Add this code to any web page or email message (if you can insert HTML into your email) for a list of the 5 most recent headlines from www.DumpBushBlog.com:
Continue reading Add Dump Bush Headlines to Your Page
‘a flaming disaster of a president’
DodgeGlobe.com:Chalt: Cement sack, yes, but with concrete ideas By Jonathan Chalt
If [Kerry] can’t run a campaign, the argument goes, he would never have been able to run the White House.
That sounds reasonable enough unless you consider the fact that George W. Bush is a highly competent campaigner but a flaming disaster of a president. And it is exactly those things that make him so ruthlessly effective on the stump – centralized authority, party discipline, total disregard for the truth – that have created a hermetically sealed petri dish in which bad policies come to life and are carried out unchallenged. …
[A] president who struggles to enact decent policies is surely better than one who easily enacts awful policies.
Too Late
War is peace SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD
As U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said prior to Bush’s address, “Those who seek to bestow legitimacy must themselves embody it, and those who invoke international law must themselves submit to it.”
Despite Bush’s invasion of Iraq in what Annan now calls an illegal war, the president said yesterday that U.N. members must “do more” to help in Iraq.
“Each of us alone can only do so much,” Bush said. “Together we can accomplish so much more.”
For a president who waged pre-emptive war in Iraq in defiance of the United Nations, citing now disproved weapons threats and now discredited terrorist connections, it seems a lesson learned too late.
Bush’s Little Bombs
Bush in ‘Nature’ on New Nukes by John Fleck
There’s one question in particular — on nuclear weapons — that’s of direct relevance to the New Mexico scientific enterprise:
Do you support research into new nuclear-weapon designs in the United States? If not, how do you see the future role of the three nuclear-weapons labs? …
Kerry’s response to Nature’s question was clear and unambiguous: “I would end the pursuit of a new generation of nuclear weapons.”
[Bush’s response:] “The Nuclear Posture Review released by my administration in January 2002 noted that the nation?s nuclear infrastructure had atrophied since the end of the cold war and that the evolving security environment requires a flexible and responsive weapons-complex infrastructure. To that end, my fiscal-year 2005 budget reflects an increase over 2004 in weapons activities.”
I think it is good of John to bring this issue up again. Do you vote for your pocketbook or saving the world from ‘tactical nuclear weapons’ (as in, ‘we have them, why not use them?’ and ‘oops, we’ve misplaced several.’) Just how smart are those lab rats?
On the other hand, I disagree with John; Bush couldn’t be more clear — he will build little bombs and use them. It is funny to see Bush take a hundred words to say something and Kerry only a dozen. mjh
[Follow the link above to John’s blog entry and from there to his original article and the Nature questionaire submitted to Bush & Kerry.]
‘security moms’
Why women are edging toward Bush By Linda Feldmann, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
A growing group of ‘security moms’ puts national safety at the top of their list, weakening a traditionally Democratic base. …
[D]ata show the traditional breakdown between men and women. The latest American Research Group poll shows Bush beating Kerry 51 percent to 42 percent among men, while Kerry beats Bush 50 percent to 42 percent among women.
But no Democrats are resting easy, as long as some polls show Kerry with trouble retaining women’s votes. They know that in a race that remains close, they must turn out their base voters – and that there’s little margin for error. According to Lake, 66 percent of undecideds are women.
Capture The Flag
CAPTURE THE FLAG By Alexander Zaitchik
Can the GOP protect the national-security lie until November?
[T]he administration’s response to 9/11 has been “a catastrophe.”
If you think “catastrophe” is an overstatement, ask yourself a few questions: If Osama bin Laden were guiding the U.S. defense and homeland security budgets, how would he spend the money? Would he triple funds for the Nunn-Lugar Initiative, which seeks to put a firm clamp on loose nuclear materials in the ex-U.S.S.R., or would he pour billions into Cold War crap shoots like missile defense and spaced-based lasers? Would bin Laden have pumped steroids into our anemic human intelligence capability, or would he have pulled Arabic-speaking case officers out of Afghanistan in 2002, then overstretched the U.S. military by launching and escalating a hopeless counterinsurgency war and p.r. shitstorm in oil-rich Iraq? Would he have supported a vigorous investigation into how 9/11 happened and how it could have been stopped, or would he have stonewalled the project, then cut its funding at first chance?
If voters were forced to smell the Bush record up close, we’d be looking down the barrel of a 1964-style Kerry trounce in November, followed by several high-level prosecutions and a steep, generational decline in the fortunes of the Republican Party.
The latest in an uninterrupted stream of post-9/11 examples of backward GOP priorities came last week, when the Republican Senate blocked attempts to increase funding for more than a dozen programs in the 2005 Homeland Security spending bill.
‘The Union is what needs defending this year.’
Here’s what happened to the Republican Party By GARRISON KEILLOR
The Union is what needs defending this year. Government of Enron and by Halliburton and for the Southern Baptists is not the same as what Lincoln spoke of. This gang of Pithecanthropus Republicanii has humbugged us to death on terrorism and tax cuts for the comfy and school prayer and flag burning and claimed the right to know what books we read and to dump their sewage upstream from the town and clearcut the forests and gut the IRS and mark up the Constitution on behalf of intolerance and promote the corporate takeover of the public airwaves and to hell with anybody who opposes them.
This is a great country, and it wasn’t made so by angry people.
[from the book Homegrown Democrat: A Few Plain Thoughts From the Heart of America; thanks, Jas.]
[One response:]
?…and there is more to life than winning.?
Garrison, you had better hope so, because lose you will. Lose you must.
Because those horrible Republicans you speak of – and those who support the best President since the end of WWII – we will surely prevail.
And you WILL lose. Most importantly, the world will be so much better for it. You are a talented, likeable man. much more likeable when you keep out of the political debate. — A. Oplas
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/979/