It's time to sit down and have a very frank talk about the contractors responsible for servicing our troops in Iraq. Thus far, America as a whole has generally looked the other way on a variety of issues, choosing quiet outrage when tens of billions of taxpayer dollars go missing, when reports of rape in companies in Iraq pop up, when reports of contractors playing football with bricks of hundred-dollar bills (more taxpayer money) show up, etc.

I could go on. I could, really! It's not that difficult. What's difficult is finding someone in the Republican Party outraged over this. When the Republicans were in charge, there was absolutely NO oversight of the billions of tax dollars spent on contractors in Iraq. Now, the Democratic Party is holding massive oversight investigations (thanks in no small part to Congressman Waxman--drop him an email and thank him if you have the chance), and the stories keep on coming.

Let's take a look at one of those contractors, KBR. This particular company--despite its numerous complaints--has just tripled its first-quarter profits.

Rape -- Multiple women who formerly worked at the company have come forward accusing co-workers of rape. Every woman involved has offered a similar experience: following the rape, they were told any reporting to any authority would result in immediate termination. The justice department is NOT pursuing the investigation.

Electrocution of Troops -- Democratic chariman Henry Waxman is currently investigating whether the accidental electrocution of troops could have been avoided. According to a recent article by the New York Times, which found massive evidence suggesting KBR was intentionally cutting corners, there's good reason to believe this tragedy could have easily been avoided: "One electrician warned his KBR bosses in his 2005 letter of resignation that unsafe electrical work was “a disaster waiting to happen.” Another said he witnessed an American soldier in Afghanistan receiving a potentially lethal shock. A third provided e-mail messages and other documents showing that he had complained to KBR and the government that logs were created to make it appear that nonexistent electrical safety systems were properly functioning."

Stealing -- A former KBR employee was promoted after she was caught stealing from taxpayers. According to sworn testimony by two former co-workers, this was a regular occurrence. One even allegedly went so far as to melt down gold to make cowboy boots.

Tax dodging -- More than $500 million dollars in taxes has been saved by KBR thanks to very crafty, very devious tax-dodging schemes that involve off-shore shell companies.

Contaminated Water -- the Pentagon dismissed this report of KBR failing to provide safe water to troops in Iraq, suggesting that the water in Iraq is tainted to begin with and everyone should be drinking bottled water. There's only one problem: this report deals mainly with water used for cleaning clothes and bathing, and KBR's unwillingness to even provide this has resulted in numerous problems.

This is just one of the contractors in Iraq taking hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money every year. Why was there no oversight before the Democrats took control of Congress, despite that fact that billions of dollars went missing and multiple reports of contractor abuses were already being brought forward?

Here's a link for Congressman Waxman's page. Keep an eye on it. He's one of the best representatives we have in Congress, and he's doing an excellent job despite the stonewalling of every Bush administration official in Washington.

Patriotism is not blindly following leaders. Patriotism means finding the truth and always questioning, no matter what. What's happening in Iraq belongs to the Bush administration. No presidential administration will ever come close to this one, but that won't stop neoconservative historians from whitewashing history. I strongly encourage you to watch Bush's War on Frontline. Know the truth behind this war, and understand that the Bush administration will not fix this problem. The Bush administration will pass this trillion-dollar quagmire onto the next president, and there will be no easy solution.

Try to count how many laws were broken. Count how many lies were told, how little planning went into the post-invasion, how little intelligence there was. Learn from this. 

Click here to watch Bush's War on Frontline. 

John McCain's vote against Martin Luther King Day was no mistake, and you need to understand this because race plays a BIG role in the modern conservative movement. It plays a big role because the modern conservatives first began in the late 50's to play on the racism of white Americans in order to turn what was once a very tiny sliver of the Republican Party into what we now know as the GOP.

There was a time, in the mid-fifties, where white voters in the south were just as likely to vote Democrat or Republican. The reason they did so was because, from the late 30's through the 50's, Republicans had generally accepted the successful policies of the New Deal. Republicans HAD to accept these policies because they, along with pro-labor, pro-union reform, America had reached what economist Paul Krugman refers to as "The Great Compression," a society where financial inequality was at its lowest in our nation's history. Everyone was beginning to benefit, thanks in no small part to the large union movement (helped by the government's pro-labor reform), which helped guarantee fair wages for union members and had the effect of positively affecting wages in competing non-union jobs.

But there was always a small minority dedicated to eliminating the New Deal policies, including cutting taxes for the rich and eliminating the government's pro-labor reforms. This movement--Modern Conservatism--saw its chance in the late fifties when Democrats were pushing for civil rights reforms. In 1957, The National Review published an editorial arguing that whites could suppress African-Americans because whites were the superior race:

"The central question that emerges--and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizen, born Equal--is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes--the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race ... sometimes the numerical minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalance of its will worth the terrible price of violence." 

 Not only did the National Review make a point of noting our Constitution as "merely ... a catalog", it made a point of affirming that whites had the right to commit violence in order to retain their superiority, a right many racist whites agreed upon late in the fifties and during the sixties. When President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights act into law, the entire South became lost to the Democratic Party and continues to this day to be almost impenetrable (although the racial barrier is collapsing in recent years).

And slowly, Modern Conservatism grew, despite its interest in appealing primarily to the richest one percent of Americans. Slowly, the fringe group became the Republican Majority, and the Republican Party began its attempts to tear down the New Deal policies while cutting taxes for the rich despite having no evidence at all to suggest it would help the economy (there were, in fact, no economists at all in the early days of "supply-side theory," confessed Irving Kristol.). "Liberal Premissiveness," according to Richard Nixon, were at the heart of America's problems.

Modern Conservatism leaped into the fray with Ronald Reagan, who announced his bid for president in 1980 in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the same town where three civil rights activists were killed in 1964. His speech centered on "states' rights," and there was no denying what the underlying tones were. They were present in another famous speech, one in which he described a so-called "Welfare Queen"--and story that was elaborate fiction to begin with--that never mentioned race, and yet everyone knew what color this woman's skin was. It continued, spreading even into the most libertarian gospels, like those found in Ron Paul's own self-published newsletters.

Through it all, there was always an I'll-scratch-your-back mentality, which was necessary for Modern Conservatism to survive. Loyalty was rewarded above all else, and once Modern Conservatism dominated the Republican Party, Republicans were almost forced to go along with the policies (especially once Karl Rove jumped into the mix and proved himself capable of gutting the Republican Party of anyone who supported New Deal policies). Cronyism was always rewarded with new jobs, and the Bush administration is a clear example at every single level. Even John McCain is learning this now, going out of his way to flip-flop on every single ideology that once made him a "Maverick." Now he'll cut taxes for the rich. Now he'll cozy up to the religious right. Now he'll sell himself out to lobbyists.

Through it all, Modern Conservatism has remained true to its roots in helping only the richest one percent of Americans, and yet the Republican Party has continued to garner strength. While topics like national security and religion and abortion rights have always had a minor role in that popularity, only race has has stood the test of time. John McCain knew the rules back in the day, and he knows them now. 

Now he'll apologize for voting against MLK Day. But you know what? He knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he voted against it. He was following Modern Conservatism in order to reap the rewards of its growing power. Had he not, he would be nothing but a footnote in history by this point.

The good news is that racism is losing its popularity even in the deepest heart of the south, and tolerance has grown by leaps and bounds. It's only a matter of time before a significant majority of Americans realize that our country has spent the last 35 years helping only the richest one percent. Once that time comes, Modern Conservatism will desperately clutch at straws before finally disappearing (and indeed already does, preying on our various fears), taking John McCain with it. 

 For those of you interested in learning more, I heartily suggest "The Conscience of a Liberal," by award-winning economist Paul Krugman. The information detailed here represents a fraction of information you'll find in his book.

Yours,

Ken Brosky
 

 Let's have a little fun today. Today we're going to take a look at a conservative hit piece in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and we're going to dissect it. We're going to take it apart and examine it much in the same way you might examine a frog in Science class. Why do we examine frogs in science class? Why, to learn from them, of course! So it goes with this particular editorial. We're going to learn about it so we can more readily identify hit pieces in the future (and there are a LOT of hit pieces out there). This is going to be a great time.

First, read this editorial by Al Smith.

Fun, isn't it? Before we delve into things, we need to create our first rule. This is an important rule because it will distinguish Hit Pieces from other editorials.

Rule #1: Hit Pieces generally target positive groups, like environmentalism.

Next, we're going to take a look at the wording. This piece is filled with negative words, and they're all aimed at the environmentalism movement.Radicals, zealots, criminal selfishness ... all of these words have one goal in mind: to demonize environmentalism to the reader will not identify with it. The more Smith demonizes them, the less the reader is likely to say, "Hey! I'm an environmentalist!" No reader is going to say that if the environmentalists are radical zealots bent on shutting down all of our electricity, right? Well, few would, at least. But the goal, obviously, is to put the reader on Smith's side. The more he can negatiely portray the environmental movement, the more he's free to ridicule it, and the more he's free to ridicule it, the more readers will identify with his position. The environmental movement exists as "factions," and its attempts at creating awareness are little more than "spectacles" at best. You get the picture. So let's create another rule:

Rule #2: Hit Pieces rely on negative words to ensure readers do not identify with the target (in this case, environmentalism)

Now let's take a look at the imagery. The world according to Al Smith is a scary place, and the environmental movement is only making things worse. Images of empty cars and streets, the "Dark Ages," empty factories ... this piece has it all. If you're an environmentalist, says Smith, then you obviously want to destroy our very way of life. Powerful stuff, and these images are peppered throughout (and usually associated with the negative words we looked at before). Smith even goes so far as to quote a diplomat from World War I, and this is not unintentional. Smith is conjuring up powerful images without explicitly mentioning it. When we think of World War I, the words "Senseless" and "violence" have a tendency to come to mind, and it's no mistake that he's using this World War I quote. His goal is to ensure readers are relating the "senselessness" of the environmental movement with the senselessness of World War I, as well as all the violent imagery that goes along with it. Let's make another rule:

Rule #3: Hit Pieces use negative, scary and oftentimes violent imagery to demonize their target

 There is more at work here. In order to make his point more succinct, Smith attempts to group environmentalists together by suggesting NOTHING is good enough for them except complete abandonment of electricity in general. No solution works, only MORE government, MORE regulation. He also relies heavily on the old tirades of the conservatives, including the evils of government, the loss of "Freedom" and of course those pesky new light bulbs that are just too efficient. There's only one problem with this argument: the entire point of Earth Hour was to make a very specific statement:

Human beings are willing to regulate themselves.

That was the point, wasn't it? Smith even mentions this early on in his piece, that the idea was that human beings are not so indentured to technology that they can't turn out a light for an hour, the idea that human beings can make a BIG difference without government help. Sure, it would be nice if our government enforced basic environmental regulations, But under the Bush administration, that's not going to happen. They believe in market-based regulation, and while it's a noble ideal, it just isn't going to happen. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says, the free market is incapable of controlling pollution, so there HAS to be government involvement.

Events like Earth Hour frighten Smith because they show him that he's in an extreme minority. While others are attempting to solve the problems facing our generation and future generation, Smith is unwilling to offer solutions himself, relying instead on attacking everyone else. He's takes solace in knowing the Irish pubs and the Chinese are on his side (as if this is truly something to be bragging about: the Chinese government also sides with the Sudanese government, right?), and attempts to demonize environmentalists much in the same way conservatives have been doing so largely since Rush Limbaugh made his debut.

All right, enough ranting. I think you get the picture. Hopefully, by carefully examining this, you'll be able to spot these pieces in the future. Learn from them. As wrong as they may be, they're a powerful method being used by the modern conservative movement and deserve attention.

 
Yours,

Ken Brosky
 

The total count of American soldier deaths in Iraq has officially reached 4,000. While John McCain runs around the country convincing people the war in Iraq is going well (and having quite a few "senior moments" to boot), the reality on the ground is much, much different.

The fact of the matter is the "surge" is creating some decreased level of violence in Baghdad, and this makes sense: when you put 30,000 more troops in an area, obviously things are going to improve. But what else is at play here? The fact of the matter is a good portion of the "calm" in Iraq is due in large part to the fact that the Al-Sadr militia is in a ceasefire.

And now the ceasefire is showing signs of breaking. Rogue militias are breaking off and continuing violence, which is occurring today even as I write this. 

What will happen when this ceasefire completely unravels? Does anyone out there even remember how much money we're spending on Iraq, money we're borrowing which will eventually have to be paid off? Or is everyone falling under the influence of John McCain's hopelessly optimistic musings just like the press? 

Let's hold some hearings and find out where all this money is coming from, and maybe even try to get some answers out of the Bush Administration.

Yours,

Ken Brosky 

If you've been to a Starbucks in the past year, you've probably noticed that each cup has a quote from a celebrity or quasi-celebrity (or just an interesting person). Why Starbucks asked Newt Gingrich to contribute to this program is beyond me, but I think it's worth a laugh. And given the current state of our financial system, I think we could all use a laugh right now.

Here's his quote:

"On the battlefield of ideas, winning requires moving toward the sound of the guns."
~Newt Gingrich.

Why is this funny? Because Newt Gingrich is a Chickenhawk. "Chickenhaws" are conservatives who support war but will not serve in the military, and typically have attempted to avoid serving in the military at all costs. Gingrich is no exception. When he had the chance to fight in Vietnam, Gingrich sought graduate school deferment instead. So, in the interest of truth, I've come up with a much more accurate quote for Gingrich to use:

"On the battlefield of ideas, you can find me a thousand miles away hiding under my bed. If I hear the sound of a gun, I'll probably cry. Heck, the sound of a car backfiring is probably enough to make me pee my pants."

Don't hate me, but I really get a kick out of this. It's funny in a morbid sort of way. After all, these are all the guys who cheerleaded us into the Iraq occupation that's going to cost us $3 trillion dollars. Rove, Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitze ... they all passed up the chance to serve, and then they went and screwed us all over.

Some more, courtesy of Fred Crawford (from before 2006 elections):

The Democratic leadership in the House and Senate:

House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt - Served his country in uniform,  1965-71
House Minority Whip David Bonior - Served his country in uniform,  1968-72
Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle - Served his country in uniform,  1969-72
The Real President Albert Gore - Served his country in uniform, 1969-71

The Republican leadership in the House and Senate:

It's nice out, so spend some time outside. But it's going to rain this weekend, too, and before you turn on your TV set and kill a few more brain cells, catch up on these particular treats (I even included a video to help you cope with all the words!)

House passes FISA legislation -- And not only that, it DOES NOT include immunity for the Telecom Companies. Immunity was almost a guarantee until people started getting active and making phone calls and sending out emails. If you were a part of this, then pat yourself on the back. It's a good start.

Climate Protections killed -- by President Bush, of course. Because he believes that a FREE MARKET can regulate pollution on its own without government standards.

No, the Free Market Can't -- An article by Greg Palast about Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, who argues that free markets CANNOT regulate their own pollution and are INEFFECTIVE in producing research.

Thom Hartmann -- He's in Darfur following the genocide in progress. He's a liberal talk radio host, but of course Milwaukee doesn't have a liberal talk radio station. We're stuck with Mark Belling the Racist and Charlie Sykes the God-Knows-What. You can listen to Thom Hartmann LIVE for free on airamerica.com 

Once you're done with those articles, please enjoy a short video compilation:

 Have a great weekend,

Ken Brosky 

What's the connection between the two, you ask? Well, for starters, they're both extremely incompetent. Make no mistake about it, Osama bin Laden is an egomaniac with relatively low intelligence when it comes to terrorism (he was NOT the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. He funded them and gave his "blessing," and little else). To learn more about just how fallible al-Qaeda truly is, I suggest you pick up a copy of The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright. The book outlines al-Qaeda's history and the history of modern Islamic extremism as well as the tactics that have been used by multiple intelligence agencies in attempting to track it and/or put a stop to it. A great book, to be sure.

But what does this have to do with Secretary of State Condi Rice? Turns out quite a lot. Because when Rice was the national security adviser, it was her job to brief the president on emails like "Bin Laden Determined to Strike  in U.S." According to a new book coming out by New York Times Reporter Philip Shenon, Rice was more interested in playing the role of supportive wife to President Bush rather than actually attempt to do her job in a responsible manner. If this sounds slightly malicious, you're right--when our national security adviser receives DAILY reports of al-Qaeda's attempts to carry out a terrorist strike against U.S. civilian targets, it should at the VERY least be taken moderately seriously.

Here are a few other emails Rice received that were subsequently ignored, according to Shenon. Read through them and ask yourself whether you would take this threat seriously.

“Bin Ladin Public Profile May Presage Attack” (May 3)

“Terrorist Groups Said Co-operating on US Hostage Plot” (May 23)

“Bin Ladin’s Networks’ Plans Advancing” (May 26)

“Bin Ladin Attacks May Be Imminent” (June 23)

“Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats” (June 25)

“Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile Attacks” (June 30)

 Is that enough for you? Click here to read the full article.

The reason I'm posting this is because there are a lot of right-wing fantasies running around regarding Condi Rice and a run for the presidency. Not only was Rice a completely incompetent national security adviser, she is currently an extremely incompetent Secretary of State, incompetent to the point that journalists have absolutely no interest in following her around the world.

Our own diplomats think she's doing an awful job.

David Kay, former weapons inspector in Iraq, says she was the worst national security adviser in U.S. history. 

Now let's get to something related but much more important: the 9/11 Commission. Exactly how incompetent was this Republican-led investigation? Quite incompetent, it turns out. And that shouldn't come as any surprise, given that the Republican Party has argued since Reagan that government just doesn't work, which is why Republicans seem to go so far out of their way to prove it. Not only were Repubilcans defending Rice and others in the Bush administration, there is evidence now that they were attempting to discredit Richard Clarke. From ThinkProgress:

"But 9/11 Commission staff director Philip Zelikow was not interested in pursuing criticisms against Rice. Zelikow — who had worked closely with Rice on the Bush transition team in 2000 and 2001 — “made it clear to the team’s investigators that Clarke should not be believed, that his testimony would be suspect.” "

I think one of the reasons there are so many 9/11 conspiracy theories is primarily because the 9/11 commission simply didn't answer enough questions. There are so, so many questions still unanswered, and as long as our government doesn't pursue the truth, those questions will be answered by the fringe theorists and outrage will continue to grow. But make no mistake: the incompetencies of the Bush administration--especially those of Condi Rice--helped ensure 9/11 happened.

Yours,

Ken Brosky
 

Telecommunications companies do NOT deserve retroactive immunity for breaking the law just because the Bush Administration needed to spy on us illegally. Let me tell you something flat out: Telecom companies have PLATOONS of lawyers whose sole job is to determine what is legal and what is illegal. FISA was set up to provide Telecom Companies with a legal way of cooperating with the government. If the Telecom companies STILL need retroactive immunity even with all of these aspects already implemented, then there is NO DOUBT they broke the law with the help of the Bush Administration.

Click here to contact Gwen Moore.
 

While you're whittling away the day with your various chores, here's something to think about: How many tax cuts have been passed since the Reagan era?

The answer: None. Because cutting taxes on a budget deficit means the government is simply borrowing money to give back to us. Which means tax cuts are actually tax "Deferments." Every time Congress cuts taxes without balancing the budget, all that money piles onto the national deficit, which will eventually be paid by us at a later date or our children.

The same goes with the Iraq war. We can fight there as long as Bush wants, but the money will eventually come out of our pockets. He is the only president to have ever cut taxes during a time of war, skyrocketing the deficit further in order to deceive the public into believe our current economic system is still "OK." It's not. And when the security bubble pops (i.e. the military industrial complex), things are only going to get worse. And THEN while we're trying to figure out how to pay off our personal debts, the government is going to need help paying off the national debt.

And then what will it do? "Cut" taxes again to increase spending?
 

In honor of our local conservative radio hosts, I thought I would pass along this little story that I originally found on Media Matters. Read it, because I'll comment more below:

 "A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN"

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.

The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."
 

Obviously, it's a little one-sided. That's the point. But what interested me more were the responses by conservatives to this particular post. Some argued that, obviously, it was one-sided and typical liberal junk. Another person--much to the joy of the conservative bloggers--attempted to create a conservative-friendly version called "Joe Democrat." The problem is the story didn't work in the same way. Rather than show how Joe Democrat's life has been made better by Conservative-based "Free Market" policies, instead it's based almost entirely on myths and hearsay, the typical fodder that "Joe Republican" makes a point of using for satire. Phrases like "post-traumatic slavery disorder" and suggesting inner-city students are capable only when it comes to fitting on condoms.

Some of the arguments aren't even plausible! Besides outright inaccuracies applied to liberals that could just as easily be applied to conservative politicians, he suggest liberals are behind the classification of alcohol as a disease (they're actually called scientists, in this case). Rural electrification is considered evil in this case, since Joe Democrat's life was easier when he was "living off the land." A lot of this is based on the classic privileged white man's concept of freedom, and how much of it the big bad government takes. But how free, truly, we rural citizens when private power companies refused to provide them with electricity because it wasn't profitable? Something for another time, perhaps.

Almost all of the arguments are based on stereotypes, some proven entirely wrong, some barely credible even in this form. "Joe Democract" even manages to outright slander John Kerry's war record (Kerry served in the Navy for four years, hardly the type of behavior from a "draft dodger"). But the point is that this rebuttal offers relatively no examples of how conservative ideology has helped the average American. Because most of the time they don't. But the Republican Party can't say that, because then it would never win elections. So it relies on rallying its supporters with cries of "freedom!" and convincing regular Joe's that the government is evil.

Yours,

Ken Brosky