x-posted.

If you're sick of long political rants, move on...because this one tops off at eleven pages and 7,015 words.

As the election fast approaches, I often find myself dumbfounded that the polls are so close.
I look at President Bush’s record and wonder, “How could anyone with an iota of common sense even consider voting for this man?”
This is especially interesting to me as I voted for him in the 2000 election. Not only did I vote for him, I was a very vocal supporter of his campaign; what could have caused me to turn a political 180? To, dare I say, flip flop on my loyalties?
The George W. Bush of 2004 is not the same George W. Bush I voted for in November 2000.
It wasn’t one thing, it wasn’t even a small hand full of “one things”; no, it was a cumulative building, and building, and building of the President’s abysmal record on domestic and foreign policy over the past four years. George W. Bush has shattered once strong foreign alliances, has turned the United States into a world aggressor who, instead of promoting peace and security, has taken upon itself to invade countries based on false pretenses (just hold tight, I’ll get to it), insists on “staying the course” when it’s apparent to anybody with eyes not clouded by rosy colored glasses that “the course” is leading our troops and civilians of countries we occupy to nothing more than a massacre, has pushed to write discrimination of a law abiding group of consenting adults into the Constitution, has attempted to severely curtail the rights of the average citizen, has blurred the lines between Church and State, has made us anything but safer since 9/11/01, has made policy based on his own religious beliefs, has encouraged outsourcing of jobs overseas which in turn causes the loss of US jobs, and has caused one of the most massive deficits in history.
He also, to use his own words, flip-flops.
Frequently.
And that’s just the short list.


“How can you say such horrible things about our President?” you may ask.
For one, because I have the right to do so. You have the right to disagree, or to simply remain closed to a viewpoint that may not coincide with yours. Just as you have the right to disagree, I have the right to say it. You may not like it, but as I am not being obscene or spreading outright lies, there’s not really much that you can do to stop me. Besides that, the angrier you become the closer I am to the mark.
The main reason, however, is that it needs to be said.
Repeatedly, loudly, and by as many people who are willing to say it.

Let’s begin. I will address the points made in the rambling paragraph above in the order listed. I may or may not interject dry humor at any given point.

1) “George W. Bush has shattered once strong foreign alliances.” I could easily end this point right here with two words: “He has.”
That is, unfortunately, not convincing to someone who is under the mistaken impression that the President is a skilled statesman.
Alliances are necessary for success in today’s world; the old route of isolationism, while it worked well up until President Wilson, is no longer viable. Whether one likes the idea or not, we are part of the global community. We may be one of the, if not the, most powerful piece on the chess board, but we are still part of an intertwined community. The pawns, staying with the chess analogy, do matter. Things do not always come up roses in any relationship, and foreign alliances are no exception. Under this administration we have, in every way other than literally, told many long time allies to, and I’m paraphrasing Vice President Cheney here, “go &$*! yourselves.”
Of course, we haven’t literally uttered such a vulgarity in the UN, but the sentiment is there. This administration has taken the oft overused cliché “my way or the highway” when dealing with foreign countries and global issues. When we do not get our way, we’ve had the tendency to either take our ball and bat and go home or to simply do what we feel like doing because, hey, we’re the biggest, most powerful piece on the chess board and if you don’t like it you can take the advice paraphrased above.
”Rhetoric! Rhetoric! We want sources!”
Understandable. I’d not expect you to simply take me at my word.
Here we have a few examples:
A) The Bush Administration, while outwardly claiming to be impartial in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, has consistently shown brazen bias toward Israel. The Administration quite literally and outright approved of the Israeli atrocities by vetoing AND abstaining on U.N. resolutions, which condemned the Israeli violence. It is worth noting that nearly all other member countries of the U.N. were in disagreement with our stance. Regardless of which side of that particular debate you happen to fall, when nearly the entire planet condemns an act of aggression and violence, and you have nothing to say or try to justify it you do not appear as an impartial party nor do you gain any steps in “winning the hearts and minds” of countries in the area which you happen to occupy.

B) Most of Europe. It would be difficult to deny that Bush has strained or broken alliances with much of Europe. France (hold the jokes please), Spain, Germany, and really most of the European Union. Chris Patten, the EU commissioner for external relations, has used many scathing terms to describe Bush’s foreign policy. “Absolutist and simplistic”, “unilateralist overdrive”, “unhelpful”, and “more rhetoric than substance”.
One senior EU official was quoted as saying, "It is humiliating and demeaning if we feel we have to go and get our homework marked by Dick Cheney and Condi Rice. We've got to stop thinking that the only policy we can have is one that doesn't get vetoed by the United States."
Whether the effect was intentional or not, even the most staunch Bush supporter cannot agree that it’s a good idea to make allies that we’ve had for decades feel inconsequential simply because we have the ability to do so.

C) Canada. Dear Canada, our friendly neighbor to the North. The Bush Administration has taken to task to make an attempt to tell Canada how much and on what it should spend its defense budget. As with Europe, the Bush Administration has taken to not so much asking for help, but demanding it, and pitching a fit when exception is taken.
The following quote from Louise Elliott (Canadian Press) sums up the Bush Administration attitude:
“Wednesday, 20 November 20, 2002
PRAGUE (CP) - Defence Minister John McCallum lashed out at U.S. President George W. Bush on the eve of a NATO summit here Wednesday, saying the leader of the world's largest superpower should mind his own business when it comes to how much allies spend on defence. He made the remarks after Bush chided some of the weaker members of the western military alliance for not spending enough on their armed forces.
"I would not urge the president of the United States or the U.S. Ambassador (Paul Cellucci) to do my job - to ask for more defence spending," McCallum told reporters in a scrum with Prime Minister Jean Chretien and Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham looking on.
"I think that is a Canadian matter, I think that a number of Canadians were a little bit ticked off . . . So while Mr. Bush may be asking for what I'm asking for, I'm not asking for his help."
In a hawkish speech calling for military support from NATO members should the U.S. go to war in Iraq, Bush said some NATO allies were not doing their part to shell out for their armies, navies and air forces. But he did not single out any countries by name. “

D) The refusal to sign the international treaty to combat global warming upset most of the United States’ allies. This not only underscores the, “We don’t care what you think” sentiment the Bush Administration has displayed to the world, it also underscores their lack of commitment to environmental issues and problems.

2) The Bush Administration “has turned the United States into a world aggressor who, instead of promoting peace and security, has taken upon itself to invade countries based on false pretenses (just hold tight, I’ll get to it), insists on “staying the course” when it’s apparent to anybody with eyes not clouded by rosy colored glasses that “the course” is leading our troops and civilians of countries we occupy to nothing more than a massacre.”
Another obvious one. Take a look at any major news site; one can easily see our acts of aggression throughout the world since 2001. Once we’d gone past the initial numb shock of the 9/11 attacks, most of the world was dodging blows and making placating gestures as the Administration moved from numb horror to gesticulating wildly and frothing at the mouth while essentially screaming at any third world nation that we thought might look like terrorists, “WHO WANTS A PIECE OF ME!? YOU?! HOW ABOUT YOU!? Got terrorists in there? Really?! MILITARY: DEPLOY! We’ll get proof later!”
While I do understand and accept the idea that people wanted revenge, what the Administration and much of the public has failed to see is that you cannot randomly run into any sovereign of our choosing because we have a vague inkling that they might be harboring terrorists.
Afghanistan did not attack us, nor did Iraq. Osama bin Laden and his followers instigated the attack, and when we had them cornered in Afghanistan, the Administration felt it necessary to hire what amounted to mercenaries in enemy territory to finish up the job. Quite clearly, they did not. Perhaps that belongs under foreign policy blunders.
The Bush Administration’s policies also don’t take into account that there are dozens upon dozens of nations on the planet who are known to harbor or thought to harbor terrorists; I certainly hope that he does not intend to invade them all, because quite frankly, we can barely handle the two (and only one was a legitimate target, but stop jumping ahead of me) that we have under our boot heel at the moment. While I cannot speak for the population as a whole, I have no desire to see the United States attempt to become an empire; a quick look in a history book should tell you why.
Empires fail. In many cases they fail so spectacularly that the originating country is reduced to shambles or to nothing at all. That, however, is another discussion.

Little to no attempt by the Administration has been made to try to figure out why terrorists have such a stronghold in many areas of the world. It is not as simplistic as President Bush makes it out to be; it cannot be summed up as, “Well, clearly they simply hate freedom.”
That sounds, to be perfectly blunt, like something a middle school student would say in a speech class. It’s childish, simplistic, and not a major reason.
So what are some of the reasons? Unfair treatment of smaller nations by larger, more powerful nations, poverty, religious extremism (and this is not solely confined to Islam. Zealots come in all forms), corruption in government (as though we have any room to talk at the moment), the feeling that nobody is listening or willing to help or the feeling that those who could help are against you, and feeling as though you’re stuck with a foreign body occupying your country and installing puppet governments. No sovereign nation enjoys feeling like they are under occupation. Call it by any other name, reconstruction, nation building, “getting the terrorists”, to those in the countries it still feels like occupation and that causes resentment to build. Couple that resentment with poverty, religious extremists, decades of feeling slighted by larger nations, and you get what we have in Iraq: A nightmarish mess.
We’ll come back to that.

The invasion of Iraq was, initially, based upon the claim that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, intended to use them, had connections to bin Laden and the 9/11 attacks, and was an imminent threat to US security. The rest of the world, to put it succinctly, said we were crazy, that this was not the case, that inspections had shown that Hussein had disarmed and had no stockpiles, and that while Hussein was not exactly the most stable chair at the table, he was not a threat to US security.
The Bush Administration chose to ignore the UN, chose to ignore the proof, and chose to ignore our allies when they pleaded with us to calm down and not be so overtly aggressive.
The Bush Administration then invaded Iraq; oh, they’d planned that well, a quick invasion, a quick victory, and all would be great. We’d be welcomed as liberators, we’d be showered with adoration for toppling Saddam Hussein, people would be lining up to kiss our perfumed feet and subjugate themselves before the throne of King George W the second. It did not take long for Hussein’s forces to fall; they never had a chance to begin with.
Unfortunately, reality does not coincide with the Bush Administration.
The initial fighting was over quickly, true.
Saddam’s government toppled quickly, this is also true. These things were never in doubt; the man never had a chance. It’s rather like a spider going mano e mano with my boots. The spider will not win (though I may be screaming in horror that such a thing dared to come near me, much like Bush and company were screaming about Saddam), and I will be left with a mess to clean.
Happily for me, cleaning a crushed spider from the sole of my boots and possibly the floor is much easier than cleaning up the mess the Bush Administration has caused.
Unhappily for our troops, what happened was the spider was crushed and it immediately reformed into hundreds upon thousands of even more vicious spiders that were much more able to launch successful attacks against troops who were understaffed, under-trained, under-armed, and under-prepared.
It’s best that I stop with that analogy now, as my pet tarantula is becoming peeved at the unfriendly comparison.
The Bush Administration declared “Mission Accomplished!” soon after the fall of Baghdad.
This has the possibility of being the truth, but I am going on the assumption that the mission was to topple a foreign government, brutalize its civilians, line our troops up for slaughter like ducks at a carnival shooting range game, cause a massive uprising in the level of terrorist activity in the country, and cause a heightened resentment for the United States and thus a heightened risk for terrorist attacks at home in the region.
My guess is that is not the mission President Bush had in mind.
But, again, reality appears to have no place on the President’s table. He will simply tell you, “It’s hard work.” That, as far as I’m concerned, is as much a cop-out as the excuse, “they hate freedom.”
The truth that the Bush Administration refuses to see is that we are not winning in Iraq. We are not even close to winning in Iraq. The puppet government we’ve installed is weak and ineffectual at best. It has almost no power and relies almost solely on the backing of US troops to even function.
Our troops, and even our civilian contractors, are being massacred by insurgents at an alarming rate; it’s not only happening to our troops and citizens either. It’s happening to the few foreign soldiers in the region, it’s happening to Iraqi civilians, it’s happening to women and children and the elderly, and it’s not 100% the fault of the insurgents. Of course, when our troops cause it it’s “collateral damage”. Some of our soldiers take it into their own hands to torture, mistreat, and in some cases kill POWs; this is in direct violation of the Geneva Convention, which apparently only applies to lesser nations that are not the US. The Administration thus far has taken very little to no responsibility for the atrocities at Abu Gharib. While the ones perpetrating the crimes are, in the end, responsible for what they have done the highest commanders of the military have more or less turned their heads the other way and are trying their very best to ignore the situation or pin it low ranking officers.
Regardless of your feelings on the war itself, the fact remains that POWs are human and deserve to be treated as such; had the situation been reversed, had it been our POWs being brutalized in that fashion, you can bet outrage would have been so severe that it’s likely another war would have been declared. The message of, “It’s okay as long as it’s not our soldiers” does nothing to help win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. The Administration may not have said that verbatim, but the lack of swift response and the attempts to justify the torture say it for them.

Ah, but the war itself, the war itself. What can we say about that topic?
The reasons for the war have changed (or, if you prefer, Bush has flip-flopped) as new evidence pops up proving each of the Administration’s reasons for going to war were false, based on poor intelligence, or were outright lies.
There were not and never were stockpiles of WMDs; Saddam had disarmed in the 90s as asked.
Saddam had no capability at the time of the invasion to create WMDs, nor did he have the intent to use them against us.
There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. There never was.
There was no connection between Saddam and the 9/11 attacks. There never was, despite Vice President Cheney’s assertion to the contrary. Mr. Vice President, a lie 1,000 times over is still a lie. Wishing it were true will not make it so.
Saddam was not harboring Abu Musab al-Zarqawi; there was no link, the intelligence was faulty.
Saddam was not a threat, imminent or otherwise, to the security of the United States; it is not our job to play nation builder simply because we dislike a country’s form of government.
Every rationale that the Bush Administration has used for invading Iraq is crumbling or has crumbled; yet the insistence is that we “stay the course”.
Speaking of the course, it’s not so much a course as it is a horrific bloodbath.
Our troops are dying for the Bush Administration’s lies.
War is never pretty, and I do not pretend that it is; this, however, was so poorly planned that it’s turned from a war into a massacre of US troops, foreign troops, and Iraqi civilians. There was and is no viable exit strategy. Fighting is futile as the enemy is faceless, unseen, and uses unconventional warfare tactics. Think back, for a moment, to the Revolutionary war (roughly 1775-1783 for those not as up on their US history as they should be): The British Empire soldiers had very specific methods and notions of warfare; for the most part, the now outdated Continental style of warfare was used. Lines and rows of perfect sitting ducks (in bright red uniforms no less!). Compare that to the rebels’ style of warfare: For the most part, it was plainclothes or uniforms that only sort of looked alike anyway. The style was what we’d now call guerilla warfare in many cases; hiding in the woods, sniping at passing battalions, and attacks that by today’s standards might be considered terrorist acts. Many of the fighters were regular citizens, farmers, and other common folk who were sick of being (at least in their view) mistreated by an occupying force. It was successful. It took almost a decade, but it was successful. Eventually the Crown surrendered, tucked tail, and returned home.
If history is to repeat itself (I won’t mention the “V” word!), we are the “Crown” this time around.
The course needs to be changed. Period.
Continuing on in the fashion of the Bush Administration is not a viable option; it will only continue to heighten resentment abroad, division at home (What ever happened to, “I’m a uniter, not a divider”?), and increased troop and civilian deaths.
It’s perfectly all right to change horses mid-stream when the horse is drowning.

Loren Thompson , a military analyst for the Lexington Institute made the following statement on September 19, 2004, ““The Bush administration is on a crusade to make the world safe for democracy and part of that ... is eliminating countries of anti-Western aggression.” If the word “crusade” does not cause a pang of fear, I wonder if you’ve got any sense at all.
Pick up a history book, or wander over to google.com and do a search on the last set of Crusades. Pay special attention to the outcome.
“But…but…they’re going to hold elections in Iraq!”
And?
Can you honestly tell me that people will show up in droves knowing that those polling places will be prime targets for bombings, sniper attacks, and killings?
Can you honestly tell me that the elections both in Iraq and in Afghanistan won’t be so rife with corruption that they’d make our 2000 election look like a pristine model of righteousness?
Can you honestly tell me that you don’t think insurgents, warlords, and clerics aren’t going to exert a massive amount of influence over these elections?
I highly doubt that you can do so.

The war in Iraq is a disaster.
There is no nice way to put it.
Given how Bush has treated our once staunch allies, it’s very unlikely that he will be able to repair the fissures and obtain help…and we desperately need help in Iraq. As awful as it is at the moment, we can’t simply pick up and leave.
Most of you, I’m sure, are familiar with the old adage, “If you break it, you’ve bought it.”
We’ve broken Iraq. We’ve broken it into many little pieces, and now it’s ours to fix. We have to fix it, it’s our fault they’re in the mess they’re in. Turning our back to them now would be a grievous error.
The Bush Administration’s policies, rationalities, and procedures in Iraq are a failure; a complete and utter failure. Every month we lose more troops, more ground, and more of the tenuous foothold that we’d originally had. Every month the Iraqi people lose more civilians, lose more hope, lose more of their lives, and see only increased levels of fear, worry that they might not live out the day, electricity, water, and medical care are sorely lacking, and the US is not able to do anything to fix any of those problems as we’re barely able to keep even a vague semblance of control.
The course needs changing post haste, and we will not get that with another four years of George W. Bush.
He claims he’s working on the issue, but that it’s “hard work” (or hardly working); I submit that he’s had plenty of time to work with it, and has done little or nothing. “I will” is a nice sentiment, but looking back on his record on what he has done is pitiful, embarrassing, and casts the United States in a terrible and overly aggressive light.

3) George W. Bush has pushed to write discrimination of a law abiding group of consenting adults into the Constitution.
How anyone can deny this boggles my already difficult to boggle mind. This Administration and its supporters are actively seeking to write in an amendment to the Federal Constitution that serves no purpose other than to undermine and discriminate against a group of law abiding, consenting adult citizens. Whether or not one agrees with the homosexual lifestyle is irrelevant; this is a blatant attempt to force personal and religious based morals onto the nation as a whole. I have yet to see how a homosexual marriage threatens my own marriage; my stance is if it’s threatening to your own marriage, your marriage likely isn’t all that strong or solid to begin with. If the Administration is so concerned about the sanctity of marriage, perhaps they should focus on education and take steps to attempt to reduce the high divorce rate instead. They would do well to remember that divorce also goes against “God’s Will” and the Bible.
Do not fool yourself, this is not secular in origin; this has religious roots despite any protestations to the contrary.
The sanctity of marriage is no more at risk here than I am at risk for burning myself with my now cold mug of tea. I’ll have to check with my husband, but I’m also certain that my marriage would not fall to pieces if two men or two women were allowed to also be married. Now, if another man tried to marry my husband, I might take issue, but that would come back to the fact that (in that event) my marriage was not very solid to begin with.
This is not a matter for the Federal government, and is blatantly discriminatory.
Perhaps next we’ll start having Gay and Straight seats at diners, public water fountains, bathrooms, and those pesky homosexuals will be relegated to the back of the bus (if they’re even allowed on straight busses to begin with).

4) George W. Bush has attempted to severely curtail the rights of the average citizen.
Two words: Patriot Act.
While it has good intentions, is it necessary that I remind you with what the road to Hell is paved?
Designed to help combat terrorism, it’s done little to do such a thing; more often all it’s done is create fear and loathing toward the government from the average citizen. The Bush Administration would do well to realize that the average citizen is not a terrorist threat and does not appreciate being treated as such.
Some of the largest concerns that I personally have with the Patriot Act are as follows:

A) The government has the legal ability to monitor online activities any US citizen by simply telling a judge that the information they find could be "relevant" to an ongoing criminal investigation. While the application must be granted by a judge, the government is not obligated to tell the court or the victim upon what it has done.

B) Several sections of the act have no relevance to terrorism. None. §217 for starters §503; these deal with computer related crimes. No mention of terrorist activity whatsoever.

C) FISA’s authority was expanded. FISA, for those who do not know, refers to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That’s right, FISA’s got the right to skirt around current domestic surveillance limitations and laws.

Many other provisions in the Act violate due process and right to privacy laws. Don’t misunderstand, I am not suggesting that those who plan terrorist acts have the right to keep that hidden and not be under scrutiny, I simply do not agree with the knee jerk way the Administration is going about doing this.
Two sections of the Bill of Rights deal with this; we had to deal with unreasonable search and seizure and lack of due process when we were still a colony of the British Empire. When the US won its independence, the founders were certain to include the rights to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures and the right to due process because we’d seen first hand how wretched things were when we did not have that. Citizens were, at any time, subject to search on nothing more than a mild suspicion. Citizens could be denied due process and sit in a jail cell for months or years before anyone decided to move on with the charges.
We are seeing these things creeping back into our society today; they are not solely the fault of the Patriot Act, but the Act itself does little to uphold those constitutional amendments.

The President’s campaign has curtailed the rights of the citizenry to peaceably assemble; protestors are not allowed near Bush rallies, Bush speeches, or anything Pro-Bush. Rallies are usually invitation only, and you have to actually declare that you’re not a supporter of “the other side”. If it turns out that you lied to gain access and you’re discovered, you’ll likely find yourself charged with trespassing.
Though I do not think it good form to go to a rally for any candidate to simply cause a disturbance (Stop being on my side! It’s embarrassing!), we should have the right to attend for no other reason than to hear the other candidate’s point of view. I believe that it is necessary and essential to making an informed decision to know the views of all candidates on the ticket with crystal clarity. Every candidate is biased to some degree; by thoroughly listening to both points of view one tends to get something much closer to the truth than one would get by listening to only one view.

5) The Bush Administration has made us anything but safer since 9/11/01.
Is it really necessary to over this again? Couldn’t you just read over what I’ve already said, most of it’s cover—what? You can’t?
All right, I’ll go over it again, though more briefly this time.
Before I begin, I’d like to remind those of you who’ve not yet nodded off that the government had had inklings that a large attack on US soil was in the works as far back as the Clinton Administration. One could accuse Clinton of dropping the ball, but the fact still remains that President Bush had access to the same reports, tapes and briefings and did nothing. It was dismissed as a diminutive threat at best. We’ve known for years that bin Laden was a threat; when you, pardon the vulgarity, screw someone over as badly as our government did to him in the 1980s, it’s to be expected that they’ll be slightly bitter. It certainly does not excuse his actions, but it does help explain them.
One can only kick a dog so many times before it turns around and sinks its teeth into your leg.

I see blank stares. This is disappointing. Fine, gather ‘round for story time:

Osama bin Laden left Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after their 1979 invasion. By the mid-1980s, he was the head of Maktab al-Khidamar (MAK) which supplied arms, money, and ‘troops’ from the other countries into the Afghan War.
What is conveniently left out of many reports is that Maktab al-Khidamar was supported by Pakistan, and the Inter-Services Intelligence, which was the CIA’s primary route for conducting the “under cover” war against the Soviet occupation.
This means we funded and supported bin Laden because, at the time, he was on our side. When we were finished with him, when he had no practical use for us any longer, we sloughed him aside like a dirty shirt. The man was dangerous to begin with, and we knew that, but it was rationalized to be “worth the risk” if it helped speed the downfall of the Soviet Union.
We gave this man weapons, money, and our backing (at least under the table) so long as he was a good little puppet and did what we asked. Unfortunately for us when the strings were cut, the puppet kept right on dancing only to a very different tune this time.

The largest terrorist attack ever carried out on US soil happened on George W. Bush’s watch. How he handled the aftermath is pretty much moot, the attack happened while he was in charge.
His knee jerk reactions including pre-emptive war on a country that posed no threat and things like the Patriot Act have done more to harm our security than help it.
When one wages pre-emptive, unsubstantiated war against another nation, there will be backlash. There are, by estimate, more than fifty countries on earth thought to harbor supporters of Osama bin Laden.
Training for our own security personnel in airports, train stations, bus stations, and quite literally everywhere is laughable at best. Weapons still get through on an alarming basis, politicians and music artists are prevented from flying while anyone with a forged passport seems to pass through with relative ease, nail clippers and curling irons are considered deadly weapons and will get you hauled off for questioning; overall, it’s absurd.
At best, the President has done little to nothing to increase security or the methods he’s tried have been ineffectual.
At worst, he’s made us more vulnerable both at home and abroad through his bungling in international affairs.

6) George W. Bush has encouraged outsourcing of jobs overseas which in turn causes the loss of US jobs and and has caused one of the most massive deficits in history.

February 10th, 2004 one of Bush’s top economic advisors was quoted as saying, "Outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade."
Outsourcing is a way to suck American jobs out of the country so the company in question can hire third world workers for a fraction of the salary, obtain tax breaks, and be free from more restrictive US laws.
Outsourcing does not, and cannot by definition, create more jobs at home.
In defending his position on outsourcing, the President stated on March 10th, 2004, "We cannot expect to sell our goods and services, and create jobs, if America and our partners, trading partners, start raising barriers and closing off markets."
Between 2001 and 2003 foreign investment in the US went from $144 billion to $72 billion. During that time frame, the US was investing more in business abroad. We went from $104 billion in 2001 to $136 billion in 2003, and that number is continuing to rise.
Perhaps I’m running low on caffeine or my blood sugar has dropped significantly which has rendered me mentally foggy, but I would think the ‘barrier’ of keeping jobs stateside would be a good thing for us. I would be less than pleased if my job were outsourced. It’s also an interesting side note that, since the first time since President Hoover, exports have fallen under President Bush.
As for a total of the jobs lost under the Bush Administration? Roughly 1.8 million.
Administration claims of 1.5 million jobs created, but that is still nearly 300,000 jobs lost. It’s a deficit; something with which the Bush Administration should be very familiar.
Moving on to the massive deficit. George W. Bush’s Administration inherited an annual federal budget surplus of $230 billion and, in less than three years, transformed it into a $500+ billion deficit.
Nothing else needs to be said.
I may be laughably bad at math, but even I can see a loss for what it is.

7) Ah, lucky number seven; I’ve now come to what all of you Kerry supporters have been waiting for: The flip-flops! Oh yes, prepare to rub your hands together and cackle with sadistic glee as I list off a large number of quotes from the President & Company that refute his claim that he is steadfast and not a flip flopper.

On the subject of funding the Iraq fiasco:
Flip…
"We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" - White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04
Flop…
"I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops." - President Bush, 5/5/04

On the subject of the Department of Homeland Security:
Flip…
"So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." - Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02
Flop…
"So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." - President Bush, 6/6/02

On the subject of WMDs in Iraq:
Flip…
"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." - President Bush, 5/29/03
Flop…
"David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons.And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." - President Bush2/7/04

On the subject of Osama bin Laden:
Flip…
"I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" - President Bush, 09/17/01
Flop…
"I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him." - President Bush3/13/02

On the subject of the 9/11 commission:
Flip…
"President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." - CBS News, 5/23/02
Flop…
"President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." - ABC News, 09/20/02

On the subject of gay marriage:
Flip…
"The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." - Gov. George W. Bus, 2/15/00
Flop…
"Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." - President Bush, 2/24/04

On the subject of nation building:
Flip…
"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." - Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00
Flop…
"We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." - President Bush, 3/6/03

On the subject of Saddam Hussein and a connection with al Qaeda:
Flip…
"You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." - President Bush, 9/25/02
Flop…
"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." - President Bush, 9/17/03

On the subject of 527s
Flip…
"I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import." - President Bush, 3/27/02
Flop…
"I don't think we ought to have 527s. I can't be more plain about it…I think they're bad for the system. That's why I signed the bill, McCain-Feingold." - President Bush, 8/23/04

On the subject of the war on terror:
Flip…
"One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we're asking questions, is, can you ever win the war on terror? Of course, you can." - President Bush, 4/13/04
Flop…
"I don't think you can win [the war on terror]." - President Bush, 8/30/04
And Flip again!
"Make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win [the war on terror]." - President Bush, 8/31/04

On the subject of free trade:
Flip…
"I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." - President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02
Flop…
"In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." - Washington Post, 9/19/03

On the subject of timelines for dictators:
Flip…
"If Iraq does not accept the terms within a week of passage or fails to disclose required information within 30 days, the resolution authorizes 'all necessary means' to force compliance--in other words, a military attack." - LA Times, 10/3/02
Flop…
"I don't think you give timelines to dictators." - President Bush, 8/27/04

Many, many thanks to http://www.americanprogressaction.org/ for their comprehensive list of Bush Flip-Flops.

In closing:

”Oh yeah? Well, if you don’t like it, move to France!” or, if you prefer, “Love it or leave it!”

That pulled card from Bush supporters gets old and tired very quickly.
I speak out against Bush’s abhorrent and failed policies because I love this country; I hate to see her maligned, humiliated, beaten, cast in a foul light, or perceived as oppressive, hypocritical and aggressive either by her own citizens or those of other nations. George W. Bush has done all of the above to this nation. He has ruined our reputation abroad, he as ruined our economy, he has attempted to write discrimination into national law, he has attempted to curtail the very freedoms this nation was found upon, and he has done nothing but increase dissent at home.
Patriotism does not ever entail "sit down, shut up, and follow without question"; you're thinking of a dictatorship, or possibly a novel by George Orwell.
Dissent is one of the most patriotic things a United States citizen can take part in; it's what founded this country and it's what keeps it among one of the best in the world. We can disagree without degenerating into a civil war or risk running arrest; many nations cannot make that claim.
However, as Benjamin Franklin stated, “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.”
We are on a frightening path to doing just that.


I am a Republican, and I am voting for John Kerry on November 2nd.

Edit: Feel free to x-post and quote.

State of Mind: drained