The Mahablog: Truth and the Bush Administration

The Democratic Candidates

Essential Links
Blame Bush for North Korea's Nukes
America -- What Went Wrong?
The Truth About Paul Krugman
Lies, Damn Lies, and Bush
The Big Picture
War and Profit
Remember September 11
Homeland Insecurity
Peaceniks of the Past
Is It Too Late?
Abe Lincoln, Peace Activist
What Are We Fighting For?
Better Than Teapot Dome!
Forgetting the Alamo
The Killer Mothers
Anti-Bush Graphics to Go
Bush Barf-O-Rama!
Type comparison
August 29
Partial Transcript, Abrams Report, April 5, 2005

Liberty Bell

Updated February 11, 2004.
Special Feature! How do the candidates' rate on the Log Cabin Scale? Read about it only on The Mahablog!

About this table: The table below, which is getting shorter and shorter, is provided as a quickie comparison of the candidates on a few major issues. It leaves out a lot, so please go to their web sites for more detail. I've listed the candidates in order of my preference, but I try to be fair.


The Democratic Candidates: Comparison Chart


John Kerry                                                                             web site
Senator, Massachusetts
Strengths: Before serious campaigning began, Senator Kerry was the presumptive front-runner. He's still considered most likely to be nominated by many. Vietnam veteran. Looks presidential. Very tall. 
Policy Plans
War/National Security:  In October 2002, Senator Kerry voted in favor of the Iraq War Resolution. In doing so he lost a huge chunk of the Democratic base and has had to fight hard to get it back. Needless to say, he thinks the invasion was a big mistake now. To his credit, he opposed $87 billion package for Iraq and Afghanistan. To get out of Iraq, he would replace the U.S. provisional authority in Iraq with U.N. leadership and would "internationalize" the reconstruction effort. He would put Saddam Hussein on trial in Iraq before a combined Iraqi-international tribunal.
Taxes/Economy: Says he will roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and maintain and possibly increase tax cuts for the middle class. He plans to spend federal dollars on highways, school construction, pollution cleanup, energy projects and more to create 3 million jobs in 500 days.
Health Care: He wants to expand insurance system for federal employees to private citizens through tax credits and subsidies. People aged 55 to 64 could buy into federal employees' health plan at affordable price. The unemployed would get 75 percent tax credit to help pay for insurance. He would provide tax credits for small businesses and their employees for health insurance. Government would help companies and insurers pay an employee's catastrophic medical costs if the firms would agree to hold down premiums. Federal support to expand access to state-administered health insurance for children.
Environment: Opposed to drilling in Arctic refuge. Has supported tougher fuel efficiency standards for vehicles. Goal of 20 percent of electricity from renewable or alternative sources by 2020. Steer $20 billion from oil and gas royalties to development of cleaner energy. Goal of independence from Middle East oil in 10 years. Tougher standards for companies operating on public lands.
Trade: He supported Nafta in the past but doesn't seem to be talking about it now. He does say that trade agreements should have labor and environmental standards, but United States cannot insist in these deals that foreign standards rise to the level of America's. That would be ``a policy for shutting the door.''
Other Issues:  Supports abortion rights (voted against "Partial Birth" ban). Opposes the death penalty. Supports civil unions but not gay marriage.


John Edwards                                                                      web site
Senator, North Carolina
Strengths: First-term Senator, speaks well. The Republicans dismiss him as a former "trial lawyer," but note that as a lawyer he specialized in representing working people and families against the insurance industry.
Policy Plans
War/National Security: Senator Edwards voted for the Iraq War resolution in 2002 but against the $87 billion supplement. His web site has a nice bulleted list of steps he would take to get out of Iraq (note to candidates: I like bulleted lists; makes research easier). In short, he wants to involve allies, especially the UN and NATO, and bring in a NATO-led peacekeeping force to ensure stability through the transition to a new Iraq sovereignty. He wants to help Iraqis form their own elected government so they aren't ruled by puppets and warlords, and he wants to ensure that oil profits remain with the Iraqi people.
Taxes/Economy: Plans to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 percent of Americans, which would be people who earn about $240,000 a year. Wants to make the tax code more progressive. Plans to set top capital gains tax rate at 25 percent for Americans earning at least $400,000. Give 10 percent tax cut to companies that make products in the United States. Establish a new fund for rural business and incentives for urban business. Tax credit of up to $5,000 for first-time home buyers. Cut federal work force by 10 percent over 10 years by attrition, excluding defense and domestic security personnel.
Health Care: Edwards's web site says he "will make it affordable and easy for parents to get health insurance with refundable tax credits and automatic enrollment. In return, parents will have a responsibility to insure their children." Infants to be enrolled at birth in either government health care programs or private insurance. Children up to age 21 would be required to sign up when they visit doctors' offices or start school. Also, subsidies to help two-thirds of uninsured adults buy coverage. People aged 55 to 65 could buy into Medicare, and unemployed workers who are not wealthy could continue coverage from their last jobs with 70 percent federal subsidies.
Environment: Supports tougher clean air and water rules for farms and unspecified increase in fuel efficiency standards for cars. Opposes weakening of Clean Air Act regulations and drilling in Arctic reserve. Require increased use of renewable fuels for electricity.
Trade: Voted to elevate China's trading status. Says trade deals should include labor and environmental protections.
Other Issues: Supports abortion rights, but did not vote on "partial birth" bill the two times it came up this year. Supports the death penalty. Opposes school vouchers. Supports domestic partnership rights but doesn't go as far as supporting civil unions or gay marriage.


Howard Dean                                                                         web site
Former Governor of Vermont; Physician

Another great resume -- a family doctor who became a governor. Broke out of the pack early by opposing the Iraq War. Looks stronger on domestic issues than General Clark. Not as "lefty" as he is depicted; he's essentially a moderate Dem who picked up support from the left by being against the war. As Governor of Vermont he provided health care for all children and put the state on sound financial footing.

Policy Plans
War/National Security: Dean spoke out against the invasion of Iraq back when the candidates then in Congress were voting for the Iraq War Resolution. Now that we're there, he is not in favor of an immediate withdrawal of troops. His statement, from his web site:
The new plan must give our troops what they need and bring them home safely, share this burden with other nations, ensure the stabilization and rebuilding of Iraq, and make sure that the billions of dollars we are spending are not wasted and used to pay off big corporations. [Press release, October 16, 2003]
Dean believes America has a responsibility to aid Iraqi reconstruction and stabilization. He has proposed rolling back all of the Bush tax cuts and using that money to pay for reconstruction and troop support, rather than go deeper into national debt or paying for reconstruction out of Iraqi oil profits.
His national security philosophy, as outlined on his web site:
  • First, defeat the threat posed by terrorists, tyrants, and technologies of mass destruction.
  • Second, strengthen our alliances and ensure Russia and China are fully integrated into a stable international order.
  • Third, enlarge the circle of beneficiaries of the growing world economy.
  • And fourth, ensure that life on our fragile planet is sustainable.  
Taxes/Economy: Wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts entirely and spend the money on health care, homeland security, and job creation. Balancing the budget is a high priority. Plans to create $100 billion fund to be distributed over two years to neediest states and communities for domestic security projects, schools and transportation and communications systems.
Health Care: Wants to expand state health insurance program for poor children to include kids from moderate-income families, young adults and the working poor. Would give tax credits to help workers of moderate income buy affordable coverage similar to that offered to federal employees, with extra insurance subsidies for companies employing fewer than 50 people. The federal government would pay 70 percent of temporary insurance costs for people between jobs, with former employers required to extend coverage for additional two months.
Environment: Contrary to rumor, Gov. Dean does support the Kyoto agreements on global warning. He also supports health-based standards for air toxins and would require 20 percent of electrical generation to come from renewable sources by 2020.
Trade: As governor he supported Nafta and other trade agreements, but now says all trade deals should be revised to include tough labor, environmental and human rights standards at their core. He wants to rework or replace Nafta. Says labor standards in trade agreements should initially be equal to those set out by the International Labor Organization, but goal should be to make them as high as those in the United States. ``Ultimately we have to have exactly the same labor standards.''
Other Issues: Supports abortion rights. Limited support for death penalty. Supports civil unions but not gay marriage.


Dennis Kucinich                                                                    web site
Congressman, Ohio
Strengths: Dennis Kucinich has a small but devoted following who believe he is the the only pure and true progressive candidate in the race. All the other candidates, they say, are corrupt right-wingers owned by big corporations. As a result of this, I have come to dislike Dennis Kucinich intensely. Take that as a disclaimer. Kucinich jumped into the race last year after Howard Dean's candidacy took off, and it was clear the electorate would accept an anti-war candidate. Today, according to Kucinich followers, Kucinich is the only real anti-war candidate. Howard Dean isn't really against the war, they say, for reasons I find a bit obscure. But they say it anyway.
Policy Plans
War/National Security: All administrative and security responsibilities will be handed over to the UN so that the US can withdraw. (He has projected a three-month timetable for UN troops to completely replace US troops.) Kucinich has not indicated what he would do if the UN refuses to go along.
Taxes/Economy: He would repeal the portions of Bush's tax cuts that went to the wealthiest Americans but keep the tax breaks for children, married couples and lower-income people.
Health Care: Promises to provide health care for all Americans through a single-payer system.
Environment: Supports Kyoto treaty. Wants to toughen pollution penalties, expand government ownership of utilities, and double energy from renewable sources by 2010.
Trade: Would withdraw the United States from all multilateral trade agreements and seek bilateral trade treaties conditioned on labor and environmental standards and human rights protections.
Other Issues: Supports abortion rights, but until 2002 was consistently against abortion rights. Opposes the death penalty. Promises to provide free college education. Supports gay marriage.

Kucinich Supporters Can't Name Second Choice



The Reverend Al Sharpton                                                   web site
Minister, New York

Strengths: He gets points for being a hoot and a half in the debates, but he has a long and muddy history as a race-baiting opportunist. Tawana Brawley isn't even half of it. I am stunned that there are people Out There who take him seriously as a candidate.  (As an indication that he doesn't take himself seriously as a candidate, there is very little of substance on his web site.) He has little or no executive experience.

Policy Plans

War/ National Security: Opposed the Iraq War. Wants to bring troops home.

Taxes/Economy: Repeal all the Bush tax cuts and introduce job-creation plan anchored by five-year, $250 billion program to fix transportation systems and augment domestic security.

Health Care: Wants a Constitutional Amendment making equal health care a right.

Environment: Calls for conversion to renewable energy sources and toughening of environmental laws generally.

Trade: Opposes Nafta; supports protection of labor, the environment, and human rights.

Other Issues: Supports abortion rights. Opposes the death penalty. Opposes vouchers. Supports gay marriage.


Who Is Al Sharpton?

Sharpton Speaks for the Needy

Al Sharpton -- Sleeping With the GOP

Questions About Sharpton's Campaign Financing


Wesley Clark                                                                          web site
Four-Star General, Retired
Dropped out of the race February 10.


Joe Lieberman                                                                      web site
Senator, Connecticut
Dropped out of the race February 3.


Richard Gephardt                                                                 web site
Congressman, Missouri
Dropped out of the reace January 19, 2004.


Carol Mosley Braun                                                                web site
Former Senator, Illinois; former ambassador to New Zealand

Dropped out of the race January 15, 2004. Endorsed Howard Dean.


Bob Graham                                                                           web site
Senator, Florida; former governor of Florida
Dropped out of the race October 6.


Add your content here


An archive of blogs on the Dems

September 27, 2003
Who'da Thunk It?
It might surprise you to know that Howard Dean is not a true antiwar candidate. In fact, it might surprise you to know that your own favorite blogger, maha, wants to stay the course in Iraq and spend more money and blood on it to keep the nonsense going.
Sure as hell surprised me.
But I spent a chunk of today (wasted) on an argument with some Kucinich supporters who believe their man is the ONLY Democratic candidate who is opposed to maintaining Bush's status quo in Iraq. And if you aren't with Kucinich, you're a pro-war, bloodthirsty Bush dupe. So there.
I am now sufficiently pissed off to blog about why Dennis Kucinich should drop out of the presidential race now.
Until last Thursday's debate I hadn't focused much on Kucinich. By reputation I know he's supposed to be the most "progressive" candidate in the field. I knew he was against the Iraq war, which is fine by me. But his opening remarks in Thursday's debate bothered me a lot.

SEIB: Turning on Iraq to Congressman Kucinich and Reverend Sharpton, you've both been outspoken critics of the war and have said, in fact, you'd bring the troops home. But the fact is that as of now the troops are there, the United States is committed.

Would you vote--will you vote yes or no on the $87 billion? And if the answer is no, what's the message you would send to the troops who are there today?

KUCINICH: The message is now I will not vote for the $87 billion. I think we should support the troops and I think we best support them by bringing them home.

Our troops are at peril there, because of this administration's policy. And I think that the American people deserve to know where every candidate on this stage stands on this issue, because we were each provided with a document--a security document that more or less advised us to stay the course, don't cut and run, commit up to 150,000 troops for five years at a cost of up to $245 billion.

A matter of fact, General Clark was one of the authors of that document that was released in July.

So I think the American people deserve to know that a candidate--and I'm the candidate who led the effort in the House of Representatives challenging the Bush administration's march toward war, I say bring the troops home unequivocally. Bring them home and stop this commitment for $87 billion, which is only going to get us in deeper.

After a while, we're going to be sacrificing our education, our health care, our housing and the future of this nation.

First, I've been googling since Thursday to find out what this "security document" is Kucinich is talking about, and I can't find it anywhere. Kucinich supporters have grasped at this alleged report as proof that Wesley Clark wants to spend $245 billion dollars for more warfare in Iraq, which is certainly at odds with the General's public statements.
General Clark wasn't given a chance to rebut Kucinich's claim. In the absense of context, it isn't unreasonable to assume that this "security document," if it exists at all, was an estimate of what the war will cost if it continues as it has. We're already up to $166 billion ($79 billion original appropriation plus the infamous $87 billion recently requested). One of these days it'll add up to real money.
It bothered me also that Kucinich glibly brushed off the $87 billion -- no more money to Iraq, just bring the troops home. Kucinich apparently plans to beam them back to North America next week with his Start Trek transporter.
It's morally cheap to be against the $87 billion. Of course, no one wants to spend the $87 billion. This is money that would never have had to be spent if we hadn't gone ahead with the dadblamed invasion. As several candidates said last Thursday, we must demand accountability for that money -- Congress must know exactly what the Bushies intend to do with every dollar. Perhaps a lesser appropriation will do. But to say no money at all is irresponsible.
As I've ranted before, our troops are in Iraq without adequate food, water, and shelter. Soldiers have died because there aren't enough kevlar vests to go around. Just today we learned of a new attempt by the Bushies to save money by risking soldiers' lives:
Even as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made headlines this week by announcing that up to 20,000 fresh troops may be called to Iraq, President Bush and members of the congressional leadership were quietly abandoning a plan to protect troop-transport airliners from missile attack by terrorists or Saddam loyalists.

The measure, first advanced by the Pentagon, would have begun an ambitious program to equip the commercial airliners that are used for troop transport with advanced technology to protect them from the shoulder-fired missiles. Confused by disarray in the administration's plans to protect airliners from missile attack, the House of Representatives slashed the original $25 million request to $3 million. Congressional officials say the Bush administration did nothing to win approval of the full measure -- despite recent missile attacks on U.S. military craft flying near the Baghdad airport. [Paul J. Caffera, "Bush Abandons Troop Protection Plan," Salon, September 27, 2003]

But according to Dennis Kucinich, our troops should just put up with these little hardships until we can bring them home, which in spite of the Congressman's best hopes will not be next week.
When I press them on the matter of how the troops will be brought home, the Kucinichistas tell me brightly that the Congressman has an original plan to turn Iraq over to the UN. Wow, I'm amazed nobody else ever though of that (sarcasm alert).
Still, the UN is not likely to march peacekeepers into Baghdad anytime this year. Perhaps not even next year. But we don't have to spend any more money to support the troops. They can just make do without kevlar vests and bottled water and other little frills.
(Am I still pissed off? You betcha.)
Face it, Kucinich was just plain demagoging this issue. The other candidates gave reasonable, thoughtful answers to the $87 billion question. For the record, I thought the best answer came from Carol Mosley Braun:
MOSELEY BRAUN: I stand with the mothers of the young men and women who are in the desert in Iraq and who right now are in the shooting gallery without even sufficient supplies to sustain themselves.

And so, it is absolutely, I think, critical that we not cut and run, that we provide our troops with what they need and that we just not blow up that country and leave it blown up; we have a responsibility.

Following in on that responsibility means we will have to vote some money. The estimates vary as to what that is.

Almost a year ago, I called on this president not to go into Iraq and I called on the Congress not to give him the authority to go into Iraq, and at the same time asked the question, "Mr. President, how much is this going to cost?" He didn't answer the question then, he's not answering the question now.

But I believe that it's going to be important for us to come up with the money to make certain that our young men and women and our reputation as leaders in the world is not permanently destroyed by the folly of preemptive war.

You say she doesn't want to cut and run? In Kucinich World, that makes Mosley Braun a war monger. For shame.
(Keep in mind also that, as all us armchair military experts know from reading Civil War novels, retreats are very dangerous to troops unless they are done correctly. A haphazard retreat exposes troops to more dangers than if they are just holding a line.)
Another Kucinich moment of brilliance, from the debates -- "I'm disappointed that my fellow colleagues here haven't continued to make the connection between the rising deficit and the war in Iraq. Because unless we commit ourselves to get out of Iraq--get the U.N. in and get the U.S. out--we're going to see rising deficits."
Is he serious? Does he think no one but he is making the connection between the Iraq War and the deficit? Again, that's just plain demagoguery.  
Kucinich also joined in ganging up on Howard Dean by saying he was surprised that Dean, a medical doctor, would promote a health insurance plan that doesn't cover every American. Neither do the plans offered by Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards or other candidates, but Kucinich only singled out Dean.
It must not be forgotten that in his first three terms as a Congressman, Kucinich had a consistently anti-abortion rights voting record, earning him endorsements from the National Right to Life Committee.  "He absolutely believes in the sanctity of life and that life begins at conception," Kucinich's spokeswoman explained last year.

Now he says he sees the error of his ways and is pro-choice. Yeah, I've heard that one before. 'Scuse me if I don't entirely trust you, Congressman.

Face it, folks. Dennis is a flake and needs to go away before he damages the cause further.

Oh, and how did the Kucinichistas come to the conclusion that Howard Dean is not a true antiwar candidate? From this article in Salon, published February 19, 2003.

It's Thursday, Feb. 6, the day after Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations of evidence of Iraq's noncompliance with Resolution 1441. Edwards calls it "a powerful case." Kerry says it's "compelling." Lieberman, of course, is already in his fatigues.

Dean isn't sold. It doesn't indicate that Iraq is an imminent threat, he says.

From Washington come the barbs -- The New Republic calls it proof he's "not serious." ABC News' "The Note" wonders if he's backed himself into a corner. Dean has opposed the pending war because he didn't think President Bush had made his case. If he doesn't support military action now, the thinking goes, then he's just contradicting himself. Or, at the very least, he's been put in an untenable and -- for the moment, at least inside war-ready Washington, unpopular -- position.

He gets a deluge of phone calls from reporters asking him to clarify his position. Which is -- "as I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed -- that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.

"Dean is stirring up antiwar people," a senior advisor to one of his Democratic opponents says. "They are against all war, not just against war without U.N. support. When we do go to war, and Dean says he's with our troops and president in time of national crisis, the antiwar activists he's cultivated will turn on him quickly."

Dean says that's fine, and denies that there's any inconsistency. "I think people are madly trying to find one," he says. "It's part of the game." [Jake Tapper, "On the Campaign Trail With the Un-Bush," Salon, February 19, 2003]

I repeat, Kucinich supporters whip out this very article to "prove" Dean is flip-flopping on the war. A tad short on critical thinking skills, it seems. 

August 5, 2003
Earth to Lieberman: Get Lost
Please note that The Mahablog is firmly committed to supporting whatever the Democrats nominate next year, be it animal, vegetable, or mineral, because the goal is to beat Bush. I am not endorsing any candidate. However, I do wish Joe Lieberman would quit already.
Lieberman is still telling his fellow Dems that they had better support the war in Iraq or they will look soft on terrorism. At a press conference last week he said,
"But by their words, some in my party threaten to send a message that they don't know a just war when they see it and, more broadly, are not prepared to use our military strength to protect our security and the cause of freedom." [Link]
Um, Joe? Read a newspaper now and then, OK? We're way past the "just war" argument. We're into the "stupid war" argument. And by now anybody with a brain has figured out that Iraq, security, and freedom are not words that should be shoveled into the same sentence without a lot of qualifiers to kill the odor.
William Saletan has a muddled opinion piece in Slate in which he seems to say that Lieberman the Messenger doesn't fit Lieberman the Message, and this is why his campaign is in trouble. I disagree; Joe's problem is that he is super-glued to a message that is increasingly out of sync with reality.
Last fall, the Senator calculated that the President was unbeatable on the war issue. In October he and the other loser ... I mean, candidate ... Dick Gephardt stood in the Rose Garden next to Bush and pledged complete support for Shrub's warmongering goals [link]. Lieberman introduced the war resolution to the Senate. 
Other Democrats voted for the resolution, of course (go here for vote breakdown). But most did so with enough parsimoniousness to give themselves future wiggle room. John Kerry, for example, made public statements in opposition to Bush's war aims but voted for the resolution. Now he is saying he was "misled" by Bush. As if.
Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry yesterday said President Bush "circumvented" the process laid out in the congressional resolution authorizing action against Iraq, which Mr. Kerry supported in the Senate last year.

Mr. Kerry, of Massachusetts, said the president promised to build the international coalition, work through the United Nations and go to war as a last resort. 

"It is clear now that he didn't do that sufficiently," Mr. Kerry told reporters in a telephone conference call yesterday. [Amy Fagan, "Bush Sidestepped Process on War in Iraq, Kerry Says," Washington Times, July 22, 2003]
I can't believe the Senator was surprised that Bush bargained in bad faith. I doubt even Kerry's supporters believe that. But Republicans will be challenged to knock Kerry off this stated position without making Their Boy Bush look bad. It would be admitting Kerry should have known Bush was a snake before getting in bed with him.
Joe Lieberman should have known that as well as anyone after Florida 2000. 
But let's look at bigger issues here. Most of the Dems seem to believe that because the public (the segment contacted by pollsters, anyway) supports the Iraq War now, the public will still support the Iraq War in November 2004. And it ain't necessarily so.
The electorate can be fickle. Jimmy Carter won election in 1976 partly on a promise to reduce military spending. Ronald Reagon won election in 1980 (partly) by accusing Carter of reducing military spending.
Simply put, in 1976, post-Vietnam America wanted the military to go away. In1980, Iranian-crisis America wanted the military to come back.
Richard Nixon was re-elected by one of the biggest landslides in history in 1972. He resigned in 1974, and by then most Americans were relieved to see him go.
For that matter, historians tell us that Lincoln appeared to be heading for defeat in 1864 until Sherman took Atlanta right before the election.
In other words, as our boy Rummy says, stuff happens.
Postwar Iraq is a disaster, and it's a disaster of such magnitude that it will take political statesmanship of the highest order to make things right. In other words, it's way beyond the capability of the Bushies to unscrew this pooch.
Our soldiers are suffering terribly because of Bushie incompetence. Iraq has become a breeding ground for anti-American terrorism because of Bushie incompetence. The Taliban is taking back Afghanistan because of Bushie incompetence. Al Qaeda is regrouping because of Bushie incompetence. The United States remains vulnerable to terrorism because of Bushie incompetence.
Face it, Joe. Not only is/was Iraq not a "just war"; it ain't doin' beans for security or freedom, either. That is what the American public needs to understand. And if history is our guide, sooner or later, they will.
If what passes for news media in America were doing its job, of course, the public would be catching on already. For example, Julian Borger reported in yesterday's Guardian that
US military casualties from the occupation of Iraq have been more than twice the number most Americans have been led to believe because of an extraordinarily high number of accidents, suicides and other non-combat deaths in the ranks that have gone largely unreported in the media.

Since May 1, when President George Bush declared the end of major combat operations, 52 American soldiers have been killed by hostile fire, according to Pentagon figures quoted in almost all the war coverage. But the total number of US deaths from all causes is much higher: 112.

The other unreported cost of the war for the US is the number of American wounded, 827 since Operation Iraqi Freedom began.

Unofficial figures are in the thousands. About half have been injured since the president's triumphant appearance on board the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln at the beginning of May. Many of the wounded have lost limbs. [Borger, "The Unreported Cost of War," The Guardian, August 4, 2003]

Sooner or later. By next September, the GOP may be sorry about the decision to tie its convention to the September 11 anniversary. Joe Lieberman should already be sorry he tied his political career to Iraq.

Joe Conason is urging General Wesley Clark to get into the presidential race. I think Conason makes sense:  "I can hardly wait to hear Clark's retort, if and when Tom DeLay, Newt Gingrich or some other conservative chicken-hawk attacks his patriotism." [Link
I almost hate to see Clark enter the race. The Republicans will shred his military record and trash his reputation. The Naderites and leftist fringe will hate him because he has a military record. But I'd still like to see him on the ticket.

Copyright 2003, 2004 by Barbara O'Brien

Reliable Alternatives net ring
This site is a Reliable Alternatives net ring member.

Thanks to RingSurf | Join? | Nominate? | Questions? |


Listed on BlogShares

Site Meter