Jimmy Carter - Bush is exploiting the suffering of (/11

Jimmy Carter is not holding back on his criticism of Bush in this article from the Guardian.
Guardian Unlimited | US elections 2004 | Bush exploits suffering of 9/11, says Carter: "George Bush has exploited the suffering of September 11 and turned back decades of efforts to make the world a safer place, the former president Jimmy Carter says in an interview with the Guardian published today.
Attacking Mr Bush and Tony Blair over Iraq, Mr Carter calls the war 'a completely unjust adventure based on misleading statements'.
He also criticises Mr Bush for 'lack of effort' on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and accuses him of abandoning nuclear non-proliferation initiatives championed by five presidents."

...and he [ed. Bush] has elevated himself, in the consciousness of many Americans, to a heroic commander-in-chief, fighting a global threat against America," Mr Carter says.

"He's repeatedly played that card, and to some degree quite successfully. I think that success has dissipated. I don't know if it's dissipating fast enough to affect the election. We'll soon know."


Yep we'll soon know.

Finally Someone is Asking Questions

WSJ.com - Questions Mount Over Failure to Hit Zarqawi's Camp: ">From the Wall Street Journal
"As the toll of mayhem inspired by terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi mounts in Iraq, some former officials and military officers increasingly wonder whether the Bush administration made a mistake months before the start of the war by stopping the military from attacking his camp in the northeastern part of that country."


"But the raid on Mr. Zarqawi didn't take place. Months passed with no approval of the plan from the White House, until word came down just weeks before the March 19, 2003, start of the Iraq war that Mr. Bush had rejected any strike on the camp until after an official outbreak of hostilities with Iraq."

This was probably one of the greatest missed opportunities in the campaign against terrorism and the nobody has pressed this issue.

Karmic Revolution

Josh Marshall has the whole story on the complete screw up and coverup. Want to make bets whether this gets any mainstream play? Just in case, if you can't put two and two together, these are the explosives that have killed over a thousand of our best.

"This has been rumored in Washington for several days. And now the Nelson Report has broken the story.
Some 350 tons of high explosives (RDX and HMX), which were under IAEA seal while Saddam was in power, were looted during the early days of the US occupation. Like so much else, it was just left unguarded"

Self-Interest - A Broader View

Jesse over at Pandagon has a post asking about why it seem the Republicans are always trying to disnfranchise while the Dems are doing the opposite.

It always boils down to the fundamental difference and that is greed. The other guys (any idiot that would vote to elect Bush) vote strictly on what they "perceive" as their self interest. This is typically either short sighted, mis-informed or flat wrong but it is what they think. We, on the other hand, seem to take a different view of exactly what is in our best interest and it involves a grasp of the bigger picture. We see the fundamental reality of "Pay Me Now or Pay Me Later". We too vote for our own self interest but I believe it is a broader view.

How Many More Like This?

Xan over at Corrente has the blurb via Wilkes-Barre Citizens Voice
I keep reading stories like this from all parts of the country and I just was wondering how many others, for no apparent reason, have been shunted out of Chimp parties. It is bound to be adding up "Karma Wise". I wouldn't be surprised if this policy of only allowing the othe "Kool-Aid" drinkers into the party turns out to be a major turn off for many borderline voters. It may not be concious but it might needle them enough to make a difference.

These guys are sweating

Via Daily Kos
Kos has this quote from an insider in the GOP and from the internal polls in the Bush camp things suck.

"GOP officials who talked to Bush-Cheney campaign leaders said the leaders have grown more worried about Ohio, Florida and other key states where Bush lacks a lead with just 10 days until the election. A poll by Ohio University's Scripps Survey Research Center, completed Thursday night, found Kerry leading 49 percent to 43 percent among registered voters, with a margin of error of five percentage points [...]
The Republican official said polling for Bush showed him in a weaker position than some published polls have indicated, both nationally and in battlegrounds. In many of the key states, the official said, Bush is below 50 percent, and he is ahead or behind within the margin of sampling error -- a statistical tie.
'There's just no place where they're polling outside the margin of error so they can say, 'We have this state,'' the official said. 'And they know that an incumbent needs to be outside the margin of error.'"

Useful Link and Service

Thanks to Digby Hullabaloo:
Digby says:
"Here's a very helpful service:

My Polling Place.com

It got mine and a couple of friends' right so I assume this data base is correct. On election day, if anyone you know or hear of says they don't know where they are supposed to vote, this site not only gives them an address, you can even get a map.

Pass the word."

A Multitude of Endorsements

Kerry continues to pick up the big dailys. Bush gained the Columbus [OH] paper and Bush also picked up the Denver Post which is a switch from Gore in 2000.

Kerry has picked up 17 papers that backed Bush in 2000, while losing only two Gore papers to Bush.

Kerry now leads Bush 70-58 in endorsements in E&P's exclusive tally, and by about 11.9 million to 7.1 million in the circulation of backing papers.

Pittsburg Post-Gazette

There is no doubt that Americans have gone from a generally happy time in the 1990s to four years of deficit, discord and disappointment. We would pose the same question that President Reagan asked famously in the heat of his own campaign: Are you better off now than you were four years ago?

Relatively few, we think, would answer that with "yes." If your answer is "no" or "not sure," then we have a president for you. The Post-Gazette enthusiastically endorses John Kerry. It's definitely time for a fresh start.

Orlando Sentinel

Four years ago, the Orlando Sentinel endorsed Republican George W. Bush for president based on our trust in him to unite America. We expected him to forge bipartisan solutions to problems while keeping this nation secure and fiscally sound.

This president has utterly failed to fulfill our expectations. We turn now to his Democratic challenger, Sen. John Kerry, with the belief that he is more likely to meet the hopes we once held for Mr. Bush.

Our choice was not dictated by partisanship... Indeed, it has been 40 years since the Sentinel endorsed a Democrat -- Lyndon Johnson -- for president.

Kansas City Star

The country cannot afford four more years of such misguided leadership.

That's why The Kansas City Star strongly endorses John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee.

Minneapolis Star-Tribune

Americans realize what is at stake: the United States' ability to lead in the world, protect its citizens at home, preserve its treasured liberties, and leave a legacy of hope and opportunity. George W. Bush's presidency has put all that at risk. Sen. John Kerry proposes a sharp course change.

The Star Tribune endorses John Kerry for president.

AP roundup:

The Des Moines Register, of Des Moines, Iowa, endorsed Kerry on Oct. 24:

"It can be assumed that the next president, be it Bush or Kerry, will do everything in his power to make America safe from terrorism. ... But on the broad range of other issues, Kerry has more to offer. He is in touch with the middle class. He is better informed on health care and has sound ideas for creating jobs."

The Union-Bulletin of Walla Walla, Wash., endorsed Kerry on Oct. 21.

And next a Murdock paper endorse Kerry:

The Chicago Sun-Times endorsed Kerry on Oct. 24

"We want leaders to stay the course only when the course is a good one. ... The question that Americans need to ask themselves, going into the voting booth a week from Tuesday, is this: Do you like the direction our nation is heading? If the answer is no, then your vote should be for Sen. John Kerry."

Iowa City Press-Citizen, Iowa City, Iowa, endorsed Kerry on Oct. 23:

The Journal Times, Racine, Wis., endorsed Kerry on Oct. 23:

Newsday, Long Island, N.Y., endorsed Kerry on Oct. 22:

The Journal Gazette, Fort Wayne, Ind., endorsed Kerry on Oct. 22:

Wausau Daily Herald, Wausau, Wis., endorsed Kerry on Oct. 22:

The following rags have continued their Repub Regurg and backed BubbleBoy:

The Austin (Texas) American-Statesman endorsed Bush on Oct. 24

Houston Chronicle endorsed Bush on Oct. 24

The Chronicle of Centralia, Wash., endorsed Bush on Oct. 20

The Express-Times, Easton, Pa., endorsed Bush on Oct. 24

The Denver Post endorsed Bush on Oct. 23

The Cincinnati Post endorsed Bush on Oct. 23

The Gazette, Janesville, Wis., endorsed Bush on Oct. 23

Oshkosh Northwestern, Oshkosh, Wis., endorsed Bush on Oct. 22:

The Detroit News, on Oct. 24 has a very intersting Non endorsement:

"The Detroit News will not lend its endorsement to a candidate who has made too many mistakes, nor to one who offers a governing philosophy we reject. This decision to remain silent will disappoint readers who expect The Detroit News to stand with the Republican presidential candidate come hell or high water. Their expectations are not unwarranted - we have never endorsed a Democrat for president, and only failed to endorse twice before, both times during the Franklin Roosevelt years. ... We will never feel obliged to defend a president whose blunders and misjudgments have hurt the nation. Nor will we settle for an equally bad choice."

Very Interesting!

Kerry's the One

The American Conservative Magazine editor's endorsement of Kerry. Yeah that's what I said.

Kerry's the One: "George W. Bush has come to embody a politics that is antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful conservatism. His international policies have been based on the hopelessly naive belief that foreign peoples are eager to be liberated by American armies'a notion more grounded in Leon Trotsky's concept of global revolution than any sort of conservative statecraft. His immigration policies' temporarily put on hold while he runs for re-election are just as extreme. A re-elected President Bush would be committed to bringing in millions of low-wage immigrants to do jobs Americans "won't do". This election is all about George W. Bush, and those issues are enough to render him unworthy of any conservative support." Read the whole thing.

The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration

Here is an excellent document from The Nation. It might be useful to hand out the undecideds you might meet.

100 Facts and 1 Opinion:

Here is a link to a great PDF put out by The Nation – 100 Facts against the Bush Administration.

http://www.thenation.com/special/pdf/100facts.pdf

In case you want here it is in HTML as well.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041108&s=facts

The Non-Reality-Based Community

I keep asking myself -- Why do people support George W. Bush? According to a report from PIPA it's because they think he supports stuff he doesn't actually support but which they do support. They support Bush because they think(thanks mainstream media) Iraq had actual WMD, which, of course, they didn't. The believe that Duelfer discovered evidence of major WMD programs, which he didn't, and that Iraq gave substantial aid to al-Qaeda whci is untrue nomatter how many times Cheney says it. They also believe that world opinion was either behind the Iraq War or closely divided, which is hardly true, and that world opinion is either for Bush or closely divided. Read the article to understand how abosolutely clueless Bush supporters are and you may begin to lose that sense of utter disbelief when you see a BC04 sign.

THe New Republic endorses Kerry

Stolen from Kevin Drum:

The Washington Monthly: "TNR ENDORSES KERRY....If you happen to be a liberal who's nonetheless planning to vote for George Bush based on his hawkish foreign policy, go read the hawkish New Republic's endorsement of John Kerry first.
Bottom line: Bush simply doesn't understand the true nature of our war against radical Islamic terrorism, and his approach over the past three years has largely made things worse, not better. He has lost the support of our allies, he has made us hated in the Muslim world, he has polarized the American public, he has hideously mismanaged the war in Iraq, and he has done virtually nothing to genuinely promote democracy in the Middle East.
In John Kerry, conversely, we have a man who understands the nature of al-Qaeda and understands how best to defeat it. It's not possible to know how effective he'll be, of course, but at least he knows what we're up against. As TNR says, George Bush 'has failed the challenge of these momentous times. John Kerry deserves a chance to do better.'"

He Just doesn't get it

Click on the following link to see an add that will soon be running in the swing states. I think it is very effective. It's rough and startling but I think it has to be. Somehow true sense of the tragedy we are experiencing in Iraq has got to get through to the sheep who are still insisting Bush and company are the right choice for the country.

Win Back Respect

John Cleese Steps In

From William Gibson Via Mark Kleiman

Mark A. R. Kleiman: "How many Bush administration officials does it take to change a light bulb?
John CLeese responds:
None. There's nothing wrong with that light bulb. There is no need to change anything. We made the right decision and nothing has happened to change our minds. People who criticize this light bulb now, just because it doesn't work anymore, supported us when we first screwed it in, and when these flip-floppers insist on saying that it is burned out, they are merely giving aid and encouragement to the Forces of Darkness."

Nader's Raiders come to their senses, endorse Kerry

Less than two weeks before the election, dozens of former "Nader's Raiders" and other former Nader associates have announced their own opposition to his candidacy and are launching ads in battleground states in an attempt to keep the "Nader Factor" to a minimum. The letter released today from Nader's former Raiders urges voters not to support their former hero, expresses regret that Nader has taken support from right-wing groups, and says progressive voters can be the key to the election, by voting for John Kerry.

The letter, with 75 signatories including organizer Ken Ward, who has served as Executive Director of Rhode Island PIRG and New Jersey PIRG, and Robert Brandon, who served as director of Public Citizen's Tax Reform Research Group from 1972-1977, reads [in part]


"Dear Voters,

Many of us -- former Nader's Raiders and leaders of his organizations -- voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. Many did not. This November, none of us will vote for Ralph. We believe there is nothing more important than defeating George W. Bush. Ralph argues that he is creating an independent political voice. In 2000, when he ran as the Green Party candidate, that may have been true.

In 2004, as the candidate of the increasingly reactionary, anti-immigrant Reform Party, and the recipient of financial and political support from right-wing funders and operatives, it is not credible. Unfortunately, Ralph is party to a disingenuous effort to split the progressive vote in key states.

With the major party candidates in a dead heat, Nader is poised to tip the election to Bush -- again. We do not agree with Ralph that there is little difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. We know that the country cannot afford another four years of Republicans controlling the White House, both chambers of Congress, the Supreme Court and the entire federal Judiciary. The price of a protest vote is too high for families who live from paycheck to paycheck, for those concerned about the realities of war, for those who lack decent jobs and access to health care, and for the environment. ....

Join us. Cast your vote for a progressive future and support John Kerry."


(via Salon)

Blood is thinner than Oil

This is encouraging! Here's a site of Bush's relatives telling why they are voting for Kerry.

Bush Relatives for Kerry
Bush Relatives for Kerry

Casualties - What Casualties?

Steve Gilliard highlights and article from CNN yesterday that points out that Bush was not expecting any casualties in Iraq.

Steve Gilliard's News Blog: "Robertson: I warned Bush on Iraq casualties
President's response: 'We're not going to have any'"

Just Believe

Ezra over at Pandagon has a left coast take on the Suskind article that even makes it more scary, if that's possible.

Pandagon: Just Believe: "And the Iraqis will greet us with flowers and shiatsu massages, the tax cuts will result in more revenue entering government coffers while stimulating the economy, the Northern Alliance will do an excellent job securing Tora Bora, we know Putin is good because his soul said so, Ariel Sharon is a 'man of peace', our allies are materially unimportant because a small and maneuverable fighting force can easily carry out the mission in Iraq, simply requesting that companies consider the environment will be more effective than actual regulation...
Time and again, the Bush administration has placed their trust and crafted their policy based on a dubious or unproven assertion, and time and again they've found their faith misplaced, though not before the situation spun out of control to the country's great harm. This Administration's problem isn't that they're optimistic, it's that they're certain the world is similarly sunny. People are grabbing on to Suskind's 'reality-based community' quote, as well they should. But they're missing its point. The Bush aide is arguing that the Administration operates off the idea that they shape their reality, that they are history's forces, not victims. That's why, presumably, they only plan for what they believe will happen. The parallels to New Age spirituality would be funny, if they weren't so scary, and the idea would be admirable if reality didn't keep proving it wrong."

Sucking Democracy Dry

Rick Perlstein's latest in the Village Voice. It's worth reading--here's a snip:
The Village Voice: Features: Sucking Democracy Dry: The End of Democracy by Rick Perlstein: "nce upon a time, not too long ago, the president of the United States declared that the war on terrorism was the most important issue in this year's presidential campaign.
Then every time his opponent brought up this most important of issues, George W. Bush cried foul, accusing John Kerry of hindering the war on terrorism. (America might be a democracy, but that doesn't mean the Democrat has a right to campaign.)
The president's campaign enlisted the taxpayers' servants as agents of his re-election, with Secret Service officers submitting attendees at Bush rallies to ideological X-rays, and election officials systematically suppressing the franchise of groups most likely to vote Democratic. Meanwhile the president, who earned some 500,000 votes less than his opponent, busied himself ramming through a radical legislative program as if he had won by a landslide�his congressional deputies all but barring deliberative input from the opposition party in order to do it and gaming the legislative apportionment system in ways, as the counsel to one Texas representative bragged in an e-mail to colleagues, that 'should assure that Republicans keep the House no matte[r] the national mood.'
In Washington, it has turned some once calm souls into apocalyptics.
Thomas Mann is a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, noted for his deliberateness of manner, his decency, and his near religious devotion to the ideal of bipartisan comity. Now, he says, 'I see the damage to our system and our sense of ourselves as a democratic people as really quite substantial. . . . "

Bob Rumson's back

An entry from Bob's new blog, lifted whole:
"Bob Rumson, er, Dick Cheney is at it again.
Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday evoked the possibility of terrorists bombing U.S. cities with nuclear weapons and questioned whether Sen. John Kerry could combat such a threat...
Only we, who ignored a daily briefing called Osama Bin Laden Determined To Strike In US, can protect you from the terrorists.
Only we, who have been so focused on Iraq -- which had no WMD -- and thus allowed North Korea and Iran to join the nuclear club, can protect you from the nuclear threat.
Only we, who were completely unable to anticipate that Iraq would spiral horribly out of control, have the vision to rule this country safely.
And there are actually people -- about 100 million of them, apparently -- who can believe this bullshit.
I say this again: AAAAAAGGGGGGHHH."