HA HA ---Got you to open the thread
------------------------------------------------------------

The following is a reprinting of the letter/essay that George J. Esseff, Sr. published in the Washington Post, that I believe sums up how many Americans feel in 2004--despite what the 'mainsteam media' would lead you to believe.

-----------------------------------------------------------



You're a Republican???


In today's America, ask a growing number of high school and college students; their teachers and professors; the self-anointed media elite and/or hard working men and women of all ethnicities, the question, “What is a Republican?”, and you'll be told “… a rich, greedy, egotistical individual, motivated only by money and the desire to accumulate more and more of it, at the expense of the environment … the working poor ….and all whom they exploit…”

I am a Republican … I am none of those things… and I don't know any Republicans who are.

WHAT I AM … first and foremost, is a loving husband of some 52 plus years, the father of four and an American who's proud of his country… and his country's heritage.

WHAT I AM … is the grandson of immigrants who risked everything, including their lives and those of their children, to escape tyranny in search of freedom.

WHAT I AM … is a man who grew up during the Depression and witnessed, first hand, the effects of the Stock Market crash and the soup lines that followed. I watched as both my parents and grand parents, who had very little themselves, share what food they had with a half dozen other families, who had even less.

WHAT I AM … is someone who worked his way through college by holding down three and four jobs at a time and then used that education to build a better life.

WHAT I AM … is a husband who, at age 24, started his own business for the “privilege” of working 60, 70 and 80 hours a week, risking everything I had, including my health, in search of a better life for myself and my loved ones.

WHAT I AM … is a businessman whose blood, sweat and tears…. and plenty of them…, made it possible for me to provide a secure living, not only for my family and myself, but also for literally hundreds of my employees throughout the years. Employees, who in turn, were able to buy their own homes, raise their own families and give back to their communities and their country.

WHAT I AM … is a man who believes in God; a God who has blessed this country… and all for which it stands.

WHAT I AM … is someone who knows, if you doubt miracles exist in today's world, you need only to look into the face of those who received them … and the eyes of those who give them.

WHAT I AM … is an American who's proud that his President embraces a belief in God; proud of a President who understands, as “politically incorrect” as it may be, there is evil in this world and for the security and safety of all freedom loving people everywhere, it must be confronted… and it must be defeated.

WHAT I AM … is an American who takes comfort in the knowledge that our President refuses to allow decisions concerning the very safety and security of this nation, to be governed by the political whims of foreign governments.

WHAT I AM … is tired of hearing from leading Democrats who see only negativity in America; racism in her people; class warfare in her society and “political incorrectness” in her character.

WHAT I AM … is a former democrat who now understands that it is the soldier and not the reporter that guarantees us our freedoms of press, speech and dissent.

WHAT I AM … is a man who believes in the sanctity of life. A man who is repulsed by the pandering of the political left for votes, at the expense of the unborn.

WHAT I AM … is a husband and father who believes in the sanctity of marriage and the preservation of the family unit.

WHAT I AM … is a movie go-er who is repulsed by those insecure, socially inept, elementary thinking, ego-inflated “entertainers” who have appointed themselves “experts” in the fields of national security and geo-politics and then use their forum to attack this nation, its leaders and its actions…. much to the delight and encouragement of our enemies.

WHAT I AM … is an American who understands the difference between “censorship” and “choice”. Evidently, these individuals do not, because when these same “celebrities” receive public ridicule for their offensive actions, the first thing they yell is “Censorship!”. What they seem incapable of understanding is… the right of free speech and dissent is shared equally by those offended… as well as those who offend. I support and will continue to support those films and performers whom I choose to … and refuse to support those I don't. It is my right as an American … a right I will continue to enthusiastically exercise.

WHAT I AM … is a voter, tired of politicians, who, every time their voting records are subjected to public scrutiny, try to divert attention from their political and legislative failures by accusing their opponents of “attack ads” and “negative campaigning”…. and the news media who allow them to get away with it.

WHAT I AM … is a Catholic who loves his God and his Faith… and who's been taught to respect all religions whose teachings are based in love, peace and charity. As such, I am embarrassed and ashamed of those individuals, in both private and public life, whose decisions and actions are devoid of any sense of character or morals; individuals who are only driven by what's best for them … rather than what's right … often times at the expense of many …. including our national security.

WHAT I AM … is a realist who understands that the terrorist attack that murdered hundreds of innocent Russian children could have occurred here, in our heartland. That's why I sincerely believe America needs now, more than ever, a President who sees with a clear and focused vision and who speaks with a voice when heard by both friend and foe alike, is understood, respected and believed.

WHAT I AM … is eternally grateful to Ronald Reagan for having the bravery to speak out against Communism and the courage of his convictions in leading the fight to defeat it; and George W. Bush for the vision, courage, conviction and leadership he has shown in America's war on terrorism amidst both the constant and vicious, personal and political attacks both he and his family are made to endure.

WHAT I AM … is a human being, full of numerous faults and failures, but a man nonetheless, who, though not always successful, has continually strived to do “what's right” instead of “what's easy”. A man who is challenging the religious leaders of all faiths, to not only preach to their congregations the fundamentals of “what's right” and “what's wrong”, but to also then hold them accountable for their actions in both the public and private sectors.

WHAT I AM … is disgusted with the Courts who, on one hand, call the murder of a pregnant woman a “double homicide” but then refer to the abortion of her baby as, “pro-choice”.

WHAT I AM … is someone deeply troubled by a political party which embraces a candidate whose primary “leadership” qualities center around his protesting of the Vietnam war and his labeling the honorable men and women who fought in it, (50,000 of whom gave their lives in that action), as rapists, and war criminals. That same political party then stepped forward this year to block the appearance of a true Vietnam war hero, retired Admiral and former United States Senator, Jeremiah Denton, (a man who spent seven years and seven torturous months in a North Vietnam prison), from speaking before an open session of the California legislature as part of that state's 4th of July celebration. The reason Democrats gave for refusing to allow this American hero to speak before their state legislature was because of the “conservative” nature of his views. As an American, that troubles me deeply ….as well it should you.

WHAT I AM … is a man who feels the need to spend, $104, 655.60,(tax paid) of his own money, to purchase this advertisement, in order to set the story straight. Some may say this money would have been better spent feeding the world's poor. At the risk of sounding self-serving, as an American and as a Republican, for the last six decades of my life, I have done exactly that… and more. Following the examples of my parents and grand parents, I have used my earnings to feed the poor, shelter the homeless, provide housing for the elderly and medical care for the sick….. and continue to do so… and I'm not alone in that work.

WHAT I AM … is someone who is paying for this announcement, at my sole expense, in hopes of opening the eyes of those led blindly by ill-informed elements of our great nation, who, through either ignorance, or malicious intent, repeatedly attack and belittle those of us who belong to a political party that holds true to the belief, “… the rights of the governed, exceed the power of the government”. For those interested, I am speaking only as a tax-paying individual who is in no way associated with The Republican National Committee, nor with any of its directors, or delegates.

WHAT I AM … is a man who understands, “the American way of life” is a message of self-empowerment for all.

WHAT I AM … is an American who is grateful that our nation gives each of us the opportunity of self-determination and the right to benefit from the fruits of self achievement.

WHAT I AM … is an American who wants to preserve that way of life for all who seek it.

WHAT I AM … is blessed to be an American…. and proud to be Republican.



George J. Esseff, Sr.

A new study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) shows that supporters of President Bush hold wildly inaccurate views about the world. For example, "a large majority [72 percent] of Bush supporters believe that before the war Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."[1] Most Bush supporters [57 percent] also believe that the recently released report by Charles Duelfer, the administration's hand-picked weapons inspector, concluded Iraq either had WMD or a major program for developing them.[2] In fact, the report concluded "Saddam Hussein did not produce or possess any weapons of mass destruction for more than a decade before the U.S.-led invasion" and the U.N. inspection regime had "curbed his ability to build or develop weapons."[3]

According to the study, 75 percent Bush supporters also believe "Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda."[4] Most Bush supporters [55 percent] believe that was the conclusion of the 9/11 commission.[5] In fact, the 9/11 commission concluded there was no "collaborative relationship" between al-Qaeda and Iraq.[6]

Bush supporters also hold inaccurate views about world public opinion of the war in Iraq and a range of Bush's foreign policy positions.[7]

Sources:

1. "The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters," Program on International Policy Attitudes, 10/21/04
2. "The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters," Program on International Policy Attitudes, 10/21/04
3. "Iraq's Illicit Weapons Gone Since Early '90s, CIA Says," Los Angeles Times, 10/07/04,
4. "The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters," Program on International Policy Attitudes, 10/21/04
5. "The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters," Program on International Policy Attitudes, 10/21/04
6. "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed," Washington Post, 6/17/04,
7. "The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters," Program on International Policy Attitudes, 10/21/04

GH,

You left out the part that I found most interesting:

"According to the report, this reality gap is something new in American life. "So why do Bush supporters show such a resistance to accepting dissonant information?" it asks. "While it is normal for people to show some resistance, the magnitude of the denial goes beyond the ordinary. Bush supporters have succeeded in suppressing awareness of the findings of a whole series of high-profile reports about prewar Iraq that have been blazoned across the headlines of newspapers and prompted extensive, high-profile and agonizing reflection.The analysis says that the roots of this denial could lie in the trauma of 9/11 and people's desire to hold on to their image of Bush as a "capable protector." It offers no guidance, though, on how ordinary Republicans might be coaxed back to reality.

And while "The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters" may be perversely satisfying to Democrats in its confirmation of blue-state prejudices, it carries a pretty disturbing question for all rational Americans: How can arguments based on fact prevail in a nation where so many people know so little?

Geez harley you are going to wear out the overtly biased piece and a pice that is inaccurate..

Back at you fool!

Security Council members deny meeting Kerry


By Joel Mowbray
SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES


U.N. ambassadors from several nations are disputing assertions by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry that he met for hours with all members of the U.N. Security Council just a week before voting in October 2002 to authorize the use of force in Iraq.
An investigation by The Washington Times reveals that while the candidate did talk for an unspecified period to at least a few members of the panel, no such meeting, as described by Mr. Kerry on a number of occasions over the past year, ever occurred.







At the second presidential debate earlier this month, Mr. Kerry said he was more attuned to international concerns on Iraq than President Bush, citing his meeting with the entire Security Council.
"This president hasn't listened. I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them, to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable," Mr. Kerry said of the Iraqi dictator.
Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York in December 2003, Mr. Kerry explained that he understood the "real readiness" of the United Nations to "take this seriously" because he met "with the entire Security Council, and we spent a couple of hours talking about what they saw as the path to a united front in order to be able to deal with Saddam Hussein."
But of the five ambassadors on the Security Council in 2002 who were reached directly for comment, four said they had never met Mr. Kerry. The four also said that no one who worked for their countries' U.N. missions had met with Mr. Kerry either.
The former ambassadors who said on the record they had never met Mr. Kerry included the representatives of Mexico, Colombia and Bulgaria. The ambassador of a fourth country gave a similar account on the condition that his country not be identified.
Ambassador Andres Franco, the permanent deputy representative from Colombia during its Security Council membership from 2001 to 2002, said, "I never heard of anything."
Although Mr. Franco was quick to note that Mr. Kerry could have met some members of the panel, he also said that "everything can be heard in the corridors."
Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, Mexico's then-ambassador to the United Nations, said: "There was no meeting with John Kerry before Resolution 1441, or at least not in my memory."
All had vivid recollections of the time frame when Mr. Kerry traveled to New York, as it was shortly before the Nov. 7, 2002, enactment of Resolution 1441, which said Iraq was in "material breach" of earlier disarmament resolutions and warned Baghdad of "serious consequences as a result of its continued violations."
Stefan Tafrov, Bulgaria's ambassador at the time, said he remembers the period well because it "was a very contentious time."
After conversations with ambassadors from five members of the Security Council in 2002 and calls to all the missions of the countries then on the panel, The Times was only able to confirm directly that Mr. Kerry had met with representatives of France, Singapore and Cameroon.
In addition, second-hand accounts have Mr. Kerry meeting with representatives of Britain.
When reached for comment last week, an official with the Kerry campaign stood by the candidate's previous claims that he had met with the entire Security Council.
But after being told late yesterday of the results of The Times investigation, the Kerry campaign issued a statement that read in part, "It was a closed meeting and a private discussion."
A Kerry aide refused to identify who participated in the meeting.
The statement did not repeat Mr. Kerry's claims of a lengthy meeting with the entire 15-member Security Council, instead saying the candidate "met with a group of representatives of countries sitting on the Security Council."
Asked whether the international body had any records of Mr. Kerry sitting down with the whole council, a U.N. spokesman said that "our office does not have any record of this meeting."
A U.S. official with intimate knowledge of the Security Council's actions in fall of 2002 said that he was not aware of any meeting Mr. Kerry had with members of the panel.
An official at the U.S. mission to the United Nations remarked: "We were as surprised as anyone when Kerry started talking about a meeting with the Security Council."
Jean-David Levitte, then France's chief U.N. representative and now his country's ambassador to the United States, said through a spokeswoman that Mr. Kerry did not have a single group meeting as the senator has described, but rather several one-on-one or small-group encounters.
He added that Mr. Kerry did not meet with every member of the Security Council, only "some" of them. Mr. Levitte could only name himself and Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock of Britain as the Security Council members with whom Mr. Kerry had met.
One diplomat who met with Mr. Kerry in 2002 said on the condition of anonymity that the candidate talked to "a few" ambassadors on the Security Council.
The revelation that Mr. Kerry never met with the entire U.N. Security Council could be problematic for the Massachusetts senator, as it clashes with one of his central foreign-policy campaign themes — honesty.
At a New Mexico rally last month, Mr. Kerry said Mr. Bush will "do anything he can to cover up the truth." At what campaign aides billed as a major foreign-policy address, Mr. Kerry said at New York University last month that "the first and most fundamental mistake was the president's failure to tell the truth to the American people."
In recent months, Mr. Kerry has faced numerous charges of dishonesty from Vietnam veterans over his war record, and his campaign has backtracked before from previous statements about Mr. Kerry's foreign diplomacy.
For example, in March, Mr. Kerry told reporters in Florida that he'd met with foreign leaders who privately endorsed him.
"I've met with foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly," he said. "But, boy, they look at you and say: 'You've got to win this. You've got to beat this guy. We need a new policy.' "
But the senator refused to document his claim and a review by The Times showed that Mr. Kerry had made no official foreign trips since the start of 2002, according to Senate records and his own published schedules. An extensive review of Mr. Kerry's domestic travel schedule revealed only one opportunity for him to have met foreign leaders here.
After a week of bad press, Kerry foreign-policy adviser Rand Beers said the candidate "does not seek, and will not accept, any such endorsements."
The Democrat has also made his own veracity a centerpiece of his campaign, calling truthfulness "the fundamental test of leadership."
Mr. Kerry closed the final debate by recounting what his mother told him from her hospital bed, "Remember: integrity, integrity, integrity."
In an interview published in the new issue of Rolling Stone magazine, Mr. Kerry was asked what he would want people to remember about his presidency. He responded, "That it always told the truth to the American people."

"... supporters of President Bush hold wildly inaccurate views about the world. "

Says it all, Elvis.

Letter's From 9/11 Widows


On September 11, 2001, we lost our husbands in the World Trade Center.

Like all Americans, we rallied behind President Bush in the aftermath
of that horrible day. We genuinely believed that he would track down
the people responsible for our husbands' deaths and take all
necessary steps to prevent another terrorist attack in the future.

Unfortunately, President Bush has failed us.

During the past three years, President Bush fought our efforts to get
to the bottom of the 9/11 attacks. He tried to block the creation of
an independent commission and then resisted providing the commission
with sufficient funding, access to documents, and testimony from his
advisors. Now that the commission has released its recommendations,
President Bush has opposed the enactment of reforms necessary to
prevent another 9/11.

By fighting a misguided war in Iraq, President Bush has diverted
valuable resources from capturing Osama bin Laden and eliminating al
Qaeda. He continues to deceive the American public by asserting a
connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. However, the
bipartisan 9/11 Commission concluded that there is "no credible
evidence" that the Iraqi government collaborated with al Qaeda on any
attacks on the United States. Even Secretary of State Colin Powell
recently admitted: "I have seen nothing that makes a direct
connection between Saddam Hussein and that awful regime, and what
happened on 9/11."

Not only has President Bush failed to make America safer, he has
tried to capitalize politically on our loss. He has run campaign ads
with images of Ground Zero and firefighters; he has sold photos of
himself on Air Force One on 9/11; and he turned the entire Republican
convention in New York into a partisan glorification of 9/11.

America deserves better, and that is why we enthusiastically endorse
John Kerry for president.

John Kerry knows we have to win the peace in Iraq so terrorists do
not take it over, and he believes it is not too late to turn things
around in Iraq.

A Kerry administration will work with nations around the world to
hunt down terrorists and destroy their networks. John Kerry will
finish the job in Afghanistan, where al Qaeda terrorists planned the
9/11 attacks against our nation and where today the Taliban is coming
back. And as president, John Kerry will capture or kill al Qaeda and
like-minded terrorists. He never would have allowed the U.S. military
to be held back from going after Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora as
President Bush did.

John Kerry will improve our ability to detect and prevent terrorist
threats. He believes all of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations
should be immediately adopted. He also has a detailed plan for
improving border, seaport, and airport security; coordinating and
integrating local law enforcement; and providing necessary training
and equipment to first responders.

John Kerry can provide the strong leadership necessary to make
America stronger at home and more respected in the world.

We urge you to join us in this historic fight for America's future by
forwarding this letter to your friends and colleagues.

Sincerely,

Kristen Breitweiser, Middletown Township, NJ
Patty Casazza, Colts Neck, NJ
Monica Gabrielle, West Haven, CT
Mindy Kleinberg, East Brunswick, NJ
Lorie Van Auken, East Brunswick, NJ

"... supporters of President Bush hold wildly inaccurate views about the world. "

Says not a thing when backed up with biased info. Only a partisan hack would even read that drivel, only a whack job lefty would repeat it only a certifed nut case would claim it was accurate. If the shoe fits, you know the rest

------------------------------------------------------------

It must get awful lonely for an 'enlightened liberal' who supports Hanoi John Kerry at Ft. Lewis when he's surrounded by so many logical thinking military service members who clearly trust George W. Bush more to be Commander and Chief.
=================================


CNN Poll: Military trusts Bush over Kerry
Surveying regulars, reservists, National Guard members and families

Saturday, October 16, 2004 Posted: 1:43 PM EDT (1743 GMT)


WASHINGTON (AP) -- When asked whom they would trust as commander in chief, people in military service and their families chose President Bush over Sen. John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, by a wide margin.

Bush, who served in the Texas Air National Guard, was trusted by 69 percent of military regulars, Reservists and National Guard members, while 24 percent said they trusted Kerry more, according to the National Annenberg Election Survey released Friday.
=================================
Posted 10/3/2004 11:00 PM


Troops in survey back Bush 4-to-1 over Kerry

By Dave Moniz, USA TODAY

An unscientific survey of U.S. military personnel shows they support President Bush for re-election by a 4-to-1 ratio. Two-thirds of those responding said John Kerry's anti-war activities after he returned from Vietnam make them less likely to vote for him.


In the survey of more than 4,000 full-time and part-time troops, 73% said they would vote for Bush if the election were held today; 18% said they would vote for Kerry. Of the respondents, 59% identified themselves as Republicans, 20% as independents and 13% as Democrats.

I thought I would deliver on the promise of the topic by sharing a couple of friends with you all.

Oh my.

I was just getting ready to clown TK for his usual king-****-know-it-all schtick but those lovely ladies made me lose my train of thought.

I don't know HOW you got Rory to lose his train of thought BEFORE you posted that pic.........but congratulations anyway.

And obviously...

WHAT I AM ... someone who closes my eyes and looks the other direction while Bush and his corrupt corporate croney cabinet; 1.) drive the salmon (and just about any other species that gets in the way) to extinction, 2.) gut existing environmental protections in favor of 'big business friendly' watered down versions, 3.) stage secret meetings with industry representatives to write laws that would govern their own industries, then not release them to the public until sued, 4.) block or surpress governemnt funded scientifc studies that go against their rape and pilliage philosophy of 'business first, health, wildlife, and environment last' and then LIE about the results, 5.) allow fat cat companies to freely dump poisons like arsenic and mercury into the land and water, and in the air.

You would expect better from the party of Theodore Roosevelt. Just as an example... Studies indicate that 10 million Americans have harmful levels of mercury in their system. One in twelve women carry enough mercury to effect development of a fetus. The majority of them got it from eating fish. Mercury is belched into the atmosphere (40% of which is produced by coal fired power plants), then falls in rain and is channeled into the oceans and waterways. It gets concentrated as it moves up the food chain, with top predators like tuna, sharks, and SALMON as the major vectors. And yet, under Bush, the EPA gutted Clinton's proposal to have mercury emissions cut by 90% by 2008 in favor of a proposal that gives power plants FIFTEEN YEARS to cut emissions by 70%. Almost certainly uncoincidentally, the biggest polluter that would benefit under this change in policy, the Southern Company, also contributed more than $500,000 to Bush's 2000 electon campaign. There's more examples too. Bush's cabinet is full of conflicts of interest, everything from Cheney's links to Haliburton to 'paying off' campaign contributors by dismissing fines due to breaking of environmental laws (in one case, $370 million in fines). But look at my recent post tiled 'The Sportsman's President' for an article from Flyfisherman's Magazine for more.

Show me someone that thinks that Bush as President would be better for the environment (and wild salmon in particular) than Kerry, or Al Gore if he had gotten the Presidency, would and I'll show you someone who's delusional. The Sept 2002 Klamath fish kill and the administration's response to it alone would tell you that much. 35,000 to 60,000 adult salmon (including ESA protected coho) and steelhead, dead before spawing. Due to the mismanagement of the water flowing into the Klamath River because the administration ignored scientific studies and wanted to prop up the popularity of a senator in Oregon by allocating 100% of the water allowances to agriculture. All of which was forecasted ahead of time by environmental groups, Indians, and fishing interests. Even their own biologists told them. Twice. And yet the farmers got all the subsidized water the wanted, and the fish paid the ultimate price, reaching adulthood and dying before ever passing on their genes. We ALL lost, every one of us. When it was obvious that the fish died for reasons stemming from lack of water, the administration tried to blame it on anything but. Until it was confirmed twice more in private studies, and the biologist who submitted the surpressed report twice finally sought protection under federal whistleblowers' protection and made it public. They didn't even increase the flow to the Klamath in 2003. It could have happened all over again.

http://www.fishsniffer.com/dbachere/092502klamath.html

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/11/19/MNGRC35FLQ1.DTL

http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/fish/2002fishdieoff2004/cheerreport080104.htm

http://www.triplicate.com/news/story.cfm?story_no=1035

http://www.onrc.org/programs/klamath/coallfactsheet2.html

http://www.washingtoncouncilfff.org/fishkill.htm

http://www.faultline.org/news/2002/11/stclair1.html

The Oregon farmers aren't totally to blame, of course. But agriculture is. The Trinity River in Northern California is the biggest tributary to the Klamath, but only 10% of the Trinity's water ever reaches the Klamath. It is dammed 30 miles from the Pacific, the rest of it gets shipped to Southern California for politically powerful large farms. That's how they grow all those crops in the middle of the desert. During the Clinton administration, Bruce Babbit tried to increase the allocation to the Klamath to 12%. Immediately there were lawsuits, and it got slapped with an injunction. The Bush administration claims they couldn't do anything even if they wanted to, which of course they don't.

Bush's environmental record has been the worst President's as far as the environment goes in at LEAST the last 30 years. Probably the worst in history since it became an issue. And fish and game can't live without clean habitat to live in. There may not be ANY (edible) salmon (wild or otherwise) left outside of fish farms after four more years. How anyone can consider themselves someone who cares about fish and support Bush is beyond my knowledge. He and his administration don't care about the environment, they don't care about salmon, and they don't care about the quality of the air we breathe or the water we drink, or the food we eat. All they care about are lining the pockets of campaign contributors, kowtowing to special intrest groups for votes, and covering their own party's butt when things go wrong. His 2000 campaign promises about the environment (salmon and other wildlife included) were nothing but lies, and I don't expect his 2004 promises to hold water either. 'The Sportsman's President' indeed.

"Show me someone that thinks that Bush as President would be better for the environment (and wild salmon in particular) than Kerry, or Al Gore if he had gotten the Presidency, would and I'll show you someone who's delusional. "

What is delusional is forgetting the history of politicians and policies that put the environment in it's current state. Then ignoring the fact that those political agendas and policies are now so entrenched in our lives and that any one party or politican can reverse their effects. One needs to look at their life and all the things in it and the impact the changes needed will have. Have you done that. Have you done your part for the salmon? Have you quit using electricity, lumber, mined products ,agricultural products, have you set a side 10 acres of land in the PNW to remain untouched by man for eternity to mitigate your impact? Well have you or are you a typical psuedo environmentalist that is all talk and no action and really has no clue what he is saying but it sounds good to other pusedo intellectuals. Lets hear your story?

THE GEORGE W. BUSH HYPNOSIS FILE

by Russell M. Drake

Call him hypnotist-in-chief. He earned it.

Among modern era statesmen, only Adolf Hitler comes close to George
W. Bush's skill level as operator of the public consciousness.

Consider: After three years of terror and death at the hands of a
terrorist band run by two guys hiding in caves, after a bloody,
failed invasion of the wrong country in search of who knows what,
after a jobs market crash matched only by the Herbert Hoover
Administration, and after mismanaging huge national budget surpluses
into over-the-cliff national deficits – all supported by the most
outlandish lies – Bush still holds a firm grip on the minds of more
than half of the people who say they're going to vote.

The hypnosis has been so effective that it has enabled Bush to
survive repeated blunders that might well have led to another man's
impeachment and removal from office, even by members of his own
party.

He did it with fear hypnosis, verbal confusion hypnosis, peace
hypnosis, deference hypnosis, radio hypnosis, the help of the press,
and the Big Lie technique pioneered by Hitler.

"In the size of the lie there is always contained a certain factor of
credibility, since the great masses of the people....will more easily
fall victim to a great lie than to a small one." – Hitler, Mein
Kampf.

Bush's political hypnosis talent, like Hitler's, lies in taking
classroom hypnosis theory and technique and projecting it to mass
audiences.

Verbal Confusion Hypnosis

Bush's most famous lies have centered around the reasons (23 counted
by University of Illinois senior Devon Largio in her 2004 honors
thesis) given for going to war against Iraq. The ever changing
justifications for the war put Bush groupies into a state of verbal
confusion hypnosis where they more or less gave up thinking for
themselves and believed anything Bush said, a condition explained by
Jesse E. Gordon in Handbook of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis.

"The verbal confusion technique, which is quite difficult to
administer, involves an approximation of double-talk in which
instructions of a somewhat contradictory kind are given in rapid
succession making it impossible for the attentive subject either to
quite comprehend or quite acquiesce to any of them. Finally, he
simply gives up all attempts and more or less collapses into a
hypnotic state." Trying to sort through 23 reasons in search of the
right one can be confusing, particularly when they're given in rapid
succession, over and over again.

Some might see Bush's 23 reasons as nothing more than a scoundrel's
desperate scramble to cover his trail except that he does it
elsewhere, as in his rambling State of the Union addresses where he
may produce a dazzling list of jobs creation spending that quickly
evaporates into thin air. Remember the hydrogen car, or launching a
man from the moon to Mars?

Fear Hypnosis

The initial reason for war advanced by Bush was that Saddam Hussein
posed an intolerable threat to the safety of Americans.

In a hysterical, almost panicky call to war at the Cincinnati Museum
Center, October 7, 2002, Bush belabored Saddam as a "murderous
tyrant" with "an arsenal of terror" that included "a massive
stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for and
is capable of killing millions." Further, Bush cried, Saddam had the
know-how and materials to make nuclear bombs and "a growing fleet of
manned and unmanned aerial vehicles" capable of delivering chemical
and biological weapons "in a region where 135,000 American civilians
and service members live and work."

Later exposed as pure hokum, Bush's hypnotized minions bought this
swindle lock, stock, and barrel.

With his Weapons of Mass Destruction charges under increasing
scrutiny after none were found, Bush shifted to torture themes which
he used to high effect in his January, 2003 State of the Union
address: "This dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous
weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of
his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us
how forced confessions are obtained by torturing children while their
parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have
catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq:
electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin,
mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues and rape."

In The Group Mind, first published in 1920 by Putnam, author and
social psychologist William McDougall says, "It is well recognized
that almost any emotional excitement increases the suggestibility of
the individual, though the explanation of the fact remains obscure."

According to recent research, the answer lies in the fact that fear
messages induce subjects to react not with their logical "left brain"
but with their more emotional "right brain." The theory is explored
in Mindsight, a soon to be published book by psychiatrist Daniel
Siegel.

Always a step ahead of his critics, by March, 2003, on the eve of his
invasion of Iraq, Bush had whipped the American public into a frenzy
of war hysteria hypnosis with his fevered visions of the peril posed
by Saddam.

War and Power

Bush began preparations for war long before 9/11 and Hussein.

The Bible on which he swore to uphold The Constitution was still wet
with his palm print when the gears of war began grinding in his
brain.

Soon, the new president was issuing belligerent statements against
other countries and their leaders, trashing traditional allies,
bullying the United Nations, refusing U. S. participation in a world
court to try war crimes, turning thumbs down on a global warming
pact, and making policy decisions that adversely affect the poor and
downtrodden of the planet.

Bush primed the terrorist bomb as surely as if he had assembled it
himself.

The conclusion that he did it deliberately to provoke violence that
would enable him to go to war is nearly inescapable.

That he wanted war to insure that he could serve two terms in the
presidency is another inescapable conclusion. It could not have been
lost on Bush that almost all lasting public policy has been achieved
by presidents of long tenure, such as Franklin Delano Roosevelt,
Harry S. Truman, Dwight David Eisenhower, Lyndon Baines Johnson, and
Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Two terms would give him the time to set in motion a chain of events
that would cement conservative policy so solidly in place that it
would be shatter resistant, if not immune to change by succeeding
administrations. "Reforming" most social programs in a way that would
curtail their access by ordinary citizens, and appointing federal
judges and Supreme Court justices agreeable to the process would be
not just a worthy goal, but an achievable one.

Making war to hold on to political power is not a new idea. English
statesman and writer Edmund Burke accused George III and his prime
minister Lord North of using force against the American colonies to
render critics impotent, and strengthen their hand in other ventures
of empire. "Let them but once get us into a war, and then their power
is safe, and an act of oblivion passed for all their misconduct,"
said Burke in his Letter to the Sheriffs of Nottingham. FDR, LBJ, and
Nixon were all accused of making war to extend their terms and
agendas.

Ultra hawk Dick Cheney may be the Bush administration's biggest "war
makes power" advocate, a trait exhibited early in his government
career and honed in successive White House assignments. The bellicose
vice president, as chief of staff to President Gerald R. Ford, first
teamed up with Donald Rumsfeld to convince Ford that "the way to turn
himself into a real president was to stir up crises in international
relations while lurching to the right in domestic politics," writes
T. D. Allman in "The Curse of Dick Cheney," Rolling Stone online,
August 25, 2004.

War is always a fait accompli. Bush knew that getting the U. S. into
a Middle East conflict was an irreversible act and said as much to
conservative Britons in a speech at Whitehall Palace, November 19,
2003, when he cast the war as a contract with the Iraqi people that
could not be broken without going back on "our word." Outside the
palace, 100,000 Londoners called for his head.

The Hitler Connection

Bush is seen all over the world as the second coming of Hitler. Type
in "bush hitler" in your search engine address line, punch "go," and
you will get about 565,000 "hits," nearly twice as many as runners-up
Saddam Hussein and Bill Clinton, tied at 288,000 each.

Much of this is little more than simple name calling by people who
don't like Bush, but others see a real Bush-Hitler connection.

Perhaps the clearest likeness between the two men lies in their use
of emotionally induced hypnosis to plant in the mass consciousness an
image of themselves as protectors of their subjects from threats to
national survival both inside and outside the fatherland.

His image as protector may have helped Bush siphon off some of John
Kerry's lead with women voters.

In a June, 2003 article written for The Nation about Bush's "mastery
of emotional language, especially negatively charged emotional
language," clinical psychologist Dr. Renana Brooks observed
that "Bush creates and maintains negative frameworks in his
listeners' minds with a number of linguistic techniques borrowed from
hypnosis and advertising to instill the image of a dark and evil
world around us."

Dr. Justin A. Frank, professor of psychiatry at George Washington
University Medical Center, in Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of
the President, published this year, finds Bush so seriously impaired
mentally that he should be removed from office, not a reassuring
diagnosis for someone with his finger on the button. One reviewer of
the book identified Frank as a "Democrat." Another called his work
a "provocative blend of psychological case-study and partisan
polemic."

To study the Bush-Hitler connection outside the hot partisan air of
presidential election politics, go to either of two books from an
earlier period: Hypnotism, the ne plus ultra of Hitler hypnosis
books, by George H. Estabrooks, first published in 1943, and The
Crowd, by Gustave Le Bon, first published in 1897.

Both writers show how leaders like Bush and Hitler get public support
by spreading emotional contagion or, simply, fear.

Bush's subliminal messages to justify religious war
against "evildoers" are right out of Madison Avenue. Writing in The
New Yorker of July 12 & 19, 2004, David Greenberg tells how Bush
speechwriter Michael Gerson, "himself an evangelical, laces the
President's addresses with seemingly innocuous terms that the devout
recognize as laden with meaning: `whirlwind,' `work of
mercy,' `safely home,' `wonderworking power.'"

Hypnosis goes deep, to the core of one's being, which is why it has
found wide acceptance in treating disorders such as over-eating and
smoking. By getting where the addiction lies hypnosis can suppress
the addiction and replace it with positive behavior. In its
effectiveness, hypnosis has been compared to prayer, to which it is
clinically nearly identical.

War and Peace

Perhaps the biggest challenge Bush has given the public is asking
them to think of his war making as, actually, peace making. Bush has
been almost studious in application of the hypnotic word "peace" to
sugarcoat his designs for war.

"Peace" has become his slogan.

"How many people in the confusion of a defeat or crisis have been
reassured by one word? Peace. Independence. Reconstruction. Without
taking a closer look, they adopt the leader in whose name this ideal
has been proposed. It is the ideal that unites them and leads them
into the venture. If necessary, technicians will be responsible for
conducting it from the inside so long as the figurehead maintains his
prestige." Jean Dauven, The Powers of Hypnosis George W. Bush misses
no chance to reaffirm his dedication to peace and to denounce those
who he says threaten peace.

Saying that his proposal to attack Iraq should be seen as an act of
peace, he mounted the pulpit of the United Nations, September 17,
2002 to bully the international body with his peace message: "The
United Nations must act. It's time to determine whether or not
they'll be a force for good and peace or an ineffective debating
society."

When Hitler preemptively invaded countries he invoked the Almighty
and said he was doing it to keep the peace.

Bush stood before Congress and the press, sent an emissary to the
Orwellian sounding United States Institute of Peace, went on the
radio, and appeared at factories and military bases, hawking his
peace message while putting U. S. forces in place to invade Iraq.

Radio Hypnosis

With his regular Saturday radio addresses, Bush works heroically on
turning Americans into automatons of subservience to his goals.

Radio is the most hypnotic of the media as, in the words of Jean
Dauven, "It is through the spoken word that the hypnotist exercises
his power." The audio nature of broadcast fosters an illusion of
privacy that allows the hypnotist to flatter the listener that he/she
is being addressed exclusively, enhancing the listener's
suggestibility.

Bush's thin nasal whine is not a good radio voice, and he reads like
a school boy underlining every word with his forefinger. But his
messages are so loaded with fear, greed, mawkish patriotism, and
invocations of the Almighty that they are effective hypnosis
nonetheless.

Deference Hypnosis

As Bush races to the wire in the 2004 presidential election race, he
is being borne by the press on wings of approbation.

Almost to a man, the big city dailies backed the invasion of Iraq.
The New York Times and the Washington Post issued mea culpas, too
late.

As an even bigger favor, the press granted Bush immunity from debate
throughout the campaign year, just as it did in the 2000 election –
giving him a virtual free pass to the White House. It was a gift
wrapped in arrogance and negligence with overtones of complicity,
even conspiracy, but however it is defined, one of journalism's
biggest all time failures.

Even as it kept Kerry's candidacy under wraps, the press had the bare
faced audacity to complain, "The American people still don't know
much about Kerry," and "He needs to clearly define himself to
voters."

By studiously ignoring John Kerry's call for monthly debates all year
long, by shutting off the one avenue Kerry had to a level playing
field in his contest with the opportunistic incumbent, the press
handed Bush the presidency on a plate. If Bush loses the election, it
won't be because the press had anything to do with it but if he wins
he owes them a steak dinner.

What is at work here is deference hypnosis, meaning respect for an
individual because of his superior position. Deference hypnosis
bestows a stature that doesn't have to be earned and may not be
deserved. The press has shown susceptibility to deference hypnosis by
bowing to Bush both as rookie presidential candidate and as
president.

Le Bon said of deference hypnosis, "The mere fact that an individual
occupies a certain position, possesses a certain fortune, or bears
certain titles, endows him with prestige, however slight his own
personal worth."

Le Bon could have been talking about George W. Bush. With his
incumbency, his famous family, his professional sports credentials,
former ownership of the Texas Rangers baseball team, his ties to the
Saudi royal family and Big Oil, Bush is a walking case of deference
hypnosis.

Repetition Hypnosis

With the pressure to debate removed from his schedule, Bush was free
to take the George and Laura Show on the road, preaching unchallenged
his gospel of peace through war, freedom from government regulation
and taxes, and privatization of Social Security and Medicare.

Before audiences of small business owners and farmers August 18, in
St. Paul, Minnesota, and Hudson and Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin, in two
of the "battleground" states that he narrowly lost in 2000, Bush was
at his shirtsleeved best, hoarsely beseeching the crowd in all the
old familiar ways: "Listen, I'm going to give you some reasons to put
me back in, but perhaps the most important one is so that Laura is
the First Lady for four more years.......we must engage these enemies
around the world so we do not have to face them here at home....We
have a difference of opinion as to how to handle this issue in
Iraq.....There are enemies who hate us, and they're still
plotting....we must take threats seriously before they fully
materialize.....So I had a choice to make: either to forget the
lessons of September the 11th and trust a madman who is a sworn enemy
of America, or take action necessary to defend this country....Even
though we did not find the stockpiles that we expected to find, I
want you to remember that Saddam Hussein had the capability of making
weapons, and he could have passed that capability on to our
enemies....I'm really proud of our military. We've got a fantastic
military.....We want more people to own things....We stand for
institutions like marriage and family which are the foundations of
our society....I'm running for four more years to continue to rally
the armies of compassion all across America.....On September the
14th, 2001, I stood in the ruins of the Twin Towers....Workers in
hard hats were yelling at me, `Whatever it takes....do not let me
down.'....It was a powerful day.....Thanks for coming. God bless...."

Bush is nothing, if not consistent. Repeating the fear themes from
9/11 and the run up to the Iraq War is a technique of repetition
hypnosis that carried over into the Republican Nominating Convention
in New York with Rudy Giuliani's 9/11 nostalgia and Zell Miller's
hysterical rant, and still dominates Bush campaign rhetoric.

"The influence of repetition on crowds is comprehensible when the
power is seen which it exercises on the most enlightened minds. This
power is due to the fact that the repeated statement is embedded in
the long run in those profound regions of our unconscious selves in
which the motives of our actions are forged," said Le Bon.

As of September 26, the fear hypnosis was working in the "swing
state" of Missouri. A voter survey in Clay County by the Guardian
Unlimited newspaper concluded, "America's heartland is afraid."

No one will ever accuse George W. Bush of stealing FDR's line, "The
only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

Hey Gramps,

I'd be mighty beholdin' to ya if you would be so kind as to introduce me to your friends!

My question is, have you? I don't have ten acres to give. Considering that except for Clinton the last 24 years have all been with Republican Presidents, who made those policies? And before you blame Congress, remember that THE PRESIDENT picks the heads of environmental agencies like the BLM and EPA.

I noticed that you avoided all of the points that I made. My point stands. Bush's cabinet is corrupt. They would sell out the salmon in an instant like they have with so many other aspects of environmental protection. Whoops, I forgot. They already did. That's why 35,000 to 60,000 of them lay dead in the Klamath. That's why they tried to have hatchery fish classified as wild fish, so all their lumber buddies could log closer to streams. That's why that when you bring home that salmon to the table, it might just have a lot of 'other stuff' like mercury and arsenic in it. Yum yum.

Tell me with a straight face that Bush is a better President in regards to the environment than Clinton was. And if you're going to try and bring Clinton's philandering status into this, you automatically lose, since it has nothing to do with his environmental record. Go on. I dare you.

Ark,

How about his view adresses more issues and groups. this has po'd the sports fisherman. He also then allows the states to manage vs gore and Kerry's land grab tactics.( See King Co CAO proposals) ? The states have the final say bottom line. . It's not the zero sum you or others make it out to be. Fish declined under Clinton/Gore at a more rapid rate than they did under previous presidents. This will be true moving forward. Mans population has an impact and ou cannot grow this states pop by 15% and not impact the environment with out impacting the economy. To save the fish you would have to seriously realign the economy and peoples lives and no politician will do that. Everything else is window dressing a problem that contiues to get worse with no end in site. Some call it pessimistic to say releasing a wild fish does nothing. Then again they forget that the 2 kids they have living at home now will build a house in some fishes watershed in a few years and negate that release of the wild fish 1000x over.


On me:
I have 10 acres set aside all riparian and have restored 2200 feet of Salmon bearing creek with only natural plants. I am the only one on this watershed that has exceed grazing and farming setbacks as proscribed under the new proposed CAO. The canopy is 142 year old Western red cedars. I have also planted 1500 western red cedars along with 150 firs on my land. My electrical bill is less than $35 per month and iIdo not use propane or natural gas or tother fossil fuels. I am 95% organic and grow or raise %80+ percent of my own food. My garbage total is lest than a cubic foot per week. And my impact on earths environment just by living in America is almost 20x that of the avg. citizen of the world. Meaning even after doing all that I have ipollute earths environment more than most people on the planet.

Very good Rory, keep it up.