From Chicago Sun Times Quick Takes-some humor

Hey, big spender

• President Bush regarding the Nov. 2 election results: "I earned capital in the campaign, and now I intend to spend it."
• President Bush regarding the establishment of a Palestinian state:

"I intend to use the next four years to spend the capital of the United States on such a state."

Did anyone at Harvard Business School teach young George W. Bush that you should never touch your capital, and spend only the interest income and dividends?

Or did someone cut class?

No dissing Dubya

Rush Limbaugh explaining the seriousness of President Bush's decision-making process:

"He is who he is, and that is why he does what he does, and the process of doing what he does is secondary to his being who he is."

We should always keep this in mind.

Sounds like Limbaugh's getting Bushismitis.

Is Ohio the new Florida?

I still can't give in to the results of this election. Ohio decided the election this year as Florida did 4 years ago. There were many discrepencies in voting in Ohio this year as was in Florida in 2000. This year the maker of many of the voting machines, the head of Diebold Co., promised to deliver Ohio for Bush(seems pretty blatant). In 2000 Katherine Harris played a dual role as does Ken Blackwell this year -- secretary of state with control over voting procedures and co-chair of Bush's campaign in Florida and Ohio respectively.
Consider that Blackwell allowed the use of electronic machines that provided no paper record of votes. Blackwell also presided over a voting system that allowed wealthy Republican precincts more voting machines for quick, easy voting while poorer Democratic precincts fewer machines and fewer polling places causing four-hour and longer waiting lines. This is deja vu all over again.
When a judge has a conflict of interest in a case he's handling isn't it in the best interest of fairness to recuse himself. It seems there should be a bi-partisan federal investigtion into the vote count in Ohio, excluding the Katherine Harris of 2004, Ken Blackwell. I can only hope.

Latest Video Terror Threat

Osama bin Laden's top deputy, Ayman Al-Zawahri, has appeared on a new video apparently made prior to our presidential elections. Something on the tape makes me wonder about a different strategy in dealing with these guys. Here's what he said:

"You have to choose between one of two methods to deal with Muslims: either on mutual respect and exchange of interests, or to deal with them as if they are spoils of war. This is your problem and you have to choose yourself. You have to realize that we are a nation of patience and endurance. We will stand firm to fight you with God's help until doomsday."

I think that between Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Fallujah (and I feel that there is going to be a scandal coming out of Fallujah concerning the treatment and non-treatment of civilians) the Muslim population around the world is leaning toward his thinking. I think we should be concerned about that but I don't think we are. These guys don't hate us for our freedom. That's just too simple an answer. When Al-Zawahri said to either deal with them with respect and exchange of interests or if they are spoils of war, I almost see an open door for some diplomatic communication to end all this hate. Let's face it this 'war on terror' is going to accomplish about as much as the 'war on drugs'. I think that this may be an opportunity to get up on that table and look at this situation from a different angle. I think we need to abandon the arrogant 'my way or the highway' attitude and work toward peace with peace. Just a thought.

Why? Part II

Why is the separation of Church and State becoming increasingly blurred?

Why don't we inspect 95% of containers entering our ports?

Why is the 9/11 reform bill in limbo?

Why does a 'war president' not take the advice of his generals?

Why does a 'war president' not appoint anyone with military experience to his cabinet?

Why is the following not an atrocity for an administration running on "moral values"?
Saddam Hussein killed 300,000 Iraqi civilians over a 24 year period. This administration
killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians in 1.5 years. That means Saddam killed 12,500 Iraqi
civilians per year and this administration killed -- and this is interesting when you divide
100,000 by 1.5 -- 66,6666.666 per year.

Why is the following based on "moral values"?
Banning abortions of any kind. Basically, forcing a pregnant woman to go full term to birth.
But once the child is born, say to a mother of multiple children on welfare and no education,
there is very little assistance or child rearing abilities to help raise that child. So for some of
these kids born in this situation, all they have to look forward to is a life of poverty and
probably an affiliation with a gang.

Why do we have such a disproportionate focus on Iraq and Afghanistan as opposed to Sudan?

JUST WONDERING

WHY?

Why do we have so many people inside this administration leaving and writing books condemning the actions or inactions of their former bosses?

Why are we sending someone like Warrant Officer Margaret Murray, who describes herself as "over 50," 4-foot-10, 95 pounds to Iraq? And she is one of about 4,400 Army soldiers between the ages of 24 to 62, from the Individual Ready Reserve who completed their active duty service but have been notified they must get back in uniform. Most likely, they are headed to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Why out of 535 members of Congress, eight have sons in the military, three of whom have been deployed to Iraq?

Why is it that Rush Limbaugh, who supports this war with a vengeance with chest thumping cheerleading, not once been to Iraq to "support our troops", while his counterpart, Al Franken, who did not support this administration's call to war, travel there at least once to entertain the troops?

Why, after the abuses at Abu Ghraib, do we appoint Alberto R. Gonzales as attorney general, the guy who basically justified the abuses and all but dismissed the Geneva Convention?

Why do the millions of dedicated supporters of President Bush, in the face of a dwindling military, not join the action and enlist? Put your actions where your mouth is. Talk is cheap. It really does take more than a magnetic ribbon on your car to support our troops.

Why is Halliburton still the major contractor doing business in Iraq after all the charges that have been brought against them? Most recently Halliburton's KBR subsidiary "did not effectively manage government property" and auditors could not locate hundreds of Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) items worth millions of dollars in Iraq and Kuwait this summer and fall, as reported to Congress by Inspector General Stuart W. Bowen.

Why does this administration still deny that global warming and other environmental issues are not a problem even when faced with facts proving that it is?

JUST WONDERING?

WAR IS HELL

You know, we're all wearing the 'support our troops' magnetic banners on our vehicles and I think that is a good thing to do. But it seems to me that we really don't have a grasp on what these guys are really going through. Imagine the post-apocalyptic scenario these guys have to walk into. Going door-to-door, not knowing whether the door you push open is going to be booby-trapped with a bomb, or a suicide bomber on the other side. When you drive your humvee past another vehicle or someone walking past your vehicle imagine not knowing when your time is up. It's knd of like you're playing a game of 'Russian Roulette' every day. So, that soldier that shot the wounded, unarmed insurgent last week was probably in the mindset I just described. I don't know that I would have done the same thing. I also believe that the blame for some of these atrocities, put on the soldier on the field of battle, is misplaced.
Consider that these soldiers are put in this situation by men that have never seen battle. I have not seen battle, but I certainly can imagine what it must be like. These guys are on double tours of duty. Some are not properly trained -- example, there was an interview with the mother of a soldier who said he was being trained as a cook and three weeks before being shipped out he was re-trained as an infantryman -- three weeks seems a bit short for such a dangerous job.
This administration will not honor these troops who give their lives for this administration -- and that is who those lives are lost to -- can't show the coffins coming home. Might help us realize the hell that is war. Then on Veteran's day we couldn't play the uncut version of "Saving Private Ryan", a movie that surely shows you the horrors of war. I don't think you can watch this film and not think of the troops that are in Iraq.
With Colin Powell gone we have no military experience in this administration. We are supposedly getting some intelligence out of Iran that might cause us to militarily act against them. The 'coalition of the willing' is going to be coming from our own back yard. And I think that as soon as the big boys can secure their offspring in deferments we will be looking at a draft. Dying for a noble cause is one thing, being sent to slaughter is totally different. Being sent to slaughter, realizing it , acting on the premise that you shoot first to save your life and having to take the full blame for it is shameful. War is hell.

So long Colin, you'll be missed

Now that Colin Powell is gone we have no one with any military experience in this administration. We have no one to even attempt to pull in the reigns on this administration when dealing with Iran, North Korea and who knows who else. We have an administration that is going to be much more secretive in the next four years than in the last four years. Checks and balances? Pretty much gone. This administration telling the military how to handle this war on terrorism is akin to having your accountant perform heart surgery on you.
How are there going to be elections in Iraq in January? I mean, just by the way things are going on there now, don't you think polling places will be bombed, people will be threatened and intimidated. These people have rejected democracy for a long time. Maybe 7,000 years.
Let's face it we are in Iraq for the oil under the guise that we are liberating the population with democracy. If you compare where they were -- which was not in a great place under Saddam -- to where they are now, democracy does not appear to be all that great. What can possibly happen now to transform that society that hasn't occurred for 7,000 years?
Our best bet is to work our way out of there ASAP and start developing alternative energy sources so we are no longer dependent on these far off lands. Just think if we had spent the billions on the development of those energy sources instead of war. To me that is a much more productive strategy. This is what I think, but it's not what's going to happen.

ADD ANOTHER YEAR

TODAY IS A FAMILY HOLIDAY -- MY TWIN SISTERS SUZANNE AND SUZETTE TURNED 0_ORne YEARS OLD TODAY HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AND MANY MORE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PREPARE FOR THE WORST!

There's an old saying, hope for the best, prepare for the worst. We have another example of this administration's not anticipating problems they would run into had things not gone the rosy way they expected. First it was lack of troops strength, lackof planning to win the peace, lack of planning for armour for the troops, etc.
Now according to an article in the Los Angeles Times a mental health crisis is emerging, with one in six returning soldiers afflicted, experts say. The Pentagon did not anticipate the problem and are now scrambling to find resources to address it.
A study by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research found that 15.6% of Marines and 17.1% of soldiers surveyed after they returned from Iraq suffered major depression, generalized anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder -- a debilitating, sometimes lifelong change in the brain's chemistry that can include flashbacks, sleep disorders, panic attacks, violent outbursts, acute anxiety and emotional numbness.
The bad news is that the study did not look at reservists, who tend to suffer a higher rate of phsycological injury than career Marines and soldiers. And the soldiers in the study served in the early months of the war, when tours were shorter and before the Iraqi insurgency took shape. Since the study was completed the war has changed into a grueling counterinsurgency.
The Army initially sent far too few psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers, according to an Army study released in the summer of 2003. Congress allocated no new funds to deal with the mental health effects of the war in Iraq.
I guess this will all slowly unfold as preparations -- that should have been taken just in case we weren't greeted with flowers, hug and kisses -- were not even considered. But I suppose if you don't have to be concerned about you or your loved ones being involved, why not take a shot at doing it on the cheap.

THE GOPHER GAME

It seems to me that the take over of Fallujah is the beginning of what would similarly happen in one of those 'whack the gopher' games, where you take a mallot and face a table with say six holes in it and the gopher takes turns popping up in different holes and when you whack him he pops up in a different hole. In my opinion, we need to take over Fallujah and keep it secure. I mean, I think the reason we did this is to take away a safe haven for terrorists. OK, now to get to my point. There has been an increase in attacks in Baghdad and Mosul and we didn't capture any high level guys. That leads me to believe that the insurgents left to fight in Fallujah were new recruits that were willing to 'die for Allah'. We need to be able to secure each town that these insurgents decide to call home. I guess the question is . . . Do we have enough troops to capture each of these towns and leave it secure? Because, if we don't, it'll play out just like that game with the gopher.

General thoughts on Iraq

Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak -- Air Force Chief of Staff 1990-94
The people in control in the Pentagon and the White House live in a fantasy world. They actually thought everyone would just line up and vote for a new democracy and you would have a sort of Denmark with oil.I blame Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the people behind him -- Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary Douglas Feith. The vice president himself should probably be included; certainly his wife. These so-called neocons: These peole have no experience in life. They are utopian thinkers, idealists, very smart, and they have the courage of their convictions, so it makes them doubly dangerous.
Adm. Stansfield Turner -- NATO Allied commander for Southern Europe, 1975-77; CIA director, 1977-81
I think we are in a real mess. There are 87 attacks on Americans every day, and our people in Baghdad can't even leave the International Zone without being heavily armored . . . Whatever you call it, this is now an insurgency using the techniques of terrorism. With the borders poorly guarded, the terrorists come in. All in all, Iraq is a failure of monumental proportions.
Lt. Gen. William Odom -- Director of National Security Agency, 1985-88
It's a huge strategic disaster, and it will only get worse . . . The idea of creating a constitutional state in a short amount of time is a joke. It will take 10 - 15 years, and that is if we want to kill ten percent of the population.
Gen. Anthony Zinni -- Commander in chief of the United States Central Command, 1997-2000
Did we have to do this? I saw the intelligence right up to the day of the war, and I did not see any imminent threat there, If anything, Saddam was falling apart. The sanctions were working. The containment was working. He had a hollow military, as we saw. If he had weapons of mass destruction, it was leftover stuff -- artillery shells and rocket rounds. He didn't have the delivery systems. We controlled the skies and seaports. We bombed him at will. All of this happened under U.N. authority. I mean, we had him by the throat.
Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy -- Army deputy chief of staff for intelligence, 1997-2000
. . . I mean, Rumsfeld proudly announced that he had told General Franks to fight this war with different tactics in which they would bypass enemy strongholds and enemy resistance and keep on moving. But it was shocking to me that the seretary of defense would tell the army how to fight. He doesn't know how to fight; he has no business telling them. It's completely within civilian authority to tell you where to fight, what our major objective is, but it is absolutely no one's business but uniformed military to tell you how to do the job. To me, it was astonishing that Rumsfeld would presume to tel four-star generals, in the Army 35 years, how to do their jobs . . . As for the recent news about the 380 tons of explosives that disappeared, it's irrelevant when they disappeared. This was known by the I.A.E.A as a sight to be watched. Here is the issue: Bush tried to turn this into a political matter instead of answering questions about why he didn't follow the warnings of the IAEA. It was another example of Bush being a cheerleader instead of a leader. Nothing in Iraq was guarded except for the oil fields, which tells you why we were there . . . Still, Iraq is a bloodbath, and we need to be dealing with this in a much more sophisticated way than the cowboy named Bush.
Gen. Wesley Clark -- NATO supreme Allied commander for Europe, 1997-2000
We got into this mess because the Bush administration decided what the really wanted to do was invade Iraq, and then the only question was, for what reason? They developed two or three different reasons. It wasn't until the last minute that they came up and said, "Hey, by the way, we are going to create a wave of democracy across the Middle East." . . . But let's ask this question: Have you seen an American strategic blunder this large? The answer is: not in fifty years. I can't imagine when the last one was. And it's not just about troop strength. I mean, you will fail if you don't have enough troops, but simply adding more troops won't make you succeed.

I think somebody should have been listening to these guys.

FALLUJAH

Well, it looks like it won't be long before we are marching to Fallujah, or not. At this point I think we have lost the element of surprise in this assault. By this time the entire city is probably loaded with land mines, booby traps, etc. I think we might find out where all those missing explosives have gone. So, I think we end up with only three choices. We go in and wipe out the city with heavy armour and bombardment. By this avenue we would probably accomplish our goal but we would also increase the civilian death toll by multitudes. But that's OK we're on a "MISSION FROM GOD". The second option would be to send our troops in and basically do a door to door sweep. A couple of problems here . 1.) they've had a long time to prepare for us coming in so we are walking into a well prepared booby trap. 2.) how do you tell the good guys from the bad guys. If you were one of the soldiers going in there your survival would probably depend on you shooting first and to hell with the questions. 3.) not do anything yet even if you have to postpone the elections. With this administration option 3 is probably not going to happen. I say probably because I still hold out hope for . . . I don't know what . . . a miracle. But with the other two options it's just a matter of who receives the bulk of the casualties. No wonder the rest of the world thinks we are a nation of idiots. How the hell did we ever elect this guy . . . or did we?

Pre November 2 World

Before November 2, 2004 the world did not feel hostile to the people of the United States. They
knew that the American people were resistant to this administration's policies. They threw all the blame where it belonged -- on this administration. The post 11/2 world doesn't see it that way anymore. We have just validated all that this administration has done. Anyone who thinks we are making the world, let alone, the U.S. a safer place is badly mistaken. I see us in a huge assault on Fallujah, probably within days. Expect big U.S. casualties (I hope I'm wrong). There will probably be a draft. We will probably go into Iran. We will be scared, but we know who will protect us. Our father George W. Bush.
White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card said to the Boston Globe on September 2, 2004 that President Bush views America as a "10-year-old child" in need of protection provided by a parent. What scares me is that when I first read that, what came to mind was Norman Bates talking about his mother in 'Psycho'. All I can say to anyone concerned is PAY ATTENTION!!!