"You can't trust Republicans to defend America. Today we only heard more of the same propaganda from a desperate Bush Administration worried more about its party's political prospects this fall than about how to protect America and fight and win the real war on terror. It's results that matter, and the Bush White House and its rubber-stamp Republicans in Congress have not produced results when it comes to keeping America safe. President Bush said we must be patient and have resolve. The American people have been patient. We have resolve and we are patriotic Americans who because of our patriotism call on this president to change course in Iraq, face the facts on the ground, and focus on the real war on terror. This president's foreign policies have failed. Iraq is sliding into civil war. Iran and North Korea are more dangerous than they were before Bush took office. The Taliban is coming back to Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden is still on the loose. Yet, Republicans refuse to live up to their responsibility for the fact that under their watch, America is less safe at home and around the world. Americans are looking for new leadership and a new direction in America's foreign policy that's both tough and smart."

Again, thanks to everyone, and we hope to see even more people at our next event at the Cavalier on September 18 at 5:30 P.M.

Fabio Burgos, Chair
La Crosse County Democratic Party

Appearing on stage with Sweeney were Tom Buffenbarger, the president of the International Association of Machinists, and James Williams, president of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades. Both indicated the importance of the midterm elections,

09.07.2006 The cat calls surrounding ABC's "The Path to 9/11" continue to grow louder. Not only is the network under fire for legitimate questions about the veracity of the primetime mini-series, which apparently goes to significant lengths to pin the blame of 9/11 on the Clinton administration, but ABC itself has failed to answer questions about the dubious way it has arranged for conservative partisans to view the program prior to air date (which has allowed them to cheerlead the movie online and on talk radio), yet Democratic activists have been stiff-armed. My own numerous calls to ABC's publicist requesting a screening copy of "The Path to 9/11" have been ignored. Even former President Bill Clinton's request for a DVD has gone unheeded by ABC. But now comes the revelation that ABC has teamed up with education publishing giant Scholastic to spread misinformation about Iraq and Bush's War on Terrorism to millions of American high school students; students who might take part in ABC's sponsored teach-in surrounding "The Path to 9/11," which airs Sept. 10-11. Looking at the clear anti- Clinton factual errors included in the mini-series as well as the clear pro-Bush factual errors included in the classroom text, it's hard to pass the pair off as a coincidence. As Media Matters for America first reported, the ABC and Scholastic-produced "Discussion Guide for the Classroom" that provides background information to students about 9/11 and the Middle East, is "rife with conservative misinformation." For instance, there's this reference to the invasion of Iraq: The dictatorial government of Saddam Hussein was overthrown in 2003, following an invasion led by the United States.The U.S. government believed that Hussein had been developing weapons of mass destruction that he planned to use against American and other targets. That's it, period. No mention of the glaringly obvious point that no WMD's were ever found in Iraq and that the Bush administration entire rationale for war turned out to be a fallacy. Yet this slick classroom guide is supposed to help 16, 17, and 18-year-olds better understand American history? And there's this: Bush has led the United States into Afghanistan and Iraq and reorganized the national government in an attempt to combat terrorist activity. The classroom guide for "The Path to 9/11" clearly ties the attacks of Sept. 11, the Taliban and Iraq all together. In fact, the Scholastic text states at the very beginning: The information below will help you become familiar with the people, places, and organizations that played a role in the events of 9/11 and those that led up to that tragic day. But what does Iraq have to do with the events "that led up to that tragic day"? The answer, of course, is nothing. But that doesn't stop Scholastics from informing students: Following are short descriptions of some of the countries [i.e. Iraq] and groups that were involved in some way with the terrorist attacks. [Emphasis added.] Read more at Media Matters. Say this about ABC, it is ambitious. Its effort to mislead people about 9/11 extends beyond American households and reaches into high school classrooms nationwide.

August 30, 2006 Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said that critics of the Bush Administration's Iraq and counterterrorism policies were trying to appease "a new type of fascism." In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld portrayed the Administration's critics as suffering from "moral or intellectual confusion" about what threatens the nation's security. [AP, 8/29/06] However, it's clear that if anyone's confused about what's happening in Iraq, it's Rumsfeld. As violence continues to surge, US Marines are involuntarily recalled to duty, and the country teeters on the brink of civil war, it's apparent that Rumsfeld has blithely forgotten his previous statements about the nature of the conflict. EASY WAR RUMSFELD SAID IT WOULD BE AN EASY WAR... 2002: Rumsfeld Says "The Idea That It's Going to Be A Long, Long, Battle Is Belied by What Happened in 1990." "The Iraqi Army knows what kind of a regime Saddam Hussein is running," Donald Rumsfeld said. "They know what the damage that's done to the people of Iraq. They know the truth that the United States of America doesn't covet the land of any other country...I think that there would be -- in fact, there was one instance where hundreds and hundreds of Iraqi soldiers surrendered to a journalist who didn't even have a gun. So, the idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind, I think, is belied by what happened in 1990." [Steve Croft Interview with Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02] 2002: Rumsfeld Says Iraqis Would Start Singing and Flying Kites After Liberation. "Think of the faces in Afghanistan when the people were liberated, when they moved out in the streets and they started singing and flying kites and women went to school and people were able to function and other countries were able to start interacting with them. That's what would happen in Iraq." [Media Roundtable, 9/13/02] 2003: Rumsfeld "Doubts" the War Will Last Six Months. During a town hall meeting with troops, Rumsfeld said that if the US went to war in Iraq, although "it is not knowable if force will be used, but if it is to be used, it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." [Town Hall Meeting, 2/7/03] BUT 2,637 US TROOPS ARE DEAD AND NUMBER OF TROOPS IN IRAQ IS UP Since the Beginning of the War in Iraq, 2,637 US Troops Have Died And 19,323 Have Been Wounded. [www.icasualties.org, accessed 8/30/06] Bush Approves Involuntary Call-Ups For the Marine Corps, Ordering Thousands Back to Active Duty. "The Marine Corps said Tuesday that it would begin calling Marines back to active-duty service on an involuntary basis to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan -- the latest sign that the American force is under strain... the Iraq war has forced the Army, and now the Marines, to rely on the ready reserve to fill holes in the combat force." The call-ups were approved by President Bush. [Los Angeles Times, 8/23/06; Reuters, 8/22/06] Involuntary Call-Ups Supplemented By Stop-Loss Orders That Keep Soldiers On Active Duty Even After Their Commitment Is Complete. "For much of the conflict, the Army also has had to use "stop-loss orders" -- which keep soldiers in their units even after their active-duty commitments are complete -- as well as involuntary call-ups of its reservists. Both actions have been criticized as a "back-door draft" and are unpopular with service members, many of whom say they have already done their part." [Los Angeles Times, 8/23/06] WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION RUMSFELD SAID IRAQ HAD WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION... 2002: Rumsfeld Said Only Conclusion Possible Was That Iraq Was Accelerating WMD Programs. Rumsfeld told the House Armed Services Committee in 2002, "Knowing what we know about Iraq's history, no conclusion is possible except that they have and are accelerating their WMD programs." [House Armed Services Committee Hearing, 9/17/02] 2003: Rumsfeld Said "We Know Where" The WMD Are. In an interview with George Stephanopoulos, when asked why the military had not found Iraq's weapons of mass destruction yet, Rumsfeld said, "We know where [the WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." [ABC, 3/30/03] BUT HE WAS WRONG Saddam Did Not Have Chief Requirements For Nuclear Weapons. The Washington Post reported that Hussein did not have the principal requirement for a nuclear weapon, a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium or plutonium. And the U.S. government, authoritative intelligence officials said, had only circumstantial evidence that Iraq was trying to obtain those materials. Inspectors in postwar Iraq "found the former nuclear weapons program, described as a 'grave and gathering danger' by President Bush and a 'mortal threat' by Vice President Cheney, in much the same shattered state left by U.N. inspectors in the 1990s." [Washington Post, 8/10/03, 1/7/04] 2001 CIA Report Said Iraq Was Not Reconstituting WMD Programs. According to an unclassified CIA report sent to Congress in February 2001, Iraq was not reconstituting its WMD programs. The report explicitly said, "We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its WMD programs..." [Defense Daily, 2/27/01] Rumsfeld Says That "It Turns Out" There Were No Weapons Of Mass Destruction. Rumsfeld stated that "It turns out that we have not found weapons of mass destruction." [AP 10/4/04] NUMBER OF TROOPS NEEDED IN IRAQ RUMSFELD SAID WE HAD ENOUGH TROOPS... June 2003: Rumsfeld Says Army's Estimates of Troops Needed For Post-War Iraq Were Too High. Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz criticized the Army's chief of staff, General Eric Shinseki, after Shinseki told Congress in February 2003 that the occupation could require "several hundred thousand troops." Wolfowitz called Shinseki's estimate "wildly off the mark." [USA Today, 6/2/03] June 2005: Rumsfeld Claims He's Always Recommended The Number Of Troops Asked For By Generals. Asked by the Senate Armed Services Committee about the level of troops in Iraq Rumfeld replied that, "The number we have is the number they've [Generals] asked for, the number they have is the number I've agreed with, the number they have is the number I've recommended to the President. . . . I think we're about right." [Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing, 6/23/05] BUT HE WAS WRONG Bremer Said "We Never Had Enough Troops" In Iraq. Bremer: "We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," he said in a speech at an insurance conference in West Virginia. "We never had enough troops on the ground." [Washington Post, 10/5/04] Pengaton Official: Rumsfeld Not Interested In Any Requests For More Troops. "The Pentagon official said Abizaid, who is regarded as more independent than his predecessor, Gen. Tommy Franks, has been repeatedly discouraged from asking for more soldiers because President Bush has publicly pledged to bring 25,000 troops home from Iraq before the November elections. 'Rumsfeld has made it clear to the whole building that he wasn't interested in getting any requests for more troops,' the Pentagon official said." Rumsfeld repeatedly said he thought no increase in end-strength was needed. [Seattle Times, 4/13/04; Weekly Standard, 1/17/05] Rumsfeld And Wolfowitz Scoffed At Chief Of Staff's Troop Level Estimate. Both Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz took exception with an estimate for postwar troop requirements from Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, the Army's chief of staff. Shinseki told the Senate Armed Services Committee that "something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" could be necessary. Rumsfeld, speaking to reporters yesterday at the Pentagon, said he believed Shinseki's estimate "will prove to be high," but declined to say by how much. Wolfowitz was far more blunt in testimony Thursday before the House Budget Committee when asked to comment on Shinseki's estimate. "Way off the mark," he said. [Washington Post, 3/1/03] CIVIL WAR AND INSURGENCY RUMSFELD SAYS THERE IS NO CIVIL WAR... Rumsfeld Says There Is Violence, But No Civil War. When asked whether Iraq was fighting a civil war, Rumsfeld said, "There's no question there's a high level of sectarian violence...[which is] a shame...But it -- the people who look at it contend that they're not in it, and the government of Iraq says they're not in a civil war..." [Department of Defense News Briefing, 8/22/06] Rumsfeld Agrees With Cheney That The Insurgency Is In Its Last Throes. When asked if he agreed with Cheney's assessment that the insurgency is in its "last throes" Rumsfeld replied that "last throes could be violent last throes just as well as placid or calm . . . look it up in the dictionary." While backing away from the implication of Cheney's comments that Iraq is getting safer, Rumsfeld continued to toe the party line by agreeing that the insurgency is in some form of "last throes." [Fox News Sunday, 6/26/05] BUT EXPERTS DISAGREE Administration's Failure To Plan For Post-War Iraq Aided Insurgency. The Bush Administration's failure to plan adequately for the postwar period has been well documented. The Pentagon, for example, ignored extensive State Department studies of how to achieve stability after an invasion, administer a postwar government and rebuild the country. And Administration officials have acknowledged the mistake of dismantling the Iraqi army and canceling pensions to its veteran officers -- which many say hindered security, enhanced anti-U.S. feeling and aided what would later become a violent insurgency. [Washington Post, 6/12/05] Generals Raised Fears Of Iraq Civil War. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on August 3, 2006, Generals Abizaid and Pace both expressed fears that Iraq was headed towards a civil war. Responding to questions about escalations in violence in recent weeks, General John Abizaid admitted that "Iraq could move toward civil war." He described the sectarian violence as "probably as bad as I have seen it[.]" Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff concurred with Abizaid's assessment that Iraq was in danger of civil war on its current path. Pace said at the hearing, "We do have the possibility of that devolving into civil war." While Pace indicated that he did not see this path developing one year ago, Abizaid admitted that the trend has been consistent, saying that it was obvious one year ago that sectarian violence was on the rise. [AP, 8/3/06] Former Iraqi Interim Prime Minister Said Iraq Was In Civil War. Iyad Allawi former Interim Iraqi Prime Minister and leader of the Iraqi National List a secular nationalist party made up of Sunnis and Shiites said that Iraq was already in a civil war. Allawi said, "It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is." [BBC, 3/19/06] Experts Say Iraq Has Been In A Civil War Since 2004. "'By the standard that political scientists use, there's been a civil war going on in Iraq since sovereignty was handed over to the interim government in 2004, said Stanford University's James Fearon...American military analyst Stephen Biddle says U.S. policy-makers make a mistake if they 'miss the nature of the conflict, which in Iraq is already a civil war between rival ethnic and sectarian groups.'" [AP, 3/15/06; Los Angeles Times, 2/25/06; Washington Times, 3/15/06] PLANNING FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ RUMSFELD FAILED TO PLAN FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ... Joint Chiefs Report: Planning Process Flawed And Rushed. In August 2003, the Joint Chiefs of Staff prepared a report assessing the post-war planning for Iraq. The report blamed "setbacks in Iraq on a flawed and rushed war-planning process." It also said "planners were not given enough time" to plan for reconstruction. [Washington Times, 9/3/03] Generals Admit Bush Administration Never Had Concrete Plan for Post-War Iraq. Bush administration officials and military personnel admitted that there was never a real plan for post-war Iraq operations. Posed with the question of whether the Army had an outlined plan for peacekeeping in Iraq, V Corps Commander Lt. Gen. William Wallace said "Well, we're making this up here as we go along." A former-senior administration official said, "There was no real planning for postwar Iraq." Knight Ridder reported, "The disenchanted U.S. officials today think the failure of the Pentagon civilians to develop such detailed plans contributed to the chaos in post- Saddam Iraq. 'We could have done so much better,' lamented a former senior Pentagon official, who is still a Defense Department adviser." [Newsweek, 7/21/03; Knight Ridder, 7/12/03] Administration's Failure To Plan Well Documented. The Bush administration's failure to plan adequately for the postwar period has been well documented. The Pentagon, for example, ignored extensive State Department studies of how to achieve stability after an invasion, administer a postwar government and rebuild the country. And administration officials have acknowledged the mistake of dismantling the Iraqi army and canceling pensions to its veteran officers -- which many say hindered security, enhanced anti- U.S. feeling and aided what would later become a violent insurgency. [Washington Post, 6/12/05] AND SENT SOLDIERS TO WAR WITHOUT NEEDED EQUIPMENT Soldiers Not Given Body Armor Needed. Over year after the beginning of the Iraq war soldiers being deployed to Iraq were still buying their own body armor. Responding to pressure from Senators, the Administration then sent soldiers to war with body armor they knew had failed ballistics tests, leading to a recall of more than 5000 armored vests in May 2005. [Periscope Daily Defense News, 5/11/05;AP, 3/26/04; FNS, Hearing of the Defense Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, 5/12/04; Marine Corps Times, 5/9/05] Army Study Suggests One-Fourth of Deaths in Iraq Could Have Been Prevented If Troops Were Properly- Equipped at Beginning of War. Newsweek reported that many U.S. deaths and wounds in Iraq simply did not need to occur. According to an unofficial study by a defense consultant, as of April 15, 2004, perhaps one in four of those killed in combat in Iraq might be alive if they had had stronger armor around them. Almost all those soldiers were killed while in unprotected vehicles. Thousands more who were unprotected have suffered grievous wounds, such as the loss of limbs. [Newsweek, 5/3/04] Rumsfeld Dismissed Shortage Of Armored Humvees, Told Troops To Go To War With What You Have. One soldier asked Rumsfeld why their combat vehicles were not properly armed. "We're digging pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass that's already been shot up, drop, busted, picking the best out of this scrap to put in our vehicles to take into combat," he said. "You go to the war with the Army you have," Rumsfeld responded. "Not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later date." The response struck many military families as callous. [UPI, 12/9/04; CNN, 12/9/04]