corrente

It was interesting riding the train homeward today, out of touch with any form of media—wondering if New York would still be there when I reached Penn Station.

The summing up:

First, contrary to the malarky that the Wurlitzer began circulating almost immediately, every single so-called anomoly in the douments that made them questionable could have been produced by typewriters in use at the time. The press jumped the gun and the "experts" were wrong.

Second, CBS had every reason to be extremely careful with its quotes on this story. Hodges, the Bush supporter, has every reason to lie about what he told CBS now that the documents have been called into question. His babbling about handwritten vs typewritten makes no sense. He admits that Killian had very high standards and didn't hold with pilots not meeting them. Therefore, it's not reasonable to assume that Hodges saying that he told CBS "if he wrote it, it must be true" is more credible than CBS's original quote. Indeed, it is ridiculous.

Third, the statements of Killian's family are irrelevant compared to the statement of Strong who handled Killian's work documents and others like it at the time. Unless you believe that spouses and children have better direct knowledge of workplace events than co-workers, that is the only conclusion to which you can come.
(via Hullaballo)

Read the whole thing.

However, here is Digby's summing up, with which I must disagree:

This whole pushback by the right, from the blogosphere to the Wurlitzer to the Whitehouse, is absolutely masterful. And, it should give everyone pause if they think there is even a snowball's chance in hell that any member of the Bush administration will ever get justice for the crimes they have committed while in office. Clearly, the press and much of the public are so willing to be used that it is hopeless. This entire episode is nothing but a pathetic reminder of how easily they manipulate perceptions.

We'd better be content to congratulate ourselves for having integrity because it's clear that we do not get any public credit for it. Indeed, we are perceived as being just as bad as they are. If that's the case, does it even matter that we aren't?

This is a counsel of despair. Never forget that Clinton's ratings were never higher than when the wingers were impeaching him. If we can get the message through, the American people will hear and understand.

This is perhaps the first time that we have joined battle with the Mighty Wurlitzer and the wingers who transmit their memes into it. They hold the high ground, and we're firing upward. But we have to keep fighting. This is one battle in a long war. Fighting the POTL is tiring. But we're in the right, and we have to remember that.

go fuck yourself, chica la gash. you must have one sorry life to be agreeing with the corrente fuckwit

You ever get the feeling they've trained us TOO well? What, I kept wondering, was going to be so explosive they had to run the "Fontgate" play right now to get everybody all hot and bothered and occupy the gasbags on Sunday morning?

Seymour Hersh's book comes out Monday.

Don't even bother with this miserable excuse of a "story" (via ho-hum NYT), just make plans to be at your local bookstore come opening time.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 11 - Senior military and national security officials in the Bush administration were repeatedly warned by subordinates in 2002 and 2003 that prisoners in military custody were being abused, according to a new book by a prominent journalist.

Seymour M. Hersh, a writer for The New Yorker who earlier this year was among the first to disclose details of the abuses of prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Iraq, makes the charges in his book "Chain of Command: The Road From 9/11 to Abu Ghraib" (HarperCollins), which is being released Monday.

Mr. Hersh asserts that a Central Intelligence Agency analyst who visited the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in the late summer of 2002 filed a report of abuses there that drew the attention of Gen. John A. Gordon, the deputy to Condoleezza Rice, the White House national security adviser.

But when General Gordon called the matter to her attention and she discussed it with other senior officials, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, no significant change resulted.

Mr. Hersh also says that a military officer involved in counterinsurgency operations in Iraq learned of the abuses at Abu Ghraib in November and reported it to two of his superiors, General John P. Abizaid, the regional commander, and his deputy, Lt. Gen. Lance Smith.

Mr. Hersh's thesis is that "the roots of the Abu Ghraib scandal lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists" who have been charged so far, "but in the reliance of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld on secret operations and the use of coercion - and eye-for-eye retribution - in fighting terrorism."

In particular, Mr. Hersh has reported that a secret program to capture and interrogate terrorists led to the abuse of prisoners.

Let's see how our pet Anonymous handles this....have they handed out the flip chart of talking points and denials for this filthy stinking mess yet or are they going to keep yammering nonsense about kerning?

This MoDo is a couple of days old but it seemed appropriate to hold it for today. Anybody yet seen a promotion for "Patriot Day Mattress Sale & Used Car Extravaganza"? I haven't either but...maybe next year.

In 1992, the senior Mr. Bush wooed the voters with "Message: I care.'' So this week, Mr. Cheney wooed the voters with, Message: You die.

The terrible beauty of its simplicity grows on you. It is a sign of the dark, macho, paranoid vice president's restraint that he didn't really take it to its emotionally satisfying conclusion: Message: Vote for us or we'll kill you.

Without Zell Miller around to out-crazy him...Mr. Cheney is back as Terrifier in Chief.

It's like that fairy tale where vipers and toads jump out of the mouth of the accursed mean little girl when she tries to speak. Every time Mr. Cheney opens his mouth, vermin leap out.

Mr. Cheney implies that John Kerry couldn't protect us from an attack like 9/11, blithely ignoring the fact that he and President Bush didn't protect us from the real 9/11.

Think of what brass-knuckled Republicans could have made of a 9/11 tape of an uncertain Democratic president giving a shaky statement that looked like a hostage tape and flying randomly from air base to air base, as the veep ordered that planes be shot down.

Just like Presidents Day sales feature George Washington sitting on a mattress with an axe and a bowl of cherries, future Patriot Day sales ads will feature George Bush sitting on top of Air Force One reading "The Pet Goat" while Cheney frantically tries to aim a Star Wars laser cannon at it. It will become traditional as a day of deep discounts on dark glasses, ball caps, unattractive swimwear and other traditional vacation items which remain unsold at the end of the season.

Not sure what will come of the great 60 Minutes memo scare of 2004. One things for sure though, the White House, and the SCLM, weren't going to let Dan Rather and gang scuff up the Bush boy's latest symbolic public relations stunt - "Patriot Day". Not a chance.

Anyway, i do think that it's rather interesting that so many thumbs ups were given early on to the charge that those CBS memos are forgeries. Esspecially since the forgery charge at this point is based almost entirely on pretty flimsy unfounded notions. Such as the notion that typewriters could not perform such marvels as proportional spacing and superscripting in the early 1970's. Points that are simply false.

IBM Executive typerwiters could do both. Many manual typerwiters had superscript keys at the time as well. (aren't ya sick of hearing about this shit) BTW: IBM Executive models, and others, could also apparently be used as terminals for early computers. So the basis for calling the memos forgeries seems to rest on points that don't add up. For instance: Via Kevin Drum's Washington Monthly post:

Kevin, I worked in the IBM Office Products Division field service area fixing typewriters in NYC for over 13 years in the 70s. I can tell you that the Model D can produce those documents, not only did it do proportional spacing, you could order any font that IBM produced AND order keys that had the aftmentioned superscripted "th." Also you could order the platen, thats the roller that grabs the paper, in a 54 tooth configuration that produced space, space and a half and double spacing on the line indexing, this BTW was popular in legal offices. The Model D had to be ordered from a IBM salesmen and was not something that was a off the shelf item, typical delivery time were 4-6 weeks. Also, typewriter keys were changed in the field all the time, its not that hard to do. I wish I had saved my service and parts replacement manuals to backup this claim but I'm guessing a call to IBM with a request for a copy of their font and parts replacement manuals would put this to rest ASAP. Posted by: BillG NYC on September 10, 2004 [...] FYI, but I have found nothing that contradicts this information. It would appear you could order the humble IBM Executive with a wide variety of typestyles and characters, especially if you were a large, important client. - comment permalink

"letter quality"
Similarly, with regard to the charge that the typeface appearing in the CBS memos, curlicues and apostraphes, etc.. etc.. blah blah... which some have attempted to claim was not available on typewriters prior to 1973 - and - which resembles later computer word processor font faces instead - might find this item below interesting. It's written by a programmer who worked on early versions of WordPerfect:

It would take a couple of years before people would consider it a status symbol to show off the fact that they were using a computer. The professional typewritten look was called "letter quality" in the industry, and one of our goals for WordPerfect 3.0 was to print a letter that looked as good as one typed on an IBM Executive typewriter. - excerpt from "Almost Perfect", by W. E. Pete Peterson, 1993link

In other words, even early word processor programmers were trying to replicate the type face found on older typewriters. Specifically, in this case, the IMB Executive (which could also perform proportional spacing and superscript duties). Aside from the knowledge that New Times Roman typeface has been around since 1931 this disclosure may help some people out there (you know who you are) understand why some typefaces included with modern computer programs resemble the typefaces on old typewriters. Curlicues and all! Okie dokie?

BTW: Philip D. Bouffard, the "forensic document examiner" who looked at the documents and told the New York Times he was originally skeptical of their authenticity, now, after discovering the wonders of old IBM Selectric typewriters, has apparently changed his tune. - See: Authenticity backed on Bush documents Boston Globe, Sept 11, 2004

Therefore it would appear that the charges of forgery are pretty much unfounded, at this point anyway, and largely little more than excitable media hype. Seems to me the real questions should now involve the specific allegations contained within the memos themselves. That would seem to be the real issue which needs further examination. Afterall, the same old questions concerning Bush's wereabouts still remain regardless of the authenticity of the CBS memos. Bush still can't (or won't) produce documention accounting for his comings and goings at the time.

He said she said:
So, who can answer the question of whether or not these memos CBS unleashed are authentic or not? Who would know if what is being discussed in these memos is even remotely plausible or factual? Who would possibly know if Col. Jerry Killian had indeed spoken with or "...ordered that 1st Lt. Bush be suspended not just for failing to take a physical….but for failing to perform to U.S. Air Force/Texas Air National Guard standards." (?) Who would know if George W. Bush had or had not made any "...attempt to meet his training certification or flight physical." (?) Who would know if he had been instructed to seek a position with the Massachusetts Guard upon scurrying off to Hahvahd Yahd? Who? Why that would be George W. Bush himself wouldn't it.

But Commander SkyBox Pilot apparently ain't talking one way or another. Not in this case. One would think that if there were no possibility whatsoever that these latest memos might contain some shred of truth George W. Bush himself, or one of his trained seals, would be sliding back and forth across the political stage barking about the outrageous libel of it all. Perhaps even challenging Dan Rather to a duel at sunrise! Or showering the masses with firmly resolved declarations stating that the memos were certainly fakes because any such accusations contained within would never ever have been discussed with respect to Mr. Bush's TxANG service. No seh, never, because Mr. Bush had never ever found himself embroiled in any such messy misunderestimated tangles in the first place.

But nooooooo. That's not what has happened. Rather: The Bu$h, lost in his fabulous labyrinth, relies on Scotty McClellan to go hopping off to scratch at his noggin and mutter to the supple Press, "we don’t know if the documents are fabricated or authentic." - "We don't know?" You mean they might be authentic? Gee golly Scotty, that doesn't sound particually resolved-like.

Which begs the question....why don't you, Scotty, ask Commander Codpiece if there is anything valid or authentic-like to the charges contained in those memos? See, I'm sure, being the plain spoken forthright reg'lar kinda hero guy that he is, W would cack up the whole simple truth and nuttin' but the whole simple truth right there before God and country and Saddam's little hidey-hole gun and Scotty McClellan too! Right there in the Oval Office. Preznit would probably sum it all up right there in one short snappy symbol-like buzzphrase belch. Heck yeah Scotty.

But that would never really happen would it. Nope, it wouldn't. Because in the faith based bubble-fantastic of make believe that Bush43 inhabits, which is protected 24/7 by the palace guard thunder-dolts of the SCLM and other willing champagne unit fetchlings, it's understood that the delicate membrane surrounding the gas filled personality cult of the 'W' must never spring an ugly hissing leak.

I also find it ironic that so many in the SCLM devoted so much time over the course of one day attempting to discredit and deflect the CBS memos. Too bad those same excitable worthies hadn't expended as much energy and vigor and powers of skeptical inquiry when confronted with the fake claims made on behalf of the Bush administration's fabulous whizz-bang flower tossing Iraq cakewalk strut in the sand. Eh? Imagine that.

Beside the thousands of innocent Iraqis that have been killed in George W. Bush's fake-based experiment in "creative destruction" there'd be at least 1000 more US soldiers alive today. Soldiers who did actually show up for duty when and where they were asked to do so.


*

September 10, one day before September 11, and I'm engaged in a massive collective polemic about typography. How jejeune. Or maybe not. As Walter Benjamin writes in The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction:

The presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity. Chemical analyses of the patina of a bronze can help to establish this, as does the proof that a given manuscript of the Middle Ages stems from an archive of the fifteenth century. The whole sphere of authenticity is outside technical-- and, of course, not only technical-- reproducibility.<2> Confronted with its manual reproduction, which was usually branded as a forgery, the original preserved all its authority...

The authenticity of a thing is the essence of all that is transmissible from its beginning, ranging from its substantive duration to its testimony to the history which it has experienced. Since the historical testimony rests on the authenticity, the former, too, is jeopardized by reproduction when substantive duration ceases to matter. And what is really jeopardized when the historical testimony is affected is the authority of the object.

Our post-modern wingers...

Really, the whole controversy is non-trivial. The wingers say that the documents are not authentic. We say that Bush is not authentic, and that one one reason to believe this (there are many others) is the documents. A question of character...

You know, this election has always been about character, but until I scanned the blogosphere today, I hadn't realized how much it was about characters—specifically, the ^t and the ^h. [Rim shot. "Thanks. I'll be here all week!"]

And I have to say (as I said before, more politely, back) that it's fucking amazing the level of cluelessness in the wingerly tempest over the Killian memos.

Forensic Document Examination 101: It isn't possible to determine the authenticity of a paper document by examining a digital copy of it! If that were possible, every winger on the face of the planet would be taking digital copy of a ten dollar bill to the package store and loading up the new cooler they got with their GOP Gauleiter Points. And that's all the wingers have been doing.

Making it even more fucking amazing the savage efficiency with which the winger attack machine operates. Guy like Paul Lukasiak devotes months of his life to serious analysis of the Bush payroll record punchcards (why, oh why, didn't CBS go with this?) and we crow that we manage to get him mentioned in Froomkin's column. Then some winger shows it's possible to make one digital document look kinda like another digital reproduced document using software (wow!) and in 12 hours they're in the Standard, and in one news cycle they've got the network anchors repeating their talking points. "Liberal" "news" media my sweet Aunt Fanny.

Anyhow. CBS News didn't cave. Maybe Unka Karl shouldn't have left a horse's head in their bed over that Reagan biopic after all. Here's what CBS says:

"This report was not based solely on recovered documents, but rather on a preponderance of evidence, including documents that were provided by unimpeachable sources, interviews with former Texas National Guard officials and individuals who worked closely back in the early 1970s with Colonel Jerry Killian and were well acquainted with his procedures, his character and his thinking," the statement read.

In other words, CBS not only has documents, CBS has witnesses. Contrast Bush—we will, since His hapless apologists won't— who is missing documents, constantly finding them when they are "lost," and has no witnesses (not even for $10,000, back).

"In addition, the documents are backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts but by sources familiar with their content," the statement continued. "Contrary to some rumors, no internal investigation is underway at CBS News nor is one planned."

And now we come to the first winger talking point: the famous superscripts:

CBS News Anchor Dan Rather says many of those raising questions about the documents have focused on something called superscript, a key that automatically types a raised "th."

Critics [now that's being generous!—Ed.] claim typewriters didn't have that ability in the 1970s. But some models did. In fact, other Bush military records already released by the White House itself show the same superscript – including one from 1968.

It would be nice if CBS mentioned Josh Marshall (back), who first pointed this out, but we'll take what we can get.

And now we come to the second winger talking point: The Times New Roman.

Some analysts outside CBS say they believe the typeface on these memos is New Times Roman, which they claim was not available in the 1970s.

But the owner of the company that distributes this typing style says it has been available since 1931.

"Times New Roman" is a red herring. It isn't possible to tell from the PDFs online what typeface is being used (look for yourself). Serifs, sure, but not only Times, a particular brand of Times? Forget it. Note also that many of us have enough experience to remember the days before desktop publishing, and plenty of us can remember IBM typewriters with both kerning and serif fonts, from the early 70s. In fact, I owned one.

Making the next point all the more crucial: The only way to authenticate a document is to examine the document, not a copy of it; that's Forensic Document Examination 101, as we say above. And that's why all the "experts" making pronouncements on copies of the documents are violating their own professional ethics (as we show here). CBS puts the same idea in words that are far more polite:

Document and handwriting examiner Marcel Matley analyzed the documents for CBS News. He says he believes they are real. But he is concerned about exactly what is being examined by some of the people questioning the documents, because deterioration occurs each time a document is reproduced. And the documents being analyzed [Heh.—] outside of CBS have been photocopied, faxed, scanned and downloaded, and are far removed from the documents CBS started with.

Translation: All the wingerly analysis and footstamping about "forgery" is "sound and fury signifying nothing" because they aren't working from the originals.

Matley did this interview with us prior to Wednesday's "60 Minutes" broadcast. He looked at the documents...

Note once more that if the documents were created with impact technology like a typewriter, this instantly destroys the wingerly argumentation, since all their claims of forgery depend on digital reproduction.

Note to CBS: It would be nice to hear you take up this point.

Note to readers: A tip of the Ol' Corrente Hat to the first reader to link to wingerly frothing about Marcel Matley's French-sounding name.

...and the signatures of Col. Killian, comparing known documents with the colonel's signature on the newly discovered ones.

"We look basically at what's called significant or insignificant features to determine whether it's the same person or not," Matley said. "I have no problem identifying them. I would say based on our available handwriting evidence, yes, this is the same person."

Matley finds the signatures to be some of the most compelling evidence.

Reached Friday by satellite, Matley said, "Since it is represented that some of them are definitely his, then we can conclude they are his signatures."

Matley said he's not surprised that questions about the documents have come up.

"I knew going in that this was dynamite one way or the other. And I knew that potentially it could do far more potential damage to me professionally than benefit me," he said. "But we seek the truth. That's what we do. You're supposed to put yourself out, to seek the truth and take what comes from it."

Don't go up in any small planes, Marcel.

And now the witness:

Robert Strong was an administrative officer for the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam years. He knew Jerry Killian, the man credited with writing the documents. And paper work, like these documents, was Strong's specialty. He is standing by his judgment that the documents are real.

"They are compatible with the way business was done at that time," Strong said. "They are compatible with the man I remember Jerry Killian being. I don't see anything in the documents that's discordant with what were the times, the situation or the people involved."
(via CBS)

In a world where Enlightenment values like "evidence" and "reasoning" counted for something, CBS (modulo conspiracy theories, of course) has a strong prima facie case that the documents are real. (Note that what the documents reveal goes to character and unlawful acts, since they show that Bush disobeyed a direct order.)

1. The only examiner to have looked at the original, physical documents confirms their authenticity to CBS.

2. Independent witnesses confirm the content of the documents to CBS.

3. Independent researchers (Paul Lukasiak) reinforce the context of the Killian memos—that Bush was given special treatment—besides

4. proving that Bush was guilty of payroll fraud (never addressed by wingers) and didn't meet his sworn commitments.

In addition, 5, the White House never disputed the authenticity of the Killian memos. This could be, of course, part of the pattern of Bush always letting others do the dirty work. But it could also mean that the reason the White House didn't claim forgery is that they thought that the memos were true.

Finally, 6, the essential point of the story—now in the process of being covered up by wingerly frothing and stamping—is not that Bush disobeyed a direct order, juicy though that is. The essential point is that Bush disobeyed a direct order to take a medical exam, after the medical exams began to include drug testing. Why didn't he? The Bush answer is that He didn't need to, but in the military, the person being given the order doesn't get to decide whether or not to follow it. Eh?

Now, I know there are lots of people—Xan among them (back)—who want to talk about "the issues." The worthy Canadians think we've gone nuts.

I disagree. The wingerly response to this story is the sharp end of the Republican sword. This is how they govern, and if we don't stop it, it's only going to get worse.

Further, Digby makes the excellent point (citing a New Yorker article) here that people often use stories as proxies for reasoning. Expecially undecided people:

These little dramas in campaigns, which seem to be about everything but what we informed voters believe are the essential issues, actually serve as character and issues proxies for the electorate to come to its gut reasoning.

That is why blunting the Swift Boat Smear was so important—heck, if we can't blunt a political smear, how can we defend the country? That's the proxy style of reasoning, and who's to say it isn't good enough?

With the Killian memos, we have a great, great story. Not only did Bush pull strings to get into the Guard, he disobeyed a direct order once he was in. Oh, what was the order? To take a medical exam. Heck, why didn't we want to do that?! And Kitty Kelley has the answer to that. And now he's commander in chief?! Get out!

We have a great story. It could tip the undecideds, who use proxy reasoning, to us. The wingers know that. That's why they're trying to take it away from us.

Worse, the story they're trying to replace it with is a tale of forgery, and the Mighty Wurlitzer is constantly pumping that line out.

So, if we don't want President Superscript to win in 2004, we have to win this one.

UPDATE I think Kevin Drum and Josh Marshall have gone native on us. Asking Hodges whether he was pressured is exactly not the right question, since it's back to he said/she said. The right question is: Were the original documents created on a typewriter? If so—and it's hard to believe that CBS and a professional document examiner, under contract, would have missed this—then all the winger claims collapse. When they do, then it's case closed that Bush disobeyed a direct order. Then, we can ask why He did that? (Snort!)

And The Poor Man has it exactly right:

Let me save everyone a whole lot of time. They are genuine. How do I know? Because the internet is currently awash in wingnuts claiming the memos are fakes. Ergo, they are for real. Q.E.D.

UPDATE Hunter at Kos nails the font arguments with solid technical analysis. Go read. Winger meme sounds good on first look, falls apart when Enlightenment values like "evidence" and "reasoning" are applied. Film at 11.
As Hunter says in the update:

A number of people point out that this debunking of a debunking is a colossal "waste of time". Perhaps, perhaps not. But one of the points of the cooperative blogosphere, and of political blogs in particular, is that different individuals can choose their targets. A very few people managed to track down irrefutable evidence that the rationales underpinning the "forgery" cries were simply false, and were able to do so in a short time. The rest of the blogosphere didn't have to lift a finger.

And I don't like lies. And I especially don't like lies that make it into the mainstream media with such astonishing ease. And I choose to do something about it.

There are more interesting things coming out of this than merely the full and certain knowledge that conservatives can't perform either logical analysis or basic Google searches. We also have been given a prime example of how the mainstream media obtains its information, and where they get it from.

UPDATE Eesh.

Mr. Matley, the documents expert, said in an interview after the program, that he had examined documents and handwriting since 1985 and had testified in 65 trials. Mr. Matley said the documents the network sent him were so deteriorated from copying that it was impossible to identify the typeface. As a result, he said, he focused on the signatures.
(via The Times

One the one hand, all the winger font analysis is out the window. On the other, it would have been nice to have the orignals (where are they?) So what we have now—and notice that this would be admissible in court—is the signatures and the testimony of witnesses. The case is still prima facie in CBS's favor.

Alert Readers:

Based on our experience with The Man in the Gray Turtleneck, there's one rule for handing trolls: Don't feed them. On the other hand, if the troll makes a real argument—even if you don't agree with it—don't personalize it and insult the troll. Instead, answer the argument: It's fun, it's good practice, and it sharpens our discourse.

TROLL PROPHYLACTIC: The URL on how GOP Team leaders can win points toward a beer cooler is here, and other points you can win for performing an aktion. Amazing stuff.

NOTE Originally published 2004-03-06.

NOTE Revisd 2004-08-08.

It would have been nice to see this some time back, and louder, and sharper, and on the front page. But after praising with those faint damns, I must at least give them credit for not falling for the whitewash. The prisoner abuse scandal is NOT going away.

(via WaPoEditorial)

A DAY OF congressional hearings yesterday confirmed two glaring gaps in the Bush administration's response to hundreds of cases of prisoner abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan. The first is one of investigation: Major allegations of wrongdoing, including some touching on Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other senior administration officials, have yet to be explored by any arms-length probe. The second concerns accountability. Although several official panels have documented failings by senior military officers and their superiors in Washington, those responsible face no sanction of any kind, even as low-ranking personnel are criminally prosecuted. To use the phrase of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), this "is beginning to look like a bad movie."

Mr. Rumsfeld has frequently boasted of the number of Pentagon investigations into the abuse scandal and has maintained that no others are necessary. Yet the senior officer in charge of one of those probes, Gen. Paul J. Kern, told the Senate Armed Services Committee of two major areas that remain unexplored. One is the Army's accommodation of dozens of "ghost prisoners" held by the CIA and deliberately hidden from the International Red Cross in violation of the Geneva Conventions and Army regulations. Mr. Rumsfeld has acknowledged that at least one of those prisoners was held by his personal order -- an order that two former secretaries of defense, James R. Schlesinger and Harold Brown, testified was "not consistent" with international law. Gen. Kern reported that the CIA had flatly refused to provide his team with information about the ghost prisoners or their handling -- prompting Mr. McCain's acerbic comment.

Other stories today suggest that Rumsfeld is being kept off TV and out of the public/investigative eye as much as possible not, perhaps, out of well-deserved shame but because he is losing it:

(AP via WaPo)

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, responding to allegations that he fostered a climate that led to the prisoner-abuse scandal, said yesterday that the military's mistreatment of detainees was not as bad as what terrorists have done.

Asked at a National Press Club appearance whether he contributed to a climate that led to abuse, Rumsfeld said he had approved new techniques for Guantanamo but then rescinded them

Hmmm, flip-flopping, Rummy? Troubling...

and gathered lawyers to study the subject after military officers questioned them.

He said the procedures "were not torture" and were approved for use on only two people.

But Pentagon investigations in recent months have said there have been about 300 allegations of prisoners killed, raped, beaten and subjected to other mistreatment at military prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay since the start of the war on terror.

He also made comments about the latest videotape released yesterday in which he repeatedly confused "Sadaam" and "Osama" as being the source. Maybe it makes it hard to concentrate when in the back of your mind you can't forget that everything you say is going to be used against you, very soon, at The Hague.

Okay, I want everybody to take a deep breath.

Put down the typewriter, be it IBM Selectric, Olympia, Underwood, Remington or whatever, and back slowly away from the cast-iron monstrosity. Cease any talk of font analysis, kerning, superscripts or anything else of a typographical nature.

You are playing right into Karl Rove's hands with this shit. I think we can all agree that is not a place we want to be, esthetically, morally or most especially politically.

Let's get back to the important point. It is Friday night for starters. It's 9-11 Weekend, "Patriot Day" in the Bushian world of emotion-playing, string-pulling bullshittery. You're supposed to spend all day tomorrow feeling bummed out, or feeling guilty for not feeling bummed out enough, or some such manipulative rubbish.

There's yet another hurricane coming in, to Florida, which seems to me conclusive proof that God has not yet got their attention on the matter of the Diebold voting machines, and She intends to keep sending hurricanes until Jebbie orders them all cast into the sea. Or else She will make sure they don't have power to run them anyway, hah!

Here's my bet, FWIW, and it has nothing to do with typewriters. The "forged documents" claim is being waved as a distraction, just like that guy is waving the cape in front of the bull. The bull, of course, is supposed to be us. I resent that.

More importantly, it is not our job to prove George Bush is a liar on the matter of his TxANG service. It is his job to prove what happened, then and now.

From Krugman today...and if I could get one sentence from his keyboard (screw whether it's kerned New Times Roman or chiseled hieroglyphics) to the Kerry speechwriting staff, it would start like this:

via NYT

It's the dishonesty, stupid. The real issue in the National Guard story isn't what George W. Bush did three decades ago. It's the recent pattern of lies: his assertions that he fulfilled his obligations when he obviously didn't, the White House's repeated claims that it had released all of the relevant documents when it hadn't.

It's the same pattern of dishonesty, this time involving personal matters that the public can easily understand, that some of us have long seen on policy issues, from global warming to the war in Iraq. On budget matters, which is where I came in, serious analysts now take administration dishonesty for granted.

It wasn't always that way. Three years ago, those of us who accused the administration of cooking the budget books were ourselves accused, by moderates as well as by Bush loyalists, of being "shrill." These days the coalition of the shrill has widened to include almost every independent budget expert.

Krugman's an economist so this is the particular aspect he looks at. But the same pattern of dishonesty pervades everything this administration does, from run National Parks to the space program to the military to defense of civil liberties (yeah, feel free to laugh about THAT one). Healthy Forests and Clear Skies, anyone?

I can cite experts from across the spectrum who will attest that:

1) The creation of matter out of nothing is unlikely.

2) The existence of an environment capable of sustaining life is also unlikely.

3) The emergence of life from inanimate matter is even more unlikely than that.

4) The emergence of human intelligence from animal life is super duper unlikely.


The implication of all these combined improbabilities is clear: we don't exist. We are nothing more than a simulacrum in a mad scientist's laboratory. No other explanation is possible. If I existed, I would be a genius. I now expect to be booked on cable TV to expatiate on my brilliant findings without interruption.

we don't know what we're talking about....but we don't care...we'll talk about it anyway.....

Unbelievable. The dewy-eyed yearlings at ABC World News This Morning are repeating the blither blather of some clucking hen (includes video clip) who is repeating the claim that typewriter subscript "th"s didn't exist on typewriters at the time the allegedly forged Killian memo(s) (cited by CBS) would have been written. Some people apparently (ABC News) will swallow any shiny come-hither -- hook line and sinker -- that so called "experts" on video tape dangle before their hungry wet maws. Obviously, for the perky freshly spawned pod-dolts at ABC World News This Morning, real investigative journalism, is, like totally dead as a totally yicky landed pod-carp. Like totally. Yicky. Moving along.....

More details on the hanging death of Winston Carter in Tuskegee Alabama. See: Hungry Blues

Crucial details to note: the family members feel so strongly that Winston Carter's death was not a suicide that they are ready to formally contest any coroner's report finding suicide as the cause of death. Also, the crime scene was never sealed off, and the local news weekly for Macon County has not made any mention of the hanging death of a local resident.

And here: Hungry Blues

At this second link I have a comment to Hungry Blues from Winston Carter's aunt from northern Virginia. In short she says that a) she, like the Tuskegee family members, does not believe Winston Carter would commit suicide and b) the police have not allowed the family to see the crime scene photos or to have access to information about the investigation.

More on commander G. W. Make Believe's sky-box pilot adventure(s): Bush's military service in question – again; Records appear to show that the president failed to fulfill his duty to the Air National Guard.

James T. Currie, a retired colonel who is a professor at the Industrial College of The Armed Forces and the author of an official history of the Army Reserve, said that while the Guard had a reputation as being a "good old boy's club" during Vietnam, that didn't mean regulations shouldn't apply. "You make a commitment, and in return for what is a fairly minor inconvenience, you avoid getting drafted and sent to Vietnam, so I think the least you could do was fulfill the letter of that commitment," he said. "Clearly if you were the average poor boy who got drafted and sent into the active force, they weren't going to let you out before you had completed your obligation."

Vote Bush or Die by Judd Legum & David Sirota, The Nation, September 27, 2004 issue.

By May, CNN Justice Department correspondent Kelli Arena "reported" that there was "some speculation that Al Qaeda believes it has a better chance of winning in Iraq if John Kerry is in the White House."

Yes, Kelli Arena, I'll bet there sure was "some speculation". Hey, they don't call CNN the (George) Creel News Network for nuttin'! And, by the way, no respecatable parent names a real live kid Kelli Arena. That isn't a name for a human being. It's a name for a convention center. Or a porn star who caters to corporate business junkets. Get a real name... you idiot. How about Idiot Arena? That would do nicely.

Judd Legum is also with American Progress. org which keeps a running count of Bu$hCo's growing Flip Flop porfolio.

Speaking of "flip flops" ---- on Sept., 08 Judy Woodruff's CNN "Inside Politics" show-program page sported this nifty summation:

Kerry - Iraq War Hurt Economy at Home; Bush Reverses Position on National Intelligence Director;... See: CNN/Inside Politics transcript

Wow-wee! I was very excited because usually Dame Judy can't tee up a single verbal probe without including the RNC talking point/buzz phrase/all purpose question..."how do you respond to critics who accuse John Kerry of being a flip-flopper....". But, alas, sadly, Miss Judy let me down. Not one utterance of "flip flop" or flip floppery or anything closely related with respect to our vaulted messianic Texan's latest flip flop. Alas, flip flops are penned in for lowly democracts. Manly take charge "Reverses" are for Judy's mucky-muck Beltway dinner party pals.

Finally: 'Call a Coward a Coward' - go visit "Big Dog" at Dog Fight 04.

Update: Don "Boat Show Cowboy" Imus and NBC mumble-peg Tom Brokaw are (as i write) reinforcing the claim that old typewriters didn't have subscript "th" abilities in the early 70's. Unbelievable. I'd invite each of these pampered enclave society millionaire celebrity geezer shut-ins to visit with my old Olympia, in my attic, but, I'm afraid I'd be tempted to beat each one of them bloody with an old hockey stick or a broken chair leg. Hmmm. On the other hand... c'mon over and visit with me you stupid blind bastards. heh heh heh...

*

Bob Fertik at Democrats.com has a new blog: Bob Fertik.com. Registration is required to comment, which drives me nuts because me is not a joiner-upper type. But, nevertheless, you can still read the posts. Fertik's most recent entry titled The false forgery diversion is a good place to start. BF discusses subscripts and MS Word etc. BF also attempts to reproduce the CBS/Killian document using his own MSWord program. You can take a look at the results for yourself. One point noted by Fertik is the use of subscripts in the CBS/Killian letter. In some cases the subscript is smaller and raised. While at other points in the letter the subscript "th" is line level.

Me and my Olympia (pre-dating the corporate cabletv "news" crotch crickets and their "Alex Keaton" cheeky-boy sitcom Reagan Revolution wannabe sidekicks.)

As I noted in comments (earlier thread), I have an old Olympia manual typewriter. A great big heavy steel shelled anvil of a thing that was common in business offices and newspaper rooms years ago. Its circa 50's or 60's vintage. As a matter of fact it once lived on a desk at a newspaper. It sounds like this when you type with it: Ow! Ow! Ow! Ow!... just like that. But, what is interesting here is that this particular industrial strenght beast has subscript keys. Including "th" - which is raised and underlined - as well as "1/2" and "1/4" subscript keys. It also has curlicue apostrophes - despite the claim noted by the Bu$hCo. goal-tenders at the Weekly Standard that such curlicue-like occurences were of rare occurence - and a little arrow-thingee key which allows you to perform a kind of crude maual kerning.

Bob Fertik notes that on some lines of the Killian letter the "th" is raised and in some cases at normal line level (for instance, "111th Fighter...."). Perhaps the typist simply used the usual "t", and "h" key to produce the "th" on some lines while resorting to the subscript key to produce the raised "th" on others. I dunno, but it's certainly possible, since both options would be available on an old typewriter such as the Olympia. What's more the type face on the old Olympia looks an awful lot like the typeface in those Killian letters. Curlicues and all. Did Olympia produce an electric typewriter later on which used a similar typeface as their older manual machines? Hell if I know.

Anyway, I don't know shit about the intricate personality traits of old typewriter models and typeface designs etc... and so forth... and my fingers are bleeding... all over my supple wimpy soft touch Micron computer keyboard... after violently poking at that old battle axe... so... I'll probably pass out at any moment. But, I thought I'd share that exciting typewriter adventure story with you anyway - oh..., i feeel weak... just go see what Bob Fetik has to say and uh, again, my fingers hurt... and I'm loosing (as well as losing) blood fast...Ooooo...mommy.......

*

Tinkers to Evers to Chance....

Wingers to Drudge to Standard—

And now to AP, in one news cycle! Are these guys good, or what?

Independent document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines said the memos looked like they had been produced on a computer using Microsoft Word software, which wasn't available when the documents were supposedly written in 1972 and 1973.

"I'm virtually certain these were computer-generated," Lines said after reviewing copies of the documents at her office in Paradise Valley, Ariz. She produced a nearly identical document using her computer's Microsoft Word software.
(via AP)

Well. Let's leave aside the fact that "independent" Sandra Ramsey Lines is a contributor to a "shadowy" 527 group (here) (Republican, though pro-choice, here).

What's important is that Sandra Ramsey Lines is a member of the South Western Association of Document Examiners (SWAFDE, here). And SWAFDE's Constitution has a code of ethics:

Section 4. All professional opinions shall be rendered after a thorough examination of the physical evidence under scientific and absolutely impartial conditions.
(via SWAFDE

Obviously, Sandra Ramsey Lines didn't examine the physical evidence; she compared the PDF versions of the Killian memos to her own printouts. It will be up to SWAFDE to determine whether, by violating Section 4 of SWAFDE's code of ethics in a highly charged political atmosphere, she also violated section 6:

Section 6. Members shall strive to maintain an attitude of fairness and shall treat all cases equally.

We can't know why Sandra Ramsey Lines violated her own code of ethics by rendering a judgment, not on the basis of physical evidence, but on the basis of digital copies. But the point is a crucial one:

If we believe that the Killian memos are forgeries, we have to believe that CBS either (1) couldn't tell the difference between a letter printed from a laser- or ink-jet printer, and a typewritten letter, or (2) CBS didn't examine the physical evidence.

All of the wingerly speculation also hangs on the same point; they are examining images and digital reproductions only, at second and third hand; and there is no hope of determining the authenticity of a physical object using digital reproductions. Of course, they, unlike Sandra, have no code of ethics (though one can applaud their energy and ingenuity).

Why does the SWAFDE Code of Ethics insist on examining the physical evidence? For this reason:

There are people (like me) old enough to know that it is very easy to tell when a letter has been produced with impact technology, by striking a piece of paper with an inked metal key, and a letter has been produced with digital technology, by spraying bits of toner or ink. So let's hope CBS had such a person look at the Killian memos. I'm going to assume that they did; and that my liberal habits of giving all arguments respect have led me to give the winger's case for forgery more credence than it deserves.

Still, I'd like to know that the ink and paper were tested for age. And in the back of my mind is the chilling notion that salting false memos among true ones would be a highly Rove-ian ploy, since it would have the effect of discrediting all the work done disentangling Bush's young and irresponsible days. Not that I'm paranoid...

With that, goodnight moon!

UPDATE Not so fast... WaPo has its own expert, William Flynn, past president of the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners (the ABFDE, here). Here is the AFBDE's definition of "scientific":

Forensic science is the application of various sciences to the law. The application of allied sciences and analytical techniques to questions concerning documents is termed forensic document examination. The examination of questioned documents consists of the analysis and comparison of questioned handwriting, hand printing, typewriting, commercial printing, photocopies, papers, inks, and other documentary evidence with known material in order to establish the authenticity of the contested material as well as the detection of alterations.

The science of document examination, then, consists in the analysis of actual documents, not physical copies. So it appears that Flynn, too, violated the code of ethics of his professional association:

h. A diplomate or candidate of the ABFDE will only render opinions which are within his/her area of expertise, and will act, at all times, in a completely impartial manner by employing scientific methodology to reach logical and unbiased conclusions.
(via Here)

Again, rendering an opinion on the authenticity of a physical object by examining a digital copy of it is hardly scientific.

Very odd that these "experts" are so willing to offer unqualified judgments. Eh?

About Those CBS memos from Killian (back):

Wingers...

The Standard...

Kos...

Marshall...

The Standard frames the issue this way:

There are several reasons these experts are skeptical of the authenticity of the Killian memos. First the typographic spacing is proportional, as is routine with professional typesetting and computer typography, not monospace, as was common in typewriters in the 1970s. (In proportional type, thin letters like "i" and "l" are spaced closer together than thick letters like "W" and "M". In monospace, all the letter widths are the same.)

Second, the font appears to be identical to the Times New Roman font that is the default typeface in Microsoft Word and other modern word processing programs. According to Flynn, the font is not listed in the Haas Atlas--the definitive encyclopedia of typewriter type fonts.

Third, the apostrophes are curlicues of the sort produced by word processors on personal computers, not the straight vertical hashmarks typical of typewriters. Finally, in some references to Bush's unit--the 111thFighter Interceptor Squadron--the "th" is a superscript in a smaller size than the other type.
(via The Standard)

And there are also several reasons to be skeptical of what the Standard is saying:

1. Proportional fonts were used in the 1970s. IBM made typewriters that had not only proportional fonts but interchangeable ones; I know, because I bought and used a second-hand one around 1975.

2. I don't see how anyone could say the font is identical to Times New Roman. Look at the half-size image or download the PDFs (back) , type out some lines of the memoes for yourself, and compare. The digitized images are simply too coarse and too aliased for a definitive judgement to me made. Proportional, however, the fonts are.

3. The apostrophes issue is dealt with in point 1.

4. The superscripting is also dealt with in point 1. See also Josh Marshall.

Issues not raised by the Standard:

1. The baselines of the memoes certainly vary. That is, some of the letters are a little higher than others, some a little lower. This is characteristic of the typewriter, a mechanical device. Though this effect could be duplicated with a typesetting package, it's hard to imagine someone working hard on a sophisticated effect like that, and then messing up a simple issue like fonts.

2. The "counters" of the letters (for example, the hole in the donut of an "o") are filled in, at least as far as I can tell in the digital reproduction). This too is characteristic of the typewriter, and a sophisticated effect.

Crucially:

3. The winger scenario—the CBS memos were "crude forgeries" ginned up in Word—would depend on the documents being laser printed, yes? But a laser printed letter, with toner laid down on top of the paper, and a typewritten letter, which shows the physical impact of keys striking the paper, would take a layperson about two seconds to distinguish. (There would probably also be carbon paper smears on the paper as well.) Presumably, someone at CBS took two seconds to look at the letters, and saw that they weren't laser printed, but were done on a typewriter. (Incompetent as they are, they can hardly be that incompetent.) The alternative theory is that CBS knew they were forgeries and went ahead anyhow, but that enters Protocols of the Elders of Zion territory.

Kevin Drum notes that CBS is very confident of the authenticity of the memos. It would be nice if we all could share that same confidence, if only because the wingers are dragging the debate back into "he said/she said" territory. The Standard has a series of suggestions that boil down to setting up people so that that Karl Rove can put horse's heads in their beds. I don't think so. It would be nice to know that the age of the ink on the memoes had been tested.

NOTE Interestingly, the White House didn't claim they were forged, and indeed released copies of them—that is, copies of CBS's copies (here). It would be like Rove to plant forgeries for CBS to find; perhaps through an associate of Killian that they got to. If that is so, CBS is in possession of an even bigger story.

UPDATE Then again, I'm no Photoshop expert. See Stirling Newbery at Kos.

UPDATE What Kerry should say:

If asked, only if asked:

"These are VERY serious charges. If there is any doubt if these documents are authentic, CBS needs to let us hear from the experts authenticating these memos. Because there is nothing more scurilous than degrading an honorable soldier's service record."
(via alert reader SusanG at
Kos)

Excellent! The big guys are jumping in!

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer joined a lawsuit Tuesday alleging that voting equipment company Diebold Inc. sold the state shoddy hardware and software, exposing elections to hackers and software bugs.

California's Alameda County also joined the false claims case, originally filed by a computer programmer and voting rights advocate. Faulty equipment in the March primary forced at least 6,000 of 316,000 voters in the county east of San Francisco to use backup paper ballots instead of the paperless voting terminals.

The lawsuit is the first e-voting case to rely on an obscure legal provision for whistleblowers who help the government identify fraud. Programmer Jim March and activist Bev Harris, who first filed the case in November, are seeking full reimbursement for Diebold equipment purchased in California.

Because the lawsuit relies on an obscure provision called "qui tam," March and Harris could collect up to 30 percent of a reimbursement. The state could collect triple damages from Diebold, or settle out of court.

The attorney general's decision to join the e-voting lawsuit is unusual. The government declines to participate in about 70 percent of all qui tams filed, said Bob Bauman, a private investigator and former government consultant.

"The state clearly believes there's merit to the case," said Berkeley, Calif., attorney Lowell Finley, who represents March and Harris. "This is a significant event and good news for us."

Earlier this year, California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley banned one Diebold system after he found uncertified software that "jeopardized" the outcome of elections in several counties, and state voting officials began considering filing a criminal lawsuit against the company.

Lockyer spokesman Tom Dresslar said the decision to join the lawsuit came after months of investigating problems with Diebold equipment. In the March primary, 573 of 1,038 polling places in San Diego County failed to open on time because of computer malfunctions.

Qui tam -- often used to find fraud involving Medicare or defense contracts -- is a provision of the Federal Civil False Claims Act. Some states have similar acts. Individuals tip off the government to embezzlers or shoddy contractors, and the whistleblowers collect as much as 30 percent of the reimbursement.
(via Newsday)

Interesting... Wonder if some Army private could use qui tam to cut 30% of Halliburton's no-bid billions?

Unbelievable? All too believable!

The military has lost key evidence in its investigation into the death of an Iraqi man beaten by Marine prison guards, throwing into doubt the status of a court-martial of one of the guards.

The missing evidence includes bones taken from the throat and chest of Nagem Hatab, attorneys said Thursday at a hearing for Maj. Clarke Paulus.

Hatab, 52, died last year at a makeshift camp in Iraq that was run by Marines. He had been rumored to be an official of Saddam Hussein's Baath party and part of the ambush of a U.S. Army convoy that killed 11 soldiers and led to the capture of Pfc. Jessica Lynch and five others.

The missing bones are just one of several errors in the investigation that came to light at Thursday's hearing.

Hatab's organs, which were removed during autopsy, were subsequently destroyed when they were left for hours in the blazing heat on an Iraqi airstrip. A summary of an interrogation the Marines conducted with Hatab shortly before his death at the camp also is missing, as is a photo of Hatab that was taken during questioning.
(via AP)

Well, well, well. There is, I believe, such a thing as military honor. The torturers have defiled it. So has anyone aiding them by, oh, "losing" body parts, records, etc. This administration really does corrupt whatever it touches, doesn't it?

Reporting today to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the results of current U.S. fact-finding in Darfur, Secretary Of State Powell finally uses the "g" word. This comes at the beginning of scheduled debate at the UN on whether to use sanctions against the government in Khartoum; the Bush administration's willingness to use that word should be an indication to all involved that Khartoum's policy of successive false concessions with no other purpose than delay, delay, delay is no longer viable.

I know that all of our attention is rightly focused on the presidential campaign, but it makes me feel better to be able to applaud Colin Powell and even the Bush administration for something. Don't worry, I'm not suggesting that the responsibility for the lethal partisanship that disfigures our political discourse resides anywhere else but at the doorstep of the current American right wing and the Republican party which it dominates.

You can find the BBC on Powell here, and and a photojournal of a first-person account by an actual refugee here; in fact, the BBC has a lot of that kind of thing about Darfur.

I know there's a tendency not to want to know specifics, but I've talked to too many refugees forced from their homes, their very lives, by the deliberate use of terror and violence and I know too well the real if inadequate comfort they find in the thought that the world outside will one day know what has and is happening to them, and that the world will care, not to look at the photographs, or not to read the personal accounts that help restore to the sufferers a fuller human identity than is contained in the word, "victim."

Don't forget the blog, "Sudan, The Passion Of The Present," the place to look for the most up-to-date reporting and analysis of this gathering tragedy. Of particular interest, getting back to politics, is this posted editorial by Fred Hyatt of the Wa Po discussing why the what's to be done about a situation like Darfur and the Sudan hasn't become a subject of debate, or at least discussion in the presidential campaign.

The strongest link between this exotic distant tragedy and our obssession with our own national politics is in the performance of the press, which Jeanne at Body & Soul lays out in this wonderful don't-miss essay that examines different kinds of press silences from Darfur, to the Beslan tragedy in Russia, to Iraq and here. And take a look at her not unrelated brilliant comparison of "Putin And Bush" and their war on terror.

When you've finished with all of the above, then and only then can you collect your postive reinforcement for such studious diligence by paying a visit to Fafblog, where you will find the Medium Lobster quite upset with the quibbling of Will Saletin and Paul Krugman about the greatness of George Bush, as well as Fafner's harrowing account of being taken for a terrorist by Tom Ridge himself.

Kudos (or do we say "mad props") to Froomkin for giving kudos to Salon for giving Kudos
to Paul Lukasiak the Jedi Master of the Bush payroll records (back).

Wish I had time to check the new, exhaustive examination of Bush's payroll records from Useless News against what's been up on Paul's AWOL Project site for months, sigh... Readers?

did Cheney push the panic button the other day?

I think we all know the answer to that question now, don't we?

This White House's political strategy is cratering before our very eyes as lie after lie is uncovered.

I'm assuming Americans are smart enough to recognize it when they see it.

Ooops.

That last statement may be a mistake. I'm sure the media whores will try to convince us there's nothing to see here. Move along.

UPDATE: Oh yeah. As expected, Glenn's blog over in hacktopia already has links to some pretty pathetic attempts to defend the regime from these latest charges of mendacity.

I especially love Glenn's comment that "it seems [Bush] put in more hours in the air than Kerry did in Swift boats." Pitiful.

That's true, Glenn. All those hours flying around protecting Galveston from seagulls have to be taken into account I guess.

Glenn really is just a Bush-loving hack, isn't he?

Lee's Summit is a Kansas City suburb on the Missouri side of the line. It's the next city down from Independence MO--you know, where Harry Truman was from?

(via KansasCityStar)

Some Lee's Summit residents upset that Republicans were allowed to hold a Bush campaign rally at a public high school will take their objections up with the school board tonight.

The meeting was requested in a letter sent to the school district Wednesday.

President Bush and several other Republican politicians spoke at Lee's Summit High School on Tuesday morning. The by-ticket-only event was attended by 15,000 people; 2,000 were students and school staff. Only students with parental permission could opt out of attending. Nine chose not to go.

In the letter, residents complained that a partisan rally “should not have been held in a facility that was paid for and is maintained by taxpayers' dollars during student instruction time.”

Jane Gibler, author of the letter, said hundreds of residents have signed the letter objecting to the rally for a variety of reasons.

Board president Patti Buie and Superintendent Tony Stansberry defended the district, saying they felt that having a president speak at the high school posed a once-in-a-lifetime educational opportunity.

Residents want the board to apologize for the partisan nature of the event and for any offense it caused. The letter also asks “that in the nature of fairness,” the board invite the Democratic Party and John Kerry to use the high school for a similar event, and to consider a policy against holding any other political campaign events during the school day in the future.

Since the KCStar requires registration, this is pretty much the whole story. Note the questions neither answered nor asked: did the RNC pay the school district for the use of this building? How about covering costs for security?

And damn but I hope the DNC is on the phone even as we speak, arranging an appearance for JFK in this hall.

UPDATE: I just realized after looking at the Washington Chestnut below, that this is one of the stories on that page! Look at "Bush Weighs Opt-Out Options in Missouri" down in the lower right.

I'm still looking for the "attentive hens" piece, I bet that's a blockbuster. And we know we can count on Lambert for more on the Goat of Alabama. I'm sure all that talk about possible involvement in Satanic rituals is just vile rumor of a partisan nature. The fact that the goat bears a scary resemblance to Zell Miller is a clue. Troubling....very troubling.

*

As long as we're talking about impunity, it is worth looking at the works of the guy who assured us today that a vote for Kerry makes it more likely that we will be attacked by terrorists.

Via Juan Cole

Cheney, Halliburton and Iraq:
The Purloined Letter

Why was Dick Cheney so eager to invade Iraq? Why did he repeatedly link Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda after September 11, and why did he maintain that not only did Iraq have weapons of mass destruction but that he, Cheney, knew exactly where they were?

Cheney clearly came into office wanting a war on Iraq, as revealed by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil.

Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton in 1995-200. Halliburton is a corporation that does a number of things, including energy and oil and military contracting.

In 2001, Halliburton won a contract from the Department of Defence to provide "emergency services" to the Pentagon. The contract was above-board. Bids were taken from five competitors, and Halliburton won with the low bid. There was nothing illegal or irregular about such a process. But that contract may explain Cheney and his gang on Iraq.

In Edgar Allan Poe's "The Purloined Letter," the blackmail note that the police are looking for is in plain sight. It isn't hidden, just crumpled as though it were trash. The police don't bother to examine it for that reason.

It is the contract itself that is the scam. It is quite simple. A standing contract to provide "emergency services" to the Pentagon is a potential gold mine under exactly one circumstance. If a major war breaks out, the need for "emergency services" will inevitably be enormous. The contract was worth billions. But only if there was a war. If there was peace, the need for "emergency services" would be small. Halliburton was not doing that well. It needed the big bucks.(snip)

Part two of the scam is also in plain view. It is the very idea that "emergency services" should and could be supplied to the US military by a private company.

The fact is that civilian employees of private firms cannot be ordered into a war zone. Halliburton, and its subsidiary Kellog, Root and Brown, was to supply air-conditioned quonset huts to the US troops for summer, 2003. It did not do so. It could not do so. Once the guerrilla war broke out, it was impossible to get enough civilian workers out to the troop positions to build the quonset huts and put in airconditioning. As a result, US troops "looked like hobos and lived like pigs" in the words of one, with their shaving cream cans exploding in the 140 degrees heat.

If, on the other hand, US troops had been assigned to build the quonset huts and put in the airconditioning, that could easily have been accomplished.

So, the "emergency services contract" was a boondoggle only in the case of a war, but in case of a war, many of the services contracted for could not actually be supplied, at least in a timely manner.

Do go read the whole thing. Professor Cole has links in great abundance, many dots are connected. If you should be talking to anyone, particularly one old enough to remember World War II, about the basic goodness of the Bush/Cheney team, just ask them how they could bring themselves to vote for a war profiteer.

So, here's the document; Bush disobeyed a direct order. I wonder why?

NOTE CBS has posted the four memos that show this; this is from the August 1 memo (see the sidebar at left).

NOTE Three points:

(1) the story is no longer "he said/she said" (back).

(2) On the new documents: There are three versions of the dish.

The mild version is that Bush was a mediocre pilot, based on his points. The spicy version is that Bush used political influence to get into the guard, and to get out of it. The extra spicy version is that Bush disobeyed orders—for reasons we don't (yet) know. The beauty part is that all the versions are true! But I think the extra spicy dish, as always, is the one to go for.

(3) Bush then is Bush now ("Culture of impunity" (back)—meaning that Bush's claims to have been "born again" are the same old load of Bushwa, since He behaved the same way before, and after. The master narrative of Bush's life is the same as everything else about the man: a fake and a fraud.

Mmmm, popcorn. In the immortal words of Marlon Brando, "Get the butter" ...

The interesting thing about the Bush AWOL saga, now grinding to some sort of hideous climax, is that at its heart there is an unanswered question:

Why did Bush disobey a direct order and refuse to take a medical exam?

Wouldn't it be one of life's beautiful little ironies if Kitty Kelley's long-awaited book gave the answer to that question?

Well, well. My understanding is that usually the military takes a dim view of this sort of behavior. I wonder why they treated Bush differently? And why Bush felt he could disobey with impunity? And why he disobeyed?

WaPo's headline:

Records Say Bush Balked at Order

Note well that this takes the story out of the "he said/she said" "balanced" mode.

Bush failed to carry out a direct order from his superior in the Texas Air National Guard in May 1972 to undertake a medical examination that was necessary for him to remain a qualified pilot, according to documents made public yesterday.

Documents obtained by the CBS News program "60 Minutes" shed new light on one of the most controversial episodes in Bush's military service, when he abruptly stopped flying and moved from Texas to Alabama to work on a political campaign. The documents include a memo from Bush's squadron commander, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, ordering Bush "to be suspended from flight status for failure to perform" to U.S. Air Force standards and failure to take his annual physical "as ordered."
(via WaPo)

You know, it's kind of like the Iraq war, isn't it? That was "controversial" too—except the blogosphere, using those old-fashioned and oh-so-unbalanced Enlightenment tools called "evidence" and "reasoning" got to the story a lot earlier than the SCLM did. (Atrios gives a well-deserved shout-out to Paul Lukasiak here (see also here).

And readers! It couldn't hurt to drop Kristoff a line and remind him of Paul Lukasiak's work. Just to keep the story alive, you know....Heck Salon did..

I'm having a little cognitive dissidence on this one:

President Bush may skip one of the three debates that have been proposed by the Commission on Presidential Debates and accepted by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), Republican officials said yesterday.

The officials said Bush's negotiating team plans to resist the middle debate, which was to be Oct. 8 in a town meeting format in the crucial state of Missouri.

The audience for the second debate, to be at Washington University in St. Louis, was to be picked by the Gallup Organization. The commission said participants should be undecided voters from the St. Louis area.

A presidential adviser said campaign officials were concerned that people could pose as undecided when they actually are partisans.
(via WaPo)

Weird. I mean, it's weird that Bush is heroic enough to defend the country against evil, but he isn't heroic enough to take questions from someone he's afraidconcerned might be a partisan. WTF? I mean, how could there be any questions that The Chosen One could be unprepared to answer?

Even weirder is the fact that Bush has the solution to people posing as partisans—after all, if Bush has people at his own rallies sign loyalty oaths (back) that they're going to vote for Him (not that voting for Him is really necessary, you understand), why not just have people at the debate sign a loyalty oath that they're still undecided?

And anyhow, if a partisan somehow sneaks into the debate and does something like wear a Kerry button or T-Shirt or act in any way that is not suitably worshipfu, Bush can just have them arrested! (back) Or stomp them (back)

So what's the deal here?

I think the media needs to stop being so mean to Dear Leader. It's mean to say that Bush was a deserter—but to back it up with documents? That's really crossing the line. CBS:

What has never surfaced before, reports CBS News Anchor Dan Rather, are four documents from the personal files of Col. Jerry Killian, Mr. Bush's squadron commander. They could help answer lingering questions on whether Lt. Bush received special consideration during his military service.

Mmmm... Forget the special considerations—that's a given (see Ben Barnes). What we want to know is whether Bush broke the law.

The first memo is a direct order to take "an annual physical examination" – a requirement for all pilots.

The impunity: Bush disobeys the order. This would be the medical examination Bush didn't take—after taking the exam would have involved a drug test (back).

Another memo refers to a phone call from the lieutenant in which he and his commander "discussed options of how Bush can get out of coming to drill from now through November." And that due to other commitments "he may not have time."

The impunity: Normally, in the military, you make the time for it, not the other way round. "commitment"?

On August 1, 1972, Col. Killian grounded Lt. Bush for failure to perform to U.S. Air Force/Texas Air National Guard standards and for failure to take his annual physical as ordered.

The impunity: Grounding is a penalty for disobeying a direct order?

A year after Lt. Bush's suspension from flying, Killian was asked to write another assessment.

Killian's memo, titled 'CYA' reads he is being pressured by higher-ups to give the young pilot a favorable yearly evaluation; to, in effect, sugarcoat his review. He refuses, saying, "I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job."

[T]wo official memos seem to contradict previous White House statements.

One "orders" the president to report for a physical. The White House has said the physical was "not necessary" because the president stopped flying.

The impunity: Bush decides what is "necessary," not his commanding officers.

And where the White House says the president's flying status was revoked simply for missing that physical, the memo points to both the missed physical and "failure to perform to (USAF/TexANG) standards."

It's not just the newly discovered memos causing trouble. There are new questions as to why, when he moved to Massachusetts to attend Harvard Business School, Mr. Bush did not sign up with a reserve unit there, as he promised in a letter when he left the Texas National Guard.

Because He could?

And why, with his erratic attendance record, he was subject to neither discipline nor active duty call-up as provided for in his contract with the Guard.

Because He had juice?

Larry Korb, an assistant Secretary of Defense under President Reagan has reviewed the Mr. Bush's record and believes he did not fulfill his contract.
"Essentially, Bush gamed the system to avoid serving his country the way that most of his contemporaries had to," Korb said.
(via CBS)

The impunity: Bush "gamed the system." (Of course, Reagan DOD officials are all in the tank for the Democrats...)

The money quote in Walter Robinson's story sums up Bush's impunity nicely—yes, all the way at the end:

''It appears that no one wanted to hold him accountable," said retired Major General Paul A. Weaver Jr., who retired in 2002 as the Pentagon's director of the Air National Guard.
(via the Boston Globe)

Throughout Bush's life, (1) people never hold Him accountable for anything, and (2) He doesn't believe they have any right to.

That's the story of Bush's "service" in the Guard; that's the story of Bush's term in office. The fact that between them Bush was "born again" makes no difference to his character or his behavior. Classic example: Try (1) to hold Bush accountable on the missing WMDs, and what (2) does He answer? "What's the difference?" Subtext: You have no right to question me.

It's a culture of impunity that is rapidly taking hold in this country, and Bush is doing everything He can to foster it.

Fortunately, in November, we have the opportunity to hold him accountable... We hope....

And that's just counting deaths among the liberators. Among the liberated, estimated deaths range from 7 to 10,000, and not only the deaths of young men and woman, but also of children of all ages, adult civilians of all ages, people who are mothers, and fathers, sons and daughters, uncles and aunts, grandparents, cousins, friends and neighbors.

The numbers for the wounded Americans and Iraqis are higher by a factor of seven, or even ten, as far as I can tell. And we are talking about greivous injuries.

The turning of this particular corner of over a thousand Americans having died in Iraq is a fairly arbitrary milestone, but it deserves its moment of respect and contemplation. I believe there is a sacramental element threaded through our everyday life that demands of us, as Arthur Miller would have it, that we pay attention, and that such attention sometimes requires a ceremonial expression.

That is not an entirely comfortable position to hold for someone like myself, a non-believing Jew whose connection to the 5000 years old "faith of her fathers" is focused on history and tradition, but not formal religious participation. I'm aware, too, that having to concoct your own ad hoc ceremonies on an "as needed" basis lacks a good deal of the dignity and resonance offered by the great traditional world religions. I'm not uncomfortable being in a synogogue, or a cathedral, or a church, or a Quaker meeting hall, or a mosque, or a zen monastary, or at a Hindu puja, all places that at various points in my life I've found friends and solice. But one believes what one believes.

So today, I will take time to think about this war of ours in Iraq, how we got there, and what we do now, and in the future. I hope to be as critical of my own positions and choices as I am of others.

But mostly I will pay attention to specific stories about the sacrifice and suffering of particular people, Americans and Iraqis, who have and continue to struggle to keep the reality on the ground in Iraq from slipping into irredeemable tragedy

And while I'm on this subject, something I've been wanting to say about the nearly universal criticism of Michael Moore aabout his inclusion in "Farhenheit 911,"of scenes of Iraqis in the ordinary tasks of daily life, without any mention of Saddam Hussein. John McCain referred to it in his speech at the RNC, noting that this disingenous filmmaker seemed to have an idyllic view of life in Saddam's Iraq. The MSNBC pundit panel really groved on that one.

Nonsense. Astonishing isn't it, the phillistinism present among our elite gasbags, who are as unfamiliar with documentary film as a form as they are unaware of their own ignorance? What, a "documenatary" with staged elements? That's right, Mr. Scarborough and allow me to introduce you to Robert Flaherty, whose great "Nanook Of The North" was almost enirely staged. What, a documentary with a subjective point of view? Allow me to introduce Alain Resnais, whose "Night & Fog" used footage of the Holocaust in a subjective examination of whether or not it is possible to make a documentary about the Holocaust.

Hardly surprising, then, that Senator McCain has no idea how to read Moore's documentary, nor understood that Michael Moore was under no obligation to directly reference the point that Saddam Hussein was a monstrous tyrant. Detailed knowledge of Saddam's tyrannies over the Iraqi people had become common knowledge in the world for which Moore was making his film; after months of almost obssessive public discussion of those facts, Michael had every right to assume all members of his audience would be throughly acquainted with them.

The point of the shots of ordinary Iraqis in the act of being human, neighborhood kids playing, women hanging up the wash, was precisely to insist on their full identity as human beings, against their proscribed identity as singularly Saddam's victims in most pre-invasion discusions, as if pre-invasion Iraq was a concentration camp and Iraqis were helpless inmates.

Americans and Iraqis. Are they "them," as against our "us." Or, are "they" part of our "we?" It's that conundrum Moore's film confronts, with a good deal more honesty than do any of the writings of Andrew Sullivan or David Brooks.

For a sense of Iraqis as specific people who take their place in a specific, complex culture, I can think of nothing better than Riverbend's "Baghdad Burning." She hasn't posted since early August, but you can read her archives, as I did this morning; you'll find them to be as fresh and instructive as when you first read them.

For a sense of what it is like for American troops on the ground in Iraq I know of no better reporting than Nir Rosen's in this five part series from October 2003 that was published in the AsiaTimes. Rosen is rightly getting wider attention, and if you missed his Report From Fallujah from a July issue of The New Yorker, it's not too late to get to it.

In addition, if you haven't developed the habit of checking in on a regular basis at Occupation Watch, you should. The material there is remarkable. It's point of view is essentially Iraqi, even though it is made up of supporters from around the world. It opposes the occupation, but non-violently and with compassion, even for the American soldiers who are called upon to carry it out. Right now, they have up a plea for the release if the Italian and Iraqi aid workers just abducted in Baghdad:

Another book I'll be reading today is one I've mentioned before. "TWILIGHT OF EMPIRE: Responses to Occupation" a collection of essays published in 2003, that is lavishly illustrated with some extraordinary photographs taken in Iraq that are both beautiful and disquieting. The book was edited by Mark LeVine, a professor at UC-Irvine, who speaks Arabic and seems to have an amazing background on the ground in the Middle East and by the actor, Viggo Mortensen, whose Perceval Press is also the book's publisher, something I hadn't realized when I first recommended it.

There are some well known names among the essayists, Naomi Klein, Mike Davis, Amy Goodman, Medea Benjamin, and members of her group, Code Pink, whose political choises I don't always agree with, but whose work forging global links between people who are committed to non-violent, radical, in the best sense of that word, change, I admire and support. Christian Parenti has an eye-opening essay about being on the ground with our troops in Iraq, "Stretched Thin, Lied To, And Mistreated." The most compelling voices belong to Iraqi's and Arab journalists.

There is something healing about the care and even love with which the book has been produced; it feels beautiful in one's hands, as well as to look at and read. It's available at Amazon, although the last time I looked, (I've bought it as a gift for a number of people), several of its marketplace associates will get it to you faster than Amazon itself)

And finally, since the sacred needn't exclude humor, if you missed the night in December of 2002 when Peter Jackson and members of his cast were gathered on The Charlie Rose Show to discuss the second installment of "The Lord Of The Rings," but Rose, whose war intoxication was evident on any show where politics was the subject, couldn't keep himself from asking what political point Viggo Mortensen was raising by the t-shirt he was wearing under his jacket, that displayed the phrase "No More Blood for Oil" apparently painted on it by the actor himself. Mortensen quietly explains that normally he wouldn't be making a political point in such a context, but that he's been disturbed by the number of comments he's heard the use the films and the Tolkein book as an inspiration/justification for American policy in the world after 9/11. While you can see that Mortensen is torn, taking up time meant to discuss a film about which he cleary cares deeply, but wanting to keep the record straight about too facile self-serving interpretations of the films' emphasis on war, CharlieRose lets the segment get away from him because he's itching to take on Mortensen's arguments, and he does manage to get in that classic meant-to-be-a zinger - "Well, what kind of response should we have had to 9/11?" It's fun to watch it with hindsight, and one of the few times it's possible look back at how we got to where we are today without descending into rage.

You can find a video clip of the first half of the show here; the portion in question is about nine minutes into the show. The second half is confined to discussion of the film, but for anyone interested it can be found here.

Welcome SW's Energy Gap:

Labor Pains
Yesterday was Labor Day. So what happened to the labor movement? Why isn’t it more relevant? In my view, it is because we have defined labor too narrowly. Today, when you speak of "labor" you imply unions. And while I recognize the power of organization and the good things that unions have done on behalf of labor over the years the reality is that a very small fraction of the labor force belongs to unions. Labor policy in its broadest terms, affects everyone who’s primary source of income is wages rather than interest and dividends. If you get up and go to work you are a laborer. Our economy depends on two orthogonal strands to make a whole cloth. Look at the vertical strands as capital and the horizontal strands as labor. One without the other is just a bunch of loose thread. But public policy in this country has been jiggered to favor capital over labor. continue reading

Also from SW's Energy Gap: The Big Picture, War and Oil.

*** DON't MISS THIS ONE !!!
Dick Cheney with a couple of Neal Bush's friends. (photo!) via Joe Hill Dispatch.org


Death Squads and Cheap Labor Conservatives

BOGOTA, Colombia, Sept. 7 - The attorney general's office said late Monday that Colombian soldiers assassinated three union leaders last month, an account that contrasts sharply with the army's earlier contention that the three men were Marxist rebels killed in a firefight.

The attorney general's human rights unit on Monday ordered the arrest of an army officer, two soldiers and a civilian who took part in the killings of Jorge Eduardo Prieto, Leonel Goyeneche and Hector Alirio Martinez on Aug. 5 in Saravena, a town long besieged by leftist rebels. Since 2002, American military trainers have been instructing Colombian soldiers there in counterguerrilla techniques, though it is unclear if the Americans trained the unit accused of killing the union leaders.

"The evidence shows that a homicide was committed," Luis Alberto Santana, the deputy attorney general, said at a news conference on Monday. "We have ruled out that there was combat."

The attorney general's announcement vindicated union leaders in Colombia and Europe who said the army had killed three defenseless union activists and then tried to cover the matter up.

"It's clear that we were never wrong, saying that they were assassinated by members of the Colombian Army," said Domingo Tovar, who coordinates human rights activities for the Central Workers Union, largest Colombian labor confederation.

[...]

Colombia is by far the world's most dangerous country for union members, with 94 killed last year and 47 slain by Aug. 25 this year, according to the National Union School, a research and educational center in Medellín. Most of those killings were by right-wing paramilitary leaders linked to rogue army units. Worldwide, 123 union members were slain last year, according to the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, a Brussels-based group.

[...]

Paramilitary organizations, which use death squads to erode support for rebel groups, have accused unions of working with guerrillas. Rebel groups have, to be sure, drawn some members from unions.

But union leaders have also made enemies of powerful forces in Colombia's highly stratified society, both for their leftist declarations and their harsh criticism of fiscally conservative governments bent on privatizing industries and holding down labor costs. - Bogota Says Army Killed Union Chiefs/NYTimes - Sept. 08.2004

United Farm Workers

Gallo Unfair

Details / Timeline

Farm workers at UFW convention vote to boycott Gallo if fair contract is not reached This past weekend hundreds of farm workers gathered in Fresno, Calif. for the United Farm Workers’ constitutional convention as UFW members set the future course for their union, including setting new UFW policy to deal with the Gallo of Sonoma winery. Union members have been working without a contract there since Nov. 1, 2003.

Take Action! Join John Kerry. Tell Gallo to negotiate a fair contract now! Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has joined the more than 30,000 Americans who have signed the online "Gallo Unfair" petition or who have sent letters or e-mails to Matt and Gina Gallo in support of the Gallo of Sonoma farm workers.
Take Action

Gallo petition alerts

*

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 ...

His... His...

Allegations that George W. Bush snorted cocaine at Camp David while Poppy Bush was in the White House are in Kitty Kelley's new book, "The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty," according to a British tabloid.

The celebrity biographer quotes the President's former sister-in-law, Sharon Bush saying, "Bush did coke at Camp David when his father was President, and not just once either," Sharon Churcher first reported in the Mail on Sunday. Kelley also writes that former First Lady Barbara Bush smoked pot while at Southern Methodist University, the Mail noted.
(via Daily News)

The SCLM, of course, is being oh-so-responsible on this one. Howie the Whore does, however, manage—intentionally or not—to pin the irony meter with this graf:

During the 2000 campaign, Bush repeatedly declined to address questions about possible past drug use, saying only that he had made "mistakes" when he was "young and irresponsible." He said he had not used illegal drugs since 1974 but refused to say whether he had tried them earlier. "Enough is enough when it comes to trying to dig up people's backgrounds in politics," Bush said in 1999.
(via WaPo)

This from the standard-bearer of the party who spent $70 million dollars to impeach an elected President over a blowjob. YARH.

I guess when aWol was young, he made "mistakes." Now, he just makes "miscalculations." Either way, nothing is ever His responsibility, is it?

Tonight on 60 Minutes 2:

Former Texas House Speaker and Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes, the man who says he got George W. Bush into the National Guard, tells his story for the first time to Dan Rather, tonight at 8 p.m. ET/PT

extra links: Washington Post/Barnes
Video - Barnes
(Thanks to "NYMinute" for those links.)

Plus - More lies and disinformation from the Bush contagion.

60 Minutes 2 revisits the so called "Texas Miracle".

Houston schools won nationwide praise over the last few years for slashing dropout rates and significantly boosting test scores. Dan Rather investigates claims that this model system falsified dropout rates.

Thanks to reader "Young Turk" for alerting us to this program late last week.

(CBS) It was called the "Texas Miracle," a phrase you may remember because President Bush wanted everyone to know about it during his 2000 presidential campaign

[...]

"Sharpstown High wasn’t the only "outstanding" school. The Houston school district reported a citywide dropout rate of 1.5 percent. But educators and experts 60 Minutes checked with put Houston's true dropout rate somewhere between 25 and 50 percent.

"But the teachers didn't believe it. They knew it was cooking the books. They told me that. Parents told me that," says Kimball. "The superintendent of schools would make the public believe it was one school. But it is in the system, it is in all of Houston."

Those low dropout rates – in Houston and all of Texas - were one of the accomplishments then-Texas Gov. George Bush cited when he campaigned to become the "Education President." - Full article / CBSNews

60 Minutes II main page.

(thanks Riggsveda for reminding me of all of this today)

*

We wrote ("A Guide to Republican Strategy and Tactics" about the unknown Republican delegate who kicked a protester while she was down on the ground (Nice!)

Anyhow, Jesus's General thinks he's put a name to this good Christian fellow.

"I never saw him,..."

Another particularly credible witness is Leonard Walls, a retired Air Force colonel who was then a full-time pilot instructor at the base. "I was there pretty much every day," he said, adding: "I never saw him, and I was there continually from July 1972 to July 1974." [...]

The sheer volume of missing documents, and missing recollections, strongly suggests to me that Mr. Bush blew off his Guard obligations. [...]

"The record clearly and convincingly proves he did not fulfill the obligations he incurred when he enlisted in the Air National Guard," writes Gerald Lechliter, a retired Army colonel who has made the most meticulous examination I've seen of Mr. Bush's records (I've posted the full 32-page analysis here [PDF file]). Mr. Lechliter adds that Mr. Bush received unauthorized or fraudulent payments that breached National Guard rules, according to the documents that the White House itself released. - Nicholas Kristof/NYTimes - Sept. 8.2004

"He didn't meet the commitments, or face the punishment, the records show."

In February, when the White House made public hundreds of pages of President Bush's military records, White House officials repeatedly insisted that the records prove that Bush fulfilled his military commitment in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.

But Bush fell well short of meeting his military obligation, a Globe reexamination of the records shows: Twice during his Guard service -- first when he joined in May 1968, and again before he transferred out of his unit in mid-1973 to attend Harvard Business School -- Bush signed documents pledging to meet training commitments or face a punitive call-up to active duty.

He didn't meet the commitments, or face the punishment, the records show. The 1973 document has been overlooked in news media accounts. The 1968 document has received scant notice. - continued.... Boston Globe/via Common Dreams.org

Also see: THE AWOL PROJECT

*

Reality checks. Robert Parry:

This election has become a test of whether reality still means anything to the American people, whether this country has moved to essentially a new form of government in which one side is free to lie about everything while a paid “amen corner” of ideological media drowns out any serious public debate.

For weeks now, George W. Bush’s campaign has been radically testing the limits of how thoroughly one party can lie, misrepresent and smear without paying any price and indeed while reaping rewards in the opinion polls. Bush personally capped off this binge of dishonesty with his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, continuing his pattern of lying about how the war in Iraq began. - Reality on the Ballot/Consortium News

Two more items noted - via Cursor.org's dereliction2004 media beat page:

1- Philip Gourevitch / The New Yorker / 9-8-2004

For Bush, rhetoric is reality, and he operates as if things were as he says they are. If reality does not conform, he remains undeterred, on message.

2- Media Watch / 9-8-2004

It appears the President is at it again. He is using the 9/11 terrorists and Saddam Hussein in the same paragraphs to create a rhetorical connection between the two... Why does the President continue to use this rhetorical strategy after admitting a year ago there was not a connection? Because he faces no consequences for doing so.

*

1- James Wolcott
BTW: If you haven't had a chance to read Wolcott's Attack Poodles and Other Media Mutants; The Looting of the News in a Time of Terror do yourself a huge favor and pick up a copy. You won't be sorry. The book is laugh yourself silly hilarious as well as frighteningly goddamned serious. Following excerpt from Attack Poodles...

His [George W. Bush] reelection campaign will be a sustained fear-based initiative, his massive ad buys serving as his "Shock and Awe" bombardment, the attack poodles amplifying their alarmist messages. For attack poodles are the straw dogs of fear and loathing - four-legged scarecrows crouched at the crossroads. Only when enough of us are tired of being afraid will the attack poodles and their masters be routed, and that will entail lighting a torch to each and every bundle of lies. I think that day is due. Too much anger is in the air, and the dead of 9/11 can no longer be yoked around the necks of those demanding answers. If Bush buys reelection, it will be a Pyrrhic victory, his second term as ravaged as Nixon's; he will not survive, and he will go down in history reviled. Let the bonfires burn. In the uncompromising words of John Jay Chapman, "It is necessary to destroy reputations when they are lies. Peace be to their ashes. But war and fire until they be ashes. This is positive and constructive work." And don't let anyone tell you different.

As Tom says below, "It's time to ride these guys out of town on a rail." Bush, Cheney, every one of em. And that goes for their yappy hoola-hoop diving whelp-dog circus of mutant media mutts as well.

More links added to the blogroll. Pay a visit to each. Copy them. Add them to your own blogroll if you haven't already. I try to add new links to the menu as fast as I can (some should have been added ages ago) but sometimes I fall behind. Gotta iron the lawn and chase the pumpkins from the deer patch and hurl obscenities at the television. You know how it goes. So my apologies, especially to those of you who visit here regularly, for not getting these up earlier:

2- Frogsdong
3- Cooped Up (Jeff Coop)
4- Michael Berube
5- Stone Court
6- Scaramouche
7- Bear Left Link Library
8- Greg Palast
9- Mithras
10- Ethel the Blog
11- GWBush04 (humor - parody and satire)
12- Rude Pundit
13- Bonassus

Also added the email this post button (below). Don't know if it works because I've never tried it. But there it is if you'd like to give it a go.

Set those torches..."to each and every bundle of lies."

*

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," Cheney told about 350 supporters at a town-hall meeting in this Iowa city.

If Kerry were elected, Cheney said the nation risks falling back into a "pre-9/11 mind-set" that terrorist attacks are criminal acts that require a reactive approach. Instead, he said Bush's offensive approach works to root out terrorists where they plan and train, and pressure countries that harbor terrorists.
(via AP)

It's official.

After four years of dismal failure in office, W and the boys have nothing left in their arsenal apparently but fear-mongering.

It's time to ride these guys out of town on a rail.

Josh Marshall has some quotes from a letter sent by President Jimmy Carter over the weekend to Zell Miller, though from whence came the letter to Josh is not explained. Tis a beautiful thing to read.

Great Georgia Democrats who served in the past, including Walter George, Richard Russell, Herman Talmadge, and Sam Nunn disagreed strongly with the policies of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and me, but they remained loyal to the party in which they gained their public office. Other Democrats, because of philosophical differences or the race issue, like Bo Callaway and Strom Thurmond, at least had the decency to become Republicans.

Everyone knows that you were chosen to speak at the Republican Convention because of your being a “Democrat,” and it’s quite possible that your rabid and mean-spirited speech damaged our party and paid the Republicans some transient dividends.
Perhaps more troublesome of all is seeing you adopt an established and very effective Republican campaign technique of destroying the character of opponents by wild and false allegations.

Consider those snippets catnip and jump straight over to read the rest if you haven't yet. Josh mentions that Carter's press secretary said the letter is private and there will be no further comment, which is a bit disappointing, though I can certainly understand why the ex-President doesn't wish to get in the mud with Zell.

Not so the right wing; they're embracing him. They don't believe he was too extreme in tone or message for mainstream consumption. You can find examples of what I mean at The Corner here, here, and here.

Apparently, President Bush , too, now thinks it's safe to invoke the "Zell" factor on the campaign trail. And it will be if the Democratic Party doesn't find an intelligent way to push back. The most insidious aspect of Miller's appearance was the sense he gave that he was sharing inside secrets about what Democrats are really like. How about some big-name Democrats, Joe Biden, Richard Durbin, Bob Graham, Sen Clinton, maybe some former Cabinet Secretaries, and maybe some of those no longer in the Senate, like Sam Nunn, stepping up to be counted, to say that none of them could begin to recognize the John Kerry they've known over the years with the smeared picture Zell Miller attempted to paint of a Senator.

A lot of folks who didn't see Zell's performance are hearing about it from partisans. They need to hear about a different interpretation of why that extraordinarily ugly performance was indicative of the true meaning of the entire Republican convention.

They need to hear that Republicans are still the party that only knows how to divide Americans, that Bush & co are trying to scare the rest of us into believing that the utter mess their party has created, here and abroad, in the past four years is the best Americans can expect; Americans need to hear about how and why Republicans use those classic techniques of propoganda, derision, smears, and lies, because they're afraid of John Kerry, and because they can't run on their actual record. Americans need to have it pointed out that George Bush and his entire campaign seem incapable of an intelligent dialogue not based on the trivialization of every issue, from whether or not we should be sensitive toward terrorists, which no one in the Kerry campaign ever suggested we should, to the President's failure to talk about what those plans are of his to fight the war on terror, other than to repeat the tired nonsense we've heard over and over again before and after the invasion of Iraq, for instance, as he said today, that between accepting the word of a madman and protecting this country, he'll choose the latter every time, as if any Democrat would choose the former, and as if those were even remotely the two choices presented to him at the time.

Democrats have got to look for more creative ways than commercials and campaign stops to make their case, ways that will shake the SCLM up a bit, get them off of their own message and force them to deal with the Kerry/Edwards message.

Some troll over on Atrios last night was trying to pimp the spin that the Russian schoolhouse terrorist atrocity proved that we were right to be fighting in Iraq. (Yeah, try to wrap your mind around that one. It's a little early in the day for drink so we suggest deep breathing, meditation or aspirin for the exploding-head problem.)

Hecate had a comeback I just loved.

(via Atrios' comment thread)

The troll sez:

I would rather our armed, trained 20 somethings be fighting in Iraq, than what has happened in Breslan

To which Hecate replies:

~sigh~

Look, this is sloppy thinking. It's like saying I'd rather clean my bathroom than have cat hair all over my clothes. Or I'd rather get my car serviced today than deal with a broken washing machine next week. Just like cleaning my bathroom won't have any effect on whether or not I've got cat hair on my black blazer, killing Iraquis won't prevent the sort of terrorism that just occurred in Russia.

I live in Arlington County, VA. We were declared a disaser area after 9/11. Those attacks were carried out by al Queda -- whom we've helped make stronger -- and by Osama bin Laden -- whom Bush is no longer interested in catching. The attacks weren't carried out by Iraq. So attacking Iraq won't prevent terrorist attacks any more than getting my car serviced will prevent my washing machine from breaking down.

In fact, our tactics in Iraq, including torturing people in Abu Garaib (sp?) have recruited additional terrorists. Russia has tried to deal with the Chechnyans the way we've tried to deal with Iraq. And, you know, it doesn't seem to be working too well for them.

I doubt that we can ever be completely safe from terrorists. But we'd be a lot safer if our poorly-armed, untrained, twenty-somethings weren't over in Iraq.

Here's what we need to thump on: The Bushco tactic of conflating the "war on Terra" with the war in Iraq is deranged. It makes no sense. To try to argue against it by means of reason and logic is to fail because it is not based on reason or logic, or indeed facts on the ground as innumerable sources have proved by now.

So fight terrorism by shaving your cat, and prevent suicide bombers by getting your oil changed. It makes as much sense as what Bush and Putin are doing, and causes a great deal less harm. And, of course, mention this to as many Bush fans as you can. They'll say "That's nuts!" at which point you can smile broadly and say "It sure is!"

Our ol' buddy Freewayblogger has a major action planned for today. We don't want to encourage anything that might cause traffic accidents, but it's a good day to keep an eye on the overpasses:

(via FreewayBlogger)

On Tuesday, Sept. 7th, the Freewayblogger will post one hundred signs on LA area freeways protesting the war in Iraq and the failure to find Osama Bin Laden. The lone activist has posted over 2,000 handpainted signs on California freeways since the war began.

"Our country is in danger from an administration whose
policies are multiplying our enemies and alienating our friends. And our democracy is in danger from having a flow of information all but entirely controlled by a few large corporations. Freewayblogging is my way of fighting back against both."

"Don't mourn: Organize." -Joe Hill

"Stop organizing: Do Something." -the Freewayblogger

But let me tell you what else we need to do. We need to do something about these frivolous lawsuits that are running up the cost of your health care and running good docs out of business. (Applause.) We've got an issue in America. Too many good docs are getting out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country. See, I don't think you can be pro-doctor and pro-patient and pro-hospital and pro-trial lawyer at the same time. (Applause.) I think you've got to make a choice. My opponent made his choice, and he put him on the ticket. (Applause.) I made my choice. I'm for medical liability reform now. (Applause.) In all we do to improve health care, we will make sure that health decisions are made by doctors and patients, not by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. (Applause.) George W. Bush Poplar Bluff, Missouri - Sept. 06, 2004

I'm not sure how many OB/GYNs are lovelorn castaways, but apparently, if you ask George W. Bush, it's a regular trail of tears out there. And apparently it's all the fault of them "trial lawyers" and them "bureaucrats in Washington DC". (naturally Bush doesn't count himself among those "bureaucrats" in Washington DC) Likewise, you're either "pro-doctor" and "pro-hospital" and "pro-patient" or - your one of them! You know who I mean - one of them "pro-trial lawyer" types. Like John Kerry and his little grinning sidekick. Thems is one of them! Git the gun Ma! They is either with us or a'gin us!

Texas Hell Holes!
Rick Perry, Governor of the State of Texas speaking to the (right wing think tank) Manhattan Institute's Center for Legal Policy Forum. (October 8, 2003):

Prior to the enactment of meaningful tort reform a few months ago, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce designated Texas among the five worst states in terms of the litigation climate in the nation. The American Tort Reform Association last year named four Texas counties as judicial hell holes, areas where normal rules of balance and fair play under the law don’t exist.

Nowhere is the evidence of lawsuit abuse more clear than in the medical profession. Fifty percent of all Texas doctors indicated as of the year 2000 that they had a claim filed against them. Seven out of every eight medical malpractice case was dismissed without payment because they were deemed meritless or questionable.

The threat of litigation has a domino effect, though, causing malpractice carriers to raise rates, which in turn force many doctors to leave Texas, or in some cases to leave the practice of medicine altogether. And ultimately this hurts patient access the most. Link

But wait, it wasn't always this way. What's Perry talking about when he claims that until a "few months ago" Texas was one of the "five worst states" in the country? What! Why, I remember when:

He promised to reform the legal system, to get rid of junk lawsuits and he has. Today the legal system serves all the people, not just the trial lawyers.

Hip hip horay! That's Dick Cheney yackin'. More than four years ago before cheering throngs at the Republican National Convention. Waxing grandiose-like about George W. Bush's friv'luss lawsuit stompin' achievements when he was the govern-ator of Texas. (Quote snipped from the text of Cheney's speech to the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia. Aug, 2nd, 2000.)

So what happened there Big Time? What's Tricky Ricky talking about? Or, could it be, I have unearthed another flip-floppery buried beneath the Bush ruins!! Someone ring Judy Woodruff and inform her of this latest discovery. Oh, no, wait, Judy only deals in "officially" approved flip-flops. Never mind.

So, how did Texas go from a "junk lawsuit" free zone, as of August 2000, to what Texas Gov. Rick Perry descibes as a "judicial hell hole" only a short two years later?

Could it be that the whole "frivolous lawsuit" shriek is just one more excitable tried and true election year boo-scare prop the Republican's and their stable of corporate sponsored slut-doxies in the so called "mainstream" broadcast media love to pull from the big bag of frights and fiends? Just one more grotesquerie to wag in the public square like a bat-winged angel waving the hairless severed head of Saint Cosmas before a room full of the Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus? Don't answer that. By the way: Saint Cosmas is also the patron saint of the chemical industry. Just in case you were about to drop a nasty tortish thing into the comment slot below.

In the current issue of Mother Jones, the National Center for State Courts is reported to have found that the rate of tort filings in Texas fell by 37% between 1990 and 2000. - [1]

Flip flops and boo-frights aside lets revisit Rick Perry's comments above:

Seven out of every eight medical malpractice case was dismissed without payment because they were deemed meritless or questionable.

Bureau of Justice Statistics:

according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in medical malpractice cases doctors win about 75% of the time. - [2]

Punitive damages:

In the 1990s, punitive damages (tort reformers' biggest bugaboo) were awarded in only 6% of all jury trials and averaged $50,000. - [3]

So what's the problem? Oh, wait....the real problem is not necessarily "frivolous lawsuits" themselves, but rather the "threat" of "frivolous lawsuits." Ah ha! And to make matters worse the "domino effect" is afoot. Preemptive strike! Rick Perry again:

The threat of litigation has a domino effect, though, causing malpractice carriers to raise rates, which in turn force many doctors to leave Texas, or in some cases to leave the practice of medicine altogether.

This is a little like claiming that the threat of tornadoes or hurricanes or fires is fueling a mass exodus from the midwest or southeast or southern California to the White Mountains of New Hampshire. Granted some will leave for new horizons but what's really driving doctors away.

Doc went a courtin' he did ride.....
George Bush now claims that "frivolous lawsuits" are preventing OB/GYNs from practicing their "love with women." Why those kill joy trial lawyers! What the hell is this here whiner talkin about?:

Delivering babies has also been severely devalued. As a personal example, my former next-door neighbor retired early from his OBGYN practice several years ago, about ten years earlier than he had planned. The HMOs literally destroyed the value of his practice and he had not been paying himself for about a year, just to be able to maintain his staff. He wound up selling his practice for a fraction of its former value, even though it had grown and, though he delivered thousands of babies, he never had a malpractice claim. He showed me invoices that he continued to send to his patients which indicated what they should have been charged versus what HMOs were actually reimbursing him. He wanted his patients to at least know, although I doubt that many of them would have called the HMO to complain about shortchanging their doctor. - [4]

Ah...bureaucrats, - the HMO:

Only the HMOs and pharmaceutical companies have prospered in this environment. Their executives routinely earn million-dollar salaries and bonuses, and their profit margins can border on the obscene. Any savings squeezed out of the doctors goes right into the pockets of the corporations--protected as they are by regulations and patents earned through excellent lobbying. Beyond the money scams, they often sanction bad medicine, but the courts consistently rule for the HMOs so that they can't be sued (one of the many patient bills of rights not granted) and the pharmaceuticals get their patents extended in dubious fashion. - [5]

Bureaucrats says Bush:

In all we do to improve health care, we will make sure that health decisions are made by doctors and patients, not by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. (Applause.)

Speed up the line!:

Another insidious result of the concept of "managed care"--the euphemism adopted for taking control away from doctors--is that some docs are prone to take shortcuts, work too fast, and, perhaps, use less care when what they earn is now largely dependent on how many procedures they can bill for. It has probably also contributed to a reported increase in fraudulent claims for reimbursement. - [6]

Conclusion:

Although the propaganda machine decries the increasing size of awards and the number of "frivolous" suits being filed, the record amounts to, at best, anecdotal evidence and anomalies. The facts on the ground paint a far different picture. - [7]

Footnotes 1-7 cited above and excerpted from: Malpractice Insurance and Public Policy by J. Russell Tyldesley, the Baltimore Chronicle Read it all for complete context.

Ya know, I just happened to catch that perennial CNN pop-up ad Bill Schneider regurgitating his usual buggy mash of advice for the campaign savvy. According to Schneider what John Kerry's campaign needs to focus on are the "issues." That's right, the issues. Good thinkin' Billy! Who would have ever thought that the issues might be an important thang to consider during a presidential election. You're a genius Schneider! You make your pals at the American Enterprise Institute right proud!

Jeezis Key Ryst, when was the last time anyone at CNN ever demonstrated any interest in seriously discussing "the issues?" What, Judy Woodruff? Oh LOL,......stop, yer killin' me.

So Bill Schneider, you smiley overinflated think tank gasbag, why don't YOU and your cheery bottom-feeding high school yearbook "journalist" friends at CNN jump-start that "issues" conversation yourselves? Why don't YOU set the example? Why don't YOU talk about the fucking issues, Bill CNN Schneider? Get that ball rolling Billy! Toss out the first pitch. Throw the long ball! Rise to the occasion! Dance in the end zone! Flex those rippling CNN muscles charming Billy!

What's the matter Schneider, afraid you'd be out of a job if you had to spend valuable face time doing something other than weaving 30 second sound-bite yarns around random telephone polls? You're a fuckin' fraud Schneider. You and your ilk at CNN are the real girly-men. You couldn't shake out an issue if it crawled up your pant leg and began clawing at your shriveled nutsack. You're all sanctinomious frauds bought and sold. You are the same people who baked and boxed the cakewalk war in Iraq. Frosting lickers! You and everyone at CNN should be fined on a daily basis for impersonating journalists.

I dare you to prove me wrong Schneider. I challenge you to peel back the layers on any issue. Pick one. That would be a start. And that goes for all the rest of the milquetoast pushovers at CNN/Time Warner/AOL or whatever in God's name it actually is. Bet ya can't do it. Bet ya won't even try. All hat no cattle. Except maybe Lou Dobbs, at least for the time being. In any case, I'll be sleeping with one eye open around every one of you sneaky puling horse thieving bastards.

*

My blogging pal Jeff Cooper is back to blogging. Jeff and I shared the some obsessive-compulsive-blogging disorder back a couple of years ago. Both of us shut our old blogs down but Jeff has just recently restarted his in the last couple of months.

I encourage you to check out his site. I also would love to have it added to the blogroll. Can you do that, Lambert?

Remind me to tell you guys about my e-mail exchange with Kitty Kelley about her new book. She contacted me while doing her research for it.

More later.

UPDATE: Okay, now I feel like a dork. Someone on the comment board already guessed about half of what I'm going to say.

Anyway, Kitty Kelley contacted me more than a year ago to ask whether I had come across anything about W's grandmother, Dorothy Walker I believe, who was a Veiled Prophet debutante in the 1920s. (To those of you who don't know, I wrote this book about the VP that was published in 2000 and this book I'm editing and writing a chapter for will be published in early 2005, but I digress.)

I had to tell her that, honestly, I hadn't stumbled across anything about Dorothy Walker but that I'd look back through my materials from the 1920s. Well, she contacted me several more times and I looked through the materials and found nothing.

However, I think this story tells you that she apparently does really do her research. I haven't seen the book yet but I was impressed that she would track me down and ask me these questions about what was clearly a peripheral figure in her research.

Way, way, way back when (last May I think it was), the WaPo put together a graphic which did not get nearly the attention it should have, on the Life & Times (& in this case the Sun-Times, and a couple of Posts) of Richard Perle, neocon extraordinaire.

Today, the NYT's excellent Business section (not to be confused with their fall-on-the-knees political writers) has a damning look at what happens when these self-described geniuses fall to fighting amongst themselves.

Note that this report was done by a former head of the Securities & Exchange Commission, not an intelligence agency. This is just the start of the Night of the Long Knives which is going to bring down the neocons:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 - Last fall, as the board of Hollinger International prepared to oust its founding executive, Conrad M. Black, the director most protective and supportive of him turned to a friend and balked.

"This is a kangaroo court," a person recalled the director, Richard N. Perle, as saying in defense of Lord Black, who had been accused by investors of improperly siphoning millions of dollars to other companies he controlled.

But last week, Mr. Perle's view of Lord Black changed. Issuing his first public statements since being heavily criticized in an internal report for rubber-stamping transactions that company investigators say led to the plundering of the company, Mr. Perle now says he was duped by his friend and business colleague.

Mr. Perle, a top Pentagon official in the Reagan administration, wielded considerable influence in foreign-policy circles as recently as 2002 as an intellectual parent to the neoconservatives. He was named to the Hollinger board in 1994, joining other like-minded men selected by Lord Black, a self-made businessman from Canada who surrounded himself with conservative thinkers. He particularly did that at Hollinger, a global media company whose holdings at the time included The Chicago Sun-Times, The Jerusalem Post, The Sunday and Daily Telegraph and The Sydney Morning Herald.

Mr. Perle served on a three-member executive committee of the board headed by Lord Black. The two men socialized frequently and traveled together extensively on the company jet, once going to see Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel.

In the face of federal investigations and a scathing internal report for Hollinger by Richard C. Breeden, a former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Mr. Perle has broken ranks and turned on Lord Black...

"Over the years, endless accusations have been made against him," said Michael A. Ledeen, a friend since the 1970's and colleague of Mr. Perle's at the American Enterprise Institute.

"Richard has always been willing to take the highest risks, playing for the highest stakes on policy issues over the years and often winning, but this is also really a story of being seduced by money," said Mr. Gelb, a former official at the State and Defense departments and a former columnist at The New York Times. "People in the foreign policy world do not make a lot of money. They go to think tanks, government, academe, and generally get $125,000 to $150,000 a year. When you are touched by lightning and manage to get into the inner sanctum to make money, the opportunities are delicious."

Yeah. A hunnert-an-a-quadda, a hunnert-an-a-half, *ptooey*, dat's pocket change ain't it? The kind of money you get when you print it with other peoples' kids' blood, that's "delicious."

You know, I think when Bush's handlers came up with "catastrophic success" they really meant to say "Pyhrric victory"... Gee, I can't imagine why Iraq coverage has dropped off the front pages.

Anyhow, as always, you've got to look at the details:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - About 1,100 U.S. soldiers and Marines were wounded in Iraq last month, by far the highest combat injury toll for any month since the war began and an indication of the intensity of battles flaring in urban areas.

U.S. medical commanders say the sharp rise in battlefield injuries reflects more than three weeks of fighting by two Army and one Marine battalion in the southern city of Najaf. At the same time, U.S. units frequently faced combat in a sprawling Shia Muslim slum in Baghdad and in the Sunni cities of Fallujah, Ramadi and Samarra, all of which remain under the control of insurgents two months after the transfer of political authority.

So the 1,100 casualties were for what, exactly?

"They were doing battlefield urban operations in four places at one time," said Lt. Col. Albert Maas, operations officer for the 2nd Medical Brigade, which oversees U.S. combat hospitals in Iraq. "It's like working in downtown Detroit. You're going literally building to building."

Last month's toll of 1,112 compared with 533 troops injured in July, 589 in June and 818 in May, according to Globalsecurity.org, based in Alexandria, Va.

In August, 66 U.S. service personnel were killed in Iraq, according to the Defense Department. The toll was the highest since May, when 80 fatalities were recorded. But it was about half the 135 U.S. combat deaths in April, when a sporadic guerrilla war that had largely been confined to the so-called Sunni Triangle north and west of Baghdad spread to cities across the Shia Muslim belt in southern Iraq.

One possible explanation [for why deaths didn't rise in tandem with injuries] lay in the brawn some units brought to the fight in crowded city centers. In Najaf, for example, two of the three U.S. battalions squaring off in close quarters against a Shia militia were categorized as "heavy armored." Army officers said their Abrams tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles not only offer substantial protection but also answered attacks with immediate and overwhelming large-caliber salvos.

Way to win the hearts and minds of the people.... Sounds more like tactical success and strategic failure to me (Talking Points Memo)

Capt. Neil Taufen, an emergency room doctor, said the pace was all the more striking because it came after a quiet stretch. "July was just dull, and it was like: Everything's going to be all right. And then Najaf fired up, and it was just like nothing had ever changed," said Taufen, of Fort Sill, Okla.

Yep.

But U.S. forces continued to clash with Sunni Muslim insurgents and foreign-born fighters west and north of Baghdad. Twenty-six Marines were killed last month in Anbar province, which takes in Fallujah and Ramadi and extends across the desert to Syria.

Insurgents hold sway in both cities and routinely attack U.S. patrols. "It's always kind of a smoldering fight out there," Kidwell said.

Parts of Baghdad also remain combat zones.
More and more often, children are lobbing the grenades, Ford said. Insurgents offer boys of 10 or 12 years old $150 to toss a grenade at a U.S. patrol, he said.

"For the longest time we've had a good relationship with the children," Ford said. "Now this. Who enjoys putting a bead on a kid? Nobody. That's why they paid them."
(via Newsday)

Nice. Bush has managed to tie down the entire army in an urban war that we can't win. Oh well, at least it's not a land war in Asia!

Doesn't it all boil down to one thing?

Kicking people when they're down.

(via Atrios).

Nice. Real Christian.

Suppose a major news organization - lets say, the Associated Press, were to reveal that, despite earlier claims to the contrary, official military records detailing a year of John Kerry's military service in Vietnam were missing. And that any requests for such "official" documented evidence of John Kerry's service for that time period could not be produced. Despite John Kerry's own promise on national television that he would indeed - sir! - provide for a complete and full disclosure of such "official" records.

And lets suppose that, to make matters worse, no one could be found who recalls ever seeing John Kerry in Vietnam during the dates of service in question. And lets suppose even more-so that John Kerry was traveling around the country (as I write this post) proclaiming before throngs of enthralled cherry picked sychophantic wellwishers that he was dang "proud of his mull'tary service" in Vietnam for which he claims to have participated honorably and in full metal regalia.

Suppose that were the case. And if that were the case what do you suppose the reaction to this Associated Press revelation (linked above) would be? What kind of media caterwaul do you suppose would ensue? What variety of vomitus shriek would belch forth from the brood of television "news" GOP thigh warmers including Judy Woodruff and Wolf Blitzer? Or Joe Scarborough or Tucker "Jacuzzi Boy" Carlson? Or Kelly Wallace or Candy Crowley or Paula Zahn or FoxNews (in bulk-lockstep) or any number of other noisy Beltway squawkbox harpies and chickehawks who ply their clamorous trade in titter and tattle and tut-tut tutelage?

Why they'd be beside themselves with self-righteous indignation. By God and Abraham. "John Kerry!," they would squawk from their million dollar perch swings and pedestals located inside their gilded cable broadcast "news" cages, "may be articulate, intelligent, and a well seasoned statesman and politician, but how can we elect a man whose own deceptions concerning his own past indescretions to this country reveal serious character flaws and raise serious questions about his ability to lead this nation forward in a time of war while at the same time being able to speak truthfully and plainly to the American people!

Ok? Can't ya just hear it now? The high pitched trill that would be screeching from your television set 24/7. That's exactly what you'd be subjected to. I know it, you all know it, and the colorful preened parrots in the auriferous corporate cable television "news" cage know it too.

Imagine:

JUDY WOODRUFF: But, Mr. XYZ.... many critics charge that John Kerry did not show up for his service in Vietnam and may be unfit for command just as our.....
GUEST XYZ: Uh, I thought we were talking about a potential famine in West Africa, I'm not.....
WOODRUFF: Yes!, we are, but don't you see the connection........

Or something like this. I can hear it now:

WOLF BLITZER: Mr. President, compared to your own honorable service to this country while serving with the Texas Air National Guard.......
BUSH: Hon'rable, heh heh, yeah, hell Wolf, I never showed up for most of that Air Nash'nal Gard stuff - i was guzzling Jack and Cokes and peeing on cars in Alabama and.....
BLITZER: ...during the Vietnam War. Given that - how do you feel about recent news media reports that suggest that there may not even be any official record that John Kerry ever showed up for the military service he claims to have honored from.....
BUSH: I lied about them WMD's too Wolf!, [snicker] yeah, heh, [snicker] that was a good one, we really pulled a fast one there.....heh heh.....
BLITZER:.... from 1972 to 1973. Don't you think, Mr. President, that Mr. Kerry's disingenuous statements and inablility to back up his claims with....
BUSH: My daddy got me into the Texas Air Guard! And my daddy got me out!
BLITZER:.....demonstratable evidence of his service is a reflection of his personal character and....
BUSH: Once, when I was a kid, I strangled a teenage prostitute to death in my apartment at Chateaux Dijon and I still keep her frozen head in a freezer at my ranch in Crawford!
BLITER:...and perhaps, with regard to his past military service claims,....
BUSH: I was Klaus Barbie's teenage love slave.
BLITZER:....an indicator.....
BUSH: That's how I got to know Michael Ledeen.
BLITZER:....that he, John Kerry.......
BUSH: Jesus was a girly man.....now watch this drive! Hey, you got that clip around here of me golfin'?
BLITZER:....is unfit......for command...
BUSH: Huh? No self effacing video clip, well, I'm outta here Wolf - gotta go, thanks for your time....Altoid Boy! Lets roll!
BLITZER: ......to serve as the President of the United States? Mr President?

BUSH: ----------------

BLITZER: That's very generous of you Mr. President, I understand that you don't want to personally pass judgement on Mr. Kerry's character, that's a sensitive subject, but, do you have any reservations about Mr. Kerry's ability to make important national security decisions especially when it comes down to speaking the truth to the American people on important issues - especially following the tragic events of 9/11 - for which you yourself performed heroically - and the fact that this country is now engaged in a global war on terrorism - and needs a strong leader - with a genuine record of strong leadership and genuine accountability and not as some detractors claim a record of "flip flops" and alleged deceptions that even former Mayor of New York City Mayor Rudy G.....(fade out -- go to news-o-mercial).........

Or this:
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Tonight on Scarlborough Country! John Kerry and his liberal Hollywood friends want you to believe that Johnnnnn Ker-rrrry can lead us in the war on terror but, hey!, listen to this people. John Kerry can't even produce evidence that he ever showed up to defend his country when he was supposedly under contract to do so. Oh baby! Unbelievable people! Unbelievable! We'll be right back and will discuss this and much much more, don't go away - you're watching Scarlborough Country!

Or something like this:
PAUL BEGALA: Uh, Tucker, the Associated Press is reporting that there are unanswered questions about George Bush's military service. Not John Kerry's. And Salon magazine now reports that the wife of former Republican campaign adviser Jim Allison doesn't even recall Mr. Bush ever......
TUCKER CARLSON: [voice rising an octave while dramatically feigning insult and disbelief] Oh! Paul! This is so typical of the looney left. This is just another example of shrill conspiracy theories being shopped around by angy bitter extremist liberals - people like Howard Dean and Paul Krugman and.......
BEGALA: Wait!, Tucker. The Associated Press is a shrill leftist conspiracy....
CARLSON: Ohhhh! Paul c'mon.... [feigning exasperation] you know what I mean, this is just the same old Democratic hate speech politics from Bush haters like Michael Moore and Susan Sarandon and......
BEGALA: Tucker? How do you explain Mr. Bush telling our own CNN's Wolf Blitzer that he lied about WMD's? Mr. Bush himself said that he lied about the existence of WMD's in Iraq, Tucker... how do you......
CARLSON: Paul.... don't be ridiculous, [feigned scoffing laughter] he didn't specifically mention Iraq, ...and he was just kidding. Paul!...it was a joke....you..you looney leftists don't even know how to take a joke...[feigned scoffing laughter] I can't believe that you take the President seriously when he says.....

Well, anyway, you know how it goes.

*

[snip] Bush had concluded that "a nation-state that had aided the terrorists should not be held publicly to account," [FL Sen. Bob] Graham wrote. [snip]

"Any nation that harbors terrorists are as responsible as the terrorists themselves," - George W. Bush

Mustang Bobby at Bark Bark Woof Woof, shakin' himself dry down there in South Florida, has this:

Bush - Saudi Link Investigation Blocked According to a new book [Intelligence Matters] written by Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), the Bush administration and the F.B.I. blocked an investigation into the links between the Saudi government and two of the 9/11 hijackers. ~ Go read the entire post.

"We now have to decide: Do we want to remain free, independent, strong, self-reliant? Or do we want to acquiesce to the politically correct global village nonsense that allows the leaders of the nations who harbor terrorists to have more say in our domestic policy than we do? ~ Henry Lamb | WorldNetDaily, Sept. 20, 2001

Backtrack. Don't forget this one if you missed it earlier:

Doing Business With The Enemy (CBS News) - previously aired

(CBS) Did it ever occur to you that when President Bush says, "Money is the lifeblood of terrorist operations," he's talking about your money -- and every other American's money?

Just about everyone with a 401(k) pension plan or mutual fund has money invested in companies that are doing business in so-called rogue states.

In other words, there are U.S. companies that are helping drive the economies of countries like Iran, Syria and Libya, all places that have sponsored terrorists. Correspondent Lesley Stahl reported on this story last January.

"The revenue that is generated from the work that these companies are doing, we believe, helps to underwrite and support terrorism," says William Thompson, the New York City comptroller who oversees the $80 billion in pension funds for all city workers.

He says he wants everyone with a retirement or investment portfolio to know what these companies are up to: "We're going to increase the public visibility on this issue until these companies change their practices."

He’s actually identified specific companies that have invested in these rogue countries, including Halliburton, Conoco-Phillips and General Electric. And he points out that New York's pension funds own nearly $1 billion worth of stock in these three Fortune 500 companies, which have operations in Iran and Syria.

And lest there be any doubt, any country that consciously harbors terrorist money should be treated as harshly as any nation that harbors terrorists." - Center For Freedom and Prosperity [another one of those conservative economic "tax reform" policy crank tanks]

I'm sure MSNBC's Alex Witt will get straight to the bottom of it all. Yes siree bub.

I speak of Michael Moore, the public citizen, not Michael Moore, the film maker. There is much to admire about both. All liberals could take a lesson from Michael's bonhommie in the face of personal attacks. His showing of the colors, with a smile and a wave, at the Republican convention is an exemplar. But this, from his latest column is not helpful.

If I've heard it once, I've heard it a hundred times from discouraged Democrats and liberals as the Republican convention here wrapped up this week. Their shoulders hunched, their eyes at a droop, they lower their voice to a whisper hoping that if they don't say it too loud it may not come true: "I...I...I think Bush is going to win."

Clearly, they're watching too much TV. Too much of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Zell Miller, Dick Cheney and Rudy Giuliani. Too much of swift boat veterans and Fox News commentators.

edit

For some reason, all of this has scared the bejabbers out of the Democrats. I can hear the wailing and moaning from Berkeley, Calif., to Cambridge, Mass. The frightening scenes from the convention have sent John Kerry's supporters looking for the shovels so they can dig their underground bunkers in preparation for another four years of the Dark Force.

I can't believe all of this whimpering and whining. Kerry has been ahead in many polls all summer long, but the Republicans come to New York for one week off-Broadway and suddenly everyone is dressed in mourning black and sitting shivah?

Exactly what moment was it during the convention that convinced them that the Republicans had now "connected" with the majority of Americans and that it was all over? Arnold praising Richard Nixon? Ooooh, that's a real crowd-pleaser. Elizabeth Dole decrying the removal of the Ten Commandments from a courthouse wall in Alabama? Yes, that's a big topic of conversation in the unemployment line in Akron, Ohio. Georgia Sen. Miller, a Democratic turncoat, looking like Freddy Krueger at an all-girls camp? His speech — and the look on what you could see of his strangely lit face — was enough for parents to send small children to their bedrooms.

Now I could not agree more with Michael's points about faintheartedness.

My friends — and I include all Democrats, independents and recovering Republicans in this salutation — do not be afraid. Yes, the Bush Republicans huff and they puff, but they blow their own house down.

As many polls confirm, a majority of your fellow Americans believe in your agenda. They want stronger environmental laws, are strong supporters of women's rights, favor gun control and want the war in Iraq to end.
Rejoice. You're already more than halfway there when you have the public on board.

edit

The Republicans have no idea how much harm they have done to themselves. They used to have a folk-hero mayor of New York named Rudy Giuliani. On 9/11, he went charging right into Ground Zero to see whom he could help save. Everyone loved Rudy because he seemed as though he was there to comfort all Americans, not just members of his own party.

But in his speech to the convention this week, he revised the history of that tragic day for partisan gain:

As chaos ensued, "spontaneously, I grabbed the arm of then-police commissioner Bernard Kerik and said to Bernie, 'Thank God George Bush is our president.' And I say it again tonight, 'Thank God George Bush is our president.' "

Please

edit

And there were the Band-Aids. The worst display of how out of touch the Republicans are was those Purple Heart Band-Aids the delegates wore to mock Kerry over his war wounds, which, for them, did not spill the required amount of blood.

What they didn't seem to get is that watching at home might have been millions of war veterans feeling that they were being ridiculed by a bunch of rich Republicans who would never send their own offspring to die in Fallujah or Danang.

Kerry supporters and Bush-bashers should not despair. These Republicans have not made a permanent dent in Kerry's armor. The only person who can do that is John Kerry. And by coming out swinging as he did just minutes after Bush finished his speech Thursday night, Kerry proved he knows that the only way to win this fight is to fight — and fight hard.

He must realize that he faces Al Gore's fate only if he fails to stand up like the hero he is, only if he sits on the fence and keeps justifying his vote for the Iraq war instead of just saying, "Look, I was for it just like 70% of America until we learned the truth, and now I'm against it, like the majority of Americans are now."

All excellent perceptions, stated clearly and with passion.

Problem is, it's more complicated than that. When John McCann used the word "disingenuous" to describe film maker Moore, he probably meant by it "deceitful,"and "dishonest,"but it also means, fittingly for Micheal, wily and artful. But Michael Moore as public figure and writer of Op Eds is just as surely and as often, ingenuous, i.e., open-hearted, candid, innocent and naive.

"Al Gore's fate," contrary to public perceptions, was not driven primarily by Al Gore's failure to "fight," and I would have hoped that the extraordinary series of speeches he's given in the last two years, fearless speeches that have invoked the great ideals of American democracy to measure how far short have fallen the policies of this President, speeches for which, from the first one he gave in September 2002, laying out what was wrong with the Bush doctrine, especially as applied to Iraq, to the last one, about the dishonor of Abu Graib, and the damage it has wrought on the rest of the world sees us, Gore has received almost nothing but contempt and derision from the right wing, and its instrument, the SCLM. Damaged, but unfazed, Gore gave another brilliant speech at the DNC, and he'll give more of them. Gore doesn't fear combat. We can see now that was never the problem.

In 2000, Gore's campaign made mistakes, not least in thinking that it could somehow create a separation between itself and the mud that the Republican party was still effectively slinging at Bill Clinton. What Gore never figured out how to fight was the total trivialization of the campaign. How do you cope with the "issue" of your choice of shirt? And isn't it interesting that the larger truth about Gore his wardrobe was supposed to speak to was his wavering identity. He was a "serial exaggerator" because he rightly lacked confidence in his accomplishments; his identity wavered because his values and beliefs did too; here was a man who would say or do anything to get elected, even wear earth tones when he doesn't really like them.

It's true that Gore didn't do as well in the debates as one would have thought he might, but Bush was not impressive. He appeared to "win" only because the RNC was successful in an immediate campaign of derision aimed not at what Gore said, but the way he said it. And the reason the SCLM was more influenced by Republican than by Democratic talking points, aside from their greater skill at propoganda, was the softening up of the electorate by means of trivialization. Remember, Bush wasn't drawing a sharp distinction between his policies and Gore's, this was an election about values, about character, we were told. Even that was a lie, of course, else why was the press so disinterested in exploring Bush's history getting into TANG, and the nature of the record he'd established; why so little interest in Bush's business history? The campaign wasn't about character, it was about the perception of character. If Bush and the Republicans had run on reversing the major policies of the Clinton years, they would have lost, hands down. And Gore still won, let us not forget. And not just the popular vote.

Nor did Gore lose the post-election vote-counting campaign in Florida because he wussed out. I don't know why so many Democrats and liberals insist on focusing their anger on Gore. He and his lawyers fought, but they were up against bigger, not better guns; even so, had it not been for the Supreme Court, that final recount would have gone forward, including the overcounts, and Gore would be the President today.

Today, it's still a game of perceptions , and right now, Republicans are controlling which perceptions are framing the two conventions. Their strategy, tell Americans what a scarey world it is and to be afriad, very afraid, and then to paint George Bush and themselves as "winners," and to deride and mock John Kerry and the Democrats as losers. If John Kerry can't win the battle of the conventions, what hope does he have against "the terrorists." (You won't hear them too often using the words Al Queda or Osama Bin Ladin; that would make it all too real). And one way to tell that Kerry's lost that battle is to point out that his campaign is in free fall, that he's lost the confidence of his grass roots and the party itself, that John Kerry and his campaign are on the verge of collapse.

Here's a prime example from our old friend, John Derbyshire, writing at The Corner:

At the beginning of last week, Mike Potemra -- NR's back-pages editor, and an old Reagan staffer -- told me that the bottom would drop out of the Kerry campaign over this next few days. I was doubtful, but Mike was right. That great Convention helped tremendously, of course. Above all the issues, sheer political dexterity counts for a lot. John Kerry is a lousy candidate, George W. Bush is a terrific one. On to the debates!

So, Michael, it doesn't help when you paint Democrats as easily discouraged wimps. Why should independents and repentent Bush voters come over to us if we're so unconstant. They shouldn't. But we're not inconstant. We're not wimps. And two polls do not an election make. We know what's going on here. God knows we've seen enough of it in the eight years of the Clinton administration and in the 2000 campaign.

In fact, I'd say that battle of the conventions isn't over yet. Michael' s right about the vulnerabilities displayed at the RNC. It's not too late for the Kerry campaign to turn what did and did not happen there back against the Republicans.

This President is running against the truth; he's running against the news. Nothing that happens outside of the campaign itself that warrants a headline will cut to his advantage, that's how thoroughly he's mismanaged his responsibilities - no reports on the environment, on the economy, on Iran or North Korea, none from Iraq, will strengthen the Republicans. I'd rather have our facts than his by a factor of infinity.

Yes, it's still an uphill fight, but for them too, and the last place we should be pointing our rhetorical guns it at one another.

UPDATE: Blogger published this before I'd had a chance to include a link to Moore's op ed and then wouldn't load for several hours. So sorry.

You can read all of Moore here and make up your own mind as to the exact mix of smarts and not smarts.

UPDATE II: This post received a healthy thread of comments, most of them more complimentary to Michael Moore than to me. I'm tempted to say I was misread, but when so many intelligent readers, including two of your own blogmates, seem to have misread you, then surely it is time for you to rethink your own clarity.

I did not mean the post as an attack on Michael Moore; perhaps my title, which was meant as a humorous back-handed homage to the kind of straight-foward rhetoric Michael uses turned back on him, was misleadingly severe. I agree with the majority of commenters and with most of what Michael said in his op ed that no one who has questions about giving this president four more years should let the nasty triumphalism of the RNC convince them Bush has this election wrapped up. My problem with the op ed had to do only with the frame Moore chose - his bucking up of already stoop-shouldered too easily frightened Democrats, because that is one of the talking points being pushed assiduously by the right wing smear/media machine, first, that Democrats chose a candidate for whom no one had affection, but strictly on the basis of susposed electability, and now that they see he isn't electable, the grass roots is in a panic, and the campaign itself in free fall.

To be absolutely clear, I view Michael Moore as one of the good guys, whether or not I agree with every word he utters. And surely all of us could take a lesson from him in how to stay focused and how not to lose one's sense of humor while the object of a category 12 shit-storm of smears and jeers. I still think that question of how to battle back is more complex than Michael suggests in his op ed, but perhaps I should have recognized that was not its focus.

Why oh why do our jaws still drop in amazement that Bush just makes shit up? After all the crapola conflating "9/11 and Sadaam", which we all knew was a lie but which half the American people still believe is Gospel, why have we not gotten it across to them that he lies about everything? To tell if he is lying, check to see if his lips are moving.

Just two brief examples today. This from Maureen Dowd had such a crappy headline I didn't even read it, so didn't understand its importance until Atrios caught it:

(via MoDo at NYT )

Painting himself as the noble agent for "the transformational power of liberty" abroad, [Prince George] said "there have always been doubters" when America uses its "strength" to "advance freedom": "In 1946, 18 months after the fall of Berlin to Allied forces, a journalist in The New York Times wrote this: 'Germany is a land in an acute stage of economic, political and moral crisis. European capitals are frightened. In every military headquarters, one meets alarmed officials doing their utmost to deal with the consequences of the occupation policy that they admit has failed.' End quote. Maybe that same person's still around, writing editorials."

She isn't. Anne O'Hare McCormick, who died in 1954, was The Times's pioneering foreign affairs correspondent who covered the real Axis of Evil, interviewing Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Patton. She was hardly a left-wing radical or defeatist. In 1937, she became the first woman to win a Pulitzer Prize in journalism, and she was the first woman to be a member of The Times's editorial board.

The president distorted the columnist's dispatch.The "moral crisis" and failure she described were in the British and French sectors. She reported that the Americans were doing better because of their policy to "encourage initiative and develop self-government." She wanted the U.S. to commit more troops and stay the course - not cut and run.

Mr. Bush Swift-boated her.

Atrios notes the relevant TRUTH here:

Kudos to her for picking up on this. The truth is, in 1946 Germany was in crisis. And, there was a discussion about what to be done. And a proposal. What was the proposal called? Oh, yes, the Marshall Plan, which Marshall propsed in June of 1947 and which began being implemented in 1948. Now, it would be wonderful to say that this is an example of how things could be turned around in Iraq, but the Marshall Plan "only" cost us about $100 billion dollars, in current terms. How much have we already spent in Iraq? How much of those reconstruction dollars are being siphoned off into contractors pockets and diverted to "security" costs?

Digby catches another God-damn stinking lie in the same speech:

Remember the stirring letter from a soldier in Iraq that Bush quoted so dramatically [in his coronation acceptance address]?

It turns out that the guy is a soldier all right, but he's also a "scholar" at one of the Scaife funded, right wing foundations [the "National Center for Public Policy Research"].

I don't suppose they could have found any letters of support from members of the military who aren't employed as operatives in the VRWC.

Actually, now that I think about it, they probably couldn't.

Want proof of the connection?

National Center website

Joe Roche serves with the U.S. Army's 16th Combat Engineer Battalion in Iraq and is an adjunct fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, a Washington think-tank. Comments may be sent to him via info@nationalcenter.org

Much talk around the blogosphere today about how dirty Kerry's campaign is going to have to get to avoid another Dukakis debacle. Digby's points in posts above the one cited here have some good analyses; it would behoove everyone to read them. Any defeatist talk must be ignored, scruples should be the only thing in the closet. The good news for the principled among us is we don't need lies about Bush, we just need to rachet up the volume on the truth.

Mark Kleiman seems to think so.

Hmmm. That might explain why, judging from his speech the other night, he apparently knows so little about the record of his own administration, wouldn't it?

Today's homily will be on the topic of "hypocrisy," which in the case of the Roman Catholic Church appears to be spelled "IOKIYAR":

(via NYT)

In the view of the nation's Roman Catholic bishops, politicians who belong to the church but depart from its teachings on abortion should be denied honors from a Catholic institution.

Unless, some would say, you happen to be a national hero of Sept. 11 who has raised a lot of money for a church-affiliated hospital.That would be the former [um, REPUBLICAN] mayor of New York, Rudolph W. Giuliani, an abortion rights supporter, whose name will grace a new $25 million trauma center at St. Vincent's Hospital Manhattan. Ground was broken last week.

The Rev. Thomas Reese, editor of America magazine and a prominent speaker on Catholic affairs, saw some irony in the position.

"They can name a hospital wing after him, but he can't give a commencement address or get an honorary degrees?" he said. "This makes perfect sense!"

Father Reese said the naming of the wing "raises serious questions about the consistency of the bishops' policy."

We shall now turn to page 911 of our hymnals:

I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.

You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on.
You're a Catholic the moment Dad came,
Because...

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.