Social Security Political Crisis

Topic: State Of The Union
George W. Bush and the brains behind the man, Karl Rove, are some of the most politically calculating people to ever walk the earth. They are cold and cunning. Rove is pushing this "crisis" in Social Security because he knows that the Democrats are going to fight tooth and nail against the cons to protect Social Security.

I think they have something else in mind. I may be wrong (not likely) but I think Rove is either looking to cash in on another political chip instead of Social Security or what I really fear is some compromise that may come out of the argument over Social Security. I can no longer believe a word that this President says and I now view everything he does through a Machiavellian lens. Rove is definitely no idiot but he's entirely unscrupulous. He's bluffing this hand and I hope the Democrats don't fall again into his political trap.

Take a look at what the Buying Of The President website (www.bop2004.com) lists as Bush's career patrons:

Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. $672,175
Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. $654,704
Pricewaterhouse Coopers $637,498
MBNA Corp. $608,791
Enron Corp. $603,875
UBS AG Inc $564,100
Credit Suisse First Boston $538,850
Vinson & Elkins $498,100
Goldman Sachs Group $487,849
Ernst & Young LLP $473,154

Take Enron out and what are you left with? A picture of a President purchased almost entirely by financial companies. These same companies stand to gain the most by the privatization of Social Security. If Rove is up to what I think he is, any compromise would wind up creating a great windfall for the major benefactors of the Bush campaign for President. Contrast these donations with John Kerry's and there's a world of difference:

Harvard University $300,495
Time Warner $276,466
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo
$271,047
Citigroup $226,910
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom $205,475
FleetBoston Financial Corp. $202,087
University of California $194,750
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi $193,950
Goldman Sachs Group $190,750
Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson & Hand/Piper Rudnick $178,452

Just like Bush's support of toppling Hussein for the sake of Israel, Saudia Arabia and oil, Bush is now trying to forsake the future of the American people to pay back his top 8 campaign contributors. Or maybe I'm just a cynical liberal who no longer trusts our President? Maybe it's just coincidence that the companies that stand to gain the most by the President's latest "crisis" just happen to be his largest campaign donors? I don't know.

By the way, has anyone seen a WMD?

Origins Of The War

Topic: Iraq
It has been the case that throughout history many people have attempted to revise history to suit the needs of their time. In an unprecedented way, many people in power today are trying to revise contemporary history and they seem to be getting away with it (at least 61,000,000 people are buying it). The Indy Voice wanted to re-revise history to represent reality (wow, what a concept).

Many have said that George W. Bush's idea for war with Iraq came only after 9/11 and was only for national security reasons. The reality is that many within the administration were pushing for a military strike against Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power going back to 1998. In fact, on January 26, 1998 the members of "The Project for the New American Century" (PNAC) sent a letter to then President Bill Clinton outlining their reasons for removing Hussein from Iraq. Their reasons DID NOT include an imminent threat. Actually the language they used was "we MAY soon face a threat".

The present day positions of these PNAC members include the National Security Council, Deputy Secretary of State, George W. Bush's speechwriter, Under Secretary of Arms Control and International Security, Under Secretary of Global Affairs, counsellor to United States Secretary of Defense, Advisory Board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and former chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Assistant Secretary for International Security Affairs in the Department of Defense, Chairman of the Defense Science Board, Ambassador and member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Defense. They let President Clinton know that they believed that "it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production" and "in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons." How then was this administration so certain that Iraq possessed WMD in 2002?

As for the threat posed by Iraq on the mainland they mentioned nothing. They believed that Iraq possessing WMD would have a "seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East." And "if Saddam DOES acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction" he will threaten "the safety of American troops in the region, [sic] our friends and allies like ISRAEL and the moderate Arab states" (like Saudi Arabia?) And they stated another reason why they were concerned. They were worried that Hussein would put at risk "a significant portion of the world's supply of oil." Interesting?!

They also made statements that may have been the origin of the more recent sentiments that have sought to defend unilateralism. They believed that the hanging of our "success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners" was "dangerously inadequate". They proposed that the "aim of American foreign policy" should be "removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power" through "military action".

The most interesting part of the letter is the ending. It seems that the 1st five paragraphs of the letter could have spent a lot more time talking about the threats that Iraq posed directly against our country. Instead they talk about "our interest in the gulf" which as far as they see it, included Israel, the moderate Arab states and oil. If there was in fact legitimate threats against the mainland why wouldn't they tell the President more about them? And what "fundamental national security interests" did they have in mind other than the moderate Arab states, Israel and oil? Why didn't they list those?

Maybe all the members that signed this letter had a legitimate change of heart and mind post 9/11? Maybe they truly believed that a new threat existed in Iraq after 9/11 that dictated that we should invade to protect more than the moderate Arab states, Israel and oil? Maybe some new technologies have come about since long ago in 1998 and we are now capable of determining with total certainty that Iraq possessed WMD?

Maybe they forgot about our vital interests in the gulf, Israel, the moderate Arab states and the oil they have and decided to protect the U.S. from the new imminent threat posed by Hussein in a post 9/11 world? It's also possible that the President made the decision to invade Iraq without using the counsel of all these men. Maybe he didn't listen to Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz who were telling him to invade Iraq to "protect our vital interests in the gulf?" Maybe the members of the PNAC just forgot to add all the connections to terrorists that Hussein and his regime had? Maybe they forgot to mention the need to liberate the Iraqi people?

I don't know. Maybe I'm just a crazy liberal conspiracy nut. I like to think that I'm a rational person and believe that the simplest answer tends to be the correct one.

Maybe you can read the letter and make up your own mind Project For The New American Century Letter

The Iraqi Election

Topic: Iraq
Just a couple of thoughts about the recent "election" in Iraq:

1- The election in Iraq is neither a victory nor a defeat for George W. Bush and the ideology he represents.

At no point prior to the start of this conflict was the establishment of democracy an explicitly stated goal of this administration. That is not why the Senate voted to authorize the use of force and it is not why the American people gave the war overwhelming initial support.

Democracy, if that does in fact come about, would only be a victory for the people of Iraq.

2- Why would a terrorist like Zarqawi or the insurgents attack on a day when the country is virtually shut down?

Zarqawi's goal is not as stated, to destroy democracy. Bin Laden's and Zarqawi's goal is to create a worldwide conflict between the U.S. and the moderate Muslims. His statements and actions, especially using the Iraqi people, are only a means to an end.

3- Our continued occupation of Iraq is only just beginning.

Barring the Iraqi's telling us to get out of their country, this election is just an intermediary step on the path toward true democracy. It's going to be a long, arduous and unfortunately deadly process. Unless the Iraqi's demand our complete withdrawal the level of our forces will remain for years to come and will be followed by our continued presence through numerous extremely large military bases.

4- People of the liberal persuasion do not welcome or hope for failure in Iraq.

Liberals hope for the best for the people of Iraq. However we recognize that this conflict has brought additional crises to the doorstep of the Iraqi people who have suffered greatly within the past 25 years. We also have faced the reality that the people who have attacked us on 9/11 are literally getting away with murder. The reality of the situation is that the fundamental reasons that created those terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 still exist and the occupation of Iraq has only exacerbated this critical problem. The threat of terrorist attack on American soil is as great as it was the day before 9/11 and possibly even greater.

Liberals also recognize that the Iraqi's could have come to this point through their own means, with their own will and with their own hands.

5- The insurgency is not dead.

The insurgents are not stupid. They recognized that the elections were going to take place despite their violence. Contrary to popular belief, the insurgency is made up of predominately Sunni Iraqis which compromise 40% of the total population. They are now, through political means, stripped of power. That will only further the adoption of violence by the Sunnis. With the few trained and experienced terrorists that are moving into Iraq the insurgency will become more insidious and more lethal. Additionally the borders are still not sealed and will remain that way at the present troop levels.

Some Perspective:

The Iraqis have a long and dangerous road ahead. Their courage today should not be made into a political tool wielded by anyone within this country. Keep things within the context of what has occurred leading up to today:

- 100,000 Iraqi's have been killed
- 1400+ U.S. troops have been killed
- thousands have been maimed and injured for life

This is not a time for celebration. This may be a time for a little cautious optimism for the people of Iraq.

The Big Story

Topic: Misc.
And now for the really big news of the day...

A mechanic in Pennsylvania took a customer's car to the bank and left it running as he went inside. Unbeknownst to the mechanic another man did the same thing with his pick-up truck. When the mechanic exited the bank he errantly got into the pick-up truck and drove back it to his shop.

File This Under Oops!

How did he miss the SUV?!

The amazing part of the story is that when the police informed the mechanic that he had the wrong car he went back to the bank to find the SUV still running and still there! Only in Pennsylvania.

---

You may have heard that there was some other "news" stories today but none of them affect your life in any way.

It All Starts Here

Topic: Misc.
It all starts here ladies and gentlemen. The Indy Voice has been telling you that true Republicans better wake up to the fact that their party is being co-opted by a bunch of incompetent, big government, corporate owned, exclusionists.

While she won't come out and say what I think she really means, Christina Todd Whitman is arguing for a move back to the roots of what it means to be a conservative; fiscally responsible, socially progressive, environmentally conscious, inclusionary, and yes, possessing a prudent and non-imperialistic foreign policy (boy sounds pretty liberal to me).

Doesn't all that sound like the anti-thesis of George W. Bush?

I applaud Ms. Whitman for the courage to stand up and say what many true conservatives are feeling and thinking right now but why not come out and say that extremists like Georgey boy should be cast out from the temple?

For the sake of this country and because of the positions of power that these lying imbeciles hold, please take back your party for the sake of humanity. Maybe then we can get back to more reasonable discussions about military spending versus education spending instead of which country we're going to invade next, which wildlife preserve we're going to drill in and what group needs a constitutional amendment banning their right to live.

It's Her Party Too!

P.S. Hey Christina and the rest of you true conservatives: you don't have to be loyal to a party that is now representative of almost none of your values. Sounds like you might be better suited moving over to the liberal side of the aisle. All that stuff you mention is what we've been talking about and acting upon for years!

The Daily Effect: Blog Power

Topic: Misc.
As the media continues to consolidate and ownership moves into the hands of fewer and fewer, the owners of such companies are going to find out exactly what they are purchasing. The press releases that herald such consolidations speak of the numbers of "viewers" or "readers" that each organization has. That is their first mistake. They don't "have" anyone. What the corporation has purchased is credibility, without which they wouldn't "have" anyone watching or reading their advertisements.

The power of the blog is individual credibility. As more people have less time in their lives and as mainstream cable television news programs become more like "Entertainment Tonight", curious and intellectual people are asking for more. The blogger, me, performs the function of consolidating the news for them. I didn't recognize this power or reach until yesterday when I posted the letter from the "Daily Kos" asking for a "No On Gonzales". I followed every one of the links of those blogs that signed the letter. I found people from around the country with differing views, backgrounds and careers who all had the power to shape people's views. That's what real power is and the only reason why they have that power is because they have credibility.

Bloggers don't have to be politicians to write about politics and they don't have to be scientists to talk about global warming and we all know that they don't have to be typesetters to talk about typewriters. Bloggers must establish a personal and honest relationship with those people that choose to spend their valuable time visiting the blog. Bloggers aren't' going to take over the world but they are going to perpetuate what I like to call "The Daily Effect" in homage to "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart.

Stewart has succeeded in influencing news agencies, an election and millions of viewers who have come to expect more. Bloggers, working with credible brick and mortar type organizations like Newsworld International (NWI) are going to change the face of news and influence as we know it. Those organizations, like MS-NBC that choose to emulate the failing formula of Fox "News" are going to be castrated by the millions of influential bloggers around not only this country but the world. When Fox "news" attempts to promote a propagandizing policy of the Bush administration such as things are going swell in Iraq, the worldwide blogging community, starting with a blogger located in Iraq, are going to come down like a guillotine on the necks of those controlling Fox. This is word-of-mouth advertising at its finest. Who are you going to believe, the big cold conglomerate news agency or The Indy Voice who you've grown to know and love?

Even Fox can't compete with that.

No On Gonzales

Topic: State Of The Union

The Indy Voice wholeheartedly endorses the letter below, the undersigned and the Daily Kos in asking that Alberto Gonzales not be confirmed by the Senate:

Unprecedented times call for unprecedented actions. In this case, we, the undersigned bloggers, have decided to speak as one and collectively author a document of opposition. We oppose the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to the position of Attorney General of the United States, and we urge every United States Senator to vote against him.

As the prime legal architect for the policy of torture adopted by the Bush Administration, Gonzales's advice led directly to the abandonment of longstanding federal laws, the Geneva Convention, and the United States Constitution itself. Our country, in following Gonzales's legal opinions, has forsaken its commitment to human rights and the rule of law and shamed itself before the world with our conduct at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. The United States, a nation founded on respect for law and human rights, should not have as its Attorney General the architect of the law's undoing.

In January 2002, Gonzales advised the President that the United States Constitution does not apply to his actions as Commander in Chief, and thus the President could declare the Geneva Conventions inoperative. Gonzales's endorsement of the August 2002 Bybee/Yoo Memorandum approved a definition of torture so vague and evasive as to declare it nonexistent. Most shockingly, he has embraced the unacceptable view that the President has the power to ignore the Constitution, laws duly enacted by Congress and International treaties duly ratified by the United States. He has called the Geneva Conventions "quaint."

Legal opinions at the highest level have grave consequences. What were the consequences of Gonzales's actions? The policies for which Gonzales provided a cover of legality - views which he expressly reasserted in his Senate confirmation hearings - inexorably led to abuses that have undermined military discipline and the moral authority our nation once carried. His actions led directly to documented violations at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and widespread abusive conduct in locales around the world.

Michael Posner of Human Rights First observed: "After the horrific images from Abu Ghraib became public last year, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld insisted that the world should 'judge us by our actions [and] watch how a democracy deals with the wrongdoing and with scandal and the pain of acknowledging and correcting our own mistakes.'" We agree. It is because of this that we believe the only proper course of action is for the Senate to reject Alberto Gonzales's nomination for Attorney General. As Posner notes, "[t]he world is indeed watching." Will the Senate condone torture? Will the Senate condone the rejection of the rule of law?

With this nomination, we have arrived at a crossroads as a nation. Now is the time for all citizens of conscience to stand up and take responsibility for what the world saw, and, truly, much that we have not seen, at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. We oppose the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General of the United States, and we urge the Senate to reject him.

Signed, Daily Kos Management (past and present):

kos Steve Gilliard Steve Soto Meteor Blades Theoria

DHinMi Trapper John DemfromCt DavidNYC

A Gilas Girl Hunter kid oakland Armando

Seeing the Forest Patridiots Just Between Strangers The Talent Show Capitol Banter Democratic Veteran Fiat Lux Mahablog Thoughts from Kansas Biomes Blog Dohiyi Mir Liberal Oasis Temporary Autonomous Blog Steve Audio News Junkie Antiblog Fallen Monk Biscuit Report Damek Pudentilla Blues State Political Rugger Brains and Eggs Bush Watch Archy Newsfare American Blog Party Become the Media Rudiriet Give Love:Get Love Paperweight's Fair Shot It's not a Democracy Democracy for MA Alluvus Progressive Focus

Burnt Orange Report Delivering Hope Badger Blues Situation Room Cosas (Spanish) Independent Report Do Not Confirm Politics in the Zeros Commonwealth Commonsense I Cogitate Joyce in the Mts Dean TV This Century Sucks Dove's Eye View Also Also 4 Guys Named Pete Wiseass Notes in Samsara Left Wing Cracker Faith Forward Majority Report Radio Democracy for NM Gail-Davis Democracy for CO The SNAFU Principle Porta Pulpit Island of Balta K Street Blues Smafty Mac BOP News 44th President Pharyngula Diets Are Evil Alex Whalen Booze Cabinet The Quipper Hoffmania

Austin Mayor Slapnose PDA Tom Coburn is a Big Fat Jerk Gjoblaag Witty and Urbane Heart, Soul and Humor The Big Lowitzki DriveDemocracy Interesting Times Blah blah blah Ken Sain Department of Louise The Thorn Papers Curiosity is a Virtue Noah's Weblog Reading A1 Apathy and Empathy LeanLeft Different Strings D-Day Gracchus Hughes for America Rooftop Report A Heathen's Perspective Loudocracy Oklahoma Hippy The Indy Voice Kentucky Democrat Norwegianity Frederick Clarkson Doty Blog Shawn's Website Republic of T Unfair Witness

A Conservative Says...

Topic: Satire
The Indy Voice has received some interesting critiques from a couple of gentlemen who call themselves Americans. Their responses to my statements are as predictable as they are cliche and banal. What is it with conservatives? Do they get an ignoramus kit when they join the he-man everybody-hating club? It sounds like somebody's been reading, Ann "The Blonde Natasha" Coulter's book "50 Ways To Call Liberals Traitors", but these guys have a hard enough time writing.

In about 45 seconds I can come up with every response that these guys will use against liberals for the rest of their hate filled lives. They kind of remind me of that kids toy where you pull the string and it says a cow says "moo!". Except to spin these guys up all you have to do is say something they don't agree with and out pops "A Conservative Says..." (add something here about hating America, Jesus, and the bible and/or loving terrorists, communists or destroying America).

Below is an ever-so-slight caricature of the types of "conversations" or "debates" I've had with conservatives:

Liberal: George W. Bush has consistently lied and created an environment of hysteria to attain political and economic goals that have nothing to do with his stated purpose.

Conservative: (Fighting back tears of rage) You must be one of them there Commie-pinko-socialists assholes and you should move to China.

---

Liberal: The United States government has been responsible for the exact behavior that they claim to condemn. To say this isn't unpatriotic but the epitome of what it means to be an American. In fact, our entire system of government depends upon its citizens not only questioning the government but holding them accountable for their actions.

Conservative: (Thinking about loading their gun) Uh, I don't know 'bout all that but you hate America and Jesus Christ and I don't even think y'all like apple pie. You sound like one of them liberal elites Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh, men of God and true Americans, remind us to hate every day.

---

Liberal: Don't you realize that the actions of George W. Bush have been inconsistent with his rhetoric. He has not united this nation but divided it when he preemptively choose to attack a country that had nothing to do with American directed terrorism. He has failed to direct our resources towards the legitimate threats and he has failed to address security issues that have long been neglected because the industries that would require government regulations and control are the same corporations that have purchased George W. Bush the Presidency.

Conservative: (Thinking that Fox "news" has never mentioned this kind of stuff before) You wanna sodomize Osama Been Ladeen don't cha? You are one American-hating sum' bitch. You just can't stand that George W. Bush, God bless his soul, has the cajones to stand up to those towel heads over there. He's fighting an "away game" so that we don't have to fight here. I say love it or leave it you Commie bastard.

---

Liberal: While I myself am not a Christian I can respect the true teachings of Jesus Christ. His true teachings are the truth that is represented in many of the worlds great religions. I don't have a problem with Christians or Christianity, I have a problem with those greed consumed capitalist that call themselves Christians who are destroying not only a great religion but a great country. Unregulated capitalism is not in the constitution and the constitution is not in the bible nor is the constitution based on the bible.

Conservative: I knew it! You are a pinko, Jesus-hating Commie. You're aidin and abettin them damn terrorists! It doesn't say God Bless America in the bible for nothing. God loves America and he hates towel heads, sand niggers, fags, kikes, dikes and liberals like you. I feel sorry for you. You're nothin but a weak terrorist sympathizer.

---

Liberal: I find it very hard to support a man who claims to despise people who use violence for political and economic ends, "terrorists" as he likes to call them, but then turns around and needlessly and violently destroys a country in an ill-advised search for WMD. Furthermore this President has consistently lied to the American people about the reasons for war. The senate authorized the use of force solely based upon the stated purpose of finding WMD. When none were found this President never apologized or admitted making a mistake, he just changed the reasons for war.

Conservative: (Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang!)

Liberal: Boy, did you miss the point. It's a damn good thing your shooting is as flawed as your thinking!

---

While I've never been shot at (not yet), why does almost every "conversation" or "debate" with a conservative go something like this? And I'm the irrational and emotional liberal, right?

There Is No Social Security Crisis

Another Bush Created "Crisis"

Next Up Iran!

When do you think the 61,000,000 Americans who voted for George W. Bush are going to wake up to the fact that this guy creates an environment of irrational fear (A.K.A. PARANOIA) every time he takes aim at a political goal? Allowing Bush to get away with dissolving Social Security would be a political coup of monumental proportions. Everyone, including those whining old Republicans, will receive Social Security if they've paid into the system. Social Security is the case-in-point that liberal policies work and this is evident by the 70 year success of the program.

This is the real reason why Bush is trying to destroy it.

That is exactly what would happen if he gets his way.

---

Bush is still not my President and anyone who calls a man who is antithetical to the principles, constitution and moral values of this country their President should reassess their views, lest they be labeled a traitor.

Just remember that the power of the people is not in the President, the President's power is in the people.

Referendum On Fear

Topic: State Of The Union
The Washington Post is reporting that George W. Bush actually believes that the 2004 election was a referendum on his policies, specifically his failed policies in Iraq.

"The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."

Now I would say that in a normal election he would be mostly right. Typically voters look back at the achievements and policies of an administration and vote based upon a fairly clear view of what the successes are. In a typical election voters either know the outcome or have a good idea of where the policies of an administration are going to take us.

The quagmire known as Iraq could wind up in any number of different outcomes. Our actions there could set off a civil or world war. We could inevitably spend a trillion dollars rebuilding. Our errant preemptive actions have alienated many throughout the world that we depend on for cooperation to protect our soil and our assets from further terrorist attacks, thus potentially contributing to another successful attack. The "terrorists" as some are calling the members of the insurgency in Iraq are mostly and from credible reports the same Iraqi people who our President is claiming to liberate. Even if everything follows this President's mental masturbation delusion and you forget about the 1300+ American soldiers that have been killed, the 10,000+ that have been wounded and the reported 100,000 Iraqi civilians that have been "liberated" from this planet at our hands and everything does work out, you will still have thousands of people left in Iraq who NOW view us as their eternal enemy.

In typical elections voters vote for candidates because their planned policies, opinions and values reflect those that are voting. We had an election where the incumbent candidate convinced a majority that if they didn't vote for him terrorists would succeed, because of the other candidates weakness, at destroying a major American city with a nuclear bomb.

This election was characterized by paranoid delusional fear. 30% of those who voted for George W. Bush were doing so because of this irrational fear induced by the President that they trusted. Couple that with the fact that more people voted against George W. Bush than any other incumbent candidate in the history of our country, and you will get a clear depiction of the so-called "referendum" on Bush's failed policies. Add to that picture the likelihood that not everyone who voted for Bush agrees with him and the truth of the matter is revealed even further.

Our country has been overcome with fear and ignorance and we have elected a President that embodies that. When our country returns to rational thought and prudence our elected representatives will reflect that.