Columns - October, 2004

• October Columns from 10/28/04 onward
• No Blame, No foul? (10/27/2004)
• Say What? (10/27/2004)
• Iraq: The Money Pit (10/26/2004)
• The Guilt of a Nation: The War Crimes Continue (10/24/2004)
• Ann Coulter Partisans Demand “Death to Al Pieda!” (10/23/2004)
• The Weekly Update on History Rewritten (10/23/2004)
• There They Go Again: Those Double-Plus-Plus-Ungood Liberals are Undermining America (10/22/2004)
• Pax Americana: The Subtext in the Simple Statements of George W. Bush (10/21/2004)
• American Medicine: A Prescription for Crisis (10/19/2004)
  •       1. Introduction
  •       2. An Aging Population: We Serve No Health Care Disaster Before It’s Time
  •       3. No Assurance from Health Insurance
  •       4. Prescription Drugs - A Bitter Pill
  •       5. Send in the Mounties
  •       6. The Flu Vaccine Shortage – A Case Study
  •       7. Politician, Heal Thyself
  •       8. Conclusions
• Just When You Thought It Couldn’t Get Dirtier (10/14/2004)
• Simplicity (10/14/2004)
• Our Busy Beavers in the Congress (10/11/2004)
• Round Two: Temper and Delusion (10/09/2004)
• Ashcroft, Bush, et al. v The Constitution: Assault on the Judiciary (10/07/2004)
• Lies, Damned Lies, and Iraq (10/07/2004)
• What Did They Know, and When Did They Know It (10/03/2004)
• An Open Letter and Response to A Challenge to Kerry’s Approach to The War In Iraq (10/02/2004)
• All Your Bible Are Belong to Us - Waiting for Karl Rove's Counter-attack (10/01/2004)

There have been a lot of rationalizations floating around lately about the 377 tons of explosives that have been looted from Al-Qaqaa in Iraq [5]. Now, before we get to that, it should be noted that according to Lai Ling Jew, the NBC reporter embedded with the U.S. Army unit that seized the storage facility three weeks into the war, the fault lies with the Army in not keeping tabs on the dangerous explosives [3]. Said Lai Ling, "… as far as we could tell, there was no move to secure the weapons, nothing to keep looters away [3]."

The Iraqi Government blamed it on "theft and looting ... due to lack of security [3]."

The incident has become a campaign issue, with Senator Kerry blaming President George W. Bush’s leadership for the foul-up [4] [6].

This is a security screw up of epic proportions. Yet, what is truly interesting, and, in a way, horrifyingly fascinating about it is not so much that the explosives have been stolen – is the reaction of the Bush partisans to the incident. This reaction can be summed up in a simple phrase: abdication of responsibility.

Defenses by Bush partisans for this blunder have ranged from attributing it to a round off error to flat out denial that explosives are missing or have not been secured [7]. This despite the fact that the United Nations has also confirmed that the explosives are missing – and that they are missing from a site that the United States has claimed to once have been a nuclear weapons development facility [4].

Just as George W. Bush was unable to bring himself to admit that he had made mistakes during the second presidential debate [8], his partisans are unwilling to admit that security for the explosives was bungled.

One of the main arguments raised by the Bush partisans [7] – and by Bush and Cheney, for that matter [4] – is that compared to the massive amount of arms that have been confiscated, 377 tons just isn’t that much.

Well, ok, let’s do some math here and see what we are really looking at.

HMX has a density of 1.91 and RDX has a density of about 1.82 [1] [9] [11]. As these two explosives made up 98% of the explosives stolen [5], we’ll err a bit on the conservative side and use a figure of 1.9 for our overall density figure to take a look at the amounts we are talking about.

Now, we have 377 tons of this stuff, which is 754000 pounds.

Using the density of 1.9, we get 4180 pounds of explosives per cubic meter.

This means that we had 180.3 cubic meters of this stuff - or about 5431 cubic feet.

That is enough to fill 226 large bath tubs. It is enough that if you spread it an inch or so thick, it would cover an entire football field. It is the equivalent volume of 36 elephants [10].

Looked at another way, a Ford F-150 truck can carry 3000 pounds [2]. This means that it would have taken 252 F-150 truckloads to cart this stuff away.

Or, if people were smuggling it out bit by bit, say 10 pounds per load carried out in backpacks, under one's shirt, etc, we are looking at 75,400 people walking out with a chunk of this stuff. If you short changed everyone, and gave them 7-1/2 pounds, you could fill the rose bowl with the number of people it would have taken to smuggle that much out.

In other words, this was a physically huge amount of explosives. It was not a rounding error – it was an example of gross incompetence that it disappeared.

The irony here is that if the Bush partisans would just admit that it was a mistake, come out and say that steps needed to be taken and would be taken to improve security, and that those responsible – including the high ranking strategic decision makers for security – would be held accountable, the incident could be a learning experience, and it would quickly pass out of the scope of the political fray.

Instead, by denying that there as an elephant in the room – or 36 elephants, in this case – they have exacerbated the situation by politicizing it to the point where it becomes impossible for the leadership to fix the underlying problems.

And those problems are bad. Just how bad? What could that amount of explosives do?

Well, this is powerful stuff we are talking about. In fact, it is the military’s most powerful non-nuclear explosives [11].

Libyan terrorists needed just 1 pound of it to blow up Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, killing 170 people [5].

This means that it is more than enough to blow up every single commercial airliner flying on a given day.

Given that Timothy McVeigh used 2 tons of far more primitive explosives to destroy the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, some 200 buildings of similar size could be destroyed [12]. In other words, the entire green zone could be leveled.

To quote one Usenet poster [14] , the only thing that the looted explosives cannot seem to penetrate is the responsibility proof shell that the Bush partisans have built around the President.

The President won’t take responsibility for the disappearance of the explosives [15] – rather, he has his spokesman down play the affair.

The President won’t take responsibility for the state of education in this nation. We certainly don’t hear much about the fact that No Child Left Behind [17] – a program with good intentions and a horrible implementation - is a disaster [16] and has become an unfunded mandate [18] [19].

The President won’t take responsibility for the environment. Instead, he stifles evidence of global warming [20], has allowed more mercury and arsenic emissions, uses the deceitfully named “Healthy Forests Initiative” to allow logging companies to cut more and older trees and gutted the enforcement clean air and water acts [21].

The President won’t take responsibility for government spending, making it impossible to say the words “Republican” and “fiscal responsibility” in the same sentence with a straight face. Despite a record deficit [22], bush continues to try to buy votes and coddle his big-money allies with tax cuts [23] that we can’t afford, and continues to fight a war on credit [24].

The President won’t take responsibility for Social Security – despite the fact that the system is going broke [25].

In fact, it seems that the President won’t take responsibility for anything – problems with the economy [27] [28], rising terrorism in Iraq [26] – in fact, pretty much anything.

In the third debate against Senator Kerry, the President refused to admit to any mistakes except for a few appointments – appointments that he would not specify, as he did not want to “hurt their feelings [29].”

Perhaps it is time to stop sparing people’s feelings, and start admitting to mistakes. At least then, they could be fixed.

Back to top

"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th. What the Vice President said was, is that he has been involved with al Qaeda."
- President Bush, September 17, 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/

"The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive."
- President Bush, September 25, 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/

"And there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq."
- President Bush, September 26, 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/

"And it [Iraq] has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda."
- President Bush, March 17, 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/

”Saddam's regime also had long established ties with al Qaeda.”
- Vice President Dick Cheney, July 1, 2004
http://www.whitehouse.gov/

A Non Sequitur Comment Back Then:

Reporter: One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
President George W. Bush: I can't make that claim.
Prime Minister Tony Blair: That answers your question.
January 31, 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/

On Terrorists Now:

"Nothing has come to our notice that would indicate links [between Iraq and al Qaeda]"
- Michael Chandler, U.N Terrorism Committee, June 27, 2003
http://news.bbc.co.uk/

"We could find no provable connection between Saddam and al Qaeda,"
- (Anonymous) Senior White House Official, March 3, 2004
http://www.miami.com/

"At various times Al Qaeda people came through Baghdad and in some cases resided there. But we simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all."
- David Kay, former head of the CIA's Iraq Survey Group, June 16, 2004
http://www.boston.com/

“I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection [between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda]”
- Collin Powel, Secretary of State, January 8, 2004
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/

"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two,"
- Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, October 4, 2004
http://www.reuters.com/

On WMD’s Then:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, August 26, 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/

"The tubes are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs."
- Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor, September 8, 2002
http://archives.cnn.com/

“Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.”
- President Bush, September 12, 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/

"We know they have weapons of mass destruction … There isn't any debate about it." "[It is] beyond anyone's imagination" that U.N. inspectors would fail to find such weapons if they were given the opportunity.”
- Donald Rumsfeld, September 2002
http://votemarcy.com/

"The Iraqi regime is building the facilities necessary to make more biological and chemical weapons. And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given."
- President Bush, September 26, 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."
- Colin Powell Remarks to U.N. Security Council, February 5, 2003
http://www.cnn.com/

"Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets. "
- Colin Powell Remarks to U.N. Security Council, February 5, 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
- George W. Bush, February 6, 2003.
http://www.cnn.com/

“Does Saddam now have weapons of mass destruction? Sure he does. We know he has chemical weapons. We know he has biological weapons. ... How far he’s gone on the nuclear-weapons side I don’t think we really know. My guess is it’s further than we think. It’s always further than we think, because we limit ourselves, as we think about this, to what we’re able to prove and demonstrate. ... And, unless you believe that we have uncovered everything, you have to assume there is more than we’re able to report.”
- Richard Perle, Defense Policy Board Chair, speaking to a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee hearing, March, 2003.
http://www.newyorker.com/

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”
- President Bush, March 17, 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/

“In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act, in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687 -- both still in effect -- the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.”
- President Bush, March 17, 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/

“On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm. Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed.”
- President Bush, March 17, 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/

"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly... all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes."
- Ari Fleisher, March 21, 2003
http://archives.cnn.com/

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
- Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003.
http://www.defenselink.mil/

"I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now."
- Colin Powell, May 4, 2003.
http://archives.cnn.com/

On WMD's now:

[Iraq’s nuclear weapons program has been reduced to] "less than zero,"
- Sabah Abdul Noor, Iraqi Nuclear Bomb Scientest, January 2004
http://www.boston.com/

"I can apologize for the information that turned out to be wrong [concerning WMD's in Iraq]."
- Prime Minister Tony Blair, September 29, 2004
http://www.sfgate.com/

"I knew that there was a dispute [concerning aluminum tubes she had stated unequivocally were for use in purifying uranium]. I actually didn't really know the nature of the dispute."
- Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor, October 3, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/

"We found nothing. There are no large stockpiles of weapons. There hasn't actually been a find of a single weapon, a single weapons agent, nothing like the programs that the administration believe existed."
- Joseph Cirincione, author of a report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, January, 2004
http://www.cnn.com/

"We have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a mobile [biological weapons] production effort."
- David Kay, former head of the CIA's Iraq Survey Group, October, 2004
http://www.commondreams.org/

[Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had] "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program."
- Charles A. Duelfer, Chief U.S. Weapons Inspector, October 7, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/

"We were almost all wrong [on Iraq]"
- Charles A. Duelfer, Chief U.S. Weapons Inspector, October 7, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/

"The former regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam"
- Report on Iraq WMD's, Charles A. Duelfer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/

Back to top

Despite President Bush’s vehement repudiation [1] of Senator Kerry’s accusations that the war in Iraq would cost $200 billion [2], it appears that the President is going to be asking congress for up to an additional $70 billion [3], pushing the total costs of the war to $225 billion [3].

The request for the additional funds is expected to be a part of President Bush’s 2005 budget request [3]. This comes after numerous price increases in the war, including a $25 billion allocation in August, 2004 [4], an $87.5 billion allocation in November, 2003 [8] [9] [10], above and beyond the initial $75 billion that President Bush asked for – after the war started [12].

In 2003, the military spent $62.5 billion in Iraq. In 2004, $65 billion was spent [3]. This new allocation request would continue the trend of increased spending in Iraq, as the $25 billion allocation was for fiscal year 2005 – bringing the total for that fiscal year to $75 to $95 billion [3].

However, all of these figures are greatly above the initial costs estimated by the White House. Though the White House was aggressively reticent about the cost of the war during the initial stages of the war [18], some estimates were released [14]. In January of 2003, numbers were released by the Office of Budget Management (OMB) estimating the cost at $50 to $60 billion [5] – though, Larry Lindsay had previously estimated the cost at $200 billion – an act for which he was dismissed from the White House [6] [7]. Of course, these numbers are far above the initial cost of $9 to $13 billion dollars – as estimated in October, 2002 [11].

In fact, early on in the war, many White House officials indicated that the war and the reconstruction would be paid for with Iraqi oil [13] [14]. Estimated budgets generated by the CBO [15] and President Bush [17] still indicate that the Iraqi oil will be used for rebuilding. The only problem with these estimates is that insurgents and mismanagement have led to what amounts to a complete shutdown of the flow of oil from Iraq [16].

Exacerbating the issue is the fact that we are paying for the war on credit, with this year sees a record deficit for the United States [41].

It can be safely said that the cost of the War in Iraq has constantly above what the Bush Administration has indicated it would be, both in terms of money and in terms of lives. In May, 2003, when Bush made his infamous speech under the “Mission Accomplished” banner while wearing a Top Gun suit [20], there had been 138 American deaths in Iraq [21]. There are now over 1,100 Americans dead and over 8000 wounded due to the war in Iraq [19].

When President Bush led America to war against Iraq, there were three primary reasons. First, President Bush told us that Iraq had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction [27] [28] [30]. Second, the President told us that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda [28] [29] [30]. And finally, President Bush told us that Saddam was a horrible dictator who treated his people in an inhumane manner [31].

Yet it turns out that there were no stockpiles of mass destruction [22] – or programs to make them [26]. In fact, the ability for Saddam to make WMD’s had deteriorated since 1991 [38]. It also turns out that there were no ties between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda [23] [24] [25] – though, due to the American invasion, terrorists are now streaming into Iraq [39]. And while Saddam Hussein was indeed a despicable and evil example of a human being, there are governments just as bad in the world [32] [33] [34] – governments who treat their people as badly as Saddam Hussein treated his, and who are close to or have actually gained nuclear capabilities during George W. Bush’s presidency [35] [36] [37].

To add icing to the cake, the war has resulted in the World’s respect for the United States dropping to new lows [40].

Given the perceptible results of the war in Iraq to date, one wonders just what an extra $70 billion is going to buy for us. Hopefully, this investment will have a better return than the previous ventures.

Back to top

Since the start of the War on Terror, the United States has acted outside the bounds of both its own national law and outside the bounds of international law [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [19] [22]. Yet despite the revelations earlier in the year concerning the abuses at Abu Ghraib, it appears that those who control the course of the nation are determined to compound the sins committed in the name of this nation, and not to attempt to mend their ways.

During the past six months, the CIA has been using the authorization provided in a Justice Department drafted memo to transfer civilian prisoners out of Iraq for interrogation [1] [9]. The CIA sought and was granted this authority so that it could take prisoners out of Iraq to nations where they would not be protected by law from forms of interrogation not permitted in U.S. occupied Iraq – and certainly not permitted in the United States [1] [9].

Of course, this practice is blatantly against international law – specifically, it violates Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which protects civilians during wartime and occupation, including insurgents who were not part of Iraq's military [1]. This practice also violates United States law – which is why the memo was drafted [1]. In fact, under both United Sates and International law, this action is defined as a war crime [1] [10].

That our government continues to violate international law and to commit atrocious acts in Iraq should not surprise anyone, but it still seems to have the power to shock and dismay.

Since the start on the War on Terror, the Government of the United States has preformed one action after another that is morally reprehensible and illegal at both the national and international level [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [22].

At Guantanamo Bay’s Camp Delta, the offshore prison used to hold and interrogate suspected terrorists taken in Afghanistan, prisoners have been systematically bound and beaten, kicked and otherwise physically abused [3]. Although the prisoners in Afghanistan are primarily Afghani Taliban, they come from a total of 42 different nations, with the ranks of prisoners including American and British citizens [3] [4].

Many of the over 600 prisoners held there have been held for over 2-1/2 years now – most without access to council, spiritual advisors, or contact with their families [4]. The United States has contested that international law and the Geneva convention does not apply to terrorists – and hence, believes that it has the ability to hold them indefinitely, without charges, and without constraints in terms of how they may be treated [1] [4].

However, in many ways, as barbaric and uncivilized as the happenings at Guantanamo Bay have proved to be, what has been happening at Abu Ghraib [2], where at one point in time, the United States held over 50,000 men, women and children [10].

Despite the fact that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has refused to allow many of the photographs, videos and reports from Abu Ghraib to be published, saying that it would just make matters worse [5] , enough have found their way out to make the picture rather clear. It should be noted that Rumsfeld never said for whom it would make matters worse.

What is known about Abu Ghraib is that systematic rape, sodomy and murder were preformed by Americans on both civilian and military prisoners [5] [6] [7] [10] [22]. There were reports of the sodomy being preformed on children [6] [8].

Prisoners were humiliated, deprived of clothing and bedding, forced to masturbate and perform homosexual acts on each other in public, hooded, leashed like wild animals and dragged, smothered, shrouded in cellophane, hooked up to electric wires, and threatened with wild dogs [2] [7] [8] [10] [18] [22]. Physical, emotional and mental torture was practiced [7] [10] [13] [22]. Prisoners were smeared with what appears to be feces [2] [7] [22]. Muslims were forced to eat pork and drink liquor [8] [22] – deadly sins in their eyes.

And at the end of the abuse, there was death for many [18]. A death without dignity, with American soldiers posing over mutilated corpses for photographs [18].

Almost all of these abuses have been captured on video and in photographs [2] [6] [7] [8] [10] – as have the blood spattered rooms where the torture took place [10].

As if the rape, torture, sodomy, murder, child abuse, deprivation, and other abuses were not enough, there existed a practice of “ghosting” detainees – whereby they were “disappeared” into the system, making it impossible for their families to find out their fate [16] [17]. General Kern of the U.S. army said that the number of such ghosts numbered "in the dozens, perhaps up to 100 [17]."

The levels of inhumane abuse that the United States military and the CIA preformed in the name of the United States should bring shame to all Americans. After all, the only reason left of all the reasons given by George W. Bush for the invasion of Iraq is that Saddam Hussein mistreated his people [11] [12]. Certainly, nothing Saddam Hussein did in his jails could be worse than that which we have done in the ones that we established.

What makes the matter worse is that knowledge of the issue probably went to the cabinet level [14].

In May, 2004, a memo by Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez was released that showed links between the treatment of the prisoners and the U.S. military high command [8]. Other reports corroborate that there was awareness at the highest levels of the command structure concerning the atrocities being preformed at Abu Ghraib [10] [14] [22].

Given the systemic nature of the abuse of the prisoners [15] [22], there is no reason to think that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was unaware of it – and that President Bush was unaware of what was happening [10] [14].

Yet the highest rank soldiers charged to date have been a sergeant [10] and two chief warrant officers [20] [21] [22]. A report released in August, 2004, cited 27 people who are accused of being associated with abuses at Abu Ghraib, 23 soldiers from a military intelligence unit and four civilian contractors working with them [16]. Yet despite the fact that this report indicates that the torture of inmates stemmed from orders issued and policies released from the high command [16] [18] [22], no action has been taken against any high ranking officers to date.

It is not enough to offer up sacrificial lambs in the form of some enlisted noncoms and warrant officers to answer for these crimes. Even if the enlisted personnel involved and low ranking officers were not given specific orders to perform the horrendous acts that they are guilty of, the officers in command are ultimately responsible for the conduct of the enlisted men under their command. Furthermore, there is just too much evidence – over 1,800 slides were shown before a congressional committee investigating the prison [18] – for these actions to be the result of overzealous individuals.

For the sake of the honor of this nation, for the dignity and the reputation of this nation, the abuses of the Geneva Convention must stop.

Horrible acts have been committed in the name of this nation. As a nation, we must not try to hide from these acts; we must not try to protect those who ordered them committed to try to avoid the shame associated with the atrocities committed. It is too late for that – already in the eyes of the world, we have sunk to a level of barbarism equal to that of the Nazi regime in Germany.

Yet during the months leading up to the election, the Bush Administration has done nothing concerning Abu Ghraib – and by doing nothing, allows the memory in the American mind to dim. After all, it is not something that Americans want to think about.

But what has happened has not left the minds of Iraqi’s, nor the minds of the rest of the world. And by doing nothing – undoubtedly for fear it would hurt his chances of re-election – George W. Bush has accepted a certain amount of moral guilt for what has happened. Even if he was not aware of the atrocities being committed at the time, his protection of the perpetrators is enough to damn him.

As a democracy, the people are responsible for the actions of the government. When a democratic government takes actions that are against the will of the people, when a democratic government allows atrocities to be committed in the name of the people of the nation that it represents, it is the duty of the people to vote that government out of office, and demand that the new government make radical changes to the way the business of the nation is conducted.

We cannot hide from the monstrous acts committed in the name of our nation. Furthermore, it is a moral imperative that we not forget what has happened, and that we not allow it to continue.

If we are to retain any semblance of morality, we must attempt to atone for the acts committed in the name of the people of this nation, and change the disastrous course that this nation has been put upon.

Back to top

Ann Coulter, radical reactionary right wing columnist [4], had custard pies thrown at her during an appearance at the University of Arizona [1] [2] [3].

It appears that Edgar Smith and William Zachary Wolff, the two young men guilty of attempting to pie Ms. Coulter, will be charged with a felony – for damage to a backdrop exceeding $3,000 - in addition to misdemeanor counts of disorderly conduct, vandalism, and assault without injury [2].

What is disturbing is that many of her partisans on the blog-sphere think that those guilty of pie-ing Ann Coulter deserve the full weight of a felony charge.

Yes, what the two men did was uncouth. Yes, it certainly was a misdemeanor. But it was not a felonious action. It was not like holding up a convenience store with a gun, or rape, or murder. It was custard pies. And odds are that cleaning a bit of custard off a backdrop used in college drama presentations is not an onerous task.

In short, what the two did fell somewhere between a college prank and a protest. No one got hurt, and Ms. Coulter laughed the incident off [1] [2] [3]. The fact that the young men carried notes with references to “Al Pieda” should have clued in police that they were not intending serious harm to anyone [2].

So, it seems that Ms. Coulter’s partisans want the two jailed on the felony charges because they dared to disagree with her views.

There is no doubt that the pie-throwers were out of line. And as offensive as Ann Coulter is to many, she has the right to say her piece - even if it is hate filled, bigoted, lying drivel. (In this case, she was insisting that there were links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda – a contention that has been proven patently false [5].) Those who feed off this sort of propaganda have the right to pay $20,000 for the experience of hearing her speak [1].

So, yes, the pie-throwers should probably be punished in some way. But something on the level of a series of weekends spent picking up trash along the freeway is in order - not something on the order of hard time.

We are not yet a fascist state, and the punishment should fit the crime and be determined by the law, not the desires of those who are in power and their partisans.

Back to top

This report is sure to add fuel to the fire when it comes to the debate as to whether or not the War against Iraq was justified. Already, the Deulfer report, which had made similar if less specific accusations, has already done so [2]. Certainly, President Bush, upon receiving the Duelfer report, was quick to justify the War in Iraq on the basis that Saddam Hussein was using the FFO program “to siphon off billions.” [3]

However, it is important to remember one key fact: we did not go to war because Saddam was able to turn a profit off the FFO program. We went to war because George W. Bush told us that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction [4], that he had ties to those who had attacked us on September 11, 2001 [5] [7].

And herein lies the problem. Saddam Hussein did not have WMD’s, and in fact his ability to make WMD’s had deteriorated since 1991 [8]. Furthermore, it turned out that he did not have ties to al-Qaeda [6].

In addition to the fact that the fundamental reasons that America was willing to follow President Bush to war were false, more and more evidence is surfacing that the Bush administration was aware that the intelligence that was used to sell the war to the American people and the world was questionable at best [9] [10] [11] [12].

Not that the Bush administration seems to be overly concerned about the fact that the previous premises for war have turned out to be false. When this has happened, they retroactively change the reasons we went to war. It has varied from WMD’s to ties to al-Qaeda to the plight of the Iraqi people [14]. And now, the stated reason is fast becoming the fact that it now appears that Saddam Hussein was trying to circumvent the sanctions [1].

Furthermore, the consequences of the war are being revealed as extremely negative for the United States – and Iraq, for that matter [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [24].

While there is no doubt that Saddam was an evil and sadistic dictator, the United States has been responsible for over 13,000 Iraqi civilian deaths [17]. The infrastructure of that nation has been decimated – and is still being looted [18].

The opinion of the world concerning the United States has seen steady decline under George W. Bush’s leadership concerning Iraq [24].

And despite the Bush administration’s claims that America would be greeted as liberators with parades and flowers [23], instead, the populous is becoming more and more actively hostile to the United States [21]. The number of insurgents has reached an estimated 20,000 [20], with more insurgents continue to flow into Iraq from other nations [19].

Of course, despite the fact that when the United States invaded Iraq there were no terrorists there, the fact that there are terrorists “pouring into Iraq” now as a result of the U.S. invasion [15] is used by the Bush administration as another retroactive rational for the war, despite the obvious fallacy inherent in this argument [16].

Ironically, polls have shown that for the Bush loyal, it has not been necessary to change the rational as reality contravenes the world view that Bush sells – many Bush supporters still believe in the original rationale for war, despite the fact that it has been proven false beyond the shadow of a doubt [13] [22].

There comes a point, however, when even the most staunch Bush loyalist must look at the plastic rational for war presented by George W. Bush. America may be the last superpower, and many of its citizens may not consider war at the serious level that it must be contemplated at. Nevertheless, war is deadly serious business, and it is time that America said “enough is enough” to the ever-changing falsehoods proponed by George W. Bush.

Either that, or get along with the business of learning the intricacies of doublethink, and the syntax of doublespeak.

Back to top

Despite the fact that the White House now admits that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq [1], despite the fact that senior White House and CIA officials have admitted that there hard evidence showing a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda [2] [13] [20], despite the fact that the White House has admitted that it knew that much of it’s intelligence was questionable when it was presenting the case for war [3] [4] [7], many supporters of the Bush administration and the War in Iraq still continue to cling to the belief that waging war against Iraq was the right course of action, and furthermore, that it was justified [31].

If anything, they have grown more virulent in their attacks on those who would question the wisdom of an aggressive war against another nation [23] – a nation that, according to the Duelfer report [32], was already controlled through the sanctions that had held it in check for over a decade [5]; a nation whose ability to make weapons of mass destruction has been significantly diminished in the last decade [6].

Yet despite the mounting evidence that Iraq was not a threat to the United States, the Bush partisans cling at a deeply emotional level to their insistence that Bush was right to lead America into war against Iraq [14].

What is truly amazing about this phenomenon is the intentional cognitive dissonance that many Bush partisans bring to bear on reality. They seem to be willing to bend their own premises, to change what they believe to be factual, and to discount yesterday’s belief at the drop of a helmet in order to stand behind their president [21].

Of course, they have a good example to follow in the Bush administration. The White House – being faced with a preponderance of evidence [12] – has had to change its description of reality to more closely match the actual state of reality [9] [10] [11] [13], yet the White House insists that even though it’s premise for war was false, that the conclusion that war was necessary was true [8].

Yet those who showed that the emperor has no clothes are still called crackpots and traitors [29]; they are accused of trying to tear down America from the inside; they are accused of undermining the war effort [27] [28]; they are called un-patriotic, bleeding heart liberals [23] [24] [25].

This should not be surprising. Just as Bush partisans mimic their morphing leader when it comes to the rationale for the Iraq war, they also follow his lead when it comes to criticism of those who challenge the rationale for war. President Bush, the Republican party and unofficial Bush partisans in general have been relentless in calling into doubt rival Senator Kerry’s patriotism [15] [16] [18] and ability to lead in military situations [19] [22] [26] due to the fact that Senator Kerry has challenged George W. Bush’s rationale for going to war [17]. Of course, when doing so, they blatantly ignore the fact George W. Bush has had to change the rationale for war numerous times.

This willful adaptation of Orwellian doublethink [30] is frightening, to say the least.

It is a good thing to wish to support one’s government and leaders, and wish to see one’s nation engage in noble endeavors. But it is quite another thing to blindly follow, and to accuse those who question the course our leaders have chosen for us of being anti-American, of being un-patriotic.

Theodore Roosevelt had a few things to say about patriotism, too: "Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else."

Back to top

President Bush yesterday again accused presidential rival Senator Kerry of having a “fundamental misunderstanding” on the War on Terror [1]. In this instance, the President used Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who recently and publicly swore allegiance to Osama bin Laden, as the basis of his rhetoric [1]. President Bush was responding to attacks made by Senator Kerry concerning his handling of the War on Terror, in which Senator Kerry accused the President of mishandling the War on Terror and making the world a more dangerous place [18] [19]. However, there was a deeper meaning to the Presidents words – once again, he hinted openly at the deeper truths of and the ulterior motives for his War on Terror – and the fact that there is an agenda that is being perused that far exceeds that of the destruction of those who have attacked America.

It is not as though this other agenda is particularly hidden; the president’s core group, including his brother Jeb Bush, advisors Artimage, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, and vice president Cheney, have been publicly advocating their neo-conservative agenda that translates to Pax Americana via the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) think tank since 1997 [32] [33]. What is not always so obvious is that the War on Terror has been used as the vehicle and mechanism to advance the PNAC agenda.

This is not to say that there are not enemies who would destroy America [37] [38], nor is it to say that the threat of terrorism is not a real threat. There are indeed those in the world that have nothing but hate and despite for the America and its people, and against those who have rejected all but hatred, we must stand strong.

However, President Bush and his neo-conservative allies have taken the legitimate war against terror, and have bent it to their own ends.

When the President criticized Senator Kerry, there were two intended meanings to his words. First, there was the meaning that was obvious and intended for the majority of the American people. In this surface meaning in which the President was saying that Senator Kerry’s approach to the War on Terror, as it applies to those who are actively seeking to destroy America and to kill Americans, differs from President Bush’s; it is the surface meaning wherein the President denigrates Senator Kerry’s approach, and instills fear in the American people. The President was extremely blunt in his criticism of Senator Kerry’s approach, saying "You cannot lead our nation to decisive victory, on which the security of every American family depends, if you do not see the true dangers of a post-September 11 world [1].”

But there is also the deeper meaning, the more truthful meaning, contained in President Bush’s description of Senator Kerry’s “fundamental misunderstanding” – and in fact, when the President says that John Kerry “does not see the true dangers.” When President Bush speaks of this “fundamental misunderstanding,” he is probably coming closer to the truth than in most of his other statements concerning the War on Terror.

Senator Kerry sees the war on terror as being just that – a war against those who seek to destroy the United States and to kill its people. George W. Bush and his neo-conservative allies see it as the opportunity to advance their agenda of Empire [32] [33], and the opportunity to emplace the social controls [26] [27] [28] [29] and economic structures [34] [35] [39] needed to achieve those ends. And to the George W. Bush and the other neo-conservatives, the establishment of empire, the spread of American economic and military power to all corners of the globe, is as important to the survival of America as is the destruction of the terrorists that directly threaten us.

President Bush has managed to convince a large part of the American population that the War on Terror and the War in Iraq are one and the same [25]. President Bush has, in fact, gone to great lengths to sell the War in Iraq as part of the War on Terror [2] [3] [5]. In doing so, he has opened the door for the program of those who dream of Pax Americana.

Compared to the amount of time the White House spends talking about Iraq, we hear very little about the war on terror on other fronts – aside from how the constitutional rights stripping [27] Patriot Act [26] and Patriot Act II [28] (now part of the 9/11 legislation [29]) are good things for America. Yet these laws have become part of our system. When examined, the power they give to the executive branch of government over the people of this nation is both unprecedented and extremely frightening.

Nor do we hear much about where Osama bin Ladan might be found – the President seems less concerned about his whereabouts than one might think appropriate [30] [31]. Despite the fact that it was Osama bin Laden who ordered that attacks against America, he is not the focus of American attention. Iraq is. And Iraq is the first stepping stone in the neo-conservative agenda as laid out by PNAC [36].

We hear about the rebuilding of Iraq – but what the White house does not go into too much detail about is just how much control American companies have over that nation now. Companies such as Halliburton [34], Bechtel [35] and other American companies [39] [40] have more control over Iraq than the interim Iraqi government. If nothing else, these companies enjoy the protection of the United States military – which means that if they decide to do something, it will be done with the backing of the might of the United States.

George W. Bush claims that the war on terror is Iraq – well, if this is so, it is because he has made it so, and the American presence, conduct and actions in Iraq [21] [22] [23] [24] attract terrorists who are filled with fresh hatred for the United States [1] [13] [14]. And with the presence of American troops, they have plenty of targets, with the death American toll now over 1,100 [20].

Prior to the United States accusations against Iraq [2] [3] [5] and the subsequent invasion [44], the War on Terror [45] [47] had little if anything to do with Iraq except in the minds of those who currently occupy the White House.

President Bush led the United States into an aggressive war against Iraq on the premise that Iraq had ties to the terrorists that attacked the United States on September 11, 2001 [3] [5], and on the premise that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction [2]. Yet Iraq, it turns out, had neither weapons of mass destruction [4] nor ties to the terrorists that attacked the United States [6] [7]. Furthermore, there is strong evidence that President Bush and his advisors knew that Iraq was not a threat and that they knew that Iraq was not tied to Al-Qaida [8] [9] [10].

In fact, even one of Bush’s top generals, Tommy Franks, advocated that the United States leave Iraq alone and go after al-Qaida where it was strongest; that the United Sates finish the job in Afghanistan and pursue the terrorists in their other strongholds, such as Somalia and Yemen [11] [12]. Yet President Bush and the White House were insistent that it be Iraq that felt the wrath of America. Iraq, with its oil reserves [41]. Iraq, with its strategic location in the Middle East [42] [43]. Iraq, long time linchpin of the neo-conservative agenda for Pax Americana [46].

As more and more evidence is brought to light, it becomes more and more apparent that President Bush intended to attack Iraq one way or another prior to 9/11 – and that 9/11 simply gave him the excuse to do so.

Now, it should be realized that, for America, the formation of Pax Americana might not be a bad thing. However, since we are still a democracy, it is something that should be a subject of national discourse, not an agenda that is executed behind a facade of lies and deceptions about why our young men and women are being sent to die [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. The American people are fairly high minded; while they won’t send their sons to die for Oil, they will send them to prevent the destruction of the world, and to protect American shores from attack. And if the Administration had come forth and said, “We must expand our sphere of influence, we must form Pax Americana for the safety of the United States and for the good of the world” he might have been able to sell the approach. But this did not happen, and we will never know what the results of honest would have been now.

It should also be realized that the Bush and the other neo-conservatives do not mean harm for America. However, how they define America and how most Americans define America are probably very different things. Bush and his peers have shown through their actions that they believe that all of America does well when the wealthy and the powerful in America do well, and when the wealth and power of the already wealthy and powerful continue to grow [52] [53] [55] [56]. This may or may not be true, but certainly democracy will suffer greatly on the road to the theocratic oligarchy [54] [57] [58] that George W. Bush seems intent upon. And it may well be that to President Bush, America is the wealthy and the powerful.

So, the President is correct when he says that Senator Kerry and he view the War on Terror very differently. Indeed, Senator Kerry has a very different approach to the War on Terror. Senator Kerry has said that Iraq was a mistake, a distraction from the War on Terror. “The invasion of Iraq was a profound diversion from the battle against our greatest enemy, al-Qaida,” Kerry said in a speech at Temple University. “There’s just no question about it. The president’s misjudgment, miscalculation and mismanagement of the war in Iraq all make the war on terror harder to win [15].”

And indeed, the War in Iraq is a diversion from the War on Terror. But then, the War on Terror is also a diversion from the War in Iraq, and the ambition of the neo-conservatives. Certainly, as Senator Kerry has stated, the actual true War on Terror will be far harder to win given the last 3 years. And certainly, the President’s handling of Iraq has been disastrous [48] [49] [50] [51].

Rather than follow the imperialistic course set by George W. Bush, Senator Kerry has said that he will forge alliances with the rest of the world and go after the terrorists – with deadly force - where they are [16] [17].

In other words, Senator Kerry would fight the actual terrorists in a practical manner, and not pursue a misguided war against a nation that offered no threat to the United States.

When the entire body of evidence concerning the War on Terror, the attacks of September 11th, the roll of Saddam Hussein and the status of his nation, and the stated goals of the American neo-conservatives, it becomes quickly apparent that the War on Terror under George W. Bush has simply become the execution of the neo-conservative dream.

This is not a “fundamental misunderstanding” between George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry – this is a fundamental difference of goals. It is a fundamental difference of belief in what is required to make America safe, what is required to keep America great. It is a fundamental difference in morals, as to whether the end justifies the means. It is a fundamental difference in the analysis of risk and the execution of judgment. And it is a fundamental difference when it comes to the willingness to gamble that what makes America great – its open democracy, its honor, its high moral ground – to achieve Pax Americana.

Back to top

1. Introduction

What most Americans do not seem to realize is just how much trouble health care is in – both publicly sponsored and privately acquired - and the scope of the problems that face the nation in terms of medical care. With health care costs currently the highest of any industrial nation and rising [31], Social Security and Medicare in trouble [30], more Americans without health insurance [14] [29] and numerous other indicators showing imminent problems, it is important that both the American people and government be aware of the issues, and take proactive action before there is a health care catastrophe.

Furthermore, people must be aware that the various aspects of health care in this nation are all linked, and that they all drive each other’s costs. Social Security and Medicare are factors that directly affect prescription drug costs, which directly affect insurance rates, which affect the level of care of terminally ill patients, which affect the resources available to other people in need of them. Every element in the system is interconnected. Therefore, it is dangerous to consider only one part of the solution; any real adjustment to the American health care system must be comprehensive in scope.

Both President George W. Bush [1] and Senator John F. Kerry [2] are advocating their own plans for health care as part of their campaigns. And while Senator Kerry’s plan appears to do more than President Bush’s, the problems facing health care in this nation may be bigger than either solution.

The goal of this article is primarily to inform, and through the process of informing, to advocate action. I truly believe that our nation is facing a crisis of massive proportions with regard to our health care system and the care of our elderly. While examination of the data will reveal the system is already under enormous stress, this is a catastrophe that can be avoided, despite the fact that within the next several years, the load that the system must bear will increase dramatically [15] [17]. There are a number of things that will have to happen in order to get our system out of the red, but the first of those things is that we need an informed, active public involved in the debate.

The importance of having public attention turn to the matter of health care cannot be stressed enough. It is easy to be distracted by the war and by the election – if distracted is the right word, for these are also topics of enormous import, and, in fact, topics that I dedicate significant time to in my other writings. Furthermore, the many of the ills of health care and Social Security problem has been around for a long time, and many people become, if not indifferent to them, then at least unconcerned. After all, the system will not fail tomorrow. But the system is heading towards failure, and the sooner that something is done about it, the less painful the solution will be. And the first step towards a solution is understanding the problem.

The remainder of this article is organized as follows. Part 2 examines the approaching crisis in Social Security, Medicare and health care in general for our aging population. Part 3 looks at the problems both inherent in and coming for the existing scheme for health insurance in America. Part 4 takes a look into the prescription drug crisis in America. Part 5 considers the issues associated with the import of drugs from Canada and other nations. Part 6 analyzes the ongoing crisis due to the shortage of flu vaccine. Part 7 looks at the candidates proposals for American health care during this election year. Part 8 concludes this work with the author’s recommendations.

2. An Aging Population: We Serve No Health Care Disaster Before It’s Time

One of the main factors that is having a significant effect on the overall health care system in the United States is the fact that the population is, on average, getting older [15] [17]. This puts a greater stress on the existing programs. Furthermore, as people get older, their health care costs increase dramatically [15] [17].

According to reports released by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Life expectancy is rising, for both men and women and for both whites and blacks, with the overall life expectancy at birth 77.4 years for an American born in 2004 [15]. Broken down, life expectancy for women has increased from 66 to 80 since 1940 and for men from 61 to 75 [17]. And the trend of increasing life expectancy is expected to continue: the elderly population, now 36 million, is expected to reach 70 million by 2030 [31].

At the same time as the expected life-span of Americans is on the rise [15] [17], the birth rate is down from 25 births per 1,000 residents in the 1950s to just 15 today [17]. Furthermore, , infant mortality in the United States has risen from 6.8 infant deaths per 1000 live births to 7.0 infant deaths per 1000 live births [15]. The cause for the increase is unknown, and it is not known if this factor will result in a further decrease of the birth rate [15].

While the increased longevity of the average American can only be viewed as a good thing, when combined with the declining birth rate [17], the extended life expectancy means that a larger proportion of the population falls into the elderly classification – a demographic which requires more heath care, and whose health care is more expensive [17]. By way of example, the annual medical costs for an 85-year old are double that of a 65 year old. Current Medicare spending averages at $7,500 per recipient this year; in 2050, the average is projected to be $26,683 in 2004 dollars [17].

Costs for participants in Medicare are on the rise, also. In 2003, seniors in Medicare managed-care plans will pay an estimated $1,964 in average out-of-pocket expenses for health care, 10 percent more than last year and twice as much as four years ago [31].

Another factor that is having an effect is that Medicare and Social Security were not designed to support as large a proportion of the population as they are now required to. When the retirement age was set for social security at 65 in 1935, most people did not live that long. Now, the majority of people do [17]. This means that there are fewer workers per recipient paying into Social Security and Medicare to fund those programs [17]. As the social contract of those programs is that the current working generation pays to support the previous generation on the promise that, in turn, the next generation will support the current working one, having the working generation shrink in size while the retired generation grows in size is putting considerable stress on the system [17].

Social Security is not the only program that is being detrimentally affected by the aging of the population. For the last 30 years, Medicare on average has required 3.3 workers paying taxes for every Medicare recipient. Due to the retiring of the Baby Boomer generation, there will be only two workers supporting each Medicare recipient by 2040 [17].

While immigration has help to offset some of the decline in birth rates, in and of itself it is insufficient. It would take five to ten times the current immigration levels to provide enough workers to make up for the birth deficit [17].

At the same time that the population is aging, and therefore increasing the burden per individual in the workforce, the existing health care systems for the elderly face another significant problem: mounting debt.

In 2008 – just as the Baby Boomer generation begins to retire – over $53 trillion in total government debts and liabilities will begin to come due [17]. This $53 trillion is in federal, state and local debt – and is earning interest at the rate of one trillion dollars per year [17]. While the federal debt on paper is listed at $4.3 trillion, the sum of $53 trillion in total debt was computed by USA Today as the total amount of government liabilities, including Social Security payments, Medicare expenditures, pensions, interest on existing loans, and other liabilities that are not listed as components of the “official” national debt [17]. Similar estimates have been arrived at by agencies such as the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office and respected think tanks such as the conservative American Enterprise Institute, the liberal Brookings Institution and the non-partisan Urban Institute [17].

The social contract of Social Security and Medicare is that the current working generation pays for the generation that has reached retirement. The baby boomer generation (those born between 1946 and 1964) has held up their end of the bargain, and now expects Social Security and Medicare to provide for them. But given the current debt owed by the federal government and the changing age-composition of the American population, many leading economists say that even the world's most prosperous economy cannot fulfill these promises without a crushing increase in taxes - and perhaps not even then [17].

Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, told the House Budget Committee in September, 2003: "As a nation, we may have already made promises to coming generations of retirees that we will be unable to fulfill [17].”

And the system is going broke. According to the 2004 Social Security Trustees Report, unless changes are made, Social Security’s currently scheduled benefits are not sustainable over the long term and the Trust Fund will be broke in 2042 [30]. Even Bush's budget for fiscal year 2005 spells out the numbers in detail and concludes, "These long-term budget projections show clearly that the budget is on an unsustainable path." [27].

The Social Securities Trustees Report also stated that the projected point at which tax revenues will fall below program costs comes in 2018 [30]. This projection does not take into account the Bush tax cuts [19], nor does it take into account the problems caused for funding the system if the Bush plan for Lifetime Savings Accounts [18] and a reduction in the amount that workers pay into Social Security is enacted [22]. The report also stated that over the next 75 years, the system will need an additional $3.7 trillion in 2004 dollars to pay for scheduled benefits [30]. This figure rose by $200 billion from last years estimate for currently unfunded benefits [30].

Furthermore, at this point in time, the system will see a massive increase in the load it carries in 2008, when the first of the 78 million baby boomers will qualify at age 62 for early retirement benefits from Social Security [17]. In 2011, the load the system is expected to bear will see yet another huge increase, when the first wave of baby boomers hit age 65 and qualify for Medicare [17].

Though the baby boomer generation is still working, cracks are already beginning to show. This year, Medicare implemented the largest increase in premiums in the history of the program, with Part B premiums rising by 17.4% [20]. Also, this year, federal spending on Medicare and Social Security will increase by $45 billion, to a total of $789 billion [17]. And the new Medicare drug plan is predicted to cost $564 billion over the next 10years [29].

Overall, it has been estimated that in order to correct the financial woes of the current safety net for the elderly, either all federal taxes would have to be doubled or all federal benefits and pensions halved, immediately and permanently [17]. Comptroller General David Walker, the government’s chief accountant, said, “We're heading to a future where we'll have to double federal taxes or cut federal spending by 50%."

While either of these solutions might save the Medicare and Social Security programs from bankruptcy, the former solution is highly unlikely at best when voters are clambering for the tax cuts that President Bush promises (and has delivered [19]), and the latter solution would result in massively degraded health care for seniors (among other undesirable results). Furthermore, either solution has the potential to damage the economy by reducing disposable income or diverting economic resources [17].

The problem is exacerbated by the very fact that no action is being taken to do anything about the problem, or its underlying causes. Like an unpaid credit card debt, the payments due keep rising as the interest grows. But in this case, not only is the debt acquiring interest, but the capitol owed is also increasing. “Economists agree this cannot go on,” said Joseph Stiglitz, President Clinton’s chief economic advisor from 1995 to 1997. “We can borrow and borrow, but eventually there will come a day of reckoning.”

Despite the fact that the Bush administration has access these facts, President Bush has done nothing to alleviate the problem. In fact, during the Bush administration, as opposed to paying down the debt, as was done during the Clinton administration, the budget surplus has become a record deficit, estimated at $477 billion for 2004 [18]. And while they are quite popular with voters – especially during an election year – the nation cannot afford the tax cuts that President Bush has pushed for, and managed to get through congress [19].

Some economists see the salvation of the system in two actions: the implementation of a European style tax system, with higher tax rates, and lower spending in areas like defense, combined with a Canadian style health care system, where doctors and hospitals act as private entities, but the prices are set and the bills are paid by the federal government [17].

However, even faced with these problems with the programs that the baby boomers expect to be in working order in a few years when it comes their turn to take advantage of them, President Bush continues to push for his “ownership society.” [18] [22]. His proposals include individuals being able to set aside monies for what is now covered by Social Security and Medicare [1] [22]. While these ideas might be viable if the system were being implemented from scratch, there is a debt owed to the generations who have been paying into the system for years. In other words, President Bush’s proposals blatantly disregard the social contract that was made between the generations in 1935 when Social Security was founded, and in 1968 when Medicare was initiated. In fact, the Bush proposals would draw money out of the system as workers began to build their “Lifetime Savings Accounts” exactly at the same time that the burden on the system is increased due to the retirement of the baby boomers [18].

Regardless of the solution that is arrived at, it is necessary that action be taken – and taken soon. With the obligations under Medicare and Social Security ten times the national debt – almost five times the GDP – it is obvious that there is a disaster in the making. Yet, the voting public does not want to hear about the problems, and what would be required to fix them. We vote for politicians that promise us tax cuts, even though we know that the tax cuts are being paid for by our children and grandchildren. And we won’t hear of cuts to the programs. As Boston University economist Kotlikoff has said, "We have instructed our politicians not to tell us about this problem. If they even mention cuts to Social Security, we vote them out of office."

3. No Assurance from Health Insurance

More and more Americans are without health insurance at all. In fact, during the four years of the Bush administration, the number of Americans without health insurance has climbed at a rate of about 1 million per year [14], with an overall increase of 4 million people without insurance, to a total of nearly 44 million [29].

The number of people who do not have insurance is explained in large by the fact that premiums are rising. According to presidential rival John Kerry, over the last three years, family premiums have increased by more than $3,512 [2]. Studies by the National Coalition on Health Care (NCHC) [32] show that insurance premiums are rising at five times the rate of inflation [31]. Furthermore, studies show that they will continue to rise. By 2006 the average family health insurance premium will exceed $14,500; personal premium costs will have increased by more than $5,000 in just three years [31].

Premium costs for employee sponsored insurance are facing massive cost increases as well. In the absence of comprehensive reform, the average annual premium for employer-sponsored family health insurance could reach $14,545 [31]. This is reflected by the statistic that workers’ average monthly contribution to premiums for family coverage have more than quadrupled, rising from $52 in 1988 to $222 in 2004 [31]. The increase in cost for all types of insurance in 2003 – HMOs, PPOs, and POSs – demonstrated double-digit increases, exceeding previous rates of growth [31]. The overall cost of the policy for the family is more than 21% of the median income for American families [31].

And costs will continue to rise for American workers. In a study conducted at the end of 2004 by the Washington Business Group on Health, which represents nearly 200 major employers from across the country, 80% of the employers said they planned to increase co-payments or cost sharing in 2003, compared with 65% who answered that way in 2001. In a more recent study, the group found that 57% of employers plan to increase cost sharing for 2004 [31]. Furthermore, More than 80% of companies with 200 or more workers re very or somewhat likely to increase the amount aid directly by their employees for health care [31]

The NCHC also reported that “Many experts agree that our health care system is riddled with inefficiencies, excessive expenses, inflated prices, poor management, inappropriate care, waste and fraud. These problems significantly increase the cost of medical care and the cost of health insurance for employers and consumers.” In addition, many experts see the problems associated with rising prescription drug costs (which are the fastest growing cost-element of health care, with a growth rate of about 15% per year) as helping to fuel the cost crisis hitting American families [14] [31].

It is not surprising that insurance costs are rising, given the fact that the cost of the health care itself is rising. In fact, the United States has the most expensive health care in the industrialized world, and spends more of its GDP on health care – weighing in at 14.1 of the U.S. GDP being spent on health care [31]. Despite this fact, the United States does not have as many health care resources as a number of other western nations, falling short in terms of per capita nurses, physicians, and hospital beds [31].

Not only is U.S. health care the most expensive in the world, it is also increasing in cost. Between 1995 and 2001, according to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, the cost of health care rose by 26% [31].

The current administration seems to have been able to do little to stop the trend of rising health costs and families and individuals without health care. Though President Bush claims to have “extended eligibility” through his programs during his first term in office to 2.6 million Americans, in fact, only 200,000 people actually were able to get coverage due to the Bush administration’s efforts, according to Diane Rowland, executive director of the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured [29].

Total enrollment Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program did rise during Bush's tenure by over seven million people However, most became enrollees due to the fact that they fell below a certain poverty level. "Part of the reason more people were covered is the economy got so bad that people lost income," Rowland said. "There were more low-income people under Bush than previously, so they became eligible for public programs [29]." Despite the new enrollment in these programs, the total number of Americans still rose by 4 million people during the same timeframe [29].

4. Prescription Drugs - A Bitter Pill

Of the many medical problems facing Americans, the problems of availability and the cost of prescription drugs may be the one that touches most peoples’ daily lives the most – especially the elderly. Gallup polling found 73 percent of Americans aged 50 and older, and 84 percent age 65 and older, use prescription drugs. The average person 65 and older who uses prescription drugs pays out-of-pocket costs of $137 a month for drugs, or $1,644 a year [9]. Total expenditures by seniors for prescription drugs are over $2,300 per year [31]. In May, 2004, a Families USA study found that the 30 most-frequently prescribed name-brand drugs for seniors rose 6.5% in 2003; for the 26 of those drugs available in 2001, prices rose 22% over three years [11]. Overall, prescription drugs in the United States are increasing in price at four times the rate of inflation [14]. Furthermore, co-payments for prescription drugs are also rising, making for a higher out-of-pocket expense per prescription [31].

The number of Americans who have medical insurance that covers prescription drugs is declining at the rate of about one million people per year [14]. In addition, prescription drugs on the American market are the most expensive in the world [10]. In 2003, Americans spent $216.4 billion on prescription drugs, up more than 11 percent from the previous year, according to the Fairfield, Conn.-based pharmaceutical research firm IMS Health [11]. This may explain why the perscription drug industry was the most profitable in the United States between 1991 and 2002, according to Fortune magazine [11].

The pharmaceutical industry claims that the high cost of prescription drugs is necessary to finance research and development of new drugs. However, according to the New England Journal of Medicine, this claim is not borne out by the evidence, describing such claims by the pharmaceutical industry as exaggerated or misleading, and some of it is simply false [14]." Furthermore, far more money is spent on advertising than on research [14].

Though there have been efforts to mitigate the problems associated with prescription drugs at both the federal and state levels, these efforts often fall short of what is perceived as necessary by those in need. Furthermore, there is resistance from the pharmaceutical industry to any meaningful prescription drug reform [14]. It should be noted, however, that is not just the drug manufacturers who have worked to preserve the high price of prescription drugs and to block meaningful government programs: in Washington State, a group of pharmacists sued to stop a state government sponsored program due to fears that they (the pharmacists) would have to bear the costs of the program, as opposed to the drug manufacturers [14].

On December 9, 2003, President Bush signed into law new Medicare legislation – at a cost of $564 billion over the next 10 years [29] - which he praised as a “victory for all of America’s seniors [9].” However, despite the fanfare, this legislation was not so enthusiastically received by those for whom it was intended to help. In fact, few seniors think that the bill will do much to help them financially, nor do they think that it will alleviate their prescription drug costs [9]. And seniors have been paying attention to this bill: polling at the time of its passage showed 73 percent of respondents 65 and older have read or heard at least a moderate amount about the new bill [9].

Perhaps part of the reason that seniors are not as enthusiastic about the bill as the President is that the new prescription drug program does not keep pace with the rising cost of drugs [11]. Furthermore, the plan cannot be used in conjunction with many other private prescription drug plans [13]. Also, choice of pharmacy and drug types is limited by the new Medicare drug plan [13]. In fact, the majority of seniors already have better prescription drug coverage than the new Medicare plan [13]. Given that the existing coverage is not adequate, the new Medicare plan, which is not as good as much of what is currently covering seniors, it is not hard to understand why the elderly of the nation are not celebrating the new legislation as much as the President.

It should also be noted that most of the provisions of the new legislation will not take effect until 2006 [9]. Furthermore, the complexity of the bill is staggering – the bill weighs in at almost 700 pages, and involves a complicated combination of deductibles, exclusions and amounts above and below which drug costs won’t be reimbursed. The new law also makes extensive changes to other areas of Medicare which do not deal with prescription drug benefits [9]. Many seniors have found this complexity intimidating.

It may seem strange that more has not been done to ease the burden of the cost of prescription drugs. It is, after all, something that the voting public is heavily in favor of. Polling conducted in 2003 showed Americans of all ages support the general idea of a prescription drug benefit. A June Gallup Poll showed 76 percent support a bill that would “spend $400 billion over the next 10 years to create a new Medicare program that would help senior citizens pay for prescription drugs [9].” However, it is important to remember the prescription drug lobby – and the millions of dollars that they feed into American government.

Since 1999, the drug industry has given more than $45 million in political contributions, and it's spent hundreds of millions more on an army of more than 600 lobbyists to work its will on Capitol Hill [10]. “The influence of the pharmaceutical industry on our government is huge. And the FDA is a part of the executive branch of the government. And this is just the propaganda that's put out to do the drug company's bidding, to make sure that Americans don't have access to cheaper drugs,” says Dr. Marcia Angell, who was executive editor of The New England Journal of Medicine for 11 years [10].

And no wonder the pharmaceutical industry can afford to spend that much money on lobbyists. Americans consume over 3 billion prescriptions per year [31] – and all at some of the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs.

5. Send in the Mounties

One alternative that many look to is the possibility of purchasing their prescription drugs from Canada (where the very same drugs often sell for half the cost as in the United States). However, this practice which is currently illegal at the federal level [4] [10]. Current federal legislation and FDA rulings make it illegal in many cases for individuals, companies or most government agencies to purchase drugs, either in lots or in bulk, from Canada [4] [10] [21]. Despite the illegality of it, however, over one million Americans buy their prescription drugs in Canada anyway [10].

While the Bush administration opposes the re-importation of American made drugs from Canada, consumer advocates favor the practice, as it saves consumers 30% to 70% of the cost of the drugs [4]. Both President Bush and the FDA have raised the specter of safety concerning prescription drugs. When questioned about the safety of prescription drugs from Canada during his tenure as Commissioner of the FDA in late 2003, Dr. Mark McClellan said that the FDA had no way of knowing how safe they were [10]. And during the final presidential debate, George W. Bush implied that Canadian prescription drugs could kill Americans [5].

Of course, Canada does regulate its own pharmacies and drug distribution systems [16] And news reports of the masses of Canadians who are dying from bad drugs and poor health care seem to be somewhat difficult to find. However, the FDA bases its safety claims on the fact that Canada will not provide absolute guarantees, nor will they modify their own law to conform to the American laws [4].

Once again, the heavy hand of the prescription drug lobby is seen here. How problems arising from this affair between the big business of prescription drugs and the government manifest themselves during a crisis can be seen in the ongoing saga of the shortage of influenza vaccine. We will look at that as a case study shortly. For now, however, it is sufficient to note that the regulations imposed by the government concerning the acquisition of needed prescription drugs can be crippling.

It is interesting to note that many American made drugs are already licensed and exported from the United States to Canada [4]. And it is not as if the drugs were not manufactured on a multi-national basis. “Pfizer, for example, has 60 manufacturing sites in 32 countries. So the drugs are made all over the world. They're sold all over the world,” said Dr. Marcia Angell [10].

Pfizer, it should be noted, is the maker of the anti-cholesterol drug Lipitor, which is made in Ireland. The FDA blocks import of Lipitor from Canada, even though it is the same drug that is imported directly to the United States from Ireland [10]. During the ongoing influenza crisis in the United States, when President Bush indicated a sudden willingness to import the much needed flu vaccine from Canada, the irony of the situation was noted by David MacKay, executive director of the Canadian International Pharmacy Association when he said, "It's absolutely ironic and ludicrous to think that (U.S. regulators) can assure safety for flu vaccines . . . but they won't do it for life-saving Lipitor as well [10]. Furthermore, five of the top ten pharmaceutical companies are non-U.S. corporations, and a large portion of the drugs sold in the United States are in fact manufactured in Ireland and Puerto Rico [10].

Instead of the Burton provision for Canadian drugs, however, the final version of the Medicare bill wound up with provisions specifically prohibiting the federal government from buying drugs in bulk (despite the cost savings) from Canada [10].

The state governments are getting into the battle, also. Wisconsin and Montana currently allow residents to buy Canadian drugs via state sponsored internet sites [42]. Illinois announced that it will facilitate the purchase of prescription drugs in bulk from Europe and Canada for its residents [21] [42], and Vermont announced its intention to sue the FDA for the right of its citizens to buy drugs in Canada [10]. The efforts in Illinois were initiated by Democratic Governor, Rod Blagojevich and former Clinton administration adviser, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Illinois).

The Illinois Department of Management Services preformed studies, which resulted in predictions that Illinois residents could save 50% on their prescription drug costs - $1.9 billion in 2005 - by purchasing their prescription drugs abroad [21] [42]. Furthermore, the same study concluded that the imported prescription drugs from Canada is not only safe, but in some cases is actually safer than buying the equivalent or same prescription drugs in the United States [21].

In addition to efforts being made at the state government level to purchase foreign drugs at lower cost, some private groups have initiated similar efforts. For example, in response to the State of Illinois’ announcement that it will begin the importation of Canadian drugs, the Illinois Health Alliance (IHA) has announced that it will provide Illinois residents with the ability to obtain safe, low-cost prescription drugs from Canada [21].

Though drug imports are banned by the FDA, that agency has yet to take action concerning the states that are allowing and sponsoring the import of drugs [42]

William Hubbard, FDA associate commissioner for policy and planning described the move as illegal and unregulated by U.S. agencies. And House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Illinois) said, “He should be personally liable if these drugs come into the United States and kill somebody or make somebody sick.” [42]

However, at least one politician has had enough of the outrageous prices and the pharmaceutical lobby’s control over the government. “We can’t keep asking the 500,000 senior citizens who live in Illinois and lack prescription drug coverage to keep deciding, ’Do I pay for my medicine or do I pay for my groceries?’” Blagojevich said. [42]

6. The Flu Vaccine Shortage – A Case Study

An excellent test of any program or system is to test how it responds to a situation outside of the normal parameters of its operation. This is exactly what has happened in the case of this year’s supply of flu vaccine – or lack thereof [4]. This incident reflects both on the government’s current policies concerning prescription drugs – policies that favor the drug manufacturers over patients – and on how the American government reacts to a health crisis. As we will see, neither the policies nor the government’s reaction and response to the crisis were at all encouraging.

Due to contamination during manufacture of the this year’s supply flu vaccine by Chiron Corporation [4] of the flu vaccine needed in order to hit its minimization target this year. Chiron Corporation is one of two companies that supply the entire supply of vaccine needed to immunize the American population [4].

The fact that only two companies are licensed to manufacture the life-saving vaccine has been sharply criticized, with top flu researcher W. Paul Glezen of Baylor Medical Center placing the blame for the ongoing crisis at the Bush administration’s door, noting that they “didn’t display any comprehension of what the problem was and what should be done about it.” [4]

Indeed, a minimal amount of foresight applied to the possibilities of putting “all the eggs in one basket” would have revealed the very likely possibility that there would be some sort of failure at some point, and that some sort of a backup supply source would be needed. But no such forward-looking thinking was applied, and therefore, we are now faced with the current situation.

As it turns out, the reason that there were only two companies producing the vaccine is that making the flu vaccine – while profitable – is not profitable enough for the manufacturer’s tastes [36]. Furthermore, mergers within the drug industry have a tendency to limit the production of vaccines [20]. It should also be noted that this profit minded attitude by the drug companies extends to other vaccines [36] – and hence, more vaccine shortages can be expected [37] [43].

In fact, there have been significant shortages of childhood vaccines in the last few years, with eight out of eleven of the vaccines against common childhood illnesses going into periods of shortage since 2000 [42]. Furthermore, National Vaccine Advisory Committee has warned that more shortages are likely to occur again [42].

During the third presidential debate [5][4]." Of course, there is tremendous irony in this statement [6]

This irony did not go unnoticed by either American or Canadian doctors.

Dr. William Schaffner, a member of the U.S. advisory committee on immunization practices, said in an interview on October 14th, "It seemed ironic to many of us who were watching that the president had kind of disparaged the importation of Canadian (prescription) drugs but seemed to be interested in exploring the possibility of importing Canadian vaccine." [4].

Apparently, though there had been discussions on the matter, neither the Canadian company ID Biomedical nor the German company GlaxoSmithKline has a license to sell their vaccines in the United States [4]. Furthermore, both FDA officials and Tommy Thompson, the U.S. Secretary of Health, have indicated that the process to become licensed would take longer than the flu season will last [4] [4].

In addition to the licensing problems faced by the Government for the importation of the needed vaccine, there are only approximately 1.5 million doses that might be acquired – and the United States is over 45 million doses short at this point in time [4] [36].

Ironically, however, the debate in the United States concerning the safety of the vaccine, the promises made by the President, and the response of the FDA may have all been moot. Urging Canadian doctors to remember that their first duty is to Canadian citizens, Dr. Albert Schumacher, head of the Canadian Medical Association was quoted on October 15th as saying, "The vaccine shortage problem . . . that they now have in the States or elsewhere in the world is not for us here to fix or sort out." [4].

This reaction by both the Canadian Government and the Canadian medical establishment bespeaks their bitterness towards the United States over the American drug policies, and this is not at all encouraging when one considers that there might be greater needs for more critical assistance from other nations on health care matters in the future.

Overall, it can safely be said that the American health system failed dismally when faced with the relatively minor challenge of a completely inadequate supply of influenza vaccine. And if this crisis does not seem to be all that minor, it should be noted that while the flu can be dangerous to certain groups, such as the elderly, the infirm and infants, this year’s strain is relatively minor compared to an anticipated deadly pandemic strain feared by scientists [8] [44]. Such a strain killed between 20 million and 50 million people worldwide during the 1918-1919 pandemic [44] [45].

If the flu-related events are any indicator of the robustness of the American health system, we are in a lot of trouble. This incident demonstrates the flaws that are inherent in current FDA and other health policies of the federal government. This incident also shines a light on the problems that are caused when government policy – policy that can be a matter of life and death to American citizens – is based upon the needs of the corporation and not the needs of the citizen. Furthermore, this situation clearly demonstrates just how paralyzed the government has become due to the extent to which it has catered to the corporations – in this case, the drug companies. Finally, this situation shows the inability of the government to react to a crisis situation.

7. Politician, Heal Thyself

Both President Bush [1] and rival Senator Kerry [2] have made promises concerning health care during their election campaign. However, neither Bush nor Kerry has really addressed the massive hidden government debt that will begin to come due in 2008 [17]. While the Kerry health plan appears to do more for those in need of health care, it is obvious that if America is truly serious about health care, more will have to be done than is offered in either approach.

President Bush’s approach centers on what he terms as the “ownership society.” [22] One of the primary features of his agenda is changing the structure of social security to allow for “Lifetime Savings Accounts.” [18] Said president Bush, "We must strengthen Social Security by allowing young workers to save some of their taxes in a personal account - a nest egg you can call your own and government can never take away." [22]

While this approach might be fine for those who are just entering the workforce, the problem is that it breaks the social contract. Social Security is built on the premise that those currently working pay for those who have worked for the course of their lifetime; the system was set up as a pay as you go setup, with the older generation trusting the younger one to take care of it, as the older generation in its turn took care of the previous one. Under the system proposed by George W. Bush, not only will the money that would have gone into the Social Security system be diverted to the private savings accounts, but the payroll taxes on those monies will no longer be available to the generation that is now collecting Social Security [22]. This is a complete breach of the trust that the Social Security system is based upon.

Given the government’s current stated debt of $4.3 trillion [22], and the massive hidden debt [17], and given the fact that President Bush is adamant about cutting taxes [19] despite record deficits [18] and an ongoing war that has already cost over $140 billion [23], this approach can only be described as dishonest and flawed at best. It is dishonest in that it does not honor those who have paid for those that came before them for all their working lives based upon the promise of being taken care of in their turn, and it is flawed in that the money just is not there to make this transition.

In fact, the Social Security Administration has calculated the cost of the proposed transition. According to that agency, the cost would be $2 trillion over the next 10 years. Furthermore, the transition would not be complete for another 44 years, adding another $8.3 trillion to the price tag [22].

Kenneth S. Apfel, who served as the Social Security Commissioner during the Clinton administration, said "This whole Bush idea of individual accounts may be being sold as a way to move toward solvency, but in and of itself it only hurts Social Security solvency [22]."

The other financial problem for the government with the creation of the Lifetime Savings Accounts is that, as such accounts could be accessed at any time, and for any reason, their existence would effectively eliminate capital gains, dividends and interest taxation at a huge, long-term cost to the government [22].

President Bush has also proposed various tax cuts to assist those without health care [24]. And while it may be that there is indeed too much tax burden on the low and middle classes, it seems at times that the President is attempting to buy his re-election through tax cuts that the nation can ill-afford in a time of war and record deficits [18]. However, the President considers reduction of personal taxes to be part of his “ownership society.” [22] The fact that his fiscal approaches will allow our children and grandchildren to own our debts does not seem to bother him in the least.

While it cannot be said that George W. Bush has the “Tax and Spend” approach that he has accused Democrats of having [28], he certainly seems to have a “borrow, spend, and don’t tell” approach. For example, evidence has arisen that the administration did not disclose over $100 billion in hidden costs associated with his Medicare drug plan [27]. Rather than attempting any sort of explanation or apologies for this action, the white house has simply argued that it is not necessary for the Executive branch to release information to the Congressional branch of government [27]. Critics have raised the question of whether or not the Bush Medicare drug package would have passed had these hidden costs been revealed [27].

Another aspect of Bush’s health care approach is the establishment of what he calls “community health centers” – or, in the common parlance, clinics. He claims to have established 600 of them during his first term – and promises, if elected, to establish another 600 [24]. While it is true that the poor and the indigent do need better and less expensive health care, and it is true that they do need more options than the emergency room of a hospital, this approach does not address the more serious health concerns of the poor. It is still second rate health care for second rate citizens.

George W. Bush is also pushing hard for caps on the non-economic damages that can be awarded in malpractice lawsuits against doctors [28]. The President claims that lawsuits lead to defensive medicine, and that this costs the nation over $28 billion per year [28]. The Kerry campaign disputes the cost of malpractice suits in the nation – admitting that they are a problem, but not the central problem, as claimed by Bush [6].

Lawsuits driving defensive medicine are actually one of George W. Bush’s strongest points [38]. Defensive medicine has led to tests extraneous medical tests [35], increased the cost of malpractice insurance to the point that many doctors say that they cannot afford to practice medicine any more [33], and has led to an increase in overall medical costs [33]. Obviously, as these factors drive up the cost of medicine – and in some cases, drive physicians out of business [33] – they are a factor in the rising cost of health care, and therefore, tort reform is something that must be addressed. However, as has been shown, this is hardly the only problem concerning the ongoing health care crisis.

Finally, George W. Bush has advocated freedom for small businesses to form largely unregulated cooperatives so as to be able to buy health insurance for their employees [29]. However, despite initial promises that this would lead to over 2 million people becoming covered by health insurance, estimates, including those made by the Bush campaign, now indicate that this would allow only approximately 600,000 Americans to become insured [29].

In general, President Bush’s approach to health care is privatization and limiting of lawsuits [28]. Though he touts his new Medicare drug plan (discussed previously), there is little else to his plan. And though he proposes a complete change in paradigm for health care, he does not propose any solutions to pay for the transition, nor does he indicate how he will be able to honor the promises made to those now approaching retirement and in retirement when the government is increasing its deficits at a record rate.

Like George W. Bush, John Kerry is offering a targeted tax cut as part of his health care package. The primary difference, however, between John Kerry and George W. Bush’s tax approaches is that where George W. Bush does not propose in any way how he will pay for his tax cuts, John Kerry has stated that he will, in fact, raise taxes on the richest 1% of Americans in order to pay for his health care proposals [25]. Furthermore, John Kerry has promised to eliminate waste in the existing bureaucracy [2]. This is not without precedent – President Clinton was successful in cutting back federal bureaucratic spending [26].

The Kerry plan also includes an optional national health care plan, into which individuals and families would buy. The principal here would be to allow people to buy into this plan if they wished to do so, and to make premiums lower than existing insurance plans through “bulk discounts” [2]. It should be noted that the plan, while a government orchestrated effort, is not a government plan per se. Kerry described his health care plan as "very simple," adding that it would not "force you to do anything. It's not a government plan. The government doesn't require you to do anything. You choose your doctor. You choose your plan." [38]

John Kerry has also promised to open up the prescription drug market to allow for importation and re-importation of drugs from Canada [2]. As previously discussed, the savings that an individual currently sees as a result of purchasing their drugs in Canada range from 30% to 70% [4]. George W. Bush and his administration have fought against the importation of drugs from Canada [4] [10].

The Bush campaign claims that if Congress enacted its entire health care package, ten million people currently without health insurance would be provided with coverage, at the cost of $102 billion [29]. However, when pressed, the Bush-Cheney team was unable to provide documentation to support their claims, and backpedaled, admitting that only between 2 million and 6 million people would probably wind up getting health insurance as a result of the legislation [29]. Furthermore, there is no provision as to how this amount would be funded.

By way of contrast, the Kerry plan claims to cover 27 million people – an estimate that is confirmed by independent studies, and represents about half the uninsured population [38] - at a cost of $653 billion dollars [29]. However, this figure relies upon various savings built into the overall plan – an assumption which is not unreasonable. However, if the built in savings are removed from the equation, the cost rises to nearly $1 trillion [29]. The Kerry plan also relies upon the rollback of the taxes for the top 1% of the nation’s earners to pay for its programs [25].

In general, the Kerry plan appears to do significantly more for Americans than the Bush plan. Furthermore, the Kerry plan at least includes a proposal to pay for the plan and to fund Social Security and Medicare – something that is lacking in the Bush plan – and also has an approach for paying for the other new additions for keeping America healthy. However, given the problems that exist throughout American health care, neither plan may prove to be adequate to the challenge of keeping America healthy, and providing the best health care possible for our nation.

8. Conclusions

As popular as they are, we cannot afford the tax cuts that the government just extended [19] – nor can we afford the $136 billion in corporate welfare that President Bush saw through Congress [39]. We cannot continue to spend like a high-schooler with his first credit card and a minimum wage job. Instead, we must face reality, and begin to pay for the promises we have made, and for those things that we are buying.

We have shown here that costs are rising faster than inflation for all aspects of health care [14] [17] [31]. Part of this problem can be alleviated through tort reform, especially the costs associated with defensive medicine [3 [3 [35]. However, simply limiting settlements is not adequate – nor is it appropriate in the case of gross malpractice. Rather, judges and juries must apply sanity and thought to their decisions, and, furthermore, plaintiffs that falsely accuse must be held accountable, to discourage frivolous and fraudulent lawsuits.

We have also examined the phenomena of rising drug costs [9] [11] [14] [31]. It is critical that the Government cease in its pandering to the pharmaceutical drug industry, and allow American patients to purchase their drugs abroad. Furthermore, the power of the pharmaceutical companies over both doctors and the government must be diminished. Currently, too many politicians cater to the drug companies, and the pressure on doctors to prescribe is too intense [40] [41]. Finally, the advertising allowed to the drug companies must be curtailed, as this is one of the primary causes of the increase in the price of prescription drugs in America [14].

As the election draws near, there is a fundamental choice to be made. George W. Bush is advocating a fundamental change in paradigm from the existing social contract between generations to his “ownership society,” which is effectively a throwback to healthcare and retirement prior to 1935. Perhaps voters will feel that they can handle their health care needs and retirement funds better than people did during the times that led to the Great Depression and during that hard time. On the other hand, perhaps people will realize that what George W. Bush is selling is a short term solution, like his tax breaks, and that perhaps it is not wise to forget the lessons of our history.

John F. Kerry’s plan, while far more responsible than that proposed by George W. Bush, still does not go far enough. With George W. Bush effectively trying to buy voters through tax cuts that will be paid for by our children, it is difficult for any politician to come out and say flat out that we need a tax increase, not a tax cut. Should Kerry be elected, it is to be hoped that the payment provisions of Kerry’s plan prove to be adequate.

Our medical system is proving itself to be too much under the control of the big money interests, such as the pharmaceutical drug industry, various special interest lobbies, and the legal system. If we are to see a continued increase in medical services, if we are to keep apace with Europe and Canada’s level of health care, we may have to adapt some of their policies, where costs far more heavily regulated, and the government assumes more responsibility for payment. The down side of this for Americans, of course, is a heavier tax burden. But at this point in time, our system is failing, and is currently propped up on loans that we cannot afford. Their system is keeping their populations healthy without the debt that we are incurring.

Furthermore, the government must act to provide other protections for its citizens. It is obvious that the free market does not work to protect against situations such as the current flu vaccine shortage. Given that the primary reason that more companies do not produce the vaccine is that, while profitable, it is not profitable enough [20] [36], it is apparent that government intervention must be initiated before another pandemic occurs [44] [45]. The flu vaccine scenario illuminates how the pharmaceutical industry’s greed, allowed to run unchecked, has posed a serious risk to the American public. As much as it goes against the grain for many Americans, the bottom line is that this is the sort of situation in which government must intervene for the common good, given that it is blatantly obvious that the private sector will not do so.

Good health care is an extremely valuable thing to have. But like any thing of value, it does not come for free. Reaching the goal of good, affordable health care should be possible in a nation with the resources and drive that the United States possesses. But if we are to reach this goal, and sustain it, we must not be afraid to face realities, we must be willing to work hard to achieve our goal, and we must be willing to pay for it and not expect it to come free.

Back to top

Dirty politics seems to be part of the election process in the United States. Certainly it turns some people away from the polls and the election process in general. Yet, this election seems to be worse than any other in memory, in particular on the part of the Republican Party and their unofficial support organizations [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]; this week was no exception. From voter registration fraud [8] to completely biased documentaries [9]; from false press releases [10] to suppression of poor voters [11], the list of wrong doing by the Republicans during this election seems to be endless.

During the course of this election, we have seen one salvo after another fired by the Republican Party and their friends. One series of incidents that exemplifies the paradigm of dirty, negative politics was the “527” group, The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth [1], who executed a smear campaign of enormous proportions against Senator John Kerry [3]. Though he eventually said that Senator Kerry’s service in Vietnam was honorable, President Bush was incredibly resistant to and slow in asking that the ads be stopped [2].

Another example of the kind of tricks played by the Republican Party in during the course of this election was the literature sent out by the Republican National Committee, accusing the Democratic Party of intentions to ban the bible and promote homosexual marriage [4]. Specifically, the RNC sent out direct mailings in West Virginia and Arkansas accusing the Democratic party of having devices – complete with illustrations [6].

This sort of dirty trick – in particular, mass mailings mixed with deceit – has all the hallmarks of one of Karl Rove’s tricks. Previously, I wrote an article documenting many of Rove’s tactics in the past and the Bush campaign’s strategy in this election, so it is unnecessary to cover these topics in full here again [5]. Suffice to say, there is a history of foul play on the part of both Rove and the Bush campaign.

Though politicians may quote out of context their opponents positions, it seems that President Bush does nothing but when talking about John Kerry. ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin stated that "the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done [7]."

Given this background, it is not surprising that this week brought yet another round of underhanded tactics from the Republicans.

To begin with, it appears that a campaign of voter registration fraud is being waged by Sproul & Associates, an Arizona based company, according to KGW-TV and Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury, who opened an investigation into the allegations [8]. The accusations of registration fraud are wide ranging. A former employee in the Nevada branch of the Sproul & Associates group called Voter Outreach of America told reporters Wednesday that he had seen his boss shred eight to ten Democratic registration forms [8]. In Roseburg, Douglas County Clerk Barbara Nielsen said she had received a complaint from voters who said canvassers working for Sproul and Associates indicated that registering non-republicans would not result in any pay for the workers whose job it was to register voters [8].

On another front, the Sinclair Broadcast Group plans to run the program, "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," a critical documentary about John Kerry anti-Vietnam War activities on dozens of TV stations, the FCC’s chairman said today [9]. The FCC refused to block the airing of the program, ignoring the complaints of 18 democratic senators, who described the program as a soft contribution to George W. Bush, despite the fact that the program is obviously biased – even going so far as to attempt to link John Kerry’s appeal to the United States Senate to change the policies that led to the war and to change the course that had led America so deeply into the Vietnam quagmire with Jane Fonda’s misguided and perhaps treasonous trip to North Vietnam [9]. There is no indication that equal time will be provided for, say, a documentary on Bush’s Air National Guard service – or lack thereof.

There were other incidents of foul play by the Republican Party this week. In Tennessee, Team GOP released a piece accusing Tennessee Democrats of distributing a flyer denigrating handicapped children and the Special Olympics [10]. In Ohio, there were accusations of voter suppression by the Republicans of the mostly Democratic populations in the poorer areas of the state [11]. And the list goes on.

One has to wonder why it is that the Republicans feel that they need to lie and cheat to such an extent to win. Proponents of George W. Bush will extol his virtues and strengths – yet is seems apparent that these characteristics are not adequate in the minds of many Republicans to see him in office for a second term.

Back to top

George W. Bush would have the American people believe that the world is divided up into camps of good and evil, with nothing in between. With his “you are either with us, or you are against us” mentality [2], by linking up the most hostile of nations into an “axis of evil” [1] and by linking al Qaeda and terrorism with this Axis of Evil [3], George W. Bush has created a good vs. evil mentality in many American minds, and simplified their world view. By doing so, he has created a situation where he can follow his and his advisor’s pre-existing plans and ambitions concerning Iraq [4] and claim to be attacking those who perpetrated that 9/11 terrorist attack [3] – when in fact, attacking Iraq actually detracted from America’s ability to pursue al Qaeda [5].

The results of this over-simplification of the world are now becoming apparent, with the situation in Iraq steadily deteriorating, as shown by the increased levels of violence forcing the United States to shift attention from rebuilding to fighting [6]. Furthermore, while George W. Bush was leading America in his fight against evil, North Korea [10] and Iran [11] have gone far in their development of nuclear weapons, and are now a far greater threat to America than Iraq was when we invaded [8]. North Korea has threatened war if the West tries to stop its nuclear program at this point [9], and Iran has suggested that it also might use its newly acquired missile capacity against Israel if the world community attempts to stop that nation’s nuclear progress [11].

President Bush’s over-simplification of the world does not end with his division of the world into good and evil with relation to terrorists and other nations. During the second debate with Senator John Kerry, George W. Bush mocked John Kerry for holding that some issues were more complex than not. In particular, when Senator Kerry spoke of how his personal beliefs were at odds with the rights of others under the constitution of the United States, and how he reconciled this, George W. Bush spat back, “Well, it’s pretty simple.” [7]

This comment truly epitomizes the President’s anti-intellectual, black and white, comic book world, where good can be told from evil at a glance and there are no shades of gray. But this world view just does not reflect the world. Europe is far more aware of its history and the history of the world, and is aware of this. At times during American history, we seem to have grasped the concept that the world is not such a simple place. At this point in history, however, it seems that America is being steered away from this realization and into an illusionary world of simplicity.

What is truly ironic is that at the same time that Osam bin Laden and all who follow in his footsteps are selling a similar brand of belief, just with good and evil reversed [12]. He and his followers consider America and the West to be corrupt, to be an evil influence on what he considers to be the purity of the Muslim way of life, and, furthermore, to be an aggressive threat [12]. To Osama bin Laden, the world is a negative image of the world of George W. Bush.

When one considers the simplicity of the worldview that George W Bush is selling to the American people and the actual complexity of the real world, one must come to one of two conclusions. Either President Bush is so impaired in his perception of reality that he is mentally unfit for office, or he manages to maintain a level of cognitive dissonance that would have made George Orwell’s character O’Brien proud. Either of these conclusions is justification and cause for the removal of George W. Bush from office.

Back to top

First was the passage of the new military appropriations bill, with a price tag of 447 billion dollars [1]. This bill included a well deserved 3.5% pay raise for military personnel and expanded health care for reservists. On the other hand, it also included yet another 25 billion dollars in support costs for operations Iraq and Afghanistan [1]. This bill passed without any debate in either the house (359-14 in favor) or senate (by voice vote) [1].

The senate didn’t have as easy a time with its tax bill, though [2]. Among other things, Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La.) held up the bill to ensure that pay support for reservists and the National Guard were included [4]. Landrieu was seeking to get approval for another bill that would give employers a tax credit if they made up the pay their employees lose when they are called to active duty in the Reserves or National Guard [6]. A complex deal was finally worked out wherein a cut of 2.9 billion dollars in farm aid that was opposed by Senator Harkin of Iowa would receive a vote to send it back to committee, and a 33 billion dollar homeland security funding bill, a 10 billion dollar military construction bill and a 14.5 billion dollar hurricane relief fund bill [9] all would be voted on today [5]. All of these pieces of legislation should pass today without a hitch.

Now, back to the tax bill that passed today, with a vote of 76-19 [15]. One should realize that in this context, tax bill does not mean legislation designed to pay for the new expenditures. Rather, the bill is a Republican sponsored corporate welfare bill, with 76.5 billion dollars in new tax relief for the manufacturing sector, which was broadly defined to include oil and gas producers, architectural and engineering firms and film and music companies. It also includes 42.6 billion dollars in tax relief for multinational companies [2]. All in all, the bill contains 136 billion dollars in corporate tax relief [4].

Finally, the bill contains 10.1 billion dollars government tobacco farmer’s government quotas. A number of senators from both parties worried that the language of the bill would give the FDA the ability to regulate tobacco [3].

Perhaps it is naïve, but it just doesn’t seem like the film, music and oil companies are in dire straights, and while the bill claims to close loopholes for multinational companies [3] (hence, the reason they need a 42.6 billion dollar tax break when we are at war), there is no indication that the Bermuda mail drop approach [16] to corporate tax management will end anytime soon.

In addition to the 42.6 billion dollars in multinational corporate welfare, there seems to be a very strong smell of bacon and ham emanating from the bill, especially when one looks at the passages concerning the tax protections for things like Chinese ceiling fan importers and NASCAR race track owners [3]. The bill does, however, repeal a tax break to American companies that was in violation of the WTO global trade rules [4] – there is some good mixed in with the pork and corporate welfare. Perhaps this one is best considered a wash.

Now, if your headache hasn’t driven you far away, let’s take a look at the last pieces of important legislation that went through the Congress this weekend. Specifically, the House passed a new 32 billion dollar funding bill for Homeland Security [7] and legislation which included Patriot Act II clauses and other clauses which increased the powers of law-enforcement [12] [13], while the Senate rejected many of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations in favor of its own approach to Homeland Security [8].

The Homeland Security funding bill passed by the house had been held up due to an attempt by Republican House members to add a 2.4 billion dollar rider for milk farmer subsidies. In the end, this rider was left off the bill, and it passed 368-0 [7]. This appropriations bill is expected to pass the Senate without problems, and includes $9.8 billion for border protection, $5.7 billion for better transport security, and $1.1 billion for research and development of new security technology [7].

The Republican dominated House also adapted controversial legislation that includes a number of the Patriot Act II [13], which never made it to a vote due to its massive unpopularity [14]. The legislation passed the House on a vote of 282-134, now must be reconciled with the legislation passed in the Senate, with the goal of having Bush sign the bill into law before the year's end [12].

While the House was providing the funding for Homeland Security and passing legislation to increase the powers of law enforcement, the Senate was busy deciding on how to apply oversight to the intelligence community. By a 79-6 vote, the Republican controlled Senate created a new sub-committee under the appropriations committee, ignoring the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations that the appropriations and authorization powers in the House and Senate's intelligence committees be consolidated or that a special joint committee to oversee the nation's 15 intelligence agencies be created. The Republican controlled House and Senate both rejected considering the commission's two restructuring ideas out of hand [8].

Not all Senate Republicans were in favor of the vote, however. Senator John McCain said on Friday, "We'll have a status quo Intelligence Committee without combined authorization and appropriations power. We'll have a committee that handles only a tiny fraction of Homeland Security issues. And we'll be right back where we started [8]."

In addition to bills concerning military expenditures, corporate welfare, and restructuring of Homeland Security, Congress also passed legislation to increase the penalties for spyware [11] and other legislation to increase the scope of DNA testing in criminal cases [10].

As can be seen, Congress passed so much legislation during the last few days that it is difficult to sort through it all, let alone track changes to the legislation that might appear minor but may wind up having significant impact. The legislation that was passed this weekend and is in its final stages today is all extremely important, being as it deals with funding our military, how the tax system works, and how we go about protecting our Homeland. In short, it deals with the heart of that which government does.

This mad rush to complete necessary legislation in time to get out of Washington D.C. and back home in time to campaign is an annual event, and is one of the few truly bi-partisan efforts in Washington. While the need to campaign is part of the game – it is the nature of the beast – this rush to complete legislation seems to have inherent dangers, such as the very real possibility of ill-advised legislation making its way into law. This year, however, the problem is exacerbated by the fact that the Republican controlled House and Senate want to ensure that their programs make it through and to President Bush’s desk prior to the election.

Back to top

President Bush allowed his temper to get the better of him several times. After a question on the draft, when moderator Charles Gibson was attempting to ask President Bush about Senator John Kerry’s accusations of a backdoor draft, Bush overrode Gibson, and in an angry voice, responded to another Kerry accusation that the United States was, for all intents and purposes, going it alone [1] [5]. Not allowing Gibsion to finish a sentence, he demanded that Senator Kerry “Tell Tony Blair we're going alone. Tell Silvio Berlusconi we're going alone. Tell Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland we're going alone [1].”

The president sounded like a school yard bully at times, especially when trying to use Regan phrases such as “you can run, but you can’t hide” in reference to Senator Kerry’s voting record [1] – a record that Bush still attempts to malign and present in an over-simplified manner. And the perception that he comes across as a belligerent school boy is not unique: The New York Times relates that during the first debate when John Kerry said that it was Al Qaeda that attacked on Sept. 11, not Iraq, “Mr. Bush sounded more like a sullen schoolboy than a president as he retorted: ‘Of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that.’” [8]

Bush’s belligerence and anger were apparent from the start: his clenched jaw twitched, and he blinked repeatedly, like a man whose contact lens hurt. When Senator Kerry turned and confronted him face to face with the latest report on the absence of illicit weapons in Iraq, President Bush snickered derisively [8].

President Bush’s inability to control his temper was made even more apparent by the fact that Senator Kerry was responsive, articulate and sharp during the debate, but at not time did he lose his own temper and allow his emotions to get in the way of saying that which needed to be said [12].

Numerous times, the president came close to shouting during the course of the debate. Several times, the camera’s caught the President in a mean, vicious look at the end of his turn to speak, when he thought that the camera was off him. The president’s anger also showed in the timbre of his voice and in the manner in which he leapt from his seat for forceful, angry answers [6].

There is a difference between displays of rage and anger, and true strength. President Bush showed the former. It is worth noting the irony here that the Bush campaign used Senator McCain’s alleged temper during the 2000 primaries as one of its main attacks on the senator to win the primaries [7].

During the first debate, President Bush appeared sullen, angry and frustrated, as exhibited by his frequent scowling during Senator Kerry’s turn to speak [6]. During this debate, only the fact that he did not maintain control of himself and his emotions kept him from looking sullen and frustrated. He certainly did seem to be angry, and furthermore, unable to control and channel his anger.

Combined with an obvious loss of control and temper, Bush also showed his inability to adapt as new information becomes available, and his inability to react to changed circumstances and situations. In short, President Bush demonstrated that he is incredibly disconnected from reality (or, perhaps, that he is incapable of telling the truth). This was made particularly obvious when he was asked by audience member Linda Gavel to “Please give three instances in which you came to realize you had made a wrong decision, and what you did to correct it [1].”

The President did not admit to any major mistakes [1]. He made no mention of the fact that he, his administration and the agencies that he watches over were incorrect when they told the American people and the world at large that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction [2] [3]. Had he done so, he would have earned a measure of respect from a good number of people, given his growing reputation as a man incapable of adapting to circumstances that do not fit his preconceived notion of the world. Instead, he mouthed the same tired platitudes about how evil Saddam Hussein was, and reasserted his belief that his decision to invade Iraq was the right decision [1].

To support his claim that invading Iraq was not a mistake, he cited the Duelfur report, implying that the main thrust of that report indicated that Saddam was simply maneuvering for position in order to start generating weapons of mass destruction [1]. And while the report does indeed say that Saddam was attempting to get around the sanctions [2], it also states that Iraq’s nuclear program has been in decline for over a decade [2], and further states that Saddam had ordered the stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons destroyed in 1991 [4].

Yet, a day more than a year ago, President Bush said, “After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon [3].”

How can President Bush not admit that this was a mistake?

This is not staying the course, this is foolhardy stubbornness. It is a complete disconnection from reality.

The situation in Iraq is not the only area in which George W. Bush is either lying or living in a different reality than the rest of the human race. factcheck.org reported quite a number of incorrect statements by President Bush made. For example, President Bush incorrectly said that he did not own shares in a timber company. He also falsely claimed that prescription drug cards were working as advertised. A number of statements concerning Kerry’s health care plan were flat out wrong, as were some of his claims concerning medical based lawsuits [10]. And President Bush’s attempts to claim that he had worked for environmental good were beyond belief – this from a man who has weakened clean air rules, lowered acceptable mercury and arsenic levels, decimated rules that protected forests, refused to listen to scientists concerning Global Warming, and allowed massive relaxations in the EPA’s enforcement of environmental regulations [11].

Now, it must be admitted that some of John Kerry’s statements could be disputed – for example, there is debate as to whether the cost of the Iraq war is now 139 billion dollars or 200 billion dollars [10] – the scope of mistaken statements by Senator Kerry was dwarfed by those made by George W. Bush. Senator Kerry is willing to admit when he misspeaks – he did so during last night’s debate [1] – while President Bush simply grasps desperately to his own version of reality.

President Bush is campaigning on a platform of steadfastness while attempting to paint Senator Kerry as a “flip flopper [9].” Without a doubt, in his mind, this limits his options for candor due to political concerns given the state of the war in Iraq and the nearness of the elections. However, his inability to alter his position when information completely contrary to that upon which he claims to have premised his earlier position is dangerous at best when one considers that President Bush is the commander in chief of the military of the most powerful nation in the world, and that President Bush has under his control the ability to destroy the entire world several times over with the nuclear arsenal of this nation.

When one combines President Bush’s loss of temper with his disconnection from reality, the situation goes beyond frightening. It becomes truly nightmarish to realize that the single most powerful man in the world – a man who literally give orders that could kill every single living human being on the planet – lives in a delusional world in which evil is coming to get him, and cannot control his temper and his reactions.

Back to top

Last June, Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion when the court ruled 5-4 to strike down sentencing guidelines at the state level in Blakely v. Washington. That document stated that the legislative and administrative branches of government were attempting to regulate the discretion of the courts overly much, and the balance between the legislative and the administrative and executive branches was being jeopardized [1].

The argument upon which the majority opinion is based stems from the fact that the sixth amendment to the constitution guarantees the right to trial by jury [2] [3]. But many sentencing systems, including the federal system, strip the ability of juries to make trial judgments. In fact, not only is the discursion of the jury taken from the jury and given to the judge, but the judge is extremely limited by the guidelines, and is bound to follow them [1] [2] [4].

Sentencing guidelines are relatively new to the American justice system, having been introduced only two decades ago [1].

While sentencing guidelines may seem like a good idea to many on the surface, what they represent is a massive attack against the power of the courts to balance the executive branch and the legislative branch. The Framers of the Constitution realized that the power of the executive and the legislature, which could act in haste at times, needed a counter balance. This is the reason that Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life – it is assumed that they will be able to move beyond hasty decisions and partisan politics once they no longer have to defend their positions.

Last June’s ruling led to a divide in the opinions of trial judges and appeals courts as to whether this ruling invalidated the federal sentencing system. Some judges concluded that they cannot continue sentencing criminal defendants under the old rules [1].

The Bush administration has come out in favor of the sentencing guidelines [4]. They play a central roll in the War on Terror. The Patriot Act uses mandatory sentencing guidelines as part of its effort to curb the use of computer networks by terrorists [5].

But the Patriot Act is not the only place where mandatory sentencing laws are being enacted. Led by John Ashcroft, the Bush administration and the Department of Justice have been fighting for more power for the executive branch, and less discretion on the part of the courts [7].

Riders, backed by Ashcroft and the Bush administration, were added to the PROTECT act – which was originally designed to implement the Amber Alert system to protect kidnapped children – that have the potential to blacklist judges who “downward depart” from the sentencing. Downward departures are intended to give the judge discretion in individual cases. The U.S. Supreme Court itself has approved downward departures, in Koon v. United States, and they exist because the Sentencing Commission lacks the perfect foresight to address every single individual case when drafting the Guidelines [6].

Ashcroft has also argued that the courts do not have the power to overturn wartime decisions about military tribunals established by the president [8], he has lobbied for laws that would suspend habeas corpus and other fundamental rights guaranteed by the forth amendment – and has argued that such detainees should not have the right of appeal to the judicial branch [9], and has worked for legislation that would diminish judicial review of law and individual cases [10]. In fact, it can honestly be said that John Ashcroft has led a crusade against both individual rights and the ability of the judicial system to protect the rights of the American citizen [10].

It should be noted that it is not just the executive branch that is attacking the authority of the judicial branch. Congress recently has initiated legislation that would prevent the court from ruling on whether or not the phrase “under God” was allowable in the Pledge of Allegiance [12]. Despite attempts by some members of Congress to hide behind a mantel of godliness, whether or not the phrase “under God” belongs in the Pledge is completely inconsequential to any discussion of the constitutionality of this blatant attempt by the legislature to circumvent the judicial process as described in the constitution.

Some in the judiciary are not willing to take the assaut on its perogitives under the Constitution lying down. Two days after the Supreme Court heard arguments as concerning federal level (as opposed to state level) sentencing guidelines, U.S. District Judge Owen Panner ruled that federal sentencing guidelines are unconstitutional, and wrote a ruling that included a scathing attack on Congress and U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft’s efforts to strip judges of their authority and discretion [11].

Panner wrote “the Judicial Branch has remained silent in the face of repeated encroachments by the other two branches. Like frogs in a simmering pot, we adjust to the new temperature, and complain among ourselves that it seems a tad warm, but then accept the new order of things, to repeat that process anew after the next encroachment.” Panner further states that the executive branch has “mounted a direct assault no the third branch of the government,” and that “it is not the power of judges, as individuals, that bears defending, but rather the tripartite system of government that the Framers of the Constitution established to safeguard our liberty as a people. [11]”

At this point in time, it is more important than ever to maintain an independent judiciary branch that can take a longer view of things and can make decisions that are not based on trying to sell a program to the public, win an election, or please lobbyists that donate millions of dollars. With legislation such as the constitution-bending Patriot Act [13], the riders to the 9/11 consisting Commission Legislation of the principal components of the Patriot II Act [14] and other rights limiting legislation being advocated by the Bush administration in the name of the War on Terror, it is critical that the balance of power be kept intact.

But it is not only a frontal assault on the judiciary that is occurring. During the Republican Convention this year, George W. Bush stated that “I support the protection of marriage against activist judges, [15]” with the strong sub-text that it didn’t matter to him what the constitution had to say about a given matter, just what the actual law as passed by the Congress. He confirmed this when he went on to say that “And I will continue to appoint federal judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law [15].” While the President used the politically hot topic of gay unions to advance his position during the convention, his intentions for the judicial system obviously extend into every aspect of law and individual rights.

The next president will, in all likelihood, be able to appoint one or more Supreme Court justices. Ten years have passed since the last justice was appointed to the court, and only one justice, Clarence Thomas, is younger than 65. Speculation about retirements has focused on Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who will turn 80 in October, and Justices John Paul Stevens, 84, and Sandra Day O’Connor, 74 [16].

Currently, the court is divided for the most part along ideological lines, most judgments coming down in a 5-4 conservative ruling [17]. Depending on who is asked, the court is either one or two nominations away from overturning Roe v. Wade and adapting a very different viewpoint about the roll of government in the lives of individuals, and how far government can go in the name of its War on Terror [17] [18].

The assault on the courts – upon their authority and independence from the other branches of government – and attempting to slant them too far towards any partisan cause is a dangerous tactic to take. The courts provide the long range view that politicians who run for office and therefore cater to special interests and lobbies (and in particular, lobbies who provide large sums of money) seem to have lost.

The direction being taken in the War on Terror is an extremely dangerous one, especially given the fact that many seem not only willing but eager to trade their individual rights for a nebulous and unfulfillable promise of safety [19]. Panic reactions, such as the events around the passage of the first Patriot Act (which was passed a mere 45 days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks [20]) need the balance of the courts to keep our democracy on an even keel.

The courts are our long term evening factor. If our nation jettisons this balance to the reactionary actions that sometimes occur in times of crisis and national stress, we run the risk of losing the freedoms that define our nation.

Back to top

Ed: Within hours of publishing this column, George Bush finally started down the path towards honesty and candor, admitting to reporters that "Much of the accumulated body of our intelligence was wrong and we must find out why. [29]” However, there is still a grievous disparity between this admission and what is becoming apparent: that the Bush administration willfully ignored huge amounts of intelligence that they did not wish to acknowledge in order to advance their own agenda.

Intelligence agencies have also come forward, blaming limited data in part for the failures in Iraq. However, these agencies also point to the fact that the Bush administration had an unshakable a priori belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and that intelligence was ignored if it did not fit the preconceived notions held by administration officials [30].

The behavior exhibited by the Bush administration has cost thousands of lives, it has cost America its respect in the eyes of the world, it has cost our nation its righteousness. Intelligence is never perfect, and it is the job of the leaders of the intelligence community, and the job of the President to whom they report, to listen to what is said with a doubt-factor built in, and not to attempt to force the intelligence to fit to the patterns of the expectation.

And now, back to the regularly scheduled column...

The Bush Administration’s handling of the War in Iraq and the War Against Terrorism has reached a new low (or perhaps a catastrophic high?), with new evidence that not only did Iraq not posses weapons of mass destruction or the ability to make them, but that Iraq did not have ties to the al-Qaeda terrorists or any international terrorist organization that was a threat to the United States or it’s allies. Combined with recent revelations that intelligence contrary to that which would have supported George W. Bush’s desire to attack Iraq was ignored, either through incompetence or willfully, and the steadily deteriorating situation in Iraq, it is becoming blatantly obvious that the Bush Administration has either deceived itself, the American people, or both on a regular basis, and that these deceptions have led to a multitude of failures in Iraq on a number of different fronts.

Charles Duelfer, the top U.S. arms inspector in Iraq, said yesterday that he had found no evidence that Iraq had produced any weapons of mass destruction since 1991 [1]. He also concluded that Saddam Hussein’s ability to make WMD’s had degenerated significantly since the first gulf war in 1991 [1]. This conclusion, of course, is contrary to the claims of the Bush administration [2] – claims that were used as the rational for a war that has cost over 1000 American lives [1] and the lives of over 20,000 Iraqi civilians [28].

Prior to the invasion of 2003, President Bush stated unequivocally that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Specifically, the President claimed that Iraq “possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons." Bush also claimed, "We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas." Not being satisfied with that level of projected threat, he also accused Iraq of possessing “ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles — far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nations — in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work [10]."

In fact, it turns out that there were no bio-weapon or chem-weapon labs, mobile or otherwise. It turns out that the aluminum tubes were not for use in refining uranium, and were completely unsuited for that purpose, but rather, were intended for rockets. It turns out that there were no missiles with excessive range that had progressed beyond the design phase. The few missiles that Iraq did have that had a range greater than allowed by the first Gulf War surrender treaty were being destroyed at the time of the 2003 invasion under the supervision of the U.N weapons inspectors. It turns out that there were no weapons of mass destruction whatsoever, and furthermore, there were no facilities to make weapons of mass destruction. It turns out that even if he had wanted to, Saddam Hussein could not have started making weapons of mass destruction without considerable assistance and start up time [1] [10] [27].

In short, it turns out that George W. Bush was wrong in every single particular of his accusations concerning weapons of mass destruction. And there is such a preponderance of evidence that his own advisors and department heads have no choice but to come clean.

In 2002, while trying to garner support for the second Gulf War, Secretary of State Collin Powel paraded pictures before the United Nations General Assembly of where the weapons were supposed to have been stored and manufactured [3]. This week, by way of contrast, high level administration officials such as Secretary of State Collin Powel and National Security Advisor Condi Rice, following the lead of British Prime Minister Tony Blair [6], have admitted that not only were there no weapons of mass destruction, but that they knew that intelligence was questionable and disputed to begin with [4] [5].

True, there were a few forgotten remnants from prior to the first U.S-Iraq Gulf War. There was an artillery shell that insurgents attempted to use as a roadside bomb, not knowing what it was. There were a total of three other shells from the Iran-Iraq war found that once had contained mustard gas or sarin. There were some centrifuge parts from a pre-1991 program buried in a former scientist’s backyard. And finally, there was a single vial of botulinum toxin from 1993 [10]. These forgotten remnants, all of which contained materials that decompose over time and were all over a decade old, do not comprise a WMD program, nor do they comprise stockpiles. And there is not a single intelligence source that is arguing that they do at this point in time.

But George W. Bush will not or cannot admit that there was no WMD threat from Iraq. Rather, he now says that, "there was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks. In the world after Sept. 11, that was a risk we could not afford to take [1]."

The problem with this most recent statement from George W. Bush is that a risk of what Saddam might do with weapons and information that he did not have was not why America followed George W. Bush into a war.

George W. Bush told the nation that we were going to war because Saddam Hussein actually possessed weapons of mass destruction and that he had links with terrorists, and, in particular, with the terrorists that brought about the tragedy of 9/11. Though the President also gave lip service to the plight of the Iraqi people under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, it was not for them that America mobilized to go to war. America followed Bush into word because the President told us that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and strong ties to al-Qaeda. Which brings to the next hard truth: there was no link between Saddam Hussein and the terrorists that attacked the United States.

The 9/11 Commission has said numerous times that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda [7].

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has admitted that there was no link and that he knew that there was no link, saying yesterday, “To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two [al-Qaeda and Hussein]. [8]”

The CIA has tossed in its two cents, reporting that the last time that Iraq considered an attack against America was in 1993, when it attempted a crude assignation against former President George H.W. Bush [9] – for which President Clinton punished Iraq with a cruise missile attack. In fact, the CIA has stated flatly that Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them [20].

For the past several years, the State Department's annual Patterns of Global Terrorism report has said that Iraq plans and sponsors international terrorism, but that its activities are directed mostly at the Iraqi government's domestic opponents. The international aspect of the Iraqi terrorist involvement, according to the State Department, has been with the Palestine Liberation Organization in its fight with Israel, and a small Iranian militia opposed to the Iranian government. Neither of these activities threatened the United States in any way [9].

In fact, just about every single claim that linked al-Qaeda with Saddam Hussein and Iraq with international terror that threatened the United States has fallen apart. For that matter, there are no substantiated links between Iraq and any organization that posed a real threat to any other nation at all. Even the supposed link between Muhammad Atta and the Iraqi government has been dismissed as groundless by the CIA [9].

Furthermore, all the above mentioned information has been circulating in one form or another for some time.

But still the Bush administration tries to keep the facade intact, despite the fact that it is obviously crumbling. Said Scott McClellan, White House Press Secretary, “There are clearly ties between Saddam Hussein’s regime and al-Qaeda. We know there were senior-level contacts between the regime and al-Qaeda – the 9/11 Commission documented that [11].”

Unfortunately for McClellan and Bush, however, what the 9/11 Commission actually said was that there were “friendly contacts” between Iraq and al-Qaeda, and that they shared a common hatred of the United States, but that nothing ever “developed into a collaborative relationship [11].”

If it is not bad enough that the two primary reasons that George W. Bush used to lead the United States into a war of aggression have been shown to be completely unfounded and false, if it is not bad enough that it is apparent that the Bush Administration either lied to the American people and the world or was incompetent to the point of treasonous action [22], there is the catastrophic handling of the war, and the criminal misuse of intelligence concerning it’s execution.

It appears that in addition to knowing that the information was disputed and flawed, the Bush administration was warned that the troop levels being allocated would not be adequate to the task. Paul Bremer, former U.S. administrator in occupied Iraq, has stated that he argued for more troops in the immediate aftermath of the invasion, when looting was rampant. The Bush administration does not contest this, saying that Bremer argued the point with military leaders [10].

It should be noted that Bremer is hardly the first to make this criticism of the Bush approach to the war – other ranking military officers, both active and retired, have made the same observations [15] [23]. Not that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wanted to hear that America needed more troop strength to take and successfully hold Iraq than it had – it was not long after General Eric Shinseki brought the bad news that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in Iraq that he was dismissed [16]. In fact, the White House has a history of firing those who deliver less than savory news to George W. Bush and his cabinet [17].

The situation in Iraq is proceeding exactly as one would expect, given the real, factual intelligence concerning that nation: it is deteriorating, and deteriorating fast.

The levels of violence are rising dramatically. The United States and its Iraqi support troops launched a major offensive yesterday to attempt to take back areas of the war-torn nation lost during recent months to the insurgents [19]. At the same time, bombings and other guerilla-style insurgent attacks are becoming more and common.

In addition to the outright fighting between the insurgents and the United States’ occupying forces, there is a steadily growing number of hostages being taken; and with the increase in hostages kidnapped has come a rising total of hostages killed by their captors, often by beheading [21].

The elections are looking a bit shaky, too. Recently, there was confusion at the highest levels of the White House as to whether all Iraqis would be able to participate in them, as Deputy Secretary of State Armitage stated late last month, or just Iraqis in relatively safe areas, as Defense Secretary Rumsfeld stated [24]. Since then, Jordan's King Abdullah has said it will be impossible to hold fair elections in Iraq in the current state of chaos [25] and there have been leaks that the United States considered plans to effectively rig the elections [26]. Not a very promising outlook for George W. Bush’s road to democracy.

And now, on top of all the other election woes facing Iraq, now two organizations, representing 60,000 United Nations employees, having lost confidence in the United States’ ability to keep the peace for the elections, have asked U.N. Secretary General Annan to withdraw all of the U.N. election observers and election assistants [18]. It would seem that though it is possible that the Iraqi people will see their way to a new government that is fair and just to its people, it will be despite George W. Bush, and not due to him.

With the quagmire-like disaster that George W. Bush’s administration is presiding over, it is not surprising that the confidence in the President, even by his own party, is eroding. During an appearance on Fox News Sunday, Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona said that Bush was not being "as straight as maybe we'd like to see" with the American people about Iraq. McCain went on to say that it was “a serious mistake” not to have enough troops in place “after the initial successes” and that the mistake had led to “very, very significant” difficulties [14].” McCain went on to criticize the tactics – military, logistic, and political – that the president has utilized in Iraq [14]. For a fellow Republican to make this statement concerning the wartime conduct of a president who is facing re-election in less than a month is telling indeed.

The feeling of safety that George W. Bush generated for many Americans is evaporating as the facade that he constructed crumbles. While it was possible for George W. Bush to befuddle the American public for a time by linking Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, and the 9/11 attack by al-Qaeda, and to make them feel safer by attacking Iraq and explaining the attack as one that would reduce terrorism and the threat of proliferation of WMD’s [12], a recent poll shows that Americans now are beginning to believe that the attack by the United States on Iraq has actually increased, not decreased, the threat to the United States [13].

The Bush approach to Iraq, as sold to the American people, appears to be a dismal failure. It is impossible to say what would have happened if the White House had been candid with itself, with America, and with the World about both the actual facts in the matters of Iraq and the 9/11 attacks and about its rational, goals and aims. Instead, the Bush administration chose to ignore intelligence that it did not wish to hear, and to deceive both itself and everyone else in order to attain its goals. Specialists and experts were ignored or dismissed when their advice and input were not supportive of the war in Iraq. And at some point, given the preponderance of evidence, it is almost impossible to believe that President Bush and the cabinet were not aware of the actual facts concerning Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, and al-Qaeda.

From this basis of willful ignorance and deceit, the Bush administration has pursued a war that has led to little but death and misery in Iraq. While Saddam Hussein was indeed an evil man, the scope of destruction and misery brought on by the American invasion exceeds that which Hussein brought to his own people. And there are few signs that things are going to improve in the foreseeable future without a radical change in course.

It has been widely remarked upon that democracy does not come easy, that it must be fought for, as the United States fought for it when it rebelled against England. However, it must be realized that it was the American people who fought for themselves. Democracy is a state that must earned. The price of freedom must be paid by those who would be free.

So, does all this mean that the situation in Iraq is completely without hope? No. But a number of things will have to happen for Iraq to begin its healing process, and evolve into a stable, self governing nation. Primarily, there will have to be true international involvement – both militarily and economically - not with an eye for looting the riches of Iraq, but with a Marshal Plan-like outlook. At the same time, foreign involvement in Iraq must be from the standpoint of understanding the people, their history, their culture, their religion and their pride, and not treating them as a people like deficient Americans, criminals and simpletons incapable of understanding our way of thought.

Even if there is a radical change in the way the United States conducts itself in Iraq, it is probably impossible for the U.S. to unilaterally do what is needed to make Iraq a whole nation again. There have been too many abuses, perceived and real, by the United States, during the occupation, too many failures, too many lies and deceptions. The Iraqi people no longer have faith that good things can come from unilateral U.S. control of their country.

However, this does not mean that the United States should abdicate the responsibility for repairing the disaster that it created in Iraq.

It will be a test of character how the United States proceeds from this point onward.

Back to top

First, it was Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Britain, who came forward and publicly admitted on September 29th that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq [2]. Not everyone in Britain’s government thought this was adequate, however; Conservative leader Michael Howard has directly and publicly accused Blair of lying, saying that Blair knew that the British government and people would not have backed Blair’s war plans if they had known the actual situation. [1]

When asked if Blair had lied, Howard answered directly and unequivocally, “Yes.” Asked when Blair lied, Howard said: "Notably when he had intelligence, as is set out in full in the Butler report, which was hedged with qualifications, caveats, warnings, which he translated into certainty." [1]

Then October 1st was Colin Powell’s turn. He admitted that there were no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction whatsoever [3] – which must have hurt, given that when he made his appeal to the United Nations for that bodies support in attacking Iraq, he not only said unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, he showed pictures of where they were supposedly being made and where they were being kept [4].

Like Blair, he blamed bad intelligence, saying, "As we've gone back and looked through the intelligence, there are indications that we had bad sourcing that we should have caught. For that I am disappointed and regret that that information was not correct [3]." But isn’t it part of his job to decide on what is good and bad intelligence, and to have people working for him who can make the same decisions? As Secretary of State of the United States of America, as the chief diplomat for this nation, should he not have looked longer and harder at intelligence that would lead to committing this nation to war?

Then, today, Condoleezza Rice came out with what can only be described as a complete CYA statement. In reference to aluminum tubes that she said in 2002 were “only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," she today said that, “I knew that there was a dispute. I actually didn't really know the nature of the dispute. [5]” (It turns out that the aluminum tubes were completely unsuitable for use in the uranium distillation process, and would have required re-tooling and the removal of a protective spray coating in order to be used for that purpose. Rather, they were in fact almost certainly intended for rocket bodies [14].)

Now, Condi Rice is the National Security Advisor. It is her job to look at intelligence, and make judgments about it. When it comes to something this important – that is, whether or not a rogue state is indeed making nuclear weapons, and should the United States go to war over it – one would think that the National Security Advisor would look into all angles of the intelligence surrounding the case being made against said rogue nation.

What Condi Rice said just does not scan to a rational listener – unless, one considers the case of her being asked at some future time about memo’s being sent to her, and why she did not act upon them. Perhaps a question like this would come up at say, oh, a trial. She has now positioned herself to say that she received, say, memos concerning the inadequacy of the tubes for nuclear weapons production, but really didn’t read them. In other words, she can say that she didn’t actually hear any intelligence that there were no WMD’s – even though she did hear exactly such intelligence, and just chose to pretend that it wasn’t there.

“What did you know, and when did you know it.” This was the great question during both Watergate, and again during the Contra-Iran Arms Scandal, where plausible deniability was perfected to an art form by two different malfeasant administrations. And with the cracks that are appearing in the Bush/Blair story concerning Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction – or lack thereof – it may again be the question of the day in the near future.

It is well known that many of George W. Bush’s high level advisors have been involved with the Project for the New American Century for quite some time [6]. Among the signatories of this militaristic, right wing think tank are Jeb Bush, Dan Quayle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz – the list goes on, and reads like a cabinet meeting and/or a Bush family and friends picnic [7]. The taking of Iraq has long been the goal of this group – in fact, they sent an open letter to president Clinton urging him to do just that [8].

When one combines George W. Bush’s known management style of decision by committee of trusted advisors [9] with the fact that those advisors, in large, are PNAC members [6], add in the fact that open discussion by Bush and those advisors began immediately after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center [10] and combine all this with the way that Bush has linked those attacks and Iraq, [11] one has motive and opportunity, and his alibi is quickly slipping away.

This might explain why George W. Bush withdrew the United States from World Court treaty [12] - it may well be that he fears appearing before that body. Certainly as the polls draw closer [13], and the possibility that George W. Bush may no longer have executive privilege looms together with the possibility that a new administration may get to see the actual internal intelligence that he and his staff had access to, it appears that everyone is covering themselves with whatever fig leaves they can find.

No matter who wins the election, though, George W. Bush and his staff have some hard questions to face, and the world is waiting for their answers.

Back to top

As far as other nations are concerned, they are much more likely to follow Kerry than to follow Bush. Given Bush’s disdain for the international community, as exhibited during his speeches to the U.N., other nations, including our traditional allies are not particularly pleased with us right now. And polls show that Kerry is much more respected in Europe than is Bush at this point in time. [1]

Furthermore, Bush has never been one to worry overmuch about allegiances – during his nomination speech in 2000, he said, “Now is the time not to defend outdated treaties but to defend the American people. [4]” So, I find your position that George W. Bush will be better suited than John Kerry to forge actual working coalitions with the rest of the world, or get other nations to fulfill their obligations during times of crisis, to be lacking merit.

Now, as far as “Wrong War, Wrong Time, Wrong Place” – this is an opinion that many hold in America, in Europe, and even the Vatican [5]. It was not a good war to get into – and Bush lied – or at least, was so incredibly naïve or allowed the agencies under his control to mislead him as to prove him incompetent. Even Collin Powel had to admit that there were no WMD’s and no programs to make WMD’s in the last few days [3].

However, with this said, this does not mean that Kerry does not realize that we cannot just pull out instantaneously. His pullout plan is phased, and is spread over four years [6] [7]. John Kerry knows that we are in a situation where we cannot just run out like a teenage father upon learning he has gotten his girlfriend pregnant. He knows that when he is elected, he will have to accept the responsibility for the actions of George W. Bush and find a solution that leaves a peaceful Iraq and does not leave a bad taste in the mouths of our allies and the rest of the world.

Back to top

Initial results from last night’s debate are in, and they are looking fairly good for John Kerry. In general, observers of the debate felt that Kerry did better overall than did Bush [1] [3]. Both seemed to accomplish their aims: Bush was able to reiterate his emotion based sermon to the faithful of safety against fear of terror and war in a world where all evil was linked together, and John Kerry was able to wrack intellectual havoc on Bush’s reasoning and arguments. However, it seems that both Americans and the world at large found George W. Bush’s appeal to emotion was not as strong as John Kerry’s arguments [2].

As neither side scored a knockout, however, many would consider the debate to be something of a draw [3]. While a number of undecided voters were swayed, George W. Bush probably lost only a tiny percentage of his faithful voting base. However, even with the conventional wisdom that a draw is a win for the incumbent, there is no doubt that Karl Rove and the rest of the Bush political handlers will not let things lie as they are.

Immediately after the debates, both the Kerry campaign [4] and the Bush Campaign [6] put their own spin on the debate [5] [7]. Yet the Bush spin seemed rather weak – perhaps because of Republican candidate’s showing during the debate. The Bush web site chose four main points to attack concerning what John Kerry said, including the fact that John Kerry was mistaken about the subway having to be closed during the RNC. Of course, while the subway was indeed not closed, the orange alert declared for the convention cost the state of New Jersey 6.5 million dollars, a good chunk of which was used by the New Jersey Department of Transportation [8]. This above and beyond the 234 million dollars in federal grants provided over the last three years to New Jersey for anti-terrorism [8].

So, while indeed Senator Kerry did make a factual mistake concerning security during the RNC, it was hardly a critical gaff. What is ironic is that the Bush web site also criticizes Senator Kerry for admitting that he did make a mistake in the way he spoke about the allocations for the War in Iraq. Given how George W. Bush still clings tenaciously to his belief in a black and white cartoon world of absolutes, this criticism, like the criticism of the subway mistake, can only be seen as being weak and feeble at best.

It is important to note, however, that the lack of logic upon which the attacks brought about by the Bush campaign against Senator Kerry is not a critical failing to the Bush campaign, which applies more upon appeal to emotion than any intellectual, rational argument. The Bush campaign spreads fear of a terror threat that it links together with a threat of weapons of mass destruction in rogue states, regardless of what the actual evidence turns out to be. (For example, today, Secretary of State Collin Powel was forced to admit that there were no WMD in Iraq – and yet, the Bush campaign still insists that attacking Iraq was a good thing [9].) At the same time that the Bush campaign spreads fear, it also tells people how George W. Bush is defending people – even if there is no actual link between that which people fear (i.e., terrorists) and that which George W. Bush has decided to attack (i.e., Iraq). (Note, however, that there is now a link between the terrorists and Iraq – but that link did not exist until George W. Bush’s war caused Iraq to become a terrorist hotbed.)

However, even an appeal to emotion [10] needs to be bolstered up by at least the semblance of a factual basis, or it will crumble. Given how weak the attacks against what Senator Kerry said during the debate and the crumbling facade of a successful war in Iraq [11] [12] [13], the Bush political team under Karl Rove will have no choice to but to act.

It is easy to imagine Karl Rove [14] sitting at his desk, going through a file marked, “Tricks, Dirty and Underhanded.” Lets take a peek into what Karl just might be pull out of his arsenal of proven tricks and strategies that appeared during campaigns that his candidates were running against. Though of course, little can be proven about Mr. Rove and some of these attacks, there is a consistant pattern in the attacks that seem to spring up out of nowhere against the opponents of his candidates [14] [15].

• There was an incident with a planted microphone that showed up in Karl Rove’s office, and wound up deciding the election during Texas Governor Bill Clements’ 1986 re-election campaign [14]. But this was pretty minor compared to what was coming.
• Then there was the incident where Jim Hightower, who was a political foe of Karl Rove during a campaign for Texas, wound up being destroyed through allegations of a kickback scheme [14]. But this was still warm-up for the Man with the Plan.
• Rove destroyed another opponent by alerting the press to the fact that Lena Guerrero, a rising star in the Texas Democratic Party, had lied about graduating from college [14]. By now, Rove’s file of dirty tricks was becoming something to be feared in the political arena.
• And how can one forget the whisper campaign against Ann Richards during the 1994 Texas gubernatorial race that managed to paint Ann Richards as a lesbian [14] [15]. The pattern was now firmly established – Bush, Rove’s candidate by now – took the high road, while other sources, which of course could not be proved to be connected to the campaign, not only took the low road, but dug a trench where the low road had been.
• And now, Rove and his acolytes and partisans were ready for the big time. John McCain took a three pronged attack during the 2000 Republican primaries. He was accused of having a love child because he and his wife had adopted a minority orphan [18], he was accused of being mentally unstable because of his time spent in POW camps [16] [17], and he was accused of being un-patriotic and anti-veteran [15]. Just like the attacks against Senator Kerry during the 2004 campaign, George Bush did not denounce these attacks, nor did he discourage them in any way [15] [16] [17].
• Once George W. Bush was the republican candidate, the dirty tricks appeared to have started against Al Gore. For example, there was the video tape of Bush practicing for his debate that appeared at the Gore campaign – a loose-loose situation for Gore, no matter what. [20]
• And recently, of course, there were the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth [19] – or the Not-so-Swift Liars for Bush, depending on what you want to believe. It cannot be denied, however, that this group fits to a ‘T’ the pattern set by events surrounding the opponents of Rove’s other clients.
• And just this last month, there was the direct mailing by the RNC of fliers in Arkansas and West Virginia that warned Republican voters that Democrats would ban the Bible, and encourage gay unions [21]. The RNC admittd that they did the mailing [22], and it is known that Karl Rove [14] is the master of the direct mailing campaign. Of course, as per usual, there is no provable link there – it is just one more dirty, sickening trick that got played in a campaign in which Karl Rove was involved.

So, with this kind of arsonel to draw from, one wonders from what quarter the next dirty trick attack will come? Will it be a whisper campaign? Or maybe a frivolous lawsuit. Perhaps it will be an allegation of wrong doing from an unexpected quarter.

There is little doubt but that there will be such an attack: Karl Rove and the other Bush political advisors cannot stand idly by while their candidate loses ground. Given Bush’s showing in the debates, given recent events in Iraq and on the world stage, and the press coverage of those events and the actions and rationalizations leading up to them, and given the state of the U.S. economy and the state of other domestic issues, there is no other place or manner for the Bush political team to attack.

However, John Kerry has shown his strength and character during the smears directed at him during this campaign, and it appears that he may be one of the few to emerge victorious from a battle in which Karl Rove commands the political forces of the opposition.

Back to top