Kerry didn't flip flop...Follow

HOW DO YOU LIKE THESE APPLES ******** BUSH SUCKS, VOTE KERRY OR YOU TOO ARE AN IDIOT. KERRY ISN'T THE BEST CANIDATE ONE COULD HOPE FOR, BUT ***** YOU ALL IF YOU THINK BUSH IS ABLE MINDED ENOUGH TO BE PRESIDENT OF A CRACKER JACK FAN CLUB, LET ALONE THE GREATEST NATION ON THE PLANET.


To hear President Bush tell it, Iraq is a bed of roses: "Our strategy is succeeding," he said last week. Yesterday at the U.N., he said Iraq is "on the path to democracy and freedom."

Yet the CIA told Bush recently that the scenarios we're really facing there range from a quagmire to a bloodbath. The CIA's July report outlines three possibilities for Iraq, ranging from "an Iraq whose stability would remain tenuous" to "civil war," according to the New York Times. [1]

Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) is calling on Bush to level with us, by releasing the report, formally called a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), to the public. Graham, the former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has read the NIE, and he thinks we all should see it too.

Join Senator Graham in demanding that President Bush to face the facts and tell us the truth about Iraq, by releasing the NIE, at:

http://www.moveon.org/tellthetruth/

It's not just Democrats who are questioning the President's grip on reality.

Senator Chuck Hagel (NE), a Republican, says: "The worst thing we can do is hold ourselves hostage to some grand illusion that we're winning. Right now, we are not winning. Things are getting worse." [2] "The fact is, we're in trouble. We're in deep trouble in Iraq." [3]

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) also supports releasing the NIE [4] and says: "We made serious mistakes right after the initial successes by not having enough troops there on the ground, by allowing the looting, by not securing the borders." [3]

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), says "he believes the situation in Iraq is going to get worse before it gets better, adding that he believes the administration has done a 'poor job of implementing and adjusting at times.'" and says "We do not need to paint a rosy scenario for the American people...." [3]

Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) says it's "exasperating for anybody look at this from any vantage point." [1]

Those are Republicans talking. Here's what the generals and national security experts are saying, in a terrific recent piece in the UK's Guardian newspaper:

Retired general William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency, said: "Bush hasn't found the WMD. Al-Qaida, it's worse, he's lost on that front. That he's going to achieve a democracy there? That goal is lost, too. It's lost." He adds: "Right now, the course we're on, we're achieving Bin Laden's ends."

Retired general Joseph Hoare, the former marine commandant and head of US Central Command, [said]: "The idea that this is going to go the way these guys planned is ludicrous. There are no good options.... The priorities are just all wrong."

Jeffrey Record, professor of strategy at the Air War College, said: "I see no ray of light on the horizon at all. The worst case has become true..."

W. Andrew Terrill, professor at the Army War College's strategic studies institute -- and the top expert on Iraq there -- said: "I don't think that you can kill the insurgency"... "The idea there are x number of insurgents, and that when they're all dead we can get out is wrong. The insurgency has shown an ability to regenerate itself because there are people willing to fill the ranks of those who are killed"... "Most Iraqis consider us occupiers, not liberators."

General Odom [also] said: "This is far graver than Vietnam. There wasn't as much at stake strategically, though in both cases we mindlessly went ahead with the war that was not constructive for US aims. But now we're in a region far more volatile, and we're in much worse shape with our allies."... "I've never seen [tensions] so bad between the office of the secretary of defence and the military. There's a significant majority believing this is a disaster." [5]

Just as important are the opinions of those whose loved ones are serving in Iraq, like Martha Jo McCarthy, whose husband is on National Guard duty there. She says:

"Everyone supports the troops, and I know they're doing a phenomenal job over there, not only fighting but building schools and digging wells. But supporting the troops has to mean something more than putting yellow-ribbon magnets on your car and praying they come home safely."

"I read the casualty Web site every day and ask myself, 'Do I feel safer here?' No. I don't think we can win this war through arrogance. Arrogance is different from strength. Strength requires wisdom, and I think we need to change from arrogance to solid strength." [6]

Join Senator Graham now in calling on President Bush to face the facts and level with us, by releasing the CIA's report, at:

http://www.moveon.org/tellthetruth/

President Bush has got to tell us the truth about Iraq. No weapons of mass destruction. No Saddam-al Qaeda connection. The mission is not accomplished. The transition has not been peaceful and stable. Attacks on our troops are increasing, not decreasing. These failures lie solely with the president, and he owes us an honest explanation.

Thanks for signing our petition today, and for everything you do.

Sincerely,

--Carrie, Joan, Lee, Marika, Noah, Peter, and Wes
The MoveOn.org Team
September 22nd, 2004

Footnotes:

(See our website for links to these articles)

[1] New York Times: U.S. Intelligence Shows Pessimism on Iraq's Future
September 16th, 2004

[2] Washington Post editorial: Mr. Bush and Iraq
September 18th, 2004

[3] Washington Post: Three GOP Senators Urge Refocusing of Iraq Policy
September 19th, 2004

[4] 'FOX News Sunday', September 19th, 2004, transcript

[5] The Guardian (UK): Far graver than Vietnam (opinion piece by
Sidney Blumenthal, Washington Bureau Chief of Salon.com)
September 16th, 2004

[6] Washington Post: Quiet Calls for Change (column by David Broder)
September 16th, 2004

TASTE ME, SUCKLE ME, SPIT ME OUT.

No 'Pubbies will buy it.

MoveOn.Org to them is like Drudge to us.

GFY means Goofy Footed Yodeler, of course.

Welcome to the Asylum btw!

How the hell did this turn into a gay marriage debate? How about the Government not marry anyone? Just issue Civil Unions to everyone and let the Church decide who it will and won't "marry".

Oh and Lube. GFY

If they are talking about Private facilities, insurers, employees, doctors. I dont see why we need a law to make this legal. As long as they are not receiving ANY government money a private business should be able to do business/employ whom ever they want. If they want to discriminate just dont do it on my dime.

I'll do it tomorrow - I gotta leave.

Whats wrong with creating civil unions for homosexuals that have 100% of the equal benefits that marrige does. Currently Civil unions are not 100% equal missing tons of rights and benefits that marrage gives.

Hmmm... Ok. I just read through it. Here's what I *think* is happening based on the info in the article.

First off there is the Elliot-Larsen civil rights act, which ensures that health providers cannot discriminate on the basis of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status or marital status.

Note that sexual orientation is *not* on the list.

You have to kinda read between the lines here, but it looks like this new bill is designed to allow health care providers to refuse a non-lifesaving treatment if they object to it on moral grounds and as long as it does not fall under the heading of discrimination as put forward in the Elliot-Larsen Act. Again, reading between the lines, one would have to assume there's a *reason* for wanting to pass such a bill, since one would assume that a health care provider isn't normally going to be required to perform services they are opposed to performing. The stated examples were dispensing morning after pills, and possible future issues dealing with stem cell research and cloning. I would expect that if someone were to spend time researching this, they'd find that there have been lawsuits against medical professionals for *not* providing morning after pills and the pupose of the bill is to protect them from civil action in that case.


The whole homosexual thing is a bit vague, but I suspect that the fear here is that currently if a health care provider refuses to treat a gay or lesbian purely because of their sexual orientation, they aren't in violation of the Elliot-Larsen Act, but would be subject to civil suit. However, if the bills are passed, then they would be free to discriminate on that basis with no penalty.


The obvious solution would be to ammend the Elliot-Larsen Act to include sexual orientation. That way the gays and lesbians would be protected under the law, and the health care providers would also be free to refuse to perform proceedures that they are morally opposed to.


It's not like the bill is writen to discriminate against gays specifically. It just *may* have that unintended side effect. You really have to stretch the definitions a bit, but I could see it being an issue, and can understand why they'd want something changed. But it's not really these new bills that are at fault, it's the fact that gays aren't given legal protection under the existing law.

Agreed.


Link to copy of bill:

http://www.michiganlegislature.org/documents/2003-2004/billintroduced/senate/pdf/2004-SIB-0972.pdf

Link to article about approval of bill:

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/senate/sen04/news/art2004/art2004-039.htm

Did you people even read the bill? It states Health Care Services and then spells out what type of health care services they can decline to provide or take part in. No where does this bill give the slightest allusion to being anti-homosexual or discriminatory.

Page 2, section 5 paragraph 1 states the intent of the bill exactly.

Page 2, section 3, paragraph C states what "health care service" means.

My understanding the bill is saying that an employer of a medical institution can not force an employee to perform health care services that are against their belief system. Such as someone performing a frontal labotomy on Smasharoo, because they don't believe in surgical therapy for the brain dead ;)

The bill in no way shape or form states that health care services can be denied because of the patients race, gender or sexual orientation.

Wow, the Democrats have turned the entire bill into something it's not. But that doesn't suprise me.

My understanding the bill is saying that an employer of a medical institution can not force an employee to perform health care services that are against their belief system


Such as aborting a fetus that it likely to kill the mother.

You're right, it's a harmless bill.

I'm going to turn Christian Scientist or Jehovah's Witness and get a job at a hospital so I can just sit around and draw paychecks.

If it was in a hospital then there is probably someone else around that can do the killing of the baby instead of someone who is against it.

Yeah, probably. If not, though, people die and this bill makes it legal.

Glad you support it.

Maybe you can try to lobby for witch burning to make a comeback too.