Unsurprisingly, Cheney Lied

"As vice president, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts led by the Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government," Cheney told NBC's "Meet the Press" in September.

Agence France Presse reports, "A Pentagon e-mail said Vice President Dick Cheney coordinated a huge Halliburton government contract for Iraq, despite Cheney's denial of interest in the company he ran until 2000."

There will be a full article about this in the next issue of Time.

Kerry Outlines His National Security Strategy

John Kerry has started a series of speeches that outline his national security strategy. He argues that the Bush administration has moved away from Theodore Roosevelt's "speak softly and carry a big stick." Roosevelt said, "If a man continually blusters, if he lacks civility, a big stick will not save him from trouble." It is a good start but I believe it is only half a policy. It is too defense oriented. We need to proactively root out the hate that causes terrorism, not just treat the symptoms with a strong military and powerful friends.

Kerry says he will follow Roosevelt's time honored advice and has outlined a four part national security policy.

It’s time for a new national security policy guided by four new imperatives: First, we must launch and lead a new era of alliances for the post 9-11 world. Second, we must modernize the world’s most powerful military to meet the new threats. Third, in addition to our military might, we must deploy all that is in America’s arsenal -- our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas. Fourth and finally, to secure our full independence and freedom, we must free America from its dangerous dependence on Mideast oil.

The first point is very welcome indeed. It will be a difficult task after what Bush has done to America's credibility. The second imperative is also a great idea. We have a military designed to fight large cold-war style battles. We have new enemies and this requires new military capabilities.

I will modernize our military to match its new missions. We must get the most out of new technologies. We must reform training and update the way we structure our armed forces -- for example, with special forces designed to strike terrorists in their sanctuaries, and with national guard and reserve units retooled to meet the requirements of homeland defense.

The third point is also important. It appears Kerry will actually hold the intelligence community accountable for its failures. Finally, a new energy policy is badly needed not just for national security, but also to protect the environment. Kerry plans to offer tax credits to consumers who use alternative energy sources.

These are all good ideas, but Kerry doesn't even mention the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Our uneven treatment in favor of Israel is the root of hatred for the United States in the middle east. This hatred is the fuel for groups like Al Qaeda. Terrorism will never end if we cannot solve the conflicts that generate it. We may stop more terrorists with a properly equiped military and international cooperation, but there will always be a few that make it through our defenses. No defense is perfect. If we truly want to cure the world of terrorism, we have to treat the cause not just the symptoms. We need a security policy that focuses on ways to achieve peace, not just better ways to wage war.

A Few Bad Apples?

"Its just a few bad apples," say the Republicans about the Abu Ghraib torture scandal. It comes as no surprise to me that this just is not the case. The New York Times reports that the torture is more widespread.

An Army summary of deaths and mistreatment involving prisoners in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan shows a widespread pattern of abuse involving more military units than previously known.

The cases from Iraq date back to April 15, 2003, a few days after Saddam Hussein's statue was toppled in a Baghdad square, and they extend up to last month, when a prisoner detained by Navy commandos died in a suspected case of homicide blamed on "blunt force trauma to the torso and positional asphyxia."

Or maybe it is just a few bad apples...

2 FOR 1

Bruce Ackerman has a great suggestion that will solve the Nader as spoiler problem and more.

In the case of Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry, electors will be named by each state's political parties. But Ralph Nader is running as an independent. When he petitions to get on the ballot in each state, he must name his own slate of electors. While he is free to nominate a distinctive slate of names, he can also propose the very same names that appear on the Kerry slate.

If he does, he will provide voters with a new degree of freedom. On Election Day, they will see a line on the ballot designating Ralph Nader's electors. But if voters choose the Nader line, they won't be wasting their ballot on a candidate with little chance of winning. Since Mr. Nader's slate would be the same as Mr. Kerry's, his voters would be providing additional support for the electors selected by the Democrats. If the Nader-Kerry total is a majority in any state, the victorious electors would be free to vote for Mr. Kerry.

This suggestion is perfectly legal. There is already a supreme court precedent for Electors in the Electoral College to vote however they choose regardless of what the popular vote was. Read the article in its entirety for more details.

The beauty of this proposal is that not only would it allow people who support Nader to vote their conscience, it would create a massive brouhaha about the stupid electoral college system of voting. This system, as I have mentioned before, effectively disenfranchises millions of people. In my home state, my vote never counts because of the Republican super majority here. Lets all send a copy of this article to the Nader campaign and encourage him to try this idea.

Bigotry in Da House

That's right, there is bigotry in the House of Representatives. There is a great post about this and other examples of bigotry against Athiests over at onegoodmove. Another nice example can be found over at Patriot Boy.

The bigotry Athiests face is similar to that which homosexuals face. As long as you keeps it a secret you are fine. But if you make it known that you are an Athiest or that you are homosexual, watch out. Onegoodmove cites a study in the above mentioned post that says:

"When questioned about what religious or nonreligious group doesn’t share their vision of American society, survey participants indicated that atheists — with 54 percent — provided the greatest threat, Hartmann said. Survey participants said Muslims create the second-highest threat."

If you don't think this is a serious problem in America, then you must be a Southern Baptist (said tongue firmly placed in cheek).

Lets Make America Strong Again

My man George Lakoff has a great idea to unify Kerry's message. Kerry should unify his message using a metaphor of strength. Kerry should campaign on the theme of a strong American and contrast that with how a weak president has weakened our country.

The Bush administration has stretched our military thin and treated our soldiers like crap. Morale is weak in Iraq right now because nobody knows when they will get to go home. Our soldiers don't know what they are doing over their. Bush weakened our standing in the world with his go it alone policy.

Overall the conservatives have weakened health and environmental protections, they have weakened the Medicare system, and they have weakened the country fundamentally by pushing a culture war that is vicious and separates people.

Bush himself is a weak president. When he testified to the 9/11 commission, he needed Cheney to be there to hold his hand, like a little kid going with his mommy. Is he a president or isn't he? What kind of president can't talk for himself? This weakness should be a national issue.

The Clark and O'Neill books point out that the Bush doesn't read his briefings.

Important information about 9/11 – he didn't get. Weak presidents do not pay attention. There is a pattern of him not paying attention to things about the defense of our country and the protections of our citizens. That seems clear regarding 9/11. He also ignored all the warnings about why we shouldn't go into Iraq – the same reasons we didn't march to Baghdad in the first Gulf War; you 'll have civil war; you'll have guerilla war. it will be a quagmire.

Best of all here is what Kerry should be saying about Iraq.

He should be saying "we don't want to reinstate the draft." Raise this issue now. He should say: "It would take hundreds of thousands of troops for an indefinite period to secure Iraq – it would be like Viet Nam. I was in Viet Nam. We got out. It was a mistake. We got out for a good reason, and it was important for us to get out. We don't want to repeat that mistake again. We don't want to put 500,000 of our troops there. We don't want to have constant escalation."

Corporate Crime

Ralph Nader has written an excellent article that catalogues the many ways corporations bend us over and get behind us. Here is an excerpt about how middlemen in the drug industry do it.

As Steven Pearlstein writes in the Washington Post: "In truth, the drug industry now is built on a foundation of kickbacks masquerading as marketing expenses." He and others noted that last month Medco -- the large pharmacy benefits manager, (PBM) that allegedly negotiates lower prices for health plans and their patients, settled charges that it received over $400 million from just one drug company (Merck) in just one year 2001 to favor drugs by that company even if they were more expensive or another drug was prescribed. For this bonanza, Medco settled for a mere $29 million with 20 states Attorneys General. Criminogenic behavior pays indeed. And what about all the other years?