There is no question in my mind.  "Regime change" (as the catch
                      phrase goes) is justified, perhaps even necessary.  Should we continue to
                      sit by idly as a man who seized power, without the support of the majority
                      of the people in a free election, calls for war and, most important, is in
                      possession of weapons of mass destruction?  No, we must not.
                           George W. Bush has got to go.  Fortunately we have only to vote to
                      effect this regime change.
                           This Democrat wants to give a little advice to his Republican friends
                      out of sympathy: dump Bush for your own good.  I know that I’ve brought
                      tears to the eyes of all the right-wingers with my magnanimous offer of
                      counsel.  (What can I say?  I’m a compassionate Democrat.) However,
                      before you stop reading, hear me out.
                           The tragically flawed policies of George W. Bush are of concern to
                      all Americans regardless of party affiliation.  At present, there are
                      several stories in the media that need to be given more attention.
                           A misguided policy toward terrorism before 9/11.  First there was the
                      Newsweek cover story in late May of this year titled "What Bush Knew."
                      Now, congressional investigators have discovered, according to the
                      Associated Press (AP), "American intelligence agencies received far
                      more reports of terrorists plotting to use planes as weapons" than was
                      previously acknowledged.  Also, according to the AP, congressional
                      committee members looking into 9/11 are frustrated by "what they see as
                      lack of cooperation by the administration."
                           In early August Time magazine asked, "Could 9/11 Have Been
                      Prevented?"  Time chronicles how a Clinton administration plan to fight
                      al-Qaeda was neglected by the Bush administration.  Sandy Berger,
                      Clinton’s national security adviser, reportedly told Bush’s new national
                      security adviser, Condoleeza Rice, in January of 2001, "I believe that
                      the Bush administration will spend more time on terrorism generally
                      and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject."
                      Unfortunately, this was not the case.
                           We will never know if 9/11 could have been prevented.  We do know,
                      however, that danger of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil did not receive
                      proper attention from the upper levels of government.  The Bush
                      administration spent a year focusing on isolationist policies such as the
                      SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative, commonly known as Star Wars) at the
                      expense of concerns about terror.
                           They did this despite warnings given to them by Sandy Berger and
                      the fact that Foreign Affairs, a professional journal for policy experts,
                      printed an article in 1998 titled "Catastrophic Terrorism: Tackling the
                      New Danger."  There is no excuse for our public officials being unaware
                      of the danger.
                           The moral responsibility for the destruction and loss of life is that
                      of the perpetrators and I in no way seek to imply otherwise.  Yet, Mr.
                      Bush is responsible for U.S. policy and he simply made the wrong decision,
                      or rather made no decision at all.  His administration did not identify
                      the most serious menace to our safety.  This is a failure of leadership
                      and a political price should be paid.  Mr. Bush spoke about "personal
                      responsibility" for one’s decisions during his campaign, but so far we
                      have seen no responsibility taken by Mr. Bush.
                           Osama bin Laden is alive and well.  In July of this year there were
                      several news reports of Osama bin Laden’s health.  India’s secret service
                      reported he was in Pakistan.  Germany’s intelligence agency also said
                      bin Laden was alive and hiding somewhere between the border region
                      of Pakistan and Afghanistan.  On September 13 of this year CBS News
                      reported that at least two-thirds of al-Qaeda’s top leadership remains at large.
                           Most disturbing of all, Abdel-Bari Atwan, editor of the London-based
                      Arabic newspaper Al-Quds, was quoted by the BBC as saying bin Laden was
                      "in good health" and "will make another appearance only after his people
                      attack the Americans again."  Mr. Atwan claimed to get this information
                      directly from al-Qaeda members.
                           Al-Qaeda is in the money.  The U.N. group in charge of monitoring
                      the implementation of sanctions released a draft of their report on terrorist
                      funding.  In it they conclude that al-Qaeda has a global investment portfolio
                      that is valued at anything between $30m and $300m.  The report warns that
                      al-Qaeda is "poised to strike again how and where it chooses.
                      It continues to pose a significant threat to international peace and security."
                           The U.S. Treasury has stated this report was based on limited and
                      sometimes out-of-date information, yet did not dispute the scale of the
                      challenge described in the U.N. report.
                           However, the Bush administration has decided not to focus its attention
                      on bringing bin Laden to justice or rooting out and confiscating al-Qaeda’s funds.
                      Instead it focuses on Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
                      According to CBSNews.com, correspondent David Martin discovered that
                      barely five hours after the Pentagon was hit Mr. Rumsfeld was telling his aides
                      to come up with a plan to attack Iraq.  Notes of a meeting have Mr. Rumsfeld
                      saying, "Go massive.  Sweep it all up.  Things related and not."
                           Is this wise?  It is beyond the scope of this report to discuss all the pros and
                      cons of war with Iraq.  Nevertheless, given the buzz about bin Laden’s planned
                      reappearance and al-Qaeda’s full coffers does it make sense that the United State
                      allocate its resources to a war with Iraq?
                           There is also the likelihood that al-Qaeda, in order to galvanize support in the
                      Arab world, will try to time subsequent terrorist attacks on the United States with
                      an American strike at Saddam.  In addition to this there’s the possibility that
                      Afghanistan or Pakistan may fall into less friendly hands.  We could find ourselves
                      fighting many enemies. Trying to attack on too many fronts is a classic strategic mistake.
                           This seems to be another lapse in priorities in the Bush administration.
                           Anti-American sentiment on the rise.  A year ago the world stood with us.
                      At Buckingham Palace the changing of the guard, for the first time ever, was
                      discharged to the tune of the Star Spangled Banner.  A year later we look around
                      and wonder where that good will has gone and how it eroded so quickly.
                           The Bush administration has withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol on
                      global warming, has failed to ratify the Rio Pact on biodiversity, has withdrawn
                      from the ABM treaty and is opposed to the international ban on land mines and
                      the International Criminal Court.  At every instance the leadership of our country
                      thumbs their noses at the rest of the world.
                           Conservative scholar, Francis Fukuyama, declared, "An enormous gulf
                      has opened up in American and European perceptions about the world, and
                      the sense of shared values is increasingly frayed."   The British journalist
                      Will Hutton has written on the pages of the U.K. Guardian that the present-day
                      U.S. is "not the good America…that reconstructed Europe."
                           I couldn’t disagree with Will Hutton of the U.K. Guardian more.
                      We are still the good America, but our current leadership is not representing
                      us.  Americans donate far more of their time and money to charity, school
                      and church than do Europeans.  I do not believe that our generous spirit
                      stops at our borders.
                           However, if we continue with the present administration’s policies,
                      how will the world know this?  Will the world only be shown America the
                      high-tech warrior?  What image will be summoned when the United States
                      is mentioned to a student in Egypt?  A SCUD missile or the Statue of Liberty?
                           This is not a matter of idealism.  In a time where "sleepers" can live in any
                      country they want while waiting for the order to attack, we need the cooperation
                      and good will of other countries.  It is a potent weapon in the war on terror.
                           These stories add up to a frightening picture — the policies of
                      George W. Bush are threatening the peace and security of American citizens
                      and the rest of the world.  My opinion?  No, Nelson Mandela’s.  The former
                      South African president (and one of Time magazine’s "persons of the century")
                      stated in a Newsweek Web exclusive that he believed U.S. foreign policy was
                      "motivated by George W. Bush’s desire to please the arms and oil industries."
                           I hope he is wrong, but I fear he is right.  The Washington Post reported that,
                      "Representatives of many foreign oil concerns have been meeting with leaders of
                      the Iraqi opposition to make their case for a future stake."
                          This is far beyond any of the "hot button" domestic issues that were
                      superficially squabbled over in the 2000 election.  Through most of the
                      Cold War there was a bipartisan consensus in respect to our foreign policy.
                      This served us well.  Under the Bush administration, it’s all but gone.
                           When Dubya first courted America he talked about being a "uniter not
                      a divider" and a "compassionate conservative."  I’m sure you didn’t know
                      that his idea of a uniter was one who united the rest of the world against
                      the United States.  I’m positive you didn’t know that his idea of compassion
                      was rejecting a bill that included money to fund fire departments.
                           Say what?  The International Association of Fire Firefighters (IAFF)
                      voted unanimously to boycott a national tribute to the firefighters who died
                      on Sept. 11 because Bush was scheduled to speak.  "Don’t lionize our
                      fallen brothers in one breath," said Harold Schaitberger, President of the
                      IAFF, "and then stab us in the back by eliminating funding for our members
                      to fight terrorism and stay safe."
                           So, let me conclude with a bit of advice for the Republican National
                      Committee.  Take Mr. Bush out to dinner and between the appetizer and
                      the first course gently say, "George, I don’t think this is working out."
                      If he gets upset just tell him "it’s not you, it’s me."  (I don’t want to
                      hurt his feelings.  I’m a compassionate Democrat.)
 
                      However you decided to dump him, please do it.
                      The world will be grateful.