq, but your dad's most impressive achievement during his presidency was the skill and diplomacy with which he assembled a broad coalition of nations, with United Nations support, for removing Saddam from Kuwait. Much of the cost of that war was shared with our allies. The world was largely with us. Where is that coalition today?
"Staying the course" has created another Vietnam. The only difference is one was in the jungle, the other in the desert. Whether we are there due to faulty intelligence or deliberate deception isn't even important anymore. Both explanations represent a gross failure of leadership. And by the way, Mr. President, tell your defense secretary, DonaldRumsfeld, that nobody threw flowers at Mike when he got to Iraq. Just bullets, mortars and improvised explosive devices.
It might not be a bad idea to check back in a day or two to see if any wingnuts comment on this letter. Words Fail me.

The grief goes on.

The tragedy of a lost child may be responsible for his mother's death. From Yahoo, via eschatonian carblogger.
TUCSON, Ariz. - A 45-year-old woman collapsed and died days after learning her son had been killed in Iraq (news - web sites), and just hours after seeing his body. Results of an autopsy were not immediately released, but friends of Karen Unruh-Wahrer said she couldn't stop crying over losing her 25-year-old son, Army Spc. Robert Oliver Unruh, who was killed by enemy fire near Baghdad on Sept. 25. "Her grief was so intense — it seemed it could have harmed her, could have caused a heart attack. Her husband described it as a broken heart," said Cheryl Hamilton, manager of respiratory care services at University Medical Center, where Unruh-Wahrer worked as a respiratory therapist.

Unruh, a combat engineer, had been in Iraq less than a month when he was shot during an attack on his unit.

Several days after learning of his death, his mother had gone to the hospital complaining of chest pains, Hamilton said. She was feeling better the next day but saw her son's body Saturday morning and collapsed that night in her kitchen.
I can only hope that new rings are being added in hell, to give these butchers a proper final resting place.

Is it getting Drafty in here

There has been a lot of justifiable concern, regarding a return of the Draft. I have stated, in no uncertain terms, that Bush will call for the draft if re-elected, regardless of his statements to the contrary. RummyCO and the NeoCon Blowhards at the pentagon have quite simply killed the army. But I'll let veteran and Hero David Hackworth, in an article titled: "Uncle sam will soon want your kids", explains the relevant details.
Recently, when John Kerry brought up the possibility of a return to the draft, SecDef Donald Rumsfeld was quick to respond that Kerry was full of it.

But my take is that Kerry is right on the mark. Not only because Rummy has been flat wrong on every major military call regarding Iraq, but because this is a war that won’t be won by smart weapons or the sledgehammer firepower we see every night on the tube.

Right now – with both our regular and Reserve soldiers stretched beyond the breaking point – our all-volunteer force is tapping out. If our overseas troop commitments continue at the present rate or climb higher, there won’t be enough Army and Marine grunts to do the job. And thin, overworked units, from Special Forces teams to infantry battalions, lose fights.

Clearly, this war against worldwide, hardcore Islamic believers will be a massive military marathon, the longest and most far-flung in our country’s history. By Christmas, more troops could be needed not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but wherever the radical Islamic movement is growing stronger, from the Horn of Africa to Morocco, Kenya, Somalia, Yemen and across Europe – remember Spain?! – to Asia.

Accordingly, we need to bring our ground-fighting and support units to about the strength they were before the Soviet Union imploded, especially since the proper ratio of counterinsurgent-to-insurgent in places like the Middle East should be around 15 to 1. You don’t have to be a Ph.D. in military personnel to conclude we need more boots on the ground.

Most of our warriors – who are mainly from blue-collar families from Small Town, USA – have few political connections and few conduits though which they can effectively sound off. So when they get screwed over by a desperate Pentagon’s makeshift policies – such as the “Stop Loss” program that’s holding over large numbers of our servicemen and -women well beyond their contractually agreed-upon terms of enlistment, or the widespread calling up of out-of-shape, ill-trained citizen soldiers from the Individual Ready Reserve – these “volunteers” salute, suck it up and lay their lives on the line.

But like elephants, they won’t forget that they are “backdoor draftees,” as Kerry and John McCain call them. Which means that when their hitches are up, they won’t be rushing to re-enlist. And they’re also warning their younger brothers, sisters and pals to stay away from recruiting stations.

Although Pentagon puff artists insist they’re making quota, recruiters are already saying it would be easier to find $100 bills on the sidewalk outside a homeless shelter than fill their enlistment quotas, even with the huge bonuses now being paid.

So the draft – which will include both boys and girls this time around – is a no-brainer in ‘05 and ‘06.
Send this one to your friends and family, especially those that have teenaged kids. Bush can try to convince us that we will all be eaten by alligators if Kerry is elected, and claim against all evidence that things are proceeding swimmingly in Iraq, but the Army is broken recruiters can't make their quota's (the above quote about 100$ bills outside of a homeless shelter is quite telling) and we need alot more boots on the ground. Oh and speaking of boots on the ground, Viceroy Bremer took a stroll off of the reservation during a speech given to students of Depauw University Sept 17th. Damn I did not know that the bastard was in my home state. via Digby, and the LA Times (reg req'd)
L. Paul Bremer III, former head of the U.S.-led occupation authority in Iraq, said Monday that the United States did not deploy enough troops and then failed to contain violence and looting immediately after the ouster of President Saddam Hussein.

Bremer, administrator for the Coalition Provisional Authority until the hand-over of political power June 28, said that he still supported the decision to intervene in Iraq but that a lack of adequate forces hampered the occupation and efforts to end the looting early on.

"We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," he told an insurance conference in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va. "We never had enough troops on the ground."

Bremer's comments echoed contentions of other critics of the Bush administration, including Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry, who say the U.S. government failed to plan adequately to maintain security in Iraq after the invasion.

On Sept. 17 at DePauw University, Bremer said, "The single most important change --- the one thing that would have improved the situation --- would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout" the occupation, according to the Banner-Graphic in Greencastle, Ind
Wow that's news, cause I think he characterised the situation differently in June of 2003.
Responding to a question about troop strength, Bremer said: "I think
we have an adequate force level here." Troop levels in Iraq should be driven by security conditions, he said. He expressed the hope that in the coming months "we are successful in imposing our will on this small group of people who are attacking us and causing us casualties."
I guess you were wrong then, eh, Pauly. Good thing you got yer ass out of there two days early. Needless to say, the Administration and its operatives will say anything to get re-selected. And chances are good that if they hurl accusations, they are really just admitting that they are guilty of that which they accuse. Projection, vaccination, and prevarication are the tools of their trade.

Kerry has saved lives

He was awarded a medal for saving the life of Jim Rassmann, pulling his ass out of the drink in Vietnam, well it so happens that John "I'm damn quick on my feet" Kerry save the life of a fellow senator. If you haven't seen this before, be sure to send this story to all of your friends. And yes this has been run before in this place. I'm just too lazy to find a link.
Former U.S. Sen. Chic Hecht of Nevada is a staunch Republican, but he thanks his lucky stars for Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.

On July 12, 1988, Hecht was attending a weekly Republican luncheon when a piece of apple lodged firmly in his throat.

Hecht stumbled out of the room, thinking he might vomit but not wanting to do it in front of his colleagues. Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., thumped his back, but Hecht quickly passed out in the hallway.

Just then, Kerry stepped off an elevator, rushed to Hecht's side and gave him the Heimlich maneuver -- four times.

The lifesaving incident made international news, and Dr. Henry Heimlich, who invented the maneuver in 1974, called Hecht to say that had Kerry intervened just 30 seconds later Hecht might have been in a vegetative state for life.

"This man gave me my life," the 75-year-old Hecht said Thursday.

Hecht said he was amazed that Kerry acted so quickly -- some people were assuming that he was having a heart attack.

"He knew exactly what to do," he said. "But a lot of people know what to do. They just don't size up the situation immediately."
Some people may know what to do but freeze up, incapable of action. Kind of like Mr. Bush in that florida classroom on the 11th of September in 2001, frozen in his chair trying to absorb the wisdom contained in a book about a goat.
"We've had a wonderful life, and it would have all been down the tubes," said Hecht, who is about to celebrate his 45th wedding anniversary with his wife.

Every year the Hechts call Kerry's longtime personal secretary, who tracks down Kerry wherever he is.

Then they recount some of their experiences in the last year. Hecht and his wife thank Kerry for thinking so quickly in the Senate halls that day. And Kerry tells them that their phone call is one of his favorites of the year.

"He's so nice and appreciative," Hecht said.
Later in the article Hecht admits that he and the wife have given the max 2000 dollor contributions to the Bush campaign, but says that only he and the lord will know for whom he votes come elections day. My bet is on Kerry, for that vote. By the way this article was published in February, but in my opinion it should get as much play as possible during the run-up to the election. Imagine for a moment how few people have the presence of mind to resond instantaneously to a life or death situation. It is a rare thing, and most of us will never be tested.

Digby made me laugh my ass off.

While contemplation of the Two Faces of Bush, We are drawn once again to the story of
When John Kerry came out of the elevator, immediatly recognised that a fellow Senator was choking, and immediately performed the Hiemlich manuever, saving the Senators life.
In one of numerous poll, where they ask people questions they really don't have the answers to, apparently more people think that Bush would be more likely than Kerry to stop and help them out with a flat tire. In a post titled No Samaritan Digby spells it out.
Matthews just interviewed Joe Lockhart and mentioned the new zogby poll question "If your car was broken down on the side of the road, who do you think would stop and help you?" Shockingly, 32% said John Kerry and 40% said Junior.

Unbelievable. It is indisputable that John Kerry saved Jim Rassman's life in Vietnam, which should be enough to prove that Kerry not only will stop and help you fix your car, he will rush across 6 lanes of traffic to do it. (Our swift boat pals have so successfully lied and schemed that this image of Kerry has been forever tainted, to their enternal damnation.)

However, Rassman wasn't the only life that Kerry famously saved. How about this one:
We'll address this story in another post, but it is amazing that people would think that about bubble boy.
Is there even one example of George W. Bush doing a personal good deed ever in his life? I honestly can't think of one.
Damn good Question. lets take a look at another story that is indicative of the Compassionator.
Remember when his daughter had an emergency appendectomy?

As he boarded the plane, reporters inquired about Jenna's condition. 'Maybe she'll be able to join us in Florida,' the president-elect said. 'If not, she can clean her room.' The reporters stared at him, stunned. 'I couldn't believe it,' one of those present later said. 'First of all, I'm a father, and I cannot imagine a scenario in which my daughter would have major surgery and I would just leave on vacation. And then he just seemed so snarly about it, like he was pissed at her.'"

Not only wouldn't he stop to help you at the side of the road, he's the type who'd slow down and stare at you, then laugh uproariously and hit the gas, spraying gravel in your face as he sped away.
I could not put it any better than that. I would expect the man who mocked a "born again" death row inmate, to behave exactly in the manner digby describes.

Presidential Prevarication

President Bush signed some lies into law in Ioway yesturday, and the campaign announced that he is planning to deliver a speech on Thursday talking about terrorism and the economy. Lets see what Mr "I'm only blowing blowing the smoke of fear up your ass because i care" Bush has to say.

CLIVE, Iowa President George W. Bush has charged that Senator John Kerry's policies "are dangerous for world peace" as his campaign suddenly changed plans for holding an event on medical liability on Wednesday and scheduled a speech by the president on terrorism and the economy instead.

"There he goes again" John Kerry is a danger to world peace, maybe in a alternate universe, the one where GWB is hardworking, articulate, and made his money honestly.

"In 1991, when my dad was president, he saw a threat, and that was that Saddam Hussein was going to overrun Kuwait," said Bush, who appeared relaxed and in good spirits at Monday's "Ask President Bush" campaign forum despite the generally negative reviews of his debate performance last week. If Kerry's vote had carried the day, the president said, "Saddam would not only have been in his palaces, that means he would have been in Kuwait as well. The policies of my opponent are dangerous for world peace. If they were implemented, they would make this world not more peaceful, but more dangerous."
Hey Commander "order of the stuffed codpiece" Jack-Ass, but Saddam invaded Kuwait in August of 1990. And if Kerry's vote had carried the day, and we had decided not to knock the tinpot dictator out of Kuwait in favor of the Kuwaiti Ruling Family, We would be speaking Arabic and laboring under Saddam's army of robot overlords. Next the petulant pusillanimous punk, thralls us with his acumen.
The president also stepped up his ridicule of Kerry for the senator's plan to hold an international summit to help solve the problems in Iraq.
"I've been to summits," Bush said as he paced in his shirtsleeves at the 7 Flags recreation center in Clive. "You don't bring terrorists to justice at summits. I can imagine him walking in to the leaders of the world saying, 'We need your help, but Iraq is a mistake.'"
Kerry, Bush said, "has no plan. A summit won't solve the problem. Strong, consistent leadership is what this world needs."
Thats right "Steady as she goes", "Damn the torpedo's, full speed ahead", "Don't go changing to try to please me, or horses mid-appocalypse, ya know". What an embarassment, is there any limit to the misrepresentation. At long last sir.....have you no shame? Without suggesting that Mr. Bush is batshit insane the response from a Kerry representative was on the mark.
Phil Singer, a spokesman for the Kerry campaign, responded: "If George Bush thinks John Kerry's plans to strengthen the military, build alliances and implement the 9/11 commission's intelligence reforms will make the world a more dangerous place, he's even more detached from reality than he demonstrated at the debate the other night."
Mars Biatches