It Looks Like This (sorry, no ice cream) 

Seeking the Truth in Alternate Media

At lunch today, I was listening to Peter Phillips, director of Project Censored. He touched on something that I'd been thinking a lot of lately, the dominance of the news market by a half dozen or so media conglomerates and the degree to which they set the agenda for what will be discussed. That they do so and that their doing so suits those who wish to uphold the status quo cannot be seriously questioned. Those who's interests are served by this include our major corporations and both major political parties. It is because of those interests and those in power who are protecting them that we have not had a serious national debate on the WTO, on global warming, on reforming our medical services delivery system so that everybody has access to at least adequate medical care. You're not going to find a meaningful discussion of these things in the Presidential debates or elsewhere in the campaigns of the two major candidates. Regardless of what you think of the candidacy of Ralph Nader, of the three major candidates he is the only one who would address these subjects in a way that would benefit the working men and women of this country (as well as those who wish they were working). You can be damn sure that if nobody else forces them to do it, the major papers, newsmagazines, and network news and talk shows won't address these subjects.

So, where will you find this covered? You can start off easy, without straying too far from the mainstream, with The Nation. You can go to AlterNet or IndyMedia. From these you will find links to a whole world of media outlets you didn't dream existed. And you will start to read articles that address those things you are concerned about.

What are you waiting for? Do you want to read another story about Swift Boat Veterans or Dan Rather instead?

RNC Purple Hearts

I have a confession to make. I don't understand Republicans. Many of them did something at the Republican National Convention that revealed them to be fundamentally different as human beings from me. I'm talking about this the cute little purple heart band-aids.

I was raised in a very Republican, very conservative household. I grew up loving my country, my country's flag, the freedoms I had here that others in the world lacked, and respecting those men in uniform who had fought to gain and preserve those freedoms. My heros growing up were Sgt. York and Audie Murphy.

As I grew older, I realized that not everything our nation did was honorable. This did nothing to diminish my love of my country, but I learned that many of our armed incursions into other nations' affairs were not undertaken with the intent of spreading freedom but with the aim of preserving the business interests of our major corporations. This was never something that I held against the men and women under arms who we sent to those far shores to carry out our government's bidding. As far as they knew they were serving their country. I did hold it against those who send out troops into wars for profit or under false pretenses. So it is in Iraq.

There are a number of ways a people and a government can honor their troops. You pay them a living wage and decent benefits. You provide them with equipment to do the job. You provide them with decent food. When they are wounded, you provide them with the best medical care available, on the battlefield and afterwards, when they've returned home. We as a people ask these men and women to be prepared to sacrifice their lives for us. We as a people owe them our gratitude and respect for their willingness to do that. We owe them that for life. We may disagree with some of the things they do after they've returned home, but that doesn't diminish what they did for us in battle. Some people don't get that.

During the Vietnam War, there were apocryphal tales of returning soldiers being spit upon by the war's opponents. It doesn't seem to have really happened, though. Nobody's ever come through with verified tales of such a thing. At the Republican National Convention, though, many of the delegates figuratively spit on John Kerry for what he did in Vietnam. With the exception of John McCain, I don't recall one prominent Republican speaking out against this. Ann Coulter has written columns questioning the circumstances under which Max Cleland lost three of his limbs in Vietnam, suggesting that his sacrifice for us doesn't count. During the 2000 primary, the Bush campaign questioned whether McCain might have become unhinged while a POW in North Vietnam. This is dishonorable behavior. This is not how respectful people treat their veterans. This is how Republicans behave

Kerry Finally Comes out Swinging

In New York today, John Kerry finally made the speech he should have made months ago. Focusing on National Security and Foreign Policy, he took the Bush Administration to task for nearly four years of incompetence in these areas. As noted in Tapped, this was the speech Kerry should have made at the DNC. It is the message he needs to keep hammering home every day between now and November 2.

Some highlights:

"National security is a central issue in this campaign. We owe it to the American people to have a real debate about the choices President Bush has made... and the choices I would make... to fight and win the war on terror.

That means we must have a great honest national debate on Iraq. The President claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight.

This month, we passed a cruel milestone: more than 1,000 Americans lost in Iraq. Their sacrifice reminds us that Iraq remains, overwhelmingly, an American burden. Nearly 90 percent of the troops - and nearly 90 percent of the casualties - are American. Despite the President?s claims, this is not a grand coalition.

Our troops have served with extraordinary bravery, skill and resolve. Their service humbles all of us. When I speak to them... when I look into the eyes of their families, I know this: we owe them the truth about what we have asked them to do... and what is still to be done.

In June, the President declared, "The Iraqi people have their country back." Just last week, he told us: "This country is headed toward democracy... Freedom is on the march."

But the administration's own official intelligence estimate, given to the President last July, tells a very different story.

According to press reports, the intelligence estimate totally contradicts what the President is saying to the American people.

So do the facts on the ground.

Security is deteriorating, for us and for the Iraqis.

42 Americans died in Iraq in June -- the month before the handover. But 54 died in July...66 in August... and already 54 halfway through September.

And more than 1,100 Americans were wounded in August - more than in any other month since the invasion.

We are fighting a growing insurgency in an ever widening war-zone. In March, insurgents attacked our forces 700 times. In August, they attacked 2,700 times - a 400% increase.

Falluja...Ramadi... Samarra ... even parts of Baghdad - are now "no go zones"- breeding grounds for terrorists who are free to plot and launch attacks against our soldiers. The radical Shi'a cleric, Moktada al-Sadr, who's accused of complicity in the murder of Americans, holds more sway in the suburbs of Baghdad.

Violence against Iraqis... from bombings to kidnappings to intimidation ... is on the rise.

Basic living conditions are also deteriorating.

Residents of Baghdad are suffering electricity blackouts lasting up to 14 hours a day.

Raw sewage fills the streets, rising above the hubcaps of our Humvees. Children wade through garbage on their way to school.

Unemployment is over 50 percent. Insurgents are able to find plenty of people willing to take $150 for tossing grenades at passing U.S. convoys.

Yes, there has been some progress, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our soldiers and civilians in Iraq. Schools, shops and hospitals have been opened. In parts of Iraq, normalcy actually prevails.

But most Iraqis have lost faith in our ability to deliver meaningful improvements to their lives. So they-re sitting on the fence... instead of siding with us against the insurgents.

That is the truth. The truth that the Commander in Chief owes to our troops and the American people."

George Bush has made the war on terrorism the central theme of his presidency and of his re-election campaign and identified Iraq, rightly or wrongly, as the central battlefield in that war. It has mystified me and many others for a long time now as to why Kerry wouldn't engage him in a discussion of just that. This election is not about what Kerry did in Vietnam or Bush did in the National Guard; it is about what Bush has done in Iraq. Kerry needs to remind the American people of the stories we were told that got us there; of the reception we were told awaited us; of the spectacular intelligence and postwar planning failures that have become the main characteristic of this Administration. If this administration wants to run on its record since 9/11 combatting terrorism, let 'em have it. Let's talk again and again and again about the lack of a connection between Osama and Saddam, between 9/11 and Saddam. Let's remind the American people again and again and again that Osama bin-Laden orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, not Saddam, yet it is Saddam who has been captured and Osama who, more than three years after the attack is still free and running Al Qaeda operations. Let's remind the American people that despite more than 5,000 arrests on terrorism related charges since 9/11, the Bush-Ashcroft justice department has achieved exactly ZERO convictions that have stood up. Let's take this to Bush every day for the next six weeks.

Our Elections (and your votes) Make a Difference All Around the World

In an interview with Steve Morse in the Boston Globe, Sting, responding to a question about our elections this year, said "I think it's an election year in the world. I think with America being the predominant power in the world, it's really that the power in America affects all of us, whether you live there or not."

I think that's a perspective we as Americans need to keep in mind. Our actions make a difference in the world. Our votes, the people we put in office and the policies they enact, have an effect on the whole planet. Because of choices we make (including, for some, the choice not to vote), people live or die. It's easy to forget that, but important that we don't forget it.

How Many Chances do we Get at "Never Again?"

The President on a Horse?

Over the last few days, in my spare time, I've been looking for pictures of George Bush on horseback, and I can't find any. It seems it shouldn't be that hard. Bush and his handlers have carefully cultivated an image of him as a Texas rancher, and everybody knows part of that image has to include horses. Ideally it ought to include cattle, too. Without cattle or horses, it's not really a ranch, is it? More of a western estate. And a right shabby one, too, judging from all that brush that seems to need clearing (probably another effect of having no cattle to eat the brush).

What I'd like you, my reader(s), to do, is send me photos or links to photos of George on a horsie. If you do I'll post the picture or the link and admit that he's not quite as big a phoney as I think he is. I suspect I'll have to make no such admission. It appears our President is the epitome of the old Texas phrase "all hat and no cattle."

Iraq Invasion Illegal

In an interview with the BBC on Wednesday, Kofi Annan flat out said what he has been dancing around for a year and a half, that the US led invasion of Iraq was illegal. The reaction of the US and its allies in the war to these comments was predictably to deny that was the case. Yet cleary Annan was speaking the truth. What's interesting is why the US would deny it or why the Bush Administration would care.

Bush's most direct response to Annan's remarks was to mention while campaigning in Minnesota that the UN Security Resolution in November warned of "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to disarm or account for missing weapons materials. The United States after that, though, repeatedly tried unsuccessfully to force through the Security Council resolutions authorizing military action by the US to enforce the resolution. Implicit in this attempt is an acknowledgement that UN authorization for military action was necessary for such action to be legal. Lacking the authorization, the subsequent military action was, by UN standards, illegal.

What I'm really curious about is why the Bush Administration cares. A year and a half ago, on the brink of and immediately following the invasion, Bush and his people couldn't find enough ways to thumb their noses at the UN, going so far as to imply on numerous occasions that the UN, by failing to authorize the use of force was flirting with irrelevancy. Events since that time have revealed to all but the Republican faithful that our headlong rush into war was, shall we say imprudent, and now we need all the help we can get, not just in Iraq, but in North Korea, Iran, and Africa to try to maintain some kind of order. The unilateralism that marked the first eight months of the Bush administration and came roaring back in the fall and winter of 2002-03 has left us overstretched and unable to respond meaningfully to events in the world. The relevance of and need for a strong UN should now be clear. In the absence of the UN, or a comparable organization or network of alliances, it would fall to us, the only superpower, to be the only keeper of order in the world. Bush has demonstrated spectacularly that he and his crew lack the competence to do the job.

"Enemy Combatant" to be Freed

In a web exclusive, Newsweek reveals that Yaser Esam Hamdi, who has been held by the US as an enemy combatant for more than two years without trial will soon be released by the government under a settlement being negotiated. Among other conditions, he will have to renounce his US citizenship and permanently leave the country.

The significance of this cannot be overstated. Hamdi's arrest was trumpeted as one of Bush's great anti-terrorism victories and now it turns out there was no there there. The government has no case against him and once the Supreme Court said it was time to put up or shut up, it had to let him go. This, combined with the bogus arrest earlier this year of a Portland lawyer for involvement with the Madrid train bombings, the unraveling of the case of the Detroit Al Qaeda cell and lingering doubts about the Buffalo case, leave Bush and Ashcroft looking as if they've grossly overstated the domestic terrorism threat or they're grossly incompetent. We know the latter is true. The jury is still out on the former, though I tend to believe the threat is not as great as these guys would have us believe, at least not in the direction they're looking.

The Debates

There's speculation afoot that Bush will find a way to weasel out debating Kerry. You can't really blame him, he has nothing to gain, being an almost incomprehensible idiot when unscripted, and everything to lose by debating Kerry. If he does take a powder on the debates, though, I propose that Kerry pick one day a week and go to every city Bush goes to and speak to the public and the press in those cities as if he were debating Bush. It will highlight what a coward Bush is and can only help Kerry. Maybe in the end Bush will agree to a debate or two. It worked for Lincoln.

W Down on the "Ranch"

I see from the Ask the White House page that the Crawford "ranch" is the only place that W gets to drive. Must be those DUIs.