Howlers

Since the debate, a number of howlers from the media just seemed to explode: mere hours after a Daily Show joke about a reporter who writes his account of the debate several days before the debate takes place, AP accidentally posted just such a story, hours before the debate started.

Then Fox News ran a story with quotes from Kerry after the debate that were faked. Their reporter said something like he was just kidding and it wasn't supposed to get posted on their web site.

Then Fox (or Faux, as some are calling it) ran quotes from a Communists for Kerry organization, which turns out to be a group of Republican college students (and they weren't really hiding that fact.) Add this as well to the list of "undecided voters" interviewed by media that turn out to be GOPer activists---including a GOP political consultant. Needless to say they all had bad things to say about Kerry.

Here however is another Kerry misquote originating and repeated in the New York Times---exactly the kind of crap that dogged Gore last time. No wonder it's getting harder to teach journalism in this country. What models can you offer?

The Daily Howler

Movement

Cautious pundits wondered if the Kerry victory in the first debate would translate into better poll numbers. One widely quoted pro figured Bush's lead would diminish a couple of points.

But in the first poll since the debate, NBC finds that Bush's lead is completely gone, and that in a two-way matchup, Kerry leads.
MSNBC - The Race is On

October and Surprise

If it's not the great echo-chamber effect of the media---and we suspect this time it isn't---then John Kerry did himself a world of good by winning the first debate. Now the rest of October looks a whole lot better. Anticipation is high for the Edwards-Cheney debate. If the Bush performance was a wake-up call for Cheney, it might do him some good, but Cheney is Cheney. Kerry's performance has given John Edwards inspiration. Dems are likely licking their chops waiting for this one.

The usual trend is for audience to fall off for the second and third debate, but as one of the better informed political analysts pointed out, this didn't happen with the Bush-Clinton debates: the audiences kept growing, once they realized that Clinton was for real (although Ross Perot was the entertainment). He expects the same to happen this year. If so, Kerry could land the knockout punch in the next debate, which will include domestic issues. He doesn't have to total Bush so much as seal the deal with Ohio and PA, and get back in control in the other battleground states where he was leading up to last week or two. Then the final debate, on domestic issues, leaves Kerry talking about health care, jobs, education, science, etc. and Bush talking about tax cuts. Kerry still has to make convincing cases, but if he's even up by then, the issues favor him.

Kerry may have already won PA with the first debate. If he convinced enough suburban women, Dems as well as Reps, that he's presidential and prudent, strong and smart.

If Kerry does no worse than come out pretty even in the next two debates, he'll still be riding a tide of Dem enthusiasm, which should motivate the most crucial element of all---turnout on election day.

But what about the October surprise? A terrorist attack on US soil? Kerry is not so automatically damaged by this as might have been the case last week; it depends on his response. More problematic is the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden. Kerry put so much emphasis on getting bin Laden that this could be a scramble. But when asked about the possibility not long ago, Kerry had a ready answer, so this possibility is probably being planned for.

Should we mention that Kerry emphasized homeland security, which we said in July he should, and that he used our "fresh start" line? No, it would be immodest. And as everyone knows the way to get ahead in politics is to be modest.

Reaction Shots

The two sides agreed to rules that ruled out reaction shots. They made the agreement public (for the first time) and Bill Moyers did a terrific piece on the debate commission and how it foils actual debate. So the networks revolted and they showed both Kerry and Bush side by side, split screen, for major parts of the debate.

We started watching on C-Span which kept both men on screen all the time, but it was too distracting. So on the merits of argument, Kerry had a good first half, and Bush had a pretty good first half. The second half was all Kerry.

But it turned out that in addition to the merits, the split screen showed GW smirking and pouting and looking like he didn't want to be there with this pesky challenger---exactly the affect that clocked his dad in a crucial debate with Clinton. Kerry wins on style, too? Who would have predicted that?

Kerry must have taken the measure of this guy, because he did one especially effective thing---he refused to be baited. Giving Bush no direct argument on "mixed messages" except to show him up, he left Bush repeating and repeating, sounding more and more hollow.

The pundits afterwards were the usual trip. Very gingerly in their evaluations until the instant poll results started to come in---Kerry winning in the ABC and CBS surveys, and in MsNBC's call-in survey that got close to a half million calls, Kerry won 70%, Bush 30%. And suddenly all the pundits were saying that Kerry clearly was the winner, and they knew exactly why.

Spin Thrift

by Theron Dash

Why even have this debate (set to begin in an hour and a half as I write this)? The pre-wash spin cycle has already awarded the victory to Bush. The pundits have decided the test will be likeability, and they've decided---partly on the basis of polls---that Bush is the likeable candidate. So he'll win, unless he makes some horrendous goof, and even then, he'll do it likeably.

So they've not only made likeability the defining test, they've defined who is likeable. You know, it ain't necessarily so. I don't find GW Bush likeable. I wouldn't want his smirk, his demanding ego, his pathological lying and his idiot mouth in my back yard. He's the guy at the bar I put as much distance from as possible.

John Kerry is curious, he reads widely, he's interested in the world, he's been places and done things, he has a good sense of humor and appreciation of wit. He'd be a fascinating companion for an afternoon or an evening. Then all politicians get wearing, like actors. Kerry plays guitar and tosses the football around. So do I. I'd sure rather do that than have to watch Bush clear brush, or respond to his need for constant praise.

Anyway, likeability polls or not, think on this: a few months ago when Bush was dropping like a stone in the re-elect polls, he was still voted more likeable. And he was annointed the most likeable in 2000, yet he became president only because some supreme court justices liked his daddy. The unlikeable Mr. Gore got like a million more votes.

So let's make John Kerry President. I don't mind if we give the Most Likeable consolation
prize to Bush.

D-Day is Thursday

Thursday is D Day, the so-called debate,that is being positioned as the last chance for John Kerry to convince voters he should be President.

Opinion poll results are driving news coverage which is setting very high expectations for what John Kerry has to do to "win" the debate on Thursday. Though there are no discernable standards by which one wins or loses, except the consensus of the conventional wisdom, which could change completely if contradicted by voting results of election day.

There's some noise from those who study these numbers that the polls are getting less reliable. Some talk that they are conveniently reflecting the results their corporate sponsors find to be in their interests. And since polls drive coverage which sets the conventional wisdom...they can wind up meaning something regardless of how right or wrong they are.

But when it all starts to feel like 2000 again, stomachs fall and eyes turn to the borders. What's different this time? Howard Dean says elections are won not by appealing to so-called swing voters but by energizing the base. The Kerry campaign seems to be adopting that philosophy, though the media seems to think it's more from necessity than choice. But it's clear that there is a strong anti-Bush sentiment that wasn't there in 2000. Kerry and Edwards are talking that talk.

Gore kept Clinton at arms length, and if he hadn't he'd probably be President. Kerry's not making that mistake either. Even from a hospital bed, Clinton can affect electoral votes.

So what does Kerry need to do on Thursday night? According to the media, the impossible. He has to come across as an appealing guy, and he has to beat up Bush. Hard to know what that would look like.

Our unsolicited advice is simple: stand still, look into the camera, be clear. Talk about goals for Iraq as well as means. Don't smile unless something is funny. You're the serious one, go with your strength. Don't take any crap, but don't lose your cool. Oh yeah, and relax.

Kerry probably can't play it too safe. His best chance to befuddle the media is to come up with something in advance that will throw Bush obviously off his game. His second best chance is to improvise it on the spot. He may need to do (that is, say) something unexpected to win the expectations game.


You may have noticed that the Bushies are quietly pulling back from doing anything controversial. They've dropped attempts to drill in the Montana wilderness, and to have hemp food banned as part of their war on drugs. (We're not kidding---they were about to take it to the Supremes.) They've gotten good reaction for moderating, and they need to, because even the polls that show Bush ahead also show that by a very wide margin people expect him to make big changes if he's reelected.

I wouldn't bet on that. This is just electioneering. The insanity will return and we promise you it will get worse. This was Weimar compared to the Reich to come.

You Said It

"I don't think Iraq will have a perfect election. And if I recall, looking back at our own election four years ago, it wasn't perfect either."

General John Abizaid
top U.S. military commander for Iraq
Meet the Press Sunday 9/26/04

This Just In!

Mainstream press finally investigates Bushie mantra that Kerry flip-flops on Iraq, finds charge baseless. Kerry's position consistent over two years. Here's the story!

NEWS ANALYSIS / Flip-flopping charge unsupported by facts / Kerry always pushed global cooperation, war as last resort

Not that it will be too surprising to readers here.

The media is in a tough spot because their mistakes, shortcuts and derelictions of duty get enormously magnified, with major impact especially in a campign like this--- but that's their responsibility.

It's the deceptive short-cuts that are most insidious. On CNN's Aaron Brown last night, he referred to the "discredited CBS story" on Bush's National Guard favoritism and evasions. But the story has not been discredited. One document and its source are in question. Most of the story is utterly solid.

And their political reporter again referred to John Kerry's "vote for the war." Kerry did not vote for the war, as he has explained and others have explained many times. His vote in the Senate was to authorize the President to take a series of steps that could end up with the use of force. It's just not the same thing. A vote for the war means Bush said, "I want to go to war on Iraq, and send the troops in there tomorrow. Are you with me?" What Kerry voted for was very different. Bush said, "I need authorization to use force so Sadam will know I'm serious and he'll let the inspectors do a thorough job, so we'll know if he has WMDs or not. Meanwhile I will get our allies together in case we have to go to war, but before we do anything like that, we'll have a thorough well thought-out plan for Iraq afterwards, and we'll have everybody on board---our major allies, our experts---before we do anything It would help my credibility if you would vote this authorization, even though I probably don't need it."

You can fault Kerry for believing Bush when not a lot of other people did. But it's not accurate to say he voted For The War. The news people should know this, they should know most of all that the statement is contested, and that in continuing to use their deceptive shorthand, they are parrotting the Bush campaign argument.

Is it too "nuanced?" To say that is to believe that the decisions that people make every day are too complicated for them to understand. Everybody who does business or who shops for insurance or has to get a car repaired or anything else in normal life, has to deal with a string of contingencies---I'll do this first and if it works, great. (The inspections, which Bush didn't allow to be completed because they weren't finding th eWMD he wanted them to find) If it doesn't, I'll do that, but I'll need some help to get it done, so I'll talk to a few friends and associates first and see if they can help me.
Now what else do I need to do to make this successful? Plan ahead for later. Yeah. Sounds like a plan.

Who is left?

With the country polarized and solid chunks committed either to Kerry or Bush, just who are the campaigns fighting over?

Some wags say that as time goes on, they are fighting over the "swing voters," the "undecideds" who are comprised of the dull-witted, uninformed and uninterested. If they vote at all, it will be on emotion, whim, or for some crazy reason noone can predict or even account for.

Not a pretty picture.

The press is saying the genuine undecideds are women concerned about security. Right now Bush's best argument for them is that if he doesn't keep doing what he's doing in Iraq, all those terrorists he created will come over here.

But other folks who study these things say the press is making a lot out of a little, that the Security Moms don't really exist.

Increasing attention will go to groups that don't make it on the poll charts, because they haven't voted much before, or at all. So the groups that could make the difference this year include:
young first-time voters
Native Americans
African Americans and non-Cuban Latinos in Florida
families of National Guard and Reserve troops


For those disheartened by the opinion polls, a bracing call to arms by the stellar SF Chronicle columnist Jon Carroll

JON CARROLL

And while you're on a Carroll roll, here's his next column, in which his modest proposal is the death penalty for Republican Senators.


JON CARROLL

Number of Iraqi security forces Rumsfeld said last year
the U.S. would train.................220,000

Number of Iraqi security forces Rumfeld said this year
the U.S, would train..............80,000

Number of Iraqi police who have successfully
completed training to date.....................0


The polls got your down? Here's a bolstering summary of where things stand and the rest of the campaign:

AlterNet: Election 2004: John Kerry's Tipping Point

campaign roundup and rhythms

John Kerry delivered an address on Iraq. While lacking some of the positives we feel would be useful, it is a searing and specific indictment of the Bush Iraq war. He does again call for "a fresh start" in Iraq. He needs to expand that, and to stress the goals of ending the violence and the bleeding. The speech is here:
John Kerry for President - Speech at New York University

Immediately the rhetoric rachetted up from Bush, who essentially accused Kerry of giving aid and comfort to the enemy by criticizing his war.

How voters will react to the increasingly violence and chaos in Iraq is the key question defining the rest of this campaign. Will they decide it must end, and vote for Kerry? Or will they be frightened into sticking with the guy who reassures them he can keep them in their mutual fantasyland without cost?

Bush got lucky when CBS screwed up on documents it used in reporting his shameless non-service in the National Guard. The furor fed right into the Bush attack machine, and obscured the real story: the documents CBS used may be physically inauthentic, but the facts based on undisputed documents and solid reporting from U.S. News and the Boston Globe are shameful enough for a president who sends young Americans and innocent civilians to their deaths for an abstraction that attracts votes and makes his corporate friends even richer, but is nothing but destructive in the real world.

The media is reporting that agreement is close for 3 debates. This would indicate that the Bushies are quite confident they have the momentum, and that anytime Bush appears on TV, he gains.

The rhythm of the campaign has played out without many surprises so far, although the state polls that show Bush holding onto his lead are troublesome. It raises the stakes even more for the debates, and above all, the first debate. The future of America could be decided on September 30.

How strange is all this, that Bush could be if not ahead then even close? CNN apparently polled other western countries, and in most places it wasn't even close. Bush would lose by anywhere from 20 to 75 percentage points in most of the world. He would lose by something like 70 points in Canada.

The worst news of the weekend was that Ralph Nader successfully got on the ballot in Colorado and Florida. The election could very well come down to Colorado and Florida. On the issues, even on the principles of democracy, Nader is almost always right. But the real world effect could be apocalyptic. And noone can claim innocence--- it’s not as if the catastrophe of 2000 hadn’t happened first. Nader may become the first saint with his own special circle in the depths of hell.

Every election someone suggests that the voters who aren't counted in polls, and who normally don't vote, could determine the outcome. Probably the last time that actually happened nationally was the first time the apocalyptic religious right came out in force. If it happens this time it could be a number of possible groups. Bush's approval numbers are low for an incumbent, and below 50% in most categories of how the country is doing, whether he should be reelected. The poll numbers may favor Bush at the moment. But the uncertainties nearly all favor Kerry.

Iraq, Terrorism and Vietnam

Stories in various news media, notably the New York Times, indicate that military intelligence assessments of Iraq prospects are bleak, that things have gotten worse, and civil war a distinct possibility. These findings were presented to President Bush in July. Even as he never wavers on his blind course over the bluff, he continues to present sunny assessments to the American people.

Those July assessments, notes CNN, appear to be coming true in September. An article in the Los Angeles Times (linked here)
Democrat Takes Off the Gloves on Iraq Debate

says that a slight uptick in support for the Iraq war seems to be evidence that the Bushie strategy of positioning it as an element in the war on terror is working. The article goes on to say that this has persuaded the Kerry campaign to become bolder in exposing the ways in which Iraq situation is demonstrably adding strength and numbers to the al Qeda cause and to terrorism in general.

That the Iraq debacle is making America less safe is, first of all, demonstrably true, and secondly, an argument that can get the attention of voters, especially white women voters who (according to at least one respected analyst) are responsible for much of the up and down movement of the polls. When security is foremost on their minds, they track towards Bush. When they focus on health care, they go to Kerry. (National polls out today show Bush’s lead of the last week disappearing.) If they are persuaded that Bush's Iraq policy is making America less safe, is threatening homeland security, they will be more inclined to listen to Kerry.

It is at that point that Kerry should talk about his goals for Iraq, as we wrote in our previous posting. We would add to that, he should make prison torture part of the issue, and ending that excess as un-American and counterproductive, one of the goals. It was the prison torture scandal that turned the public against the Iraq war.

The increasing violence and death in Iraq is pushing anti-war Americans to more extreme positions, and threatening Kerry from the left. (It is probably responsible for Nader's 5% showing in one Minnesota poll.)

While the resemblance to Vietnam grows hourly, the situation is not quite the same. While the U.S. could have and should have withdrawn from Vietnam altogether (and as is becoming increasingly evident, would have, if JFK had lived and been re-elected in 1964), Iraq is in a different part of the world. The U.S. should withdraw militarily as rapidly as possible, but it cannot disengage diplomatically, and that's a complicated balancing act.

If the U.S. were to just walk away from Iraq completely, the consequences would be both quick and long-lasting. Because of the world economy's sensitivity to oil supply, the U.S. stock market could crash and the country could plunge into a deep recession almost immediately. The region is so volatile, with so many countries at each other's throats, some with nukes, that the consequences could be catastrophic.

That said, even if Kerry becomes President, it will take immense skill and leadership, and a lot of luck, to get the U.S. out of there without complete chaos. And that's if the current Iraqi "government" isn't overrun before January. It could even be the case that the insurgents are making a concerted push right now to be in control in case Kerry is elected, and might be able to set up negotiations with the large factions in the country, supported by the Iraqis who just want some security and peace, and running water. And to never see another American soldier or Republican again.

There is no future for the American military in Iraq, and no immediate future for American business. Once that is acknowledged, the real work of mitigating this immense disaster G.W. Bush has unleashed on the world can begin.

Kerry and Iraq

The tragic situation in Iraq is getting worse with alarming speed. It now seems possible that there will be complete anarchy or civil war, including the toppling of the current so-called government, before November.

At the same time media pundits insist that Kerry's position on Iraq is unclear, or that he does not offer a clear alternative to the Bush policy. We hear this as well from some voters who are otherwise sympathetic to Kerry, and very anti-Bush.

Kerry has become quite blunt in describing Bush’s mistakes, and he talks in necessarily general terms about what he would do as President: involve other nations in diplomatic efforts and so on. Why isn’t this enough? Perhaps what people need to hear now aren't means but goals. What does he want to accomplish in Iraq?

Offering a clear alternative is getting to be especially crucial as the situation in Iraq rapidly unravels. Chaos in Iraq does not mean that voters will automatically repudiate Bush by rallying to Kerry. They could just as well rally round the President, especially if American troops are in an especially bad position.

There are great risks for Kerry in getting too specific as the situation changes and remains so dangerous. But as he talks about leadership in a new direction, he does need to give voters a sense of what the new direction is, and where it is leading.

It may be a delicate balancing act, but I am convinced that Kerry needs to emphasize ending the war, ending the violence, bringing the troops home safe and soon. He must say something about his vision for Iraq's future, which could be as simple as a stable state that is not a threat to the U.S. or to its neighbors.

Stating these goals offers a context in which the means he outlines make more sense. For instance, many are rightly skeptical of the willingness of other nations to send troops. It would make little sense to do so in the current context, so the first emphasis would have to be on diplomacy. It could be quite complex, involving many nations and honest brokers (including Islamic ones) and many groups and factions in Iraq. But many parties within and outside Iraq have an interest in peace and stability. Finding common ground for diplomatic solutions is a goal.

Many experts are saying that there is no future for the U.S. in Iraq. Without "cutting and running" the U.S. must extricate itself, and Kerry needs to find the language to balance those factors. But he must emphasize an end to violence, and essentially an end to the U.S. occupation.

Talk about goals, about the direction, before the means: that's what we believe people are asking for when they say Kerry must provide a clear alternative, and a clear idea of what he would do to end the violence in Iraq.

Is Somebody Out There Listening?

Maybe it's a psychic thing, or maybe somebody in the Kerry campaign is reading us, but we've noticed that the candidate concentrated on Iraq and health care just after we reccommended it, and a line we contributed to the Kerry blog on what questions he should ask Bush in a debate (Mr. President, do you really believe that after I defended this country under fire as a young man, I wouldn't defend it as President?) has turned up as an affirmative statement in Kerry's speeches.

And now he's actually used the words we've been promoting as a theme: a fresh start.
They aren't real prominent but you can find them in the following interview with Time magazine, which incidentially is a pretty clear statement of what Kerry has been saying lately on the campaign trail. Here's the link

CNN.com - 'I've been in worse situations.' - Sep 13, 2004

We finally caught up with this excellent Joan Ryan column in the SF Chronicle. The moment she refers to at the beginning---the father and his reaction to the news of his son's death in Iraq---is an emblem of this war, and may wind up being its symbol.

Don't look too closely at the war

The Real News Continued

The current "unusual" wave of huge hurricanes and the storms they spawn is likely to continue in coming years, due to one or several factors, probably including global heating:

Guardian Unlimited Special reports Devastation linked to global warming

A nation of wusses

Three years later and we’re still scared? What’s wrong with this country? Yes, 9/11 was terrible and traumatic, and it’s worth finding out what the U.S. had been doing wrong, and worth even more to do what really can be effective to minimize terrorism against America. But we’ll never do either in a climate of fear.

A substantial part of the population, polls say, are afraid they’ll be killed in a terrorist attack. Despite the fact that they are statistically more in danger of being killed by falling down the stairs while talking on a cell phone. Around 3,000 people died tragic deaths three years ago, and in the three years since, more than 10 times that many died each year of cancer from smoking and bad stuff in our air. Five times as many people die each year because they don’t have health insurance.

Your life is more in danger in New York City crossing the street or taking a taxi than from a repeat of 9/11. Do you live in fear of getting behind the wheel of your car?

Instead, we’ve had exactly one incompetent guy tried to light explosives in his shoe, and now tens of thousands of people every day stand in line like sheep to take off their shoes for inspection before being granted the privilege of inhaling stale air and not getting a bad meal in a cramped airliner seat. We must be grateful that nobody tried to light their shorts.

Now any one of us can be pulled away from the airport counter, hustled to a room and questioned like people caught stealing Bush’s remedial reader from the White House bathroom, because of a bad joke, the attempted smuggling aboard of a dangerous nailclipper, or maybe a foreign-sounding accent, or just as likely for no reason at all---because a name sort of matches a name on a list compiled by---well, nobody knows who compiled it, or why names are put on it, and certainly how to get names off when there’s a mistake. And like sheep we just let this go on. Why? Because we’re wusses.

We have a lot of help. The GOPers keep it alive but the New York and Washington based media does, too. Some of that is understandable---they knew people in the rubble, they were nearby---but those images can't be bad for ratings either. By now the actual events of that day are long lost in what has come to adhere to the images of it, as our parrotheads and other leaders repeatedly tell us what to think about it. Or more properly what to feel.

The people of London and other cities in England during the Blitz endured a 9/11 nearly every day for years, and apparently with a great deal more grace. If you want some justified fear, try getting sick without having health insurance, or losing your second job that’s the difference between paying the rent that means your kid has a place to live so she can go to school and gets at least one hot meal a day.

It’s not just that it’s unseemly to be so chicken-hearted. It’s dangerous, because fear clouds the mind. You think with your glands and do what seems the fastest and easiest to avoid danger. If you’re right, you escape. If you’re wrong, you perish. If the panic echo of 9/11, kept alive by the fear-mongering GOPers, leads America to retain the destructive services of G.W. Bush because he offers a simplistic analysis and simple solutions which also happen to be worse than dead wrong, we will perish as a free and prosperous people, and we’ll take the future with us.

Certainly terrorism is an important threat, now and even more so in the future, to the stability of our society. But fear of terrorism, and the manipulation of that fear by the Bushies, has already done more damage to America, to freedom here and to American standing in the world, than terrorists could dream of. And it’s done too little to stop terrorism now, and has worked against stopping terrorism in the near future.

Bush keeps to his steady course, which we’re supposed to admire as he heads us crashing into the iceberg that’s been clearly visible for months.

It’s 9/11, do you know where your Homeland Security is? Off making deals with huge corporations run by GOPer donors for expensive technologies of dubious usefulness, while there’s not enough money left for police to patrol borders or the streets, ports to inspect cargo ships or air freight, or fire and rescue to respond if something happens.

Meanwhile a select few Americans keep getting richer, keep getting more gravy in tax cuts, while the bottom falls out for most everyone else, and the rich-run media projects these images of wealth to the 9/11th of the world that’s indelibly poor if not outright starving and suffering through lives we can barely imagine. But some of the people in those exploited and usually invisible countries have figured out that vastly destructive power comes in very small packages, and that technology can be turned against those who have it.

But of course terrorism can’t be springing from that. Those terrorists are the embodiment of Evil, they were obviously born that way. They Hate Us, and Our Way of Life. They want to Take Away Our Freedom. They are swarthy and speak ugly guttural languages, they have religions of Hate not Love (and so we must kill them) and are really aliens from the godless planet of Hell.

Face to face with someone out to kill you, you defend yourself and those around you. Soldiers know this, and soldiers who have operated well and honorably under fire have the skills necessary for such defense. And sometimes you attack the enemy before the enemy can attack you, assuming you are real certain of the enemy, and its ability and intent to attack you. If not, everyone in the world is potentially an enemy. Fear becomes what we call paranoia, which politically is expressed as institutionalized fear, as a massive cult of fear.

9/11 remains vivid, and Americans (some pollsters say) are bored with Iraq, they’d rather let George II do it (so sure of his right to rule even as a young fool that he could contemtuously blow off even the safe duty he drew thanks to his family connections, while the kind of people he is sending to die, maim and be mained in Iraq were sent to die, maim and be mained in Vietnam) and watch Donald Trump purse his lips and say those immortal witty words, “you’re fired.” More than a thousand American soldiers have died in Iraq, with 8 or 10 thousand more wounded, there and in the region, and nobody seems to know---or for that matter care--- how many Iraqis. But that's over there, in Hell. Call me when Baghdad Disneyland opens.

Iraq may hold together until November 2, but nobody credible in the world believes it will be a beacon of democracy any time soon, and most are pretty sure the current government will fall and civil war will ensue. After November, we can expect Shock and Awe bombing as we’ve never seen, and we’ve at least heard of some before. After that, the necons will be loose, and the reality of not enough money coming in or armed forces stretched too thin, won’t impress them any more than it has already. Look out world, you haven’t seen WMD like you’re going to once GW is reelected. Saddam was wishing for nukes, but North Korea and Iran are doing more than wishing…

If this election rides on the fear engendered by 9/11 the chances are 9 out of 11 that our fear will become a self-fulfilling prophesy. Put back in office the man who most voters voted against last time, and it will then be time to be afraid. To be very afraid.

This is a link to the Boston Globe story discussed below:

Boston.com / News / Nation / Bush fell short on duty at Guard

UPDATE: All the noise you may have heard about possibly forged documents has nothing to do with the documents in this story. Nothing in the Globe story or in the blog entry below is based on information in the documents that may or may not have been forged. Not that you would know that from how the story is being reported on 9/10. GW Bush is still the president who is willing to spill the blood of other men and women but was not willing to risk his own, or even go through the motions of pretending to do alternate service in the safety of the U.S. Yes, it's about character all right: the character of the man in the White House who doesn't now own up to what he did then, and apparently hasn't learned anything except how to manage appearances better.

If A Shoe Drops on CNN, will we hear the sound?

CNN's Aaron Brown program on September 8 was one for the time capsule. What will future viewers, if any, think of it, think of them, think of us? A heartbreaking breakdown of the 1,000 American soldiers who were killed or died in Iraq, a so-called controversy on whether the University of Utah has the right to ban guns on campus, campaign reporting than manages to obfuscate the issues in the guise of clarifying the strategy and dynamic; a couple of authoritative studies that conclude that Iraq is deteriorating, that the situation there is worse now than it was before the American invasion, and that the most likely outcome is civil war.

Oh, and the reports that George Bush, the resolute leader of men to their deaths, consistently shirked his dubiously won National Guard duties, and by rights should have been shipped to Vietnam for his failures to keep his word and do the bothersome minimum his political influence bought him.

So catastrophic is this reporting that CNN couldn't face the implications of what it was presenting. So instead of covering the revelations arising from documents obtained by the Boston Globe and CBS News, and the thorough reporting both of these experienced and professional news organizations did on the subject of George W. Bush's dishonorable non-service, Brown and Co. reported first and foremost on White House reaction. "The White House said" began and ended each fragment of the story, and the questions to reporters was, what about what the White House says about this. Is this how they covered the non-story of the allegations made against Kerry's Vietnam record, not by responsible and thorough reporters, but by political enemies? Not exactly.

And Jeff Greenfield doubts that this clear evidence that should shame Bush from office, that is so morally corrupt in a man who sends others to fight and die to satisfy his delusions, is likely to change many minds. Why won't it? Because only those who want to believe it will believe it. Where is the objective judgment that all will concede tells the truth? he asks.

Are they talking about the same two stories? In one, the official record and the overwhelming evidence produced by journalists is that John Kerry earned his medals, acted heroically under fire in Vietnam, and has essentially told the truth about his experiences. In the other, the official record and the evidence painstakingly accumulated and evaluated by journalists shows that G. W. Bush failed to complete the drills he was obligated to perform in the Texas National Guard, failed to complete the drills he was obligated to perform when he transferred to the Alabama national guard unit, and failed even to serve at all with the Boston national guard as he promised to do. He obtained his national guard appointment due to political influence, and apparently got his honorable discharge despite his failures to meet his obligations, also because of political influence.

He even specifically "misspoke" or lied when "the White House" said he had stopped flying his fighter jet because his National Guard unit stopped using that plane. As weak and wimpy as this excuse is, the records show it is false anyway. The plane in question remained in use. G.W. just never bothered to show up again.

This is the man more than half of American voters polled believe is a strong leader, the best to lead the nation in Iraq and the war on terror?

Right. And Nixon was our greatest defender of the Constitution, and our greatest Civil Rights leader was Bull Connor.

Are we really going to permit GW Bush to be president for another four insanely awful years, just because John Kerry can't stand still when he talks? GW has gone beyond depending on telling the Big Lie in order to remain in power. He has become the Big Lie.