Mr. Bush's job approval rating is at 44 percent, a dangerously low number for an incumbent president, and one of the lowest of his tenure. (today's New York Times)

Frank Newport of the Gallup Organization pointed out that, in Gallup's surveys, no president since World War II has won reelection after falling below 50 percent approval at this point in an election year. "Looking at it in context, Bush is following the trajectory of the three incumbents who ended up losing rather than the trajectory of the five incumbents who won," he said. (Washington Post, 5/14/04)

Regarding the nonsensical, blown-out-of-proportion "outrage" surrounding the Cheney gay daughter mention, Margaret Carlson wrote in the LA Times:

Kerry/Edwards "realize that discussing Mary Cheney is a no-lose proposition: It highlights the hypocrisy of the Bush-Cheney position to Democrats while simultaneously alerting evangelicals to the fact that the Cheneys have an actual gay person in their household whom they apparently aren't trying to convert or cure."

She's exactly right. Mary has served as a perfect symbol for the rampant hypocrisy within the GOP as well as the archaic, kooky position they hold toward homosexuals -- that being they can be "cured" of their "deviancy." If Dick Cheney embraces his daughter's lifestyle and refuses to condemn it, then evangelicals should take him to task for siding with Satan. If instead he were to outright condemn his daughter, then he would immediately look like an awful father and an intolerant, shallow, caustic, brutish man. Quite a pickle.

To further show how off base the Republicans have strayed on this one, purposefully attempting to make a mountain out of a mole hill, look no further then a quote by a former top executive at the Christian Coalition, of all places:

"I find it hilarious, ironic and shameless that those who have long employed gay bashing as a political tool are feigning their outrage over Kerry's sensitive notation of Cheney's daughter's sexual orientation. This is truly a moment of desperation for the Bushies. On the one hand they are sending out gay bashing mail and on the other hand they are sounding like charter members of the Human Rights Campaign. You've got to laugh!" - Marshall Wittmann

"Smart States" Update

On October 1st, I discussed the idea of "smart states," those states that have gone 4-0 in the last four presidential elections, correctly identifying the eventual popular vote winner (Gore = winner). Of the fifty states, only eleven have a perfect predictive record. I calculated an average of the current polling data for each of the 11 states to arrive at a 49-41 margin favoring Kerry.

The update for these 11 states: the average has remained steady, currently favoring Kerry by a 49-42 margin.

Looking good.

Out today, more definitive news on the polling front:

Poll: Bush leads by 8 points (USA Today)

Bush, Kerry Tied in White House Race (Reuters)

The WS Journal reports that Pfizer will fund a study to show that Celebrex works as a heart aid amid the controversy over Vioxx. The company will fund a study??! What gives with this fast growing trend for pharm. companies to sponsor their own research / studies? How can anyone trust or put any faith in studies that are funded by the interested party(s) who has a huge stake in the outcome?! It's a joke. Oh, OK, let's pay attention to studies Philip Morris underwrites about tobacco consumption -- yeah, right. The fact that the FDA or the like haven't stepped in to put a stop to this, or at least investigate, is very telling (i.e. FDA is in bed with the industry).

Calling Eliot Spitzer....

If this election is going to come down to just a few key states, then it's worth noting,

"...the survey also suggests that Kerry continues to claim a large lead in key battleground states. In these 13 states, Kerry held a 53 percent to 43 percent advantage among likely voters." (Washington Post)

More hypocrisy from the GOP. Of the two parties, the GOP is clearly the more anti-gay (duh!). Yet, when Kerry/Edwards respectfully mention Cheney's gay daughter, they get chastised in a "how dare you!" sanctimonious fashion.

Gay, Republican columnist Andrew Sullivan has it correct when he states,

The Cheneys didn't respond to Jim DeMint's gay-baiting in South Carolina, or Alan Keyes' direct insult of their own daughter in Illinois. They have not voiced objections to a single right-wing piece of homophobia in this campaign or the anti-gay RNC flier in Arkansas and West Virginia. But they are outraged that Kerry mentioned the simple fact of their daughter's openly gay identity. What complete b.s.

B.S. indeed.

I mentioned George Soros' book, The Bubble of American Supremacy, in my prior post. An excellent read. Here's a passage from it that succinctly summarizes the obstacles facing us in Iraq, thanks to GW:

In retrospect I can discern the vague outlines of an imaginary master plan conceived by an evil genius called Bin Laden. From his perspective our civilization is degenerate. It is rich and powerful but devoid of true faith. It needs to be destroyed for the truth to prevail. The only way to destroy it is by exploiting its weakness: the fear of death. It will respond to a terrorist attack by lashing out against an unseen enemy. Since the perpetrators remain invisible, the instinctive reaction will claim innocent victims. The victims will be Muslim, Islam will be radicalized, provoking a general confrontation between Islam and the West. Although the West enjoys material superiority, Islam will prevail because it has a major advantage: it is not afraid of death.
<...>
Bin Laden clearly expected a counterstrike in Afghanistan; that is why he had Ahmed Shah Massoud, the only commander capable of mounting an effective campaign against the Taliban, assassinated two days before September 11. The invasion of Iraq was an unexpected gift. American soldiers on Arabian soil are serving as a magnet, attracting Al Qaeda-trained terrorists from all over the world. Sleeper cells are coming alive. Around three thousand people with Al Qaeda connections are said to have disappeared from Saudi Arabia. Some of them must be active in Iraq. President Bush is right in saying that Iraq has become the central front in the war on terror. Wittingly or unwittingly, he has played right into the hands of the terrorists.

The New York Times has endorsed Kerry (surprise!) and many may complain that not much of the editorial is spent boosting JK, but rather the bulk dedicated to plastering the current presiding moron.

Call it lame "ABB" but I ask, so what? Those with half a brain, who at least watched one if not all three of the debates, now realizes that Kerry is an excellent candidate -- or at least light years better than Bush. Quibble that he's too verbose or stiff, that he's not Clinton, etc. etc. He's not perfect, agreed, but who ever is? Before Clinton went on to post an outstanding two-term record, he wasn't exactly hailed as the second-coming when up against Bush Sr. Just go back and look at his poll numbers at the time.

Need I remind that all elections are independent events from anything prior and must be judged in a relative sense. For better or worse, selecting the better candidate to vote for is in fact a lesser-of-two-evils exercise. It always comes down to who you dislike (despise?) least. Sure, there are many who truly like Kerry and are 100% proud to vote for him, but that's not my point. I maintain that there's nothing wrong with backing into conviction for one candidate due to an absolute disgust for the other. It all comes down to doing what's best for the country and if that means insuring a clearly poor choice is kept from directing things for the next four years, then so be it.

By the way, the following summary line from the Times is so true:

Nearly four years ago, after the Supreme Court awarded him the presidency, Mr. Bush came into office amid popular expectation that he would acknowledge his lack of a mandate by sticking close to the center. Instead, he turned the government over to the radical right.

I recall thinking back in December 2000, "Perhaps it won't be so bad.... He wasn't elected properly, maybe he'll govern with that in mind, maintaining a moderate course, more or less like his father...." That all went out the window when he appointed Ashcroft as AG, that's when I knew the nut-jobs had taken control, and it's been the "far-right lunacy show" ever since. As George Soros makes clear in his book ("The Bubble of American Supremacy"), these crazies are completely removed from reality and Soros likens it to the stock market bubble of 1999-2000, where perceptions deviated from reality to an extreme (and we know how that ended!).

Thankfully, the Times specifies the environment as a big reason to vote GW out. Amazingly, this issue does not come up as often as it should. You talk about a topic that clearly shows the differences between these two guys!! It couldn't be more black and white.

Often, the far-right attempts to paint it this way, "Our safety has to be issue #1 and #2. What's the point of worrying about the environment when there's a constant threat we will be blown to bits by terrorists?" In other words, to hell with clean air and water, what's the point if we won't be around to inhale or drink anyway?

Gads. This is the kind of idiotic, fatalistic thinking this administration has encouraged and fostered with their be-afraid-at-all-times mantra. (And I get accused of being an alarmist!). Edward R. Murrow once said, "We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason," but unfortunately that's exactly what Bush/Cheney/Rove want for this country. Put aside all other priorities, think about nothing else, not education, health care, social justice, etc., just keep completely focused on the threat of horrible death. It's the "look over here" trick. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, Bush/Cheney and the GOP controlled Congress run roughshod over anything and everything they desire.

Look, when it comes down to it, I'm voting against Bush for two reasons: 1) his administration has been an abject failure on all levels, and 2) he's been horrible on the environment. Yes, the first covers lots of terrain, and it's deserved. I can't think of one thing positive that GW himself has been responsible for during his tenure in office. Nope, not one. But beyond that, he and Cheney (and DeLay) have introduced a new low to government in terms of secrecy and truly sleazy acts. What would've been a huge controversy in past years these days does not raise an eyebrow in the media.

However, with regards to the environment, I look at it this way. There's varying degrees to which a president can control and have influence over one thing from another. With regards to terrorism, this, and any, administration can only do so much with regards to preventing another 9-11. Try as they might, they can only do so much to stop a future attack. However, when it comes to environmental issues, the president has a MUCH larger and purposeful sphere of influence. He can forcefully direct and shape environmental policy so as to protect & preserve nature and insure that U.S. citizens are not jeopardized by gutted or compromised environmental regulations. With this latter point, this administration has chosen at every turn to screw the public/environment in favor of the interests of big business. Go ahead and buy in to the Karl Rove bullsh*t "Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forests" tag lines, for those who bother to scratch the surface realize it's all just lies (most don't bother).

Given the above, in my mind this election is a no brainer -- literally. To vote Bush/Cheney is to lack a functioning brain, period.

Bush Gets Another "F"

To no one's surprise, the League of Conservation Voters assigned Bush an "F" on its 2003 Report Card given the administration’s abysmal performance on environmental issues. Now, GW has received another "F" this time from the Security Scholars for a Sensible Foreign Policy, a nonpartisan group of over 725 experts in the field of national security and international politics. (thanks Talkleft.com)

From their web site:

The scholars who signed the letter are from over 150 colleges and universities in 40 states, from California to Florida, Texas to Maine. They include many of the nation's most prominent experts on world politics, including former staff members at the Pentagon, the State Department and the National Security Council, as well as six of the last seven Presidents of the American Political Science Association, and twelve former Presidents of the International Studies Association. "I think it is telling that so many specialists on international relations, who rarely agree on anything, are unified in their position on the high costs that the U.S. is incurring from this war," said Professor Robert Keohane of Duke University.

One has to wonder: GW was accustomed to receiving "C"s in school (which now appear to be quite impressive for him). If the teachers didn't likely cater to his family's known prominence, might we conclude that he would've then received the "F"s he's justly receiving now?

I harken back to my earlier post where I pointed out this country's absurd "George Costanza" tendency to favor and encourage those who are extremely average (or below average in this case). It's as if we want to punish the bright, over-achievers and reward the slow-witted and slackers. HELP!!

Thugs At Work

It appears that for one to just discuss the possibility of a military draft is grounds for a lawsuit by the GOP. Astonishing. Ed Gillespie will freely threaten Rock The Vote with such outrageous legal action in attempt to censor and silence (what Republicans do best: bully those who are not lined up on their side.... fascism anyone?), yet they say not a word about Sinclair Broadcasting's airing of an anti-Kerry program just two weeks before the election (violating FCC regulations). Once again, the GOP proves to be the party of hypocrites, i.e. if you can't stand to look at yourself in the mirror, then the GOP is for you!

What follows is RTV's response letter to Gillespie, excellent stuff:

Mr. Ed Gillespie, Chairman
Republican National Committee
310 First Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003

Dear Chairman Gillespie,

The letter I received from you yesterday was quite a surprise. It struck us as just the sort of "malicious political deception" that is likely to increase voter cynicism and decrease the youth vote. In fact, it is a textbook case of attempted censorship, very much in line with those that triggered our organization's founding some fifteen years ago.

I am stunned that you would say that the issue of the military draft is an "urban myth"that has been "thoroughly debunked by no less than the President of the United States."

I have some news for you. Just because President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary Rumsfeld, and for that matter Senator Kerry, say that there is not going to be a draft does not make it so. Just because Congress holds a transparently phony vote against the draft does not mean there isn't going to be one. Anyone who thinks that the youth of America are going to take a politician's word on this topic is living on another planet.

By your logic, there should be no debate about anything that you disagree with. There's a place for that kind of sentiment (and your threats), but its not here in our country.

There are questions that the politicians are running away from. How long can we keep 138,000 U.S. troops or more on the ground in Iraq? What if full-scale civil war erupts there, as the CIA has warned is a realistic possibility? Would the next President be faced with a choice of pulling out of Iraq rather than institute a draft? Would women be drafted? What exactly would the draft-age be?

According to the Pentagon's own internal assessment, there are "inadequate total numbers" of troops to meet U.S. security interests. The current issue of Time magazine reports that, "General John Keane, who retired last year as the Army's No. 2 officer, says the continued success of the all-volunteer military is not guaranteed" Keane has told Congress that adding more than 50,000 troops to the Army would require thinking about a return to the draft."

But you want young people to believe that the draft is just an "urban myth." I was expecting that you were going to present some facts to back up your assertion. But, instead, you have demanded that we stop talking about it.

Although the draft may not be a discussion topic for someone of your age, we have found that young people - Republicans, Democrats and Independents - are very interested in this issue. We believe in the capacity of young Americans to make their own judgments when fairly presented with the facts. That is why we are actively promoting an informed, educated dialogue. I urge you to review the "Debunking the Myths" section on our website where we address misperceptions about the draft.

Mr. Gillespie, this is a generational issue. Nothing cuts closer to the core of the very reason Rock the Vote exists. We think young people deserve to know where the politicians stand on this issue - and that a generation that could be called to service deserves more than the phony debate they are getting. We believe that it is only by asking questions - not by censoring debate - that our democracy can remain strong and vital.

Issues such as jobs, health care, Iraq, taxes, and education have energized the electorate, and the draft issue deserves the same serious treatment and candor. Blanket denials do not square with the facts and do not level with the electorate.

As far as the possibility that Rock the Vote's efforts might "decrease the youth vote," we are feeling very confident at this point that the opposite is true. More than 1.1 million people have used our website to fill out voter registration forms this election cycle. Our street teams and ground partners have registered hundreds of thousands more. Young voters are going to surge at the polls on Election Day and make the difference for whichever candidate does the best job reaching out to them.

Despite the strong and often strident tone of your letter, I would hope that we could both agree that honest and open debate is the surest guarantor of our democracy and liberty.

Sincerely,

Jehmu S. Greene
President

Dropping out of GW's "huge" coalition is Poland (where more than 75% in the country say they oppose Polish participation in Iraq). Not to worry, we still have the might of Bulgaria, Dominican Rep, El Salvador, and Moldova on our side (for now).

Signs of mutiny in the military? If so, all the more reason for a need for change at the top. If the military begins to question (and act on) our current president & leadership, there goes Bush's sole strength (his supposed hawkish, gung-ho military ways); much credibility lost when troops start to bale on him (!).

You've GOT to be kidding me!

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon plans to promote Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, former head of military operations in Iraq, risking a confrontation with members of Congress because of the prisoner abuses that occurred during his tenure.

Not only does this administration refuse to own up to any mistakes, refuse to fire anyone accountable for screw-ups, instead they apparently promote those who make tragic mistakes (in this case, promote the man in charge during the Abu Ghraib mess)! Look for Condi Rice to rise in the ranks next....

Just beautiful, Cheney has lobbied the last four years in favor of a drilling technique developed by -- surprise! -- Halliburton, benefiting them to the tune of $1.5 bil. per year, and jeopardizes drinking water. Captured in one story we have Cheney displaying the cronyism we all know him to be guilty of regarding Halliburton AND showing another example of this administration running rough-shod over environmental concerns and regulations -- again, something we've grown accustomed to seeing in the papers.

But this is just alarmist blather, correct far-right loonys?

Dick Cheney cited Factcheck.org in the VP debate (well, actually he stated Factcheck.com, which is a George Soros web site, actively campaigning AGAINST Bush/Cheney) and I believe we can assume that Cheney would endorse the consulting of this web site for truth. Here's what Factcheck.org has to say about the much-repeated (and wrong) tax raising votes by Kerry:

By our tally, Kerry has cast more than 6,000 recorded votes over his nearly 20-year Senate career. It's fair game for the Bush campaign to pick through those looking for votes that are contrary to Kerry's stated positions. But as this ad demonstrates, voters have reason to be skeptical of such exercises. Bush's claim that 98 of those 6,000 votes were to "raise taxes" is still misleading.

Make a bet they keep saying it anyway?

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?

Inspector General Says E.P.A. Rule Aids Polluters

Just another day with GW as president....

USA Today has an interesting poll on the debate. It shows Kerry winning decisively by a 53%/37% margin. Note that the best Gore did versus GW in their debates was a 48%/41% winning margin. Also, Kerry's figure of 53% is as high as Clinton's when he demolished Dole.

Another interesting item is in response to the question of whether or not the debate changed your opinion of the candidates, 46% said "more favorable" for Kerry vs. just 21% "more favorable" for Bush. The best Gore scored in this category was 29%. A reasonable interpretation of this data point could be that whereas debates very often can neither help or hurt a candidate, in this case, it would seem that TV time with GW as a perfect foil can be a very big net plus for the Kerry camp.

Apart from the first ten minutes, I did not see the debate -- yet anyway. I will watch it tonight and post my comments. Unlike many bloggers who purposefully wrote about their reactions immediately following the broadcast so as to avoid being tainted by any post-debate spin, I on the other hand will read all the spin and THEN view the debate. In this way, I'll have digested all the rehashed commentary and then see for myself to what extent any of it's true. I see the initial feedback is that 1) Kerry won, though uncertainty remains as to whether this consensus judgment will have legs, and 2) Bush lied lots more than Kerry.

I have a question: on the official debate web site, Debates.org, the formats for the debates are listed. However, what’s written does not seem to jive with what was on display last night. For example, “the candidates will be seated at a table with the moderator in the first and third presidential debates.” Huh? And, “the first presidential debate will focus primarily on domestic policy, and the third presidential debate will focus primarily on foreign policy.” Um, wasn’t last night’s first debate about foreign policy? Puzzled.

From Poynter.org:

From: [Wall Street Journal reporter] Farnaz Fassihi
Subject: From Baghdad

It's hard to pinpoint when the 'turning point' exactly began. Was it April when the Fallujah fell out of the grasp of the Americans? Was it when Moqtada and Jish Mahdi declared war on the U.S. military? Was it when Sadr City, home to ten percent of Iraq's population, became a nightly battlefield for the Americans? Or was it when the insurgency began spreading from isolated pockets in the Sunni triangle to include most of Iraq? Despite President Bush's rosy assessments, Iraq remains a disaster. If under Saddam it was a 'potential' threat, under the Americans it has been transformed to 'imminent and active threat,' a foreign policy failure bound to haunt the United States for decades to come.

Iraqis like to call this mess 'the situation.' When asked 'how are thing?' they reply: 'the situation is very bad."

What they mean by situation is this: the Iraqi government doesn't control most Iraqi cities, there are several car bombs going off each day around the country killing and injuring scores of innocent people, the country's roads are becoming impassable and littered by hundreds of landmines and explosive devices aimed to kill American soldiers, there are assassinations, kidnappings and beheadings. The situation, basically, means a raging barbaric guerilla war. In four days, 110 people died and over 300 got injured in Baghdad alone. The numbers are so shocking that the ministry of health -- which was attempting an exercise of public transparency by releasing the numbers -- has now stopped disclosing them.

Insurgents now attack Americans 87 times a day.
<...>
The insurgency, we are told, is rampant with no signs of calming down. If any thing, it is growing stronger, organized and more sophisticated every day. The various elements within it-baathists, criminals, nationalists and Al Qaeda-are cooperating and coordinating.
<...>
America's last hope for a quick exit? The Iraqi police and National Guard units we are spending billions of dollars to train. The cops are being murdered by the dozens every day-over 700 to date -- and the insurgents are infiltrating their ranks. The problem is so serious that the U.S. military has allocated $6 million dollars to buy out 30,000 cops they just trained to get rid of them quietly.

As for reconstruction: firstly it's so unsafe for foreigners to operate that almost all projects have come to a halt. After two years, of the $18 billion Congress appropriated for Iraq reconstruction only about $1 billion or so has been spent and a chuck has now been reallocated for improving security, a sign of just how bad things are going here.

Oil dreams? Insurgents disrupt oil flow routinely as a result of sabotage and oil prices have hit record high of $49 a barrel. Who did this war exactly benefit? Was it worth it? Are we safer because Saddam is holed up and Al Qaeda is running around in Iraq?

Iraqis say that thanks to America they got freedom in exchange for insecurity. Guess what? They say they'd take security over freedom any day, even if it means having a dictator ruler.

I heard an educated Iraqi say today that if Saddam Hussein were allowed to run for elections he would get the majority of the vote. This is truly sad.

Then I went to see an Iraqi scholar this week to talk to him about elections here. He has been trying to educate the public on the importance of voting. He said, "President Bush wanted to turn Iraq into a democracy that would be an example for the Middle East. Forget about democracy, forget about being a model for the region, we have to salvage Iraq before all is lost."

One could argue that Iraq is already lost beyond salvation. For those of us on the ground it's hard to imagine what if any thing could salvage it from its violent downward spiral. The genie of terrorism, chaos and mayhem has been unleashed onto this country as a result of American mistakes and it can't be put back into a bottle.

How is Falwell able to maintain tax-exempt status?

If a liberal or left-leaning minister conducted himself in a similar fashion, does anyone honestly think he/she would be able to keep his tax-exempt status? DeLay would be on that like flies on a dead carcass. Such a violation of the separation of church & state is tolerated and encouraged – as long as its in favor of the GOP. An outrage.

The following in the conservative Washington Times:

Falwell asks Christians to support president

The 4 million evangelical Christians who did not vote in 2000 will unite behind President Bush in November, the Rev. Jerry Falwell said yesterday.

With five weeks until the presidential election, Mr. Falwell said he is trying to muster conservative evangelical ministers to support the Republican ticket. He continued to mobilize the nation's evangelical base at Liberty University here earlier this week, by holding a seminar on preaching about conservative politics from the pulpit without forfeiting tax-exempt status.

Mr. Falwell said yesterday that he plans to hold at least 40 similar talks in several battleground states in the next month. He promised "a landslide" victory for Mr. Bush on Election Day.

The LA Times reports the following:

Nineteen percent of likely voters said the debate could affect their vote, whereas 79% said it was not likely to. One good sign for Kerry: 63% of those who said the debate could change their mind now support Bush, and 27% back the Democrat.

On Paula Zahn’s show last night, their internet poll showed something similar with 1 in 4 stating the debates could affect their vote.

So with 75-80% of the voters apparently dead-set on their choice, is the 20-25% of still-wavering voters meaningful? Given how close this election appears to be, I would say “yes.”

Yet, for those who wish to only focus on those polls showing Bush with a big lead (despite those polls suffering from methodology flaws, as discussed here and elsewhere), I submit the following interesting chart:



Donald Luskin points out that based on futures contracts (again, which I’ve discussed here many times before), Bush could go the way of – of all people – Gore. Luskin states:

What happened to Gore in early October, 2000, that sent him careening from the heights of near-certain election into the depths of political oblivion? Simple: it was the first debate. If you don't remember his bizarre performance -- all the sighing and eye-rolling and interrupting -- then perhaps you remember the Saturday Night Live version of it. Yep -- it seems like such a little thing, almost a matter of style over substance -- yet it did him in.

The point is that the same thing could happen to Bush. It ain't over till it's over.

We can only hope.

However, a big problem for Kerry is the country has grown so accustomed to the flubberings and embarrassing gaffes of our leader that GW will be allowed much more leeway to be a fool than Kerry will be granted. The country treats Bush like an inept 15-year old going up against a very competent adult; they all but feel sorry for him and therefore hold minimal expectations for him to win. Like it was for Gore, the bar is set much higher for Kerry, and whether this is fair or not is of no consequence. At least 50% of this country is comprised of dopes who make this absurd standard a sad reality.

So much for lessons learned from Abu Ghraib:

The Bush administration is supporting a provision in the House leadership's intelligence reform bill that would allow U.S. authorities to deport certain foreigners to countries where they are likely to be tortured or abused, an action prohibited by the international laws against torture the United States signed 20 years ago.

The provision, part of the massive bill introduced Friday by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), would apply to non-U.S. citizens who are suspected of having links to terrorist organizations but have not been tried on or convicted of any charges. Democrats tried to strike the provision in a daylong House Judiciary Committee meeting, but it survived on a party-line vote. (Washington Post)

Wasn't it better when turtle-like Hastert remained in his shell? It's as if DeLay has ordered him to get out there and be more gutsy, to make inflammatory statements with no facts to support them and to propose legislation that is repugnant. In other words, given DeLay's legal troubles of late, Hastert has likely received word that he needs to now spearhead the dirty work that DeLay formerly put into motion.

As Rev. Jim Wallis, the editor of Sojourners magazine, told me: "It's a bitter irony: these people accuse Democrats of wanting to ban the Bible, then proceed to utterly ignore the vast majority of its contents when it comes to questions of social justice, war and peace, and protecting the environment."

Perhaps the holy rollers in the Bush camp should crack open a Bible and see what it has to say about caring for the poor (Matthew 25:40), caring for the Earth (Genesis 2:15), and caring for human rights (Genesis 1:27). I've got a hunch Jesus wouldn't be too thrilled with Bush's first term.

And while they're acquainting themselves with the Book they purport to defend, the Bushies might also want to have a look at John 8:32 to see what it has to say about the moral imperative of telling the truth. Instead, they are doing everything in their power to convince nervous voters that a vote for John Kerry is a vote for another 9/11. It's the latest vile twist in the Bush-Cheney "all fear, all the time" campaign strategy, and the last desperate gasp of an administration utterly clueless about how to actually win the war on terror.

-- ARIANNA HUFFINGTON

The Party of the Ignorant.

At the risk of stating the obvious, just imagine the Bush campaign without the “benefit” of 9-11. What would GW have to run on? If you take away 9-11 and Iraq (note they’re two separate items; 9-11 was/is not related to Iraq, and Bush had no control over the former but completely controlled the latter), Bush would have to run and hide in a corner when it came to campaigning this year.

Bush/Cheney/(Rove) is all about fear and hatred. Fear the enemy, hate the enemy. That’s it. While 9-11 may have changed everything (a phrase the GOP loves to reiterate over and over), is it reasonable to expect any other president during such a period to essentially accomplish nothing, sans this tragic event? Of course, if you scratch the surface it very quickly becomes apparent that this administration has been a dismal failure, but the evil genius of Rove is to keep the public from seeing things clearly, to don on the country the proverbial rose colored glasses (ala Great Gatsby).

It comes down to voters who are able to think and see through the bullsh*t, versus those who choose to be spoon-fed imagery, hopes, and dreams as framed by a win-at-all-cost gang of shameless thugs. Hyperbole? Don’t think so. Instead, your reaction to this description will speak volumes concerning which group you fall under, the more cerebral, clear-headed voter or the one who wishes to discard facts in favor of viewing the world as he/she would like for it to be (clicking ruby slippers three times may help).

Gads:

"I saw a poll that said the right track/wrong track in Iraq was better than here in America." -- GW Bush, 9/23/04

A sign of things to come (the draft not far behind?):

WASHINGTON — Fewer than two-thirds of the former soldiers being reactivated for duty in Iraq and elsewhere have reported on time, prompting the Army to threaten some with punishment for desertion.

Danger of war on the Korean peninsula "is snowballing," but we're too busy with Iraq to notice or do anything. According to AP, "North Korea says it has turned the plutonium from 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods into nuclear weapons."

Oh GW, it looks like another evil country needs to be taught a lesson -- only this one actually has WMD. Your response....? Hello? Anyone home?

"...the F.B.I. still lacked the capacity to translate all the terrorism-related material from wiretaps and other intelligence sources and that the influx of new material has outpaced the bureau's resources." (NY Times)

Is this how Bush is making us safer? By going to war in Iraq, draining our coffers of nearly $200 bil., we now lack the resources to fight the real war on terror, therefore making us less safe. Is that too difficult for half the country to understand?

One Way For Kerry To Win, Instantly....

How? If Colin Powell were to suddenly resign. Think about it. It’s universally understood and accepted that Powell has lost all credibility and respect since being a part of this administration. Whereas prior to the Iraq debacle, most people, no matter the political persuasion, could at least take what he had to say at face value and believe that he was telling us the truth (at least as much as a political figure can tell the truth). Despite the fact he was not for the Iraq invasion and has labeled the Neocons in power “f*cking crazies,” he nonetheless complied and helped to shuck the crap that passed as intel. His willful negligence in this regard can never be forgotten or forgiven. At least others, like Richard Clarke and Paul O’Neill, had enough dignity and self-respect to say enough is enough with this pack of psychos, but not Colin. For whatever reason(s), he has remained, though his whereabouts in the last several months remains in question (he’s currently serving the role of the crazy aunt locked in the cellar).

Powell could regain much of his stature and respect if out-of-the-blue, without consulting anyone, he called for a press conference and announced his resignation. Such news would be unprecedented in an election year and absolutely drive home a strong message, namely that to reelect GW given the state of affairs in the world would be a dire course of action for this country. Kerry/Edwards would be able to jump on this obvious implication of “no confidence,” hammering away to the point where even Karl Rove would be at a loss to spin it.

It would be a beautiful thing. We would be able to forgive Colin for many of his past indiscretions as we could assume this was his devious but righteous plan all along (even if he denied it). He’d be forever remembered for such a move. Granted, many would hate him with a passion and others would dedicate their lives to making sure his life was ruined, but it’s the price he should pay given what he’s done over the last few years. Ultimately, he has time to make amends.

Chimpanzee demonstrates erasure of voting system log.

Chimp hacks Diebold's audit log (in just 10 minutes). Diebold stated its audit log could not be altered "by human intervention." They lied.

Recall CEO of Diebold is on record saying he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president."

Although it's old news at this point, it's striking to see and hear GW in front of the UN assembly, giving his speech to a near 100% unresponsive crowd (we're talking absolute silence), as compared to his hokey, laughable "Ask The President" gatherings, where after every sentence he receives wild applause from the carefully pre-screened crowd. Admittedly, the rules of the UN make it quite difficult for Rove to work his magic.

This is a tough one and I await the predictable angry emails from the right. The Washington Post has a story about the administration's all-out efforts to thwart any terrorist threat come the November election. OK, all well and good.

However, keeping in mind the accepted rule that more fear favors the incumbent, one has to wonder if Rove hasn't issued the order to crank up the appearance of massive threats to further instill fear in voters when they arrive at the booths. Notice some of the specifics in the story: "unusually open offensive," "...ordered a number of his officers to wear sophisticated new equipment to protect them from a biological or chemical attack," "counterterrorism officials concede they do not have new or specific intelligence outlining plans for an attack," "several sources who have been briefed on the results, and who declined to be identified because the material is classified, said little fresh information has been gleaned," and "one senior European intelligence official said his country has seen no direct evidence that al Qaeda has the ability or specific intent to launch an attack in the United States before the November elections."

The point being it's obviously expected and strongly encouraged that anti-terrorist efforts be stepped up as we approach the election (even though indications are no new evidence exists for such attacks), yet to do so in ways that are very much overtly noticeable, and therefore stirring palpable fear in the voting public, is fair game for criticism. Recall that the Clinton administration thwarted many a threat with very little notice to John Q. Public. Even bowing to the "9-11 changed everything" mantra, one could still make the case that Bush/Rove should stress extra vigilance but for the sake of fair elections, efforts should be conducted in more of a covert, less openly-alarming fashion. Attempt to calm fears, not stoke them.

As I said, the right-wing loons will no doubt scream, "You want protection, but you don't want Bush to do anything! If something were to happen, you'd then scream that he didn't do anything!" etc. etc. Anyone with a brain in their head knows exactly what I'm referring to in the above, but it will be purposefully twisted by the intellectually dishonest.

Once again, Rove is smiling. He simply can't wait for Election Day to come and as we all approach the voting booths, there to greet us will be a fully armed soldier or officer, completely suited up in heavy anti-terrorist gear, including a disturbing looking face mask with oxygen tank, etc. Upon entering the booth, you'll then have that final terrifying glimpse of what could happen -- IF YOU VOTE WRONG!

I'm just returning from a few days off. Back this morning with daily entries.

"Despite Bush Flip-Flops, Kerry Gets Label" -- today's Washington Post

Some examples:

In 2000, Bush said he would include carbon dioxide on a list of air pollutants requiring federal oversight, a stand he abandoned within weeks of taking office. A month after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush's spokesman said the president believed a homeland security department that Democrats proposed was "just not necessary." A year after that, Bush had switched course and was lashing some Democrats for not moving quickly enough to approve the agency.

While Bush professes himself a strong free-trader, most other free-trade proponents said he bent on principle in March 2002 when he ordered tariffs on imported steel -- a move that resonated politically in electorally important industrial states such as Pennsylvania. Facing an escalating global trade dispute, he lifted the tariffs at the end of last year.

In some cases, Democrats say, Bush's position stays the same even as his reasons flip. The most famous examples involve taxes and Iraq. He supported tax cuts in 2000 because he said they were affordable in a time of large government surpluses, and once in power he supported them amid rising deficits because he said the economy needed stimulation. The president's principal rationale for the Iraq invasion was to end Baghdad's suspected mass-weapons program and links to international terrorism. In the absence of compelling evidence of these, the main post-invasion rationale has been to rescue Iraq from a tyrant and support democracy in the greater Middle East.

From the web site Republicans for Humility (don't laugh, apparently the words "Republican" and "Humility" can still coexist):

Since 2002, policies which a number of key officials in the Bush administration have advocated since prior to the 2000 election, have received increased attention. Notable is the advocacy of preemptive war, an emphasis on unilateral rather that multilateral warfare, and an insistence on American dominance throughout all regions of the world, space, and cyberspace. This aggressively interventionist foreign policy is alien to the beliefs of many conservatives, who would consider such policies threatening if they were the held by an ally.

While the Bush Doctrine of preemption sharply contrasts with the "more humble" foreign policy publicly advocated in 2000 by presidential candidate Bush, who repeatedly promised to avoid the interventionist "nation building" exploits of his predecessor, it has a developmental history going back to at least the early 1990's.

Although aggressively interventionist policies conflict with the values of many traditional, small-government conservatives, many supported the invasion of Iraq for the purpose of disarming Saddam Hussein.

The failure to find expected weapons of mass destruction has been disturbing for many who supported the invasion for this purpose. Moreover:

* as the stated mission of the war was re-defined from the more specific goal of disarming Saddam Hussein into that of "creating democracy" in Iraq, with an indeterminate exit strategy,
* as increasing majorities of the "liberated", both Sunni and Shiite, have pronounced us to be unwelcome occupiers,
* as promises to bring our troops home promptly upon completion of our specific mission has given way to the prospect of a perpetual occupation,
* as the "occupation" has been re-defined by the Administration as having "ended" even as troop deployments are increasing and as 14 "enduring bases" are under construction,

many of these former supporters of the invasion have questioned the true intentions of our political leadership.


The site lists MANY examples of Bush's hogwash rhetoric -- and then reality (again pointing out how much this administration, and apparently half of the American public, lives in the world of fantasy). Here's a few:

Rhetoric

"...captive people have greeted American soldiers as liberators. And there is good reason. We have no territorial ambitions, we don't seek an empire."

George W. Bush, November 11, 2002

“We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire.”

George W. Bush, January 20, 2004

"....we have no interest in occupation.”

George W. Bush, May 24, 2004

Reality

"2% of Iraqis View the US as Liberators, 97% as Occupiers", poll commissioned by the U.S. appointed Coalition Provisional Authority

"14 “Enduring Bases” Set in Iraq", Christine Spolar, Chicago Tribune, March 23, 2004

"Behind the Scenes, US Tightens Grip on Iraq's Future" – Wall Street Journal, May 13, 2004

All is not lost when it comes to at least a few Republicans.

Will this trend finally turn up sharply this election?



Source: American Voice 2004

We invaded Iraq because they had oil, but more importantly, BECAUSE THEY HAD NO WMD! If they did, even Bush/Cheney are not crazy enough to jeopardize American forces under such conditions.

Need more proof? Where's Bush's idiotic posturing and swagger when it comes to "evil" North Korea?

Charles Pritchard, formerly Colin Powell's top official dealing with North Korea, has warned for months that "the White House lacks an effective strategy to dissuade North Korea from building up its nuclear arms." Under Bush's watch, North Korea's nuclear arsenal is thought to have quadrupled. And, according to Pritchard, the situation has deteriorated because "the administration has neither offered much of a carrot nor wielded a stick." The administration has refused to engage North Korea in direct negotiations or "put the North Koreans on notice that further developments will trigger economic sanctions or perhaps even military actions." (The Progress Report)

Bush Inc., selling the country to the highest bidder(s):

For the third time, environmental advocates have discovered passages in the Bush administration's proposal for regulating mercury pollution from power plants that mirror almost word for word portions of memos written by a law firm representing coal-fired power plants.
<…>
Sen. James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.), ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and one of the senators who called for the probe last spring, said the revelation that the EPA adopted the same wording as an industry source "no longer comes as much of a surprise."

"The Bush administration continues to let industry write the rules on pollution, and this is just one more example of how they abuse the public trust," he said. (Washington Post)

And the good news just keeps coming:

A relentless insurgency in Iraq has prompted the Pentagon to begin spending money from a $25-billion emergency fund that Bush administration officials had once said would not be needed this fiscal year. (LA Times)

Bush at UN

Just galling: he gives them the middle finger, goes it alone (basically) and invades, makes a complete mess of things, and now pleads for help. Is it any wonder most of the world detests him?

Peter Beinart pens an excellent column in this week’s TNR. He discusses how Bush/Rove have tried to frame the campaign almost strictly on the fuzzy concept of “character” – just as they did four years ago vs. Gore. Why not? It worked then why change a thing, and they have nothing else to run on. As Beinart states, “An actual debate about the wisdom of Bush's foreign policy--particularly in Iraq--is precisely what his campaign's character strategy is designed to prevent.”

Bush/Rove deal in images, fiction, and illusions. It’s their job to get Americans to enter and embrace their fantasy world. They achieve this goal by playing on human emotions, not intellect. Fostering fear and hatred will trump logic and reason every day of the week in this country (sadly).

Beinart points out that “[Zell] Miller wasn't urging Americans to reelect Bush because Iraq has been a success… He was urging Americans to reelect Bush because the president believes Iraq has been a success.” Again, urging the ignorant to enter into the "Bush Funhouse," to check their brains at the door and simply accept the drivel being fed to them. “Today, just as before the Iraq war, the Bush camp dismisses facts that intrude upon its favored view of the world… If Democrats dare point out where reality diverges--that the Iraq war was based on a colossal factual miscalculation and that few Iraqis still see it as a moral enterprise--they are savaged for not believing in America.”

And Republicans don’t have a problem with the demonization for those who choose to dissent (or to think!). Instead, they applaud and endorse that ignorant phrase, “if you’re not with us, you’re against us.” This spoken by our great uniter of a president.

Meanwhile, 80+% of the civilized world is rooting against the reelection of our current leader. I guess they’re all just big, fat, stupid, commie idiots – correct, right-wing loonies?!

Jeffrey White, an associate of The Washington Institute who spent 34 years with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), has said regarding Iraq, "The overall prospects ... are for a violent political future." He estimates that there are as many as 100,000 Iraqis involved in the Sunni insurgency -- a figure that is fast approaching the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq!

Kerry was on Letterman last night and once again he explained his vote concerning this Iraq war. As he has done so in the past, Kerry stated he voted to give Bush the authority to got to war, but he did not directly vote for invading Iraq. There is a legitimate difference.

An analogy would involve a teenage daughter and her parents. The parents agree to allow her to go out for the evening with friends. Hours later, they receive a phone call from the police. Apparently, their teenager went a bit too far with the partying and experienced a run-in with the law.

The parents granted permission to their daughter but once having left the house, they had no control over what she would eventually do. Obviously, they expected her to behave and use good judgment, but again it was ultimately out of their hands.

It's perhaps too much to ask that the GOP crowd understand this somewhat nuanced position given they prefer everything in black & white terms. Nonetheless, Kerry, the parent, should have known better than to grant authority to an irresponsible, mischievous, and dishonest teenager in GW.

How do you know NY Times columnist David Brooks leans right-wing? Because he distorts. Read Josh Marshall's commentary.

(Couldn’t the Times have done better than hiring Brooks in what perhaps was an effort to throw red meat to the Dittohead crowd?)

Great column today by E.J. Dionne Jr.:

It is to be welcomed that President Bush wants to clear up questions about his National Guard service. He wants more details out there, and good for him. This story should be laid to rest, and the one person who can do it is named George W. Bush.

Up to now, Bush has been interested in a rather narrow aspect of the story. He wanted Dan Rather and CBS News to come clean about whether they used fake documents in reporting on the president's Guard service back in the 1970s.

"There are a lot of questions and they need to be answered," Bush told the Union Leader in Manchester, N.H., last week. "I think what needs to happen is people need to take a look at the documents, how they were created, and let the truth come out."
<…>
"There are a lot of questions and they need to be answered." Surely that presidential sentiment applies as much to Bush's Guard service as to Rather's journalistic methods.
<…>
Oh, I can hear the groaning: "But why are we still talking about Vietnam?" A fair question that has several compelling answers.

First, except for John McCain, Republicans were conspicuously happy to have a front group spread untruths about John Kerry's Vietnam service in August and watch as the misleading claims were amplified by the supposedly liberal media. The Vietnam era was relevant as long as it could be used to raise character questions about Kerry. But as soon as the questioning turned to Bush's character, we were supposed to call the whole thing off. Why? Because the media were supposed to question Kerry's character but not Bush's.

And, please, none of this nonsense about how Kerry "opened the door" to the assault on his Vietnam years by highlighting his service at the Democratic National Convention. Nothing any candidate does should ever be seen as "opening the door" to lies about his past. Besides, Vietnam veterans with Republican ties were going after Kerry's war record long before the Democratic convention.

But, most important, there is only one reason the story about Bush's choices during the Vietnam years persists. It's because the president won't give detailed answers to the direct questions posed by the Times story and other responsible media organizations, including the Boston Globe. Their questions never depended on the discredited CBS documents.

Bush could end this story now so we could get to the real issues of 2004. It would require only that the president take an hour or so with reporters to make clear what he did and did not do in the Guard. He may have had good reasons for ducking that physical exam. Surely he can explain the gaps in his service and tell us honestly whether any pull was used to get him into the Guard.

But a guy who is supposed to be so frank and direct turns remarkably Clintonian where the National Guard issue is concerned. "I met my requirements and was honorably discharged" is Bush's stock answer, which does old Bill proud. And am I the only person exasperated by a double standard that treated everything Bill Clinton ever did in his life ("I didn't inhale") as fair game but now insists that we shouldn't sully ourselves with any inconvenient questions about Bush's past?

I'm as weary as you are that our politics veer away from what matters -- Iraq, terrorism, health care, jobs -- and get sidetracked into personal issues manufactured by political consultants and ideological zealots. But the Bush campaign has made clear it wants this election to focus on character and leadership. If character is the issue, the president's life, past and present, matters just as much as John Kerry's.

Dan Rather has answered his critics. Now it is Bush's turn.

This morning, Col. Jack Jacobs discussed (on a morning radio show) his thoughts on the Iraq war and (surprise!) stated he believes things will get VERY ugly in 2005. The main problem? Lack of troops. He stated the growing insurgency should have been stomped out a year ago but due to gross incompetence in the upper echelons of leadership, miscalculations have been made, often. I wrote in May about how the number of troops sent was massively short of what was needed, based on studies Rumsfeld & Co. likely read and tossed aside.

Jacobs referred to what is a main premise in these studies and that is that it’s one thing to seize a target, it’s quite another to hold it. He said it’s the holding that is the hard part, requiring the ample number of troops – which we’ve lacked in Iraq. This is Military 101 stuff. With Rumsfeld choosing to go “lean,” insurgents have been allowed to organize and grow, leading up to the day by day reports of fighting, death, etc. In effect, Rumsfeld’s amazingly wrong choice (in part due to politics, i.e. hiding from the public the true amount of soldiers needed, fooling them and therefore obtaining their approval to invade) has translated into additional dead soldiers that did not have to be.

With any other president, Rumsfeld and his crew would’ve been forced to resign (as Al Gore urged months ago), but not with this unaccountable leader. He simply operates on denial, dodging, fudge facts, ignorance, hope, bury, etc. Jacobs didn’t mention the word “draft” but he certainly hinted that it’s either that or continue to see Iraq implode in the next several months, costing us hundreds (thousands?) of more casualties.

Iraq has been a tragic failure. Newsweek's Jonathan Alter sums up how Kerry should proceed:

What John Kerry needs to do is what Bill Clinton did to George Bush the father in 1992 where the key moment was not when George Bush looked at his watch, that obviously hurt him a lot but that's the thing that everyone remembers from those debates. In my book the key moment for Clinton was when he said, 'You won't lead. I will.' At that point he kind of pushed old man Bush aside and said, 'I am the leader of the future not you.' Now the equivalent of Kerry doing that to this Bush would be to basically say, 'You failed in Iraq. You can't clean it up. You haven't caught Osama Bin Laden. I will' and make that credible.

In an effort to combat Bush's actions to reverse 30+ years of environmental progress, states are being forced to legislate and fight back to protect their residents. And taxpayers have to foot the bill (on both ends) as states go to court versus the federal government. Just pathetic.

New Jersey is an example:

NEW YORK, NY (September 16, 2004) - The State of New Jersey today announced it will use state air pollution laws to limit emissions of heat-trapping emissions that cause global warming. Adding considerable weight to a growing trend of state-based climate protection in the face of federal inaction, Governor James E. McGreevey officially designated carbon dioxide as an air pollutant. The decision paves the way for New Jersey to join a northeast regional plan to cut global warming pollution.

In the absence of any federal action on global warming, states have taken the lead on fighting global warming. There are currently regional programs to cut global warming pollution on both coasts, with more than a dozen states participating. For instance, California is expected to adopt global warming emissions standards for vehicles next week.

"Governor McGreevey and New Jersey deserve great credit for their actions today," said John Adams, President of NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), the New York-based environmental group. "They are taking responsible action to protect their residents' health, New Jersey's economy and the environment. Compare that to the Bush administration and others beholden to the oil and coal industries, who continue to avoid any responsible action to fix the problem."

"Name The October Surprise... Because The Only Surprise Will Be If There Isn't One."

Someone slap me....

I've posted a few entries of late about election polls and how they're flawed and not a fair representation of what is likely to occur come November. Some may think I point such things out only because Kerry is behind in many polls. They'd be wrong since the inherent flaws in the polling methodology would obviously remain no matter who might be ahead.

However, to stay truthful (my main goal here), I've also written about market-driven election predictors, normally associated with online gambling casinos. I have been a big believer in such dollar-based "polls" as they've been very accurate when used in the past. It hurts me to report that based on two casino web sites, Bush's recent surge is even more dramatic than Gallup-like polls are showing.

Tradesports.com shows the following chart for Bush's chances of winning:



Ouch! Whereas GW's fate was in freefall for months prior to the GOP convention, he's currently enjoying a rip-snorting rally with the chart looking like a biotech stock that just discovered a cure for cancer! To further confirm this figure, World Sports Exchange shows the exact same, 70% Bush / 30% Kerry.

I'll state the obvious: what is wrong with this country?! That aside, I will mention a few things that can favor Kerry. One, he's now the underdog and many smart pundits have written how that's Kerry's preferred standing heading into a hard fought election. Two, the three upcoming debates could change everything. Three, unlike elections since the Vietnam era, the highly volatile Iraq situation and the threat of terrorism in general could greatly impact the election right up until November 2nd.

Finally, if this chart represented a stock, it's current price action could be classified as a "dead cat" bounce, meaning the stock was left for dead and with no more sellers it doesn't take much buying pressure to send the stock zooming. Granted, not an apples-to-apples comparison, but nonetheless what most often happens to these stocks after they enjoy a brief but powerful rally is they revert and resume their downward slide.

Please let GW = a bear market rally.

Apparently House Speaker Hastert didn't learn anything from his embarassing comments when he smeared George Soros, offering no evidence to support his outrageously dumb statements. Looking/sounding like a moron is what Denny does best.

Whelp, he was recently at it again, this time reading from the same RNC talking points handed to Cheney. Hastert was spreading fear in Illinois at a GOP dinner, letting it be known that Al Qaeda may attack to throw the election Kerry's way. Of course, he added, "I don't have data or intelligence to tell me one thing or another." When asked if Al Qaeda would have it easier under a Kerry presidency, he replied "yes."

Karl Rove must be so proud.

Military Draft To Return?

I've read a few articles stating the draft could return as early as next year. Much of it is hush-hush until after the November election. However, there are House and Senate bills (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) which would "provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes."

I did some checking and found that Snopes.com, the well-known "Urban Legend" debunking web site, had already commented on this topic in May. I've read several Snopes entries in the past and they've been very convincing and complete; yet in this case, much doubt remains after reading the attempt to clarify things.

Snopes does NOT categorically dismiss the notion and in fact confirms the twin House and Senate bills do indeed exist. If anything, it's the date (Spring 2005) that is rendered highly suspect: "Since a reimposition of conscription would require Congressional approval, which has not yet been given, it is unlikely that a draft (even if approved by Congress) would be underway as early as Spring 2005." Oh, that's comforting! Snopes continues, "Obviously some thought has been given to the issue, but the possibility that such thoughts will be turned into reality appears rather small at this point. Still, conditions and attitudes can change very quickly."

Nice try Snopes, and I applaud your attempts to put this rumor in proper perspective. However, unlike most of the other items on the web site, this circulating rumor is absolutely NOT baseless and has ample reality and true possibility surrounding it.

Interesting article on growing unrest in the National Guard as they become the go-to choice for troops in Iraq. Morale is reportedly low with fights breaking out. The following is a revealing quote:

"I think before we deploy we should be allowed to go home and see our families for five days, because some of us might not come back," said Spec. Wendell McLeod, 40, a steelworker from Cheraw, S.C. "Morale is pretty low. . . . It's leading to fights and stuff. That's really all I got to say."

Dare say many of these soldiers realize the cause in Iraq is highly questionable, or at least perceive that the situation has turned into a dire mess?

Ironic that GW chose the National Guard to escape Vietnam, and yet the Guard is what he has chosen to supply soldiers to his war in Iraq.

How low can they go?

WASHINGTON (AP) - Campaign mail with a return address of the Republican National Committee warns West Virginia voters that the Bible will be prohibited and men will marry men if liberals win in November.

If you're an educated, reasonable, compassionate human being, how can you be a Republican (i.e. how can you be associated in any way with this party)?

Ruy Teixeira on yesterday's CBS News/New York Times Poll:

As many have already heard, the new CBS News/New York Times poll, conducted September 12-16, gives Bush an 8 point lead (50-42) among RVs--but also gives the Republicans a 4 point edge on party ID. Reweight their data to conform to an underlying Democratic 4 point edge (using the 39D/35R/26I distribution from the 2000 exit poll) and you get a nearly even race, 47 Bush/46 Kerry.

Nearly even. That goes along with the 46-46 tie in the Pew Research Center poll (which gave the Democrats a 4 point edge on party ID without weighting) and the 48-48 tie in the Gallup poll (once weighted to reflect an underlying Democratic 4 point edge). Not to mention the two other recent national polls (Harris, Democracy Corps) that show the race within one point.

Perhaps all this is just a coincidence, but the pattern seems striking. Once you adjust for the apparent overrepresentation of Republican identifiers in some samples, the polls all seem to be saying the same thing: the race is a tie or very close to it.


It's the duty of all Kerry supporters to understand this distortion, keep the faith, and communicate polling flaws to as many people as possible. Let's not allow deceptive polls to be self-fulfilling and influence the election.

A new report is to come out on Iraq and supposed WMD. The two main findings:

1) there is zero evidence of any "large-scale program for weapons production" prior to the U.S. invasion (shocker!);
2) Saddam intended to produce WMD if United Nations sanctions were lifted.

With the latter point, expect GW & Co. to jump all over this one, however note the key part that undoubtedly will be left out: the UN sanctions were working! The implication here is if sanctions were allowed to remain in place and continue to function effectively, Saddam's evil desires would've been held in check, thus completely undermining and discrediting the bogus reasons given by Bush/Cheney to go to war.

If this were Clinton, he would've been impeached by now (and this time it would've been absolutely justified!).

Purposeful Incompetence?

This a tough one. We've read the recent reports about a senior CIA officer criticizing the administration for underfunding and understaffing the unit assigned to tracking and capturing Osama bin Laden.

On the one hand, with this administration it's not difficult to imagine the incompetence he describes; we've seen such pathetic bumbling over and over. However, we also know that this administration (thanks to Cheney & Rove) is one of the most cold-calculating and secretive in history. There is the chance that this unit was purposefully depleted and neglected, either due to the Bush family & bin Laden business ties or perhaps due to the all-along plan to capture bin Laden in a more politically convenient time (like next month?).

Don't put anything past these guys. I am not a conspiracy nut, yet I do believe come October Osama will miraculously show up on all TV networks primetime, caught and being led away by "coalition" forces. Hopefully, it will not be a surprise to anyone.

"Bush clear leader in poll" -- USA Today, 9/17/04

"2 Polls Say Race Is Tied Again" -- LA Times, 9/17/04

Ahh, polls. Which to believe? How can they be so different?

The best article I've come across on this topic is by Ruy Teixeira. He points out two major problems:

The two problems are: (1) samples that have an unrealistic number of Republican identifiers and hence tend to favor Bush; and (2) the widespread and highly questionable practice of using likely voters (LVs) instead of registered voters (RVs) to measure voter sentiment this far before the election.

For the first problem, he suggests:

weighting poll results by a reasonable distribution of party ID may be necessary to avoid giving the public distorted impressions of the state of the race.

Adjusting for this, it offers,

a clear picture of a tight race, with Bush likely running a small lead, but not the solid--and even large--advantage that has been conveyed to the public.

As for the second problem, most of these polls are based on so-called "Likely Voters" (LVs), not registered voters (RVs). LVs are defined by each polling group, pending on their screening methodology based on a set of questions. It's clear the composition of this group can fluctuate and vary from one polling group to the next. In addition, daily news events can greatly affect the composition of this group, offering the potential for misleading results. As quoted in the article,

[E]stimates of who may be likely voters in the weeks and months prior to Election Day in large part reflect transient political interest on the day of the poll, which might have little bearing on voter interests on the day of the election.

Whereas LVs are much more volatile, changing day to day and week to week, registered voters (RVs) are not; one could make the case to use RVs instead. In fact, when focusing strictly on those polls that use RVs:

they suggest something far different: the race is damn close and Bush's substantial lead is a myth.

Is it too much to ask for mainstream media to enunciate these very important points?

Civil war a possibility in Iraq by next year. (Source: the CIA)

Mission accomplished?