George Bush, how desperate you, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney are as this bitter and divisive 2006 campaign season draws to a close.  

When all else fails, as your mentor Rove knows, following lessons from his political patron saint Richard Nixon, when all else fails hurl all the mud possible at your opponents and hope enough sticks to achieve some slimy political victories.

Now John Kerry is the convenient target after making a comment relating to getting a good education or getting stuck in Ira    q.  Immediately you used words like "sickening" and "disgusting" pertaining to a comment you claimed denigrated the educational levels of fighting men and women in Iraq.

This is just the latest in a series of lies that you and your Republican partners in crime and destruction have unearthed.  The first thing one does in evaluating any comment is to place it in its most reasonable context.  Kerry has been supporting America's troops while lamenting the policies that put them in harm's way, attributing them to poor judgment, i.e., demonstrating a need for additional education.

The above-referenced question flashed across my mind as I stood in line at a bank the other day.  I saw a young man with a prosthetic leg.  My mind flashed back to my teenage years where I worked as a bus boy at an army hospital for wounded vets.  I saw many men trying to adjust to prosthetic arms or legs.

Occasionally the men would confide to me how hurt they were that fiancées had broken off engagements or family members who lived close by failed to come and visit them.

These indelible memories haunted me as I stood in that line at the bank.  I asked the woman standing ahead of me, who was observing the man with the artificial leg, if she thought the Iraq War was worth what the wounded service personnel had lost.

In a word she replied, "I think it is outrageous!"  That was her succinct assessment, and recalling the pained expressions on the faces of the amputees in that army hospital where I worked still haunts me.

Mike Hutcherson of Kenmore, Washington, writing in the October 3 Seattle Times, had this to say:

"To those who voted to put these misguided, incompetent people in charge of our government, I say, `Have you seen and heard enough, at last?  Or do you still want to stay the course with these dangerous, incompetent people?'

"Time to repudiate Bush Administration and Republican Party policies that have brought scorn and shame on countries throughout the world."

Ever since George Bush began making decisions in the role as President of the United States, tragically horrifying events have happened in rapid succession.  Long before 9/11 it was apparent that George Bush wanted to invade Iraq.  

We stand at the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 tragedies. No solid answers have been provided.  An unconvincing cover-up has been presented, and only under great public duress.  

It is time to assess what really happened on 9/11 and conceive of creative strategies to dig the truth from out of the dusty caverns to which a thoroughly unprincipled unelected government has buried it.

In that the law has been creatively used in a class action lawsuit regarding 9/11 on behalf of deceased victims' family members, another lawsuit that should be promptly filed in federal court is one pertaining to the unconscionable, blood-stained profits that neoconservative warmongers representing America's invisible and unelected government have realized over the corpses and shattered bodies of service personnel and civilians in the Middle East.

The class action lawsuit alluded to earlier creatively employs the RICO statute in an attempt to demand the truth about the causes of the World Trade Center calamities as well as the repercussions that followed.  

When Donald Rumsfeld warns, as he did in his speech at the American Legion Convention in Salt Lake City last week, about "a new type of fascism" he is correct, but in the opposite manner from the intent of his explosive remarks.

When Democrats fight back by flailing at Rumsfeld and stating that he should leave for advocating the wrong policies regarding the Iraq War the question that remains is:  If Rumsfeld leaves before sundown what kind of replacement will surface?  After that the corollary question should be asked of, "Will a definitive policy change be made?"

The most cursory look at the Cheney-Bush playbook provides one resounding answer - there will be no change.  The reason is that the game plan for global empire established when Bush's father was in office and declared the dawning of a New World Order is looming ever larger with breakneck rapidity.

Rumsfeld is one of the "good old boys" of the Project for the New American Century.  This is the gang that invoked a New Pearl Harbor in a famous position paper as it sought to mold the world in accordance with its image.  

Reacting to an article in the June 21 edition of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that was headlined, "Killing of GI's Barbaric," reader David Hooper of Seattle wrote an interesting letter to the editors that ran in response to this assertion:

"Indeed, Iraqi insurgents brag about their barbaric deeds.  Americans in contrast, torture and kill suspects in secret prisons, then lie about it.  We bomb babies and cover it up.  We've invaded a little country to get its oil, all the while pretending to bring freedom and democracy.

"We are all barbaric.  Who is better, the braggart or the liar?"

That blunt viewpoint might send a stirring message if the Republican Administration has the courage and fairness to honestly and objectively to stop think about what David Hooper wrote.

No other cliché fits what George Bush has done to America during his reign of incredible error than this time-worn but timely cliché: The road to hell is paved with alleged good intentions.

There is nothing any world leader can do that is worse than to wage a war minus clear and convincing proof that the nation he represents is under immediate attack.

That is precisely what George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, and Donald Rumsfeld, did, using the infamous forged document that Colin Powell read in lambasting Iraq at the UN to scare everyone into the Iraq War.

Remember when Republicans and Democrats made such a sick spectacle of themselves, carrying on as if they were saving the entire world by launching the war against Iraq?

As a disabled American veteran, I am appalled by the detention camp that is in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It was plainly stated that when they created it there, it was for the purpose of ensuring that these men could not be brought before American Courts.

This is a nation based on laws, and we hold that belief that all men are created equal. Yet, we as a nation condone the President, Vice President and Secretary of Defense. In their position that the men held here are not subject to American law.
The promised military tribunals have not been held, some of these men have been held five years already. When do they get their day in court?

from 1952 thru 1975 there were a series of "classified medical research" projects paid for by the CIA and DOD, they used "volunteers" in the tests, the majority of the time, there are 2300 known volunteers for biological tests at Fort Detrick 1952 - 1972 and 7120 enlisted men  used in the chemical weapons and drug experiments at Edgewood Arsenal. These men have been forsaken by their government for compensation and recognition.

Hey!  At last trapped by his own words, words recorded on TV interviews prior to the Iraq War debacle.

Oh!  You can chase around he country trying to polish your tarnished image.  But Rummy, it won't work.

One dissatisfied individual in Atlanta challenged Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld point blank at a public forum, "You said you know where the weapons of mass destruction were located!"  

But the record is clear, no matter how many times Rumsfeld denies making his dramatic declaration.

Remember Zarqawi?  You know..the guy they use to "prove" there was an Al Qaeda - Saddam connection?  The guy who was supposedlly in Bagdhad to GET HIS LEG AMPUTATED??!?!?!?

Watch the video for yourself. Look around 1:50 (preview) and again around 25:20 (more extended portion) you see he is clearly walking without a limp in SAND!

They must have some pretty amazing prosthetics in Iraq.  On top of  that..even if he was a below the knee amputee... how do you explain the
refitting for new prosthesis with the obvious weight gain in recent years?  

Remember when the Republicans and Democrats hugged and patted Bush on the back as he walked so proudly down the red carpet that fateful day when he declared war on Iraq?

Bush's hot face flushed with delight, observing that he had such universal accord on his march to war!  Vice-President Cheney was smiling, as the other robots Powell, Rice, Wolfowitz and Perle were all thrilling to this momentous moment in this historical march to bring freedom and democracy to the entire Middle East.  

Wow!  All that was lacking was a hallelujah chorus of the right wing sycophants.  After all, this could lead to the much-anticipated Armageddon, Hosanna!

But the rest of the world watched in horror and awe as these self-appointed saviors of freedom and democracy for the entire world marched in lockstep to the war machine's tune without a single shred of legitimate proof that Iraq posed a direct threat to the U.S.  Iraq's leadership was stunned.  

According to the subscription only US News Bulletin, Bush's staunch defense of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is being buttressed by information being released by the Pentagon. In particular, the information is intended to support the point made by Rumsfeld in a recent interview that the 'criticisms of a few retired generals should not dictate policy or personnel decisions'. According to the data released:

There are currently 881 active duty general officers

There are more than 1,400 general officers if one includes the reserve and the National Guard

There are 8,000 if retired ones are included

Also, the Department of Defense released statistics showing that Rumsfeld 'frequently consults the active-duty brass'. By this count:

He met with the chiefs of the military services 29 times year-to-date

He met with the chiefs of the military services 110 times last year

He held meetings with the combat commanders 45 times this year and 163 times last year

They did not mention whether or not the Defense Secretary actually listened to what these officers had to say.

Nevertheless, the intended point is that the percent of generals calling for Rumsfeld to step down out of the entire population of generals, retired or active, reserve or guard, totals only 0.0875%.

That said, you would think it would be a simple task to bring a larger group from the remaining 99.9125% of generals that would act as equally passionate defenders of Rumsfeld.

Such is not the case.

Why?

The last week has been a hard one for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.  Not only has he been forced into overdrive having to justify the Iraq War in the wake of mounting deaths and casualties along with sharply accelerating costs; now generals of vast experience in the field are calling for his removal.

The rationale of the generals is sound and comparable to what we have been hearing for some time in the wake of early commentary and analysis from brilliant and courageous journalistic ombudsman Seymour Hersh.  Certainly the game plan has been wrong from the outset and it is refreshing to see the haughty and arrogant Rumsfeld being given his justifiable comeuppance.

It was not that long ago that in an earlier effort to hold Rumsfeld accountable, sincere progressives were leading a drive to encourage concerned citizens to send telegrams and letters along with e-mails to George W. Bush in the White House.  Despite the sincerity of the effort and the correctness of viewpoint, are these efforts not straying from the main point?

Since we have just launched into another baseball season an expression from America's pastime is apropos to describe the current situation relating to Iraq.  The old expression, applicable to anyone playing baseball from the little leagues to the majors is, "Keep your eye on the ball!"

Two more generals added to the top-level calls for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign. As has been standard practice in the past, the White House met the criticism of their cabinet member by dismissing it and praising the member... just before that member stepped down. Is it Rumsfeld's turn? The Washington Post reports that the White House came to Rumsfeld's aid yesterday, "rebuffing calls from several retired generals for his resignation and crediting him with leading the Pentagon through two wars and a transformation of the military."

Retired Major General Charles Swannack Jr. is the "fifth retired general now is coming forward to call for Rumsfeld's resignation -- the second one who actually served on the ground in Iraq." The general told CNN's The Situation Room that 'Rumsfeld should make way for new leadership'.

Retired Army Major General John Riggs said Rumsfeld "created an 'atmosphere of arrogance' at the Pentagon in which military advice on Afghanistan and Iraq was ignored or discounted."

And, according to the CBS Evening News, "What makes this all particularly stinging is that all these generals served in high-ranking positions under Secretary Rumsfeld and many were intimately involved in the fighting or planning of the war in Iraq."

In the meantime, Republicans are fed up. CNN's The Situation Room reported, "One source...said we need to -- Republicans -- we need to turn the page on Iraq. ... It's hurting Republicans as they look toward the fall and the elections. So one in a top leadership position said, look, we really need to turn the page. We can't do it while Don Rumsfeld is there."