Sorry, been away on vacation, return Friday evening (with LOTS of posts!). Great to see Kerry going 3-0 in debates.... more to come.

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush and his vice president conceded Thursday in the clearest terms yet that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, even as they tried to shift the Iraq war debate to a new issue - whether the invasion was justified because Saddam was abusing a U.N. oil-for-food program.

Ridiculing the Bush administration's evolving rationale for war, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry shot back: "You don't make up or find reasons to go to war after the fact."

Just incredible. The weaving and dodging. The incompetence. The refusal to admit to ANY mistakes, and leave it at that.

Again I say, if this were Clinton/Gore, these GOP hypocrites would've had about 20 investigations in process right now as well as impeachment hearings. Our governmental process is currently a disgrace.

Edwards essentially correct (regarding Halliburton)

Conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan's take on the VP debate:

"Most of the people actually rooting for one side or the other are not the people who will decide the election. Those people are undecideds. And for them, it seems to me, the debate wasn't even close: Edwards won.
<...>
There were times when Cheney seemed to go out of his way to be offensive. To say that Edwards demeans the contribution of Iraqi soldiers in defense of their fledgling government, when Edwards had merely talked about the American share of coalition casualties, seemed arbitrarily aggressive and unnecessarily bitter to me.
<...>
Sullivan admits his “expectation that Cheney would win easily.... But in the critical battle for the middle ground in this election, it seems to me indisputable that Edwards gained territory for Kerry last night."

Please, oh please, may Kerry bring up the environment this Friday. Everyday I come across anti-environment headlines. These guys are just evil!

Wildlife Protection Standards Waived,
Move May Allow More Logging In U.S. Forests

Oh look, more surprises:

Iraq had no stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons before last year’s U.S.-led invasion and its nuclear program had decayed since the 1991 Gulf War, according to a weapons inspector appointed by the Bush administration.

Lie:

"The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight." -- Cheney to Edwards

Truth:

"The vice president, I'm surprised to hear him talk about records. When he was one of 435 members of the United States House, he was one of 10 to vote against Head Start, one of four to vote against banning plastic weapons that can pass through metal detectors.

He voted against the Department of Education. He voted against funding for Meals on Wheels for seniors. He voted against a holiday for Martin Luther King. He voted against a resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela in South Africa." -- Edwards last night

Liar!

"I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11" -- Cheney in last night's debate.

This statement was just jaw-dropping. It made anything Cheney had to say for the evening as highly suspect.

Thoughts on last night’s debate.

Boring, no clear winner. I agree with Chris Matthew’s assessment this morning that Cheney is the master of disguise, that he has the ability to project himself as a reasonable, moderate, calm person – despite the fact in reality he’s a strident, hawkish, far-right ideologue. He would be a great poker player. Matthews went on to point out things Edwards could’ve slammed him on, including Cheney’s multiple bogus deferments regarding the Vietnam War, but nonetheless it was tough for a very boyish looking Edwards to do battle with this more senior and seasoned politician.

It was obvious with Cheney’s answers that he was given strict orders to make GW the focus, to state clearly that Cheney was at GW’s beck and call, that GW was running the show, that he was simply a loyal lackey, etc. The more Cheney did this, the more I was convinced it wasn’t true.

As the debate progressed, it appeared as if Cheney was getting past his bedtime. The VP seemed to get ever more lethargic in his answers to the point where he was lulling me to sleep. When the debate ended, it was noticeable in a startling way how Edwards popped up out of his chair to shake Cheney’s hand, and yet Cheney was still sitting and took what seemed to be forever to get himself upright. Is this what we want in what could be our next President?

The media is making a big deal of Cheney’s retort to Edwards’ accurate statement, "we've taken 90 percent of the coalition casualties." Cheney’s clever response was to include the Iraq casualties. Keeping aside the fact that Cheney is dead wrong when he said "the 90 percent figure is just dead wrong" because Edwards stated the coalition and last time I checked Iraq was not part of the coalition, but more importantly most of the dead Iraqis have been civilians, killed due to insurgency attacks (car bombs, etc.) or collateral damage from coalition strikes. For Cheney to include these deaths as if they were the same as fighting soldiers that have died is disingenuous and quite disgusting.

The topic that usually gets discussed after the VP debate is would this person be a capable president if something were to happen to the sitting #1. The soft-headed media chortled about how Cheney looked more senior, etc., but what they feel compelled to NOT mention is the issue of health. You have to bring this up, not during the debate itself, but rather during the post-debate discussion. Cheney has had severe and significant health events occur in his life: four heart attacks followed by quadruple bypass surgery. This is not a huge concern? How would he hold up when thrusted into the #1 role? Would the added stress be too much for him, esp. since he’d be in his late 60s? Shouldn’t we then be grilling the Speaker of the House in this regard, the next person in line?? With Edwards we can at least say this entire concern is off the table.

There’s much being written about record number of new registered voters in several key states. What is tough to decipher is which political party is benefiting more from this upsurge.

The New Republic has a story offering evidence that the Dems are signing up more than the GOP, but do we really need TNR to point out what should be fairly obvious? I just find it very hard to believe that given the emotions and stakes involved that Bush supporters would be flocking to register more so than Kerry supporters. In effect, the policies of GW are inciting people to get up off their asses and register; are we to believe there are more pissed-off Bush supporters out there who weren’t already registered? It’s highly doubtful. The feelings stirred up by Bush/Cheney are so visceral that it simply lays bare the reasonable conclusion that any waves of new registered voters are most likely to be those who feel compelled to vote for the first time ever – which more likely than not would mean to vote out the incumbent, i.e. they’re Dems!

AN OUTRAGE!

Lead Levels in Water Misrepresented Across U.S.

A key segment:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which is supposed to ensure that states are monitoring utilities, has also let communities ignore requirements to reduce lead. In 2003, records show, the EPA ordered utilities to remedy violations in just 14 cases, less than one-tenth of the number ordered in 1997.

Taken together, the records point to a national problem just months after disclosures that lead levels in the District's water are among the highest in the country, a problem the city's utility concealed for months. Documents from other cities show that many have made similar efforts to hide high lead readings, taking advantage of lax national and state oversight (my bold) and regulations riddled with loopholes.

Also:

...this year, the EPA dropped drinking water altogether from its enforcement priority list, records show.

First mercury in the air and fish, now lead in the water. Kerry should specifically mention this story on Friday (or Edwards tonight). They should make the point it's one thing to protect the country from terrorists -- which is a very difficult, imperfect endeavor -- it's quite another to willfully look the other way when it comes to enforcing anti-pollution laws and coming down hard on those who violate them. We may get hit by terrorists tomorrow OR not for another ten years (20 years?), but to tolerate the poisoning of water (and air), ultimately harming our health and eventually killing many, is in many ways a much worse outcome. For this administration to play up their earnest desire to root out evil doers, and yet allow such evil doing to occur on a regular basis when it comes to our environment is outrageous.

Whether one dies from a bomb exploding or dies from a health issue brought on by environmental toxins, what's the difference? The former we can do only so much to avoid, yet the latter we have much more control over. And after all, dead is dead no matter the cause.

Question: if the first presidential debate focused on Bush’s supposed strength, foreign policy, and we know how "well" he performed (smirk), what will the second debate look like as it’s focus will be domestic issues?! How could Bush possibly look BETTER?!!

Also, tonight’s debate will be the first ever "VP vs. President" debate. Let’s face it, tonight Edwards will be debating against the real leader in charge of the United States. In that sense, the debate will be a Catch-22 for Bush supporters. Given what happened last Thursday night, where Kerry clearly demolished boyish Bush, if Cheney ends up doing well versus formidable Edwards, it will then be staring everyone in the face who should’ve actually been president the last four years. With Cheney hitting a home run tonight it will in effect make Bush’s horrible performance look that much worse! Bush supporters will awkwardly find comfort in that they’re really voting for "impressive" Cheney come November, NOT the actual president. Pathetic. It will force them to admit what they’ve wanted to deny. (They need to be reminded that Cheney has had multiple heart attacks and major heart surgery, and that he was rumored to be dropped from the ticket). The other half of the Catch-22 is if, like Kerry to Bush, Edwards clearly defeats Cheney, leaving the Bush/Cheney camp with an 0-2 debate record.

A beautiful thing.

To reiterate what was obvious before the war (military reports stating such, Rumsfeld ignoring):

"We never had enough troops on the ground." -- Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, administrator for the U.S.-led occupation government until the handover of political power on June 28.

That's more like it (GW election win contract):

Of all the officials that remain employed who should've been fired due to the Iraq debacle, the single most egregious example is Condi Rice. She has proven to be truly, without dispute, the most incompetent NSA in our nation's history.

Despite overwhelming proof to the contrary, she still maintains a stance that is utterly ridiculous:

In July, a bipartisan report by the Senate intelligence committee, which reviewed all of the intelligence on the tubes, said that information available to intelligence analysts "indicated that these tubes were intended to be used for an Iraqi conventional rocket program and not a nuclear program." The report also said that assertions that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program were "not supported by the intelligence."

David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, who has written extensively on the tubes, said that Rice "was grasping at straws" to suggest there is still a debate on the issue. He said there is little dispute within the intelligence community now, with the "overwhelming number of experts and the evidence" concluding the Energy Department analysis was correct.

"I think she is being disingenuous, and just departing from any effort to find the truth," Albright added. (Washington Post)

More censorship of the truth to help positively spin and propagandize the Iraq debacle:

USAID said this week that it will restrict distribution of reports by contractor Kroll Security International showing that the number of daily attacks by insurgents in Iraq has increased. On Monday, a day after The Washington Post published a front-page story saying that "the Kroll reports suggest a broad and intensifying campaign of insurgent violence," a USAID official sent an e-mail to congressional aides stating: "This is the last Kroll report to come in. After the WPost story, they shut it down in order to regroup. I'll let you know when it restarts."

Vietnam-ish anyone?

P.S. Here's the web site for Kroll reports -- Sept. 30th will likely be the last date for such reports. Note the heavily Bush-family-ridden Carlyle Group has an advisor saying this about the Kroll reports: "Excellent, accurate and useful review."

The Cost of Smirking (Among Other Things).

With voters widely viewing Kerry as the debate's winner, Bush's lead in the NEWSWEEK poll has evaporated.

I finally watched the debate (Tivo). Not much to report. Kerry clearly won, but that's not saying much when your opponent is GW. There were moments when it appeared Kerry could have turned it on and hit a grand slam rather than just a solo homer, but either he simply missed those opportunities (which would be worrisome) or felt it best to restrain so as to not appear to be ganging up on an obviously inferior foe. It's the same quandary Gore had to grapple with in 2000.

Bush appeared to be pleading and whining at the same time. Pleading for more time, four more years, hoping the public would grant him the luxury, yet we all know that if shoe was on the other foot, Karl Rove would be drooling to go up against a guy like GW given his record the past four years. There are so many flaws and holes to attack it could make one's head spin. As when Lehrer asked Kerry for specific examples of Bush's miscalculations concerning Iraq and Kerry simply joked, "Well, where do you want me to begin?" The degree of failure and incompetence is just too much.

And Bush's whining was an annoyance that grew more annoying as the 90 minutes ticked away. It's amazing just how much this dim bulb comes off as if he actually deserves to be president, as if he won by a landslide in 2000! His demeanor was, "Why am I here? I shouldn't have to debate this guy! I should be on my ranch in Texas, for god sakes." The arrogance, the idiocy. But he gets this from his father, who also was noticeably perturbed to be on the stage vs. Clinton (recall Bush Sr. checking his wrist watch). And yet they falsely tag liberals as elitists; the Bush family epitomizes elitism, one that is ultimately not deserved. Through means of corrupt power, they've achieved elite status, but it's certainly not due to anything resembling higher intelligence. To the contrary, they represent brute force -- they're bullies.

Anyway, two other things came to mind when watching this spectacle. At least half the country thinks like George Costanza of "Seinfeld" fame. Recall when George was put in charge of interviewing candidates for Susan's foundation. The foundation expected him to decide on a stellar person, one with top grades from a top school. But no, George went with an average, Joe-Shmoe type candidate with a "C" average. He despised those "goody two-shoe" top candidates, turned off by them due to envy and outright ignorance. He went with someone who appeared to resemble someone more like himself.

It's this "George factor" that far and away is the big advantage helping GW. A large portion of the voting public are turned off when they see & hear a very bright and accomplished candidate. Instead, they turn to the one they can more easily imagine as themselves. Whereas it used to be we'd want our #1 leader to be as bright and accomplished as possible, it seems now we want one that is exactly NOT that, for to be that is to be an "elite" or an "out-of-touch intellectual."

The second image that came to mind is from the movie "Spinal Tap." I love the way the right-wing obsesses on Kerry's supposed flip-flopping concerning this war, and yet the entire debacle is the cause of their guy! In "Tap," when the band is on stage for "Stonehenge" and the tiny structure comes down from the ceiling, though it's Nigel's (GW) fault (he wrote inches instead of feet on a napkin), the band manager (Kerry) ultimately gets blamed and has to do the explaining.

Iraq is Bush's screw-up, period, and for that reason alone he should be voted out. Never mind the merits of Kerry's proposed solutions to this mess, the much larger point is the mess wouldn't have existed at all if not for the current leader. Given his "colossal misjudgments" of just the past four years, it's scary to imagine what the country would be like after four more years of this boob's rule.

As I've said, this country deserves the president they get.

I just completed what could be a revealing exercise. I wanted to see what the “smart states” thought about this election. Smart states? I define them as those states which have gone a perfect 4-0 in picking the last four presidents. Please note that I regard Gore as the winner in 2000 for what should be obvious reasons, but if you prefer, rephrase it those states selecting the candidate who eventually received the most votes.

Of the fifty states, just 11 have gone 4-0: CA, NM, IL, MI, PA, VT, CT, NJ, DE, MD, and ME. Using data from PollingReport.com, I tabulated the most recent polls for these states and derived an average. The result? Kerry has a sizeable lead, 49% vs. 41%. When you weight the numbers according to electoral votes, it gets slightly better (50% vs. 41%).

I realize not too much should be made of this calculation, nonetheless it does say something that these 11 states have had the ability to select the eventual winner over the last four contests.

Very telling. All the major papers (NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc.) have editorials weighing in on last night's debate, but not the far-right conservative Washington Times. Hmm, interesting. They couldn't even attempt to fabricate a favorable verdict?