Pol: Why not to re-elect Bush--IRAQ!

Kerry is definitely the lesser of evils, and has some promise of being
a positive.

The Bush Jr. administration will go down in history as one of the
worst ever.

We went to war against Iraq, not terrorists--not Al Queda as the Bush
administration tried to paint it. The 9/11 Commission found that
there were no ties between Iraq and 9/11. And there were no ties to
Al Queda.

Hussein had a secular regime. The greatest threat to his rule were
the religious extremists. They were not allies.

The Bush administration makes a string of similar misrepresentations.

For example, they refer to a nuclear threat, cleanly overlooking that
Iraq had zero nuclear capabilities, and further, that the sanctions
had worked--that Iraq was so weak it was not even a threat to its
neighbors, much less the U.S.

They also ignore the fact that Bush promised war only as a last
resort, and that he still claims that he did go to war as a last
resort.

We know that was not the case. U.N. inspectors were only allowed to
search for 3½ months before the United States and Britain launched
their invasion, which Chief UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix said was
too short.

Blix said the war in Iraq was not necessary to make the world safer.
""A couple of months more would have further shown the weakness in
evidence for weapons of mass destruction, because there weren't any,"
Blix said. "The evidence that was invoked by the U.S. and the U.K.
would have fallen further apart."

"The decision to go to war symbolized something new in the strategic
thinking in the U.S.," Blix said. "President Bush implied that you
must act in advance to prevent and to preempt. However, there was not,
at that time, the slightest sign of future Iraqi terror attacks."

The Bush neo-conservatives act like criticism of the Bush
administration is merely political. They deliberately overlook the
many, many non-partisan and bi-partisan judgments on the incompetence
of this administration.

This war has been handled ineptly from the start through today.
Starting with the the coalition that Bush Jr. formed--barely a shadow
of what his father put together for the first war with Iraq--up
through today's inept handling of the stabilization effort.

Take a moment to consider the body count.

Military casualties as of Oct 18, 2004..
U.S.: 1102
U.K.: 68
Other: 70

Prior to Bush's "Mission accomplished" speech - US:139/UK:33/Other:0

Now recall the Bush administration predictions (spin): Asked if
Americans are prepared for a "long, costly and bloody battle," Vice
President Cheney (former Secretary of Defense) replied: "Well, I don't
think it's likely to unfold that way...The read we get on the people
of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of
Saddam Hussein, and they will welcome as liberators the United States
when we come to do that."

Vice President Cheney predicted Hussein's troops would "step aside"
and that the conflict would be "weeks rather than months," a phrase
repeated by other top officials.

Once war was underway, the Bush administration changed their tune,
becoming more cautious.

But they ignored the advice of generals, such as four-star General
Shinseki, Chief of Staff of the Army, who answered honestly when
Congress asked him how many soldiers might be needed to stabilize
Iraq--300,000. The Bush administration turned on him, attacking his
judgment and character. Rumsfeld force forced him into early
retirement and was noticeably absent at the ceremony.

Now the Iraq situation is worsening and all experts say more soldiers
will be required.

But for political reasons--the election race--Bush is not allowing the
generals to make the military decisions, despite his rhetoric about
doing so. He is giving ground now because he wants to keep negative
press down before the election.

(1) We are losing ground that will cost *more* American lives when we
have to regain it after the election.

(2) More troops should have been sent and now will have to be sent if
we are to be effective.

Bush's fellow Republicans are voicing their opinions on the matter.

Sen. Chuck Hagel (Republican-Neb.) ripped Bush's handling of the war,
pointing to a spate of Bush administration missteps in Iraq and
insisting a new ground offensive was needed to quell the spiraling
violence.

"The fact is, we're in deep trouble in Iraq,'' Hagel said on CBS'
"Face The Nation" show, just two days before Bush made a major speech
on Iraq at the United Nations.

"We're going to have to sustain, tragically, some more casualties,''
Republican Senator McCain said. "Airstrikes won't do it. Artillery
doesn't do it. Boots on the ground do it. And the longer we delay, the
more difficult the challenge is going to be and the more casualties we
will incur.''

Some Democrats suggested Bush is waiting until after the election to
launch a major offensive.

"The only thing I can figure as to why they're not doing it with a
sense of urgency is that they don't want to do it before the
election,'' Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), said on ABC.

Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman
and a respected voice on global affairs, criticized the Bush
administration for spending just $1 billion of the $18.4 billion
Congress approved to rebuild Iraq.

"This is the incompetence in the administration,'' Lugar said on ABC's
"This Week."
The Department of the Army released a study that showed that as many
as 25% of our U.S. casualties might be alive if they had been issued
the proper body armor.

McCain said Bush was not being "as straight as we would want him to
be" about the situation.

"The longer we delay with these sanctuaries, the more difficult the
challenge is going to be and the more casualties we will incur and the
Iraqi people will suffer because they will be able to operate out of
these sanctuaries obviously now with somewhat of impunity," McCain
said.

The opinion piece implies that people who disagree with the Bush
administration version of things do so out solely for political
reasons. That's wrong.

Retired General Zinni (the former Commander of Central Command of U.S.
Military, and Special Envoy to the Middle East in the Bush
Administration) told it straight and true: he said Rumsfeld and his
neo-con cohorts at the Pentagon (Rumsfeld, Wolfawitz, Perle, etc) were
guilty of serious "derelictions of duty," "criminal negligence," and
"poor planning that put U.S. soldiers in harm's way."

U.S. Generals including, Schwartzkopf, Skowcroft, Clark, Shinseki and
others have told the neo-conservatives that they were making a
mistake. But the Bush administration hasn't listened.

General Tony McPeak, former Chief of Staff of the Air Force under Bush
Sr. during Desert Storm, Republican co-chair of Oregon Veterans for
Bush in 2000, recipient of the Silver Star, Distinguished Service
Medal and Distinguished Flying Cross, and a fighter pilot who flew
over 300 combat missions in Vietnam, said, "Bush claims he has made
America stronger and safer, but in reality he has made the United
States weaker and less safe." Before a large audience McPeak
emphasized the point by saying he was a life-long conservative, but
would not vote for Bush again if he was running against "Grandma
Moses."

General John Eisenhower said, "As son of a Republican President,
Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a
Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With
the current administration's decision to invade Iraq unilaterally,
however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring
some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the
Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry."

The criticism of the Bush administration's handling of Iraq is not
political; it crosses party lines, and it is vital interest to all
Americans.

MJ

Mark & Juanita