It's a long list, I know

but when you've got a few minutes, check out this litany of Bush's (mis)deeds during his first term. This blogger has really done his homework.

The Unfairness Doctrine

Sinclair's effort to indoctrinate the citizens against Kerry by its last-minute broadcast of a biased "documentary" is well known, but what I don't understand is how CNN, MSNBC, Fox and other cable news stations can continue to get away with their one-sided coverage of the presidential campaigns. Right now I'm watching (having a tough time doing it, but I'm managing) Bush give a speech in New Jersey with full coverage by all cable channels. Every word, now, including his repeated castigation of his "opponent," which of course includes series of lies, outright lies, ("3/4 of the terrorists have been brought to justice", "Iraq sponsored terror," "terrorists are on the run").

The system, not the people, are running this campaign. If Kerry loses, its not because we didn't want him to be president, but because the corporate giants who control our television sets didn't.

Don't believe me,

believe the Tampa Bay Tribune, a newspaper that has endorsed each Republican presidential candidate since 1964. It cannot endorse Bush, and it lays out in detail why it can't. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Does world opinion matter?

This report, among numerous others, showing the decline of US standing in the eyes of citizens in other nations, is troubling. Certainly, as the report says, a large majority of those polled still distinguish between their antipathy toward the Bush administration and Americans in general, thank God. But if we re-elect Bush, after another four years I'm not sure foreigners will be so discerning. Recall, that for years we were able to distinguish between the Nazis and the German people; but toward the end of World War Two we weren't so subtle, condemning all Krauts, regardless of their political stripe.

To live in a world where Americans are despised? Is that to be Bush's legacy, or can we defeat him now so that our nation is only temporarily tarnished and can once again take its place as the leader, not the enemy, of the world? That's what we get to decide on November 2, and nothing less.

Be afraid, be very afraid

This post about an NYT essay that's due tomorrow, describes the mental state of the Bushies. They mean business, and they're lunatics.

Check out this analysis

of the reason Bush's psyche resonates with so many Americans'. Short, pithy, right on.

Okay, You know I'm a Kerry supporter

But I gotta tell ya, Kerry's statement about Mary Cheney's lesbianism during the third debate was stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Doesn't he know by now that the Bush/Cheney cadre will stoop to any depth to win this thing, and that they'd jump on his reference? Now, instead of building on the momentum he clearly had gained in the last two weeks, Kerry's again fighting a needless, useless back battle. He'd been beating Bush/Cheney's asses on the issues--that's what had given Kerry the edge during the debate--and now the focus has shifted once again to his character and qualities, fodder for the Right machine. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Check out this chart

of the decline of the American empire. The decline in the international trade balance that Clinton handed to Bush is skyrocketing, every month, almost, hitting record highs.

Under Bush, the US has now become dependent on foreign goods in addition to foreign oil.

Now what? Vote suppression

With the debates over, the last unfavorable jobs report before the election behind us, the news from Iraq settled into constant ugliness, the economy still in its constant slide, there's little left to shake the voters' minds significantly. Barring a Karl Rove October surprise, the remaining ads and news bites probably won't do much (although Sinclair Group's outrageous airing of the anti-Kerry tv program, and the DVD release of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 may have some impact), and so now it's down to door-to-door and other voter-motivation efforts.

Which means, of course, that opponents of freedom and truth (that's the Bushies), must resort to vote suppression, distortion and denial, because they know that a high turnout favors Kerry. Republican groups around the country are busy. Intimidating blacks in Detroit, threatening students in Arizona, destroying Democrats' voter registration forms in Nevada.

There's no doubt these incidents only scratch the surface. In the three weeks until the election, I'm certain in the swing states there will be furious efforts by Republicans to find various means to limit the vote of minorities. Subtle efforts, but furious. It could backfire, however. Those who might not have been motivated to vote could react by turning out in revenge.

Let's hope so.

I'm not sure how much difference it makes,

but here's an informative, ongoing tally of endorsements of Kerry and Bush by newspapers in the US. So far, Kerry's way ahead in both the number of papers and their circulation. Also, a few of Kerry's endorsements are by papers that endorsed Bush four years ago, while Bush has no endorsements from previous Kerry endorsers.

Most people form their opinions through other media, probably, but given the tightness of the race, these endorsements may matter, to capture those undecided voters who read the papers. (Hard to imagine such a critter, but oh well.)

Stating the obvious,

But with authority.

This little item

--a literal and figurative bombshell--about the UN weapons inspector's notation of the disappearance from Iraq sites of various types of nuclear-weapons equipment, gear that was in place before the US attacked Iraq but his disappeared since our occupation, is burning up the Internet and has found its way into some big dailies, like the Christian Science Monitor.

It sure as hell is going to appear in Kerry's debate presentation tomorrow night. It sure as hell also be the lead item in tomorrow morning's newscasts. It will place in stark, bold relief how counterproductive was the invasion and occupation of Iraq in terms of furthering the "war on terror." It's Exhibit A to the proof that invading Iraq has made us less safe, not safer; and to the proof, if any more be needed, that Bush is a dangerous, deluded idiot. This item alone should bring him down.

Whazzup with the Bushies?

Here, in a nutshell, is what their "foreign policy" is, post-9/11.

Bush and Cheney are cynically using the trauma of September 11 as a pretext to fight a series of elective wars against weak governments that are inconvenient for hawkish goals and some US corporate interests. Iraq was a poster child of this policy. It had no weapons of mass destruction, was ramshackle, and had no significant ties to terrorism. It was invented as a dire threat to Peoria by Karl Rove and Rupert Murdoch, the latter-day Wizards of Oz.

http://www.juancole.com/

Miserable failure

These numbers show how God-awful this jobless recovery truly is. Worse than any previous recovery, completely off the charts.

Just another day at the office

Imagine opening up your mail to find this letter.

Okay, now I'm getting pissed off

After screwing up the bogus paperwork about Bush's National Guard record, CBS decided not to air the program that they bumped back in September in order to allow Rather to air the now-discredited report. A few weeks later, CBS decided it shouldn't air the bumped program--a critical assessment of Bush's use of the "Niger/yellowcake" allegation--because "It's too near the election."

Now, however, Sinclair Broadcasting, the conservative company that already has favored the Bush campaign by ordering its many affiliates not to air Ted Koppel's rollcall of dead GI's some months ago, has ordered those same stations to carry--preempting prime-time programming--a "documentary" of Kerry's antiwar activism, highly critical of Kerry of course, only a week before the election. Sinclair's stations flood the battleground states and include many of the stations that are affiliates of the major networks, so there's no doubt there will be heavy viewing of the program.

Any chance CBS will reconsider its decision? Any chance Sinclair will recant?

Of course, NO on both counts.

Endorsements

The Arizona Daily Star, the major newspaper from my former hometown, Tucson, recently endorsed John Kerry for president. Today, Seattle's major daily did too.

Are the opinions of the editorial boards of newspapers important anymore, with so much of our news coming through other sources? I would think they don't carry the weight they did two decades ago, but that if they're coupled with other endorsements, such as by bigtime newsmagazines like Time, Newsweek and so forth, a few of the undecideds may be swayed. It's possible too that some people vote, on a rote basis, in accordance with their daily's recommendations. Let's hope so.

Just so you know

I'm not entirely mirthless on the subject of the election, check out this site and click on the two videos. Fuuuunny.

What's it going to take?

Not only was today's Labor Department report on September job-creation absolutely terrible (only 96,000 jobs as opposed to the 145,000 that analysts had predicted), the CEO's of major corporations have just projected that future job growth in America is going to remain lackluster through 2005, if not into the foreseeable future.

Oil prices are going through the roof, terrorism is spreading across the globe, the war in Iraq is an ugly mess and has finally been definitively determined to have been baseless. Our national debt is piling up frighteningly, our trade deficit is horrendous, health insurance premiums are soaring while coverage is shrinking--and all the while Bush/Cheney remain favored to win the election next month.

Is it possible that regardless of the reality of the nightmare that Bush/Cheney have created in the US and in the world, they'll be re-elected? In other words, is there no objective development during the next three weeks that can change that prospect? Has the sustained brainwashing and spinning by the administration and the media been so complete that they've created in a majority of the uninformed American public a favorable belief about Bush/Cheney's qualities and accomplishments that can't be erased by facts, no matter what they are?

If that's so, guys and gals, Bush/Cheney will be re-elected unless one or both of them so egregiously screws up before the election that even they can't cover it. I'm thinking getting drunk at a fundraiser and falling off the podium, or admitting to having a black love-child who's living in squalor in Tuscaloosa, or something like that. Nothing less, it looks like, will move the Bush/Cheney devotees out of the darkness.

The other possibility: defections by John McCain and/or Colin Powell.

C'mon you two. This is your chance to change the course of the nation, the world. Please, for the sake of our kids, come forward.

It's that time of the month again

when the new-jobs figures are due to be released by the Department of Labor. Friday morning is the official release, just in time for the presidential debate that evening. With the huge numbers of layoffs that have been experienced during the past month, compared to the anemic number of new-hires reported by companies, it's expected that the job-increase numbers will once again be low, in the range of 150,000, just about the number needed to absorb the monthly increase in job-seekers who are entering the workforce for the first time, due to population growth in the US.

Somebody explain this to me

US military aircraft are bombing Samarra to kill insurgents so that the town can be taken back from the insurgents prior to the elections in January. The US is in Iraq at the invitation of a sovereign nation, its forces subject to that nation's instruction and command.

So how come the president of this "sovereign" Iraq is condemning the bombing as "collective punishment" of its citizens?

Second question: Why isn't this expression of outrage being carried by the mainstream media?

Polls, polls

For analysis of polls and polling, check out this site. Much discussion of details of present and past surveys, historical and political insight.

Piling on?

Just when Bush/Cheney's poll numbers are plummeting, two of their employees are pressing down on the control rods: Tribune Bremer carps about not having enough troops to stem the violence and looting after the invasion of Baghdad; and Wehrmacht boss Rumsfeld concedes there was no tie between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, pulling down a major pillar of the administration's argument for invasion.

Makes you almost feel sorry for the war president, doesn't it?

A choice, not an echo

I voted Green in 2000, not realizing what stark differences there were between Gore and Bush. This year, I'm voting for Kerry, and although for many months I've been disappointed in Kerry's stance about the Iraq war (and on other issues), the fact is, there's a huge difference between him and Bush during the next four years. The Supreme Court composition, of course; and the course of our energy policy as well as our environment. But more: There's a grand difference in how the US is viewed in the world and how it sees its role in the world. Are we to be the bully, the emperor of the Earth; or are we a wise leader of nations?

Kerry, for all his faults, is worldly and is therefore able to see other nations' views as valuable, as worthy of consideration. That, to me, is necessary to prevent the end of our planet, brought about by haste and ignorance, the hallmarks of the Bush presidency so far, which would be unleashed in a second term.

Samarra Story

This AP article (why am I taking off on AP?--because it's there), dealing with the conquest of the town of Sammara, carries a headline about how the victory encourages the Iraqi forces. But a majority of those killed by US and Iraqi troops are women and children, Iraqis all. So, do you think on balance the assault earned the US more Iraqi support, or less?

The Associated Press, is it the enemy too?

A huge story, right? Kerry takes back the lead from Bush in the most recent poll by Newsweek Magazine, the only nationwide poll since the debates. The figures are that the poll goes from 49/43 in Bush's favor to 47/45 in Kerry's, a significant shift. And yet the AP story places this item in a flood of information about Bush's attack on Kerry, something about how Kerry's "doctrine" about checking with the international community before invading another nation, is tantamount to handing other nations a veto over our self-defense. You need to read the AP story to appreciate how biased it is, how it misses the real story about Kerry's new lead and without discrimination vomits out Bush's lies.

The debate, the debacle?

Okay, I confess. I didn't watch them. I taped them, but probably won't watch the tape. I'm relying, entirely, on the spin the media puts on the outcome. Did Kerry carry? Did Bush ambush or was he bushwhacked? These are the questions the American people want to know, these are the questions that will--as determined by the media--decide who won. Forget the messages, the qualities of the candidates, their history or their respective approaches to governance of the world. What matters, and now what I--a political wannabe--wanna know is "who won"?

Call me stupid,

but I don't understand how Gallup can publish a poll that shows Bush with an 8% lead over Kerry among likely voters, when their polling sample consists, according to them, of 12% more Republicans than Democrats.

Is blogging passe?

A discussion of the commercialization of blogging is found here. Since this blog has no concerns over traffic (not much traffic at all, actually) I'm safe to say whatever I want, and there's no fear of my advertisers becoming annoyed.

Allawi's bio

can be found here. No wonder Riverbend despises him. Not as much as Bush, but pretty much.

A note about posts and comments

I recently deleted a comment to one of the posts that I believe was inappropriate because it was addressed to the personal qualities of one of the people who post comments on this blog. I encourage comment about the issues, but I don't tolerate posts that call into question the character of fellow-posters.

It's time to zero in on Allawi

The Interim PM of Iraq needs to be under this microscope, fast. Bush has tied himself to Allawi, and we know he's a monster. It's time to drag out that story of how he executed a bunch of Iraqis--shot them in the head--as a symbolic act to show how tough he was going to be as PM.

Don't let Rove do it

Bush/Cheney/Rummie/Condi and the gang are trying to twist the war in Iraq into the war on terror, calling it the "front line" of such a war, a haven of terrorists and so forth. Why are they doing this? So that they can justify the many deaths and dollars that are being poured into the effort. In fact, when I was out marching today with my sign, calling attention to the waste of human beings and treasure in Iraq, several people replied that it was worth it to "defeat the terrorists." Now, I realize these are dummies, but with Bush's rhetoric, and the media's labeling of the insurgents in Iraq as terrorists because of their tactics (beheadings, suicide bombs and so forth), Rove may actually persuade some people that the war in Iraq is the war on terror, and if he does so, Kerry--along with the rest of us--is toast.

Ah, yes, a model of democracy

in Afghanistan. With elections coming up on October 9, local chieftans are telling their tribal members that they must vote for the incumbent Prime Minister Karzai or their homes will be burned down.

What folly, what tragic folly, these madmen in the White House have begun.

Fox on campus

I note that in my hometown, Tucson, Arizona, FoxTV has been busy intimidating student voters at the University of Arizona. One would think that if Fox/Republicans are so confident in the strength of their message they wouldn't be afraid of the kids' vote. One would think.

For those of you who are "exhausted,"

check out this graph, showing that the percentage of people who drew unemployment benefits in 2003 and who exhausted them without finding work is 43 %, the highest percentage since before WWII. If anything demonstrates the absence of job creation in the United States, that single stark statistic does.

BTW, if you recall, Bush's tax-cut package in 2002 was dubbed, by Rove and his minions in Congress, the "jobs and recovery" bill.

Why we can't win the war in Iraq

is told here, by a soldier who's there.

Bush is crazy

That's it--the only credible conclusion. He's delusional when he talks about Iraq, about terrorism, the economy, the state of the nation--of the world--in general.

Only if, in the six weeks between now and the election, enough fence-sitters can be persuaded that the obvious is true--that Bush is bonkers, March-hare mad--can his poll numbers be dented significantly.

There are too many Bush-devotees out there--ignorant, small-minded churls--to get Bush's numbers below 45%. But those 5%, those who usually don't vote, or haven't made up their minds yet, they're the target, and somehow they've got to come to understand that which is apparent to all astute Bush-watchers: Bush is batty.

It's the Iraq mess, stupid

Not the economy, not the deficit, not the cost of health care. These are compelling issues that support the defeat of Bush, but Bush's bleeding wound is Iraq. And now that it looks like Kerry is going to need an "October surprise" to pull out this election (Bush, BTW, has in mind to appoint Rudy Guliani as the boss of Homeland Security, I've heard, the announcement to be made in October), Kerry needs "a plan" to solve the Iraq issue.

His "internationalization" idea's no good. Too fluffy, too amorphous, too much like Bush's approach and, most of all, impossible-sounding. He needs specifics, and here they are:

1. Announce that as president he would immediately rescind the reconstruction contract with Halliburton and all of its subsidiaries Other corporations, too, that have violated our trust so far, and those whose practices are outrageous, such as overcharging, hiring foreign workers and so forth.

2. Announce that all rebuilding efforts will be done by Iraqis, funded by our reconstruction money, only a small portion of which has yet been spent.

3. Give specific tasks to the military. Guarding, securing, but no more random patrols, no more general police duties. Iraqis can do that, or if they don't want to, they don't have to. If violence happens, it happens, but meanwhile the Iraqis are being well paid to rebuild their own nation and will be the source of manpower to keep the peace, since now they have a stake--a financial stake--in the outcome.

4. Release all prisoners who aren't charged with a specific offense.

In other words, turn Iraq over to the Iraqis now--and pull back our military so that its purpose is simply to preserve Iraq, not build it.

This gives Kerry a chance to take a huge swing at a huge vulnerability: the Cheney/KBR/Halliburton graft, the waste of American goodwill, lives and resources, with a viable alternative: allowing the skilled, unemployed Iraqis build their own nation. It'll be cheaper, more secure for our troops, and certainly couldn't be slower.

So--next time the question comes up--What will you do to get out of the mess in Iraq--Kerry will be able to answer that question with a grin and a "I'm glad you asked that" reply, rather than the weasel-worded response he's so far come up with.

It's no October surprise. It's a late-September one, and I can't wait to hear it.

Oh, goody

The Bush administration's latest justification for the invasion of Iraq is the one that contains the phrase "It's better to fight terrorism over there than on our own shores." How pleasant it must be for the Iraqis to be singled out as the hosts of the battleground for the war on terror; how delightful that the US chose to use their country to fight the global war, which is indeed precisely what's happening.

Not exactly an attractive job in Iraq

Working for the "coalition" ain't precisely desirable, when the insurgents track you to your home and attack your family, or behead you, or kidnap you and hold you for ransom.

If I were in Iraq, I think right now I'd choose being a purveyor of baked goods in a small town in the farthest corner of the country. Or, come to think of it, an expatriot.

Riverbend rises

from a monthlong hiatus, her first post on Baghdad Burning since mid-August. When you read it, you'll understand why.

Meanwhile, up in northern Iraq

we're pissing off Turkey with our bombing. Turkey, our one friend in the region. Read this essay to see how volative the area is, and, because of its history how justified Turkey's outrage is.

They're digging mass graves in Iraq again

But now it's to bury Iraqis killed by the bombs dropped on the order of George Bush.

Didja ever wonder why it's called terrorism when the bomb that kills civilians is strapped to a person's chest or stuffed in a car, but it's not called terrorism when it's dropped from an airplane?

Finally, finally

Kerry's speechwriters are getting the drift, are piercing the core. Kerry's "Bush is living in a fantasy" speech is treading close to my thesis of nine months ago that the effective attack on Bush (or on any powerful incumbent) is on his fitness, his sanity, even. Kerry should continue, should march on firmly and quickly, from fantasy to evil fantasy to delusional madness. Kerry has six weeks to paint Bush/Cheney as madmen--no less dramatic an image will suffice to defeat these media-driven incumbents--and has bushels of ammo. Kofi Annan's announcment that Bush's invasion of Iraq violated international law; the CIA's prediction that Iraq's a losing cause for us, probably headed to civil war; Bush's speckled National Guard record; the terrible numbers in Iraqi deaths and in jobs. Maybe, maybe, Kerry's "fantasy" lingo can assemble these facts and figures and give them traction, driving Bush over the cliff as he cries out, "I'm not crazy!"

"We don't do body counts"

even of our own bodies, apparently.

You wanna catch a liar in a lie?

Check out these two statements by Colin Powell, the first made a few months after his February 2003 pitch to the UN Security Council to justify the US invasion; the second made yesterday.

Which is it, Colin? Did you check out the sources for the information for "four days and nights" before the UN speech; or did you rely on the information from the CIA without checking it?

Protests are of no value

according to this essay. They don't sway the few undecideds who are still in play in this heated election, and all they do is expend energy "singing to the choir," or falling on deaf ears of the opponents. Indeed, they may alienate the undecideds or at least turn them off marginally from the cause that's being espoused. And since this year, the cause is opposed to an incumbent president, the protests play into his hands.

So--what's a body to do? Walk the streets, register voters, sign up noncommitteds in a silent, compelling way? Okay.

Except that the incumbent has CNN, Fox and all the networks on his side.

So it's Molotov cocktails, right?

Who is Major Doug Rokke?

And why is he saying all those terrible things about DU (depleted uranium) in Iraq?

You need to read this

Blog, entitled, "Today in Iraq." Just take a peek at the entries for today, September 12. Twenty-two entries, detailing the swarm of killings, explosions, hospital admittances in Baghdad and throughout the country. "Bloody Sunday," and worse.

If you watched network or cable news, you'd learn it was a bad day in Iraq, but nothing like the detail. Enough to tear your heart out.

And, if it need be asked: To what end? Oh, please, tell me: To what end?

"Hearts and minds" by the back door

I just figured it out: Why a US helicopter gunship would fire upon and kill 13 Iraqis who were gathered around a burning Army vehicle that had been blown up some time before. Surely it couldn't be to kill those responsible for the explosion. They wouldn't be hanging out at the site, or if they were there wouldn't be any means to distinguish them from onlookers. In fact, in this incident a member of a TV crew was killed by the fire from the helicopter.

It's clear, therefore, that such random fire by our soldiers isn't meant to win the Iraqis "hearts and minds" in the traditional sense. No, it's the reverse. Once there's an insurgent attack, the US responds with such force, including killing innocents, so that the populace becomes so fearful of an insurgent uprising that they turn against the insurgents out of fear of reprisal by the US.

Is this so obvious that I'm wasting cyberspace here? Well, it wasn't obvious to me, just as it wasn't initially obvious to me that Bush/Cheney/Rummie love this ongoing violence in Iraq and elsewhere--they adore it, they sponsor it--because it attracts the idiot-faction of US voters to their cause. Just witness the recent polls, showing Bush's numbers increasing as the violence increases.

So, does Bush win the election if there's an increase in violence--and if there's a decrease? Well, if you're Karl Rove, that's precisely what you planned.

Wallowing, not solving

I'm tired of watching us wallow in the 9/11 thing. The TV is full of tributes, memorials, remembrances of the event.

Yeah, the attack and its aftermath were traumatic, but the answer isn't for us to continue to scratch the wound, but to reflect for just a moment, to try to reach for a balm to salve it.

Isn't there anybody in a position of leadership, in the U.S. or in the world, who sees that the wound is merely a symptom of a worldwide malady, the product of an historical virus that has caused an imbalance between the world of haves and have-nots?

Let me ask this, demanding an answer: Why haven't the whites, those who inhabit the portion of the planet north of bottom tip of Florida and Texas and Italy, chosen to share the benefits of inhabiting the majesty of this planet with those who live to the south? Why, at all events, are humans so little like the gods--and their messengers--whom we say we aspire to; and so much like the animals that we say are "less than human?" Why do we hoard our wealth, our resources and arms, within our national limits--and why do we allow our corporations to exploit the riches of poorer nations, without fair compensation?

This longstanding conduct by America and its supporters is why we're being attacked. It's not about freedom, not about violence. It's about planetary justice, human justice, spiritual fairness.

It's about global goodness--which surely isn't the message of Bush/Cheney.

He who laughs last...

Well, now, isn't this delicious. A spat over the genuineness of documents. Between Dan Rather of CBS and the Republicans, with document experts weighing in. It couldn't come at a better time. Seven weeks before the election. Focusing on Bush's military service, calling into question his veracity and honor, the strong points of his poll-popularity, the cornerstone of his support.

And, I think, with more to come.

The maxim of this campaign is to attack the opposition on their strength. Kerry was attacked on his wartime record and on his legislative service. Now Bush's strength, credibility and straight-shooting and feistiness are drawn into question, and intrigue--document authenticity--adds to the drama.

Now's the time to go for the jugular, everybody. Bush is a flake, a frat-boy weenie, who's lied his way into high office, who's slid into power, who's worthless as a leader and as a man. Bring out the guns. Let's smash this cockroach of a human, sparing no quarter. Let's win, as we must, at any cost, even to our own honor.

Right?

The issues

I just spent two hours watching TV news (forgive me, I had to see what's being reported). There wasn't a whisper--not on CNN, not on the networks, not on PBS, about the policies of either side dealing with the economy, foreign affairs, civil liberties, or anything of substance. The entire media has bought into this presidential campaign as being one of lingo, personality, the latest hot-buttom item.

What else is new? How can we possibly survive as a nation when this is how we govern, how we choose our course?

The answer is we can't. The answer is, the US is now a full-fledged failed nation.

I won't be alive when it fails, I'm glad to say.

Like everything else about George Bush

his post-convention "bounce" in the polls has turned out to be a lead turd.

Isn't this special?

A US Army general states that in the upcoming national elections in Iraq in January (don't bet on that date, by the way), certain areas, such as Fallujah, where violence persists, may not be allowed to participate. What a hoot! Besides being fine testimony as to the state of our democratization of Iraq, it's the surest way I can think of to trigger a civil war.

Maybe that's not so stupid after all; maybe that's what the general wants.

According to this prestigous British study, moreover, civil war in Iraq is indeed the most likely outcome of our occupation.

Weather stories and news priorities in general

Look, I'm not particularly callous, not a mean-spirited American, but what's this with a Florida hurricane story (the latest one) dominating the news? Even the PBS report on TV this evening. A full first segment, talking about the dangers of standing water after the storm, leading to an increase of mosquito bites, absence of refrigeration in people's homes, and so forth. Cleanup will cost $2 billion, the storm took the lives of some trailer-dwellers, maybe 10.

Meanwhile, in the nations we've recently invaded (there are two, recall: Afghanistan and Iraq) $2 billions are spent every week, and scores of deaths, theirs and ours, occur. And--if I need to add this, as I apparently do--these deaths and expenditures are fully as colorful as those of Floridians, certainly as newsworthy in any sensible historical sense. I mean, weather happens, but wars are declared. Weather passes, wars change everything.

And a second segment on PBS devoted (interminably) to Clinton's surgery? Give me a break. He ate too many burgers, he had chest pains, he had surgery. Enough. He's a political eunuch, not much of a president at all events (recall, Clinton sold out the Democratic Party, wrecked it for salvation except through revolution--about which more in a later post, I'm certain). The surgeon on PBS, interviewed at boring length, called his surgery "enormously common."

So, we're two-fifths through "today's news" on PBS and all we know is that Florida is okay and so is Clinton, neither of which stories deserve more than a minute. And (I waited to the end of the PBS report to tell you this) nary a mention of the seven Marines and two Army grunts who died in Iraq today, nor of the scores who died there. And this, I must remind you, is PBS.

And so it goes in America.

The Great Unwashed

Check out these figures on the "favorability rating" of Bush: A Newsweek poll showing a "bounce" of from 48/48 favorable/unfavorable just before the Republican convention to 55/40 afterward. Seven percent of us were swayed from unfavorable to favorable, presumably based on the convention coverage, and subsequent media reports of it, because no other significant event occurred between pollings to explain the switchover. Indeed, during the interval, there was terrible news about the economy (increase in poverty and in loss of health insurance), a rising death toll in Iraq, and continued violence in Afghanistan.

So--The lesson is that the 2004 election is going to turn on the opinions of these seven percent; and they're idiots!

Everything you ever wanted to know

about Bush's actions on the morning of 9/11/01. Amazing.

Osama bin Lotto

There are hints that the US is about to capture Osama. We've had such feints before, but nothing's materialized. But now, on the eve of the election, it seems certain. Because if Bush is going to bring bin Laden out of storage and parade him up Pennsylvania Avenue in a cage, it's gotta be now. Check out this entertaining video to see how and why.

Look, I know it's tinfoil-headed to so opine, but here's the alternative. After three-plus years, Bush hasn't found bin Laden. What does that say about his war on terr'r?

October surprise

I've for so long feared a Bush-Rove October surprise--the idea being that in a close race they'd pop some big development at the last minute (capturing Osama bin Laden, withdrawing troops from Iraq, whatever)--that I didn't focus on the Democrats' prospect for same. What could Kerry/Edwards come up with that would swing the election their way in the last few weeks?

Discovering a nonwhite love-child of Bush? Maybe an under-the-desk intern? Perhaps, even, an allegation by Kobe Bryant's "friend" in Colorado about a similarly forceful tryst?

I'm open to suggestions, and to a means of effectuation thereof.

If you read nothing else about our foreign policy this week

please read this piece in the Observer about Brent Snowcroft. A voice once in the thick of things, now in the wilderness.

Here's whazzup in Iraq

As the school year begins, Iraq's colleges, including Baghdad University, the nation's largest, are in shambles eighteen months after the occupation started. Iraqis who are working for the US are being regularly shot down. The Iraq Assembly is under mortar attack. The number US wounded is approaching 7,000 and the number of US war dead stands at 975, many killed in the weeks since the "handover of sovereignty." Hostages are being executed by the dozens. The US is still bombing Iraqi cities, still killing civilians.

You hear nothing of this in the major media. And certainly not while the Republican Convention is blaring on every TV channel, celebrating Bush's coronation.

God, if you're out there, please help us.

The Upside-Down Recovery

For a thorough and entertaining exposition of the quality of Bush's recovery, specifically how it differs dramatically from recoveries after previous recession--in detailed detail--check out this series of graphs, charts and essays.

Imagine

The following is a copy of a letter I've emailed to the editor of the News-Press, our local paper. I'll let you know if it gets published. I don't read the News-Press religiously, so if you happen upon my letter, let me know.

Just imagine if eighteen months ago President Bush had waited three more weeks—just three more weeks—until Hans Blix, who headed the United Nations weapons-inspection team in Iraq, had completed his work. Blix would have reported that there were no weapons of mass destruction (as indeed turns out was the case), the UN inspection teams would have remained active (under the terms of the previous Security Council resolution) and the “no-fly zones” over northern and southern Iraq would continue to be patrolled by US and UK warplanes, ensuring that Saddam Hussein would remain boxed, figuratively and literally.

Given the severity of the ongoing UN sanctions, Saddam may have decided, as did another evil-doer, Libya’s Muammar Qadaffi, that it made economic and political sense to change his approach and to join the community of nations. (Recall, Qadaffi was once considered as awful a tyrant and international demon as Saddam, so much so that US warplanes bombed his residence in 1986, killing his infant daughter.) But putting aside such speculation, this much is certain: Nine-hundred seventy-six American soldiers and 10,000 Iraqis would be alive; 6,000 American soldiers wouldn’t have been maimed; and $87 billions of American tax dollars would be here at home, benefiting Americans in ways we can only imagine.

Just imagine.

Meanwhile, down south

Shi'ite militia, funded and armed by Iran and other neighbors, have taken over the infrastucture of Basra, the largest city in southern Iraq. We have created the perfect climate for revolution and takeover of Iraq by forces who despise us.

Absolutely no surprise, no surprise at all.

A view of Bush's heroism

This article in Slate says all there is to say about Bush's heroism, pre- and post-9/11. It concludes,

I don't mean to be unfair to Bush. Vietnam was a lousy war. He wanted a way out, and he found it. But isn't it odd to see Republicans belittle the physical risks Kerry took in battle while exalting Bush's armchair wars and post-9/11 photo ops? Isn't it embarrassing to see Bob Dole, the GOP's previous presidential nominee, praise Bush's heroism while suggesting that Kerry's three combat wounds weren't bad enough to justify sending him home from Vietnam?

Watching the attacks on Kerry and the glorification of Bush reminds me of something Dole said in his speech to the Republican convention eight years ago. It was "demeaning to the nation," Dole argued, to be governed by people "who never grew up, never did anything real, never sacrificed, never suffered and never learned."

You tell me which of this year's presidential candidates that statement best describes.

Thank you KTLA

The Los Angeles TV station that's carried by cable here in SB did a report on the status of violence in Iraq in the two months since the "handover." A hardcopy appears here.

This is the only news to such an effect that I've seen on any mainstream outlet. They're too busy covering the convention, the Kobe case, the Jackson case and so forth, I suppose.

An advertisement worth watching

This tv spot has a serious message. Check it out at

http://www.n3t.net/humor/Seriously.mpg


The ad takes a bit of time to load, but it's worth the wait, especially the end, where a truly profound observation about Bush is made by the concerned mother.

Hat tip to Erika.

Oh, for a blue dress

What does it take to get a president out of office. An expanding spy scandal at the highest levels? Ongoing violence in two theaters of operation: Iraq and, again and still, Afghanistan? Increasing poverty and loss of health insurance for millions of Americans? Evidence of expanding responsibility for torture of prisoners? Investigation of national security leak of a CIA's operative's name to the press?

And, it is said, Bush's numbers in the polls are increasing!

If the majority of Americans re-elect Bush, they deserve him.

Whazzup in Iraq

While all the media attention has been on Najav lately, check out this NYT exposition of the status of the "democracy" in Fallujah and other points west of Baghdad. Not surprising, not heartening. Not worth all those billions of dollars and hundreds of American, not to say Iraqi, lives.

What a debacle this Iraq adventure has become.

Devil in the details

Here's a quote from Islam Online, detailing the points of agreement under which al-Sadr's militia moved out of the shrine of Najav:

Late Thursday, Sadr signed a five-point plan put forward by Sistani that insisted on the departure of all armed elements from Najaf and its twin city of Kufa.

Sadr ceded control of the Imam Ali shrine to representatives of the religious leadership Friday, August 27.

But fighters of his Mehdi Army refused to surrender their weapons to Iraqi authorities, defying one of three conditions laid down by the caretaker government for halting its US-backed assault on the militia.

Reports said fighters hid their Kalashnikov rifles at home, while mortars and rocket-propelled grenade launchers were stashed in safe houses in the Old City.

That's why I read Islam Online. For the details.

Okay, here goes

High-ups in the Pentagon, an inch away from the highest-ups, are handing Israel our state secrets. Let's see. What can that mean?

To me, it proves that the neocons--the men who've taken over the Defense Department--are, and have always been, bent on establishing a system in the Middle East by which the US, with Israel as its local nuclear-armed ally, dominates the oil-rich region. To resident Muslims, it confirms precisely that, and that both Israel and the US are the mortal enemies of Islam.

I'm an American citizen. I have no designs on the Middle East, I want energy independence from the region and want our government to stop supporting regimes that allow our corporations to exploit their oil, at the expense of the citizens of the nations that own the resources.

I certainly don't side with Israel in its constant war with the arabs who are trying to regain lands long ago inhabitated by them and promised them by the United Nations sixty years ago.

This latest Bush administation scandal--Feith-gate--tells me this: Our nation is so egregiously off course in its dealings with the rest of the world, and in its treatment of the world, that revolution is inevitable.

Photo Finish

OK folks, the race is on and Bush is way ahead. We need to give our blogger Erik some encouragement. See, this is the 950th post on All That Arises. There are currently 971 US casualties of the Iraq war. The question is, will George W. Bush bring home the 1000th dead American before Erik can post his 1000th entry?

Here are the rules: no dividing essays into multiple posts, no multi-bagging of remains. It's gonna be a photo finish, folks, possibly in time for W's acceptance speech. Well, no photos involved, exactly; I doubt Erik will let us in his comfy crib with a digital camera, and no photos are allowed at Andrews AFB. ...

Sorry Erik, but personally, my money's on Bush. Somebody get Vegas on the line.

I mean no disrespect for our troops or their families. I know this post is in terrible taste, but so is this damn war. If this made you uncomfortable, good.

Cute

In an interview with the NYT, Bush has apparently admitted "miscalculations" in his assessment of postwar Iraq. Miscalculations. Sounds alot like "mistakes," doesn't it? As in Vietnam?


Sounds even more like Goebbels explaining the retreat from Stalingrad. Miscalculations. Tell that to the dead GI's, the dead Iraqis, the dead allies. Tell that to the American taxpayers, whose payments have been wasted, whose goodwill has been wasted over the world.

A miscalculation of enormous proportions. Certainly big enough to warrant Bush's replacement as president.

The moderate force arrives

The Shia cleric, al-Sistani, is about to lead a march into Najav. He's being styled as the the "moderate influence" in Iraq, whose presence will quiet the conflict.

What? Does that mean that we, the US, who're supporting the Interim PM, Alawi, are on one extreme, and that al-Sadr is on the other, so that a moderate influence is needed? Yes? Well, whaddya know. I thought we were supposed to be the moderating influence in Iraq. Silly me.

Isn't this refreshing?

An actual mass-media source, USA Today, taking the higher-ups in the Pentagon to task for the prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib prison.

Counterbalanced, however, with the report I saw this evening by Tom Brokaw on NBC (I rarely watch network news, but it was on, so what the hell): Brokaw reported the Iraqi soccer team's rejection of Bush's political ads with a soft-spoken, denigrating attitude, like the soccer players were stooges or something.

NBC, and Brokaw, are owned, are stooges themselves. I must tell you, I've lost respect for our media, all of it, except, occasionally C-Span and of course the truly good radio stations, like KPFK locally and AirAmerica nationally.

If I were an ally of the United States

I'd be pissed off bigtime. While Bush is claiming he's made America safer from terrorism by his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the nations that supported us--Saudi Arabia,Spain, Australia, Italy, many others--have each suffered devastating attacks. So maybe during the last couple of years we haven't been attacked, but if you line up the series of nations, it pretty much looks like we're next. Let's just hope it doesn't come in a form, or at a time, that does other than show Bush to be what a cheap imposter he is as a chief executive.

Could it be, could it possibly be

that the story about the Iraqi soccer team's refutation of Bush's campaign ads that tout their success as Bush's success will finally make it to the major media? Finally, the LA Times has picked up the story. Can it now be ignored? Let's see.

The latest scam in Iraq

After all the trumpeting of the "handover of sovereignty" two months ago, one would think that Iraq's "election" of the interim governing body would be met with trombones and tubas ablaring. But no. Hardly a word's been heard about the event, even though the body is supposed to have veto power of the interim PM's decisions, and to have legislative power until the nationwide elections, supposedly to occur in early 2005. Reason for the silence? The "interim national council," as it's called was chosen without fair ballot, over the protest of numerous of those assembled to vote on it, and consists largely of the same hand-picked US puppets, mostly foreign-dwelling Iraqis, who the US installed initially. And the vote to select these 100 council members? Forget about it. A four-person tribunal made the selection.

Sound familiar?

My brother's email to the Kerry campaign

Right on, John.

"Mr. Kerry should shout to the world that it doesn't really matter who did what as to their military service over 30 years ago, but that what's important is that he had the guts, along with our [Arizona's] great Mo Udall, to be one of the first to protest the wasteful and fruitless war in Vietnam and that he initiated a protest movement that successfully brought our troops home after the country realized the truth of his message. He should be prouder of his heroism in delivering this message than he is about his military decorations."

Somebody set me straight on this

but wasn't Hitler the host of the 1936 Olympic games at which, for the first timne, the national anthem of the nation of the gold medalist was played during the medal-presentation ceremonies? Indeed, didn't Hitler start this mad national medal-counting that the US has since found so compelling, so overwhelmingly important?
I'm so tired of NBC's continual playing of the US national anthem that I'm about to puke. I love this country--its magnificent geography, the verbiage of its founding documents, a few other things--but for God's sake, enough of this media-hammered xenocraziness.

I'm pissing in the wind, I know it. But in a few centuries, my voice will be heard. Just think about it. Do we imagine that in an advanced society, such as we might find on a planet ten thousand years from now, they have boundaries, nations, national anthems?

What the hell are we doing?

We're bombing the Sunnis in Fallujah, we're assaulting the Shias in Najav. If anybody out there in cyberspace--anybody reading this blog, if there's anybody reading this blog--can tell me why the US is doing this, please feel free to share.

Iraq Coalition Casualties

I haven't been posting much to All That Arises lately. My longtime hobby, ontological bungie jumping, has been keeping me busy this summer. But I'll continue occasionally, as a contributor to Erik's estimable blog. And of course, I wouldn't miss the opportunity to leave semi-literate, smartass comments on Erik's posts.

To prove my intentions are honorable, I'd like to call your attention to the fact that coalition casualties now number well over one thousand. 1094 to be exact.

Please keep this in mind as we endure the RNC convention and the continuing breaking news coverage of vapid insinuations about Kerry's military service. Thanks.

Iraq Coalition Casualties

If Bush wins this election,

it's because Kerry failed to contest him on the dominant issue in the campaign, the war in Iraq. This Time magazine essay calls Kerry's position on the war as a straitjacket, and rightly so. Kerry has been wholly complicit in Bush's mishandling of the war, silent about the ab-graib prison scandal, silent about the ongoing killing, about Halliburton's defalcations, about even the on-again, off-again conduct of military operations.

I'm miserable, watching Kerry give away all these points while being hammered for his war record. I'm actually angry at Kerry for misguaging the issues so grossly.

Ouch, this hurts

When ninety-plus Muslim leaders from middle-eastern countries condemn the US occupation of Iraq. And in not too generous terms, either.

So, Can we finally put this matter to rest?

Here's the story of the commander of a swift boat adjacent to Kerry's. The man had for decades wanted to avoid talking about it, but couldn't stay silent any longer. Read it and resolve this: As between AWOL flyboy Bush and Lt. Kerry, guess who wins the "What Did You Do in the War, Daddy?" award.

A must read: Raimondo on Buchanan

Libertarian Justin Raimondo reviews Pat Buchanan's recent book, to terrific effect. If you need to be motivated to keep Bush from gaining a second term, read/buy Buchanan's book, Where the Right Went Wrong.

If oil prices remain high

this economist predicts that the American stock market will suffer a long, slow decline, along with the economy in general, with the middle class suffering under the "tax" that increased gasoline prices imposes on their pocketbooks.

Could it be, could it possibly be?

That after years of display of undiminished timidity in the face of the supreme power of the corporate entities that own them, there may finally have arisen in the media a sense of outrage against this administration? They've let Bush slide past the absence of WMD in Iraq, the absence of any link to al-Qaida, the long series of prevarications and abuses that have driven his administration. But now, maybe, with these false allegations against Kerry's medals in Vietnam, maybe, just maybe, they've sensed what we've always known: That Bush and his minions are evil. Lying slimeballs, monsters, corrupt and base beyond any that our system has so far experienced. Maybe, just maybe, out of a sense of moral outrage--a burst of principle--the media may finally get it, may try at last to redeem the years of ass-kissing solicitude they've given Bush and his cadre of evildoers.

Or maybe not. Remember, they're still owned by Bush's buddies.

Two takes on Iran's latest expression

When a high official in Iran said that pre-emptive strikes were not the sole prerogative of the United States, there are (at least) two possibilities. One, this is what we've reaped from what we've sown; or two, this is precisely what Bush meant to encourage with his agression, so that he can now justify agression against any nation that dares to utter the doctrine.

Depends on who(m) you listen to

The record high price of oil won't cause too much of a ripple in the world or US economy in the long run, or is cataclysmic.

Another lost story

While the news is filled with stories about Kerry's Vietnam war experience, this item--about the Iraqi soccer team and captain taking sharp exception to Bush's use of them to further his campaign, including strong condemnation of American troops occupying their country--barely makes the news.

Eye off the prize

On the eve of the Republican convention, Bush/Rove have managed to deflect the campaign from the truly relevant issues to Kerry's Vietnam war activities. Of course. They're evil geniuses, except for Bush, who's an idiot.

Among the missing issues: Jobs and real income of wage earners. They're in the pits and nobody knows it, except of course those who are experiencing the difficulties. Must we rely merely on their getting out of the house to vote on election day, or will the Kerry folks somehow manage to turn the debate to the real questions that need to be answered?

Too many brushfires

It's maddening, the number of false or biased reports that are being fed to the public by the mass media; and the stories the public aren't told.

Nowhere is it reported that the British are furious at Bush's administration for "outing" their source of al-Qaida intelligence by issuing an alert, clearly based on the source's information. Americans aren't informed about the undemocratic selection of the national assembly in Iraq, aren't kept abreast of the increasing death toll of US soldiers. They're given no information about the billions of dollars--that's with a "b"--that are unaccounted for from the Iraq reconstruction funds, the latter story carried by Reuters, but nowhere televised on the major broadcast or cable media.

We're inundated with stories about celebrity trials, with "spin" stories about campaign smears, with the latest violence and weather problems.

The dumbing down of America? It may be in large part the fault of Americans themselves. It surely is the fault of the media, too. They've long blamed themselves for this, but have done nothing about it.

Talk about a flip-flop

The Pentagon's on-again, off-again sanctioning of KBR, the Halliburton subsidiary, for failure to abide by the massive contracts in Iraq is either a strong showing of graft, or just simple incompetence. Not neither, probably both.

Another reason to abolish the electoral college, unless you're from Montana

Check out this analysis, demonstrating how skewed the system is against the will of the people.

I'm getting suspicious

I regularly check on the status of US military fatalities in Iraq, but somehow it escaped me that seven (yes, seven), American soldiers were killed in action on August 15. The deaths weren't posted by the Department of Defense on a timely basis, so the Casualty Count website only published them piecemeal.
If the deaths had been reported widely, on the day they occurred, there would have been outrage. Recall when five soldiers died from a helicopter crash in April?
Is DOD dribbling out the reports on purpose?

If Kerry should lose the election,

it may very well be because of his consistent hawkishness about Iraq. He's trying to convince "the center" that he's no wus, but in so doing he may lose not only the liberal edge of the Democratic party, but the true conservative/libertarian portion of the opposition, who are outraged by Bush's foreign policy. The website, Antiwar.com, is basically libertarian, is alienated by Bush's invasion of Iraq. But Kerry offers no contrary position, and so won't get their votes.

Nuance over madness

The Republicans have made much of [Kerry's]... record; the Kerry campaign is haunted by replays of the theme song from the old TV show "Flipper." Mr. Bush, however, has a far more dangerous pattern of behavior. On issues from tax cuts to foreign policy, the president tends to stick stubbornly to his original course even when changing events cry out for adaptation. His explanations seem to evolve every day, but his thinking never does.

This is how the NYT put it, in an editorial about Kerry's vote on the Iraq war resolution. I couldn't have said it better myself.