<$BlogRSDURL$>
Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
To see more details, click here.

Tuesday, October 26, 2004

Oh My Goodness! 


The Red Sox did it again. They are up 3-0 against the Cards.

I'm afraid . . . . .

Will the hearts of Red Sox fans last till the end of the Series?

Stay tuned . . ..

Saturday, October 23, 2004

An Open Letter To Sen. Kerry 


Dear Sen. Kerry:

I have only a few wishes should you win the election on November 2. My wishes all relate to repairing the damage to this country the Bush administration has caused since 2001. My wishes reflect my disdain for politics as it has been conducted over the last ten years or so.

I hope that you will restore the rule of law in this country. You can start by considering the dismantling of the secretive detention center in Guantanamo Bay,Cuba. I wish that you will direct a thorough review of who is presently detained there and why. I hope you do not pander to the frightened and uninformed in this country.

I hope that a Kerry administration will cease using the Orwellian language used by the Bush bureaucrats to describe the administration's initiatives. Perception does count for so much in politics these days, but a President should demonstrate leadership by calling things what they are.

I hope that you will restore the principle of open government that the Bush administration stomped on so gleefully. Begin with the public release of information about the Cheney Energy Task Force. Release the papers of Bush's father that he ordered kept secret upon taking office. Undertake a review of the secrecy policies the Bush administration adopted. Appoint an Attorney General who will give life to the Freedom of Information Act after John Ashcroft's near suspension of it since taking ofice. Our democracy will function only to the extent that the people have access to information that can help keep government officials accountable.

I hope that you will engage this country in a real debate about tax policy. The Bush administration made lower taxes a central issue, couching the debate in goverment vs. the people terms. Taxes are not just about money. How and what is taxed is decided by underlying social policies. The American people are not so stupid and can grasp these issues if they are presented in meaningful ways. I know you can put a team of good people together to help start this conversation.

I hope that you will restore science's independent role in policymaking. Let science inform your policy rather than allow ideology to dictate it. For all of our sake, I hope you do not repeat the mistakes of the Bush administration in this regard.

I pray that you will give the people back their public property and forbid private, for-profit exploitation of our natural resources on public land.

The wishes I have communicated here seek restoration of fundamental aspects of our democracy lost, or virtually so, during the last nearly four years. I pray that you will give my wish list due consideration should you win next week.


Wednesday, October 20, 2004

The Number One Reason I Won't Vote For George W. Bush 


Bush does not respect the rule of law. His government continues to deny Gitmo detainees access to lawyers unfettered by government intrusion. Although a federal judge has ordered the administration to make the detainees available to lawyers, I bet DOJ will appeal and continue to ignore the rule of law.

I sure hope John Kerry won't support what Bush has done in Gitmo, but for now I'll be content if GWB gets tossed out of office.

More on this later, the Red Sox are winning by 7. . . .

Tuesday, October 19, 2004

Another Commentary on Jon Stewart's Crossfire Appearance 


Check out this piece from Common Dreams.

What Country Is This Anyway? 


According to Robert Scheer in today's Los Angeles Times, the CIA is withholding its Inspector General's final report on official failures leading to the attacks on 9/11/01.

Scheer reports:

According to the intelligence official, who spoke to me on condition of anonymity, release of the report, which represents an exhaustive 17-month investigation by an 11-member team within the agency, has been "stalled." First by acting CIA Director John McLaughlin and now by Porter J. Goss, the former Republican House member (and chairman of the Intelligence Committee) who recently was appointed CIA chief by President Bush.

The official stressed that the report was more blunt and more specific than the earlier bipartisan reports produced by the Bush-appointed Sept. 11 commission and Congress.

"What all the other reports on 9/11 did not do is point the finger at individuals, and give the how and what of their responsibility. This report does that," said the intelligence official. "The report found very senior-level officials responsible."

By law, the only legitimate reason the CIA director has for holding back such a report is national security. Yet neither Goss nor McLaughlin has invoked national security as an explanation for not delivering the report to Congress.

"It surely does not involve issues of national security," said the intelligence official.

"The agency directorate is basically sitting on the report until after the election," the official continued. "No previous director of CIA has ever tried to stop the inspector general from releasing a report to the Congress, in this case a report requested by Congress."


This is a little concerning don't you think? The CIA is not disclosing information that is critical in this election, an election that has placed significant emphasis on the administration's national security credentials.

If officials were negligent in their duties before the 9/11/01 attacks, the voters are entitled to hold those officials accountable by not voting for Bush.

Monday, October 18, 2004

The New York Times > Washington > Study for U.S. Rated Coverage of Schools Law 


This kind of thing really ticks me off.

The New York Times > Washington > Study for U.S. Rated Coverage of Schools Law

Saturday, October 16, 2004

Molly Ivins Has Her Say On Sinclair Controversy 


Check out Molly Ivins at WorkingForChange.com

Just for Fun 


Check out this slide show. The bulge questions abound. . .

Friday, October 15, 2004

Ah. Uhm. Obscene = "Protect Our Civil Liberties" ? 


Check out this latest effort by the Bushies to further his goal of spreading freedom . . .

Another Example of Administration Sole Source Contracting 


The Pentagon is not the only executive branch agency whose use of sole-source contracting is questionable. In this case, I'm referring to the Department of Housing and Urban Development and its Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control (OHHLHC). According to the Alliance for Healthy Homes, f/k/a Alliance to End Childhood Lead Poisoning, OHHLHC awarded $167 million in grants for lead hazard control and related activities, but did so by contracting out its key application review and scoring process to a private company ill equipped and trained to perform the work.

As a result, entities that have developed lead hazard reduction infrastructure through this grant process over the past ten or so years did not get funding while other less qualified entities did. I understand that no grants were awarded in the entire state of Indiana, and that the Alliance itself was denied funding.

In a letter from the Alliance to HUD's Inspector General, the general charges are outlined, but one story in particular is worth noting. One of the grantees is a private corporation, one of the largest landlord and rental property company in the country. No big deal right? Well, this particular company was fined by HUD and EPA for failing to adhere to the federal lead hazard disclosure law. Additional penalties had to be imposed for noncompliance with the original fines. The kicker is that the company's grant application proposes to do the very work the company was ordered to do as part of the remedy for the legal disclosure violation! In other words, HUD is now funding the work the company was supposed to do with its own funds. Unbelievable.

Your money at work under Bush II, The Late Bloomer.


PS: More lead info here.

Bill Moyers Scolds Congress 


This evening's hour of NOW with Bill Moyers and David Brancaccio was excellent once again. It centered on voting and the upcoming election. At the end of the show, Moyers gave an editorial about the recent corporate tax relief Congress passed this month. Boy was he stern!

As I do from time to time (to prevent overload), I had purposely ignored the news about the legislation because it was just too dumbfounding. I paid attention tonight and now understand why I engaged in denial earlier! The bill has enormous giveaways for large companies that are hard to understand in terms of public benefits.

I found a short piece by Moyers on commondreams.org, and here's the link:

A Little Patriotic Sacrifice

Jon Stewart Kicks Ass on Crossfire 


Jon Stewart has just usurped power on CNN! I left work a little early today so I could see Jon Stewart on Crossfire. Just for a laugh, just for a hoot, I thought, I'd catch the show.

I never expected that Stewart would take the opportunity to excoriate Tuicker Carlson and Paul Begala on how the show hurts constructive political discourse in the United States. Calling them hacks and political partisans, Stewart lectured the two on how awful their show is.

After a few minutes, it became clear that the hosts never expected that Jon Stewart would directly challenge their journalistic integrity live. Oh my goodness, you just had to see it to enjoy the way Stewart hijacked the show to call CNN and Crossfire to account for being pure theatrics rather than real debate. I wasn't sure he was going to be back on after the commercial break. I'm sure jaws in the control room dropped after a few minutes of Jon's lecture and Carlson's rants in response.

Stweart even called Tucker a dick! It was great.

Don't know if CNN will have a clip on its site, but it's worth looking for it if you didn't catch the show today.

UPDATE at 10:32PM: Here's a link to the transcript for some entertaining reading. It was better watching live though!!


Wednesday, October 13, 2004


Now for closing statements. Bush did a much better job overall. He was much better prepared. Kerry was so-so. Jim Lehrer was a better host I think.

Ick, Bush is waxing nostalgic and acting like papa bear. I'm signing off now to get ready for bed while listening to the rest of Late Bloomer's words.

Don't forget to vote for Kerry in the on-line polls!



Kerry was wrong when he said that Bush had not met with the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) a few minutes ago. Bush met with members of the CBC in January 2001 right after he took office.

I found the link above by doing a google search. I also searched the White House website, and it looks like that was the only time Bush has met with the CBC.

Kerry's statement makes sense to me, but is a technical misstatement. I'm sure Kerry intended to say that he has not met with them on legislative initiatives or to discuss policy. The first meeting was undoubtedly a schmooze-fest where both the President and his staff and members of the CBC sized eachother up.



Kerry just did a good job addressing Bush's failure on the assault weapons ban. He made clear that Bush's leadership could have made a difference in getting the ban passed again.



It seems like Bob is not allowing as much follow up as Lehrer did in the first debate. That is helping Bush and hurting Kerry in my view.

Sure wish Kerry wouldn't use all his time either. People get sick of listening to him after a while -- well, I get sick of listening to him after a while.


The President is now going on about his immigration card allowing Mexican workers to lawfully cross the border to work in the United States. This is one of the most hairbrained idea I've heard in a long time.

All it will do is take jobs away from workers in this country. It solves the illegal immigration problem by making it legal.

And no expiration date is going to make someone leave the country who is intent on staying. So basically the President's plan gives someone a pass to enter the country legally then disappear.

That is stupid.


Boy oh boy, someone really worked on Bush and his smile. You can see that he is making a great effort to smile a lot, and to smile mockingly while Kerry is talking. It's an attempt to make him look softer and more patronizing, like a nice Dick Cheney.



Bob asked Kerry a straightforward question: how is he going to pay for his health care plan.

It's great that Kerry is explaining the plan in more detail, but I'm still waiting for the answer. Looks like he didn't answer the question. Too bad. People would really like to know the answer.

For me, I still want the answer, but I'll also still vote for Kerry. I watch the debate because I so want him to persuade the undecided voters that he's better than Bush -- even if he's not great.


Bush is going on about supporting life. My entire neighborhood just heard me scream:



"Then why are you killing Iraqis!"

ARRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHH How can any so-called pro-lifer think what he is doing in Iraq is ok?



Question: What do you say to someone who has lost his job to someone overseas?

Answer: Education, raising standards, challening teachers, blah, blah, blah.

Huh? Bush just gave a pat answer to a different question.

The folks who have lost their jobs to others overseas sure can't find comfort in that answer. How the heck are those people supposed to support their families while going back to school and not incurring substantial debt?





Bush is in much better form so far. He looks much more comfortable in answering Kerry's charge that he abandoned the search for Osama Bin Laden.

Now the flu vaccine. Bush says the supply was contaminated. He says Canada is going to help the US "realize" the supply we need. Well that's interesting. I thought Bush didn't want to import drugs from Canada because he can't ensure their safety. I guess when it is convenient the risk is ok.

Bush has the gall to cite litigation as the reason for vaccine makers to stop making vaccines. Hmmmmm. . . . I'd like to see the stats on that.

The Third Presidential Debates 


Here they are, the candidates for President. Both wearing a red tie and a small US flag. Bush looks particularly enthused to be there. Kerry looks a little paler in comparison.

Kerry just changed the debate over American safety from are we safer to are we as safe as we ought to be. Good move.

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

A Revealing Exchange Between an Officer and His Wife 


Operation Truth is a non-profit corporation that is giving Iraq war veterans home from the war an outlet to share their views of the war with the public. I wanted to share the site and a particular post that I found on it. It is an incredibly moving exchange between an officer and his wife in April 2003.

Please read it.


Author of Gideon's Trumpet on How Bush's Policies Led to Abu Ghraib 


This link takes you to an article by Anthony Lewis in the American Prospect on how the Bush administration's disdain for the rule of law led to the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. It's not a long piece, but it is right on target in my view.


Exactly How Did Invading Iraq Spare Us From Nuclear Proliferation? 


Among the rationales for invading Iraq Bush cited was the alleged threat of Saddam allowing nuclear technology and/or materials to get into the hands of terrorists. Well, now the IAEA reports that dual use materials are missing from Iraq.

The missing items include equipment tagged during the UN weapons inspection process, along with the buildings in which the equipment was housed.

Here are the key paragraphs from the story:


The U.S. government prevented U.N. weapons inspectors from returning to Iraq -- thereby blocking the IAEA from monitoring the high-tech equipment and materials -- after the U.S.-led war was launched in March 2003. . . .

The IAEA said in its letter that U.S. and Iraqi officials have not reported dismantling any sites relevant to Iraq's nuclear program.

Anti-proliferation agreements say that the United States, which administered Iraq until June 2004, and the Iraqi interim government, which took over from the United States in June, must inform the IAEA of any import or export of such materials and equipment.

But since March 2003 "the agency has received no such notifications or declarations from any state," ElBaradei said.

The nuclear agency has since then had to rely on satellite imagery to work out what is happening with Iraq's nuclear sites.

"The imagery shows in many instances the dismantlement of entire buildings that housed high precision equipment ... formerly monitored and tagged with IAEA seals, as well as the removal of equipment and materials (such as high-strength aluminum) from open storage areas," he said.

In his letter, ElBaradei added that "as the disappearance of such equipment and materials may be of proliferation significance, any state that has information about the location of such items should provide IAEA with that information."


(See the story at CNN.com

CNN.com - Nuclear materials 'vanish' in Iraq - Oct 12, 2004
)

This news is outrageous. It is a result of the administration's carelessness in post-invasion planning -- or Bush's refusal to examine the State Department plan in advance. It is also the result of Bush's disrespect of international institutions.

I do not in any way feel "safer" than I did before he decided to invade Iraq. This point should be driven home to the American people. I can't imagine anyone in the US actually thinks that it was worth "liberating" Iraqis at the expense of security for nuclear materials.

Just my humble opinion.

Friday, October 08, 2004


Ok, I think President Late Bloomer looks like he is on coke. Look at all tha teeth grinding and jaw moving. Really looks like a coke head. Sorry. Maybe just a lot of coffee, or tremdendous guilt.


Ok, Bush was just asked to talk about mistakes he made in his life. Very straight forward. He cannot anwer the question! He simply defends his misjudgments about Iraq. That was great!

Ok, John, know when it is time to shut up. You should have left Bush with the last word on that with no rebuttal. He could not admit to making any mistakes in his lifetime. That speaks for itself.



Oh my goodness, did President Late Bloomer just say, "and that's reality."

I didn't know he knew what reality was.


Yay! Finally, the environment.

The Kyoto treaty would have cost us jobs. Hello? If the environment becomes impossible to live in, we won't have any place to work. Which is more important?



Now they are droning on about medical liability. That is simply not the problem the President makes it out to be.

*******

Spending is the current topic. Excellent first question about whether it is better to deficit spend than balance the budget. Well, that was the essence of the question. Now Bush is going on about how we are at war.

Isn't this the first war the US has been in where we've cut taxes rather than raise taxes and ask for sacfrice to support our troops? . . . .



I like Kerry's tactic of talking directly to the President, especially because of the stature differential.

Did Bush just interrupt Gibson? That was interesting.

Oh, the joy of comparison! If Missouri were a country it would be the third largest in the so-called Iraq coalition.



Ok, maybe it's the cocktailsk, but the up and down, front stage, back stage thing reminds me of rappers.

And the President looks like he wants to be an evangelical preacher.


I tuned in a few minutes late. Leaf peeper company. Trying to eat and listen. Tough after the extended cocktail hour . . .

I did note that GW compared himself with Ronald Reagan. Puleeze

The Second Debate 



Wednesday, October 06, 2004

My Delightful Nephew WBC 


This post is entirely personal and not at all political. My brother's 4-year old son, WBC, is a delightful child. I spent this evening babysitting for him and his younger sister (who was asleep in bed). My visit with him inspired me to post here.

Since he was a baby, this child has been preoccupied with the way things work. When he was fussy as a baby during visits with my folks, he would immediately forget his woes if presented with my father's boom box. He would examine each and every button on the front of the machine, making sure he understood what each one did. This was a child not even a year old. He would concentrate. Still does.

Tonight he charmed me again -- as he has done with all who know him recently -- with stories about the workshop he is planning to build someday. It is marvelous to listen to him. He knows the names of tools and how they work. He loves construction, and has said many times that he wants to be a carpenter.

So when I arrived today for my auntly duties, I found my brother's back deck awash in tools, scrap wood, a somewhat elaborate wiring mechanism extending from the lightpost on the deck to the nearby fence surrounding the property. The deck often looks this way, my brother and his wife encouraging their son to explore his keen interest in building things. As soon as I got there, he marched out to clean up the work space. The kid already has a good contractor's work ethic -- clean up after the job each day.

So what did we do after WBC's parents left for their evening event? We read a book about a magic bus that drills its way to the center of the earth. Then, we watched a video about how a highway road is built! I nearly lost it when his face light up brilliantly when I found the video in the pile and mentioned it. Like most young ones these days, I figured he knew how to turn on all the electronics and get the video going. Sure enough, he did.

The video was great, but mostly because he was so excited to share it with me, and point out all of his favorite parts.

Although WBC can be serious (he used to walk around pre-school with a clipboard) and inquisitive, he can be silly. Like my brother and his wife, he can laugh really hard about the silliest things. It's great! When I handed him his baby sister's PJs after his bath as a joke, he laughed hard and said, "Oh Auntie Leslie, you know I like the silly stuff sometimes." How cute!

At bedtime we read stories, which he frequently interrupted with the latest thoughts about his workshop. He is an excellent conversationalist if you ask him questions. He asked me to tell him stories about my childhood. When I began to tell him about when his dad was young, he told me, "I hear about my dad all the time. I want to hear about your childhood." What a charmer! But I know he really means it. He is insatiably curious.

He promised to come help me reorganize the space in my closet and put shelves in. He's good at that stuff, you know, he told me. He puts a smile on my face every time I see him. I can't wait to see his first real building . . .

Format Improvements 


I hope the few regular readers of this blog find the changes to the site helpful. I try to keep the typeface large enough for people like me who wear tri-focals, yes tri-focals, to read the text without undue eye strain. At the same time, I wanted to add some links to the pieces on the site to make perusing it easier.

More improvements as time permits.

Tuesday, October 05, 2004

Cheney's denial of claims that Iraq & 911 were connected 


Go Chris Matthews! Finally, someone pursues an administration lackey on the issue of the connection between Iraq and 911. He is currently pressing Ben Ginsburg, a Republican correspondent on Cheney's claim that he never said that 911 and Iraq are connected.

But Matthews has the tape of Cheney saying exactly that. Ginsburg tries to skirt the issue by saying that, "well, sometimes during a debate someone hears a question differently than is asked. . . ." something like that. Matthews challenges him and asks whether it is dishonest for Cheney to say something they have irrefutable proof he actually said.

And he kept pressing the issue.

As to Ginsburg's statement that maybe Cheney misheard, I screamed at the television because I've seen Cheney make that denial before. He knows he's lying. Or he's a pathological liar so sick he doesn't realize he's lying. Or his memory problems are so bad he should not be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Anyway you look at it, Cheney's claim that he never connected our invasion of Iraq to the 911 attack shows he is unfit to perform any further public service.



Phew! Closing statements.

That was brutal. Edwards just wasn't as whiz bang as I expected. Cheney just looked like an asshole to me (sorry, but this time I have to use profanity even though it is against my normal policy). "Well, Gwen, huff, huff, I just don't know where to start," Cheney would say before responding to something Edwards said. In the case of the Halliburton question, Cheney huffed and then lied that Edwards's statements weren't true when they are -- and are readily verifiable. Such cojones!

Cheney is giving his closing statement now. I didn't bother listening to Edwards. He bugs me sometimes. I know what Cheney, the patronizing numbskull, will go on about. Fear mongering and bald assertions of superiority.

Let the spin begin once again.


Again, Edwards blew it in my view.

Gwen asked whether a little flip flopping is ok once in a while. She pointed to the accuastions that Kerry is a flip flopper and the President went back and forth on the 911 Commission and the Homeland Security Department.

Here's the right answer to that question, John.

Flips flops of core beliefs are not what we want in a president. But the flip flops the administration accuses Kerry of doing are changes of positions based on changing circumstances. Good judgment depends on the ability to analyze the circumstances then confronting you when you make the decision. But that is not the same as flip flopping on core beliefs.

We point out the president's changing position because we have to point out the hipocrasy of his accusations. And the problem with Bush's change of position on learning from mistakes as in the 911 commission and with regard to domestic security as in the case of the homeland security department came only after pressure that he was trying to hide something from the public and consolidate power in the Oval Office.


Excellent question: how is Edwards qualified with such little governmental experience?

What made George Bush qualified? He was governor of Texas for eight years. Big whoop. Edwards is a Senator whose tenure is six years.

******

Now we're hearing about the differences between Cheney and Edwards.

Hmmm, Cheney said something interesting. He said he chose, unlike Edwards, to pursue public service, "except when we lost elections."

Mr. Cheney, there are other ways to serve the public, an elected office is just one of them.

******



Ok, here comes the assault on the judiciary. I have to be careful here since the Vermont Supreme Court was among the first to conclude the state's constitution mandated equal benefits for all citizens irrespective of sexual orientation.

Phew, it wasn't as bad as I thought.

Edwards does score a point by correctly explaining that states don't have to recognize marriages that are contrary to the public policy.

Cheney scores a point for me just because he didn't say anything more, clearly out of respect to his daughter and his family. Too bad his backbone isn't even stronger and he took a stand against Bush's efforts make gay marriage an issue.



Here comes Halliburton.

Charges are false? Huh? Halliburton paid fines for illegal activity during Cheney's reign. Edwards is right.

The investigation for bribing foreign officials is also true.

Cheney is the one blowing the smoke here, not Edwards.

Links to the facts to follow. . . . .

And here they are:

Bribery Investigation


And here's another story about Halliburton's legal travails during Cheney's tenure.

Finally, a story about the fine the company paid to the government.


John Edwards again missed a good opportunity to reach a lot of voters wondering why our forces are dying in Iraq.

Cheney accused Edwards of belittling the sacrifice of the Iraqis who have fought and died for their freedom (he fails to mention that many are fighting to be free from the American occupiers).

By changing the frame of the issue, Edwards could have turned this back on Cheney. Our forces were asked to go to Iraq to disarm a mad dangerous dictator, butthat was never really true. The point of the US forces dying is that they are dying for reasons OTHER than defending our country. That does not demean the Iraqis who are also dying -- of course they are. They should. It's their country.



Cheney the mathematician! Edwards claims the US has suffered 90% of the casualties in fighting the war in Iraq.

The math whiz says he's dead wrong. If you add the Iraqi forces that have died plus other coalition members the figure is 50%.

Gee, Dick, if you add up all the civilians killed the percentage of US forces is even smaller.

I sure hope undecided voters can see through the ridiculous statements he makes like that one.


Afghanistan is a success and not run by warlords?!! Did Cheney really say that?

Here's the headline on Afgha.com, an Afghan news site:

"Afghanistan's Presidential Election: A mockery of democracy"


Gwen asks whether Saddam would still be in power had Edwards and Kerry been in office. Legitimate question, but neither John has ever clearly explained why their vote in favor of unprecedented presidential power was important. It was a leverging measure, the most clear statement that force could be a real possibility. That does not mean that we should have rushed in as we did. And we'll never know whether he would have been ousted had we let things run their course before marching to Baghdad.


John Edwards better response to Cheney's first non-answer would have been to say, Gwen, I have a lot to say about the war in Iraq,. but your question to Mr. Cheney was whether he received a report. He never answered the quesetion and I have nothing to say on that matter because I don't know what reports Mr. Cheney receives or whether he reads them.



The first question was whether he received a report, that he requested, that showed no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

Answer?

We have to look at Iraq in the larger context on the war on terror. Blah, Blah, Blah

We did the right thing in Iraq, blah, blah, blah, Saddam not in power, blah, blah, blah.

Never answered her question.

The Trial Lawyer v. The Vice-Liar 


The VP debates have begun.

Apologies for the weird format of the site. I'm working on changing a few things while I take a few days off from work.

Back to Gwen, John, and Dick. (I love that Cheney's first name is Dick. So much fun to say with exaggerated diction -- DDDICCKKKKK.)


Monday, October 04, 2004

For the Sake of National Integrity, We Need Regime Change 


This link takes you to a reprint of a letter written by a British citizen who remains in US custody at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He's been held captive on the island for over two years.

I am ashamed of my government, not because I know the allegations in his letter are true, but because the US government has held him in custody for over two years without any independent judicial review approving the lawfulness of his detention.

How can this country possibly lead the world in the principles of freedom and democracy when US government officials act in this manner? We have no credibility.

For the sake of our national integrity, we need a regime change this election.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?