TomCatsBox

LONDON (AFP) - An Al-Qaeda terror suspect captured by the United States, who gave evidence of links between

Iraq and the terror network, confessed after being tortured, a journalist told the BBC. Iban al Shakh al Libby told intelligence agents that he was close to Al-Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri and "understood an awful lot about the inner workings of Al-Qaeda," former FBI agent Jack Clonan told the broadcaster.

Libby was tortured in an Egyptian prison, according to Stephen Grey, the author of the newly-released book "Ghost Plane" who investigated the secret US Central Intelligence Agency ( CIA) prisons that housed terror suspects around the world.

US President George W. Bush confirmed the existence of the network of CIA holding facilities overseas during a September 6 speech defending controversial US interrogation practices.

Libby was apparently taken to Cairo, Clonan told the broadcaster, after being captured in Afghanistan in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States.

"He (Libby) claims he was tortured in jail and that would be routine in Egyptian prisons," Grey said.

"What he claimed most significantly was a connection between ... Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. This intelligence report made it all the way to the top, and was used by (former US secretary of state) Colin Powell as a key piece of justification ... for invading Iraq," he told the broadcaster.

Powell claimed in a UN Security Council meeting in February 2003, weeks before a US-led coalition invaded Iraq, that the country under Saddam Hussein had provided weapons training to Al-Qaeda, saying he could "trace the story of a senior terrorist operative", whom Grey alleges is Libby.

"At the time, the caveats to say this intelligence was extracted under torture were not provided," Grey said.

Grey said that, after being held in Egypt, Libby was transferred to a secret CIA facility in Bagram, just north of Afghanistan's capital Kabul. The journalist said he had also met other people held in that facility who describe the torture that Libby faced at the CIA facility…..

Inserted from <http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061027/wl_mideast_afp/usbritainiraqmilitary_061027002757>

Not only is torture morally repugnant, but also, it provides bad intelligence.  Bush's minions tortured a man until he said what Bush wanted to hear, and look at the results.  Thousands of Americans  have lost their sons, daughters, husbands, wives, father and mothers.  Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed.  Our international credibility has be trashed, because Bush launched an unjustified war of aggression.  All of this could have been avoided had Bush not decided that torture is OK.  If this does not make Bush a war criminal, what would?

WASHINGTON, Oct. 26 — If the Nov. 7 election in the United States is a referendum on the Iraq war, what are the choices?

President Bush admitted Wednesday that things were not going as well as he had hoped in Iraq and that he was adjusting tactics on the ground to deal with the continuing military and political problems there. He said his overarching goal — victory — remained unchanged, but he gave no sense of what it would take to achieve it.

Democratic leaders and candidates are virtually unanimous in opposing the president’s conduct of the war, and most advocate American disengagement — either quickly or slowly. But most are not calling for an immediate withdrawal of American forces or offering a vision of what postwar Iraq should look like. They say they stand for change, but the variety of formulations is dizzying.

Inserted from <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/27/washington/27policy.html>

What to do about Iraq is certainly a problem, and the GOP frequently condemns the Democrats, because they have no plan for Iraq.  That's just spin.  The Democrats have a bunch of competing plans.  Certainly attacking Iraq was a mistake.  Certainly the Bush regime had no plan to win the peace.  They could not see beyond grabbing the oil, what this war was really all about.  Certainly Bush took a situation that was bad, but stable (Saddam in control) and changed it to one that is worse and totally unstable (civil war).  Some say we should just get out, and their idea has merit, because we have spent far too much on Bush's war in lives and treasure, and our presence is a magnet for recruiting new terrorists.  Some say we should stay and change tactics, and their idea has merit because we have an ethical obligation to try to fix what we have broken.  A Democrat victory would result in a heated debate on what to do.  I think honest debate will be a big improvement over the GOP web of spin and lies.

The war for control of the House and Senate continues to escalate. “You can’t say I want to win the war but not be willing to fight the war,” Karl Rove told the Washington Post Sunday.

But that’s only half the story. A 2002 overhaul of campaign law shifted ad-financing contributions to independent groups — and these groups are more likely to air negative campaign ads. In this new landscape, nearly $60 million has been spent on a massive stockpile of television artillery. The pageant of grotesqueries is entertaining eyeballs all over the InterTubes, as with the ones in this round-up of nasty Senate ads. Below are four even-nastier ads for tight House races — plus an update on the nastiest Senate race of all.

Inserted from <http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2006/10/23/5-more-nasty-campaigns/>

To view the ads, click the link.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 26 — When an advertisement mocking Representative Harold E. Ford Jr. set off controversy in the Tennessee Senate race last week, a question quickly arose: Who was behind the provocative and, critics said, racially loaded television spot?

No Republicans wanted to take credit. When the identity of the producer, Scott Howell, emerged, Democrats quickly pounced on his history of bare-knuckled tactics and close relationship with Karl Rove as evidence of a familiar Republican approach…..

Inserted from <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/27/us/politics/27ads.html>

And Bush has been accusing Democrats for partisan tactics.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 26 — The divisive debate over gay marriage, which played a prominent role in 2004 campaigns but this year largely faded from view, erupted anew on Thursday as President Bush and Republicans across the country tried to use a court ruling in New Jersey to rally dispirited conservatives to the polls.

Wednesday’s ruling, in which the New Jersey Supreme Court decided that gay couples are entitled to the same legal rights and financial benefits as heterosexual couples, had immediate ripple effects, especially in Senate races in some of the eight states where voters are considering constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage.

President Bush put a spotlight on the issue while campaigning in Iowa, which does not have a proposal on the ballot. With the Republican House candidate, Jeff Lamberti, by his side, Mr. Bush — who has not been talking about gay marriage in recent weeks — took pains to insert a reference into his stump speech warning that Democrats would raise taxes and make America less safe.

“Yesterday in New Jersey, we had another activist court issue a ruling that raises doubts about the institution of marriage,” Mr. Bush said at a luncheon at the Iowa State Fairgrounds that raised $400,000 for Mr. Lamberti.

Inserted from <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/27/us/politics/27marriage.html>

My personal view is that freedoms should be restricted only when behavior interferes with the rights of another.  What a couple, regardless of its composition, does in the privacy of their own bedroom interferes with nobody.  Therefore I think that gay and lesbian couples should have the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples.  Whether it is called a marriage or a union is irrelevant.

IN 1985, THE FORBES 400 were worth $221 billion combined. Today, they’re worth $1.13 trillion—more than the GDP of Canada.

THERE’VE BEEN FEW new additions to the Forbes 400. The median household income has also stagnated—at around $44,000.

AMONG THE FORBES 400 who gave to a 2004 presidential campaign, 72% gave to Bush.

IN 2005, there were 9 million American millionaires, a 62% increase since 2002.

IN 2005, 25.7 million Americans received food stamps, a 49% increase since 2000.

ONLY ESTATES worth more than $1.5 million are taxed. That’s less than 1% of all estates. Still, repealing the estate tax will cost the government at least $55 billion a year.

ONLY 3% OF STUDENTS at the top 146 colleges come from families in the bottom income quartile; only 10% come from the bottom half.

BUSH’S TAX CUTS GIVE a 2-child family earning $1 million an extra $86,722—or Harvard tuition, room, board, and an iMac G5 for both kids.

A 2-CHILD family earning $50,000 gets $2,050—or 1/5 the cost of public college for one kid.

THIS YEAR, Donald Trump will earn $1.5 million an hour to speak at Learning Annex seminars.

ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION, the federal minimum wage has fallen 42% since its peak in 1968.

IF THE $5.15 HOURLY minimum wage had risen at the same rate as CEO compensation since 1990, it would now stand at $23.03.

A MINIMUM WAGE employee who works 40 hours a week for 51 weeks a year goes home with $10,506 before taxes.

SUCH A WORKER would take 7,000 years to earn Oracle CEO Larry Ellison’s yearly compensation.

ELLISON RECENTLY posed in Vanity Fair with his $300 million, 454-foot yacht, which he noted is “really only the size of a very large house.”

ONLY THE WEALTHIEST 20% of Americans spend more on entertainment than on health care.

THE $17,530 EARNED by the average Wal-Mart employee last year was $1,820 below the poverty line for a family of 4.

5 OF AMERICA’S 10 richest people are Wal-Mart heirs.

PUBLIC COMPANIES spend 10% of their earnings compensating their top 5 executives.....

Inserted from <http://www.motherjones.com/news/exhibit/2006/05/perks_of_privilege.html>

Isn't it time for regime change?

Microsoft is heralding the launch of Internet Explorer 7 as a success, announcing that the new browser has been downloaded three million times in the first four days. Early next month, customers will begin receiving IE7 automatically, at which time adoption numbers will likely skyrocket.

Inserted from <http://www.betanews.com/article/3_Million_IE7_Downloads_in_4_Days/1161804781>

There is a massive concentration of US naval power in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea. Two US naval strike groups are deployed: USS Enterprise, and USS Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group. The naval strike groups have been assigned to fighting the "global war on terrorism." 

The US is also involved in military exercises in the Persian Gulf.  

Tehran considers the US war games to be conducted in the Persian Gulf, off the Iranian coastline as a provocation, which is intended to trigger a potential crisis and a situation of direct confrontation between US and Iranian naval forces in the Persian Gulf:

"Reports say the US-led naval exercises based near Bahrain will practise intercepting and searching ships carrying weapons of mass destruction and missiles.

Iran's official news agency IRNA quoted an unnamed foreign ministry official as describing the military manoeuvres as dangerous and suspicious.

Reports say the US-led naval exercises based near Bahrain will practise intercepting and searching ships carrying weapons of mass destruction and missiles.

The Iranian foreign ministry official said the US-led exercises were not in line with the security and stability of the region. Instead, they are aimed at fomenting crises, he said." (quoted in BBC, 23 October 2006) 

Inserted from <http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20061024&articleId=3593>

Is Bush hoping this powder keg he has caused will be set off on election eve?  Has he already planned a conflict?  I don't know about you, but this scares me.

 <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/10/25/nevada-gop-candidate-accu_n_32437.html>

“Water-boarding, in my opinion, would cause extreme physical and psychological pain and suffering, and it very much could run afoul of the War Crimes Act. It could very much open people up to prosecution under the War Crimes Act, as well as be a violation of the Detainees Treatment Act.” — Republican Senator Lindsay Graham

Inserted from <http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/?p=644>

Vice President Cheney has confirmed that the administration waterboards its detainees, defending the practice as a “no brainer”:

“The fact is, you can have a fairly robust interrogation program without torture.”

Pasted from <http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/?p=643>

It seems the GOP is trying to claim both sides of the issue.  Which is lying?

The CIA tried to persuade Germany to silence European Union protests about the human rights record of one of the United States''s key allies in its clandestine torture flights programme, the Guardian reported.

According to a secret intelligence report, the CIA offered to let Germany have access to one of its citizens, an al-Qaeda suspect being held in a Moroccan cell. But the US secret agents demanded that in return, Berlin should cooperate and "avert pressure from EU" over human rights abuses in the North African country. The report describes Morocco as a "valuable partner in the fight against terrorism".

Inserted from <http://www.mediafax.ro/english/articole-free/CIA-Tried-To-Silence-EU-On-Torture-Flights-566791-9.html>

Have they no shame?

A nonprofit group has filed a complaint asking the Internal Revenue Service to investigate the role that two churches may have played in the re-election campaign of Kansas’ attorney general.

The complaint by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonpartisan legal watchdog organization, cited a memorandum from the attorney general, Phill Kline, a Republican, directing members of his campaign staff to recruit churches to distribute campaign literature and serve as the sites for events.

“This is the top law enforcement official in the state who is encouraging everyone to break the law,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the watchdog group. “He’s either abysmally unfamiliar with the law, or he’s deliberately violating it.”

A spokeswoman for Mr. Kline, Sherriene Jones, did not return calls to her office.

In his memorandum, Mr. Kline identified two Topeka churches, the Light of the World Christian Center and the Wanamaker Woods Church of the Nazarene, which he said had participated in “lit drops” by handing out campaign literature. A woman who answered the telephone at Wanamaker Woods Church said the church had no comment.

The Rev. Greg Varney, pastor of Light of the World Christian Center, issued a statement saying that Mr. Kline had preached at the church on July 9, but insisting that no illegal activity had occurred. “At no time here at our church did Phill bring up politics, re-election or campaign contributions,” the statement said.

Mark W. Everson, the commissioner of the I.R.S., has repeatedly warned that the agency will crack down on religious organizations that violate laws barring charities of any type from involvement in partisan political activities.

This election cycle, additional accusations of such violations have been made against religious organizations in California, Minnesota, Missouri and Ohio.

Whether the I.R.S. has responded to those complaints is unknown; the agency is barred by law from disclosing its investigations.

All Saints Church, an Episcopal congregation in Pasadena, Calif., has said it was under investigation, but no other church named in complaints that have become public has acknowledged an I.R.S. inquiry.

Despite a report last year by the Treasury Department’s inspector general that concluded political considerations had played no role in the I.R.S.’s selection of nonprofit groups for review, the agency’s silence regarding its investigations has led to accusations of political bias.

“From what we know, the I.R.S. has gone after liberal organizations primarily, the N.A.A.C.P. and the liberal church in California,” Ms. Sloan said, referring to the inquiry into All Saints Church. An I.R.S. investigation of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People was closed with no finding of wrongdoing.

“Clearly, there are violations on the conservative side, and no action appears to be taken.” Ms. Sloan said. “If they’re being even-handed,” she added, “I certainly can’t tell.”

Inserted from <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/26/washington/26church.html>

If churches' are to be investigated by the IRS, there must be no bias in how it is done.

Senior Bush administration officials wanted North Korea to test a nuclear weapon because it would prove their point that the regime must be overthrown.

This astonishing revelation was buried in the middle of a Washington Post story published yesterday. Glenn Kessler reports from Moscow as he accompanies Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice:

Before North Korea announced it had detonated a nuclear device, some senior officials even said they were quietly rooting for a test, believing that would finally clarify the debate within the administration.

Until now, no U.S. official in any administration has ever advocated the testing of nuclear weapons by another country, even by allies such as the United Kingdom and France.

One of these officials may have been Rice herself, Kessler hints. Rice, he reports, “has come close to saying the test was a net plus for the United States.” Rice has been trying to counter the prevailing view that the test was a failure of the Bush administration’s policy.

A factual timeline of the North Korean program traces how policies of containment and engagement slowed and stopped the program, while threats of regime change increased the dangers. The two key failures were the choice to focus on overthrowing the government in Pyongyang rather than stopping the nuclear program, and the invasion of Iraq which distracted U.S. attention from the real nuclear dangers and propelled both North Korea and Iran to accelerate their programs.

Inserted from <http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/23/north-korea-nuclear-rooting/>

I'm truly shocked at this.  That Bush's minions were hoping that a rogue state would test a nuclear weapon, so they could try to use it for political advantage, is unconscionable.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/43395/

BAGHDAD, Oct. 24 — In trying to build support for the American strategy in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey Jr. said Tuesday that the Iraqi military could be expected to take over the primary responsibility for securing the country within 12 to 18 months.

But that laudable goal seems far removed from the violence-plagued streets of Iraq’s capital, where American forces have taken the lead in trying to protect the city and American soldiers substantially outnumber Iraqi ones.

Given the rise in sectarian killings, a Sunni-based insurgency that appears to be as potent as ever and an Iraqi security establishment that continues to have difficulties deploying sufficient numbers of motivated and proficient forces in Baghdad, General Casey’s target seems to be an increasingly heroic assumption.

On paper, Iraq has substantial security forces. The Pentagon noted in an August report to Congress that Iraq had more than 277,000 troops and police officers, including some 115,000 army combat soldiers.

But those figures, which have often been cited at Pentagon news conferences as an indicator of progress and a potential exit strategy for American troops, paint a distorted picture. When the deep-seated reluctance of many soldiers to serve outside their home regions, leaves of absence and AWOL rates are taken into account, only a portion of the Iraqi Army is readily available for duty in Baghdad and other hot spots.

The fact that the Ministry of Defense has sent only two of the six additional battalions that American commanders have requested for Baghdad speaks volumes about the difficulty the Iraqi government has encountered in fielding a professional military. The four battalions that American commanders are still waiting for is equivalent to 2,800 soldiers, hardly a large commitment in the abstract but one that the Iraqis are still struggling to meet.

Inserted from <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/25/world/middleeast/25assess.html>

Extending the math, American commanders requested 4,200 Iraqi troops, and Iraq could only rovide 1,400.  Isn't it obvious that Casey was following orders to lay a smoke screen for Bush, when he said 12 - 18 months?

Among the worst impressions the Securities and Exchange Commission could foster is that it pulls punches on delicate matters involving the rich, powerful and politically connected. Now two Senate committees are investigating whether the commission staff, rather than doggedly pursuing possible insider trading by the hedge fund Pequot Capital Management, held back when it came to taking the testimony of a prominent Wall Street player.

A commission investigator, Gary Aguirre, sought permission from higher-ups to question John Mack, who had briefly worked at Pequot, about his dealings with Pequot’s founder, Arthur Samberg. As Walt Bogdanich and Gretchen Morgenson reported in The Times on Sunday, the tone of the inquiry shifted drastically once it came to light that Mr. Mack was being considered for the job of chief executive at Morgan Stanley.

A supervisor then wrote about Mr. Mack’s “juice” and “political clout” in internal e-mail messages. Mr. Aguirre was not permitted to interview Mr. Mack and ultimately was fired — immediately after receiving a merit-based pay raise...... [emphasis added]

Inserted from <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/25/opinion/25wed2.html>

Washington, DC - Today, President Bush will make remarks on the economy while visiting the Urban Trust Bank in Washington, DC. The President continues to deceive Americans when he says that the economy is growing stronger, as he fails to mention that the Bush Economy continues to benefit only the wealthiest Americans. By citing growth in the stock market, he ignores the fact that 10 percent of Americans own 80 percent of all stocks. [Economic Policy Institute, 10/11/06]

Under President Bush's misguided leadership, median household income for American workers has decreased by $1,300, with full-time workers suffering the most from these failed policies. Millions more Americans have also joined the ranks of the uninsured during the Bush Presidency. In 2000, 39.8 million Americans were uninsured, while that number rose to 46.6 million in 2005. [U.S. Census; Kaiser Family Foundation] Bush and his Republican allies have also refused to raise the minimum wage while voting to increase their own salaries. President Bush's handling of America's finances is not any better, having turned record surpluses into record deficits.

"The Bush Economy continues to help only those at the top of the economic ladder while ignoring the millions of hard-working Americans who are holding the ladder steady," said Democratic National Committee Press Secretary Stacie Paxton. "From declining incomes and record deficits, to the millions of Americans who have become uninsured, the Republican economic record is one of deficits, deceit and divisiveness. Democrats remain committed to middle class tax fairness and pro-growth policies that create good jobs here in America. America's working families cannot afford more failed Republican leadership on the economy."

Household Income Declined By Nearly $1,300 Under Bush; Wage And Salary Increases Don't Cover Inflation. Although median household income increased by $509 last year, median household income has declined by $1,273 under the Bush Administration. And the failure of wage and salary increases to cover inflation has meant a real reduction of median income between 2000 and 2005 of 2.7 percent for households. [U.S. Census Bureau, 8/29/06; Table A-1; Center for American Progress, 8/29/06]

Inserted from <http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/releases/053>

Congressional candidate Tan Nguyen personally bought the list of voters to whom a racially charged letter was mailed, warning that immigrants could be jailed or deported for voting, according to the president of the company that sold the list and sources familiar with the still-unfolding investigation.

Nguyen requested information on registered Democrats in the central Orange County Congressional district with Spanish surnames who were born outside the United States, according to people familiar with a state investigation into the letter. Nguyen, a Republican, is running an underdog campaign against Democratic incumbent Loretta Sanchez.

"The only thing I can really say is, the candidate purchased the data, which he had a legal right to do, and if he went and did something illegal with it, he's going to have to answer for it," said Jim Hayes, president of Burbank-based Political Data Inc., the largest voter information broker in the state. Hayes met with investigators and provided them with the same information last week, sources said.

Nguyen, who has drawn national scorn for his campaign's role in the mailing, maintains that he had nothing to do with the letter's production or distribution, saying a campaign office manager misappropriated the list. Nguyen fired the worker last week but said Sunday that he had offered to rehire her because he came to believe that the letter was accurate and did not violate the law.

Separately, sources have told The Times that a Los Angeles Police Department officer who is close to Nguyen used an alias to order the letter produced and then paid $4,000 for it on his credit card….. [emphasis added]

Inserted from <http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-letter24oct24,0,4709363.story?coll=la-home-headlines>

This is typical of the dirty tricks that the GOP embraces at election time.  I'm sure we can expect many more.

by Dave Lindorff, co-author of "The Case for Impeachment"

The Bush administration, losing the war in Iraq, has come up with a "new" strategy: setting a timetable for Iraq's puppet regime and its fledgling army to "stand up" to the task of running the country so that the U.S. military can "stand down."

If you think this brilliant "new" plan sounds remarkably like the one proposed earlier this year by many Democrats, who were accused at that time of "cutting and running" for proposing just such a withdrawal timetable, you're right.

It also sounds like yet another one of those Bush/Rove scams that are pulled out at each election to trick gullible voters into thinking the president is actually going to do something dramatic when he is really just talking. The truth is, this plan is no more serious than Bush's early announcement of a plan to send Americans to the moon and on to Mars.

That plan, of course, was a joke from the start. The president didn't offer any money for a Moon or Mars project, and never had any intention of doing so. It was just more of the same at NASA, blowing money on the giant white elephant in the sky called the International Space Station. And of course, we don't hear anything about Mars anymore.

The new Iraq plan being touted by the administration, which notably involves doing nothing for a year, and then calls for a phased drawdown of U.S. troops over subsequent years, basically shoves off any significant change in Iraq until after Bush is safely out of office and holed up somewhere in Paraguay, behind a barricade of defense lawyers.

On its face, this "new" plan also would require remarkable cooperation and forbearance on the part of the Iraqi resistance, which has shown no inclination to ease up on its attacks on U.S. forces and on Iraq's puppet regime, and which moreover has no incentive to ease up, since it is the resistance's increasing success at attacking and killing Americans that is driving the administration to talk about withdrawal.

What we actually have here is an election gambit: if the administration tells the voters that it is changing course and making plans to get out of the quagmire in Iraq, maybe at least some voters will reward them by voting for embattled Republican congressional candidates.

But it is in fact all just a scam.....

Inserted from <http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/498>

The only new strategy here is that the Chickenhawk-in-Chief is trying a different spin as an election strategy.

We have heard endless commentary from main line pundits about how the Democratic Party lacks a coherent program going into the 2006-midterm elections. This criticism may be valid, but Democratic promises are not any more worthy of attention than the actual governing record of the Republican Party. Republicans who plan to go to the polls and sheepishly cast their votes for their party's standard bearers on November 7th should ask themselves: What are we voting for?

Here are some possible answers:

The "Fiscally Conservative" Republicans will be voting for record budget deficits and a national debt of some $8 trillion.

The "Libertarian" Republicans will be voting for run away government power over individual rights in the form of NSA wiretaps, secret prisons, and the suspension of habeas corpus.

The "Small Government" Republicans will be voting in favor of a greatly expanded federal bureaucracy. (The 2003 changes in Medicare alone will add over $720 billion in government spending; and the "No Child Left Behind" law has infused the federal government into areas that had been previously left to the states.)

The "Ross Perot" Republicans -- who warned us about the "great sucking sound" that "free trade" agreements would create by vacuuming up good American jobs and exporting them to Mexico or China -- will be voting in favor of tax credits to corporations to encourage such outsourcing.

The "Law and Order" Republicans will be endorsing disgraced GOP officials such as "Duke" Cunningham, Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay, Bob Ney, Ralph Reed, David Safavian, Michael Scanlon, Curt Weldon, and many others.

The "Strong on National Defense" Republicans will be voting for a party that dragged us into a nearly four-year occupation of Iraq that has weakened the Army and the Reserves, cost the lives of 2,800 American soldiers, (with 20,000 wounded), and has tied down U.S. forces while other crises are developing in the Middle East and Northeast Asia.

The "Personal Responsibility" Republicans will be giving a vote of confidence to an administration and a party that refuse to accept any responsibility for their many missteps or to hold anyone accountable.

The "Family Values" Republicans will be voting for the political party that allowed a pedophile, Representative Mark Foley of Florida, to prey freely on underage male Congressional pages for over a decade.

The "Private Sector" Republicans who seek to bring business "efficiency" to government will be supporting one of the most inefficient and wasteful administrations in U.S. history, illustrated by its dismal response to Hurricane Katrina.

The "Log Cabin" Republicans will be endorsing a party that has consistently singled out gays and lesbians for open attacks on their civil rights.

The "Soccer Mom" Republicans who value education will be voting for under-funded, dilapidated schools. And the "Nascar Dad" Republicans will be voting for a more polluted environment for their hunting and fishing.

Finally, the Republicans who honor decency and fairness in our political discourse will be voting in favor of Karl Rove's smear tactics, and his underhanded techniques to fool voters and suppress their democratic right to vote.

Inserted from <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/what-republicans-will-be-_b_32306.html>