The Shock of the New

It occured to me a couple of weeks ago that this front page could do with some freshening up. It's not that I dislike what I'm writing about, it is that it feels lonely here when there aren't any comments, and I thrive on collaboration.

To that end, I've invited a guest poster. croten has filled the comments boxes and my email with things which have given me pause, much for further study and thought and I think he will do the same for you. He and I don't always agree and I think that having the odd argument or two on the front page isn't a bad thing. All of the other group blogs I read or participate in tend to tamp down differences. I want to celebrate those differences here, a corner where a good argument can have its day.

He's busy recovering from a computer crash right now and reconstructing his firewall, but I wanted to give you a heads up because this week is likely to have a lot of changes, and this will be the largest one. And of course, we all have to learn how to put on the post-Bush mindset and learn to be critical about real issues again. That'll take more than a little work.

4 and 20 Blackbirds

If it is even close on Tuesday (and I don't think it will be), here is what we are in for:

Karl Rove in a Corner

Karl Rove is at his most formidable when running close races, and his skills would be notable even if he used no extreme methods. But he does use them. His campaign history shows his willingness, when challenged, to employ savage tactics

by Joshua Green

Rove had other plans, and immediately moved for a recount. "Karl called the next morning," says a former Rove staffer. "He said, 'We came real close. You guys did a great job. But now we really need to rally around Perry Hooper. We've got a real good shot at this, but we need to win over the people of Alabama.'" Rove explained how this was to be done. "Our role was to try to keep people motivated about Perry Hooper's election," the staffer continued, "and then to undermine the other side's support by casting them as liars, cheaters, stealers, immoral—all of that." (Rove did not respond to requests for an interview for this article.)

The campaign quickly obtained a restraining order to preserve the ballots. Then the tactical battle began. Rather than focus on a handful of Republican counties that might yield extra votes, Rove dispatched campaign staffers and hired investigators to every county to observe the counting and turn up evidence of fraud. In one county a probate judge was discovered to have erroneously excluded 100 votes for Hooper. Voting machines in two others had failed to count all the returns. Mindful of public opinion, according to staffers, the campaign spread tales of poll watchers threatened with arrest; probate judges locking themselves in their offices and refusing to admit campaign workers; votes being cast in absentia for comatose nursing-home patients; and Democrats caught in a cemetery writing down the names of the dead in order to put them on absentee ballots.

As the recount progressed, the margin continued to narrow. Three days after the election Hooper held a press conference to drive home the idea that the election was being stolen. He declared, "We have endured lies in this campaign, but I'll be damned if I will accept outright thievery." The recount stretched on, and Hooper's campaign continued to chip away at Hornsby's lead. By November 21 one tally had it at nine votes.

The race came down to a dispute over absentee ballots. Hornsby's campaign fought to include approximately 2,000 late-arriving ballots that had been excluded because they weren't notarized or witnessed, as required by law. Also mindful of public relations, the Hornsby campaign brought forward a man who claimed that the absentee ballot of his son, overseas in the military, was in danger of being disallowed. The matter wound up in court. "The last marching order we had from Karl," says a former employee, "was 'Make sure you continue to talk this up. The only way we're going to be successful is if the Alabama public continues to care about it.'"

Initially, things looked grim for Hooper. A circuit-court judge ruled that the absentee ballots should be counted, reasoning that voters' intent was the issue, and that by merely signing them, those who had cast them had "substantially complied" with the law. Hooper's lawyers appealed to a federal court. By Thanksgiving his campaign believed he was ahead—but also believed that the disputed absentee ballots, from heavily Democratic counties, would cost him the election. The campaign went so far as to sue every probate judge, circuit clerk, and sheriff in the state, alleging discrimination. Hooper continued to hold rallies throughout it all. On his behalf the business community bought ads in newspapers across the state that said, "They steal elections they don't like." Public opinion began tilting toward him.

The recount stretched into the following year. On Inauguration Day both candidates appeared for the ceremonies. By March the all-Democratic Alabama Supreme Court had ordered that the absentee ballots be counted. By April the matter was before the Eleventh Federal Circuit Court. The byzantine legal maneuvering continued for months. In mid-October a federal appeals-court judge finally ruled that the ballots could not be counted, and ordered the secretary of state to certify Hooper as the winner—only to have Hornsby's legal team appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which temporarily stayed the case. By now the recount had dragged on for almost a year.

When I went to visit Hooper, not long ago, we sat in the parlor of his Montgomery home as he described the denouement of Karl Rove's closest race. "On the afternoon of October the nineteenth," Hooper recalled, "I was in the back yard planting five hundred pink sweet Williams in my wife's garden, and she hollered out the back door, 'Your secretary just called—the Supreme Court just made a ruling that you're the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court!'" In the final tally he had prevailed by just 262 votes. Hooper smiled broadly and handed me a large photo of his swearing-in ceremony the next day. "That Karl Rove was a very impressive fellow," he said.

The demonizing has already begun, which tells me Rove is scared. He's still running to his base and still extremely negative in the final weekend, which doesn't scream "strength" to me going into the election. The internal polling must be really scary. Karl, if you had a candidate who wasn't a blithering idiot, you would have a shot. Why you tied your fortunes to this particular moron is really beyond me.

Listen Up, This is Serious

World Unprepared for Avian Flu, Experts Warn
By REUTERS

Published: October 31, 2004

Filed at 2:48 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The current U.S. flu vaccine shortage shows perfectly how poorly the world is prepared to handle the next global epidemic of influenza, health experts said on Sunday.

There are few vaccines or drugs to fight the flu and it takes months to make them, so when the pandemic comes it could wreak havoc for a long time, the experts told a conference.

``We believe with the current influenza vaccine supply issues, it illustrates perfectly the message that we'd like to get across,'' said Dr. Kathleen Neuzil of the University of Washington School of Medicine.

To prepare for a pandemic, countries first have to be ready for the regular yearly epidemics of influenza. That means having vaccines, drugs and data on whom the disease sickens and kills, she told the joint meeting of the American Society for Microbiology and the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Dr. Klaus Stohr, influenza coordinator for the World Health Organization, believes the world is overdue for a pandemic that could kill millions, and he believes the H5N1 virus now killing off tens of millions of birds in Asia is the most likely source.

Flu pandemics -- global epidemics of new strains of disease that kill an unusually high number of people -- come on average every 27 years. The last one was in 1968.

``We are 36 years out. We believe that we are closer to the next pandemic than we ever were,'' Stohr told a news conference.

``There is this new subtype in Asia circulating in poultry. It appears it is only a question of time until this subtype moves into humans.''

FROM POULTRY TO PEOPLE

So far the H5N1 flu has infected 44 people and killed 32 of them, Stohr said. Other studies presented to the conference show the virus has not yet acquired the ability to move from human to human.

Once it does, experts agree, it could spread quickly and kill millions.

In an average year, influenza kills between 500,000 and a million people globally, Stohr said -- stressing that this is a low estimate. No figures are available from developing countries with poor health care.

Avian influenza could kill many more than that. Scientists believe most strains of influenza originate with ducks or poultry and mutate to move into people.

The best way to fight such a new flu would be to quickly vaccinate against it, Neuzil said. But only the United States is working on such a vaccine, through National Institutes of Health contracts to Aventis Pasteur Inc and Chiron Corp, under which 2.4 million doses will be produced.

Chiron's woes with standard influenza vaccine show just how badly wrong things can go. British regulators stopped Chiron from selling flu vaccine made at its plant in Liverpool earlier this month because of contamination.

This is serious, very, very serious people. Any vaccine which might be developed won't be available for this year's flu season, which means that preventive measures are critically important: handshaking should be kept to a minimum, use a viricide on your hands constantly throughout the day. Try to keep yourself adequately rested and hydrated to boost your own immunity. If you feel even slightly ill, stay home, ditto for your kids. This bug doesn't look to be highly infectious YET, but the flu has a genius for mutation.

If you are in one of the high risk groups, and I am, you should absolutely plan to get a pneumonia vaccine shot immediately: it's the pneumonia which is a sequela of influenza which kills. I'm making a doctor's appointment tomorrow.

Apocalypse Now

The coming war

Terrorism, climate change and world poverty are inextricably linked. We must conquer them before they destroy us, argues broadcaster Jonathan Dimbleby
Jonathan Dimbleby
Sunday October 31, 2004

The Observer

For a moment forget about the charge sheet against Messrs Bush and Blair - the alleged lies about WMD or the illegality of the invasion of Iraq - and glance at the bigger picture. Global terrorism, global poverty and global warming form a toxic trio that promise a catastrophe that will make the horrors of 9/11 look like the Boston Tea Party.

Do I exaggerate? In the Middle East untold thousands of Arabs are being slaughtered by US warplanes and artillery, supported by the British, to impose Western democracy on Iraq at the point of a gun. In Beirut, once dismembered by civil war but now at ease with itself, the young parade through the squares with grace and elegance. But listen to what they say and you discover a coruscating sense of humiliation and a deepening rage against America, startling in this most genuinely Westernised Arab state.

Aliya Saidi, a young lecturer at the American University, was discomfited to be asked about Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld: 'I don't want to say I hate them but they are terrible people.' After an embarrassed pause, she added: 'I don't know if I should say that; my husband is American.'

The resentment against the US administration (not the American people who are pre sumed to have been duped) crosses all classes and backgrounds. 'If the US continues to despise the Arab nation in this way,' the owner of a sportswear shop, Hadi Baalbaki, warns, 'I fear the whole Arab nation will form itself into one big al-Qaeda.'

Richard Clark, Bush's former anti-terrorism coordinator who took charge in the White House on 9/11 and who retains close contact with intelligence agencies around the world, tells me that 'by almost any measure... the war on terrorism is being lost'. He cites the rate of terrorist atrocities, more than doubled since 9/11, and insists that the number of terrorists has risen to around 100,000 active 'jihadists' around the world. Chillingly, he believes these zealots are likely to be supported 'philosophically, politically, and perhaps with money' by upwards of 700 million Muslims - roughly half the global population of the Islamic faithful.

When I was first in Lebanon, some 30 years ago, the young Palestinians in the refugee camps were taught how to use Kalashnikovs. Now, two generations on and still without any escape from their humiliation, they live in an emotional swamp of resentment and anger. Ahmad Iskandar is in his early twenties, edu cated and courteous and speaks as if explaining the self-evident to a backward pupil: 'I am ready to explode myself in Israel.' Ready to be a suicide bomber? 'It is not suicide, sorry. It is a martyr operation.' And what about the innocents who will die? 'Our heart is now dead. They make us forget everything. Just to go and kill them.' And he shrugs his shoulders.

Already the poison of al-Qaeda is seeping into the Palestinian camps. Munir Maqhdar, a refugee, is holed up in south Lebanon where he leads a small band of gun-toting guerrillas who swagger around him as he says 'anybody who supports the killing of Arabs and Muslim people in Afghanistan and Iraq is a legitimate target. Any Arab or Muslim organisation is entitled to take revenge if the opportunity arises... the White House has to demonstrate that the historic injustice perpetrated against Palestinians matters every bit as much as the protection of the state of Israel.' According to the UN, 60 million Arabs live on less than two dollars a day, the population is growing rapidly, and unemployment is set to double in five years. The finance director of the Central Bank of Lebanon, Youssef el-Khalil, says that young people have a choice between corruption or fundamentalism. 'Fundamentalism is very much seen as the alternative to corruption... the war on terrorism has to address the war on poverty.'

The neocons who hold sway in Washington do not flinch under this kind of fire. For them, in the words of Richard Perle: 'We are winning the war on terrorism. We have killed a significant number. We have put terrorists in many parts of the world on the defensive.'

Try telling that to the two doctors I met in Ethiopia, who told me of impoverished young Muslims in the south-east of Ethiopia who 'are being indoctrinated under the coverage of religion with the beliefs and attitudes of al-Qaeda' and who, in some cases, are already in training for future operations. Try telling it to the American diplomat in Addis Ababa who gave me an 'off the record' briefing, holed up in the US compound which, like US embassies around the world, is protected from terrorist attack by armed guards, concrete barriers and razor-wire. He showed me a list of 'wahabi' clerics and business leaders in Ethiopia suspected of allegiance to al-Qaeda and volunteered that US special forces are now operating alongside Ethiopian soldiers in an effort to break up al-Qaeda cells in the Ogaden region. And how were they doing? He shrugged: 'We have already lost the war against terrorism in Africa.'

Try telling the Ethiopian Prime Minister, Meles Zenawi, that 'we' are winning the war on terror. 'Yes,' he confirms (for the first time), US forces are indeed engaged in military operations alongside their Ethiopian counterparts but this 'police work' is only part of the solution - 'the most important part is fighting poverty'. This is not so much an issue of morality but of urgent necessity in a country stricken by familiar but excruciating indices of misery. 'There is a very frustrated population that sees no light at the end of the tunnel and therefore is susceptible to all sorts of saviours, false saviours,' he says.
....
So what happens when the poor have their just deserts? Will we see the melting of the ice-caps, catastrophic floods that drown hundreds of thousands of people and turn millions into refugees and famished migrants? Will we all perish in some Siberian or Saharan Armageddon? Or find ourselves caught in a Malthusian end-game as we perish for lack of food and water? Or will we start to control our profligate use of carbon fuels and persuade whoever wins the American election that the resources of the planet must be more equitably shared?

As with winning the war on poverty, so with global warming: it is a matter of political will. Which is why a deeply frustrated president of the World Bank says: 'If someone came here from Mars and looked at the way we run the place, he'd get back in his spaceship and go back to Mars and say, "You don't have to worry about them, they are going to destroy themselves".' Which means, as I argue in The New World War , we had better get serious about global terrorism, global poverty, and global warming. Fast.

This is the Twenty-first Century we've inherited and we have very little time to get it right.

Incompetence of global proportions

Cutbacks Threaten Work Of Homeland Security Unit

By John Mintz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 31, 2004; Page A06

A key unit of the Department of Homeland Security has slipped into a state of financial turmoil that could endanger its ability to investigate terrorists, pay informants and perform wiretaps, some department employees and officials say.

All hiring and transfers at the department's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division have been banned for two months, as have almost all training, purchases of supplies and equipment, and maintenance of vehicles. Top department officials say they are committed to protecting ICE's ability to perform investigations, but agents in the field say ICE's budget shortfall of perhaps $500 million may soon threaten its national security work.

The cause of the financial hole at ICE is a set of complex accounting maneuvers used when the Department of Homeland Security was established in 2003. Those procedures have led to financial disputes among several Homeland Security agencies, officials said.

ICE has a diverse mission that includes investigating immigration violations, international arms dealers, money launderers and child pornographers. It is participating in the government effort to disrupt possible terrorist threats during the election period. It is an amalgam of parts of the old Customs Service, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and other agencies.

Top Homeland Security officials are hiring outside accountants to help referee the disputes, which involve hundreds of millions of dollars, among the three Homeland Security agencies that include parts of the old INS: the 15,000-employee ICE; Customs and Border Protection (CBP), whose 41,000 employees guard U.S. borders, airports and seaports; and the 10,000-strong Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), which provides services for immigrants.

"These are very frontline agencies, and getting them healthy as fast as possible is what we're about," said Andrew Maner, Homeland Security's chief financial officer, who has overseen 10 months of intense negotiations among the three agencies. "We need to have very healthy agencies, given what they do."

One result of ICE's budget crisis is that it has been forced to release on bond 25,000 illegal immigrants over the past year because it lacked space to incarcerate them, said Rep. Jim Turner (Texas), the ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Homeland Security. "That's a dangerous situation that needs management attention," he said.

Is there any part of the Bush administration which is not incompetent? Assuming that there are terrorists out there, these are the frontline troops to catch them. Instead, I get hauled out of line for additional security searches three or four times on every flight I take.

GOTV

When Did Voting Get So Intimidating?
The Dangers of Litigating the Election

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Sunday, October 31, 2004; Page B01

To understand where we are, we need to understand how we got here. The American electoral system has undergone two great changes in the last century, one democratizing and one not.

The democratizing change was to open voting to previously excluded groups, notably women and blacks. We often forget that while many Western states extended the vote to women beginning in the 1890s, all women didn't get the right to vote until the 19th Amendment in 1920 and African Americans didn't achieve full inclusion until the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

But we also forget the other major change: Restrictive registration rules. Roughly a century ago, many states began developing voting laws designed to limit the participation of the least powerful and least literate members of society, notably including blacks in the South. Michael McGerr, a historian at Indiana University, notes that in the post-Civil War years, before these restrictions came into force, the American system was remarkably open -- as long as you were a man. "There wasn't a cumbersome registration system," said McGerr, a proponent of the theory that we're now going through another political revolution.

Often, you didn't have to register at all. You just showed up on Election Day. Some jurisdictions, McGerr notes, even allowed immigrants then coming to America in droves to vote, as long as they declared their intention to become citizens. "The system was willing to risk a certain amount of corruption in order to make sure that anyone who had the right to vote did vote," McGerr said. "We've made a different tradeoff in the last 100 years. In order to protect against potential corruption, we've made it too hard for the less educated and less well-off to vote."

That's the whole debate in a nutshell. You will hear variations on it this election night if the contest is close. In our time, Democrats are primarily concerned with expanding the vote -- particularly in the inner cities. Republicans worry more about voter fraud, particularly in those traditionally Democratic strongholds.

So we have the spectacle of a Republican secretary of state in Ohio telling local officials to enforce a state law requiring registration applications to be made on 80-pound paper stock (he later relented). We have had allegations and lawsuits over the validity of tens of thousands of new registrations in Florida, Michigan, Ohio and other battleground states. We have GOP challenges to the eligibility of students registered where they attend college, battles over the fate of provisional ballots, arguments over the purging of voter rolls.

And that's before Election Day.

Democrats see a specific strategy in the Republican focus on fraud in urban areas. Dan Trevas, the communications director for the Ohio Democratic Party, said the idea is "to slow up the system so people are back in line, looking at their watches and saying, 'Do I have time?' "

One would like to hope that a president whose central foreign policy claim is that he wants to spread democracy around the world would think twice before winning reelection through complicity with such tactics. Republicans insist that fraud suppression, not voter suppression, is their intention. Shrewd conservatives are already preparing the intellectual groundwork for such arguments. If the election's outcome is in doubt, count on seeing a lot of Republicans brandishing the book "Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy," by John Fund, the Wall Street Journal opinion writer.

With party feelings running so high, we just can't afford the sort of mistrust that's created when one party or another is seen as being in effective control of the electoral machinery in a given state or locality. It was a scandal in 2000 that Florida's top election official was a partisan Republican -- chosen by a GOP governor whose brother was one of the candidates -- and that she made all the critical decisions in her party's favor. This did nothing to inspire confidence among non-Republicans. The same critique would apply to a Democratic official in a comparable situation.

Running elections is not one of those sexy subjects in public management schools. I mean no disrespect to hard-working election officials around the country. On the contrary, I have strong affection for them -- my late uncle was a longtime city clerk who cared passionately about accurate results. A number of local election administrators have tried for years to improve the process. But let's face it: Except in places where local political machines wanted to be sure the vote got counted "right," election management has never been a high priority for city, county or state governments -- or their taxpayers.
....
Take the case of "provisional" ballots. The Help America Vote Act of 2002 created these ballots to prevent legitimate voters from being turned away because of an administrative glitch. If a voter proved later to be eligible, the provisional ballot would be counted. If not, it would be discarded. But eligible exactly where? Some states have said they would throw out all provisional ballots not cast in the proper precinct. Is that fair to a voter who was eligible, but whose specific polling place was a few blocks away, perhaps because it was moved between elections? Can you imagine the brawl we'd have if this election were decided by provisional ballots counted differently in different states?

And what if legitimate voters, because of partisan challenges, find themselves forced to cast provisional ballots that might be litigated after the election? Democrats especially are worried that Republicans will try to create huge piles of provisional ballots in inner-city precincts, taking them out of the broader count in order to fan doubts about their legitimacy.

Surely the rules on provisional ballots cry out for clear national standards. And surely the GOP should want to fight, not foster, the suspicion that it is unduly interested in challenging votes in African American districts.

It is for the reason of Dionne's last point that I'll be spending Tuesday night live-blogging the election from the first American branch of Hausbrandt in Philadelphia with Corrente blogger Lambert Strether. My colleague, Big Tino, is poll watching in Philly and will be phoning in reports. Additionally, this week I got the chance to meet Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum, Deputy Director of Just Democracy, which has mobilized an army of law students across the nation for election protection in the precincts deemed most sensitive to vote fraud and suppression. She will be in the national field center in Boston on Tuesday, emailing me reports from the field. You'll be able to get the first field reports from Lambert and I starting at around 7 PM Tuesday. This year blogs will be breaking news.

With My Morning Coffee

Here is what is on my World Wide Web this morning:

via American Street colleagues Chuck Currie and Barbara O'Brien, some interfaith observations.

Chuck brings word of the new blog of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism. I've bookmarked it.

Barbara has a Buddhist meditation on our election. She writes:

This New York Times article referencing the Daily Show "Moment of Zen" made me think of the ways elections are (and are not) like koans. This is not to say that the writer, A.O. Scott, knows what he's writing about --

Good words to meditate on today.

I read Barbara's The Mahablog daily for her thoughts on The Big Questions.

Pirate Nation

Here is the world in which we hold our presidential election: the war in Afghanistan has become invisible, but it is going the way of the British and Soviet wars there. We will lose to the opium growers and war lords. Bush and Rummy never treated this as a serious effort against "terrorism," which is an intel and political war. We are not much better in Iraq: without a massive infusion of troops--which we don't have--we are quagmired. I am at a loss to explain what "winning" would look like in this theater.

You don't defeat Fourth Generation Warfare using WWII tactics. Whoever wins, the road ahead in Iraq is rough. Both Bush and Kerry have plans that depend on newly trained Iraqis. But insurgents are killing recruits, and infiltrating the forces. A report from the front
By Rod Nordland, Babak Dehghanpisheh and Michael Hirsh
Newsweek International

Nov. 8 issue - Sgt. Jonathan Scarfe, a broad-shouldered U.S. Marine with a square jaw and a 5 o'clock shadow, is trudging through a small town near Fallujah. On the opposite side of the street, taking his cues from Scarfe's movements, is Hussein Ali Jassim, who commands a small unit of the new Iraqi Special Forces. Scarfe says he trusts Jassim implicitly—which is more than he can say for most Iraqi National Guardsmen, less-trained locals thought to be collaborating with the insurgents. "The ING guys usually slept outside during the summer," says Scarfe. "When they slept inside, you knew a mortar barrage was coming." At one intersection, children laugh and shout as Jassim, who sports a small, well-trimmed mustache, distributes candy.

Most overseas attention has focused on the 160 or so foreigners who have been kidnapped, many of them representatives of Coalition countries. But militants and criminal gangs have also kidnapped thousands of Iraqis, most of them held for ransom. As a result, Iraqi elites are fleeing by the thousands, many to neighboring Jordan. "Iraq is there for the bandits now. Anyone with the financial ability to do so has left," says Amer Farhan, who departed last summer with his father, Sadeq, a factory owner, and all of their family.

Iraq is there for the bandits now. Bush turned a secular, brutal dictatorship into the rule of bandits, that's his idea of peace and freedom. I am appalled and angry.

Tuesday

Bush is selling his version of '1984'

October 31, 2004

Will the Tuesday election duly mark the efficacy of the Big Lie? Has George Orwell missed his dooms-date for reality by these past 20 years? The voters will get the last word.

If George W. Bush is indeed elected for real this time around, it would signal the triumph of White House falsehoods continuously told. The prime lie, for those who yet believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, took a country to war under false pretenses that Saddam Hussein posed a nuclear threat to the continental U.S. A corollary, that 41 percent still believe, held that the Iraqi dictator supported the al-Qaida consortium that brought down the World Trade Center towers.

So weak was the evidence on the eve of the U.S. invasion that even this space doubted Bush would strike. "The war against Iraq cannot be," I wrote against the advice of our Washington bureau chief, who knew better. "Such criminal activity is ill-advised and should be illegal in a civilized world. Nor should America target for extermination those heads of state who displease the ruling circle of this republic . . . under the skeletal pretense spelled out so far, this war just cannot be." It was, of course, and still is..

I lost two nickels wagering that the astronomic costs and the waste of American lives would be prohibitive even to this swaggering, ice-blooded, Bible-thumping, cold-turkey drunk gone zealot in the White House. It has since been revealed that Bush's disdain for evidence, once he makes up his mind, is matched only by his disdain for syntax. Those evildoers who rely on facts and science for answers are dismissed at home and abroad as "reality-based" by this current commander-in- chief of the nuclear trigger.

Installed reportedly by a Higher Power, the president expects another four years.

Such a victory, according to pollsters and thus the media, is a lively possibility. I doubt this but that is getting ahead of the story.

A Bush victory left to the voters this time would be a national decision fraught with ominous, almost Orwellian overtones. In his satiric 1949 novel "1984," George Orwell warned against the massive intrusion into our lives represented by the bureaucratic rule of Big Brother. "On each landing, opposite the lift shaft," Orwell wrote, "the poster with the enormous face gazed from the wall. It was one of those pictures which are so contrived that the eyes follow you about when you move. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption beneath it ran."

In a case of life mimicking art, the U.S. Homeland Security Act is headed toward an Orwellian nightmare blanketing the nation around the clock with spying ears and eyes. Some lay blame to the terrorists of 9/11. But it is clear that, in wake of the Trade Center attack, the Bush administration had only to dust off the handy Patriot Act to sketch in the outlines of Orwell.

Still, the more unbelievable enactment of "1984" has evolved during the presidential campaign. Newspeak, the language Orwell created, is thrown around far too loosely to traffic in here. The gist of Newspeak, as described by a "1984" character, was "to narrow the range of thought." Herein lies the success of the administration's "Big Lie" as engineered by the president's chief manipulator, Karl Rove.

Rove's sweet-crude-oiled PR machine bears a potential resemblance to the depiction of Orwell's Big Lie to create its own reality. The buildup to the Iraq invasion and its aftermath in opinion polls appear to mark a success for White House agit-prop in the new millennium.

Some 38 percent of Americans, according to the latest Harris poll (Oct. 21), still believe the discredited Bush invasion rationale that Saddam Hussein had "weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded." So too, some 41 percent believe the disproved administration falsehood that there were direct terror links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. The foundation of this reality is grounded not on facts but on evidence hoped for but never realized, evidence proven to be unrealizable.

This IS the question. The rest of the world is watching to see if we capitulate to The People of the Lie, or if we stand up and act like grownups. I'm predicting the latter, but I don't pretend to be good at futurizing.

Democracy Now

Why 'This Is About Bush'

His narrowly focused 'hedgehog presidency' cements the allegiance of conservatives and galvanizes his foes. The result is bitter division.

By Ronald Brownstein, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — More Americans than ever may participate in Tuesday's presidential election — as volunteers and, on Tuesday, voters. But in its tone, its agenda and its fervor, the marathon race for the White House bears the unmistakable imprint of one man: President Bush.

As much through his unflinching style as his aggressive policies, Bush has powered a campaign that has engaged, motivated and divided Americans — and much of the world — like none in recent times.

The Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John F. Kerry, has his admirers and his critics. But the unprecedented sums of money raised by both parties, the long lines of early voters already crowding polling places in many states and the anticipation of a sharply higher turnout Tuesday are all primarily reflections of the passions Bush has stirred in four turbulent years, especially by invading Iraq, analysts agree.

"This is about Bush," said Andrew Kohut, executive director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

Half a century ago, the philosopher Isaiah Berlin famously separated intellectuals and artists into two categories: the fox, who is clever, creative, committed to many goals; and the hedgehog, a creature driven by a single unwavering conviction. By Berlin's standards, Bush has produced one of the purest examples of a hedgehog presidency.

With his repeated tax cuts, his support for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and the war in Iraq, Bush has consistently pursued goals that generate strong support among Republicans and conservatives, but at the price of provoking antipathy among Democrats and liberals.

In his policies, Bush has sought to advance his ideas mainly by holding to sharply defined positions — and attempting to shift the debate in his direction almost by magnetic force.

In his political strategy, he has sought more to deepen his support among groups that lean in his direction than to broaden his appeal among groups that have resisted him.

Bush and his brain trust "have decided that rather than trying to expand their coalition and possibly water down their agenda, they would rather push for their agenda, even if it meant having to govern in a very partisan way," said Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist at Atlanta's Emory University. "Bush's strategy has focused primarily on energizing the Republican base rather than reaching out to swing voters."

The culmination of this hedgehog presidency is a campaign that has become a crusade, both for Bush's supporters and his opponents.

Massive advertising, voter registration efforts and get-out-the-vote campaigns from the left and right are crunching against each other like armies from the age of the sword and ax. Bush, Kerry and their allies have spent at least $1.2 billion on the presidential race, the most ever, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

"This is the most hard-fought and well-funded race that we have seen in modern history," said Anthony Corrado, an expert on campaign finance at Colby College in Maine.

In the final 48 hours, a late surge might carry either Bush or Kerry to a relatively decisive victory. But most polls point toward a razor-thin race that threatens to leave America divided about as narrowly — and perhaps even more bitterly — than it was after Bush's disputed victory over Democrat Al Gore in 2000.

"If Bush wins, he is going to be reviled by the left for another four years, and if Kerry wins it is going to be the same thing on the right," said Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth, a conservative political action committee.

"It's not like this election is going to resolve anything, because whoever wins is going to win by a percentage point or two and whoever loses is going to spend four years trying to destroy the other side. Don't think this is over" Tuesday.

It won't be over on Tuesday, and that is the thing which worries me the most. I don't know that this country is a governable democracy anymore. When I watch Fox News Sunday this morning I'll be looking for clues that it is.

Democracy works when everyone respects the process. This year, with the process in question and a president who doesn't care about process presiding, I've got one more layer of worry on my face.

National Treasure-Book TV

I'm watching an amazing debate between Dr. Justin Franks (Bush on the Couch) and Dr.Stephen Renshon (In His Father's Shadow), the first a psychiatrist, the second a psychoanalyst, held at GWU earlier this week. I haven't read Franks' book yet and hadn't planned on it until I saw this: the idea of a psychiatrist diagnosing a public figure ala Charles Krauthammer is kind of creepy. That said, Franks observations track to similar to my own that I think I'll have to read it for his clinical judgement. I'm not a clinician, I'm a spiritual director, but Franks and I arrive at similar conclusions by different routes.

The program is being aired on BookTV-CSpan this weekend. Franks psychiatric analysis of Bush is devastating. Renshon is a Bush apologist. The program is fascinating. I checked the schedule and don't see it being repeated this weekend so go to BookTV and watch on-line or, if you've got a couple of books, order a tape. This is a fascinating piece of the political puzzle, and one that isn't much treated in the media.

Those Darned Internets

Voters Checking Out Other Sides' Sites
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: October 29, 2004

Filed at 12:17 a.m. ET

NEW YORK (AP) -- Are right-leaning voters spending all their online time on Rushlimbaugh.com? Are left-leaning voters locked into the like-minded Talkingpointsmemo.com?

Actually, no. They're checking out the other sides' sites, surprising researchers who expected to see ``selective exposure'' among Internet users.

Researchers from the Pew Internet and American Life Project and the University of Michigan's School of Information found Internet users were more knowledgeable than non-users about arguments that challenged their point of view.

``They were extremely aware of the arguments for their guys, but they are no less aware of arguments challenging their guys,'' said Lee Rainie, director of the Pew group. ``They are not building walls, not screening out the other stuff.''

Rainie said political activists may want to hear the other side so they can respond to political challenges at the watercooler or from friends.

Television remains the primary source of news information for all groups -- about 74 percent got news that way, according to the study. More than half of survey respondents say they use radio and a similar number read newspapers.

Thirty-four percent of all respondents got news via e-mail or the Web, but the figure increases to 43 percent for dial-up Internet users and 64 percent for those with high-speed connections at home.

The study was based on telephone interviews with 1,510 adults, including 1,036 Internet users, conducted June 14 to July 3. Its margin of error is 3 percentage points.

One of the stories of this election will be the rise of the Internet as political force. I hope Richard Ben Cramer writes the book on it (my favorite political journalist) but the early drafts of that work and many others will be written here in cyberspace. We are the first drafts of the first draft of history. The troops at The Blogging of the President will be picking apart the signals and I'm glad to see that Billmon appears to be back to add his reflections on this historical development. I'll be speculating, too, and listening to those voices I've learned to respect from a couple of years spent in the blogosphere. I know Josh Marshall will be thinking about this and doubtless writing about it, and I suspect Markos Moulitsos and Jerome Armstrong will be looking for new strategies to immediately put into place. I'm already looking at new Web based techniques I can use to improve knowledge sharing at work.

We are going to be learning a lot about the human/internet/human interface from this campaign. Your observations, as always, are not just welcomed but openly sought.

Impending Disaster

Big Arctic Perils Seen in Warming
By ANDREW C. REVKIN

Published: October 30, 2004

A comprehensive four-year study of warming in the Arctic shows that heat-trapping gases from tailpipes and smokestacks around the world are contributing to profound environmental changes, including sharp retreats of glaciers and sea ice, thawing of permafrost and shifts in the weather, the oceans and the atmosphere.

The study, commissioned by eight nations with Arctic territory, including the United States, says the changes are likely to harm native communities, wildlife and economic activity but also to offer some benefits, like longer growing seasons. The report is due to be released on Nov. 9, but portions were provided yesterday to The New York Times by European participants in the project.

While Arctic warming has been going on for decades and has been studied before, this is the first thorough assessment of the causes and consequences of the trend.

It was conducted by nearly 300 scientists, as well as elders from the native communities in the region, after representatives of the eight nations met in October 2000 in Barrow, Alaska, amid a growing sense of urgency about the effects of global warming on the Arctic.

The findings support the broad but politically controversial scientific consensus that global warming is caused mainly by rising atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, and that the Arctic is the first region to feel its effects. While the report is advisory and carries no legal weight, it is likely to increase pressure on the Bush administration, which has acknowledged a possible human role in global warming but says the science is still too murky to justify mandatory reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions.

The State Department, which has reviewed the report, declined to comment on it yesterday.

The report says that "while some historical changes in climate have resulted from natural causes and variations, the strength of the trends and the patterns of change that have emerged in recent decades indicate that human influences, resulting primarily from increased emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, have now become the dominant factor."

The Arctic "is now experiencing some of the most rapid and severe climate change on Earth," the report says, adding, "Over the next 100 years, climate change is expected to accelerate, contributing to major physical, ecological, social and economic changes, many of which have already begun."

Scientists have long expected the Arctic to warm more rapidly than other regions, partly because as snow and ice melt, the loss of bright reflective surfaces causes the exposed land and water to absorb more of the sun's energy. Also, warming tends to build more rapidly at the surface in the Arctic because colder air from the upper atmosphere does not mix with the surface air as readily as at lower latitudes, scientists say.

The report says the effects of warming may be heightened by other factors, including overfishing, rising populations, rising levels of ultraviolet radiation from the depleted ozone layer (a condition at both poles). "The sum of these factors threatens to overwhelm the adaptive capacity of some Arctic populations and ecosystems," it says.

Prompt efforts to curb greenhouse-gas emissions could slow the pace of change, allowing communities and wildlife to adapt, the report says. But it also stresses that further warming and melting are unavoidable, given the century-long buildup of the gases, mainly carbon dioxide.

Several of the Europeans who provided parts of the report said they had done so because the Bush administration had delayed publication until after the presidential election, partly because of the political contentiousness of global warming.
....
The retreat of sea ice, the report says, "is very likely to have devastating consequences for polar bears, ice-living seals and local people for whom these animals are a primary food source."

Oil and gas deposits on land are likely to be harder to extract as tundra thaws, limiting the frozen season when drilling convoys can traverse the otherwise spongy ground, the report says. Alaska has already seen the "tundra travel" season on the North Slope shrink to 100 days from about 200 days a year in 1970.

The report concludes that the consequences of the fast-paced Arctic warming will be global. In particular, the accelerated melting of Greenland's two-mile-high sheets of ice will cause sea levels to rise around the world.

I've been writing about this for years. We are seeing dramatic changes in cycles of drought and flooding rains, not just in North America but globally. Storms of all kinds are likely to become fiercer. Melting ice the size of Greenland's glaciers will change the salinity of the worlds oceans, in addition to causing them to rise. How quickly these changes will affect us is impossible to tell, but I do know that my part of the mid-Atlantic has more and more severe summer storms than we did when I moved here 20 years ago. The cycle of drought in the American west is going to precipitate (if you will) a water crisis, one which was inevitable as long as current population growth trends continue. The hurricanes and tropical storms that traversed the east coast this year broke the back of the multi-year drought here, but often with catastrophic results.

There are immediate economic risks in all of this, which is why I brought you the report on global climate change commissioned last winter by the giant re-insurer Swiss Re. It read, in part,

Geneva(Reuters) - The world's second-largest reinsurer, Swiss Re, warned on Wednesday that the costs of natural disasters, aggravated by global warming, threatened to spiral out of control, forcing the human race into a catastrophe of its own making.

"There is a danger that human intervention will accelerate and intensify natural climate changes to such a point that it will become impossible to adapt our socio-economic systems in time," Swiss Re said in the report.

Seen in that light, the Kyoto accords seem downright business friendly. Bushco and his corporate buddies seem to prefer short term profits to long term stability, however.

What Part of "Disaster" Does Bush Not Understand?

Along With Prayers, Families Send Armor
By NEELA BANERJEE and JOHN KIFNER

Published: October 30, 2004

When the 1544th Transportation Company of the Illinois National Guard was preparing to leave for Iraq in February, relatives of the soldiers offered to pay to weld steel plates on the unit's trucks to protect against roadside bombs. The Army told them not to, because it would provide better protection in Iraq, relatives said.

Seven months later, many of the company's trucks still have no armor, soldiers and relatives said, despite running some of the most dangerous missions in Iraq and incurring the highest rate of injuries and deaths among the Illinois units deployed there.

"This problem is very extensive," said Paul Rieckhoff, a former infantry platoon leader with the Florida National Guard in Iraq who now runs an organization called Operation Truth, an advocacy group for soldiers and veterans.

Though soldiers of all types have complained about equipment in Iraq, part-timers in the National Guard and Reserve say that they have a particular disadvantage because they start off with outdated or insufficient gear. They have been deployed with faulty radios, unreliable trucks and, most alarmingly for many, a shortage of soundly armored vehicles in a land regularly convulsed by roadside attacks, according to soldiers, relatives and outside military experts.

As Iraq Elections Near, Pentagon Extends Tours of Duty for About 6,500 U.S. Soldiers
By THOM SHANKER

Published: October 30, 2004

WASHINGTON, Oct. 29 - The Pentagon has ordered about 6,500 soldiers in Iraq to extend their tours, the first step the military has taken to increase its combat power there in preparation for the January elections, senior Defense Department officials said Friday.

About 3,500 members of the Second Brigade of the First Cavalry Division will stay in Iraq two months longer than initially ordered, and about 3,000 soldiers assigned to headquarters and support units of the First Infantry Division will have their tours extended by two and a half weeks.

While Pentagon officials and military officers previously had left open the possibility that additional troops would be required to battle a tenacious insurgency ahead of the elections, they had also expressed hopes that new Iraqi security forces or foreign units might fill the need. The decision to extend the stay of American forces in Iraq at a time when replacement troops also are arriving means a significant increase in the overall American combat presence for the first time since the summer.

No other extensions have been approved, and no units now preparing for Iraq duty have been ordered to speed up their departure, according to Pentagon and military officials.

But senior Defense Department officials said they had considered plans that would allow the American military in Iraq to quickly increase its forces by as many as three brigades - a total of as many as 15,000 troops, the combat power of a traditional Army division - but that no steps had been taken other than the extensions discussed Friday.

Army Guard to fall short of recruiting goal this year

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Army National Guard will fall short of its recruiting goal this year, in part because fewer active-duty soldiers are opting to switch to part-time service, the Guard's top general said Thursday.

It will be the first time since 1994 that the Guard has missed its sign-up goal.

Army Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, said in an interview at his Pentagon office that the shortfall for the budget year ending Sept. 30 is likely to be about 5,000 soldiers. That is a little more than 1% of the total Army Guard force of 350,000.

"This is something that can't be ignored. I've got to watch it every day," he said. "But it's not something that I would say indicates that we're breaking. I think it indicates that the recruiting climate has gotten tougher, and that means we need to adjust to a tougher market."

The Guard had set a goal of 56,000 recruits for the year but is likely to end up with about 51,000, he said.

As a result, Blum said he will increase the number of recruiters and put more effort into targeting young people in high school and college who have not previously served in the military.

Flaming incompetence, utter failure, however you name it, it is FUBAR. This new round of extended deployments is a direct result of the recruitment shortfall. The lack of adequate equipment over a year and a half into this war is criminal negligence.

UPDATE: This just in from Salon:

Letting down the Guard
With 200 dead in Iraq, morale in the tank and reenlistments threatened, the Army National Guard and Reserve are facing a crisis.

By Jeff Horwitz

Oct. 30, 2004 | Kenneth Woodring, a 15-year veteran of the military, dropped out of the North Carolina National Guard a few months after returning home from a year-long deployment to Baghdad's Green Zone. The deployment wasn't what he and his fellow soldiers had been expecting. "It wasn't supposed to last very long and we were told it was a peacekeeping mission," Woodring says. "It turned into more than that."

To forestall a drop in retention, the Army now entices soldiers with increased pay, bonuses and benefits -- and resorts to more forceful tactics when necessary. After more than a third of the former soldiers called up from the Individual Ready Reserve failed to report, the Army went so far as to classify some as deserters. In September, the soldiers of a Fort Carson, Colo., combat unit claimed the Army had given them the choice to reenlist or be transferred to another unit, which, they were told, would be headed to Iraq. Thousands of other soldiers never have such a choice because the military places their units under "stop-loss," preventing soldiers who had fulfilled their military contract from receiving a discharge.

Reality Based Mind Set

A Post-Bush Mind-Set

By Ellen Goodman
Saturday, October 30, 2004; Page A19

But three years and one Iraq war later, what exactly does the president mean when he talks about the lessons of Sept. 11 and how his opponent didn't learn them?

"First of all," he says, "we face an enemy which has no conscience. They are cold-blooded. Therefore, you can never hope for the best with them. You cannot negotiate with them. . . . The only way to secure America, to keep us safe, is to find them and bring them to justice before they hurt us again."

Of course you cannot negotiate with zealots who fly planes into buildings. You cannot reason with people who kill and die in the name of heaven and the hope of 72 virgins. You can only stop them.

But the central lie of this campaign is in the way the administration has conflated the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq. It's the way Bush morphed Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, the religious fanatic and the secular dictator, Sept. 11, 2001, and March 19, 2003. It's the way he has drawn a composite of one intractable "enemy": the jihadist in the cockpit.

The lesson of Sept. 11, says Bush repeatedly, is that "we must take threats seriously before they come to hurt us." His punch line is: "And I saw a threat in Saddam Hussein."

Bush no longer claims directly that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He tells us rather that he "saw" a threat. This is the Bush doctrine. And anyone who doesn't accept his vision -- even when it clashes with reality -- is dismissed as "soooo September 10th."

All year, I have been ranting over one piece of polling data. As recently as two weeks ago, the Harris Poll showed that 41 percent of Americans still link Saddam Hussein with the hijackers. What's more disheartening is the gender gap of misinformation: 51 percent of women compared with 29 percent of men connect Iraq and al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda was a uniter, not a divider, of Americans. We took the war to the Afghan rulers who hosted al Qaeda. But Iraq?

Now, using his Sept. 11 lens, the president says, "we are fighting terrorists there so we do not have to fight them here." But Iraq became a magnet after March 19, 2003. If Baghdad is now purposeful bait to lure terrorists, have we told that to American soldiers or Iraqis? For that matter has this hapless war just attracted terrorists or recruited them?

There is no item in the dictionary for "September 12th," but I remember the day. In one voice and many languages, the world said, "Today we are all Americans." What happened to the Sept. 12 mind-set?

On Sept. 12 the world was divided into us and them, the community of nations against the terrorists. Today, the world is divided into the United States and them. After all the bungling and arrogance, we are nearly isolated.

I have an entire Rolodex of reasons why I would not vote to keep this president in office. But none of them trumps my sense of danger at being led by a man who tailors the facts to fit the mind that is indeed set.

My pre-Sept. 11 mind-set was never that sunny. I grew up under the threat of a mushroom cloud and remember the Cuban missile crisis. Now we are led in a dangerous time by a man who calls chaos "freedom on the march," a president who uses Sept. 11 as his cover story.

And that is my November 2nd mind-set.

Exclusive: Bush Wanted To Invade Iraq If Elected in 2000
Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:59:47 -0700

By Russ Baker

Two years before 9/11, candidate Bush was already talking privately about attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer

“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”

1,100 American dead, 100,000 Iraqi, all for "political capital."

Kulturkampf

In Pakistan, U.S. Policies Foster Suspicion and Hatred

By Evelyn Iritani, Times Staff Writer

"We have failed to listen and we have failed to persuade. We have not taken the time to understand our audience and we have not bothered to help them understand us. We cannot afford such shortcomings."

— White House Advisory Group

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — As he watched the collapse of the World Trade Center on his television screen, Imran Hamid's mind raced. What was happening to the Indian friend who had lent him a New York apartment a few months earlier? Classmates from the United Nations high school he attended in the 1960s? The Jewish butcher he befriended while studying at Columbia University?

In the weeks that followed, Hamid traded e-mails and phone calls with friends in America, confirming their safety and sharing their anguish.

"I'm as much a New Yorker as anything else," said the 53-year-old development consultant, sipping a cappuccino in his Islamabad living room, where he surrounds himself with American jazz and classical records and English-language books.

But with each passing day, Hamid's empathy is eroding. He believes that the Bush administration, by pursuing a foreign policy fixated on security, is turning a legitimate battle against terrorism into a campaign of hatred against Muslims.

Take a look around, he says, and you will see the evidence: In the mountains of Afghanistan, where U.S. troops pursue the remnants of the Taliban; the limestone hills of the West Bank, where Palestinians battle America's ally, Israel; at U.S. consular offices and airports where Muslims are subject to extra scrutiny before being allowed into the country. And at prisons in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and Abu Ghraib, Iraq.

Many Americans might find it hard to recognize their country in the portrait that emerges across the Muslim world. Bush administration officials argue that their military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and the security crackdown at home — though certain to anger many Muslims — are a necessary part of fighting terrorism and protecting the United States. In an effort to improve its image among Islamic nations, the U.S. government has offered increased aid and trade privileges. Officials say that they are working out kinks in the visa-processing system and that they have launched new broadcast services to reach out to the Muslim world.

But even U.S. officials acknowledge that Washington has done a poor job explaining its policies, particularly to Muslims. The struggle for hearts and minds is more than a public relations war, and the stakes in Pakistan are among the highest.

Pakistani politicians and business leaders who once looked to America for ideas and support are strengthening ties with the Muslim world and China. Anti-Americanism has become a powerful tool for religious militants. Even well-meaning U.S. efforts, such as aiding schools, are viewed with suspicion.

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, one of the Bush administration's strongest allies in its war on terrorism, has been rewarded with a $3-billion aid package. Though deeply divided by religion and ethnicity, Pakistan — one of the world's most populous Islamic countries — has maintained democratic aspirations that set it apart from many other parts of the Muslim world.

But Pakistan also is home to a strong, militant Islamic movement that has tried to assassinate Musharraf and other high-ranking officials. Osama bin Laden is thought to be hiding along its border with Afghanistan, and several leading Al Qaeda figures have been captured here.

The South Asian nation, which has engaged in three wars with neighboring India since 1947, also possesses nuclear weapons. A leading scientist has acknowledged selling nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.

Hamid said that in a country squeezed between Musharraf, a general who seized power in 1999, and Islamic extremists, there is little room for Western-educated moderates. He acknowledged with colorful hyperbole that his attitude toward the bearded militants had changed.

"A few years ago, if I answered the door and saw a man with a beard, I would have grabbed a shotgun and chased him away," he said. "Now I would have to hide him under my bed so he wouldn't be dragged away to Guantanamo Bay and be tortured."

In this environment, building bridges to the United States is unpopular and politically risky.

"I personally feel Americans are losing friends in Pakistan very, very rapidly," said Shah Mahmood Qureshi, deputy parliamentary leader of the Pakistan People's Party, whose exiled leader, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, was a close U.S. ally. "When the realization finally comes, it'll be too late."

It is already far too late when stories like this make it into the paper. When we have alienated the moderate, affluent Pakistanis, natural US friends, the culture war is lost.

The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations

I think I've fallen in love with the economists. This is via the ever valuable John Irons at Argmax who is newly in my metro area. Welcome to Washington, John. Don't forget to join DC Bloggersafter you get settled at The Center for American Progress.

John says:

Uh, OK. So starbucks is now 'manufacturing'
Posted by John Irons at 06:52 PM

No, I'm not making this up. Apparently, coffee roasting is now "manufacturing."

Correcting the Record on Starbucks
By Matthew Mors
Oct 25, 2004, 12:25

I wish to draw your attention to an error in a column written by the Honorable Senator Susan M. Collins that you published Friday (“Taking a Stand Against Tobacco and Special Interests”). In her column about the Congressional manufacturing-related tax legislation (FSC/ETI), the senator writes, “... the bill includes a generous tax break for coffee brewers, allowing corporations like Starbucks to define themselves as ‘manufacturers.’”

Taxation on brewing coffee is not affected by this bill. The activity defined within the context of the legislation is coffee roasting; precisely the kind of activity that Congress intends to encourage in the bill: manufacturing that generates hundreds of U.S. jobs in the production of products for sale domestically and overseas.

Starbucks Coffee Company searches for the highest-quality coffee beans in the world, which are shipped to one of our four roasting plants. Three of these plants are in the U.S: Kent, Washington; Carson City, Nevada; and York, Pennsylvania. These U.S. plants employ hundreds of workers, who transform the raw material—green coffee—into roasted coffee that is then sold at Starbucks stores and other outlets around the world.

The members of Congress recognized that coffee roasting is true manufacturing in the value it adds to coffee beans, unlike restaurant food processing or brewing, provisions excluded in this bill.

Thank you for the opportunity to present these facts.

Regards,

Matthew Mors
Media Relations
Starbucks Coffee Company

My brother repairs furniture. I guess that makes him a manufacturer, too. I create computer code, so I guess I am one, too. I had no idea. What tax breaks are there for manufacturers such as we?

Sun up

Our world this morning:

Thanks to Paul Woodward:

Civilian death toll in Iraq exceeds 100,000

18:44 28 October 04
NewScientist.com news service

The invasion of Iraq in March 2003 by coalition forces has lead to the death of at least 100,000 civilians, reveals the first scientific study to examine the issue.

The majority of these deaths, which are in addition those normally expected from natural causes, illness and accidents, have been among women and children, finds the study, released early by The Lancet on Thursday.

The most common cause of death is as a direct result of violence, mostly caused by coalition air strikes, reveals the study of almost 1000 households scattered across Iraq. And the risk of violent death just after the invasion was 58 times greater than before the war. The overall risk of death was 1.5 times more after the invasion than before.

The figure of 100,000 is based on "conservative assumptions", notes Les Roberts at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, US, who led the study.

That estimate excludes Falluja, a hotspot for violence. If the data from this town is included, the study points to about 200,000 excess deaths since the outbreak of war.

Public health

“These findings raise questions for those far removed from Iraq - in the governments of the countries responsible for launching a pre-emptive war,” writes Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet in a commentary accompanying the paper.

“In planning this war, the coalition forces - especially those of the US and UK - must have considered the likely effects of their actions for civilians,” he writes.

He argues that, from a public health perspective, whatever “planning did take place was grievously in error”.

“The invasion of Iraq, the displacement of a cruel dictator, and the attempt to impose a liberal democracy by force have, by themselves, been insufficient to bring peace and security to the civilian population. Democratic imperialism has led to more deaths, not fewer,” he asserts.

He also praises the “courageous team of scientists” for their efforts, and notes the study’s limitations.

The Road to Abu Ghraib
The biggest scandal of the Bush administration began at the top.

By Phillip Carter

A generation from now, historians may look back to April 28, 2004, as the day the United States lost the war in Iraq. On that date, “CBS News” broadcast the first ugly photographs of abuses by American soldiers at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison. There were images of a man standing hooded on a box with wires attached to his hands; of guards leering as they forced naked men to simulate sexual acts; of a man led around on a leash by a female soldier; of a dead Iraqi detainee, packed in ice; and more. The pictures had been taken the previous fall by U.S. Army military police soldiers assigned to the prison, but had made it into the hands of Army criminal investigators only months later, when a soldier named Joseph Darby anonymously passed them a CD-ROM full of prison photos. The images aroused worldwide indignation, and illustrated in graphic detail both the lengths to which the United States would go to get intelligence, and the extent to which those efforts had been corrupted by the exigencies of the difficult war in Iraq.

Two days later, The New Yorker published a report on Abu Ghraib by Seymour Hersh. Hersh won a Pulitzer Prize in 1970 for his reporting on the U.S. Army's atrocities in Vietnam; now he had come full circle, documenting the full extent of the abuses at Abu Ghraib and the Army's initial efforts to investigate them. Hersh's reporting—which forms the nucleus of his new book, Chain of Command—helped launch nearly a dozen different criminal investigations into what former vice president Al Gore dubbed “the American Gulag,” the extraterritorial chain of prisons and detainment centers, stretching from Guantanamo Bay to Afghanistan, set up by the Bush administration to hold suspected terrorists. More than 300 instances of abuse in those facilities, from November 2001 to as recently as March 2004, have been alleged since then. To date, eight out of 11 investigations have been completed. They have produced thousands of documents, witness interviews, military orders, emails, and PowerPoint briefings, with each one telling a small piece of the story of how America's vaunted all-volunteer professional military lapsed into some of the most unprofessional and despicable conduct of its history. Forty-five soldiers have been recommended for courts-martial, and 23 others for summary discharge. Nearly one year after the first sadistic acts took place, the extent of the abuses remains unknown. But by all indications, the worst revelations are yet to come. In closed-door presentations before Congress, Pentagon officials revealed evidence of crimes ranging from the rape of female detainees to the sexual abuse of minors held at Abu Ghraib.

Black Watch senior officers question No 10 Iraq strategy
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 29/10/2004)

Senior officers with the Black Watch battle group sent north to replace American soldiers believe that the Government agreed to send them there without properly understanding the risks the troops face.

They said the United States marines they were replacing had suffered more than 200 casualties, including nine dead, since July.
Black Watch soldiers and medics at Basra airport

"We expect every lunatic terrorist from miles around to descend on us like bees to honey," a high-ranking officer said in an e-mail home this week.

"I hope the Government knows what it has got itself into. I am not sure it fully understands the risks."

Sources close to the Black Watch said that that view was representative of most of the regiment's senior officers.

"The troops are well and coming at it with their usual humour," the e-mail said.

But while the officers retain undiminished faith in their men's ability, they are worried that the atmosphere created by the more aggressive tactics of the American troops will leave the British soldiers with a difficult task in picking up the pieces.

An e-mail seen by The Daily Telegraph said: "The marines we have taken over from have taken nine dead and 197 wounded since July. Hope we do better."

The officer also expressed concern over the way in which the troops were being sent hundreds of miles north of their commanders back in Basra, effectively leaving them isolated with supplies and rapid reinforcements possible only by aircraft.

Another e-mail said: "The task looks quite challenging - a 500-mile line of communication to sustain 800 men and over 100 armoured vehicles largely from the air."

A former Black Watch officer said there was an acceptance that the troops might suffer up to 20 per cent casualties.

He added: "They are very happy to do what they are paid to do."

The concerns of the senior officers were reflected in comments yesterday from ordinary soldiers who were flown north while the first convoy of armoured vehicles travelled by road.

Speaking at Basra before boarding an aircraft, 19-year-old Pte Manny Lynch, from Fife, admitted that he was nervous.

He said: "We have heard a lot about the triangle of death, which makes everyone nervous because it seems much worse up there than it has been down here.

"We have controlled the situation down here while the Americans seem to have ruined it up there."

Read Juan Cole's overview.

Friends

Friday catblogging.

I now have access to a digital camera. We'll see what happens.

The Future--Open Thread

I'll be Internetless for another day tomorrow: the new office laptop hasn't arrived yet and the boss's wi-fi connection doesn't work. Believe me, I've been in withdrawal all day. I'm also feeling starved for information: if you've seen stories today that deserve some exposure (and haven't already been beaten to death by the left wing echo chamber--we have one, too,) post the links in comments.

This is a think piece that's been welling up in me since yesterday and just wasn't ready to be written last night. You'll probably get another one tomorrow night, my responsibilities at our annual conference are registration and problem solving which doesn't take a lot of work in my frontal lobes, so I'm thinking about other things.

I'm a pretty lousy predictor of the future and don't do it much, but I seem some trends right now that I think are worth a post and some follow up. I've been musing for a couple of days on "what's next?" after we get past Nov. 2 and the resulting litigation/House fight/Supreme Court fight. As of tonight, I think there is a very good chance that Kerry's margin of victory Tuesday night will be so unquestionable that lengthy litigation by BC04 will be pointless (which isn't to say they won't do it.) I believe Kerry will come into office in January with a clear mandate, the Republicans in Congress unrepentent and obstructive and a Dem majority, a slim one, in the Senate.

I'm really, really glad that Kerry is a smart guy who agonizes over important decisions, because what's going to be on his plate isn't something I'd willing eat. The Repubs in Congress are going to work to try to preserve the glorious W legacy in the War on Evil in Iraq and fight over everything Kerry will try to do to reform the highly politicized intel establishment, try to sort out the military without re-instituting the draft as Senate Dems start investigations of everything and everyone that W didn't pardon on his way out the door (these guys are still incompetent, they'll forget someone since I don't think they are any better at keeping track of their scandals than they are at keeping track of billions of dollars, body armor or "transfer tubes.") If the election is close, the rest of the world is going to lost its collective mind: Europe and the far East will continue to pursue their own paths to economic hegemony, France will court China, the rest of the English language press will worry over everything. And Americans abroad will continue to get searching looks from the natives of the countries they visit or live in. I'm going to have more on this in a moment, along with some breaking news: yes, blogs can break news.

We need to understand this: in the eyes of world opinion, failure to turn Bush out, and by a healthy margin, makes this a referendum on us. They are already appalled by our low voting rate, and wonder if our population is so credulous and uncurious that we can be swayed by a candidate of such obvious mendacity as George W. Bush. Right now, they hate Bush. According to the report I heard on NPR's "Marketplace" this evening that a more generalized American hatred is hurting US businesses and brands abroad (this may be an echo that shocks the Bush campaign) but for the most part, the rest of the world sees the problem as Bush. If he wins, or the next election is seen as illegitimate, the US will be seen as a bully completely out of control.

If you've been reading this site regularly, you know that we are outsourcing the budget deficit to the bond market for foreign investors to finance, and you and I pay that interest. What you may not know is that the September bond auction was a complete bust: the Chinese and Japanese have been willing to pick up our debt for quite a while. No longer. The market itself no longer considers us a good risk, something that Paul Krugman warned about months ago. When our Argentine budgeting and debt becomes exposed to world investors and they grade it down, we are in real trouble.

Consider: our domestic economy is not in good shape as consumers have graded it down in the consumer confidence index for seven straight months. Oil is up as we go into the heating season, far too many Americans have been out of work for more than six months or have had to take jobs that paid less than their previous positions or lost their benefits. Health insurance is 'way up again. Personal debt and foreclosures are at modern highs. The economy is robust only for those who get paid bonuses for corporate returns. The rest of us are struggling. My salary is flat since 1999 in real dollars and the problem isn't education: I have two master's degrees and I'm hardly the only professional in the same boat.

A number of economists I study are issuing opinions which are flashing red: the odds of a global recession or even depression are higher than they have been in a long time. What can a president do about that, given that a president's effect on the economy is limited? Take a look at FDR: massive debt and unemployment are going to make legislators responsive to their districts rather than their ideology. If we need to bring back the CCC to break the back of a drop in consumer spending, corporate support will be there. It will take a massive political campaign to put this into place, unless the real pain in the economy is really deep. If it is more like the flu than pneumonia, it will be another political football.

Kerry will inherit a failing war on terror and War on Evil in Iraq, an economy which is in more than poor shape, one that is in the middle of structural change and quite ill, and a Congress which is contentious, at best. If a Dem majority takes the Senate, it will help with judicial appointments, but the power of the purse is in the House, and I don't see the Repub majority being replaced this cycle. Kerry can veto, but that negative capability doesn't create a positive agenda.

In other words, if Kerry can pull off positive social change in this climate, he's even smarter and savvier than even I think he is, and I think he's really smart. He's being handed the Jimmy Carter scenario: energy emergency, sick economy, beheadings overseas. Why would anybody take this on?

I'll let John Kerry's motives remain out of play. His history suggests that he is an altruist with the mind of a prosecutor. Given the criminals in high office right now, that might make him exactly the right man for the job. He's an internationalist who speaks foreign languages (imagine that! I spent part of one cigarette breaking talking with the Lufthanse crew waiting for pickup outside of the hotel where my conference was today. In the rest of the first world, speaking another language or three isn't that big a deal, only Americans think the rest of the world should be American.) and consults widely. Bush talks to God, Rove and the people who tell him what he wants to hear. In every empire where the emperor was that isolated, the empire ended.

I think that Kevin Drum is right, and that a Bush win with a Dem senate will be endless investigations, but I don't know where that will go: after Clinton, the American people are so burned out on investigations that I wonder if even the deepest sins, and there are so many, of this administration would elicit anything other than a sigh. The impeachable offenses have been going on since day one. The day that Richard Clarke got demoted, the day that the PBD of August 6 was dismissed, the president violated his oath. In the corruption department, W makes Ulysses Grant look like an amateur, and that's saying something.

It is in the area of the legitimacy in the eyes of the world community that I have the greatest concerns: the world is small and getting smaller. We can hardly afford to be seen as an out of control idiot, the costs are too high. I'm certain that a President Kerry will consult widely, but if the election is close, his legitimacy will be questioned.

Domestically, whoever wins, we run the risk of a civil war carried out by other means: the 527s of either side aren't going away. Whoever wins, the politicization of the general culture and the media aren't going away and I think that this campaign isn't the end of it, but the beginning of the media wars. Consensus is in the interest of a governing Democratic party, but not of the neocons, who are best served by ever-deepening divisions. Whatever happens, the next four years are going to be exceedingly ugly and show the shadow side of America. If Kerry can negotiate that, he will be the finest politician in American history. And I pray for him.

Here is the news I promised earlier: I'll be blogging election night from the Haustadt in Philly with a bunch of the Philly bloggers, so we can divide up the tasks and cross link, a smart way to blog breaking news. In addition, today I met the deputy director of an organization, a big one, which will be providing "election protection"--lawyers at the polls--and poll monitoring by law students all over the country. They have enlisted thousands for this effort, are non-partisan and are experts in the field. The contact I met today will be in their national field center, collecting the reports on voter suppression from around the country and emailing them to me. A colleague in my office will be in Philly to bring direct reports from the field in a city targeted for voter suppression by the Republicans. He promises his journal from the day after the polls close, and I'll link to his blog when the reports come in. Those of us blogging in Philly will have reports for you that aren't like to make it into whatever idiocy Judy Woodrug is spewing on CNN that night.

I'm excited about this, and about having the opportunity to meet some esteemed colleagues in Philly. This will be an epic election struggle. I look forward to being with the colleagues to bring it to you.

This is an open thread.

Download Leonard Cohen's "The Future"

Bumpers, I've not been around much for the last few days. I can't help that. My organization is preparing for its annual conference and the work has been utterly nuts and it is going to stay like that until the weekend. Posts will be infrequent until Saturday. I hope you will investigate my blogroll, these are the writers and researchers that I consider indispensible for internet journalism in this day and age, my daily stops. The list will grow.

Here is what is going on: I'm borrowing a laptop, my boss's personal machine, for the conference day tomorrow. I'll have limited Web access when I can get to the free web-access at the hotel's wi-fi in the lobby (our event takes place two floors down and I doubt that my cell will work there.) I have to be outa here at about 5:30 in the morning for the next two days, but I won't be working nights and hope I can post something then, I have a batch of essays, original content, waiting to be written.

I've got to spend the weekend working on taxes and home repair, the deferred maintenance is starting to eat me. I can blog around the edges, but when some guy has got his nose in your disposer, you pay attention to that (he's going to be fishing out my grandmother's diamond ring.)

In short, it is going to be slim pickings around here until Monday. I have the day off, but a lot to do if I'm going to head to Philly.

But on Tuesday: I'll be in Philly, collective blogging with those wild Philly Liberals (say it loud, I'm proud) and this will be so cool that I hardly know how to think about it. I'm working on blogging from the poll watchers, our guys, and I'll let you know what I find.

Coup D'Etat

The GOP's Shameful Vote Strategy

By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, October 27, 2004; Page A25

With Election Day almost upon us, it's not clear whether President Bush is running a campaign or plotting a coup d'etat. By all accounts, Republicans are spending these last precious days devoting nearly as much energy to suppressing the Democratic vote as they are to mobilizing their own.

Time was when Republicans were at least embarrassed by their efforts to keep African Americans from the polls. Republican consultant Ed Rollins was all but drummed out of the profession after his efforts to pay black ministers to keep their congregants from voting in a 1993 New Jersey election came to light.

For George W. Bush, Karl Rove and their legion of genteel thugs, however, universal suffrage is just one more musty liberal ideal that threatens conservative rule. Today's Republicans have elevated vote suppression from a dirty secret to a public norm.

In Ohio, Republicans have recruited 3,600 poll monitors and assigned them disproportionately to such heavily black areas as inner-city Cleveland, where Democratic "527" groups have registered many tens of thousands of new voters. "The organized left's efforts to, quote unquote, register voters -- I call them ringers -- have created these problems" of potential massive vote fraud, Cuyahoga County Republican Chairman James P. Trakas recently told the New York Times.

Let's pass over the implication that a registration drive waged by a liberal group is inherently fraud-ridden, and look instead at that word "ringers."

Registration in Ohio is nonpartisan, but independent analysts estimate that roughly 400,000 new Democrats have been added to the rolls this year. Who does Trakas think they are? Have tens of thousands of African Americans been sneaking over the state lines from Pittsburgh and Detroit to vote in Cleveland -- thus putting their own battleground states more at risk of a Republican victory? Is Shaker Heights suddenly filled with Parisians affecting American argot? Or are the Republicans simply terrified that a record number of minority voters will go to the polls next Tuesday? Have they decided to do anything to stop them -- up to and including threatening to criminalize Voting While Black in a Battleground State?

This is civic life in the age of George W. Bush, in which politics has become a continuation of civil war by other means. In Bush's America, there's a war on -- against a foreign enemy so evil that we can ignore the Geneva Conventions, against domestic liberals so insidious that we can ignore democratic norms. Only bleeding hearts with a pre-Sept. 11 mind-set still believe in voting rights.

Signs of Voter Fraud Appear
* Registrations that are faked or tossed out have emerged in key states struggling to comply with ballot reform and a flood of new signups.

By Richard Serrano and Ralph Vartabedian, Times Staff Writers

LAS VEGAS — Broke, disabled and living at the Daisy Motel in downtown Las Vegas, Tyrone Mrasek Sr. took a temporary job late this summer registering voters here.

The employer primarily wanted President Bush supporters, but they were not easy to find. So Mrasek handed out cigarettes to drunks and ex-felons at a homeless shelter in exchange for signatures. Later he found a stack of signed registrations for Democratic voters in a trash can outside the company's office, he recalled.
....
Liberal groups such as America Coming Together, formed in 2003 with 300,000 donors, amassed a $125-million budget for registering voters, spokeswoman Sara Leonard said. Much of the money flowed down to local organizations that hired temporary workers. Another liberal group, America Votes, a coalition of 33 organizations led by powerful unions and environmental groups, built up a $400-million budget, part of which went to registrations.

Meanwhile, the Republican National Committee has funded one company at the center of allegations, Voter Outreach of America Inc., which is active in Las Vegas and across the nation. It was set up by Nathan Sproul, former chairman of the Arizona Republican Party.

Mrasek, who is disabled with emphysema, said he and his son spotted a newspaper ad for the Sproul group. The younger Mrasek, who also is disabled and lives with his father at the Daisy Motel, bowed out when he learned the emphasis was to register GOP voters.

His father took the Sproul job, which paid about $8 an hour and allowed workers to go home early with full pay on days they managed to register 18 Republicans.

Mrasek said he was given a written script to ask people whether they favored Bush or Sen. John F. Kerry. To those favoring the Massachusetts senator, Mrasek replied that he was just taking a poll and thanked them for stopping.

But for those who liked Bush, Mrasek offered to register them. "George Bush really needs your help this election," he said he was told to say.

In predominantly Democratic Las Vegas, however, Mrasek had a hard time finding unregistered Republicans, he said. One day, he registered himself and his son as Republicans to meet his quota, though he opposes Bush's Iraq policies and plans to vote for Kerry.

Eric Russell, another temporary employee for the project, also alleged that he saw Democratic Party registrations thrown in the trash. With legal assistance from the Democratic Party, he went to court and tried, unsuccessfully, to reopen registration.

Russell, a Republican who now plans to vote for Kerry, also gave authorities a copy of the written sales pitch, which said, in part, "Use your training to find likely Republicans."

Sproul denied the allegations. He said he fired Russell and then sued him, alleging he and the company had been slandered.

"Our goal was to register as many supporters of President Bush as we could. However, we gave very strict instructions to everybody associated with us that we had a zero tolerance policy if anybody was destroying, tampering or altering registration forms," he said, adding that his project turned in more than 500 Democratic registrations in Nevada.

Meanwhile, Republicans say the Democratic registrations submitted by liberal groups are tainted.

Brian Scroggins, chairman of the Clark County Republican Party, said his organization spot-checked some of the new Democratic registration forms and found that "the first three we looked at" carried home addresses that actually were vacant lots.

"Sure we're upset," Scroggins said.

But Sproul also has run into trouble in Oregon, where Secretary of State Bradbury opened an investigation this month into allegations from three Sproul employees that the organization had destroyed Democratic registrations, a felony.

And in West Virginia, Lisa Bragg, the mother of two teenagers desperate for a job, decided against working for Sproul after seeing a written sales script that flatly declared, "The goal is to register Republicans."

"It was dishonest," said Bragg. "I didn't want to hide in the bushes and not sign up Democrats."

An admitted Democrat, she called the pay "dirty money."

With so much acrimony among party officials across the country, local elections officials feel the heat.

"Government officials are certainly under the gun," said Lomax, the Clark County registrar. "Nobody wants to be the next Florida. If you are in a swing state like we are and there is a close vote, there will be litigation."

Come Tuesday, I may be in Philly to poll watch in heavily black precincts. There's word that the Republicans have a voter suppression effort out for the city. If I'm there, I'll be live blogging with a bunch of Philly bloggers assembled by the irrespressible Lambert Strother of Corrente. (Looks like Blogger is down this morning.) (Hey, Bump just hit 7,000 comments!)

Chill Wind

Small Minority Says Draft Could Happen
New Conflict Would Further Strain Troop Levels

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 27, 2004; Page A03

Many military experts believe that reviving some sort of military draft is extremely unlikely, even impossible -- but not all of them.

The issue has taken on urgency because of the dynamics of the presidential campaign, with Democratic operatives using the prospect of a draft to drive the youth vote, and the Democratic nominee himself raising the possibility on the campaign trail.

Neither presidential candidate supports resuming conscription. President Bush, responding to John F. Kerry's assertion that there is a "great potential" that a reelected Bush could restart a draft, insists that it will not happen. And Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said last week: "The truth is, we do not need a draft. We're not going to have a draft."

Overwhelmingly, military insiders agree with both of Rumsfeld's points. "Very simply and strongly, I do not foresee a need nor a desire for a draft," retired Army Lt. Gen. Joseph K. Kellogg Jr. said in a comment typical of those heard across the armed forces. "The all-volunteer military is a thing of true magnificence and should not, and need not, be changed." Resuming conscription, he added, has become one of the lethal "third rails" in American politics, akin to fiddling with Social Security.

But a small minority of defense specialists say that, given the strains placed on the U.S. military over the past three years, they can imagine scenarios in which a new conflict would require significant numbers of new troops -- and in which the draft would be reinstituted.
....
Army Maj. Donald Vandergriff, author of two influential books on military personnel policy, said that if current strains on the armed forces continue, especially the need to keep 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, he could see the need for a draft.

"If the force is stretched and the same people are always rotating with little breaks in between, they become worn out, tired, start becoming bitter, start making mistakes," he said in an e-mail interview. The Army's recent moves to restructure itself to have more deployable brigades, and to keep soldiers in one unit longer, are steps that promise to lessen that strain, he said.

Even so, Vandergriff said: "We either have to come up with a plan that details how we are going to sustain the long-term effectiveness of our force for a decades-long war that says we can continue to do it with the volunteer force, or have to look at other alternatives like the draft."

This is old news in the blogosphere but it is refreshing to see it hit the secular press before the election.

The reality is that if a real threat emerges in the coming months, we're screwed. The Army and Marines are in deep trouble for the next 5-7 years. A draft would be only marginally helpful in the short term.

Real reform of the volunteer armed forces need to include an increase in base pay for enlistees. We pay our grunts about half of what the Brits do, for example. With a better pay scale and better benefits, we could keep the all volunteer army and increase the Army a couple of divisions, as Kerry wants to do, without having recruiters lie through their teeth to get sign-ups.

Ex-Pat Watch

A friend forwards this:

Here in Paris, I am bombarded with emails from Democrats Abroad, but haven't heard a peep from Republicans Abroad. In fact, finding any representation of them is difficult. In an article by Elisabeth Eaves on the Web site Slate from October 5th titled "Hunting for Republicans in Paris" (http://slate.msn.com/id/2107793), Eaves writes, "While Americans who go abroad to kill people vote Republican, Americans who go abroad to do just about anything else vote Democratic."

I'm not so sure I'll be able to make it through the night, but it is sure to be an election we will never forget and the reverberations will be felt world wide.

My mail from abroad is off the charts. The rest of the English-speaking world wonders what is wrong with Americans that more than 45% of the public are probably going to vote for Bush. I have no answers.

From the International Herald Tribune this morning:

One would think it was their leader being elected - and many Europeans believe it is, in a way. In a tremendous show of interest unseen in previous U.S. presidential campaigns, Europeans on both sides of the Channel have been riveted by the coming American vote, obsessing about the future of the United States as if it were their own.
.
"Because of the war against terror and the war in Iraq, people feel it's much more than a U.S. election," said Kay van de Linde, a communications consultant at The Hague. "They feel it's a world election, because the U.S. president decides not only what's good for the U.S., but also what's good, and bad, for Europe."
.
Judging from opinion polls, media reports and conversation on this side of the Atlantic, the overwhelming sentiment on what would be bad for Europe is another four years with President George W. Bush. In Britain, France, Germany, Spain and the Netherlands, Europeans appear to be united by an overwhelming antipathy toward Bush.
.
"He has the ability to provoke incredible animosity," said Alain Frachon, a senior editor at Le Monde, one of several French newspapers running extensive coverage of the American campaign. "And this gives us even more incentive to be interested in the U.S. election, because Bush is probably the least liked of all U.S. presidents since World War II."
.
Said Martin Fletcher, foreign editor of The Times of London, which also has devoted much coverage to the election: "There's just something about the president that grates on the foreign viewer - it just doesn't play well here. I cannot remember an issue that has ever aroused such intense interest."

European media are sending correspondents all over the United States in an effort to delve into the American psyche.
.
"We want to understand why so many people are still on Bush's side; it's a kind of mystery to us," said Peter Frey, Berlin bureau chief for ZDF television in Germany. "We are asking the American people, 'Why are you voting for Bush?' We want to understand why he has this support."
.
A poll last month by the German Marshall Fund, a research organization with headquarters in Washington that studies trans-Atlantic relations, showed that 75 percent of Europeans disapprove of how Bush handles foreign affairs and 73 percent believe the war in Iraq has increased the global risk of terrorism.
.
A poll this month by 10 newspapers around the world, including Le Monde, The Guardian in Britain and Spain's El Pais, showed far more support for Senator John Kerry, Bush's Democratic challenger, than for Bush and his administration.
.
"If Bush remains, American troops may stay longer in Iraq and this will immediately impact our internal politics," said Jean-Gabriel Fredet, an editor at Le Nouvel Observateur, a French weekly that recently carried on its cover, "Why We Must Beat Bush."

Once-Born is Enough

Conflicted Evangelicals Could Cost Bush Votes
Conservative Christians are still in his camp, but some are troubled by Iraq and other issues.

By Peter Wallsten, Times Staff Writer

BROOKFIELD, Wis. — With their ardent, Bible-based opposition to abortion and gay marriage, evangelical Christians are a key target of the massive Republican get-out-the-vote drive heading into next week's election. Party leaders consider conservative Christians to be as near a lock for President Bush as any group can be.

But GOP strategists might want to have a chat with Tim Moore, an evangelical who teaches civics at a traditional Christian school near Milwaukee. He shares Bush's religious convictions, but says the president has lost his vote because of tax cuts for the wealthy and the administration's shifting rationales for invading Iraq.

"There's no way I'm going for Bush. That much I know," said Moore, 46. He remains undecided between Democratic Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts and a third-party candidate.

Moore reflects a potential problem for Bush in Wisconsin and other closely contested states, where the GOP and conservative groups have invested heavily in turning out a record conservative Christian vote through mailings, voter guides, targeted phone calls and announcements by prominent evangelists such as Jerry Falwell and James Dobson aired on religious radio stations.

Some of these targeted voters remain conflicted — torn between their religious convictions on so-called values issues, and concerns typical of suburban moms and dads, such as jobs, healthcare, the Iraq war and the environment.

Some, such as Wendy Skroch, a 51-year-old mother of three who prays regularly at the evangelical Elmbrook Church in this heavily Republican Milwaukee suburb, blame Bush for failing to fix a "broken" healthcare system and for "selling off the environment to the highest bidder."

Others are like Joe Urcavich, pastor of the nondenominational evangelical Green Bay Community Church, where more than 2,000 people worship each Sunday. He is undecided, troubled by the bloodshed in the Middle East.

"It's hard for me to say that Christians should be marching against abortion and carrying signs, and then turn around and giving a pep rally for the war in Iraq without even contemplating that hundreds and hundreds of people are being killed on a regular basis over there," Urcavich said.

"I'm very antiabortion, but the reality is the right to life encompasses a much broader field than just abortion," he added. "If I'm a proponent of life, I have to think about the consequences of not providing prescription drugs to seniors or sending young men off to war."

That kind of talk, coming from a conservative Christian who might ordinarily be inclined to vote Republican, could portend trouble for Bush.

An estimated 80% of the evangelical vote went to Bush in 2000. But Bush's senior political strategist, Karl Rove, said after the 2000 election that the president might have won the race against Democrat Al Gore by a comfortable margin had 4 million more evangelicals gone to the polls rather than sitting out the election.

This year, the Bush campaign and conservative groups have made enormous efforts to mobilize evangelicals, a group that includes more than 70 denominations, and which generally sees the Bible as the authoritative word of God, emphasizes "born again" religious conversion, and has committed to spreading its faith and values. Evangelicals are thought to make up about a quarter of the electorate.

In appeals to evangelicals, the president's supporters have pointed to Bush's stance against abortion, his appointment of conservative judges and his support for a constitutional ban on gay marriage. And yet a recent poll found a slight slippage in the president's support.

A poll published last week by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that 70% of self-described evangelicals or born-again Christians planned to vote for the president, down from 74% in the same survey three weeks earlier. That was not only a slight decline, but lower than the 80% to 90% support that Bush campaign officials had been forecasting.

This is W's critical wedge of voters. If he loses them, the "base" is gone.

Loathing for Liberals--The Compleat Guide

I have been reading, enjoying and, sometimes, smarting from the work of Hunter S. Thompson for nearly forty years. He hasn’t lost a step. This is an hors d’oeuvre from his long piece in the Rolling Stone this week. You will want to read the whole thing, trust me, you will laugh, you will gasp and you will nod in agreement and hope he is right. The life-long, cold-eyed gambler (yes, for real money,) he’s calling it Kerry by five points.

Fear and Loathing, Campaign 2004
Dr. Hunter S. Thompson sounds off on the fun-hogs in the passing lane

By DR. HUNTER S. THOMPSON

Kerry came into October as a five-point underdog with almost no chance of winning three out of three rigged confrontations with a treacherous little freak like George Bush. But the debates are over now, and the victor was clearly John Kerry every time. He steamrollered Bush and left him for roadkill.

Did you see Bush on TV, trying to debate? Jesus, he talked like a donkey with no brains at all. The tide turned early, in Coral Gables, when Bush went belly up less than halfway through his first bout with Kerry, who hammered poor George into jelly. It was pitiful. . . . I almost felt sorry for him, until I heard someone call him “Mister President,” and then I felt ashamed.

Karl Rove, the president’s political wizard, felt even worse. There is angst in the heart of Texas today, and panic in the bowels of the White House. Rove has a nasty little problem, and its name is George Bush. The president failed miserably from the instant he got onstage with John Kerry. He looked weak and dumb. Kerry beat him like a gong in Coral Gables, then again in St. Louis and Tempe – and that is Rove’s problem: His candidate is a weak-minded frat boy who cracks under pressure in front of 60 million voters.
….
Immediately after the first debate ended I called Muhammad Ali at his home in Michigan, but whoever answered said the champ was laughing so hard that he couldn’t come to the phone. “The debate really cracked him up,” he chuckled. “The champ loves a good ass-whuppin’. He says Bush looked so scared to fight, he finally just quit and laid down.”

Ali has seen that look before. Almost three months to the day after John Fitzgerald Kennedy was murdered in Dallas, the “Louisville Lip” – then Cassius Clay – made a permanent enemy of every “boxing expert” in the Western world by beating World Heavyweight Champion Sonny Liston so badly that he refused to come out of his corner for the seventh round.

This year’s first presidential debate was such a disaster for George Bush that his handlers had to be crazy to let him get in the ring with John Kerry again. Yet Karl Rove let it happen, and we can only wonder why. But there is no doubt that the president has lost his nerve, and his career in the White House is finished. NO MAS.
….
Richard Nixon looks like a flaming liberal today, compared to a golem like George Bush. Indeed. Where is Richard Nixon now that we finally need him?

If Nixon were running for president today, he would be seen as a “liberal” candidate, and he would probably win. He was a crook and a bungler, but what the hell? Nixon was a barrel of laughs compared to this gang of thugs from the Halliburton petroleum organization who are running the White House today – and who will be running it this time next year, if we (the once-proud, once-loved and widely respected “American people") don’t rise up like wounded warriors and whack those lying petroleum pimps out of the White House on November 2nd.

Nixon hated running for president during football season, but he did it anyway. Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for – but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him.

You bet. Richard Nixon would be my Man. He was a crook and a creep and a gin-sot, but on some nights, when he would get hammered and wander around in the streets, he was fun to hang out with. He would wear a silk sweat suit and pull a stocking down over his face so nobody could recognize him. Then we would get in a cab and cruise down to the Watergate Hotel, just for laughs.

With Hunter, you never know if the stories are made or literally true, but I’m more than willing to believe this one. Hunter actually does know where all the bodies are buried. I’m no longer chewing my finger nails. Good thing, too, because I don’t have any left.

Sunshine: The Best Disinfectent

Beneath the cover of Bush's secrets:

A Culture of Cover-Ups
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: October 26, 2004

Yesterday we got two peeks under that shroud. One was The Times's report about what the International Atomic Energy Agency calls "the greatest explosives bonanza in history." Ignoring the agency's warnings, administration officials failed to secure the weapons site, Al Qaqaa, in Iraq, allowing 377 tons of deadly high explosives to be looted, presumably by insurgents.

The administration is trying to play down the importance of this loss, arguing that because Iraq was awash in munitions, a few hundred more tons don't make much difference. But aside from their potential use in nuclear weapons - the reason they were under seal before the war - these particular explosives, unlike standard munitions, are exactly what a terrorist needs.

Informed sources quoted by the influential Nelson Report say explosives from Al Qaqaa are the "primary source" of the roadside and car bombs that have killed and wounded so many U.S. soldiers. And thanks to the huge amount looted - "in a highly organized operation using heavy equipment" - the insurgents and whoever else have access to the Qaqaa material have enough explosives for tens of thousands of future bombs.

If the administration had had its way, the public would never have heard anything about this. Administration officials have known about the looting of Al Qaqaa for at least six months, and probably much longer. But they didn't let the I.A.E.A. inspect the site after the war, and pressured the Iraqis not to inform the agency about the loss. They now say that they didn't want our enemies - that is, the people who stole the stuff - to know it was missing. The real reason, obviously, was that they wanted the news kept under wraps until after Nov. 2.

The story of the looted explosives has overshadowed another report that Bush officials tried to suppress - this one about how the Bush administration let Abu Musab al-Zarqawi get away. An article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal confirmed and expanded on an "NBC Nightly News" report from March that asserted that before the Iraq war, administration officials called off a planned attack that might have killed Mr. Zarqawi, the terrorist now blamed for much of the mayhem in that country, in his camp.

Citing "military officials," the original NBC report explained that the failure to go after Mr. Zarqawi was based on domestic politics: "the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq" - a part of Iraq not controlled by Saddam Hussein - "could undermine its case for war against Saddam." The Journal doesn't comment on this explanation, but it does say that when NBC reported, correctly, that Mr. Zarqawi had been targeted before the war, administration officials denied it.

What other mistakes did the administration make? If partisan appointees like Mr. Goss continue to control the intelligence agencies, we may never know.

This isn't speculation: Mr. Goss is already involved in a new cover-up. Last week Robert Scheer of The Los Angeles Times revealed the existence of a devastating but suppressed report by the C.I.A.'s inspector general on 9/11 intelligence failures. Newsweek has now confirmed the gist of Mr. Scheer's column.

The report, the magazine says, "identifies a host of current and former officials who could be candidates for possible disciplinary procedures." But although the report was completed in June, Mr. Goss has refused to release it to Congress. "Everyone feels it will be better if this hits the fan after the election," an official told the magazine. Better for whom?

What really happened on 9/11, or in Iraq? Next week's election may determine whether we ever find out.

I suspect that Kerry's administration will be so busy trying to keep the economy from tanking, re-assembling alliances with historic friends, containing Iran and North Korea, that siccing prosecutors on the criminals at the top of this administration will be a 'ways down the "to do" list. Drawing up lists of indictments when the dollar is headed south just seems a tad, um, partisan.

Safer?

Increase In War Funding Sought
Bush to Request $70 Billion More

By Jonathan Weisman and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, October 26, 2004; Page A01

The Bush administration intends to seek about $70 billion in emergency funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan early next year, pushing total war costs close to $225 billion since the invasion of Iraq early last year, Pentagon and congressional officials said yesterday.

White House budget office spokesman Chad Kolton emphasized that final decisions on the supplemental spending request will not be made until shortly before the request is sent to Congress. That may not happen until early February, when President Bush submits his budget for fiscal 2006, assuming he wins reelection.

But Pentagon and House Appropriations Committee aides said the Defense Department and military services are scrambling to get their final requests to the White House Office of Management and Budget by mid-November, shortly after the election. The new numbers underscore that the war is going to be far more costly and intense, and last longer, than the administration first suggested.

The Army is expected to request at least an additional $30 billion for combat activity in Iraq, with $6 billion more needed to begin refurbishing equipment that has been worn down or destroyed by unexpectedly intense combat, another Appropriations Committee aide said. The deferral of needed repairs over the past year has added to maintenance costs, which can no longer be delayed, a senior Pentagon official said.

The Army is expected to ask for as much as $10 billion more for its conversion to a swifter expeditionary force. The Marines will come in with a separate request, as will the Defense Logistics Agency and other components of the Department of Defense. The State Department will need considerably more money to finance construction and operations at the sprawling embassy complex in Baghdad. The Central Intelligence Agency's request would come on top of those.

"I don't have a number, and [administration officials] have not been forthcoming, but we expect it will be pretty large," said James Dyer, Republican chief of staff of the Appropriations Committee.

Bush has said for months that he would make an additional request for the war next year, but the new estimates are the first glimpse of its magnitude. A $70 billion request would be considerably larger than lawmakers had anticipated earlier this year. After the president unexpectedly submitted an $87 billion request for the Iraq and Afghanistan efforts last year, many Republicans angrily expressed sticker shock and implored the administration not to surprise them again.

This request would come on top of $25 billion in war spending allocated by Congress for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1. The two bills combined suggest the cost of combat is escalating from the $65 billion spent by the military in 2004 and the $62.4 billion allocated in 2003, as U.S. troops face insurgencies that have proven far more lethal than expected at this point.

"We're still evaluating what our commitments will be, and we will submit a request that fully supports those commitments," Kolton said.

The senior Pentagon official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said final figures may be shaped by the outcome of the presidential election and events in Iraq. But assuming force levels will remain constant in Iraq at about 130,000 troops, the final bill will be "roughly" $70 billion for the military alone, he said.

In making cost estimates for the supplemental budget request, Pentagon officials have distanced themselves from the Bush administration's public optimism about trends in Iraq. Instead, they make the fairly pessimistic assumption that about as many troops will be needed there next year as are currently on the ground.

How much is this going to cost and why are we doing it again? What's the final price tag for "the world is safer with Saddam in a prison cell?"

In the run up to the war, those were the questions I put to pro-war friends. The brave face they put on it was bear any burden, pay any price.

When I asked further, what is it worth to you, I was reminded that they weren't the ones who would be paying.

No, all of us are.

Soft Paws, Geeky and Otherwise

A question for my geeky infotech readers (and anyone else who wants to chime in):

What should I be reading these days as the IT manager of a big non-profit and admin of a large and expensive data base built on SQL and Visual Fox Pro? In the tech press, The Register is still about two layers deeper than I'm able to understand right now, but I want to be there in a couple of months. But I'm loving the attitude.

Developers and DBA's: what are your best sources of real, results-oriented information? VFP has some virtual users' groups and FAQ sites, SQL has bazillions, of course. How do you sort to mine the gold? Where do I start?

If you were my boss, what would you be putting in my hands? Reply in comments or to the email address on the right sidebar.

Other readers, the regularly scheduled news and comment program will return in the morning, I'm working on a particularly thorny query this evening. Infotech types often keep very strange hours. Actually, as an admin type, most of my work is people work, and I work the hours they do.

Thanks to all who sent in replies on the catfood question, which remains open for more comments over there on the right sidebar. I'll be off to the premium pet stores to search out some of your finer sources. The kids are 9 now, and watching their kidneys, livers, pancreases and thyroids is part of the diet police. I've managed sick old cats in lives past, and I'd just as soon not do it again. Ounce of Prevention>pound of cure. I'm working again, so the kids should get the good stuff, not the nutritional equivalent of the Ramen noodles I lived on for so many months.

When I finish getting my life patched together, the kids will be getting human level nutrition culled from my leftovers and a babyfood grinder. We aren't there yet, there is too much to be fixed before I can do this, but this is the goal. Feline nutrition at the highest level and human nutrition at a much higher level than I'm managing right now (the kitchen! the kitchen! Appliances need to be replaced, the floor redone and some new wiring, not to handle a new load, just to meet code.)

So little time....

Back to the Base

ABC News The Note this afternoon:

The president speaks in Greeley, CO at 12:10 pm. He later flies to Iowa for rallies in Council Bluffs and Davenport at a 3:35 and 6:20 pm ET, respectively.

Greeley, CO? Really? In that case, Markos was correct the other day when he said W's polling internals must be terrible. Greeley is one of the reddist of red cities in a generally red state (tho' we make pick up a senator this year,) which means that Rove is still trying to energize his base and pray for turnout. He's given up on the undecideds.

Global Recession 2005

Steve Roach says what I've been telling you for months:

Cutting our global forecast. As the odds of a full-blown oil shock rise, we have little choice other than to cut our global growth forecast; our first revision is a relatively small one -- we are reducing our 3.9% estimate of world GDP growth for 2005 by 0.3 percentage point to 3.6%.

Downside risks. Our forecast revision is consistent with linear rules of thumb regarding the impact of higher oil prices; however, for an unbalanced and increasingly vulnerable world, shock effects could well be nonlinear -- underscoring the downside risks to our downwardly revised global forecast.

Crude Oil Prices Surge to New High
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: October 25, 2004

Filed at 10:31 a.m. ET

LONDON (AP) -- Crude futures prices rose Monday on concerns about tight heating oil supplies ahead of winter, strong oil demand in China and fears about a planned petroleum-industry lockout in Norway.

Crude futures for December delivery surged as high as $55.67 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange, up 50 cents from their record close Friday. But prices pulled back to $55.26 as Norwegian officials said the government would enforce compulsory arbitration, preventing any more cuts in production.

In trading on London's International Petroleum Exchange, the price of December Brent crude futures reached $51.70, before easing to $51.35 per barrel.

November heating oil traded at $1.5950 per gallon Monday afternoon in Europe.

New on the watch-list of supply worries was an announcement by the Norwegian Shipowners Association of a lockout affecting workers on nearly 100 offshore service vessels and shuttle tankers on the Norwegian continental shelf. The move is set to take effect Nov. 8.

Dollar slide accelerates on rising oil prices
By Steve Johnson in London
Published: October 25 2004 11:32 | Last updated: October 25 2004 11:32

The dollar fell to fresh lows in European morning trade on Monday as another jump in oil prices added to fears that the US economy will not grow fast enough to attract sufficient capital inflows.

With the US trade deficit having ballooned to $600bn a year, the US needs to attract portfolio inflows of at least as much to avoid further weakening of the dollar. If high oil prices slow growth, this process may become harder still.

Rising oil prices also engendered an atmosphere of risk aversion across all asset classes, with equities marked sharply lower, benefiting lower risk currencies such as the Swiss franc and euro.

The dollar’s slide against the euro was further fuelled by an unexpected uptick in Germay’s influential Ifo business sentiment survey to 95.3 in October, from 95.2, confounding expectations of a decrease. Retailing and construction led the move higher.

As a result the euro rose to a fresh eight-month high of $1.2817 against the dollar, a rise of 1.5c since Friday’s close, and approaching February’s seven-year high of $1.2930.

The dollar’s renewed slide was also fed by the breaching of some key technical support levels, encouraging momentum-driven investors to short the dollar still further. The dollar fell through its February low of SFr1.2035 against the Swiss franc to sit at an eight-year low of SFr1.1946, a fall of 1.5 centimes since Friday’s close.

The greenback also breached key technical levels against the yen in the process of tumbling to a six-month low of Y106.41.

The Dam Breaks

Bush’s War Against the Military
By Ian Williams

Bush has failed the military on almost every level. While Halliburton and Boeing went to the bank this year with about $10 billion each, undermanned U.S. forces went into Iraq without armored vests and driving unarmored vehicles. The fatal results were hidden from public view as the dead were secreted home and the Department of Defense (DOD) obscured and juggled the numbers of maimed and wounded.

Once back in the United States, veterans found no federal welcome mat laid out for them. By April this year, one in six veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan had filed benefits claims with the Veterans Administration for service-related disabilities. These figures do not include those troops still serving and are twice the number the DOD Web site says suffered “Non-Mortal Wounds” in those conflicts. Today, one-third of those claims, almost 10,000, have yet to be processed. Further, Bush’s 2005 budget will cut 540 staff members of the Veterans Benefit Administration, which is the office that handles the claims. The outreach department that lets vets know of available services also was instructed in a 2002 memo by a deputy undersecretary in the Veterans Health Administration to run in silent mode to flush out people who had not made claims out of ignorance.

Even if the war wounded succeed in getting disability pay, in 2003 Bush threatened to veto a bill that allowed veterans to collect disability pay and pensions simultaneously.

In 2003, his administration also tried to cut combat pay from $225 to $150 a month and the family separation allowance from $250 to $100. And most callously of all, the frat brat who ducked a war that killed 48,000 American troops threatened to veto a proposal to double the $6,000 payment to relatives of soldiers killed in action.

That is typical of the way in which President Bush, who loves to dress up in uniform, treats those who actually wear one. As a June 30, 2003, Army Times editorial concluded: “President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap and getting cheaper by the day, judging by the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.”

In his ghostwritten 1999 biography A Charge to Keep, an indignant Bush wrote: “Nearly twelve thousand members of the armed forces are on food stamps. I support increased pay and better benefits and training for our citizen solders. A volunteer military has only two paths. It can lower its standards to fill its ranks. Or it can inspire the best and brightest to join and stay.” Despite four years to do something about it, more than 250,000 military families did not get Bush’s much-vaunted child tax credit because their breadwinner earned less than $26,000 a year. And in his 2005 budget, Bush proposes only that combat pay not count toward eligibility for food stamps—for which no less than 25,000 military families are eligible.

The U.S. Army pay scale is about half that of the British, which is why there is a major crisis in military recruitment. Senior officers talk about a “serious crisis” in recruitment for the regular forces. In addition, the Iraq war has put heavy demands on reservists and guard units. For the first time in 10 years, the guard failed to meet its recruitment target. In one Indiana unit, for instance, the reenlistment rate has dropped from 85 percent to 32 percent.

You would think that the Bush administration would be solicitous of the foot soldiers who carry out its imperial ambitions. But this administration is militaristic, not pro-military. Most of its members sedulously avoided combat and uniformed service of any kind in previous wars and most current enlisted personnel come from small town, blue-collar America, precisely the people whose voices are among the least heard. It is no surprise that Labor Secretary Elaine Chao’s proposals for cutting back legal entitlement to overtime pay this year included all those who had learned their skill in the military.

All of this penny-pinching may seem strange in light of Bush’s desperate attempts to associate himself with the military. But when he dons a flak jacket, the president is not looking to win over those GIs who have just had their term extended on stop-loss orders, but those TV-viewing voters who put the military on a pedestal as the guarantor of American virtues.

Poisonous Fogs of War

Whether one looks back to soldiers exposed to radiation in World War II, to Agent Orange in Vietnam or to possible environmental poisons in the 1991 war in the Persian Gulf, the U.S. government hasn't always given military veterans the healthcare and attention they deserve. Two recent studies show that the problem continues.

The first, released by Harvard Medical School researchers last week, found that the percentage of uninsured non-elderly veterans rose from 1 in 10 in 2000 to 1 in 8 in 2003.

The second, a draft report by a presidential panel of medical experts studying Gulf War illnesses, concluded that stress, the conventional explanation for the poor health of many veterans of the 1991 Gulf War, probably ranks far behind brain abnormalities caused by exposure to sarin gas, pesticides or some other battlefield poison.

Both studies have their problems.

The Harvard analysis used solid government data to conclude that nearly 1.7 million veterans lacked health coverage last year, but the results were quickly politicized. Just weeks before the presidential election, the study's authors tried to pin the problem on the Bush administration's January 2003 decision to end enrollment in VA-run hospitals and clinics for veterans with the lowest of eight priorities for treatment: Their illnesses aren't defined as service-related and their median incomes exceed $25,200 a year.

It's hard to stomach, particularly in time of war, that U.S. veterans in need of care would be turned away. But the solution taken up by congressional Democrats — to pay for more care by raising the VA's budget by $3.1 billion this year — doesn't dig very deep. The Department of Veterans Affairs should first try a lot harder to recover the hundreds of millions of dollars that Medicare HMOs and other insurers owe it for care provided to their members at VA hospitals.

Top Army Official Calls for a Halliburton Inquiry
By ERIK ECKHOLM

Published: October 25, 2004

The top civilian contracting official for the Army Corps of Engineers, charging that the Army granted the Halliburton Company large contracts for work in Iraq and the Balkans without following rules designed to ensure competition and fair prices to the government, has called for a high-level investigation of what she described as threats to the "integrity of the federal contracting program."

The official, Bunnatine H. Greenhouse, said that in at least one case she witnessed, Army officials inappropriately allowed representatives of Halliburton to sit in as they discussed the terms of a contract the company was set to receive.

Her accusations offer the first extended account of arguments that roiled inside the military bureaucracy over contracts with the company.

In an Oct. 21 letter to the acting Army secretary, Ms. Greenhouse said that after her repeated questions about the Halliburton contracts, she was excluded from major decisions to award money and that her job status was threatened. In response, Army officials referred her accusations to the Pentagon's investigations bureau for review and promised to protect her position in the meantime.

Ms. Greenhouse, 62, is a veteran of military procurement and serves the Corps of Engineers as the principal assistant responsible for contracting - the top civilian overseeing the agency's contracts. She also has chief responsibility for reviewing adherence to Pentagon rules intended to shield awards from outside influence and promote competition.

The traditional media are finally getting a clue. This constitutes all but an obit for Bush.

The Blessing

The New Yorker offers its first endorsement in the history of the magazine:

THE CHOICE
by The Editors
Issue of 2004-11-01
Posted 2004-10-25

The damage visited upon America, and upon America’s standing in the world, by the Bush Administration’s reckless mishandling of the public trust will not easily be undone. And for many voters the desire to see the damage arrested is reason enough to vote for John Kerry. But the challenger has more to offer than the fact that he is not George W. Bush. In every crucial area of concern to Americans (the economy, health care, the environment, Social Security, the judiciary, national security, foreign policy, the war in Iraq, the fight against terrorism), Kerry offers a clear, corrective alternative to Bush’s curious blend of smugness, radicalism, and demagoguery. Pollsters like to ask voters which candidate they’d most like to have a beer with, and on that metric Bush always wins. We prefer to ask which candidate is better suited to the governance of our nation.

Throughout his long career in public service, John Kerry has demonstrated steadiness and sturdiness of character. The physical courage he showed in combat in Vietnam was matched by moral courage when he raised his voice against the war, a choice that has carried political costs from his first run for Congress, lost in 1972 to a campaign of character assassination from a local newspaper that could not forgive his antiwar stand, right through this year’s Swift Boat ads. As a senator, Kerry helped expose the mischief of the Bank of Commerce and Credit International, a money-laundering operation that favored terrorists and criminal cartels; when his investigation forced him to confront corruption among fellow-Democrats, he rejected the cronyism of colleagues and brought down power brokers of his own party with the same dedication that he showed in going after Oliver North in the Iran-Contra scandal. His leadership, with John McCain, of the bipartisan effort to put to rest the toxic debate over Vietnam-era P.O.W.s and M.I.A.s and to lay the diplomatic groundwork for Washington’s normalization of relations with Hanoi, in the mid-nineties, was the signal accomplishment of his twenty years on Capitol Hill, and it is emblematic of his fairness of mind and independence of spirit. Kerry has made mistakes (most notably, in hindsight at least, his initial opposition to the Gulf War in 1990), but—in contrast to the President, who touts his imperviousness to changing realities as a virtue—he has learned from them.

Kerry’s performance on the stump has been uneven, and his public groping for a firm explanation of his position on Iraq was discouraging to behold. He can be cautious to a fault, overeager to acknowledge every angle of an issue; and his reluctance to expose the Administration’s appalling record bluntly and relentlessly until very late in the race was a missed opportunity. But when his foes sought to destroy him rather than to debate him they found no scandals and no evidence of bad faith in his past. In the face of infuriating and scurrilous calumnies, he kept the sort of cool that the thin-skinned and painfully insecure incumbent cannot even feign during the unprogrammed give-and-take of an electoral debate. Kerry’s mettle has been tested under fire—the fire of real bullets and the political fire that will surely not abate but, rather, intensify if he is elected—and he has shown himself to be tough, resilient, and possessed of a properly Presidential dose of dignified authority. While Bush has pandered relentlessly to the narrowest urges of his base, Kerry has sought to appeal broadly to the American center. In a time of primitive partisanship, he has exhibited a fundamentally undogmatic temperament. In campaigning for America’s mainstream restoration, Kerry has insisted that this election ought to be decided on the urgent issues of our moment, the issues that will define American life for the coming half century. That insistence is a measure of his character. He is plainly the better choice. As observers, reporters, and commentators we will hold him to the highest standards of honesty and performance. For now, as citizens, we hope for his victory.

Amen.

Webspinning

The Creaky Coalition
Allies are getting balky about following America's lead
By Stryker McGuire
Newsweek

Nov. 1 issue - America's 138,000 troops in Iraq were asking for a little help from their British friends. Could an 850-strong armored battalion of Scotland's Black Watch Regiment please be redeployed from Basra, in southern Iraq, to the outskirts of Baghdad? The request seemed straightforward enough. Yet it triggered another political crisis for Prime Minister Tony Blair last week. As British commanders weighed the American request, London editors wrote scaremongering headlines about the Black Watch's walking into a "Triangle of Death." Blair's critics charged that acceding to the U.S. request would amount to an election-eve boost to Bush's presidential campaign. Is it not time "to say 'no' to the Americans?" one Labour Party M.P. demanded of Blair.

The prime minister didn't cave. But a new conventional wisdom is taking hold among Britain's military and foreign-policy elite: even if John Kerry defeats Bush, any British government will find it difficult, if not impossible, to muster popular support for a future American-led military intervention. A senior British diplomat put it bluntly to NEWSWEEK: "Never again."

Other members of Bush's Coalition of the Willing are getting balky, too. A total of 29 countries now have troops in Iraq, including Britain's 8,300. After pro-war Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar was voted out of office earlier this year, the new government withdrew all of Spain's 1,300 troops. Honduras and the Dominican Republic then brought home their small contingents. Under mounting domestic pressure, Italy (2,700 troops), Poland (2,500), Ukraine (1,600), the Czech Republic (100) and Slovakia (105) have hinted at troop reductions next year. The Coalition's Potemkin-village quality is perhaps best illustrated by Japan's contribution: 600 Self-Defense Force troops. By law, they cannot instigate combat, and have not fired a single shot in anger. In fact, troops from the Netherlands' 500-strong contingent are deployed around the SDF compound in southern Iraq to provide an extra layer of security for the Japanese.

Blair's fealty to Bush barely masks serious disagreements between the American and the British governments. In private, senior British military commanders have strongly criticized the United States' "overwhelming force" tactics in Iraq. Senior British Foreign Service officers have despaired at the post-9/11 collapse of American diplomacy. For Washington, it's one thing to see Thailand and New Zealand pulling troops out of Iraq. It's quite another to have Britain questioning its "special relationship" with the United States.

Iraq coalition vanishes from White House website

Fri Oct 22, 2:26 PM ET

U.S. National - AFP

CANTON, United States (AFP) - The "coalition of the willing" in Iraq (news - web sites) has vanished -- from the White House Internet site, at any rate.

US President George W. Bush (news - web sites)'s list of about 50 countries that openly backed the March 2003 invasion to topple Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was once easily found by following a link from www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/coalition.html.

No more: A visit to the White House web site Friday found that the list has disappeared, and that the link that led to it -- "Who are the coalition members?" -- is gone as well.

"This is not unusual. If there is incorrect, or out of date information, we take it down," White House spokesman Jimmy Orr told AFP. "What we're doing right now, with the entire Iraq site, is we're updating the information."

Orr said the list was taken down "a couple of weeks ago" and would not say when it would return.

Some Bush critics have suggested an election-year motive for the move, citing a tense exchange two weeks ago between Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) and his Democratic rival, Senator John Edwards (news - web sites), about coalition casualties.

After Edwards charged in their October 5 debate that US troops had suffered 90 percent of the casualties, Cheney angrily retorted that the statistic was "dead wrong" because it omitted deaths and injuries suffered by Iraqis.

"When you include the Iraqi security forces that have suffered casualties, as well as the allies, they've taken almost 50 percent of the casualties in operations in Iraq, which leaves the US with 50 percent, not 90 percent," Cheney said.

But Iraq was never considered a coalition member, and was never on the official White House list of coalition nations, leading some critics to charge that the list was pulled down to protect Cheney.

As someone who codes multiple HTML updates for websites every day, I can tell you that this isn't something that the webmaster hasn't had time to get around to.

Since no one other than the Bush true believers reads the White House web propaganda for anything other than entertainment, this is of no importance other than the fact that even the spinmeisters are embarrassed by their lies.

Safe?

Hey, undecided voters! What part of "incompetent" do you not get? Remember how W told us that Saddam was going to let terrorists get those WMDs? Guess what Bush did?

This particular piece of news actually scares the crap out of me. If you live in DC or New York, you might feel likewise.

Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq
By JAMES GLANZ, WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER

Published: October 25, 2004

This article was reported and written by James Glanz, William J. Broad and David E. Sanger.

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 24 - The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives - used to demolish buildings, make missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons - are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.

The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no man's land, still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday. United Nations weapons inspectors had monitored the explosives for many years, but White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge that the explosives vanished sometime after the American-led invasion last year.

The White House said President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, was informed within the past month that the explosives were missing. It is unclear whether President Bush was informed. American officials have never publicly announced the disappearance, but beginning last week they answered questions about it posed by The New York Times and the CBS News program "60 Minutes."

Administration officials said Sunday that the Iraq Survey Group, the C.I.A. task force that searched for unconventional weapons, has been ordered to investigate the disappearance of the explosives.

American weapons experts say their immediate concern is that the explosives could be used in major bombing attacks against American or Iraqi forces: the explosives, mainly HMX and RDX, could produce bombs strong enough to shatter airplanes or tear apart buildings.

The bomb that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 used less than a pound of the same type of material, and larger amounts were apparently used in the bombing of a housing complex in November 2003 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and the blasts in a Moscow apartment complex in September 1999 that killed nearly 300 people.

Mmmm, so Bush is keeping us safer, eh? I'd say that the idiot downtown is leaving us completely vulnerable because he doesn't have a clue about Iraq, a real foreign policy or any economic policy beyond tax cuts and government contracts for his wealthy buddies. Oh, by the way, did I mention the economy is in the toilet? I'll get to that in a moment.

The Cat in the Hat

needs dinner....

I'm soliciting recommendations, cat people. The Owners, Eddie and Rosa, have been turning their collective noses up at my latest offerings from 9 Lives. I frequently mix in some botanicals and vitamins but neither of these cats are going to get slender anytime soon while I mix and default to tuna when I need to have my ankles free. Have any of you got favorite formulas for really great cat nutrition? I've got a bunch of books, but if you have real world stories of happy cats at the feed trough, I'd like to hear about them. Please share. I don't trust that the commercial product feeds them any better than crap from the frozen food producers feeds me. What do you do?

The Rise of the Blogs

The Big Winners

By Richard A. Viguerie and David Franke
Sunday, October 24, 2004; Page B01

By the time Election Day arrives, millions of Americans will have contributed to a presidential candidate this year. Hundreds of political organizations -- from the Sierra Club to the NRA, from MoveOn.org to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth -- will have taken an active part in the campaign, supported by Americans from every part of the political spectrum. All of this is democracy in action, and it is so commonplace that we take it for granted. Yet this kind of mass citizen involvement in the political process is a relatively recent phenomenon, spanning less than a half-century of our nation's history.

How did it happen? And what does it suggest for this election, and for presidential elections to come?

The answers can be found in the rise of what we conservatives call the "alternative" media -- beginning with the conservative movement's development of political direct mail in the 1960s, followed by the growth of talk radio and cable TV news in the 1990s and, since then, by the remarkable role of the Internet in the political process. In this year's presidential election, it is the alternative media that are largely framing the issues, engaging the public, raising money and getting out the vote.

Whatever the outcome on Nov. 2, this election will be remembered as the year when these alternative media all came together to change how politics in America is practiced.
....
But as powerful as each of these three alternative media are, none empower the individual voter as effectively and as forcefully as the Internet does. Your modem is your equalizer, your cyber-Colt .45. You have a direct line -- with no intermediaries or filters -- to any publication or Web site around the world, to other citizens who share your interests and viewpoints, to government bureaucrats, to your political representatives, to the stores you want to do business with -- you name it.

Conservatives were quick to see this potential. As a result, Joe and Elizabeth Farah, with a staff of about 25 at WorldNetDaily, and Chris Ruddy, with a staff of about 50 at NewsMax, each publish an online newspaper that draws a larger Internet audience than the Web sites of the Dallas Morning News or the Philadelphia Inquirer, according to several online rating services. Matt Drudge, essentially all by himself, gets more daily Internet traffic than CBS News does. Incredible! Drudge wasn't so wacky, after all, when he proclaimed this the age when "every citizen can be a reporter."

The story as we've told it so far has been a tale of one conservative success after another in the realm of alternative media. That may now be coming to an end. Conservatives were unbeatable in alternative media when they were underdogs or perceived themselves as underdogs. Now conservatives pretty much are the establishment, and are demoralized trying to defend their party's big-spending record of the past four years, not to mention the quagmire in Iraq. Meanwhile, Democrats and liberals are united in their passion to unseat President Bush.

Whichever party wins, however, there's no doubt about the importance of the alternative media in driving this election:

• The Internet. The new kid in the neighborhood is also the rowdiest and least predictable. The greatest impact of the Internet this past year has been as a tool for political organizing and fundraising. This began when Democrat Howard Dean, managed by Joe Trippi, became the first presidential candidate to raise most of his money (more than $40 million) through the Internet. Some 60 percent of Dean's contributions were for $200 or less, compared with only 17 percent for Bush. Democratic nominee John Kerry has become even more successful, with a massive 7-to-1 advantage over the Republicans in that medium.

Conservatives have shown no ability or desire to match these liberal successes in using the Internet for political organization. This could be a critical mistake. Liberals woke up to the power of political direct mail when Reagan was elected. It could take a Kerry victory to awaken conservatives from their slumber.
....
The big news this year is the Democratic Party's burst of activity after years of lying comatose outside the post office. Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe has confirmed to us that the Democrats mailed more fundraising letters in the first four months of this year than they did during the entire 1990s.

DNC consultant Hal Malchow has told us that the results have been so good that they sent one fundraising mailing to every Democrat in the nation over the age of 40 whom they could locate on a list -- and came out with a profit. With all their experience and expertise in direct mail, the Republicans have never done that.

The result: Democrats have reached parity with the Republicans in direct mail. Adding in the Internet and phone banks, Kerry is out-raising Bush 2 to 1 in the alternative media, and three-quarters of his contributions are coming from small donors. Direct mail and the Internet are creating a new mass base for the Democrats.The growth of these four alternative media has profound implications. An elitist clique, no matter how large or powerful, cannot control the news today. The biggest, most powerful government in American history cannot control the flow of bad news from Iraq. The biggest, most powerful TV news department cannot control the instantaneous fact-checking by hundreds of bloggers.

We will see a spate of books this winter analysing the effect of the alternate media, particularly the Internet and the blogs, on this election. One of the things I can see already: websites and blogs appeal to those who are most fiercely partisan and have helped to fan the partisan flames, which is one of the reasons that this election season is so divided. The other factor is, of course, Bush himself. For those who clearly see what he is doing, he clearly comes across as a petulant, arrogant man who is doing everything he can to subvert our democracy. The "What's the Matter with Kansas" voters were swept into the Republican camp by Nixon's "southern strategy" thirty years ago and it is going to take tireless work by the left to re-educate them to their own self interest.

In the Eyes of Others

President Kerry and Europe
Revitalizing an Alliance Depends on Bush's Defeat

By Timothy Garton Ash
Sunday, October 24, 2004; Page B07

This U.S. election will shape the future of Europe and the trans- atlantic West.

If President Bush is reelected, many Europeans will try to make the European Union a rival superpower to the United States.
....
Yet the Iranian regime, unlike Saddam Hussein, probably is close to developing a nuclear weapons capability -- and Europe's soft diplomacy has been no more effective in preventing it than U.S. huffing and puffing. Only combined action stands a chance.

Even more important, in the longer term, is China. Chirac has been pursuing a shameless policy of wooing China, for French economic advantage and to poke Washington in the eye. He has endorsed Beijing's position on Taiwan and said the E.U. embargo on arms exports to China should be lifted. This raises the grotesque prospect of European weapons being pointed at American warships in the Taiwan Strait. But of course it's not France that is calling the shots here. In the 1970s, Henry Kissinger played the China card against the Soviet Union. Today, China is playing the European card against the United States.

The Euro-Gaullist attempt to create a rival European superpower would be catalyzed by the advent of a second Bush administration. It would not, however, succeed. The forces of Euro-Atlanticism are still much too strong, especially in an enlarged European Union of 25 member states. A second Bush administration would find plenty of opportunities to do what it has done already in the past few years: divide and rule. The result would be a divided Europe in a still more divided West.

If, however, Americans choose Sen. John F. Kerry as their 44th president, we will have a chance of reconstructing the transatlantic West on a new basis. In Europe, Kerry will enjoy a huge opening bonus simply because he is not George W. Bush. His offer of working with allies will be greeted with open arms. Skeptics say the difference between the two candidates' approaches is style, not substance, but in this relationship, style is substance. The difference between unilateralism and multilateralism is all about how you do it, not what you do. Half the European objections to Bush's policy concern the how, not the what. Electing Kerry would encourage the silent majority of Euro-Atlanticists in Europe to speak up. Moreover, Kerry can credibly say he wants a united Europe as a strong partner of the United States, whereas no one in Europe would now believe Bush even if he said it.

The difficulties are still immense. Germany and France won't send troops to Iraq. On Iran, Europe needs to get tougher while America needs to get smarter. As the largest emerging market in the world, China will find many more chances for divide-and-rule between export-hungry Western democracies.

So we may still fail. But there is a chance.

I think it important to make clear the position from which I write. I love America, spend part of each year at a great American university and believe passionately that it is possible to be both pro-European and pro-American. I have never belonged to any British political party, let alone an American one. As a contemporary historian, I conclude that some Republican presidents have done great things for Europe.

Ronald Reagan's dramatic turn from arms race to detente, in response to the emergence of Mikhail Gorbachev, was one such. The current president's father, George H.W. Bush, made the peaceful liberation of Central Europe possible by his wise and mature statecraft. But not this Bush, not this time.

In any sober analysis, the chances of the world's two largest assemblages of the rich and free being able to work together to confront the coming great global challenges will be better with a President Kerry. And only if America and Europe work together can we unfold, for the rest of the world, the transforming power of liberty.

I wrote to another blogger this morning that this is going to be a hard sell with a large part of the American electorate: a large swath doesn't really give a damn about what the rest of the world thinks and is, at best, suspicious of international treaties and laws. They are "go it aloners" like Bush. This is a dangerous state of mind. The Toronto Star had an op-ed this morning that lays out the thinking of the rest of the free west:

`Free world' not among Bush fans

RICK ANDERSON

The U.S. president is known as the "leader of the free world." Were his election up to that free world, George W. Bush would be a goner.

We'll know soon if punditry of the presidential race as "too close to call" is hype, evidence of Democratic media bias, prescience, or well-advised prudence. CNN generated fodder for conspiracy theorists with post-debate commentary that "it was a tie, so the Democrats won" logic, which would have the New York Yankees in the World Series instead of watching it on television.
....
Montreal's La Presse and nine other world newspapers produced a 10-country poll showing Canadians picking Kerry over Bush, overwhelmingly, 56 per cent to 23 per cent. Same story among Bush's Iraq coalition allies: British and Australians choose Kerry over Bush 2 to 1.

"We are not anti-American" said Australia's Sydney Morning Herald in its poll analysis. "Most Australians, like the bulk of people surveyed in the other countries, draw a clear distinction — we have a warm attitude to Americans, and think the U.S relationship is important, yet take a dim view of President Bush ... The U.S. president is still the leader of the free world, yet the free world is less inclined to approve of him."

Out of Sight

Nothing trumps the story of lives lost, but this is, arguably, the next most important story in today's papers. All of the big three are on it.

Memo Lets CIA Take Detainees Out of Iraq
Practice Is Called Serious Breach of Geneva Conventions

By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 24, 2004; Page A01

At the request of the CIA, the Justice Department drafted a confidential memo that authorizes the agency to transfer detainees out of Iraq for interrogation -- a practice that international legal specialists say contravenes the Geneva Conventions.

One intelligence official familiar with the operation said the CIA has used the March draft memo as legal support for secretly transporting as many as a dozen detainees out of Iraq in the last six months. The agency has concealed the detainees from the International Committee of the Red Cross and other authorities, the official said.

The draft opinion, written by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel and dated March 19, 2004, refers to both Iraqi citizens and foreigners in Iraq, who the memo says are protected by the treaty. It permits the CIA to take Iraqis out of the country to be interrogated for a "brief but not indefinite period." It also says the CIA can permanently remove persons deemed to be "illegal aliens" under "local immigration law."

Some specialists in international law say the opinion amounts to a reinterpretation of one of the most basic rights of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which protects civilians during wartime and occupation, including insurgents who were not part of Iraq's military.

The treaty prohibits the "[i]ndividual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory . . . regardless of their motive."

The 1949 treaty notes that a violation of this particular provision constitutes a "grave breach" of the accord, and thus a "war crime" under U.S. federal law, according to a footnote in the Justice Department draft. "For these reasons," the footnote reads, "we recommend that any contemplated relocations of 'protected persons' from Iraq to facilitate interrogation be carefully evaluated for compliance with Article 49 on a case by case basis." It says that even persons removed from Iraq retain the treaty's protections, which would include humane treatment and access to international monitors.

During the war in Afghanistan, the administration ruled that al Qaeda fighters were not considered "protected persons" under the convention. Many of them were transferred out of the country to the naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere for interrogations. By contrast, the U.S. government deems former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party and military, as well as insurgents and other civilians in Iraq, to be protected by the Geneva Conventions.

International law experts contacted for this article described the legal reasoning contained in the Justice Department memo as unconventional and disturbing.

The Times covers it from a different angle:

After Terror, a Secret Rewriting of Military Law
By TIM GOLDEN

WASHINGTON - In early November 2001, with Americans still staggered by the Sept. 11 attacks, a small group of White House officials worked in great secrecy to devise a new system of justice for the new war they had declared on terrorism.

Determined to deal aggressively with the terrorists they expected to capture, the officials bypassed the federal courts and their constitutional guarantees, giving the military the authority to detain foreign suspects indefinitely and prosecute them in tribunals not used since World War II.

The plan was considered so sensitive that senior White House officials kept its final details hidden from the president's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, and the secretary of state, Colin L. Powell, officials said. It was so urgent, some of those involved said, that they hardly thought of consulting Congress.

White House officials said their use of extraordinary powers would allow the Pentagon to collect crucial intelligence and mete out swift, unmerciful justice. "We think it guarantees that we'll have the kind of treatment of these individuals that we believe they deserve," said Vice President Dick Cheney, who was a driving force behind the policy.

But three years later, not a single terrorist has been prosecuted. Of the roughly 560 men being held at the United States naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, only 4 have been formally charged. Preliminary hearings for those suspects brought such a barrage of procedural challenges and public criticism that verdicts could still be months away. And since a Supreme Court decision in June that gave the detainees the right to challenge their imprisonment in federal court, the Pentagon has stepped up efforts to send home hundreds of men whom it once branded as dangerous terrorists.

"We've cleared whole forests of paper developing procedures for these tribunals, and no one has been tried yet," said Richard L. Shiffrin, who worked on the issue as the Pentagon's deputy general counsel for intelligence matters. "They just ended up in this Kafkaesque sort of purgatory."

The story of how Guantánamo and the new military justice system became an intractable legacy of Sept. 11 has been largely hidden from public view.

But extensive interviews with current and former officials and a review of confidential documents reveal that the legal strategy took shape as the ambition of a small core of conservative administration officials whose political influence and bureaucratic skill gave them remarkable power in the aftermath of the attacks.

The strategy became a source of sharp conflict within the Bush administration, eventually pitting the highest-profile cabinet secretaries - including Ms. Rice and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld - against one another over issues of due process, intelligence-gathering and international law.

In fact, many officials contend, some of the most serious problems with the military justice system are rooted in the secretive and contentious process from which it emerged.

Military lawyers were largely excluded from that process in the days after Sept. 11. They have since waged a long struggle to ensure that terrorist prosecutions meet what they say are basic standards of fairness. Uniformed lawyers now assigned to defend Guantánamo detainees have become among the most forceful critics of the Pentagon's own system.

The two articles detail the actions of two separate executive agencies, Justice and the CIA, but this is actually one story: secretive executive branch actions which contravene international law. Human rights are an absolute, international standard, not something which can be decreed by the US president. No wonder we are despised around the world.

Abu Ghraib team bids to run UK prisons

Antony Barnett, Martin Bright and Solomon Hughes
Sunday October 24, 2004
The Observer

The American prison company whose director set up Iraq's infamous Abu Ghraib jail for use by the US military is bidding to run a number of prisons in Britain.

The Utah-based Management and Training Corporation (MTC) has set up a London headquarters and is in advanced negotiations to operate at least one prison in Britain. It is also planning bids to build and manage a number of other jails, including the extension of Belmarsh in south-east London, Britain's maximum security prison, where terrorist suspects are being held without trial.

The disclosure has provoked anger among MPs and prison groups. Brian Caton, general secretary of the Prison Officers' Association, said: 'Serious questions have to be asked about a British prison being run by a company whose director was in charge of setting up a system that led to the atrocities and torture of Iraqi detainees by prison personnel.'

Permanent Damage

Karl Rove: America's Mullah
This election is about Rovism, and the outcome threatens to transform the U.S. into an ironfisted theocracy.

By Neal Gabler, Neal Gabler, a senior fellow at the Norman Lear Center at USC Annenberg, is author of "Life the Movie: How Entertainment Conquered Reality."

Rove, however, is more than a political sharpie with a bulging bag of dirty tricks. His campaign shenanigans — past and future — go to the heart of what this election is about.

Democrats will tell you it is a referendum on Bush's incompetence or on his extremist right-wing agenda. Republicans will tell you it's about conservatism versus liberalism or who can better protect us from terrorists. They are both wrong. This election is about Rovism — the insinuation of Rove's electoral tactics into the conduct of the presidency and the fabric of the government. It's not an overstatement to say that on Nov. 2, the fate of traditional American democracy will hang in the balance.

Rovism is not simply a function of Rove the political conniver sitting in the counsels of power and making decisions, though he does. No recent presidency has put policy in the service of politics as has Bush's. Because tactics can change institutions, Rovism is much more. It is a philosophy and practice of governing that pervades the administration and even extends to the Republican-controlled Congress. As Robert Berdahl, chancellor of UC Berkeley, has said of Bush's foreign policy, a subset of Rovism, it constitutes a fundamental change in "the fabric of constitutional government as we have known it in this country."

Rovism begins, as one might suspect from the most merciless of political consiglieres, with Machiavelli's rule of force: "A prince is respected when he is either a true friend or a downright enemy." No administration since Warren Harding's has rewarded its friends so lavishly, and none has been as willing to bully anyone who strays from its message.

There is no dissent in the Rove White House without reprisal.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric K. Shinseki was retired after he disagreed with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's transformation of the Army and then testified that invading Iraq would require a U.S. deployment of 200,000 soldiers.

Chief Medicare actuary Richard Foster was threatened with termination if he revealed before the vote that the administration had seriously misrepresented the cost of its proposed prescription drug plan to get it through Congress.

Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was peremptorily fired for questioning the wisdom of the administration's tax cuts, and former U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer III felt compelled to recant his statement that there were insufficient troops in Iraq.

Even accounting for the strong-arm tactics of Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon, this isn't government as we have known it. This is the Sopranos in the White House: "Cross us and you're road kill."

Naturally, the administration's treatment of the opposition is worse. Rove's mentor, political advisor Lee Atwater, has been quoted as saying: "What you do is rip the bark off liberals." That's how Bush has governed. There is a feeling, perhaps best expressed by Georgia Democratic Sen. Zell Miller's keynote address at the Republican convention, that anyone who has the temerity to question the president is undermining the country. At times, Miller came close to calling Democrats traitors for putting up a presidential candidate.

This may be standard campaign rhetoric. But it's one thing to excoriate your opponents in a campaign, and quite another to continue berating them after the votes are counted.

Rovism regards any form of compromise as weakness. Politics isn't a bus we all board together, it's a steamroller.

No recent administration has made less effort to reach across the aisle, and thanks to Rovism, the Republican majority in Congress often operates on a rule of exclusion. Republicans blocked Democrats from participating in the bill-drafting sessions on energy, prescription drugs and intelligence reform in the House. As Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez) told the New Yorker, "They don't consult with the nations of the world, and they don't consult with Congress, especially the Democrats in Congress. They can do it all themselves."

Bush entered office promising to be a "uniter, not a divider." But Rovism is not about uniting. What Rove quickly grasped is that it's easier and more efficacious to exploit the cultural and social divide than to look for common ground. No recent administration has as eagerly played wedge issues — gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, faith-based initiatives — to keep the nation roiling, in the pure Rovian belief that the president's conservative supporters will always be angrier and more energized than his opponents. Division, then, is not a side effect of policy; in Rovism, it is the purpose of policy.

John Dean, who was present at the creation of political dirty tricks, Nixon-style, offers these observations:

Contrary to popular belief, it wasn't merely the closeness of the tallying in what appeared to be unique circumstances in Florida that spawned litigation. To the contrary, suing is a standard operating procedure for Karl Rove when he is losing (or has lost) a race.

Make no mistake: If Bush loses, and it is very close, Rove will want to litigate as long as possible, going to the U.S. Supreme Court (again) if possible.

Dean concludes, as do I:

It may be days or weeks, if not months, before we know the final results of this presidential election. And given the Republican control of the government, if Karl Rove is on the losing side, it could be years: He will take every issue (if he is losing) to its ultimate appeal in every state he can.

It does not seem to trouble either Rove or Bush that they are moving us toward a Twenty-first Century civil war -- and that, once again, Southern conservatism is at its core. Only a miracle, it strikes me, can prevent this election from descending into post-election chaos. But given the alternatives, a miracle is what I am hoping for.

The idea that the Rove/Bush damage that has been done to us in four years may not be over anytime soon makes me literally sick. Dean's article isn't likely to be discussed on the chat shows, but it is one of the most important pieces of political writing I've read in recent months.

Peace and Freedom

Bodies of 49 Iraqi Troops Found Dead in Eastern Iraq
Member of U.S. State Department Killed in Separate Incident

By Karl Vick
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, October 24, 2004; 7:25 AM

BAGHDAD. Oct. 24--The bodies of 49 freshly trained Iraqi army recruits were discovered on a roadside about 75 miles northeast of Baghdad, lined up and executed by insurgents, Iraqi officials said early Sunday.

In a separate attack, a State Department security officer was killed when a rocket or mortar landed in a U.S. military base at 5 a.m., according to a spokesman for the American embassy.

The killings of Iraqi recruits occurred about 8 p.m. Saturday near the army's main training base in Kirkush, which the recruits had just left aboard three buses to begin a leave, according to officials and news service reports. The buses stopped at a checkpoint manned by insurgents clad in uniforms of the Iraqi National Guard, according to the al-Aribyia satellite news channel.

The recruits appeared to have filed off the buses, lined up in four rows and laid down before being shot. The first 37 bodies were discovered Saturday night. Another 12 were found after daybreak Sunday.

"After inspection, we found out that they were shot after being ordered to lay down on the earth," said Gen. Walid Azzawi, commander of the provisional police in Diyala, northeast of Baghdad, according to the Associated Press.

It was unclear what kind of security, if any, accompanied the recruits, who apparently were unarmed. The victims were said to be largely from Iraq's southern provinces, and were traveling toward home on a road that hugs Iraq's border with Iran. The bodies were found near Mandali, a town on the road leading south and east from Kirkush.

Iraqi security forces have been the main target of insurgents who regard the interim government of Iraq as an illegitimate puppet of the United States, which has more than 130,000 troops in the country. Heavily armored U.S. forces may be attacked more often, but the Iraqis are substantially more vulnerable.

Car Bombings Kill 17 Iraqis; Attack Injures 6 U.S. Soldiers
Extremists Said to Behead Man Working With Americans

By Karl Vick
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, October 24, 2004; Page A18

BAGHDAD, Oct. 23 -- Two car bomb attacks killed at least 17 Iraqi security officers Saturday in the Sunni Triangle north and west of the capital, and two foreign truck drivers were fatally shot in the northern city of Mosul. A video posted on an Internet site purportedly showed extremists beheading a man accused of working with the Americans.

Six U.S. service members were wounded in a separate attack on a military convoy shortly after dawn in Baghdad.

The deadliest incident took place in Baghdadi, a city on the Euphrates River about 140 miles west of the capital. A suicide bomber detonated explosives in his vehicle outside a U.S. base guarded by Iraqi police, killing 16 Iraqi officers. A U.S. military spokesman said about 40 people were injured, none of them Americans.

A second car bomb killed one Iraqi National Guardsman at a checkpoint in the village of Ishaqi, located about 12 miles south of Samarra, a city that U.S. and Iraqi forces reclaimed from insurgents on Oct. 1. The Associated Press and Reuters reported a higher death toll, quoting police as saying that four guardsmen were killed in the incident.

The two truckers, a Turk and a Yugoslav, were gunned down as they drove through the center of Mosul.

An Internet video, purportedly posted by a group calling itself the Ansar al-Sunna Army, showed the beheading of a man it called a "crusader spy recruited by the Americans." Before he was executed, the victim identified himself as Seif Adnan Kanaan and said he was employed to deliver drinks to U.S. soldiers based at the airport in Mosul.

"I am telling anybody who wants to work with Americans not to work with them," the man said. "I found out the mujaheddin have very accurate information."

The U.S. military convoy in Baghdad was struck by a roadside bomb on the freeway leading to the city's airport, which is ringed by American bases. The explosion echoed across the city at 7:15 a.m., and a column of black smoke smeared the horizon.

We seem to be having a little difficulty with that "peace and freedom" thing that W babbles on about. When being known to have cooperated with us is a death sentence for an Iraqi, I'd say we've pretty much lost the hearts and minds.

In Passing

This is sort of a blogiversary. I made my first post to the front page of DKos one year ago today. That first post is here.

This little Bump in the Beltway will begin its second year on November 15. Which is also the birthday of my mother and one of my brothers.

Friday Cat Blogging

Kevin Hayden, my colleague at The American Street, has taken on what can only be called the ultimate cat blogging post. He is also screamingly funny. Go and enjoy. This was a laugh when I needed one.

A Lighter Moment

Go to the Head of the Flu Line?

Saturday, October 23, 2004; Page A22

Although nothing is funny about this flu vaccine debacle, the following incident made me smile as I waited for a shot in a long line outside a Giant Food store two days after news of the shortage got out.

Giant was a splendid host, especially given the unanticipated mob scene. Employees frequently appeared offering candy, cookies, water, orange juice and solicitude. But by our third hour, so much fluid had been proffered that the more private needs of the white-haired elders began to be a matter of the highest priority.

Could folks leave the line and make the trip to the distant restrooms without worrying about their place in line? How difficult would satisfying this urge be for the not inconsiderable number using walkers or wheelchairs?

As I pondered these questions, a remarkable sight hove into view. Two slightly red-faced Giant employees walking along the line, trundling a dolly upon which rested -- a toilet! My, I thought. Giant, I am yours for life.

But, of course, it was not a world-class demonstration of supermarket hospitality, only a broken toilet on its way to wherever they go to expire.

BERNARD RIES

Washington

Agent for Change

I wonder if he'll have some choice words for the so-called investigative unit at CBS.

Jon Stewart talks TV news on "60 Minutes"

Associated Press

Oct. 23, 2004 | NEW YORK -- After his outburst on CNN's "Crossfire," "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart will have a few words for "60 Minutes." The comedian will be profiled on this Sunday's broadcast of the CBS news program. Though taped before Stewart's harsh comments of "Crossfire'' and one its hosts, Tucker Carlson, he did have the subject of TV news on his mind.

"60 Minutes" airs on CBS Sunday at 7 p.m. (ET/PT).

60 Minutes stopped being compelling television or journalism a long time ago, but I'm wondering if Stewart isn't that most transformational of figures, the truth-teller.

Involuntary Ready Reserve

via yankee doodle at Today in Iraq, who is home after many tragedies and emergencies:

Army officer sues U.S. for deployment
Sat 23 October, 2004 06:13

By Gail Appleson

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A U.S. Army Reserves captain who resigned in June after completing his agreed-upon term of service has sued the government for trying to force him to return to active duty for deployment to Iraq.

Jay Ferriola, 31, of New York filed suit in Manhattan federal court on Friday seeking an injunction blocking the Army from enforcing an order returning him to active duty on Monday. The case names Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld and others as defendants.

The suit charges that the Army's order, dated October 8, violates Ferriola's Constitutional rights against "involuntary servitude" and is a breach of his contract with the military. An emergency hearing was set in the matter for Sunday.

A spokesman for the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office had no immediate comment.

The suit said Ferriola received a letter dated October 8 that ordered him back to active duty on Monday for a period of 545 days. It give as the purpose as "Mobilization for Iraqi Freedom."

Barry Slotnick, Ferriola's lawyer, issued a statement calling the Army's order an illegal "back door" draft. At a media conference late in the day, he was asked by reporters if his client sued because he was afraid to go to Iraq.

"Not at all," Slotnick said. "He wants to continue his life as a civilian. He has a right to do that. He has served his country heroically and patriotically."

Ferriola had voluntarily enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve in 1993 for an eight-year period in exchange for an ROTC scholarship at the Virginia Military Institute.

After graduating, he served in various Army positions and was promoted to the rank of captain. In February 2000 he was separated from active duty and placed in the reserves.

Last year he was ordered back to active duty and was released to the reserves in June, 2003. He completed the eight years of service with the Army in February of this year.

In older days, this was called "impressment." Guard recruiting for the year is off by 5K, so the Army is building back in where ever they can.

I don't think this guy has a leg to stand on, legally, but, hey, I've been wrong before. This sounds like IRR call-up and about five thousand of his colleagues have already shipped out.

Fool Me Once, Shame on You

I thought that it was more than a little bit interesting that police resources could be stretched even further for our polling day, when Condi, Ashcroft and Ridge were spread out across the country on campaign speaking tours. I guess those terrorist threats aren't really all that compelling.

No Direct Evidence of Plot To Attack Around Elections

By Dan Eggen and Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, October 23, 2004; Page A01

On Sept. 15, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and John E. McLaughlin, then acting director of the CIA, brought a special note of concern to their daily briefing with President Bush.

Fresh intelligence had arrived pointing to plans for a mass-casualty terrorist attack before Election Day, bolstering previous indications that such an assault was possible on U.S. soil, according to accounts of the briefing provided to Mueller's and McLaughlin's subordinates. What's more, intelligence officials told Bush, there was reason to believe that the plotters may already have arrived in the United States, according to the accounts. The new information led the FBI and other agencies across the government to launch a well-publicized campaign aimed at foiling potential plots before the elections, including hundreds of interviews in immigrant neighborhoods and aggressive surveillance of suspected terrorist sympathizers.

But five weeks after the effort began, U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials say they have found no direct evidence of an election-related terrorist plot. Authorities also say that a key CIA source who had claimed knowledge of such plans has been discredited, casting doubt on one of the earliest pieces of evidence pointing to a possible attack.

Intelligence officials stress that they continue to receive reports indicating that al Qaeda and its allies would like to mount attacks in the United States close to the Nov. 2 elections, and that such reports have been streaming in since terrorists blew up commuter trains in Madrid days before Spanish elections in March. Yet after hundreds of interviews, scores of immigration arrests and other preventive measures, law enforcement officials say they have been unable to detect signs of an ongoing plot in the United States, nor have they identified specific targets, dates or methods that might be used in one.

"We've not unearthed anything that would add any credence to talk of an election-related attack," said one senior FBI counterterrorism official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because authorities have been instructed not to talk publicly about the issue before the elections. "You can never say there is not a threat, but we have not found specific evidence of one."

Local cops and EMTs all over the country have had leave cancelled and they are already working overtime in massive amounts. But, move along, nothing to see here folks

The Ground Game

What part of you believed that this wasn't going to get really, really, dirty?

Big G.O.P. Bid to Challenge Voters at Polls in Key State
By MICHAEL MOSS

Published: October 23, 2004

Republican Party officials in Ohio took formal steps yesterday to place thousands of recruits inside polling places on Election Day to challenge the qualifications of voters they suspect are not eligible to cast ballots.

Party officials say their effort is necessary to guard against fraud arising from aggressive moves by the Democrats to register tens of thousands of new voters in Ohio, seen as one of the most pivotal battlegrounds in the Nov. 2 elections.

Election officials in other swing states, from Arizona to Wisconsin and Florida, say they are bracing for similar efforts by Republicans to challenge new voters at polling places, reflecting months of disputes over voting procedures and the anticipation of an election as close as the one in 2000.

Ohio election officials said they had never seen so large a drive to prepare for Election Day challenges. They said they were scrambling yesterday to be ready for disruptions in the voting process as well as alarm and complaints among voters. Some officials said they worried that the challenges could discourage or even frighten others waiting to vote.

Ohio Democrats were struggling to match the Republicans' move, which had been rumored for weeks. Both parties had until 4 p.m. to register people they had recruited to monitor the election. Republicans said they had enlisted 3,600 by the deadline, many in heavily Democratic urban neighborhoods of Cleveland, Dayton and other cities. Each recruit was to be paid $100.

The Democrats, who tend to benefit more than Republicans from large turnouts, said they had registered more than 2,000 recruits to try to protect legitimate voters rather than weed out ineligible ones.

Republican officials said they had no intention of disrupting voting but were concerned about the possibility of fraud involving thousands of newly registered Democrats.

"The organized left's efforts to, quote unquote, register voters - I call them ringers - have created these problems," said James P. Trakas, a Republican co-chairman in Cuyahoga County.

Both parties have waged huge campaigns in the battleground states to register millions of new voters, and the developments in Ohio provided an early glimpse of how those efforts may play out on Election Day.

Ohio election officials said that by state law, the parties' challengers would have to show "reasonable" justification for doubting the qualifications of a voter before asking a poll worker to question that person. And, the officials said, challenges could be made on four main grounds: whether the voter is a citizen, is at least 18, is a resident of the county and has lived in Ohio for the previous 30 days.

Elections officials in Ohio said they hoped the criteria would minimize the potential for disruption. But Democrats worry that the challenges will inevitably delay the process and frustrate the voters.

"Our concern is Republicans will be challenging in large numbers for the purpose of slowing down voting, because challenging takes a long time,'' said David Sullivan, the voter protection coordinator for the national Democratic Party in Ohio. "And creating long lines causes our people to leave without voting.''

The Republican challenges in Ohio have already begun. Yesterday, party officials submitted a list of about 35,000 registered voters whose mailing addresses, the Republicans said, were questionable. After registering, they said, each of the voters was mailed a notice, and in each case the notice was returned to election officials as undeliverable.

In Cuyahoga County alone, which includes the heavily Democratic neighborhoods of Cleveland, the Republican Party submitted more than 14,000 names of voters for county election officials to scrutinize for possible irregularities. The party said it had registered more than 1,400 people to challenge voters in that county.

....
The preparations for widespread challenging this year have alarmed some election officials.

"This creates chaos and confusion in the polling site," said R. Doug Lewis, executive director of the Election Center, an international association of election officials. But, he said, "most courts say it's permissible by state law and therefore can't be denied."

In Ohio, Republicans sought to play down any concern that their challenging would be disruptive.

"I suspect there will be challenges," said Robert T. Bennett, chairman of the Ohio Republican Party. "But by and large, people will move through quickly. We want to make sure every eligible voter votes." He added, "99.9 percent will fly right by."

Challengers on both sides said they were uncertain about what to expect. Georgiana Nye, 56, a Dayton real estate broker who was registered by the Republicans as a challenger, said she wanted to help prevent fraud and would accept the $100 for the 13 hours of work and training.

For the Democrats in Dayton, Ronald Magoteaux, 57, a mechanical engineer, said he agreed to be a poll watcher out of concern for new voters. "I think it's sick that these Republicans are up to dirty tricks at the polls," Mr. Magoteaux said. "I believe thousands of votes were lost in 2000, and I want to make sure that doesn't happen in Ohio."

Democrats said they were racing to match the Republicans, precinct by precinct. In some cities, like Dayton, they registered more challengers than the Republicans, election officials said. But in Cuyahoga County, where the Republicans said they had registered 1,436 people to challenge voters, or one in every precinct, Democrats said they had signed up only about 300.

The parties are also preparing to battle over voter qualifications in Florida, where they had until last Tuesday to register challengers. In Fort Myers, Republicans named 100 watchers for the county's 171 precincts, up from 60 in 2000. But Democrats registered 300 watchers in the county, a sixfold increase.

You don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

Of course, if the reporters would do their job, we'd find out if this was different from 2000, and if so, by how much. This reporters little anecdotes don't tell us much.

Pay No Attention To That Man Behind The Curtain

They just make shit up.

Pentagon Reportedly Skewed C.I.A.'s View of Qaeda Tie
By DOUGLAS JEHL

Published: October 22, 2004

WASHINGTON, Oct. 21 - As recently as January 2004, a top Defense Department official misrepresented to Congress the view of American intelligence agencies about the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, according to a new report by a Senate Democrat.

The report said a classified document prepared by Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, not only asserted that there were ties between the Baghdad government and the terrorist network, but also did not reflect accurately the intelligence agencies' assessment - even while claiming that it did.

In issuing the report, the senator, Carl M. Levin, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said he would ask the panel to take "appropriate action'' against Mr. Feith. Senator Levin said Mr. Feith had repeatedly described the ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda as far more significant and extensive than the intelligence agencies had.

The broad outlines of Mr. Feith's efforts to promote the idea of such close links have been previously disclosed.

The view, a staple of the Bush administration's public statements before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, has since been discredited by the Sept. 11 commission, which concluded that Iraq and Al Qaeda had "no close collaborative relationship.''

The 46-page report by Senator Levin and the Democratic staff of the Armed Services Committee is the first to focus narrowly on the role played by Mr. Feith's office. Democrats had sought to include that line of inquiry in a report completed in June by the Senate Intelligence Committee, but Republicans on the panel postponed that phase of the study until after the presidential election.

In an interview, Mr. Levin said he had concluded that Mr. Feith had practiced "continuing deception of Congress.'' But he said he had no evidence that Mr. Feith's conduct had been illegal.

Mr. Levin began the inquiry in June 2003, after Republicans on the panel, led by Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, declined to take part. He said his findings were endorsed by other Democrats on the committee, but complained that the Defense Department and the Central Intelligence Agency had declined to provide crucial documents.

In a statement, the Pentagon said the Levin report "appears to depart from the bipartisan, consultative relationship" between the Defense Department and the Armed Services Committee, adding, "The unanimous, bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report of July 2004 found no evidence that administration officials tried to coerce, influence or pressure intelligence analysts to change their judgments."

Senator Warner said, "I take strong exception to the conclusions Senator Levin reaches." He said his view was based on the Intelligence Committee's "analysis thus far of the public and classified records."

Among the findings in the report were that the C.I.A. had become skeptical by June 2002, earlier than previously known, about a supposed meeting in April 2001 in Prague between Mohamed Atta, a leader of the Sept. 11 attacks, and an Iraqi intelligence official. Nevertheless, Mr. Feith and other senior Bush administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, continued at least through the end of 2002 to describe the reported meeting as evidence of a possible link between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mr. Levin's report drew particular attention to statements by Mr. Feith in communications with Congress beginning in July 2003 about such a link.

A classified annex sent by Mr. Feith to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Oct. 27, 2003, which was disclosed two weeks later by The Weekly Standard, asserted that "Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990's to 2003,'' and concluded, "There can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda to plot against Americans.''

In a Nov. 15 news release, the Defense Department said the "provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies, and done with the permission of the intelligence community.'' But Mr. Levin's report said that statement was incorrect, because the Central Intelligence Agency had not cleared release of Mr. Feith's annex.

The Levin report also disclosed for the first time that the C.I.A., in December 2003, sent Mr. Feith a letter pointing out corrections he should make to the document before providing it to Senator Levin, who had requested the document as part of his investigation.

Perhaps most critically, the report says, Mr. Feith repeated a questionable assertion concerning a Jordanian, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Qaeda ally whose presence in Iraq was cited by the Bush administration before the war as crucial evidence of Mr. Hussein's support for terrorism.

In his Oct. 27 letter, Mr. Feith told Congress that the Iraqi intelligence service knew of Mr. Zarqawi's entry into Iraq. In recommending a correction, the C.I.A. said that claim had not been supported by the intelligence report that Mr. Feith had cited, the Levin report says. Nevertheless, the report says, Mr. Feith reiterated the assertion in his addendum, attributing it to a different intelligence report - one that likewise did not state that Iraq knew Mr. Zarqawi was in the country.

A reassessment completed by American intelligence agencies in September concluded that it is not clear whether Mr. Hussein's government harbored Mr. Zarqawi during his time in Iraq before the war, intelligence officials have said.

Governance, war and taxes by making stuff up. This is Washington as Emerald City.

Geeks for GOTV

I just volunteered for this. If you have the computer skills and the time, this would be the place that you could put your geekiness to work for Our Guy without leaving your terminal (and you know you are going to be there, anyway.) I just put myself on call for every night through 11/2, so evening posts might be slim if there are a lot of questions. It's basic helpdesk work and I don't have a hard time doing that over the phone.

You don't even have to be a power user to do this, but it would help. Click on the link above to apply.

I got the link from bean at Alas, A blog.

If you can't do that, there are lots of other things you can do. GOTV will need drivers on Election Day and poll monitors. Lawyers looking for Pro Bono opportunities can call precinct captains or state Kerry committees for assignments, the need here is still huge. Between now and Nov. 2, you can flier, doorknock and phonebank. Find your local Kerry committee, it will take a bit of clicking here. But there is plenty to do and something everyone can do.

I cut my political teeth in 1968 with Humphrey and learned to do it all when I was still 14--envelope stuffing, phone banking, campaign appearances with the candidate as a go-go booted "Humphrey Girl" in a song and dance line. Who ever you are and whatever you can do, there is a place for you to do something more than wring your hands as we come down to the wire.

You don't want to wake up on Nov. 3 wishing you could have done something more. It is going to be close. Be the difference.

Siege of Fallujah

Looks like the American Army, Guard and Reserves aren't the only force being stretched thin.

1,000 Territorial Army soldiers failed gun test
By Nick Foley

22 October 2004

Nearly 1,000 Territorial Army soldiers were sent to fight in Iraq despite failing their weapons test, a court martial heard today.

A total of 949 part-time soldiers failed to achieve the required standard or were trained by instructors who had not passed the test themselves. But because the figures were only based on records over an eight-month period, the number could have been as high as 2,300, the court was told.

The figure was revealed during the court martial of reservist Lance Corporal Ian Blaymire, who is charged with the manslaughter of a colleague while serving in Iraq.

The Territorial Army is roughly equivalent to our Reserves. The British public is very unhappy that British troops are being sent to Baghdad to relieve Americans for the siege of Fallujah, of which William Lind says:

Unfortunately, our leaders do not understand the Fourth Generation, so it appears we are about to throw this opportunity away. We continue to bomb and shell Fallujah, which pushes our enemies toward each other. We seem to be readying an all-out assault on the city, which will have the usual result when Goliath defeats David: a moral defeat for Goliath. Many Iraqis will die, the city will be wrecked (as always, we will promise to rebuild it but not do so), and any losses the insurgents suffer will be made up many times over by a flood of new recruits. Never was it more truly said that, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

Of course, we claim we are hitting only Mr. al-Zarqawi’s fighters, but anyone who knows ordinance knows that is a lie. The 500, 1000 and 2000-pound bombs we drop have bursting radii that guarantee civilian casualties in an urban environment. More, it appears we see those civilian casualties as useful.
....
The point here is not merely that in using terrorism ourselves, we are doing something bad. The point is that, by using the word “terrorism” as a synonym for anything our enemies do, while defining anything we do as legitimate acts of war, we undermine ourselves at the moral level – which, again, is the decisive level in Fourth Generation war.

So, we are moral midgets and want to ask the Brits to join us. Colin Brown of the Independent reports:

Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary who resigned over the war, last night warned Tony Blair that Britain will be associated with the blame if the assault on Fallujah resulted in heavy civilian casualties.

There are fears that the number of troops in Iraq is being increased under cover of the moves to replace the 1st Battalion, the Black Watch as the main reserve force, fuelling anxiety among Labour MPs that Britain will be sucked into a Vietnam-style war. Mr Blair denied on Wednesday in the Commons that the number of British troops in Iraq was being increased, but Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, refused to repeat that denial last night when challenged on BBC radio.

Patrick Mercer, the shadow Home Security Minister, accused ministers of "sneaking in the extra troops". He added: "Tony Blair has said he is prepared to pay the blood price. Let us hope that not too many of this battle group have to honour his words."

Mr Blair warned MPs to expect an upsurge in violence in the run-up to the January elections in Iraq. Dissident Labour MPs said last night they feared Britain would be asked again by the US to send more troops.

The role assigned to the Black Watch will also cause anxiety that British troops are being more closely associated than expected with the forthcoming assault on Fallujah. The Defence Secretary indicated on Monday that they would be relieving an existing US unit, but military sources said last night that was not the case. "The Americans are throwing a ring of steel around Fallujah, and are sending in Iraqi forces to do the close fighting. The British and American forces will be in an outer ring of steel," a military source said. "The Black Watch will protect an approach route to the city. They are not replacing an existing American force."

If the Black Watch sustains casualties or the British press gets wind of what is really going on in Fallujah, Tony Blair will be held accountable.

Blowing Smoke

Behind Bush's Rhetoric

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, October 22, 2004; Page A25

Begin with Bush's distortions of Kerry's record on terrorism. Here's Bush in Mason City, Iowa, on Wednesday: "Senator Kerry was recently asked how September the 11th had changed him. He replied, 'It didn't change me much at all.' And this unchanged worldview becomes obvious when he calls the war against terror primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation, rather than what I believe: a war which requires the full use of American power to keep us secure."

By taking seven of Kerry's words out of a much longer statement, Bush twisted his opponent's position beyond recognition. Here is journalist Matt Bai's account, in the New York Times Magazine article Bush was citing, of what Kerry actually said when he was asked how Sept. 11 had changed him:

"I mean, it didn't change me much at all. It just sort of accelerated, confirmed in me, the urgency of doing the things I thought we needed to be doing. I mean, to me, it wasn't as transformational as it was a kind of anger, a frustration and an urgency that we weren't doing the kinds of things necessary to prevent it and to deal with it." Bai added: "Kerry did allow that he, like other Americans, felt less safe after 9/11." Not exactly the guy Bush described.

But if Bush will say whatever it takes about terrorism to win reelection, what will he do with his victory? Bush often says that he wants to allow individuals to invest part of their Social Security tax payments in personal accounts. What he doesn't say is how he will cover the transitional costs of at least $1 trillion over a decade. He would guarantee current recipients and those near retirement what they are due under the present system, but he won't say how much he would cut the existing guaranteed benefit for future recipients. All privatization plans that claim to reduce the long-term costs of Social Security, as Bush says his would, are based on cuts in future government benefits.

Bush skimps on the details because he knows the details are the unpopular part of his idea. Those who say Bush will have to propose benefit cuts are accused of "scaring" people. But voters should be scared when politicians talk about the benefits of their grand schemes and don't level with them on the costs.

The same is true of Bush's promise of "fundamental tax reform." All the evidence -- from bills introduced in Congress and from ideas floated by the administration -- suggests that Republicans want to shift the tax burden away from investment and savings and toward wages and consumption. That's a recipe for putting even more of the total tax burden on lower- and middle-income people and less of it on the wealthy. In August, Bush even described a national sales tax as "the kind of interesting idea that we ought to explore seriously." The White House quickly backtracked, and no one has done much since to pin Bush down.

Some conservative legislators have put forward detailed proposals for a national sales tax and Social Security privatization. I think these ideas are a mistake, but I admire the willingness of these politicians to open their plans to public scrutiny. Bush, on the other hand, hides the details. He wants to get himself reelected by talking about terrorism -- and he will inform the electorate only after Nov. 2 that they voted for a lot of other things that they never heard much about.

He did the same thing after his 2000 selection. I seem to recall that he promised no nation-building, among a bunch of other things. Compassionate conservatism turns out to be rapacious corporatism. But I hear he does give out hugs.

Can It!

I'm totally with Tom Beaudoin (via Holy Weblog! (Hi, MJ!):

Talk That Diminishes Faith

By Tom Beaudoin
Friday, October 22, 2004; Page A25

This may sound impolitic and even un-Christian, particularly coming from a Christian theologian, but I don't want to hear any more from the presidential candidates about their personal faith.

The candidates aren't going to heed me, of course. During the debates, President Bush proclaimed the importance of his Christian faith, saying, "Prayer and religion sustain me. I receive calmness in the storms of the presidency," and he even stated his belief that "God wants everybody to be free." John Kerry, in general more guarded about his Catholic beliefs but becoming more outspoken recently on matters of religion, pointed to his altar-boy past and recounted the "two greatest commandments" he's learned: "Love the Lord, your God, with all your mind, your body and your soul, and love your neighbor as yourself."

Now, I'm no Scrooge or atheist. The reasons I want Bush and Kerry to keep quiet about their faith are religious in nature. Why? It comes down to this: Today a public confession of faith by a presidential candidate is so deeply enmeshed in the calculating politics of manipulation that it simply should not be believed. Anyone who thinks a modern major-party candidate can talk about faith in a way that is not seen as angling for some political advantage, some movement in the polls, is asking the impossible.

Americans have been subjected to an outpouring of media investigation into both Bush's and Kerry's faith. We've learned that Bush moves in Episcopal, Presbyterian and Methodist circles; he feels close to Jesus and he prays; he is unafraid to talk in ultimate moral terms of good and evil; and the military struggles he is conducting have the bearing of providence for him. Kerry sometimes attends the Paulist Center in Boston, has a distant Jewish background, has a stance on abortion that might disqualify him from receiving Communion from some bishops and, notably, has not talked as easily as the president about his relationship with God.

It's so common on what is called the religious right to view Bush's statements as authentic insights into his heart that it would seem the Republicans are the sole party of faith-based campaigning. But there have also been calls for more political faith-talk from religious people who don't share the views of the right. Jim Wallis, for example, editor of Sojourners magazine and a tireless leader in progressive Christian activism, has passionately pleaded for the secular left not to prematurely pluck discussion of faith from the vocabulary of Democrats. He has argued that "Democrats are wrong to restrict religion to private space." He wants them to talk about faith openly.

While I agree with Wallis's call for a broader national conversation about religion and politics, I think the Democratic presidential nominee, as well as the Republican, ought to keep religious talk out of the campaign. Voters for whom religious faith makes a difference can have good reason to distrust candidates' talk about their faith. When candidates talk thus they diminish the dignity of faith itself by reducing it to a pious confession of conviction, humility or concern, a mere uttering of earnest words. A thick respect for the mystery of God, for the inability of God to be domesticated to one program or party -- a respect that should be proper to the Christian faith of our presidential candidates -- cannot be honored by such faith-talk in an election season.

Injecting religion into the political process cheapens faith and does nothing to quell the (justifiable) secular cynicism about faith and faith claims. I'm tired of it, too.

MJ has also put up a page of annoted religion blog links, to which she promises to add. I promise to get her site up on the blogroll over the weekend (I know, I said that last weekend. This weekend should be a little lighter in the running around department.)

Politics, Iraqi Style

U.N. Aide Says Iraqi Elections Are on Target
By DEXTER FILKINS

Published: October 22, 2004

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 21 - With nationwide elections three months away, the senior United Nations official here says his office and the interim Iraqi government have assembled a list of nearly 14 million Iraqi voters, set up 550 voter registration sites around the country and hired 6,000 people to staff them.

Carlos Valenzuela, chief United Nations elections adviser here, said in an interview that the list of 13.9 million Iraqi voters, drawn from the country's food's distribution program, represented a tentative voter registration roll. It will form the basis of a more complete list of voters scheduled to be compiled when the official registration period begins on Nov. 1.

Mr. Valenzuela and Iraqi election officials said these developments marked significant steps toward holding the elections by Jan. 31, the deadline imposed by the Iraqi interim constitution and endorsed by the Americans.

Mr. Valenzuela said he believed the elections could indeed be held at that time and that although the United Nations team of 14 advisors is small, the large numbers of Iraqis involved in the process were helping the enterprise meet its schedule.

"So far, so good," said Mr. Valenzuela, who has helped set up elections in such violence-torn places as Liberia, Cambodia and East Timor. "There will be problems. It's always like this. But it is still possible to do it."

Mr. Valenzuela's remarks were partly an answer to statements made on Wednesday by the Iraqi foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, who criticized the United Nations for not sending enough election workers out into the country. Mr. Zebari cited East Timor, where the United Nations employed hundreds of workers to help with the election.

Religious Leaders Ahead in Iraq Poll
U.S.-Supported Government Is Losing Ground

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 22, 2004; Page A01

Leaders of Iraq's religious parties have emerged as the country's most popular politicians and would win the largest share of votes if an election were held today, while the U.S.-backed government of interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi is losing serious ground, according to a U.S.-financed poll by the International Republican Institute.

More than 45 percent of Iraqis also believe that their country is heading in the wrong direction, and 41 percent say it is moving in the right direction.

Within the Bush administration, a victory by Iraq's religious parties is viewed as the worst-case scenario. Washington has hoped that Allawi and the current team, which was selected by U.S. and U.N. envoys, would win or do well in Iraq's first democratic election, in January. U.S. officials believe a secular government led by moderates is critical, in part because the new government will oversee writing a new Iraqi constitution.

Iraqi PM escapes mortar attack

MOSUL: Rebels fired several mortar rounds in Mosul on Thursday in an attack possibly aimed at visiting interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi.

Journalists accompanying Allawi heard about five blasts as the prime minister’s party was about to leave the city. Moments later a small blaze and plume of black smoke could be seen from the helicopters taking his entourage away.

Asked if he thought the mortar barrage were meant for him, Allawi told reporters: "It was known that I was coming to Mosul, so I was certainly surprised that this did not happen at the beginning of my trip, but at the end."

There were no reports of casualties from the mortar rounds, which landed a few streets away from the prime minister’s party. Meanwhile, Britain agreed to send troops to dangerous areas near Baghdad, a politically perilous step for Tony Blair who could face a sharp backlash if casualty rates start rising.

This is the "democracy and freedom" Bush has delivered to Iraq: theocrats, assissination attempts for anyone crazy enough to stand for office, insufficient UN help to offer anything but a figleaf of credibility for the "elections." Nicely done, George, nicely done.

Gift to be Simple

Estimates by U.S. See More Rebels With More Funds
By ERIC SCHMITT and THOM SHANKER

Published: October 22, 2004

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 21 - Senior American officials are beginning to assemble a new portrait of the insurgency that has continued to inflict casualties on American and Iraqi forces, showing that it has significantly more fighters and far greater financial resources than had been estimated.

When foreign fighters and the network of a Jordanian militant, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, are counted with home-grown insurgents, the hard-core resistance numbers between 8,000 and 12,000 people, a tally that swells to more than 20,000 when active sympathizers or covert accomplices are included, according to the American officials.

These estimates contrast sharply with earlier intelligence reports, in which the number of insurgents has varied from as few as 2,000 to a maximum of 7,000. The revised estimate is influencing the military campaign in Iraq, but has not prompted a wholesale review of the strategy, officials said.

In recent interviews, military and other government officials in Iraq and Washington said the core of the Iraqi insurgency now consisted of as many as 50 militant cells that draw on "unlimited money'' from an underground financial network run by former Baath Party leaders and Saddam Hussein's relatives..

Their financing is supplemented in great part by wealthy Saudi donors and Islamic charities that funnel large sums of cash through Syria, according to these officials, who have access to detailed intelligence reports.

Only half the estimated $1 billion the Hussein government put in Syrian banks before the war has been recovered, Pentagon officials said. There is no tally of money flowing through Syria to Iraq from wealthy Saudis or Islamic charities, but a Pentagon official said the figure is "significant."

Unclassified assessments by some private analysts have recently sounded some of the same warnings. This week, the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, in releasing its annual global military survey, said perhaps 1,000 Islamic jihadists have entered Iraq to join the fight, and it estimated that it would take five years for the American military to prepare Iraqi forces to take over fully from the forces of the United States and its allies.

As per usual, the Bushies are blowing smoke. Hope is not an exit strategy. There is no exit strategy.

As I cruised around the blogosphere between data base projects yesterday, I was struck by a silly game some bloggers were playing: give me five (or whatever) reasons to vote for Kerry that would be easy enough to explain for a child. What nonsense! When you have an incompetent employee who has screwed up every project he's taken on (some of which he was freelancing on) you fire him. It's that simple.

Real World

Bush's Blinkers
By BOB HERBERT

Published: October 22, 2004

There are consequences, often powerful consequences, to turning one's back on reality. The president may believe that freedom's on the march, and that freedom is God's gift to every man and woman in the world, and perhaps even that he is the vessel through which that gift is transmitted. But when he is crafting policy decisions that put people by the hundreds of thousands into harm's way, he needs to rely on more than the perceived good wishes of the Almighty. He needs to submit those policy decisions to a good hard reality check.

Here's one good reason why:

Dr. Gene Bolles spent two years as the chief of neurosurgery at the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, which is where most of the soldiers wounded in Iraq are taken. Among his patients was Pfc. Jessica Lynch. In an interview posted this week on the Web site AlterNet.org, Dr. Bolles was asked: "What kind of cases did you treat in Landstuhl? And these were mostly kids, right?"

He said: "Well, I call them that since I'm 62 years old. And they were 18, 19, maybe 21. They all seemed young. Certainly younger than my children. As a neurosurgeon I mostly dealt with injuries to the brain, the spinal cord, or the spine itself. The injuries were all fairly horrific, anywhere from the loss of extremities, multiple extremities, to severe burns. It just goes on and on and on. ... As a doctor myself who has seen trauma throughout his career, I've never seen it to this degree. The numbers, the degree of injuries. It really kind of caught me off guard."

If you're the president and you're contemplating a war in which thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of these kinds of injuries will take place, you have an obligation to seek out the best sources of information and the wisest advice from the widest possible array of counselors. And you have an absolute obligation to exercise sound judgment based upon facts, and not simply faith.

In a disturbing article in last Sunday's New York Times Magazine, the writer Ron Suskind told of a meeting he'd had with a senior adviser to the president. The White House at the time was unhappy about an article Mr. Suskind had written.

According to Mr. Suskind, "The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' " The aide told Mr. Suskind, "That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Got that? We may think there are real-world consequences to the policies of the president, real pain and real grief for real people. But to the White House, that kind of thinking is passé. The White House doesn't even recognize that kind of reality.

Like you, I have to live in the real world, the one where unemployment runs out after six months, where the mortgage company forecloses when you can't pay, where you get thrown out if the rent is two months late and go hungry if you can't afford food and the food bank has been cleaned out by the 15th of the month, where 5 for a dollar packets of ramen noodles start giving you MSG headaches and stomach aches by the third day.

It isn't a question of reality v. faith: faith operates in the real world. Anything else is delusion.

Tying it All Together

I'm in a very philosophical mood this evening, thinking about poetry, metaphor, religion and politics--all of which are significators of things which are too big to be completely understood. No one can completely get their mind around the polis, for example, and that's the least problematic noun in that list.

I sometimes issue emails to friends which fall into a category I call Notes to the File: Interim Report, because every understanding I have will be revised later as new information comes in. Every understanding is subject to revision, but once in a while I feel like I'm on to something worthwhile and I send it out. Tonight, it's my reaction to your answers to my question about honesty last night. I noticed something: you can't talk about honesty without relationships.

Let's take a little look at a word that gets tossed around rather casually but actually means something fairly specific:

re-ligio (Lat): re-again; ligio-to bind

To bind what was broken, to restore.

Religion, particularly in this day and age, is about restoration of what was lost (this is a post-modern idea,) recovering that which was discarded in the rush of modernity which simply overwhelmed pre-modernity in ways which weren't always so usefull or fully understood.

Our brain science is in the process of recovering our understanding of our reptile brain, our lit-crit types have moved from Thomas Pynchon to a new appreciation of Jane Austen. I could go on. It looks like we might have dropped a thing or two on our way to where we are right now (wherever that is) and might need to check the pavement behind us. There might be gold there. Particularly if we want to understand where we are right now. Checking the steet signs is a useful exercise.

What's "religion" to you? For me, it means showing up with the local congregation for corporate worship (how would you define those terms?) regularly, which is a physical reminder that I'm not in this alone, and private reflection, meditation and prayer, a face toward the people I meet everyday which understands that the God of my imagination loves them, too, and so should I, and a preference for wonder when looking at my world, which I try to serve by doing concrete actions for those in agony, which is not any human's normal state in God's eyes. For me, it is seeing the world through God's eyes, the all seeing ones. I don't get to see it very often, but it happens.

What does "religion" mean to you? What helps you, what hurts when you think about questions of ultimate meaning? Where do you think you are going? Who are you taking with you? And what do you believe that you'll find when you "get there?" When God speaks to you, what does She say? How can you tell?

If you've never seen the world through God's eyes, go down to your local homeless shelter, AIDS facility or Rape Crisis Center. Try to love your dad, no matter how shitty he treated you. You can love and be honest in the same breath, it ain't easy. But get out of your own life for a week and see what love looks like with people who don't look like you, have no prospects like yours, and then check in on yourself after you've gotten your lucky geography out of the way.

I recommend this highly. Drive into a neighborhood which scares the crap out of you to do some public service, and then notice that the residents who live there are scared to death, too. What are YOU going to do about it.

Make a difference.

Political Animals

Chiller Theater

Published: October 21, 2004

Mr. Ashcroft and Tom Ridge, the secretary of Homeland Security, have turned the business of keeping Americans informed about the threat of terrorism into a politically scripted series of color-coded scare sessions. And Mr. Cheney is even more discredited. The vice president hyped the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction long after it had been debunked within the government. He still draws a fictional link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, and he was the first major figure in Mr. Bush's campaign to turn the fearmongering about Mr. Kerry into a campaign staple.

There is a real danger in having leaders so lacking in credibility on this vital issue: if they ever deliver a real warning, it could be discounted by a large segment of the population, and that could really put hundreds of thousands of lives at risk.

We don't need Mr. Cheney to tell us what everyone, including Mr. Kerry, already knows: the threat of terrorism is real, including from nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, and defending against it is the government's gravest responsibility.

Part of that responsibility lies in taking action. Although Mr. Bush is running largely on this issue, his administration has not provided enough money for important security programs like safeguarding the nation's ports. And it has squandered resources on half-baked cases against people who posed no real threat and on a war in Iraq that has actually increased the risk of terrorism.

But another big part of the government's role is to maintain the highest possible level of credibility. Turning our fears about a terrorist attack into just another campaign commercial undermines this trust and make us all more vulnerable.

Once in a while the paper of record cuts through the spin and gets it right. To reward good behavior, I may buy a paper copy today.

I did that at the bus stop earlier this week, it was kind of a strange experience. I haven't read a paper paper in well over a year. I've learned that I read better and faster on the Net.

Tort Reform

Marine Mammals May Not Sue President, Court Rules

LOS ANGELES -- The world's whales, porpoises and dolphins have no standing to sue President Bush over the U.S. Navy's use of sonar equipment that harms marine mammals, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco, widely considered one of the most liberal and activist in the country, said it saw no reason animals should not be allowed to sue but said they had not yet been granted that right.

"If Congress and the President intended to take the extraordinary step of authorizing animals as well as people and legal entities to sue they could and should have said so plainly," Judge William A. Fletcher wrote in an 18-page opinion for the panel.

The lawsuit was brought against Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on behalf of "the cetacean community" -- defined as the world's whales, porpoises and dolphins -- by their self-appointed lawyer, marine mammal activist Lanny Sinkin.

No, I'm not turning into Annanova, but that headline was too scrumptious to pass up.

It's About Civil Rights

I've stayed away from this one, but I think Ellen Goodman hits all of the high spots this morning:

Who's insensitive to gays? Start with the Cheneys

By Ellen Goodman, Globe Columnist | October 21, 2004

If Cheney has an argument with anybody it's with his running mate, George Bush. But the "pretty angry father" hasn't directed any of that anger at the Republican platform he's running on.

As for Lynne Cheney, who called Kerry's comments "a cheap and tawdry political trick," what does she call the RNC mailing that warned evangelicals that if Kerry is elected, the Bible will be banned and gay marriage will be the law of the land? High-minded?

At the Republican convention, Alan Keyes, the Republican candidate for Illinois senator, said homosexuality "is based simply on the premise of selfish hedonism." When asked if Mary Cheney was a selfish hedonist, he answered "of course she is." Did Lynne call Alan Keyes a bad man?

Cheney, for his part, said that this incident proves Kerry "will say and do anything in order to get elected." What about the anti-gay marriage amendments gracing the ballots of 11 states, including swing states like Ohio? Did he criticize the campaign's use of the gay issue to get evangelicals to the polls? Who will say and do anything to get elected?

And two days after the debate there was a rally in Washington dubbed "Mayday for Marriage." The "nonpartisan" crowd full of Bush-Cheney buttons was as antigay as it gets. Did I miss it when the candidates distanced themselves from Mayday?

Mary Cheney is an endangered species, a gay Republican in a campaign so hostile that even the Log Cabin Republicans refused to endorse Bush this year. She is loyal to her father, who is loyal to the president.

Is it any wonder that many people in the gay community think she is working for the enemy? There is even a milk carton posted on the Internet that asks the question: Have you seen her?

Yes, I am sure that Mary doesn't want to be seen as the Gay Daughter. Yes, Kerry could have made his point -- that homosexuality is not a choice -- without her help. And yes, the impulse to give a candidate's families some space and privacy is the right one.

But what Mary presumably wants in terms of privacy and acceptance is at heart of the gay community's pursuit of full and equal rights, which her party opposes. It's the people who still regard "lesbian" as a dirty word who most criticized the senator for using it.

So here we have it. The Republicans are using gay-bashing on a culture warpath back to the White House while they spin this story so masterfully that they look like the sensitive protectors of a family with a gay daughter. They have actually won political points suggesting that Kerry is picking on a gay woman while they, on the other hand, have compassion for the conservative Cheneys.

Hot damn, they're good at this. The next thing you know Karl Rove and & Co. will figure out a way for the candidate who (sort of) served in the Air National Guard to win political points over the decorated veteran of the Vietnam War. They might even try to tarnish his purple hearts.

Aw, no, they wouldn't go that far

Reality-Based

Bush Supporters Misread Many of His Foreign Policy Positions

Kerry Supporters Largely Accurate

Swing Voters Also Misread Bush, But Not Kerry

As the nation prepares to watch the presidential candidates debate foreign policy issues, a new PIPA-Knowledge Networks poll finds that Americans who plan to vote for President Bush have many incorrect assumptions about his foreign policy positions. Kerry supporters, on the other hand, are largely accurate in their assessments. The uncommitted also tend to misperceive Bush’s positions, though to a smaller extent than Bush supporters, and to perceive Kerry’s positions correctly. Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments: “What is striking is that even after nearly four years President Bush’s foreign policy positions are so widely misread, while Senator Kerry, who is relatively new to the public and reputed to be unclear about his positions, is read correctly.”

Many of the uncommitted (those who say they are not very sure which candidate they will vote for) also misread Bush’s position on most issues, though in most cases this was a plurality, not a majority. The uncommitted incorrectly believed that Bush favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements (69%), the US being part of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (51%), the International Criminal Court (47% to 31%), the land mines treaty (50%), and the Kyoto treaty on global warming (45% to 37%). Only 35% knew that Bush favors building a new missile defense system now, while 36% incorrectly believed he wishes to do more research until its capabilities are proven, and 22% did not give an answer. Only 41% knew that Bush favors increased defense spending, while 49% incorrectly assumed he wants to keep it the same (29%) or cut it (20%). A plurality of 46% was correct that Bush wants the US, rather than the UN, to take the stronger role in developing Iraq’s new government (37% assumed the UN).

Uncurious Bush supporters are rather like their candidate.

I find this troubling: democracy depends on an informed electorate.

New Holiday

A World Series ticket
Sox complete comeback, oust Yankees for AL title

By Dan Shaughnessy, Globe Staff | October 21, 2004

NEW YORK -- Forevermore, the date goes into the New England calendar as an official no-school/no-work/no-mail-delivery holiday in Red Sox Nation.

Mark it down. Oct. 20. It will always be the day that Sox citizens were liberated from 8 decades of torment and torture at the hands of the New York Yankees and their fans. Boston Baseball's Bastille Day.

The 2004 Red Sox won the American League pennant in the heart of the Evil Empire last night. In the heretofore haunted Bronx house, raggedy men wearing red socks embarrassed and eliminated the $182 million payroll Yankees, 10-3, in the seventh and deciding game of their American League Championship Series. On the very soil where the Sox were so cruelly foiled in this same game one year ago, the Sons of Tito Francona completed the greatest postseason comeback in baseball history. No major league team had ever recovered from a 3-0 series deficit.

Which ever one of you said that the Sox's karma would break in the direction of even more exquisite agony called this one. I have no fingernails left for a World Series.

Evening Prayer

It is night now, and I have to get ready for bed. That means clearing all the tabs on the task bar, rebooting the computer and starting again. Thank you for your trust in this site, and I trust your honesty.

Trust is a complicated project and I'd like to know what you think about it, what the word kicks up for you. I'm working in an environment right now where nobody trusts anybody and I'm looking for ways to fix it. What can you tell me? It takes only one honest actor to change a system and I have a boatload of allies. Tell me what you know, the web is the world wide place to make change happen and you get to play

Sidney is in the House

And the Big Dog is back.

Turnout will be key
With so many new registrations this year, the prospects for Kerry look good, despite intense efforts to suppress African-American, Hispanic and Democratic voters.

By Sidney Blumenthal

Oct. 20, 2004 | Passing almost without notice earlier this month, the public release of the official staff report prepared by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission on "The Civil Rights Record of the George W. Bush Administration," whose submission is required by federal law, was blocked by the Republican commissioners. Nonetheless, it was posted on the commission's Web site. "This report," the site states, "finds that President Bush has neither exhibited leadership on pressing civil rights issues, nor taken actions that matched his words."

"No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear," wrote Edmund Burke. But not even the eve of destruction will stifle turnout.

My democratic operative friends are checking in this evening and they are in good moods, the trends are good (I don't know if they genuflect to the polls or read the entrails of chickens, I no longer care) and are predicting record turnout on Nov. 2. Me, I'm fried from this bi-polar campaign and its swings and the AL series, emotionally wrung out. Along with trying to wrap my mind around two new programming languages (and, my God, I think I'm going to have to add Perl, sob.)

How are you holding up?

Coming in from the Cold

I love his books, I've read them all. Listen to what this British subject thinks of our election season:

If Le Carré Could Vote

By John le Carré, John le Carré is the author of "The Spy Who Came In From the Cold," "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" and many other novels.

Maybe there's one good reason — just one — for reelecting George W. Bush, and that's to force him to live with the consequences of his appalling actions and answer for his own lies, rather than wish the job on a Democrat who would then get blamed for his predecessor's follies.
....
Is your president a great war leader because he allowed himself to be manipulated by a handful of deluded ideologues? Is Tony Blair, my prime minister, a great war leader because he committed Britain's troops, foreign policy and domestic security to the same harebrained adventure?

You are voting in November. We will vote next year. Yet the outcome in both countries will in large part depend on the same question: How long can the lies last now that the truth has finally been told? The Iraq war was planned long before 9/11. Osama bin Laden provided the excuse. Iraq paid the price. American kids paid the price. British kids paid the price. Our politicians lied to us.

While Bush was waging his father's war at your expense, he was also ruining your country. He made your rich richer and your poor and unemployed more numerous. He robbed your war veterans of their due and reduced your children's access to education. And he deprived more Americans than ever before of healthcare.

Now he's busy cooking the books, burying deficits and calling in contingency funds to fight a war that his advisors promised him he could light and put out like a candle.

Meanwhile, your Patriot Act has swept aside constitutional and civil liberties that took brave Americans 200 years to secure and were once the envy of a world that now looks on in horror, not just at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib but at what you are doing to yourselves.

But please don't feel isolated from the Europe you twice saved. Give us back the America we loved, and your friends will be waiting for you. Here in Britain, for as long as we have Tony Blair singing the same lies as George W. Bush, your nightmares will be ours.

Sir John, we are doing everything we can.

Breakout Blogging

Just in time for the election,American Rage is now live. This blog of blogs includes blogs from every slice of the political pie and identifies them as left, right or independent. There are discussion forums and a number of other nifty features. I am pleased that the blogger has chosen to include Just a Bump in the Beltway among his selection of blogs on the left. We're in the company of such lefty luminaries as Josh Marshall, Juan Cole, Brad DeLong and Max Sawicky. The blogger in charge has put together a nicely represented selection of blogs from across the political spectrum, so it is virtually one stop shopping for points of view on the news of the day.

I'm also very much enjoying my Sunday posting on The American Street, which is a blog community even more than it is a group blog, one with a lively conversation going on behind the scenes. Friday is humor day at TAS, just so's you know. If "angels can fly because they have the ability to take themselves lightly," then this is a rag-tag bunch of angels. Voices at TAS range from Gen. J.C. Christian, Patriot, to Julia of Sysiphus Shrugged and Orcinus' Dave Neiwert. The blogroll includes links to the home blogs of the whole fam-damily. Click on the links and take a look at what other lefties are saying.

Coalition Building

Hungary to await US election outcome to decide on Iraq troop extension
BUDAPEST (AFP) Oct 19, 2004

Hungary will wait until after the US presidential election to decide whether it wants the country's troops to stay in Iraq beyond their current mandate, which expires in December, Defence Minister Ferenc Juhasz said late on Monday.

"The Hungarian government will only submit its recommendation to parliament on the extension of the Hungarian participation in Iraq after the US presidential election," Juhasz told public television.

The government declined to comment specifically on how the outcome of the US vote on November 2 would influence Hungary's military presence in Iraq, where Budapest currently has 300 troops, mostly logistics experts.

NBut a spokesman said the US election was was one of several factors that the government would consider before deciding whether to seek an extension of the Hungarian military presence in Iraq.

"Other factors include whether Hungarian troops can help ensure a peaceful election in Iraq planned for next year, what the security situation will be in that country and whether the Iraqi government will ask for our troops stay longer," defence ministry spokesman Istvan Bocskai told AFP.

A two-thirds parliamentary majority is needed for an extension of the Hungarian troop presence in Iraq, which means the ruling Socialist-Liberal coalition would need the support of the conservative opposition parties to obtain approval for such a move.

Opposition parties have called for the return of the contingent and a vast majority of the public opposes the Hungarian presence in Iraq.

It doesn't take a degree in international relations to figure this one out. They are waiting for an internationalist, multi-lateralist president here. Will the parliament be able to pursuade their people after regime change here? We'll see.

Game 7

Boston Cashes In On Half-a-Schilling

By Thomas Boswell
Wednesday, October 20, 2004; Page D01

NEW YORK

We wanted drama to equal any Red Sox-Yankees series ever played. We wanted history, something that had never happened before in the annals of baseball. We wanted to be amazed, mesmerized, exhausted and, heading into Game 7 of the American League Championship Series with a trip to the World Series at stake, we also wanted to have absolutely no idea who would win.

Of course, no sane person actually thought that any such combination of events could possibly happen after last year's seven-game extravaganza of brawls, suicidal managerial decisions and, finally, a walk-off homer by Aaron Boone to end the whole battle.

But now we've got it all after a 4-2 Boston win in Game 6, plus extra plot threads and improbabilities that no one could possibly have guessed. Even though Game 7 won't arrive until Wednesday at Yankee Stadium, the Red Sox have become the first team in 101 years of postseason baseball to come back from a three-games-to-none deficit to force a Game 7. And at the Yankees' expense.

What are the stakes now? If the Red Sox, the team synonymous with collapses, misfortune and despair, win Game 7, then, in a blink, the blackest mark in Yankees history will actually be darker than any disgrace in all Boston annals.

If the Red Sox somehow win one more game, it won't make up for the last 86 years without a world title, while the Yanks have amassed 26 of them. It won't bring back Babe Ruth or help Johnny Pesky and Bill Buckner sleep better at night.

But it will, for at least the next decade, and perhaps the next century, allow every Red Sox fan anywhere to face any New York fan and say, without fear of contradiction, "How does it feel to root for a team with the biggest payroll ever that has the biggest choke in the history of the game?"

I'm torn. I don't think I can bear to watch tonight, but I also don't think I can bear not watching. We Sox fans can stand perpetual disappointment much better than we can handle optimism, a very unfamiliar feeling.

Delusion and Democracy

Bush expects Iraq presence won’t be long
President uses war questions to rap Kerry.

Published Tuesday, October 19, 2004

ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE (AP) - President George W. Bush says he doesn’t envision a longtime presence of U.S. troops in Iraq similar to post-World War II deployments in Europe and South Korea that continue today.

"I think the Iraqi people want us to leave once we’ve helped them get on the path of stability and democracy and once we have trained their troops to do their own hard work," Bush said yesterday.

Still, Bush said, "It’s very difficult for me to predict what forces will exist, although I will tell you that Iraq’s leadership has made it quite clear that they can manage their own affairs at the appropriate time."

If free and open Iraqi elections lead to the seating of a fundamentalist Islamic government, "I will be disappointed. But democracy is democracy," Bush said. "If that’s what the people choose, that’s what the people choose."

Bush steered nearly all questions dealing with Iraq to criticism of Democratic rival John Kerry just two weeks before a U.S. election that polls show to be close.

As to reports that Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the former top general of U.S. forces in Iraq, had warned nearly a year ago of supply problems in Iraq, Bush said: "There’s a chain of command. When the commanders on the ground say they need more, we respond as quickly as possible.

Let's see: long, hard slog? Steadfast, staying-the-courseness? Kerry would cut and run?

And I seem to recall something lately about the Iraq war being fought to bring freedom and democracy in the country? Oh, well, it appears that the idea was simply a pleasant thought.

Bush's bad choices have limited what Kerry can do, and I don't think continuing to fiddle around is one of them. Going for a military win (and a repressive occupation) would require a couple of hundred thousand more troops and accompanying draft. That's not politically possible. Declaring victory and getting the hell out after the January "elections" in Iraq is probably the only course left open to either Bush or Kerry.

Further Out of Reach

Public University Tuition Is Up Sharply for 2004
By GREG WINTER

Published: October 20, 2004

Tuition at the nation's public universities rose an average of 10.5 percent this year, the second largest increase in more than a decade, according to the latest annual survey by the College Board. Last year's rise, 13 percent, was the highest.

Private universities and community colleges also increased tuition, by 6 percent and 9 percent, in a year when inflation has been about 2.5 percent. The tuition increases at private and community colleges were also among the steepest in a decade.

It is the first time that the average tuition at the nation's postsecondary institutions has surpassed $20,000 for a private college, $5,000 for a public university and $2,000 for a community college.

The survey of nearly 2,700 colleges and universities, released yesterday, did not try to determine the reasons for the steep increases. But among the many factors cited by its authors and other higher education experts were shrinking endowments, large increases in health insurance costs for campus employees and anemic spending on higher education by states.

"Until we publicly debate the quiet cost-shifting from state support to tuition that continues in far too many states, no amount of effort by our institutions to raise revenue and cut expenses will be able to preserve affordable tuition formulas, particularly at public colleges and universities," said David Ward, president of the American Council on Education, which represents college presidents.

This is all part of the Edumafaction President's tax shift, along with endowments that shrank in the stock collapse and the continuing climate of scarcity for fundraising for non-profits in general. The Chronicle of Philanthropy sends me little email news alerts about the difficulty of raising funds for higher education nearly every week.

Those of you who work in higher education and the non-profit sector know what I'm talking about. God help you if you've undertaken a capital campaign in the last couple of years.

Redemption from Abroad?

Americans Abroad Are Itching to Get Their Hands on Ballots

By Richard Boudreaux, Times Staff Writer

MEXICO CITY — Ann Brandt, a 66-year-old fiction writer in Mexico, last cast a presidential ballot for John F. Kennedy in 1960. Roxanne Bachmann, 52, a voice-over artist in Spain, has never voted in her native America. Nor has David Stern, a 38-year-old graphic designer who moved to Israel two decades ago.

But all three U.S. citizens and hundreds of thousands of others who live abroad have demanded absentee ballots for the Nov. 2 presidential election, stirred by a partisan sense of urgency that surpasses anything veteran U.S. political activists in many countries say they have ever witnessed.

Democratic and Republican organizers say the upsurge in registration abroad has burdened an already unwieldy system of absentee voting, causing frustration among the many overseas Americans who have yet to receive ballots from their home states.

"Everything about this election is triple the size of elections before," said Zachary Miller, executive vice chairman of Democrats Abroad France, who has lived in Paris for 14 years. "We usually have registration drives, but this time we have people coming to us — people who have been here 20 or 30 years and never voted before."

Party preferences of Americans abroad are as hard to measure as their precise numbers, estimated to be at least 4 million civilians plus about 550,000 military personnel and dependents. But supporters of President Bush and his Democratic challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry, say the divide between the expatriate camps is as razor-sharp as it is at home, and focused more acutely on issues of foreign policy and the United States' standing in the world.

"This is the time to stand up and be counted if there ever was one," Brandt said. Driven by anger over the war in Iraq, she and Bachmann intend to mail in Florida ballots for Kerry. Bachmann said antiwar sentiment among her Spanish friends, "who are all against Bush," has bolstered her own.

Stern will mark his Ohio ballot for Bush. "It's critical for the whole world," he said. "America is taking the lead in the battle against terrorism, defending the security of the whole world."

The overseas absentee ballots might be one of the biggest legal challenges this year because the system is so screwed up. Given that the election is going to be close, these might also be the definitive ballots. Scary stuff.

Dark Designs

The WaPo hasn't made an endorsement yet, but they are nibbling around the edges:

'One Guy in a Bubble'

By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, October 20, 2004; Page A27

"I have no outside advice" in the war on terrorism, President Bush told Bob Woodward in December of 2001. In an interview that Woodward revealed to Nicholas Lemann in last week's issue of the New Yorker, Bush insisted that, "Anybody who says they're an outside adviser of this Administration on this particular matter is not telling the truth. First of all, in the initial phase of the war, I never left the compound. Nor did anybody come in the compound. I was, you talk about one guy in a bubble."

Indeed. By every available indication, George W. Bush's is the most inside-the-bubble presidency in modern American history. It's not just that his campaign operatives exclude all but the true believers from his rallies, or that Bush, by the evidence of his debate performances, has grown utterly unaccustomed to criticism.

With each passing day, we learn that once Bush has decided on a course of action, he will not be swayed by mere intelligence estimates, military appraisals or facts on the ground. We already knew that when Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki told Congress during the run-up to the war that occupying Iraq would require hundreds of thousands of troops, he sealed his ticket to an early retirement. We've recently learned that Paul Bremer had told the president we needed more troops to secure postwar Iraq and the safety of our troops already there, and that Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez had pleaded for more armored vehicles to better shield our soldiers.

But these and other such assessments and pleas ran counter to the idea of the war that Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had lodged in their heads. This would be our lightning war, and after Saddam Hussein was deposed, resistance would cease and U.S. forces could pack up and go home. A report in Tuesday's New York Times documents a Defense Department plan to shrink the number of U.S. forces in Iraq by 50,000 within 90 days of the taking of Baghdad. There were estimates aplenty from the State Department, the CIA and the Army suggesting that we'd need more forces for the occupation than for the war, but they were all blithely ignored.
....
Generals, though, shun empiricism at their own peril -- and their troops'. The Times reports that Gen. Tommy Franks, the commander of coalition forces, requested right after the fall of Baghdad that the army's First Cavalry Division be sent to Iraq to bolster our forces there, but that his request was denied. "Rumsfeld just ground Franks down," said Thomas White, then-secretary of the Army.

In the debates, Bush insisted that he'd never turned down a request from his military commanders in Iraq. His denial didn't extend to Rumsfeld, and now we know why.

With the presidential race coming down to its final two weeks, the Bush campaign has all but made a virtue of the bubble in which Bush resides and presides. This presidency is a triumph of the will, of resolve. Facts are for flip-floppers; data, for girlie-men. Kerry commands the facts and it breeds vacillation. The force is with Bush, and that is all he, and the nation, need. Bush has fused anti-empiricism and cultural resentment -- and that, should he ride it to victory, will truly be a catastrophic success.

Meyerson captures something I've rarely seen in an op-ed: the war really is all about W. This is narcissism taken to heights that I've never contemplated: an ego which grounds itself in thousands of deaths.

On the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, when I was finally able to drive the streets of DC, I remember sitting on the sofa of a friend's house, as we silently watched and tried to comprehend what we were seeing on CNN. She was a professional in the defense industry working on WMD. We both already knew that Bin Laden was behind the day's events. The thought that kept intruding itself into my mind was to wonder where the Boy King would strike back, using the American desire for revenge to wreak all kinds of havoc. That is what has happened: his shadow side has met the worst part of the American character.

Adam's Rib

A word before I pack it in for tonight: CARE Chief Abducted in Iraq; Mortars Kill 4

By Daryl Strickland, Times Staff Writer

The woman who directs the humanitarian relief effort in Iraq for CARE International was kidnapped today in Baghdad, and the U.S. military said four Iraqi national guardsmen died in a mortar attack and up to 80 were injured.

British-born Margaret Hassan, an Iraqi national who directs the humanitarian effort from Baghdad, was taken captive this morning, reportedly while being driven to work in the western part of the city, according to the Associated Press.
Al Jazeera broadcast footage of Hassan, who has performed humanitarian work in Iraq for 25 years. She sat on a couch without gunmen present, but was apparently in captivity. She did not speak. The network said an "armed Iraqi group" had claimed responsibility for the abduction, but no demands were made known.

Hassan became one of a handful of female kidnapping victims in Iraq. Insurgents typically have vented their violence toward men, but not exclusively. In September, two female Italian aid workers were taken hostage in Baghdad for three weeks but were released unharmed.

Hassan has been in the region for decades and knows it like the back of her hand. Her husband is Lebanese. The Iraqis know her. The conflict has just ratcheded up.

I mourn for an America which hates this shit

Because the Bible Told Me So

From TAPPED today, from the keyboard of Ayelish McGarvey:

Like no president in recent memory, George W. Bush wields his Christian righteousness like a flaming sword. Indeed, hundreds of news stories and nearly half a dozen books have evinced a White House that, according to BBC Washington correspondent Justin Webb, “hums to the sound of prayer.” Yet for the past four years the mainstream press has trod lightly, rarely venturing beyond the biographical to probe the depth, or sincerity, of Bush's Christian beliefs. Bush has no doubt benefited from the media’s reluctance; Newsweek, for example, in the heat of the run-up to the Iraq War, ran a cover package on the president’s faith under the headline “Bush and God” -- a story whose timing lent the war the aura of having heavenly sanction. Even lefty believers like Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourners, and Amy Sullivan, journalist and Democratic adviser, politely maintain that Bush’s faith is strong, if misguided.

You can't, that is, if "ultimate condemnation" is your real concern. For the purposes of winning elections, it seems to do just fine.

Ayelish hits all the main points. I have no doubt that Bush considers himself a Christian. Should I choose to, I could consider myself a physicist. As I've said before, there are some tests that can be applied to see if words and deeds, the walk and the talk, are in the same room with each other. Neither the religious or secular media have had much interest in applying those tests, and the lay reader, herself a badly educated Christian, doesn't have the tools to do so. On all sides, this is just a big sales job. However, if you bought four tires that performed this badly, I suspect you'd take them back and ask for a refund.

If your pastor or priest is in the Bush camp, open your Bible to the Gospel of Matthew, fifth chapter, verses 1-51, take it to him or (less likely) her and ask for an explanation.

No Draft, Mr. President?

U.S. Has Contingency Plans for a Draft of Medical Workers
By ROBERT PEAR

Published: October 19, 2004

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 - The Selective Service has been updating its contingency plans for a draft of doctors, nurses and other health care workers in case of a national emergency that overwhelms the military's medical corps.

In a confidential report this summer, a contractor hired by the agency described how such a draft might work, how to secure compliance and how to mold public opinion and communicate with health care professionals, whose lives could be disrupted.

On the one hand, the report said, the Selective Service System should establish contacts in advance with medical societies, hospitals, schools of medicine and nursing, managed care organizations, rural health care providers and the editors of medical journals and trade publications.

On the other hand, it said, such contacts must be limited, low key and discreet because "overtures from Selective Service to the medical community will be seen as precursors to a draft," and that could alarm the public.

In this election year, the report said, "very few ideas or activities are viewed without some degree of cynicism."

President Bush has flatly declared that there will be no draft, but Senator John Kerry has suggested that this is a possibility if Mr. Bush is re-elected.

Richard S. Flahavan, a spokesman for the Selective Service System, said Monday: "We have been routinely updating the entire plan for a health care draft. The plan is on the shelf and will remain there unless Congress and the president decide that it's needed and direct us to carry it out."

The Selective Service does not decide whether a draft will occur. It would carry out the mechanics only if the president and Congress authorized a draft.

The chief Pentagon spokesman, Lawrence T. Di Rita, said Monday: "It is the policy of this administration to oppose a military draft for any purpose whatsoever. A return to the draft is unthinkable. There will be no draft."

Mr. Di Rita said the armed forces could offer bonus pay and other incentives to attract and retain medical specialists.

In 1987, Congress enacted a law requiring the Selective Service to develop a plan for "registration and classification" of health care professionals essential to the armed forces.

Under the plan, Mr. Flahavan said, about 3.4 million male and female health care workers ages 18 to 44 would be expected to register with the Selective Service. From this pool, he said, the agency could select tens of thousands of health care professionals practicing in 62 health care specialties.

"The Selective Service System plans on delivering about 36,000 health care specialists to the Defense Department if and when a special skills draft were activated," Mr. Flahavan said.

The contractor hired by Selective Service, Widmeyer Communications, said that local government operations would be affected by a call-up of emergency medical technicians, so it advised the Selective Service to contact groups like the United States Conference of Mayors and the National Association of Counties.

One hardly knows where to begin.

USAT Letter to the Editor

Bush subtracts well

The most memorable quote from the final presidential debate was when George W. Bush said, “Everyone should know how to read, write and subtract in our country” (“Tough talk in final debate,” News, Thursday).

I was watching the debate with friends, and everyone in the room broke out in laughter following Bush's statement — not only because of the president's funny choice of words, but because what he said held so much truth.

Darn right Americans need to know how to subtract in this country, and our subtraction skills have been well honed under Bush's presidency.

Consider the loss of jobs, loss of income, loss of moral authority, loss of national credibility, loss of respect around the world, loss of environmental protection, loss of health care, loss of lives in the war in Iraq, and loss of a sense of safety and security.

If we didn't know how to subtract before Bush took office, we sure know how to now. He has got to go.

Dorian Snow

Schwenksville, Pa.

Hearts and Minds

Soldiers fear that they are 'sleeping with the enemy'
(Filed: 18/10/2004)

Adrian Blomfield discovers deep mistrust between American troops and Iraqi soldiers they are training

If the US marines and Iraqi national guardsmen living at the Karmah military barracks near Fallujah talk at all, they speak through the bars of a small window.

The Americans peer out from the ammunition room, filled with weapons confiscated from suspected insurgents, trading banter with the Iraqis who stand on tiptoes in a huddle outside, their eyes squinting against the glare of the late summer sun.

Troops in Iraq

Though there is laughter, things are not as they should be at Karmah barracks. "This is camp poison," whispers a marine. "Watch your back."

The sinister atmosphere at Karmah barracks is not difficult to understand. The marines are convinced that many, perhaps most, of the 140 members of the Iraqi National Guard (ING) they share the camp with are double agents working on behalf of the insurgents holding Fallujah.

In the past week alone the marines have arrested five of the guardsmen, including their commanding officer, Capt Ali Mohammed Jasim.

It is just one example that a Vietnam-era experiment Washington resurrected to form the backbone of an offensive planned by the end of the year to retake Fallujah, the crucible of Iraq's insurgency, is going disastrously wrong. Under the Combined Action Platoon (CAP) scheme, US soldiers train Iraqi guardsmen, live with them in the same barracks and venture out on joint patrols, all steps towards a longer-term objective of the withdrawal of American troops.

The plan was first developed in Vietnam, where US marines cohabited with local militias to defend villages from Vietcong raids. At the same time the marines trained the militiamen with the intention of turning them into an effective fighting force, but they were too ill-equipped and underpaid for the plan to have much success.

Mark II of the CAP programme seems to be running into even greater problems. Across the country American troops work with their poorly equipped Iraqi colleagues in an atmosphere soured by distrust - especially in provinces where the insurgency is at its most intense.
....
"We know when this place is about to come under mortar attack because the ING suddenly disappear," one marine said, staring across the dusty compound at two guardsmen smoking on a wooden bench. "We are supposed to be fighting together, instead we are sleeping with the enemy."

In their bare dormitory angry guardsmen queue up to tell their side of the story, accusing the marines of arrogance, bullying and a cavalier disregard for civilian life. Twelve guardsmen spoke to The Daily Telegraph, but all refused to identify themselves, saying they feared reprisals from the marines.

"The first mistake they make is that when they are attacked they don't just fire at the terrorists, they shoot everywhere," one said.

Other guardsmen alleged that the marines publicly humiliated and even physically assaulted them for minor misdemeanours. Another said he, like many others, had been arrested on suspicion of involvement in planting an IED. He said he was held for 14 days in a tiny "cooler" and then tortured during interrogation.

"They would make me drink water and drink water and then kick me in the stomach till I vomited," he said.

Any wonder why this isn't working?

Fantasy Stories

The New York Times brings us the science fiction story which was the pre-war planning for Iraq II. Douglas Adams never wrote anything so fantastic.

The Strategy to Secure Iraq Did Not Foresee a 2nd War
By MICHAEL R. GORDON

In mid-April, Lawrence Di Rita, one of Mr. Rumsfeld's closest aides, arrived in Kuwait to join the team assembled by General Garner, the civil administrator, which was to oversee post-Hussein Iraq. Mr. Bush had agreed in January that the Defense Department was to have authority for postwar Iraq. It was the first time since World War II that the State Department would not take charge of a post-conflict situation.

Speaking to Garner aides at their hotel headquarters in Kuwait, Mr. Di Rita outlined the Pentagon's vision, one that seemed to echo the themes in Mr. Rumsfeld's Feb. 14 address. According to Col. Paul Hughes of the Army, who was present at the session, Mr. Di Rita said the Pentagon was determined to avoid open-ended military commitments like those in Bosnia and Kosovo, and to withdraw the vast majority of the American forces in three to four months.

"The main theme was that D.O.D. would be in charge, and this would be totally different than in the past," said Tom Gross, a retired Army colonel and a Garner aide who was also at the session. "We would be out very quickly. We were very confused. We did not see it as a short-term process."

Mr. Di Rita said in an interview that he had no responsibility for force levels, but added that military commanders wanted the postwar troop numbers to be as low as necessary.

Thomas E. White, then the secretary of the Army, said he had received similar guidance from Mr. Rumsfeld's office. "Our working budgetary assumption was that 90 days after completion of the operation, we would withdraw the first 50,000 and then every 30 days we'd take out another 50,000 until everybody was back," he recalled. "The view was that whatever was left in Iraq would be de minimis."

Pentimento

Iraq: Pro-war MPs draw a line in the sand
Labour in revolt over deployment of troops under US command

19 October 2004

ANDREW MACKINLAY (MP for Thurrock)

Voted for the war

"I supported the conflict. I don't abrogate that, but there is a line in the sand to be drawn here. I have a responsibility as a Labour MP and to our British service personnel. I just don't think this can be justified. I would hope that Geoff Hoon will think again about this because it is politically untenable."

PAUL FARRELLY (MP for Newcastle-under-Lyme)

Voted for the war

"There is no way we should give this dangerous American president any encouragement to inflict the sort of civilian casualties that we have already seen in Fallujah. We should instead be praying that he leaves office shortly."

ERIC ILLSLEY (MP for Barnsley Central)

Voted for the war

"I'm concerned about the timing. We've been asked by the Americans two weeks before their election to cover for their troops. Is this a ploy to allow Bush not to send more troops? If we made a decision to send troops tomorrow, it looks like we are stepping in to help out the President."

GERALDINE SMITH (MP for Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Voted for the war

"There is widespread alarm among the British public about the deployment of UK troops to fill in for the Americans. They were meant to be home by Christmas; we need to see an exit strategy. It looks as if we're getting deeper involved."

LINDSAY HOYLE (MP for Chorley)

Voted for the war

"If you look at the points raised in the Commons by Labour MPs, I think [Geoff Hoon] was barren of support from colleagues. I think they feel they have supported the Government, but question the further use of British troops to backfill for the Americans."

ROB MARRIS (MP for Wolverhampton SW)

Voted for the war

"I treat this with great circumspection. There is a risk to our troops because the Americans have a reputation for being heavy handed and less popular with the Iraqis. There is a risk to the UK that the terrorism in Iraq might spread here more quickly."

SIR GERALD KAUFMAN (MP for Manchester Gorton)

Voted for the war

"I have not changed my view on the war, but I do not want my government to be manipulated by one of the most unscrupulous US administrations that the US has ever seen."

PAUL STINCHCOMBE (MP for Wellingborough)

Voted for the war

"I'm concerned we may be exposing our troops to increased danger. Also, we have a different style of soldiering from the Americans. I therefore think we should be extremely cautious."

JEFF ENNIS (MP for Barnsley East & Mexborough)

Voted for the war

"I have yet to be persuaded that deployment of our troops into the US- controlled zone is the right move to make. We need to think long and hard."

A couple of notes for my cousins in Parliament: do you mean to tell me that you hadn't figured out that Bush was a disaster when you decided to commit your troops? More than half of American voters had that worked out in the last election. Sorry, fellows, you look like opportunists now, not visionaries. And it looks like you are getting ready to return Tony Blair to No. 10 in the next election. When you do something which allows me to take you seriously, I will. Until then, you are a joke

The Law West of the Pecos

Bush Changes Context for War
He has accused Kerry of 'mixed messages' on Iraq, but the president's rationale has shifted too.

By Ronald Brownstein and Kathleen Hennessey, Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON — In the campaign debate over Iraq, one constant has been the divide between the presidential candidates on the issue of inconsistency.

President Bush has stressed his resolve while accusing Sen. John F. Kerry of sending "mixed messages" on the war in Iraq. He pounded that point on Monday in his latest sharp attack on Kerry, saying, "For three years, depending on the headlines, the poll numbers and political calculation, he has taken almost every conceivable position on Iraq."

Yet an analysis of Bush's statements on Iraq show that he also has sent differing, if not necessarily conflicting, signals on a key war-related question.

Bush's shifts have come not on the decision to overthrow former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, but why that action was justified.

Both before and after the invasion, Bush built his case for war on basically the same set of elements. But the prominence placed on each element has clearly shifted.

Before the war, the major chord was security and terrorism. Bush continually warned that Hussein could provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

As the evidence has accumulated that Iraq did not possess chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, Bush increasingly has argued that building democracy in Iraq would inspire democratic change across the region in a domino effect. That argument was part of, but secondary, in the administration's case before the invasion.

In effect, Bush has never wavered on the verdict about Iraq, but he has reordered the counts in his indictment.

"I don't think there is any argument we've made after the war that we hadn't made before the war," said one senior GOP strategist familiar with White House planning. "But there has been a difference of emphasis."

To critics, the focus on democracy is an after-the-fact explanation for the war that Bush is promoting only because his original justification collapsed.

"It was only because we didn't find any [weapons of mass destruction] that you had to find a new rationalization for the war," said Ivo Daalder, a former national security aide under President Clinton.

But David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, said that although the president has made "tactical" adjustments in his arguments for the war, the guiding principle in his decisions remained the same.

"The consistent theme is that he believed even before Sept. 11 that Saddam Hussein was a danger and the policies of the 1990s had failed," said Frum. "Bush decided from the start that he was going to do something about this."

In Bush's shifting justification for the war, some analysts see a clue to a larger pattern in his presidency.

Stephen Skowronek, a political scientist at Yale University, said Bush has often kept his goals constant even when circumstances force him to change the rationale for them.

This used to be called "shoot first, ask questions later." Don't worry, we're right, we'll think of the reason why later.

The Media Misses the Point (yet again, v.10.6)

Let me try to pull together a few threads and try to explain why the flu vaccine flap is actually one honking big serious deal, and why Kerry should be pounding, pounding, pounding on it.

First of all, our vaccine manufacturing system has been in trouble for years and our public health infrastructure has been undergoing systematic dismantling since the Reagan administration. Clinton didn't do much about it, other than beefing up the system for AIDS (now fallen into complete disrepair, by the way, and we are on the verge of having another raging AIDS epidemic in this country. In women, who get it from men, this has got serious racial overtones. If you don't know about the "down low" in black culture, educate yourself.) Whether or not flu vaccines have such a small profit margin that they are of no interest to the drug companies is not a useful question. The rest of the industrialized world manages to get sufficient vaccines for their populations. The liability/malpractice argument is laughable: liability costs for vaccines are flat over the last five years (which is the data I was able to look at.) This is purely bad planning/allocation of resources by our underfunded public health system.

There is an added twist to the story because of 9-11: just read Digby to get up to speed on how dollars that could have been allocated to the flu vaccine got channeled to a wholy unneccesary effort to create 3 million doses of small pox vaccine which will never be needed (pace reader Charles, this was never a reasonable public health strategy, and, yes I know what the Russians have) and is actually dangerous. This is a dirty vaccine: it works, but it also kills and sickens people. The bug was eradicated decades ago and it is unlikely to be able to do the kind of damage it once did, or that the flu does in any given year.

In an average year, 36,000 Americans die from the flu and its sequelae. The system is less than perfect: the vaccine has to be prepared months before the flu season, it takes time, and the formula is based on a consensus of what the CDC and CID think the strain of flu bug will be in the upcoming disease season. Sometimes, last year for example, the vaccine wasn't a very good match for the actual bug which emerged. The vaccine was protective for fairly healthy people, less so for those in the high risk groups: the very young, the elderly, people with compromised immune systems (include transplant patients and diabetics) and chronic health problems like pulmonary and cardiac disease, circulatory disorders. The risk pool probably includes about 100 million people. (Disclaimer: I'm one of them. I'm asthmatic and prone to pneumonias. One nearly already killed me once.)

The thing about the flu virus is that is a survivor bug because it mutates quickly and it is able to do it in non-human hosts which are able to spread the bug back to humans. I doubt that we'll ever eradicate the thing, it is one of the most versatile bugs on the planet. The flu, I'm afraid, we will always have with us. Unless we find a way to engineer a new, flu-resistant human being and I really don't want to go there.

Here's the meme: the failure to properly vaccinate Americans this year against this versatile bug is going to result in deaths above that average 36K I mentioned above. How much above will depend on which bug emerges this year, how good the paltry vaccine supply has been engineered to meet this specific bug and a very scary third thing: we are overdue for a global pandemic (like the 1917-19 outbreak which killed millions around the globe) and no public health resources have been allocated to prepare for this eventuality--and it is inevitable, if not this year. I've told you about this earlier and I've tried to do it in ways which are not alarming, but this complete failure of the public health infrastructure has me alarmed.

Here's the deal: there is a new bug out there, a new species of Avian flu which has been popping up in Asia but has also been tracked in Europe. This one has a lethality somewhat less than the 1918 epidemic, somewhat more than the SARS outbreak last year. It is percolating in the predictable places around the globe and it, or something like it, will break out into the general population. Virii tend to mutate to lower lethalities because they are hard to spread when they kill the host immediately, they propagate (yes, this is about bug sex) better when they can keep the host upand moving around for a while. The virii which infect us mutate with our lifestyles.

Here's the bottom line: we have a broken system, extremely broken, for public health. And it is 'way larger than the vaccine. Last year, I skipped the vaccine, and I'm one of the ones who should be getting, not for me, but for you. I'm in the at risk poulation and you don't want me acquiring the disease and spreading it. Why didn't I get vaccinated? Easy question: the "insurance" I had last year didn't cover it and I had to make the choice between vaccine and groceries. I chose eating, and since I was mostly living alone in front of a monitor learning to blog, I figured that I wasn't much of a risk to you. I washed my hands like like a maniac after every encounter with the public in which I might have picked up something and become a vector for spreading. I didn't get sick, and I call that luck rather than a plan. This year, how many people are in shoes like mine last year? How many people in this country have to pay for vaccine out of their grocery money? Want to hazard a guess? Every one of them is a potential disease vector. I still haven't managed to home in on a dose for this year. Until I do, I'm staying home at the slightest fever rather than run the risk of infecting my colleagues.

You think this is silly? It isn't. If I'm harboring the bug and come into contact with someone at risk, my bug might kill them.

We are used to bootstrapping ourselves past our miseries of illness in this country, but influenza is not a trivial matter, particularly not this year. I have to factor my susceptibilities in to the lives of my co-workers, about whom I don't know much. I don't know who has AIDS, who has kids that might multiply the effect, who is on a waiting list for a transplant, who is diabetic. Once I get a shot, I'll feel marginally better about showing up at work with the sniffles, but I definitely won't take a fever to work.

Think about this: your health choices this year will affect others, as well as will the choices you don't get to make, because the functionaries in public health were denied the resources they need. Tell that to your elderly neighbor and the mother of three in pre-school.

Can Kerry fix a system which has been eroding for decades? No. But I'll settle for knowing that 45 Million of the people I meet on the street every day can afford health care and won't be blowing bugs on me.

This year is a public health crisis played out against the insurance crisis. I hope that too many of us won't die while Tom DeLay works out more tax breaks for Sugarland, Texas.

Public health is not about my snotty nose and your fever. It is about public bugs and we are the carriers. Think about it.

Coalition of the Reality-Based

"You can't run the world on faith"
Some Reagan conservatives decry Bush's "Messianic" approach and preference for dogma over evidence.

By James K. Galbraith

Paul Craig Roberts was assistant secretary of the treasury for economic policy in 1981. A former Wall Street Journal editorial writer, Roberts was chief propagandist for the tax-cutting juggernaut, armed with preposterous arguments about the effects of lower tax rates on the work, savings and investment behavior of the rich. I didn't think too much of him then.

Welcome to the coalition of the reality-based.

I believe Yglesias will be making the T-Shirts.

UPDATE: Al Gore is kicking butt and taking names in his MoveOn speech at Georgetown. Cspan is carrying it live. They'll have an archive video file if you can't watch or listen now.

Fear Mongering

Imagining America if George Bush Chose the Supreme Court
By ADAM COHEN

Published: October 18, 2004

Abortion might be a crime in most states. Gay people could be thrown in prison for having sex in their homes. States might be free to become mini-theocracies, endorsing Christianity and using tax money to help spread the gospel. The Constitution might no longer protect inmates from being brutalized by prison guards. Family and medical leave and environmental protections could disappear.

It hardly sounds like a winning platform, and of course President Bush isn't openly espousing these positions. But he did say in his last campaign that his favorite Supreme Court justices were Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, and the nominations he has made to the lower courts bear that out. Justices Scalia and Thomas are often called "conservative," but that does not begin to capture their philosophies. Both vehemently reject many of the core tenets of modern constitutional law.

For years, Justices Scalia and Thomas have been lobbing their judicial Molotov cocktails from the sidelines, while the court proceeded on its moderate-conservative path. But given the ages and inclinations of the current justices, it is quite possible that if Mr. Bush is re-elected, he will get three appointments, enough to forge a new majority that would turn the extreme Scalia-Thomas worldview into the law of the land.
....
If Justices Scalia and Thomas become the Constitution's final arbiters, the rights of racial minorities, gay people and the poor will be rolled back considerably. Both men dissented from the Supreme Court's narrow ruling upholding the University of Michigan's affirmative-action program, and appear eager to dismantle a wide array of diversity programs. When the court struck down Texas' "Homosexual Conduct" law last year, holding that the police violated John Lawrence's right to liberty when they raided his home and arrested him for having sex there, Justices Scalia and Thomas sided with the police.

They were just as indifferent to the plight of "M.L.B.," a poor mother of two from Mississippi. When her parental rights were terminated, she wanted to appeal, but Mississippi would not let her because she could not afford a court fee of $2,352.36. The Supreme Court held that she had a constitutional right to appeal. But Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented, arguing that if M.L.B. didn't have the money, her children would have to be put up for adoption.

That sort of cruelty is a theme running through many Scalia-Thomas opinions. A Louisiana inmate sued after he was shackled and then punched and kicked by two prison guards while a supervisor looked on. The court ruled that the beating, which left the inmate with a swollen face, loosened teeth and a cracked dental plate, violated the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. But Justices Scalia and Thomas insisted that the Eighth Amendment was not violated by the "insignificant" harm the inmate suffered.

This year, the court heard the case of a man with a court appearance in rural Tennessee who was forced to either crawl out of his wheelchair and up to the second floor or be carried up by court officers he worried would drop him. The man crawled up once, but when he refused to do it again, he was arrested. The court ruled that Tennessee violated the Americans With Disabilities Act by not providing an accessible courtroom, but Justices Scalia and Thomas said it didn't have to.

A Scalia-Thomas court would dismantle the wall between church and state. Justice Thomas gave an indication of just how much in his opinion in a case upholding Ohio's school voucher program. He suggested, despite many Supreme Court rulings to the contrary, that the First Amendment prohibition on establishing a religion may not apply to the states. If it doesn't, the states could adopt particular religions, and use tax money to proselytize for them. Justices Scalia and Thomas have also argued against basic rights of criminal suspects, like the Miranda warning about the right to remain silent.

I watched Ralph Nader "defend" his candidacy on Blitzer's show yesterday. This is the future to which he wants to condemn us. Thanks, Ralph.

Taken on Faith

While Amy Sullivan and I have been screaming about this for a year, the Kerry campaign finally gets a clue. I hope it isn't too late: we've known for two years that this election was going to be about the swing voters, people.

But, of course, this also means we get lousy religion reporting. Sigh.

Faith Increasingly Part Of Kerry's Campaign

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 18, 2004; Page A01

COLUMBUS, Ohio, Oct. 17 -- John F. Kerry is evolving from a reserved Catholic reluctant to discuss faith in the public square into a Democratic preacher of sorts who speaks freely and sometimes forcefully about religion on the hustings.

From the pulpit to the pastures, Kerry is increasingly spreading a more spiritual message and visiting local churches, as he did the past two days in Ohio, to expound on the political lessons of the Bible's James and Saint Paul.

"Through many dangers, toils and snares I have already come," Kerry intoned Sunday morning at Mt. Olivet Baptist Church. " 'Tis grace that brought me safe thus far, and grace will lead me home." He told the crowd of 1,500 he wasn't there to preach but went on to, well, preach about the Good Samaritan, the emptiness of a faith devoid of deeds and God's high calling to love one another -- before criticizing from the pulpit President Bush over Social Security and jobs.

A few hours later, Kerry borrowed from the Book of James to condemn the president for failing to help the suffering people of Darfur, Sudan. "Words without deeds are meaningless -- especially when people are dying every day," Kerry said in a statement issued by his campaign.

Tens of millions of Americans were introduced to the candidate's spirituality during the final debate, in which Kerry talked at some length about the Catholicism he says guides his ideology and life.

It's not The Book of James, not for anyone with a little Biblical literacy. It is James' letter or epistle, and not even a page long. The photo and caption that accompanies the Times' story says that Kerry was "a guest at a Catholic service" later in the day. No, he's Catholic, and that means he was a participant at the Mass, not a "guest."

Jim vandeHei is a pretty good political reporter, but it is pretty clear that he doesn't have even a passing familiarity with all those Christians Kerry is courting.

One of the backstories of this year's campaign is the lousy religion reporting that accompanied the most religious contest in my memory, with Kerry being held to a very different standard than Bush, whose "faith" is taken on faith, rather than being tested by any known Christian standard.

"You Forgot Poland"

A War Without Reason
By BOB HERBERT

Published: October 18, 2004

Poland has 2,400 troops in Iraq. But on Friday the prime minister, Marek Belka, announced that he will cut that number early next year, and then "will engage in talks on a further reduction."

Mr. Belka has a political problem. He can't explain the war to his constituents. And that's because there is no rational explanation.

As for the rebuilding of Iraq, forget about it. Hundreds of schools were damaged by U.S. bombing and thousands were looted by Iraqis. It's hard to believe that an administration that won't rebuild schools here in America will really go to bat for schoolkids in Iraq. Millions of Iraqi kids now attend schools that are decrepit and, in many cases, all but falling down-lacking such essentials as desks, chairs and even toilets, according to the United Nations Children's Fund.

Military commanders are warning that delays in the overall reconstruction are increasing the danger for American troops. A senior American military officer told The Times, "We can either put Iraqis back to work, or we can have them shoot [rocket-propelled grenades] at us."

The president and his apologists never understood what they were getting into in Iraq. What is unmistakable now is that Americans will never be willing to commit the overwhelming numbers of troops and spend the hundreds of billions of additional dollars necessary to have even a hope of bringing long-term stability to Iraq.

This is a war that never made sense and now we are seeing - from the troops on the ground, from our allies overseas and increasingly from the population here at home - the inevitable reluctance to forge ahead with the madness.

The president likes to say he made exactly the right decision on Iraq. Each new death of a soldier or a civilian, each child who loses a parent to the carnage, each healthy body that is broken or burned in this war that didn't have to happen, is a reminder of how horribly wrong he was.

The Poles are rational actors. What does that make us?

Support the Troops!

Top Army Commander in Iraq Complained of Poor Supply Situation, Document Shows

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 17, 2004; 6:30 PM

The top U.S. commander in Iraq complained to the Pentagon last winter that his supply situation was so poor that it threatened Army troops' ability to fight, according to an official document that has surfaced only now.

The lack of key spare parts for gear vital to combat operations, such as tanks and helicopters, was causing problems so severe, Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez wrote in a letter to top Army officials, that "I cannot continue to support sustained combat operations with rates this low."

Senior Army officials said that most of Sanchez's concerns have been addressed in recent months, but that they continue to keep a close eye on the problems he identified. The situation is "substantially better" now, said Gary Motsek, deputy director of operations for the Army Materiel Command.

Sanchez, who was the senior commander on the ground in Iraq from the summer of 2003 until the summer of 2004, said in his letter that Army units in Iraq were "struggling just to maintain . . . relatively low readiness rates" on key combat systems, such as M-1 Abrams tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, anti-mortar radars and Black Hawk helicopters.

He also said units were waiting an average of 40 days for critical spare parts, which he noted was almost three times the Army's average. In some Army supply depots in Iraq, 40 percent of critical parts were at "zero balance," meaning they were absent from depot shelves, he said.

He also protested in his letter, sent Dec. 4 to the number two officer in the Army, with copies to other senior officials, that his soldiers still needed protective inserts to upgrade 36,000 sets of body armor, but that their delivery twice had been postponed in the month before he was writing. There were 131,000 U.S. troops in Iraq at the time.

In what appears to be a plea to top officials to spur the bureaucracy to respond more quickly, Sanchez concluded, "I cannot sustain readiness without Army-level intervention."

Sanchez, who since has moved back to his permanent base in Germany, did not respond to telephone and e-mail messages seeking comment.

His letter of concern has surfaced after repeated statements by President Bush that he is determined to ensure that U.S. troops fighting in Iraq have all that need to execute their missions. "I have pledged, as has the secretary of defense, to give our troops everything that is necessary to complete their mission with the utmost safety," he said in May. Earlier this month, he said in Manchester, N.H., that, "When America puts our troops in combat, I believe they deserve the best training, the best equipment, the full support of our government."

"Substantially better?" My a$%. The number of boots on the ground haven't changed and now we have revolts in the ranks, reservists and IRR troops refusing to report because they don't have the right equipment, and the situation is "substantially better?" This is "magical thinking."

Bush has been saying that the troops in his phony war/real death scenario are getting everything the generals ask for. Hmm. Sanchez has a few problems of his own, labeled "Abu Ghraib." But I doubt that he thinks things are "substantially better."

The Cousins

The Telegraph has been a Torie rag pretty much forever, but I don't think this gripe is illegitimate. It is, in fact, what Blair is doing, and the UK public knows it stinks.

Blair is 'using our troops to boost Bush'
By Patrick Hennessy, Sean Rayment and Melissa Kite
(Filed: 17/10/2004)

Tony Blair last night stood accused of conspiring to use British troops in Iraq as a "political gesture" to help George W Bush in the US presidential election.

The Prime Minister faced protests from all sides over plans to redeploy British forces to an area 25 miles south of Baghdad, freeing the US 24th Marine Expeditionary Force for an expected assault on the rebel stronghold of Fallujah.

A soldier from the Black Watch based in Iraq

Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, is preparing to make a Commons statement tomorrow announcing that about 650 soldiers from the Black Watch will leave Basra and come under US command "for a few weeks".

The Sunday Telegraph understands, however, that the deployment is being resisted by Gen Sir Michael Walker, the Chief of the Defence Staff.

Nicholas Soames, the Conservative defence spokesman, also expressed concern yesterday and suggested that British troops were being moved for political reasons. "We need to watch the timing of all this," he said, "and to be careful that this isn't just being used as a kind of political gesture to reassure the Americans of Prime Minister Blair's support for the American efforts.

"What alarms and awes me is the timing of this operation, particularly during Ramadan."

Mr Bush is facing an increasingly strong challenge from John Kerry, his Democrat opponent, in the November 2 presidential election. Some recent polls have put them neck and neck.

Iraq is one of the key issues in the election and Mr Bush is under pressure to counter Mr Kerry's charge that it is only American soldiers who are suffering high casualty levels in Iraq and that other countries' armed forces should be sharing more of the burden.

In one of their recent televised debates, Mr Kerry told Mr Bush: "We [the US] are 90 per cent of the casualties and 90 per cent of the costs," effectively claiming that the President's frequent assertions that he had built a broad coalition were diplomatic fiction, not military reality.

Greater involvement around Baghdad by Britain, which has 9,000 troops in Iraq, compared with America's 130,000, would go some way to defusing Mr Kerry's charge.

Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said that any decision to assist Mr Bush would be highly contentious.

Blair has not a leg to stand on, but the Tories are too weak and Labour too divided to mount a challenge. This a@#hole is going into the next election looking like he is going to win a stunning third term right now.

Of course, the Foreign Office is planning to send the The Black Watch to Baghdad. Some casualties there could really screw up Mr. Blair's program. I wish I could figure out what it is. He has become incoherent on the trans-Atlantic relationship.

Methodists Speak Out

Chuck Currie calls our attention to a piece of news I had missed:

George W. Bush Doesn’t Support United Methodist Positions

Bush comes out on the opposite side of several important issues supported by the United Methodist Church. He opposes the positions (in full or in part) taken by the church on abortion, bioethics, civil rights, the death plenty, support for public education, energy resources, environmental protections, the needs of gays and lesbians, social security, taxation, trade, and the war on terror. Kerry’s positions are closer to those adopted by the United Methodists.

Bush is a nominal Methodist although he belongs to no congregation. Chuck has the links to the UMC website if you want to take a look at the documents.

The Science of Spirituality

As promised, here is a brief review of What the @#$% Do We Know? which I saw last night in a packed theater in downtown DC.

If you are one of those who are interested in the insights that psychoneurobiology and quantam physics can bring to theology, this is a movie for you.

The movie starts out a little choppy, with talking head interviews with scientists, theologians (and one New Age figure, which I think weakens the credibility of the project, but she didn't do any damage on substance) intercut with quite clever animations which illustrate the concepts they are discussing. After 30 minutes or so, the film acheives a rhythm that makes it easier to engage with it.

The combination of talking heads and animations works well to explain these rather thorny ideas to the lay public. Even more so, the generally light (even humorous) tone of the film and the academics' willingness to poke a little fun at themselves had last night's audience eating out of it's hand. There was a lot of group reaction to the humor presented on-screen.

Since I am a member of a couple of science and religion study groups and know a lot of people in that camp, I didn't learn anything I didn't already know. That said, the film does an artful job of gathering together a bunch of different schools of thought in one place, something I have not seen done at this level previously.

As a physicist friend of mine (who is also well-grounded theologian and gifted poet) likes to say, quantam physics, theology and the arts can be different metaphorical systems for expressing the same thing, the ineffable, and this film treats that idea with great dignity. If you have any interest in the intersections between spirituality and the sciences, you will probably enjoy this movie, its gentle humor and sense of hope. I would like to see it again.

Another interesting thing about the audience last night: as you may know, DC is a racially polarized city. Therefore, the diversity of the audience, by both age and race, was quite remarkable. The interest (in fact, thirst for information) in spirituality that haunts the land these days isn't restricted to any demographic.

Eat the Young

I don't know about you, but I've had bosses like this, just plain embarrassing to be around. And every time they get hired by somebody a couple of steps up the foodchain from me, we are told that the new hire is going to save the department, the division, the unit. Within days, everybody in the shop scrambles to make sure that they won't be culpable or in the vicinity when the new idiot needs to be taken down.

There is one story about Bush's particular brand of certainty I am able to piece together and tell for the record.

In the Oval Office in December 2002, the president met with a few ranking senators and members of the House, both Republicans and Democrats. In those days, there were high hopes that the United States-sponsored ''road map'' for the Israelis and Palestinians would be a pathway to peace, and the discussion that wintry day was, in part, about countries providing peacekeeping forces in the region. The problem, everyone agreed, was that a number of European countries, like France and Germany, had armies that were not trusted by either the Israelis or Palestinians. One congressman -- the Hungarian-born Tom Lantos, a Democrat from California and the only Holocaust survivor in Congress -- mentioned that the Scandinavian countries were viewed more positively. Lantos went on to describe for the president how the Swedish Army might be an ideal candidate to anchor a small peacekeeping force on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Sweden has a well-trained force of about 25,000. The president looked at him appraisingly, several people in the room recall.

''I don't know why you're talking about Sweden,'' Bush said. ''They're the neutral one. They don't have an army.''

Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly reply: ''Mr. President, you may have thought that I said Switzerland. They're the ones that are historically neutral, without an army.'' Then Lantos mentioned, in a gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough national guard to protect the country in the event of invasion.

Bush held to his view. ''No, no, it's Sweden that has no army.''

The room went silent, until someone changed the subject.

The usual strategy is that the new hire in upper management is defended and defended until reality is stretched so far that the cognitive dissonance has become a laughing matter around the water cooler. When even the troops who wanted and needed to like the new hire start to avoid him/her, it is only a matter of time.

ruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush, told me recently that ''if Bush wins, there will be a civil war in the Republican Party starting on Nov. 3.'' The nature of that conflict, as Bartlett sees it? Essentially, the same as the one raging across much of the world: a battle between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion.

''Just in the past few months,'' Bartlett said, ''I think a light has gone off for people who've spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he's always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do.'' Bartlett, a 53-year-old columnist and self-described libertarian Republican who has lately been a champion for traditional Republicans concerned about Bush's governance, went on to say: ''This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them. . . .

''This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts,'' Bartlett went on to say. ''He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence.'' Bartlett paused, then said, ''But you can't run the world on faith.''

The rats are leaving, the boat is sinking. My own "gut instinct" is that Bartlett is right and that a Bush win will torpedo the party for a couple of decades, but even a Bush loss will leave it in shards, because it is already an incoherent mess. Rove's message discipline doesn't allow us to see that yet, but historians will. Traditional conservatives have already defected. Those in Congress will move to distance themselves from Bush's radical agenda, whether he is re-elected or not, in order to try to form some "third way" within a party shattered by the Bush-DeLay agenda.

Nation building

Iraq reconstruction efforts overcome by ongoing violence

By JONATHAN S. LANDAY and JOHN WALCOTT

Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - In 1992, the United States launched a covert psychological warfare operation to convince regular Iraqi soldiers that they could keep their jobs if war came and they didn't fight for Saddam Hussein. For 11 years, the pledge was made in leaflets dropped from aircraft, in clandestine radio broadcasts, in covert contacts with Iraqi officers and in U.S. public statements.

But when war came, the United States broke its promises.

As American forces advanced, regular Iraqi soldiers abandoned their arms and ran away in droves. Yet in one of his first orders as the American overseer of Iraq, L. Paul Bremer disbanded the entire Iraqi army.

Bremer's order deprived U.S. commanders of men they'd planned to recall to help keep order and secure Iraq's borders. It compounded the problems created by the Bush administration's failure to plan for securing Iraq and its mistaken estimate of how many American troops it would take to do that. It threw legions of angry, defeated Iraqis out of work, handed the budding anti-U.S. insurgency a recruiting windfall and fueled suspicions that America had come not to liberate Iraq, but to seize its oil.

The May 23, 2003, order was one of a succession of postwar American blunders that squandered a spectacular military victory and plunged the United States into a grinding guerrilla war at the head of the Persian Gulf and in the heart of the Islamic world.

"Every time we had a chance to do something right, we did it wrong," lamented a veteran State Department official directly involved in Iraq policy.

A comprehensive Knight Ridder review of the 14-month U.S.-led occupation and interviews with more than three dozen current and former U.S. officials and military commanders identified some of the major mistakes:

_ Disbanding the Iraqi army.

_ Purging tens of thousands of former Baath Party members from the government, many of whom had joined the party only to feed their families, instead of rooting out only Saddam's most loyal henchmen.

_ Failing to restore public services and underestimating the mammoth task of rebuilding Iraq's shattered economy.

_ Waiting too long to recognize the gravity of the insurgency, then reacting at times with excessive force that caused numerous civilian casualties, broke cultural taboos and turned Iraqis against the U.S.-led occupation.

Iraq's interim president, Ghazi al Yawer, summed up the feelings of many Iraqis when he said: "We blame the United States 100 percent for the security in Iraq. They occupied the country, disbanded the security agencies and for 10 months left Iraq's borders open for anyone to come in without a visa or even a passport."

"We paid a big price for not stopping (the looting) because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," Bremer conceded in an Oct. 4 speech in West Virginia.

By the time Bremer transferred power to U.S.-backed interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi on June 28, 80 percent of Iraqis wanted the Americans to leave, according to a poll by the Baghdad-based Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies.

Transferred Power?: An unfunny joke.

Iraq audit can't find billions
Gaps found in spending for reconstruction

By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | October 16, 2004

WASHINGTON -- About half of the roughly $5 billion in Iraq reconstruction funds disbursed by the US government in the first half of this year cannot be accounted for, according to an audit commissioned by the United Nations, which could not find records for numerous rebuilding projects and other payments.

One chunk of the money -- $1.4 billion -- was deposited into a local bank by Kurdish leaders in northern Iraq but could be tracked no further: The auditors reported that they were shown a deposit slip but could find no additional records to explain how the money was used or to prove that it remains in the bank.

Auditors also said they could not track more than $1 billion in funds doled out by US authorities for hundreds of large and small reconstruction projects.

The audit, released yesterday, found serious gaps in how the Development Fund for Iraq -- a pool of money drawn from Iraqi oil revenues and international aid, including some from the United States -- was handled by American occupation officials responsible for funding reconstruction projects and the operations of Iraqi ministries and provincial governments. The development fund is separate from the $18.4 billion in US reconstruction funds set aside last year to rebuild the country.

All the funds -- more than $5 billion -- were spent between Jan. 1 and June 28, 2004, during the period when the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority ran the country.

A Little Matter Called Discernment

By now, everyone has seen Ron Susskind's devastating portrait of George W. Bush in this morning's "New York Times Magazine. I note that the same three or four paragraphs have been quoted all over the place, with little remark on the theological significance of Bush's "faith" positions. Here is one passage I found telling, and why I found it so:

This is one key feature of the faith-based presidency: open dialogue, based on facts, is not seen as something of inherent value. It may, in fact, create doubt, which undercuts faith. It could result in a loss of confidence in the decision-maker and, just as important, by the decision-maker. Nothing could be more vital, whether staying on message with the voters or the terrorists or a California congressman in a meeting about one of the world's most nagging problems. As Bush himself has said any number of times on the campaign trail, ''By remaining resolute and firm and strong, this world will be peaceful.''

As Susskind makes clear, Bush's branch of Christianity (it is his own brand, since he doesn't go to church, but there are any number of rightist evangelicals who share it) doesn't allow for doubt. This flies in the face of religion as it is practiced by billions of people around the world. Doubt is and has always been a significant part of faith. I'm a spiritual director and tell my directees (and myself, on a regular basis) that spiritual maturation happens on those days when faith gets ahead of fear by even a whisker. That's what doubt is: it is fear, one of the primal emotions. How do I know this? Personal experience, that of the people I've been directing for years and 3,500 years of recorded human history. People have been feeding the writing jones since they invented writing.

Bush is so reactive on doubt:fear that he can't even have it mentioned in the same room with him. This is a fearful man who went looking, not for "faith," which grounds reason in experience, but for certainty. The spiritual truth of our existence, if I may make such a brave claim, is that we are all grounded in a mystery which we barely understand even though we experience it constantly. Bush wants to reduce this enigma to "his gut." There are some strands of Protestant theology which like to do this, to make the individual the only prophecy, the only truth bringer. I think they are wrong and that decisions which are not grounded in community (even when they challenge and harrow the community, yet remain in relationship with it) will stumble and fail. "With us or against us" fails the test of community.

We have a "leader" who fears us, yet believes God is on his side. In the great swath of the Judeo-Christian tradition, we've developed a little more nuance in a matter which is called "discernment," the attempt to hear what God is actually saying in our real circumstances. God does speak, and uses the materials at hand, but we have to be very careful to sort out if we are listening to the voices of our own desires (who tend to be very loud) or the still, small voice. Generations of spiritual writers have designed dozens of tests for this. I like those of Ignatius of Loyola the best, but the Heart Sutra is just fine, too, thank you. Or pick up any volume of Aidan Steinsaltz's invaluable commentary on The Talmud. Humanity has been grappling all its life with how to understand what it means to be human, what we are called to do on our little planet.

Bush has it all worked out. I'm afraid of that.

Open Thread

Okay, I'm off to the movies with friends from work (yes, I've already met a couple of sympathetic personalities, as passionate about politics and religion as I am.) I may post again this evening, depending on how late the evening goes, a movie review or whatever. You can use this as an open thread. Leave lots of juicy comments and links for me to read when I get home.

Gulf War II Syndrome

Bumper Charles sends along this link from Defense Tech:

A federal panel of medical experts studying illnesses among veterans of the 1991 war in the Persian Gulf has broken with several earlier studies and concluded that many suffer from neurological damage caused by exposure to toxic chemicals," the New York Times says.

The report says possible sources include sarin, a nerve gas, from an Iraqi weapons depot blown up by American forces in 1991; a drug, pyridostigmine bromide, given to troops to protect against nerve gas; and pesticides used to protect soldiers in the region.

Gulf War II is going to have a syndrome, too, this one will be made up of wide spread and unusual cancers and infertility caused by depleted uranium ordnance. The American press hasn't paid much attention to this, but one reporter for the CSM has been following this story from the beginning of the war. Just another horrible story that the press is shielding you from, and protecting Bush and Rummy.

The Big Questions

I'm going to see this tonight, I'll have a review later.

Small film, large questions
'What the Bleep' thrills some moviegoers, alarms others, and surprises everyone with its draw.
By Stephen Humphries | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

When the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know?!" first screened in San Francisco in July, it ended in a bull session involving hundreds of filmgoers.

By the time the staff of the Metreon cinema had finished sweeping up the last kernels of popcorn in the theater aisles, no one had left their seats - over 600 people were buzzing about the independent movie that poses metaphysical questions such as "Is matter real?" and "What effect does thought have on our bodies and our experience?"

The low-budget movie, which expands to 151 screens this weekend, is partly a fictional story of a woman experiencing a midlife crisis and partly a documentary-like look at the big questions of life, the universe, and, well, everything. (Imagine a Hallmark Channel weepie spliced together with Carl Sagan's "Cosmos.")

"What the Bleep?!" has developed into a word-of-mouth hit following a gradual nationwide rollout that began nine months ago in a small Washington town. As it's opened in more and more theaters, it's garnered repeat business from many moviegoers. Some have even formed discussion groups to talk about the film's attempt to create a unified theory of reality by combining ideas from quantum physics, neural science, and mystical philosophy.

That's not to imply that "Bleep" is a massive phenomenon. But the movie's longevity in theaters and $5.5 million box-office total - impressive for a film its size - may reflect a growing interest among some segments of American society in the connections between mind, body, and spirituality.

"These [ideas] have always been popular among a subset of people but I think now, especially, they're really coming into their own," says Laura Sheahan, senior religion editor at Beliefnet.com. "It's becoming more mainstream to try to reconcile spirituality with brain chemistry or questions of the body."

Put in that wider context, the film's box-office draw isn't surprising. Interest in searching for connections between health and spirituality can be seen in everything from the boom in yoga to the research activities of medical schools and institutions like the Mind/Body Medical Institute in Boston. Newsweek recently devoted a cover story to "The New Science of Mind & Body."

"What the Bleep Do We Know?!" has so far found most of its core audience by marketing to groups that already list toward the concept that thought can affect one's experience. It has drawn an audience ranging from members of the Unitarian Universalist church and the Bahai faith, to chiropractors and practitioners of Chinese medicine, to fans of Dr. Wayne Dyer or the Institute for Noetic Sciences.

"This community is deeply connected by e-mail," says Steven Simon, cofounder of the Spiritual Cinema Circle, a DVD subscription service of inspirational films.

Those Internet ties, in addition to fliers posted in Yoga studios, health food stores, and churches, helped the picture expand from showings at film festivals to isolated cinemas around the Northwest. Each time "Bleep" appeared on a new screen, theater owners were astonished at the response to the movie. At the Harkins Valley Arts cinema in Tempe, Ariz., "Bleep" continues to monopolize the theater's single screen five months later. After a similar turnout in Los Angeles, the film was picked up for distribution by Samuel Goldwyn Films.

Link courtesy of Joyce Garcia, who has returned to Holy Weblog! after a year's hiatus. I'll add her to the blogroll later this weekend.

War on the Poor, Pt. XXXV

The War on Affordable Housing

Published: October 16, 2004

Things are getting worse by the day, thanks to ideologues in the Bush administration who prefer a laissez-faire approach, regardless of the social costs. Unable to dismember the Section 8 program directly, HUD has chosen to destabilize it with a series of rule changes and budget maneuvers that are being felt from coast to coast. The current HUD secretary, Alphonso Jackson, has settled on a particularly destructive strategy involving misdirection and sleight of hand. He releases poorly explained policies that include hidden, but draconian, cuts. After an outcry from Congress, he retreats to lesser cuts that leave the program diminished, housing authorities confused and the general public mistakenly believing that the status quo has been regained.

The latest incident, laid out by The Times's David Chen, came after HUD released a vaguely worded and irrational proposal that involved reducing the value of housing vouchers for poor residents in some of the most expensive housing markets in the country. The proposed change was widely thought to have been rescinded after housing advocates and lawmakers raised a fuss. But a close look at the data shows that HUD still seems to be planning to enforce a part of the plan that would make it more difficult for large families to find larger apartments. The landlords have been quick to react. Faced with the prospect of Section 8 vouchers that pay less than fair-market rents, they have made it clear that they will simply refuse to deal with the program, especially in tight markets where they can pick and choose tenants. That will be a disaster for poor families with several children.

The insanity of this ideologically driven attack on Section 8 is underscored in a bipartisan book - written by two Republicans and two Democrats - just out from the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard. The authors include two former housing secretaries: Jack Kemp, a Republican, and Henry Cisneros, a Democrat. The authors argue convincingly that the country is sacrificing both families and neighborhoods by hacking away at the most successful housing program in history.

The book, "Opportunity and Progress," calls for restoring the sane bipartisan effort that produced the federal housing program in the first place. Most significantly, the authors urge Congress to insulate the housing program from partisan sniping by creating a national trust fund. Modeled on similar programs that work well at state and local levels, that national fund would be used to build, rehabilitate and preserve 1.5 million affordable apartments.

The proposal resembles one already pending in Congress, where a trust fund bill is bottled up in committee even though it has more than 200 sponsors. The bill, as originally introduced, would finance itself by redirecting a small portion of the profits from the Federal Housing Administration's mortgage insurance fund.

This page is generally suspicious of dedicated funds, but, given the national housing crisis, it makes good sense to direct money earned from housing back into housing. The bill would certainly have wide support, if only the Republican leadership allowed it to be brought to the floor.

Even the normally somnolent Times ed page is getting shrill

Everybody, Wake Up!

Welcome to our diverse world. This is going to be very hard work and I have a lot of admiration for the people who are taking this stand.

For U.S. Muslims, a Push From the Progressive Wing
Broader Rights Backed For Women and Gays

By Rachel Zoll
Associated Press
Saturday, October 16, 2004; Page B09

NEW YORK -- The Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks emboldened many outside the Muslim community to demand that Islamic leaders reexamine religious teachings on matters from war to women's rights.

But in the United States, the latest call for reform is coming from within.

At the end of the holy month of Ramadan, which began yesterday, a group of mostly young Muslims plans to launch the Progressive Muslim Union of North America in New York.

As its name suggests, the organization will take positions that conservatives consider objectionable, even heretical: Progressives believe women should have a broader role in mosques; they back gay rights; and they believe Muslims should borrow from traditions as varied as Buddhism and the U.S. civil rights movement to reshape Islam for modern times.

"When you've been taught ever since you can remember that Islam is a certain thing, especially as women . . . you reach a certain point where it's not tenable anymore," said Sarah Eltantawi, 28, one of four founders of the Progressive Union. "People need to feel that there is an alternative Islamic space that has some legitimacy that they can turn to."

The organizers are taking significant risks with their platform.

Progressives intend to speak out publicly against Muslim practices they consider harmful, at a highly sensitive time when the community fears fueling prejudice against Islam. And by promoting acceptance of homosexuality and women's religious leadership, they leave themselves open to accusations that their agenda is not truly Muslim.

Sayyid M. Syeed, secretary general of the Islamic Society of North America, a leading Muslim organization in this country, said "creating forums and making them too radical" will alienate other Muslims. "They might have something good on other issues," Syeed said, but their more controversial positions -- on homosexuality, for example -- will undermine their credibility.

"It will do a disservice," Syeed said.

Omid Safi, a religion professor at Colgate University and another founder of the Progressive Union, said the movement must take these chances. Progressives will not be "standing outside pointing an accusatory finger" at other Muslims; they want the religion to flourish, he said.

A blog I've been reading for more than a year, Muslim WakeUp! is a good place to go for progressive Muslim reflections on religion and culture.

The Toronto Star also weighs in today on Islam to the north of us.

Progressive Muslims challenge tradition

LESLIE SCRIVENER
FAITH AND ETHICS REPORTER

Roshan Jamal has never seen herself as a traditional Muslim woman. The Toronto chartered accountant wears business suits to work and doesn't cover her hair in public. And for a long time, she felt she didn't fit in at Islamic centres where men and women were segregated, used separate entrances and women were covered up.

``I belonged nowhere,'' says Jamal, who heads the new Noor Cultural Centre in North York, a liberal-minded Muslim organization. ``When I was raising my children, I had nowhere to go.

``It seemed you belonged either in the secular world, or you went into traditional areas. There didn't seem to be a midway and I felt there were a lot of women like me in mainstream Canadian society.''

And not surprisingly, there are a lot of men like her, too.

Jamal, who is CEO of the centre, is part of a growing North American movement of progressive Muslims creating alternatives to more traditional, conservative organizations.

The movement is largely being driven by North American-educated Muslims from diverse cultural backgrounds, many of whom are in their 30s and 40s, who are beginning to step back and take a critical look at traditional practices.

Yesterday, on the first day of Ramadan, the month of fasting, the Noor centre became what is believed to be the first place in Canada where Muslim men and women can pray in two sections that are side by side.

Religion everywhere is in enormous foment as the traditionalist threads are confronted by modernity and post-modernity. It is a time of enormous possibility and risk, and no one knows how it will all turn out

Low Acheiver

via Steve Soto at The Left Coaster:

Bush triumphalism masks mission unaccomplished in Afghanistan: analysts

KABUL, (AFP) - Three years after the US-led invasion, Afghanistan (news - web sites) is flooding the world with heroin, warlords reign in the provinces, women are scared and the new security forces are underarmed and undersized, analysts say.

But as he bids for re-election, US President George W. Bush (news - web sites) is trumpeting Afghanistan's own recent presidential polls as a symbol of success in nation-building.

His Democrat challenger John Kerry (news - web sites) meanwhile makes the diversion of resources from Afghanistan to Iraq (news - web sites) and the failure to nail Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) three years ago key planks of his attack.

Bush's vision of success in Afghanistan since US forces helped overthrow the ultra-Islamic Taliban in late 2001 is rose-tinted, the analysts say. But Kerry's criticism may be over-simplistic, they add.

"Bush has painted a rosier picture than exists on the ground... and expressed success prematurely," said Vikram Parekh, Afghan affairs analyst for the International Crisis Group.

"When Bush presents Afghanistan as a country which has made great strides towards democracy, those claims lack credibility," Riffat Hussein, head of strategic studies at Pakistan's Quaid-e-Azam University, told AFP.

Hussein and others cite three yardsticks for improvement in the war-torn central Asian land in the last three years: the creation of a national security force; eradicating opium poppies; and disarming warlords' militias.

"If we take these three or four areas to measure success, you will get a very mixed result," Hussein said.

"Militarily the country is under the control of the warlords and Karzai's government does not run beyond Kabul. Right now it's virtual warlord rule whether you look east, west, north or south of Kabul.

"One litmus test is Afghanistan's progress in setting up its own army. Initial goals were for 90,000 and they've not been able to raise beyond 15,000.

"This lack of a national army is directly related to the failure of the government to reign in opium poppies."

Poppy cultivation is set to jump 40 percent this year, the CIA (news - web sites) predicts, after a bumper crop last year supplied 90 percent of Europe's heroin and three quarters of the worldwide supply.

Let's see: Bush policies have fscked up both Afghanistan and Iraq, wrecked the economy, lost a record-setting number of jobs and yet half of the population gives him a favorable job rating? On what grounds?

Worse and Worse

I trust Borzou Daragahi's reporting, he's a native speaker, but this story reduced me to tears. It's a panorama type of piece, quite long, and I'll just give you a small slice here:

Hatred, fear reign after 'liberation'
Violence, anarchy cutting too close to home for some

Borzou Daragahi, Chronicle Foreign Service

Friday, October 15, 2004

Baghdad -- Behnam Farho pinpoints the moment when the fear got to be too much, when he decided his country was lost, and it was time for him to gather up his family and leave Iraq -- for good.

It was late August, just after his beloved niece, Mayada, was abducted by gun-toting men in front of her home. Farho, a mild-mannered goldsmith, began a weeklong odyssey into Baghdad's new underworld in search of Mayada.

At one point he found himself sitting in an outdoor teahouse in Sadr City, a Baghdad slum where gunbattles rage nightly between militias and the U.S. Army, having an awkward conversation with a whiskey-guzzling crime lord who he hoped might be able to shed light on Mayada's fate.

"What if the police come now?" Farho recalls asking. "They'll arrest me, too."

The mobster laughed heartily. "Before the police even left the station, I would get a call on my cell phone," he said.

A few weeks later, he had paid a $10,000 ransom, collected his distraught niece and begun selling off the extended family's property. He was heading to Syria.

"There's no place for us in Iraq," Farho said. "Even if I wound up in a poor country in Africa, I'd be happy, as long as I could sleep at night without fear."

Fifteen years ago, Iraqi exile Kanan Makiya published "The Republic of Fear," a terrifying, surreal account of a country where President Saddam Hussein's security apparatus wrought havoc on the lives and psyches of ordinary Iraqis. Today, the country feels almost as surreal and terrifying, with a new kind of fear -- that the violence, the hatred, the chaos of "liberated" Iraq keeps edging closer to one's own life, family and closest friends.

Car bombs and mortar fire shake the day and night. A trip to the supermarket becomes a life-threatening exercise when a gunfight erupts outside. An Iraqi teenager wearing an AC Milan hat glares at an American in a guard post. The burly soldier, carrying an M-16, stares back, stone-faced.

Shop owners who used to welcome foreign reporters with tea now politely but firmly order them out. "I'm sorry, it's not you," one shop owner explains. "I'm just scared someone will target my store because they see foreigners here. "
....
For droves of young Iraqis who have grown weary of the fear and paranoia, passport offices have become popular destinations. Ahmad Ibrahim, 21, worked as a translator for the U.S. Army, an $800-a-month job as dangerous as any in Iraq. Iraqis on the street told him he was a traitor. Three of his friends who were translators have been killed. He found one of his friends, Mohammad, who had been abducted -- lying close to the river, a bullet in his head.

Still, he stayed on. But when a battalion commander handed him a pistol during a violent confrontation with insurgents and advised "Watch your back," Ibrahim knew it was time to go.

"I didn't sign up for this. I just wanted to be an interpreter," he says after he was granted a visa. "I want to leave, but it's still my country. I feel so bad about it. Everything is starting to get worse and worse."

One World

So that you don't have to go anywhere else, here is Jon Stewart on Crossfire.

This is very serious, the comedian is far more serious than the pundits and he is very, very good.

This is a public service. Tucker and Paul know they are hacks, and Jon calls them on it and they don't handle it very well. Let the worms squirm. On cable TV.

I gotta get a Tivo. The donation button is over there on the right if you want to help, thank you if you do.

BTW, I was unemployed for 25 months of the last 36. I'm digging myself out of the pit of debt I built up during that time, and I was never in debt before. If you can spare a dime to help, I'll be grateful. This community has been my home during some of the darkest days of my life. I started blogging to think I could change the world. What I learned is that it is about changing me. Thank you for opening my world.

American Character

A thought has caught and held me since the debate the other night and I've been chewing on it since yesterday morning. For me and my liberal friends, there is a complete disconnect between Bush's actual record, his behavior and the polls: how can nearly half of the public not see it?

I think I have at least part of the answer.

For many people, Bush isn't a person. He is an icon of a part of the American character. I don't want to push the metaphor too far--characterizing an entire people with one set of characteristics comes dangerously close to stereotyping--but I think that most of us would agree that the myth of America tells us somethings about ourselves that others would characterize as unflattering, but America dismisses under the rubric "boys will be boys" or some such locution.

American culture is extremely anti-intellectual. Bush's "plain spokenness" is hailed. The academy is reviled in the popular culture, the domain of the pointy heads and egg heads, removed from real life, while no one considers that college professors have jobs and families and sick kids and mortgages and, unless they are holding an endowed chair at an elite university, they are making civil service wages. I know, Ive been a college teacher. The young ones are paycheck to paycheck like everybody else. You pay serious dues to climb the academic ladder. Bush is the anti-intellectual writ large, a man of no obvious intellectual acheivement who is rather proud of it.

Americans like a charming narcissist. We live in one of the most narcissistic cultures on the planet. The individual reigns supreme and individual choice is one of our highest cultural values. We haven't had a genuine sense of community in this country in a generation. "What's in it for me?" is a hallowed part of the culture. Every person views their own opinions as dispositive facts. As a result, we are stingy: why give away something that might limit MY choices. All of our charities are underfunded and we are taxed less than any industrial country on the planet. I've got mine. Fsck you. There is very little sense that the least of us are as entitled to a little dignity in life as the most wealthy and celebrated. All of our "wars on poverty" since Reagan have been wars on the poor. I've spoken of this before: the poor are morally suspect in a culture which treats wealth and celebrity as signs of something approaching Divine Favor. If you are poor, you deserve it, you are lazy. Bush's own statements are the embodiment of this.

I go back to one of the founding documents of our era in America, Walt Whitman's Song of Myself as badly interpretted by the popular culture. Bush is singing his song, and a lot of people see him as a projection of a part of their selves that they had to keep somewhat hidden in a PC culture.

You are "with us or against us" speaks to a very deep part of human nature: which tribe are you in? The language is biblical, "Me and my tribe, we will serve the Lord." You other tribe over there, you are condemned to hell. We have the goods, salvation or whatever, and you don't, you benighted fools. We are better than you. Bush has made it safe for anti-intellectual, low-acheiving, angry, entitlement seeking egoists to come out of their closet. The wealthy high acheivers are the people he seeks, to bask in their reflected glory. No wonder donations have come out of the walls, he's been their Santa Claus for four years.

I read a bazillion articles and blog posts analyzing W's performances in the debates. Many got Jungian and Freudian and talked about how Bush was projecting his flaws on Kerry. Something deeper is going on: Bush is making himself the object of transference from the public, he has made their deepest flaws politically correct.

Karl Rove is correct: it might work.

Been Here Before

Non-existant planning for after the war in Iraq

By WARREN P. STROBEL and JOHN WALCOTT

Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - In March 2003, days before the start of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, American war planners and intelligence officials met at Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina to review the Bush administration's plans to oust Saddam Hussein and implant democracy in Iraq.

Near the end of his presentation, an Army lieutenant colonel who was giving a briefing showed a slide describing the Pentagon's plans for rebuilding Iraq after the war, known in the planners' parlance as Phase 4-C. He was uncomfortable with his material - and for good reason.

The slide said: "To Be Provided."

[snip]

But the hole created by the absence of a plan to rebuild Iraq, the failure to provide enough troops to secure the country, the misplaced faith in Iraqi exiles and other mistakes made after Baghdad fell is a deep one.

"We've finally got our act together, but we're all afraid it may be too late," said one senior official who's engaged daily in Iraq policy.

The Bush administration's failure to plan to win the peace in Iraq was the product of many of the same problems that plagued the administration's case for war, including wishful thinking, bad information from Iraqi exiles who said Iraqis would welcome American troops as liberators and contempt for dissenting opinions.

However, the administration's planning for postwar Iraq differed in one crucial respect from its erroneous pre-war claims about Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and links to al Qaida.

The U.S. intelligence community had been divided about the state of Saddam's weapons programs, but there was no disagreement among experts throughout the government that winning the peace in Iraq could be much harder than winning a war.

"The possibility of the United States winning the war and losing the peace in Iraq is real and serious," warned an Army War College report that was completed in February 2003, a month before the invasion. Without an "overwhelming" effort to prepare for the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the report warned: "The United States may find itself in a radically different world over the next few years, a world in which the threat of Saddam Hussein seems like a pale shadow of new problems of America's own making.

So, now we're pounding the crap out of Fallujah, "destroying the village to save it." I heard William Langwiesche on NPR this morning. He said that what we are doing is nothing more than administering mass punsishment, that it is not clear that Al-Zarqawi is nearly as important as the Pentagon is making him out to be and that it is impossible to identify individual "insurgents," the insurgency being widely supported in the civilian population. This bombing campaign against a civilian population is a war crime like the firebombing of Dresden during WWII.

In Your Nightmares

4-Star Plans After Abu Ghraib
Top administration figures are angling to promote Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who ran detention facilities in Iraq, officials say.

By John Hendren, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon plans to promote Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, former head of military operations in Iraq, risking a confrontation with members of Congress because of the prisoner abuses that occurred during his tenure.

Senior Pentagon officials, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have privately told colleagues they are determined to pin a fourth star on Sanchez, two senior defense officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said this week.

Rumsfeld and others recognize that Sanchez remains politically "radioactive," in the words of a third senior defense official, and would wait until after the Nov. 2 presidential election and investigations of the Abu Ghraib scandal have faded before putting his name forward.

Top Pentagon strategists do not have a specific four-star job in mind for Sanchez, and the officials conceded that the appointment would probably not occur if Bush were defeated in his reelection bid by Democratic rival Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who has made his criticism of the conduct in the war a centerpiece of his campaign.

Among his duties in Iraq, Sanchez oversaw all detention facilities, including Abu Ghraib prison.

Support for the general among the senior-most policymakers in the Pentagon reflects the Bush administration's insistence that the prisoner abuse affair — which began in Abu Ghraib outside of Baghdad and then drew scrutiny to military jails in Afghanistan and at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba — was an aberration.

But an appointment would encourage a confrontation in the Senate, where Democrats and some Republicans who would have to approve the nomination have criticized Sanchez's oversight of Abu Ghraib and the conduct of the war.

"If they really felt comfortable about this and felt it was justifiable, they would do it before the election," said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), who was skeptical of the timing.

A senior Senate Republican aide was more blunt.

"I would say that he would have a snowball's chance," the aide said, on condition of anonymity. "Somebody needs to be held accountable…. He failed in his leadership role."

Here is the PDF of the Center for Public Integrity's special report on the horror that was/is Abu Ghraib. The media have disappeared this down the memory hole, but the Pentagon's own documents demonstrate that American behavior was beyond anything reported so far: rape and sodomy were common coin and I'm hearing reports that these atrocities are on-going in other prisons.

For the no responsibility administration this is just another case of "whatever..." and America continues to slumber while the W government continues to dismantle whatever was left of ordinary human rights standards. Remember, if they can do it to them, they can do it to you.

Working Cheap

Poll reveals world anger at Bush
Eight out of 10 countries favour Kerry for president

Alan Travis, home affairs editor
Friday October 15, 2004

George Bush has squandered a wealth of sympathy around the world towards America since September 11 with public opinion in 10 leading countries - including some of its closest allies - growing more hostile to the United States while he has been in office.

According to a survey, voters in eight out of the 10 countries, including Britain, want to see the Democrat challenger, John Kerry, defeat President Bush in next month's US presidential election.

The poll, conducted by 10 of the world's leading newspapers, including France's Le Monde, Japan's Asahi Shimbun, Canada's La Presse, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Guardian, also shows that on balance world opinion does not believe that the war in Iraq has made a positive contribution to the fight against terror.

The results show that in Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Japan, Spain and South Korea a majority of voters share a rejection of the Iraq invasion, contempt for the Bush administration, a growing hostility to the US and a not-too-strong endorsement of Mr Kerry. But they all make a clear distinction between this kind of anti-Americanism and expressing a dislike of American people. On average 68% of those polled say they have a favourable opinion of Americans.

The 10-country poll suggests that rarely has an American administration faced such isolation and lack of public support amongst its closest allies.

The only exceptions to this trend are the Israelis - who back Bush 2-1 over Kerry and see the US as their security umbrella - and the Russians who, despite their traditional anti-Americanism, recorded unexpectedly favourable attitudes towards the US in the survey conducted in the immediate aftermath of the Beslan tragedy.

The UK results of the poll conducted by ICM research for the Guardian reveal a growing disillusionment with the US amongst the British public, fuelled by a strong personal antipathy towards Mr Bush.

The ICM survey shows that if the British had a vote in the US presidential elections on November 2 they would vote 50% for Kerry and only 22% for Bush.

Sixty per cent of British voters say they don't like Bush, rising to a startling 77% among those under 25.

The rejection of Mr Bush is strongest in France where 72% say they would back Mr Kerry but it is also very strong in traditionally very pro-American South Korea, where fears of a pre-emptive US strike against North Korea have translated into 68% support for Mr Kerry.

In Britain the growth in anti-Americanism is not so marked as in France, Japan, Canada, South Korea or Spain where more than 60% say their view of the United States has deteriorated since September 11. But a sizeable and emerging minority - 45% - of British voters say their image of the US has got worse in the past three years and only 15% say it has improved.

There is a widespread agreement that America will remain the world's largest economic power.

This is underlined by the 73% of British voters who say that the US now wields an excessive influence on international affairs, a situation that 67% see as continuing for the foreseeable future.

A majority in Britain also believe that US democracy is no longer a model for others.

But perhaps a more startling finding from the Guardian/ICM poll is that a majority of British voters - 51% - say that they believe that American culture is threatening our own culture.

This is fine if your leadership philosophy is that it is better to be feared than respected. As a general rule, respect is harder to cultivate but pays bigger dividends over the long haul. Respect is based on results, fear comes from threats, a cheap coin.

Here is the survey and results.

Citizenship 101

Yaser Hamdi, U.S. Citizen

Published: October 15, 2004

To the Editor:

Re "U.S. Releases Saudi-American It Had Captured in Afghanistan" (news article, Oct. 12):

You report that as a condition for releasing Yaser E. Hamdi, who was held without charges and in solitary confinement for about three years, the United States required that he "renounce his American citizenship." The United States government has no authority to compel such a renunciation, and Mr. Hamdi's proclamation that he is no longer an American is legally meaningless.

Mr. Hamdi was born in Louisiana. The United States Constitution defines anyone who is born in the United States as a citizen. Neither the State Department, the Justice Department nor the president has the authority to alter the Constitution unilaterally.

In Vance v. Terrazas, the Supreme Court made it clear that the government cannot coerce someone to surrender citizenship.

By trying to do precisely that, the United States has continued to act lawlessly toward Mr. Hamdi.

David R. Dow
Houston, Oct. 13, 2004
The writer is a professor at the University of Houston Law Center

Remember, if they can do it to him, they can do it to you.

The New New Thing

For those of you on the Left Coast, it is still early evening. For this little bump, it is time for bed.

Here is what an evening looks like for a news and politics blogger: about 8 PM I point three browser windows at the three national papers and split the screen for USA, IHT and CSM in a fourth, while setting up a fifth window that has all of my aggregator links in seperate tabs.

When I get up in the morning (after the first cup, I'm not a fool) I'll update the fourth and fifth windows while I read the national papers. The dial up is slow, but you learn to work with it. I have to read for about 45 minutes to two hours before I can find a post. Sometimes you find it, sometimes it finds you.

I try to get three or four up before I head for the shower around 7. I may try for another before I leave for work, if the morning's harvest has been particularly rich. My hair is really short and I can shower in seven minutes. I know this because the last time I camped in a Canadian provincial park a quarter got you seven minutes of hot water. I never needed a second quarter.

Then, out the door to the bus stop. I'll give you another post at coffee break time or lunch time, the office is so busy right now that I might fail this. In the evening, you'll probably get a little essay. Commentary, rather than noose.

That's what I think I can do right now. Can you hang wid dis?

The weekend schedule, when none of you have time for any of this, is still under consideration.

Generation Next

As I get geekier, you'll probably be seeing more posts like this. I've added the infotech press to my beat (Gawd help me, I'm reading The Register every day.)

Fitting Your PC in a Pocket
By DAVID POGUE

Published: October 14, 2004

IN the last few years, the biggest breakthroughs in personal computing haven't had much to do with personal computers. Instead, many of the most exciting and popular inventions have been designed to let you carry a copy of the data that's on the PC you already have.

What's an iPod, for example, but a $300 portable hard drive containing a copy of your PC's music files? What's a Palm or PocketPC but a $300 data bucket for carrying away a copy of the PC's calendar and address book? And what's a BlackBerry but a $400 mirror image of the PC's e-mail?

Of course, the unstated assumption behind all of these developments is that your pocket isn't big enough for the computer itself. But for a couple of former Apple laptop designers, that assumption is obsolete.

Thanks to some of the very advances in miniaturization that make hand-held gadgets possible (bright indoor-outdoor screens, two-inch hard drives), these guys have devised the world's smallest Windows XP computer: 4.9 by 3.4 inches and less than an inch thick. They pose an intriguing question: why would you buy a bunch of gadgets designed to liberate the data from your PC if you could just shove the entire PC into your pocket?

It's called the OQO (pronounced OH-cue-oh), not to be confused with AT&T;'s instant-messaging device (Ogo), a wind instrument (oboe) or John Lennon's widow (Yoko Ono).

The best way to appreciate the OQO's benefits and tradeoffs is to consider each of its components individually, just as you would when buying any new computer.

KEYBOARD With a gentle push, the screen and body slide halfway apart like the two slices of bread on a jelly sandwich. You've just exposed a thumb keyboard. It's like the one on a BlackBerry, except that this one even has arrow keys, modifier keys (like Ctrl and Alt), and a separate number pad. (Weirdly, though, the number keypad is upside down. That is, the top row includes 1, 2 and 3, cellphone-style, instead of 7, 8 and 9, computer-style.) You can also attach a full-size U.S.B. keyboard when you're not computing on the run.

MOUSE OQO has dreamed up a bizarre but perfectly workable mouse-replacement solution. Between the letter and number keys sits a pea-sized, immovable circle of stubbly black stuff. Your first instinct might be to scrape it away, assuming that it must be a bit of dried airline food.

Instead, you're supposed to push against it in the direction you want the arrow cursor to move, much like the little red nubbin on I.B.M. laptop keyboards. To click, you press a button on the OQO keyboard's left edge. Mousing is now a two-handed operation, but why not? Your non-mouse hand is usually left to twiddle its thumb during PC mousing anyway.

Of course, you can't very well draw or sketch by pushing against that black textured blob, so the OQO is also equipped with a stylus and a touch screen. (Only a special stylus works on this screen, which prevents accidental clicks but also means you can't use a retracted pen or a fingernail in a pinch.)

And because neither a mouse-click key nor a stylus is ideal for scrolling through documents, Web pages and lists, the OQO even has a thumb wheel on its bottom edge. With these three input devices, you won't miss the mouse for an instant. If anything, you'll wish that your bigger computer had them.

There are lots of down sides on this puppy, read the article. I won't be buying one, but it is the first step in a Next Gen technology we'll be seeing a lot more of in the next year. It uses both WiFi and Bluetooth. I'd argue that they went to production too soon, the next turn of the wheel they need in hardware is only about six months away and this is a hurry job.

Still, click the link and look at the picture and read the text. The promise it holds out, particularly for those who travel a lot, is intriguing. Imagine, ladies, carrying your PC in your pocket book instead of that huge nylon ripstop carry on thing.

I'll be looking for stories on how well this gadget holds up to jostling and bumping. Something that small is going to get dropped.

As Far As The Eye Can See

Oil Prices Push U.S. Trade Deficit to Near-Record Level

By Martin Crutsinger
AP Economics Writer
Thursday, October 14, 2004; 8:47 AM

The U.S. trade deficit, propelled by a record foreign oil bill, surged to $54 billion in August, the second highest level in history. The politically sensitive deficit with China hit a new high as American retailers upped their orders for cell phones, toys and televisions.

The Commerce Department said the August trade deficit in goods and services was 6.9 percent higher than a $50.5 billion imbalance in July. A small 0.1 percent rise in exports was dwarfed by a 2.5 percent jump in imports.

For the year, America's trade deficit is running at a record annual rate of $590 billion, 19 percent higher than the previous record, last year's $496.5 billion imbalance.

Imports climbed 2.5 percent to a record $150.1 billion in August, reflecting a 12.2 percent jump in petroleum shipments, which rose to a record $15.6 billion last month.

U.S. exports edged up 0.1 percent to $96 billion in August following an even larger 3 percent gain in July. Economists are hoping that an improving global economy will lift sales of American goods overseas. Sales of American cars and auto parts did hit a record, rising to $7.8 billion in August.

The U.S. trade performance has become an issue in the presidential race with Democratic challenger John Kerry charging that President Bush has not done enough to protect American workers from unfair trade practices from low wage countries such as China.

In Wednesday night's final debate, Kerry criticized Bush for failing to pursue an unfair trade practice complaint against China on the grounds that it has rigged its currency system to keep the yuan undervalued by as much as 40 percent against the U.S. dollar, giving Chinese products a huge competitive advantage against American goods.

In a second economic report, the Labor Department said the number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits rose by 15,000 last week to a seasonally adjusted level of 352,000. The four-week moving average of claims, which smoothes out weekly changes, rose by 4,000 to a seven-month high of 352,000.

The report on jobless claims reflects a labor market that is continuing to confound economists' expectations. The country added a lower-than-expected 96,000 jobs in September as the unemployment rate held steady at 5.4 percent.

In August, the trade deficit with China climbed to a record $18.1 billion, pushed higher by a surge in demand for cell phones, toys and games, televisions and VCRs, reflecting efforts by U.S. retailers to stock their shelves in advance of the holiday shopping season.

None of this is likely to change as long as American consumers continue to thirst for oil and cheap Chinese goods. The government can do something about trade practice complaints, but as long as the Chinese can continue to crank out goods at a competative price, we'll consume them.

The oil shock accounts for a substantial share of this spike, and it isn't likely to go away anytime soon. An oil pipeline fire in Mexico this morning is contributing to oil futures running above $54 today.

Oil Surges to Record After U.S. Says Distillate Supplies Fell

Oct. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Crude oil rose to a record $54.62 a barrel in New York after an Energy Department report showed that U.S. supplies of distillate fuels, including heating oil and diesel, plunged last week.

``The distillate inventory number is getting all of the attention at this time of year,'' said Rick Mueller, an analyst with Energy Security Analysis Inc. in Wakefield, Massachusetts. ``Inventories haven't been increasing, which they often do at this time of year, and supplies in Europe are even tighter than here. We are in for an extended run of real high prices.''

Storm Damage

Florida hurricanes could impact US presidential election outcome

VERO BEACH, United States (AFP) - The four hurricanes that battered Florida in recent months have killed dozens of people and caused billions of dollars in damages. They may also affect the outcome of the presidential election.

The violent storms smashed homes, cut power lines and ruined farmland across much of the state.

The worst-hit were areas where the Republicans traditionally draw much of their support in Florida, the state that determined the outcome of the 2000 presidential elections after five weeks of legal wrangling and ballot recounts.

This, say analysts, could affect turnout by supporters of US President George W. Bush (news - web sites).

"We still have many people without electricity, you have people busy with insurance claims, many people don't even have a house," said Lance deHaven-Smith of the Florida State University (FSU.)

"It's unlikely that people in those circumstances will go out of their way to vote," said deHaven-Smith, an expert in electoral trends.

In Vero Beach, a southeastern Florida city ravaged by hurricanes Frances and Jeanne, chunks of roofs piled by the roadside alongside uprooted trees, ruined furniture and other debris, bear witnesses to the ferocity of the storms.

"I haven't decided who to vote for, but frankly it's not my first priority," said Stu Hall, 54 as he crouched under his twisted metal roof, trying to fix the worst of the damage to his mobile home in the Fairline Harbor community, where most of his neighbors are retirees living on a limited income.

In a more affluent neighborhood, Rick Wiebelt said his first concern was for the missing roof of his home, which he had just finished remodeling before the storms slammed ashore. "I haven't heard many people talk about the elections around here," his wife Jamie chimed in.

It's going to be a little difficult to use those evoting machines if there is no power. This is a little inside baseball, but I will be curious to compare voter turnout in the affected areas with the numbers from 2000.

On the purely human side, some of these folks face many more months or even years of disruption. There are parts of Virginia that are still dealing with the cleanup from the remenents of Gaston and the other hurricane and tropical storm leftovers and we had much less damage than Florida.

The Ghost of Leo Strauss

Jay Rosen at PressThink weighs in with an interesting question on the Sinclair Broadcasting flap:

Sinclair Broadcast's inexact plan to air Stolen Honor in the weeks before the election is an unprecedented move, and it signals the arrival of a new combination in broadcasting: a political empire made of television stations.

In a commercial empire it makes no sense to invite a storm like that. But what if a company were built for that sort of storm? A lot depends on how we define Sinclair Broadcasting: as a media company with a political agenda, or a political actor that's gotten hold of a media company and is re-shaping it for bigger battles ahead.

However you answer the question, here is Markos's Sinclair omnibus if you want to take action.

Mediachannel's Rory O'Connor reports:

If the Sinclair Broadcasting Group's track record of political contributions is any indication, executives at the company may have a more political agenda than they care to indicate. According to The Center for Responsive Politics, an organization devoted to tracking political contributions by individuals, PACs and corporations, Sinclair executives give overwhelmingly to Republican causes and candidates. Of the top twenty TV and Radio companies to make political contributions in 2004, Sinclair Broadcasting Group, is among the most conservative, giving 97 percent of its more than $67,000 in political contributions to GOP candidates.

This is "political service" journalism at its worst. In the film, Kerry is described to viewers as "a willing accomplice" for "enemy propagandists." Sherwood's allegations in "Stolen Honor" echo those of the anti-Kerry veterans group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and two of the former prisoners who appeared in that group's veracity-challenged television ads -- including one who was a Bush campaign volunteer -- were interviewed in Sherwood's film.

What was that definition of fascism again?

The Squeeze

One-quarter of working Americans live in poverty, study finds

Tue Oct 12, 1:22 AM ET

WASHINGTON, (AFP) - More than a quarter of American working families -- or nearly 39 million people -- have trouble making ends meet and can be qualified as poor due to a fast shrinking pool of well-paying jobs, according to a new report.

The study, coming on the eve of the third and final presidential debate between President George W. Bush (news - web sites) and his Democratic challenger, John Kerry (news - web sites), was likely to add fuel to the already heated political campaign, during which Kerry has been accusing Bush of outsourcing good American jobs.

"The president does not seem to understand how many middle class families are being squeezed by falling incomes, and spiraling health care, tuition and energy costs," the Massachusetts senator stated just last week, pointing out that 1.6 million private sector jobs had been lost in the country during Bush's nearly four-year term.

Although the report, compiled jointly by the respected Annie E. Casey, Ford and Rockefeller foundations, refrained from direct partisan blame, it appeared to back Kerry's argument by insisting that "our society has not taken adequate steps to ensure that these workers can make ends meet and build a future for their families."

A total of 28 million jobs, or almost 25 percent of all available in the country, can no longer keep a family of four above the poverty level, the study found.

Even education beyond high school is no longer a shield from poverty: as many as 3.9 million low-income working families have a member with some post-secondary education, the report said.

This snapshot fails to reveal that a whole lot more than 25% of the country is having a hard time making ends meet.

Middle-wage jobs disappearing at alarming rate
Could be sign of historic shift in U.S. workforce, experts say

Griff Witte, Washington Post

Sunday, September 26, 2004

This transformation is no longer just about factory workers, whose ranks have declined by 5 million in the past 25 years as manufacturing has moved to countries with cheaper labor. All kinds of jobs that pay in the middle range - - Clark's $17 an hour, or about $35,000 a year, was smack in the center -- are vanishing, including computer-code crunchers, produce managers, call- center operators, travel agents and office clerks.

The jobs have had one thing in common: For people with a high school diploma and perhaps a bit of college, they can be a ticket to a modest home, health insurance, decent retirement and maybe some savings for the kids' tuition. Such jobs were a big reason America's middle class flourished in the second half of the 20th century.

Now what those jobs share is vulnerability. The people who fill them have become replaceable by machines, workers overseas or temporary employees at home who lack benefits. And when they are replaced, many don't know where to turn.

"We don't know what the next big thing will be. When the manufacturing jobs were going away, we could tell people to look for tech jobs. But now the tech jobs are moving away, too," said Lori Kletzer, an economics professor at UC Santa Cruz. "What's the comparative advantage that America retains? We don't have the answer to that. It gives us a very insecure feeling."

The government doesn't specifically track how many jobs like Clark's have gone away. But other statistics more than hint at the scope of the change. For example, there are now about as many temporary, on-call or contract workers in the United States as there are members of labor unions. Another sign: Of the 2. 7 million jobs lost during and after the recession in 2001, the vast majority have been restructured out of existence, according to a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

The State of Working America from The Economic Policy Institute.

Post-Debate Reflection

I thought it was a snooze and a draw, at best. A cruise around the blogosphere and the daily papers indicates that the post-debate spin awarded the honors to Kerry. I'm glad of that, but I was just too tired to be properly celebratory last night.

The LAT explains:

Overall, a Convincing Winner

President Bush's handlers tried to minimize the significance of his three debates with Sen. John F. Kerry, exaggerating Bush's lack of debating skills while insisting that he is the stronger leader. The trouble with this spin is that tens of millions of Americans watching the debates didn't feel they were watching a mere academic exercise. Stitched together, these three extraordinary exchanges amounted to a powerful indictment of the president's leadership.

Even on foreign policy and national security, supposedly the president's strong suit, Kerry had Bush on the defensive in the first debate, attacking him for fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq while failing to capture Osama bin Laden and to prevent the acceleration of nuclear weapons programs in Iran and North Korea.

That the president was on the defensive again Wednesday night, in a debate devoted to domestic policy, is less surprising. Again, Kerry made a compelling case that, for all his plain-talkin' West Texas bravado, Bush had failed to lead. When asked about healthy budget surpluses turning to huge deficits on his watch, the president said the nation needed "fiscal sanity in the halls of the Congress" in a plaintive tone that suggested he had as much influence over what happened there as he did over Jacques Chirac. But Bush's loyal Republican lieutenants are running both chambers of Congress. Moreover, as Kerry noted in debate No. 2, Bush is about to become the first president since the 19th century who failed to veto a single bill in an entire four-year term. That is an abrogation of a president's power to impose "fiscal sanity" on Congress.

Bush's weakness as a leader was also manifest in his response to a question about why he failed to renew the ban on assault weapons, which he professed to support. He basically said he didn't have the votes on Capitol Hill, even though the ban would have passed had GOP leaders allowed a vote, something Bush should have ordered.

That isn't to say that Kerry has all the answers, or that Bush's charm was not in evidence, particularly in Wednesday's meeting. Kerry was in full pander mode on Social Security, and Bush was both profound and sincere in discussing his religious faith and its influence on his policies. But overall, Bush doesn't have a strong hand, and both his opponent and his advisors know it. Bush led the nation to a war that much of the rest of the world, as well as a small majority of Americans, now thinks was unjustified. He wrecked the Treasury's finances with reckless tax cuts that still failed to prevent him from becoming the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net loss of jobs.

What I noticed last night was W's mirage, that ghost of himself that he thinks is always just over the horizon. He makes assertions about who he is and what he does, rather than come up with facts. He has an allergy to facts that is unlike any other president I've seen since Nixon. This is the least self-aware man I have ever seen in public life: he is simply immature. What did in his dad in '92 was the grocery store scanner incident. The son is even further removed from the reality of life of the vast majority of us who aren't making six digit incomes. That ignorance was on full display last night.

This interchange was the most telling:

Mr. President, what do you say to someone in this country who has lost his job to someone overseas who's being paid a fraction of what that job paid here in the United States?

BUSH: I'd say, Bob, I've got policies to continue to grow our economy and create the jobs of the 21st century. And here's some help for you to go get an education. Here's some help for you to go to a community college.

If you lose your job, it's because you are uneducated? We are in the middle of a structural change in employment which Chimpy cannot understand since he's never had to hold down a job. We are rapidly becoming a country without middle class jobs. Neither candidate addressed that, but W is so far removed from the world of work that I don't hold out much hope that he'd ever "get it." He certainly doesn't care about it. The jobs of the 21st Century appear to be low-wage, service sector jobs. Good on you, W. You don't need a community college education for one of those.

The blogosphere awarded the contest to Kerry, as did the immediate post debate polls. I missed the last half, work having done me in this week. The horse race part of politics doesn't much interest me, but this close to the election it will be interesting to see what the weekend polling looks like. This election is about ideas v. ideology. We'll see what the public likes best.

Face in the Keyboard

Kerry plays the religion card. "We're all God's children." It's not a choice. "Who God made them." You can't discriminate on rights. Partnership rights.

God, this is a snooze.

I frankly can't stand this anymore. It sounds like a debate scripted by the editorial pages of the Washington Post, the New York Times, Cokie Roberts and Juan Williams. It's the press whore debate and I hope they are happy.

Debate next

Bush is getting pissed. And pissy and shouting on the attack. Not attractive. He sounds like a schoolboy.

He's playing the libertarian card on gay marriage. This is coded for his base. Why is he still playing to his base?

Debate II

This thing is so scripted that I'm losing interest. John Kerry can't win by playing by their rules. Those who aren't watching the Sox/Yankees game are going to tune out within 10 minutes.

Debate I

Schieffer: Will we ever live in a world as safe and secure as we used to?

>Stupid question. We never as safe as we thought we were.

Kerry: First responders, port insecurity. We'll hunt them down, in alliances and be safer.

Bush: Stay on the offense, spread freedom and liberty. Hold countries to account. Afghan elections freedom on the march.

Bush is shouting again. Comprehensive view. Homeland security bill, my opponent voted against it.

Kerry: OBL, "I don't think about him very much." Bush did say that.

Bush: Every asset at our disposal.

Scheiffer: Flu vaccine?

Bush: Company out of ENGLAND. Working with Canada (whom he trashes all the time.) Don't get a flu shot if you're healthy and young.

Malpractice reform. They don't make vaccine because of it.

Kerry: The system doesn't work. 5 million have lost their insurance in the last four years. Gives the numbers by state.

Bush: A plan is not a litany of complaints.

I'm waiting for Bush to get mad. He's almost there but Kerry isn't baiting him, and he does know how, he was a prosecutor.

Only Connect

I'll be live blogging the debate. That means that you'll get impressions from me as I have them. This will mean multiple posts in real time. This is not easy to do and I am tired from a long day at the office, but I'll try to keep my head off the keyboard for as long as I can.

The comments threads will be open. If you post to them tonight, would you please add a line about where you are writing from? I get a lot of international mail from foreign readers and I'm aware from our site counter that we are being read in a bunch of non-US places. Would you share your location with us? I'd like to get a better sense of how this debate (and our entire political situation) is being seen by those outside of the US. American readers, my site report gives me time zones and I'm aware that this site appeals mostly to east-coasters. Give a location report if you are so inclined.

Let's see what we can learn about the community tonight.

Dangerous World

The Next Pandemic

Wednesday, October 13, 2004; Page A20

IS THIS COUNTRY prepared for the next influenza pandemic? This autumn's troubling dearth of flu vaccine is hardly a good omen, particularly because British regulators say that their American counterparts had advance notice of their intention to ban 48 million doses of British-made vaccine bound for U.S. markets, and indeed they appear to have had time to buy extra doses themselves. U.S. officials deny having advance knowledge and say that they thought problems at the British plant were under control. It is apparent that those at the highest levels of the U.S. government were taken by surprise, a clear indication that information does not flow up the public health bureaucracy as swiftly as it ought to.

This is no trivial problem, because bureaucratic flexibility and rapid information flow will be needed if the world is suddenly confronted with a particularly virulent form of flu, possibly originating in the strains that killed millions of birds in Asia last year and that have spread to humans in several recently documented cases. Scientists have long feared a repetition of the flu pandemics that killed more than 500,000 Americans (and millions more worldwide) in 1918 and 70,000 in 1957. Knowing of these predictions, officials at the Department of Health and Human Services have just begun funding the research and production of new vaccines as well as new antiviral influenza drugs. They are also working on developing a "surge capacity," in the form of spare chickens, whose eggs are used to produce vaccines, in case it suddenly becomes necessary to make large quantities. Unfortunately, this capacity is not yet in place.

Less clear is whether the system would be able to cope with the burden that a virulent influenza epidemic would place on the government's laboratories, which would have to isolate and analyze the new virus and swiftly produce vaccines and drugs for it. Congress's fondness for budget "earmarks" means, for example, that some scientists fear they will not have the flexibility needed to switch their resources rapidly from one project to another. And the private and university labs doing more advanced genetic science are not working as closely with government labs as they could, a failure that might, in the case of a swift-moving virus, result in the loss of critical preparation time. (To put it differently: A few days' delay, in the case of a flu pandemic, could mean thousands of extra deaths.) Together with other specialists, Nancy J. Cox, director of the influenza lab at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, has called for the creation of a state-of-the-art genetic analysis lab dedicated solely to flu virus. But Congress and HHS could, if they focused on this problem, establish a more flexible, better-funded system within the CDC, even if they are not ready to fund a large new lab. Although this isn't a problem that many people have yet focused on, they will if a virulent flu virus strikes. By then, of course, it may be too late.

This is not on the national radar screen. Anyone who studies epidemiology and the public health system knows that we are woefully underprepared for a public health emergency. This year's flu vaccine cock-up is the tip of the iceberg.

We live in a world of evolving scary bugs. Our armament against viruses is tenuous, and we are losing the battle of the bacteria which are evolving into antibiotic-resistent forms, even as the pace of travel means that terrifying local bugs can enter the general population with ease. In terms of resources, we've been gutting the public health system for years. Given that the private health system grows further and further beyond the economic reach of an ever greater segment of the population, we are in grave danger from a pandemic bug or the use of bioweapons by bad guys.

I'm afraid it will take a tragedy to turn the tide in this increasingly important field of concern. I notice this: we had a tragedy of epic proportions on 9-11. The Bush response to first responders was to promise the moon and deliver nothing. Half of the electorate is unwilling to hold him accountable for that.

Americans are deeply asleep about the real threats to us. We may never have another serious terrorist attack, but a pandemic is a sure thing. We've done little about the former, less than nothing about the latter. Read Laurie Garrett's The Coming Plague if you want to get up to speed. It's a huge book which I read in one sitting on a hot and steamy July weekend a few years ago. I had the air conditioning in the house set fairly hot to save money, but I was chilled and goose-bump the whole time I read the book. The story is that compelling.

Yes, I'll be liveblogging the debate tonight for as long as I can stay awake. I was in this chair blogging at 5 this morning, as I do most days, so 9 PM is REALLY LATE for me.

Passion

What Poll and Registration Numbers Don't Reveal
Passion and Motivation to Vote Are Hard to Gauge

By Terry M. Neal
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 13, 2004; 7:52 AM

With less than three weeks before the election, President Bush may be in a politically precarious position going into tonight's critical debate with Sen. John F. Kerry. Anecdotal and quantitative evidence suggest that Democrats and independent groups that support Democrats have done a better job than Republicans at registering new voters in key battleground states. In a normal year, the difficulty in getting the newly registered to the polls might mitigate this advantage. But anti-Bush passions on the left are running exceedingly high, making it more likely that marginal voters -- people who rarely or never vote -- will turn out this year.

In many ways, this year's election is all about the president. Poll after poll has shown that he is more beloved among Republicans than Kerry is beloved among Democrats. Both candidates have equal unfavorable ratings among members of the opposing party. Forty-seven percent of independents in yesterday's Washington Post poll have an unfavorable impression of Bush, while 44 percent have an unfavorable impression of Kerry. But what these numbers don't reveal is who will be most motivated to vote.

GOTV is going to matter more this year than it ever has. My precinct usually has respectable turnout, but I've never had to wait more than a couple of minutes to enter the voting booth. This year, I'm more than willing to wait.

Peach Blossoms

There is a new thing on this site, over yonder----------->

It's an ad for a candidate in Georgia. I'm doing this gratis for my benefactress and because I think that you and I, readers, can change the world. We can do it with small donations bundled together by our common meeting ground, the blogs. We can do it by creating communities of knowledge, information and, I hope, wisdom shared with each other.

Don McDaniel is one of the people working to turn Georgia back into a Blue State, and he wants our help. He doesn't just ask, he wants it. I have enormous respect for the candidates who have come to the blog communities and offered us THEIR respect. If you can, I hope you'll send him some love. If you choose to do so, please add .17, seventeen cents, to your donation so that it can be tracked as coming through this site.

I've contacted Henry Copeland at Blogads and I anticipate that you'll begin seeing ads on the site shortly. Like Steve Gilliard, you won't find me asking for money for specific candidates. This is one smart, passionate and committed community and you don't need me to be telling you who to give to. But I expect we'll be seeing some political ads, I've already been contacted by one congressional campaign.

But this one time, I'll ask you to give to Don. Here's his blog for more info. (Hey, Mel, this thing has your design fingerprints all over it. I know what your stuff looks like, girlfriend.) I'll bump and update this post for the next few days to keep it on top of the site.

Give to celebrate this form of community, give to thank Mel for giving us this site, give to turn Georgia Blue. I'm still digging myself out of the debt that 14 months of unemployment racked up, but what I can do for a campaign is "the ask." I'm a fundraiser in my bones and that is the moment when the rubber meets the, er, blog.

Dems are really flexing the blog muscle this cycle. Let's show them our stuff. Mel sends this info about Don:

We believe "Dean Dozen" candidate Don McDaniel can win a seat in the Georgia House of Representatives, but only with your support. The demographic makeup of Gwinnett County has shifted dramatically in recent years, leaving Don's opponent without a strong base of support and vulnerable to defeat. Unlike his opponent, Don is conducting a true grassroots campaign. When Don’s Republican opponent was told that he would have a challenger this year, he reportedly said, “Well, I guess I’ll have to campaign now.” He has run unopposed in the last six elections.

Don is running in the home district of Republican operative Ralph Reed. Let's send Reed and other Republicans in Georgia a message and elect Don McDaniel to the Georgia House of Representatives!

Let's show Georgia what we can do.

Cut to the Chase

Bravo! This Letter to the Editor in today's NYT gets it exactly right:

Culture of Life

To the Editor:

As a maternity social worker at a Catholic hospital, I work with low-to-middle-income mothers, mostly working, who are struggling with an unplanned pregnancy. Programs like Section 8 housing, food stamps and subsidized day care convince many of our moms that they can continue their pregnancies and still manage a decent life.

The Bush administration has tried to weaken all of these, while calling itself pro-life. It argues that adoption is the answer for unwanted pregnancies. But when a poor mom sees her baby for the first time, she loves it no less than a wealthy mom. Why should these mothers be told that adoption is the only option, while well-to-do mothers can easily keep their babies?

John Kerry is the true pro-life candidate. Affordable housing, day care and health insurance will prevent many more abortions than the punitive policies of the Bush administration.

Eileen Sullivan
Binghamton, N.Y., Oct. 12, 2004

Heartland

I see that my Republican accountant has company:

via Suburban Guerrilla:

Elmer L. Andersen: Why this Republican ex-governor will be voting for Kerry
Elmer L. Andersen
October 13,

Throughout my tenure and beyond as the 30th governor of this state, I have been steadfastly aligned -- and until recently, proudly so -- with the Minnesota Republican Party.

It dismays me, therefore, to have to publicly disagree with the national Republican agenda and the national Republican candidate but, this year, I must.

The two "Say No to Bush" signs in my yard say it all.

The present Republican president has led us into an unjustified war -- based on misguided and blatantly false misrepresentations of the threat of weapons of mass destruction. The terror seat was Afghanistan. Iraq had no connection to these acts of terror and was not a serious threat to the United States, as this president claimed, and there was no relation, it's now obvious, to any serious weaponry. Although Saddam Hussein is a frightful tyrant, he posed no threat to the United States when we entered the war. George W. Bush's arrogant actions to jump into Iraq when he had no plan how to get out have alienated the United States from our most trusted allies and weakened us immeasurably around the world.

Also, if there as well had been proper and careful coordination of services and intelligence on Sept. 11, 2001, that horrific disaster might also have been averted. But it was a separate event from this brutal mess of a war, and the disingenuous linking of the wholly unrelated situation in Iraq to 9/11 by this administration is not supported by the facts.

Sen. John Kerry was correct when he said that seemingly it is only Bush and Dick Cheney who still believe their own spin. Both men spew outright untruths with evangelistic fervor. For Bush -- a man who chose to have his father help him duck service in the military during the Vietnam War -- to disparage and cast doubt on the medals Kerry won bravely and legitimately in the conflict of battle is a travesty.

For Cheney to tell the hand-picked, like-minded Republican crowds in Des Moines last month that to vote for John Kerry could mean another attack like that of 9/11 is reprehensible. Moreover, such false statements encourage more terrorist attacks rather than prevent them.

A far smaller transgression, but one typical of his stop-at-nothing tactics, was Cheney's assertion in last Wednesday's vice-presidential debate that he'd never met Sen. John Edwards until that night. The next day -- and the media must stay ever-vigilant at fact-checking the lies of this ticket -- news reports, to the contrary, showed four video clips of Edwards and Cheney sitting next to each other during the past five years.

In both presidential debates, Kerry has shown himself to be of far superior intellect and character than Bush. He speaks honestly to the American people, his ethics are unimpeachable and, clearly, with 20 respected years in the Senate, he has far better credentials to lead the country than did Bush when he was elected four years ago. And a far greater depth of understanding of domestic and foreign affairs to do it now.

Not that the sitting president has ever really been at the helm.

I am more fearful for the state of this nation than I have ever been -- because this country is in the hands of an evil man: Dick Cheney. It is eminently clear that it is he who is running the country, not George W. Bush.

Bush's phony posturing as cocksure leader of the free world -- symbolized by his victory symbol on the aircraft carrier and "mission accomplished" statement -- leave me speechless. The mission had barely been started, let alone finished, and 18 months later it still rages on. His ongoing "no-regrets," no-mistakes stance and untruths on the war -- as well as on the floundering economy and Bush administration joblessness -- also disappoint and worry me.

Elmer Anderson is Minnesota's Republican icon, the voice of traditional conservatism in a state which also was the home of the DFL's (in Minnesota it is the "Democratic Farmer Labor party) "happy warrior," Hubert Humphrey. As has been demonstrated in recent years, the state is hardly a Dem lock, and it is a swing state this year. Minnesota is not a bad stand in for the national psyche this year. Gov. Anderson's point of view is one that I hear out of traditional conservatives pretty regularly.

"Lake Wobegone" creator Garrison Keillor has been working for Kerry.

I don't know any common people personally, though I do know people living on a narrow financial ledge who work terrifically hard to keep from falling off. Young writers, artists, musicians, for sure, but also office workers trying to pay off college loans, own a car, lead a decent life with some music and fun in it, and not to drown in credit card debt. For them, the middle-class life -- the house, the kids, the leisure -- is not so attainable as it was for their folks. You can't swing it on $12.50 an hour. This is a great country for people who earn a quarter-million a year or more, and the others are getting gypped. Democrats were put on earth to speak up for them. We believe in the energy and inventiveness and wild ambition of the young, the marginal, the outsider, the dispossessed -- that's where the genius and soul of this country resides, and we should not crush it underfoot.

Last week I saw the new Millennium Park that Mayor [Richard M.] Daley put up on the waterfront in Chicago, where the Illinois Central tracks used to be. It's magnificent, and anybody can walk in. You walk past the Gehry pavilion and the sculpture and reflecting pool and the gardens, and you walk away with a sense of democratic grandeur and hope and purpose. That's why we defend the notion of first-class public schools and transit and libraries and affordable higher education: Like Teddy Roosevelt and the Victorian reformers, we believe in the divine spark within every last soul and celebrate that in public magnificence -- Yellowstone, Central Park, the land-grant universities, the meritocracy, the ideal of public service as a noble calling.

What some people call elitism is simply a belief that God grants gifts to people regardless of social standing, and a Democrat wants the bus driver's kids who have a God-given ability to be recognized and uplifted. I want the University of Minnesota to be a great institution so that a kid from Biwabik or Blue Earth or Ortonville can entertain enormous ambitions, not just be trained to be a serf in a cubicle. It won't happen with Republicans in power. These shysters slid into power on a grease slick and have to be run out. The moment we do, political wisdom will change and the conservative machine will be quiet for a few weeks and we Democrats will have a new image.

I am that kid from Biwabik (actually, a couple of miles up the road on the Mesabi Iron Range) and I want to believe those same things. That's why I'm a liberal.

Really Big Trolls, Special Edition

I just got this note from Kevin Hayden of The American Street. He writes:

FYI, since we use HostRocket, I thought you might be interested in this guy's report:

I am sure the attack will continue. In the event that the site goes down again, one way to at least get the score and the daily commentary is via the RSS feed. That is very difficult to take down. I would suggest going to the RSS information page now and print it out for future use. If the site goes down, you won't be able to get to it then. More on countermeasures in a few days. I will not let the forces of censorship win.

Electoral-vote is a really interesting site, non-partisan. It appears that the truth scares some people. If you are interested in EV's information, go get those RSS tools so he can't be silenced.

The other side is frickin' nuts.

Swinging Chads

Bumpers, I want to share with you a conversation I had today with one of the professionals in my life, my accountant. I've been with him nearly twenty years, and while it costs me a bundle to have a CPA prepare my taxes, he's worth it in value added. I can call him up any time I need help with financial planning and he doesn't charge me for it. He's a great guy, very smart, wonderful sense of humor and a traditional conservative Republican (fiscal conservative, no deficits, small government.) He and I disagree on just about everything in politics and social policy, but I admire him for his professionalism, the quality of care of his clients and his willingness to share his expertise. We get together once or twice around tax time, usually with a long, newsy catch-up phone call and then make an appointment to meet in his office. That long newsy (yeah, I know I'm way behind, but I'm getting a refund) phone call happened this afternoon. He's also a theologically liberal Catholic, yes, such things can exist in one body, and we spent a good bit of time talking about the bishops who endorsed Bush and he was as appalled as I.

Anyway, he asked me what I thought about the upcoming election. I said, David (not his real name) we've known each other a long time, you already know what I think. What's more interesting is what YOU think.

I got an earful. What I heard was pretty much the kind of thing you read on this site and the others on my blogroll. Chapter and verse, right down to the same kind of buzzwords we use. "Bush is dangerous," "I fear for the country," "Iraq is a disaster and what are we doing there anyway," "they are all nuts."

He voted for Bush in 2000. I suspect there are a few more like him out there.

PS David spent as much time celebrating my new job as he did on the politics. I may have lousy taste in husbands, but I do know how to find the right professional.

Legacy

The Life He Left Behind
People who never met Christopher Reeve were emboldened by his crusade. If only President Bush had been one of them

WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Patti Davis
Newsweek
Updated: 11:56 a.m. ET Oct. 12, 2004

Oct. 12 - I wonder if President Bush could look into the eyes of Christopher Reeve’s family and tell that that it’s because he values life so deeply that he is preserving clusters of cells in freezers—cells that resulted from in-vitro fertilization and could be used for embryonic stem cell treatment—despite the fact that more people will die as a result of his decision. I wonder if he could stare into their grief and defend the fact that he has released only a few lines of stem cells—lines that are basically useless because they have been contaminated. Or brazenly point out that he has authorized funding for adult stem cells—which do not hold the same miraculous potential as embryonic stem cells.

Even if the Bush Administration had flung open the gates to stem-cell research years ago, we would not be at the point of offering treatment today. Christopher Reeve would still have been taken from us. But we would be closer. Other people who are confined to wheelchairs or imprisoned by illness would have more hope. Scientists would be working feverishly to turn this miraculous cure loose on the world. Because they have families too. They have loved ones and friends, and they value them more than clusters of cells that will only ever be clusters of cells. With each day, each month, each year that passes more people will die. We will look at names, at lives, and we will be left with the sad truth that many of them didn’t have to die.

I really have nothing to add.

Due Process Violation

Hamdi Returned to Saudi Arabia
U.S. Citizen's Detention as Enemy Combatant Sparked Fierce Debate

By Jerry Markon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 12, 2004; Page A02

BLOCKQUOTE>Yaser Esam Hamdi arrived home in Saudi Arabia yesterday, bringing an end to a philosophical and legal battle over his confinement that helped clarify the government's power to fight the war on terrorism.

Don't these bums have editors? The Hamdi case has sparked a huge controversy over basic civil rights. Hamdi was (he renounced it under court order yesterday) an American citizen. If the government can do this to him, they can do it to anybody. Hello?

The U.S. military captured Hamdi, 24, with pro-Taliban forces in Afghanistan in 2001. He was sent to Guantanamo Bay along with other detainees until authorities learned that he was born in Louisiana. He had been held in military brigs ever since.

Hamdi's detention in solitary confinement triggered a fierce battle that came to symbolize the larger debate over the government's anti-terror efforts, but lawyers were left yesterday to debate the legacy of his case. Prosecutors initially convinced a federal appeals court in Richmond that the military -- and not the courts -- had the sole authority to wage war and that courts should defer to battlefield judgments.

In June, the Supreme Court ruled that while the government had the authority to detain U.S. citizens as enemy combatants, Hamdi had the right to contest his detention in court. But the decision never spelled out how that challenge would work in practice -- whether Hamdi would have the same rights as other defendants, for example.

"It's clear there is authority to detain people, but otherwise the legal legacy of this case is incomplete," said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond.

Hamdi's release also means that the government never had to explain why he was detained in the first place.

A Pentagon statement said Hamdi was released because "considerations of United States national security did not require his continued detention." The statement added that no further details were available "because of operational and security considerations."

Government attorneys justified Hamdi's detention with a Defense Department declaration that he had joined a Taliban military unit, received training and acknowledged loyalty to the Taliban. Recently, the government said Hamdi would be freed because he no longer poses a threat.

This is sloppy, lazy reporting. There are enormous Constitutional and civil rights issues around this case but the reporter never talked to a con law specialist bout them, only the legal time line.

Oil Soars

Oil Vaults Over $54 on Winter Worries
Tue Oct 12, 2004 01:04 PM ET

By Toby Reynolds

LONDON (Reuters) - Oil prices surged to record highs above $54 on Tuesday as supply hitches hindered efforts to build winter heating fuel inventories.

U.S. crude (CLc1: Quote, Profile, Research) set a record $54.45 a barrel, marking a sixth successive day of all-time peaks, and by 1508 GMT was trading at $53.65, up 4 cents on the day.

In London, Brent crude (LCOc1: Quote, Profile, Research) hit $51.50 a barrel, before retracing to $50.47.

Oil prices have leapt 66 percent this year as the strongest demand growth in 24 years caught producers by surprise, leaving a tightly stretched global supply system little leeway to deal with outages.

This is NOT good news. The economy has softened considerable from the dubious "recovery" of last summer. Supplies of winter fuels are tight world wide. If we didn't live in Bizarro World, this would spell the end of the Bush candidacy.

Venus/Mars in the Voting Booth

Being President Means Never Having to Say He's Sorry
By DEBORAH TANNEN

Published: October 12, 2004

Perhaps it was not by chance that it was a woman who asked the president, at the town hall debate last Friday, to list three instances in which he had made wrong decisions since taking office. If women react to Mr. Bush's made-no-mistake tactic the way they react to it when it is used by men in their lives, a majority may well be more angered than reassured. That's because it drives many women nuts when men won't say they made a mistake and apologize if they do something wrong. I'm reminded of a woman who was angry at her husband because she had given him an important letter to mail and he'd assured her he'd mail it, then told her the next day, "I forgot to mail your letter," and stopped there. She waited in vain for the sentence to continue, "I'm sorry." In the end, she was angry not about the letter but about the missing apology.

Many men learn, from the time they're children, to avoid apologizing, because it entails admitting fault, and that's risky for them. Boys have to be on their guard against appearing weak - either literally, by losing fights, or figuratively, in the way they speak - because if they act or talk in ways that show weakness, other boys will take advantage and push them around.

But refusing to apologize infuriates women because that makes it seem as if the guy doesn't care that he let her down, and if he doesn't care, there's no reason to think he won't do it again. This is the negative effect - the collateral damage - that Mr. Bush's "certainty" is certain to have on many women: if he won't admit he made a mistake in his handling of Iraq, it seems he doesn't care about the American soldiers killed and maimed, the civilians beheaded, about the Iraqi children blown up by insurgents' bombs.

The role of talk about "mistakes" in the rhetoric of the debate was particularly striking when Mr. Bush intoned, and repeated, that no one will follow a president who says the war was a mistake. With this, he tried, aikido-like, to pin on his opponent the stigma of association with the word "mistake," even as the stigmatizing mistakes were not Mr. Kerry's, but those of which Mr. Kerry accused him. (It made me think of the children's taunt, "I am rubber, you are glue, anything you say bounces off me and sticks to you.") It's a clever manipulation of language.

Will it work? Probably with fewer women than men, because most women don't regard admitting fault as a liability. Instead, they value it as a sign of caring - and a necessary prerequisite to maintain credibility. The British Labor Party seems to regard this as true for the British electorate; Tony Blair, in order to keep his party's support, had to admit publicly last month that he was wrong about his reasons for going to war. Similarly, in the election-changing debate between Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard Nixon, Nixon insisted that the United States must never apologize to the Soviet Union for having sent a U-2 plane on a spying mission into its territory even though we were caught red-handed when the plane was shot down. And it was the victorious Kennedy who argued that the United States must admit fault and "express regret."

If Mr. Bush's made-no-mistake bravado can be understood by looking to the power struggles of boys at play, when cornered, he often plays the mischievous but lovable child - a little boy so cute, so charming, you really can't be mad at him. On Friday night, he displayed that coy persona in first saying, "I'm not telling," when asked about possible Supreme Court appointments. But the charming little boy will probably also undercut his credibility if he reminds mothers of their own little boys who insist, "I didn't eat the cookie - he did!" even as cookie crumbs are clinging to their chins.

In his campaign appearances, Mr. Bush has been saying that what matters isn't caring but doing. This may be an attempt to deal with the "compassion gap" that has long dogged Republicans, and has widened under the Bush administration. But caring is the prerequisite for doing, and that's why many women value apologies and admitting mistakes.

Appeal to women will surely be at the forefront of both candidates' minds in tomorrow night's debate, since domestic issues like jobs and health care are believed to be a top priority among female voters. It will be interesting to see if the president is asked the mistake question about these issues as well, and, if he is, how he chooses to respond.

I think there is something to this: if Bush reminds women of their ex (and why they broke up/divorced) I think he's toast.

Abomination

Group of Bishops Using Influence to Oppose Kerry
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
and LAURIE GOODSTEIN

DENVER, Oct. 9 - For Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, the highest-ranking Roman Catholic prelate in Colorado, there is only one way for a faithful Catholic to vote in this presidential election, for President Bush and against Senator John Kerry.

"The church says abortion is a foundational issue,'' the archbishop explained to a group of Catholic college students gathered in a sports bar here in this swing state on Friday night. He stopped short of telling them whom to vote for, but he reminded them of Mr. Kerry's support for abortion rights. And he pointed out the potential impact his re-election could have on Roe v. Wade.

"Supreme Court cases can be overturned, right?" he asked.

Archbishop Chaput, who has never explicitly endorsed a candidate, is part of a group of bishops intent on throwing the weight of the church into the elections.

Galvanized by battles against same-sex marriage and stem cell research and alarmed at the prospect of a President Kerry - who is Catholic but supports abortion rights - these bishops and like-minded Catholic groups are blanketing churches with guides identifying abortion, gay marriage and the stem cell debate as among a handful of "non-negotiable issues."

To the dismay of liberal Catholics and some other bishops, traditional church concerns about the death penalty or war are often not mentioned.

Archbishop Chaput has discussed Catholic priorities in the election in 14 of his 28 columns in the free diocesan newspaper this year. His archdiocese has organized voter registration drives in more than 40 of the largest parishes in the state and sent voter guides to churches around the state. Many have committees to help turn out voters and are distributing applications for absentee ballots.

In an interview in his residence here, Archbishop Chaput said a vote for a candidate like Mr. Kerry who supports abortion rights or embryonic stem cell research would be a sin that must be confessed before receiving Communion.

"If you vote this way, are you cooperating in evil?" he asked. "And if you know you are cooperating in evil, should you go to confession? The answer is yes."

The efforts of Archbishop Chaput and his allies are converging with a concerted drive for conservative Catholic voters by the Bush campaign. It has spent four years cultivating Catholic leaders, organizing more than 50,000 volunteers and hiring a corps of paid staff members to increase Catholic turnout. The campaign is pushing to break the traditional allegiance of Catholic voters to the Democratic Party, an affiliation that began to crumble with Ronald Reagan 24 years ago.
.....
Liberal Catholics contend that the church has traditionally left weighing the issues to the individual conscience. Late in the campaign, these Catholics have begun to mount a counterattack, belatedly and with far fewer resources.

In diocesan newspapers in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, they are buying advertisements with the slogan "Life Does Not End at Birth." Organizers of the campaign say it is supported by 200 Catholic organizations, among them orders of nuns and brothers.

"We are looking at a broader picture, a more global picture," said Bishop Gabino Zavala, an auxiliary bishop of Los Angeles who is president of Pax Christi USA, a Catholic peace group that initiated the statement. "If you look at the totality of issues as a matter of conscience, someone could come to the decision to vote for either candidate."

This is a frightening development, but not a surprising one. Reading further on:

The party has recruited an undisclosed number of Catholic field coordinators who earn $2,500 a month, along with up to $500 a month for expenses to increase conservative Catholic turnout.

This is about $10K/year more than the average parish minister/pastoral associate makes.

The National Catholic Reporter reveals:

If President Bush wins re-election, don’t hold your breath waiting for change. One needs only recall that every major Catholic Republican figure who was out front at the Republican convention was pro-choice. With Iraq unraveling faster than White House spin can keep up with it, don’t expect this administration to concentrate on “culture of life” issues any time soon.

The leadership of the Catholic church in the United States this year has sold out on the cheap. It has had almost nothing to say about the Republican Party’s attempts to lure Catholics to give up parish membership lists to be used by the Bush campaign. Worse, we have heard no outcry over the Republican National Committee Web site that calls Kerry “wrong for Catholics” and states he is at odds with the church. Some bishops may be crowing with delight at the crass political use of deep Catholic questions and issues. I think it will be short-term pleasure with a long-term cost.
~ ~ ~

What is clear is that the church’s approach to politics has changed dramatically. The bishops have turned their backs on the advice contained in their statement “Catholics in Political Life,” where they warned against misusing Catholic teaching and sacramental practice for political ends. The few who have made the power play unfortunately have taken the rest with them in the public’s perception. And the rest have been silent. Those few have too loudly crossed the line from shepherds to political operatives. In the name of absolute principle and never compromising, they have been seduced into the land where nothing comes without a price and where everything is compromise.

Who wins or loses this election, I think, will turn out to be the least of their worries.

Those bishops who have fallen into the Bush camp have just sold out thousands of years of teaching on just war, care for the poor and for children and the death penalty. Catholics are already deeply divided over matters of social policy and theology. As the NCR notes, this public stand by the bishops will only make things worse.

The New Kid

I have to admit it, I'm utterly hooked, hopelessly smitten and James Wolcott is added to the blogroll. There are a bunch of new worthies over there if you care to investigate, along with a new link (thanks, Mel) to an XML feed for this site.

James is Woodward and Bernstein with style. 'Nuf said, here's today's:

Democrats like Gore and Kerry have to weigh and calibrate their every move because one ill-chosen word or phrase or gesture will be tattooed across their foreword by the media's trained monkeys. I mean, Kerry will have to be very careful how he introduces Christopher Reeve's name into the stem-cell argument because the press will be waiting to pounce on any sign of emotional opportunism on his part. Whereas Bush can continue to talk slop and get a free pass, just as Reagan did whenever he tipped his head to the side and sawdust leaked out of his ear. I was naive enough to think that Bush's tantrum the other night at the townhall debate would get at least half of the coverage and mockery that Howard Dean's infamous scream received, which was foolish of me. Our great editors and pundits have apparently decided to avert their eyes from a rageaholic president with presenile dementia who needs to have answers fed to him from a boxy receiver because--well, at least he's not conceited.

The New York Times under editor Bill Keller is a political catastrophe. He's worse than Howell Raines, but smart enough to stay under the radar and not make Times coverage seem like his personal mission. Worth's worthless front page article is only one example of the manure-shoveling the paper has been doing on Bush's behalf, feeding the fury that paper's ombudsman Daniel Okrent finds so inexplicable.

Exactly so.

Strong and Getting Stronger for Multi-Millionaires

The ubiquitous Barry Ritholtz writes today at The Big Picture:

What is the Employment Situation Really Like?

Some savvy number crunchers are now looking askance at the unemployment rate. These analysts are arguing that this number dramatically understates how difficult the labor situation actually is. The “incumbent friendly 5.4%” rate is in large part the result of a mathematical sleight of hand. Depending upon which underlying assumption you use, the actual number may be closer to 6.4, 7.2 or 9.4%.

The shrinking labor force is why we have been enjoying a “deceptively modest unemployment rate.” In a post-bubble environment, job creation is an ongoing structural problem. Thus, these changes cannot be blamed on President Bush - at least not entirely. We questioned whether the Tax Cuts were over-emphasizing the stock market, to the detriment of the broader economy, over a year ago.

General Glut, at The American Street says:

The mantra of President Bush and all his lackies on the US economy is that it is “strong, and getting stronger". The phrase itself appears countless times in the speeches and press conferences of Bush’s economic advisors such as Greg Mankiw and John Snow as well as from the President himself. The latest figures released by the Labor Department suggest a rather different interpretation.

Let me be more clear. What has happened under Bush 43 is the end of the “national economy” as a meaningful concept across social classes. Capital has done very well under Dubya while labor has done poorly and has likely already seen all the benefits this “recovery” is going to allot to them.

Pretty damn depressing for those of us who are labor rather than capital.

Ugly Truth

Things that will give you nightmares at night if you allow yourself to think about them:

REALITY CHECK
by PHILIP GOUREVITCH
John Kerry’s Iraq attack.
Issue of 2004-10-18
Posted 2004-10-11

For Bush, to say that the world is not as he describes it is to give solace to our enemies, undermine our forces on the field of battle, and endanger the lives of the citizenry. Even as the Duelfer report made it clear that Saddam Hussein had posed no threat to America, had no capacity to produce a threat, and had nothing to give to others to threaten us with, Bush stood on the stump in Wilkes-Barre scolding Kerry for saying the very same thing. “The problem with this approach is obvious,” the President proclaimed. “If America waits until a threat is at our doorstep, it might be too late.” Kerry is offering himself as the candidate of change—truth vs. unreality, a fresh start vs. more of the same. We need friends in this dangerous world, he says, and we need diplomacy to try and disarm and contain our enemies lest it should be our burden, otherwise, to destroy them. What Kerry doesn’t say—and cannot say—is that when it comes to real threats, like North Korea and Iran, Bush’s fixation with Iraq may already have made it too late for any American President to find a peaceful solution.

Danger to Self or Others

. . . And Bush's Telling Non-Answer

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Monday, October 11, 2004; Page A23

Now, thanks to the debates and the flow of the news, voters are coming to terms with the administration's habits of denial and deflection. The administration glosses over the fact that its primary argument for war was not humanitarian -- that Saddam Hussein should be forced from power because he was a wretched dictator. He was that, but the core case was that Hussein needed to be confronted because he had weapons of mass destruction -- not that he longed for them.

But in Friday's debate, Bush made only the most modest concession to the findings of the Iraq Survey Group headed by Charles A. Duelfer that Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. "I wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't weapons," Bush said, "and we've got an intelligence group together to figure out why."

But a president who pushed the country so hard to go to war on the basis of supposedly imminent threats owes his fellow citizens more than a desultory "oops." That's why Bush's refusal to admit mistakes matters. It suggests his belief that voters, even at election time, have no right to a clear and candid explanation of what went wrong, and why.

And when in doubt, the president blames somebody else. Almost all of the war's supporters believe that the United States put too few troops on the ground to keep order after Hussein's fall. What did Bush say about this in the debate? He recalled "sitting in the White House looking at those generals, saying, 'Do you have what you need in this war?' " and going to the White House basement and "asking them, 'Do we have the right plan with the right troop level?' And they looked me in the eye and said, 'Yes, sir, Mr. President.' "

Convenient, isn't it? If we don't have enough troops in Iraq, it's the fault of the generals, not of a commander in chief who doesn't seem to like answers other than "yes, sir." But in a democracy, voters don't have to say "yes, sir." And many of them, like Linda Grabel, are looking for even a smidgen of the humility Bush promised in the debates four years ago but now seems incapable of delivering.

Webs of Illusion
By BOB HERBERT

Published: October 11, 2004

Mr. Bush turned the findings of the Duelfer report upside down and inside out, telling crowds at campaign rallies that it proved Saddam Hussein had been "a gathering threat." It didn't matter that the report, ordered by the president himself, showed just the opposite. The truth would not have been helpful to the president. So with a brazenness and sleight of hand usually associated with three-card-monte players, he pulled a fast one on his cheering listeners.

Vice President Cheney had an equally peculiar response to the report, which said Iraq had destroyed its illicit weapons stockpiles in the early 1990's. Referring to the president's decision to launch the war, Mr. Cheney said, "To delay, defer, wait wasn't an option."

The September jobs report, released on the same day as Mr. Bush's second debate with Senator John Kerry, was deeply disappointing to the White House. Just 96,000 jobs were created, not even enough to keep up with the monthly expansion of the working-age population.

The somber findings forced the president's spin machine into overdrive. Reality, once again, was shoved aside. The administration's upbeat public response to the Labor Department report was described in The Times as follows: "The White House hailed it as evidence of continued employment expansion, saying that it validated Mr. Bush's strategy of pursuing tax cuts to support a recovery from the 2001 economic downturn."

In the president's parallel universe, things are always fine.

Mr. Bush sold his tax cuts as a mighty force for job creation. They weren't. The Times article that reported the sunny White House response to the disappointing job creation figures also said: "In September, an estimated 62.3 percent of the working-age population was employed, two full percentage points below the level at the beginning of the recession in March 2001. That difference represents over 4.5 million people without work."

Hyperbole is part of every politician's portfolio. But on the most serious matters facing the country, Mr. Bush's administration has often gone beyond hyperbole to deliberate misrepresentations that undermine the very idea of an informed electorate. If unpleasant realities are not acknowledged by the officials occupying the highest offices in the land, there is no chance that the full resources of the government and the people will be marshaled to meet those challenges.

The president continues to behave as if he's in denial about the war. Iraq remains a tragic mess and the electorate needs to know that.

In yesterday's Week in Review section, The Times's Dexter Filkins wrote movingly from Baghdad about the reporters trying to cover the war. There's been a relentless expansion, he said, of areas that reporters dare not venture into because they are too dangerous. Most European reporters have left the country, and there are far fewer Americans than just a few months ago.

Forty-six reporters have been killed and Mr. Filkins himself has been attacked by a mob, shot at and detained by the Mahdi Army.

If Mr. Bush has a plan to clean up the mess in Iraq, he should say so. If he has a strategy - besides more tax cuts - to bolster employment in the U.S., he should tell us. If he's in touch with the real world in which these and other very serious problems exist, he might consider letting us know.

He's either lying or so dangerously delusional that he should be hospitalized.

Keeping it Off of TV

``With a straight face, he said, 'I had only one position on Iraq.' I could barely contain myself. He must think we've been on another planet,'' Bush said.

Bush Administration Plans to Delay Major Assaults in Iraq

By Mark Mazzetti, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration will delay major assaults on rebel-held cities in Iraq until after U.S. elections in November, say administration officials, mindful that large-scale military offensives could affect the U.S. presidential race.

Although American commanders in Iraq have been buoyed by recent successes in insurgent-held towns such as Samarra and Tall Afar, administration and Pentagon officials say they will not try to retake cities such as Fallujah and Ramadi -- where insurgents' grip is strongest and U.S. military casualties could be the greatest -- until after Americans vote in what is likely to be a close election.

"When this election's over, you'll see us move very vigorously," said one senior administration official involved in strategic planning, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"Once you're past the election, it changes the political ramifications" of a large-scale offensive, the official said. "We're not on hold right now. We're just not as aggressive."

Any delay in pacifying Iraq's most troublesome cities, however, could alter the dynamics of a different election -- the one in January, when Iraqis are to elect members of a national assembly.

With only four months remaining, U.S. commanders are scrambling to enable voting in as many Iraqi cities as possible to shore up the poll's legitimacy.

U.S. officials point out that there have been no direct orders to commanders in the field to pause operations in the weeks before the Nov. 2 election. Top administration officials in Washington are simply reluctant to sign off on a major offensive in Iraq at the height of the political season.

Pentagon officials said they see a benefit to holding off on an offensive in the Sunni Triangle, the insurgent-dominated region north and west of Baghdad. By waiting, they allow more time for political negotiations and targeted airstrikes in Fallujah to weaken insurgents.

"We're having more impact with our airstrikes than we had expected," said a senior Defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "We see no need to rush headlong with hundreds of tanks into Fallujah right now."

Team Bush wants to keep the American casualty count down until after the election. And Ramadan begins this week. As I recall, that was a bit of a mess last year.

Paul Woodward of The War in Context brings us this from the weekend's Newsweek:

Oct. 7 - “After the American elections there will be great massacres,” a leading Lebanese statesman told me the other day. I listened closely, because the Lebanese have more experience with massacres than most of us, and this particular guy is also very well connected in Paris and Washington. “The Americans will clean out these people who are fighting them,” he said. They will go into Fallujah. They will drive into the other no-go towns around the country. “But it will be a big, big massacre,” repeated the very portly politician, nodding and sipping his Splenda-sweetened tea. The Lebanese got so experienced with slaughter during their 15-year civil war that they sometimes sound as if they’re talking about mowing the lawn.

Mr. Splenda figures the U.S.-led massacres in Iraq will be successful enough to allow the government of U.S.-anointed Prime Minister Ayad Allawi to hold a vote in January, and get itself elected, and gradually—very gradually—build sufficient credibility to hold on to the U.S. backing that keeps it in power. Meanwhile the United States will keep trying to build some sort of effective Iraqi internal security force to lighten the American burden of fighting and dying to defend the Allawi regime. Mr. Splenda thinks this will work, in the sense of finally stabilizing Iraq enough for the United States to pull out at least a few of its troops in a couple of years, even if it has no intention of leaving the country altogether.

But Mr. Splenda was trying to be diplomatic. The blood-soaked history of his own country is our surest set of precedents for what’s happening in Iraq, and several of them are potentially disastrous for the Bush administration’s ill-conceived and oft-revised plans.

First of all, there’s the problem of Allawi himself. A good puppet is so hard to find. Just Tuesday night in the vice-presidential debate, Dick Cheney called Allawi “our most important ally” in Iraq. But judging from the things Allawi said on his recent visit to Washington, you’d have to conclude he’s an out-and-out liar, or totally out of touch with his country’s realities.

Before a Sept. 23 joint session of Congress, with Vice President Cheney proudly presiding, Allawi claimed some signal accomplishments fighting the insurgency. First on the list was Samarra, a town north of Baghdad where there’s a sacred Shiite shrine but a largely Sunni population. In many ways it’s a fitting symbol for all the terrible complications that have confused, frustrated and killed Americans in modern-day Mesopotamia. It has long been a no-go area for U.S. troops, and the locals have anticipated big American offensive since last summer when many evacuated the city.

Yet this is what Allawi told the credulous, clapping senators and congressmen: "In Samarra, the Iraqi government has tackled the insurgents who once controlled the city. Following weeks of discussions between government officials and representatives, Coalition forces and local community leaders, regular access to the city has been restored. A new provincial council and governor have been selected, and a new chief of police has been appointed. Hundreds of insurgents have been pushed out of the city by local citizens eager to get [on] with their lives. Today in Samarra, Iraqi forces are patrolling the city, in close coordination with their Coalition counterparts."

Guess not. Exactly eight days later—only eight days—on Oct. 1, the U.S. military announced that the First Infantry Division and a couple of recently minted Iraqi units had to mount “offensive operations in Samarra” because “anti-Iraqi force attacks and acts of intimidation against the people of Samarra have undermined the security situation in the city.” (The enemy used to be called “Anti-Coalition Forces,” but have recently been renamed, by the Americans, “Anti-Iraqi Forces.” In fact, they’re anti-American Iraqis. According to U.S. military intelligence, roughly 95 per cent of the insurgents nationwide are Iraqi. Only 3 to 5 percent are foreigners.)

So, the city so recently held up to Congress as a paradigm by positive-minded most-important-ally Allawi became an all-out war zone. After several premature reports of victory, the U.S. forces finally said, more or less definitively, at the beginning of this week that they were mopping up in Samarra. But residents interviewed by embedded CNN reporter Jane Arraf were not inclined to thank the Americans, or Allawi, for liberating them. They were too busy trying to bury their dead and struggling to clear the rubble.

Something to look forward to, eh?

Inchoate Fear

I first covered this story back in August.

Security Gaffes
Evangelical schools worry over post-9/11 visa rules.
By Bob Smietana | posted 10/08/2004 9:00 a.m.

Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, a tenured professor of theology at Fuller Theological Seminary, says he is happy to be back home in California following a month-long exile to his native Finland.

Kärkkäinen, along with his wife, Anne, and two daughters, returned to Pasadena on September 5. They had been forced to leave the United States on July 31 when the Department of Homeland Security revoked Kärkkäinen's "special immigrant religious worker" visa.

Immigration officials, now under the supervision of the Department of Homeland Security, questioned Fuller's tax-exempt status. They ruled that Kärkkäinen's role as a seminary professor was not a "traditional religious occupation." They also claimed that Kärkkäinen, who has two doctorates and two master's degrees and served as president and theology professor at IsoKirja College in Keuruu, Finland, did not have the necessary experience for his position.

First learning that Kärkkäinen's visa would be revoked last December, Fuller appealed. The courts clarified Fuller's tax-exempt status and Kärkkäinen's status in a "traditional religious occupation" in his favor. But immigration officials ruled that the records Fuller submitted about Kärkkäinen's work in Finland were not specific enough.

And two new problems arose during the appeal. Since Fuller is an interdenominational seminary, it did not fit under new post-9/11 rules, which require that schools be affiliated with specific denominations. Also, as Fuller does not have an official relationship with the Pentecostal church that ordained Kärkkäinen, he did not qualify as a religious worker.

Kärkkäinen returned under a less-restrictive visa category. Fuller's lawyers have also submitted a new religious worker application.

Howard Loewen, dean of the school of theology at Fuller, said that Kärkkäinen's situation "cuts against the very mission and vision of Fuller as an evangelical, multidenominational, global institution." More than 600 of the seminary's 4,300 students are from outside the United States, he said, as are a dozen faculty members.

Loewen said that Fuller has become "a little gun-shy" about bringing in new international faculty members.

There is more and more global cooperation among churches and seminaries, says Barry H. Corey, vice president for education at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary

in South Hamilton, Massachusetts. Gordon-Conwell, like Fuller, is not tied to a specific denomination and has six faculty members from overseas.

"Ten years ago, we were not so concerned about having international faculty," Corey said. "Now, there is tension between the desire to become a more global institution and the difficulty of getting and keeping international scholars here."

In August, the Department of Homeland Security revoked the visa of Tariq Ramadan, a Muslim scholar and Swiss citizen. Ramadan is the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group with a terrorist history in Egypt. Ramadan, generally considered a moderate voice, was to begin teaching on August 24 at the University of Notre Dame's Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies.

"What amazes me," Kärkkäinen said, "is that the world's most influential country and its administration are obviously unable to make a distinction between threats and friendly, productive immigrants."

According to the New York Times, Ramadan is still sitting in his empty apartment in Geneva instead of teaching at the Kroc Institute for Peace of Notre Dame University.

Our incoherent immigration policy has gotten worse since 9-11. We are supposed to be courting and supporting the voices of moderate Islam, not further alienating them.

What happened to Karkkainen is just too stupid for words.

Work Hard for the Money

Permanent Job Proves An Elusive Dream

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 11, 2004; Page A01

CYNTHIANA, Ky.

The increasing use of temps "is part of the diminished and inferior wages and fringe benefits you see in all the new jobs that are becoming available," said William B. Gould IV, a labor law professor at Stanford University and former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board.

The government does not have up-to-date figures for the size of the entire contingent workforce, which includes temps, independent contractors, on-call workers and contract company workers. In 2001, the Labor Department classified 16.2 million people -- as much as 12.1 percent of the labor force -- as contingent workers.

It does track one slice of that workforce: temporary workers. Since January 2002, the nation added 369,000 temp positions, about half of the private-sector jobs created during that stretch. Temporary jobs accounted for one-third of the 96,000 jobs added to the economy in September. In 1982, there were 417,000 workers classified as temporary help. Today, there are more than 2.5 million, according to Labor Department data.

That is about equal to the number of manufacturing jobs lost in the past decade. Barrie Peterson, associate director of Seton Hall University's Institute on Work in South Orange, N.J., said that as many as half of those lost manufacturing positions may have been converted to temporary employment.

The change can be abrupt. At A&E; Service Co., a small auto-parts assembler in Chicago, employees were told on July 15 that the firm "will no longer hold general labor employees on its payroll. All general labor employees that choose to work at A&E; Service Company, LLC must be employed by Elite Staffing effective immediately." On the announcement, workers were asked to check a box accepting or declining the new temporary employment, then sign and date the form.

Temps no longer fit the stereotype of the secretary filling in for a day or two. Jobs categorized as precision production, repair, craftsmanship, operations, fabrications and labor now account for 30.7 percent of all temp jobs, nudging out clerical and administrative support, which represent 29.5 percent of the temporary army.

Peterson calls it "the perma-temping shell game," part of a broader effort by employers to convert sectors of their workforce to temps.

Satisfaction with the arrangement varies. About 83 percent of independent contractors in the Labor Department survey said they were satisfied. By contrast, about 44 percent of temps and 52 percent of contingent workers said they were not satisfied.

The impact of the temp trend on the American middle class can hardly be overstated. As the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago noted in a paper last year, temporary workers "receive much lower wages than permanent workers, although they frequently perform the same tasks as permanent staff members." An analysis by Harvard University economist Lawrence F. Katz and Princeton University economist Alan B. Krueger found that states with the highest concentration of temps experienced the lowest wage growth of the 1990s.

Toyota executives say they use temporary workers as a buffer, to insulate their full-time staff from the ups and downs of consumer demand. Since it opened in 1988, through two recessions, the Georgetown plant has never laid off an employee, said Daniel Sieger, manager of media relations for Toyota Motor Manufacturing in North America.

Even without layoffs, however, the plant's full-time staff has declined by 706 positions from the 7,787 employees it had in 2000, according to Toyota. Over that time, the temp workforce dipped from 409 in 2000 to 301 in 2002, then rose to 425 late this summer.

Toyota managers say they will try to hire all of their long-term temporaries by the end of the year or in early 2005, after they see how many Toyota workers accept an early retirement package. Forty-seven temps were hired in late September. The management move came after The Washington Post spent a week in Kentucky examining the temporary employment issue at the Georgetown plant. Before September's hires, it had been two years since the plant hired a full-time "team member," Toyota managers said, a period during which the plant shed 240 full-time positions. Temporary employment during that time rose by 124.
....
The use of temporary workers appears to be most pervasive in plants owned by foreign companies, which tend to locate in states where laws make union organizing difficult, said Susan N. Houseman, a researcher at the independent W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research in Kalamazoo, Mich. One Japanese auto parts plant estimated that a 5 percentage point reduction in the share of temps in the workforce would increase total labor costs by $1 million over a year, an Upjohn study found.

At BMW's auto plant near Greenville, S.C., about 175 temporary workers supplement a production workforce of 3,500, keeping the assembly line churning out Z-4 roadsters and X-5 sport utility vehicles for the U.S. and global market through lunch hour and break times, said Robert M. Hitt, a spokesman for BMW Manufacturing.

At Faurecia S.A., a BMW supplier in nearby Fountain Inn, S.C., about a third of the workers making door panels, consoles and dashboards for the Z-4 are temps, said Campbell Manning of Palmetto Staffing Group Inc., the temporary employment agency that staffs the French auto parts supplier.

"They don't hire permanent," she said. "After 90 working days, they used to roll onto the payroll. Now they just keep them as long-term temps."

Palmetto Staffing charges Faurecia a flat $12-an-hour for each of its temps. If Faurecia hired its own permanent workers, expenses for workers compensation insurance, unemployment insurance and other demands would add $4 to $5 onto a $9-an-hour wage. Benefits would add more.

This is your frickin' ownership society: lower wages, no benefits, no job security. Wage growth has been flat for the last four years. This is one of the reasons why.

We Are All Explorers

Sampling a World of New Ways to Grapple With the Web
By VERLYN KLINKENBORG

Published: October 11, 2004

What went wrong with Internet Explorer is a big subject. But one answer, apart from the mediocrity of the software itself, is that it sided with the commercial purposes of the Internet and not with the user. Explorer works like one of those magical doors in a horror movie: open it and the ghosts come flying in, swirling around your head, threatening to suck you into the maw of chaos. But users want control. They want to believe they have the power to explore the Web on their own terms. Explorer wants them to sit still and shut up.

A couple of years ago, I switched from Windows to Apple. The switch was, in many ways, a revelation. Apple's browser, Safari, seemed astonishingly polite, almost discreet, after the imperious behavior of Explorer. Switching to Safari was also a reminder of something that's obvious to computer geeks but not so obvious to ordinary users. A browser is just a way of putting a friendly face on code. Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't have to become an institution. It doesn't have to metastasize.

I stuck with Safari for a time, largely on the assumption - as endemic in the Apple world as it is in Microsoft's - that somehow the browser built by the maker of the underlying operating system must be better than all the others. But switching from Windows to Apple prepared me to keep on switching. It taught me that market share means nothing in terms of quality. It made me wonder whether there was any inherent advantage in a browser that happened to be the same brand as the computer that was running it. The answer, it turns out, is no. These days, there is an array of agile, interesting browsers.

What's refreshing about these programs is their diversity. The best of them are astonishingly nimble. They are almost absurdly adaptable to the tastes and needs of the user. Most are free, and many are open source. They have none of the monolith about them, none of that feeling of being shackled to a leviathan.

For a time in the mid-90's, it looked as though the Internet, or at least the tools we used to view it, would be utterly co-opted by Microsoft and its essentially mercantile vision of the Web. Microsoft still has an enormous lead in market share when it comes to browsers. But we've come, in the browser world, to that memorable moment we came to long ago in the world of telephones. America woke up one day and discovered that you didn't need a Ma Bell telephone to use Ma Bell.

Mozilla and Firefox are here. They are what I use and recommend. Hello, this is your dial up geek speaking, change your browser before it changes you. Ditch the pop-ups and the spam with one simple application change. Open Source really is better.

An astonishing 23% of Bumpers have already fled MS for Open Source or Mac. You really are smarter than the rest of the world. Good on you.

The Economists Chose

It ain't just Comrade Max and Prof. deLong:

The economy and the election

The dismal science bites back
Oct 7th 2004 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition
George Bush comes out worst in our poll of academic economists

In an informal poll of 100 academics, conducted by The Economist, Mr Bush's policies win low marks. More than 70% of the 56 professors who responded to our survey rate Mr Bush's first-term economic policies as bad or very bad. Fewer than 20% give positive marks to Mr Bush's second-term economic agenda, and almost six out of ten disapproved. Mr Kerry hardly got rave reviews either, but his economic plan still fared better than the president's did. In all, four out of ten professors rated Mr Kerry's economic plan as good or very good, but 27% gave it negative scores. (The complete numbers are available at www.economist.com/economistspoll.)

Are our economists partisans? We chose their names, at random, from among the referees of the American Economic Review, one of the profession's more prestigious publications. Conservatives often moan that university professors are all left-wingers. Though most of our professors claim they are not interested in working in Washington, 80% of those who would accept a policy job would prefer to work for Mr Kerry. However, even if you allow for some partisanship, the results are fairly striking.

A third of the economists reckon the economy is in good or very good shape; about half give a neutral response, and one in five deems the economy to be weak. They are almost equally split about how much responsibility the Bush administration deserves for the state of today's economy. Just over a third assign some or all credit or blame to the president; another third think he has had little or nothing to do with it.

Despite their diverse assessments of today's economy, the professors are overwhelmingly critical of the central plank of Mr Bush's economic policy—tax cuts. More than seven out of ten respondents say the Bush administration's tax cuts were either a bad or a very bad idea, and a similar proportion disapproves of Mr Bush's plans to make his tax cuts permanent. By contrast, Mr Kerry's plan to roll back the tax cuts for people with incomes over $200,000 wins the support of seven in ten of them. (This poll was taken before October 4th, when Mr Bush signed into law his fourth tax cut, which extended several popular components of earlier tax cuts that were due to expire at the end of this year, including the child tax credit.)

The broad condemnation of tax cuts seems to be linked to the professors' worries about America's fiscal health and the looming retirement of the baby-boom generation. Although Americans overall seem relatively unconcerned about the budget deficit, a large majority of the economists rate it as a serious problem for the economy, with almost one in five describing it as a crisis. And they back Mr Kerry by a large margin (79% to 18%) to do more to promote fiscal discipline than Mr Bush. In contrast, the boffins seemed much less concerned by the current-account deficit; only one respondent called it a crisis, and close to 20% deemed it either a small problem or no problem at all.

Health care also seems to be an issue that pushed our economists towards Mr Kerry. More than 70% of the academics reckoned health-care costs were a serious problem for the economy—and they preferred Mr Kerry's plans to control those costs by a margin of 59% to 25% (with the rest ducking the question).

Facts on the Ground

President Clueless tells us "they hate our freedom." What they hate is getting shot at and blown up.

Get Me Rewrite. Now. Bullets Are Flying.
By DEXTER FILKINS

In most foreign countries where I have worked, being an American was a kind of armor; the fear of messing with an American forced even the angriest zealots to take a moment to think.

Here, that fear has vanished, and indeed, it has become its opposite. To be an American reporter in Iraq, any kind of American, is not just to be a target yourself, but it is to make a target of others, too. As a result, some Iraqis now shy away from meeting. Just the other day, for instance, an Iraqi man I had met with several times before asked me not to speak English in the hallway leading to his office. He also asked me to stop wearing my sunglasses and polo shirt and jeans when I came to see him. I came back again, in the same attire.

"Why didn't you take my advice?" he asked.

In another case, a senior Iraqi government official whom I have met several times often asks that I meet his armed guards in front of a local mosque, who then drive me to his house. Better not to have an American reporter's car parked in front of his house.

The real consequence of the mayhem here is that we reporters can no longer do our jobs in the way we hope to. Reporters are nothing more than watchers and listeners, and if we can't leave the house, the picture from Iraq, even with the help of fearless Iraqi stringers, almost inevitably will be blurry and incomplete.

Some of my colleagues have given up. Most of the European reporters, like the French and Italians and Germans, are gone. And there are far fewer American reporters here than was the case just a few months ago. This is usually not clear until someone important holds a press conference, and you look around the auditorium, as I did the other day, and realize that there are far fewer Western reporters here than there used to be.

In my many months here, I have often reminded myself that however bad it gets here, at least I can still work, and I have a passport in case I can't. My Iraqi friends are not so fortunate. Most are trying to get on with their lives amid the daily chaos.

Delusions

No Accountability

By David S. Broder
Sunday, October 10, 2004; Page B07

When has the United States launched a preemptive attack on a foreign nation with as little provocation -- and as spurious a rationale -- as this war on Iraq? The great selling point was Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction. Last week, that contention was definitively demolished in a 1,000-page report from the head of the U.S. inspection team in Iraq. Charles A. Duelfer concluded that Hussein did not possess and had no real plans or programs to develop biological, chemical or nuclear weapons.

Previously, the State Department and the CIA had both said that the secondary rationale -- a supposed link between the Iraqi regime and the Sept. 11 terrorists -- was without foundation.

Yet on the very day the Duelfer document was released, here was President Bush in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., declaring that he had to invade Iraq because "there was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks." That risk -- with no bill of particulars behind it -- is supposed to justify a war of choice that has taken more than 1,000 American lives, caused far more Iraqi casualties and shows no sign of coming to an end.

As for Cheney, the chief cheerleader for this war, his comment in the Tuesday night vice presidential debate was: "What we did in Iraq was exactly the right thing to do."

This refusal to acknowledge error -- this rejection of accountability -- is more than personal vanity. It infects the entire approach of this administration. The top civilian leaders of the Pentagon failed to provide the number of troops needed for success in Iraq -- a point made repeatedly by the former Army chief of staff and by Sens. John McCain and Joe Biden and now belatedly confirmed by the president's handpicked Iraq administrator, Paul Bremer. Yet Bush and Cheney have done nothing but praise Don Rumsfeld and his team.

The intelligence services failed to pick up warning signs of the Sept. 11 attacks or to convince the policymakers that they might be misjudging the seriousness of Saddam Hussein as a military threat. But George Tenet was allowed to retire with full honors as director of the CIA -- and one of his supposed congressional overseers, Porter Goss, who raised no alarms himself, has been named to succeed him.

The reality is that except for a few whistleblowers, a handful of independent, opinionated legislators and some few enterprising reporters, there is no accountability mechanism operating in one-party Washington.

If Bush and Cheney are reelected, the Republicans are likely to maintain control of the House and Senate, with all the investigative and oversight powers that reside in the legislative branch. That is an inherently risky situa- tion, particularly when the president and vice president are disinclined to question their own or their associates' judgment.

That is why the voters I met are right to think this election is so important. They themselves are the ultimate -- and only -- enforcers of accountability.

Broder makes one error of substance: we know from Richard Clarke's book and the now-public President's Daily Brief of August 6, 2001, that the intelligence services were raising holy hell over the Al Qaida threat.

It is still amazing to me that someplace near half of the voters are willing to give C- Augustus a pass on the disaster which is Iraq.

Flu Season

MOH warns of new bird flu outbreak

AFP , VIENNA
Sunday, Oct 10, 2004,Page 3

Taiwanese Health Minister Chen Chien-Jen warned Friday of the dangers of a new epidemic of bird flu, mostly in Asia but capable of reaching the US and Europe.

"The disease could spread rapidly and an infected person could transmit it to several people at once," he told the European Health Forum at Gastein in Austria, 350km west of Vienna.

"The virus could spread throughout the world, leaving from Asia and reaching the United States and Europe."

He based his hypothesis on the fact that in Thailand "there are suspicions of the first case of human to human bird flu infection."

"If this suspicion is confirmed it will have serious consequences for the whole world," he said.

Thai officials last week confirmed the country's first probable case of human-to-human infection of bird flu following the deaths of a mother and daughter.

Tests are still continuing to try to confirm that the daughter had flu -- she was cremated before full tests could be carried out -- and to discover if the disease had mutated into a more contagious and lethal form that could trigger a wider health crisis.

Chen warned that "already bird flu is a threat to Europe and imports of live poultry from Asian countries are potential risk factors which could result in the spreading of the virus" around the world.

An eight-year-old girl died Sunday of bird flu in northern Thailand, becoming the country's 11th confirmed victim of the lethal virus this year.

She was the third Thai to die during a new wave of outbreaks that started in July.

Worldwide, preparing for bird flu

Keith Bradsher and Lawrence K. Altman NYT

Thursday, September 30, 2004

BANGKOK A day after Thai and international officials confirmed the first probable human-to-human transmission of a virulent strain of avian influenza in this country, public health systems around the globe were scrambling to prepare for a possible pandemic.
.
Scientists say they cannot predict how quickly, if at all, the strain may develop the ability to spread easily among people, and whether it will remain as lethal as it has proven so far. The strain, A(H5N1), has killed 30 of the 42 Southeast Asians it infected in the past year, and millions of chickens and wild birds, across wide areas of Asia, and has infected some pigs, household cats and even zoo tigers.
.
A handful of cases of human-to-human transmission may have occurred during bird flu outbreaks in Hong Kong in 1997 and in Europe a year ago, but neither resulted in a pandemic.
.
Nevertheless, public health experts say it would be irresponsible not to prepare for a worst-case scenario. The so-called Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918 to 1919 - believed, like the current strain, to have been a mutant virus that jumped from animals - killed an estimated 20 million to 100 million people, and that was before the development of the modern transportation system, with its fleets of jets linking remote areas of the world. By comparison, AIDS has killed an estimated 22 million since 1981, according to the United Nations.
.
On Wednesday, the World Health Organization convened a meeting in Geneva of representatives of the drug industry to demand that they speed vaccine production. In the United States, scientists with the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta are racing to complete a genetic sequence of the virus from the case. If the virus has acquired any mammalian influenza genetic material, it could make it more transmissible.
.
The U.S. government has also ordered two million doses of experimental vaccine.
.
Health officials would normally look to vaccines and antiviral drugs to control a pandemic, but in this case, those tools have yet to be fully developed and tested. Conventional flu vaccines are not believed to provide any protection against A(H5N1) avian influenza.
.
Human trials of the new vaccine ordered by the U.S. government are not expected to begin until the end of this year, at the earliest.
.
....
On Wednesday, the World Health Organization convened a meeting in Geneva of representatives of the drug industry to demand that they speed vaccine production. In the United States, scientists with the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta are racing to complete a genetic sequence of the virus from the case. If the virus has acquired any mammalian influenza genetic material, it could make it more transmissible

The lethality rate of this flu strain is raising the public health community's collective eyebrows. It is 'way too soon to tell how much of a threat this represents, but last winter we were warned:

Next flu pandemic could wreak global havoc, scientists warn

By Anita Manning, USA TODAY

The warning sirens are screaming: A deadly, contagious strain of flu will emerge, possibly soon, flu experts say, and the world is not ready to deal with it.

Pandemic influenza occurs periodically throughout history, causing widespread illness and death, overwhelming medical systems and wreaking chaos in societies. These viruses are highly contagious, and because they are new, no one is immune.

Influenza is serious enough, killing an average of 36,000 people in the USA every year, but because it is caused by strains of the virus that are known to be circulating in the world, vaccines can be prepared to prevent it. This year, a strain that doesn't match up exactly with those in the vaccine has emerged and raised serious concerns, but experts believe the vaccine will still offer some protection.

Using current technologies, it takes as long as six months to create flu vaccines.

"The world will be in deep trouble if the impending influenza pandemic strikes this week, this month, or even this year," write international flu experts Richard Webby and Robert Webster of St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis.

I'll continue to track this story. This year's flu shot (of which we are short half of the supply we were supposed to have) will do nothing against this bug.

Desertion

The Breakup
The Iraq war is isolating the U.S. and killing the American-British 'special relationship'

By Niall Ferguson, Niall Ferguson is professor of history at Harvard University and a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution, Stanford. His latest book is "Colossus: The Price of America's Empire."

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — On numerous occasions, Sen. John F. Kerry has claimed that, if elected, he could persuade unspecified allies to assist the United States in Iraq. These allies play a crucial role in Kerry's plan for the country. They allow him to say he can reduce U.S. commitments without leaving Iraq to self-destruct.

But who are these white knights waiting to ride to the rescue of a more internationally minded president?

The answer is: er, pass.

If Kerry seriously thinks he could induce any of the world's major military powers (or indeed any of its minor ones) to bail the U.S. out in Iraq, he is deluding himself. There is absolutely zero chance of (to name the obvious candidates) either France or Germany changing its stance of unqualified opposition to last year's invasion and thinly veiled indifference to this year's insurgency.

The leaders of the countries that stood aside when Saddam Hussein was overthrown have one obvious reason for staying on the sidelines. They have no desire to pay the domestic political price currently being paid by the leaders of the countries that gave President Bush their support.

French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder are not popular politicians. But they are still in power. If they had backed the invasion of Iraq, they would surely not be. A backlash against Spanish support for the war contributed to the downfall of Jose Maria Aznar in March. Leszek Miller, who took Poland into the war, resigned in May. And John Howard is in a tight contest in Australia.

If Italy were a properly functioning democracy, rather than a docile subsidiary of its prime minister's media empire, Silvio Berlusconi too would be under pressure. Most striking of all, Iraq has permanently tarnished the reputation of Prime Minister Tony Blair in the eyes of British voters. The erstwhile golden boy of European politics came close to quitting this summer. With every passing day, it becomes harder to imagine him serving another full term as prime minister.

The irony is that if Kerry were to be elected, he might quickly find himself even more isolated than Bush has been because the most important of Washington's traditional alliances — the "special relationship" with Britain — has been brought to the point of collapse by Blair's backing of Bush's policy toward Iraq.

This is the same Niall Ferguson who thought that American hegemony would be a good thing. Like Francis Fukuyama the intellectual rats are leaving their sinking ship.

Le plus ce change...

This is from June, 2003, a month or so after "Mission Accomplished."

An Iraqi 'quackmire' in the making
By Jim Lobe

In a dozen interviews, Marines from a platoon known as the "81s" expressed in blunt terms their frustrations with the way the war is being conducted and, in some cases, doubts about why it is being waged. The platoon, named for the size in millimeters of its mortar rounds, is part of the 1st Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment based in Iskandariyah, 30 miles southwest of Baghdad.

The Marines offered their opinions openly to a reporter traveling with the 1st Battalion, 2nd Marines during operations last week in Babil province, then expanded upon them during interviews over three days in their barracks at Camp Iskandariyah, their forward operating base.

The Marines' opinions have been shaped by their participation in hundreds of hours of operations over the past two months. Their assessments differ sharply from those of the interim Iraqi government and the Bush administration, which have said that Iraq is on a certain -- if bumpy -- course toward peaceful democracy.

"I feel we're going to be here for years and years and years," said Lance Cpl. Edward Elston, 22, of Hackettstown, N.J. "I don't think anything is going to get better; I think it's going to get a lot worse. It's going to be like a Palestinian-type deal. We're going to stop being a policing presence and then start being an occupying presence. . . . We're always going to be here. We're never going to leave."

The views of the mortar platoon of some 50 young Marines, several of whom fought during the first phase of the war last year, are not necessarily reflective of all or even most U.S troops fighting in Iraq. Rather, they offer a snapshot of the frustrations engendered by a grinding conflict that has killed 1,064 Americans, wounded 7,730 and spread to many areas of the country.

Although not as highly publicized as attacks in such hot spots as Fallujah, Samarra and Baghdad's Sadr City, the violence in Babil province, south of the capital, is also intense. Since July 28, when the Marines took over operational responsibility for the region, 102 of the unit's 1,100 troops have been wounded, 85 in combat, according to battalion records. Four have been killed, two in combat.

Senior officers attribute the vast difference between the number of killed and wounded to the effectiveness of armor -- bullet-proof vests, helmets and reinforced armored vehicles, primarily Humvees -- in the face of persistent attacks. As of last week, the Marines had come upon 61 roadside bombs, nearly one a day. Forty-nine had detonated. Camp Iskandariyah was hit by mortar shells or rockets on 12 occasions; 21 other times, insurgents tried to hit the base and missed.

Just a reminder that we've known Iraq is a quagmire for quite some time now, even if the traditional media just discovered it last month.

By the way, our troops are still buying their own body armor and "up-armored" humvees are still in short supply. And Donald Rumsfeld still has a job.

I had a lot of errands today, and yet, some websites new to me linked here to my paltry output. I have no idea what to do with that.

Here is what is up for the weekend. I'll be posting here and at The American Steet on Sunday. I have very different ideas about what I want to do with writing at the two sites, so I hope you'll follow me there and tell me what you think.

This is home, AmStreet is the vacation cottage. In either location, I hope that many sides of the real me show up. I owe you nothing less.

Electoral Meddling

Bush to Aid 'Moderate' Parties in Iraq Election

Fri Oct 8, 8:33 PM ET

By Adam Entous

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration plans to give strategic advice, training and polling data to what it deems as "moderate and democratic" Iraqi political parties with candidates running in the country's upcoming elections, government documents show.

Instead, the administration said it would provide "strategic advice, technical assistance, training, polling data, assistance and other forms of support" to "moderate, democratically oriented political parties," according to the documents.

Un-fscking-believable. How credible would our election next month be if, say, the Dutch Green party came in and decided to "provide support" to a political party? Can you say "Geneva Convention Violation?"

Rove is so stupid that he can't see how this further delegitimates the US in the eyes of the rest of the world. And since this is a tiny Reuters story, it won't get much play in the US press. Pity, the rest of the world knows that Bush recently tried to influence the Australian election, but we don't. When you are an occupying power you can do a whole lot of meddling.

The No Responsibility Administration

Britain: U.S. Told Of Vaccine Shortage
Flu Shot Records Contradict FDA

By Glenn Frankel and Glenda Cooper
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, October 9, 2004; Page A01

LONDON, Oct. 8 -- British health officials said Friday that their American counterparts were informed in mid-September that problems at a drug manufacturing plant in northwest England could disrupt influenza vaccine supplies to the United States.

Records at Britain's Department of Health show that the plant's owner, Chiron Corp., warned officials of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the British Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency on Sept. 13 that potential contamination problems remained unresolved at the plant, according to Alison Langley, a senior spokeswoman at the department.

The British account is at odds with statements by U.S. health officials that they were caught by surprise by the British regulatory agency's decision this week to suspend vaccine manufacturing for three months at the Liverpool plant. It had been expected to provide 48 million doses of flu vaccine to the United States, about half of the U.S. supply this year.

Unlike the United States, health officials in Britain responded to the warning by making "plans by contacting other manufacturers," Langley said.

In Washington on Friday, federal health officials told an emergency hearing in the House Committee on Government Reform that the system for procuring vaccines for the American public has been getting increasingly fragile for years but that none of the proposed solutions are likely to fix the problem quickly.

British officials said there had been regular communication with American public health officials at the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention since Aug. 26, when Chiron announced it would delay releasing supplies of the vaccine because about 4 million doses had been tainted.

Jason Brodsky, an FDA spokesman, provided an agency statement disputing the British account, saying: "None of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) staff who were in regular communication with Chiron since August 25, 2004, were notified by Chiron that there was an increased level of concern regarding the company's investigation of the bacterial contamination."

Furthermore, according to the statement, there had been no communication between CBER and the British agency until that agency suspended Chiron's license. That decision was reached last weekend, and Chiron was informed Tuesday, according to congressional testimony this week.

Since the boss deals with facts he doesn't like by pointing fingers at others, it is no surprise that the rest of the food chain has picked up the tactic. Somebody's lying.

Fixing Vaccine Supply System
Task Will Not Be Easy, Say Health and Drug Industry Officials

By David Brown
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 9, 2004; Page A05

Just about everyone at a hastily called congressional hearing on America's vanishing flu shots agreed yesterday that the nation's current vaccine supply system is broken. The possible fixes offered by experts, however, appear to be difficult, uncertain and many years into the future.

Among the suggestions made to members of the House Committee on Government Reform were unspecified financial incentives to lure more drug companies to enter the high-headache, low-profit vaccine field; lessening those companies' exposure to lawsuits from consumers; increasing public recognition of the value of vaccines; and having policies to promote greater vaccination of people at low risk.

"We continue to have a completely fragile vaccine production system in this country -- and it is getting more fragile every day," Julie L. Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told the committee.

Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said a Bethesda pharmacist gave him data yesterday morning that Fauci said help explain why drug companies prefer to put their money into the search for blockbuster drugs that people take repeatedly, rather than into making vaccines that are taken at most once a year.

"A year's supply of Lipitor to lower cholesterol is $1,608. A year's supply of 50-milligram Viagra is $3,500. He told me the Aventis Pasteur [flu] vaccine generally sells for $7 to $10," Fauci testified. "We need help on incentives."

Both Fauci and Gerberding said they were awakened before dawn on Tuesday by telephone calls from an executive at Chiron Corp., who said the company would not be able to deliver an expected 48 million doses of influenza vaccine this fall. That was about half the supply health officials were counting on.

Since then, U.S. officials said they have worked virtually nonstop to come up with a strategy for directing the diminished supply of vaccine to high-risk populations only.

Ironically, one of the best ways to help ensure that this situation will not occur again is to urge more people to get flu shots in the future, an executive of one company said.

Wait. The Brits were able to pivot pretty quickly and resupply from a variety of vendors. Fauci and Gerberding are using "complex" and "difficult" to CYA. I used to think pretty highly of both of them. Sigh. Another of my illusions shattered.

Democracy Watch--Afghan Style

Afghanistan Votes

Saturday, October 9, 2004; Page A30

AFTER ENDURING Soviet occupation, civil war and rule by a medieval-minded Islamic militia, millions of Afghans will go to polling stations today for the first free election in their country's history. This is an extraordinary achievement, the more so because it will occur in spite of concerted efforts by the Taliban militia and its al Qaeda allies to prevent it. Thanks in part to U.S., NATO and Afghan forces and in part to the extraordinary determination of Afghan citizens to launch their democracy, the enemy campaign failed: the turnout percentage for the presidential vote may rival that of the U.S. presidential election. Sixteen candidates are challenging the current president, Hamid Karzai, and though he is expected to win, the outcome is neither fixed nor assured. In that respect alone, the Afghan election is unlike any ever held in most of the Muslim world.

Elections, of course, are not panaceas, and it would be wrong to overlook the many ways in which Afghanistan's political and economic reconstruction remains tenuous. Security is still a major problem in southern provinces, where 13 percent of the population lives. There and in the north, warlords have considerably more authority than the central government does. The United States and other Western countries have been inexcusably slow to deploy peacekeeping troops around the country. Most threatening of all may be Afghanistan's opium production, which is booming, fueling corruption and providing warlords, the Taliban and probably al Qaeda with a lucrative source of income.

Where to begin with this WaPo editorial? First, this isn't the "first free election," Afghanistan was a constitutional, parliamentary democracy in the 1960's. We've been unable help them return to the 1960's, much less enter the 21st Century. Into the 1970's, even under a military coup-led government, Kabul was one of the more enlightened capitals in the Muslim world, a secularized Islamic society in which professional women became doctors and shopped for the latest French and Italian fashions in smart, urban boutiques.

As is so often the case, the Post buys into the Bushite idea that "optimism" means a casual disregard for the facts in favor of "hopes." This election is credible only if the Afghans regard it as such. That seems unlikely:

Afghan Opposition Alleges Fraud in Voting
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: October 9, 2004

Filed at 9:38 a.m. ET

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- Afghanistan's first direct presidential election was thrust into turmoil hours after it started Saturday when all 15 candidates challenging interim leader Hamid Karzai alleged fraud over the ink meant to ensure people voted only once and vowed to boycott the results.

But electoral officials rejected their demand that the vote be called off, saying an apparent mix-up with ink used to mark voters' thumbs was not severe enough to halt the historic vote. They said they would rule on the legitimacy of the vote later.

``The vote will continue because halting the vote at this stage is unjustified and would deny these people their right to vote,'' said Ray Kennedy, vice chairman of the joint United Nations-Afghan electoral body. ``There have been some technical problems but overall it has been safe and orderly.''

Karzai said the fate of the vote was in the hands of the electoral body, but he added that in his view ``the election was free and fair ... it is very legitimate''

``Who is more important, these 15 candidates, or the millions of people who turned out today to vote?'' Karzai said. ``Both myself and all these 15 candidates should respect our people -- because in the dust and snow and rain, they waited for hours and hours to vote.''

Election officials said workers at some voting stations mistakenly swapped the permanent ink meant to mark thumbs with normal ink meant for ballots, but insisted the problem was caught quickly.

The boycott cast a pall over what had been a joyous day in Afghanistan, where millions of Afghans braved threats of Taliban violence to crowd polling stations for an election aimed at bringing peace and prosperity to a country nearly ruined by more than two decades of war. The Taliban was ousted by a U.S.-led coalition in late 2001.

Another fine mess you've gotten us into, W.

Were I a Boxing Ref

I'd call this one now to stop the bleeding. This is so painful to watch that I think I need a drink. And I think I'll take it. See you in the morning and we'll dissect the morning spin.

President Petulant would have just done himself in, in a rational society. The Media Whores will play their "he said she said" after the event. I won't be watching, as I have it on good authority that heaving my wood Dr. Scholl's sandals at the TV screen is bad for the TV.

G'night. I had a long day and this is over. Baby Bush just showed himself. We'll see what the citizens do with it. He's still shouting. I can't stand it any more.

Dimbulb

10:03 This isn't a contest. I've judged middle school level team debates that were more competative than this one.

W called Kerry "Senator Kennedy" a couple of minutes ago. The level of cognitive dissonance here is off the charts.

W just lies, but he is doing it at the top of his lungs tonight, like a bad American tourist who thinks that by shouting you can be better understood when you don't speak the local language.

Your President, Hard At Work

Bush just fluffed the "import drugs from Canada" may not be safe. This from an administration which just had to halt sales of Vioxx, and may have to halt the sale of all of the Cox-2 inhibitors, the most widely prescribed drugs for arthritis. There go the seniors. This is Bush's FDA at work.

Bush is pissy and petulant. Kerry's rejoinder was strong, fact laden and well-delivered. At 9:47, Bush is losing this one.

Sniveling Coward

9:35 and Bush is pissed, arguing with the moderator, interrupting. Will this be the night he loses it in public.

Verbal Tic

"Of course we've been involved with Iran."

Do your stuff.

A Little Debate Music, Maestro

via Suburban Guerrilla:

Privacy Act, Order Shielded U.S. Names on List

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 8, 2004; Page A30

CIA analyst Charles A. Duelfer's report on Iraq's weapons programs included lists of governments, political parties, companies and individuals from at least 44 nations who received vouchers to buy oil -- both legally and otherwise -- from the Iraqi government during Saddam Hussein's reign.

The names on the politically explosive list are French, Russian, Chinese, Canadian and Japanese; if Duelfer had had his way, U.S. companies and individuals would have been included, too.

But he was overruled by CIA lawyers. The report instead lists some voucher recipients only as "U.S. person" and "U.S. company," explaining in a footnote that disclosure was barred by the 1974 Privacy Act and "other applicable law."

The Privacy Act would indeed prohibit the unconsented disclosure of intelligence on "persons" who are either U.S. citizens or permanent residents, according to lawyers knowledgeable about the law and a detailed explanation of the statute on the Justice Department's Web site. But the Web site adds that "[c]orporations and organizations . . . do not have any Privacy Act rights."

One word, and it starts with an H. This is explosive, why is it on page A30?

The "Tell"

washingtonpost.com's invaluable Dan Froomkin makes a fascinating observation today which may add to your dining and dancing pleasure during tonight's debate:

Here's a debate-watching tip: Perk up your ears every time President Bush says "of course" tonight.

• "One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we're asking questions, is, 'Can you ever win the war on terror?' Of course you can."

As Tom Schaller said last week at dKos, everyone has tics, usually physical, that betray when they are lying or think they are hearing a lie. This is an interesting verbal tic which gives W. away.

Political Convenience

With the debate coming up tonight, Andrew Tobias reminds of us a Salon column from last month:

For 25 years, Yoshi Tsurumi, one of George W. Bush's professors at Harvard Business School, was content with his green-card status as a permanent legal resident of the United States. But Bush's ascension to the presidency in 2001 prompted the Japanese native to secure his American citizenship. The reason: to be able to speak out with the full authority of citizenship about why he believes Bush lacks the character and intellect to lead the world's oldest and most powerful democracy.

Tsurumi's conclusion: Bush is not as dumb as his detractors allege. "He was just badly brought up, with no discipline, and no compassion," he said.

This is certainly the guy who showed up to debate Kerry last week. We'll see who shows up tonight.

Tobias also reminds us of this exchange, an interview CNN winger Tucker Carlson conducted with then-Gov. W for the first ( and nearly last) issue of Talk magazine:

Tucker Carlson, the “right” wing of CNN’s Crossfire, profiled then-governor Bush for the premier issue of the now-defunct Talk magazine. He reported:

Tobias then quotes an anonymouse: “When I read that,” writes one well-known conservative, “I thought, ‘Please don’t let this man get close to any position of power – ever.’”

“I think it is nothing short of unbelievable,” Gary Bauer, was quoted at the time, “that the governor of a major state running for president thought it was acceptable to mock a woman he decided to put to death.”

Of course, that was Bauer then, this is Bauer now:

“President Bush today provided the clear and strong leadership we have come to expect during his presidency,” said former presidential candidate Gary Bauer.

“Massive majorities of the American people reject same-sex marriage. President Bush today has made it clear he will stand with them in this national debate. We look forward to working with the president on this central issue to ensure that traditional marriage is preserved.”

Nature is a Terrorist

The Failure to Deal With the Flu
* As billions were spent to prevent biological terrorism, officials fumbled a simple vaccine program.

By Matthew Davis

Over the last three years, the United States government has spent several billion dollars preparing for a biological attack by terrorists. Yet it now seems likely that starting in the next couple of weeks, tens of millions of Americans will be defenseless and thousands will die because we have botched preparations for a natural biological attack everyone knew was coming: the flu.

This week, British health authorities halted production at a Liverpool factory operated by California's Chiron Corp. that supplies half of the flu vaccine for the U.S., about 48 million doses.

U.S. officials claim to have been surprised at the shutdown despite widely publicized problems at the plant, which in August caused the contamination of more than a million doses of vaccine.

There is now talk of a hasty plan to ration this year's vaccine. Ironically, only a couple of months ago, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was trying to greatly expand the pool of people it said should get a flu shot, not limit it.

This is the second year in a row in which federal health authorities have fumbled the flu vaccine. Last year, the vaccine offered only minimal, if any, protection against what turned out to be the dominant and most virulent strain of the season, and there were shortages of that weak concoction as well.

One wonders why, given what is at stake — flu kills about 36,000 people each year and sickens millions more — flu vaccine problems are not being addressed at the highest level.

And it's not just the ordinary flu seasons, bad as they can be, that we should be worried about. The flu failures we have witnessed over the last two years are particularly alarming given that most disease experts believe we are long overdue for a flu pandemic.

That last sentence is one of the reasons why this op-ed is important. What this points to is a national public health failure on a massive level. The US buys its flu vaccine from only two labs and that's ridiculous and a major part of the reason that last year's vaccine was delivered late. If we get a really bad strain of the bug this year, literally thousands are at risk of major illness and death.

The flu comes round every year, but the billions which have been spent on research into possible biological agents weaponized by terrorists may never be needed. Spreading the sourcing for our vaccine around would have cost nothing, instead our most vulnerable citizens (babies, the elderly, people with compromised immune systems, heart or pulmonary disease, health care providers) and the fault can be placed squarely on the Bush administration which continues to show nothing but contempt for these citizens. This is an outrage.

Jobs Report

Here it is and it is pretty lousy.

Job Growth Weaker Than Expected
Fri Oct 8, 2004 08:31 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. businesses added 96,000 jobs to payrolls in September, the government reported on Friday, a weaker-than-expected total that was expected to sharpen a presidential debate later in the day over the economy's direction.

As a result after including the projected change, it appears that about 585,000 jobs have been lost since President Bush took office in January 2001.

Economy Watch

Consumer Confidence Dips to Midsummer Levels Amid Worries About Energy Prices, Job Security

By Will Lester Associated Press Writer
Published: Oct 8, 2004

WASHINGTON (AP) -Consumer confidence dropped to its lowest levels since midsummer amid worries about high energy prices, uncertainty about the labor market and anxiety about making major purchases like a car or a home.

The AP-Ipsos consumer confidence index slipped to 97.4 in September from 103.4 in August, the latest measure of consumer attitudes in recent weeks to reflect uneasiness over the economy. The consumer confidence index is benchmarked to a 100 reading on January 2002, the month the index was started by Ipsos.

"I think consumers have some caution," said Richard Yamarone, economist at Argus Research Corp. "It relates back to the slowing economy and the questionable job outlook and higher-priced energy as we head into the winter season."

Consumers cut back on their borrowing in August by the largest amount since the end of 1990. In recent weeks, mortgage rates have crept up.

With crude oil prices setting record highs, the Energy Department warned U.S. homeowners this week that they should expect their heating bills to rise this winter due to double-digit price increases for heating oil and natural gas. Gasoline is averaging $1.94 a gallon nationwide, 36.5 cents higher than a year ago.

"I work in Detroit, because of all the problems with the auto industry, the economy's going to heck, or at least it appears that way," said Rick Seifert, a dental technician who lives in Toledo, Ohio. "For a lot of assistants in our office, their husbands are losing their jobs, getting laid off."

More Job Cuts Set by AT&T; Total to Hit 20% of Staff

Airline Workers See Their Security Quickly Vanish

Dollar Falls as Market Awaits Jobs Data

Oil May Rise From Record on U.S. Supply, Survey Shows (Update2)

Oct. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Crude oil may rise from a record $53 a barrel in New York on concern refiners will fail to secure enough imports to make up for the drop in Gulf of Mexico output caused by Hurricane Ivan, according to a Bloomberg News survey.

I'll still be on the Metro when the jobs report is released, but Bloomberg is predicting 148K growth, barely enough to keep up with normal increases in the work force. The Economic Policy Institute will have their new Jobwatch summary up after 11 AM.

We'll see how all of this plays into the townhall debate tonight.

Free and Fair

While you are listening to Bush triumphalism over the Afghan elections this weekend, the famously ahistorical W will try to tell you (listen for it in his Saturday radio message) that these are the first nation-wide elections in Afghan history. As DavidByron reminded us earlier this week, it's not true. The country became a constitutional, parliamentary-style democracy in the 1960's.

Starting in 1973, a series of coups dismembered the popularly elected governments. Those of you with more knowledge of the area are free to join in with links to CIA or American military involvement in the country's long slide toward the Afghan/USSR war (with the US funding and equipping the "insurgents" who became the Taliban.)

It's worth remembering that the USSR, who committed hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground, lost that war. We have less than 20,000 in-country, with a total coalition force of less than 40,000. Those who fail to learn the lessons of history....

Don't Blame the Messengers

Ignorance Isn't Strength
By PAUL KRUGMAN

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have an unparalleled ability to insulate themselves from inconvenient facts. They lead a party that controls all three branches of government, and face news media that in some cases are partisan supporters, and in other cases are reluctant to state plainly that officials aren't telling the truth. They also still enjoy the residue of the faith placed in them after 9/11.

This has allowed them to engage in what Orwell called "reality control." In the world according to the Bush administration, our leaders are infallible, and their policies always succeed. If the facts don't fit that assumption, they just deny the facts.

As a political strategy, reality control has worked very well. But as a strategy for governing, it has led to predictable disaster. When leaders live in an invented reality, they do a bad job of dealing with real reality.

In the last few days we've seen some impressive demonstrations of reality control at work. During the debate on Tuesday, Mr. Cheney insisted that "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11." After the release of the Duelfer report, which shows that Saddam's weapons capabilities were deteriorating, not advancing, at the time of the invasion, Mr. Cheney declared that the report proved that "delay, defer, wait wasn't an option."

From a political point of view, such exercises in denial have been very successful. For example, the Bush administration has managed to convince many people that its tax cuts, which go primarily to the wealthiest few percent of the population, are populist measures benefiting middle-class families and small businesses. (Under the administration's definition, anyone with "business income" - a group that includes Dick Cheney and George Bush - is a struggling small-business owner.)

The administration has also managed to convince at least some people that its economic record, which includes the worst employment performance in 70 years, is a great success, and that the economy is "strong and getting stronger." (The data to be released today, which are expected to improve the numbers a bit, won't change the basic picture of a dismal four years.)

Officials have even managed to convince many people that they are moving forward on environmental policy. They boast of their "Clear Skies" plan even as the inspector general of the E.P.A. declares that the enforcement of existing air-quality rules has collapsed.

But the political ability of the Bush administration to deny reality - to live in an invented world in which everything is the way officials want it to be - has led to an ongoing disaster in Iraq and looming disaster elsewhere.

How did the occupation of Iraq go so wrong? (The security situation has deteriorated to the point where there are no safe places: a bomb was discovered on Tuesday in front of a popular restaurant inside the Green Zone.)
....
Why did the economy perform so badly? Long after it was obvious to everyone outside the administration that the tax-cut strategy wasn't an effective way of creating jobs, administration officials kept promising huge job gains, any day now. Nobody could tell them different.

Why has the pursuit of terrorists been so unsuccessful? It has been obvious for years that John Ashcroft isn't just scary; he's also scarily incompetent. But inside the administration, he's considered the man for the job - and nobody can say different.

The point is that in the real world, as opposed to the political world, ignorance isn't strength. A leader who has the political power to pretend that he's infallible, and uses that power to avoid ever admitting mistakes, eventually makes mistakes so large that they can't be covered up. And that's what's happening to Mr. Bush.

Aren't you glad you don't have to read his nytimes.com email?

On the same page, Bob Herbert (marry me, Bob!) chimes in:

Coming next week are the results of a new study that shows - here at home - how tough a time American families are having in their never-ending struggle to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. The White House, as deep in denial about the economy as it is about Iraq, insists that things are fine - despite the embarrassing fact that President Bush is on track to become the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net loss of jobs during his four years in office.

The study, jointly sponsored by the Annie E. Casey, Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, will show that 9.2 million working families in the United States - one out of every four - earn wages that are so low they are barely able to survive financially.

"Our data is very solid and shows that this is a much bigger problem than most people imagine," said Brandon Roberts, one of the authors of the report, which is to be formally released on Tuesday. The report found that there are 20 million children in these low-income working families.

For the purposes of the study, any family in which at least one person was employed was considered a working family. Very wealthy families were included.

The median income for a family of four in the U.S. is $62,732. According to the study, a family of four earning less than $36,784 is considered low-income. A family of four earning less than $18,392 is considered poor. The 9.2 million struggling families cited by the report fell into one of the latter two categories. And those families have one-third of all the children in American working families.

Not surprisingly, the problem for millions of families is that they have jobs that pay very low wages and provide no benefits. "Consider the motel housekeeper, the retail clerk at the hardware store or the coffee shop cook," the report said. "If they have children, chances are good that their families are living on an income too low to provide for their basic needs."

Neither politicians nor the media put much of a spotlight on families that are struggling economically. According to the study, one in five workers are in occupations where the median wage is less than $8.84 an hour, which is a poverty-level wage for a family of four. A full-time job at the federal minimum wage of $5.15 an hour is not even sufficient to keep a family of three out of poverty.

Families with that kind of income are teetering on the edge of an economic abyss. Any misfortune might push them over the edge - an illness, an automobile breakdown, even something as seemingly minor as a flooded basement.

For the families in these lower-income brackets, life is often a harrowing day-to-day struggle to pay for the bare necessities. According to federal government statistics, the median annual rent for a two-bedroom apartment in major metropolitan markets is more than $8,000. The annual cost of food for a low-income family of four is nearly $4,000. Utility bills are nearly $2,000. Transportation costs are about $1,500. And then there are costs for child care, health care and clothing.

You do the math. How are these millions of poor and low-income families making it?

(A lot of those families are going to get a shock this winter as price increases for crude oil get translated into big jumps in home heating bills.)

The economy relies heavily on the services provided by low-wage workers but, as the report notes, "our society has not taken adequate steps to ensure that these workers can make ends meet and build a future for their families, no matter how determined they are to be self-sufficient."

Mr. Roberts said he hoped the study, titled "Working Hard, Falling Short," would help initiate a national discussion of the plight of families who are doing the right thing but not earning enough to get ahead. "Seventy-one percent of low-income families work," he said. More than half are headed by married couples. But economic self-sufficiency remains maddeningly out of reach.

This is Bush's "ownership society," indentured servitude for the poor who are virtually slaves to the rich.

In feudal times, pledging fealty to the landowner meant that you got his protection and help. Fealty to Bushco means getting handed your a**.

Presidential Purity

NPR's Morning Edition is telling the story of political cleansing at Bush rallies, with students, adults and teachers being removed from Bush events by Secret Service. Nina Totenburg says that the threat of arrest is being used to make potential dissenters go away. I've been talking about this for several months, with cites from regional papers. Campaign events are paid for by the campaign, but the President also makes appearances paid for by the taxpayers.

As Nina exposed it, this takes competition and pursuation out of the electoral process. This is a fundamental violation of what democracy means.

I'm glad to see this story break out into the major media. NPR frequently breaks stories before the cable and broadcast channels. We'll see what happens.

You Are The New Day

I ran into an article at Alternet that coincided with a conversation I had yesterday with a colleague who is edging into looking at politics, the campaign management part, as a possible career. I have no aspirations in that direction, but I've been more active politically in the last year than at anytime since my early years of volunteering while still in high school. This blog is, of course, part of my activism, but I also got into the Dean letters to primary/caucus state voters, contributed to the VA for Dean Newsletter, worked on some of the Internet effort and am now working with the local party. My jurisdiction is tiny, but predictably Dem and has an organization, something one cannot say for the rest of the state. Until this year. And I'm living in a swing state this year. I've volunteered to be a poll watcher.

What about you? Do you have a story to tell about your own change of activities in support of the Dem campaigns this year? How has this changed your life (or not?) Without damaging your anonymity, if that is the path you've chosen, can you tell us something about yourself and what the last year has meant for you? For me, this is the most political activity I've been involved in in decades, and now I see the error of my lazy ways. I'm getting involved in local politics to help start identifying gifted candidates and start them up the ladder from the local level. I used to thank that just heading to the ballot box in November was enough. I was wrong.

Share your tales of political awakening and what that has meant for you. I'm really glad that I work for a social justice organization.

Sorry for the light posting today. I have the case of hayfever from Hell and was up most of the night in a paroxysm of sneezing (ran out of decongestant). All the stuff I'm allergic to had a positively verdant growing season with all the rain we've had and I've been getting progressively more miserable over the past week. We are still a few weeks away from a hard freeze, so I need to investigate better drugs. I'm sure my office mates enjoyed the sneezing fits today. I sure am glad I bought that industrial sized box of tissues last week.

The workload in the office is pretty extreme at the moment, too, and tackling that with a groggy head (and the coffee service hasn't delivered the next shipment yet and we're out! Yikes!) had me pretty whipped most of the day. I'm following the stories during coffee breaks and lunch, but putting the energy together to post just wasn't happenin'. I've got errands to run this weekend early, but promise to be back to full strength on Sunday, when I'll be posting full time here and at The American Street.

I'm hoping to get cable broadband installed this weekend. If that happens, I'll post the new email addy as soon as I know it. Regular commentors will have had their email addy captured by my client and I'll do an email to all as soon as the new address is ready. I really need the speed now that I've taken on more writing responsibilities and have fewer hours a day to do it. Research time on dial-up is eating me alive.

Outsourcing Torture

via pogge, who has been on this story from the get-go (Canadians are still outraged over the treatment of Canadian citizen Maher Arar, "extraordinary rendition" is already in Canadian's vocabularies)

To Torture or Not?
President Bush backs ‘rendering’ suspects—then backs off
A U.S. detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Hirsh
Newsweek
Updated: 12:23 p.m. ET Oct. 6, 2004

Oct. 5 - President Bush today distanced himself from his administration’s quiet effort to push through a law that would make it easier to send captured terror suspects to countries where torture is used. The proposed law, recently tacked onto a much larger bill despite the fallout from last spring’s interrogation scandal, is seen as an attempt to counter a recent Supreme Court decision that would free some terror detainees being held without trial.

The provision amounts to “a tacit approval of torture,” the New York Bar Association said, and “is particularly shocking in the aftermath of the recent revelations of torture by U.S. personnel in Iraq.”

Given how screamingly successful our efforts at Gitmo have been, this looks like another piece of Bush Imperial Idiocy.

Ya know, policies like this get promulgated in our name. If the world decides that they want to hate you and me (rather than just Emperor C+ Augustus and his minions), this would be why.

UPDATE:

The LAT has more:

Blood on Our Hands

Despite a last-minute hesitation by the Bush administration, the House may still take up provisions that would allow U.S. officials to ship terror suspects to countries that permit torture. If this language, attached to the larger intelligence reform bill, survives, it would shred the international treaty against torture that the United States signed on to 20 years ago. Beyond the diplomatic fallout, it would mock any claim to moral high ground offered up to justify the war in Iraq.

The House measure allows what is legally called "extraordinary rendition," a comfy abstraction that essentially means to torture by proxy. The Senate's intelligence reform bill fortunately has no such provision.

Torture by proxy seems already to have been applied to Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen born in Syria. The computer technician was arrested between international flights at John F. Kennedy Airport in 2002 on suspicion of being a member of Al Qaeda. After 13 days of interrogation, federal officials expelled him to Syria. There, Arar said, he was held for 10 months in a "grave-sized cell" and beaten and tortured before Syrian officials decided he was innocent and released him.

Arar, now back in Ottawa, may not be the only terror suspect so treated. CIA agents are believed to be holding as many as 100 so-called "ghost" detainees in Iraq. Their names and locations and the conditions under which they are held are secret — contrary to international law governing prisoners of war. Some off-the-books prisoners may have been packed off to Yemen or Pakistan for the bare-knuckles treatment.

The American Bar Assn. is incensed by the House's apparent willingness to bless torture by proxy. Its pressure seems to have pushed Alberto Gonzales, the president's chief lawyer, into publicly distancing the administration from the measure.

Still, a spokesman for House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) has said the Justice Department "really wants and supports" these provisions. Presumably those are the same Justice Department officials who argue that as commander in chief, the president is bound neither by international nor domestic laws barring torture.

Bushco doesn't give a flying f... about what the rest of the world thinks, of course. I'm sure that being an international pariah nation won't have any effect on our citizens, terrorism in general or even Bush's favorability rating.

Do Over

War's Rationales Are Undermined One More Time
Revelations May Hurt Bush's Image

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 7, 2004; Page A35

One by one, official reports by government investigators, statements by former administration officials and internal CIA analyses have combined to undermine many of the central rationales of the administration's case for war with Iraq -- and its handling of the post-invasion occupation.

The release of yesterday's definitive account on Iraq's weapons -- and its conclusion that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction years before the U.S.-led invasion -- is only the latest in a series of damaging blows to the White House's strategy of portraying the war in Iraq as being on the cusp of success.
.

The report also comes just a few weeks after Democratic presidential challenger John F. Kerry gave new life to his campaign by emphasizing what he asserts is the gap between the president's rhetoric and the realities in Iraq.

This week, President Bush's former administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, broke with the administration to say officials had sent too few troops to Iraq and had allowed a culture of lawlessness to develop. The CIA, using information gathered after the invasion, cast doubt last week on whether Saddam Hussein aided Abu Musab Zarqawi, an al Qaeda associate, as the administration repeatedly alleged before the war.

The CIA over the summer delivered an analysis that Iraq could be expected, in the best-case scenario, to achieve a "tenuous stability" over the next 18 months and, in the worst case, to dissolve into civil war. The July assessment was similar to one produced before the war and another in late 2003 that were more pessimistic in tone than the administration's portrayal of the resistance to the U.S. occupation.

The risk for the Bush campaign is that the drip-drip of the revelations will slowly erode the advantage that the president has held among voters for his handling of the Iraq war and especially the struggle against terrorism. Despite growing misgivings about the violence in Iraq, Bush has held a commanding lead on whether he would better protect the country from terrorists.

Well, Glenn, that might be because stories like this one get printed on A35, and your other stories so equivocate Bushco's war stories with nonsense like Swift Boat Veterans that the voters are having a bit of a hard time figuring out what is really going on.

I realize that much of my gripe on this story is with your editor, Glenn, but I haven't noticed any journalistic risk taking in the interest of truth out of you. You've done all the standard stuff. Live long and prosper, dude. Maybe they give you journalistic do-overs there at the Post. The people who have died and will die for this mistake don't get that chance.

Mood Indigo

Kos printed a very moving story yesterday about the mother of dead soldier who apparently died of grief after seeing her son's remains after their return from Iraq.

Iraq has a lot of victims, and they aren't only people killed in IED explosions, bombing of civilian homes in Samarrah, or car bombs in Baghdad. The Strib, a paper I usually like, shouldn't have taken this story to print with so many unanswered questions, but the scenario is all too human and very affecting.

Military rules Minnesota Marine in Kuwait committed suicide
Associated Press
October 7, 2004 MARINE1007

DULUTH, Minn. -- A Marine from Kettle River who was found dead inside a Kuwaiti chapel in March shot himself, a military investigation has found.

Pfc. Matthew Milczark's body was found inside a chapel at Camp Victory on March 8 with a single gunshot wound to the head. He was 18.

Lt. Eric Knapp, a Marine Corps spokesman, said investigators have concluded that Milczark committed suicide.

Investigative reports were provided by the Marines to Milczark's family and won't be publicly released, Knapp said.

A second investigation into Milczark's death was conducted by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, Knapp said. He wasn't certain whether the family had received the results from that.

He said the agency, composed of federal law enforcement officers, routinely investigates U.S. Navy and Marine Corps cases. Their involvement doesn't necessarily indicate a crime is suspected, Knapp said.

Sherman Liimatainen, Milczark's old hockey coach, read a prepared statement Tuesday from Milczark's parents, Greg Milczark and Mary Nordlund, and his stepparents, Linda Milczark and Vern Nordlund, all of Kettle River.

``To now learn the U.S. Marines have ruled the death a self-inflicted wound before all information has been made available to us is devastating,'' the family wrote in response to questions from the newspaper.

``With all due respect to the Marines, we will continue to pursue with our congressmen all the information that the U.S. Marine Corps has gathered and which led ... to this determination,'' the family wrote.

I work with the families of suicides, and what the Marines did to this family is unspeakable. They left them hanging and you don't do that with suicide survivors.

The facts look awful: suicide in a chapel. It would be impossible to make this harder for the family if you tried. The Marines jumped the gun before the investigation was complete. But, then, every military family is a cog in the Bush/Rove political machine. This one didn't work out so well for BC04.

Pfc. Milarczek, was he about to be sent back into the meat grinder in Iraq? Had he been there before? The Strib reporter misses all these questions. We already know the suicide rate in Iraq is off the charts in comparison with previous wars. This is a personal moment, asking you to remember that not every victim of this war dies in a hale of aggressor bullets, regardless of source. Wars are about heroism only as an asterisk. For the people we send to fight them, they are about survival. And the reasons why people perish don't always have anything to do with what WE'VE been told is the enemy.

Noted here and here, when you send people into an impossible situation, don't expect rational results.

From yesterday's Guardian, from Michael Moore's new book of letters he received from our troops after the release of Fahrenheit 911. This stuff is every bit as hard to read as the death notice above. Be forewarned.

From: RH
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2003 4:57 PM
Subject: Iraqi freedom veteran supports you
Dear Mr Moore,
I went to Iraq with thoughts of killing people who I thought were horrible. I was like, "Fuck Iraq, fuck these people, I hope we kill thousands." I believed my president. He was taking care of business and wasn't going to let al Qaeda push us around. I was with the 3rd Squadron, 7th Cavalry, 3rd Infantry division out of Fort Stewart, Georgia. My unit was one of the first to Baghdad. I was so scared. Didn't know what to think. Seeing dead bodies for the first time. People blown in half. Little kids with no legs. It was overwhelming, the sights, sounds, fear. I was over there from Jan'03 to Aug'03. I hated every minute. It was a daily battle to keep my spirits up. I hate the army and my job. I am supposed to get out next February but will now be unable to because the asshole in the White House decided that now would be a great time to put a stop-loss in effect for the army. So I get to do a second tour in Iraq and be away from those I love again because some guy has the audacity to put others' lives on the line for his personal war. I thought we were the good guys.

Dear Mike, Iraq sucks

Civilian contractors are fleecing taxpayers; US troops don't have proper equipment; and supposedly liberated Iraqis hate them. After the release of Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore received a flood of letters and emails from disillusioned and angry American soldiers serving in Iraq. Here, in an exclusive extract from his new book, we print a selection

Tuesday October 5, 2004
The Guardian

From: RH
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2003 4:57 PM
Subject: Iraqi freedom veteran supports you
Dear Mr Moore,
I went to Iraq with thoughts of killing people who I thought were horrible. I was like, "Fuck Iraq, fuck these people, I hope we kill thousands." I believed my president. He was taking care of business and wasn't going to let al Qaeda push us around. I was with the 3rd Squadron, 7th Cavalry, 3rd Infantry division out of Fort Stewart, Georgia. My unit was one of the first to Baghdad. I was so scared. Didn't know what to think. Seeing dead bodies for the first time. People blown in half. Little kids with no legs. It was overwhelming, the sights, sounds, fear. I was over there from Jan'03 to Aug'03. I hated every minute. It was a daily battle to keep my spirits up. I hate the army and my job. I am supposed to get out next February but will now be unable to because the asshole in the White House decided that now would be a great time to put a stop-loss in effect for the army. So I get to do a second tour in Iraq and be away from those I love again because some guy has the audacity to put others' lives on the line for his personal war. I thought we were the good guys.

From: Michael W
Sent: Tuesday July 13 2004 12.28pm
Subject: Dude, Iraq sucks

My name is Michael W and I am a 30-year-old National Guard infantryman serving in southeast Baghdad. I have been in Iraq since March of 04 and will continue to serve here until March of 05.

In the few short months my unit has been in Iraq, we have already lost one man and have had many injured (including me) in combat operations. And for what? At the very least, the government could have made sure that each of our vehicles had the proper armament to protect us soldiers.

In the early morning hours of May 10, one month to the day from my 30th birthday, I and 12 other men were attacked in a well-executed roadside ambush in south-east Baghdad. We were attacked with small-arms fire, a rocket-propelled grenade, and two well-placed roadside bombs. These roadside bombs nearly destroyed one of our Hummers and riddled my friends with shrapnel, almost killing them. They would not have had a scratch if they had the "Up Armour" kits on them. So where was [George] W [Bush] on that one?

It's just so ridiculous, which leads me to my next point. A Blackwater contractor makes $15,000 [£8,400] a month for doing the same job as my pals and me. I make about $4,000 [£2,240] a month over here. What's up with that?

Beyond that, the government is calling up more and more troops from the reserves. For what? Man, there is a huge fucking scam going on here! There are civilian contractors crawling all over this country. Blackwater, Kellogg Brown & Root, Halliburton, on and on. These contractors are doing everything you can think of from security to catering lunch!

We are spending money out the ass for this shit, and very few of the projects are going to the Iraqi people. Someone's back is getting scratched here, and it ain't the Iraqis'!

My life is left to chance at this point. I just hope I come home alive.

From: Kyle Waldman
Sent: Friday February 27 2004 2.35am
Subject: None
We are here trying to keep peace when all we have been trained for is to destroy. How are 200,000 soldiers supposed to take control of this country? Why didn't we have an effective plan to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure? Why aren't the American people more aware of these atrocities?

My fiancee and I have seriously looked into moving to Canada as political refugees.

I'm here in North America, trying to imagine these soldiers' lives. I cannot. The daughter of a soldier, an army brat, I cannot.

The disconnect between our military "regular guys" and our government cannot have gotten more huge. With W, he won't be around to pay the price so he just doesn't care. Do we want to be a nation of enablers?

Print this one out

Unsafe in the Green Zone

As War Room noted back in mid-September, even the primary citadel of U.S. power in Iraq, Baghdad's Green Zone, had reportedly become vulnerable to attack by Iraqi insurgents. An alarming email from the U.S. embassy there, posted today by blogger Andrew Sullivan, confirms that the security situation has continued to deteriorate:

-- Mark Follman

Iraqi Arms Threat Was Waning, Inspector Says
Hussein Had Almost No Nuclear Weapons Program by 2003

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 6, 2004; 4:00 PM

Charles Duelfer, the chief U.S. weapons investigator in Iraq, told Congress today that Saddam Hussein destroyed his stocks of chemical and biological weapons and agents in 1991 and 1992 and that his nuclear weapons program had decayed to almost nothing by 2003.

Duelfer, a former U.N. inspector and the personal representative of the CIA director, said the former Iraqi dictator had intentions to restart his program, but after weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998, Hussein instead focused his attention on ending the sanctions imposed by Western governments following his incursion into Kuwait and the Persian Gulf war of 1991.

The Bush administration said in its justification for going to war in Iraq that Hussein had an active weapons program. Duelfer's account is expected to reinforce claims by Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry that President Bush and Vice President Cheney took the country to war based on inaccurate information.

Funds to Rebuild Iraq Are Drifting Away From Target
State Department to Rethink U.S. Effort

By Jonathan Weisman and Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, October 6, 2004; Page A18

As little as 27 cents of every dollar spent on Iraq's reconstruction has actually filtered down to projects benefiting Iraqis, a statistic that is prompting the State Department to fundamentally rethink the Bush administration's troubled reconstruction effort.

Between soaring security costs, corruption and mismanagement, contractors' profits, and U.S. governmental costs, reconstruction funding is being drained away, leaving little left to improve the lives of Iraqis, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies. Senior administration officials and congressional experts on the reconstruction effort called the analysis credible. One senior U.S. official familiar with reconstruction suggested as little as a quarter of the funding is reaching its intended projects.

The State Department will acknowledge the problem in a quarterly report to Congress today and say that the United States is trying to accelerate aid and redirect how it is spent, U.S. officials said yesterday. But the Bush administration is still not meeting the goal it set this summer to inject $300 million to $400 million monthly into Iraq's economy by Sept. 1, the officials said.

What part of "quagmire" do you not understand, Mssrs. Bush and Cheney? What have you done to us and what have you done to Iraq?

Rather than cut and paste into your word processor, you can print this single post out by clicking on the permalink at the bottom of the post. Just this post will appear in your browser. The permalink is the time stamp at the bottom of the post. Then just hit the print button on your browser's task or tool bar or find the print command on your "File" menu.

There, that was easy, wasn't it?

Depopulating Gitmo

Most at Guantanamo to Be Freed or Sent Home, Officer Says

By John Mintz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 6, 2004; Page A16

Most of the alleged al Qaeda and Taliban inmates at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are likely to be freed or sent to their home countries for further investigation because many pose little threat and are not providing much valuable intelligence, the facility's deputy commander has said.

The remarks by Army Brig. Gen. Martin Lucenti in yesterday's edition of London's Financial Times appeared to conflict with past comments by U.S. military commanders who have stressed the value of the information obtained from the detainees and the danger many would pose if released.

"Of the 550 [detainees] that we have, I would say most of them, the majority of them, will either be released or transferred to their own countries," Lucenti was quoted as saying in the British newspaper. "Most of these guys weren't fighting. They were running. Even if somebody has been found to be an enemy combatant, many of them will be released because they will be of low intelligence value and low threat status.

"We don't have a level of evidence to feel that we can be confident to prosecute them" all, he added, according to the newspaper. "We have guys here who have never told us anything, except to say that they want to cut off the heads of the infidels if they get a chance."

Asked for comment about the remarks, military officials referred inquiries to the joint task force that runs the Guantanamo Bay prison. Army Maj. Hank McIntire, a spokesman, said yesterday that officials there would have no immediate comment while they work on a statement about the matter.

So much for all that wonderful intelligence we were beating out of these people.

Facts are Stupid Things

Here is the NYT's fact checker. Here is the WaPo's. Annenberg Foundation's factcheck.org is busied out this morning (not much of a surprise.)

While I'm glad to see that these media organizations at least making the attempt, their approach leaves a lot to be desired: Kerry/Edwards talking about a budget of $200 billion encumbered into next year (as opposed to $119 billion already budgeted for this year) may be a stretching of the truth, but it is hardly at the same level of substance as the lies that took us to war and shed American and Iraqi blood, the complete and budget busting lies over the Medicare bill (and the deliberate use of government resources and employees to hide the truth) and so forth. Finding equivalencies where none exists in order to maintain some illusory sense of balance is moral relativism of the most superficial kind.

Debate Wrap

Runners Advance
Edwards keeps the Democrats' rally going.
By William Saletan
Posted Wednesday, Oct. 6, 2004, at 2:29 AM PT

Now are you sorry you didn't nominate this guy for president?

Most Democrats, including Kerry, duck and cover when Republicans bring up values. Not Edwards. He knows the language and loves to turn it against the GOP. The word "moral" was used twice in this debate. The word "value" was used three times. All five references came from Edwards. He denounced the "moral" crime of piling debt on our grandchildren. He called the African AIDS epidemic and the Sudan genocide "huge moral issues." When Ifill asked him about gay marriage, he changed the subject to taxes. "We don't just value wealth, which they do," said Edwards. "We value work in this country. And it is a fundamental value difference between them and us."

In Salon, Tim Grieve is less celebratory and tends more to my own reading of the "debate:" the undecided, uninformed voter probably tuned out after the first half hour. I give the debate to Edwards on both style and substance, but I doubt that any souls were saved last night.

Down, dirty and dull
Dick Cheney and John Edwards came out swinging, but the only people they knocked out were in the audience.

By Tim Grieve

Oct. 6, 2004 | CLEVELAND -- Here's how bad it was Tuesday night. Fifteen minutes before the end of the vice-presidential debate -- with Dick Cheney still talking about the terrorists who want to kill us, with John Edwards still trying to circle back to some prior question -- the spinners for the two candidates came barging into the press room like rodeo clowns trying to save a fallen cowboy.

Will any of it matter? Probably not. Even decisive vice-presidential debates don't alter the outcome of elections -- remember Vice President Lloyd Bentsen? -- and this one wasn't decisive. While each side claimed victory Tuesday, neither predicted that the debate would change the race. "These things are temporary," said Bush-Cheney's Mark Mehlman, "but I think this was good because it showed substance over rhetoric, and rhetoric wins." Kerry-Edwards advisor Tad Devine countered: "Dick Cheney's job tonight was to stop the momentum, and he didn't do it."

I wish Edwards had called Cheney directly on some of the more blatant lies and called attention to Cheney's complete refusal to answer some questions altogether (it would be too much to hope that bobblehead "moderator" Gwen Ifill could do that, I guess.) Bottom line: probably totally irrevlevant. Both campaigns demonstrated that they are well into learning curve mode after the first Bush/Kerry matchup. We'll see what Bush's handlers have been able to rescue from that event.

More Peaceful, More Free

The Afghan Miracle
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

Published: October 6, 2004

Let's not be taken in when defeatists try to pooh-pooh the promise of this week's election in Afghanistan.

Already the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe - more insecure and uncooperative than usual - has announced that it will refuse to declare this coming election to be free and fair. European nit-picking about "irregularities" will be fierce from high-minded bureaucrats who do not realize that the most irregular thing in that part of the world is anything approximating a free election.

Too much world media coverage will focus on pictures of violence at polling places, not on the big news: lines of courageous Afghans patiently waiting to vote. Tinhorn despots are passing out leaflets in refugee camps promising divine rewards to anyone who kills a poll worker.

Such terrorist acts by die-hard Taliban insurgents may be excitingly pictorial, but images of Muslims, especially women, voting for the first time - and of candidates for office literally taking their lives in their hands to campaign - are deemed not sufficiently mesmerizing.

Afghanistan’s elections — fertile ground for fraud

* Analysts say winner will not be able to claim an undisputed victory

US-backed interim President Hamid Karzai, who was installed after the US-led invasion of 2001, is widely expected to win the elections easily against 17 other candidates.

In Washington and other western capitals the fact that more than 10.5 million Afghans have registered to vote has been hailed as evidence of the country’s overwhelming enthusiasm for democracy.

But it is also likely to reflect massive cheating. “Those numbers are now believed by election officials not just to be inaccurate, but vastly inflated,” said John Sifton, Afghan analyst for New York-based Human Rights Watch.

The United Nations estimated that Afghanistan only had 9.8 million eligible voters, and voter turnout was thought likely to be around five to seven million people.

Those original estimates may be closer to the truth as thousands of people are thought to have picked up multiple registration cards either in the hope of getting benefits such as food rations or with a view to manipulating the vote.

Afghan vote threatens Bush's credibility
Administration needs success to back claim of spreading democracy

But evidence of vote-rigging in Afghanistan may prove

CAROL HARRINGTON AND JARED FERRIE
SPECIAL TO THE STAR

KABUL—With evidence mounting of plans for widespread vote-rigging in Afghanistan's upcoming elections, U.S. experts say the controversy could emerge as a serious liability for U.S. President George W. Bush's re-election campaign.

After voter registration centres closed across Afghanistan on the weekend, election officials acknowledged the number of voting cards issued far exceeded the estimated number of eligible voters — and that the illegal practice of multiple registrations is widespread.

"An Afghan election marred by allegations of fraud would be bad for President Bush's overall claim of promoting democracy in the Muslim world," said Husain Haqqani, an Afghanistan expert at the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "In the absence of good news from Iraq, the Bush administration needs Afghanistan as its success story."

The Star overstates the case. I seriously doubt that American voters are paying attention at all to Afghanistan, but there is a larger point here. Bushco is doing nothing to make certain that the Afghan election approaches anything like credibility with the Afghan people. A disputed election will do nothing to quell violence and a disputed government is unlikely to be anything more than the city council of Kabul, just as Hamid Karzai is nothing more than the mayor of Kabul today, unable to travel outside of a barely secured set of neighborhoods around the government buildings.

Since Bushco isn't all that serious about democracy in this country, this disturbing simalcrum of representative government in Afghanistan will more than satisfy our ruling elites.

Soldiers' Lives

Report Discounts Iraqi Arms Threat
U.S. Inspector Says Hussein Lacked Means

By Mike Allen and Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, October 6, 2004; Page A01

The officials said that the 1,000-page report by Charles A. Duelfer, the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, concluded that Hussein had the desire but not the means to produce unconventional weapons that could threaten his neighbors or the West. President Bush has continued to assert in his campaign stump speech that Iraq had posed "a gathering threat."

Charles A. Duelfer wrote that Iraq did not have the means to produce unconventional weapons.

The officials said Duelfer, an experienced former United Nations weapons inspector, found that the state of Hussein's weapons-development programs and knowledge base was less advanced in 2003, when the war began, than it was in 1998, when international inspectors left Iraq.

"They have not found anything yet," said one U.S. official who had been briefed on the report.

I'm reading this as I reflect on last night's debate. I am struck again by how little empathy BC04 has for the men and women of the military who are fighting and dying. I viewed last night's dust-up through partisan eyes, but Cheney came across as a man with few shreds of human feeling. We lowly proles aren't even chess pieces on their geo-political board--even pawns get more dignity. I'm thinking of the poetry of Rudyard Kilpling who memorialized the lives of ordinary soldiers who were little more than cannon fodder for the British Empire. That's what the American military is today for BC.

"It's Tommy this, and Tommy that, And chuck him out the brute,
But it's 'Savior of his Country,' When the guns begin to shoot!"
- Rudyard Kipling

Unless Something Changes

in the next few minutes, this is going to be a tie, at best. Edwards let Cheney set the tone, and John can't win there. Where's that litigators nose for the jugular?

Get the Job Done

John is doing the style, not the substance. This needs to be a Russert/Matthews style debunking with names, dates and places and John is giving a he said, she said, and that isn't going to cut it. This one is going to put the voters to sleep.

They are both claiming "the record." The American voter just tuned out.

Debate

Is this a debate or a film of the SAT exam? Everyone is sitting quietly and writing notes, including Ifill. Weird. We're three minutes in an no one has uttered word one. Debate for contemplatives?

The Bremer question to Cheney. 9-11, lather, rinse repeat. Stand up democracies. Saddam had been a state sponsor of terror, abu Nidal and a relationship with al Qaeda (get it out of the way in the first minute, Dick, John's going to kill you with it.)

Lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans and I'd do it all again. We did the right thing.

Edwards calls him on 1) things not going well in Iraq. McCain, Lugar et al, Republicans are complaining, no plan to win the piece, no alliances. Speed up the training of the Iraqis (this is bogus, John.)

Cheney: success in Iraq is turning it over to the Iraqi people. Crucial steps, well in hand well underway.

Edwards: no connection between 9 -11 and Iraq. (Thank you, John.) Your Secretary of Defense said so.

Let me just soak it in for a couple of minutes. Cheney is his trademark avuncular self, Edwards is measured, well spoken, respectfull of the capabilities of his adversary. He's not rushing, he's not nervous.

Voldamort v. Sunny John

This will be a Veep debate like no other and the two contestants are formidable: Edwards was considered the best trial lawyer in the country when he ran for Senate, and the audience is his jury tonight. As Michael Berube says, Dick Cheney has the gift of "say[ing] the most batshit crazy things in the most soothing, avuncular tones, and he always has. He’s very good at it. His demeanor is basically that of the guy working the grill at the backyard barbeque."

I'll blog it as live as I can, given that I'm barely alive at the moment (we're in crisis mode on the job and I have a number of things on fire on my own desk.)

UPDATE: I'm told that C-Span will be running split screen. Can someone tell me how to exile Paula Zahn to hair color commercials or something? Candy Crowley should be working for a regional outlet in Dayton or Bango and Anderson Cooper should be hosting some headline thing on E!. CNN doesn't take you and me seriously, they are offering porridge with commercials. I, for one, still have teeth and resent the hell out of it.

It's STILL the Economy

Factory Orders Drop Despite Expectations
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: October 5, 2004

Filed at 11:07 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Orders placed with U.S. factories fell for the first time in four months, the Commerce Department said Monday, with demand dropping sharply for commercial airplanes and parts.

Factory orders declined by 0.1 percent in August, following an increase of 1.7 percent in July. August's drop was the first since April, when orders declined by 1.1 percent.

Economists had expected an August increase of about 0.3 percent.

``Overall, the headline number is a little weaker than expected, but the report as a whole is still indicative of solid factory conditions,'' said Steve Stanley, chief economist at RBS Greenwich Capital, in Greenwich, Conn.

Orders for durable goods -- costly manufactured items expected to last at least three years -- fell by 0.3 percent. That was better than a previous estimate of a 0.5 percent drop.

Job-cut plans jump in September
Companies announce highest number of cuts since January, according to survey; hiring plans fall.
October 5, 2004: 10:00 AM EDT

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The number of job cuts planned by U.S. employers jumped to an eight-month high in September, while hiring announcements fell sharply, an outplacement firm said Tuesday.

Challenger added, however, that the end of the year are also usually a good time for hiring -- meaning that the weak level of announcements in September "are not a good indication of stronger job creation to come."

Services sector drops in September
ISM non-manufacturing index fell to 56.7 from 58.2, missing Wall Street forecast of a rise.
October 5, 2004: 10:28 AM EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Growth in the vast U.S. services sector slowed in September, with a significant decrease in prices paid, according to an industry survey published Tuesday.

The Institute for Supply Management's non-manufacturing index fell to 56.7 in September from 58.2 in August, below Wall Street predictions for an increase to 59.0.

A number above 50 indicates growth, while a figure below that threshold denotes contraction in the sector, which accounts for about 80 percent of the U.S. economy.

The ISM survey's employment index rose to 54.6 in September from 52.5, while demand for new orders eased slightly to 58.5 from 58.6. The prices paid index fell to 67.1 from 70.0.

Stocks' Rally, at Age Two, Still Just a Baby Bull: Chet Currier

Oct. 5 (Bloomberg) -- At its second birthday, the stock market recovery that began in October 2002 acts old and tired beyond its years.

From early October '02 through the end of last week, Bloomberg data show the Standard & Poor's 500 Index rising at a 21 percent-a year pace. Yet the index remains more than 25 percent below the peaks it reached in early 2000.

I doubt that an incumbent wants to head into the final month before the election with an economy softening, but there isn't really a darn thing he can do about it now.

Virginia is Purple

It is for this reason that I have no earthly idea what will happen on November 2.

Voter Registration Surges in Region
In Virginia, September Total Nearly Doubles Tally of 4 Years Ago

By Jacqueline L. Salmon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 5, 2004; Page B01

Would-be voters crowded into government offices, stood patiently in line and hunched over forms yesterday during the final rush in Virginia and the District to register for the Nov. 2 elections.

They were part of a nationwide surge in new-voter registrations that elections officials and civic groups think is the result of the hotly contested presidential election.

"There seem to be passions running deeply on both sides this year," said Wes Weidemann, founder of Virginia Votes, which he describes as a nonpartisan group that has registered almost 4,000 new voters in Alexandria and Arlington and Fairfax counties since August. "There are a number of people getting involved who have never been involved before."

Yesterday was the last day to register in Virginia and the District in time for this year's election. In Maryland, which also has seen an increase in new registrations this year, the deadline is 5 p.m. Oct. 12.

In Virginia, almost twice as many voters -- 66,000 -- registered in September as registered in September 2000.

In all, said Jean Jensen, director of the Virginia Board of Elections, the state had 4.45 million registered voters as of Friday.

D.C. election officials predicted that a surge in registration yesterday could break city records for a presidential general election.

Already, the number of District voters registered by the end of September had climbed 9 percent, to 368,719, from 2000.

There are nearly 30,000 more registered voters in the District than there were at the same point before the 2000 election, the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics said.

Virginia is going to be a swing state this year, something that I thought would never happen in my lifetime. The dynamics of this year's election defy all the historical precedents.

Chris Bowers reads this part of the horserace as a big pickup in Democratic voters, but with passions so enflamed on both side, I'm less willing to stick my neck out. We'll find out in a month from today.

Breslin Speaks

Bush ignores value of a straight face

George Bush revealed for all to see what a calamity the news reporting business has been for at least the last four years. Here we had a president who was aware of only one thing: that you have the gall to ask questions about himself. A member of the Bush royalty. He got in the White House with minimal votes and thought and a maximum of thievery.

From that day on, neither television nor newspapers nailed him for what he is. I remember Tom Brokaw going through a day in the White House with Bush, and it all seemed so pleasant and wonderful, we two guys enjoying all of this. Then I remember Tim Russert had a big interview with Bush, and all these Washington Pekinese of the Press said it was such a marvelous interview. He might as well have stayed home. If you can't get Bush to show himself as a dangerous dolt, you've done nothing. These are only

two of an industry full of abject failures.

And this Bush, this shaky dimwit, as seen on Thursday night, got this country into a war where we lose the lives of young people, and many thousands lose their arms and legs and private parts, and we bomb children in Iraq. Not one person in this American news industry stood up and screamed that this man putting us in war is probably the one dumbest man we ever had as president.

"We're makin' progress. It's hard work. We're makin' progress. It's hard work."

And in all the days and nights and weeks and months, this guy went around with a smirk on his face and not a thought in his head and until Thursday night, not one person in the business stood up and called George Bush what he also is: a liar.

And now, in the middle of a frightfully close election, I pull a guy off a saloon stool, not a Washington Pulitzer Prize writer obligated to tell the people what to look for when they see Bush. And my guy Sleepout says:

"He really don't know nothin'."

Breslin is practically a prophet compared with the round and orbicular tones of a Broder, a Kristoff or an Ignatius. Thank God for him.

Pollution off Route 123

Goss Pick Withdraws From CIA Consideration

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 5, 2004; Page A10

Michael V. Kostiw withdrew from consideration yesterday as CIA executive director, the third-ranking position at the agency, after it was publicly disclosed that he had resigned from the agency under pressure more than 20 years ago.

"Allegations about my past would be a distraction from the critical work the Director of Central Intelligence needs to focus on," Kostiw said in a statement released by the CIA yesterday. He withdrew, he added, because "I thought it was in the best interests of the agency and all concerned."

CIA Director Porter J. Goss then named Kostiw his senior adviser, abandoning the plan to make him executive director, a position that would have given Kostiw (pronounced COST-ie) responsibilities for day-to-day operations involving budget and personnel, including disciplinary action.

The change came after The Washington Post reported Sunday that, in late 1981, Kostiw was caught shoplifting a $2.13 package of bacon from a supermarket in Langley, according to two former CIA officials familiar with the incident. At the time, Kostiw had been a CIA case officer for 10 years.

In a CIA polygraph test, Kostiw's responses to questions about the incident and his past tours abroad led agency officials to place him on administrative leave for several weeks, according to four sources familiar with the events. Kostiw has told friends he decided to resign during the leave. Agency officials arranged for the misdemeanor shoplifting charge to be dropped and the police record expunged in return for his resignation and agreement to seek counseling, a former official said.

An NPR report on this story (which I brought you yesterday) quotes an anonymouse at the Agency calling the atmosphere at Langley "poisonous." You don't say.

The Lord High Emperor Speaks

Bremer Criticizes Troop Levels
Ex-Overseer of Iraq Says U.S. Effort Was Hampered Early On

By Robin Wright and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, October 5, 2004; Page A01

The former U.S. official who governed Iraq after the invasion said yesterday that the United States made two major mistakes: not deploying enough troops in Iraq and then not containing the violence and looting immediately after the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

"We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," he said yesterday in a speech at an insurance conference in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va. "We never had enough troops on the ground."

Bremer's comments were striking because they echoed contentions of many administration critics, including Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry, who argue that the U.S. government failed to plan adequately to maintain security in Iraq after the invasion. Bremer has generally defended the U.S. approach in Iraq but in recent weeks has begun to criticize the administration for tactical and policy shortfalls.

In a Sept. 17 speech at DePauw University, Bremer said he frequently raised the issue within the administration and "should have been even more insistent" when his advice was spurned because the situation in Iraq might be different today. "The single most important change -- the one thing that would have improved the situation -- would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout" the occupation, Bremer said, according to the Banner-Graphic in Greencastle, Ind.

A Bremer aide said that his speeches were intended for private audiences and were supposed to have been off the record. Yesterday, however, excerpts of his remarks -- given at the Greenbrier resort at an annual meeting sponsored by the Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers -- were distributed in a news release by the conference organizers.

Let's guess whose reputation Bremer is working to rescue here. Are the rats leaving a sinking ship?

Porkbelly Futures

Chris Walton, Philocrites over there on the blogroll, pointed out this BoGlo series to me. It is well worth a read. Here are links to the three parts, on congressional porking, plumping and partisanship. This is one sick system at the moment. "To the victor go the spoils," said the Republicans as they looted Washington and your wallet.

The Globies headline this series, "Closed, for Business."

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

This is part of Bump's Voter Education Project. The Repubs have turned Washington politics into a feeding frenzy for business. There used to be a bit of interest for us ordinary folk on The Hill. No more. Read it and vote.

What Went Wrong

At Least 26 Die as 3 Car Bombs Explode in Iraq
By EDWARD WONG
Published: October 5, 2004

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 4 - Three powerful car bombs exploded across Iraq on Monday morning, killing at least 26 people and wounding more than 100 others in a day of carnage that demonstrated the relative ease with which insurgents are striking in the hearts of major cities.

A firefight between police officers and insurgents broke out in the middle of downtown Baghdad after one of the explosions, security contractors at the scene said.

The first blasts hit Baghdad, where two suicide car bombs exploded within an hour of each other, one on either side of the Tigris River. The bomb in the west detonated after a car loaded with explosives rammed into a recruiting center for Iraqi plainclothes police officers. The attack took place near a checkpoint to the fortified headquarters of the interim Iraqi government and the American Embassy, and officials at one hospital counted at least 15 dead and 82 wounded.

The second attack struck north of the Baghdad Hotel, which is mostly occupied by foreign security contractors. A red station wagon packed with explosives sped down a wide commercial street and plowed into two sport utility vehicles, the cars often used by contractors, witnesses said. At least six people were killed and 20 wounded, an Interior Ministry spokesman said. The explosion scattered body parts and pieces of flesh across nearby blocks, and men rushed to the scene and began scraping the remains onto slabs of burnt car metal to ensure proper burials.

The third suicide car bomb exploded near a primary school in the northern city of Mosul, killing at least five people, including two children, Reuters reported, citing Iraqi police officers. The car might have exploded prematurely, because there were no American soldiers or Iraqi security forces in the area, the officers said.

Car bombs have become the most lethal weapons employed by insurgents in Iraq. At least 35 exploded in September alone, more than in any other month since the war began. The surge in violence during this campaign has led many experts to voice serious doubts about whether the Bush administration and the Iraqi government can hold legitimate elections across the country in January, as scheduled.

This is a particularly crucial month for the American military here, as it struggles to stand up an Iraqi security force that so far has proven incapable of holding its own against the insurgency. The real test will come as the Americans try seizing cities controlled by guerrilla fighters and placing Iraqi policemen and soldiers in charge of security. Over the weekend, the First Infantry Division and Iraqi forces chased insurgents from the streets of Samarra in a relatively quick battle. But the bombings on Monday showed that guerrillas can readily answer such offensives with ones of their own, right in the heart of the capital.

After the second bomb exploded in Baghdad, angry and anxious Iraqi policemen began firing wildly with their AK-47 rifles, spurring onlookers to flee in a frenzy. Some security contractors at lookout points along surrounding buildings said they saw insurgents dashing through the area with automatic rifles and trading fire with the police. The shooting lasted a half hour, and at least one policeman was wounded.

At least four of the wounded from the second bombing were taken to Ibn al-Hathem Hospital, a nearby eye treatment center. In a dim, narrow corridor, two men crouched against the walls, their faces and clothes drenched in blood, hands clasped around their heads. "My eye, my eye, my eye," screamed one man whose left eye had been severely wounded.

The American military suffered its own losses. Two soldiers were killed by small arms fire at a traffic control checkpoint in Baghdad on Sunday afternoon, the military said. At least 1,059 American soldiers have died in the war, according to the Defense Department.

The Iraqi resistence is doing it the old-fashioned way: they are going to burn us out.

This NYT story has a picture in the upper right corner. Click on it to read the story. This is the plu-perfect image of doing empire wrong. You don't beat your subjects. Screaming at them in a language they don't understand rarely ellicits helpful results.

And that is all you need to know about our adventure in Mesopotamia.

Community

I have a couple of questions for you. I kind of hate the way I have to ask them, language not being good enough and all, and I hate using language that seems like it is only about "feelings". That's one messy word and it gets madly misused.

That said, I'd like to know what you think and feel about your participation on the blogs, what kind of community you feel you've found or made on them. I'm going to be bringing a blog proposal to my boss this afternoon, founded largely on the experience I've had with you, who have been generous to a fault, and that has been my experience of the lefty blogosphere.

What about you? What is your experience? Why do you hang out at sites like mine? Tell me what I need to know before I talk to the boss.

Yes, I can blog at work.

MENSA for Dummies

Happy, happy, rosepetals and flowerwater:

Dozens Killed in Baghdad Car Bomb Blasts

By Daryl Strickland, Times Staff Writer

As U.S. forces in Iraq made another attempt to regain Fallouja from rebel hands, a chain of car bombs exploded today in Baghdad and the northern city of Mosul, killing at least 32 people and wounding about 100.

The U.S. military also announced today that two soldiers were killed Sunday by small arms fire at a checkpoint in Baghdad. The soldiers' deaths, who were not identified, brings to 1,055 the number of military members who have died since the war against Iraq began March 2003, according to the Defense Department. No other details on the deaths have been made available yet.

The explosions in Baghdad today left hulks of charred cars and scattered body parts along the streets. Insurgents have used car bombings in recent weeks more frequently. They are hoping that the rising death toll and spreading violence can disrupt democratic elections planned for early next year.

Two bombs were detonated in central Baghdad roughly within an hour. The first explosion was about 8:45 a.m. near major hotels and outside the heavily guarded Green Zone, where the U.S. Embassy and Iraqi government is located. Authorities said 21 people were killed in that blast.

"I was thrown 10 meters away and hit the wall," Wissam Mohammed, 30, told the Associated Press after receiving treatment at Yarmouk Hospital for a broken hand.

Shortly afterward, a second car bomb blew up in Baghdad, killing at least six people, authorities said, amid plumes of thick black smoke.

Another bomb exploded in Mosul today, about 225 miles northwest of Baghdad. A bystander was killed and 11 were injured, officials said.

As the car bombers struck, U.S. warplanes pounded insurgents early this morning in Fallouja, killing at least 11 people, according to hospital officials. The latest strike, part of a broader campaign to drive out insurgents from key cities, came one day after U.S. and Iraqi forces declared that they had regained control over the rebel stronghold of Samarra.

U.S. and Iraqi officials said Samarra, about 60 miles north of Baghdad, would be the first in a series of intensive military thrusts aimed at quelling resistance in rebel hot spots so that national elections can be conducted safely and with maximum Iraqi participation.

It remains unknown whether Iraqi security forces can maintain control over Samarra after U.S. forces withdraw, beginning this week. After a U.S. offensive last fall, rebels reasserted themselves, making Samarra once again a place American troops avoided.

It's all good, America is better an' safer with our Divine Leader in charge. The rest of the world can go to hell in a handbasket as long as Divine Leader is clearing brush.

How stupid do these people think we are?

Darkness Falls

It's coming up on 9 pm and I still ain't well. I'll be at work in the am, but feeling like hell on the job ain't alot of fun. I'll do what I can here but I can't offer much.

I haven't been this sick in years, but age extracts its price.

G'night. Those of youse as old as me know that the bounce-back feature of the human body attenuates as we get older.

Incentive Program

Honestly, you can't make this stuff up.

New C.I.A. Chief Chooses 4 Top Aides From House
By DOUGLAS JEHL

Published: October 1, 2004

ASHINGTON, Sept. 30 - Porter J. Goss, the new director of central intelligence, has chosen four House Republican aides for senior positions at the Central Intelligence Agency, including the No. 3 job in the agency, former agency officials said Thursday.

The decision to appoint the four officials is creating waves in the agency, which prides itself on objectivity and independence, the former officials said.

All four worked under Mr. Goss as political appointees on the Republican staff of the House Intelligence Committee, when he was the panel chairman.
....
According to the officials, Michael V. Kostiw, 57, who has been staff director of the House Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, will replace A. B. Krongard, 67, as executive director, the No. 3 post.

Mr. Krongard, a former chairman and chief executive of Alex. Brown, the investment banking concern, took the post in 2001 under Mr. Tenet after joining the agency in 1998 as his counselor.

The other appointees are Patrick Murray, who has been the Republican staff director of the House Intelligence Committee, as Mr. Goss's chief of staff; Joseph Jakub, the Republican staff director for the House Subcommittee on Human Intelligence, Analysis and Counterintelligence, as senior adviser for operations and analysis; and Merrell Moorhead, the Intelligence Committee's deputy Republican staff director, as senior adviser for strategic programs.
....
Agency officials would not confirm the selections. The former officials who discussed the appointments had left the agency before Mr. Goss took over.

All four aides were among the principal authors of a harsh report issued in the spring by the House committee that described the agency's human spying as dysfunctional.

That document angered agency officials and has contributed to deep apprehension in the agency about Mr. Goss's appointment, the former intelligence officials said.

"The agency doesn't react well when a bunch of outsiders come in and tell everyone how they should have been doing their jobs all along," said a former senior intelligence official who worked under Mr. Tenet.

Goss Choice Quit CIA In 1982 Under Fire

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 3, 2004; Page A09

Michael V. Kostiw, chosen by CIA Director Porter J. Goss to be the agency's new executive director, resigned under pressure from the CIA more than 20 years ago, according to past and current agency officials.

While Kostiw, a colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve, longtime lobbyist for ChevronTexaco Corp. and more recently staff director of the terrorism subcommittee of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, has been through the CIA security vetting procedure, final clearance to take the job has not been completed pending review of the allegations. The job is the third-ranking post at the CIA.

In late 1981, after he had been a case officer for 10 years, Kostiw was caught shoplifting in Langley, sources said. During a subsequent CIA polygraph test, Kostiw's responses to questions about the incident led agency officials to place him on administrative leave for several weeks, according to four sources who were familiar with the past events but who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the information.

While on leave, Kostiw told friends he decided to resign. Agency officials at the time arranged for misdemeanor theft charges to be dropped and the police record expunged in return for his resignation and his agreement to get counseling, one former official said.

Does anybody realistically think that this is going to cut down leaking from Langley? This looks like a leakers incentive program to me.

Bush's Amerika

Philly News reporter Will Bunch blogs the following, which should scare the hell out of all of us:

The student newspaper the Daily Cardinal (you may have to register...pretty obnoxious for a college paper) says that three Racine, Wisc., residents were ejected by the Secret Service from a recent Bush rally not because they were a threat to the president or because they verbally disrupted the affair, but because they donned T-shirts with the word "liar" on them.

OK, you can debate which candidate has the better plan for Iraq until you're blue in the face, but all Americans -- regardless of ideology or party affiliation -- should be appalled and horrified by this. The Secret Service has an important role to play, which is protecting the president and other candidates from physical harm -- and only that. Any step toward restricting Americans' right to free speech, especially when it all seems to be on behalf of one candidate (Bush), is a small but frightening step toward becoming a police state. We know that sounds alarmist, but that's how it looks to us.

If you aren't already a card carrying member of the ACLU, it's time to join.

Missing the Point

COMMENT:
WINNING
by Elizabeth Kolbert
Issue of 2004-10-11
Posted 2004-10-04

Four years ago, Bush campaigned on a slogan borrowed from his home town of Midland, Texas—“The sky’s the limit”—and he seems, if anything, to have grown more attached to it the more events conspire against him. Last week’s news out of Iraq was typical. American forces launched an offensive in Samarra after negotiations to allow them back into the city failed. On a videotape provided by the kidnappers who had recently beheaded two Americans, the British hostage Kenneth Bigley pleaded for his life from inside a cage. A private security firm reported that insurgents had launched two thousand three hundred and sixty-eight separate attacks over the previous thirty days, including two hundred and seventy-two using rocket-propelled grenades. Just hours before the debate began, three car bombs went off near an American military convoy in Baghdad, killing at least forty people, most of them children. (The children, who were at a celebration for the opening of a new sewage-treatment plant, were waiting for American soldiers to hand out candy.) “We’ve climbed the mighty mountain,” the President intoned in his closing remarks of the debate. “I see the valley below, and it’s a valley of peace.”

As the Presidential race enters its final month, it is Bush’s posture toward the war in Iraq, almost more than the war itself, that has become the campaign’s central issue. A few days before the debate, Fox’s Bill O’Reilly asked the President whether, if he could do it all over again, he would still land on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln and speak before a banner that read “Mission Accomplished.” “Absolutely,” Bush replied. (Even O’Reilly seemed taken aback. “You would?” he asked.) As one justification for the war after another has evaporated—a resourceful college student recently counted twenty-three different reasons that the Administration had offered at one point or another—the President has finally found a way to transcend the whole problem: leadership means never having to have second thoughts. “If America shows uncertainty or weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy,” Bush said on Thursday. “That’s not going to happen so long as I’m your President.”

Bush’s peculiar brand of realism is an opportunity for John Kerry but also, potentially, a trap. During the debate, the Senator was most eloquent when he talked about what the President has chosen not to discuss. “I don’t know if he sees what’s really happened out there,” Kerry said at one point. “But it’s getting worse by the day. More soldiers killed in June than before. More in July than June. More in August than July. More in September than in August.” At another point, he identified, with un-Kerry-like concision, the fatuity of the President’s reasoning: “It’s one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong.” (More Kerry-like, he went on to say, “It’s another to be certain and be right, or to be certain and be moving in the right direction, or be certain about a principle and then learn new facts and take those new facts and put them to use in order to change and get your policy right.”)

At the same time, Kerry had to insist, or at least felt that he had to insist, that the war remains winnable. When Lehrer asked him whether Americans were dying for a “mistake,” the Senator quickly declared, “No,” even though just a few minutes earlier he had asserted, “The President made a mistake in invading Iraq.” In a deep sense, Kerry’s convoluted stand reflects the genuine moral complexities of the United States’ current position; whatever one thought of the President’s rationale for going to war, it is hard to argue that the United States does not now have an obligation to the Iraqis to try to set their country right. In a more practical sense, Kerry’s stand points to the awkwardness of his own political situation. While it may be a good idea for him to maintain that the war should be discussed honestly, it may not be such a great idea for him to actually do so.

It is a truism of American politics that the more optimistic candidate wins, and Kerry has good reason to fear joining the line of Democrats—Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore—whose careers were cut short by insufficient ebullience. The grim fact about the war in Iraq is that no one seems to know, at this point, how to stop the bloodshed. The classified National Intelligence Estimate revealed by the Times last month offers three possible scenarios for Iraq through the end of next year, the best being a highly tenuous stability and the worst preparations for an all-out civil war. The President’s formulation notwithstanding, the one thing that is impossible is to be realistic about the situation and optimistic at the same time.

And if the Iraqis' idea of "setting their country right" is for the US to get the hell out? "Setting the country right" looks like occupation, to both them and to me.

The point that Kerry is missing (perhaps because he is looking through the warped prism of his own vote to authorize the war) as that Bush simply upended decades of settled international law and then Bremmer extended the violations by the ham-fisted way in which he "administered" the occupation, abrogating Iraqi law and breaking dozens of the Geneva Conventions.

It will take literally generations for the international community to look at us as anything other than hooligans. Yeah, I know the international community is rooting for Kerry, but the amount of work he will have to do to reverse Bush's damage is too much to place on any one man's shoulders.

Another Miserable Failure

Afghanistan's presidential election: a mockery of democracy

Sunday October 03, 2004 (1400 PST)

WASHINGTON, October 04 (Online): Confronting a deepening disaster in Iraq, US President Bush has attempted to deflect public attention by pointing to Afghanistan and its presidential poll on October 9 as a beacon of light.

Bush's loyal ally in Australia, John Howard, who is up for reelection on the same day, has also hailed the Afghanistan ballot as a success story, demonstrating that the US-led intervention has brought "democracy" to the country.

These empty claims do not, however, bear scrutiny. Every aspect of the election has been marred by bribery, threats and thuggery-not so much by supporters of the ousted Taliban regime, but by US-backed warlords, tribal leaders and militia commanders who have been part of the current Kabul administration, and, in some cases, are presidential candidates. To describe the upcoming Afghan poll as "democratic" is simply a sham.

The US-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued a report this week detailing the extensive abuse of democratic rights by warlords and their militia in virtually every area of the country. Based on months of research in Afghanistan, it outlines the systematic intimidation of political rivals, journalists, election organisers and the coercive methods used to ensure the support of ordinary voters.

In most of the country, the report concluded, "there remains a high degree of political repression, and politically active Afghans in every region reported that they regularly censor themselves for fear that they might face threats or violence at the hands of factional leaders. The Taliban and other insurgent groups are still considered a serious threat in some southern and southeastern provinces, but most Afghans told Human Rights Watch they primarily fear threats and violence by local armed groups and militias-not the Taliban".

Here's a link to the HRW report. You might want to poke around their site and take a look at some of their other recent reports: as DavidByron points out so often, crappy, imperialistic and moralistic US foreign policy is frequently behind these human rights disasters.

Our track record in Afghanistan is a disaster of historic proportions.

Meat Grinder

A Matter of Force--and Fairness

The Washington Post, October 1, 2004

Michael E. O'Hanlon, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies

In previous wars in modern times, the United States has typically sent soldiers abroad for no more than one tough, dangerous year and then let them come home for good. Now it is, as a matter of cold and calculated policy, planning to send the same people back to combat zones every other year as far as the eye can see.

There is no way around it: The United States will have to ask a great deal of its ground forces as long as it stays in Iraq and Afghanistan. Recruiting and training more troops takes time—which is why Rumsfeld and Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, were mistaken to oppose a larger military last year when warning signs of a long presence in Iraq already abounded.

That said, it is not too late to ameliorate the situation. Indeed, policymakers should consider a further increase in U.S. ground forces even larger than the 40,000 additional soldiers Kerry recommends.

Rumsfeld and Schoomaker argue that any legislated increase in the Army would be difficult to reverse when the additional troops were no longer needed. They further worry that by driving up personnel costs, it could deprive the Army of funding needed to modernize its force structure. But Congress will surely fund defense robustly as long as the large-scale missions in Iraq and Afghanistan continue. And if we someday no longer need a larger Army, we can scale it back. After the Cold War, the United States reduced its Army by 300,000 soldiers; certainly it could administer a reduction one-fifth or one-sixth as large in the future.

No nation can ever truly repay its uniformed men and women who risk, and sometimes lose, their lives for their country. But the United States should do its utmost to be fair to them. It need not and must not ask a small group of dedicated professionals to become strangers to their own families and their own country in the course of waging a war that, for better or worse, we are all engaged in now.

Of course, if we weren't in Iraq in the first place, none of this would be an issue. I'm listening to the Rehm show on NPR and retired General Barry McCaffery is excoriating Rumsfeld for incompetent force size and structure, Charlie Rangel (D-NY) is talking about the way the Reserves are being chewed up and re-instituting the draft.

Iran and Syria are off the table unless we can run those campaigns by Navy and Air Force alone. Of course, North Korea is a complete wild card and we don't have anything if Kim Jong-Il pulls something nutty.

Bloody-mindedness

Arabs in Florida Angered by Bush

By Peter Wallsten and John M. Glionna, Times Staff Writers

Business owners, physicians, lawyers and others — furious over the Bush administration's post-Sept. 11 policies that many believe unfairly target Muslims and Arab Americans in the government's quest to root out terrorists — huddled in a hotel ballroom across the street from Disney World to demonstrate how much they wanted a change in the White House.

The meeting here, intended to be a bipartisan affair sponsored by the Washington-based Arab American Institute, turned into a cheering session for Democratic nominee Sen. John F. Kerry — illustrating a dramatic shift in a traditionally Republican group.

"I thought Bush was another Ronald Reagan on a small scale for what he believed in," said Ashley Ansara, president of a clinical research company in Orlando. "I found out he's no Reagan. Not even close."

He said this would be the first presidential election since he moved to the U.S. in 1973 that he wouldn't be voting Republican.

Sunday night's fervor first surfaced in the spring, when more than 150 Arab American voters packed onto chartered buses bound for the University of Central Florida in Orlando, where local Democratic leaders were gathering to elect delegates to the party's national convention.

Some had voted for Bush in 2000. Others had never voted at all. But when they arrived at UCF that morning, they made an important statement by claiming three of the eight delegate slots from two congressional districts.

Kerry's gains, though, could prove thorny in Florida, where Democratic Party politics has long been characterized by close ties to the state's massive Jewish community and staunch support for Israel.

Some Democrats say privately they fear alienating Jewish voters with an overt effort to reach Arab Americans.

The Massachusetts senator has already encountered trouble on that front, when he told the Arab American Institute a year ago that the security fence being constructed by Israel in and around the West Bank was a "barrier to peace." Later, he assured miffed Jewish leaders that he believed the fence was a legitimate tool for self-defense against terrorism.

But Kerry also has touted a Senate voting record that has received a 100% rating from pro-Israel lobbyists.

As a result, Kerry's Florida campaign includes a carefully crafted message that seeks common ground between moderate Arab and Jewish voters on civil liberties and other domestic concerns — but shies away from the details of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, according to key Democrats and Arab leaders.

That point was emphasized last week, during a conference call with about 40 Arab American leaders in Florida and around the country, held by Cam Kerry, the candidate's brother and a convert to Judaism.

Cam Kerry assured the group that courting Jews and Arabs was not a "zero-sum game," according to a participant in the call, which took place last week on the eve of the candidates' first debate, in South Florida.

If Kerry can succeed in wooing the Arab American vote, the payoff could be enormous, especially in key swing states.

The Arab American Institute estimates, for instance, that there are more than 100,000 Arab or Muslim voters in Florida — and that at least 45% of them backed Bush in 2000 and many others supported Green Party nominee Ralph Nader, who has Lebanese roots.

In that campaign, Bush went out of his way to send a message to Arab Americans that he understood their concerns — noting in his second debate with Democrat Al Gore that "secret evidence" should not be used against them, presumably in criminal cases.

Four years later, the Bush administration defends the Patriot Act, the controversial anti-terrorism law signed by Bush within two months of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Critics say the law allows too much government intrusiveness, especially of immigrants, Muslims and people of Arab descent.

As Deadlines Hit, Rolls of Voters Show Big Surge
By KATE ZERNIKE and FORD FESSENDEN

Published: October 4, 2004

A record surge of potential new voters has swamped boards of election from Pennsylvania to Oregon, as the biggest of the crucial swing states reach registration deadlines today. Elections officials have had to add staff and equipment, push well beyond budgets and work around the clock to process the registrations.

In Montgomery County, Pa., the elections staff has been working nights and weekends since the week before Labor Day to process the crush of registrations - some 32,000 since May and counting. Today is the deadline for registering new voters in Pennsylvania, as well as Ohio, Michigan, Florida and 12 other states, and election workers will go on mandatory overtime to chip away at the thousands of forms that have been arriving daily.

Voter registration volunteers were out in force at the grocery here this weekend. This election will not be like anything we've ever seen before.

The ads got ugly over the weekend. It could be no other way after all of Bush's lies, but....I don't know where that leaves us in the going-out years. The Bush Whitehouse has been a political shop, 24/7, for the last four years, and what they have is a losing war, a weak NSA and a dastardly DoD chief. You can't put lipstick on this pig.

Losing

(Cross-posted at The American Street)

Man, if you listen to the Sabbath gasbags without any independent sources of reality, you'll be schizophrenic within weeks.

I just got back from the grocery (yes! they have coffee pods!) and listened to CSpan Radio's replay of Blitzer, who hosted McAuliffe and Gillespie this afternoon. All the talk was on the debate and which man will be "stronger" on the war on terrah and winning Iraq, which Bushco has successfully conflated in the public mind.

Wot rot, boys. When you have a paleoconservative with the credentials of Bill Lind, who is also a consultant to the Army War College and Annapolis on military and political strategy and logistics, telling you that this war was lost months ago and even Steve Gilliard is beginning to feel a draft (he and I argued this out last winter), things are very seriously fscked up. We are losing. The best we can do is declare victory and get the hell out.

Don't believe anything you hear about "winning policies" on Iraq, from either side. The only way we could "pacify" that poor, beknighted land is to put another 150,000 thousand troops in country. We don't have them. If we instituted a draft, it would still be over a year before we could put that kind of force on the ground. Ain't gonna happen and President Codpiece is simply grinding up our Army and Marines. Repairing the damage will take years to decades, just like after Viet Nam.

Bush and the neocons around him should be looking at life sentences in Leavenworth for what they have done to our military, our economy and our children, who will be the ones paying for the deficits as-far-as-the-eye-can-see.

At any rate, I believe that Bushco (and Delay and that lot of congressional rotters) have probably killed the Republican party for the foreseeable future. We may not see the collapse until 2008, but the fissures are already there for those willing to look. John McCain has made his bed with Bush, but I doubt that he and other traditional conservatives are going to enjoy lying in it in the going out years.

Spread the Word

Hey, Bump political junkies: American Rage is still in beta (I couldn't find any bugs) but they have one of the sweetest collections of political weblogs, left, right and center, collected anywhere. I'm pleased that this site is among those they include. Go take a look!

So Much for Loyalty

Top U.S. Cyber-Security Official Resigns
Yoran Was Third Chief in Past Two Years; Experts Say Issue Lacks Attention

By Robert O'Harrow Jr. and Ellen McCarthy
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, October 2, 2004; Page A18

The nation's top cyber-security official resigned unexpectedly on Thursday, raising new questions about the progress of efforts to protect the nation's vast computer networks from terror attacks, electronic viruses and other threats, government and industry officials said yesterday.

Amit Yoran, a security industry entrepreneur, stepped down one year after he was hired by homeland security officials with a broad mandate to reinvigorate Bush administration efforts to improve the way government and industry address computer security.

Yoran is the third cyber-security chief to leave in less than two years. He declined yesterday to say why he left his post after giving just one day's notice. But industry officials said he had been disappointed that he was not given as much authority as he was promised to attack the problem.

"Cyber-security has fallen down on that totem pole," said Paul Kurtz, executive director of the Cyber Security Industry Alliance, who previously worked on security issues in the White House. Kurtz said Yoran's resignation underscores a concern in the private sector that government is not taking the issue seriously enough: "It's kind of symptomatic of the frustration all around."

Hmmm. This is the job Richard Clarke resigned from (read his book) last year. Anybody know how many cybersecurity directors Bush has gone through? The article said Yoran is the third in two years. How many total in the entire regime?

Thanks to reader LeslieinCA for pointing me to today's LAT article.

The Blogging of the Workplace

Did the reporter read my Friday night post?

Before Applying, Check Out the Blogs

By EILENE ZIMMERMAN

here is no conclusive data on the spread of blogs to the job market, largely because they are difficult to track, said Michael Gartenberg, a vice president and research director at JupiterResearch in New York who covers blogs. But based on anecdotal information, he said, people are using blogs on both sides of the job search process.

"It's a trend on the rise right now," Mr. Gartenberg said, "especially for employers, who get a much better sense of a person this way. Résumés and interviews are a very scripted process; read someone's Web log and you get a good sense of that person's thinking and perspectives."

Alexander C. Halavais, a professor in the School of Informatics at the State University of New York at Buffalo who studies blogs, also expects blogs to play a larger role in the job market. "Right now," Professor Halavais said, "recruiting this way is invisible, it's not institutional yet. But I would be surprised if, fairly soon, we didn't see blogs become a much bigger part of job searching and recruiting,"

Job seekers use blogs to establish a strong online presence, display their skills and advertise their availability. For many just out of college, the blog is an essential networking tool because it is common for bloggers to link back and forth to others with recent posts. Corporate recruiters, in turn, use blogs to draw in qualified candidates, and they search for potential hires by reading bloggers who write about topics relevant to a particular industry.

A driving factor behind job market blogging is the search engine Google, said Elizabeth Lawley, associate professor of information technology at the Rochester Institute of Technology. "If you are thinking of interviewing someone, it's almost standard now to Google them online and see what you find," Ms. Lawley said. "If that person has a blog, it's usually the first thing that comes up."

Official corporate blogs are still rare, said John Palfrey, executive director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at the Harvard Law School, largely because "corporate marketing and branding is often an exercise in hypercontrol of a message, and that doesn't work well in a blogging context."

Some businesses do allow their employees to blog individually, however, provided they make it clear that they are operating independently of the company.

We've barely scratched the surface of this community-building tool. Read the whole article, it documents a number of things happening below the surface of the Internet. If anyone has links to some of those corporate blogs, I'd love to see them.

What Liberal Media?

How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence
By DAVID BARSTOW, WILLIAM J. BROAD and JEFF GERTH

Today, 18 months after the invasion of Iraq, investigators there have found no evidence of hidden centrifuges or a revived nuclear weapons program. The absence of unconventional weapons in Iraq is now widely seen as evidence of a profound intelligence failure, of an intelligence community blinded by "group think," false assumptions and unreliable human sources.

Yet the tale of the tubes, pieced together through records and interviews with senior intelligence officers, nuclear experts, administration officials and Congressional investigators, reveals a different failure.

Far from "group think," American nuclear and intelligence experts argued bitterly over the tubes. A "holy war" is how one Congressional investigator described it. But if the opinions of the nuclear experts were seemingly disregarded at every turn, an overwhelming momentum gathered behind the C.I.A. assessment. It was a momentum built on a pattern of haste, secrecy, ambiguity, bureaucratic maneuver and a persistent failure in the Bush administration and among both Republicans and Democrats in Congress to ask hard questions.

Precisely how knowledge of the intelligence dispute traveled through the upper reaches of the administration is unclear. Ms. Rice knew about the debate before her Sept. 2002 CNN appearance, but only learned of the alternative rocket theory of the tubes soon afterward, according to two senior administration officials. President Bush learned of the debate at roughly the same time, a senior administration official said.

Last week, when asked about the tubes, administration officials said they relied on repeated assurances by George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, that the tubes were in fact for centrifuges. They also noted that the intelligence community, including the Energy Department, largely agreed that Mr. Hussein had revived his nuclear program.

"These judgments sometimes require members of the intelligence community to make tough assessments about competing interpretations of facts," said Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the president.

Mr. Tenet declined to be interviewed. But in a statement, he said he "made it clear" to the White House "that the case for a possible nuclear program in Iraq was weaker than that for chemical and biological weapons." Regarding the tubes, Mr. Tenet said "alternative views were shared" with the administration after the intelligence community drafted a new National Intelligence Estimate in late September 2002.

In this windy and overblown article, the NYT knocks itself out to demonstrate that W didn't willfully distort what the intel community knew. Nice try, guys. Yet another old media attempt to prop up our miserable failure.

Kicking the Vets

Influx of Wounded Strains VA
Claims Backlog Besets Returning U.S. Troops

By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 3, 2004; Page A01

Thousands of U.S. troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with physical injuries and mental health problems are encountering a benefits system that is already overburdened, and officials and veterans' groups are concerned that the challenge could grow as the nation remains at war.

The disability benefits and health care systems that provide services for about 5 million American veterans have been overloaded for decades and have a current backlog of more than 300,000 claims. And because they were mobilized to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly 150,000 National Guard and reservist veterans had become eligible for health care and benefits as of Aug. 1. That number is rising.

At the same time, President Bush's budget for 2005 calls for cutting the Department of Veterans Affairs staff that handles benefits claims, and some veterans report long waits for benefits and confusing claims decisions.

"I love the military; that was my life. But I don't believe they're taking care of me now," said Staff Sgt. Gene Westbrook, 35, of Lawton, Okla. Paralyzed in a mortar attack near Baghdad in April, he has received no disability benefits because his paperwork is missing. He is supporting his wife and three children on his regular military pay of $2,800 a month as he awaits a ruling on whether he will receive $6,500 a month from the VA for his disability.

Through the end of April, the most recent accounting the VA could provide, a total of 166,334 veterans of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan had separated from military service, and 26,633 -- 16 percent -- had filed benefits claims with the VA for service-connected disabilities. Less than two-thirds of those claims had been processed, leaving more than 9,750 recent veterans waiting.

Officials expect those numbers to increase as the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan continues.

W may claim to "love" the widows, but he actually doesn't give a damn about the guys and gals who are doing his fighting and dying. The guy doesn't have a shred of normal human compassion, and we saw how limited his grasp of his job is on Thursday night. You don't have to be an idealogue to require general competence in someone you've hired for a job.

Sitting Down With Friends

After days of dithering and comparing (I'm a real slow study as a consumer) I bought this and we'll see how it works in the morning. The messy old Braun is in the trash.

My local grocery isn't carrying coffee pods yet and if I have to run to Target every time I need fresh brew, this is going to be a pain. But brewing it one cup at a time rather than leaving a half pot for throwing out seems like the thing to do. The new machine is very sleek, even if I don't know how to use it yet. It has a doohicky for making iced tea. I'll explore that later, I need coffee in the morning.

If the pod concept takes off, I suppose I'll find blends I like all over the internet, but right now I feel like I'm taking on a squirrelly experiment with my most important morning ritual, and my grocery isn't selling these things yet. God, I hope this works. Coffee is for me right up there with communion. I load my morning meeting with the internet with a precharged cup of Joe. I'm virtually lost without it. My cup is sitting next to the new gizmo, hoping we can make coffee in the AM.

G'night.

Presidential Birdwatching

James Wolcott has by far and away the most entertaining wrap up of the debate Thursday night:

The trees are alive with the sound of Kerry.

Since then Bush has been wheeled out into forums where no one can dare question or contradict his majesty, where he can lean forward and repeat ad nauseam his patented soundbites. Last night I believe we saw the ugly comeback of the private face of Bush--the irritable expressions he flashes subordinates when he's presented with information he doesn't like or feels someone's taken up too much of his time or is pressed to explain himself to people he shouldn't have to explain himself to because he's the president and fuck you. The notion that Bush is "likeable" has always been laughable. It takes a Washington pundit to be that dumb. He's an angry, spoiled, resentful little big man--I use "little big man" in the Reichian sense of a small personality who puffs himself up to look big through bluster and swagger but remains a scheming coward inside--and next to a genuinely big man like Kerry, shrunk before the camera's eyes.

I never did get that "likability" thing. W is a petty, mean, vindictive, petulant sociopath. Everybody got to see it writ plain Thursday night.

Major League Theft

SPORTS HALL OF SHAME
A Major League Heist

Taxpayers in the 1990s got taken to the cleaners across the country, as increasingly peripatetic teams cleverly played cities against each other, but the recent trend has been toward privately funded stadiums. This is particularly true for pro football, a business that runs its affairs far more adeptly than Major League Baseball. Given that many communities are vying for the chance to host a National Football League franchise in Southern California, we hope Washington's foolishness doesn't signal a reversal of the trend.

What makes the Washington deal — or heist — doubly unsavory is that although baseball club owners wouldn't deign to pay for their own business venue, they did rush to throw money at one of their own, Peter Angelos, the Baltimore Orioles owner. With so many Washingtonians cheering for the Orioles and making the pilgrimage to Camden Yards, Angelos has long been worried about a Washington team's effect on his market share. The league enjoys antitrust immunity, which is one reason it is essentially able to bribe one of its barons to allow a competitor to play ball. Meanwhile, because D.C. taxpayers would be covering the team's costs, baseball owners would be able to pocket the money the new local owners pay to acquire the team.

Come to think of it, if members of Congress aren't too busy in coming years rooting for the new hometown team, they might want to review the wisdom of that antitrust exemption.

Comrade Max looks at it from the perspective of tax policy:

The corrupt and incompetent administration of D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams is on the verge of an important victory that will solidify his slimy grip on this long-suffering city. The mayor has convinced a bunch of multi-millionaires to let themselves be bribed to allow a baseball team -- the Montreal Expos -- to relocate to Washington.

Cascading or not, the GRT would to some extent be passed along in product prives and fall on consumers. Since it is a local tax, to some extent it would be absorbed by business property owners as well.

As Max notes:

This is a city administration that has demonstrated an incapacity to care for juvenile offenders, foster children, the homeless, and the indigent elderly. Nor do the trains run on time. The only sure thing is that holders of municipal debt get paid.

Between the Angelos deal and this stadium heist, MLB has basically been given a license to fleece the cities in which it has teams. I enjoy the game a lot, but this kind of behavior on behalf of the billionaire owners and millionaire players is loathsome.

UPDATE: Colby King weighs in on the WaPo op-ed page.

Let us first explore baseball. A stipulation: As a lifelong baseball fan, going back to Griffith Stadium and the days of manager Bucky Harris, with Mickey Vernon on first base, Eddie Yost on third and Sam Dente at shortstop, I'm glad to see the national pastime return.

Another point: I have enormous personal and professional respect for Mark Tuohey, chairman of the D.C. Sports and Entertainment Commission, who helped the city get another baseball franchise. He did the best he could with what he had to work with.

But to call what went on between Major League Baseball and the city's leaders a "negotiation" is tantamount to describing a football game between the 2004 Super Bowl champion New England Patriots and the Little Sisters of the Poor as a contest.

Bad Deal

Confession Casts New Shadow Over Boeing Deal

By Peter Pae and Jonathan Peterson, Times Staff Writers

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A former top Pentagon procurement official was sentenced to nine months in prison Friday after making a surprise admission that she favored Boeing Co. on several major Air Force contracts because the company gave her family jobs.

In a development that could spark a new round of legal and business headaches for the aerospace giant, Darleen Druyun said that she helped Boeing win a $4-billion contract, agreed to pay relatively high prices for Boeing aircraft and restructured a deal to give the company $100 million more than what she thought was "appropriate."

Wearing a navy blue suit, Druyun listened to the proceedings without expression and then expressed remorse in a voice that wavered at times.

"I sincerely wish to apologize to my nation, my family and friends, and to the court for what I have done," said Druyun, the highest-ranking Pentagon official to be convicted since the 1980s. "I understand that this was wrong, and I accept full responsibility for my conduct."

Druyun, 57, spoke only briefly in the courtroom, leaving her real bombshell for a signed statement in which the government spelled out how she obtained Boeing jobs not only for herself but also for her daughter and her daughter's fiance while overseeing multibillion-dollar procurement pacts for the Air Force.

"Darleen Druyun owed her primary allegiance to the American taxpayer," U.S. Atty. Paul J. McNulty said. "Instead, she put her own personal interests ahead of the U.S. Air Force."

Druyun's admission stunned officials at Boeing, where certain executives are still being scrutinized by federal investigators in connection with the affair, according to sources.

Boeing, based in Chicago, is the largest private employer in Southern California, with about 36,000 employees here.

"These new statements came as a total surprise," Boeing President and Chief Executive Harry Stonecipher said in a memo to employees late Friday. "Until today, we thought we were dealing with a case of improper hiring. We now learn that Druyun has changed her story. Our reputation is being tested once again."

Analysts said more than reputation was at risk for Boeing, which last year got caught up in a separate scandal after employees stole documents from rival Lockheed Martin Corp. to win a lucrative rocket contract.

The latest admission could derail a controversial $23-billion deal that Boeing struck to lease and sell 100 aerial refueling tankers to the Air Force.

"Considering Druyun's admission, there is no way the Pentagon could proceed with paying the agreed price for the tankers," said Keith Ashdown, vice president of policy for watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. "The person who brokered the deal is admitting that she paid too much, which ironically is going to kill it."

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), one of the harshest critics of the tanker deal, said Friday that Druyun's admission "affirms beyond doubt that the deal was a folly from the start."

I first covered this story in March, but this now seems like ordinary Pentagon corruption compared to the more breathtaking stuff coming out of the White House.

Better all the time

Pentagon wants 'uplifting accounts' about Iraq
Administration wants upbeat reports, will 'curtail' bad news about Iraq.
by Tom Regan | csmonitor.com

Thursday morning in Baghdad multiple car bombs and rocket attacks killed at least 40 people, including many children and several US soldiers. The Bush administration, The Washington Post reports Thursday, worried that negative stories like these are dominating the news headlines during an election period, has decided to send out Iraq Americans to bring what the Defense Department calls "the good news" about the situation in Iraq to US military bases.

The Post also reports that the administration is moving to "curtail distribution" of reports that show the situation in Iraq growing worse. In particular, the US Agency of International Development said this week that it will "restrict distribution" of a report by its contractor, Kroll Security International, that showed the number of attacks by insurgents had been increasingly dramatically over the past few months. Attacks have risen to 70 a day, up from 40-50, since Iraqi Prime Minister Alawi took office in June.

But the Guardian reports on Thursday that the Kroll documents aren't the only ones prepared by a private security contractor in Iraq that say things are getting worse.

....
The Christian Science Monitor reported Wednesday on life in Baghdad's "Green Zone" - home to US military and civilian officials and to the new US embassy (although its exact location has not been disclosed) - and finds that its residents are increasingly worried about their safety. One reason for their concern, the Monitor writes, is the approach of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, which begins on Oct. 15. Last year, the month saw a dramatic surge in attacks against the "US-led military occupation."

Not all the reports that come back from Iraq are negative. North Carolina's Fayetteville Online interviews several local guardsmen who say the conditions in Iraq are improving.

"There are a few spectacular attacks that capture the TV news, but we've made steady progress," he [Brig. Gen. Danny Hickman] said. "We don't see progress day to day, but we see progress month to month."

And the Glenville Pioneer Press Online of Illinois talked to US Marine Cpl. Marine Josh Junge. While he came to realize that the US won't have 100 percent support in Iraq, it also won't have "100 percent hatred." Cpl. Junge also said he believes conditions in Iraq are slowly improving, and he supports President Bush's reasons for going to Iraq.

"I'm not a politician and the decisions aren't mine to make, but I think oftentimes our commander in chief has a much broader view of things than your average Joe who is for or against the war. We can bicker or fight about whether it's a good or bad idea," but that the president has "stood by it is pretty meritorious."

By and large, however, most reports contain a much harder assessment of the US role in Iraq and the situation there. The Toronto Star offers another grim portrait of a part of the war that rarely makes the front pages - the hospital in Germany where wounded US troops from Iraq are taken. The Star reports that "prior to the Iraq war, the hospital received no more than 10 injured US soldiers a year from conflicts. Now, it usually handles between 30 and 55 a day from Iraq and Afghanistan alone." The result, the Star reports, is that compassion fatigue is very much a problem for the staff, and anger in increasingly expressed by relatives of injured soldiers who are furious at the way they have been treated by the military.

A scathing letter about the situation in Iraq that Wall Street Journal reporter Farnaz Fassihi wrote to friends has become a "global chain mail" in her words. Editor and Publisher reports that her letter said that the insurgency had spread from "isolated pockets in the Sunni triangle to most of Iraq."

'Iraqis say that thanks to America they got freedom in exchange for insecurity,' Fassihi wrote (among much else) in the letter. 'Guess what? They say they'd take security over freedom any day, even if it means having a dictator ruler.' And: 'Despite President Bush's rosy assessments, Iraq remains a disaster. If under Saddam it was a "potential" threat, under the Americans it has been transformed to "imminent and active threat," a foreign policy failure bound to haunt the United States for decades to come.'

Finally, in a recent article run in numerous US, European, and Middle Eastern papers and on their websites, Jessica Tuchman Mathews, the president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, (who just returned from her second trip to Iraq) writes that the US is still without a political strategy that recognizes a "full fledged insurgency" is underway, and until it devises a strategy for the situation, "the military is forced into a stop-go-stop hesitancy in which soldiers' lives are being wasted and security continues to worsen."

What is needed is a policy that takes deadly seriously what Iraqis believe about why the war began and what the United States intends. These beliefs -- that the United States came only to get its hands on Iraq's oil, to benefit Israel's security, and to establish a puppet government and a permanent military presence through which it could control Iraq and the rest of the region -- are wrong. But beliefs passionately held are as important as facts, because they powerfully affect behavior. What we see as a tragic series of American missteps, Iraqis interpret -- with reason when seen through their eyes -- as evidence of evil intent.

The Blogging of the Office

Yeah, I know I'm supposed to be away, but a stomach bug kept me in bed today. I'll head off to the retreat in the morning. Traffic craters over the weekend, but I'll leave this one up for the weekend because I really want some thinking from y'all on this idea I've been chewing on all week.

I had a wild ass idea this week. One of the things I'm going to do with the data base training project is train people to look at this as a community project: using a data base well in an office of 30, most of whom will be users, means that everyone needs to be attentive to the data needs of other units (and they will be different, what development needs and what program needs, for example.) I'm going to set up a Wiki that people can add to as they find solutions to query problems and also an internal blog to encourage communication and participation that goes beyond what you can get in email (which we use 'way too damn much, it is a way people avoid dealing with problems and each other, a piece of internal pathology.) A blog is more participatory than email, building the sense of community that this office desperately needs.

Do you know of anybody who is trying this strategy internally in business? I'm probably going to set up an external blog for the organization, too, to use as both a communication and fundraising device. When the general public finds out that we are the pulse point of the good things going on in public interest law, they'll be happy to give a few shekels.

This is forward-thinking by the office geek. I welcome your software recommendations. I need blogware that uses tabs for HTML tags so that the folks don't need to learn them. I know zilch about Wikis, other than the theology one I occasionally contribute to. There is one other blogger in the office (http://pocspac.blogspot.com/), and the website kid already has HTML. This technology offers a whole new paradigm for "being office," and I'm really curious about applying it. My friend the anthropologist says that blogs are the most important new way of "being community" since the development of literacy (not the printing press, literacy itself) and that's a really strong statement. I'd like to see where we can take this idea in an office environment. If you have experience with this, I'd love to hear from you. If you have an in-house blog, would you send me a link so I could take a look? I won't publicize your trade secrets here or post any links unless your organization would welcome such a thing. I just want to read, see how it works out in your shop (or doesn't, negative examples are sometimes the most instructive) and see what I can learn.

I think we're on to something here which has wider application than we've thought about so far. I'm looking forward to what you think.

Back to bed, I still feel like the dog's breakfast, but I plan to be outahere in the morning. See you Sunday afternoon, here and at The American Street, and this week I won't be cross posting, I'm going to do different things, newsblogging here, and an extended essay or two at AmStreet. I've been thinking about a lot of things this week, and a couple of my newsgroups have surfaced some interesting questions, one of which caused me to completely change the workshop I'm giving tomorrow. Wish me luck. See you Sunday with whatever I learn from the retreatants.

Open Thread

On the Dianne Rehm show on NPR just now, Sy Hersh commented on last night's delusional performance by the president. "The war is not winnable."

I'm off to lead a retreat workshop this weekend. My tent is not Wi-Fi equipped, so this is an Open Thread until I return on Sunday afternoon when I'll resume posting here and at The American Street.

Yeah, I know I've been away a lot this month, but this is the last trip until November, and I'll have plenty of computer access on that one.

Enjoy your weekend.

Groupthink

Hmmm. The collective media are acting a little differently than they did during Bush/Gore.

Blue vs. Red: The Debate Wasn't Exactly a Tie

By Tom Shales
Friday, October 1, 2004; Page C01

John Kerry came off as more presidential than the president last night as the two candidates met for their first face-to-face debate, televised live on all the networks from the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Fla. President Bush did not appear to have a firm grasp on the major issues being discussed, opting instead for the repetition of sloganlike remarks and repeated attacks on his Democratic challenger.

Over and over -- and over -- Bush accused Sen. Kerry of having called Bush's invasion of Iraq "the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time." He also hammered away with one of the Republicans' favorite themes in their assault on Kerry: that he vacillates on issues depending on how political winds are blowing. The term "flip-flopping" may not itself have been used, or at least not often, but Kerry once referred to Bush changing his mind and said, "His campaign has a word for that."

It could be that flip-flopping has played itself out, thanks in part to relentless lampooning of the phrase by topical TV comics.

Kerry acknowledged a bit of flip-floppery by conceding, "I made a mistake in how I talk about the war," but said that Bush's mistake, actually starting the war, was worse.

Jim Lehrer of public television did a first-rate job of moderating the debate, fighting against the stuffiness imposed by debate negotiators. The audience in the hall was kept so emotionally and spiritually distant from the proceedings that there was really no reason for them to be there at all (one forthcoming debate will use the "town hall" format and presumably concede that an audience exists). Lehrer also proved productively flexible with the rules about 90-second statements and 30-second rebuttals -- letting the candidates finish their thoughts rather than rudely cutting them off mid-sentence.

Bush said, "Saddam Hussein had no intention of disarming," and Kerry left that untouched. Come again? There WERE NO WMDs, so I guess Saddam must have disarmed, Mr. Bush. Explain to me again why people find this delusional sociopath "likeable."

Jim Lehrer didn't suck, and that's about the best I can say about him.

The Rights of Mankind

The NYT has wishes, and I guess it wants to find a magic lantern to rub. Man, have these guys not been paying attention.

Not in America

Amid the shock and shame of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, President Bush vowed that the administration would firmly rededicate the nation to upholding the United Nations' convention against torture. So it was alarming to hear reports from Capitol Hill that the administration supports a draconian proposal to round up foreigners on mere suspicions and send them home to nations notorious for engaging in torture and abuse. The proposal is part of the House's omnibus bill for repairing the national intelligence system - a retrogressive measure that prompted the White House this week to claim to be embracing the Senate's far more sensible version, which stays focused on intelligence agencies.

President Bush himself must make it clear to Congress's Republican leaders that he does, indeed, stand behind the U.N. convention, which bars the deportation of foreigners to homelands found to torture and persecute dissenters. White House officials insisted earlier this week that the administration would oppose poison-pill attachments like this, which could undermine the passage of real reform. But the office of the House speaker, Dennis Hastert, told The Washington Post that the Justice Department fully supports these powers, which would let officials arbitrarily exile suspects who have not been tried or convicted of anything. The burden of proof would be shifted unfairly to the person facing deportation to offer "clear and convincing evidence" that torture would result.

The NYT ed board hasn't exactly been banging the drum for civil liberties and the Bill of Rights, which W seems determined to roll back. The voters don't seem to care.

An ignorant populace is the tool of tyrants. These are perilous times. My fellow citizens don't seem to understand that if they can suspend the rights of a Jose Padilla, the government can do it to you, too. It is in our best interests to be our brother's keeper.