[Mb-civic] The Lone State Iconoclast, Bush's Hometown Newspaper, Eloquently and Thoroughly Endorses John Kerry

[Kevin Walz]

The Lone Star Iconoclast is the hometown paper in Crawford, Texas, the 
home of George Bush.



The Lone Star ICONOCLAST
Editorial, Opinion of the Publishers


Kerry Will Restore American Dignity

2004 Iconoclast Presidential Endorsement


  Few Americans would have voted for George W. Bush four years ago if he 
had promised that, as President, he would:


Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset 
fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security 
benefits.


Cut Medicare by 17 percent and reduce veterans' benefits and military 
pay.


Eliminate overtime pay for millions of Americans and raise oil prices 
by 50 percent.


Give tax cuts to businesses that sent American jobs overseas, and, in 
fact, by policy encourage their departure.


Give away billions of tax dollars in government contracts without 
competitive bids to corporations tied to friends.


Involve this country in a deadly and highly questionable war, and take 
a budget surplus and turn it into the worst deficit in the history of 
the United States, creating a debt in just four years that will take 
generations to repay.


These were elements of a hidden agenda that surfaced only after he took 
office.  The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, 
based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda.   
Today, we are endorsing his opponent, John Kerry, based not only on the 
things that Bush has delivered, but also on the vision of a return to 
normality that Kerry says our country needs.


Four items trouble us the most about the Bush administration: his 
initiatives to disable the Social Security system, the deteriorating 
state of the American economy, a dangerous shift away from the basic 
freedoms established by our founding fathers, and his continuous 
mistakes regarding terrorism and Iraq.

President Bush has announced plans to change the Social Security system 
as we know it by privatizing it, which when considering all the 
tangents related to such a change, would put the entire economy in a 
dramatic tailspin.

The Social Security Trust Fund actually lends money to the rest of the 
government in exchange for government bonds, which is how the system 
must work by law, but how do you later repay Social Security while you 
are running a huge deficit? It's impossible, without raising taxes 
sometime in the future or becoming fiscally responsible now. Social 
Security money is being used to escalate our deficit and, at the same 
time, mask a much larger government deficit, instead of paying down the 
national debt, which would be a proper use, to guarantee a future gain.

Privatization is problematic in that it would subject Social Security 
to the ups, downs, and outright crashes of the Stock Market. It would 
take millions in brokerage fees and commissions out of the system, and, 
unless we have assurance that the Ivan Boeskys and Ken Lays of the 
world will be caught and punished as a deterrent, subject both the 
Market and the Social Security Fund to fraud and market manipulation, 
not to mention devastate and ruin multitudes of American families that 
would find their lives lost to starvation, shame, and isolation.

Kerry wants to keep Social Security, which each of us already owns. He 
says that the program is manageable, since it is projected to be 
solvent through 2042, with use of its trust funds. This would give 
ample time to strengthen the economy, reduce the budget deficit the 
Bush administration has created, and, therefore, bolster the program as 
needed to fit ever-changing demographics.

Our senior citizens depend upon Social Security. Bush's answer is 
radical and uncalled for, and would result in chaos as Americans have 
never experienced. Do we really want to risk the future of Social 
Security on Bush by pinning the wheel of uncertainty?

In those dark hours after the World Trade Center attacks, Americans 
rallied together with a new sense of patriotism. We were ready to 
follow Bush's lead through any travail.  He let us down.  When he 
finally emerged from his
hide-outs on remote military bases well after the first crucial hours 
following the attack, he gave sound-bytes instead of solutions.   He 
did not trust us to be ready to sacrifice, build up our public and 
private security infrastructure, or cut down on our energy use to put 
economic pressure on the enemy in all the nations where he hides. He 
merely told us to shop, spend, and pretend nothing was wrong.

Rather than using the billions of dollars expended on the invasion of 
Iraq to shore up our boundaries and go after Osama bin Laden and the 
Saudi Arabian terrorists, the funds were used to initiate a war with 
what Bush called a more immediate menace, Saddam Hussein, in oil-rich 
Iraq. After all, Bush said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction trained 
on America. We believed him, just as we believed it when he reported 
that Iraq was the heart of terrorism. We trusted him.

The Iconoclast, the President's hometown newspaper, took Bush on his 
word and editorialized in favor of the invasion. The newspaper's 
publisher promoted Bush and the invasion of Iraq to Londoners in a BBC 
interview during the time that the administration was wooing the 
support of Prime Minister Tony Blair.  Again, he let us down.  We 
presumed the President had solid proof of the existence of these 
weapons, what and where they were, even as the search continued.  
Otherwise, our troops would be in much greater danger and the premise 
for a hurried-up invasion would be moot, allowing more time to solicit 
assistance from our allies.   Instead we were duped into following yet 
another privileged agenda.  Now he argues unconvincingly that Iraq was 
providing safe harbor to terrorists, his new key justification for the 
invasion. It is like arguing that America provided safe harbor to 
terrorists leading to
9/11.  Once and for all, George Bush was President of the United States 
on that day. No one else. He had been President nine months, he had 
been officially warned of just such an attack a full month before it 
happened. As President, ultimately he and only he was responsible for 
our failure to avert those attacks.  We should expect that a sitting 
President would vacation less, if at all, and instead tend to the 
business of running the country, especially if he is, as he likes to 
boast, a "wartime president."

America is in service 365 days a year. We don't need a part-time 
President who does not show up for duty as Commander-In-Chief until he 
is forced to, and who is in a constant state of blameless denial when 
things don't get done.

  What has evolved from the virtual go-it-alone conquest of Iraq is more 
gruesome than a stain on a White House intern's dress. America's 
reputation and influence in the world has diminished, leaving us with 
brute force as our most persuasive voice.

Iraq is now a quagmire: no WMDs, no substantive link between Saddam and 
Osama, and no workable plan for the withdrawal of our troops. We are 
asked to go along on faith. But remember, blind patriotism can be a 
dangerous hing and "spin" will not bring back to life a dead soldier; 
certainly not a thousand of them.

Kerry has remained true to his vote granting the President the 
authority to use the threat of war to intimidate Saddam Hussein into 
allowing weapons inspections. He believes President Bush rushed into 
war before the inspectors finished their jobs.

Kerry also voted against President Bush's $87 billion for troop funding 
because the bill promoted poor policy in Iraq, privileged Halliburton 
and other corporate friends of the Bush administration to profiteer 
from the war, and forced debt upon future generations of Americans.

  Kerry's four-point plan for Iraq is realistic, wise, strong, and 
correct. With the help from our European and Middle Eastern allies, his 
plan is to train Iraqi security forces, involve Iraqis in their 
rebuilding and constitution-writing processes, forgive Iraq's 
multi-billion dollar debts, and convene a regional conference with 
Iraq's neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq's 
borders and non-interference in Iraq's internal affairs.

The publishers of the Iconoclast differ with Bush on other issues, 
including the denial of stem cell research, shortchanging veterans' 
entitlements, cutting school programs and grants, dictating what our 
children learn through a thought-controlling "test" from Washington 
rather than allowing local school boards and parents to decide how 
young people should be taught, ignoring the environment, and creating 
extraneous language in the Patriot Act that removes some of the very 
freedoms that our founding fathers and generations of soldiers fought 
so hard to preserve.

  We are concerned about the vast exportation of jobs to other 
countries, due in large part to policies carried out by Bush 
appointees. Funds previously geared at retention of small companies are 
being given to larger concerns, such as Halliburton.   Companies with 
strong ties to oil and gas. Job training has been cut every year that 
Bush has resided at the White House.

  Then there is his resolve to inadequately finance Homeland Security 
and to cut the Community Oriented Policing Program (COPS) by 94 
percent, to reduce money for rural development, to slash appropriations 
for the Small Business Administration, and to under-fund veterans' 
programs.

  Likewise troubling is that President Bush fought against the creation 
of the 9/11 Commission and is yet to embrace its recommendations.

Vice President Cheney's Halliburton has been awarded 
multi-billion-dollar contracts without undergoing any meaningful bid 
process an enormous conflict of interest plus the company has been 
significantly raiding the funds of Export-Import Bank of America, 
reducing investment that could have gone toward small business trade.

When examined based on all the facts, Kerry's voting record is enviable 
and echoes that of many Bush allies who are aghast at how the Bush 
administration has destroyed the American economy. Compared to Bush on 
economic issues, Kerry would be an arch-conservative, providing for 
Americans first. He has what it takes to right our wronged economy.

  The re-election of George W. Bush would be a mandate to continue on 
our present course of chaos. We cannot afford to double the debt that 
we already have. We need to be moving in the opposite direction.

  John Kerry has 30 years of experience looking out for the American 
people and can navigate our country back to prosperity and re-instill 
in America the dignity she so craves and deserves. He has served us 
well as a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and has had a successful 
career as a district attorney, lieutenant governor, and senator.

  Kerry has a positive vision for America, plus the proven intelligence, 
good sense, and guts to make it happen.

  That's why The Iconoclast urges Texans not to rate the candidate by 
his hometown or even his political party, but instead by where he 
intends to take the country.

  The Iconoclast wholeheartedly endorses John Kerry.