FS

This is my last Swift Boat Veteran for "Truth" post for awhile. I actually hope it's the last one EVER. In the last three days it seems that this organization got what it wanted...the media spotlight. And with that spotlight came truth shone into the dark corners of their allegations and accusations.

Two more news stories emerged in the last 24 hours that have put the nail into the coffin for these clowns:

Chicago Tribune Editor William Rood has written a piece that completely backs Kerry's entire account of the Silver Star. Rood notes that there were 3 Swift Boats there that day and only two commanders are alive to tell the story: himself and Kerry.

Oregonian and Swift Boat Veteran for "Truth" Alfred French has admitted that he actually witnessed none of the combat incidents in question, he has relied on accounts from other individuals. This after calling Kerry a "liar" in the Swift Boaters TV ad.

I feel certain this isn't the last we've heard from these guys. But in terms of cred, they are completely bone dry. Kevin Drum has also has a great series of pieces on Kerry's medals vs the Swift Boaters as well.

And now the cherry on the cake:

Kerry's new TV ad

don'tcha think?


From the Kos diaries, Zell Miller gushes praise for Kerry in 2001

The original is on Miller's website.

Zell is apparently a great big fan of John Kerry. Funny how the guy who plans to give the keynote at the GOP Convention considers Kerry an "authentic hero" a "great leader" and a "good friend".

Zell has apparently been drinking from the same well as the Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth"

Senator Kerry has filed suit against the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth with the FEC. The suit alleges that SBV is illegally coordinated with the Bush/Cheney 04 campaign in violation of campaign laws. The Kerry team say they have overwhelming evidence with which to back up their suit.

David Kay, late of the US team who found zero WMD in Iraq, gave testimony to Congress on Wednesday that the National Security Council (NSC) has done a lousy job when it comes to vetting intelligence.

Kay didn't name Rice openly...but it's pretty obvious that Rice is the target of Kay's wrath....and Kay believes she should be held accountable.

Kay's comments also mirror those made by Richard Clarke.

So basically, Condi sucks at her job and should be fired.

Bush says,"Yes".

Don't let anything like the First Amendment stand in your way, eh? The Fourth and Fifth haven't bothered you, why should the First?

Criminey.

How a Philosophy Professor With a Checkered Past
Became the Most Influential Catholic Layman in George W. Bush's Washington: The Real Deal

While I'm on the subject of Catholics and voting: Is Kerry a Good Catholic?

Dire Straits

Pew Research has released their latest polling data on the election. The headline on the poll:

Public Faults Bush on Economy - 55% Say Jobs are Scarce
Kerry Makes Gains on Issues, Bush Maintains Leadership Image Advantage

On the race itself:

Kerry 47
Bush 45
Nader 2

Brian Keegan over at Centerfield first brought this poll to my attention. Centerfield is on my daily list of blog reads. While I don't always agree with them (I'm waiting for Mathew to hunt me down in my sleep and duct tape my fingers together to keep me from posting) the comments tend to be cerebral and interesting.

Brian's analysis is that the Bush Campaign has had some success defining Kerry...as Bush still polls a "leadership" advantage. Those numbers haven't budged much in the last few months, either. But interestingly when it comes to specific issues (including "morality"...which seems very vague), Kerry has surpassed Bush and in many areas is pulling away. To me this suggests while the Bush campaign is having some success defining Kerry, they appear to be struggling where it counts: issues.

Ruy Teixeira also analyzes the Pew poll on his site. Ruy notes that "On eight of the 11 foreign policy issues in the poll on which there are significant partisan gaps, opinions of swing voters are closer to those of Kerry supporters than to those of Bush voters.

On several issues, the differences between swing voters and committed Bush voters is substantial. More than half of swing voters (53%) regard strengthening the United Nations as a top priority compared with 35% of Bush voters who have this view. And about twice as many swing voters as Bush supporters view global warming as a major concern (35% vs. 18%). "

As Kevin often reminds me, swing voters are what move an election one way or the other. This Pew Poll seems to indicate that Kerry has the definite advantage both on issues and with swing voters.

There is a caveat, however. The election is still quite a few weeks away and the GOP Convention has yet to take place. There's lots of time for things to move either way.

It's just overkill...

Today's New York Times completely disassembles the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group:

Records show that the group received the bulk of its initial financing from two men with ties to the president and his family - one a longtime political associate of Mr. Rove's, the other a trustee of the foundation for Mr. Bush's father's presidential library. A Texas publicist who once helped prepare Mr. Bush's father for his debate when he was running for vice president provided them with strategic advice. And the group's television commercial was produced by the same team that made the devastating ad mocking Michael S. Dukakis in an oversized tank helmet when he and Mr. Bush's father faced off in the 1988 presidential election.

The piece also goes on to discuss how many of the individuals involved with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth had lavished praise on Kerry, some as late as last year. The Times further connects the web between the organizations start up and it's funding sources...which are directly linked to big time Bush donors/supporters in Texas.

Last evening, Larry Turlow of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth appeared on Hardball with Chris Mathews...where Turlow was forced to admit he had no actual evidence that any of the accusations he was making were true.

And in the most bizarre twist of this entire thing whackjob rightwing columnist Michelle Malkin wildly accuses Kerry of deliberately shooting himself to get his first Purple Heart (also on Hardball last evening, same transcript further down).

Toward the end of Mathew's show, David Gergen (former Presidential advisor) sums it all up:

DAVID GERGEN, FMR. PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER: It would be better to take responsibility, but I think everybody knows these are Republicans who are funding this. And John Kerry is getting the best of this argument. When he says, it‘s fronting for the Bush people, the money does come from Republicans and everybody connects the dots. The conclusion is that they are doing the dirty work. The president ought to denounce this ad and move on. It‘s a losing proposition for the president.

MATTHEWS: Do you think the people around him share that assessment politically?

GERGEN: Well, I guess they don‘t because they seem to—Dana said they‘re dancing away from it in Texas and not denouncing the ad, but they‘ve—I think the Democrats—it is interesting to me, Chris. The last couple of weeks, we thought George Bush was politically more adept and boxing in John Kerry on Iraq and he did a good job. On this issue, it defies belief that the Bush administration would like to keep the issue of John Kerry‘s war record and shrapnel in his leg and his heroism front and center in the campaign. This is Kerry‘s strong point not his weak point.

This whole thing with the Swift Boaters has seemed like desperation on the part of the Bush people from the outset. It's stupid to align themselves with these guys, which is exactly what Bush is doing by not denouncing them and their actions.

Today in a speech to the International Association of Firefighters, John Kerry hit one out of the park:

Over the last week or so, a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been attacking me. Of course, this group isn’t interested in the truth – and they’re not telling the truth. They didn’t even exist until I won the nomination for president.

But here’s what you really need to know about them. They’re funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Republican contributor out of Texas. They’re a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won’t denounce what they’re up to tells you everything you need to know—he wants them to do his dirty work.

Thirty years ago, official Navy reports documented my service in Vietnam and awarded me the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a wound in Vietnam.

As firefighters you risk your lives everyday. You know what it’s like to see the truth in the moment. You’re proud of what you’ve done—and so am I.

Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: “Bring it on.”

I’m not going to let anyone question my commitment to defending America—then, now, or ever. And I’m not going to let anyone attack the sacrifice and courage of the men who saw battle with me.

Kerry has very cleverly put Bush into a corner. By not condemning what the Swift Boat liars are doing, Bush appears aligned with them. Kerry has condemnded the recent MoveOn ad questioning Bush's service. Thus distancing himself and staying above the fray.

In further setbacks for Bush surrogates....

Todays Washington Post has a story that backs what Kerry has been saying over one of the Swift Boat liars.

And Chris Mathews of Hardball is exasperated as well with the Bush Campaign and with Bush mouthpieces like Michelle Malkin.

News out of the Jim Stork campaign isn't good.

According to the Sun-Sentinel, Stork is putting his campaign on hiatus for up to two weeks for medical reasons.

Stork is reportedly having medical tests done over this time.

From the news story:

In an e-mail to campaign supporters today, Stork wrote that "I am currently undergoing some medical tests and will be in touch as soon as I know more. Right now, I am simply looking forward to putting these health issues behind me and moving forward."

Stork's staff said he was suffering from fatigue but emphasized that the gay former mayor of Wilton Manors was HIV negative.

Yikes. That just doesn't sound good at all.

One hopes that Stork's health is okay...but a campaign suspension is a huge issue. Stork has been endorsed by the likes of Kos and Democracy for America. He's been pushed prominently on the internet.

Will Stork's health force him to drop out? If so...what then?

The Bush Campaign and it's surrogates have worked very hard in the last couple of weeks to attack John Kerry on the vote for the Iraq Resolution to give the President authority to deal military with Iraq. In my research on this topic I decided to look over the Republican National Committee website. Quick first impression: for a group that's supposed to be promoting Bush, these guys sure spend very little time actually promoting Bush. It's all about Kerry.

That said, the basic premise seems to be that Kerry has been inconsistent on his stance with Iraq. First he's for the war...then he's against the war....then he's for the war again. Wow! I'm thinking to myself. Is Kerry really that inconsistent? Could he possibly be that mixed up on what he believes in?

The vote that the GOP talk about is the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. It seems that this might be a good time to revisit this particular Resolution...just to refresh my memory.

In terms of force, Bush was authorized by Congress to:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

Interesting. So if Iraq is threatening the security of the United States, the President may use military force. Or if it's necessary to enforce UN Security Council Resolutions, the President may use military force.

The Resolution also says (also under Section 3):

b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

So if diplomacy isn't working to protect the security of the US, the President can use military force. If diplomacy won't get the UN Security Council Resolutions enforced, then the President can use military force. If there's a connection to 9/11, the President can use military force.

Makes sense to me. If there's a determination that any of this stuff is going on, military force seems justified. While I wouldn't have trusted Bush personally to be judicious with use of force in regard to Iraq...I can see why Kerry did. A US Senator wants to trust the Commander-In-Chief to do the right thing.

So let's break it down:

1. Did Iraq threaten the security of the United States? Nope. Nowhere has it been found anywhere that Iraq was a threat to US security. The lame attempts by Bush (yellowcake uranium, UAV's, etc) turned out to be completely untrue..and there's a good chance Bush's people knew it was untrue before they invaded. There was certainly plenty of intelligence out there to debunk Bush's claims when he made them.

2.Was military force necessary to enforce UN Security Council resolutions? Nope. The main UN resolution on the table was UN Security Council Resolution 1441(warning: PDF file). The Resolution essentially said that Iraq had to turn over all documentation on their weapons programs and weapons status. Iraq also had to allow UN weapons inspectors into the country and they had to be allowed unfettered access to whatever sites they wished to view. As it turns out, Iraq was cooperating with UN inspectors. It's likely that Saddam believed weapons had been destroyed. Hussein's scientists had been tricking him into thinking he had things he didn't have, too. Iraq probably did turn over all the documentation they had. But Bush and his people weren't careful and thorough enough to work with the UN and allow the inspectors to do their jobs. Without this careful and judicous use of power, there's no way we could have known these things.

3.Was Iraq connected in any way to the assault on the US on September 11? Nope. Iraq had nothing to do with September 11. Bush has said so himself on more than one occasion. No evidence exists that Hussein's regime had anything to do with 9/11.

What's curious here is...why are we asking Kerry about his vote? Why aren't we asking Bush, "If you knew then what you know now, would you still have invaded and occupied Iraq?" An even better question for Bush, "Why did you go out of your way to rush into Iraq, despite evidence that they were cooperating with UN weapons inspectors, were not a security threat to the US and had nothing to do with 9/11?

It would seem that the sleepy burg of Baker Lake, Washington will have to batten down the coolers.

I think this might be one of my former college dates in a bear suit.

Congresswoman Kathleen Harris apparently can't be bothered when her constituents get the crap kicked out of them by a hurricane.

When Charley hit Florida, Ms Harris was in Europe attending a wedding. According to the DCCC, Harris missed 28 flights home after Charley hit.

Harris' reply, "I've never been a press hound."

The 13th Congressional District which Harris represents includes some of the hardest hit counties in Florida including Charlotte, DeSoto and Hardee. Bush managed to drag himself to Florida..yet Harris couldn't?

According to the Sarasota Herald Tribune Harris was in Sweden on Friday when Charley hit but didn't manage to tour the devastation until Tuesday. Harris claims that she cut her European visit short...but it took her four days to tour the region. I just came back from Europe a few weeks ago. It takes about 8 hours to fly from London to DC. How long can it take to fly from Sweden to Florida? 10 at most?

Harris can't seriously think it's appropriate to tell the people of her district that she couldn't get back to Florida in a timely manner because she's "not a press hound"?

..one is silver and the other's gold.

A big thanks to our friends at Burnt Orange Report for the warmly belated welcome to the blogosphere. Jim D from Burnt Orange is an old friend of Kev's and mine.

Send them some love, please.

Al Franken's show just wrapped up a little while ago with a great suggestion.

Several blogs have been complaining that the Bush Campaign website has provided a template for supporters to send letters to the editor in support of Bush for their local papers. A caller on Franken's show suggested that Kerry supporters go to Bush's campaign website and use their template to write letters, too.

In the interest of passing along a great suggestion, here's the template:

Write your newspaper editors

Have fun. I know I did.

An unidentified supporter of President Bush tries to silence protester Kendra Lloyd-Knox (right) outside Southridge High School in Beaverton during Bush's August 13th visit. Source: PortlandTribune.com

The New York Times is reporting today that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld (out from his hiding spot in the shadow government, apparently) and Senator John Warner (R-Virginia) are telling us that a more cautious approach to revamping the US intelligence network is what's necessary..as opposed to the immediate changes requested by the 9/11 Commission.

Warner, who proved he was judgement impaired long ago when he became the 7th sacrificial lamb on the altar of Elizabeth Taylor in 1976, said:

"I'm of the opinion that we should not try and do the whole 9/11 in a single stroke. That's my opinion."

Thankfully, not all Republicans are completely stupid and irresponsible on this issue. Pat Roberts of Kansas (Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee)said he wants a swift approval of the 9/11 Commission's central request: the creation of a central intelligence director who would have the power to hire and fire people, and control the budget. As long as the guy is directly answerable to Congress if he screws up, I'm all for it.

Rumsfeld is not happy moving forward with the new proposal:

"It's important that we move with all deliberate speed. We need to remember that we are considering these important matters, however, while we are waging a war. If we move unwisely and get it wrong, the penalty would be great."

Too bad Rumsfeld didn't think of that before they decided to march into Iraq rather than concentrate on Al Qaida, the entity that declared war on us and murdered our citizens.

The 9/11 Commission studied this thing to death. Dragging feet on it just keeps us further behind. Why is it that these guys are so hot to confirm Porter Goss, a guy who has no problem with keeping the ban on the CIA from doing domestic law enforcement...unless the President says otherwise, but can't seem to bring themselves to implement a key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission?

vote for us!

From our fearless "leader":

"It's one thing to have justice; it's another thing to go overboard with justice, because people start to lose work."
--President Bush, August 11, 2004

And speaking of justice, an Army National Guard Sergeant filed a lawsuit today asserting that the government can't force them to stay in the military when their enlistment period ends.

That's right folks. There can't be too much justice for the sake of employment figures....and you're staying in the Army Reserve even though you've fulfilled your contract whether you like it or not.

Oh yeah...and don't forget to change your voter registration to DEMOCRAT.

Blogalization is a fascinating experiment in cross-cultural blogging. The basic premise is that each member is a blogger who is at least bi-lingual. They translate each other's posts and repost it in the new language.

They deal with world affairs and politics pretty frequently. So, it seems a natural addition to our blogroll.

Any bi-lingual bloggers out there might wanna check these folks out and consider joining the effort.

Jerry Falwell, Franklin Graham, Pat Robertson and other prominent evangelicalshave apparently not recieved their invites to the GOP Convention.

Pat Robertson says he's not going this year anyway:

"In the last convention, the thought was to keep all the conservatives out of sight," said Robertson, who has attended every Republican convention since 1988, but said he won't go this year. "The general thrust will be to entice the so-called independent moderates and I am not sure that there would be much reason for a conservative to be there."

Ralph Reed, official spokesmodel for the Republican wing of the Republican Party (and former Christian Coalition executive director) said that the GOP has no deliberate strategy to spurn evangelical leaders.

Interestingly, the GOP apparently want to hide their evangelical/conservative light under a bushel, to use the Christian vernacular. No evangelical leaders have speaking slots at the Convention, that I can find. Yet Bush is heavily courting the evangelical vote. Further, the major prime time slots are heavy laden with moderates including prochoice leaders of the GOP, Schwartzenegger and Giuliani. A dearth of DeLays and Santorums cloud the Convention.

Hanky Panky

Paul Waldman predicts Kerry to spank Bush on election day.

Nod to Pandagon for the head's up on Waldman.

Other peoples’ thoughts they ain’t your hand-me-downs
Would it be so bad to simply turn around
You cook so well, all nice and french
You do you brain surgery too, with a monkey wrench


In my life experience (which admittedly is a lot more than some, a lot less than others) I've noticed that those folks who squeal the loudest on issues are often trying to drown out someone else. These same folks often appear to have a very difficult time dealing with those individuals whose beliefs differ from their own.

Our President is no exception. The Bush Campaign tightly controls who gets into his events and who questions the President. In fact, some Kerry supporters have been arrested for wearing antiBush tshirts to Bush events. By contrast, Kerry's events tend to be open, with Bush supporters often in attendance..attempting to heckle the candidate. Kerry is accessible. Bush is not.

When Kevin and I first started blogging, I checked some of the right leaning blogs. When commenting in a dissenting way on these blogs I was always careful to stay on topic and not go ad hominem in any way. Yet every time I would return to comment another day, I would be banned by these blogs from commenting.

I read a lot of liberal/moderate blogs and with the exception of Atrios, dissenting comments are up for all to see and folks aren't banned for descent. There may be some right leaning blogs that don't ban descent and if anyone knows who they are, please let me know. I'd love to go there.

This overarching theme of "shut up and take it" seems to be a real infection in conservative circles at the moment. For awhile, leftists did. But it would seem that those days are now over.

Update: A big thanks to Rob Salsman who pointed out my stupid spelling error: dissent, not descent. Boy is my face red. Thanks, Rob.

Feebird

According to Roll Call (registration required), the wife of Rodney Alexander is apparently as steeped in class as her slimy hubby.

When Alexander's chief of staff (Brian Smoot) and other staff went in to tender their resignation and turn in keys last Monday morning, they were treated to Mrs Alexander who queried Smoot about Rodney's dry cleaning. “I told her she should worry about Rodney’s dry cleaning,” Smoot replied.

At which point, according to Smoot, Mrs Alexander "excoriated" (Roll Call's word) the three aides and told them they were disloyal to her husband. She further said it was the staff's fault that Alexander was switching. She accused them of driving him to the switch.

Then Smoot says Mrs Alexander followed them into the hallway shouting "Praise the Lord"...and then unceremoniously flipped them off.

Mrs. Alexander's spokesperson denied that any shouting or bird flipping was perpetrated by Mrs. Alexander. However a former aide for Mrs Alexander confirmed to Roll Call that Nancy Alexander is "incredibly smart" and "bonkers". This aide also said that they weren't surprised at the incident.

Mrs Alexander has apparently been taking etiquette lessons from the current Vice President.

Inspired by:Annie Get Your Gun

The Iraqi interim government apparently doesn't tolerate much in the way of descent (taking cues from the current Bush Administration/Campaign).

Earlier this month they shut down Al Jazeera.

And today they've kicked the journalists out of Najaf.

Apparently reporting the truth of what's going on in Najaf is now forbidden. If they keep this up pretty soon it will be just like Washington DC.