Category Archives: NADA – New American Dark Ages

New American Dark Ages

Things you have to believe to believe the Radical Right

I didn’t write these; they came by email. However, I rearranged them more to my liking. mjh

Global warming and tobacco’s link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won’t have sex.

Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you’re a conservative radio host. Then it’s an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery.

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush’s daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a “we can’t find Bin Laden” diversion.

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
Continue reading Things you have to believe to believe the Radical Right

A Republican Soldier Against Bush

Stop Bush SignSupport Our Troops, Dump Bush alibi . july 8 – 14, 2004

An Albuquerque Lieutenant Colonel returns from Iraq with a bitter message for the Bush administration
By Steven Robert Allen

From June 2003 through June 2004, he also served as part of the occupation force in Iraq.

For security purposes and due to the nature of his work, Garcia can’t use his real name in this article. Yet given the current mess in Iraq, this Albuquerque soldier’s thoughts on the Bush administration’s faulty justifications for the war and his own dramatic experiences in the country are of utmost interest. Garcia, of course, can’t claim to speak for the entire military. As a registered Republican, however, who voted for Bush in 2000, his take on the Iraq debacle is an eye-opener, to say the least.

“The bottom line is we didn’t need to do this,” Garcia says. “The war in Iraq diverted attention from al Qaeda, and it also handed Osama bin Laden a strategic victory. In other words, the Bush administration did exactly what al Qaeda wanted us to do. It’s created a huge recruiting opportunity for our enemies, and we’ve alienated the whole world in the process.”

I asked Garcia what he’d say to George W. Bush if he had the chance. “With respect, sir,” says Garcia, “you’ve lost my vote.”

“There just wasn’t enough evidence that Iraq presented an imminent threat to our national interests,” he says.

To make matters worse, Garcia says, the war wasn’t conducted the way the military wanted it to be conducted. “The civilian leadership disregarded the advice of military planners. They have manuals about how to do this sort of occupation. The Department of Defense ignored them. Look what happened to Shinseki.”

Gen. Eric Shinseki, you might recall, was the Army Chief of Staff. Right before the invasion, he testified to a congressional committee that, due to Iraq’s size and cultural complexity, he believed the military required a force of several hundred thousand troops to adequately occupy the country. Shinseki was much more worried about the subsequent occupation of Iraq than the war itself.

A couple days later, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz publicly rebuked the general before another congressional committee, calling Shinseki’s estimate “wildly off the mark.” Wolfowitz also said, “It’s hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam’s security forces and his army. Hard to imagine.”

Hard to imagine for Wolfowitz, maybe, but not for the military experts who had spent years researching the intricacies inherent in attempting to overthrow Saddam’s regime. As it turns out, it was Wolfowitz’ statements that were wildly off the mark. Garcia believes that the occupation of Iraq has become a catastrophic disaster not because the military didn’t plan appropriately, but because the Bush administration ignored the military’s plans from the beginning. The result, he said, has been a much greater loss of life, both American and Iraqi, than would otherwise have been the case.

According to Garcia, the current administration has combined extreme arrogance with a capacity for deluding itself that makes such disasters almost inevitable. “I don’t think the big shots in the Bush administration are malicious or conspiratorial or conscious liars,” he says. “Actually, I think they really believe the things they say, which to me is even scarier. These people don’t listen to other viewpoints, and they don’t seem to have the ability to use basic critical thinking skills to reach logical solutions to the problems we face in the war on terrorism. The neo-conservatives really scare the crap out of me. Their messianic view of global democracy is pure fantasy.”

Like many experts, Garcia believes the Bush administration made a terrible mistake when it opted to disband Saddam’s army. “They should’ve just lopped off all the top generals and done some spot removals of the hardcore Baathists, but kept the military together. Iraq under Saddam was a highly militant society. Being in the army brought with it a huge amount of prestige. These young guys lost that prestige, and on top of that they brought all their guns home with them. It created a very bad situation.”

That’s just one example of what Garcia views as the Bush administration’s gross incompetence in conducting this war. “I’d love to be at West Point in 10 years for the class ’How Not to Conduct a War,'” he says, “I’m sure they’re talking about it right now, how badly the civilian leadership screwed up.” …

”[T]here still wasn’t a close enough connection between Iraq and al Qaeda to justify the war.

“I mean, we could invade Venezuela tomorrow and do the same sort of net good for the Venezuelan people that we’ve done in Iraq, but it would be strategically detrimental to us. If we really wanted to help the Iraqi people, if that was our goal, then we should’ve used NATO or the U.N. from the beginning. Going it alone has hurt us in a big way.”

Garcia considers himself to be a moderate, old-style Rockefeller Republican, but these days he feels like a minority in his party. Although he won’t change his party affiliation, he’s finished with the Bush administration.

‘A Vote for Nader is a Vote for Our President’

”It’s a given among Republicans that a vote for Nader is a vote for our President. There have been stirrings by Republicans in other states to make sure Nader gets on their ballots, but so far there seems to be a devil-may-care attitude toward him here. I think that’s a mistake and I hope the Party gets more aggressive because that is what it’s going to take to keep this state out of Kerry’s hands,” explained one top GOP stalwart.

In Nevada this week it was disclosed that a Republican political consultant came up with cash to help Nader’s successful petition effort. And from Michigan comes word that the R’s there are also lending a helping hand to the consumer advocate’s Prez effort.

from Joe Monahan’s blog.

Here are your exclusive numbers from the Zogby Interactive Poll tracking the NM Prez race every two weeks. The poll was released yesterday (July 14). Kerry leads Bush 49% to 42%, with Nader at 3 and undecided just 6%. In the last Zogby poll released June 20, Kerry was at 50%, Bush 43 and Nader 1% and 3% undecided. Very little change. But in all four NM polls conducted by Zogby, Kerry has either led or tied Bush. The survey’s margin of error is plus or minus 4.3%. A poll of NM from American Research Group (see my July 12 report) also has Kerry leading by seven points [in New Mexico].

Hold Duhbya’s Feet to the Fire

how to beat defeat George Bush

Brand Bush the extremist
Because that’s exactly what he is.
Extreme deficits. Extreme arrogance. Extreme secrecy.
Extreme conservative. Extreme ignorance.
John Kerry is the moderate one.

Bushlies.com by David Corn

There should be tremendous outrage–in the halls of Congress, in the public commons. After all, the Bush administration ended up waging an elective war, which has consumed thousands of American and Iraqi lives, on the basis of misinformation and disinformation. But who knows what riles people these days. In recent campaign appearances, John Kerry and John Edwards have challenged Bush’s honesty. The Senate report provides plenty of ammunition for such an assault upon Bush–particularly the section on Bush’s prewar claims that Saddam Hussein was in league with al Qaeda. The day after the report was released, Kerry and Edwards accused Bush of governing in a dishonest fashion. “The value of truth is one of the most central values in America, and this administration has violated” it, Kerry said. “Their values system is distorted and not based on truth.”

MSNBC – Altercation by Eric Alterman

Bush himself says he cannot think of a single mistake in his policies in which, according to at least one CIA officer, the president launched…

“an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat but whose defeat did offer economic advantages.”

For Osama bin Laden, Anonymous argues, the American invasion and occupation of Iraq were like “a Christmas present you long for but never expected to receive” — a gift from Washington that “will haunt, hurt, and hound Americans for years to come.” Moreover, “U.S. forces and policies are completing the radicalization of the Islamic world, something Osama bin Laden has been trying to do with substantial but incomplete success since the early 1990’s. As a result, I think it fair to conclude that the United States of America remains bin Laden’s only indispensable ally.”

Duhbya, Please Stick With Dick!

Picking Edwards Gives Kerry a Boost-Poll Reuters.com

The Kerry-Edwards ticket is leading Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney by a margin of six percentage points, 51 percent to 45 percent, the poll said.

The survey of 1,001 adults, to be published in the July 19 issue of the magazine, was taken July 8-9 and has a margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points.

It was the first Newsweek poll since Kerry chose the North Carolina lawmaker as his running mate on July 6. Kerry led Bush 46 percent to 45 percent in the magazine’s previous survey in mid-May.

But in a three-way race with independent candidates Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo, Kerry-Edwards edged Bush-Cheney by a slimmer margin, just 47 percent to 44 percent. Nader-Camejo drew support from 3 percent of those polled.

The poll comes amid speculation Cheney may be hurting Bush’s chances of winning re-election. Cheney has been a lighting rod for Democratic criticism because of his role in advocating for the invasion of Iraq and his previous ties with energy company Halliburton, which is being probed for overcharging for its services in Iraq.

Cheney has distanced himself from any claims that he has a financial stake in Halliburton, and Bush has strongly endorsed the vice president as his running mate.

However, the Newsweek poll said that if Bush replaced Cheney with Secretary of State Colin Powell, the ticket would defeat Kerry-Edwards by 53 percent to 44 percent.

Dump Fox

News Hounds: We watch FOX so you don’t have to.

Meet the News Hounds
We’re eight middle-aged citizens who believe a viable democracy depends upon viable media. Read more in our manifesto.

OUTFOXED: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism

Outfoxed examines how media empires, led by Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News, have been running a “race to the bottom” in television news. This film provides an in-depth look at Fox News and the dangers of ever-enlarging corporations taking control of the public’s right to know.