Bush v. Life

I personally am not absolutely pro-choice since the life of the baby is important to me! However I don't understand how some people can be pro-life in the case of abortion but when it comes to innocent civilians' lives... mmm I don't understand how they think!

To clarify what I mean let us check the followings.

1(from BBC)
2(make sure to watch the video)
3
4(watch the video)
5(video #2, after 7th min.)
6
7

Al Gore's Speech

Al Gore gave a speech in Washington, DC yesterday. It didn't have anything less than his previous speech in another event funded by MoveOn.Org! I highly recommend watching the speech on c-span, however I have never been able to watch any videos on c-span's website, since it is almost always very slow and virtually not possible to watch their videos!

Noam Chomsky, in an open letter, asks voters in swing states to vote for Kerry.

Did you know that the value of one vote in Wyoming in a presidential election is equal to the value of 3.75 votes in California, provided the turnout percentage in those states are the same?

I don't know how reliable this statistics is but it is worth reading!

New Round of Attacks on Kerry's Comments

It is absolutely obvious-of course for me!-that Kerry is not going to endanger the security of the United States. As a matter of fact his policies seem more reasonable in reducing terrorism. In an interview with New York Times Magazine he said and I quote:

We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance.

He continues by saying:

As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.

As a result Bush campaign launched a new attack on Kerry.

What is really missing in politics is morality. It seems to me that changing the facts, misleading the public, taking sentences out of context, telling lies as much as possible, personal attacks that are almost always wrong is what the campaigns are based on! Where are the people who claim they are against personal attacks? Where is Sen. McCain who claims to be against personal attacks and misleading the public? Do you see any piece of morality left in the politics?!! Does politics go in the right direction?!

Bush Forgets He Owns a Tree-Growing Company

Last night Bush denied that he owns a timber company and claimed that it is news to him.

BUSH: I own a timber company?

(LAUGHTER)

That's news to me.

(LAUGHTER)

Need some wood?

(LAUGHTER)

Source: CNN

Lets see what FactCheck.Org says about Bush's claim that he doesn't own a timber company.

So Bush was wrong to suggest that he doesn't have ownership of a timber company. And Kerry was correct in saying that Bush's definition of "small business" is so broad that Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business" in 2001 by virtue of the $84 in business income.

Some of Kerry's claims were not correct as the same article states, but I was really curious to know if Kerry was right regarding the timber company.

FactCheck.Org

It is an interesting website. When you enter the website you see Holding Politician Accountable which is something that in my view we desperately need. Below that is a statement from former Democratic Senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan:

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

There is an article in FactCheck.Org entitled: Bush Ad Twists Kerry's Words on Iraq which is about a Bush ad. In the Bush ad Kerry is shown saying

It was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision I supported him.

In fact there is something missing here and that is the statement before the above sentence in Kerry's answer to George Stephanopoulos's question. Lets look at the whole conversation between Kerry and George Stephanopoulos as stated in FactCheck.Org:

Q: And Senator Kerry, the first question goes to you. On March 19th, President Bush ordered General Tommy Franks to execute the invasion of Iraq. Was that the right decision at the right time?

Kerry: George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.

Another Kerry's statement that is taken out of context in Bush ad is the following:

I have always said we may yet even find weapons of mass destruction.

Let me quote the following paragraph from FactCheck.Org. You may judge yourself!

Nine months of fruitless searching have gone by since Kerry said on Dec. 14, 2003 that weapons of mass destruction might yet be found in Iraq. But what's most misleading about the Bush ad's editing is that it takes that remark out of a long-winded -- but still consistent -- explanation of Kerry's overall position on Iraq:

The exchange was on Fox News Sunday, with host Chris Wallace:

Q: But isn't it, in a realistic political sense going to be a much harder case to make to voters when you have that extraordinary mug shot of Saddam Hussein...looking like he's been dragged into a police line-up?

Kerry: Absolutely not, because I voted to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. I knew we had to hold him accountable. There's never been a doubt about that. But I also know that if we had done this with a sufficient number of troops, if we had done this in a globalized way, if we had brought more people to the table, we might have caught Saddam Hussein sooner. We might have had less loss of life. We would be in a stronger position today with respect to what we're doing.

Look, again, I repeat, Chris, I have always said we may yet even find weapons of mass destruction. I don't know the answer to that. We will still have to do the job of rebuilding Iraq and resolving the problem between Shias and Sunnis and Kurds. There are still difficult steps ahead of us.

The question that Americans want to know is, what is the best way to proceed? Not what is the most lonely and single-track ideological way to proceed. I believe the best way to proceed is to bring other countries to the table, get some of our troops out of the target, begin to share the burden.

Democratic "Rising Star" and Keynote Speaker Would Consider Missile Strike on Iran

One of the arguments made by the Bush administration in invading Iraq was that the policy of Clinton administration towards Iraq was overthrowing Saddam's regime, so in fact-as the Bush administration argued-their policy was a sort of continuation of Clinton's. Does Obama make excuses for Republicans for invading Iran when it is "necessary"?! Your thoughts?

Lets Check the Facts from where Cheney Suggested!

In the VP debate Cheney refered viewers to factcheck.com but actually he meant factcheck.org. Let us look at what factcheck.org says about Halliburton. Right now the site is down(maybe because of too many visitors), but I got these statements from BBC.

"The vice president wrongly implied that we had rebutted allegations Edwards was making about what Cheney had done as chief executive officer of Halliburton. In fact we did post an article pointing out that Cheney hasn't profited personally while in office from Halliburton's Iraq contracts, as falsely implied by a Kerry TV ad."

The article continues,

"Edwards was talking about Cheney's responsibility for earlier Halliburton troubles. And in fact, Edwards was mostly right."

Presidential Debates

A friend asked me to write about presidential debates.

I talked about CPD before. It is not fair that these debates are just two-sided debates. In my opinion CPD rules have to be changed. Their criteria for choosing participants of presidential debates seem unfair. The number of debates is far less than what it should be. Someone like Nader should have the opportunity to discuss those problems that are not important to either of the major candidates, or they don't want to discuss them. Wait! What I'm saying doesn't mean that I'm a Nader supporter. No.No... I'm not. I absolutely disagree with his decision of running for presidency. However I strongly support the change of CPD rules and I discussed some of the alternatives before. Any ways, those changes will not happen very soon and we have to be patient, but we should always have the important issue of changing debate rules and selection criteria in our mind! Lets talk about tonight. mm... I have nothing to say! We should wait and see what happens tonight!

Richard Perle was a political advisor who served in Reagan and Bush administrations.

In September 2003-almost a year ago- he Claimed:

"And a year from now, I'll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush. There is no doubt that, with the exception of a very small number of people close to a vicious regime, the people of Iraq have been liberated and they understand that they've been liberated. And it is getting easier every day for Iraqis to express that sense of liberation."

Do you think he can say the same statement right now? Can he guarantee that what he expected to happen now will happen in a year from now? Is he surprised now?!

What Does "Serious Consequences" Mean?

Richard Boucher says the invasion of Iraq was legal since the UN resolution stated that if Saddam doesn't comply he will face serious consequences. This comes after Cofi Annan called the US invasion of Iraq illegal. Here is what he said

From our point of view and from the Charter point of view [the war] was illegal.

I'm wondering why does the US government need this war to be legal! Does it mean that whatever they do is legal and they always respect international laws?

A Quote From Gorge H. W. Bush

"Extending the war into Iraq would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Exceeding the UN's mandate would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the US could still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

From "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush Sr and Brent Scowcroft, Time Magazine, 1998

Some questions came to my mind! Did the United States "exceed UN's mandate" by invading Iraq? Is it fair if we say that "other allies" supported the war in Iraq? Isn't US an "occupying power" in Iraq right now? Is "human cost of Iraq war" calculable?

Please...please...please do not be offended by this post!!

There is something that I want to share with you about the reaction of a friend of mine to what happened 3 years ago.

I will not forget what that friend told me some days after the 11th of September 2001.

"Let all Americans understand what is going on in the rest of the world. Let them really feel what they have done to citizens of other countries. Let them understand what others feel when Americans bombard cities of other countries and kill civilians. Let them see what "killing innocent people" means."

I really don't agree with what she said and I am 100% against killing civilians. Let me clarify that 9/11 attack was a shameful act of terrorism and in no way I want to defend the disgusting act of killing 3000 innocent people but what I am saying is that there is "some" truth to her argument!! What do you think? I want to ask you and her if Americans really understood what she wanted them to understand?!

Gallup reports a 2-point convention bounce for Bush. A worth mentioning point is that Bush has a 7-point lead among "likely voters" however his lead among "registered voters" decreases to 1 point. That highlights the importance of voter turnout in the coming election.

Presidential Polls

Rasmussen's daily presidential polls show that Bush is ahead of Kerry by 4 to 5 points. But in two other polls, i.e. Time Magazine and Newsweek, there is a significant difference. They suggest that Bush is ahead by a double-digit. Rasmussen Reports explains why there is such a huge difference in these polls.

I just couldn't believe my ears when a reporter from Iraq told Bill Moyers in Now With Bill Moyers that in average US army is attacked sixty times a day in Iraq! I'm just wondering who in Iraq calls them liberators not occupiers! I'm not blaming those soldiers but the guys who sent them there and didn't control their behavior. If it were the case we wouldn't have abuses in Abu Ghuraib. "No one can undo those images" the reporter said.

Arnold talks about Bush's decision but...

Arnold Schwarzenegger, yesterday's actor and today's governor of California, proclaimed that the majority of Americans actually hadn't supported the war in Iraq before it started! It was really shocking to me when I read that. I really couldn't believe my eyes. Amazingly he said

"The President didn't go into Iraq because the polls told him it was popular. As a matter of fact, the polls said just the opposite."

Every single poll that I am aware of showed that going to Iraq was overwhelmingly popular. Here is what Gallup says about popularity of Bush's decision:

"A majority of Americans supported the idea of the invasion of Iraq before Bush made the decision to commence military action in March 2003. Gallup's March 14-15, 2003, poll showed that 64% of Americans favored "invading Iraq with U.S. ground troops in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power," and 57% agreed that the Bush administration "has made a convincing case about the need for the U.S. to take military action against Iraq." A March 17, 2003, CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll asked: "Do you approve or disapprove of Bush's decision to go to war if Saddam Hussein does not leave Iraq in the next 48 hours?" Sixty-six percent of Americans approved; 30% disapproved"

In his not very long speech, this was not the only time that he lied. Just click here to read another shocking lie by the very same person in the very same speech! I don't know what I should call their speeches in RNC. They were full of hatred and personal attacks.

And now look what Arnold said at the begining of his speech:

"Speaking of acting, one of my movies was called "True Lies." It's what the Democrats should have called their convention."

Well, I'm not in a position to defend Democrats but if someone that lies quite clearly at least twice in a speech is not a liar who is a liar then?

P.S.: Some gmail invitations are still left, if you want one hurry up!

Gmails to give away

I have some Gmails to give away. If you want one and dont already have one, just leave a message here and make sure to include your name and email address. I will invite you, so that you can have a 1 GB email. Hope you enjoy using Gmail.