Passing the Global Test
Below is a commentary written by my friend Todd. It's got a very good message on how passing the Global Test which President Bush tries to say is giving up our security to the whims of other nations.
Passing the Global Test
In the first presidential debate of the 2004 campaign season between the Democratic challenger John F. Kerry and the incumbent candidate George W. Bush, Senator Kerry made the comment that “if and when you have to preemptively strike a nation, you do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.” President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney seized the quote as a sign of weakness by John Kerry, and if he were to be elected it would signal a return to a pre-9/11 mentality of defensive posturing and indecision. This is a complete distortion of not only what Senator Kerry’s comments truly meant, but a political tactic of playing on American fears. Running around the country telling the American people that voting for Kerry/Edwards is voting for another terrorist attack is a perfect example of the standard philosophical ploy of toying with individual emotions to control the masses that Karl Rove has become an expert at doing. John Kerry’s statement deals with legitimacy when it comes to utilizing military power to exert influence across the globe. If war is the only option available, then you must not only justify and marshal full support for your actions to your allies and your citizens, but you do not mislead them, and you provide a blueprint of the plan of action to win the war and the peace. None of these objectives were met in taking the United States of America to war in Iraq.
I believe there was a litmus test created between October 18th and 29th in the fall of 1962. Another senator from Massachusetts was the sitting president of the United States. Like Senator Kerry, John Fitzgerald Kennedy was a war hero who understood that morality, strong alliances, and overall leadership by example was the diplomatic way to deal with international crisis. No other president in our nation’s history felt such a daunting task as Kennedy did in October of ’62, with Cuba installing nuclear weapons on the United States’ doorstep. The choices Kennedy faced were to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Cuba as advised by the majority of his generals, or to exercise patience with strong diplomacy and rhetoric directed at Russian Premier Nikita S. Khrushchev. President Kennedy faced a global test during this time period. If he were to launch a nuclear strike against Cuba, a retaliatory nuclear strike was certain by the U.S.S.R. against major U.S. cities. Had George W. Bush been President in 1962, there would have been no negotiation, no litmus test, no exercising of patience, and no diplomacy. Nuclear war would have taken place based on the actions President Bush made in the buildup to the war in Iraq. History would have been completely different. Kennedy exercised patience while evidence was built to show the world exactly what the communists were doing. By providing justification to the United Nations and working the diplomatic back channels, coupled with a strong naval blockade of Cuba and incredibly strong rhetoric by the U.S. Commander-in-Chief directed toward the Soviet Republic, World War III was averted.
A global test is nothing to make fun of. Instead, it is something to be proud of. As the lone remaining super power in the world we have a moral obligation to not only lead
by example, but as we hold other nations accountable for their action, we too must be held accountable. We cannot disband alliances that were held together for generations to act militarily on hunches and gut feelings against other sovereign nations. Alliances are the key to defeating terrorism. We cannot go it alone or arm twist nations to join an alliance under the pretext that we know what is best for the world. No one, not even Senator Kerry, disagrees that Saddam was a horrible dictator that deserved his own personal place in hell. But it does not dismiss the fact that the Iraq war was a diversion from the real war on terror and the campaign to capture or destroy members of Al-Qaeda, including Osama bin Laden himself. There is something to be said for a president who asks the right questions, creates thought provoking debate, exercises patience, and pounds his chest as if to dare a country to test the will of the American people. This constitutes passing a global test. This particular test served one former senator from Massachusetts well and saved the world from a catastrophic disaster. If given the opportunity, John F. Kerry can restore the faith the world has lost in American leadership and morality. Had George W. Bush been the Commander-in-Chief in 1962, history would have told a completely different story.
CNN.com - Bush cousins launch pro-Kerry Web site - Oct 25, 2004
An interesting story about some of president Bush's cousins who have setup a pro Kerry website. They were quoted saying that they dont agree with many of his policies from things like the enviroment and the war in Iraq.
The website is http://www.bushrelativesforkerry.com enjoy!
President Bush, you are responsible
"Secretary Rumsfeld and President Bush, you are responsible"
An open letter from the wife of a soldier who lost his leg in Iraq.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Oct. 13, 2004 | Dear President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld,
My husband, David Pettigrew, lost his right leg in Iraq on July 7, 2003. During a night patrol with his unit in the Army's 4th Infantry Division, an RPG round struck his Bradley fighting vehicle. The armor-penetrating round -- which, according to faulty U.S. intelligence, the enemy wasn't even supposed to have -- tore straight through his leg and lodged in the opposite wall of the vehicle.
The next two months of my life were spent at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, at my husband's side in Ward 57. We were in the same room where Pvt. Jessica Lynch had gotten some treatment.
I knew what would follow when our troops went to invade Iraq. I knew that the facts did not add up, but my husband went to do his duty, even though he believed in no reason for going other than to fulfill his oath to follow the orders of his commanders. I have a degree in political science. I am the daughter of an Air Force officer. I knew the ramifications of occupying a hostile foreign country. I simply do not understand how the two of you, our president and commander in chief and our secretary of defense, did not have the same information that I had. Now, Iraq is a mess.
Secretary Rumsfeld, my husband and I met you at Walter Reed. You asked my husband only three questions and asked none of me. It wasn't even a conversation. You wanted to know how David got hurt, whether anyone else was hurt with him, and whether his unit got the guys that did it. You did not ask if David needed anything or if there was anything that you could do to help. Both Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, and Anthony J. Principi, the secretary of veterans affairs, gave David their cards and instructed him to call if there was anything he needed and was not getting. But you were simply speechless. You were in a hurry. It seemed like you almost didn't care. It seemed like you only wanted to know whether the military forces were being efficient.
My husband David is a very friendly person and a very good speaker. Even if he felt any kind of hard feeling toward you then, Secretary Rumsfeld, he didn't show it. But it was a very off-putting encounter, and I know he was somewhat out of sorts about it. Everyone else he's talked to about what happened to him has asked all sorts of follow-up questions because it was remarkable that he didn't die. They gave him 13 pints of blood between when he got hurt and when he was evacuated to the field hospital -- that's an incredible amount of blood to lose in 40 minutes.
I'm not sure the American public understands that our soldiers are being maimed over there. People hear about our soldiers being wounded, but they're being maimed: They've lost an eye or an arm or a leg. David and I couldn't feel sorry for ourselves over David's injury -- because the guy in the room next to him in the ICU had lost both legs and arms and was permanently blinded.
Under the military way of life and thought, a commander is responsible for errors that occur under his command whether he knew about them or not. Secretary Rumsfeld and President Bush, you are responsible for the inaccurate intelligence assessments, inadequate troop strength, Iraqi prisoner abuses, inadequate logistical support for U.S. forces, and fraudulent contracting billing for the Iraq reconstruction. And you should care about every combat death or injury that occurs.
Your behavior has been inexcusable. You have been dishonest about the support the troops weren't getting and about what's happening on the ground in Iraq. I only have one vote. And my husband, David, is so disheartened that he feels his vote will not even matter. He has no faith left in our current government. I want all those who voted for you, President Bush, or who failed to vote, to realize that your actions led to my husband's terrible injury, as well as those of all the dutiful men and women who fulfilled your demands and have been maimed or killed in Iraq as a result of the administration's miscalculations and poor judgment.
I ask anyone else reading this who wants to know how the military community feels about this administration to take my words to heart. There is a reason why many lieutenants in the 4th Infantry Division have resigned their commissions. Many of them got out; they wanted no part of it. I'm sorry, but if soldiers think they're doing the right thing, carrying out a mission that's valuable and necessary, they don't leave. They go back and serve their second tour.
Polls in Colorado, my state, open on Oct. 18. I hope Americans don't wait until Nov. 2. I hope they vote early and often -- in every election. I hope all Americans exercise their responsibility and their right to hold you, Mr. President and Secretary Rumsfeld, accountable for your actions and the events that have resulted.
-- Ann Pettigrew, Colorado
Equal Pay for Equal Work
It's a known fact that women get less pay than men do in most jobs for the same amount of work. Why is that.
Most companies frown on employees talking about wages between eachother. In fact most managers are uncomfortable talking pay with the employees they manage. Some companies have threatened retribution to employees who have attempted to solicit information from their peers.
Myth: It's improper to discuss wages between employees.
Fact: This is one of those corporate atmosphere attitudes that management tend to let sit over employees so they're not inclined to discuss it. Yes if someone said it's none of your business then that's that. However some employees would be more than happy to discuss it.
Myth: Your company could fire you for discussing wages with other workers.
Fact: It's freedom of speech my friend. If they fire you for such a thing you can just get about any civil rights lawyer to get you a early retirement. Dont be dissuaded by others saying it's illegal or you can be fired. It's this exact line of thinking that has let the situation get as bad as it is now.
I once mentioned that I expected to make 25 dollars a hour at my new position and several of my coworkers, some who had been there less time I had been popped off with "You're not making that already" however when I confronted my boss he said I'm right where I should be. Should I believe him?
So if people want equal pay then you need to break the "dont talk about it" stigma and get people talking about it. If your bosses try to say you cant talk about it theen say it would be a violation of your free speech rights and go about your business. And if you know you're getting paid less for the same work I have two words for you Lawsuit. If you know for a fact that someone is getting paid more and be sure of this then a judge can force your employer to produce pay records which I'm sure would be very embarassing.
Not doing these things and you'll have to wait until 2050 to get equal pay.
Still Undecided Read This
Many are probably undecided about the election. If you are I ask that you read this article about Bush and the man he is. You may have to enter a username and password notregistered99/notregistered. I ask that you read the article and learn about this man you may have elected to office 4 years ago. Certain religious types may see it as proof that Bush is the man they want in office. It is also my belief that other religious types may see it as someone they dont want in office. But to everyone I would like to remind them of JonesTown and people like David Koresh. Two groups and both with individuals who claimed to be the devine messenger of God.
It's good to have a religious person in office. However it's not good to have one that refuses to be questioned becuase he either believes God told him to do it or that he's doing it in the faith of serving god. God may have been trying to tell Bush to not attack Iraq through other advisers but these are the same people he now ignores. Much in the same way as the story of the man on top of a house that was flooded and was in danger of drowning. God sends 3 boats to save him and he refuses all three becuase he said god will save him and he eventually drowns. Only to find out later when he asked God about it is told about the 3 boats he's sent. How many more boats will Bush ignore in office if he's elected to a second term?
Please pass this on to as many you feel like.
Bush: Can I have some more
Ever read Oliver North? Bush really seemed to be asking for some more in this debate. And did anyone notice the spittle on his right side of his mouth. Yuck.
Either way Mr Bush has shown us he has no answers for Americans. His response to joe jobless after he lost his job from foreign competition is basically get an education. I happen to be married to jane jobless at least in the sense is that she got that education and cannot find a job in her educated field. So she continues to work her part time job after the investment from her family over 5 years to pay for her college. Get a education? If that's the kind of answers we can expect it scares me if Bush wins.
What about flu shots. Bush could barely come up with an answer to the problem. He quoted Britian like they were some 3rd world country. Then he says "were trying to see what Canada can provide. Is this not the same president who sat back and said that he does not trust the safety of Canidan drugs.
Mr Bush has the weakest arguement for government ran healthcare. Kuiwait a country that we paid billions of dollars to free from Iraq in 1990 and billions of dollars protecting to this day provides government healthcare to it's citizens for FREE. If they cannot care for your particular situation they will fly you to the nearest Mayo Clinic fully funded room, board, and transportation. Not to mention paying for that health care. Mayo Clinic's are basically the Club Med of international health care facilities. Take those billions of dollars we paid to protect them and we could of covered expanding our healthcare. Instead this country still does not have a adequate military to protect itself and will depend on the benevolence of it's neighbors for a long time yet.
Mr Bush weak on domestic issues, weak on security, weak period. We cannot afford him, the world cannot afford him. And if Bush wants to throw one of Kerry's catchphrases at him then here's back at ya. We cannot afford more of the same from Bush.
Bush Lies on Petroleum Reserve
Once again there's another loan coming out of the strategic petroleum reserve going to quell the prices of oil again. This marks the 2nd time in 2 weeks that the Bush administration has gone back on their word not to use the SPR to stem oil prices. And with a little more than 2 weeks to go until the elections we may see even more oil flow from the SPR. In 30 years no refinery in the United States has been built. Oil companies claim newer facilities could use the heavier oil to product gas and heating oils for the country but after pocketing profit over all these years they'd take a hit in the pocket book for building it and lower gas prices that would come from the surplus. Of course it's far more likely they will shut down a older plant to keep the status quo with supply problems. This is also a huge national security risk. If terrorists were able to destroy a refinery the economic impact will be huge. It does not matter how much oil Saudi Arabia pours into the market if we cant refine it it's worthless to us. You would think Bush would of thought of that as part of protecting the nation. However the lobbyists that are in his pocket have once again pulled the strings on their puppet to keep the money in their pockets.
Kerry's plan to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources is the plan America needs to protect our economy in case of another oil embargo, foreign terrorism and other unforseen problems such as a major supplier running dry. Bush's plan is to flounder in the most critical areas of world oil production creating a sphere of unstability and uncertanity where production is threatened and prices rise. Vote for Kerry and Edwards and help secure our country and bring sense to national energy production.
Sinclair's Illegal Soft Money Donation
Everyone's allowed their own opinion. But does anyone think it's right for the largest broadcast station owner in the US to force their opinion on Americans during prime time commercial free? To me this is a multimillion softmoney donation in the most illegal sense. Read this CNN Money story to learn more. I'm a former soldier and I have many relatives that are vietnam veterans. Some of them are even republican and they dont appreciate what groups like swift vets for truth have said about Kerry. The only remedy past someone getting a injunction in court against the Sinclair broadcast group is telling your friends and family to watch something else.
The Bush Campaign is once again twisting the words of John Kerry. This time they're trying to make Kerry seem to have called Terrorism a nusiance when Kerry really said that he wants to get terrorism from being a central problem in our lives down to the level of a nusiance.
Once again Bush's cronies want to deceive Americans and instead of telling them the truth they tell them what they want them to perceive as the truth.
I ask anyone to go read the article in question it's on the New York Times website although I have trouble finding it. The current article about what the Bush campaign is going to do can be found >here.
Debate Winner: Kerry
The turnout of the debate is not surprising. Kerry was calm and poised and appeared respectful and presidential. Bush smirked, rolled his eyes, and did any manner of things that showed he does not have the respect to listen to Kerry. If our president cant listen to those who do not agree with him imagine how he treats foreign leaders who disagree with him. Bush also sounded like a broken record and many times he seemed at a loss for words to explain his positions. Bush wants to call Kerry the flip flopper, yet every time someone in the Bush administration says anything the next day we end up with something to the effect of "That's not what he meant, this is what he meant to say" so who's the bigger waffler? Kerry changing his mind is not a bad thing, it shows that he has the ability to reassess the situation and adapt to changing conditions to solve a complex problem. Bush however will hammer at the problem reguardless if his solution is working or not. If it does not work all we get are excuses and spin that it did work.
Some people say that's one of their biggest problems with Kerry is that he changes his mind. Kerry voted for use of force in Iraq, yet he voted against the 87b bill in the Sentate. He did not vote against our troops, he voted against provisions in the bill he and other party members including republicans that did not meet the needs of the mission or funded or extended the scope of things people disagree with such as the patriot act. It may have even been something as simple as the bill not containing provision to give the soldiers a pay raise which any soldiers need. Either way this means nothing about Kerry's support for troops.
Some complain that Kerry supports bilateral talks with North Korea vs including China, Japan, and a few others. Kerry can have bilateral talks which coincidentally North Korea wants and yet Bush ignores. You can still include other parties later but if you have a chance to bring the North Koreans to the table to talk you use it. You don't make demands that X party be there also. You work with them and get what issues you can worked out, and work the other countries into the talks at the appropriate time. Otherwise you're not talking to North Korea at all which is the case today.
Either way, Bush has failed in Afganistan on the war on terror, he's created a playground for terrorists that has the chance to become Americas Gaza Strip or worse a flashpoint for a larger conflict in the middle east. What happens when Bush gets tired of Iranian diplomacy? Iran's military is larger and more modern than Iraq's military is and they have the same or more capabilities than Iraq did. Bush failed in driving our longest allies away and who now still refuse to help in Iraq while Bush is running things there vs the help they will give if the UN was taking care of things. He's failed the middle class and the poor by giving the biggest tax cuts to the top 1% of taxpayers. And he's failed the world in taking the United States from being a country that went to war as a option for last resort to war as a final resort to war if our president wants it.
Bush: Wrong for Americans.
