Beware Of Conservative Ignorance
We need to guard the U.S. against conservative terrorists who's weapons of mass destruction are ignorance. They continually promote actions that lead directly to mass stupidity. After being wrong so many times you would think that they would just shutup already.

Case in point: Stop Conservative Terrorists How's this for dumb?

... the smoking gun ...

Halloween
Guess what Mikhail Gorbachev is going to be for Halloween?

An out of touch MADMAN:

Average People
I'm writing this very quickly (no really!). I don't know what debate some TV commentators were watching but John Edwards definitely won tonight's debate and he did so for one reason: he connected with people.

Honestly, I think that Dick Cheney probably is a well-meaning and good-hearted person but in the debate he looked like an out-of-touch, cold war remnant. He tried to inspire fear and Edwards stomped him. He tried to make false and misleading statements and Edwards rebutted him. He said that he just met Edwards for the first time and that's completely not true:

He said that he didn't make statements that Iraq was connected with 9/11 and he either lied or he didn't remember repeatedly making such statements (he said so on Meet The Press with Tim Russert).

Edwards repeatedly turned the debate around to the issues that average people are interested in, (jobs, healthcare, and the economy). Cheney talked about these issues like they were abstract concepts.

The debate was hard fought (as it should have been) and Edwards continually struck the ball back into Cheney's court. We finally heard some talk about how Bush/Cheney lives in a glass house and is throwing stones at Kerry for taking different positions on issues.

Edwards closing remarks were his most powerful. I presume that throughout the debate people watched the annoying timing lights indicator. When Edwards last spoke those lights melted away in his message. When Cheney spoke the 2 minutes dragged on with a incoherent and abstract speech about nothing any average joe would give a crap about.

John Edwards won hands down.

Son Of Republican President Voting Kerry
Topic: Misc.
"Why I will vote for John Kerry for President" - by John Eisenhower, son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, The Union Leader

THE Presidential election to be held this coming Nov. 2 will be one of extraordinary importance to the future of our nation. The outcome will determine whether this country will continue on the same path it has followed for the last 3? years or whether it will return to a set of core domestic and foreign policy values that have been at the heart of what has made this country great.

Now more than ever, we voters will have to make cool judgments, unencumbered by habits of the past. Experts tell us that we tend to vote as our parents did or as we "always have." We remained loyal to party labels. We cannot afford that luxury in the election of 2004. There are times when we must break with the past, and I believe this is one of them.

As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration's decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.

The fact is that today's "Republican" Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word "Republican" has always been synonymous with the word "responsibility," which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today's whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion.

Responsibility used to be observed in foreign affairs. That has meant respect for others. America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance. Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance.

In the Middle East crisis of 1991, President George H.W. Bush marshaled world opinion through the United Nations before employing military force to free Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Through negotiation he arranged for the action to be financed by all the industrialized nations, not just the United States. When Kuwait had been freed, President George H. W. Bush stayed within the United Nations mandate, aware of the dangers of occupying an entire nation.

Today many people are rightly concerned about our precious individual freedoms, our privacy, the basis of our democracy. Of course we must fight terrorism, but have we irresponsibly gone overboard in doing so? I wonder. In 1960, President Eisenhower told the Republican convention, "If ever we put any other value above (our) liberty, and above principle, we shall lose both." I would appreciate hearing such warnings from the Republican Party of today.

The Republican Party I used to know placed heavy emphasis on fiscal responsibility, which included balancing the budget whenever the state of the economy allowed it to do so. The Eisenhower administration accomplished that difficult task three times during its eight years in office. It did not attain that remarkable achievement by cutting taxes for the rich. Republicans disliked taxes, of course, but the party accepted them as a necessary means of keep the nation's financial structure sound.

The Republicans used to be deeply concerned for the middle class and small business. Today's Republican leadership, while not solely accountable for the loss of American jobs, encourages it with its tax code and heads us in the direction of a society of very rich and very poor.

Sen. Kerry, in whom I am willing to place my trust, has demonstrated that he is courageous, sober, competent, and concerned with fighting the dangers associated with the widening socio-economic gap in this country. I will vote for him enthusiastically.

I celebrate, along with other Americans, the diversity of opinion in this country. But let it be based on careful thought. I urge everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, to avoid voting for a ticket merely because it carries the label of the party of one's parents or of our own ingrained habits.

John Eisenhower, son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, served on the White House staff between October 1958 and the end of the Eisenhower administration. From 1961 to 1964 he assisted his father in writing "The White House Years," his Presidential memoirs. He served as American ambassador to Belgium between 1969 and 1971. He is the author of nine books, largely on military subjects.

Perception Is Reality
Topic: State Of The Union

Couple of statistics to brighten up your day: (Article found here: Perception Is Reality)

- 12 percent of Muslims believe that the United States respects Islamic values

- 7 percent believe the West understands Muslim culture

- 11 percent approve of President Bush

- 13 percent of Egyptians hold a favorable opinion of the United States

- 6 percent of Jordanians hold a favorable opinion of the United States

- 3 percent of Saudi Arabians hold a favorable opinion of the United States

Majorities in 7 out of 8 Muslim countries worry about a military threat from the United States:

- 74 percent in Indonesia
- 72 percent in Nigeria
- 72 percent in Pakistan
- 71 percent in Turkey.

- 56 percent of people in Muslim nations believe Iraq will be better off since the toppling of Saddam Hussein

Percentage of European that believe the US is acting solely in its own interest:

- 85 percent of Germans held this view
- 80 percent of the French
- 73 percent of the British
- 68 percent of Italians

Countries that believe the United States is a threat to world peace:

- 80 percent of Greeks
- 63 percent of the Dutch
- 55 percent of the British
- 52 percent of the French

"In some countries, distrust and dislike of the United States have doubled and tripled in the space of a single year."

The only way that this reality is going to change is with a change of leadership.

Cool Is In This Season


The Independent Voice was worried that the agreement that lead up to last night's debate would only allow the candidates to show us exactly what they wanted us to see. That didn't happen at all. George Bush didn't want us to see his anger- we did. George Bush didn't want us to see his haste and impatience- we did. George Bush didn't want us to see his arrogance- we did. George Bush didn't want us to see his inarticulate nature- we did. George Bush didn't want us to see his flubbering and floundering- we did. George Bush didn't want us to see that he doesn't understand the issues- we did. George Bush didn't want us to see John Kerry's decisiveness- we did. George Bush didn't want us to see John Kerry's thoroughness and complete comprehension of the issues- we did. George Bush didn't want us to see John Kerry's Presidential nature- we did. George Bush didn't want us to see John Kerry's strength- we did. George Bush didn't want us to see John Kerry's calmness and coolness under fire- WE DID!

The Independent Voice was worried that the debate agreement wasn't going to allow us to see the true nature of the President, not as some cool, methodical and decisive leader but as an arrogant, pushy, wishy-washy, vindictive, out-of-touch puppet, who is absolutely incompetent without his handlers. John Kerry came across as having mastery of the issues that effect us. He came across as strong. He came across as having a vision and real direction for this country. He showed that he had a well-thought out plan. He was able to describe the inadequacies of this administration, not to say don't vote for him because he's incompetent, but rather, vote for me because I have a vision and a mission.

The pundits and the partisans will spin it any way they want but I just want to ask every American, if it was your ass on the line, who would you want standing in your corner? I was embarrassed that the rest of the world was watching us last night and what they saw in our President was weakness, incompetence, arrogance, impatience and a complete disconnect from reality. Frankly the President was hitting John Kerry hard and Kerry remained steadfast and cool throughout the entire debate, while George Bush consistently appeared completely flustered and hasty in his responses. That is not the way a decisive and thoughtful leader acts.

Cool is definitely in this season.

Somewhere Over The Rainbow
Topic: Satire
Over the past 2 weeks, in the State of New York, 250 civilians and 29 police officers have been killed. There have been, on average, 70 brutal and deadly attacks daily. There have been sophisticated ambushes and simple attacks, like children throwing Molotov cocktails at police cars. No one area has been free from these attacks. In fact there are complete cities within New York that are completely off limits to police or National Guard members. Exacerbating the problems is that the National Guard is stretched to the max because the Governor has also involved them with the reconstruction of the South from the hurricane damage.

You may, at this point, be asking yourself why you haven't heard anything about what has been going on in New York. The reason is obvious and devious. Governor George Pataki is in an election year fight for his life. The polls narrowly show him ahead of his opponent. Though Pataki's opposition is running around trying to tell anyone he can about the major problems in New York, Pataki's political self-interest involves minimizing any problems that are occurring on his watch. Pataki has wisely, however materially inaccurate, succeeded in convincing the citizens of New York that his Democratic opponent is a liar and not to be believed. Pataki has even enlisted the help of Mayor Bloomberg to convince the people that New York is safe and getting safer.

It appears to many objective sources that the election process itself is not going to be possible for many New York citizens. Many are complaining that since the majority of the off-limit areas are in low-income African American neighborhoods, where people are for the Democratic candidate 9 to 1, the elections are going to be skewed in favor of Pataki. Additionally, many of the experts have concluded that this conflict will easily last a minimum of 10 years. They also believe that the costs for this conflict coupled with the controversial policies of the Pataki administration offering substantial and massive tax breaks to businesses that are already profitable, may bankrupt the entire State.

Unfortunately at this crucial and tenuous period in the history of New York State, many of the biggest press outlets, including the most watched Television network, have turned a blind eye to the realities of what is taking place on the ground. The press, instead of reporting the actual facts, have resorted to reporting the statements of the 2 candidates without vetting them. They've largely ignored some of the most important issues where human life is at stake because they're too busy concentrating on sound bites, the newest hurricane or celebrity trial. Ultimately it is not the fault of the press but rather the responsibility of the citizens of New York to choose, by way of the almighty dollar, that they want the truth not entertainment. Until the citizens demand the truth, no matter how ugly it may be, situations the likes of which are presently being felt in New York will continue and extend to other states where the population has ignored reality.
_____________________________________________________

New York, a State that is roughly the same size and population of Iraq, is not presently experiencing the problems described above. The facts and situations described above represent exactly what has occurred in Iraq over the past 2 weeks.

Could you ever imagine an analogous situation to what is going on in Iraq right at this very moment playing out on the streets of a state like New York and have the Governor largely ignore the realities of what is going on? Picture your town for a moment. Think about what it would be like to have rocket propelled grenade or suicide car bomber attacks. If your President or Prime Minister were attempting to minimize your pain, and your fear of your reality, wouldn't you be angry? Wouldn't you call for his head? Wouldn't you at least vote him out of office?

Imagine the Russians coming to your town to remove your Government. Imagine them installing a council and a "Prime Minister" to govern you. Imagine if our revolution didn't take place with our own initiatives and ambitions but was forced upon us by another government. What would our democracy look like today?

Imagine the women and children of your town being maimed and killed. Picture yourself turning on your television and seeing your President tell you that everything is O.K. Think about what it would be like if the number of attacks in your town were constantly escalating and your Mayor told you that he was in control of the situation. Can you imagine 70 brutal and deadly attacks taking place in your state on a daily basis and upon turning on your favorite news channel, you hear the commentator and the President talking about how the good things aren't being reported, when what really angers you is the fact that the majority of the attacks aren't widely reported?

Think about it.

Soldiers For Kerry
Topic: Iraq
The neo-cons are fond of quoting soldiers who believe that the "media" isn't covering the good news in Iraq. Well here are some quotes from the unsilent many, presently fighting in Iraq:

Army Spc. Nathan Swink, of Quincy, Ill.
"There's no clear definition of why we came here. First they said they have WMD and nuclear weapons, then it was to get Saddam Hussein out of office, and then to rebuild Iraq. I want to fight for my nation and for my family, to protect the United States against enemies foreign and domestic, not to protect Iraqi civilians or deal with Sadr's militia".

"Kerry protested the war in Vietnam. He is the one to end this stuff, to lead to our exit of Iraq".

Marine Infantryman Fighting In Ramadi

"We shouldn't be here. There was no reason for invading this country in the first place. We just came here and [angered people] and killed a lot of innocent people. I don't enjoy killing women and children, it's not my thing".

"Bush didn't want to attack [Osama] Bin Laden because he was doing business with Bin Laden's family".

Enlisted Soldier In Najaf

"Nobody I know wants Bush. This whole war was based on lies."

(You can read more here:Anti-Bush Troops In Iraq)

The Real WMD: Referendum On Fear
Topic: State Of The Union
Let's face it, if you're voting for George W. Bush you're doing so because you believe the alternative is a pacifistic liberal with a weak constitution. You're number 1 issue is terrorism and specifically the President's demonstration that we will use force whenever the mood strikes him. There is absolutely no way that you're voting for Bush based upon his domestic policies other than maybe gay marriage, abortion or gun control. These issues aren't going to win Bush his first Presidential election. Yeah, they are good at dividing people and that is a strategy that has worked for Republicans for years but it just isn't going to sway enough voters to his cause.

So what can Bush to win this election you ask? Lie, mislead and scare, of course. There is no way that this election is going to become a referendum on Bush's domestic policies. We all know that he's a giant liberal spender who doesn't believe in either budgets or small government. He's not going to win any points with his base on those issues, although he may appeal to that fictional group that conservatives believe actually exist- the spendthrift warmongering liberal. Bush doesn't disagree with spending vast amounts of money that we don't have on big government programs, he just believes that taxpayers money should be spent on things like "Star Wars", unnecessary pre-emptive wars, and while the middle class assumes more of the burden for these things, tax cuts for the rich.

So why does Bush have a slight lead in the polls at this point? One word: FEAR. The entire goal of the Neo-con National Convention was to make people believe that John Kerry is a weak liberal with a pre-9/11 mentality, and by electing him you are only going to bring on more terrorist attacks because Al-Queda supports him. This election is going to be a referendum on fear. If you are afraid and not thinking rationally then George W. Bush is your man.

If you live in reality you see that Bush's policies only cause the creation of more terrorists and inspire Jihadist's to rise up against the American "crusaders" who have attacked and are occupying an Arab, oil-rich country, just like Bin-Laden told them we would. If you live in reality you see a President who personifies everything the enemy wants and needs to sustain their cause. By flatly lying to the American public about Iraq and Afghanistan having rosy futures ahead of them he continues the pattern of disception and appears to be living in a fantasy land. He continues to play politics with issues that the American public needs reliable information about. When do you think he's going to level with the American public about the absolutely bleak outlook in Iraq, after the election?

Bush's domestic policies inspire a greater burden to be placed on the middle class and divisive ideological battles inspire sanctimony and contempt amongst his base. George and company are going to attempt to talk their way out of all their domestic and international problems that they've created. It will work if they are successful in convincing people that this election is a referendum on fear and not reality.

John Kerry's strategy of attacking Bush at his key point of weakness, Iraq, is right on. Iraq is the hinge that everything revolves around. It has demonstrated the President's ability to mislead and outright lie to the American people. It's showed his incredible incompetence in handling international matters. It shows a failed foreign policy of pre-emption. It shows a blatant disregard for the realities on the ground, no planning and a failure to listen to opposing and, as hindsight easily shows, correct viewpoints. Invading Iraq also shows a disregard for the real imminent threat- Al-Queda. The war shows that the President is capable not of leading but rather of playing on the American public's ignorance, that Iraq is and was in league with Al-Queda. The occupation has only inspired more terrorists and acts of terrorism (ask the Spainish if you don't understand that). The war also shows an incredible failure of throwing resources at international issues and ignoring domestic problems.

Everything revolves around the "catastrophic" failure in Iraq and this President is trying to paint a picture of reality that only exists in his fantasy world. Kerry will lose if Bush succeeds in detaching the public perceptions from reality and into his fantasy world as fear continues to be this administration's weapon of mass destruction against reality.

Truth Uncovered
Topic: Iraq
Notice the titles of the speakers:

Truth Uncovered