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!"