with notable flip-flops and contradictions noted in purple

NOTE: Redundancy in the following material owes to relevance of some information to more than one topic.

A prime example of how Bush's erratic policy has been dangerously counterproductive in the war against fighting terrorism is his diversion of attention and resources from eradicating terrorist camps in Afghanistan to invade Iraq—a country which did not have international terror cells to begin with, but which now is a breeding ground for them. Perhaps there have been no more attacks on the American homeland (so far). On the whole, however, terrorism has prospered and spread, as a direct result of Bush's misdirection and of fanatics' seizing of the opportunity it created. If not brought under control, there is an all too real possibility that the flames of terrorism fueled by chaos in Iraq could engulf the entire Middle East.

However, the impulsive, dubiously motivated, and poorly planned ouster of Saddam Hussein has left Iraq at the mercy of its many factions, each battling for supremacy over the others. Yet all of them agree on one thing: that the U.S. doesn't belong there! Their overriding common goal is not democracy, but to get rid of the occupying infidel invaders.

While democracy is certainly the glorious dream of some Iraqis, the grim reality of the Iraq's overall cultural background virtually guarantees that a stable democracy there will remain only a fantastic dream for the foreseeable future. In the meantime, the most probable outlook is for continued chaos and protracted civil war among the now "liberated" factions, each of which sees as its goal, not democracy, but rather its own brand of tyranny.

But even if it were true, that the world is safer without Saddam in power, that alone does not justify attacking countries whose leaders we don't particularly like (such as Iran, Syria, North Korea, and maybe China, each of which poses—whether actually or potentially—a greater threat than Iraq did). If it did, then the 10-to-1 majority* of other nations, whose people now believe the world would be safer if George W. Bush were removed from power, would be justified in invading the United States of America! We like to think civilized governments don't operate that way; but by that standard, the Bush regime has removed itself from the "civilized" category.

*As revealed in a poll of people in 33 nations—most of them considered "friendly" to the U.S.—reported by CNN in late September 2004.

Acting on information it had been warned was bogus, the Bush administration guessed terribly wrong about a multitude of critical factors, including the likely catastrophic breakdown of order, the intensity of insurgencies, the determination of oil field and pipeline saboteurs, the the extreme deterioration of Iraq's infrastructure, the number of troops needed, and the armor they would require given the likelihood of persistent hostile action. Now those troops are struggling, and all too frequently being maimed or killed dying, to bring order to a collapsed nation in throes of factional chaos predicted by readily available intelligence—had those in charge only made proper use of it. And our troops are stuck with that dangerous and frustrating job, with no way out, because the terrorism that would otherwise breed in the power vacuum created by the ill-considered coup would be a far worse threat to the region and the world than Saddam Hussein could ever have hoped to become!

This is clearly not the responsible use of intelligence demanded by wise and even-handed superpower policy. Rather, Team Bush's leadership has been characterized by precisely the sort of bungling bravado we would expect of a self-aggrandizing third-world bully like Saddam Hussein himself—if only he had in fact possessed the weapons and resources falsely attributed to him by Bush administration hawks.

Intelligence used without wisdom leads, at best, to embarrassment, and at worst, to catastrophe.

Indeed, in contrast to the closeness of U.S. polls, a recent poll of citizens of 33 foreign nations (most of which are—or were until recently—American allies) indicates a 30-to-3 preference for replacing George W. Bush as president! This reflects an urgent and growing global alarm about a lone "loose cannon" superpower, whose foreign policy seems driven more by greed, machismo, and revenge, than by cool reasoning based on fact and necessity.

Bush's way of putting America first has made it first in risk, fear, casualties, and expenditures, but last in dependability, respect, and truth. His administration has lost virtually all credibility abroad, among allies and adversaries alike. He is even now being called to task by members of his own party in Congress, for his "incompetence" and dogged unwillingness to face reality, in the no-win situation into which he has unwittingly maneuvered what was once the most respected and trusted nation on earth.

This is the only administration that, in its myopic zeal, has ever deliberately blown the cover of its own intelligence agents simply because of their personal political views, instantly scuttling years of painstaking work, and placing key agents and information sources in potentially lethal jeopardy. (An ordinary serviceman or civilian employee would get jail time for making such disclosures!)

Ostensibly in the name of fighting terrorism, American troops and resources have been diverted into a wholly unnecessary war, which has in fact opened to fanatical terrorist groups an entire region previously denied them.

And the icing on the cake is that military resources and domestic emergency response teams are now spread so thin that Americans are actually at higher risk than ever, despite intrusive airport security, cages for political protesters, and flashy color codes.

Under the fear-mongering tactics of an administration desperate to ensure its reelection, America is ironically adopting the restrictions of the police states it has traditionally abhorred, without managing to achieve the compensating advantage of improved security.

No one, not even Kerry, can restore those lives that have been lost or wrecked, or instantly heal the gaping wounds of the world's most volatile region. But what Kerry can do is ensure that the futile escalation of devastation currently in progress ceases in January. By replacing dogma and deceit with sincere diplomacy, he can nurture international trust and good will, and thereby restore America's shattered credibility abroad. And certainly more than the current rogue administration, he will take seriously the solemn presidential oath, to defend our Nation and its Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

One more thing: Even if American scientists are prevented from doing such research, others eagerly will—adding to the number of promising fields in which U.S. expertise has become deficient.

Although this "trickle-down" approach typically gives a momentary nudge to the stock market, it has never done much to bolster sustained employment and consumer demand, which are the primary driving forces of the aptly named "market economy." Supply-side economics has never led to self-sustaining prosperity. It "works" only as long as we're content to drive the make-believe "recovery" with a horrendous debt that mounts faster than the mock-prosperity itself. The result this time around has been an initial loss of millions of jobs, followed by a so-called "recovery" that would be seen as "stagnation" under ordinary circumstances.

Since 2000, America lost 2.6 million jobs—in part due to recession and the 9/11 disaster, and subsequently in response to natural pricing pressures—but grossly accelerated by misguided tax incentives. It has only recently regained 1.7 million jobs, at a rate inadequate even to keep pace with population growth. Moreover, the new service-sector jobs typically feature much lower pay and benefits than the old industrial jobs lost.

Bush's response? He proposed reclassifying making burgers at McDonald's as "manufacturing"—a notion rejected as insultingly absurd, even by his own party.

However, this is certainly not because he is indecisive. It's just that George W. Bush is determined to do whatever George W. Bush wants, despite any obligations or promises to the contrary. He stands defiantly by every blunder and reversal he's made, excusing his accumulating diplomatic, military, economic, and domestic disasters, by observing "America has been through a lot!" (Yes, on that we would certainly have to agree! Yet much of what America has suffered recently need never have happened—had it not been for the administration's habitual reliance upon wishful thinking and artful distortion instead of hard fact.)

Whenever a policy change has clearly been in order, Bush has balked at adjusting his position to reality. In his apparently childlike view, changing his mind would be an embarrassing admission of having been wrong—and to him that would be more intolerable than any number of flag-draped coffins! For this, George W. Bush describes himself as "decisive and resolute."

A familiar case in point was when Senator Kerry voted to authorize the Bush administration to attack Iraq,* with the understanding that an invasion would be undertaken only as a last resort, with adequate preparation for the likely consequences, and with the full cooperation of our allies and the U.N. When President Bush abruptly launched an attack without complying with any of those requirements, and then had the gall to request additional funding, Kerry flatly opposed it. This was not a flip-flop on Kerry's part. At every step, his position has been consistent with the facts as they were known at the time.

*Note that Kerry voted, not to attack Iraq (as Bush falsely claims), but to authorize Bush to attack only if necessary. It never was necessary.

You're liberal if you're aware of cultures, beliefs, and worldviews other than your own. You're liberal if you know there was history before 1776, and if you appreciate that the decisions you make today might well affect your grandchildren in 2076 and beyond. You're liberal if a big year-end bonus is not the most meaningful goal in your life. You're liberal if you understand that there are some things government can do better than the private sector, but that even those things have a price tag, and that doing without those things can have an even bigger price tag.

But even if you aren't into fancy philosophy, you're still liberal if you're smart enough to figure out that people are better off paying their fair share in taxes on income from good jobs with good benefits, than with lousy jobs and benefits, or none at all, no matter how big a tax cut they're promised.

• experience turning budget surpluses into record deficits;
• experience "stimulating" the economy into stagnation;
• experience replacing high-paying jobs with minimum-wage jobs, and outsourcing the rest;
• experience contriving health care and education plans to boost corporate profits, while ignoring the needs of patients, students, and veterans;
• experience awarding no-bid government contracts to favored suppliers who attend his fund-raisers;
• experience gutting environmental safeguards and alternative energy research;
• experience ignoring military intelligence and justifying pet schemes with far-fetched guesswork;
• experience losing focus on crucial problems like Osama bin Laden;
• experience creating the most horrendous international quagmire since Vietnam, and generating a net increase in the threat of terrorism as a result;
• experience alienating America's allies;
• and experience pandering to paranoid assault-weapon-worshipers, fundy crackpots, and other fringe groups, since these are the easiest to fool into supporting his underlying welfare-for-the-wealthy schemes.

Kerry doesn't have any comparable sort of experience. On the other hand, he exhibits a comprehensive understanding, of the mechanics, history, philosophy, and responsibilities of constitutional democracy, far superior to what G.W.Bush has managed in his four years. Two things thoughtful American voters might well want to consider.

BUSH'S RECORD <> KERRY'S PLAN

go it alone <> international cooperation

alienation of allies <> partnership with allies

ballooning deficits <> responsible fiscal policy

renunciation of treaties <> honoring of treaties

runaway outsourcing <> fair but firm trade policy

environmental rape <> responsible use of resources

minimum-wage jobs <> good jobs through innovation

erosion of constitutional rights <> respect for liberty

veterans' benefits withheld <> veterans treated justly

unrestricted pollution <> disciplined waste management

economic polarization <> broadening of consumer market

no millionaire left behind <> relief for middle-class consumers

security based on fear <> security based on intelligent planning

government defines family values <> families define family values

minorities scapegoated <> individuality and civil rights respected

no-bid contracts for political friends <> fair-bid government contracts

policy based on fabrication and fear <> policy based on fact and reason

random war without clear purpose <> war focused and only as a last resort

diplomacy based on deceit and threat <> diplomacy based on mutual respect

security leaks for political revenge <> integrity of national security protected

dependence on increasingly expensive oil <> development of other energy sources

Medicare & Social Security bankrupt <> essential programs restored to solvency

local governments must cut services <> emergency federal support when necessary

impoverished states can't adequately fund education <> education a national priority

"wealth care" for drug & insurance companies <> affordable health care for everyone

neoconservative activist Supreme Court <> Supreme Court dedicated to the Constitution

war "justified" by distorted intelligence <> war only for compelling reasons and as last resort

Think Again!

contradictions, deceptions, distortions, errors, flip-flops, etc.

• I don't think the war on terror can ever be won.
• We are winning, and we will win.

• I actually voted for the $87 million, before I voted against it.

• Saddam Hussein is a threat to America because we know he has weapons of mass destruction.
  Since the end of the Persian Gulf War, there has been no reliable intelligence to suggest this.
• Even if Saddam doesn't have WMDs, he has the means to build or acquire them, so he's still a threat.
  If he had the means, he evidently didn't employ it.
• Even if he doesn't have the means to build or acquire WMDs, he still wants them, so he's still a threat.
  Unsupported speculation.
• Well, we know Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda, and he wanted to supply them with WMDs, if he'd had any.
  The only documented dialogue was that Saddam saw al Qaeda as a disruptive competitor for power against his own regime, and so he flatly forbade any fundamentalist activists to operate on his turf. No, the situation wasn't pretty, but it was tolerably stable.
• Well anyway, the world is safer with Saddam Hussein out of power.
  Trading an increasingly impotent dictator who chopped off Iraqis' hands, for an assortment of fanatical terrorists who chop off Americans' heads and blow up innocents with car bombs, probably doesn't translate into "safer" for most people. Bottom line: Nothing in Iraq was a threat to Americans—until Bush invaded.
• Well anyway, at least they're doing that stuff over there instead of in New York and Washington.
  Exactly how everyone felt before 9/11.

• Opening bi-lateral dialogue with North Korea would scuttle the multi-lateral discussion with other East Asian nations.
  It is precisely those East Asian countries who are most eager for the U.S. to open direct talks with North Korea.

• The unemployment rate is lower now than the average of the 1970s, '80s, and '90s.
  Unfortunately, the main reason for this is not that few people are unemployed, but that so many have been unemployed for so long, they have given up actively seeking work, and have thus been dropped from the official unemployment tally.
• 1.7 million new jobs have been created under this administration.
  However, there have also been 2.6 million jobs lost during the Bush administration. The number of jobs being created isn't even enough to compensate for population growth, and these jobs typically have much lower pay and fewer benefits than the ones lost earlier. However you choose to look at it, this is not progress.
• Well, America has been through a lot: a recession, the 9/11 attacks and two wars.
  FDR had the Great Depression to deal with. He and Truman had World War II. Eisenhower and JFK had the Cold War and the arms race. Johnson and Nixon still had those, plus Vietnam, civil unrest, and galloping inflation. Ford and Carter had escalating Middle East turmoil and fuel shortages. Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton all faced challenges of their own (some self-inflicted). But none of them presided over a net loss of American jobs.

• The No-Child-Left-Behind program guarantees high educational standards.
  The administration underfunded NCLB by $28 billion, so although the standards are there, the ability to meet them is not. With cutbacks in federal assistance, the program has become an unfunded mandate, forcing state and local budget shortfalls and public school closures.

• Kerry keeps changing his position on the Iraq war. First he voted for it; then he voted against it
  Senator Kerry did not vote for the Iraq war. He voted to authorize President Bush to go to war if absolutely necessary, and if inspections and diplomacy failed. Then when Bush cavalierly invaded without fulfilling those requirements, Kerry voted against funding for the clearly premature and irresponsible use of military force. The president had repeatedly affirmed that he would abide by standard conditions, but then ignored them at his whim. Kerry didn't reverse himself here; Bush did, though he continues to claim it was the other way round.

• Kerry wants to give other countries veto power over America's decisions to defend itself.
  This is preposterously absurd! Both John Kerry and George Bush reserve for the United States sole authority for national security and defense. Where they differ is that Kerry (like most of G.W.Bush's predecessors) distinguishes between defense and aggression. He sees the wisdom of honestly considering our allies' interests, addressing their concerns, and soliciting their support, before taking aggressive action in the absence of imminent threat. He sees the necessity—especially for a superpower—of having solid grounds for military aggression. Evidently, Bush does not.

• Kerry's additional spending will leave a tax gap.
  This, from the guy who, within his first few months in office, turned a record projected budget surplus into the most horrendous deficit of all time?
• Kerry will raise your taxes.
  That's true only if you have an annual income over $200,000 or if you are a business that enjoys tax breaks for moving American jobs out of the country.
• Kerry has voted to raise taxes 98 times.
  It's no secret that Kerry advocates funding government on an honest pay-as-you-go basis, rather than piling up debt to burden future generations. However, it would be more accurate to say he has voted "Yes" 98 times on tax legislation. The important distinction is that the count includes many procedural votes, and votes on multiple revisions of the same legislation.
• Kerry will roll back corporate tax cuts and stall the economic recovery.
  It is difficult to see what distinguishes the Bush "recovery" from what has passed for stagnation under other presidents. That's because Bush's tax cuts did not seriously target consumer demand, as they should have in order to be effective. A dose of fiscal responsibility is long overdue—and it certainly didn't kill the prosperity of the 1990s.

• Kerry is pro-abortion, because he voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion.
  Kerry voted against the ban because the legislation had no provision to protect the life and health of the pregnant woman. Such short-sighted and inhumane laws have been struck down by liberal and conservative courts alike, for the same reason.

• He [Kerry] can run, but he can't hide!
  This, from the guy whose record in office has been so shameful he can't face an audience of jobless people or allow soldiers' coffins to be viewed by the public.

• General Shinseki was fired for criticizing the administration about the Iraq invasion.
  General Shinseki left of his own accord, having already announced his intention to retire.

• The American price tag for the Iraq war is $200 billion and rising.
  $200 billion is the total (so far) for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars combined. The cost of the Iraq war alone (as of September 2004) has been about $120 billion—still far more than the $7 billion cost of the first Iraq war to liberate Kuwait.
  [NOTE: Kerry corrected himself on this in the third presidential TV debate. In contrast, Bush has yet to admit to any of his errors and distortions, let alone correct them.]

• Kerry is a duplicitous, inconsistent, self-contradicting, flip-flopping waffler.
  And that makes Bush...?

• The Bush administration can't fix the nation's many problems because it refuses even to admit that problems exist.

• There'll be peace and democracy in Iraq.
  True / False?
  [Not according to the projections of his own experts.]

• There won't be a military draft as long as I'm president.
  True / False?
  [Emergency retention policy has already created a "back-door draft."]

• I'll cut the budget deficit in half.
  True / False?
  [In 2000 he promised he wouldn't create a deficit.]

• I won't rest till everybody who wants to work has a job.
  True / False?
  [With job creation running behind population growth, he'd better not plan any vacations.]

• Our intelligence reforms will make America safer.
  True / False?
  [The best intelligence does no good if ignored by policymakers.]
  

Fool us once, shame on him! 

Fool us twice... um... er... duh... well, he shouldn't oughta fool us twice! 

• Restore America's credibility among allies, whose trust has been abused and betrayed by the current administration.
• Wage a smarter war on terrorism, with international cooperation, reliable intelligence, and realistic planning. No more strategy based on make-believe, no more disastrous diversions.
• Provide American troops the equipment and support they need before they are sent into harm's way.
• Craft energy policy to reduce American dependence on foreign oil.
• Revise the Patriot Act, so it cannot be used arbitrarily to persecute those who happen to disagree with the administration.
• Fund necessary programs and reduce the deficit, by rolling back tax-giveaways to the rich.
• Plug tax loopholes for outsourcers.
• Provide incentives for businesses to hire American workers.
• Ensure workers don't lose their right to overtime pay.
• Provide affordable health care for everyone.
• Allow importation of approved pharmaceuticals from Canada.
• Remove unnecessary restrictions crippling stem-cell research.
• Restore and enforce anti-pollution regulations.
• Fully fund No Child Left Behind, so the standards it sets can actually be met.
• Screen out frivolous lawsuits, while protecting the right to sue for fair compensation for real damages.
• Ensure health-care policy is no longer written by pharmaceutical and insurance industry lobbies.
• Ensure the U.S. Supreme Court will not be packed with extreme neoconservative activists for generations to come.

MORE OF THE SAME!

WHAT'S YOUR VISION FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS
?

HELP IS
ON THE WAY!

It's high time we return to a leadership style of cool reason based on hard fact, and it's abundantly clear we won't get that from Team Bush.  Our options are running out, but there is a choice—maybe not a perfect one, but a real one.  For our own sake and our kids', for the sake of the nation and the world, we can't afford to make the wrong one, or to stand aloof while others do.  Nor dare we blow our precious chance to make a difference on "sending a message" to those who will pay it no heed.  Whether we call ourselves conservative, liberal, moderate, or something else, it's time for all of us to get together, get serious, and get real.