My two cents

If "the Democrats" (a party I was a member of for thirty-five years until switching to Green 8ight years ago) decide to slide rightward, toward the "values" constituency, they'll not only lose me as a voter but the blacks, too. If the Democrats are to challenge for a meaningful role in American politics, they've got to embrace their base: minorities (skin-color-wise and otherwise), the youth, the poor and middle class, peace- and environment-favoring liberals, economic and social progressives. Clinton's move to the right has ruined the party, making it a weak-willed, weakly defined entity, with no articulateable agenda, no movement, no place to go but come in second.

To counter the Republicans' surge to the right while holding the "values" center, the Democrats need to surge to the left, while holding the rational center. Otherwise, the left is in for "a long hard slog."

Poems by Riverbend

The young lady blogger in Baghdad, whose poignant posts describe the effect of the US invasion and occupation of her nation, has written four odes to Americans--those in the red states and in the blue--upon our election of Bush/Cheney. I feel so sorry for those whose lives we have ruined in the name of liberation. I cannot imagine that in their lifetimes we'll be forgiven.

I have a ghoulish

facet of my personality, and it's being fed by reports such as this from Iraq: An impressive body of Muslim scholars have determined that Iraqi resistance to the American occupation is legitimate, and have issued an edict (fatwa) that prohibits Iraqis from cooperating with the occupying forces, such as by informing on members of the resistance.

Bush has created this nightmare, and now can't count on Kerry to bail him out. If it weren't for the deaths--of Iraqis and coalition forces--I'd really be pleased to see if for once Bush can solve a problem without intervention from his monied buddies. But while I'm hating all the dying, I'm enjoying watching Bush twist in the wind.

Silly me

I thought Iraq's interim government was of a parliamentary nature. I distinctly recall the creation not only of the office of prime minister (read "US puppet") and of president (read "meaningless figurehead"), but of an interim assembly of some kind. Since its creation, we haven't heard a peep from it, either condoning or condemning--not even considering--the US Marines' collective punishment of Fallujah and Samarra. The assembly was supposed to have veto power over the prime minister's decision. Their silence persists despite the apparent rift between PM Allawi and the Iraqi president over the propriety of these outrageous, murderous attacks on these major cities.

I guess the assembly never assembled.

Theocrats--plus autocrats

This post on the DailyKos blog may (or may not) be a bit over the top, particularly at the end where it posits a nationwide conspiracy to alter the vote, but the theocrat takeover it describes is right on, really right on. I agree with the writer that those who minimalize the extent of the nation's turn to the Right are Pollyanish dreamers, or are too afraid of the truth to recognize it.

I add this dimension to the truth. The Right takeover has an additional facet, as frightening as its religiosity: its capitalist/corporate/imperialist/political merger. We are watching the evolution of a fascist state.

Too much, too late

This report about US soldiers witnessing the Iraqis looting the explosives sites after the invasion, and being unable to stop them due to lack of manpower and without orders to do so, comes too late to impact Bush's re-election. So, too, will the results of the "yellow-cake-gate" investigation, even though it will likely result in indictments of high officials of Bush's administration. The outcome of the Senate inquiry into prewar intelligence--delayed until after the election--will probably be watered down, but no matter what it says, it's too late too, as is the result of the inquiry into Cheney's energy task force. Indeed, with the accretion of the Republicans' power in Congress, we may never learn the truth about any of these subjects or the several others that Bush managed to elude or delay or frustrate by his secrecy and his power to maintain it. Quite unlike Clinton's inability to staunch the endless inquiries into his conduct--Travelgate, Whitewater, Monica--by an adversely-held Congress.

Who was it who said that history is written by the victors?

There's dark at the end of the tunnel

One benefit of Bush's re-election is that he and his Republican allies inherit the miserable economy and foreign policy they've inflicted on us and--unless Rove is allowed by the media to spin it differently--must be held to the consequences thereof. I won't address here and now the warmongering in Iraq and the war-threatening around the world; but I will point out this scary statistic that's a direct result of Bush's policy of "spending out of recession." Amercans are consuming almost all of their earnings. Not saving a whit, not even being taxed much. Just buying, buying, buying and borrowing, borrowing, borrowing.

It's hard to type

when you're licking your wounds. I must say I felt in my bones that Bush would win, and so I can't say I'm surprised. The major television and print media didn't fairly cover the campaign and didn't critically address the nation's problems under Bush; and if you check out the geographic distribution of the Red States you'll see that it tracks exactly that part of the US that doesn't subscribe to learned journals much, doesn't think critically about government and follows the loudest, most common media message, which is this case was, Vote Bush.

We now face a Congress, an Executive and a Judiciary that has set its face in a nasty, mean-spirited direction, to a frightening purpose. They'll be able to enact their agenda and enforce it through the courts for the foreseeable future. Unless there's a cataclysm of some kind, I don't see the Democratic Party finding a way to win back the Congress or the White House for twelve years (Bush's next term plus two more). I know that sounds pessimistic, but I've been listening to the post-election hand-wringing by progressive bloggers and major media pundits and it sounds like they're predicting that the Democrats will move more to the middle (to the right, that means), which not only will leave liberals wholly on the outs but that the best we can expect is watered-down privatization of virtually every function of government, the true ascendancy of the capitalist nation-state, governed by powers wedded to corporatism, driven by religiosity and greed, and, because of its ownership of the media, immunized from scrutiny.

Back to wound-licking, shortly after which--Revolution!!

To do Fallujah or not to do Fallujah

US troops are massing outside of Fallujah for an all-out assault (of course to take place after the US election, to avoid embarrassing US casualties). Problem is, while the US puppet Interim Prime Minister Allawi apparently favors the assault, the Interim Iraqi President opposes it.

Hmmm.

Raimondo on Osama

This Libertarian's evaluation of the bin Laden tape is telling. Against the shrill cries of Bush and Kerry of revenge and war, Osama's reasoned presentation does indeed feel soothing, almost righteous.

I wonder how the dead Lebanese and New Yorkers feel about the latest events? I wonder how Bush or Kerry will ever wind down our empire-building enough to listen to them?

Voter fraud

Why is it that "voter fraud" has become the watchword of the conservatives/Republicans? Thye're gonna be at the polls next week to make sure the blacks and browns and weirdos aren't voting twice or aren't felons or aren't aliens, and so forth.

And Republicans? Are they incapable of voter fraud? No--we know this from last election. But of course they're so sophisticated and funded that their fraud is on a big scale. Wholesale tossing of ballots and of purging of rolls. They don't need to vote falsely one-by-one, they have the machinery in hand to undo the democracy by a quick, corrupt swipe.

Here's the deal. Part of me wants Kerry/Edwards elected by a landslide so huge that there's no dispute. Part of me wants a close and contested election that will lead to major overhaul of the Electoral College system, leading to the election of Kerry, so that now both parties will feel the pinch and will finally change the system. Part of me wants gridlock, absolute gridlock, so that the revolution--the peoples' revolution--can finally take place.

So--I'm poll-watching, and little else.

It just doesn't matter

That happens to be the title of the novel I'm currently working on, but I use it here in another context: The presidential election.

For months I've been blogging about developments. In Iraq, with the economy, with the Patriot Act, and so forth. All of this was to ascertain the impact of these developments on the election.

No longer. With 48 hours to go, I appreciate that nothing--almost nothing--can change the outcome. And so, I confess that I'm barely interested in the news lately. I confess to having been interested in the news only as it impacted whether Bush would be reelected or not.

So, for the next few days, I'll read the news allright, but with disinterest. Instead, my interest in solely in the news of the polls, which as I've indicated heretofore, are inconclusive.

Oh well.

Too soon to tell

Billmon thinks that the bin Laden video didn't have much effect on the US electorate after all. I, on the other hand, believe it's too early to tell, and that only on 11/3 will we know. It's true, I guess, that in a race with an incumbent, the undecideds usually break for the challenger; but in this race, Osama's tape may sway the undecideds toward Bush out of fear of change.

Of course that's precisely what Osama had in mind.

The Pentagon vs. the British Ministry of Defence

Check out the difference between the US policy of hiding the coffins of our dead troops and the Brits' military announcements of battlefield deaths.

It sure explains why Rummie doesn't want publicity of the returning coffins.

Fun for the obsessed

This site is really informative/obsessive. Move your cursor around the states to find out how they're presently leaning, and how their electoral votes line up, and you can drive yourself crazy or have a ball. Your choice.

Looks like Kerry has to keep hold of all states (including Florida) in which he's leading (by whatever small margin) plus hold onto New Jersey (which is likely) and win Ohio or Michigan.

This is gonna get ugly.

Amazing, truly amazing

How many falsehoods the Bushies and their fellow-traveling pundits can fashion about those missing explosives. They've blamed the Russians, they've claimed the explosives were disposed of by our troops, they've said Saddam moved them before the war, they've mixed up the dangerous powder with other explosives, they've blamed Kerry, the Army--even the media--for misdeeds. They must be relieved now that bin Laden's tape has taken over the airwaves so that the explosives story is pushed off the headlines. Poor Bushies, they must be exhausted.

What's the problem?

How hard is it to figure out what bin Laden's up to with the election-eve release of a video? Of course he's trying to guide our electorate to the re-election of Bush. He figures (probably rightly) that we dummies will be frightened into voting for Bush, and that's precisely the briarpatch he wants to be thrown into. Is there any doubt about this?

BTW--I'm not alone in my analysis. Billmon shares it.

For the viewpoint of someone who's lived under Bush's tyranny, and pleads with us to end it, check out Riverbend's letter to Americans about this election. It's a bitter, but heartrending plea from Iraq. I'm praying--actually on-my-knees praying-that we heed it.

October surprises

Missing weapons in Iraq, a lower-than-expected economic report on the GDP, a new study showing 100,000 Iraqis killed since our invasion, an emerging scandal over the awarding of the reconstruction contract to Halliburton. If Bush is re-elected in the face of all this news--all in the week before the election--we deserve him.

Back from Nevada

I couldn't take any more Vegas, even in Kerry's cause. I drove a van for early voters a couple of days, did some phoning and was an usher at the Kerry rally on Tuesday afternoon, with Cheryl Crow as Kerry's warmup. It felt good making a contribution, but I'll tell you, that place is crawling with volunteers, some of whom had dropped down from Reno because it was crowded too. On my phonebank were volunteers from the Bay Area, LA, Aberdeen, Washington, Perth, Australia.

Good to be back.

On another note: Back on October 12, I blogged about a Christian Science Monitor piece about missing explosives in Iraq, wondering when it would explode into a campaign issue. Now, almost two weeks later, NYT picked up the story and it has become a monster issue in Kerry's favor, with Bush on the defensive, bigtime.

Here's my question: What name should we apply to those spaces in time, from a day to a month, between when a fact "happens" and when it's first reported (on the Internet, ususally) and when it's reported by the major media. These are important spaces and deserve a catch-phrase.

Suggestions?

My last post

for awhile, about ten days. I'm off to Nevada to do some GOTV ("Get Out The Vote") work there. Don't know to which town, probably Reno or Carson City.

I had a really powerful, sweet dream last night, or maybe it was a waking fantasy. It was Wednesday morning, November 3, and the polls had authoritatively shown that Bush was voted out of office. I went out to the parking lot of the motel where I was staying, to start the drive back to California from Reno in my trusty Volvo, but before I left I re-painted the protest sign that I've been marching around with for 18 months. I erased the anti-Bush/Cheney slogans and painted on both sides, "Mission Accomplished."

How many lives have you saved, George?

Well, whatever the truth about Kerry's swiftboat rescues and heroics, here's one man whose life he saved: A Republican Senator, as told by that senator.

Nader voters

may make a difference this year, too. But in a different way: By voting for Kerry.

Rolling polling

In the waning days of pre-election, this site tracks the latest polls in all fifty states. From here--no news, I guess--you can see how Ohio and Florida are the keys. A few surprises: Hawaii, long considered solidly in the Kerry column, maybe shaky; Ohio growing pro-Kerry lately. Bottom line: If Kerry carries Ohio and Florida, he wins. If he loses either, he loses.

Who would Eisenhower vote for?

The answer, by Eisenhower himself, is here.

Is it the "S" word, or the "M" word or the "L" word?

A majority of Bush supporters, according to a recent survey, believes, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, that Saddam Hussein was involved in the al-Qaida plot on 9/11, and that he possessed WMD. Whose fault is that? The Bushies's lies? The media's obeisance to the administration? The sloth and stupidity of Bush's supporters.

I vote for all three.

The middle class under Bush

This detailed analysis of five different types of middle-class family (from single household, to married couple with children, to retired couple) shows what's happened to their incomes and their outlays during Bush's tenure. All have lost net income after taxes and health-care costs, so that no group has participated in dollars terms in the "recovery" from the recession. The increase in worker productivity, it's apparent, hasn't shown up in their pocketbooks, but only in the ledgers of the employers, that is, the corporations that funded Bush's election.

What did I expect?

Just for fun

You just gotta play this game. Thanks, Kyle.

The siege of Fallujah

Is "collective punishment," a war crime.

Where are the media?

The story about the UN's concern over lost nuclear equipment in Iraq after our invasion never made the US media. See my previous post--"This little item," October 12. Nor, I'm sure, will this Reuters story about the sorry state of elementary schools in Iraq, despite Bush's continued claims that all is rosy there.
So, we're not rebuilding Iraqi's schools, and we've allowed the place to be looted of both desks and nuclear devices. What else is new?

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.