Forgetfulness of McCain and Collins

Date: September 9. 2004
Sent to but not published in the Boston Globe

Ben DeLorio had it right about Senator Susan Collins (Boston Globe, Sept 1.) and David Claffey (Boston Globe, Sept 2.) had it right about John McCain. Frankly I had expected better from these two moderate Republicans.
Collins forgot to mention that from October 2001 until June of 2002, President Bush soundly resisted the call for a Department of Homeland Security. It was only through pressure from the Democrats and especially from the families of those who perished in the 9/11 attacks that President Bush reluctantly adopted the idea in June of 2002.
McCain forgot to mention, in his exuberant defence of the Iraq war, that Saddam was in fact highly constrained because of the UN Sanctions on Iraq; the inspectors on the ground; and allied air patrols in the air
It just goes to show that in an election year, being Republican trumps everything; even the whole truth!

Recall George W. Bush to the Colors

Date: September 8, 2004
Sent to but not published by the Boston Globe

If G.W. Bush did, as your story (September 11, 2004) suggests, break his contract with the United States to undertake service in the National Guard; and if the consequence of breaking that contract are a recall to active duty; then I have a suggestion.
I understand that there is a shortage of troops in Iraq. Recalling G.W. Bush to the colors would seem to be poetic justice.
I understand he is a dab hand at food service. There is a Mess Hall in Iraq that could use his services.

Convention Truths

Date: September 3 2004
Sent to but not published by Washington Post

The Republican party Convention is becoming the convention of the big lie. So far the top performer has been erstwhile Democrat, Zell Miller. His list of weapons systems that John Kerry voted against were, in the main, weapons systems that Dick Cheney was also opposed to.

Never mind, the great American public will not notice that Cheney and Kerry were united on those issues. Only the lie that Kerry was soft on defence will be remembered

Close behind in the absurdity of his support for war was moderate republican Senator John McCain. He effused that we had to go to war because "We couldn't afford the risk posed by an unconstrained Saddam in these dangerous times." Unfortunately, Senator McCain overlooked the constraints imposed upon Saddam by the UN Sanctions, the arms inspectors who were on the ground (and finding nothing), and the allies who were patrolling Iraqi air space. Some freedom! With those constraints the necessity of war becomes quite questionable.

Our final example comes not from the convention itself but from some pre-convention advice given to the President by Senator Susan Collins writing in the Boston Globe. She claims that President Bush “called for the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.” (Boston Globe, August 29, 2004). She conveniently forgets that from October 2001 until June of 2002, President Bush soundly resisted the call for a Department of Homeland Security. It was only through pressure from the Democrats and especially from the families of those who perished in the 9/11 attacks that President Bush reluctantly adopted the idea in June of 2002.

Really even a Massachusetts Democrat expects better of these distinguished Senators. In politics, as in war, the first casualty is the whole truth.

The hollowness of George W. Bush's values

Date: September 2, 2004
Sent to but not published in the Philadelphia Inquirer

The hollowness of George W. Bush's values.

A person who really acted on the values he espouses would long ago have disavowed the scurrilous slurs of the Swifties.
This is just one more disconnect between what George Bush says and what George Bush does. He promised us compassion; he delivered the most divisive administration in recent history with its opening up of the class war by stiffing the working stiff while giving untold wealth to the rich – yes a tax cut of $58,000 appears to be untold wealth to the working poor making an income of $15,000 a year; that is a tax cut of $58,000, not an income of $58,000!
He extols the sacrifices of the troops in the field while failing to fund the necessary Veterans' programs to support them in their post-battlefield traumas. He speaks with his hand on his heart of our debt to the first responders who are in the front line of our defenses against terrorism while he ruthlessly cuts transfer payments to states and cities who are unable to afford the cost of strengthening that security.
He talks of "no child left behind" but fails to provide adequate funding for the programs that would make that slogan a reality. For the first time in history, he wants to amend our constitution -- a document rich with the symbols of liberalism and freedom -- to discriminate against our fellow citizens. He talks of strengthening medicare but enacts legislation that allows the drug companies to enjoy excessive profits.
He talks about conservatism (which to me means conservation) but presides over an administration that repudiated the Kyoto accords, that has weakened clean air laws and that is opening up areas of the wilderness to being trampled on by off-road vehicles and oil and gas drilling rigs.
He talks about law and order but his legal advisors suggest repudiating the Geneva convention – a convention designed to protect American prisoners of war – and his agents abuse prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq.
He talks a good game, but I implore Americans to judge him by his actions and those of his administration.

John McCain's rationale for support of the Iraq War

ate: August 31, 2004
Sent to but not published by New York Times

At the Republican convention last evening (August 30), Senator John McCain said he supported President Bush's attack on Iraq because: "We couldn't afford the risk posed by an unconstrained Saddam in these dangerous times."
The Senator seems to have forgotten the situation on the ground just before the war began. First, Saddam was highly constrained because of the UN Sanctions on Iraq. Despite their problems, they had drastically reduced the potential for Saddam buying weapons materiel. Second, inspectors were on the ground in Iraq. Their reports suggested that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The eight months since Bush claimed victory have only confirmed their findings. No weapons have been found.
Would the Senator agree that Saddam was constrained? Would the Senator agree that, based on his own logic that the war was not justified?

Susan Collins' amnesia about DHS

Date: August 29th., 2004
Sent to but not published in the Boston Globe

I am surprised that Senator Susan Collins would exhibit such amnesia in her statement that President Bush “called for the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.” (Boston Globe, August 29, 2004).
Let me refresh her memory. From October 2001 until June of 2002, President Bush soundly resisted the call for a Department of Homeland Security. It was only through pressure from the Democrats and especially from the families of those who perished in the 9/11 attacks that President Bush reluctantly embraced the idea in June of 2002.
The creation of that Department was by no means a Bush initiative!

PS
If you can't publish this letter -- and you just published one of mine -- I would ask you to call Susan Collins to account and have her publish a correction to this statement. Yet another political use of the "big lie."
As George H. W. Bush said during his campaign -- the lie is on the front page, the retraction is on the inside page; only the lie gets noticed.

Kerry Would Still Vote for War Authorization. Why?

Explaining Kerry's statement that he would still Vote for War Powers

Published in Boston Globe, August 23, 2004.

Ann Yurek (Globe, August 17 2004) says that Kerry wanted to trust the President so that is why he voted war making powers for the President (October 2002). But it really was not a question of trust; it was a vote designed to give the President leverage in calling Iraq to account before the United Nations. It exemplified realpolitik at its best.
It is hard to remember the sequence of events from 2001 and the present day. Up until November 2002 (that is until the President had the support of Senate and House) the Iraqis refused to allow UN inspectors to undertake inspections for Weapons of Mass Destruction on Iraqi territory. By the end of November, Inspections under the direction of Hans Blix were under way. The vote to grant the President war powers had achieved its purpose, the Iraq regime was being called to account for its actions.
We have forgotten too that Hans Blix called on the US and Britain to give his inspectors the "hard intelligence" that they claimed to possess so that his inspectors could go to check out that information on the ground. The failure of the US and Britain to do so should have roused our suspicions that all was not well with the intelligence -- its invalidity has been amply demonstrated in the past six months.
Where we went wrong -- the Senate, and the House, and the country, and all of us -- was the failure to recognize the importance of the inspector's reports in mid February 2003 that there was no evidence of immanent danger from Iraq. That should have led to a re-evaluation of the war power resolution and its potential repeal based on the changed situation. We failed to do so and we are reaping the tragic consequences today.
So, unlike Ann Yurek, I cannot understand Kerry's statement that, even with the evidence that there were no weapons of mass destruction, he would still have voted to give war powers to the President. There is no realpolitik rationale, there is no National Security rationale, there is no counter-terrorism rationale. So why would he say that he would still vote for war? His saying that today makes no sense -- except as a cheap ploy to garner votes in the upcoming election.
See edited and published version here