Bush campaign gear made in Burma
His campaign store sells a pullover from nation whose products he has banned from being sold in the U.S.
http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzsell0319,0,4764348.story
Can these people get any worse?
3.19.2004
3.18.2004
From the same article - great point.....
"The U.S. in Iraq plays into the terrorists’ hands. It gives them more people to kill. It proves we’re an occupying nation. What Al Qaeda wants is to cause a holy war. They wanted us to invade Iraq. By denying liberties for thousands of Americans, by moving our nation toward a police state and rattling sabers throughout the world, we proved them right. We legitimized them by claiming we were at war with them. They don’t deserve the designation of enemy combatants. They are criminals and should be treated as such"
"The U.S. in Iraq plays into the terrorists’ hands. It gives them more people to kill. It proves we’re an occupying nation. What Al Qaeda wants is to cause a holy war. They wanted us to invade Iraq. By denying liberties for thousands of Americans, by moving our nation toward a police state and rattling sabers throughout the world, we proved them right. We legitimized them by claiming we were at war with them. They don’t deserve the designation of enemy combatants. They are criminals and should be treated as such"
A great interview about how safe we are from terrorism....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4549661/
"If you think of the number of situations where people gather en masse—whether they are public transportation or stadiums or theaters or shopping malls or monuments—you come up with a list of hundreds of thousands of potential targets. And installing preventive screening at all of them fundamentally makes no sense because the attacker will be smart enough to go where you didn’t screen. So if you install all of these security measures in subways, and next time the terrorists bomb shopping malls, the money will have been wasted. This is the fallacy of defending against yesterday’s attack. Unless you go after the attackers, and the fundamental causes, all you will do is force the attackers to modify their tactics. And that is largely a waste of money."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4549661/
"If you think of the number of situations where people gather en masse—whether they are public transportation or stadiums or theaters or shopping malls or monuments—you come up with a list of hundreds of thousands of potential targets. And installing preventive screening at all of them fundamentally makes no sense because the attacker will be smart enough to go where you didn’t screen. So if you install all of these security measures in subways, and next time the terrorists bomb shopping malls, the money will have been wasted. This is the fallacy of defending against yesterday’s attack. Unless you go after the attackers, and the fundamental causes, all you will do is force the attackers to modify their tactics. And that is largely a waste of money."
Maureen Dowd gets in some good points on Bush today:
"The Spanish were also angry at José María Aznar because they felt he had misled them about the bombings, trying to throw guilt on ETA and away from Al Qaeda. The Republicans certainly don't want anyone here to think about throwing somebody out of office because he was misleading about Al Qaeda.
....When he challenged Mr. Kerry to put up or shut up on his claim of support from foreign leaders, Mr. Bush said, "If you're going to make an accusation in the course of a presidential campaign, you've got to back it up with facts."
If you're going to make an accusation in the course of a presidency, you've got to back it up with facts, too."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/18/opinion/18DOWD.html?th
"The Spanish were also angry at José María Aznar because they felt he had misled them about the bombings, trying to throw guilt on ETA and away from Al Qaeda. The Republicans certainly don't want anyone here to think about throwing somebody out of office because he was misleading about Al Qaeda.
....When he challenged Mr. Kerry to put up or shut up on his claim of support from foreign leaders, Mr. Bush said, "If you're going to make an accusation in the course of a presidential campaign, you've got to back it up with facts."
If you're going to make an accusation in the course of a presidency, you've got to back it up with facts, too."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/18/opinion/18DOWD.html?th
3.16.2004
"The Pew Research Center did a survey that showed, by the numbers, the real and substantial differences between the parties. Two obvious examples: seven out of 10 Democrats believe government should do more to help the poor, while only four out of 10 Republicans share that belief. That proportion flips when the question is whether the government is run for the benefit of all; 69 percent of Republicans agree with that contention, while only 44 percent of Democrats do."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4522514/
This is from an article about Howard Dean's contribution to the party, and I think it makes a good point if you are willing to read between the lines. If you are Republican (and deographic-wise better off) you think the government is doing a great job. Therefore, because you do not need help, you don't think the government should do more. There is an internal selfishness to the Republican ideal. More to come on this issue....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4522514/
This is from an article about Howard Dean's contribution to the party, and I think it makes a good point if you are willing to read between the lines. If you are Republican (and deographic-wise better off) you think the government is doing a great job. Therefore, because you do not need help, you don't think the government should do more. There is an internal selfishness to the Republican ideal. More to come on this issue....
"It is possible to support the battle against terrorism wholeheartedly and still oppose a political party that embraces the same cause. The Spanish people, who have suffered under the violence of Basque terrorists for years, undoubtedly feel a redoubled commitment to fight on and avenge the innocents who died in Madrid. That did not make them obliged to keep Prime Minister Aznar's party in power. Here in the United States, as much as the White House would like the elections to be about fear and national insecurity, they are a choice between two men and two political philosophies — not a referendum on terrorism."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/16/opinion/16TUE1.html?th
Here is another editorial about Spain.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/16/opinion/16TUE1.html?th
Here is another editorial about Spain.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/16/opinion/16KRUG.html?th
Paul Krugman has a great article based on Spain's election and the impact on the War on terror.
I tend to disagree that the Spanish election is a sign that the terrorists are winning. When Spain went into the coalition, it was against the wishes of a majority of their population. There is a democracy in Spain, and the war was a huge factor in the election before the attacks.
I think that the right here in America want to spin it that the Spanish election is a sign that the terrorists are winning. That way they can argue that Bush needs to stay in. But, if Aznar could not put forth policies to keep his people safe, he and his party do not desreve the offices they had.
It is the same here, if Bush cannot keep us safe, as I believe he didn't before 9-11 (I will write more of my opinions on that upcoming), he does not desreve his office.
-jef-
Paul Krugman has a great article based on Spain's election and the impact on the War on terror.
I tend to disagree that the Spanish election is a sign that the terrorists are winning. When Spain went into the coalition, it was against the wishes of a majority of their population. There is a democracy in Spain, and the war was a huge factor in the election before the attacks.
I think that the right here in America want to spin it that the Spanish election is a sign that the terrorists are winning. That way they can argue that Bush needs to stay in. But, if Aznar could not put forth policies to keep his people safe, he and his party do not desreve the offices they had.
It is the same here, if Bush cannot keep us safe, as I believe he didn't before 9-11 (I will write more of my opinions on that upcoming), he does not desreve his office.
-jef-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)