Questions To Ask

"As Matthew Dowd, polling director at the Republican National Committee, has pointed out, if minorities and whites vote in 2004 as they did in the 2000 election, Democrats will win by 3 million votes, for just that reason. In the long term, unless the GOP can make inroads among minority voters, they'll lose. In 2002, they made essentially no inroads at all. Recall that in the 2000 election, Al Gore got 90 percent of the black vote; in 2002, blacks appear to have voted at similar rates--if not slightly higher--for Democratic congressional and gubernatorial candidates. Hispanic support for Democrats was similarly rock solid, despite strenuous GOP outreach efforts. For example, California governor Gray Davis beat his Republican challenger Bill Simon by 65 to 24 percent among Hispanics--figures essentially identical to those by which Davis beat his 1998 challenger, Dan Lundgren. Nationally, a Greenberg-Quinlan-Rosner poll taken after the 2002 election indicated that Hispanics supported Democrats by 62 to 38 percent, figures nearly identical to 1998 numbers."

"Beyond that, look at the record Bush has amassed on his 2000 campaign promises. "Compassionate conservatism" flummoxed hapless Democrats the first time around, but by now the administration has several years of not-so-compassionate baggage to explain away. And its hard-right policies on the environment, Medicare, Social Security, tax cuts, and Iraq have polarized Democrats against them (so much for being "a uniter not a divider") and alienated moderates and independents--the principal targets of compassionate conservatism in the first place. In other words, a party's policies and track record set real limits to what smartness and toughness can accomplish. The idea that Karl Rove can negate all this simply by waving his magic wand should not be taken seriously by Democrats or anyone else. What the Democrats should take seriously is the need to fight back and fight back hard, so they can exploit the underlying trends that are moving the country in a Democratic direction".

On that fateful day of Sept. 11, 2001, there was a high-level meeting in Washington, D.C., at the Ritz-Carlton between members of The Carlyle Group and the bin Laden family. These bin Laden family members were whisked out of the United States quietly aboard a private charter plane on Sept. 14.

According to the National Law Enforcement and Security Institute, the CIA was staging a simulated terrorist attack on 9/11. This simulation involved airplanes flying into buildings.

Is it possible that the reason that no jets were scrambled for the hijacked airliners was because our military had been advised that such a simulation was taking place? Is this the reason that none of the hijacked planes were intercepted?

Is this why Sept. 11, 2001, was chosen by al-Qaida? Did someone pass this information to someone else who should not have been privy to such? It is obvious that there is something amiss.

Why, on May 1, did George W. mislead the American public by declaring that the terrorist network was weakened and unable to strike us just days before another attack on American interests?

Who is close enough to whisper lying assurances into his ear?

Are our intelligence sources so poorly equipped to understand the threats that are real and should be known and prevented?

Something is not right here and I'm certain that I am not the only person wondering how deeply the secrets are buried. Whose interests are being served at our country's expense?

Go and read this, too:

The Easy Slide to Fascism