(no subject)
Help Utah Miners Win a Fair Election!
Since October 2003, Utah JwJ has been building community support for the 74 workers at the Kingston-owned Co-Op mine who were illegally fired from their jobs. In July, the National Labor Relations Board ordered the Kingston family to reinstate the fired workers with back pay. Now, the NLRB is deciding who gets to vote in a union election - the workers who are being exploited, or members of the Kingston family who also work in the mine. Please take a moment to urge the NLRB not to allow Kingston family members to vote in the union election.
http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/MinersElection/3bisndzp7ntw53
Co-Op mine workers, mostly Mexican immigrants, are paid only $5.25-$7/hour while other miners working in the same canyon earn $18. The miners have no health insurance and work in dangerous conditions which have led to countless injuries and an astounding 3 deaths since 1996. Also working in the mine are members of the wealthy and powerful Kingston clan (also known as "The Order"), which owns about 160 businesses throughout Utah including pawn shops, payday loan outfits, food markets, and a garbage company.
The Co-Op miners have gotten support from people across Utah and around the country. Utah JwJ and Massachusetts JwJ have organized several fundraisers for the miners. Utah JwJ has organized buses to rally at the mine where they were joined by miners from neighboring states. They also organized a delegation of the miners together with labor leaders, elected officials, and religious leaders to visit Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff to encourage him to investigate the Kingston clan's pattern of violating health and safety laws. Shurtleff is now running a financial probe of the clan and hopes to bring an organized-crime-style prosecution against the Kingstons and has sent a letter to the NLRB regarding his experience with the Kingstons. Utah JwJ has rallied at other Kingston-owned businesses throughout this struggle. More than 2,000 JwJ activists took part in a fax capaign urging the Kingstons to reinstate the fired workers and in July, the National Labor Relations Board ordered the Kingston family to reinstate the fired workers with back pay.
Take Action Now
Why al Qaida is Unstoppable:
or How to End Terrorism
By Michael I. Niman, Coldtype 9/18/04, ArtVoice 9/23/04
I did the fieldwork for my doctoral dissertation studying the Rainbow Family
of Living Light, an anarchist utopian cultural movement that creates
spontaneous temporary cities deep within national forests in the United
States and around the world. I later wrote a book about them, "People of
the Rainbow: A Nomadic Utopia" (Univ. of Tennessee Press). In many ways
they are the antithesis of al Qaida. The Rainbows have a stated ideology of
nonviolent conflict resolution and a strong commitment to a nonhierarchical
participatory democracy in the anarchist tradition. Their egalitarianism
espouses gender equality and a tolerance for and celebration of all
religious traditions ranging from paganism to Christianity and Buddhism.
They are the opposite of al Qaida, which basks in notions of hierarchical
theocracy while espousing strategies of extreme violence.
>From an organizational standpoint, however, al Qaida is quite similar to the
nonviolent Rainbows. First of all, both are utopian movements. So were the
Nazis, who murdered 12 million Jews, Romanis, gays, communists, handicapped
people and so on. So were the Puritans who slaughtered their Indian
neighbors. And so were Columbus' men who effected genocide against
Caribbean Tainos.
The Rainbow utopia, like its historic predecessors such as the Shakers, the
Oneida Community, the Paris Commune and countless other well-known attempts
at creating the perfect society, strives to create what many of us see as a
better world. Most earthly manifestations of hell, however, were also born
out of the utopian spirit as individual groups forced their often
exclusionary visions on other peoples. Utopianism, at its most negative
extreme, gives birth to genocide, as eugenicists strive to create societies
in their ethic image. Hitler's "master race" was one such utopian vision.
Al Qaida's vision is more benign than that of the Nazis. They aren't
striving for global domination. They simply want the west to stop attempting
to westernize Islam. They want us out of what they see as their holy land.
In essence, their utopian vision has clashed with that of George W. Bush and
the Project for a New American Century - neo-conservative Americans who want
to extend US style "democracy," military might and consumer culture into the
heart of Islamic territory.
While al Qaida's vision might be considered benign, however, their tactics
certainly aren't. Their use of violence and terror against civilian
populations, coupled with the inevitability of their procurement of
discarded and unaccounted for cold war nuclear weaponry, threatens carnage
of Hiroshimic proportions.
To understand why al Qaida is unstoppable, we need to understand the
peaceful Rainbows, and why they are also unstoppable. The Rainbows began
gathering in American national forests in 1972. The United States Forest
Service immediately began trying to thwart the Rainbow Family, writing
regulations outlawing the gatherings, and deploying hundreds of law
enforcement officers to blockade, arrest and otherwise harass the Rainbows.
To this end the U.S. government has impounded drinking water systems and
sanitary latrine equipment, creating dangerous conditions that, according to
the Centers for Disease Control, eventually sickened thousands of Rainbows.
They blockaded roads, stopping food and medicine deliveries from reaching
the gatherings. They arrested key Rainbow volunteers and threatened
thousands of others with random arrests. The list goes on, but still the
gatherings continued to grow despite this harassment.
The U.S. government could not stop the gathering specifically because the
Rainbows are anarchists. There is no central organization to thwart. There
are no assets to seize and no organization to sue. There is no radio station
to take off the air or newspaper to burn. There are no leaders to co-opt,
corrupt, threaten or jail. All there is, is a shared ideology, in this case
of an egalitarian anarcho-democracy committed to modeling a nonviolent
nonheirarchcal world without leaders. And there is the ethos that there will
be a Rainbow Gathering and that nothing will stop it.
U.S. government attempts to thwart the gatherings have only resulted in the
Rainbows growing stronger in the face of persistent persecution. Rainbow
lure admonishes the Family to "ignore all rumors of cancellation." Hence,
when the Forest Service telephoned thousands of Rainbows in 1988 to tell
them that thee would be no gathering in Texas that year, it just reinforced
the knowledge that there would be a Rainbow gathering in Texas. Rainbows
communicate by what they term, "rumor," in effect predating the Internet
with a decentralized communication web utilizing a host of nontraditional
media ranging from food co-op bulletin boards and phone trees to verbal
rumors and graffiti.
As long as Rainbows believe in world peace, they will continue to gather,
having survived the Reagan era, the widespread violent repression of
protests that grew during the Clinton presidency, and now, continue to
prosper despite John Ashcroft and George W. Bush. Ultimately they survive
because they are a movement and not an organization.
This is the same reason al Qaida is unstoppable. There is no al Qaida, per
se. It is not an organization. It's a movement. Their ideological rubric
unites disparate cells, brought together by one common utopian goal - an
Islamic homeland free of western domination or interference.
As a nonentity, al Qaida has employed anarchist organizational strategies.
But they certainly aren't anarchists themselves. Theoretical anarchy is
about creating a participatory democracy inclusive of all voices. Contrary
to mediated myths, these movements are also usually nonviolent. Al Qaida, by
contrast, seems to be about creating theocracy, a la Jerry Fallwall,
complete with an ethnocentric imposition of a misogynist and homophobic
culture. Despite their non-anarchistic goals, however, al Qaida seems quite
comfortable at employing anarchist strategy in reaching those goals
As a movement, al Qaida is reactionary. They react to what their adherents
see as provocation, growing with each such event. Hence, the
neo-conservative Bush administration has proven to be al Qaida's greatest
ally, publicly perpetuating a regular stream of outrages against the Islamic
world. Images of bombed out Iraqi and Afghani homes, like stories of rape
and torture from Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and other U.S. run detention
centers, does more to strengthen al Qaida than any charismatic leader ever
could. The Bush administration validates al Qaida greivences on a daily
basis.
Speaking in Buffalo, New York, recently, the Indian novelist and political
commentator, Arundhati Roy, credited George W. Bush with laying the
mechanics of empire bare for the world to see. The neo-conservatives have
posted their utopian agenda on the web for public view (see Project for a
New American Century website). With neo-cons such as Donald Rumsfeld, Paul
Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney now running the Bush Whitehouse, America's
formerly denied empire building has become transparent, lending credibility
to those who call us imperialists.
Despite U.S. government repression of the press and the deaths of 30
journalists in Iraq, the brutality of that occupation has continued to
dominate the media outside of the United States. Eighteen months after
George W. Bush declared Iraq "liberated," the civilian death toll continues
to mount, hitting a new daily high this month. With each new bombing, with
each gruesome story, with each new death, the outraged reaction to America
continues to grow. And support for al Qaida's ideology, if not their
tactics, grows as well.
In Iraq, the resistance has evolved to now include representatives from most
of that country's disparate ethnic groups - people whom for generations
focused their anger at each other. By engaging in a prolonged and brutal
occupation, the Bush administration has succeeded where all Iraqi leaders
have historically failed - in uniting Iraq's diverse population. Again, this
plays into al Qaida's hands, as they now draw support from beyond their
Shiite base, reaching out to a global Islam united in their outrage against
America.
Terrorist movements flounder without popular support for their ideological
goals. Historically, enduring terrorist movements have gleaned onto popular
political struggles where violent governments block change or redress of
grievances by nonviolent means. The failure of a civil political system
feeds fringe elements calling for violence. The more popular the repressed
cause is, and the more violent their repression, the more the general
population grows tolerant of violent resistance. Eventually a space emerges
where terrorists can take refuge.
Like their neo-conservative American nemesis, al Qaida is prepared to deploy
violence without regard for consequences. Like the religious conservatives
in the U.S., their fundamentalism tells them that God is on their side and
that their battle is righteous. The difference is, they are battling for
control of their own traditional territory. They have no stated goals for
imposing their culture on the west. If they did, they would lose the
support that their ideology, if not their tactics, enjoys in the Muslim
world. The neo-cons, on the other hand, make no qualms about battling for
hegemonic control of the entire world - with Islam providing the greatest
resistance to this utopian dream.
In essence, as long as we have an American government under the control of
violent radicals with dreams of building a global empire, al Qaida will
remain a growing threat to American security. History has shown that no
empire has ever successfully been able to sustain global dominance. Control
over America's historically unprecedented military superiority gives the
simpletons in the Bush administration the misguided belief that empire is
attainable. What they don't realize is that our shrinking and increasingly
interconnected global community makes us more vulnerable than any empire in
history (both to the ravages of terrorism and the effects of global economic
backlashes). The greatest physical threat to us comes from the very weapons
systems that we pioneered and created - weapons that never had any real use
in warfare, but have always provided a dark cloud of terror over the earth.
The age of empire is over. Only when we give up on empire will the al
Qaidas of the world lose their ideological imperative for survival. It's
important that we don't see adopting a justice-based foreign policy as
giving in to terrorists. To the contrary - terrorists are reactionary.
Hence, they are ultimately under our control. Adopting a more equitable
foreign policy will ultimately render them benign. It's also the only way
we can render any meaningful control over anti-American terrorists.
In the end, peace, nonviolence and global justice will be our strongest
weapons against terrorism. Let's hope it doesn't take generations of
carnage for our governments to figure this out.
This column is adopted from a speech presented at Cornell University on
September 14th. Dr. Michael I. Nimans columns are archived at
www.mediastudy.com.
The Toronto Star September 19, 2004
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Artic
le_Type1&c=Article&cid=1095459009236&call_pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist1
022182710415
Lawlessness hurting America's `war on terror'
By LINDA MCQUAIG
Daraz Khan and a couple of friends were scrounging for scrap metal in the Afghan countryside when they were blown away by U.S. forces fighting the war on terror.
Khan was very tall, and the U.S. soldiers thought there was an off-chance he might be that other tall guy, Osama bin Laden.
The deaths, reported in the New York Times in February, 2002, didn't create much of a ripple in the West, where they were regarded as just an unfortunate side effect of the "war on terror." Mistakes happen; it was all for a good cause.
Of course, we in the West would understand if foreign troops invaded our territory and blew away our relatives in their keenness to hunt down someone else.
This sort of lawlessness - which seems all but invisible to us over here - is, of course, highly visible to those on the receiving end, and it helps explain the phenomenal growth of anti-American rage in that part of the world in the last couple of years.
As the "war on terror" enters its fourth year, with no end or even progress in sight, it's worth asking if things could have been done differently.
One option, which was apparently never even considered, would have been to follow the rule of law. Let's just imagine what might have happened if Washington had responded to the 9/11 atrocities by following international law, instead of cutting a swath of violence and lawlessness through Afghanistan and later Iraq.
It's long been forgotten, but in the weeks immediately following 9/11, the Taliban government in Afghanistan actually offered to hand over bin Laden if the U.S. provided proof of his involvement in the terrorist attacks.
Washington instantly rejected the offer. What right did that primeval, two-bit country have to demand proof from America?
But the Taliban had a point, as Michael Mandel, an Osgoode Hall law professor, points out in a provocative new book, How America Gets Away With Murder. Mandel notes that the Taliban's request for evidence was simply standard practice that any nation would follow when asked to extradite a criminal to another country. Oddly, then, it was the primitive leaders of the Taliban who, in this case at least, were following the rule of law.
Mandel also insists that the U.S. had an obligation under international law to seek a non-military solution. And the Taliban, for all its well-known defects, was keen to negotiate.
By the following month, with U.S. bombs falling on them, the Taliban leaders even dropped their demand for proof of bin Laden's guilt, and offered again to hand him over - for trial in a country other than the United States. Clearly, the U.S. could have negotiated whatever terms it wanted.
But again Washington flatly rebuffed the offer, and all hopes of a non-violent solution.
Instead, the U.S. decided to go get bin Laden itself, launching a war that killed thousands of Afghans, including civilians who simply happened to be in the wrong place or be the wrong height. Mandel argues that this was illegal under international law. "(O)ne is not allowed to invade a country to effect an arrest."
And, of course, the U.S. failed to get bin Laden. Which brings us back to the question of whether following international law would have been such a bad option.
Of course, it's possible that the treacherous Taliban would never have surrendered bin Laden. On the other hand, maybe it would have. If so, the world's most apparently dangerous terrorist might have been behind bars and out of commission these past three years. Such an approach would have also sent a message that the U.S. respects international law, which, ironically, would have undermined Al Qaeda's recruitment efforts.
Nothing would dampen Al Qaeda's campaign to turn the Islamic world against America more than an American government that not only preached democracy and the rule of law, but was also seen to practise these things.
Astonishingly, America's lawlessness - so offensive to millions around the world - barely registers as an issue in mainstream U.S. politics.
Both major parties seem to accept the notion that the U.S. has the right to operate as it chooses in the world.
The major lesson drawn from the fiasco in Iraq appears to be: Don't invade a country without a good post-war plan.
George Bush seems poised to be re-elected, largely on the mythology that he's a strong leader in dangerous times. He's finessed the nation's fear brilliantly.
But it's hard to believe that Americans themselves wouldn't be better off with fewer people around the world hating them, and bin Laden behind bars.
Another great speech on this topic!- over the weekend
writer Chuck Bowden (Blood Orchid, Down by the River)
spoke at small gathering in AZ:
I am the odd man out at a political rally. I love my
country, love the bad coffee, weak beer and menacing
use of the frying pan. But I seem to flunk in simple
partisan allegiances’Äîbeing essentially a tree hugger
with numerous guns and a thirst for wine and a lust
for disreputable venues. Recently a slick New York
magazine, GQ, a rag basically devoted to helping men
understand the deep meaning of brown shoes, asked me
to prepare a reading list for the next president of
the United States. As a patriot, I was happy to
comply. In the midst off this sacred task, I wrote a
definition of my country I will now share with you:
Think of a bible wrapped with garter belt with a
loaded gun as the bookmarker.
Normally, I consider both political parties, at best,
criminal gangs. I vote religiously but I refuse to
believe. And I tend to agree with Henry Adams, the
grandson and great-grandson of presidents, who once
said a congressman is a hog and you take a stout stick
and whack’Äôem on the snout. But then Mark Twain said
they were our only hereditary criminal class.
Also, once, when I was a real person, I taught
American history in an honest-to-God university and
from that background I know that bad times and bad
ideas and bad choices have often confronted the people
of this nation. We started out claiming some of our
fellow countrymen were three fifths of a person, we
started out claiming the girls were too addled to
vote, we endured human bondage for close to eighty
years, we tolerated Jim Crow for another century, we
slaughtered native Americans, we crushed early union
efforts. We have spilled blood. We have done great
things and we have done mean things. And all of this
has made us who and what we are.
So what is so special about this election at this
moment?
Fear.
We've lost our way. We no longer face facts. We
prefer to fabricate them.
The Healthy Forest Initiative is not based on
facts. The scorn of Global Warming is not based on
facts. The war in Iraq is not based on facts. The
Patriots Act is not based on facts. The Office of
Homeland Security is not based on facts. And the sound
bites of this election are not based on facts.
We now have a government with the mentality of a
gated community. And this is repellent to me and
lethal to all of us.
We can't solve any problems unless we ask honest
questions.
So I've crawled out of my cave for this rally,
ill suited as I am to being a cheerleader.
This election matters because we must honestly
face the consequences of global trade, illegal
immigration, the sacking of our public lands, the
destruction of our Bill of Rights and the growing
international hatred of our flag and passport.
This election matters because terrorism will
never take out us out, only we can destroy ourselves.
This election matters because bile and hatred are
fatal to public discussion and public discussion is
essential to a decent society.
This election is not about John Kerry and John
Edwards, who seemed to be decent folk with
extraordinary hair when I tagged along with them in
Iowa last summer and fall.
This election is about this administration and
the greed and toxin it has pumped into the veins of
this nation.
This election is about the new legal drug this
administration pushes: fear.
In a real sense this election is non-partisan, it
is not about being liberal or conservative. My God
what real liberal or conservative would ever sanction
the Patriot's Act? What liberal or conservative would
sanction false information about weapons of mass
destruction? What liberal or conservative thinks the
torture chambers we created in Baghdad were right and
proper?
What I am driving at was said a long time ago by
someone I've always paid heed to:
"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger?
By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we
expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the
Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies
of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the
treasure of the earth . . . in their military chest;
with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force,
take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the
Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what
point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected?
I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up
amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction
be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and
finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through
all time, or die by suicide."
--- The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln
edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume I, "Address Before the
Young Men's Lyceum,of Springfield, Illinois (January 27,
1838), p. 109.
Well, I agree with Mr. Lincoln, our first Republican
president.
And I'm not up for suicide.
This election matters because this country matters and
it must return to path of law, decency, courage and
compassion.
I don't have any simple answers to global trade
murdering jobs here, or to illegal immigration
storming across my desert, or to how to undo a century
of fire suppression in my national forests, or to how
to stop men and women from sacrificing their lives to
kill us. And I'm open to discussion on these points.
But I want facts, I want honesty, I want a fair
debate. I want love of country not hatred of my fellow
countrymen.
No more fear.
Vote as if it matters.
This time it does.
As my late friend Edward Abbey once noted, "A
patriot must always be ready to defend his country
from his government."
Dear Amy Truax,
You're a rarity -- you understand the risks George W. Bush poses to our courts.
For too many people, this issue isn't even on the radar. That's why I'm inviting you to join Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and me in hosting a Save the Court House Party on October 2.
http://www..democrats.org/events/
If we're going to elect John Kerry, we need to let our friends and neighbors know 4 more years of Bush poses a threat to our hard-won Constitutional and civil rights. The best energy comes from the grassroots up. That's why I'm writing to you today.
Oct. 2nd -- exactly one month before the election -- is national Save the Court House Party Day. Please -- won't you join us in these final days of the campaign by hosting a Save the Court House Party?
You may be thinking, "I really do care about this issue. But how well can I explain it to others?" Don't worry -- we've got you covered. If you sign up to host a House Party:
You'll find the information you need on our website, www.courtsave.org.
We'll give you a special dial-in phone number, so your party can participate in a conference call with Senator Clinton and me.
Plus, you'll also find everything you need to know about hosting a House Party in our online Organizer's Toolkit, which has literature to print out and share -- everything from bulleted Talking Points to an in-depth, issue by issue examination of the threat to our rights.
With this election, America's heart and soul are at risk. Our Constitution -- and the very rights and liberties it guarantees--will be under aggressive attack if George W. Bush is returned to office and has the opportunity to appoint our next Supreme Court Justices.
We must stop him.
We've never needed your help more. Sign up to host a House Party today!
http://www..democrats.org/events/
With my warmest and most sincere thanks,
Kate Michelman
Chair, Save the Court Campaign
Dear MoveOn member:
If only 538 more Floridians had voted for Al Gore in 2000, we wouldn't be in Iraq. 130,000 of our brave men and women would be safer, deployed elsewhere. 37,000 reservists would still be here at home.
Together, we can change our country's course on November 2nd, but only if every one of us votes.
Shockingly, when we checked public voter files in a couple of key states, up to 30% of MoveOn members were not yet registered to vote -- even though almost all of us think we are. Luckily, there's a simple solution to this problem: Register. Yes, you. Right now. Even if you're already registered, it's better to play it safe than be sorry on November 2nd.
You can fill out our simple online form, print it, and mail it in today. Do it now, at:
http://moveonpac.org/vote/
Registering takes just 5 minutes.
Voter registration deadlines are fast approaching across the country. In some states, there are less than two weeks left to register to vote for this pivotal election.
President Bush has pulled out all the stops in registering likely Republican voters, even going as far as asking churches to turn their membership directories over to his campaign. We only have a few more days to catch up.
Too often, people show up at their polling place on election day only to find out that they're not actually registered to vote. By then, it's too late. Don't let that happen to you.
Take a few minutes today to make sure that you, and everyone you know, are registered to vote. Click here:
http://moveonpac.org/vote/
We know this election will be incredibly close. The numbers from the 2000 election tell the story:
Official Bush margin in Florida 537 votes
Gore margin in New Mexico 365 votes
Margin of victory in IA, NH, OR and WI Fewer than 8,000 votes in each
Eligible 18-24 year olds who didn't vote 15.2 million
Total eligible voters who didn't vote 56.8 million
Bringing enough new voters to the polls will win this election for John Kerry.
So please make sure you, your friends, and your family are not statistics next time around. Register today.
http://moveonpac.org/vote/
Thanks for all you do, but especially for registering to vote. So much is at stake.
--Eli Pariser and the whole MoveOn PAC team
Monday, September 20th, 2004
PAID FOR BY MOVEON PAC www.moveonpac.org
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
Dear Amy,
This election is about choices. The most important choices a president makes are about protecting America at home and around the world. A president's first obligation is to make America safer, stronger and truer to our ideals.
Three years ago, the events of September 11 reminded every American of that obligation. That day brought to our shores the defining struggle of our times: the struggle between freedom and radical fundamentalism. And it made clear that our most important task is to fight and to win the war on terrorism.
In fighting the war on terrorism, my principles are straight forward. The terrorists are beyond reason. We must destroy them. As president, I will do whatever it takes, as long as it takes, to defeat our enemies. But billions of people around the world yearning for a better life are open to America's ideals. We must reach them.
To win, America must be strong. And America must be smart. The greatest threat we face is the possibility Al Qaeda or other terrorists will get their hands on a nuclear weapon.
To prevent that from happening, we must call on the totality of America's strength -- strong alliances, to help us stop the world's most lethal weapons from falling into the most dangerous hands. A powerful military, transformed to meet the new threats of terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. And all of America's power -- our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, the appeal of our values -- each of which is critical to making America more secure and preventing a new generation of terrorists from emerging.
National security is a central issue in this campaign. We owe it to the American people to have a real debate about the choices President Bush has made and the choices I would make to fight and win the war on terror.
That means we must have a great honest national debate on Iraq. The president claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight.
This month, we passed a cruel milestone: more than 1,000 Americans lost in Iraq. Their sacrifice reminds us that Iraq remains, overwhelmingly, an American burden. Nearly 90 percent of the troops -- and nearly 90 percent of the casualties -- are American. Despite the president's claims, this is not a grand coalition.
Our troops have served with extraordinary bravery, skill and resolve. Their service humbles all of us. When I speak to them when I look into the eyes of their families, I know this: we owe them the truth about what we have asked them to do and what is still to be done.
In June, the president declared, "The Iraqi people have their country back." Just last week, he told us: "This country is headed toward democracy. Freedom is on the march."
But the administration's own official intelligence estimate, given to the president last July, tells a very different story.
According to press reports, the intelligence estimate totally contradicts what the president is saying to the American people.
So do the facts on the ground.
Security is deteriorating, for us and for the Iraqis.
42 Americans died in Iraq in June -- the month before the handover. But 54 died in July -- 66 in August and already 54 halfway through September.
And more than 1,100 Americans were wounded in August -- more than in any other month since the invasion.
We are fighting a growing insurgency in an ever widening war-zone. In March, insurgents attacked our forces 700 times. In August, they attacked 2,700 times -- a 400% increase.
Falluja, Ramadi, Samarra, even parts of Baghdad -- are now "no go zones" -- breeding grounds for terrorists who are free to plot and launch attacks against our soldiers. The radical Shiite cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, who is accused of complicity in the murder of Americans, holds more sway in the suburbs of Baghdad.
Violence against Iraqis from bombings to kidnappings to intimidation is on the rise.
Basic living conditions are also deteriorating.
Residents of Baghdad are suffering electricity blackouts lasting up to 14 hours a day.
Raw sewage fills the streets, rising above the hubcaps of our Humvees. Children wade through garbage on their way to school.
Unemployment is over 50 percent. Insurgents are able to find plenty of people willing to take $150 for tossing grenades at passing U.S. convoys.
Yes, there has been some progress, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our soldiers and civilians in Iraq. Schools, shops and hospitals have been opened. In parts of Iraq, normalcy actually prevails.
But most Iraqis have lost faith in our ability to deliver meaningful improvements to their lives. So they're sitting on the fence instead of siding with us against the insurgents.
That is the truth -- the truth that the commander in chief owes to our troops and the American people.
It is never easy to discuss what has gone wrong while our troops are in constant danger. But it's essential if we want to correct our course and do what's right for our troops instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over again.
I know this dilemma first-hand. After serving in war, I returned home to offer my own personal voice of dissent. I did so because I believed strongly that we owed it those risking their lives to speak truth to power. We still do.
Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.
The president has said that he "miscalculated" in Iraq and that it was a "catastrophic success." In fact, the president has made a series of catastrophic decisions from the beginning in Iraq. At every fork in the road, he has taken the wrong turn and led us in the wrong direction.
The first and most fundamental mistake was the president's failure to tell the truth to the American people.
He failed to tell the truth about the rationale for going to war. And he failed to tell the truth about the burden this war would impose on our soldiers and our citizens.
By one count, the president offered 23 different rationales for this war. If his purpose was to confuse and mislead the American people, he succeeded.
His two main rationales -- weapons of mass destruction and the Al Qaeda/September 11 connection -- have been proved false by the president's own weapons inspectors and by the 9/11 Commission. Just last week, Secretary of State Powell acknowledged the facts. Only Vice President Cheney still insists that the earth is flat.
The president also failed to level with the American people about what it would take to prevail in Iraq.
He didn't tell us that well over 100,000 troops would be needed, for years, not months. He didn't tell us that he wouldn't take the time to assemble a broad and strong coalition of allies. He didn't tell us that the cost would exceed $200 billion. He didn't tell us that even after paying such a heavy price, success was far from assured.
And America will pay an even heavier price for the president's lack of candor.
At home, the American people are less likely to trust this administration if it needs to summon their support to meet real and pressing threats to our security.
Abroad, other countries will be reluctant to follow America when we seek to rally them against a common menace -- as they are today. Our credibility in the world has plummeted.
In the dark days of the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy sent former Secretary of State Dean Acheson to Europe to build support. Acheson explained the situation to French President de Gaulle. Then he offered to show him highly classified satellite photos, as proof. De Gaulle waved the photos away, saying: "The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me."
How many world leaders have that same trust in America's president, today?
This president's failure to tell the truth to us before the war has been exceeded by fundamental errors of judgment during and after the war.
The president now admits to "miscalculations" in Iraq.
That is one of the greatest understatements in recent American history. His were not the equivalent of accounting errors. They were colossal failures of judgment -- and judgment is what we look for in a president.
This is all the more stunning because we're not talking about 20/20 hindsight. Before the war, before he chose to go to war, bi-partisan Congressional hearings... major outside studies... and even some in the administration itself... predicted virtually every problem we now face in Iraq.
This president was in denial. He hitched his wagon to the ideologues who surround him, filtering out those who disagreed, including leaders of his own party and the uniformed military. The result is a long litany of misjudgments with terrible consequences.
The administration told us we'd be greeted as liberators. They were wrong.
They told us not to worry about looting or the sorry state of Iraq's infrastructure. They were wrong.
They told us we had enough troops to provide security and stability, defeat the insurgents, guard the borders and secure the arms depots. They were wrong.
They told us we could rely on exiles like Ahmed Chalabi to build political legitimacy. They were wrong.
They told us we would quickly restore an Iraqi civil service to run the country and a police force and army to secure it. They were wrong.
In Iraq, this administration has consistently over-promised and under-performed. This policy has been plagued by a lack of planning, an absence of candor, arrogance and outright incompetence. And the president has held no one accountable, including himself.
In fact, the only officials who lost their jobs over Iraq were the ones who told the truth.
General Shinseki said it would take several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq. He was retired. Economic adviser Larry Lindsey said that Iraq would cost as much as $200 billion. He was fired. After the successful entry into Baghdad, George Bush was offered help from the UN -- and he rejected it. He even prohibited any nation from participating in reconstruction efforts that wasn't part of the original coalition -- pushing reluctant countries even farther away. As we continue to fight this war almost alone, it is hard to estimate how costly that arrogant decision was. Can anyone seriously say this president has handled Iraq in a way that makes us stronger in the war on terrorism?
By any measure, the answer is no. Nuclear dangers have mounted across the globe. The international terrorist club has expanded. Radicalism in the Middle East is on the rise. We have divided our friends and united our enemies. And our standing in the world is at an all time low.
Think about it for a minute. Consider where we were... and where we are. After the events of September 11, we had an opportunity to bring our country and the world together in the struggle against the terrorists. On September 12, headlines in newspapers abroad declared "we are all Americans now." But through his policy in Iraq, the president squandered that moment and rather than isolating the terrorists, left America isolated from the world.
We now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and posed no imminent threat to our security. It had not, as the vice president claimed, "reconstituted nuclear weapons."
The president's policy in Iraq took our attention and resources away from other, more serious threats to America.
Threats like North Korea, which actually has weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear arsenal, and is building more under this president's watch -- the emerging nuclear danger from Iran -- the tons and kilotons of unsecured chemical and nuclear weapons in Russia -- and the increasing instability in Afghanistan.
Today, warlords again control much of that country, the Taliban is regrouping, opium production is at an all time high and the Al Qaeda leadership still plots and plans, not only there but in 60 other nations. Instead of using U.S. forces, we relied on the warlords to capture Osama bin Laden when he was cornered in the mountains. He slipped away. We then diverted our focus and forces from the hunt for those responsible for September 11 in order invade Iraq.
We know Iraq played no part in September 11 and had no operational ties to Al Qaeda.
The president's policy in Iraq precipitated the very problem he said he was trying to prevent. Secretary of State Powell admits that Iraq was not a magnet for international terrorists before the war. Now it is, and they are operating against our troops. Iraq is becoming a sanctuary for a new generation of terrorists who someday could hit the United States.
We know that while Iraq was a source of friction, it was not previously a source of serious disagreement with our allies in Europe and countries in the Muslim world.
The president's policy in Iraq divided our oldest alliance and sent our standing in the Muslim world into free fall. Three years after 9/11, even in many moderate Muslim countries like Jordan, Morocco, and Turkey, Osama bin Laden is more popular than the United States of America.
Let me put it plainly: The president's policy in Iraq has not strengthened our national security. It has weakened it.
Two years ago, Congress was right to give the president the authority to use force to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. This president, any president would have needed the threat of force to act effectively. This president misused that authority.
The power entrusted to the president gave him a strong hand to play in the international community. The idea was simple. We would get the weapons inspectors back in to verify whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And we would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam: disarm or be disarmed.
A month before the war, President Bush told the nation: "If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail." He said that military action wasn't "unavoidable."
Instead, the president rushed to war without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work. He went without a broad and deep coalition of allies. He acted without making sure our troops had enough body armor. And he plunged ahead without understanding or preparing for the consequences of the post-war. None of which I would have done.
Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no -- because a commander in chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe.
Now the president, in looking for a new reason, tries to hang his hat on the "capability" to acquire weapons. But that was not the reason given to the nation; it was not the reason Congress voted on; it's not a reason, it's an excuse. Thirty-five to forty countries have greater capability to build a nuclear bomb than Iraq did in 2003. Is President Bush saying we should invade them?
I would have concentrated our power and resources on defeating global terrorism and capturing or killing Osama bin Laden. I would have tightened the noose and continued to pressure and isolate Saddam Hussein -- who was weak and getting weaker -- so that he would pose no threat to the region or America.
The president's insistence that he would do the same thing all over again in Iraq is a clear warning for the future. And it makes the choice in this election clear: more of the same with President Bush or a new direction that makes our troops and America safer. It is time, at long last, to ask the questions and insist on the answers from the commander in chief about his serious misjudgments and what they tell us about his administration and the president himself. If George W. Bush is re-elected, he will cling to the same failed policies in Iraq -- and he will repeat, somewhere else, the same reckless mistakes that have made America less secure than we can or should be.
In Iraq, we have a mess on our hands. But we cannot throw up our hands. We cannot afford to see Iraq become a permanent source of terror that will endanger America's security for years to come.
All across this country people ask me what we should do now. Every step of the way, from the time I first spoke about this in the Senate, I have set out specific recommendations about how we should and should not proceed. But over and over, when this administration has been presented with a reasonable alternative, they have rejected it and gone their own way. This is stubborn incompetence.
Five months ago, in Fulton, Missouri, I said that the president was close to his last chance to get it right. Every day, this president makes it more difficult to deal with Iraq -- harder than it was five months ago, harder than it was a year ago. It is time to recognize what is -- and what is not -- happening in Iraq today. And we must act with urgency.
Just this weekend, a leading Republican, Chuck Hagel, said we're "in deep trouble in Iraq ... it doesn't add up ... to a pretty picture [and] ... we're going to have to look at a recalibration of our policy." Republican leaders like Dick Lugar and John McCain have offered similar assessments.
We need to turn the page and make a fresh start in Iraq.
First, the president has to get the promised international support so our men and women in uniform don't have to go it alone. It is late; the president must respond by moving this week to gain and regain international support.
Last spring, after too many months of resistance and delay, the president finally went back to the U.N. which passed Resolution 1546. It was the right thing to do -- but it was late.
That resolution calls on U.N. members to help in Iraq by providing troops, trainers for Iraq's security forces, a special brigade to protect the U.N. mission, more financial assistance, and real debt relief.
Three months later, not a single country has answered that call. And the president acts as if it doesn't matter.
And of the $13 billion previously pledged to Iraq by other countries, only $1.2 billion has been delivered.
The president should convene a summit meeting of the world's major powers and Iraq's neighbors, this week, in New York, where many leaders will attend the U.N. General Assembly. He should insist that they make good on that U.N. resolution. He should offer potential troop contributors specific, but critical roles, in training Iraqi security personnel and securing Iraq's borders. He should give other countries a stake in Iraq's future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq's oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process.
This will be difficult. I and others have repeatedly recommended this from the very beginning. Delay has made only made it harder. After insulting allies and shredding alliances, this president may not have the trust and confidence to bring others to our side in Iraq. But we cannot hope to succeed unless we rebuild and lead strong alliances so that other nations share the burden with us. That is the only way to succeed.
Second, the president must get serious about training Iraqi security forces.
Last February, Secretary Rumsfeld claimed that more than 210,000 Iraqis were in uniform. Two weeks ago, he admitted that claim was exaggerated by more than 50 percent. Iraq, he said, now has 95,000 trained security forces.
But guess what? Neither number bears any relationship to the truth. For example, just 5,000 Iraqi soldiers have been fully trained, by the administration's own minimal standards. And of the 35,000 police now in uniform, not one has completed a 24-week field-training program. Is it any wonder that Iraqi security forces can't stop the insurgency or provide basic law and order?
The president should urgently expand the security forces training program inside and outside Iraq. He should strengthen the vetting of recruits, double classroom training time, and require follow-on field training. He should recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq. He should press our NATO allies to open training centers in their countries. And he should stop misleading the American people with phony, inflated numbers.
Third, the president must carry out a reconstruction plan that finally brings tangible benefits to the Iraqi people.
Last week, the administration admitted that its plan was a failure when it asked Congress for permission to radically revise spending priorities in Iraq. It took 17 months for them to understand that security is a priority, 17 months to figure out that boosting oil production is critical, 17 months to conclude that an Iraqi with a job is less likely to shoot at our soldiers.
One year ago, the administration asked for and received $18 billion to help the Iraqis and relieve the conditions that contribute to the insurgency. Today, less than a $1 billion of those funds have actually been spent. I said at the time that we had to rethink our policies and set standards of accountability. Now we're paying the price.
Now, the president should look at the whole reconstruction package, draw up a list of high visibility, quick impact projects, and cut through the red tape. He should use more Iraqi contractors and workers, instead of big corporations like Halliburton. He should stop paying companies under investigation for fraud or corruption. And he should fire the civilians in the Pentagon responsible for mismanaging the reconstruction effort.
Fourth, the president must take immediate, urgent, essential steps to guarantee the promised elections can be held next year.
Credible elections are key to producing an Iraqi government that enjoys the support of the Iraqi people and an assembly to write a Constitution that yields a viable power sharing arrangement.
Because Iraqis have no experience holding free and fair elections, the president agreed six months ago that the U.N. must play a central role. Yet today, just four months before Iraqis are supposed to go to the polls, the U.N. Secretary General and administration officials themselves say the elections are in grave doubt. Because the security situation is so bad and because not a single country has offered troops to protect the U.N. elections mission, the U.N. has less than 25 percent of the staff it needs in Iraq to get the job done.
The president should recruit troops from our friends and allies for a U.N. protection force. This won't be easy. But even countries that refused to put boots on the ground in Iraq should still help protect the U.N. We should also intensify the training of Iraqis to manage and guard the polling places that need to be opened. Otherwise, U.S forces would end up bearing those burdens alone.
If the president would move in this direction, if he would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and forces, train the Iraqis to provide their own security, develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people, and take the steps necessary to hold credible elections next year -- we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring all our troops home within the next four years.
This is what has to be done. This is what I would do as president today. But we cannot afford to wait until January. President Bush owes it to the American people to tell the truth and put Iraq on the right track. Even more, he owes it to our troops and their families, whose sacrifice is a testament to the best of America.
The principles that should guide American policy in Iraq now and in the future are clear: We must make Iraq the world's responsibility, because the world has a stake in the outcome and others should share the burden. We must effectively train Iraqis, because they should be responsible for their own security. We must move forward with reconstruction, because that's essential to stop the spread of terror. And we must help Iraqis achieve a viable government, because it's up to them to run their own country. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.
On May 1 of last year, President Bush stood in front of a now infamous banner that read "Mission Accomplished." He declared to the American people: "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." In fact, the worst part of the war was just beginning, with the greatest number of American casualties still to come. The president misled, miscalculated, and mismanaged every aspect of this undertaking and he has made the achievement of our objective -- a stable Iraq, secure within its borders, with a representative government, harder to achieve.
In Iraq, this administration's record is filled with bad predictions, inaccurate cost estimates, deceptive statements and errors of judgment of historic proportions.
At every critical juncture in Iraq, and in the war on terrorism, the president has made the wrong choice. I have a plan to make America stronger.
The president often says that in a post 9/11 world, we can't hesitate to act. I agree. But we should not act just for the sake of acting. I believe we have to act wisely and responsibly.
George Bush has no strategy for Iraq. I do.
George Bush has not told the truth to the American people about why we went to war and how the war is going. I have and I will continue to do so.
I believe the invasion of Iraq has made us less secure and weaker in the war against terrorism. I have a plan to fight a smarter, more effective war on terror -- and make us safer.
Today, because of George Bush's policy in Iraq, the world is a more dangerous place for America and Americans.
If you share my conviction that we can not go on as we are that we can make America stronger and safer than it is then November 2 is your chance to speak and to be heard. It is not a question of staying the course, but of changing the course.
I'm convinced that with the right leadership, we can create a fresh start and move more effectively to accomplish our goals. Our troops have served with extraordinary courage and commitment. For their sake, and America's sake, we must get this right. We must do everything in our power to complete the mission and make America stronger at home and respected again in the world.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.
John Kerry
Dear MoveOn Student Action,
With 45 days left, all eyes are on us. National media and both campaigns are keenly aware that this election will turn on how many students and young Americans get to the polls - and there’s only two weeks left to register new voters.
That's why MoveOn Student Action is launching our first national VoteMob voter registration drive this Wednesday, September 22nd.
To join the VoteMob you just need to go to a crowded campus area, like the student center or cafeteria, and help your friends register to vote.
It's amazingly simple, and we'll give you everything you need to pull it off: a detailed, step-by-step guide and the tools to host or join a VoteMob on your campus.
To plan or join a VoteMob on your campus for Tuesday, just go here:
http://www.moveonstudentaction.org/events
We've worked with our partners in key states around the country to run hundreds of VoteMobs in the last few months. They are fun, a great way to meet people on campus, and they work. Volunteers are always surprised by how grateful people are just to get a chance to fill out the form and get registered!
Why is it so critical that students vote in this election? Here’s just a sample of what the last four years have meant to students:
* The Republican tax and education policy forced our tuition to record highs while completely abandoning all promises to raise Pell grants and work-study.
* Unemployment for college graduates has doubled in the last 4 years, and over 30% of us have no health insurance (the worst rate of any segment of the population)
* The war in Iraq has cost over 1000 young American lives, overstretched our military and pushed us all towards a national draft.
The only away for us to change course is to get our friends and classmates registered to vote, and we only have 2 weeks. Let’s get started.
It begins when you host a vote mob on Wednesday, September 22.
http://www.moveonstudentaction.org/events
Thanks for all you do.
- Noah, Meighan, Ben, Monasee, Paul
The MoveOn Student Action Team
Week In Review
September 17, 2004
National Issues
Assault Weapons Back On The Street: Does George Bush Really Make Us Safer? The assault weapons ban expired this week, while George W. Bush -- who claimed in 2000 that he supported its extension -- remained silent. Police officers and families who have seen the destructive effects of these weapons called on President Bush to support extending the assault weapons ban, but the President remained silent.
George Bush wants us to believe that he "says what he means." If he meant what he said about protecting our families from assault weapons, why didn't he speak up and urge the Republican Congress to extend the ban?
Wrong Choices Cost Seniors: Bush's Medicare Bill Could Eat Up 37% Of Social Security Checks. New information this week revealed the soaring costs of George Bush's new Medicare bill -- facts the Bush White House is trying to withhold from seniors.
According to the report printed in USA Today, seniors will actually be forced to spend 37% of their Social Security check on Medicare expenses when the bill comes fully into effect in 2006. The percentage will increase to nearly 50% by 2021. That's right -- almost half the social security check, which represents the retirement lifeline for so many seniors, especially women, will be taken up by Medicare -- thanks to the new Bush Medicare bill!
By a strange coincidence, these figures were withheld from the latest Medicare Trustees report -- even though since 2001 that report has included how much of an individual's social security check will go to Medicare. Not this year.
Why are Medicare costs going up? One big reason is that the Bush White House refuses to allow the government to negotiate for lower drug prices -- and seniors are being stuck with the bill. And keep in mind that this is at least the second time that the Bush administration has withheld key information regarding this bill. The Government Accountability Office has reported that Bush officials lied to Congress about the cost of the bill and its effect on Social Security.
Going In The Wrong Direction: Cutbacks In Child Care. A study released this week by the National Women's Law Center finds that states are cutting back on child care assistance for low-income working families, leaving too many parents struggling to be able to go to work and provide reliable care for their children.
It's just the latest example of George Bush's policies taking us in the wrong direction. Bush has shifted the tax burden to middle class families while giving tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans. He has praised outsourcing and refused to enforce trade agreements while American jobs are shipped overseas. Now, states whose budgets are being squeezed between rising costs and loss of revenue, reflecting the loss of better-paid manufacturing jobs, are cutting back on the programs working families desperately need.
For the NWLC report on what's happened to state child care assistance policies in the last three years, go to Child Care Assistance Policies 2001-2004: Families Struggling to Move Forward, States Going Backward.
Democrats Taking The Lead
Just Ask A Woman -- About Health Care! Just ask a woman about the struggle to find affordable and accessible health care for herself and her family.
The Women for Kerry-Edwards "Just ask a Woman" report gives us a stark reminder of the daily squeeze women face under the Bush Administration. But we can make a change for ourselves and the women in our lives.
Join Women for Kerry-Edwards in raising the visibility of women's healthcare this Saturday. Plan your own event, or email us to find out about events going on in your states!
African American Economists Endorse Kerry Economic Plan. Sixteen prominent African American economists this week joined in a statement of support for John Kerry's economic plan, saying the proposed policies will create a period of shared prosperity after four years of wrong choices by George W. Bush that have led to a "shocking turnaround in the economic well-being of Americans, and especially of African Americans." The signers have held senior positions in all areas of national economic policy, including the Federal Reserve, the Executive Branch, and key Congressional offices.
"Simply put, we find the economic policies of President Bush to have failed, with no promise of the policies restoring the economic well-being of the nation, and especially of African Americans," the economists said. "Senator Kerry's economic priorities and policies are more likely to help the economic well-being of all Americans, but particularly African Americans."
"He Couldn't Tell Me Who To Vote For." Lynne Rene Gobbell of Alabama was fired from her job last week when her boss saw a John Kerry bumper sticker on her car. Lynne worked for her company for over two years. She lived in the same small town her whole life and attended New Hope Baptist Church. She was worried because "jobs around here are slim."
When Lynne went to talk to her boss, "I asked him if he said to remove the bumper sticker." When her boss insisted she remove the bumper sticker, she replied that "he couldn't tell me who to vote for." Her boss, who had distributed Bush propaganda in his employees' paycheck envelopes, stated that she had to leave the room.
A few minutes after their conversation, Lynne's manager broke the news to her. "I reckon you're fired," he said. "You could either work for him or John Kerry."
John Kerry heard about Lynne's story and this week he called her and offered her a job. Now watch for Lynne telling her story on the campaign trail.
A clear choice between the candidates: George Bush, who has presided over the loss of net jobs than Herbert Hoover, or John Kerry, who is committed to a Jobs First policy.
Women's Leadership Forum. Curious about the issues facing Americans in this upcoming election? Do you want to hear from the top experts in national security, the Supreme Court, civil rights, human rights, the media, and reproductive rights, just to name a few?
Then you want to join Elizabeth Edwards, Chairman Terry McAuliffe, Senator Joseph Biden, Lt. General Claudia Kennedy, Ambassador Wendy Sherman, Roger Altman, Governor Jeanne Shaheen, Ann Lewis, National Chair of the Women's Vote Center, Laura Murphy, Director of the Washington National Office of the ACLU, Kate Michelman, Chair of the DNC's Campaign to Save the Courts, and many more at the WLF's National Issues Conference!
The Conference will take place in Washington, DC, on September 29th-October 1st. For more information, please click here or contact the WLF at 202.488.5014 or wlf@dnc.org.
9/11 Families Endorse John Kerry -- Because He Will Make Us Safer. Five widows of the 9/11 attacks announced this week that they are supporting John Kerry for President because they believe he will take the actions needed to make America safer. The women, who were leaders in building support for the 9/11 Commission, said that the best way to honor the victims is to defeat the terrorists who attacked us and to protect the American people. They said they can't understand why Bush has been dragging his feet on intelligence reform that ensures prevention of future attacks, why he lost focus on fighting al Qaeda, or why he diverted valuable resources away from Afghanistan to