C) ARE WE SAFER???

you insist "we are safer" ... interesting ... look at the papers just from today (it doesn't matter what day). how are we safer? i'm not necessarily saying we're not, but you can't just say that in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary. you cite that 75% of al qaeda leaders are caught ... but that's only one model and one threat, and one that many terrorism experts say is not the relevant model for such a decentralized organization. so you're creating the picture ... and it's very clever ... "we'll make this deck of cards ... and when we've got most of those people, then our voters will feel safer & believe us." yes, that's very clever, but that doesn't make it true or accurate. saying it just does not make us safer. in fact, creating a false image of safety makes us more dangerous, like convicting the wrong person for a crime makes the community feel safer - even though the actual killer is still loose and no one is looking for him anymore.

so it seems you are basing your reelection on the perception that you are making the nation safer.

"I should vote for you because you are making me safer?"

but what if that's just not true? what if we're not actually safer? should we still vote for you?

why should i believe we are safer when it looks the very opposite to me?

My single biggest concern regarding our safety and security is that we are alienating much of the world.

I read of two different recent international polls that say we have grown to all new levels of animosity & mistrusted for us around the world. (see for example http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=185).

and check this out ... astounding numbers of protests & protesters!

http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/g/gl/global_protests_against_war_on_iraq__pre_war_.html


(... Much larger protests [against the U.S. invasion of Iraq] in nearly 800 cities on February 15 drew millions of protesters in total, in the vicinity of ten million people around the world, listed by the 2004 Guinness Book of Records as the largest mass protest movement in history.)

more violence all the time ... even in iraq.

iran & north korea developing nuclear weapons.

growing new recruits for anti US forces.


Being Part of the World Community is not "turning over our national security to other nations," it's the best way to remain keep ourselves and others safe ... as good neighbors ... and respected in the world.


in the first debate you said there was no doubt in your mind that if we had not invaded iraq, saddam hussain would have continued to grow his weapons program. "To think that another round of resolutions would have caused Saddam Hussein to disarm, disclose, is ludicrous, in my judgment. It just shows a significant difference of opinion. We tried diplomacy. We did our best."

(of course you were completely wrong about this ... Saddam had, in fact, already long disarmed. So if you say that "in [your] judgment ... it is 'ludicrous' to think something that turns out to be true, what does that tell me about your judgment?)

BUT in any case ... let me set the scenario again ...

1) in the 90's we all know saddam had chemical weapons ... he used them.
2) at the time we invaded this sovereign nation, there were weapons inspectors there looking, and they couldn't find any more of these weapons. in fact the weapons inspectors (Hans Blix et. al) recommended continuing on with these inspections, rather than going to war ... giving the process more time. you said the inspectors couldn't find them because saddam was hiding them. but you said it with conviction, so people believed you. again, you didn't care about actual facts ... only the ones you could use or fabricate.
3) now that we've invaded and taken over an entire nation, unprovoked, lost over a thousand soldiers, and caused the deaths of ten thousand or more iraqis (including thousands of iraqi children), lost diplomatic respect throughout the world, and exploded the number of people with a reason to hate us ... based solely on your "conviction," we still can't find any of these weapons! (and we all know how desperately you all have been trying.) clearly saddam is not hiding them now. he's not evading inspectors. he's not hiding anything. he's in jail.


it's very simple ... you were wrong, iraq was not an imminent threat.

But your actions have further endangered us by isolating us and straining our alliances, friendship, and support in the world.

now, i know that everyone makes mistakes. everyone is wrong sometimes. i can't knock anyone for making honest mistakes. we all make plenty of them. but this is different.

you now explain that you had "intelligence" that led you astray ... that other's looked at the intelligence and came to the same conclusion. but that's not true. you are the only one that looked at that evidence and ordered an attack on another sovereign nation. even if we did have a few allies with us, i know you wouldn't claim they would have attacked if you decided not to. no, this decision was your alone ... that's your job.

we've all seen enough of the "intelligence" you had to know there was a very mixed bag of opinions. there was a great deal of conflicting evidence and information. this was even further complicated by the fact your administration has a habit of trying to influence the intelligence to align with the policy you already favor.

so, 'near as i can tell, you sifted through the intelligence and picked & chose what you liked (as usual), what supported your plans, and discarded the rest, sometimes even attacking the unwanted message bearers.


to be fair, of course, you are in the only position with the power to make this huge decision. and a huge decision it was. this was not just a decision of whether to enter a war or not. it was not a decision of whether to defend ourselves ... as we were never attacked, or even threatened by iraq. no this was so much bigger than that, even.

i mean let's think about this. you made the decision to attack, overpower, and occupy another sovereign nation without provocation, and without the support of the world community. the last time i remember that happening was when iraq invaded kuwait in the early 90s, when your father was president. at the time, he, with the rest of the world, reacted with outrage, as well they should have. you just don't do that in the modern world. invading another nation without provocation is a big deal ... maybe the very biggest deal on the world stage.

that's exactly why most of the world was opposed to the idea. some of the biggest marches and protests in history were happening almost daily throughout the world. imagine well over a million people marching in rome to protest something proposed in washington D.C.! that's because they realized how important this was. even in countries that joined the "coalition" ... some governments may have backed you, but the people did not.

you see the formula is simple. either we respect international law or not. if it's okay for one country to attack another without provocation, then it's okay for everyone to do that. in modern times we are gradually developing a system of international law and community that allows us to deal with each other in different ways. we are all safer in that kind of a system, because we have the help, support, and legitimacy of the whole community when there are problems.

here's an analogy. most americans have a common picture of the old gunfighter towns in the old american west. we got this picture from the movies. i don't know how accurate it is, but we share the picture in any case. now as near as i can tell you are john wayne saying "we have to stand up and show them (terrorists) how strong we are or we are sitting ducks." "they don't follow the rules, they don't stand up and fight like a man, so we've got to smoke 'em out." this approach made a lot of sense, of course, in a place where there was no effective law enforcement and the rule of the gun was supreme.

however ... moving to modern times ... can you imagine what would happen if an old gunslinger bad guy started making trouble in downtown, USA today. well he might take out a few people before we got him, and we would mourn the losses. it might even be me or a loved one of mine. but, very soon, he would be stopped, very likely by someone nearby, or a group of people nearby (as happened on the 9/11 plane that went down in PA). at the very least, the situation would soon be controlled by the police, our collective representitives in upholding the law. this is the point ... that we live in a land of laws. sure, we sometimes still rely on guns to enforce the laws, but the laws come first. the law is the justification, not the gun. might does not make right. and we are all expected to follow the law, and we are all safer for it.

in fact, that old gun totin' bad guy doesn't stand a chance of surviving long in the modern world because we've learned better ways of dealing with him. we deal with him collectively ... and with a system in place.

well, on the world stage, the united nations & world court are our best attempts so far at achieving that sort of collective efficacy worldwide. so in a land of "might makes right," of course, the united states could blow up the whole UN without much effort. but if we did that, we would lose the safety in numbers and common goals and ideals that we gain from operating in good faith as a part of this collective. if we thumb our nose at the UN, or at world opinion in general, we are sacrificing the good will of our neighbors. worse than that, though, we are redefining the rules of the game. if we're not going to follow the rules, why should anyone?

if i believe my neighbor is a threat to me, how should i deal with it? i could go directly to my neighbor and try to work it out. i could go to the police and evoke the legal system. i could go to my other neighbors and make my case, trying to enlist some support. now there's no guarantee that any of these will be effective, but all will be within the collective agreements we live under, and all will likely earn me the respect and support of my community.

another alternative is that i could just go shoot my neighbor. now this would effectively prevent him from doing me any harm. but does that make me safer? now i've got the police, my neighbors, and all my dead neighbor's friends and family against me. even if my neighbor was a bad guy. even if he was a threat. even if everyone is happy he's gone, who will stand by me when his family comes after me? then, if they do shoot me, then everyone comes to realize that the rule of the gun is back ... everyone will have guns. who is safer now? this is the result of choosing the gun over the rule of law and collective community action.


now mr. bush, you say the united nations security council voted to threaten "serious consequence" if iraq did not comply with the UN resolutions in place ... and that justified your attack. but the glaring hole in that story is that when you proposed the attack, the U.N. security council would not support you.

now let' me be clear here. the others on the security council were not saying "no way - we would never authorize preemptive force" or "no way, we would never authorize an attack." no, they were only saying, "hold on, the inspectors are still there, they're saying hold on, and it may be that the inspections are proving effective ... so let's be careful." again, other nations realized how important this was ... they recognized the danger of a precedent of unprovoked invasion, so they recommended caution.

of course we all remember all the rhetoric against germany and, especially, france for these cautions. they were villified by you and your administration for being uncooperative difficult. remember "if you're not with us you're against us." imagine! you actually said that those who urged we be careful and cautious before we carried out such an unprovoked invasion, those who said we should not start a war without proof that iraq was actually a danger were "against us."

but it turns out they were right! there were no weapons.

you can't change the story now. we all know the U.N. council was against the war.

maginot line.

being steadfast is not a justification in itself.

Early in your term, long before 9/11, one of your senior administration officials was quoted as saying ''The common European perception [of you] is of a shallow, arrogant, gun-loving, abortion-hating, Christian fundamentalist Texan buffoon, ... they read all the press about a hard-line unilateralist. They really believe this stuff about cowboys. We need to get it all on a higher plane.''

The sad thing is that I didn't believe all that stuff at the time, but you have consistently proven their perception accurate with your actions. We are not safer when the world sees us in this light.

We will be safer when we relearn Statesmanship, rejoin the world community, and regain the respect we've lost.


that's all for now.


peace & love.

griff bear.

VOTE! (one way or another)