Whistle Ass / George Bush 2004

THE Teacher's Candidate: Wesley K. Clark, unlike George W. Bush, Vows to Fully Fund$ "No Child Left Behind" Program

Clark Speech given in Lebanon, TN February 5, 2004> "...Rob Hosier and I were on the swim team together, and now he teaches high school. It's wonderful to be here this morning in Lebanon. You know, I went to high school here for a year when I was growing up, and being here brings back a lot of good memories. Yesterday, we spent the day traveling around the state of Tennessee. We started the morning with pancakes at a diner in Memphis, and ended the day talking to college students in Knoxville at Tennessee State. And everywhere I went, one thing was clear: the American people don't want another four years of George W. Bush. And they don't want another four years of politics as usual. The American people don't want another Washington insider, who never plays it straight. They don't want a follower who makes decisions by sticking his thumb in the wind. They want a real leader, not another conventional politician. They want someone who will stand up for them, not look out for themselves. The bottom line: they want a higher standard of leadership. They want a leader who will stand up to President Bush and stand up for America's families. Someone who will stand up for the 8 million Americans out of work. Someone who will stand up to runaway deficits. Someone who will stand up for the 44 million Americans without health care. That's why I'm running for president. I'm part of the solution, not part of the problem. I'm not just another insider. I spent my life in the military, acting and doing - not in the halls of Congress talking and debating. I am not a career politician. I decided to run for the presidency because I was concerned about the direction of our country. I felt that George W. Bush and the politicians in Washington had not stood up for the interests of the American people - but for the special interests and their own political interests. I am the underdog in this race. But I've been lucky to receive the support of ordinary people across America. And I'll tell you what: I will call it like I see it and let the chips fall where they may. I will never forget where I come from and who I am fighting for. I'm not a politician. I want to change how Washington, DC works. One of my opponents, Senator John Kerry, recently said that we need someone with Washington experience in the White House - as if only insiders understand how things work in Washington. Maybe the Senator is right. Maybe I don't agree with the ways of Washington insiders. I believe the White House still belongs to the American people -- not to special interest groups and slick deal cutters in smoke-filled rooms. I don't believe Washington politicians should say one thing and then do another. This is politics as usual - and not the type of leadership we need to stand up to George W. Bush and the Republicans in Congress Senator John Kerry and Senator John Edwards are good men, and I've enjoyed getting to know them. Their hearts are in the right place. But they are Washington, DC insiders. They've spent months on the campaign trail criticizing George W. Bush and his reckless policies, when, in the 107th Congress, both men voted with the President almost 70 percent of the time. Now, I'm no politician, but that doesn't seem to add up. I don't believe you can have it both ways. I don't think you can stand with Bush one day and than against him once you decide to run for president. You can't support someone when it's convenient and then distance yourself when it's to your benefit. That's exactly the kind of Washington politics as usual that we need to change. This morning, I want to talk about one example of that hypocrisy. One example of how my opponents supported the President's agenda when it was the popular thing to do, but have now reversed their position because they're running for office. That's the No Child Left Behind Act. The No Child Left Behind Act has been just that - an act. It's nothing but an unfunded mandate that sets standards for our schools, but doesn't provide the funding they need to meet them. Instead, it traps our schools in an endless cycle of testing and punishment, and our children pay the price. Listening to Rob makes that point even clearer. Just look at what's happening right here in Tennessee. Next year, this state is going to receive $114 million less than it needs to meet the standards in No Child Left Behind. As a result, more than 120,000 children won't have smaller classes. More than 15,000 won't have pre-school. More than 15,000 teachers won't be certified. And altogether, nearly half the schools in this state could face sanctions for failing to meet the Act. The No Child Left Behind Act has done nothing but leave America's children behind. Yet, two years ago, both Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards voted for the legislation. In fact, after he voted for it, John Kerry said the bill was "welcome news to reformers." Edwards hailed the legislation, claiming it "maintains states' commitment to high achievement for all students." Two years later, Kerry has conveniently changed his tune. Now, his campaign is criticizing President Bush for failing on education and for signing the No Child Left Behind Act, saying, "George Bush has undermined public education and left millions of children behind." Following suit, John Edwards said of the bill he had voted for, "We're going to stop the damage being done by No Child Left Behind every day in our public schools." "Stop the damage"? "Undermined public education"? Those are pretty strong statements coming from two Senators who voted for the President's legislation. When I'm President, I will bring real leadership back to Washington. A higher standard of leadership. One that always put the nation's interests above the special interests. One that holds its leaders accountable, and champions open, honest government. Leadership that will always put the future of our children first. As President, we'll put our children at the top of the list, not at the bottom where they've been stuck under George W. Bush. Our children's education is simply too important. That's why we're going to fully fund No Child Left Behind. But first, we're going to fix it, so that it helps, not hurts our public schools. We'll do that by tearing up the current testing rules. And we'll replace them with a new accountability system that's focused on helping children learn, not punishing them - a system that measures our schools and our children by more than just test results. Finally, we'll make real investments in hiring, training and retaining our teachers. Because teachers like Rob are the most important leaders in America, and it's high time we started treating them that way. So that's what I'll do as President. No games. No politics. No double talk. Because I believe leaders should say what they're going to do, and then stick by it. And that's exactly what I'll do. Thank you, and I'll be glad to take your questions." http://www.clark04.com/speeches/041/

kerry beats bush in current polls

though still early in the dem primary season - kerry beats bush in polls, the only candidate to do so.

http://www.pollingreport.com/
he beats bush head to head, a lifetime of dedicated public service and an endorsement from the league of conservation voters www.lcv.org is enough for this member of the whistleass crew to back Kerry at this stage of the game. i still like edwards and dean as well - and of course our man kuncinich. it's all about getting the most destructive, arrogant, lieing, manipulative (manipulated) friend of the rich out of office.

I’ll Be Voting For Wesley Clark: Good-Bye Mr. Bush

Published on Wednesday, January 14, 2004
by Michael Moore
 
Many of you have written to me in the past months asking, "Who are you going to vote for this year?"

I have decided to cast my vote in the primary for Wesley Clark. That's right, a peacenik is voting for a general. What a country!

I believe that Wesley Clark will end this war. He will make the rich pay their fair share of taxes. He will stand up for the rights of women, African Americans, and the working people of this country.

And he will cream George W. Bush.

I have met Clark and spoken to him on a number of occasions, feeling him out on the issues but, more importantly, getting a sense of him as a human being. And I have to tell you I have found him to be the real deal, someone whom I'm convinced all of you would like, both as a person and as the individual leading this country. He is an honest, decent, honorable man who would be a breath of fresh air in the White House. He is clearly not a professional politician. He is clearly not from Park Avenue. And he is clearly the absolute best hope we have of defeating George W. Bush.

This is not to say the other candidates won't be able to beat Bush, and I will work enthusiastically for any of the non-Lieberman 8 who might get the nomination. But I must tell you, after completing my recent 43-city tour of this country, I came to the conclusion that Clark has the best chance of beating Bush. He is going to inspire the independents and the undecided to come our way. The hard core (like us) already have their minds made up. It's the fence sitters who will decide this election.

The decision in November is going to come down to 15 states and just a few percentage points. So, I had to ask myself -- and I want you to honestly ask yourselves -- who has the BEST chance of winning Florida, West Virginia, Arizona, Nevada, Missouri, Ohio? Because THAT is the only thing that is going to matter in the end. You know the answer -- and it ain't you or me or our good internet doctor.

This is not about voting for who is more anti-war or who was anti-war first or who the media has already anointed. It is about backing a candidate that shares our values AND can communicate them to Middle America. I am convinced that the surest slam dunk to remove Bush is with a four-star-general-top-of-his-class-at-West-Point-Rhodes-Scholar-Medal-of-Freedom-winning-gun-owner-from-the-South -- who also, by chance, happens to be pro-choice, pro environment, and anti-war. You don't get handed a gift like this very often. I hope the liberal/left is wise enough to accept it. It's hard, when you're so used to losing, to think that this time you can actually win. It is Clark who stands the best chance -- maybe the only chance -- to win those Southern and Midwestern states that we MUST win in order to accomplish Bush Removal. And if what I have just said is true, then we have no choice but to get behind the one who can make this happen.

There are times to vote to make a statement, there are times to vote for the underdog and there are times to vote to save the country from catastrophe. This time we can and must do all three. I still believe that each one of us must vote his or her heart and conscience. If we fail to do that, we will continue to be stuck with spineless politicians who stand for nothing and no one (except those who write them the biggest checks).

My vote for Clark is one of conscience. I feel so strongly about this that I'm going to devote the next few weeks of my life to do everything I can to help Wesley Clark win. I would love it if you would join me on this mission.

Here are just a few of the reasons why I feel this way about Wes Clark:

1. Clark has committed to ensuring that every family of four who makes under $50,000 a year pays NO federal income tax. None. Zip. This is the most incredible helping hand offered by a major party presidential candidate to the working class and the working poor in my lifetime. He will make up the difference by socking it to the rich with a 5% tax increase on anything they make over a million bucks. He will make sure corporations pay ALL of the taxes they should be paying. Clark has fired a broadside at greed. When the New York Times last week wrote that Wes Clark has been “positioning himself slightly to Dean’s left," this is what they meant, and it sure sounded good to me.

2. He is 100% opposed to the draft. If you are 18-25 years old and reading this right now, I have news for you -- if Bush wins, he's going to bring back the draft. He will be forced to. Because, thanks to his crazy war, recruitment is going to be at an all-time low. And many of the troops stuck over there are NOT going to re-enlist. The only way Bush is going to be able to staff the military is to draft you and your friends. Parents, make no mistake about it -- Bush's second term will see your sons taken from you and sent to fight wars for the oily rich. Only an ex-general who knows first-hand that a draft is a sure-fire way to wreck an army will be able to avert the inevitable.

3. He is anti-war. Have you heard his latest attacks on Bush over the Iraq War? They are stunning and brilliant. I want to see him on that stage in a debate with Bush -- the General vs. the Deserter! General Clark told me that it's people like him who are truly anti-war because it's people like him who have to die if there is a war. "War must be the absolute last resort," he told me. "Once you've seen young people die, you never want to see that again, and you want to avoid it whenever and wherever possible." I believe him. And my ex-Army relatives believe him, too. It's their votes we need.

4. He walks the walk. On issues like racism, he just doesn't mouth liberal platitudes -- he does something about it. On his own volition, he joined in and filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the University of Michigan's case in favor of affirmative action. He spoke about his own insistence on affirmative action in the Army and how giving a hand to those who have traditionally been shut out has made our society a better place. He didn't have to get involved in that struggle. He's a middle-aged white guy -- affirmative action personally does him no good. But that is not the way he thinks. He grew up in Little Rock, one of the birthplaces of the civil rights movement, and he knows that African Americans still occupy the lowest rungs of the ladder in a country where everyone is supposed to have "a chance." That is why he has been endorsed by one of the founding members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Charlie Rangel, and former Atlanta Mayor and aide to Martin Luther King, Jr., Andrew Young.

5. On the issue of gun control, this hunter and gun owner will close the gun show loophole (which would have helped prevent the massacre at Columbine) and he will sign into law a bill to create a federal ballistics fingerprinting database for every gun in America (the DC sniper, who bought his rifle in his own name, would have been identified after the FIRST day of his killing spree). He is not afraid, as many Democrats are, of the NRA. His message to them: "You like to fire assault weapons? I have a place for you. It's not in the homes and streets of America. It's called the Army, and you can join any time!"

6. He will gut and overhaul the Patriot Act and restore our constitutional rights to privacy and free speech. He will demand stronger environmental laws. He will insist that trade agreements do not cost Americans their jobs and do not exploit the workers or environment of third world countries. He will expand the Family Leave Act. He will guarantee universal pre-school throughout America. He opposes all discrimination against gays and lesbians (and he opposes the constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage). All of this is why Time magazine this week referred to Clark as "Dean 2.0" -- an improvement over the original (1.0, Dean himself), a better version of a good thing: stronger, faster, and easier for the mainstream to understand and use.

7. He will cut the Pentagon budget, use the money thus saved for education and health care, and he will STILL make us safer than we are now. Only the former commander of NATO could get away with such a statement. Dean says he will not cut a dime out of the Pentagon. Clark knows where the waste and the boondoggles are and he knows that nutty ideas like Star Wars must be put to pasture. His health plan will cover at least 30 million people who now have no coverage at all, including 13 million children. He's a general who will tell those swing voters, "We can take this Pentagon waste and put it to good use to fix that school in your neighborhood." My friends, those words, coming from the mouth of General Clark, are going to turn this country around.

Now, before those of you who are Dean or Kucinich supporters start cloggin' my box with emails tearing Clark down with some of the stuff I've seen floating around the web ("Mike! He voted for Reagan! He bombed Kosovo!"), let me respond by pointing out that Dennis Kucinich refused to vote against the war resolution in Congress on March 21 (two days after the war started) which stated "unequivocal support" for Bush and the war (only 11 Democrats voted against this--Dennis abstained). Or, need I quote Dr. Dean who, the month after Bush "won" the election, said he wasn't too worried about Bush because Bush "in his soul, is a moderate"? What's the point of this ridiculous tit-for-tat sniping? I applaud Dennis for all his other stands against the war, and I am certain Howard no longer believes we have nothing to fear about Bush. They are good people.

Why expend energy on the past when we have such grave danger facing us in the present and in the near future? I don't feel bad nor do I care that Clark -- or anyone -- voted for Reagan over 20 years ago. Let's face it, the vast majority of Americans voted for Reagan -- and I want every single one of them to be WELCOMED into our tent this year. The message to these voters -- and many of them are from the working class -- should not be, "You voted for Reagan? Well, to hell with you!" Every time you attack Clark for that, that is the message you are sending to all the people who at one time liked Reagan. If they have now changed their minds (just as Kucinich has done by going from anti-choice to pro-choice, and Dean has done by wanting to cut Medicare to now not wanting to cut it) – and if Clark has become a liberal Democrat, is that not something to cheer?

In fact, having made that political journey and metamorphosis, is he not the best candidate to bring millions of other former Reagan supporters to our side -- blue collar people who have now learned the hard way just how bad Reagan and the Republicans were (and are) for them?

We need to take that big DO NOT ENTER sign off our tent and reach out to the vast majority who have been snookered by these right-wingers. And we have a better chance of winning in November with one of their own leading them to the promised land.

There is much more to discuss and, in the days and weeks ahead, I will continue to send you my thoughts. In the coming months, I will also be initiating a number of efforts on my website to make sure we get out the vote for the Democratic nominee in November.

In addition to voting for Wesley Clark, I will also be spending part of my Bush tax cut to help him out. You can join me, if you like, by going to his website to learn more about him, to volunteer, or to donate. To find out about when your state’s presidential primaries are, visit Vote Smart.

I strongly urge you to vote for Wes Clark. Let's join together to ensure that we are putting forth our BEST chance to defeat Bush on the November ballot. It is, at this point, for the sake of the world, a moral imperative.

Yours,

Michael Moore

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0116-12.htm

Wesley Wes Clark Releases Financial Data & Challenges Others to do Likewise

By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer

MANCHESTER, N.H. - Wesley Clark (news - web sites) on Friday challenged his rivals for the Democratic nomination for president to join him in releasing financial and other personal records, a clear prod at Howard Dean (news - web sites).

"I challenge all Democrats in the race to follow suit," Clark told a news conference as he released military, voter registration and financial records. "Everybody ought to be open about what they've done in public office."

Clark, along with several other candidates, has criticized Dean for not opening all of his records as Vermont governor.

Clark also urged President Bush (news - web sites) to reverse policies the retired general contended have shut out citizens from government. He charged that Bush had run "the most closed administration" since President Nixon.

Clark called on Bush to stop hiding documents through classification extension and rollbacks of the Freedom of Information Act and to cooperate with investigations into the Sept. 11 terror attacks and the administration's secret energy task force.

"It's time President Bush played it straight with the American people," he said. "President Bush has shut the people out of government and told them they have no right to know what he says to special interests in the Oval Office. As president, my administration will be an open book."

Clark said he would establish an "openness doctrine" that would restrict the assertion of executive privilege, eliminate secret task forces, disclose all meetings with special interests, require lobbyists to reveal more, and use the Internet to make government transparent.

Clark made personal records available to the public at a Manchester hotel and on his campaign Internet site. His tax records, which were reported by The Associated Press in December and released to the news media Friday, showed his income rising from $92,673 in 1998 to $1.6 million in 2002.

Speaking fees and serving as a military analyst for CNN provided Clark more than $1 million in income in 2002. He received $25,000 to $30,000 per appearance in speaking fees. As a military analyst, commenting mostly on the conflict with Iraq (news - web sites), he earned between $10,000 and $38,000 a month from CNN.

Clark's income places him in the group he believes should lose tax cuts instituted by President Bush, families with incomes over $200,000 a year. Under the Clark tax program, families with incomes of $50,000 or less would pay no taxes.

Clark has been gaining ground in polls for the Jan. 27 New Hampshire primary, narrowing the gap with front-runner Howard Dean. The retired general said increasing criticism from Dean and other Democratic rivals, and from Republicans, reflects the tightening race.

"I'm Karl Rove's biggest nightmare," Clark asserted Thursday night at a town-hall meeting, referring to Bush's chief political strategist. Clark portrays himself as the most electable of the eight Democrats seeking to limit Bush to one term.

Earlier Thursday, at a news conference in Manchester, Clark said it was up to Congress to determine whether Bush's march to war in Iraq amounted to a criminal offense.

"I think that's a question Congress needs to ask. I think this Congress needs to investigate precisely" how the United States wound up in a war "that wasn't connected to the threat of al-Qaida," he said.

Clark defended his comments against the war after both his Democratic rivals and top Republicans complained that the statements were inconsistent with past remarks, including testimony to Congress in 2002.

Republican National Committee (news - web sites) Chairman Ed Gillespie criticized Democratic candidates Thursday in Arkansas, Clark's home state. He singled out Clark, contending that he had changed his position on the war for political gain.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=694&u=/ap/20040116/ap_on_el_pr/clark_12&printer=1

Clark vows to refocus NATO, crush Qaeda

January 16, 2004
Reuters

CONCORD: Retired general and US Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark on Wednesday promised to refocus the NATO alliance on a counterterrorism role and form an elite international strike force to “stomp out” Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network.

Clark, a former NATO supreme commander, has bitterly criticised President George W Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq as a distraction from the core task of protecting America from terrorist attacks.

“Like many Americans, I’ve lost faith in our commander-in-chief,” Clark told a campaign event in New Hampshire, where he has been gaining strength in recent polls. “He has failed to lead effectively and honestly and, every day, Americans live at risk because of his failures.”

Clark said the fight against Al Qaeda should not be seen primarily as a military operation, but rather as an ongoing effort to mobilise broad international cooperation to deny it safe havens and public and material support. To that end, he proposed broadening NATO’s scope to become more than a military alliance, making it an instrument for member nations to harmonise anti-terrorist laws, share intelligence and law enforcement resources and reach out to the Islamic world — particularly Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Central to the plan, he said, would be the creation of a joint counterterrorism strike force grouping elite special forces troops from the United States and its NATO partners, as well as key Arab allies and other pivotal nations — like South Africa, Singapore and the Philippines — in troubled regions. That level of international cooperation should help to overcome the reluctance of some governments to allow anti-terrorist operations that primarily involved American forces on their territory, Clark said.

“The number one mission of the Combined Joint Counter-Terrorism Strike Force is to go after Al Qaeda, to seek them out and capture and destroy the networks, the operatives and their associates,” he said.

Clark said Pakistan, where many believe bin Laden and his top aides are hiding in the lawless areas near the border with Afghanistan, was now the key to the fight against the group.

“We must present President Musharraf of Pakistan with a clear choice. Either work with America and the civilised world to defeat Al Qaeda and stop the proliferation of nuclear technology — or become another outlaw nation,” he said.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_16-1-2004_pg4_8

Madonna supports Wesley Clark for President of the United States of America

Madonna Urges Others to Support Clark; 'Future is At Risk'
Wed Jan 07 2004 23:59:59 ET
I've never done this before. But life is about taking risks is it not?
I know that people seem to pay attention to everything I do. Big or Small. Ridiculous or Sublime. So I am hoping they pay attention to this:
I am supporting General Wesley Clark for President.
Not only as a "celebrity" but as an American citizen and as a mother. I want my children to grow up with the same opportunities that I had ‹ to know and understand what's going on in the world and to travel that world safely and with pride.
Now I'm asking you to join me.
I am writing to you because the future I wish for my children is at risk.
Our greatest risk is not terrorism and it's not Iraq or the "Axis of Evil." Our greatest risk is a lack of leadership, a lack of honesty and a complete lack of consciousness. Unfortunately our current government cannot see the big picture. They think too small. They suffer from the "what's in it for me?" syndrome. The simple truth is that the current administration has squandered incredible opportunities to bring the world together, to promote peace in regions that have only known war, to encourage health in places that are ravaged with disease, to make us more secure by living up to our principles at home and abroad. The simple truth is that the policies of our current administration do not reflect what is great about America.
Thankfully, there is now a candidate running for President who is committed to ensuring that our country lives up to its promise and its people. He is a decorated soldier and a respected diplomatic leader, who has already given 34 years to his country. He is smart and he is good. He has worked hard to get where he is and he is a national hero.
A perfect example of the American Dream.
I've never aligned myself with a presidential candidate during the primary season. But this time, the stakes are too high, we have too much to lose and there is so much work to be done.
I'm supporting General Wesley Clark in 2004 and have committed to do all that I can to help his campaign in the coming months. I ask you to visit his website today to learn about his candidacy, his vision for our nation and the many ways you can get involved.
I've looked at all the Democratic candidates. I respect them all for their dedication and patriotism. But I'm supporting Wes Clark because in him I see the qualifications, character and vision that we so desperately need.
We are a country with incredible promise. As Americans we enjoy opportunities like no other. Unfortunately we take these opportunities for granted. You may not agree with everything I say or do, but whether you're rich or poor, young or old, black or white, gay or straight, I know you share my concern and recognize the need for change.
Even if you've never been involved with politics before, please consider joining with me. If you can give, give generously. If you can volunteer time, get involved now. And if you can vote, this time... make sure you do.
Wesley Clark has asked for my support and now I'm asking for yours
Madonna
PS: Please spread this message to everyone you know.

"Saddam Capture won't make America safer": Howard Dean was so correct when he said that

Ace in the Hole
by Geov Parrish

  HOWARD DEAN WAS right, and his Democratic presidential opponents were crassly wrong for criticizing him, when he said that the capture of Saddam Hussein won't make America safer.

Dean was the spoiler of the party punch on Sunday, Dec. 14, and bully for him. Imagine any leading Democrat questioning Our Fearless Leader a year ago at such a moment of administration glory. They would have been lining up obsequiously, praising not only Saddam's capture but the policies that led to it.

Instead, we have Dean, who is hardly the most radical voice in his party: U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Seattle, for one, publicly questioned the timing of Saddam's capture, essentially suggesting it was a poll-grabbing stunt. One needn't be so cynical to have plenty of concern as to what happens next—both to Saddam and to his American captors.

First, Saddam. The Bush administration is planning to turn him over to the "Iraqi people" for a show trial. What else could it be, when every decision thus far of "the Iraqi people" has been made by the same Americans who, for a dozen years, even and especially after 9/11, have turned Saddam into Public Evildoer No. 1; who have seized complete military control of Iraq's judicial system; and whose limited nods toward self-government have included only carefully vetted Iraqi exiles and the like?

THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY now has a procedure in place for international trials of war criminals like Saddam. The United States, under Presidents Clinton and Bush, has refused to honor it, concerned that a truly impartial process might target American foreign policy and its leaders.

It's easy to understand why. "The American Century" was also, not coincidentally, the bloodiest century in human history. Among its genocidal names, most recently we have Slobodan Milosevic, whisked off to a show trial of the NATO variety. His defense—involvement with a tawdry list of American and European administrations, arms financiers, and corporations that sold to and winked at the Serb butcher—was largely absent from U.S. media coverage.

There is Augusto Pinochet, the Chilean dictator, installed in a 1973 coup backed by President Nixon, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the CIA, and the Anaconda Chile mining company, then detained in the late 1990s by Spanish and British judges until "poor health" and heavy American diplomatic pressure arranged for his return to Chile, exempt from trial.

There is Efrain Ríos Montt, the general who led a President Reagan-backed 1981 military coup to "restore democracy" to Guatemala. Instead, during only 16 months of power, Montt delivered 70,000 indigenous corpses. While 440 Mayan villages and their inhabitants were being systematically eradicated, Reagan was signing a 1982 waiver allowing continued arms sales, insisting that Montt was being given a "bum rap" and was "totally dedicated to democracy." Today, instead of being in jail, Montt is president of the Guatemala Congress and recently placed third in a presidential bid. Because he retires from Congress next month, the 65-year-old will lose diplomatic immunity against two pending accusations of war crimes. Will the Bush administration pursue him with anything approaching the zeal of its Saddam hunt?

It's a safe bet not. The people who aided Montt—and the equally murderous 1980s death squads in El Salvador, and death squads from that era until today in Colombia—now pepper Bush's foreign-policy establishment. One of them, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, also helped seal the 1988 deal that sent military aid to Saddam Hussein, even as reports of the gas attacks emerged.

And so the bodies pile up, in Africa, in Southeast Asia. Despots now rule Muslim countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan, with even more eager U.S. aid in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001. As with the Taliban in Afghanistan, Saddam's depredations were at best of no concern to Washington until he proved no longer useful. And framing it all for every Muslim is the U.S. backing of Israel's illegal, 35-year military occupation and subjugation of Palestine.

WITH THIS HISTORY of blood and convenience, many Iraqis will view Washington's trial of Saddam Hussein as a cynical foreign-policy showpiece—or a bitter reminder that we Americans can remove pawns like Saddam as easily as we can install them. It is yet another reminder that they don't run their own country. It's anything but a down payment on democracy. Dean is right. More soldiers will die in the coming months, not fewer, and America will be no safer.

It's reasonable to ask, as Sen. Hillary Clinton, of all people, is doing: Why, if the Bush administration can get out of Iraq by next July, can we not do so sooner? The capture of Saddam leaves only the dreary task of nation building and crass profiteering, for which the administration's interest has been more than unseemly. Iraqis are, with international assistance, perfectly capable of the former and have suffered quite enough of the latter. As one Iraqi pithily told American media: "You can go now."

gparrish@seattleweekly.com

http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0352/031224_news_geovparrish.php

Democratic Candidates Tax Proposals (Jan 7, 2004): The Democratic presidential candidates' proposals for taxes:

Tax policies
The Democratic presidential candidates' proposals for taxes:

Carol Moseley Braun:
Supports rolling back President Bush's tax cuts that help the wealthiest Americans.

Wesley K. Clark:
Would eradicate taxes for families making $50,000 or less with two or more children. Plans to raise taxes on the top 0.1% — those who make $1 million or more — by 5 percentage points. Would give a flat, $250-per-child tax credit. Supports closing corporate tax loopholes.

Howard Dean:
Wants to abolish Bush's tax cuts. Hopes to end corporate tax loopholes and eliminate tax shelters. Would boost Internal Revenue Service resources to help the organization collect billions of dollars in back taxes.

John Edwards:
Would repeal the Bush tax cuts that aid the wealthiest 2% of Americans. Wants to limit the top rate on capital gains to 25% for those earning $350,000 or more. Advocates tightening corporate tax regulations.

Dick Gephardt:
Would repeal Bush's tax cuts entirely, using the revenue to pay for his wide-ranging health-care plan, which would cost $2 trillion over 10 years.

John F. Kerry:
Would create a tax-relief fund of $50 billion for states over two years to end college tuition increases and help cover health-care expenses. Plans to preserve and expand middle-class tax cuts approved by Bush, including the child tax credit and the reduced marriage penalty, while abolishing tax cuts to those who make more than $200,000. Supports a crackdown on corporate tax breaks.

Dennis J. Kucinich:
Introduced the Progressive Tax Act of 2003 in Congress, to give $87 billion to working families and collect $107 billion from Bush tax cuts and corporate "giveaways." The bill includes a $1,530 payroll tax credit and a $2,000 family credit to consolidate different child tax credits.

Joe Lieberman:
Would preserve middle-class tax breaks but favors reorganizing the income-tax brackets and expanding tax credits for low-income families. The restructuring would raise taxes for those making $200,000 and above, plus repeal the dividend tax and reform the estate tax. Also supports eliminating corporate subsidies backed by Bush.

Al Sharpton:
Advocates repealing the Bush tax cuts in full.

Compiled by Los Angeles Times staff researcher Susannah Rosenblatt.
Los Angeles Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-clark6jan06,1,7194385.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

McDermott in Hot Water for Saddam Quip

By MATTHEW DALY
Associated Press Writer

December 15, 2003, 9:07 PM EST

WASHINGTON...
...In an interview Monday with a Seattle radio station, Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash said the U.S. military could have found the former Iraqi dictator "a long time ago if they wanted."
Asked if he thought the weekend capture was timed to help Bush, McDermott chuckled and said, "Yeah. Oh, yeah."
McDermott went on to say, "There's too much by happenstance for it to be just a coincidental thing."
When interviewer Dave Ross asked again if he meant to imply the Bush administration timed the capture for political reasons, McDermott said: "I don't know that it was definitely planned on this weekend, but I know they've been in contact with people all along who knew basically where he was. It was just a matter of time till they'd find him.
"It's funny," McDermott added, "when they're having all this trouble, suddenly they have to roll out something."
State Republicans immediately condemned McDermott's remarks, saying the Seattle Democrat again was engaging in "crazy talk" about the Iraq war.
"Once again McDermott has embarrassed this state with his irresponsible ranting," GOP state Chairman Chris Vance said in a news release. "Calling on him to apologize is useless, but I call on other Democrats to let the public know if they agree with McDermott -- and Howard Dean, who recently said he thought it was possible that President Bush had advance knowledge about 9/11. The voters deserve to know if the entire Democratic Party believes in these sorts of bitter, paranoid conspiracy theories..."

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-saddam-mcdermott,0,2235697,print.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

Wesley Clark: read and link to watch entire interview from 10/30/03 PBS' NEWSHOUR W/ JIM LEHER

WESLEY CLARK: "What I'm saying is the president is the commander in chief. He's the highest authority in the United States of America. When something goes wrong, he has an obligation to lead and participate actively in the investigation of what went wrong, not to stonewall it. He needs to provide that information in the presidential commission.

One more thing, Margaret: When you look at this, every military commander in the aftermath of a military operation, whether it's a success or failure, we all do what we call after-action reviews. And the commander participates in it. He's not exempt. He doesn't say, well, my intelligence officer didn't do this. He actually lays it out. They say, what happened exactly? And why did it happen? And everybody fesses up.

Now we don't know exactly what happened in this administration but what we do know is that the threat of Osama bin Laden was well known and recognized on the 21st of January in 2001. What we also know is that in September on the 10th of September, there was still no plan for dealing with Osama bin Laden.We don't really know what happened. We don't know whether that was normal, whether it was abnormal but here is what I think the American people need to know.

I think they need to know that the President of the United States believes that the buck stops on his desk, not on the desk of FBI official in Arizona or somebody in Minnesota who didn't communicate a memo and so forth and that everything was okay because no one told him.

When you're the commander in chief, it's your obligation to know, to set the command climate as we would say in the military -- the intensity of your effort. You do your homework. You work the issues. Your highest obligation as the President of the United States next to upholding the Constitution is to assure the security of the United States of America."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec03/clark_10-30.html