I think we should accuse George Bush of taking money from Osama bin Laden. Hey, as Denny Hastert would say, "we just don't know."

And get Shrum or Frum or whoever the cheney is heading the campaign and give him a swirly in the toilet of reality...

George W. Bush DOES take money from Osama Bin Laden and Bin'Ladens Family. (didn't you see F911?)

And GWB can't be trusted; He's got SHIFTY eyes.

You don't need to make shit up; Senator Kerry just needs to Tell America the Truth about GWB. The whole truth.

record, lies, broken promises, and failings in the war on terror (Tora Bora) and Iraq
Kerry has started to do this, not a moment to soon. I know he mentioned Tora Bora, I think at the American Legion meeting. As far as Shrum, I think there was a post here and some articles about how he has been minimized.

I thought the votes that Miller enumerated were the ones that Kerry cast. What the CNNinnies came back with was that Cheney had argued against a lot of the same systems during the post-Cold War build-down.

You may say it's hypocritical to criticize Kerry on those points when Cheney was on the same side of the argument, but the double-standard has been working double-time this election. And the claims remain factually true. Thus, it is safe to make them.

Let the dhimmis do their own research if they want to know differently.

Eleven point bounces in the news today. Jeeze.

John Edwards was a successful trial lawyer. His job was to persuade juries. He was so good other lawyers came to watch him make his closing arguments. OK, John: America is your jury. Now make the case against Bush.

Toby:

The GOP attacks on Kerry’s votes were lies, as the Post pointed out yesterday:

Kerry did not cast a series of votes against individual weapons systems, as Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.) suggested in a slashing convention speech in New York late Wednesday, but instead Kerry voted against a Pentagon spending package in 1990 as part of deliberations over restructuring and downsizing the military in the post-Cold War era.

Cheney, at the time defense secretary, had scolded Congress for keeping alive such programs as the F-14 and F-16 jet fighters that he wanted to eliminate. Miller said in his speech that Kerry had foolishly opposed both the weapons systems and would have left the military armed with "spitballs." During that same debate, President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, proposed shutting down production of the B-2 bomber -- another weapons system cited by Miller -- and pledged to cut defense spending by 30 percent in eight years.

Though Miller recited a long list of weapons systems, Kerry did not vote against these specific weapons on the floor of the Senate during this period. Instead, he voted against an omnibus defense spending bill that would have funded all these programs; it is this vote that forms the crux of the GOP case that he "opposed" these programs.

On the Senate floor, Kerry cast his vote in terms of fiscal concerns, saying the defense bill did not "represent sound budgetary policy" in a time of "extreme budget austerity." Much like Bush's father, he singled out the B-2 bomber for specific attention, saying it is "one of the most costly, waste-ridden programs in a long history of waste, fraud and abuse scandals that have plagued Pentagon spending."

Asked why the campaign was attacking Kerry for having similar positions as Cheney, White House communications director Dan Bartlett responded: "I don't have the specifics of [when] then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney was in charge of the Pentagon, but I think we'd be more than willing to have a debate on whether Dick Cheney or John Kerry was stronger on defense."

Cheney, in his own speech, skipped over that period, going directly from Kerry's vote against authorization for the first Persian Gulf War to the post-Sept. 11, 2001, period.

Republican documents also cite a long list of Kerry votes against various weapons systems, including the B-2 bomber. But Kerry's opposition in the 1990s often hinged on his concerns about the impact on the budget deficit of congressional efforts to add money for the plane.

"We are going to build B-2 bombers even though the Pentagon does not want the B-2 bombers, even though the Pentagon never submitted a request for the B-2 bombers," Kerry said during a budget debate in October 1995.

It should be noted that Miller at CNN’s urging has still not provided the documentation to back up his charges.

I agree with this, put up a diary to this effect on DKos, and believe that, if nothing else, the issues in the debate are now fairly framed and will not change dramatically between now and November 2.

The facts show that Bush is a failure both in the "War on Terrorism" and the Iraq War.

In the War on Terrorism, the only real accomplishment has been taking the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan. They have not been destroyed as a force there, only taken out of power. More important, they haven't been eliminated as a social/political force.

Apart from taking the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan, there are no "victories" in the War on Terror. Osama is still at large, Al Qaeda is still gaining new recruits, and terrorist attacks have increased in frequency and mortality.

In Iraq, Americans are still being killed and Bush/Cheney cannot say when they will stop being killed or when they will come home. The situation there, in all honesty, resembles the other "permanent problem" areas of the world like Israel/Palestine and Northern Ireland.

Eventually, Americans will run out of patience and run out of reasons to keep getting killed in Iraq and they will leave. The people that are killing them, and being killed by them, represent and entrenchment of the hostilities and hatreds that will prevent a moderate or pro-US government from ever holding power there.

There has been no victory in Iraq, only numerous deaths that aren't leading anywhere.

The analogies to WWII abound and, for the most part, are not apt to the Iraq War. But one measure of success in WWII was the willingness of the Germans and Japanese to go along with the governance and direction of the conquering Allies. More important, after the defeat of their military, the Germans and Japanese rejected the previous political doctrines that ruled their countries and embraced a liberal democracy.

We don't see that happening in Iraq at all, and there is no indication that such a thing is likely.

The war is being presented by the corporate press/media as a victory, but the truth is that the war is not over and victory is a long way off.

People are afraid and what Kerry must do is show them they are less safe because of the actions of the Bush administration. Here is a start; A Secure America in a Secure World, it's rather long. I have a summary here.

More ammo:

In an effort to bury it the Bush administration released the news that Medicare premiums will go 17% next year in front of a three day weekend and in the middle of a hurricane. Kerry says Bush Aims to 'Bamboozle,' Hide Medicare News. Old people vote and this could be a real storm for the Bush campaign so Kerry must make sure they don't get "Bamboozled"

Okay, so some of those systems were part of an omnibus bill, but that's part of Kerry's problem: he votes on bills (and resolutions, certainly) that he later says were implemented improperly or did/did not include this/that. Which he thinks is supposed to get him off the hook. But that's crap. Riders get attached to stuff all the time so that people can use them as excuses for not voting for something. Big omnibus packages roll through so that everyone can look the other way when Robert Byrd gets another million for the Robert Byrd Truck Stop Urinal and Monument.

There are plenty of other instances where Kerry voted to cut spending on major weapons systems and aircraft, as well as intelligence services, that you can't say Cheney opposed, too. That's the sorta stuff that needs to be hung around his neck.

Thus, it is appropriate and necessary for us to hang Bu$h'$ wrong decisions around his neck, correct? Just remember - Kerry's wrong decisions haven't killed tens of thousands and cost untold billions like someone else we know.

Eleven point bounces in the news today. Jeeze.

10 point bounce for Kerry by same pollsters after Democratic convention.

Yes, Phidipides, polls are conducted by some mysterious craatures. Have you been polled? By Zogby. Pew Research, Harris, Gallup and other right wing orgs? I haven't. And if you are polled, the pollsters are calling you from India! Don't believe it! Read Michael Moore's article in Buzzflash,"Why Democrats Shouldn't Be Afraid".

Oh, yeah, all progressives out there and LC's, I urge you to install Spyware in your desk/laps. I was tracked, and man, it's scary.

Attack, Attack , Attack . John Edwards made a damn good living doing just that. Learn a lesson from the pubs use everybody but Kerry to rip their butt. Lord knows if you just covered the flip flops and the lies you could do hours and hours.

Use Primedius for the important stuff.

Pessimist:

Just remember - Kerry's wrong decisions haven't killed tens of thousands and cost untold billions like someone else we know.

It's funny that you should mention that because I just wrote a post at my own blog explaining why you people are such hypocrites for ignoring Kerry's vote in favor of the war while criticizing the President for acting on that consent.

It's a logical fallacy. As a Senator, Kerry's approval of the use of force is not executive; yet, his approval is identical to that of the President, whose approval is executive. You are therefore saying that Kerry is less responsible for his own approval of the use of force because of what he is and not what he did.

People should be accountable for their choices, regardless of what office they occupy.

As a Senator, Kerry's approval of the use of force is not executive; yet, his approval is identical to that of the President

Thank you for explaining why Kerry is to blame for the American deaths in Iraq. I'm comforted to know it had nothing to do with the isoGB asking for congrssional approval to use military force in Iraq if a connection could be made between Old-Sammy, "Terra," WMD and Iraq.

Of course, if I argued from opinion based on fallacious assumptions and reasoning along the lines of "But if the President and Kerry both believed the same things (that Saddam had to be removed because of the actual or potential threat he posed ---and that we should use force to do it, if necessary)...[from the horrid little blog you referenced]," I can make anything factual. That is, if the assumption is corrrct in the first place, which it is not.

As a Senator, Kerry's approval of the use of force is not executive; yet, his approval is identical to that of the President, whose approval is executive.

I left out a phrase when I was thinking that through. What I should have said is that the substance of Kerry's approval or the purpose of his approval was identical to that of the President when he voted for the war. In light of Kerry's numerous condemnations of the Saddamite regime and his own conviction that Iraq was a danger (before he tried to co-opt the Dean vote), there can be no doubt about this.

But Kerry is not absolved from his responsibility for giving his consent just because he is not in the same position of authority as the President.

Bush was the executive in charge of our armed forces at the time of the invasion and the start of the ghastly chain of events that lead us to today . . . Not Kerry.

Kerry authorized force if the executive branch found just cause . . . do you not understand that Tobe? Bush was swayed by the Dungeon'N'Dragon-playing neo-cons, those guys that played with our troops for their Rotissirie War League. THAT'S goddamned somthing we can hang around Bush's neck, you fucking twerp.

It is ALL Bush's mistake NOT Kerry's.

Toby, I cannot think of anyone who could screw up something worse than Bush and his crew could. They are total incompetents - everything Bush has touched has failed (except in enriching him and his friends). Whether it was correct to go into Iraq or not, the post invasion disaster has been Bush's responsibility. Instead of putting in enough peacekeepers (500,000 or so) to ensure the peace for the Iraqis, he put way too few troops to do this - and made them targets as they tried to stem the chaos with too few people with too harsh tactics.

If you had a demonstration that turned bad in Austin, what do you think would work better, dropping a 2 ton bomb on the demonstrators or having a solid enough police force that was welcomed by the neighbors? Bush uses the 2 ton bombs. No wonder American troops are targeted by those that are angry.

And who was so stupid as to think that using Abu Ghraib for the prison after it was Saddam's play pen would be good? Or using Saddam's palace for the American power base? Only someone who was totally insensitive to the emotions and feelings of the real people in Iraq would have made the decisions he and his administration did.

The troops that have died are HIS responsibility. Why didn't Bush make sure soldiers had bullet-proof vests? Why did it take the families using fundraising drives to buy vests for the soldiers? Meanwhile Halliburton is racking in huge amounts for delivering ineatible food to the soldiers. And they are paying 1000 dollars a day to provide guards for Bremer. Who is responsible for all of these terrible mistakes? Why do you think Bush believes and acts like this? He obviously thinks that the soldiers only deserve what the administration can afford to give them (after the payments to Halliburton, to CICS, to Kellog-Brown and to the wealthy for their tax cuts). There are LOTS of words about "honoring the troops", but on every front, the troops get shafted while Bush and his friends make out like bandits. How can you justify that? And what makes you think he would do any better on the next challenge he has? Are you willing to entrust your life on his making the right decisions next time? I'm not.

Toby was practically begging people to check out his blog, so I did. Nary a comment as far as the eye could see. No wonder he hangs around lefty blogs so much.

Every other day or so, Republicans can be caught in public telling each other how well the war in Iraq went. Funny, I never hear them giving any credit to the Democrats when that happens . . .

BCF:

Toby was practically begging people to check out his blog, so I did. Nary a comment as far as the eye could see. No wonder he hangs around lefty blogs so much.

I haven't begged anyone to read my blog. And although it would be great to have more comments there, it doesn't change my belief in what I write. Lastly, this is the only Leftist blog I visit as I was banned from Eschaton for telling the truth by the hypocrite who runs the place.

Toby wrote:

. . . it doesn't change my belief in what I write.

Yeah, that's pretty damned obvious.

Anyway, belief is nice, but results are what count. I can believe monkeys will fly out of my ass, but just because I believe it doesn't make it true. Same thing with the positions you support, Toby. They're all well and good in theory, but they, like many conservatives' beliefs these days, have little to do with what's going on in the real world. It's one thing to believe something -- a value, an ideal, whatever -- but, to continue on with a belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is stupidity, not reason nor analysis nor even truly belief anymore. It's just ignorance.

Gentlemen, let's get real. Kerry has been in hiding for over 5 weeks. Why? Because he has no satisfactory answers about his Vietnam lies and exaggerations. As more stories roll out about his "collaboration" with the Viet Cong, (secret meetings in Paris, sending tapes to Hanoi that were used to browbeat POW's) etc..
the pressure on Kerry to defend the undefendable will become excruciating. Kerry was a big fish in a very small, liberal pond. Desite the money, the accent, the arrogance, Kerry is in way over his head. He is "gut shot" and dying a deservedly slow death. Over the next 2 months, I'm going to so enjoy watching you Bush-haters slowly and reluctantly come to the same conclusion.