Base playing

At the moment both John Kerry and GW Bush are playing to their electoral bases. It's in the rhythm of the campaign for Kerry to be doing this: solidying support and sparking enthusiasm among Democrats for the upcoming convention. So there's a big ad buy for Latino markets, a conspicuous appearance at the NAACP convention where Bushies fear to tread, etc.

For Bush to be playing so loudly to his base at this point however is not the usual rhythm. It seems desperate. It's desperately loud, too. With the gay-bashing amendment in the Senate, he's trying to appease restless members of the Rabid Right, as his ads distort a Kerry vote, in a kind of Willie Horton move but this time Willie is a Scott who preys on pregnant Lacis.

In pushing the gay-bashing amendment while dissing the NAACP, Bush is desperate enough to risk sacrificing moderate and independents, while announcing that since he is unlikely to get many black or gay votes anyway, he'd damn well better make sure to solidify his hold on white racists and homophobes.

He's just as bald-faced in embracing his corporate base, for example in suddenly opening up protected land in national forests to logging and mining interests. Here's a Seattle take on this:

Proposal would drop forestland protections

Otherwise, two new polls show Kerry ahead by 5 and 6 points among likely voters, despite the revelations in a very troubling study from the Project for Excellence in Journalism. It found that Bush has been getting most of the media coverage, but even though the tone on Bush's character has been negative by a 3 to 1 margin, the media's judgment on Kerry has been negative by a 5 to 1--yes that's FIVE TO ONE margin.

The study also found that "journalists were almost as likely as the campaigns to be the source asserting these character traits about the candidates" and that "more than four in ten character assertions were made with no evidence cited to back them up."
Here's a link to the full study:
Journalism.org - Reports & Surveys - Campaign 2004 - Character and the Campaign

Johnny Be Good

by Morgan Dash

I'll tell you this TRUE story, even if one of my brothers (you know who you are, Theron) doesn't believe me. We'd more or less settled on Gephardt as Kerry's likely choice for vp, though in the days just before the announcement, we were wavering on whether it would be Gephardt or Edwards.

The night before the announcement was to be made, I happened to be up late, and I saw on the net the report attributed to the New York Post that it was going to definitely be Gephardt. My immediate reaction--which surprised me--was: oh, no. That choice is a mistake. It has to be Edwards.

Fortunately it turned out to be Rupert Murdoch's mistake and not John Kerry's. A few hours later Kerry announced that his choice was John Edwards. By the end of the week, it was just starting to become clear what an amazingly good choice it was. If this was (as Bill Clinton described it before it happened) Kerry's first "presidential" decision, it was an incredibly astute one.

It was first of all an immediately popular choice among voters polled, and among both media and non-Bushie politicians. The first rallys with the new duo were dynamic. The ad introducing the team was terrific. Two polls immediately showed Kerry ahead by more than the margin of error, and perhaps most surprisingly, they showed Edwards as the clear favorite over Cheney, even in response to the question of who is more ready to be president.

The week was very well orchestrated, from the announcement in Pittsburgh to the first rally in Cleveland, to the matched messages and the new vocabularly of strength at home, respect in the world. There was also a determined emphasis on reclaiming "values" as an issue--very perspicacious, given the Bush credibility problem. At last the Dems aren't bowing to the pernicious doublespeak of rabid rightist "family values" behind policies that ravage families and have nothing but contempt for values other than hypocrisy and cynicism. Neither are they ceding American values and patriotism to the Bushies, who cut soldiers' pay and benefits, and provide inadequate medical care to wounded veterans.

No wars for oil, they both said. No wars of choice, only of necessity. Then the music plays: Johnny B. Goode.

And Kerry and Edwards immediately seized another image---of optimism---that the Bushies thought they could claim for themselves.

John Edwards connects not only with southern voters---where so many military bases are--- but with midwestern workers and small town voters. He becomes the companion who gets John Kerry invited in. Edwards has young children, and young families are people Kerry must reach. The Bushies want to make Edwards' career as a personal injury lawyer into an issue but as Bill Clinton used to say, that dog won't hunt. People may not love lawyers, until they need one. Representing ordinary people against big corporations is more sympathetic and comprehensible than tort reform.

Two other bits of conventional wisdom may go down in flames. First, that the vice presidential nominee doesn't matter. Hey, turn on your TV. It's the synergy, the image of the two of them that matters. It's what choosing Edwards says about Kerry. Second, that only what happens now or what happens next matters to the voters, not the past. No, what has happened already matters---and voters are not happy about Iraq, about lies and misplaced arrogance. Reaction to the latest nonspecific terror non-alert shows an edgy distrust of anything the Bushies say.

So believe me or not about my reaction, but I have to say: even with my little flash of insight, I never would have bet that the selection of Edwards would get such an enthusiastic reception so quickly.

gaming the blame

The U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee report was significant in that 9 Republicans and 8 Democrats unanimously declared all the major reasons the Bush administration gave for taking America to war in Iraq were untrue. Officially this part of the report blamed the CIA and other intelligence agencies. Democrats added that the intel conclusions were clearly influenced by administration expectations, and outright pressure to come to those conclusions. Even though Republicans did not agree, the report included some damning correspondence from within the CIA that clearly leaves that impression: the Bushies were going to war anyway, so if the CIA knew what was good for it, they'd provide what the bosses wanted to hear.

Specific investigation into how the Bushies handled the faulty intelligence they got was put off until after the election, apparently as the price for getting this part of the report out now. But as several news reporters and pundits pointed out, it is simple enough work to compare the claims the Bushies made publicly with the intelligence they got as described in this report, to see that the Bushies exaggerated it (at best), and combined passing on bad information with additional misleading conclusions. A pretty good summary of all that can be found in a short piece appearing in the Nation:

Capital Games

The report's less than subtle purpose was congressional: now that a clear majority of American voters believe going to war was a mistake, the Congress that voted to give Bush the authority to start it now desperately wants to cover its institutional ass. The committee members emphasized that they, as Members of Congress, were misled by the bad intel. Senator Jay Rockerfeller, the ranking Dem, added that had he known then what he knows now, he would not have voted to authorize Bush's bash, nor in his opinion would the rest of Congress have done so.

This cuts no mustard with Bush, of course. After seizing on the report as proof he was led astray by that bad old CIA, he actually told a PA audience this same day that "we fought them in Iraq so we wouldn't have to fight them here."

The other institutional ass that needs covering is the media. But 'the CIA made me do it' won't quite work, not even if you throw in the Bushie rhetoric. The media--from the goofiest cable news to the most august newspapers---helped mightily in the march off the cliff to war. In his interview with Charlie Rose this week, Michael Moore placed the major blame squarely on the press. We expect politicians to lie, he said. But we expect the press to ask questions, to protect us from political lies. Without the press doing its job, we're vulnerable. And he added a bit ruefully, if the press had asked the kind of probing questions about Iraq that he's been getting about "my little movie," we never would have gone to war.

Those of us outside the power centers may not have realized how much the New York Times coverage aided and abetted the Bush march. With its longstanding reputation for probity and integrity, however tarnished it has gotten over recent years, the Times remains the most important newspaper in America. When the Times echoed the Bushwah coming out of Washington, it made a huge difference---if not directly with the American public, then powerfully with the rest of the media that generally takes its lead from the Times, and perhaps most powerfully, with Congress. The Times helped create a climate in which a vote against authorizing Bush could seem out of touch.

Though the Times recently issued something like an apology, it was nowhere near the full story, especially concerning Judith Miller, the reporter more responsible than any other for the Times and perhaps the media in general lending hysterical credibility to the Bushwar Bushwah.

Amy Goodman and David Goodman of Democracy Now! provide such an account, much of which you can read on the Sentient Times site:

Sentient Times June/July 2004

Don't miss the part about Judith Miller as embedded reporter during the war: "her role in the unit's operation became so central that it became known as the 'Judith Miller team.' In one instance she disageeed with a decision...When she took her protest to a two-star general, the decision was reversed....Later, she played a starrring role in a ceremony in which [the unit's] leader was promoted. Other officers were surprised to watch as Miller pinned a new rank" on this officer's uniform.

This is the most outrageous violation of a reporter's role we've ever heard of, yet as far as we know, she is still reporting for the New York Times. As Michael Moore said, (though not with exactly these words) the news media has blood on its hands. Gaming the blame won't help. There's plenty to go around.

to the point

This short essay in the Nation by educator and activist Deborah Meier is the best summary of issues and opportunities in the truly tragic plight of pre-college education in America we've seen this year:

No Politician Left Behind

It's Kerry Time

It's July, and it's Kerry time. The stage is set: all the polls show Bush severly weakened and usually weakening in all the key areas of perception, from job approval, trust, credibility to direction and specific issues: Iraq, terror, economy. The electorate signals its dissatisfaction and dismay; they'd rather not rehire the guy. Now Kerry has to give them ample reason to hire him.

Kerry time begins with his announcement of a vice presidential candidate, probably next week. Our instincts (and druthers) tell us it's down to Edwards, Gephardt or Surprise! We assume it's a difficult choice between Edwards and Gephardt. Edwards offers instant excitement, a charisma injection at the right moment (though the staying power of his charisma is a troubling open question)especially because Kerry and Edwards look good together, just as Clinton and Gore did in '92. Gephardt offers the experience and depth that Kerry could be more confident would translate to the presidency; he's politically experienced with solid constituencies in the midwest and among organized labor. Gephardt is a more finished person, with depths reflected in the equanimity of his smile and the force of his words. He just doesn't have the media electricity of Edwards. It's too bad these two guys can't be combined.

Surprises for vp are more the rule than the exception but maybe not this year---there is too much riding on media image, and though somebody out of the blue will get a lot of initial attention, if it is a relative unknown,how he or she will perform after that is a crapshoot. Somebody thoroughly vetted by the media like Gephardt, or to a somewhat lesser extent like Edwards, with a media track record, is the wave of the vp future.

With the vp selection and the following days of campaigning together, the media attention turns to Kerry. Then comes the convention, and there has never been a more consequential one, though not for its actual workings. Only two things are important, but they are very important: the convention has to go smoothly (and if anything bad happens, Kerry has to take charge and handle it well) and Kerry's acceptance speech must resonate.

Kerry should come out of the convention with a central theme, something the media and the voters will grasp and hold onto. Then Kerry has to do well in the debates. (His vulnerability is the same as the one that sunk Gore: overconfidence in debating GW. But Kerry is better and more experienced at big stakes debates than Gore was.)

If he does well,all this should get him enough of the undecideds, independents and the leaning towards the devil we know voters. Kerry is not going to lose his base, which is virilently anti-Bush. Bush is vulnerable to losing some of his base at the margins, and maybe more.

There's also Kerry's reputation as a closer, somebody who gets sharper and communicates more of himself as the decision day gets closer.

In the coming days, weeks, maybe hours, our crack team of Dash brothers will provide the kind of wisdom and reccommendations on theme and speech content that the Kerry campaign will be sure to take into consideration, as soon as one of us wins the lottery and buys CNN, or another ten hours are added to each day before the election and the Kerry people get really really bored. Or some major contributor out there among our readers buttonholes one of their Internet watchers and forces them to read us.

Well, for the entertainment value alone, stay tuned.

We'll offer this preview, though: the conventional wisdom is that events in the coming months will determine the election's outcome. Not necessarily, not completely. As we surmised, the trumpeted economic boom is showing signs it's overblown,even phony, and the news will be mixed at best going into fall. Even if Iraq quiets down, it doesn't mean much for Bush in and of itself. People are not happy about what's already happened---about taking us to war on false pretenses, and about the prison abuses and other excesses of an extremist administration that furthermore couldn't shoot straight. If Kerry can provide a solid alternative, and if he can tap into this discontent while being positive, a calmer Iraq might even be to his advantage.

The real wild card is a terrorist attack in the U.S. We hope somebody in the Kerry inner circle is thinking about how to respond to that.

Iraq is a hard place (continued)

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has announced that he must suspend his campaign, now that he has been named as one of the 300 New Englanders and 5,600 American veterans to be sent to Iraq in the ongoing involuntary mobilization.

"It's a management tool," as the Pentagon spokesperson described the practice of hunting down former soldiers with the help of the IRS and forcing them to try to fit into their old uniforms, before being shipped off to Iraq.

Kerry will probably not see combat, as this could prove too embarrassing to the administration. "He'll mostly be unbagging instant potatoes for our Halliburton heroes in the KP," chortled vice-president Dick "Hawk Who Had Other Priorities During Vietnam" Cheney. But of course, all of Iraq is a hard place, the Pentagon pointed out. "Let's see what the 'foreign leaders' over there tell him," chuckled President George "Hawk Who Hid in the National Guard" Bush.

In other news(and we swear this part is true)

the CBS/New York Times poll on whether George Bush is telling the truth about Iraq:
Entire Truth 18%
Hiding Something 59%
Mostly Lying 20%

The numbers are as mind-boggling as the framing of the question.

And for the Nervous about the continuing neck-and-neck race, though this poll showed under 40% trust Kerry to run the country, he scored 20 points higher in the Gallup poll done at about the same time. Still, in this poll, 39% said they still have No Opinion on Kerry yet. In 1992, Bill Clinton got 44% No Opinion.

With such a high number of No Opinion, it stands to reason that many of those who have made up their mind have done so on the basis of Bush negative ads. Kerry has lots of room to go up.

Kerry is in the final weeks of building the substructure of the campaign: raising money (from almost nothing after the primaries, he's now in better financial shape than any challenger in history)and going directly to key constituencies in key states, where his crowds have been very good, and press coverage extensive. Conventional wisdom is that the electorate makes up its mind about the incumbent first, before they move to the challenger after the conventions. The election was Bush's to win in May and June by destroying Kerry's credibility, but he failed to do it. Beginning with July---the announcement of the vice-presidential candidate, then the convention and his acceptance speech--it becomes Kerry's to win. The debates, and events in Iraq and the economy (which we believe will falter again in the coming months)are expected to determine the final outcome---barring wild cards such as a terrorist attack in the U.S, or...Kerry being called up in the involuntary mobilization.

Independence Day?

The stealth transfer of sovereignty in a blank-walled side room of the prime minister's office, the American civilian authorities flying out within hours, without ceremony. It wasn't exactly the helicopters straining off the embassy roof in Saigon as the North Vietnamese advanced on the city, but it was uncomfortably close.

Who knows what in the world happens to Iraq now. On one extreme is civil war. On the other extreme is p.r.-perfect progress to free elections and recognizable democracy---the outcome the Bushies expected, but which is perhaps even less likely than the other extreme.

Our intuitions tell us to watch for a Saddam-like combination of carrot and stick, and an authoritarian if not dictatorial regime. Among the coming attractions could be: how will Americans react to alleged insurgents getting their hands hacked off?

But of course the real mystery that has us all in suspense...what's going to happen to Halliburton??????

Losin it

So at a ceremonial photo shoot, vp Undisclosed Location Cheney goes up to a U.S. Senator, complains about all the heat on Halliburton, and tells the Senator to FUCK OFF.

This is the same guy who on 9-11, as airplanes are crashing into buildings, tells people in the White House he's heard that our guys have shot a couple of them down.

No wonder he believes al Quaeda and Saddam were in cahoots. He gets his news from a whole other channel.

It could start to be like it was with Nixon---people were afraid that if they got rid of him, they'd have Agnew.

Speaking of losing it, in today's news, John Kerry was endorsed by former Bush supporter and Republican Lee Iacocca, and son of former Republican President Ronald Reagan. To be fair, Ron Reagan was not so much endorsing Kerry as endorsing the necessity to get rid of Bush. But he was sure clear about that.

And in the new Gallup Poll, Bush has now lost the war. For the first time, most Americans surveyed say that starting the war in Iraq was a mistake.

Although the "horserace" numbers (as they so delicately put it) are tied, John Kerry's favorable rating has gone up--to nearly 60%---while Bush's has gone down. So $67 million in negative ads hasn't bought very much. No wonder they're losin it.

intel

If our conclusion in the previous post seems extreme, here's something from the Guardian:

"A senior US intelligence official is about to publish a bitter condemnation of America's counter-terrorism policy, arguing that the west is losing the war against al-Qaida and that an "avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked" war in Iraq has played into Osama bin Laden's hands."

The full story is here:
Guardian Unlimited Special reports Bush told he is playing into Bin Laden's hands

Out now is another book, A Pretext for War by James Bamford, a defense analyst, who zeros in on privatization at the Pentagon. He exposes the private contractor army we've been hearing about in Iraq and in connection with the prison scandal, but he adds something else we may have forgotten or not understood clearly: that these contractors were very influential in the Pentagon and circles of power before the war---in fact he says they were instrumental in getting the war started.

We're used to lobbyists writing environmental laws. Now they're writing the orders for soldiers to die, and for us to pay, for wars that will employ and profit them.

Political note: Though several recent polls show the presidential race as essentially tied, and some give a bump to Bush during the Reagan funeral week, the new ABC News/Washington Post poll shows Kerry opening up an eight point lead in a two person race. This is sooner than even the Kerry people expected. His good month is supposed to be July, when he gets media for announcing a vp, and is essentially introduced to the mass public by the convention. A ten point lead a month from now would be a reasonable expectation.

Part of the reason for the Bush drop in the ABC/Post poll is that his last bastion is weakening---coincidentally, it's his ratings on conducting the war on terror. He's been losing on domestic issues, then on Iraq, but was holding strong in leadership against terror. The public may actually be beginning to see through the rhetoric and smirky piety to the nightmarish reality.

With enemies like this...


From the Financial Times of London:

"The Bush administration has misled the American people. It has isolated the US, as American diplomats and commanders pointed out this week. And its bungling in Iraq has given new and terrifying life to the cult of death sponsored by Osama bin Laden. Above all, it inspires little confidence it is capable of defeating the spreading al-Qaeda franchise, which always was the clear and present danger."
Link to the complete editorial:

FT.com Search Article

It is worth thinking hard about this now, with another American civilian killed in Saudi Arabia. Bush and Cheney, in duplicate red power ties, condemn the beheading as barbaric and evil. Killing of innocents should always be condemned, though it is not clear that tearing a person apart with bombs or ordnance is more barbaric than beheading, nor that unnecessarily sending the young and patriotic poor of America to be mangled in body and mind if not to their deaths by burning, being crushed to death, bleeding to death, or the hundred other ways humans die in machine-borne war, is any less evil.

It is worth thinking hard about the ramifications of the barbarity suffered upon Iraqis by war and in prisons. About the chaos, violence and suffering that results from starting an unnecessary war in a very dangerous place. Now the oil markets feel the pain of pipelines disrupted. And now Iraq harbors terrorists in numbers it did not before, with American-made video and photos for recruiting more, threatening now to steal oil wealth in Iraq and Saudi Arabia to finance terrorism of truly doomsday proportions.

In ways that are mythically, psychologically as well as politically predictable, Bush and Cheney have become the greatest allies al Qaeda and related terrorists ever had.

Connections

The 9-11 Commission finds no collaboration between al Qaeda and Saddam to attack the U.S. But the Bushie in Chief insists there were connections.

Like what? Like maybe a meeting with Saddam in December 1983, and with Saddam's henchman, Tariq Aziz, on March 24, 1984, the day that the UN released a report on Iraq's use of poison gas against Iran?

No---wait: that was Donald Rumsfeld. The U.S. supplied the poison gas and the training to Saddam, for the first use of chemical weapons anywhere since Vietnam.

Okay, well, then wasn't it Saddam who financed Osama bin Laden as far back as 1986? Not exactly, no, it was the CIA.

Okay. So the White House was connected to Saddam and the CIA was connected to Osama? Yes, that's right. Well, there you go: Saddam and al Qaeda are connected: by the U.S. government. I told you there were connections.

Well, you should know, Mr. Vice President. You were there.

The Catholic Vote

Though it provides pollsters and pundits with fodder to munch, the most important fact about the Catholic Vote in America is that there isn't one.

When John F. Kennedy ran for President, there was a potential Catholic voting block, which in fact materialized in support of his candidacy. It was comprised of mostly Irish, Italian and eastern Europeans, no more than a generation or two removed from the Old Country, mostly working and lower middle class, largely urban. Catholic church membership was at its height in numbers, and Catholic cultural influence was enjoying its last years of prominence---the years of DiMaggio, Bill Mazeroski and Notre Dame football, Frank Capra, Jimmy Durante and Topo Gigio, Sinatra to Perry Como, when songs sung wholly or partly in Italian made the top ten (even when sung by an Irish singer named Rosemary Clooney.)

Both as Catholics and as ethnic minorities, all of these groups had suffered prejudices that at times were nearly as severe as those perennially suffered by black, Latino and Asian citizens. For awhile Italians were considered to be a black race, and some Italians in California were interred as were Japanese during World War II; the jokes substituting Polish for Moron lasted for many more years. These were immigrants recruited for the mines and mills, impoverished peasants seeking a desperate last chance. They often were the backbone of labor union organizing in formative days. Thanks in part to FDR and the New Deal, they were Democrats.

So American Catholics had a lot in common, and lots of reasons to vote and be courted as a block. Kennedy specifically represented them and their aspirations, with his family's history of "No Irish Need Apply" signs in Boston, and their subsequent wealth, power and ascent to the heights of social prominence. The Irish in particular dominated Boston politics and government. But Italian Catholics also began their rise to political prominence in places like San Francisco, New York, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, then Polish and other eastern European Catholics in Chicago, Milwaukee and other cities. Almost always, until the ascent of Frank Rizzo in Philadelphia later in the 60s, they were Democrats.

But these groups, along with Jewish immigrants and their descendants, were already streaming to the suburbs, with good union or white collar incomes. Today they are so variegated that they no longer exist as groups, and certainly not as voting blocks.

The growth in the Catholic church worldwide has been in Africa. In America, Latinos comprise a large proportion now, with a bewildering array of other ethnicities, including Haitians, southeast Asian, Phillipinos, etc. So Catholics are everywhere---north and south, east and west, city and town and suburb---and so more than ever they are a collection of individuals that share church membership in their individual ways.

Catholics have suddenly become a voting category again this year because the Democratic nominee is a Catholic at a time when the positions of the Catholic hierarchy on several prominent "social" or "cultural" issues are closer to the positions of his Republican opponent. With the pronouncements of a few American bishops in particular, the separation of Church and State is again an issue.

According to a recent report, G.W. Bush urged the Pope to instruct U.S. clergy to become more vocal on moral issues, that coincidentally would favor his re-election. Some observers have called this an unprecedented attempt to get the Church to take an official role in the American political process, which the modern Church has learned is an idea better left in the bloody past. There are also reports that the Pope regards Bush as particularly dangerous to the world's future, and in fact he scolded him publicly---in his presence--- for the war in Iraq and the monstrous and officially sanctioned prisoner abuses.

While no group is too small to affect a close election, the number of Catholics who will decide their votes based on whether John Kerry is a Catholic, or whether John Kerry supports the Vatican's exact position on abortion or homosexuality, is likely to be quite small, and may even cancel each other out.

American Catholics, like their forebearers in Ireland, Italy, Latin America and elsewhere, seldom adhere 100% to official Church positions or practice, even when those positions are unambiguous. In particular, the number of Catholics who adhere to the official ban against all forms of contraception is very probably very small. Since the basis for the Church's current position on contraception is nearly identical to its position on abortion, most Catholics accept the need for some inconsistency in their own judgments. That is, they see things in more practical terms, and as more complex. John Kerry's positions on late term abortion (that the law banning them even when the life of the mother is endangered is wrong, but that regulating them in some ways is right) and gay marriage (he is personally against it, but sees the social reality of homosexuals as full citizens and fully human) are probably close to the "average" American Catholic's beliefs.

Right now, the latest polls show that self-described Catholics are about evenly split between supporting Kerry and supporting Bush. However, the one statistic that jumps out in the latest poll is that only a third of the Catholic respondents knew that Kerry is Catholic. This suggests that by election day, Kerry will have an edge. That edge may be further enhanced by Catholics who confront their consciences in the absolute privacy of the voting booth, and look at all the issues that affect their lives and their childrens' futures.

Shock and Disgust

This weekend the New York Times reported that the travesty of the Bushwar on Iraq began at the very beginning. Those who got their news from those embedded TV reporters may recall the air strikes on leadership positions at the start, especially the much publicized precision munition bunker buster bomb suddenly sent to get Saddam and end the war before it began. Only Saddam wasn't there. That's not the news, though. The news it's taken more than a year to report is that the bunker wasn't there either.

This was one of fifty strikes on "high-value" targets, to get the Iraqi leadership. All they got were lots of civilians, and exactly no leaders.

The report says that Rumsfeld required any attack that might result in the deaths of 30 or more civilians to be approved in advance personally by him. The military made requests for some 50 raids. Rumsfeld approved them all.

Human Rights Watch reported, "attacks on leadership likely resulted in the largest number of civilian deaths from the air war." The report was authored in part by the guy who had been in charge of this operation. He said the campaign was "an abject failure...We failed to kill the HVTs and instead killed civilians and engendered hatred and discontent in some of the population."

Perhaps this is one reason that military leaders have joined diplomats, many who served in the Reagan and Bush I administrations, are going to announce this week---probably on Wednesday---that they oppose the reelection of Bush II, for the good of the country.

Both of these stories will make news this week, though they'll have to fight for attention with the ongoing battle between Ashcroft and the Senate Judiciary Committee over memos on the President's right to order torture, the stories saying that the highest ranking U.S. General in Iraq personally approved of torture techniques used against prisoners, and the ongoing violence in Iraq that is thinning out the newly selected government.

Then there are the film premieres---of a documentary showing a very rabid, out of control right wing conspiracy to mount a media coup against President Bill Clinton, and at the end of the week, a 700 theatre release of "Farenheit 911," which will contain the first film footage most Americans have seen of the torture of Iraqi prisoners.

And June is supposed to be Bush's good month.

Update/P.S. And we forgot several other items that each alone would be enough to dominate the news in normal times: VP Cheney on the hot seat for 1)corruption while prez of Haliburton, 2) corruption while VP on behalf of Haliburton and 3)his office illegially outing a CIA agent and endangering her life...

Then Sec. of State Powell had to go on Meet the Press with his mea culpa for the administration's report on terrorism that boasted that worldwide terrorism was down, thanks to their genuis policies, their determination to stay the course, their----what's that? Terrorism didn't go down, it actually went up---like WAY UP? Well, that's different. Never mind.

vp

The polls in early June are looking good for John Kerry, as opposed to just bad for GW Bushed. But with the bleeding of bad news at least slowed, and some superficially good news, the next couple of sets of June polls will show how deep dissastifaction is with Bush, because he should get a bump up if it's the normal seesaw for this time of year.

The scandals are hardly over, and in fact the worst may be yet to come, as actual criminal indictments could be forthcoming over the spite outing of the CIA agent wife of a career diplomat who not only told Bush the truth, he told the world---two unpardonable offenses in Bush-Cheneydom. Who knows what Farenheit 911 and the Bill Clinton book will do.

But Kerry's invisibility cloak is beginning to bother even his supporters, so he needs to have a really great July. He needs to set themes, make a terrific impression at the convention, and before that, there's the naming of a VP candidate.

Our guess here is that it will be John Edwards. The Kerry Kamp must by now realize that deserved or not, Kerry is getting the "charisma-challenged" mantle from the media, and it's mirrored in voters. The last thing they need now is to name an unknown like Vlisap of Iowa. Kerry can carry the gravitas, and with Bush falling so far in national security areas, he has less need of someone with those credentials. He needs an energizer. And Edwards can do that, if only to jump-start July. After that the vp is largely irrelevant anyway.

But there is still the tantalizing possibility of John McCain. Although he has categorically ruled it out, we've seen reports that he's increasingly angry with the Bushies. As a former POW he has to be shaken by the still emerging torture policy scandals. If he comes to the conclusion that it is his patriotic duty to help form a unity ticket, he just might do it. He and Kerry are friends, so they could work out a working relationship. He is a good deal more conservative than his image with independents might suggest, but he's good on several key issues, including global heating. And as things are taking shape now, a Kerry-McCain ticket would get so much attention and relief if not utter enthusiasm that it could set the stage for a very different kind of campaign, as well as the bitter defeat of GW.

UPDATE 6-13 Several stories over the weekend said that Kerry had approached McCain again recently, and was rebuffed. What the stories aren't saying is why, and we think it might have more to do with the state of McCain's health than his party loyalty. Meanwhile, a poll on vps has Edwards ahead, but that's mostly name recognition. The same poll shows that Edwards doesn't add much to the ticket in terms of gross votes. So the question remains, does Kerry need help in a particular key state, and can a vp possibility he likes help him? Or does he go for the energizer bunny from North Carolina? Or (some stories suggest) he may try another moderate Republican---a July Surprise.

UPDATE 6/19 Our final word (probably)...There are lots of lists of potential candidates, and the only name that seems to reappear on all of them is Richard Gephardt. Gephardt is supposed to be charisma-free, which is one of those impressions we've had to take on faith because we've always thought the guy is an impressive speaker, with both intellect and emotion. So apart from that judgment, he would seem just about a no-brainer. Kerry needs Ohio and could use Missouri, and Gephardt is popular in both states, as well as other unionized midwestern states. Kerry really likes Gephardt and would have supported him if Iowa had turned out the opposite of how it did. This all points to Gephardt. He's not as well liked as Edwards, but then again, he's not as unknown as Vilsap. Reports keep surfacing that Kerry is very serious about the presidential qualifications of the vice president, and in this violent year, with all the terrorist stuff, that's probably a realistic if sobering insistence.
So that's our prediction now, and unless something real happens to change our minds, it's our final one: Gephardt.

Reaganistory


His life was an American epic---small Midwestern towns boyhood, radio sportscaster who made up his own play-by-play while reading baseball game stats off the ticker, B movie leading man, governor of California, two-term President, and a man lost for a decade in the horrific wasteland of Alzheimers. All the grief that's pouring out now should be measured against the obscurity of that decade, when his staunchest supporters failed to support the kind of research that might have improved or at least honored his last years.

It's interesting what John Kerry chose to highlight in his official statement upon Ronald Reagan's death. He began it by recounting the relationship President Reagan had with the highest ranking Democrat, Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill. They would fight over policy and legislation, and then retire to the Speaker's office to tell tales, and share memories of their lives. A time before the bitter partisanship we've seen since the 90s, Kerry implies.

But the Reagan-O'Neill relationship signaled the end of an era that presidents and opposite party leaders had maintained for a very long time. Reagan's administration began the demonization of "liberals" that led to this era of smashmouth politics, in which the icons of righteous Christians engage in outrageous lying as a matter of course.

Now we're in the middle of this weird week-long media memorial. President Kennedy was assassinated on a Friday and buried on the following Monday, but Reagan's funeral service won't be until this coming Friday, almost a full week after his death. The justification apparently is that he was both Governor of California and President, so there are rites prescribed for both. It all comes in the midst of a presidential campaign with very high stakes, at a perilous moment in history. So risking the appearance of disrespect, but in the interests of the decisions we must make today, we feel compelled to offset some of the media gush with memories of a very bad decade for America presided over by Reagan and his administration.

He is remembered as the Morning in America man, the godfather of conservatism. In context however, his accession in 1980 unleashed an ugly mood in this country, that denigrated the poor and the values of giving, and especially the responsibilities of democratic government that had become accepted in America, and still are in the rest of the civilized world. The Reagan 80s saw the deification of selfishness, the cultural dumbing down and elevation of the most simplistic and vulgar Positive Thinking ethic in which self-marketing replaced self-improvement and self-knowledge; the Greed is Good era of Wall Street, and the replacement of art with the Art of the Deal (yes, the first golden era of Donald Trump.) The elevation of business success to define creativity and heroism, the Masters of the Universe,quickly followed by the junk bond and other business scandals which Enron etc. recapitulated in recent years.

We’re not going to question Reagan’s beliefs, but his function was as the public relations president, a qualification that he shares with the current one. He was a Democrat and a union leader when that was the politically popular thing to be, for a not exactly first rate actor or big star in Hollywood. But then the Blacklist threatened his career future, and the rich corporations like General Electric promised much better prospects with much higher speaking fees, so after Death Valley Days he became a pro-binness conservative Republican.

There were strange quirks to him as president, like his companionable relationship with Gorbachev at the moment his administration was working hard to bankrupt the Soviet Union, even though every cab driver in Moscow seemed to know more about the sorry state of the Soviet than did the CIA and especially the defense establishment, anxious to extend its free ride with the absurdity of Star Wars.

That was one sorry legacy among many others---as long as our attention is on that era, we’d better not forget those legacies because we’re living with them now, and they are part of our present and future. Star Wars alone wasted untold billions, probably enough to pay the Iraq bill, and continues to soak up money, with not only no reason for it to be, but with absolutely no evidence that it even minimally works. It has to be one of the greatest scandals of our time—but then we have so many we seem more than capable of shrugging off.

We owe Iraq and al Qaeda in large measure to Reaganites and their wonderful work in recruiting, motivating, arming, supplying, and training terrorists, and teaching them the importance of finance, especially through the drug trade. I doubt if Iran-Contra is going to be widely mentioned this week, or the travesty of Nicaragua and central America in general. Reagan the great communicator more than once compared the armed thugs called the Contras with the American Founding Fathers.

Reaganites also began the increasingly tragic policy of privatization, which has enriched conservative Republican donors but caused untold suffering to those who can't make ends meet, go to a decent school or get health care. Our national infrastructure continues to deteriorate because Reagan and his ilksters wanted to get gubmnt off our backs. And of course his name is forever preserved in Reaganomics, which gave us the debt and deficits we had to waste an entire 8 years of a rare Democratic presidency to erase. But 8 years was apparently long enough to erase the national memory, so we got us another Republican who created more debt and deficits faster than a speeding non-silver bullet. So we can look forward to more corroding infrastructure and financial constriction, not to mention empty social security and medicare coffers, just when global warming increases disasters and diseases everyone will look to gubmnt to deal with, and that's just for starters.

We doubt we'll be around to hear it, but by the next decade there will turn out to be a good reason that two recent presidents, Reagan and Bush jr., famously retorted that they didn't care what history said about them. It's not going to be as nice as sappy anchorfolk are making now.

And what is George jr. going to say at the funeral? Too bad the affable icon and his family had to suffer through nine years of a devastating condition, but junior needs the rabid religious right vote so nix on that stem cell research, sorry, but politics trumps all.

There was a movement in Congress recently to get rid of FDR’s image on the dime and replace it with Reagan’s. No doubt it’s going to come up again now. A better idea might be to use this occasion to print a brand new denomination---not being in the class to know from personal experience, we’re not sure what the highest denomination paper bill is, but I’m sure after all these years of inflated incomes among the decreasing percentage of people who own most of the country’s wealth, there’s some market for, say, a $500,000 bill. Why not put Reagan’s picture on that one? For all his regular guy appeal (another legacy to George Jr. that George Sr. couldn’t quite pull off)Reagan remains most attractive to the supra income group. Let the people who can afford it look at his picture on their money. They're the ones who profitted from his legacy. We can mourn Reagan the man, but in remembering his presidency, we are mourning America.

Honor Them Now

Now that we've had a solid week of memorials for dead soldiers of past wars, could we please turn our attention to some folks we can actually do something about other than sing them songs of honor---the live soldiers of the current war?

Mike Keefe has this cartoon in the Denver Post: A ring of men in uniform with big guns pointed outward, are protecting a man at a podium in the center, identified as "Iraqi Interim Gov't." One soldier says to another: When I joined the National Guard, I thought the nation I'd be guarding was mine."

On June 2, the U.S. Army announced that soldiers bound for Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the ones already there, won't necessarily be getting out when their enlistments are up. They have to stay as long as their units are there. The New York Times reported this "could keep thousands of troops in the service for months longer than they expected over the next several years." But there is no limit set to the amount of time they would be "retained." The order applies to Army Reserve units as well as active duty soldiers.

This not only places the lives of these soldiers in increased peril while they are in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also places the lives of their families at home in peril, and their own ability to support their families decently if and when they return.

Even official Defense Department numbers (from the most recent report, issued in 1999) showed that 40% of lower ranking soldiers face "substantial financial difficulties" because of their low pay. That report indicates that some 25,000 families of soldiers are eligible for food stamps. The real numbers now are almost certainly much higher, especially for soldiers serving abroad. Front-line battle troops earn less than $16,000 a year. This is a Wal-Mart level wage---and many of those folks are on food stamps, too. A second lieutenant earns $26,000, which (according to Barbara Ehrenreich) is about what they'd make at home for re-soling shoes.

While doling out huge benefits in tax cuts to the rich, the Bush administration left some 200,000 armed forces personnel without a child tax credit, and has proposed cutting combat pay bonuses by $150 a month (this at a time when soldiers and their families are spending up to $1,000 out of their own pockets to pay for body armor and other protections the U.S. military doesn't provide them.) The Bushies propose to add costs to veterans' health care insurance which will drive an estimated 200,000 out of the system, and discourage another million from enrolling.

But not all the news is bad. Despite the poor or nonexistent medical care many wounded soldiers receive when they return in secret, hidden from even a not very inquiring press, the Bush administration proposes to double the death benefit for those soldiers in coffins that Americans are forbidden to photograph and see. The families get $6,000 now.

Battlefield Paradox


There are beautiful paradoxes, like those in Buddhist thought. Then there are ugly paradoxes, like the ones in the Memorial Day 2004 spotlight.

There is the ugly paradox of Pat Tillman, the Jack Armstrong-style American hero who gave up a life of wealth and glory in the NFL to soldier in Afghanistan, probably in the belief that his example, his athletic ability could be more meaningful in what he believed was defending his homeland, the noble role of young men in our history. But his death it now turns out was caused by an accident. He was killed by his own, in that horrible paradox called "friendly fire."

This is the reality of war. It is something that must be considered before the decision to go to war is made, and it must be considered in every decision on the conduct of war. This administration is open to the charge of callous disregard for these realities, and their mistakes in conduct of war are weighed in lives like that of Pat Tillman.

Then there is the ugly paradox of dealing with the realities of war. It has never been clearer than in the ongoing story of a San Francisco art gallery. Lori Haigh, owner of the small Capobianco Gallery located in a very liberal neighborhood of the very liberal city of San Francisco, exhibited a single painting which depicted Iraqi prisoners being abused by American soldiers. The basic imagery, of course, has been flashed thousands of times on TV screens. But some people feel very strongly that showing such images demeans the bravery and goodness of American soldiers, and the good soul of Americans in general.

So some of these people threw broken glass and garbage on the sidewalk in front of the gallery. Some 200 of them sent angry emails and voicemails, and some included death threats. A man walked into the gallery and spat in Lori Haigh's face. She closed the gallery. Then a man knocked on the door of the closed gallery, and when she came to the door, he punched the 39 year old Lori Haigh in the face, very hard. She lost consciousness, suffered a concussion and a broken nose.

So this is the ugly paradox of people protesting an image of Americans doing violent, hateful, bad things to unarmed helpless prisoners because Americans are good and what they are doing is noble, by doing violent, hateful and bad things to an unarmed woman on her own property, who is not forcing them to do anything at all, not even to look at an image similar to those brought into their homes on Fox News by Campbell's Soup, General Motors and McDonalds.

This is war: lashing out indiscriminately at the wrong enemy, with anger and hatred that belies the possibly good purpose. This is the paradox of patriotism in our time.

The World War II monument opened officially in Washington, honoring "the last good war" and the "greatest generation." Certainly the bravery of many in that war is worth contemplating and honoring, not just those who soldiered knowing their actions, initiatives and courage were small but necessary single parts of a large mechanism of war, but those who made brave decisions, not just in battle strategy but in diplomacy and purpose.

But recognizing this is not enough, in both senses of enough. It isn't enough for people to want to praise these people and what they did. They have to turn them into "the greatest generation." Greatest in comparison to what? Greatest because many of these men returned to become emotionally unavailable fathers who were never home, the "bad mood behind the newspaper" Robert Bly talks about? Greatest because they did what they were told on the battlefield, and came home and did what they were supposed to do, build suburbia, work for the corporation, and buy a new gas-guzzling car every year?

No, it's not enough, because we have to see the other side of the paradox. Yes, they were brave in a generally good cause, but many of them knew how screwed up that war was---as all wars are---and all their comrades who died needlessly, because of mistakes, arrogance, careerist officers, apathetic bureaucrats, etc. Some of those men returned to become strong voices against war. Vietnam may have produced John Kerry, but World War II produced Gene Roddenberry, Kurt Vonnegut, Joseph Heller and many others, just as World War I produced the great antiwar poets and novelists of that era. Virtually all the novels and movies prominent in the Vietnam 1960s that displayed the ugly paradox of war were created by members of "the greatest generation."

The paradox of war is in the pages and in the very title of James Hillman's new book, "The Terrible Love of War." War is ugly and war is beautiful in some respects, but both are heightened beyond what we perceive in ordinary life. War is the playground of the unconscious as well as the battlefield between the conscious and unconscious, individually and collectively. It is just as important for us to face both sides of the ugly paradoxes and take instruction from them, as it is to take joy and instruction in the beautiful paradoxes.

But surely the paradox that should be floating into the consciousness of most Americans today as they honor those men and women who died in World War II is the doubtfulness of a similarly justifiable cause for those we are sending to their deaths in Iraq. For those at the Vietnam Memorial today, that must be a bitter thought, without paradox or irony.

Memorial/Independence Day

The news story reproduced later in this post, as well as the actual candidate's actual words, cut through the clutter of media bobbleheads, and remind us that this election is too important to be left to the cute and brain-impaired cynics of media punditry.

The conventional "wisdom"---in fact, the conventional vocabulary, is that there is "no daylight" between the Bush and Kerry positions on Iraq. Bullshit.

On policy there are clear differences, embracing not only Iraq but the Middle East, the war on terrorism and America's general strategy in the world. Kerry has been making a series of foreign policy speeches, and in one he outlined his basic strategy.

"It's time for a new national security policy guided by four new imperatives: First, we must launch and lead a new era of alliances for the post 9-11 world. Second, we must modernize the world's most powerful military to meet the new threats. Third, in addition to our military might, we must deploy all that is in America's arsenal -- our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas. Fourth and finally, to secure our full independence and freedom, we must free America from its dangerous dependence on Mideast oil."

Though few have made it a fundamental tenet of our foreign policy, politicians often make statements about lessening American dependence on Mideast oil that are either empty or they mean, "Drill American wilderness and coasts." But here is what Kerry said he means:

"I have proposed a plan for energy independence from Mideast oil in the next ten years. It invests in new technologies and alternative fuels. It provides tax credits to help consumers buy and manufacturers build fuel efficiency cars. It will tap America's initiative and ingenuity to strengthen our national security, grow our economy, and protect our environment."

"If we are serious about energy independence, then we can finally be serious about confronting the role of Saudi Arabia in financing and providing ideological support of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. We cannot continue this Administration's kid-glove approach to the supply and laundering of terrorist money. As President, I will impose tough financial sanctions against nations or banks that engage in money laundering or fail to act against it. I will launch a "name and shame" campaign against those that are financing terror. And if they do not respond, they will be shut out of the U.S. financial system."

On force and allies in foreign policy:

"More than a century ago, Teddy Roosevelt defined American leadership in foreign policy. He said America should walk softly and carry a big stick. Time and again, this Administration has violated the fundamental tenet of Roosevelt's approach, as he described it: "If a man continually blusters, if he lacks civility, a big stick will not save him from trouble."

But that is precisely what this Administration has done. They looked to force before exhausting diplomacy. They bullied when they should have persuaded. They have gone it alone when they should have assembled a team. They have hoped for the best when they should have prepared for the worst. In short, they have undermined the legacy of generations of American leadership. And that is what we must restore.
Today, there is still a powerful yearning around the world for an America that listens and leads again. An America that is respected, and not just feared. "

On Iraq specifically he said:

"Over the last year, we've heard from the President that our policy should simply be to stay the course. But one thing I learned in the Navy is that when the course you're on is headed for the shoals, you have to change course."

"If President Bush doesn't secure new support from our allies, we will, once again, feel the consequences of a foreign policy that has divided the world instead of uniting it. Our troops will be in greater peril, the mission in Iraq will be harder to accomplish, and our country will be less secure."

But beyond the broad yet telling policy differences, there are matters of attitude, passion, personal character and emotion. These are evident in Robin Toner's story below.


Kerry Redoubles His Attack Over the War

By ROBIN TONER

The New York Times


GREEN BAY, Wis., May 28 - Senator John Kerry promised an occasionally tearful gathering of soldiers, veterans and their families here on Friday that as president he would bring the troops home from Iraq "as fast as possible."

He also attacked the Bush administration as insensitive to the human toll of the war. Noting that Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, was unable to tell a recent Congressional hearing how many American soldiers had died in Iraq, Mr. Kerry declared, "You'd think that every day they'd be conscious of exactly what the cost is."


Mr. Kerry's comments came at a forum that captured his campaign's
current mix of patriotism, support for the troops in Iraq and
scalding criticism of the policies that put them there. On the
second day of a two-week drive to establish his credentials on
national security, Mr. Kerry also told an audience of veterans that
Mr. Bush had shortchanged their health and benefit programs while
carefully protecting tax cuts for the wealthy.

Citing a recent administration budget document that discussed new
reductions in spending for the veterans benefits, Mr. Kerry
declared, "I'm not going to listen to Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld
and some of these other people talk about patriotism in America when
the first definition of patriotism is keeping faith with the people
who wore the uniform of our country."

A spokesman for the Bush campaign, Steve Schmidt, called Mr. Kerry's
attacks "egregiously false.''

In a measure of how raw the debate over the war has become, several
who spoke at this gathering struggled with tears. Donna Freeman of
Green Bay rose to say that her brother was killed in Vietnam "four
months after he was sent over there." Her voice cracking with anger
and grief, Ms. Freeman said she was dismayed to hear people play
down the number of deaths in Iraq.

"When I hear we've only lost 500 or 600 kids, you tell that to a
family member who has lost that child," she said. "What I want to
know is, what do you plan to do to bring our troops home?"

Mr. Kerry said it was impossible to predict what the situation in
Iraq would be when - if elected - he took office. But he said
neither the United States nor its allies could afford a failure in
Iraq, and repeated his call for Mr. Bush to engage more countries in
the transition.

"I promise you this," he said, "I am going to get the troops home as
fast as possible, with honor and the job accomplished in the way it
needs to be, and we will bring other people into the process."
Mr. Kerry was also introduced and endorsed by a decorated Vietnam
veteran, John Nusbaum, who said he was a longtime Republican. Mr.
Kerry is increasingly reaching out to Republicans in his speeches,
arguing that what is at stake in this election transcends
partisanship and ideology. "In the end, this isn't about party," he
said. "It's about country."

Mr. Kerry also regularly urges his audiences to "do away with
partisan politics for the moment" and "just think common sense about
our country, about what it should be doing."

The senator's campaign swing this week, from Washington to Portland,
Ore., to Seattle and Green Bay, drew large, attentive crowds.
The upheaval in Iraq and the prisoner scandal have turned the
public's attention to foreign policy in a way few could have
predicted. Now Mr. Kerry is trying to seize the moment to show
himself as a credible commander in chief.

The policy speeches over the next few weeks are part of his case, as
are his 20 years in the Senate. But Mr. Kerry is also relying, once
again, on his comrades from Vietnam, some of whom were with him
again on Friday. One of them, Jim Rassman, an Army Green Beret whose
life was saved by Mr. Kerry in Vietnam, carried the same message
here on Friday that is implicit throughout the Democratic campaign
these days: that a candidate can vigorously disagree with the
government while vigorously supporting the troops.END OF NY TIMES STORY



The Hope

A few hopeful signs emerged during another doleful week. The polls that show Kerry gaining ground in the battleground states and among independents, and Bush continuing to lose support even in his areas of previous strengths: among Republicans and in the South. Then the Annenberg study that indicated Kerry's positive biographical campaign ads being shown in battleground states are having a positive effect. The Kerry campaign, recognizing this, is airing these and other positive ads in other states as well.

This is especially hopeful because, while polls showed growing disapproval of Bush on Iraq, the economy, the country's direction and overall job performance, he seemed to be retaining his electoral support among registered and likely voters. But polls also indicated that voters didn't have a strong impression of Kerry, so they were voting for not only the current Commander in Chief in "wartime" but the devil they know. It seems they are waiting for Kerry to give them the confidence to switch their vote to him. That process appears to be beginning.

The Emptiness of Full


What kind of sovereignty? "Full sovereignty" says Bush to the Swedish ambassador, and by extension to the UN. That's what the U.S. will grant its hand-picked government of Iraq. So just in case you thought the Bushies had learned their lessons with phantom WMDs and insurgents instead of flowers in the street---and you missed Ashcroft trying to manufacture a terror threat to manipulate the election against Kerry last week---get a load of the straight face---the straight smirk anyway---on Bush when he said this. He's an entertaining liar all right, but while more Americans may want to have a barbeque with him, they might not want to take any of his promises to the bank.

Full sovereignty, with thousands of American and British troops and their tanks in the street, with helicopter gunships, missiles and bombers discreetly at the ready out of sight. While the UN envoy and the U.S. government designs the government, plans the election and the country's future. If this is full sovereignty, what would limited sovereignty mean? Some joint letterhead stationery?

So the first concrete act in preparing for full sovereignty was to appoint a CIA asset as prime minister. Iyad Allawi, a member of the U.S.-appointed Governing Council, was appointed prime minister by the U.S. appointed Governing Council, with the hearty endorsement of the U.S. government, over the objections of the UN envoy.

Then as soon as they papered over those differences, the Governing Council decided to appoint an Iraqi president different from the one selected by Brahimi. This difference became public, and will apparently be settled by an election---of the Governing Council. Said one of its members, quite reasonably, "They say we have a sovereignty, and that we are democracy. If that is true, then why are they trying to impose this decision on us?"

As for Allawi, a former honcho in Saddam’s army, his first statement to the press indicated that they shouldn't hold their breath hoping for a fully democratic Iraqi government. And his first act was to at least attempt to recall large elements of… Saddam's army. Be careful what you say you are giving, GW, cause you might get it.

Summer Surprise

On the day that Amnesty International charged that the Bush-led war on terror has made the world a more dangerous and more repressive place, and Al Gore lambasted the Bush administration for dishonesty and incompetence, for bringing dishonor and disgrace upon the United States; and the day that new photos surfaced clearly showing prisoner abuse carried out by military intelligence and contractors, and perhaps most to the point, that a Zogby study (the only polling organization to correctly call the 2000 election) shows Kerry winning in an electoral vote landslide if the election were held today---by some amazing coincidence, Attorney General John Ashcroft held a press conference to announce that terrorists are planning to attack a high profile U.S. target this summer.

Was Ashcroft's announcement the result of new information? Not really. Here are excerpts from a Newsweek report: "Even as Attorney General John Ashcroft warned on Wednesday that Al Qaeda planned "to hit the United States hard" in the next few months, U.S. intelligence officials were privately divided about whether the government had obtained any fresh information that justified such an extraordinary public announcement.... Armed with what he called "disturbing" and "credible" intelligence from "multiple sources," Ashcroft appeared with FBI Director Robert Mueller and urged the public to increase its vigilance over the next several months, when a number of events, including an upcoming G-8 summit in Georgia and the political conventions, might present inviting targets."

"In his briefing, Ashcroft cited no specific new information other than a claim that was sent to an Arabic newspaper in London immediately after the March 11 Madrid bombing. In it, a shadowy group asserted that a major attack against the United States was '90 percent ready.' But the authenticity of the group-and whether it really spoke for Al Qaeda-was questioned at the time by some U.S. officials.

Although the U.S. intelligence community says it has been concerned for some time about the potential implications for the United States of the Madrid bombings, some U.S. counterterrorism officials told NEWSWEEK they were aware of no sudden surge in "chatter"-intercepts of terrorists communications-or other indicators of a possible imminent attack. "We're always getting new threat information, but I wouldn't point to a steep spike in chatter" said one U.S. official. Another counterterrorism official added: 'What we're seeing is a lot like what we've seen before.'"[END OF NEWSWEEK REPORT]

A few TV moments were allowed for local officials and law enforcement to shrug, and get angry at lack of specifics, lack of federal help as well as intel. But mostly the TV parrotheads provided the same tried and true echo chamber that got us into the war in the first place. (This also on a day that the New York Times announced a review of news stories that had been wrong about WMDs in Iraq, based largely on the same Iraqi exile sources that the Bushies were eagerly believing.)

CNN's political analyst said flat out, and MSNBC's Hardball essentially agreed, that a terrorist attack in America would cinch the election for Bush.

Ashcroft wasn't going to leave it up to the media toadies however. As Timothy Noah noted in Slate: "Ashcroft's supposition is that Bin Laden would like to influence our elections in the same way he influenced Spain's. What would "similar consequences" mean for the United States? Defeat for the hawkish incumbent at the polls, and an Iraq policy gone soft. Ashcroft all but said, 'Osama Bin Laden wants you to vote for John Kerry.'" (Noah's article can be found here http://slate.msn.com/id/2101319/)

On this, however, the polverts disagreed. On Hardball, Chris Matthews got an ex-CIA terrorist expert to agree that al Qaeda would hope that Bush wins, since he's the terrorist recruiter of their dreams. Then they all wondered if the "essentially irrational" al Qaeda leaders are sophisticated enough to understand the American reverse psychology that would rally round the incumbent if the country is attacked. Well, they are hard for Americans to figure out, these Arabs, but the obvious answer is: is the Pope Catholic?

Such is the character of the Bush administration that we are led to wonder whether this is just an obvious attempt to change the subject and get the media slobbering patriotically again, and use that rally round impulse to get the Bush poll numbers up, or whether there is more to it than that. How far will they go to help spring a summer surprise?

In the paragraphs below you'll find more about the Gore speech and the Amnesty report. Gore makes a compelling case for the immediate resignations of Rumsfeld and his top aides, and Condi Rice. He makes a very compelling case as well that the ultimate responsibility belongs to Bush and Cheney, and calls for their defeat. But because Ashcroft has played the terrorist threat card, it's now become necessary for the Democrats to insulate themselves somewhat against that possibility by introducing in the U.S. Congress articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney.


Gore v. Bush

He's starting to look and sound like a 21st century version of a 19th century political orator. The media can't handle it: they can deal only with false sincerity and their own irony and sarcasm, not righteous indignation. So they dissed Gore's speech, and what else is new? Among the reasons Gore didn't win 2000 in a landslide (Gore being one of them)was the media's bias against him, including the persistent circulation of unfair and untrue stories.

But if you haven't seen the speech in full on C-SPAN, you might not know that the anger that Gore expressed---a justified anger that as we noted a day or two ago was clearly the next step---was only part of a well reasoned bill of indictment, spoken in an even and at times soft-spoken voice.

This speech is likely to be an historic one. The prepared text can be found at www.moveonpac.org.

Here are some excerpts:

"George W. Bush promised us a foreign policy with humility. Instead, he has brought us humiliation in the eyes of the world. He promised to 'restore honor and integrity to the White House.' Instead, he has brought deep dishonor to our country and built a durable reputation
as the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon."

"More disturbing still was their [Bush administration] frequent use of the word "dominance" to describe their strategic goal, because an American policy of dominance is as repugnant to the rest of the world as the ugly dominance of the helpless, naked Iraqi prisoners has been to the American people. Dominance is as dominance does.

Dominance is not really a strategic policy or political philosophy at all. It is a seductive illusion that tempts the powerful to satiate their hunger for more power still by striking a Faustian bargain. And as always happens - sooner or later - to those who shake hands with the devil, they find out too late that what they have given up in the bargain is their soul.

One of the clearest indications of the impending loss of intimacy with
one's soul is the failure to recognize the existence of a soul in those over whom power is exercised, especially if the helpless come to be treated as animals, and degraded... There is good and evil in every person. And what makes the United States special in the history of nations is our commitment to the rule of law and our carefully constructed system of checks and balances."

What happened at the prison, it is now clear, was not the result of random acts by "a few bad apples," it was the natural consequence of the Bush Administration policy that has dismantled those wise constraints and has made war on America's checks and balances.
The abuse of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib flowed directly from the abuse of the truth that characterized the Administration's march to war and the abuse of the trust that had been placed in President Bush by the American people in the aftermath of September 11th."

He [President Bush]has exposed Americans abroad and Americans in every U.S. town and city to a greater danger of attack by terrorists because of his arrogance, willfulness, and bungling at stirring up hornet's nests that pose no threat whatsoever to us. And by then insulting the religion and culture and tradition of people in other countries. And by pursuing policies that have resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children, all of it done in our name."

How dare they blame their misdeeds on enlisted personnel from a Reserve unit in upstate New York. President Bush owes more than one apology. On the list of those he let down are the young soldiers who are themselves apparently culpable, but who were clearly put into a moral cesspool. The perpetrators as well as the victims were both placed in their relationship to one another by the policies of George W. Bush.

How dare the incompetent and willful members of this Bush/Cheney
Administration humiliate our nation and our people in the eyes of the
world and in the conscience of our own people. How dare they subject us to such dishonor and disgrace. How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison."

In my opinion, John Kerry is dealing with this unfolding tragedy in an
impressive and extremely responsible way. Our nation's best interest lies in having a new president who can turn a new page, sweep clean with a new broom, and take office on January 20th of next year with the ability to make a fresh assessment of exactly what our nation's strategic position is as of the time the reigns of power are finally wrested from the group of incompetents that created this catastrophe."

The abhorrent acts in the prison were a direct consequence of the culture of impunity encouraged, authorized and instituted by Bush and Rumsfeld in their statements that the Geneva Conventions did not apply. The apparent war crimes that took place were the logical, inevitable outcome of policies and statements from the administration."

"Moreover, the administration has also set up the men and women of our own armed forces for payback the next time they are held as prisoners. And for that, this administration should pay a very high price."

In December of 2000, even though I strongly disagreed with the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to order a halt to the counting of legally cast ballots, I saw it as my duty to reaffirm my own strong belief that we are a nation of laws and not only accept the decision, but do what I could to prevent efforts to delegitimize George Bush as he took the oath of office as president.

I did not at that moment imagine that Bush would, in the presidency that ensued, demonstrate utter contempt for the rule of law and work at every turn to frustrate accountability...So today, I want to speak on behalf of those Americans who feel that President Bush has betrayed our nation's trust, those who are horrified at what has been done in our name, and all those who want the rest of the world to know that we Americans see the abuses that occurred in the prisons of Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo and secret locations as yet undisclosed as completely out of keeping with the character and basic nature of the American people and at odds with the principles on which America stands.

I believe we have a duty to hold President Bush accountable - and I
believe we will. As Lincoln said at our time of greatest trial, "We - even we here - hold the power, and bear the responsibility."


The Amnesty Report

Much of Al Gore's speech was a brief on the conduct of the U.S. war in Iraq and on the prisoner abuse scandal. The Amnesty International Report dealt more broadly with the global war on terror, but the patterns are consistent.


Here's the beginning of an Associated Press report, which can be found along with other information here at the Amnesty USA site.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/document.do?id=1B232FA21B96AA9B85256EA0004F265C :

The U.S.-led war on terror has made the world a more dangerous and repressive place, Amnesty International said Wednesday in a report Washington dismissed as "without merit."

The international human rights organization singled out the United States and Britain for detaining terror suspects without trial, under legislation introduced after the Sept. 11 attacks. It also accused other nations,including the Philippines and China, of using security legislation to crack down on political opposition.

"The 'war on terror,' far from making the world a safer place, has made it more dangerous by curtailing human rights, undermining the rule of international law and shielding governments from scrutiny," said Irene Khan, Amnesty International's secretary general, launching the organization's annual report in London.

"The great supporters of human rights during the Cold War now quite readily either roll them back in their own countries or encourage others to do so and turn a blind eye.

"What would have been unacceptable on Sept. 10, 2001, is now becoming almost the norm," she said.

The report said most of the 1,200 foreign nationals -- mostly Muslim men of Arab or South Asian origin -- detained in the United States during inquires into the Sept. 11 attacks were either deported, released or charged with crimes unrelated to terrorism by the end of 2002.
In Britain, the 11 foreign nationals still in custody at year's end were either asylum seekers or recognized refugees, the report said.
Amnesty said the detention by the United States of 600 foreign nationals at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba was a "human rights scandal" and called on America to release or charge those imprisoned there.

Spokesman Rob Freer said Amnesty has repeatedly requested access to Guantanamo, as recently as last week, but received no reply.

"Children are among them, the elderly are among them and undoubtedly there are people who were picked up for being at the wrong place at the wrong time," Freer said. "