Check out Bush’s cheat sheet:
Check out Bush’s cheat sheet:
. . . why did the U.S. Cybersecurity Chief just suddenly resign today from the Office of Homeland Security, because of "what he considers the department’s lack of attention paid to computer security issues"? (Source)
Can’t be good news for Bush on the day following the debates.
WASHINGTON – The White House said seven months ago that it had released all the records on President Bush (news – web sites)’s stateside military service during the Vietnam War, yet new records are still dribbling out as Election Day approaches.
The White House on Wednesday night produced a November 1974 document bearing Bush’s signature from Cambridge, Mass., where he was attending Harvard Business School, saying he had decided not to continue as a member of the military reserve.
The document, signed a year after Bush left the Texas Air National Guard, said he was leaving the military because of "inadequate time to fulfill possible future commitments." White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the resignation was found in connection with a lawsuit brought by The Associated Press.
The White House said the document had been in Bush’s personnel file and that it had been found by the Pentagon.
How can the WH/Pentagon suddenly "find" a document in Bush’s personnel file? Didn’t they look before . . . like when they said that everything had been released??
I’m not sure what an "Eisenhower Republican" is — I believe Clinton used the term to describe anyone who refused to go spend more federal money during a time of deficits (i.e., "Dubya is not an Eisenhower Republican — although Clinton ironically was one.").
Best quote: "I urge everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, to avoid voting for a ticket merely because it carries the label of the party of one’s parents or of our own ingrained habits."
As reported here, law geeks and Supreme Court fans will no longer have to play guessing games. Starting next week, transcripts of Supreme Court oral arguments will give the actual name of the Justice asking the questions from the bench, rather than simply using the word “Question”.
JANESVILLE, Wis. – Democrat John Kerry wrongly questioned the credibility of the interim Iraqi leader [Ayad Allawi], and "you can’t lead this country" while undercutting an ally, President Bush said Friday.
President Bush then ate some "freedom fries", dissed "old Europe", and talked about how ineffective the U.N. is.
Seriously, this is the scariest thing about Bush, in my opinion. Every serious assessment of the situation on the ground — including statements made by Allawi himself — show that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating. Kerry is speaking the truth about this, which is the FIRST STEP in turning the situation around (if it CAN be turned around at this point). Bush, on the other hand, is telling people everything is getting better in Iraq, and insinuating that Kerry’s truthful comments (rather than, I suppose, the insurgents) are undercutting peaceful progress in Iraq.
More and more, I hear the label "The Excuses President" being applied to Bush. I’m not much of one for perjorative monikers, but — boy — that one really sticks to him.
"Let’s say you tried to have an election and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country. But in some places you couldn’t because the violence was too great. Well, so be it. Nothing’s perfect in life, so you have an election that’s not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet."
— Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, quoted by Reuters, on holding Iraqi elections in January.
First of all, let’s take a gander at how much of Iraq won’t be voting. Below, I have provided a map of the current situation of Iraq (courtesy of Juan Cole, who you should all be reading). The areas marked in red are areas which we have apparently given up on, and the purple areas represent areas which have seen heavy fighting recently, and which may be unsecurable come January (when Iraq hopes to have elections).
That said, does Rumsfeld really believe that an election that disenfranchizes so much of one country is better than no election at all? Isn’t that like saying that doing open heart surgery using spoons is better than no open-heart surgery at all? I mean, does anyone think that such an election could claim to produce a legitimate leader?
Or, to put it in another perspective, suppose the year is 1996 and Saddam Hussein is having an election where almost half of the country will not vote (for fear of getting shot or blown up if they go to the polls). In that scenario, would Rumsfeld be making the argument that the victor of that election (Saddam, presumably) is the legitimate President of Iraq? Would Rumsfeld be saying that the election was "better than not having an election"?
Knowingly electing an illegitimate leader is NOT better than have no election at all. It only fuels the fires of discontent. Rumsfeld is a total idiot.
Hard to know who to give credit to for this one (perhaps the Village Voice), but someone gets kudos for finding this State Department document entitled The Network of Terrorism. It was posted on the U.S. State Department website in November 2001.
Anyway, on page 12 of that document, we find a list of countries — and a map — of "Countries Where al Qaeda Has Operated"
Anyone notice what country isn’t on the list and map? Here’s the complete list: COUNTRIES WHERE AL QAEDA HAS OPERATED (according to the U.S. State Department – November 2001):
“A year from now, I’ll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush.” – Richard Perle, September 22, 2003 (one year ago today)
In response to Kerry’s four-point plan on Iraq, Bush said: "Forty-three days before the election, my opponent has now suddenly settled on a proposal for what to do next, and it’s exactly what we’re currently doing." (Source)
In response to Kerry’s four-point plan on Iraq, Bush-Cheney campaign spokesmen Steve Schmidt said: "John Kerry’s latest position on Iraq is to advocate retreat and defeat in the face of terror" (Same Source)
So . . . does this mean that Bush’s plan is to retreat and defeat? I guess so. That’s what Novak says, too.
HAMILTON — The Pennington mother of a soldier killed in Iraq was arrested and charged with trespassing after she interrupted first lady Laura Bush’s speech yesterday.
Sue Niederer was arrested after she was escorted from the Colonial Fire Co. hall on Kuser Road where the Republican rally was being held yesterday morning, according to Hamilton police Lt. James Kostopolis.
Niederer was wearing a shirt that read, "You killed my son," at the time.
Niederer was one of 1,217 to receive a ticket for the rally and stood near the back of the hall as local Republican politicians thanked Bush for visiting Hamilton before introducing the first lady.
Bush was well-received by the crowd, many of whom waved pompoms and Bush-Cheney signs after giving the first lady a lengthy ovation when she arrived.
Bush was about 10 minutes into her speech on campaign issues, however, when she began speaking about U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It was at this point that Niederer began yelling loudly toward Bush, but supporters at the rally realized Niederer was a detractor and began drowning out Niederer’s shouts with chants of "Four more years!"
The ruckus briefly rattled Bush, who halted her speech and turned toward local dignitaries, but she quickly resumed her comments on the war.
Niederer’s son, Army Lt. Seth Dvorin, 24, was killed by a roadside bomb near Baghdad Feb. 3, while commanding an 18-man convoy. Dvorin was posthumously awarded a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart and was credited with saving more than a dozen soldiers from being killed or injured.
"I said, ‘How come your daughters and children of congressmen and senators aren’t fighting in the war if it’s so positive?’" Niederer said last night of what she yelled to Bush.
Niederer is charged with defiant trespassing and was released on her own recognizance. She is scheduled to appear in court on Oct. 12.
Typical liberal pessimist. And notice how she didn’t even mention Dan Rather.
No kidding. These guys really are terrorists in every sense of the word — attempted assassination of a world leader, murder and conpiracy to murder consulates and other dignataries (including an American citizen), firing a bazooka at a U.N. building, . . . the list goes on and on.
They flew into Miami last month, and KNOWING WHO THEY WERE, we let them go. Bush didn’t want to offend a certain group, you see.
Is Bush serious about terrorism? Because terrorism is terrorism, right?
§ 432.135. ASSAULTING OR WILFULLY DISOBEYING SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER.
A person subject to this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial directs if the person:
(1) strikes his superior commissioned officer or draws or lifts up a weapon or offers any violence against him while in the execution of his office; or
(2) wilfully disobeys a lawful command of his commissioned officer.
Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 147, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. § 432.137.
FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION. A person subject to this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial directs if the person:
(1) violates or fails to obey a lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the state military forces that it is the person’s duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of the person’s duties.
Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 147, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
These are from the laws governing the Texas National Guard. They may have been different in 1972, but I doubt it.