Take a few minutes to let us know what you thought of tonight's debate.

I like Saturday Night Live. The really old ones from the 70s are especially funny. The sketch with John Belushi and the "drool bucket"...and the "cheezbugah!" sketches are all time classics. When the Landshark ate Larraine Newman I was laughing until I cried.

This guy thinks he's got the top 30 SNL performers. He puts Eddie Murphy at the top...which I personally think is blasphemous. Belushi is the #1 guy followed closely by Akroyd.

via Kos

The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) has released polling data proving that Bush's supporters have many incorrect assumptions about Bush's policies:

Majorities of Bush supporters incorrectly assumed that Bush favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements (84%), and the US being part of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (69%), the International Criminal Court (66%), the treaty banning land mines (72%), and the Kyoto Treaty on global warming (51%). They were divided between those who knew that Bush favors building a new missile defense system now (44%) and those who incorrectly believe he wishes to do more research until its capabilities are proven (41%). However, majorities were correct that Bush favors increased defense spending (57%) and wants the US, not the UN, to take the stronger role in developing Iraq’s new government (70%).

Kerry supporters were much more accurate in assessing their candidate’s positions on all these issues. Majorities knew that Kerry favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements (90%); the US being part of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (77%); the International Criminal Court (59%); the land mines treaty (79%); and the Kyoto Treaty on climate change (74%). They also knew that he favors continuing research on missile defense without deploying a system now (68%), and wants the UN, not the US, to take the stronger role in developing Iraq’s new government (80%). A plurality of 43% was correct that Kerry favors keeping defense spending the same, with 35% assuming he wants to cut it and 18% to expand it.

Many of the uncommitted (those who say they are not very sure which candidate they will vote for) also misread Bush’s position on most issues, though in most cases this was a plurality, not a majority. The uncommitted incorrectly believed that Bush favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements (69%), the US being part of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (51%), the International Criminal Court (47% to 31%), the land mines treaty (50%), and the Kyoto treaty on global warming (45% to 37%). Only 35% knew that Bush favors building a new missile defense system now, while 36% incorrectly believed he wishes to do more research until its capabilities are proven, and 22% did not give an answer. Only 41% knew that Bush favors increased defense spending, while 49% incorrectly assumed he wants to keep it the same (29%) or cut it (20%). A plurality of 46% was correct that Bush wants the US, rather than the UN, to take the stronger role in developing Iraq’s new government (37% assumed the UN).

So people are voting for Bush, having no friggin idea what the guy stands for. Yet Kerry supporters are very keyed in to their man..being well versed in his positions.

And every day on the news...we hear how Bush is a strong and definitive leader...and Kerry is a "flip-flopper".

And the most important thing on the minds of conservatives today is not that people are dying in Iraq..or that we can't seem to create jobs or that Al Qaida is growing stronger... it's Kerry's tan

And people wonder why the US is hated now more than ever.

Billy

I was listening to Ed Schultz for awhile in the car this afternoon. At the top of his show, Ed laid out the one word that people watching and listening to the debate need to think about: trust.

Do you trust Bush to tell you the truth about what's happening in Iraq?

Do you trust Bush to handle US foreign affairs in an intelligent and careful manner?

Do you trust Bush to fully fund Homeland Security and make sure airplanes have air marshalls, the Coast Guard has boats/equipment,shipping containers are checked, etc?

Do you trust Bush to be careful and deliberative with the use of our federal tax dollars?


Can we trust Kerry with these things?

Which of the two candidates can we trust with our children's education and healthcare?

Which of the two candidates can we trust with repairing our relationships with our allies?

Which of the two candidates can we trust to fight corrupt politicians like Tom DeLay? Which of the two candidates can we trust to work with our military and understand what it's like to be under fire?

Unless you live under a rock, you're likely aware that tonight at 9PM Eastern (6PM in God's country) the two major candidates for the office of President of the United States will hold their first of three televised debates.

These "debates" are heavily scripted affairs...appearing to me to be based more on theatre now than substance. And the Republican noise machine is working very, very hard to make it look like Kerry is a brilliant debator..while Bush is simply going to win if he shows up. Interestingly, the GOP has gone on and on about how Kerry did nothing while in the Senate...but now apparently he was the top debator in the Senate. Go figure.

Arthur Schlessinger has a list of questions he'd like to ask Bush.

The Kerry campaign has set up their rapid response to work on call ins to talk shows, pundits, blogs and papers..to debunk rightwing spin on the debate. As we saw in 2000..even if you win the debate (many pundits and others said Gore won the first debate...but later started bashing him after the rightwing spin machine got moving) in an effort to keep the post-debate discussion more centrist or even tilt a bit to the left.

Their efforts haven't gone unnoticed by the Freepers who appear to be planning to counter the rapid responsers.

Me? I'm going to help my kids with homework, take my daughter to soccer practice, make dinner and do the dishes. I'll have the debate on TV but I've already made my decision.

via Manny

Ike's kid is going with the man from Massachusetts. And has a few choice words for the current state of the Grand Old Party:

The Republican Party I used to know placed heavy emphasis on fiscal responsibility, which included balancing the budget whenever the state of the economy allowed it to do so. The Eisenhower administration accomplished that difficult task three times during its eight years in office. It did not attain that remarkable achievement by cutting taxes for the rich. Republicans disliked taxes, of course, but the party accepted them as a necessary means of keep the nation’s financial structure sound.

The Republicans used to be deeply concerned for the middle class and small business. Today’s Republican leadership, while not solely accountable for the loss of American jobs, encourages it with its tax code and heads us in the direction of a society of very rich and very poor.

Richard Morrison's people are looking for feedback on their new sixty second commercial. They're planning to cut it down to thirty seconds and would like to hear from folks what they think the highlights should be.

Check it out

You can send feedback to info@morrisonfor22.com

Conventional wisdom has been saying over this election season that the vast majority of Veterans and military folks are behind Bush. But there does appear to evidence piling up to the contrary:

*A group of military familes are speaking out against Bush, targetting him in some new ads set to air in New Mexico, Nevada and Florida.

*An organization entitled Military Moms With a Mission is also supporting Kerry, campaigning for him in 30 different states. The group is also called "Military Moms for Kerry".

*This piece entitled Why We Cannot Win is posted on the conservative website LewRockwell.com. It's receiving lots of attention around the blogosphere and has made some national news. It was written by Al Lorentz, a Conservative Christian who has spent the last 20 years in the Reserves. Lorentz is a Non Commissioned Officer serving in Civil Affairs.

*And then there's Operation Truth, a website dedicated to telling the American people the truth about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of the testimonials from soldiers are somewhat heartening...but much is devastatingly awful. The site also gives detailed descriptions of the problems facing our soldiers both while deployed and when they come home.

This is not to say that Bush doesn't have military and veteran support. It's clear that he does. But is it the overwhelming support the campaign tends to brag about...or that helped push Bush over the top in 2000? It appears not.

Schools in Iraq are turning away from secular teachings and are now under the influence of private schools who, instead of teaching the alphabet and mathematics, are teaching the Koran and various aspects of fundamentalist Islam.

The same thing is happening at the various universities in Iraq. The self appointed "morality police" recently turned away a young woman for wearing pants. Hard line religious fundamentalists are beginning to take hold.

Saddam Hussein was a terrible guy, no doubt about it. But the US has done a grave disservice to Iraq...and ultimately to ourselves. We invaded and toppled the government of a country that was literally being held together by a dictator. Now it's breaking up into factions...and instead of educating future doctors and scientists and engineers, it's educating future terrorists.

The Great Beyond

Salon Magazine has the scoop on why CBS is letting the Elephant (GOP) intimidate them into not running their story on Bush's deceptive case for invading Iraq:

By relying on documents that could not be absolutely authenticated from a blind source to make the otherwise irrefutable case that George W. Bush shirked his National Guard duties in the early 1970s, CBS anchor Dan Rather dealt the credibility of journalism a "body blow," according to Washington Post ombudsman Michael Getler. But just how damaging was that blow?

One measure of the debacle is a "60 Minutes Wednesday" segment that millions of viewers now will now not see: a hard-hitting report making a powerful case that in trying to build support for the Iraq war, the Bush administration either knowingly deceived the American people about Saddam Hussein's nuclear capabilities or was grossly credulous. CBS news president Andrew Heyward spiked the story this week, saying it would be "inappropriate" during the election campaign.

Salon goes on to say that there's nothing actually new revealed in the story by 60 Minutes' Ed Bradley. Apparently 60 Minutes gave Salon a copy of the video on their story. But due to the craven cowardice of the heads of CBS' news division, the piece will not be seen before the election.

I continue to be amazed by the power of the right wing echo chamber to bring people to their knees. This "squeaky wheel" minority is exercising immense power to silence relevant and important issues...while beating the drum of such minor inanity such as the color of Kerry's tan.

There's no accountability for the folks at Fox News or CNN for giving the Swift Boat hours of air time without vetting them and giving little or no rebuttal time. Judith Miller of the New York Times wrote story after story on Iraq's WMD....yet still has her job and has never issued a retraction, much less an apology.

And now we have a major news source cowardly refusing to run a very serious and important story because they think it will make them look bad. I weep for the loss of journalistic integrity in this country. The havoc wreaked by the rightwing machine against the Fourth Estate will take generations to heal, if it can heal at all.

Keep them doggies movin' Rawhide!

Time for a PreemptiveKarma news roundup:

*Crawford, Texas newspaper endorses Kerry

*Newly ordained terrorist Cat Stevens met with top Bush administration officials in May 2004, including U.S. foreign-aid chief Andrew Natsios; Jim Towey, chief of the White House office for "faith based" programs, and a Treasury official hunting terrorist financiers.

*North Korea they're set to go nuclear

*Soldiers are giving Bush the finger

*Comedy Central refutes O'Reilly, and finds Daily Show Audiences more educated than those who watch "The O'Reilly Factor".

Flashback

Vice President Dick Cheney is trying to convince the American electorate by lying that Kerry isn't ready for the Presidency because he says Kerry didn't support all of the mainstream defense bills that Ronald Reagan wanted. It's a lie that he continually repeats. I wonder what Cheney considers "ready"?

Could it be sitting in a classroom on 9/11, apparently unable to take action or make a decision?

Could it be launching an invasion of a country that was no military threat to us and invading it with no plan to win the peace and allow US soldiers to leave?

Or could it be a complete inability to create jobs, grow the economy and create consumer confidence?

Or maybe, just maybe...it's continually telling the American people that everything is hunky dory in Iraq..despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

The spinning insanity of the Bush Administration and campaign is ballsy, I'll give them that. It lacks ethics, honesty and any semblance of decency...but it's got balls.

God bless the Eagles

Are career CIA people working to undermine Bush?

Perennial front page mouthpiece Robert Novak seems to think so. Novak has become a part of at least one of the stories he covered: the Plame case. Now Novak may know something about the outing of this agent as well.

And the CIA does seem to be unhappy with Bush. Recently they leaked the gloomy intelligence report given to Bush in late July....that Bush has been ignoring in favor of offering up rosy scenarios on Iraq. Now there's discussion of a second report warning that an American-led invasion of Iraq would increase support for political Islam and would result in a deeply divided Iraqi society prone to violent internal conflict.

Bush and his staff/appointees have done a lot to piss off the CIA. The CIA was badmouthed incessantly by the White House after 9/11...and virtually ignored when it came to vetting intelligence in the weeks preceding the Iraq invasion. The Administration let Tenet fall on the sword for the intelligence failures in the lead up to 9/11, as well as the faulty intelligence for Iraq. And the White House is by many accounts the direct cause of the outing of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame.

On the other hand, the CIA has a lot at stake in regard to Iraq and intelligence surrounding that situation. If Bush's Iraq venture fails, the CIA is in line to take the blame once again. It only makes sense that they'll want to push back.

Bush already has an albatross in Iraq. The CIA may be working to make sure there's at least one more.

Kevin Drum is asserting that a second Bush term would be scandal ridden:

First, power corrupts. It's a truism that as leaders become used to the idea that no one can really hold them to account, they increasingly push the envelope of acceptable behavior and eventually push too far. Not just in America, but in practically every democracy, this inevitably leads to abuses of power that eventually turn into scandals both small and large.

George Bush is more susceptible than most to this dynamic. Partly this is because his party controls Congress, so he has no real political oversight to keep him honest. But it's also because both Bush and the current Republican Party leadership have already demonstrated a ruthlessness and disregard for traditional political norms unseen since Nixon was jotting down his enemies list: holding open votes while they bully recalcitrant colleagues, ramming through midterm redistricting, suspending the Freedom of Information Act in all but theory, and cavalierly hiding routine budget data from Congress--all combined with a general mania for secrecy that leaves even John Dean in awe. It's a dangerous and intoxicating brew, and George Bush has demonstrated the combination of ruthlessness, siege mentality, and religious faith in his own righteousness that makes it almost inevitable that he will take a step too far.

This is merely the first reason a second term Bush would be mired in scandal. Drum also cites the fact that it often takes several years for a scandal to unfold, and there are several on Bush's burner right now: Valerie Plame, Abu Ghraib, the National Guard, intelligence failures.....each one or all of them could lead to a major blowup. Third is the desire to create a reason to be at center stage.

This would, in my opinion, be an argument for a second Bush term. Given the way that the Republican Party (especially in the House) tends to be entangled with the Administration, it will leave them with the stench of Bush's scandal as well. "When you lie with pigs..." as they say. It might be the best way for the Democrats to come back to majority status in the House AND gain the Executive at the same time.

But....we have the welfare of the nation to consider. Can we endure four more years of massive debt, foreign policy debaucles and blatant ineptitude in the handling terrorism? That's a big set of problems to have to recover from.

Weekly Standard Editor and Project For a New American Century guru William Kristol is spouting the latest GOP talking point: Kerry is disgraceful for criticizing Bush and thus is unfit to be the President.

Did we become a fascist state when I wasn't looking?

Not only does Kristol opine about Kerry's criticsms, he outright lies about Kerry as well:

We really don't know what a President John Kerry would do about Iraq. His flip-flops about the war, his inconsistencies, the ambiguity of his current position (win or withdraw?) -- all of these mean we can only guess about a Kerry presidency. He would probably be inclined to get out of Iraq as soon as possible; it might be the case, however, that as president he would nonetheless find himself staying and fighting. Who knows?

Wrong Bill. We know exactly what Kerry would do. Why? He's told us again and again. In fact he told us just last Friday at Temple University. And please don't pretend you don't know about what Kerry said. If you don't, you're not doing your job. And anyone that follows you knows you're simply too smart for that.

And then, Kristol let's the other shoe drop:

What we do know is this: Kerry and his advisers have behaved disgracefully this past week. That behavior is sufficient grounds for concern about his fitness to be president.

And what heinous act does Kristol accuse Kerry of? Kerry didn't say anything "supportive of the President" after Bush's speech to the UN on Friday. What exactly was Kerry supposed to say? "Hey George...way to go. Nice job lying to the UN and blowing sunshine up their skirts on Iraq. Excellent con job you've got going there, man." Give me a break.

What else has a bee in Kristol's bonnet? Kerry dared say that Kofi Annan has a better idea of what's going on in Iraq than does Bush. Since Bush doesn't know that we can't have free and fair elections in Iraq and that the Afghan Army ISN'T in Najaf, what evidence does Kristol have to show that Bush actually does know more than Annan??

And then of course, there's Kerry's comments about Ayad Allawi. Kerry said that Allawi was in the country to "put the best face" possible on the situation in Iraq. From all accounts, Kerry's right. That's exactly what Allawi did when he was here. Allawi outright lied about the situation to the American people. But who is Kristol worried about? Kerry.

And then at the end of his hatchet job on Kerry, Kristol goes on to actually cite part of Kerry's plan, when he first asserted that noone knew what Kerry's plan is:

There is some chance, after all, that John Kerry will be president in four months. If so, what kind of situation will he have created for himself? France will smile on him, but provide no troops. Those allies that have provided troops, from Britain and Poland and Australia and Japan and elsewhere, will likely recall how Kerry sneered at them, calling them "the coerced and the bribed." The leader of the government in Iraq, upon whom the success of John Kerry's Iraq policy will depend, will have been weakened before his enemies and ours -- and will also remember the insult. Is this really how Kerry wants to go down in history: Willing to say anything to try to get elected, no matter what the damage to the people of Iraq, to American interests, and even to himself?

It's clear here that Kristol understands that Kerry wants to internationalize the situation in Iraq. And Kristol appears convinced that because Bush has refused to internationalize the effort, that Kerry can't. Somehow it's not very convincing to me that Bush's ineptitude and arrogance is catching to Kerry. And the remark about damaging the people of Iraq and American interests? How bad could it get? Could Kerry invade a country that was no military threat to the US based on trumped up intelligence..causing most of the entire slate of US allies to spurn us?

...and Pedro Martinez is in need of a Xanax refill:

"I just tip my hat and call the Yankees my daddy. I can't find a way to beat them at this point. You just have to give them credit and say, 'Hey, you guys beat me, not my team.' I wish they would [expletive] disappear and never come back. "-- Pedro Martinez

In the Open Thread just below this we proposed our favorite theories as to why Florida has had so many hurricanes this summer. I must say that I'm partial to the "David Lee Roth leaving Van Halen" theory.

Tom Englehardt has a more scientifically plausible explanation and openly asks why the media isn't connecting the dots: Xtreme weather meets Xtreme media bubble.

For the first time in history, four hurricanes – Charley, Frances, Ivan (the Terrible), and now Jeanne -- have smacked into Florida's long coastline one after another in a single hurricane season (not yet over), and here's the strangest thing of all: Forget that in March Brazil experienced the South Atlantic's first hurricane ever -- Brazilian meteorologists didn't even know what to name it; or that the Atlantic coast of Canada got whacked by Hurricane Juan, "the storm of the century," late last year (and the Canadian government suspects a link to global warming); or that the United States has already experienced a record number of tornados in 2004; or that Japan has had the worst season of typhoons in memory; or that Xtreme weather events have increased in recent years across the planet, including massive flooding in Europe, Bangladesh, and China, and a deathly summer heat wave that struck Europe in 2003.

Was the Kobe Bryant trial drama really the most important thing that Americans needed to know about? Or the Scott Peterson trial?

Doesn't the media have an obligation to serve the public interest, to inform us, to warn us, the shine a spotlight into the dark corners that self-serving politicians and their corporate backers don't want exposed?

We are tentatively planning on switching over from this Blogger platform to the new Movable Type 3.0 platform sometime this weekend. There will be an updated look to the new blog, as well as some new goodies on the sidebar. I've added a list of polling sites and a fun list of political quizzes that show where you supposedly are on whatever ideological line the individual quiz was designed to test for. Virtually all of the quizzes are loaded with (flawed?) assumptions by whomever created them. Some more than others of course. But, they are a lot of fun to take anyway!

In the meantime... What's on your mind? Will the Seattle SeaHawks win the Super Bowl this year? What DID Floridians do to deserve all of these Hurricanes (Pat Robertson's theory of Divine Outrage)? How much does the median IQ change in Crawford Texas when Dubya is in town? Which book in Gregory Benford's Galactic Center series is the best? And do you care? LOL

Update Unfortunately there's a glitch with our Movable Type weblog. It seems that we can use HTML in our posts and it shows up and works everywhere except for on the main page. Meaning that in the archives and permalink the HTML, like posting an image or graphic, works fine but not where we most want it to. Any readers conversant with MT 3.0D that want to help can email me. Right now I'm waiting for a response on the MT help forums as well as an email. So... we're going to put off the switch until later this week or next weekend.

"The closer" is into his windup.

Kerry gave a GREAT speech last Monday at New York University.

But yesterday's speech at Temple University was FANTASTIC:

First, I will build a stronger, smarter military and intelligence capability to capture or kill our enemies.

As president, I will expand our Army by 40,000 troops so that we have more soldiers to find and fight the enemy. I will double our Army Special Forces capacity. And we will accelerate the development and deployment of new technologies to track down and bring down terrorists.

I will strengthen our intelligence system to detect and stop the terrorists before they can strike. By the morning of September 12th, everyone in America knew that our intelligence wasn’t as good as it needed to be. But three years later, believe it or not, we read that the CIA unit charged with finding bin Laden has fewer experienced case officers today than it had before 9/11.

When I am president, that will change. I will act immediately to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations. I will create a National Intelligence Director with all the budget and personnel authority the Commission says is needed to keep us safe. I will double our overseas clandestine service, train the linguists and Arab experts we need, and make sure the operation – hunting down bin Laden and al Qaeda -- has all the resources it needs.

I will make Afghanistan a priority again, because it is still the front line in the war on terror.

As president, I will not subcontract the fight to warlords who are out for nothing but power and personal gain. I will help the government of Afghanistan expand its authority beyond Kabul to the rest of the country. I will lead our allies to share the burden, so that NATO finally provides more troops. I will show the world that America finishes what it begins.

Second, I will move decisively to deny the terrorists the deadly weapons they seek.

Those weapons were not in Iraq. But tons and kilotons of poorly secured chemical and nuclear weapons are spread throughout the former Soviet Union. Twelve years ago, we began a bipartisan program to help these nations secure and destroy those weapons. It is incredible – and unacceptable -- that in the three years after 9/11, President Bush hasn’t stepped up our effort to lock down the loose nuclear weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere. More such materials were secured in the two years before 9/11 than in the two years after.

When I’m president, denying our most dangerous enemies the world’s most dangerous weapons will become the central priority for America.

I will secure all nuclear weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union within four years. At President Bush’s pace, it will take 13 years.

I will seek a verifiable global ban on the production of materials for nuclear weapons.

Nowhere is the nuclear danger more urgent than in Iran and North Korea.

This week, Iran announced its intention to process enough raw uranium to create five nuclear weapons.

I will make it clear to Iran that we will lead an international effort to impose tough sanctions if they do not permanently suspend their uranium enrichment program and provide verifiable assurances that they are not developing nuclear weapons.

Yesterday, there were reports that North Korea are preparing to fire an intermediate-range ballistic missile that may be able to carry a nuclear warhead. I will work with our allies to get the six party talks with North Korea back on track -- and I will talk directly with the North Koreans -- to get a verifiable agreement that will eliminate their nuclear weapons program completely and irreversibly. We have to get serious about diplomacy with North Korea now. Only then will we have the support of our allies for action if diplomacy fails.

Third, as president, I will wage a war on terrorist finances every bit as total as the war we wage on the terrorists themselves. We will trace terrorist funds to their sources and freeze the assets of anyone -- any person, bank, business or foreign official -- who is financing terrorism. I know how to do this. As Senator, I exposed and helped dismantle an international bank that was one of the early financiers of terrorism. We did it by following the money. We can and must do the same to choke off the dollars that are funding al Qaeda and its allies. On this, I will grant no one a "free pass.”


As president, I will do what President Bush has not: I will hold the Saudis accountable. Since 9/11, there have been no public prosecutions in Saudi Arabia, and few elsewhere, of terrorist financers. I will work with our allies, with the World Bank and international financial institutions to shut down the financial pipeline that keeps terrorism alive. And I will pursue a plan to make this nation energy independent of Mid East oil. I want an America that relies on our own innovation and ingenuity, not the Saudi Royal Family.

Fourth, as president, I will make homeland security a real priority by offering a real plan, and backing it with real resources.

You need to read the entire speech. Kerry calls Bush out on his very long laundry list of mistakes, miscalculations and extremely poor judgement.

The differences between these two candidates are stark...and Kerry stands far above Bush by having a solid and legitimate plan.

Just how much of Iraq is out of US control?

According to Allawi at yesterday's press conference, 14 to 15 provinces in Iraq are "completely safe". And Bush tell us:

The fifth and most important step in our plan is to help Iraq conduct free, national elections no later than next January. An Iraqi electoral commission is now up and running and has already hired personnel and is making key decisions about election procedures.

The red is currently the most security challenged areas. The pink is where we've seen heavy fighting of late. The white is where legitimate elections could possibly be held.

Does this look to you like we can have a legitimate election in Iraq, as Rumsfeld suggests?

Map info via JuanCole

road to hell


Greg at The Talent Show explains why the latest GOP tax package proves the road to hell is paved with Republicans.

Jim Croce

Kevin Drum has a very good reminder of the timeline for what's gone on in Iraq and why. Kevin attempts to lay out all of the reasons for Bush's actions in regard to Iraq and comes up with only one: politics.

Nowhere was this more evident than yesterday's very scary press conference. Bush can't remember that the Afghan Army isn't actually in Iraq and thinks that Iraq can have elections when huge chunks of the country are under insurgent control and won't be able to vote. Rumsfeld comes out later and "clarifies", saying that they can have elections but it won't be perfect...but nothing is so it doesn't matter.

Kerry will have a very big, very ugly mess to deal with when he takes the reins. He's going to need to have a major summit meeting immediately...and unfortunately he's going to have to deal with Allawi, who we've installed to run that country and appears to be no more credible or decent than was Chalabi. Bush has put us in one hell of a situation.

Update: The Kerry Campaign is making hay with yesterday's Bush press conference...with an ad that's already set to rotate in it's TV spots. check it out.

My Congressman, Democrat David Wu, has a fantastic new ad that just started running this week.

It's one of the best Congressional ads I've ever seen.

Check it out.

Republican candidate in Tennessee's 5th Congressional District has issued a statement saying that he will not be voting for Bush for President:

Much to the distress of many of my fellow Republicans, I must make the following observation - George W. Bush does not deserve reelection. Being that I am the Republican candidate for the 5th congressional district this statement carries an extremely high political price for me.

Iraq clearly was not the threat the White House made it out to be. He knew the evidence for Saddam's nuclear weapons program was extremely tenuous at best. Bush went to Iraq because he wanted to, not because he had to.

The President continues to claim his invasion to be a stabilizing force within the Middle East. Nothing could be further from the truth. Conditions in Iraq are steadily spiraling downward. Civil war is inevitable. Despite all the good intentions, hard work and spilled blood from our military, chaos will spread throughout the Middle East.

Domestically his administration has done no better. He has cut taxes without reducing spending, thereby guaranteeing a tax increase on a future generation. His Medicare prescription drug bill cost much more than he claimed and in the end will net billions for the pharmaceutical industry while offering no real relief for senior citizens. The federal debt is skyrocketing. Good paying middle class job continue to be replaced with minimum wage jobs. His energy policy does not acknowledge the fact that fossil fuels are a finite resource that must be replaced by renewable resources. He continues to ignore the financial calamity facing the social security system.

I see no hope with John Kerry. I believe him to be a political opportunist whose policies are determined by the direction of the political winds.

I honestly don't know what I'm going to do on election day. The one thing I can tell you with absolute certainty is that I will not vote for Bush.

Wish I could take credit for that one. Sadly, no.

I've got $50 here that says Bush won't being doing any more press conferences before the election.

After today's fiasco there's no way Rove let's it happen:

The first part of the question was how come we haven't found Zarqawi? We're looking for him. He hides.


I saw a poll that said the right track/wrong track in Iraq was better than here in America. It was pretty darn strong. I mean, the people see a better future.

Talk to the leader. I agree, I'm not the expert on how the Iraqi people think, because I live in America where it's nice and safe and secure.

The Afghan national army is a part of the army.

By the way, it's the Afghan national army that went into Najaf and did the work there.


I've seen firsthand the tactics of these killers.

HUH?

Polls show that Iraqis are happier in Iraq than Americans are in America with the way their country is going...and that's just peachy? People are being beheaded for crying out loud!

And..um...you might want to get someone to give you a MAP OF IRAQ and a MAP OF AFGHANISTAN.

Not to mention Bush's remarks on the upcoming Iraqi elections:

The fifth and most important step in our plan is to help Iraq conduct free, national elections no later than next January. An Iraqi electoral commission is now up and running and has already hired personnel and is making key decisions about election procedures.

And later Rumsfeld is trotted out to "clarify":

"Let's say you tried to have an election and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country. But in some places you couldn't because the violence was too great," Rumsfeld said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

"Well, so be it. Nothing's perfect in life, so you have an election that's not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet," he said.

Note to self: Bush doesn't know that they can't have a decent election in Iraq and Rumsfeld just doesn't give a crap.

Meanwhile, Kerry sounds more Presidential all the time and can actually find Iraq on a globe:

Kerry's remarks and the ad came one day after he told The Associated Press that Bush's statement that a "handful" of people were willing to kill to stop progress in Iraq was a blunder that showed he was avoiding reality.


"George Bush retreated from Fallujah and other communities in Iraq which are now overrun with terrorists and threaten our troops," Kerry said in the brief interview Wednesday. "And even today, he blundered again saying there are only a handful of terrorists in Iraq. I think he's living in a make believe world."

Thank goodness Kerry has finally started to move the polls in his favor. I can't take this much longer.

So interim Iraqi Prime Minister was in town today to help Bush politically. Addressing a joint meeting of Congress, Allawi talked about how his friends and relatives had suffered at the hands of Saddam... citing murder, torture and rape. But, Mr. Allawi stands accused of committing some of those very same attrocities against his own people.

Back in early August we reported on torture of Iraqi detainees at the hands of Prime Minister Allawi's forces. That event took place on the first day of so-called "sovereignty" after the supposed handover of power. But even before that when Allawi was part of the puppet Iraqi government under Paul Bremmer's supervision, Allawi was accused of personally executing six Iraqi men in a Baghdad police center.

Of course this is nothing new. Before Allawi it was Challabi, another bad guy, that the NeoCons were enamoured with. In fact Challabi is the source of much of the bogus WMD hype that Bush used to scare the American people into supporting the diversion into Iraq. Of course Challabi was the last Iraqi puppet trotted thru Congress on Bush's behalf when he was invited to Bush's 2003 State of the Union address and was aknowledge by Bush during the address.

How many times do we Americans need to be deceived by the Bush team before we wake up and point out that the Emperor is stark naked?

It would seem our vaunted Attorney General is having trouble getting convictions against alla those "terrorists" he's locked up.

Talk Left has the details.

Yesterday I blogged about how the lust for Dan Rather's head is, in it's silliness, overshadowing the fact that dozens of "journalists" gave the Swift Boaters hours of play without bothering to check the facts of that story, or vet it's veracity. I mentioned that noone is asking for the heads of people like Judy Woodruff or Brit Hume, despite the fact that they've aired hours of material that have been debunked.

Today David Sirota of the Center for American Progress gives creedence to my argument, and wonders why noone is asking for the resignation of various individuals at the Fox News Network:

ROGER AILES GIVES SECRET POLITICAL ADVICE TO THE BUSH WHITE HOUSE: According to Bob Woodward’s book Fox News executive Roger Ailes, who formerly served as a GOP political operative, gave White House political adviser Karl Rove a confidential memo after 9/11 that advised the President on how to consolidate his power. “[Ailes] back-channel message: The American public would tolerate waiting and would be patient, but only as long as they were convinced that Bush was using the harshest measures possible" in response to the terror attacks, Woodward writes. The move was so brazen, conservative commentator Tucker Carlson told PBS “Roger Ailes is the editorial chief of fox news, and this gives the appearance of partisanship. This is sucking up to power."

That's one of about five examples cited by Sirota regarding Fox News close ties with the Bush Administration.

And which news network is spending the most time on the Rather story? Fox, of course.

American enemy, Cat Stevens

Former pop star Cat Stevens has been denied entry into the US.

Stevens changed his name years ago to Yusuf Islam. His name appeared on a watch list designed to keep terrorists or their supporters out of the US. According to officials Islam was on the watch list because of alleged associations and financial support for Muslim charities (reportedly Hamas, specifically).

Islam's website includes numerous statements condemning the September 11 attacks and the recent attacks against a school in Beslan, Russia. Islam also donated a portion of his royalties from a four disc set to the September 11th Fund for the families of 9/11 victims.

So apparently we can allow members of the Saudi royal family into the US...whose members have given huge sums of money to Al Qaida, but we can't let Islam in because he gave money to Muslim charities who help the Palestinians and have nothing to do with harming the US.

Brilliant.

Bush's team is probably baffled by the fact that Arab Americans are deciding to vote for Kerry.

The currently GOP held seat in New York's 27th Congressional District is shading blue.

Polling conducted September 15-16 shows Democratic candidate Brian Higgins leads GOPer Nancy Naples by 5 points, outside the margin of error.

This is one of the few seriously contested House seats this election cycle. Democrats have a very slim chance to take back the House from Republicans...but could make it much more difficult for the GOP Majority to continually keep Democrats out of the loop if the lead is razor thin.

The Austin American Statesman newspaper (registration required) is reporting that a Texas grand jury has indicted three consultants with Texans for a Republican Majority (Tom DeLay's PAC) and at least seven corporate donors.

Indicted were John Colyandro, executive director of the political action committee; Warren Robold, a Washington, D.C., fund-raiser; and Jim Ellis a key aide to DeLay, according to Austin attorney Steve Brittain, who is a lawyer for DeLay.

Indicted corporations include:

One count each:
Sears Roebuck & Co.
Barcardi USA Inc.
Cracker Barrel Old Country Store Inc.
Diversified Collection Services Inc.
Questerra Corporation
Williams Companies, Inc.
Westar Energy Inc.
Alliance for Qualilty Nursing Home Care, Inc.

Defense attorneys said Colyandro and Robold were charged with about a dozen felonies each; Ellis was indicted on one count. It was not yet known what the charges were.

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle was not available for comment yet, and the indictments were still being processed.

The indictments were the result of almost two years of investigation.

Following the Republican sweep of the 2002 elections, Earle began investigating allegations that Republicans and their business allies used unprecedented amounts of corporate cash to affect the elections.

State law generally prohibits using corporate or labor union money for political purposes except to pay for the administrative expenses of a political action committee.

Texans for a Republican Majority spent $1.5 million during the election, including $600,000 of corporate money that was spent on consultants, pollsters and phone banks. But lawyers for the political action committee argued that the money was spent for the benefit of the committee and not directly on behalf of candidates.

The Texas Association of Business has fought for almost two years not to identify corporate donors who financed its efforts to elect a Republican majority. Its lawyers argued that the mail pieces in question are issue ads protected by the First Amendment and should not be regulated by the state election laws.

All of this comes on the heels of DeLay and House Republicans trying to stall an ethics investigation against DeLay in the House Ethics Committee.

Things aren't looking so great for The Hammer.

To help it get worse, give some money to Richard Morrisson, his opponent.

Roberta

The rightwing blogosphere and websites area all agog over National Guardgate starring Dan Rather. Teeming with righteous indignation, they're calling for his head, insisting upon his resignation from CBS over the Killian Memos. This after Rather mea culpa'd on the memos, saying he could no longer vouch for their veracity (No, he hasn't said they're forged, despite what the rest of the media likes to report).

Missed in all of this rightwing swill however, are two very simple facts. First of all, nothing in the Killian memos was actually false information. With the possible exception of the allegation that Bush didn't follow a direct order to get a physical, everything else is cooberated by other undisputed documents. Even the White House believes the content of the memos to be legitimate, as they've shown by their trotting out of Dan Bartlett to make excuses for his boss' behavior during that era.

Second, we seem to be missing some mea culpa from Fox, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, etc over the Swift Boat stories. These cable news organizations put up hour after hour of the Swift Boaters opining on and on about how Kerry didn't earn his medals. On Friday, the US Navy said Kerry earned all of his medals and procedures to award them were followed properly.

Dan Rather is the one journalist who's actually had the integrity and honesty to come forward and say he screwed up. Where's the integrity of Wolf Blitzer and Brit Hume on the Swift Boat story? Where's the front page coverage for Judy Woodruff and Bill O'Reilly on the front page of the Washington Post..pressuring them to resign for airing stories without checking them thoroughly first?

People are asking for the head of the one guy out there right now willing to come forward and try to get to the truth. Sadly, noone seems to care about the hours and hours of untruths aired by the cable "news" shows.

Republican senators Chuck Hagel (Nebraska) and Richard Lugar (Indiana) are expressing frustration at the Bush Administration's unwillingness to come clean with the American people about Iraq:

Hagel, a decorated U.S. Army veteran who served in Vietnam, said he is deeply skeptical about the claims of progress that President Bush and his advisers have made about Iraq. The Nebraskan compared "this mess" to the U.S. failures in Vietnam.

"We are in deep trouble," he warned.

Hagel chided "all these smart guys who got us in there (to Iraq) ... all the smart guys who said how easy this was going to be and who reassured us not to worry."

Lugar also weighed in:

Lugar chastised the "blithely optimistic people ... the

dancing-in-the-street crowd" in the Bush administration who assured Congress that casualties and costs would be low and that U.S. troops would be met as liberators.

"Now," said Lugar, "the nonsense of all of that is apparent. The lack of planning is apparent."

Lugar went on to read a letter he recieved from a Marine second lieutenant serving in Iraq which spelled out the very bleak issues the US military faces in Iraq.

Lugar and Hagel aren't alone in the GOP, either. Senator John McCain (Arizona) and Congressmen Doug Bereuter (Nebraska) have also expressed frustration and exasperation with Bush's inability to effectively deal with the problems in Iraq.

The Bush Administration is in for some big problems in Iraq...and they know it, despite lying to the American people about what's really going on. But Bush refuses to come clean with the electorate...because holding power is more important than actually doing his job.

From Media Matters:

CNN senior political analyst and American Enterprise Institute resident fellow Bill Schneider claimed that Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorist network "would very much like to defeat President [George W.] Bush" in November's presidential election. He then revived the much-repeated myth that terrorists determined the outcome of Spain's March election, saying: "But the question is: Can they pull off the same trick that they pulled off in Spain?"

When asked to comment on House Speaker Dennis Hastert's (R-IL) September 18 remark that the terrorists would prefer a Senator John Kerry presidency, Schneider echoed Hastert's sentiment.

From the September 19 edition of CNN Live Sunday:

SCHNEIDER: Well, I can guarantee you, they don't like George Bush. Do they think there's a difference? I think Osama bin Laden, the Al Qaeda network, who I am certain follow American politics, look at the messages coming out on their tapes. They seem to follow politics very closely. They would very much like to defeat President Bush. But the question is: Can they pull off the same trick that they pulled off in Spain? What Dennis Hastert said is, "They'd better not try that. It won't work here." And my guess is, he's right about that.

As Media Matters for America has noted, while little evidence exists suggesting that Al Qaeda has a preference regarding the upcoming presidential election, Reuters reported in March that a letter from an Egyptian group claiming a link to Al Qaeda stated that group supports President George W. Bush's reelection. Moreover, as MMFA has also explained (on July 15 and August 5), the assumption that terrorists sought successfully to bring about the defeat of Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar, a supporter of Bush and the Iraq war, is highly questionable.

Kevin adds: In what was arguably the greatest political flip-flop of all time President Bush first said, "The important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our Number One priority and we will not rest until we find him!" - Sept. 13, 2001. Then later he said, "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - March 13, 2002.

What possible reason could Osama bin Laden have for not preferring the guy who openly stated that he doesn't care, that it's not important and that it's not his priority to bring him to justice???

9/17/04 Press Conference with Scott McClellan:

Q I've got another question about women. In the last few public events, we've seen anti-Bush women treated rather roughly, physically. Does the President -- is he aware of the treatment of these demonstrators?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know what you're specifically referring to, Ed.

Q Well, one we saw a woman being led out by her hair, rather forcefully. Another one yesterday at Mrs. Bush's event.

MR. McCLELLAN: Those are questions I think you can direct to authorities. I don't know what you're specifically referring to.

Are you sure about that, Bob...er...Scott?

Conservative columnist Robert Novak indicates in his column today that a reelected Bush Administration will cut and run in Iraq:

Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush's decision will be to get out. They believe that is the recommendation of his national security team and would be the recommendation of second-term officials. An informed guess might have Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, Paul Wolfowitz as defense secretary and Stephen Hadley as national security adviser. According to my sources, all would opt for a withdrawal.

Getting out now would not end expensive U.S. reconstruction of Iraq, and certainly would not stop the fighting. Without U.S. troops, the civil war cited as the worst-case outcome by the recently leaked National Intelligence Estimate would be a reality. It would then take a resolute president to stand aside while Iraqis battle it out.

The end product would be an imperfect Iraq, probably dominated by Shia Muslims seeking revenge over long oppression by the Sunni-controlled Baathist Party. The Kurds would remain in their current semi-autonomous state. Iraq would not be divided, reassuring neighboring countries -- especially Turkey -- that are apprehensive about ethnically divided nations.

In a nutshell, Novak is saying that Bush and his people have no idea what to do with Iraq. Apparently the sunshine they've been blowing up our backsides (despite massive evidence to the contrary) is nothing more than outright lying.

Novak is clearly uncomfortable with what he hears from the Bush people...yet complains about Kerry too. To Novak, Kerry not wanting to abandon the mess we've made in Iraq is no better than abandoning it.

It's pretty clear that conservatives and neoconservatives have absolutely no idea what to do with Iraq. Yet apparently Bush is ready to bail out, leaving Iraq into what will inevitably be a massive civil war. This completely irresponsible position leaves the US in a reprehensible foreign policy position. And worse, the conservatives and neoconservatives don't appear to be learning from this lesson. As Novak points out, David Brooks' August 29th New York Times Magazine piece that calls for "strengthening of nation states" and calling for a "multilateral nation building apparatus" seems to encourage invasions of other states.

Update:And Kos has the question of the day: "Where are the terrorist alerts?" Since W's poll numbers have improved, the terror alerts seem to have strangely dissapeared.

The Republicans are sounding the alarm in West Virginia.

The Republican National Committee sent out mailers last week to warn West Virginians that if Democrats are elected, the Bible will be banned and men will marry men.

This week? Republicans will be informing the citizens of West Virginia that if Kerry is elected, the US will be attacked by terrorists and will go to war based on trumped up intelligence.

(The quote in the header is Bill Murray from Ghostbusters, by the way)

There's a lot of buzz in the lefty blogosphere about the new book by linguist George Lakoff. I've been a big fan of Lakoff for about a year. I first heard Lakoff on Oregon Public Broadcasting radio while in my car. He was giving a commentary on the effective uses of political language by the Republicans. While listening to him I felt that someone had turned on a light switch in me. What he said made so much sense!

Lakoff talked about how Republicans "frame the debate". He talked about how Republicans tie certain words together, automatically putting the other side completely on the defensive. These words are set up in such a way as to pound on the other side..taking away from the actual meat of an issue...to point out some essentially meaningless thing...and distract the other side. He discussed how they stay on message with these words and phrases, and they stay disciplined with it...even in the face of being proven factually wrong time and again. He also discussed the how the Republican Party and conservative movements constantly work together with their media outlets.

Last week, Erasmus over at Centerfield talked about Lakoff. Today Kos has an extended look at Lakoff and his new book Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives.

Howard Dean took advice from Lakoff and was able to effectively inject language into the debate that set the Republicans on their heels and gave Democrats and progressives the voice they were longing for. Lakoff's understanding of language and it's effective use is potentially key to the Democrats finding their voice as a whole. Kerry should have this guy on his speech writing team and helping him prepare for the debates.

... But, better late than never.

Finally (!!) some Republicans are starting to talk about the proverbial Pink Elephant in the living room that nobody wants to talk about. Namely, the worsening situation in Iraq. Kerry has been saying that Bush is hiding a plan to call up large numbers of more Guards and Reserves after the election. Ed Gillespie (Chair of the RNC) and other Bush partisans have claimed that Kerry is resorting to fear tactics. But, anyone following the situation both in Iraq as well as in our over-stretched military know that Bush has precious little choice. Only he wants to keep it under wraps because it doesn't jibe with his stump speech lies that everything in Iraq is peachy.

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said on CBS's Face the Nation,

"The fact is, we're in deep trouble in Iraq ... and I think we're going to have to look at some recalibration of policy."

Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona said on Fox News Sunday, "We made serious mistakes." He cited the toleration of massive looting in the immediate aftemath of Saddam's government crumbling and the failure to secure Iraq's borders, as well as having allowed insurgents to develop strongholds in the country. Of course that was all politically nice ways of saying that Bush and Rumsfeld "Cheneyed Up" be refusing to listen to those who told them going in that we'd need several hundred thousand troops to do the job right.

McCain said that a ground offensive is urgently needed to retake areas held by insurgents in places like Falluja. "We've got to take out the sanctuaries. We're going to have to sustain, tragically, some more casualties. Airstrikes don't do it; artillery doesn't do it. Boots on the ground do it," McCain said. "And the longer we delay ...the more difficult the challenge is going to be and the more casualties we will incur."

This is something that McCain and Kerry both understand well, having been in war themselves. And perhaps that is at the root of why Bush has allowed this mess to get so bad in the first place... he simply doesn't appreciate the sacrifices being made by our soldiers in the field. Why else would he allow Iraq to spiral downward into a morass while putting a happy face on the situation when speaking to Americans? He knew going in and has been told repeatedly in the months since invading that we simply didn't have enough troops to do the job.

More American casualties will indeed be tragic. And the blame falls squarely on Bush. But of course we all know that he won't accept responsibility for it. He's never accepted responsibility for any of his decisions that didn't pan out according to the fantasy world he lives in. But I diverge... there's more.

McCain said Bush had been "perhaps not as straight as maybe we'd like to see."

"I think the president is being clear. I would like to see him more clear."

Excuse me, Senator, but I'm not as stupid as you apparently believe me to be. If you would like to see Bush be "more clear" then, by definition, he isn't being clear now. Whatever happened to the man who launched the vaunted "Straight Talk Express"?

Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, also Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, criticized the way that Bush has handled the reconstruction of Iraq while on ABC's This Week show. I don't know why this should surprise anyone. Bush made all kinds of reconstruction promises to Afghanistan which haven't materialized. Anyway, Lugar pointed out that Bush has only spent $1 billion of the $18.4 billion that Congress allocated for reconstruction in Iraq. This would be the very same Congressional allocation for which Bush and Cheney have been trying to paint Kerry as a flip-flopper for how he voted on it. Now if it were really all that important to Bush or Cheney, don't you think they'd have spent more than a paltry 5% of it by now? Oh... that's right. :::shhhhhh::: We're supposed to be stupid.

The most interesting statement came from McCain's fellow Arizona Republican Senator John Kyle on Face The Nation.

"Allowing the Iraqis to make the decisions not to go into some of these sanctuaries, I think, turns out to have not been a good decision, which we're going to have to correct now by going in with our Marines and Army divisions."

Um... you mean the same Iraqis that Bush allegedly turned "full sovereignty" over to in June? No need to answer that, Senator. I suspect you said a great deal more than you intended to. But, never fear. The truth will set you free. Besides, it's gotta be tough covering for Bush on so many different issues. I don't blame you for letting that one slip out. You're only human, after all.

From Susan over at Random Thoughts: Unfair and Unbalanced

This article has to be read to be believed. And after you read it, you still won't believe it. The election in the heartland will be based on something like this: It doesn't matter if you are unemployed and facing homelessness, it doesn't matter if you are facing foreclosure on your home, it doesn't matter that if you get another job it doesn't pay a living wage, it doesn't matter if you've lost your health insurance, it doesn't matter if your kids face the prospect of fighting an illegitimate war. Nothing matters. All that counts is if some phony whose administration has worsened you and your family's lives invokes "Jesus is my personal savior," he gets your vote. All I say to that is you fools prove P.T. Barnum right.

I couldn't agree more. And I say that both as a voter and as a Christian. What part of "as you do unto the least of these, so you do unto me" do these churchgoers not understand? If Bush claimed to be the Jolly Green Giant, would they believe that too?

Doug Bandow, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, wrote a fantastic piece over at ReasonOnline called Whose Fault? Accountability According to the GOP. Here he confronts head-on the intellectually vapid GOP mantra that the problems in Iraq are all the fault of "the media."

The failure to understand why the American people have turned against the war demonstrates that the administration and its allies are simultaneously arrogant and tone-deaf. While conservatives routinely denounced President Bill Clinton for failing to accept responsibility for his actions, the GOP now is taking the cult of the victim to new heights.

Bush Administration rhetoric of mushroom clouds, bioterrorism, unmanned aerial planes that could hit America, etc. weren't created by "the media." The American media didn't falsely promise that Iraqi's would shower our troops with rose petals or that the occupation would pay for itself. The media didn't predict that our troop strength in Iraq would fall to 30,000 by last summer or that our traditional allies would be falling all over themselves to jump on the victory bandwagon.

"Once we have victory in Baghdad, all the critics will look like fools," said Cheney. Not quite. And don't blame the media.

It's not just Iraq, either. By diverting massive resources away from Afghanistan, and to Iraq, the Bush administration short-changed operations in Afghanistan. The "government" of Ahmed Karzai is little more than a glorified Mayorship of Kabul. Other War Lords refuse to aknowledge the "federal government" of Karzai. Foreign investors shun Afghanistan significantly more than they did under the Taliban regime, pointing towards a very bleak and bloody future for the Afghani's. And it's all tracable to the Bush administration's lust for Iraq. Not only is the media not to blame for that, they aren't even covering it much.

A conservative Independent friend of mine has sent me numerous emails blaming Kerry (and McCain) for the brutalization of the Hmong ethnic minority in Vietnam. The basic argument is that Kerry and McCain are responsible for this because they helped normalize relations between the governments of Vietnam and the United States. Normally I seriously doubt that the Religious Right would care. But, the Hmong happen to be overwhelmingly Protestant Christians. So the conclussion is that they are being brutalized because they are Christians - ignoring the historical fact that the Hmong were brutalized before they ever converted to Christianity. Therefore, so the logic goes, it is a Christian duty to oppose John Kerry. There are a multitude of problems with that point of view. But, what's interesting is that Christians are being persecuted in Iraq right now.

Christians are being brutalized and Christian churches are being bombed; 40,000 Christians have fled to Syria, an ugly anti-American dictatorship. Journalists aren't to blame for these problems.

One can search any of the usual Freeper hangouts online and find numerous references to the Hmong and Kerry. But, try to find even one about Bush and the persecuted Christians in Iraq.

The media has done nothing more than report on the results of Bush administration policies in Iraq.

....until Sunday night or Monday morning.

If you're looking for some excellent reads this morning, I suggest heading over to read Kevin Drum this morning. The top 4 posts are excellent...especially the one having to do with efforts to keep CBS' Bob Shieffer from participating hosting in the Presidential debates. Check it out.

Another good series of reads today are over at Yglesias. Very informative stuff.

You can consider this an open thread. Chat away if you like.

A while back Kevin and I posted this picture below of Kendra Lloyd Knox, a woman who protested at a Beaverton Oregon event attended by George W. Bush. A woman later identified as Rosemary Kriegel of Tigard, Oregon had clapped her hand over Kendra's mouth. The picture was snapped by The Portland Tribune Newspaper:



You can read Kendra's story in her own words here.

Kevin and I emailed Kendra and met up with her a few weeks ago to hear her story. After speaking with Kendra, I spoke with Sargeant Michael Janin of the Beaverton Police Department. Janin confirmed that "what you see in the picture is what occured." Sargeant Janin said that the protesters at the event were very orderly. Janin also said that the protesters "seemed shocked" that police talked to and instructed the protesters. Kriegel apparently told police that she didn't like the language Kendra was using in front of her children, ages 14 and 15 (Kendra admitted to us that her language can be "salty").Kendra says she was unhurt in the incident. An officer was there immediately and escorted Kriegel from the area. A few days after the incident, Kendra went to the Beaverton Police to file charges. Kendra confirmed with us that the Beaverton Police Department handled the incident with great professionalism. Sargeant Janin told me that the incident had been turned over to the Beaverton City Attorney's office to determine charges against Ms Kriegel.

This week, Kendra informed us that the Beaverton City Attorney's office has decided to file no charges against Ms Kriegel. That was confirmed this Thursday in a story in the Beaverton Valley Times newspaper.

Apparently it's now perfectly acceptable to clap your hand over another person's mouth and practically knock them over. Go ahead, the Beaverton City Attorneys Office seems to think it's fine.

Beaverton City Attorneys:

(503)526-2215

*** Update *** A picture of Ms Kriegel wagging her finger in Kendra's face: Here

A Bennett, Petts & Blumenthal poll; conducted 9/7-9 for Rep. Max Sandlin (D); surveyed 400 likely voters; margin of error +/- 4.7% (release, 9/16). Tested: Sandlin and state Rep. Louie Tyler (R).
General Election Matchup
Now 5'04
Sandlin 47% 41%
Tyler 43 44
Undec/Oth 10 15


And the Houston Chronicle is a bit miffed at Tom DeLay:

Sept. 16, 2004, 10:13PM
Houston Chronicle Editorial

DELAY'S DEVILMENT
Egregiously redrawn seats illustrate misbegotten redistricting
The deformed spawn of U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, new congressional districts finally enacted by the Republican-controlled Legislature stand as a freakish monument to political megalomania.
And that's before a vote has even been cast in elections that seem likely to send at least a few more DeLay allies, or automatons, to Washington.
The campaigns unfolding across the state make clear that all other considerations are to be sacrificed in an attempt to keep the narrow Republican hold on power in the U.S. House.
Texas moderates, including the two most senior members of the state's delegation (Martin Frost of Dallas and Charlie Stenholm of Abilene), face the prospect of defenestration merely because they have a "D" after their name, a scarlet letter in the eyes of DeLay and his enablers.
Speciousness abounds. In the swath of Central Texas covered in the new 17th District, Republicans contend that it's an outrage that President Bush's ranch at Crawford (in McLennan County, the geographical pivot of the new seat) is represented by a Democrat (incumbent Chet Edwards). Come on, it's a ranch, not Lourdes.
Back when Bush was at his bipartisan best, he was living in nasty old pinko Austin, in a Governor's Mansion represented in the U.S. House by Democrat Lloyd Doggett, one of the most liberal members of the Texas delegation. Bush lived through that.
The Chronicle's Washington columnist, Cragg Hines, has begun to take a look at some of the races, and his first report, on Wednesday's Outlook page, reflected the frustration communities feel at being jerked around in the redistricting process.
Brazos County - and its major industry, Texas A&M - grew accustomed to steady, influential legislators. As a result of DeLay's demands, Brazos County could end up being represented in the U.S. House by a tyro, (Republican state Rep. Arlene Wohlgemuth) whose home and natural interests are in a Fort Worth suburb.
A senior Texas Republican said Aggieland voters, dependent on their House member to look after A&M's business, especially research funding, "miss the influence of a Phil Gramm or a Tiger Teague. They want someone to settle in and stay there."
That's certainly not a given, as long a DeLay's hand is on the tiller.
DeLay, interestingly, has raised money for Wohlgemuth in Houston but he's been sparse on the ground in the district itself. Perhaps that's because of a 2002 dust-up after he declared that parents interested in a "good, solid, godly education" should not send children to Texas A&M or Baylor, the major educational institutions in the redrawn 17th and always considered two of the most conservative big universities in the state.
DeLay backtracked quickly, but only after he had aired his true, revealing feelings.

I open my email this morning to see this piece sent to me by a conservative. The story breathlessly details how poor little Sophia Parlock had a Bush/Cheney sign ripped up out of her hands at an airport in W. Virginia where John Edwards made a brief stop, while a union thug looks on.

Wow....how awful! Who would do such a thing to a poor little girl?

Apparently her father. It seems Mr. Phil Parlock has a history of showing up to Democratic events with GOP signs..being provocative with them...and then lodging complaints when the signs are taken from him or torn up. In fact it's happened in the last three consecutive Presidential elections.

And the fella on the left who's the alledged union thug who tore up the sign? Looks strangely like one of Parlock's many sons.

Props to Rising Hegemon.

as seen on MyDD

1027 dead and counting.

Sidney Blumenthal wrote a piece today that underscores why some senior US military officers now believe "the war on Iraq has turned into a disaster on an unprecedented scale." An excerpt:

'Bring them on!" President Bush challenged the early Iraqi insurgency in July of last year. Since then, 812 American soldiers have been killed and 6,290 wounded, according to the Pentagon. Almost every day, in campaign speeches, Bush speaks with bravado about how he is "winning" in Iraq. "Our strategy is succeeding," he boasted to the National Guard convention on Tuesday.

But, according to the US military's leading strategists and prominent retired generals, Bush's war is already lost. Retired general William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency, told me: "Bush hasn't found the WMD. Al-Qaida, it's worse, he's lost on that front. That he's going to achieve a democracy there? That goal is lost, too. It's lost." He adds: "Right now, the course we're on, we're achieving Bin Laden's ends." - Far graver than Vietnam

With the media apparently focused on the authenticity of the Killian memos...it appears the content has been lost in the shuffle...or has it?.

Former Texas Air National Guardsman Robert Strong is calling for an investigation of the gaps in Bush's Guard Service.

"I think the public ought to be concerned about his preferential treatment getting in and whether he satisfied his commitment to the Air Guard. Those are the two fundamental questions," said Robert Strong, the administrative officer in charge of air operations at Guard state headquarters from early 1971 until March 1972.

Killian's former secretary, Marian Carr Knox, has also discussed the memo's contents:

"I know that I didn't type them," she said in an interview with CBS. "However, the information in those is correct."

Knox also said that she typed memos for Killian which included the same content as those that were aired by CBS.

So the next most obvious question is, what happened those the memos that Knox typed for Killian?

Digby cuts to the chase, again.

I thought the White House released all those Guard documents?

update: A federal judge has ordered the Pentagon to find and make public any unreleased files about George W. Bush's National Guard record.

A classified national intelligence report presented to Bush in late July outlines a very bad future for Iraq:

"There's a significant amount of pessimism," said one government official who has read the document, which runs about 50 pages. The officials declined to discuss the key judgments -- concise statements of intelligence analysts' conclusions -- included in the document.

The intelligence estimate, the first on Iraq since October 2002, was prepared by the National Intelligence Council and was approved by the National Foreign Intelligence Board under acting CIA Director John McLaughlin. Such estimates can be requested by the White House or Congress, but this one was initiated by the intelligence council under George Tenet, who stepped down as director of central intelligence July 9, the government officials said.

This report was issued before the recent uptick of violence in Iraq. This report was also issued before General Myers statements on how certain key areas of Iraq are completely out of US/Iraqi government control.

The Rocky Mountain News is reporting that soldiers from a unit at Fort Carson are complaining that they have been issued an ultimatum: re-enlist or face deployment to Iraq.

This is what an awesome TV ad looks like.

Via Yglesias

Despite it's Republican leaning voting pattern, the NRCC appears nervous about the race in the 5th Congressional District of Washington State. George W Bush won the District in 2000 by 16 points. But Democrats have run competitively there, and the GOP seem to believe this one could be a nail biter.

They've already begun running ads against Democratic candidate Don Barbieri, who countered with spots defending his business record. The DCCC also went on the air for Barbieri this past Tuesday.

At least one Republican operative thinks McMorris will have a tough time keeping the 5th district in the GOP column, despite it's voting patterns. Jim Dornan, a Beltway-based consultant who worked for one of McMorris' primary opponents, said McMorris will suffer because she comes from a rural part of the district, and he said that Barbieri's response to the NRCC's TV onslaught has been impressive.

"They nominated the weakest Republican candidate," Dornan said.

I can't understand why Bush keeps lying about stupid stuff. Or rather, why his people keep writing stuff for him to say on the stump that's an out and out lie?

They have to know this stuff isn't true. Why do they lie about things like this when they could just as easily tell the truth? Or not refer to it at all?

It baffles me.

For all you fiscal conservatives out there planning to vote for Bush...welcome to your wake up call.

By the Bush Administration's own figures, the price tag for Bush's agenda as laid out at the Republican National Convention is in excess of $3 trillion. Bush has complained on the campaign stump that Kerry's plan runs in excess of $2 trillion. The Kerry Campaign disputes this figure.

The cost of tax breaks and spending increases outlined by the Bush administrati