Editorial: October surprise/Airing an anti-Kerry screed

If the stunt that Sinclair Broadcasting Group is pulling isn't against the law, it ought to be. Sinclair, owner of more American television stations than any other company, has ordered all 62 of its holdings -- which collectively reach a quarter of American households -- to suspend normal programming for one evening just before the upcoming presidential election. The stations are instead to air a one-hour conservative diatribe against Sen. John Kerry. This is a flagrant and cynical abuse of the public's airwaves for a partisan political purpose, an action that should put Sinclair's federal broadcast licenses in jeopardy. For comparison, imagine that WCCO's owner, CBS, ordered it to broadcast Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Indeed, Moore's film, while avowedly anti-Bush, is tame compared to the so-called documentary Sinclair plans to broadcast. "Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal" focuses on Kerry's antiwar activities 30 years ago. A Web site for the film says it exposes Kerry's "record of betrayal." In the film, one Vietnam POW asserts that Kerry "committed an act of treason. He lied, he besmirched our name and he did it for self-interest. And now he wants us to forget." More than a dozen of the television stations required to air this screed are in the key battleground states of Wisconsin, Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Sinclair's stable of stations includes franchises for ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox, which makes the problem all the worse because it generates so much viewer confusion. Normally, none of those networks, not even Fox, would broadcast such programming. And all of them should be worried about what Sinclair is doing to their credibility.

This is not an hourlong ad (although that will be its effect). To sidestep requirements of fairness, Sinclair is broadcasting "Stolen Honor" as a news program -- even though it wasn't produced by any sort of credible news organization. It was written by a former reporter for the off-the-wall Washington Times and paid for -- at least initially -- by a group of Pennsylvania veterans.

Asked to justify the "news" label, a spokesman for Sinclair said the topic is important and "hasn't been out in the marketplace, and in the news marketplace," ignoring completely the controversy that claimed so much air time in August over the barrage of hateful ads by the Swift Boat Vets for Truth.

There's a reason shock jock Howard Stern is moving to satellite radio. It's the same reason that porn is available via cable or satellite television. It's the same reason the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decided to fine CBS $550,000 for showing Janet Jackson's bare breast. Cable and satellite, with their almost unlimited capacities, are unregulated, and companies can do pretty much what they want.

But in broadcast radio and television, stations are licensed by the FCC and required to serve the public interest, in return for being able to use a bit of the finite, publicly owned airwaves. Sinclair is thumbing its political nose at its public-interest responsibilities.

It's not the first time. Last April, Sinclair forbade its ABC affiliates to broadcast a program of "Nightline" that was devoted to reading the names of U.S. dead in Iraq. Sinclair said that program was politically motivated. Just reading the names of war dead is too political, but accusing a presidential nominee of treason qualifies as news?

Many people argue over whether this network or that has a political bias. But those arguments are over nuance -- small stuff compared to this. Here we have a non-network owner of television stations using its properties to inject a bitterly partisan work into the closing weeks of a very close presidential race -- and calling it "news." It's outrageous. If the FCC lets this one by after all the fuss made about Jackson's breast, then we need a new FCC, not to mention new laws reversing the consolidation of media ownership that gives unscrupulous companies such as Sinclair so much power.

Swing State trip #5 to Las Vegas

WHEN: October 16 @ 7:00 AM
WHERE: Our goal is 300 Kerry supporters on this trip so please sign up NOW!!!!

The push is on. This is the 1st weekend they can vote in NV.

Where are we going? Vegas baby!! What insiders call the Nevada 3rd Congressional

When? We depart on Saturday, Oct. 16th.

Pick ups at:
7:00am from the Metro station at Marine and Redondo Beach Ave. and return on Sunday, Oct. 17th before 11:00pm.

North Hollywood at 7:00am, Norwalk at 7:15am and at Monrovia at 7:30am, so hop on board and get on the bus!

We will add more pick up points if requested...

Why? Because our fellow Democrats have asked us to help them get out the vote in securing their 5 electoral votes for John Kerry. Oh, and because we have the passion and fire to do it!!

What we'll be doing? We have something for everyone from walking "door to door", data entry, phone calling.... Even taking people to the polls they can start to vote in NV starting OCT. 16.

Cost: Free bus ride with a suggested donation of $35. Shared hotel room in Jean, NV $20

If you can't make this trip, sign up for the next trip or sponsor an other volunteer.

Contact: lasvegas4kerry@aol.com

LINK - Rick Cajigas holds his 23 pound Maine Coon cat as they wait to be judged at the Cat Show New York, October 9, 2004. The Cat Show New York features more than 40 feline breeds and 25,000 devoted cat lovers.

I think Kerry lost the election this weekend when his comments regarding a comparison of terrorism with prostitution and gambling were published.

Please don't get me wrong, I understood where he was trying to go but the Bush machine already has an ad out twisting his statement and it is pretty powerful. Originally the volunteer coordinator for Clark, I know that many of my cohorts (there were a significant number of us) were not totally enamored with Kerry. I'm sure that is also true of those of you who were Dean guys from the get go. It just keeps getting tougher and tougher to stand by this guy as he continues to shoot himself in the foot.

He hasn't rebutted the "Global test" distortion successfully (again I understood what he meant) and his failure to wail into the Swift Boat assholes forever allowed that pile of BS to circulate forever. He either is not listening to his advisors or he has assembled the dumbest team on earth. Damn.

I'm still going to vote the Kerry Edwards ticket but I honest to God believe the campaign is done.

With great respect for the job you have done,

Sincerely,

Frank
Plano, Texas

Kerry Opens Three-Point Lead on Bush

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic challenger John Kerry expanded his slight lead over President Bush to three points in a tight race for the White House, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Monday.

The Massachusetts senator held a 47-44 percent lead over Bush in the latest three-day tracking poll, up two points from Sunday. Bush's support dropped one point and Kerry's support rose one point in the new poll.

LINK - When I asked Kerry what it would take for Americans to feel safe again, he displayed a much less apocalyptic worldview. ''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' Kerry said. ''As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''

This analogy struck me as remarkable, if only because it seemed to throw down a big orange marker between Kerry's philosophy and the president's. Kerry, a former prosecutor, was suggesting that the war, if one could call it that, was, if not winnable, then at least controllable. If mobsters could be chased into the back rooms of seedy clubs, then so, too, could terrorists be sent scurrying for their lives into remote caves where they wouldn't harm us.

Baghdad Blasts Kill 11; Rumsfeld Visits

Two car bombs shook the capital in quick succession Sunday, killing at least 11 people, including an American soldier, and wounding 16, U.S. and Iraqi officials said, as Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld made a surprise visit to troops in the field. A Marine was reported killed in action west of the capital.

Rumsfeld met with American troops in Iraq's western desert, telling them it was unlikely the United States would pull out any troops before next year's elections. He said the violence was expected to increase in the run-up to the elections.

It was Rumsfeld's first visit to Iraq since the United States handed over authority to an interim government June 28. With American troops getting killed at a rate of more than one per day in Iraq, Rumsfeld's trip was not announced in advance.

A suicide attacker detonated a minibus packed with explosives near an eastern Baghdad police academy, police Cap. Ali Ayez said at the scene. At least four mangled bodies lay on the street amid scattered shoes, papers and a handbag. Police collected body parts on stretchers.

Aftermath Of Last Week's Editorial Endorsement

We have been told by several avid Bush supporters that the days when newspapers publish editorials without personal repercussions are over. As publishers, we have printed editorials for decades, and have endorsed candidates, both Republican and Democrat. When Bush was endorsed four years ago, the Gore supporters did not respond with threats, nor did Democrats when we endorsed Reagan twice. Republicans did not threaten us personally or our business when we endorsed Carter and Clinton for their first terms.

In the past, when individuals disagreed with an editorial, they would write a letter to the editor politely expressing a different point of view in contrast to the views of the publishers, which we have usually published. Occasionally someone would cancel a subscription or an ad, but this was rare.

The goal of the editorial page has been to provide an arena for the expression of a variety of thoughtful opinions, some by the publishers, some by columnists, and some by our readers.

The new mode of operation, I am told, is that when a newspaper prints an editorial of which some sectors might disagree, the focus is now upon how to run the newspaper out of business. Out the window are the contributions the newspaper has made to the community in the past and the newspaper's extensive investment in the community.

We do understand peoples' rights to pull subscriptions and ads, and to express a differing opinion, but we have some trouble understanding threats and payback since in politics there are often a variety of options. For the publishers to herald one of the options should be no cause for persecution.

When you think about it, editorials are often displayed in people's yards with campaign signs. These are endorsements by residents. Is it proper to persecute them for stating their opinions in this manner if you disagree with their choices? Should they be harassed and threatened? We don't think so.

Unfortunately, for the Iconoclast and its publishers there have been threats - big ones including physical harm.

Too, some individuals are threatening innocent commercial concerns, claiming that if they advertise in The Iconoclast, they will be run out of business. We consider this improper in a democracy.

Several young members of our staff covering Tonkawa Traditions this past weekend were angrily harassed and threatened that they must leave, which cut short their ability to fully do their jobs and instilled in them considerable fear for their safety. These reporters had nothing to do with that editorial. They were part-time college students working to pay their way through school and better themselves.

Although several members of the community are upset at the newspaper, there are still those who want us to continue with local coverage as we have in the past. We do have concern for the safety of our staff, however, and find it troubling when they are bullied and cannot do their jobs.

EDITORIAL
Paging Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton was a rarity - the smartest kid in the class with whom everyone wanted to hang out. John Kerry is no Bill Clinton. The senator comes across as the smartest kid in the class, but a recent Zogby poll shows that only 9% of Americans would prefer to have a beer with him rather than President Bush.

Kerry failed in Friday night's town hall debate to address this weakness and bond with the audience, leaving ideologically uncommitted voters to choose between the smarter candidate and the likable one. Bush elicited more laughter from the audience, though he himself wasn't particularly engaging. At one point, the famously remote Kerry presumptuously assumed that only he, Bush and Charles Gibson, the moderator, would be affected by any tax increase for people making more than $200,000. Was he rendering a verdict on what the audience was wearing?

Conservative TV Group to Air Anti-Kerry Film
Sinclair, with reach into many of the nation's homes, will preempt prime-time shows. Experts call the move highly unusual.

NEW YORK - The conservative-leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group, whose television outlets reach nearly a quarter of the nation's homes with TV, is ordering its stations to preempt regular programming just days before the Nov. 2 election to air a film that attacks Sen. John F. Kerry's activism against the Vietnam War, network and station executives familiar with the plan said Friday.

Sinclair's programming plan, communicated to executives in recent days and coming in the thick of a close and intense presidential race, is highly unusual even in a political season that has been marked by media controversies.

Sinclair has told its stations - many of them in political swing states such as Ohio and Florida - to air "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," sources said. The film, funded by Pennsylvania veterans and produced by a veteran and former Washington Times reporter, features former POWs accusing Kerry - a decorated Navy veteran turned war protester - of worsening their ordeal by prolonging the war. Sinclair will preempt regular prime-time programming from the networks to show the film, which may be classified as news programming, according to TV executives familiar with the plan.
_______

The airing of "Stolen Honor" will be followed by a panel discussion, which Kerry will be asked to join, thus potentially satisfying fairness regulations, the sources said.

Kerry campaign officials said they had been unaware of Sinclair's plans to air the film, and said Kerry had not received an invitation to appear.

Executives at Sinclair did not return calls seeking comment, but the Kerry campaign accused the company of pressuring its stations to influence the political process.
_______

"Stolen Honor" was made by Carlton Sherwood, a Vietnam veteran and former reporter for the conservative Washington Times who is also the author of a book about the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. On the website for the film, he tells viewers, "Intended or not, Lt. Kerry painted a depraved portrait of Vietnam veterans, literally creating the images of those who served in combat as deranged drug-addicted psychopaths, baby killers" that endured for 30 years in the popular culture.

Sherwood did not return calls seeking comment.

The Scorer's Table, having taken two hours to let the Blogosphere complete its due diligence (and to permit the scorer to retreat to a corner of the room, don cold compresses, and moan quietly), can now quote the truth from "Factcheck.Org": "President Bush himself would have qualified as a 'small business owner' under the Republican definition, based on his 2001 federal income tax returns. He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise." Brooks Jackson's marvelous site noted that the timber interest was listed under "royalties" in his 2002 and 2003 returns, indicating The Texas Thunderbolt still has an interest in said concern.

The point awarded to Mr. Bush in the thirteenth round is hereby withdrawn and awarded to Mr. Kerry, for the latter's enterprising hoisting of his opponent on said opponent's own petard.

Mr. Bush is also penalized three points for a truth foul.
Mr. Bush is further penalized two points for getting snarky while in the act of being factually incorrect.

The thirteenth round, originally scored 2-0 for Mr. Bush, now reverts to a 1-1 draw, and the rounds awarded total now changes from 12 Kerry, 4 Bush, 3 Drawn, to 12 Kerry, 3 Bush, 4 Drawn.

The final points scoring is now adjusted from Kerry 15, Bush 12, to Kerry 16, Bush 6. The Scorer thus designates the outcome as a Kerry victory outside the margin for statistical error.

The scorer's table reproaches President Bush for not knowing when he has wood.

Bush to rely on attack as best form of defence

George Bush plans to unleash a withering attack on his Democratic challenger in their debate rematch in Missouri tonight, scourging John Kerry's record in the Senate to argue that he would be a dangerous leader.

With the opinion polls suggesting that Mr Kerry's triumph in the first presidential debate last week has made it a closer race, President Bush cannot afford to let him win another round.

The Republican strategy presumes that a high-octane attack on Mr Kerry's fitness for office will deflect attention from Mr Bush's performance as the incumbent and put the Democrats on the defensive. That will handicap Democratic efforts to put the spotlight on Mr Bush's conduct of the war in Iraq.
_______

"America is safer today with Saddam Hussein in prison," Mr Bush told reporters, but added: "Much of the accumulated body of our intelligence was wrong and we must find out why."

At the same time he has sought to impress on voters that in his view a Kerry presidency would make the US far less safe. "My opponent's weak, vacillating views would make for a more dangerous world," he said in a fundraising email aimed at supporters yesterday.

Hey - Keith Olbermann is doing live blogging of tonight's Presidential debate. Check it out at www.hardblogger.msnbc.com. We are also doing a "Who won the debate?" live vote tonight beginning at 10:30 p.m. ET at www.hardball.msnbc.com. These live votes got over 2 million votes for the last two debates.

Enjoy the debate!
Trippi

Meeting Was Not First for Cheney, Edwards
Vice President Dick Cheney, Sen. John Edwards Met Twice Before Debate, Contrary to Cheney's Statement

Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday night that the debate with Democratic Sen. John Edwards marked the first time they had met. In fact, the two had met at least three times previously.

"Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session. The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight," Cheney told Edwards during the debate.

On Feb. 1, 2001, the vice president thanked Edwards by name at a Senate prayer breakfast and sat beside him during the event.

On April 8, 2001, Cheney and Edwards shook hands when they met off-camera during a taping of NBC's "Meet the Press," moderator Tim Russert said Wednesday on "Today."

On Jan. 8, 2003, the two met when the first-term North Carolina senator accompanied Elizabeth Dole to her swearing-in by Cheney as a North Carolina senator, Edwards aides also said.

Edwards didn't forget their prayer-breakfast meeting. The Democratic vice presidential candidate noted the discrepancy at a post-debate rally in a Cleveland park, calling it an example of Cheney "still not being straight with the American people."

Bush, Cheney concede Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction

President Bush and his vice president conceded Thursday in the clearest terms yet that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, even as they tried to shift the Iraq war debate to a new issue - whether the invasion was justified because Saddam was abusing a U.N. oil-for-food program.

Ridiculing the Bush administration's evolving rationale for war, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry shot back: "You don't make up or find reasons to go to war after the fact."

Vice President Dick Cheney brushed aside the central findings of chief U.S. weapons hunter Charles Duelfer - that Saddam not only had no weapons of mass destruction and had not made any since 1991, but he had no means of making any either - while Bush unapologetically defended his decision to invade Iraq.

"The Duelfer report showed that Saddam was systematically gaming the system, using the U.N. oil-for-food program to try to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions," Bush told reporters as he prepared to fly to campaign events in Wisconsin. "He was doing so with the intent of restarting his weapons program once the world looked away."

Bush Says It's Kerry Misleading Americans
In Attempt to Turn Tables on Opponent, Bush Says Rival Kerry Is Misleading Americans

WAUSAU, Wis. Oct. 7, 2004 - President Bush took a sharp jab at his Democratic opponent on Thursday, saying John Kerry and not the White House was misleading the country about the war in Iraq.

It was the latest example of high-stakes finger-pointing on Iraq and the war on terror, the two overriding issues of this year's presidential election less than four weeks away on Nov. 2.

In Colorado, Kerry said Bush led the nation into war under false pretenses and is in denial about ongoing violence and instability in postwar Iraq. Kerry bluntly asserted that the president and vice president might be the "last two people on the planet who won't face the truth about Iraq."

Bush shot back a few hours later at a campaign rally in Wisconsin. Bush quoted Kerry, who wondered aloud in a speech two years ago whether Saddam Hussein might invade allies in the region or let the weapons of mass destruction he was suspected of possessing "slide off to one group or another in a region where weapons are the currency or the trade."

"Now today, my opponent tries to say I made up reasons to go to war," Bush told cheering supporters at an outdoor rally. "Just who's the one trying to mislead the American people?"

EDITORIAL
Is He a Dope?

Although neither group likes to say so, some Americans who support President Bush and many who don't support him have concluded over four years that he may not be very bright. This suspicion was not allayed by Bush's answers in the first presidential debate a week ago.
_______

The issue might better be described as one of mental laziness.

Does this man think through his beliefs before they harden into unwavering principles? Is he open to countervailing evidence? Does he test his beliefs against new evidence and outside argument? Does his understanding of a subject go any deeper than the minimum amount needed for public display? Is he intellectually curious? Does he try to reconcile his beliefs on one subject with his beliefs on another?

It's bad if a president is incapable of the abstract thought necessary for these mental exercises. If he is capable and isn't even trying, that's worse. It becomes a question of character. When a president sends thousands of young Americans to kill and die halfway around the world, thinking about it as hard and as honestly as possible is the least he can do.

Bush's Iraq policy is full of contradictions, often rehearsed on this page and elsewhere. But so is Kerry's. It isn't routine political mendacity that makes many people - many more than will admit it - wonder about Bush's mental engagement. It is a combination of things: his stumbling inarticulateness, the efforts his advisors make to protect him from unscripted exposure, his extreme reluctance to rethink anything.

Does it matter? Yes, it matters. There are those who say that Reagan's mental laziness was actually a plus. It prevented a lot of competing signals from causing static on the lines, and kept his principles clear. We do not buy that. We state boldly that thinking hard is a good thing, not a bad thing, even in a president. If that sounds snooty, so be it. And maybe George W. Bush will reassure us by his performance Friday night that he is thinking as hard as he should about the issues the president will face in the next four years. Especially the issues resulting from his own failure to think hard during the last four.

COMMENTARY
First Responders
The debate suffers from premature acclamation

On Tuesday and on Wednesday morning, The Times received more than 1,500 e-mails about Tuesday evening's Cheney-Edwards debate. The ones below - along with about three dozen others - were unusual, however, in that they came in before the debate began at 6 p.m. Pacific Time. They are printed exactly as they were received.

Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 5:33 PM
To: letters@latimes.com
Subject: John Edward was amazeing!

The debates were great and Edward clearly got the best of ol' Halliburton Dickie. I know the GOP will start to spin this as soon as they can to make it look like Cheney was [word missing].

Sincerely,
Andy Taylor
Venice, CA

Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 5:55 PM
To: letters@latimes.com
Subject: Edwards Won the Debate!

Edwards beat Cheney in the greatestest super-duper debate rout EVER! Kerry's victory is assured!

Finally, it looks like Democrats are back in power!

GO KERRY/EDWARDS 04!!!

Sincerely,
Shay Enan
Los Angeles, CA

Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 5:44 PM
To: letters@latimes.com
Subject: Letter to the editor

To the editor:

Dear Sirs:

The debate between John Edwards and Dick Cheney presented Americans with a stark choice.

John Edwards shared an optimistic vision for the next four years: Genuine leadership in the war on terror. An economic growth plan that creates jobs and keeps them here at home. Affordable health care for every American. A plan to make America stronger at home and respected abroad.

But Dick Cheney had nothing to share but attacks and excuses. As the architect of four years of failed Bush administration policies, Cheney had a lot to answer for in this debate. But he failed to explain those failures, instead attacking John Kerry over and over again.

I want a plan for the future, not attacks and excuses. The vice presidential debate made it clear that John Kerry and John Edwards are the right choice.

Sincerely,
Peter Blue
Sarasota, FL

The Times tried to contact the authors of these letters. Peter Blue did not return phone calls. Shay Enan did not respond to e-mail attempts to contact him. And Andy Taylor, whose real name turns out to be Andrew Schoppe, assured us that he had sent the letter as a test, just to see if we were checking. He said he was "very, very pleased" to find that we hadn't fallen for his prank. He said he was a registered Republican.

The premature letters all favored John Kerry and John Edwards. The New York Times reported Wednesday that the Bush campaign had called on its supporters before the debate to "make your voice heard" by declaring Cheney the winner. Democrats sent a similar message to Kerry supporters last week.

My friends, they will not catch me. Though I may be on the run, and I may never be able to return home to my beloved Michigan, I make this solemn vow to you and yours: The slackers of America shall not be denied their noodles, they will proudly wear their clean underwear as free Americans, and they will vote Bush out of office come November 2nd (though they will not show up to the polls until well after noon)!

Stay strong, stay slacker, and please remember to turn the underwear inside out every three days. As for the noodles, add boiling water, stir.

Michael
MichaelMoore.com

State GOP says Michael Moore illegally offered underwear in exchange for voting

The Michigan Republican Party is asking four county prosecutors to file charges against filmmaker Michael Moore, charging that he illegally offered underwear, noodles and snacks to college students in exchange for their promise to vote.

"We want everyone to participate in this year's election, but not because they were bribed or coerced by the likes of Michael Moore," said Greg McNeilly, executive director of the state Republican Party.

The GOP said it asked prosecutors in Wayne, Ingham, Antrim and Isabella counties to charge Moore with violating Michigan's election law. The law prohibits a person from contracting with another for something of value in exchange for agreeing to vote.

Moore, a native of Flint, is touring the country and imploring "slackers" who usually don't vote to head to the polls this year, saying they could make the difference in the presidential race.

He made stops at Michigan State University, the University of Michigan-Dearborn, Central Michigan University and Elk Rapids High School on the first leg of a 60-city pre-election tour.

During each program, habitual nonvoters are invited on stage to pledge to vote. First-time student voters are offered gag prizes such as clean underwear.

The GOP said Moore also offered students a clean dorm room, a year's supply of Tostitos and a package of Ramen noodles.

Maria Miller, a spokeswoman for the Wayne County prosecutor's office, refused to comment on the matter. Calls to Moore and the other county prosecutors weren't immediately returned Tuesday.

Iraq Had No WMDs
U.S. inspector finds no evidence Saddam made weapons after 1991

Contradicting the main argument for a war that has cost more than 1,000 American lives, the top U.S. arms inspector reported Wednesday that he found no evidence that Iraq produced any weapons of mass destruction after 1991. The report also says Saddam Hussein's weapons capability weakened during a dozen years of U.N. sanctions before the U.S. invasion last year.

Contrary to prewar statements by President Bush and top administration officials, Saddam did not have chemical and biological stockpiles when the war began and his nuclear capabilities were deteriorating, not advancing, according to the report by Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group.

Duelfer's findings come less than four weeks before an election in which Bush's handling of Iraq has become the central issue. Democratic candidate John Kerry has seized on comments this week by the former U.S. administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, that the United States didn't have enough troops in Iraq to prevent a breakdown in security after Saddam was toppled.

The inspector's report could boost Kerry's contention that Bush rushed to war based on faulty intelligence and that sanctions and U.N. weapons inspectors should have been given more time.

On Wednesday, Bush cited Saddam's "history of using weapons of mass destruction, a long record of aggression and hatred for America" in calling the invasion the right thing to do.

"There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks," Bush said in a campaign speech in Wilkes Barre, Pa. "In the world after Sept. 11, that was a risk we could not afford to take."

"King of All Media" Howard Stern and SIRIUS announced today an epic agreement whereby Stern will move to SIRIUS beginning January 1, 2006.

The world-renowned Stern is credited with revolutionizing the talk radio format. He is the No. 1 radio host among males 18-49 and ranks No. 1 in many of the 46 major markets where his show is broadcast, including New York and Los Angeles. Through SIRIUS' nationwide broadcast system, Stern will be heard in every market across the country.

"Signing Howard Stern is, without a doubt, the most exciting and transformational event in the history of radio," said Joseph P. Clayton, CEO of SIRIUS. "He is an entertainment force of unprecedented recognition and popularity in the broadcast world, who is capable of changing the face of satellite radio and generating huge numbers of subscribers for SIRIUS."

Bush Chides Kerry in Pa. After VP Debate

The president said, "My opponent's endless back-and-forth on Iraq is part of a larger misunderstanding. In the war on terror, Senator Kerry is proposing policies and doctrines that would weaken America and make the world more dangerous."

Regarding the battle against terrorists, Bush said, "Senator Kerry approaches the war with a September the 10th mindset ... that any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. That was the mindset of the 1990s, while al-Qaida was planning the attacks on America. After September the 11th our object in the war on terror is not to wait for the next attack and respond but to prevent attacks by taking the fight to the enemy."

On the economy, Bush said, "My opponent is a tax-and-spend liberal; I'm a compassionate conservative."

"The senator is proposing higher taxes on more than 900,000 small business owners," said Bush. "My opponent is one of the few candidates in history to campaign on a pledge to raise taxes. And that's the kind of promise a politician from Massachusetts usually keeps."

Two days before the second presidential debate, Kerry spokesman Phil Singer said Bush was trying to put a new face on the last one.

"The president tried to redo the debate from last week by giving a speech full of untruths he couldn't say on stage with John Kerry because he knew Kerry would knock them down," Singer said. "George Bush needs to get real with the American people and start telling the truth."

Stats so far: 220 activists, 100+ cities, 33 states. With any luck there'll be a thousand people putting up signs on the thirteenth. Ask your readers to reply in the comments section with the cities/suburbs/municipalities they intend to hit and the number of people that'll be helping. I'm putting together one hell of a press release.

Thanks man - this is gonna rock.

"How many Polish troops does it take to change an Iraqi light bul...hey! Guys? Where ya going?"

- Jon Stewart on The Daily Show last night

LINK - The President will really put the hammer down in his 10am speech tomorrow morning. He'll lay out his own positions concisely, but the bulk of the speech will be a damning tour through Kerry's Senate record (domestic and foreign policy) and his recent statements on Iraq, the war on terrorism, etc. It resurrects many of the best hits on Kerry that were dropped from the convention speech for the sake of being "positive" ... and it makes a lot of the rebuttals you probably wish you'd heard from the President in last week's debate. Should be a lot of fun - Joe Lockhart and Co. will be whining like little girls tomorrow.

CNN
MSNBC
Fox News
ABC News
CBS News
Seattle Post-Intelligencer & Seattle Times
Arizona Republic
San Jose Mercury News / Contra Costa Times
Philadelphia Inquirer/Daily News
San Diego Union-Tribune
Kansas City Star
Detroit News
Las Vegas Review-Journal
St. Petersburg Times
Cleveland Plain Dealer
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Orlando Sentinel
Oregonian
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
St. Paul Pioneer Press
Grand Rapids Press
Orange County Register
New Orleans Times-Picayune
Akron Beacon Journal

Jeff Danziger, June 28, 2004

Bremer: 'Not not enough troops' in Iraq after Saddam's ouster

The former U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq says the United States "paid a big price" for not having enough troops on the ground after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime.

L. Paul Bremer, speaking Monday at the opening session of the 91st annual Insurance Leadership Forum in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, said "horrid" looting was occurring when he arrived in Baghdad on May 6, 2003.

"We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," Bremer said. "We never had enough troops on the ground."

Still, Bremer added, ousting Saddam was "the right thing to do."

Rumsfeld: No 'Hard Evidence' of Iraq-Al Qaeda Link

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Monday he knew of no "strong, hard evidence" linking Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda, despite describing extensive contacts between the two before the Iraq invasion.

Rumsfeld, during a question-and-answer session before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, was asked to explain the connection between Saddam and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network, blamed for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America.

"I have seen the answer to that question migrate in the intelligence community over a period of a year in the most amazing way. Second, there are differences in the intelligence community as to what the relationship was," Rumsfeld said.

"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," Rumsfeld added.

Poland Leaders Aim to Pull Iraq Troops

Poland should withdraw its troops from Iraq by the end of next year, Polish leaders said Monday, the first time the key U.S. ally has indicated a timeframe for pulling its soldiers out of the wartorn nation.

President Aleksander Kwasniewski said no final decision has been made on when to withdraw forces but Warsaw was considering the late 2005 deadline with the hopes that elections scheduled for January in Iraq would bring stability to the country.

"We decided to speak with the Iraqis and our coalition partners (and) the United States about a reduction of the Polish forces from Jan. 1 - and maybe to finish our mission at the end of 2005," Kwasniewski said on a visit to Paris.

THE BATTLE OF THE UNLIKELIES
by Bill Heald

Amidst all the chatter about how the upcoming election will be so tight that it will be a horse race, I think I should point something out: horse races often aren't even close.

Sometimes the long shot bolts out of the starting gate like a thunderbolt and wins by ten lengths. In that same race the odds-on favorite might toss their jockey, jump the fence and then wander around in the paddock looking for sustenance. Most horses finish somewhere in between these two extremes, but the really close contests are fairly rare.

Despite this, the horse race metaphor is used ad nauseum to imply the Bush-Kerry contest will be a neck and neck, photo-finish race. The media machine lives for such an election, but truth be known the actual race is beside the point. The election is over (usually) in a day, and it's the months-long buildup that matters. Nothing must interfere with the day-to-day hype of a close, 2000-style race for it keeps talking heads talking, analysts analyzing, and cable news chat shows narrowly surviving in the gigantic ratings shadow of SpongeBob SquarePants.

In order to maintain this drama, the scribes and broadcasters must have data to back up their "statistical dead heat" rhetoric. Much like a racing analyst that pores over past results to try and divine what a horse will do in its next outing, pundits and journalists rely on the only set of statistics they really have: the polls.

Daily tracking polls are the bread and butter of political prognosticators, but there's a serious problem with this form of intelligence gathering. While the major polling companies use good math and sound statistical analysis, their results are suspect because they're trying to randomly sample humans about their opinion instead of, say, a lemming population for pierced ears.

You can't get a true random sample of a voting population these days because only a specific, nonrandom sector of the population will participate. Phone polls only get data from willing participants in the polling process, which prevents a true random sampling. Adding insult to inaccuracy, many times these polls focus on "likely" voters, which are typically determined through surveys on past voting behavior. This is critical, because past elections are largely irrelevant when considering the upcoming contest in November.

Why is this election different? Simple. A huge army of human beings that typically doesn't pay too much attention to politics or voting is getting involved this time around. There's great motivation afoot. Well-known individuals who stayed on the fence in the past (like Bruce Springsteen) are speaking up, and in the Boss' case, singing out. This should not be taken lightly. Mr. Springsteen stated he had to abandon his neutral stand of the past because, "this year the stakes have risen too high to sit this election out."

Indeed. A few years ago, if you asked a music critic if an icon like Springsteen might make strong political statements and risk alienating some of his fans they would have said, "unlikely." But things have changed. Whether he meant to or not, Bruce was expressing the sentiments of many Americans. Unlike recent elections, issues like war and deception are stirring the pot considerably. While the punditocracy rambles on about how this presidential race will be determined by Swing Voters or Undecideds, they're missing a more significant group: the Unlikelies.

I know these people, and they don't show up in polls. They are elusive and difficult to locate, like timber rattlers in Connecticut or pale, pasty skin in San Diego. Unlikelies are rarely home to talk to pollsters, and when they are in-house they screen their calls to avoid such annoyances. Many don't even use their home phone anymore, preferring to communicate via cell phone or email. Political matters are typically not a big concern, and they ignore cable news and talk radio. But things like soldiers dying on the streets of Baghdad, health insurance woes, job insecurities and environmental concerns have stirred them to come out from their various hobbit holes and secured locations. They are angry, and fully intend to do what pollsters consider an unlikely thing for them to do: vote.

Since these Unlikelies clearly want a change from the current regime, they lean strongly towards the challenger in this election. At the same time, the incumbent has set out to find his own Unlikelies such as the Amish in Pennsylvania or evangelicals in Ohio that didn't vote in 2000. He's also trying to get Vietnam veterans to vote against one of their own, a bold but dangerous strategy. Will Bush's Unlikelies level the playing field with Kerry's Unlikelies, and make this a photo-finish horse race after all, like all the polls are telling us?

Unlikely.

The Race is On

With a solid majority of voters concluding that John Kerry outperformed George W. Bush in the first presidential debate on Thursday, the president's lead in the race for the White House has vanished, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll. In the first national telephone poll using a fresh sample, NEWSWEEK found the race now statistically tied among all registered voters, 47 percent of whom say they would vote for Kerry and 45 percent for George W. Bush in a three-way race.

Removing Independent candidate Ralph Nader, who draws 2 percent of the vote, widens the Kerry-Edwards lead to three points with 49 percent of the vote versus the incumbent's 46 percent. Four weeks ago the Republican ticket, coming out of a successful convention in New York, enjoyed an 11-point lead over Kerry-Edwards with Bush pulling 52 percent of the vote and the challenger just 41 percent.

Among the three-quarters (74 percent) of registered voters who say they watched at least some of Thursday's debate, 61 percent see Kerry as the clear winner, 19 percent pick Bush as the victor and 16 percent call it a draw. After weeks of being portrayed as a verbose "flip-flopper" by Republicans, Kerry did better than a majority (56 percent) had expected. Only about 11 percent would say the same for the president's performance while more than one-third (38 percent) said the incumbent actually did worse that they had expected. Thirty-nine percent of Republicans felt their man out-debated the challenger but a full third (33 percent) say they felt Kerry won.

Kerry's numbers have improved across the board, while Bush's vulnerabilities have become more pronounced. The senator is seen as more intelligent and well-informed (80 percent, up six points over last month, compared to Bush's steady 59 percent); as having strong leadership skills (56 percent, also up 6 points, but still less than Bush's 62 percent) and as someone who can be trusted to make the right calls in an international crisis (51 percent, up five points and tied with Bush).

Meanwhile, Bush's approval ratings have dropped to below the halfway mark (46 percent) for the first time since the GOP convention in late August. Nearly half of all voters (48 percent) say they do not want to see Bush re-elected, while 46 percent say they do. Still, a majority of voters (55 percent versus 29 percent) believe the president will be re-hired on Nov. 2.

I have recently put together a unique fundraising event that is in progress right now. I am an illustrator and comic book artist. I got 5 other artist in the business and we all contributed original works. I have now set up e-bay auctions for each piece and all proceeds from each auction will be donated to the Kerry campaign or the DNC. Each auction states this fact in it's description. Here is a link to the auctions involved: CLICK

I have donated funds to both the Kerry camp and the DNC, but I wanted to do more. I wanted to get others involved and I wanted to find a way to help by using my Art. This seemed like a natural. I hope you will check it out. Any support or exposure that Hoffmania can provide to this fund raising effort will be appreciated.

Much thanks,

KIRK MANLEY
STUDIOKM
www.studiokm.com

Experts: It's Alfred E. Neuman vs. Sen. Kerry

Note to George W: Next time, lose the blue tie, drop the folksy double talk and stand up straight.

That's the advice from local image pros who watched Sen. John F. Kerry and President Bush duke it out in Dade County last night.

"Bush's folksy platitudes fell flat," said Tobe Berkovitz, associate dean at Boston University's College of Communications. "His pleading tone lacked power, and staying on message only works if the message works."

Julie Foley, a certified image consultant and founder of The Consultant of Style in Weymouth, said while Bush's lighter grey suit and blue tie conveyed warmth, Kerry diminished Bush's style by sporting a very presidential dark suit and red tie.

"Red is power," she said. "Kerry dressed like a president and has stately body language. The president also slouched terribly. He was leaning on the podium, and I know he's a relaxed guy, but I can't believe he didn't stand up straight. I think his mother is going to be all over him."

Comedian Tony V, who, at 10:15 p.m. was "still as confused as when they started," admitted he liked the president's down-to-earth demeanor.

"George Bush sounds like someone you want to talk to," he said. "I read somewhere people choose a president they'd like to have a beer with. Me, I'd rather choose a president and go out with people I like. I feel bad. He reminds me of Fredo in `The Godfather.' I can hear him saying: 'I'm smart. I know things. I'm not stupid.'"

While Berkovitz and Foley both faulted Bush for sighing a tad too much, Tony V didn't mind. He was much more distracted by the really important issues.

"I can't get it out of my head," he said. "George W. looked like Alfred E. Neuman. And Kerry looks like he was born with a suit on."

Marine's family has sharp reprimand for Bush administration

Relatives of a Minnesota Marine who was killed in Iraq lashed out Wednesday against the war and the Bush administration's conduct in waging it.

Across the street from the Lake Elmo restaurant where Vice President Dick Cheney had finished speaking an hour earlier, the grandmother of Levi Angell spoke of "my precious grandson I lost to this useless, needless fix we're in."

Lila Angell said the war "is crazy. It's just wrong." Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry "certainly would do better" in Iraq than President Bush. "He couldn't do any worse."

Levi Angell, a 20-year-old Marine from Cloquet, was killed April 8 when his Humvee was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade.

His father, Gordon, said he never received a condolence call from any member of the administration. "Bush was giving a speech 20 miles away [from Cloquet] and he never bothered to pick up the damned telephone and say 'I'm sorry about your son,' " he said. "From now on, I'm a Democrat after the way they treated us."

'Staying the Course' Isn't an Option

From a purely military standpoint, the war in Iraq is an unmitigated disaster. This administration failed to make even a cursory effort at adequately defining the political end state they sought to achieve by removing Saddam Hussein, making it impossible to precisely define long-term military success. That, in turn, makes it impossible to lay out a rational exit strategy for U.S. troops. Like Vietnam, the military is again being asked to clean up the detritus of a failed foreign policy. We are nose-deep in a protracted insurgency, an occupying Christian power in an oil-rich, Arab country. That country is not now and has never been a single nation. A single, unified, democratic Iraq comprised of Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis is a willfully ignorant illusion at best.

Two thirds of America's combat brigades are now tied down in this war which, under present conditions, is categorically unwinnable. Having alienated virtually every major ally who might help, our troops are simply targets. If Bush is re-elected, there are only two possible outcomes in Iraq:

* Four years from now, America will have 5,000 dead servicemen and women and an untold number of dead Iraqis at a cost of about $1 trillion, yet still be no closer to success than we are right now, or
* The U.S. will be gone, and we will witness the birth of a violent breeding ground for Shiite terrorists posing a far greater threat to Americans than a contained Saddam.
_______

So what strategies should candidate Kerry propose? The first steps are patently obvious to anyone who has worked even briefly as a military policy planner. First, Americans must understand it is highly probable that Iraq is already lost. Americans must stop believing the never-ending litany of "happy thoughts" spewing forth from the Bush campaign and start thinking about our men and women dying wholesale in Iraq.
_______

If the Bush administration remains in power, failure in Iraq is a virtual certainty. "Staying the course" during a crisis spiraling rapidly downward will cost thousands of American and Iraqi lives, will continue to sap the operational readiness of this nation's armed forces, and will continue to strengthen Al Qaeda's hand. To paraphrase FDR, it's time to change horses. The one we're on is about to drown.

Only losers wait until the debate occurs to start the rebuttal.

Judd...

Has CAP sent this high-priority to the newsrooms (network AND local) across the country? And I'm not talking e-mails with links - I mean a hard copy of the article itself on the desks of every news editor - broadcast and print.

I honestly want to know. I appreciate (and use) these emailings, but the actual printed articles should be waved in the faces of those who need to see it - the so-called down-the-middle press who simply don't have time to sift through emails, or for that matter, click through to every link they get.

Thanks! Keep fighting the good fight.

Hoffmania.com

We sent emails to our media lists (print and broadcast) yesterday. When we send to media we send the full text. Hard copies are a good idea but haven't yet developed the capacity to execute it. Would definitely be worth exploring in the future.

White House: Guard Never Disciplined Bush
Updated: Wednesday, Sep. 29, 2004 - 10:37 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush never was disciplined while serving in the Texas Air National Guard, never failed a physical and never asked his father or family friends for help to get him into the Guard during the Vietnam War, the White House said Wednesday.

Meanwhile, the White House on Wednesday night produced a newly unearthed document on Bush's Guard service, seven months after it said all materials on the subject had been publicly released.

The new document was a copy of Bush's resignation in 1974 declaring he was leaving the Guard because of "inadequate time to fulfill possible future commitments." White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the resignation was found in connection with a lawsuit brought by The Associated Press.

The White House answers earlier in the day came in response to a dozen questions submitted by the AP in light of new records detailing Bush's Guard service and allegations that have surfaced this election season.

The Texas Air National Guard stripped Bush of his pilot status in August 1972 for failing to take the annual medical exam required of all pilots. Former Air National Guard officials say it was rare for a pilot to skip his physical exam.

If you had a minute to say anything you wanted to George W. Bush in front of thousands of American voters, what would you say? Chastise him for his foolish military adventure in Iraq? Scold him for domestic policies that hurt average Americans while enriching the few? Or just urge him to be honest with the American people for a change?

At Real Voices we think about that question a lot, because that's our mission: to give ordinary Americans a voice in the political process. In powerful 60-second radio and TV spots, our real citizens address the president in front of an audience of thousands of potential voters. Whether it's a parent who lost a son or daughter in Iraq, a sick child who might be cured by cutting edge stem cell research, or a scientist who knows the truth about global warming and toxic pollution, our "real voices" confront the President directly and honestly about his abysmal record. Filmed by two-time Academy Award nominee Eric Thiermann, our TV spots are powerful, moving and utterly honest, unlike any political ad you have ever seen. With your help, we will have them playing in every battleground state come this fall.

We regard the war in Iraq to be George Bush's greatest betrayal of the American people. It has greatly increased the risk of terrorism, damaged our international prestige, and caused the greatest losses to individual families. Working closely with families who lost loved ones in the fighting we are determined to make sure their voices and stories are told in the upcoming election. The radio and TV spots you see here feature many of their stories, we have others in production that are even more moving. By sponsoring a radio or TV message you are directly giving our "real voices" an opportunity to speak to thousands of voters in key battleground states.

This is a great experiment in American democracy: a chance to give the real citizens of America... the ones George Bush prays you won't hear... a platform to talk back to the President, in front of thousands of American voters. Democracy doesn't get any simpler or more direct than that. And all we need to make it work is you.

When Might Turns Right
Golly GE, why Big Media is pro-Bush

L.A. Weekly has learned that CBS, NBC and ABC all refused Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD advertising during any of the networks' news programming. Executives at Sony Pictures, the distributor of the movie for the home-entertainment market, were stunned. And even more shocked when the three networks explained why.

"They said explicitly they were reluctant because of the closeness of the release to the election. All three networks said no," one Sony insider explains. "It was certainly a judgment that Sony disagrees with and is in the process of protesting."

And protest Sony did. (Michael Lynton, the onetime Pearson publishing executive who is now chairman and CEO of Sony Pictures Entertainment, has privately told people he hasn’t seen anything like this since his Penguin Group published Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses.) What especially galled the Sony suits was this: The networks had no problem having the DVD ads appear on their entertainment shows so long as the guidelines for R-rated content like Fahrenheit 9/11 were followed. However, Sony executives told L.A. Weekly they wanted only to market the movie's DVD on CBS's, NBC's and ABC's news shows. "But all three networks said no to straight news," one Sony exec explained. "Then, suddenly, the networks were extending the definition of news programming to include the news magazines and the morning news shows and restricting access to those as well. That becomes very problematic to any advertiser trying to reach an adult audience."

Finally, this week, Sony's protests started having an effect. "We're now getting movement," a Sony suit told L.A. Weekly Monday night. Sony corporate senior vice president Susan Tick claimed Tuesday that the initial ban on the morning news shows was lifted, and time on an NBC Dateline had been made available. But she also confirmed that the early-evening news shows are still verboten, and ABC still remains adamant that the DVD can't be advertised on its PrimeTime Live.

Latest National Harris Interactive Online Poll Shows Bush with Two-Point Lead Among Likely Voters

Some unusual things are happening

The latest Harris Poll conducted between September 20 and 26, 2004 shows President George W. Bush with a two-point lead over Senator John Kerry among likely U.S. voters (48% to 46%). This poll was conducted online with the same methods used by Harris Interactive to predict the 2000 elections with great accuracy. The previous Harris Poll conducted two weeks earlier, but conducted by telephone, also found the candidates running neck and neck, with Senator Kerry one point ahead of President Bush among likely voters (Bush 47%, Kerry 48%)..

While these polls show a virtual dead heat (and, of course, a "virtual dead heat" was the correct forecast of the popular vote in 2000), this latest survey by Harris Interactive finds some very peculiar things are going on.

One is that the traditional gender gap - with men leaning more toward Republican candidates and women toward the Democratic candidates - is only a very modest feature of this election, at the moment.

Another, even more surprising, finding emerges from an analysis by education. Normally Democratic candidates win substantial majorities among those with the least education - people who never went to college. Now President Bush does better among this group than he does among those with more education.

Indeed, President Bush leads Senator Kerry by nine points among those with no college education and by six points among those with some college education but no bachelor's degree. Kerry, on the other hand, leads by five percent among those with a college degree and by fully 21 percent among those with post-graduate education.

Strange things seem to be happening, making this something of a topsy-turvy election.

John Eisenhower, son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, served on the White House staff between October 1958 and the end of the Eisenhower administration. From 1961 to 1964 he assisted his father in writing "The White House Years," his Presidential memoirs. He served as American ambassador to Belgium between 1969 and 1971. He is the author of nine books, largely on military subjects.

Another View:
Why I will vote for John Kerry for President
By JOHN EISENHOWER
Guest Commentary

As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration's decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.

The fact is that today's "Republican" Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word "Republican" has always been synonymous with the word "responsibility," which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today's whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion.

Responsibility used to be observed in foreign affairs. That has meant respect for others. [...] Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance.
_______

The Republican Party I used to know placed heavy emphasis on fiscal responsibility, which included balancing the budget whenever the state of the economy allowed it to do so. The Eisenhower administration accomplished that difficult task three times during its eight years in office. It did not attain that remarkable achievement by cutting taxes for the rich. Republicans disliked taxes, of course, but the party accepted them as a necessary means of keep the nation's financial structure sound.

The Republicans used to be deeply concerned for the middle class and small business. Today's Republican leadership, while not solely accountable for the loss of American jobs, encourages it with its tax code and heads us in the direction of a society of very rich and very poor.

Sen. Kerry, in whom I am willing to place my trust, has demonstrated that he is courageous, sober, competent, and concerned with fighting the dangers associated with the widening socio-economic gap in this country. I will vote for him enthusiastically.

I celebrate, along with other Americans, the diversity of opinion in this country. But let it be based on careful thought. I urge everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, to avoid voting for a ticket merely because it carries the label of the party of one's parents or of our own ingrained habits.

Cheney changed his view on Iraq
He said in '92 Saddam not worth U.S. casualties

By CHARLES POPE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT

WASHINGTON -- In an assessment that differs sharply with his view today, Dick Cheney more than a decade ago defended the decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the first Gulf War, telling a Seattle audience that capturing Saddam wouldn't be worth additional U.S. casualties or the risk of getting "bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

Cheney, who was secretary of defense at the time, made the observations answering audience questions after a speech to the Discovery Institute in August 1992, nearly 18 months after U.S. forces routed the Iraqi army and liberated Kuwait.

The comments Cheney made more than a decade ago in a little-publicized appearance have acquired new relevance as he and Bush run for a second term. A central theme of their campaign has been their unflinching, unchanging approach toward Iraq and the shifting positions offered by Democratic nominee John Kerry.

A transcript of the 1992 appearance was tracked down by P-I columnist Joel Connelly, as reported in today's In the Northwest column.

"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?" Cheney said then in response to a question.

"And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

About 146 Americans were killed in the Gulf War. More than 1,000 U.S. soldiers have died in the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath.

Going to Baghdad, Cheney said in 1992, would require a much different approach militarily than fighting in the open desert outside the capital, a type of warfare that U.S. troops were not familiar, or comfortable fighting.

"All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques," Cheney said.

"Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq."

In the Northwest: Bush-Cheney flip-flops cost America in blood


By JOEL CONNELLY
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER COLUMNIST

As George W. Bush has lately shown, the tactic of successfully defining your opponent is to political conflict what occupying the high ground is to waging war.

The Bush-Cheney campaign has gleefully labeled John Kerry a flip-flopper. But what of Bush-Cheney flip-flops? They're getting a lot less ink, but America is paying a price in blood.

Little noticed, and worthy of lengthy consideration, is a speech delivered by then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney in 1992 to the Discovery Institute in Seattle.

The words of our future vice president -- defending the decision to end Gulf War I without occupying Iraq -- eerily foretell today's morass. Here is what Cheney said in '92:

"I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.

"And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties. And while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.

"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

How -- given what he said then -- does Cheney get off challenging the judgment and strength of those who argue that we are bogged down and shedding blood today?

Kerry association hurting some Democrats
By David Espo, AP Special Correspondent | September 29, 2004

WASHINGTON - Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle hugged President Bush from one end of South Dakota to the other this summer. In his own campaign commercials.

The brief embrace might seem an odd claim on re-election for the man Republicans depict as obstructionist-in-chief for the president's congressional agenda. But Daschle is one of several candidates with a common political problem as Democrats nurse fragile hopes of gaining Senate control this fall.

From the South to South Dakota and Alaska, they are running in areas where Bush is popular -- and Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry not so much.

"The congressman is running his own race out here...He's not bringing any national people in," said Kristofer Eisenla, spokesman for Democratic Rep. Brad Carson in Oklahoma, where Bush won 60 percent of the vote in 2000.
_______

The hug -- two or three seconds in length -- is a videotaped image of the embrace Daschle gave Bush when the president spoke to Congress shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.

Daschle's spokesman, Dan Pfeiffer, said the ad's message is that he "will work with the president when the president is right but oppose him when he is wrong." Daschle's latest commercial criticizes the administration for failing to provide adequate drought relief, while faulting Thune for not standing up to Bush on the issue.

The Republican Party demanded unsuccessfully that Daschle stop airing the ad, arguing it left a false impression.

LINK - President Bush based his famous and false claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger on a set of crudely forged documents. For the last two years, no one has uncovered who falsified these documents, which lie at the heart of Bush's case for war.

Now, CBS' 60 Minutes program has uncovered new and important revelations about the Bush administration's reliance on the documents. But, in an unprecedented and astonishing move, CBS bumped the report back until after the election, saying it would be "inappropriate" to air the piece when it might interfere with the political season.

It's outrageous that a major TV news outlet would censor an important piece of news for political reasons. Especially since this report has met CBS' standards for accuracy - it's true. One can only assume that CBS is buckling under pressure from the right - and that's just plain wrong.

Call CBS and its parent company, Viacom, now, at:

Sumner Redstone, Chairman, Viacom
(212) 258-6000

Les Moonves, Chairman of CBS; co-President & co-CEO, Viacom
(323) 575-2345

Andrew Heyward, President, CBS News
(212) 975-3247 or
(212) 975-4321

If you don't get through, you can write to CBS at:
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/feedback/fb_news_form.shtml

You can also contact CBS' local affiliates, which are linked here:
http://newslink.org/cbstele.html

Urge CBS to reverse its decision and air the 60 Minutes piece on Iraq before the November 2nd election. Let them know how important it is that they not censor the news.

How to Debate George Bush

My advice to John Kerry is simple: be prepared for the toughest debates of your career. While George Bush's campaign has made "lowering expectations" into a high art form, the record is clear - he's a skilled debater who uses the format to his advantage. There is no reason to expect any less this time around. And if anyone truly has "low expectations" for an incumbent president, that in itself is an issue.

But more important than his record as a debater is Mr. Bush's record as a president. And therein lies the true opportunity for John Kerry - because notwithstanding the president's political skills, his performance in office amounts to a catastrophic failure. And the debates represent a time to hold him to account. For the voters, these debates represent an opportunity to explore four relevant questions: Is America on the right course today, or are we off track? If we are headed in the wrong direction, what happened and who is responsible? How do we get back on the right path to a safer, more secure, more prosperous America? And, finally, who is best able to lead us to that path?
_______

In the coming debates, Senator Kerry has an opportunity to show voters that today American troops and American taxpayers are shouldering a huge burden with no end in sight because Mr. Bush took us to war on false premises and with no plan to win the peace. Mr. Kerry has an opportunity to demonstrate the connection between job losses and Mr. Bush's colossal tax break for the wealthy. And he can remind voters that Mr. Bush has broken his pledge to expand access to health care.

Senator Kerry can also use these debates to speak directly to voters and lay out a hopeful vision for our future. If voters walk away from the debates with a better understanding of where our country is, how we got here and where each candidate will lead us if elected, then America will be the better for it. The debate tomorrow should not seek to discover which candidate would be more fun to have a beer with. As Jon Stewart of the "The Daily Show" nicely put in 2000, "I want my president to be the designated driver."
_______

If Mr. Bush is not willing to concede that things are going from bad to worse in Iraq, can he be trusted to make the decisions necessary to change the situation? If he insists on continuing to pretend it is "mission accomplished," can he accomplish the mission? And if the Bush administration has been so thoroughly wrong on absolutely everything it predicted about Iraq, with the horrible consequences that have followed, should it be trusted with another four years?

The biggest single difference between the debates this year and four years ago is that President Bush cannot simply make promises. He has a record. And I hope that voters will recall the last time Mr. Bush stood on stage for a presidential debate. If elected, he said, he would support allowing Americans to buy prescription drugs from Canada. He promised that his tax cuts would create millions of new jobs. He vowed to end partisan bickering in Washington. Above all, he pledged that if he put American troops into combat: "The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished. And the exit strategy needs to be well defined."

Comparing these grandiose promises to his failed record, it's enough to make anyone want to, well, sigh.

Kerry Will Restore American Dignity
2004 Iconoclast Presidential Endorsement

Few Americans would have voted for George W. Bush four years ago if he had promised that, as President, he would:

- Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security benefits.

- Cut Medicare by 17 percent and reduce veterans' benefits and military pay.

- Eliminate overtime pay for millions of Americans and raise oil prices by 50 percent.

- Give tax cuts to businesses that sent American jobs overseas, and, in fact, by policy encourage their departure.

- Give away billions of tax dollars in government contracts without competitive bids.

- Involve this country in a deadly and highly questionable war, and

- Take a budget surplus and turn it into the worst deficit in the history of the United States, creating a debt in just four years that will take generations to repay.

These were elements of a hidden agenda that surfaced only after he took office.

The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda.

Today, we are endorsing his opponent, John Kerry, based not only on the things that Bush has delivered, but also on the vision of a return to normality that Kerry says our country needs.

Minister: N. Korea Has Nuclear Deterrent

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - North Korea says it has turned the plutonium from 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods into nuclear weapons to serve as a deterrent against increasing U.S. nuclear threats and to prevent a nuclear war in northeast Asia.

Warning that the danger of war on the Korean peninsula "is snowballing," Vice Foreign Minister Choe Su Hon provided details Monday of the nuclear deterrent that he said North Korea has developed for self-defense.

He told the U.N. General Assembly's annual ministerial meeting that Pyongyang had "no other option but to possess a nuclear deterrent" because of U.S. policies that he claimed were designed to "eliminate" North Korea and make it "a target of preemptive nuclear strikes."

"Our deterrent is, in all its intents and purposes, the self-defensive means to cope with the ever increasing U.S. nuclear threats and further, prevent a nuclear war in northeast Asia," he told a news conference after his speech.

In Washington, a State Department official noted that Secretary of State Colin Powell has said repeatedly that the United States has no plans to attack the communist country.

But in his General Assembly speech and at the press conference with a small group of reporters, Choe blamed the United States for intensifying threats to attack the communist nation and destroying the basis for negotiations to resolve the dispute over Pyongyang's nuclear program.

Nonetheless, he said, North Korea is still ready to dismantle its nuclear program if Washington abandons its "hostile policy" and is prepared to coexist peacefully.

Stewart's 'stoned slackers'? Not quite
Comedy Central defends audience against O'Reilly tease

The folks at Comedy Central were annoyed when Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly kept referring to "The Daily Show" audience as "stoned slackers."

So they did a little research. And guess whose audience is more educated?

Viewers of Jon Stewart's show are more likely to have completed four years of college than people who watch "The O'Reilly Factor," according to Nielsen Media Research.

O'Reilly's teasing came when Stewart appeared on his show earlier this month.

"You know what's really frightening?" O'Reilly said. "You actually have an influence on this presidential election. That is scary, but it's true. You've got stoned slackers watching your dopey show every night and they can vote."

Comedy Central executives realized, and O'Reilly acknowledged, that he was poking fun. But they said they didn't want a misconception to persist.

"If the head of General Motors was watching O'Reilly's show, that could be very important to us," said Doug Herzog, Comedy Central president.

"If you listen to O'Reilly, you get the sense that it was crazy longhairs behind the show," he said. "And it's not. It's great, smart television that attracts a well-compensated audience, most of whom are voting age."

Relax, said Fox News Channel spokesman Rob Zimmerman.

"Comedy Central must have lost their sense of humor," Zimmerman said. "Without Jon Stewart, Comedy Central would turn into the Great American Country Channel."

Swagger vs. Substance

Let's face it: whatever happens in Thursday's debate, cable news will proclaim President Bush the winner. This will reflect the political bias so evident during the party conventions. It will also reflect the undoubted fact that Mr. Bush does a pretty good Clint Eastwood imitation.

But what will the print media do? Let's hope they don't do what they did four years ago.

Interviews with focus groups just after the first 2000 debate showed Al Gore with a slight edge. Post-debate analysis should have widened that edge. After all, during the debate, Mr. Bush told one whopper after another - about his budget plans, about his prescription drug proposal and more. The fact-checking in the next day's papers should have been devastating.

But as Adam Clymer pointed out yesterday on the Op-Ed page of The Times, front-page coverage of the 2000 debates emphasized not what the candidates said but their "body language." After the debate, the lead stories said a lot about Mr. Gore's sighs, but nothing about Mr. Bush's lies. And even the fact-checking pieces "buried inside the newspaper" were, as Mr. Clymer delicately puts it, "constrained by an effort to balance one candidate's big mistakes" - that is, Mr. Bush's lies - "against the other's minor errors."

The result of this emphasis on the candidates' acting skills rather than their substance was that after a few days, Mr. Bush's defeat in the debate had been spun into a victory.
_______

During the debate, Mr. Bush will try to cover for this dismal record with swagger, and with attacks on his opponent. Will the press play Karl Rove's game by, as Mr. Clymer puts it, confusing political coverage with drama criticism, or will it do its job and check the candidates' facts?

There have been some encouraging signs lately. There was a disturbing interlude in which many news organizations seemed to accept false claims that Iraq had calmed down after the transfer of sovereignty. But now, as the violence escalates, they seem willing to ask hard questions about Mr. Bush's fantasy version of the situation in Iraq. For example, a recent Reuters analysis pointed out that independent sources contradict his assertions about everything "from police training and reconstruction to preparations for January elections."

Mr. Bush is also getting less of a free ride than he used to when he smears his opponent. Last week, after Mr. Bush declared that Mr. Kerry "would prefer the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to the situation in Iraq today," The Associated Press pointed out that this "twisted his rival's words" - and then quoted what John Kerry actually said.

Nonetheless, on Thursday night there will be a temptation to revert to drama criticism - to emphasize how the candidates looked and acted, and push analysis of what they said, and whether it was true, to the inside pages. With so much at stake, the public deserves better.

How Dare Kerry Speak Up

Why would any president even wish to plunge this country into war and keep it there without a level of support from the citizenry that is strong enough to survive the obvious counterarguments?

Bush's own campaign strategy has put the events of 9/11 and their aftermath at the center of this election. The president asks to be reelected based on the claim that his response to that event has been a success. It would be convenient for him if any challenge to this notion were considered beyond the pale. Increasingly convenient, in fact, as the word "success" seems less and less applicable. But Bush's convenience is not what this election is about.

This attempt to delegitimize criticism rather than rebut it comes as part three of a three-part Republican strategy. (At least we hope there are only three parts.) Part one was the first wave of Swift boat ads (and the ridiculous hoo-ha around them), raising questions about Kerry's Vietnam service. From there it was an easy leap to part two, the second Swift boat wave and the accompanying fuss about Kerry's leadership of the Vietnam antiwar movement. Part three drives it all home: As during Vietnam, so during Iraq. The guy is still at it, disloyally attacking his own country in wartime and giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

As this page noted during the second Swift boat attack, the Vietnam antiwar movement (or at least the part of it Kerry was associated with) was the essence of patriotism, trying to rescue our country from a terrible mistake and to prevent the waste of any more young lives. Those who attack Kerry today for opposing the war back then overlook the fact that the country came to agree with him. If Kerry and others had refrained from criticism out of a crude notion of patriotism and a misguided "respect" for American troops, many more of those troops would be long dead today.
_______

Compared with Kerry, George W. Bush is a coward. This is not a reference to their respective activities during Vietnam. It refers to the current election campaign. Bush happily benefits from the slime his supporters are spreading but refuses to take responsibility for it or to call point-blank for it to stop. He got away with this when the prime mover was the shadowy Swift boats group. Will he get away with it when the accusers are his own vice president, high officials of his own administration (Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage) and members of Congress from his own party (House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert or Sen. Orrin Hatch)? The answer is yes: Based on recent experience, he probably will get away with it.

Powell contradicts Bush, says Iraq 'getting worse'

WASHINGTON (AP) - Secretary of State Colin Powell sees the situation in Iraq "getting worse" as planned elections approach, and the top U.S. military commander for Iraq says he expects more violence ahead.

Their comments yesterday came after a week in which President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi optimistically spoke about the situation despite the beheadings of two more Americans and the deaths of dozens of people in car bombings.

In its latest report, the military said four Marines died Friday in separate incidents, adding to a toll that has topped 1,000 since the U.S.-led invasion.

Powell said the insurgency is only becoming more violent as planned January elections near.

"It's getting worse," he said on ABC's "This Week." "They are determined to disrupt the election. They do not want the Iraqi people to vote for their own leaders in a free, democratic election."

Army Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. troops in the Middle East, warned that voting might not be possible in parts of Iraq where the violence is too intense.

"I don’t think we'll ever achieve perfection, and when we look for perfection in a combat zone, we're going to be sadly disappointed," he said on NBC’s "Meet the Press."

Dreier's challenger acknowledges she is a lesbian, rebukes his positions on gay issues

In a surprising twist to an already unusual California congressional race, the Democratic challenger to incumbent Republican Congressman David Dreier has told RAW STORY that she is a lesbian, and has made a series of conditional statements rebuking Dreier's position on gay issues while concurrently questioning the payment arrangements with his chief of staff Brad Smith.

Her statement makes this the first known time in history an openly gay candidate has run against another candidate also believed to be gay. The L.A. Times, presented with this information, has said they are not planning a story.

Democrat Cynthia Matthews, who has not kept her sexuality secret from the press, said Saturday that she was proud of her relationship with her same-sex partner.

New voters coming out in droves

A sweeping voter-registration campaign in heavily Democratic areas has added tens of thousands of new voters to the rolls in the swing states of Ohio and Florida, a surge that has far exceeded Republican efforts in both states, a review of registration data shows.

The analysis of county-by-county data shows that in Democratic areas of Ohio - primarily low-income and minority neighborhoods - new registrations since January have increased 250 percent over the same period in 2000. In comparison, new registrations have increased 25 percent in Republican areas.

A similar pattern is apparent in Florida: In the strongest Democratic areas, the pace of new registration is 60 percent higher than in 2000, while it has risen 12 percent in the heaviest Republican areas.
_______

Republican officials say they think the paid workers who are registering low-income voters are sloppy. Matt Damschroder, director of Ohio's Board of Elections, said he had to throw out many of the cards he received because the voters already were registered. "One woman had signed a card three different times," with three groups, he said.

Prosecutors in Columbus have filed criminal charges against an Acorn registrar, saying he filed a false registration form and forged a signature. Officials for the group say they fired the worker and instituted a quality checking system before prosecutors acted.

Nevertheless, an examination of county registration records shows that the groups have added thousands of new Democrats to the rolls and have far outnumbered new registrations in Republican areas.
_______

In rock-ribbed Republican areas - 103 ZIP codes, many of them rural and suburban areas, that voted by 2 to 1 or better for President Bush in 2000 - 35,000 new voters have registered, a substantial increase over the 28,000 that registered in those areas in the first seven months of 2000.

"It's not easy work, but we go door-to-door in strong Republican precincts, making sure everyone is registered," said Chris McNulty, the state party chairman.

But in heavily Democratic areas - 60 ZIP codes mostly in the core of big cities such as Cleveland, Dayton, Columbus and Youngstown that voted 2 to 1 or better against Bush - new registrations have more than tripled.
_______

"If every Democrat showed up at the polls, you'd win, no question," said James Koehler, a precinct organizer in Columbus working for MoveOn.org, another soft-money group. Koehler said MoveOn hoped to have a volunteer in every precinct to call neighbors Nov. 2.

Republicans in Ohio, as well as nationwide, have accused the independent groups of essentially flouting campaign-finance law. But they clearly are concerned about their impact. "I would say we are in the unfortunate position of having to fight a two-front war," said McNulty, the Ohio party chairman. "I'd be a lot less concerned if it was just us against the Democrats and the Kerry campaign, but unfortunately it's not."

Al Qaeda Seen as Wider Threat
The network has evolved into a looser, ideological movement that may no longer report to Bin Laden. Critics say the White House focus is misdirected.

Authorities have made little progress worldwide in defeating Islamic extremists affiliated with Al Qaeda despite thwarting attacks and arresting high-profile figures, according to interviews with intelligence and law enforcement officials and outside experts.

On the contrary, officials warn that the Bush administration's upbeat assessment of its successes is overly optimistic and masks its strategic failure to understand and combat Al Qaeda's evolution.

Even before the Sept. 11 attacks, Al Qaeda was a loosely organized network, but core leaders exercised considerable control over its operations. Since the loss of its base in Afghanistan and many of those leaders, the organization has dispersed its operatives and reemerged as a lethal ideological movement.

Osama bin Laden may now serve more as an inspirational figure than a CEO, and the war in Iraq is helping focus militants' anger, according to dozens of interviews in recent weeks on several continents. European and moderate Islamic countries have become targets. And instead of undergoing lengthy training at camps in Afghanistan, recruits have been quickly indoctrinated at home and deployed on attacks.

The United States remains a target, but counter-terrorism officials and experts are alarmed by Al Qaeda's switch from spectacular attacks that require years of planning to smaller, more numerous strikes on softer targets that can be carried out swiftly with little money or outside help.

EPA's chief under Nixon rips Bush on environment
Says he will vote for Kerry

Russell Train is so disappointed in President Bush's environmental record that the staunch Republican, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's second leader 30 years ago, is casting his vote in November for Democrat John Kerry.

Train, 84, EPA administrator under Presidents Nixon and Ford from 1973 to 77, was in Madison Tuesday in support of Environment2004, an organization trying to end what it calls the anti-environmental agenda of the Bush administration.

A Washington insider for more than half a century, Train said the Bush administration's performance is a radical rollback of environmental rules to benefit special interests.

The administration's reversal of a finding that mercury is a hazardous pollutant is one of 400 rollbacks of environmental protections cited by Enviroment2004, and Train said the reversal is the reason he's switched parties this presidential election.

"Almost anybody's policy would be better than George Bush," Train said in an interview with The Capital Times Wednesday. "Kerry's environmental record in Congress is extremely good."

Ironically, Train was awarded the presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor in America, from the first President George Bush in 1991.

Bush's dismal policy failures in tax cuts and Iraq are being sold as achievements

By WALTER WILLIAMS
GUEST COLUMNIST

During his first term, George W. Bush has inflicted more damage on the nation's people than any other president in the post-World War II era. Not only has the Bush administration failed, it has been far and away the most dangerous presidency in this period.

No other administration has seen itself above the law or so disregarded the Constitution by attacking the venerable institutions created to uphold democracy. In addition, the Bush presidency pushed through its policies by employing a calculated lawlessness that featured both deception and secrecy. A couple of examples help illustrate the administration's use of subterfuge. (Hoffmania note: Read the full article for the examples)
_______

Amazingly and unfortunately, the dismal policy failures in pursuing the tax cuts and the invasion and occupation of Iraq are being sold as achievements during the presidential campaign and apparently being bought by large numbers of the public.

The Bush administration's strong suit has been its political propaganda machine. From the first tax cut introduced at the outset of the presidency, the administration has exploited every trick in the books to win the public to its side.This makes it imperative that the electorate has hard evidence readily available showing the dimensions of the failed presidency. What's needed is to provide a solid base for refuting the administration's deceptive presidential campaign, which has used alchemy to change the hard reality of its disastrous policy performance into untruths that proclaim a successful four years.

If not, the most polarizing and likely the most important election in the 60 years since World War II ended will be decided on misinformation and a distorted imagery that covers over a failed presidency.

The reasons to vote against Bush in the upcoming election go beyond partisanship. The nation has become an entrenched plutocracy ruled by immensely wealthy individuals and the leaders of corporate America. It closely resembles the Gilded Age of a hundred years earlier with its concentrated wealth and robber barons. I truly fear for my country -- not because of the threat of terrorist attacks but because the nation's constitutional framework is being destroyed.

I do not believe the destruction is purposeful on Bush's part. Nonetheless, that he sees himself as a patriot defending the nation does not refute the hard evidence that his misguided policies, based on now-disproved theories, are in fact destroying the American republic created by the Founders.

Walter Williams is a professor emeritus at the University of Washington's Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs and is the author of "Reaganism and the Death of Representative Democracy."

Professor says Bush revealed National Guard favoritism

A business school professor who taught George W. Bush at Harvard University in the early 1970s says the future president told him that family friends had pulled strings to get him into the Texas Air National Guard.

Yoshi Tsurumi, in his first on-camera interview on the subject, told CNN that Bush confided in him during an after-class hallway conversation during the 1973-74 school year.

"He admitted to me that to avoid the Vietnam draft, he had his dad -- he said 'Dad's friends' -- skip him through the long waiting list to get him into the Texas National Guard," Tsurumi said. "He thought that was a smart thing to do."
_______

"What I couldn't stand -- and I told him -- he was all for the U.S. to continue with the Vietnam War. That means he was all for other people, Americans, to keep on fighting and dying."

Tsurumi got to know Bush when the future president took his "Economics EAM" (Environmental Analysis for Management), a required two-semester class from the fall of 1973 to the spring of 1974, Bush's first year at Harvard's business school.

Bush had transferred to Air National Guard reserve status before he enrolled in the MBA program. He had enlisted in the Texas Air National Guard in May 1968 and trained to fly fighter jets until he was suspended from flying status in August 1972 for failing to submit to an annual physical, according to Bush's military records released earlier this year.

Tsurumi said he remembers Bush because every teacher remembers their best and worst students, and Bush was in the latter group.

"Lazy. He didn't come to my class prepared," Tsurumi said. "He did very badly."

Tsurumi concedes that he disapproves of Bush's politics. He wrote a letter to the editor of his hometown newspaper, the Scarsdale Inquirer, that derided the president's claims to "compassionate conservatism."

"Somehow I found him totally devoid of compassion, social responsibility, and good study discipline," Tsurumi said. "What I remember most about him was all the kind of flippant statements that he made inside of classroom as well as outside."

The Story That Didn't Run

In its rush to air its now discredited story about President George W. Bush's National Guard service, CBS bumped another sensitive piece slated for the same "60 Minutes" broadcast: a half-hour segment about how the U.S. government was snookered by forged documents purporting to show Iraqi efforts to purchase uranium from Niger.

The journalistic juggling at CBS provides an ironic counterpoint to the furor over apparently bogus documents involving Bush's National Guard service. One unexpected consequence of the network's decision was to wipe out a chance - at least for the moment - for greater public scrutiny of a more consequential forgery that played a role in building the Bush administration’s case to invade Iraq.

Armitage: No Plans for Partial Iraq Election

Iraq's elections in January should encompass the entire country, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said on Friday, differing from comments by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that some violent areas could be excluded.
_______

Armitage said he knew of no plans to hold partial elections that exclude violent areas.

"I know of no changes and no plans. We're pushing ahead, fully supporting the Iraqi people, and the United Nations and the Iraqi electoral commission to have nationwide elections for a 275 person national assembly before the end of January," he told reporters after a House appropriations foreign aid subcommittee hearing.

Rumsfeld raised the possibility of partial elections on Thursday, just hours after Iraqi interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and President Bush both insisted national elections would be held on schedule in January despite the flaring insurgency.

"If there were to be an area where the extremists focused during the election period, and an election was not possible in that area at that time, so be it. You have the rest of the election and you go on. Life's not perfect," Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Rumsfeld said there could be a situation where an election could be held in "three-quarters or four-fifths of the country. But in some places you couldn't because the violence was too great."

In new attacks on Kerry, Bush twists his rival's words

WACO, Texas - President George W. Bush opened several new scathing lines of attack against Democrat John Kerry, charges that twisted his rival's words on Iraq and made Kerry seem supportive of deposed dictator Saddam Hussein.

It was not unlike the spin that Kerry and his forces sometimes place on Bush's words.

Campaigning by bus through hotly contested Wisconsin on Friday, Bush sought to counter recently sharpened criticism by Kerry about his Iraq policies:

-He stated flatly that Kerry had said earlier in the week "he would prefer the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to the situation in Iraq today." The line drew gasps of surprise from Bush's audience in a Racine, Wisconsin, park. "I just strongly disagree," the president said.

But Kerry never said that. In a speech at New York University on Monday, he called Saddam "a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell." He added, "The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."

-Bush attacked Kerry for calling "our alliance 'the alliance of the coerced and the bribed.'"

"You can't build alliances if you criticize the efforts of those who are working side by side with you," the president said in Janesville, Wisconsin.

Kerry did use the phrase to describe the U.S.-led coalition of nations in Iraq, in a March 2003 speech in California. He was referring to the administration's willingness to offer aid to other nations to gain support for its Iraq policies.

But Bush mischaracterized Kerry's criticism, which has not been aimed at the countries that have contributed a relatively small number of troops and resources, but at the administration for not gaining more participation from other nations.

-Bush also suggested Kerry was undercutting an ally in a time of need, and thus unfit to be president, when he "questioned the credibility" of Iraqi interim leader Ayad Allawi.

"This great man came to our country to talk about how he's risking his life for a free Iraq, which helps America," the president said in Janesville. "And Senator Kerry held a press conference and questioned Prime Minister Allawi's credibility. You can't lead this country if your ally in Iraq feels like you question his credibility."

Bush repeated the attack later in the day and Vice President Dick Cheney echoed the message in Lafayette, Louisiana. "I must say I was appalled at the complete lack of respect Senator Kerry showed for this man of courage," Cheney said.

Kerry's point was that the optimistic assessments of postwar Iraq from both Bush and Allawi didn't match previous statements by the Iraqi leader, nor the reality on the ground, and were designed to put the "best face" on failed policies.

An Un-American Way to Campaign

President Bush and his surrogates are taking their re-election campaign into dangerous territory. Mr. Bush is running as the man best equipped to keep America safe from terrorists - that was to be expected. We did not, however, anticipate that those on the Bush team would dare to argue that a vote for John Kerry would be a vote for Al Qaeda. Yet that is the message they are delivering - with a repetition that makes it clear this is an organized effort to paint the Democratic candidate as a friend to terrorists.

When Vice President Dick Cheney declared that electing Mr. Kerry would create a danger "that we'll get hit again," his supporters attributed that appalling language to a rhetorical slip. But Mr. Cheney is still delivering that message. Meanwhile, as Dana Milbank detailed so chillingly in The Washington Post yesterday, the House speaker, Dennis Hastert, said recently on television that Al Qaeda would do better under a Kerry presidency, and Senator Orrin Hatch, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has announced that the terrorists are going to do everything they can between now and November "to try and elect Kerry."

This is despicable politics. It's not just polarizing - it also undermines the efforts of the Justice Department and the Central Intelligence Agency to combat terrorists in America. Every time a member of the Bush administration suggests that Islamic extremists want to stage an attack before the election to sway the results in November, it causes patriotic Americans who do not intend to vote for the president to wonder whether the entire antiterrorism effort has been kidnapped and turned into part of the Bush re-election campaign. The people running the government clearly regard keeping Mr. Bush in office as more important than maintaining a united front on the most important threat to the nation.

Mr. Bush has not disassociated himself from any of this, and in his own campaign speeches he makes an argument that is equally divisive and undemocratic. The president has claimed, over and over, that criticism of the way his administration has conducted the war in Iraq and news stories that suggest the war is not going well endanger American troops and give aid and comfort to the enemy. This week, in his Rose Garden press conference with the interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, Mr. Bush was asked about Mr. Kerry's increasingly pointed remarks on Iraq. "You can embolden an enemy by sending mixed messages," he said, going on to suggest that Mr. Kerry's criticisms dispirit the Iraqi people and American soldiers.

It is fair game for the president to claim that toppling Saddam Hussein was a blow to terrorism, to accuse Mr. Kerry of flip-flopping and to repeat continually that the war in Iraq is going very well, despite all evidence to the contrary. It is absolutely not all right for anyone on his team to suggest that Mr. Kerry is the favored candidate of the terrorists. And at a time when the United States is supposed to be preparing the Iraqi people for a democratic election, it's appalling to hear the chief executive say that loyal opposition gives aid and comfort to the enemy abroad.

The general instinct of Americans is to play fair. That is why, even though terrorists struck the United States during President Bush's watch, the Democrats have not run a campaign that blames him for allowing the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to be attacked. And while the war in Iraq has opened up large swaths of the country to terrorist groups for the first time, any effort by Mr. Kerry to describe the president as the man whom Osama bin Laden wants to keep in power would be instantly denounced by the Republicans as unpatriotic.

We think that anyone who attempts to portray sincere critics as dangerous to the safety of the nation is wrong. It reflects badly on the president's character that in this instance, he's putting his own ambition ahead of the national good.

TRIUMPH OF THE STULTOCRACY
Ted Rall

"Kerry doesn't know what the working-class people do; he hasn't done any physical labor all his life," Sharon Alfman, a 51-year-old cook in New Lexington, Ohio, told a New York Times reporter. It's true. Kerry is a rich boy. But then she added: "Bush's values are middle-class family values."

George W. Bush earned $727,000 last year. Estimates of his net worth range between $9 and $26 million. Middle class he most assuredly is not. Working class he never has been. Like fellow Skull and Bones member John Kerry, man of the people he never will be. But it matters that Sharon Altman thinks he is. Unless you too are a voter living in a swing state like Ohio, her vote counts more than yours.

Demonstrating that stupefying ignorance can be bipartisan, another Ohioan interviewed for the same article said she is against the war in Iraq because, like 42 percent of her fellow Americans, she thinks Iraq was behind 9/11: "We shouldn't be over there building them back up because they didn't build our towers back up." She is wrong on so many levels that it makes my brain hurt.

Both women are entitled to their unawareness. We can't pass a law to force them to read the paper. But neither of these people ought to force their fellow citizens to suffer the consequences of their being so uninformed. Voting should be a privilege earned by an intellectually engaged citizen, not a right given to any adult with a pulse.
_______

The fact that these yahoos are allowed to vote is an abomination. Their ill-considered ballots cancel or dilute those cast by those who do the heavy lifting that makes them good citizens: keeping abreast of current events, researching issues, studying candidates' positions.

In the Old South, literacy tests were used to disenfranchise blacks. Alternatively, a basic political literacy test should be used to ensure that anyone who picks ESPN over CNN--regardless of race or creed--stays home on Election Day. Prospective voters should be required to answer at least three of the following questions correctly; to give people a fair shot, the test should be published in newspapers a week before an election:

1. Who is the vice president?

2. What is your state capital?

3. Name one of the following: your governor, congressman or one senator.

4. What is the capital of the United States?

5. Name one federal cabinet-level department.

Of course, such a political literacy test would drastically reduce voter turnout. On the other hand, those who pass could take comfort in knowing that they're not competing against the 60 percent of Americans who think we've found Iraq's imaginary WMDs, or the 22 percent who "believe" that Saddam Hussein used such weapons against U.S. troops during the 2003 invasion.

Congress Votes to Extend Tax Cuts
$146 Billion in Relief Would Be Bush's 4th Reduction in 4 Years

The House and the Senate overwhelmingly voted last night to extend three tax cuts aimed at the middle class, along with an array of business tax breaks, sending President Bush a $146 billion tax cut that would be his fourth in four years.

With the approval of the legislation, virtually all of Bush's first-term tax agenda -- four tax measures worth nearly $1.9 trillion over 10 years -- would survive a potential second Bush term, unless Washington elects to change the tax code again. The total is $300 billion more in tax relief than Bush envisioned with his first tax-cut proposal in 2001.

Dear Editor,

Jonathan Weisman's story, "Congress Votes to Extend Tax Cuts: $146 Billion in Relief Would Be Bush's 4th Reduction in 4 Years" (Sep. 24, A1) is playing into the GOP's strategy by helping them frame the debate by using the controversial word "relief". What is wrong with the neutral term "tax cut"? Personally, I would prefer the term "deficit exploding revenue killer" but "tax cut" will suffice.

So I ask, relief for who? Relief for our kids who are stuck with a massive deficit to pay off? Relief for my parents when the government can no longer afford to pay social security? Relief for the millions of school children who are being under-funded by the federal government? Relief for the soldiers who have to traverse Iraq in unarmored vehicles without body armor, because we can't afford it? Just who does this provide relief for?

Although the story does talk about the relationship of these tax cuts to our national debt, words like 'tax relief" automatically frames the argument and tilts it to the Republican advantage. I ask you refrain from Republican or Democratic buzz words and stick to the facts.

Michael

Kerry is Doing Much Better than the Polls State
Accurate voter turnout has not been part of the equation for pollsters.
Recently Pollster John Zogby of Zogby International wrote an article discussing how the Newsweek Poll that showed an 11-point lead for the president after the convention was flawed and deceitful.

Zogby's article stated that, ''If we look at the three last Presidential elections, the (percentage of voters per party) was 34% Democrats, 34% Republicans and 33% Independents (in 1992 with Ross Perot in the race); 39% Democrats, 34% Republicans, and 27% Independents in 1996; and 39% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 26% Independents in 2000. While party identification can indeed change within the electorate, there is no evidence anywhere to suggest that Democrats will only represent 31% of the total vote this year. In fact, other competitors have gone in the opposite direction. The Los Angeles Times released a poll in June of this year with 38% Democrats and only 25% Republicans. And Gallup's party identification figures have been all over the place."

Unfortunately, the deceitful Newsweek Poll that showed the 11-point "bounce" was because the pollsters at Newsweek polled "38% Republican, 31% Democrat and 31% Independent voters". This is very deceitful because the Republicans, in recent history have NOT come even come close to that type of voter turnout. Pollster Scott Rasmussen says the Time Magazine Poll that showed an 11- point bounce after the convention, also over sampled 38% Republicans.
_______

So as you can see, not only is it obscene and not historically accurate to take a poll using 38% Republicans, 31% Democrats, and 31% Independents, it is also inaccurate to take polls based upon what has happened over the last 3 elections. (I.e. 34% Republican, 34% Democrat, 33% Independent). Because based upon the motivations on the right and the left, we could see very high voter turnout on the Democratic and Independent side, and lower turnout on the Republican side.

So don't believe the polls. Just go out and vote.

SITE LINK - In response to numerous requests that I start signposting in swing states, I've decided to extend the following offer. If I get 25 pictures of signs hung in Arizona, I'll go there and put up 75. Same for New Mexico and Colorado.

LINK - Standing beside Iraq's interim leader, President Bush contended Thursday that insurgents could "plot and plan attacks elsewhere, in America and other free nations," if the United States pulled out. He said his top commander there has not asked for more troops but if he did, "I'd listen to him."

Ivan Remnants Return to Gulf of Mexico

Ivan is making an encore appearance in the Gulf of Mexico, this time as a tropical storm that could come ashore along the coasts of Texas or Louisiana.

After hitting Florida on Sept. 16 as a hurricane, Ivan weakened and broke apart as it traveled north, drenching southern and mid-Atlantic states before returning to sea. Its remnants then swung southward, growing slightly as it traveled over warmer waters.

The regenerated storm was expected to make landfall in the Gulf of Mexico on Thursday night, and could bring 50 mph winds and 5 to 10 inches of rain.

LINK

Oct. 9, 2002

Senate floor speech on Iraq resolution:

"In giving the president this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days -- to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out."

Sept. 9, 2003

Speech announcing presidential campaign, Patriot's Point, S.C.:

"I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations. I believe that was right -- but it was wrong to rush to war without building a true international coalition -- and with no plan to win the peace."

March 18, 2003

Statement on the eve of the attack on Baghdad:

"Even having botched the diplomacy, it is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. ... Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. ... My strong personal preference would have been for the administration ... to have given diplomacy more time."

Dec. 3, 2003

Speech before the Council on Foreign Relations, New York City:

"Simply put, the Bush administration has pursued the most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history."

Sept. 20, 2004

New York University:

"President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq?"

Millions Blocked from Voting in U.S. Election

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Millions of U.S. citizens, including a disproportionate number of black voters, will be blocked from voting in the Nov. 2 presidential election because of legal barriers, faulty procedures or dirty tricks, according to civil rights and legal experts.

The largest category of those legally disenfranchised consists of almost 5 million former felons who have served prison sentences and been deprived of the right to vote under laws that have roots in the post-Civil War 19th century and were aimed at preventing black Americans from voting.

But millions of other votes in the 2000 presidential election were lost due to clerical and administrative errors while civil rights organizations have cataloged numerous tactics aimed at suppressing black voter turnout. Polls consistently find that black Americans overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

"There are individuals and officials who are actively trying to stop people from voting who they think will vote against their party and that nearly always means stopping black people from voting Democratic," said Mary Frances Berry, head of the U.S. Commission on Human Rights.

Vicky Beasley, a field officer for People for the American Way, listed some of the ways voters have been "discouraged" from voting.

"In elections in Baltimore in 2002 and in Georgia last year, black voters were sent fliers saying anyone who hadn't paid utility bills or had outstanding parking tickets or were behind on their rent would be arrested at polling stations. It happens in every election cycle," she said.

Kerry Says Bush in 'Make-Believe World'
AP Interview: Kerry Says Bush in 'Make-Believe World,' Misleading American People

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. Sept. 22, 2004 — President Bush is living in a make-believe world in his understanding of Iraq, misleading the American people and attacking Democrats on phony issues, presidential rival John Kerry said Wednesday in an interview with The Associated Press.

"Even today, he blundered again saying there are only a handful of terrorists in Iraq," Kerry said. "George Bush retreated from Fallujah and other communities in Iraq which are now overrun with terrorists and threaten our troops."

Bush, campaigning in Pennsylvania on Wednesday, said, "It's hard to help a country go from tyranny to elections to peace when there are a handful of people who are willing to kill in order to stop the process. And that's what you're seeing on the TV screens. You know, these people cannot beat us militarily."

Bush said the insurgents "use the only tool at their disposal, which is beheadings and death, to try to shake our will. They understand the nature of America. ... We weep when we think about the families affected by those who have been brutalized by these terrorists."

Kerry said that in criticizing his statements on Iraq, Bush was "living in a make-believe world," unwilling to tell the truth or to understand the situation in Iraq.
_______

Kerry spoke to the AP shortly after Vice President Dick Cheney delivered a scathing attack on the Democrat. Speaking to reporters after meeting with Republican leaders on Capitol Hill, Cheney argued that Kerry's penchant for wavering makes him a weak alternative to a "steadfast leader, which is exactly what we have in President George W. Bush."

"John Kerry gives every indication that his repeated efforts to cast and recast and redefine the war on terror and our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, of someone who lacks the resolve, the determination and the conviction to prevail in this conflict," Cheney said. "He has demonstrated throughout the course of this campaign that he lacks the clarity of vision and purpose necessary to lead our country during extraordinary times."

In a day filled with rhetorical charges and countercharges -- at campaign stops and in advertising -- all four candidates found fault. Responding to Cheney's criticism of Kerry, Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards said in a statement that Bush and Cheney "are the last two people we need a lecture from about how to keep the American people safe."

"It is the height of absurdity for Dick Cheney, a chief architect of the Iraq quagmire, to talk about the leadership needed to fix the mess in Iraq that he created," said Edwards, reviving a word -- quagmire -- often used to describe the Vietnam War.

"President Bush must face reality and tell us the truth about Iraq. He must immediately release the CIA's July 2004 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq to the public."

LINK - The left-leaning alternative newspaper, LA Weekly, is set to launch a major piece formally outing anti-gay California Republican congressman David Dreier for the first time in print media, RAW STORY has learned.

Titled "The Outing," the 900-word piece penned by veteran investigative reporter Doug Ireland, will formally blast Dreier for his extremely anti-gay voting position and its apparent conflict with the relationship he is said to be having with his male chief of staff.

The piece begins by citing activist Mike Rogers, whose site, blogACTIVE, first intimated that Dreier might be gay.

"Rogers' campaign against Dreier got a major boost when it was taken up by Raw Story, the hot new liberal gadfly newsblog," Ireland writes. "Raw Story - which is edited out of Cambridge, Mass., by 23-year-old John Byrne...published an interview with Dreier's Democratic opponent in 1998 and 2000, Dr. Janice Nelson, who said she was aware during her 2000 campaign that Dreier was living with his chief of staff, Brad Smith. 'Brad was like an invisible presence,' she said, adding 'They really have the routine down slick.'"

Twinkies Maker Seeking Ch. 11 Protection

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Interstate Bakeries Corp., the nation's largest wholesaler baker whose products include Twinkies and Wonder Bread, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection early Wednesday. The company also named a new chief executive.

"IBC has some of the most recognizable and popular baked breads and sweet goods brands in the nation," [CEO Tony] Alvarez said in a statement. "By filing for protection under Chapter 11 and obtaining...financing, the company should have the liquidity, time and resources necessary to thoroughly identify, assess and address the issues that will enable this company to be successful in the future."

NEW PROOF BUSH SNORTED COCAINE

While President George W. Bush's spokespeople are denying the allegation in Kitty Kelley's new book that Bush used cocaine, an ENQUIRER investigation has tracked down others who are making similar bombshell charges!

One source, author Toby Rogers, said a former member of George Bush Sr.'s staff revealed to him that George W. used cocaine and "has been out of control since college."

The issue that goes on sale Friday explores Kelley's charge that George W. did cocaine at Camp David while his father was President, that First Lady Laura Bush sold marijuana in college ... and much more.

Bush Campaign Gets a Case of Camera Shyness
Backs Away From Defending Bush Guard Service, Debating the Facts

Washington, DC - Facing questions about President Bush's Guard Service and its own possible involvement with the disputed National Guard documents, the Republican National Committee has postponed a call scheduled to discuss the issue this afternoon.

And, in the last several hours, the Bush campaign has also cancelled scheduled appearances by Dan Bartlett on cable networks this evening. These cancellations came as the Bush operatives refused to appear live alongside Kerry campaign official Joe Lockhart.

"It's clear that even the Bush campaign is having a problem defending the President's National Guard service," said Democratic National Committee Spokesman Howard Wolfson. "The Bush campaign has decided to once again duck the tough questions and avoid real debate. Given the President's National Guard service, I don't blame them for being camera shy."

DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe himself held a conference call earlier today where he focused on tough questions on the President's lack of service, his three different explanations for missing his physical and whether he deserved his honorable discharge.

McAuliffe also highlighted a New York Post article that suggested that GOP operative Roger Stone might be involved with the CBS documents.

"We're answering all the questions, and if the White House doesn't like our answers, then we're just going to have to live there."

- Joe Lockhart just now on MSNBC

LINK - In a decision that could affect Americans abroad who are not yet registered to vote in the Nov. 2 presidential election, the Pentagon has begun restricting international access to the official Web site intended to help overseas absentee voters cast ballots.

According to overseas-voter advocates who have been monitoring the situation, Internet service providers in at least 25 countries - including Yahoo Broadband in Japan, Wanadoo in France, BT Yahoo Broadband in Britain and Telefonica in Spain - have been denied access to the site of the Federal Voting Assistance Program, apparently to protect it from hackers.

In an e-mail addressed to a person in France who had tried to access the Web site, the Federal Voting Assistance Program's Web manager, Susan Leader, wrote: "We are sorry you cannot access www.fvap.gov. Unfortunately, Wanadoo France has had its access blocked to U.S. government Web sites due to Wanadoo users constantly attempting to hack these sites. We do not expect the block to be lifted."

President Bush's Ratings Slip to Lowest Level of His Presidency, According to Latest Harris Poll

President Bush's ratings have slipped to 45 percent positive and 54 percent negative, the lowest ratings of his presidency, according to a new Harris Poll. These numbers compare to 50 percent positive, 49 percent negative in June and 48 percent positive, 51 percent negative in August. This downward trend no doubt helps to explain why the lead which the president enjoyed over Senator Kerry immediately after the Republican convention in New York - the so-called "convention bounce" - has now disappeared.

Kiwi troops coming home
16 September 2004
By HANK SCHOUTEN

New Zealand's troops are pulling out of Iraq under a cloak of secrecy as security deteriorates in the battle to control the war-torn country.

Nearly 100 people have been killed in attacks in Baghdad and Baquba this week, while Australia has sent a "logistics team" to Iraq to determine whether two of its nationals are being held hostage.

The New Zealand Defence Force is refusing to give any details of the withdrawal of the 60-strong Kiwi military engineering contingent, which has been hunkered down in Basra for the past five weeks as violence escalates throughout Iraq.

"We do not discuss troop movements in circumstances like this where security is a factor," Defence spokeswoman Sandy McKie said. However, it is understood they are pulling out this week.

"Incredibly, he now believes our national security would be stronger with Saddam Hussein in power and not in prison," Bush said. "He's saying he prefers the stability of a dictatorship to the hope and security of democracy.

"I couldn't disagree more, and not so long ago, so did my opponent," Bush told an audience of supporters. Bush quoted Kerry as saying recently, "Those who believe we are not safer with his capture don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."

Bush also charged that Kerry had appropriated his administration's plan for postwar Iraq.

"Forty-three days before the election, my opponent has now settled on a proposal for what to do next, and it's exactly what we're currently doing," the president said.

Let me put it plainly: The President's policy in Iraq has not strengthened our national security. It has weakened it.

Two years ago, Congress was right to give the President the authority to use force to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. This President...any President...would have needed the threat of force to act effectively. This President misused that authority.

The power entrusted to the President gave him a strong hand to play in the international community. The idea was simple. We would get the weapons inspectors back in to verify whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And we would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam: disarm or be disarmed.

A month before the war, President Bush told the nation: "If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail." He said that military action wasn't "unavoidable."

Instead, the President rushed to war without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work. He went without a broad and deep coalition of allies. He acted without making sure our troops had enough body armor. And he plunged ahead without understanding or preparing for the consequences of the post-war. None of which I would have done.

Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no - because a Commander-in-Chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe.

Now the president, in looking for a new reason, tries to hang his hat on the "capability" to acquire weapons. But that was not the reason given to the nation; it was not the reason Congress voted on; it's not a reason, it's an excuse. Thirty-five to forty countries have greater capability to build a nuclear bomb than Iraq did in 2003. Is President Bush saying we should invade them?

I would have concentrated our power and resources on defeating global terrorism and capturing or killing Osama bin Laden. I would have tightened the noose and continued to pressure and isolate Saddam Hussein - who was weak and getting weaker - so that he would pose no threat to the region or America.

The President's insistence that he would do the same thing all over again in Iraq is a clear warning for the future. And it makes the choice in this election clear: more of the same with President Bush or a new direction that makes our troops and America safer.

Hastert's al Qaeda comment draws fire

Top Democrats slapped back Sunday at a remark by House Speaker Dennis Hastert that al Qaeda leaders want Sen. John Kerry to beat President Bush in November.

At a campaign rally Saturday in his Illinois district with Vice President Dick Cheney, Hastert said al Qaeda "would like to influence this election" with an attack similar to the train bombings in Madrid days before the Spanish national election in March.

When a reporter asked Hastert if he thought al Qaeda would operate with more comfort if Kerry were elected, the speaker said, "That's my opinion, yes."

Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe called Hastert's comments "disgraceful," saying there was "no room for this in our political discourse."

"And I remind you that, you know, we could have done a lot better," McAuliffe said on CNN's "Late Edition."

"The president of the United States, on August 6th of 2001, was told in his briefing that America was going to be attacked by al Qaeda and they may use airplanes," McAuliffe said, referring to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

"He didn't call the FAA. He didn't leave his monthlong vacation. He sat down there."

Kerry's running mate, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, said Hastert "has joined the fear-mongering choir."

"Let me just say this in the simplest possible terms," Edwards said at a rally in Phoenixville, Pennsylvania. "When John Kerry is president of the United States, we will find al Qaeda where they are and crush them before they can do damage to the American people."

Hastert, who as speaker heads the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, showed no sign of backing off his comments.

Here are a few Baghdad Bob classics from the spring of 2003 (courtesy of one of his many Web shrines). See if you can imagine them coming out of the mouth of our president speaking to the press today.

*****

"I will only answer reasonable questions."

"No, I am not scared, and neither should you be."

"Be assured: Baghdad is safe, protected."

"We are in control, they are not in control of anything, they don't even control themselves!"

"The battle is very fierce and God made us victorious."

"They mock me for how I speak. I speak better English than they do."

"I have detailed information about the situation...which completely proves that what they allege are illusions . . . They lie every day."

"I blame Al-Jazeera."

"I can assure you that those villains will recognize in the future how they are pretending things which have never taken place."

"I would like to clarify a simple fact here: How can you lay siege to a whole country? Who is really under siege now?"

"We're giving them a real lesson today. Heavy doesn't accurately describe the level of casualties we have inflicted."

"Those are not Iraqis at all. Where did they bring them from?"

"The American press is all about lies! All they tell is lies, lies and more lies!"

"They are becoming hysterical. This is the result of frustration."

"Just look carefully, I only want you to look carefully. Do not repeat the lies of liars. Do not become like them."

"Search for the truth. I tell you things and I always ask you to verify what I say."

"The United Nations...it is all their fault."

"Even those who live on another planet, if there are such people, would condemn them."

"This is unbiased: They are retreating on all fronts. Their effort is a subject of laughter throughout the world."

"The force that was near the airport, this force was destroyed."

"They are achieving nothing; they are suffering from casualties. Those casualties are increasing, not decreasing."

"They think that by killing civilians and trying to distort the feelings of the people they will win."

"Our estimates are that none of them will come out alive unless they surrender to us quickly."

"They hold no place in Iraq. This is an illusion."

"Once again, I blame al-Jazeera. Please, make sure of what you say and do not play such a role."

"These cowards have no morals. They have no shame about lying."

"You can go and visit those places. Everything is okay. They are not in Najaf. They are nowhere. They are on the moon."

"Rumsfeld, he needs to be hit on the head."

Did Karl Rove dodge the draft?

Except for a lapse of several months, Selective Service records show presidential adviser Karl Rove escaped the draft for nearly three years at the height of the Vietnam War using student deferments.

Rove's avoidance of military service during the Vietnam War has become an issue in an ongoing presidential campaign debate retreading the military records of President Bush and challenger Sen. John Kerry. Bush's supporters have attacked Kerry's war decorations and statements he made opposing the war. And Kerry backers insist Bush was quietly ushered into the protective ranks of the National Guard to avoid combat, then failed to fullfil the last months of his service obligation.

We're back at war in Iraq, says general

Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the head of the Army, has admitted that British troops in Iraq are "back at war". He is the first authoritative figure to concede that war is still being waged in Iraq, 16 months after President George W Bush declared that combat operations were over.

In an interview with The Telegraph, the Chief of the General Staff said that August had been a difficult month for soldiers serving in southern Iraq.

"Soldiers are now fighting a counter-insurgency war," said Sir Mike. "August was a very busy month and British soldiers were involved in war fighting."

Trent Lott must resign as majority leader. I have been voting Republican and giving money and been active in the Party for many years. I have always been appalled by Trent Lott, and have always thought of him has as an unctuous, gutless, spineless, craven helmet-haired weasel of the first order. He surrenders to the enemy more than the French. He is a doormat for Daschle, and was a knee-pad wearing accessory after the fact for his secret crush, Bill Clinton.

He is a vacuous, vapid ignoramus. He is the author of Lott's Doctrine of Preemptive Capitulation. Except, of course, when he is sticking it to his own party. Then he is willing to burn down the Senate in order to preserve his sinecure and the perquisites of his office. He is a disgusting rodent of a man but is really much more of a Nancy Boy than a man.

Rather than letting him gratify his ego lust by hanging on to the Senate Majority Leadership, may I suggest just paying someone to walk around behind him calling him "Leader" every few minutes in a room full of mirrors, and throwing in a life-time supply of Aqua Net hairspray? He would be equally happy, and we would all be a lot better off.

The latest imbroglio is just more more good reason this pathetic loser, this pale pint-size knock-off of a genuine leader, has to be removed from the leadership. He has got us so far off message we need a trip planner and a telescope to find it again. He has gladly capitulated to a constellation of race-hustling poverty pimps in an repellent effort to hang on at all costs.

Get rid of this weasel or go down in flames with him.

Harry W. MacDougald
Atlanta, GA

Kovic Asks if Vietnam Taught Us Anything
by Steve Lopez

Ron Kovic comes toward me in his wheelchair before the doors of the elevator close. He reaches for my hand and squeezes hard. "Come on," he says, and we slip into the third-floor Redondo Beach apartment where he's been painting, writing, suffering through another war.

Kovic's home is strikingly neat, as if this is his way of bringing order to the world. His canvas paintings hang from the walls like Polaroids of disturbed dreams. They hang next to photos of him with Oliver Stone and Tom Cruise, who played Kovic in the movie based on his searing, angry and sorrowful book, "Born on the Fourth of July."
_______

"The president says the terrorists hate us because we're free," Kovic says, bristling at the simplification.

Let's go get the terrorists, he says. But let's admit there's a backlash against decades of hypocritical U.S. foreign policy based on economic self-interest, and let's admit this country has bedded a long line of despots.

"People forget that we supported Saddam Hussein to begin with," Kovic says. "What's been missing after Sept. 11 is a national dialogue about all of this."

It's missing in the presidential campaign too.

"Democracy is loud, it's angry, it's spirited, it's passionate," Kovic says. "I love this country and care about the safety of every American, and for our future security, we have to talk about what happened, and why, and go on from there."
_______

"People say, 'Yeah, I support the war, I support the president, I think we should be in Iraq.' Do they really know what it's like to be there? To be hit by a bullet? To live with your wounds for the rest of your life? Do they have any idea what parents go through?"

Kovic leans forward, eyes burning.

"Will these people who support the war be there when these soldiers come home? Will they be there on lonely nights five years later, 10 years, 20 years later? Will they be there when they're homeless because their lives have been ruined, or they're in prison because they were never able to adjust?

"I'm glad President Bush didn't have to suffer the way some of us did. I'm glad he didn't get shot and end up in a wheelchair and suffer all the awful consequences. I know what it means. I've been on the battlefield fighting for my life when another Marine came up to save my life and was killed.

"I know what it means to come home to a government that isn't prepared for all the wounded. I saw paraplegics and quadriplegics. I remember it, I can smell it and I will never forget it.

"This is a war we should never have fought to begin with, and it's becoming a catastrophe and a mirror image of Vietnam. Another guerrilla war, another senseless quagmire…. It can only make us greater targets of terror, and it can only harm the soul of America."

Kovic takes off frequently on these flights of rage, then almost seems to pull himself back. Don't get him wrong, he tells me. He's not a cynic, because he can't afford to be.

"I feel a lot of energy," he says. "This is a great challenge."

He looks down toward frail bent legs, smiles and says:

"How can I turn this into something wonderful? Victorious? It's important for me not to be a victim. Dignity over despair is what I tell myself.

"Dignity over despair."

Gov. Vetoes Minimum Wage Hike
Schwarzenegger also axes a bill that would have made retailers such as Wal-Mart pay for studies of proposed stores' economic impact.

Aligning himself with business leaders in perhaps his most unambiguous way yet, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Saturday vetoed a measure to boost California's minimum wage to the nation's highest, instead leaving it at the lowest level on the West Coast.

Schwarzenegger also rejected legislation that would have required giant retailers such as Wal-Mart that wanted to open colossal stores to first finance studies showing whether they would hurt the neighborhood economy and affect traffic.

Together, the two vetoes and accompanying explanations were some of Schwarzenegger's clearest articulations of where his views lie in disputes between business and labor.

"In recent years, the high cost of doing business in California has driven away jobs, businesses, and opportunity," Schwarzenegger wrote in his veto of the minimum-wage bill, AB 2832. "Now is not the time to create barriers to our economic recovery or reverse the momentum we have generated. I want to create more jobs and make every California job more secure."

California's minimum wage has been $6.75 an hour since 2002. The bill passed by the Democratic-controlled Legislature would have raised it by 50 cents on July 1, 2005 and then to $7.75 a year later. The federal minimum wage is $5.15 an hour.

Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, the author of the minimum-wage bill, said Schwarzenegger's veto was disappointing. "The state minimum wage is under the federal poverty line," said Lieber (D-Mountain View). "This veto is evidence that you can't serve two masters. You either side with the corporate interests or the people. Schwarzenegger sided with the corporate interests."

Bush's Cut-and-Spend Plan Is Math-Challenged

To hear President Bush talk about his plans for a second term, voters might think that the era of big government spending is back.

From his proposal to overhaul Social Security to his commitment to fighting terrorism and his initiatives on health, education and job training, the agenda Bush is spelling out in speeches and campaign documents calls for the robust use of government money.

All this comes from the same candidate who promises to cut the federal budget deficit in half by 2009 and whose Cabinet agencies are preparing for some serious belt-tightening of domestic programs if he is reelected.

That mixed message — a smaller deficit, but costly new initiatives — may have more appeal to swing voters than the simpler message of old-fashioned conservatism, which calls for smaller government and less spending.

But many analysts say Bush's second-term promises may be a poor predictor of what he could actually accomplish. Even some administration allies say it would be nearly impossible for Bush to achieve all his ambitious objectives and still halve the deficit by 2009.

"Can it be done?" said G. William Hoagland, top budget aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.). "Sure. On paper. But politically it's very difficult."

To do it all, Hoagland said, "lots of other things would have to be eliminated, terminated."

For whom did my son die in Iraq?
By Diane Davis Santoriello

For the last year and a half, the pain in my gut screamed at my head write about this war, speak out against the war! But my aching heart said, "You can't undermine your son's confidence in what he is doing." Memories of people scorning and smearing Vietnam vets ran rampant through my mind. You see, my son, 1st Lt. Neil Anthony Santoriello Jr., was living his dream. He had fulfilled his dream of becoming a military officer. I thought he was fulfilling his destiny of being a man of purpose, compassion and justice working to make the world a better place.

Now my son is dead. How did he die? According to the Army, he was killed on Aug. 13 in western Iraq when an IED -- an "improvised explosive device" -- detonated near his vehicle. According to me, he was killed by the arrogance and ineptitude of George W. Bush aided by Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
_______

My son voted for Bush. If he were alive, would he be voting for him again? I am not sure. His wife and I avoided political discussions with him before and during his deployment. He would have never talked badly about the president, because you do not criticize your commander in chief.

But I sensed frustration in his letters. When he came home, I would have talked to him about it. I can't ask him now. Now I speak for him.

He worried about his men, his stateside friends set to deploy next month. I did not speak out against the war earlier and for this I am angry with myself. My son, a man of incredible honor, died from the actions of dishonorable men. I cannot bring him back. But I speak out now to protect the people still serving, to try to restore honor to our country.

John Kerry was not my first choice for president, but I believe he has demonstrated a willingness to be open-minded. He knows that changing your position is not a character flaw, but a character plus. I believe he is the only person capable of getting the rest of the world to help us clean up the mess created by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the administration's other Iraq hawks.

Diane Davis Santoriello lives in Penn Hills

Britain to cut troop levels in Iraq

The British Army is to start pulling troops out of Iraq next month despite the deteriorating security situation in much of the country, The Observer has learnt.

The main British combat force in Iraq, about 5,000-strong, will be reduced by around a third by the end of October during a routine rotation of units.

The news came amid another day of mayhem in Iraq, which saw a suicide bomber kill at least 23 people and injure 53 in the northern city of Kirkuk. The victims were queueing to join Iraq's National Guard.

More than 200 people were killed last week in one of the bloodiest weeks since last year's invasion, strengthening impressions that the country is spinning out of control.

The forthcoming 'drawdown' of British troops in Basra has not been made public and is likely to provoke consternation in both Washington and Baghdad. Many in Iraq argue that more, not fewer, troops are needed. Last week British troops in Basra fought fierce battles with Shia militia groups.

A less kind, less gentle John Kerry

Sen. John Kerry is condemning President Bush with sharper language and more pointed attacks as the campaign heads into its final six weeks, hoping to turn the 2004 election back into a referendum on the incumbent.

After a summer of muddled messages and sagging poll numbers, the focus of Kerry campaigners has shifted from introducing their candidate to the nation to drawing distinctions with the president, a more combative posture that aides said will characterize their tone through election day.

In the past six days, Kerry has charged Bush with caving in to the gun lobby, favoring Halliburton at the expense of American taxpayers, glossing over glum news from Iraq while "living in a fantasy world of spin," and presiding over an economic recovery that has generated "more excuses than jobs."

"I am absolutely taking the gloves off," Kerry told radio host Don Imus this past week. "I'm prepared to take (Bush) on."

The confrontational tone, cheered by party loyalists, nevertheless carries a risk for the Democratic challenger. Kerry won his party's nomination in part because he was seen as more steady and careful -- and therefore more electable -- than former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, his chief rival in the early primaries. If Kerry's attacks are viewed as too strident, it may leave some voters wondering what he stands for besides "not-Bush," and turn off other voters who are reluctant to change presidents during a war.

This week's more strident tone is a calculated risk. While it may serve to fire up his base and help define his differences with Bush, it could also turn off voters who are hesitant to remove a wartime president. Some of Kerry's words were reminiscent of Dean, who soared to the top of Democratic polls last year because of his confrontational style and anti-war stance. Democrats ultimately rejected Dean in favor of Kerry, in part because Kerry seemed like a safer, and more electable, alternative.

Bush 'pleased with the progress' in Iraq

"The Iraqis are defying the dire predictions of a lot of people by moving toward democracy," Bush told the paper. "It's hard to get to democracy from tyranny. It's hard work. And yet, it's necessary work. But it's necessary work because a democratic Iraq will make the world a freer place and a more peaceful place.

"I'm pleased with the progress," Bush said. "It's hard. Don't get me wrong. It's hard because there are some in Iraq who want to disrupt the election and disrupt the march to democracy, which should speak to their fear of freedom."

Ex-Guardsman: I Contacted Kerry Campaign

A retired Texas National Guard official mentioned as a possible source for disputed documents about President Bush's service in the Guard said he passed along information to a former senator working with John Kerry's campaign.

The retired Guard official, Bill Burkett, said in an Aug. 21 e-mail to a list of Texas Democrats that after getting through "seven layers of bureaucratic kids" in the Democrat's campaign, he talked with former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland about information that would counter criticism of Kerry's Vietnam War service. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the e-mail Saturday.

"I asked if they wanted to counterattack or ride this to ground and outlast it, not spending any money. (Cleland) said counterattack. So I gave them the information to do it with," Burkett wrote.

Burkett, who lives just outside of Abilene, wrote that no one at the Kerry campaign called him back.

Bush Raises Questions About CBS Documents

President Bush questioned the authenticity of documents aired by CBS News that said he received special treatment during his Vietnam-era service in the National Guard, according to a Bush interview published on Saturday.

"There are a lot of questions about the documents and they need to be answered," Bush told the Union Leader newspaper of Manchester, New Hampshire, after a week in which some experts questioned whether the documents had been fabricated by those seeking to damage Bush in his re-election race.

"I think what needs to happen is people need to take a look at the documents, how they were created, and let the truth come out," Bush added.

Insurgents aim to influence U.S. vote, official says

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage alleged Friday that insurgents have stepped up their deadly assaults in Iraq because they want to "influence the election against President Bush," a statement that drew a sharp condemnation from the campaign of Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry.

It is apparently the first time that a Bush administration official has linked the escalating violence in Iraq to an effort by insurgents to help defeat Bush in November.
_______

After Armitage had apparently ended the news conference by saying, "Thank you very much," a reporter asked him to clarify his statement linking the violence in Iraq to the elections, according to the transcript.

"It's quite obvious that they would like to raise [the] costs to President Bush. I think this is their cynical effort to do that and to somehow influence our elections, and they will fail," Armitage said.

"They are trying to influence the election against President Bush," he added.

Asked whether he meant that insurgents or terrorists were working for Kerry, Armitage replied, "I didn't say that. What I said was that they were trying to influence the election against President Bush."

David Wade, a spokesman for Kerry's campaign, fired back Friday.

"These comments are an outrage and an offense to all Americans," Wade said. "It's even more offensive that the Bush administration thinks they can cover up the indefensible words of the deputy secretary of state."

Although Armitage is apparently the first administration official to link the escalating death toll in Iraq to efforts to defeat Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney drew similar ire from Democrats last week. Cheney said during a campaign stop in Iowa that the U.S. could be hit in a devastating terrorist attack "if we make the wrong choice" on Nov. 2.

Saddam Hussein would have done his best to lay waste to Washington D.C. sooner than later. His sons were in training for the baddest guy in town and eventually the world.

GW is a hero in fact! He had the balls to say to Saddam "Stop and decist, show us your hand or else".

On the other side of reality, I believe John Kerry would sit on his hands watching the greatest country in the world be destroyed even witout a fight rather than show a stand against his great and wonderful UN.

Lorin

The Bogus Assault -- Father Freeper of the Year
Serial Republican Victim complains for the THIRD straight presidential election of being assaulted and has his family assist.

Unbelievable.

Here is today's newspaper story:

A Republican family attended the rally to show support for the Bush-Cheney ticket. Phil Parlock, a Barboursville resident and strong Republican, said his family was accosted by some Kerry supporters.

"We do it peacefully and quietly to show respect. And, we don’t want to get kicked out of anything," Parlock said.

After standing on the tarmac with the Kerry supporters, Parklock and three of his children moved down to the airport road near a parking lot exit.

With Parlock were sons Phil II, 21, and Alex, 11, and daughter Sophia, 3.

Parlock said a Kerry supporter yanked a Bush-Cheney sign out of Sophia’s hands, making her cry. As they stood along the road later, someone threw the ripped-up remains of the sign at them as they passed.

Problem is, as pointed out by some (Rezmutt) at D.U. is he has done this before.

Charleston (WV) Daily Mail, August 27, 1996, Page 3C

Phil Parlock's experience was less calm.

The Huntington man said he was knocked to the ground by a Clinton supporter when he tried to display a sign that read "Remember Vince Foster," the deputy White House counsel who committed suicide in a Washington, D.C., park. His death has become the subject of much debate among Clinton opponents.

"It must have been a strict Democrat who did this," Parlock said, feeling the red abrasions on his face. "Everyone with the exception of him was real peaceful about our protest."

Parlock said some of the crowd tried to make other anti-Clinton demonstrators feel unwelcome. He estimated that about 150 Dole supporters attended the rally, but their signs couldn't be seen for most of the rally.

Charleston (WV) Daily Mail, October 28, 2000, pg. 1A:

Phil Parlock didn't expect to need all 12 of the Bush-Cheney signs he and his son Louis smuggled in their socks and pockets into the rally for Vice President Al Gore.

But each time they raised a sign, someone would grab it out of their hands, the two Huntington residents said. And sometimes it got physical.

"I expected some people to take our signs," said Louis, 12. "But I did not expect people to practically attack us."

The two said they didn't go to the Friday morning rally to start trouble.

"I came to support Bush and try to change some people's minds," Louis said.

Now here is the picture of Parlock with his three-year old daughter, who he enlisted as his assistant (father of the year no doubt).



Notice closely the young man wearing the union shirt and holding a piece of the sign?

Now here is a picture of the very productive Parlock family:



What are the odds, this allegedly angry sign-ripper in the union shirt, holding the fragments of a ripped Bush sign is either the guy in the grey sweater or the blue shirt?

So was Parlock having one of his sons portray a union stooge?


This guy is a serial disrupter with pretty much the same story every time.

Remember this when the Cornerites and Little Green Snot Bubbles spout off and try to make this a big story...especially in the wake of the known abuse protestors get at the regular "Triumph of the Will" functions that comprise a Bush Campaign appearance.

We're ending this campaign week in the Pacific Northwest with two stops in Oregon. Oregon is a state that Dick Cheney will likely keep visiting... they lost by just under 7,000 votes last time, and they feel they have a pretty good shot this year. But that's not the case with neighboring Washington State. We used to make campaign stops there too, and the campaign might not tell you this, but they've pretty much conceded the state to Kerry and now they're focusing on Oregon and its 7 electoral college points.

While Cheney focuses his attacks pretty much on Senator Kerry and all but ignores John Edwards, the Kerry campaign feels Cheney is a major liability for the Republican ticket that they can play up. So they attack the VP pretty consistently on the stump, and today launched a full attack. The released a campaign ad accusing Cheney of profiting off the war in Iraq through no-bid contracts with his former employer, Halliburton. Kerry also attacked Cheney in a speech in Albuquerque today, saying that he has two words for companies like Halliburton, "You're Fired," and calling for an end to corporate "cronyism."

Ex-Guardsman: Probe Gaps in Bush Service

A former Texas Air National Guard official who served at the same time as President Bush says he believes the bigger story about gaps in Bush's service is being overlooked in disputes over the validity of certain Guard documents.

"I think the public ought to be concerned about his preferential treatment getting in and whether he satisfied his commitment to the Air Guard. Those are the two fundamental questions," said Robert Strong, the administrative officer in charge of air operations at Guard state headquarters from early 1971 until March 1972.

Kerry accuses Cheney of conflict on Halliburton

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Friday that the Bush administration ignored overcharging in defense contracts awarded to Halliburton, the company once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, calling it evidence of the president's mismanagement of the war in Iraq.

"Dick Cheney's old company, Halliburton, has profited from the mess in Iraq at the expense of American troops and taxpayers," Kerry said. "While Halliburton has been engaging in massive overcharging and wasteful practices under this no-bid contract, Dick Cheney has continued to receive compensation from his former company."

Coupled with a new campaign ad aimed at the vice president, the criticism showed Kerry charging at one of his harshest critics. He rarely responds directly to the sharp words Cheney uses while campaigning for the president's re-election.
_______

The new line of attack dovetails with Kerry's escalating criticism of Bush's management of security and reconstruction in Iraq.

Kerry said Bush glosses over the increasingly dangerous situation in Iraq, while the United States bears the cost in lives and money. He also said congressional leaders say Bush plans to call up more National Guard and reserve troops after the election.

"It is clear that almost every aspect of this war, from how we went to how it was conducted, has been mismanaged and mishandled," Kerry said.

Drafts say no arms stockpiles in Iraq

Drafts of a report from the top U.S. inspector in Iraq conclude there were no weapons stockpiles, but say there are signs that fallen Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had dormant programs he hoped to revive at a later time, according to people familiar with the findings.

In a 1,500-page report, the head of the Iraq Survey Group, Charles Duelfer, will find Saddam was importing banned materials, working on unmanned aerial vehicles in violation of U.N. agreements and maintaining a dual-use industrial sector that could produce weapons.

Duelfer also says Iraq only had small research and development programs for chemical and biological weapons.

As Duelfer puts the finishing touches on his report, he concludes Saddam had intentions of restarting weapons programs at some point, after suspicion from the international community waned.

After a year and a half in Iraq, however, the United States has found no weapons of mass destruction - its chief argument for overthrowing the regime.

Afghan Leader Targeted in Attack

Afghan President Hamid Karzai survived an assassination attempt Thursday when a rocket was fired at his helicopter as it prepared to land near the southeastern city of Gardez.

The rocket missed the helicopter by about 300 yards, a U.S. military spokesman said in Kabul, the capital. Karzai was not hurt, and the helicopter immediately flew back to Kabul.
_______

Once back in the capital, Karzai made light of the incident and said his American security guards overreacted.

"It was like the padding paws of a cat," he said, quoting an Afghan proverb meaning that the attack was not serious. "We were about to land. I saw a big crowd of people, but suddenly the chopper took off and speeded up.

"We thought something might be wrong with the engine. Later they told us that we are going to not land, [because] there was a rocket attack."

He added: "I think our guys were really taking a lot of precautions for no reason. It was nothing actually. The governor [of Paktia] told me that it was a rocket that hit a house door."

Swiss Secrecy May Be a Lure for Al Qaeda

BERN, Switzerland - The trail began in the desert mayhem of Saudi Arabia and led to a suspected militant Islamic network operating in the Alpine tranquillity of Switzerland.

It started with a Saudi investigation into the May 2003 suicide attacks on three expatriate housing compounds in Riyadh by Al Qaeda that killed 26.

Investigators recovered a suspect's cellphone and made a startling discovery: The memory contained 36 Swiss numbers. And one of them belonged to an alleged Yemeni extremist based in the pristine village of Aegerten, an area known more for clockmakers than for terrorists.
_______

The unlikely setting shows how extremists establish footholds in whatever corner of the world they can.

In some ways, Switzerland does not seem a hospitable base for the Al Qaeda terrorist network. The country lacks the big cities and vast Muslim neighborhoods of neighboring nations. It does not belong to the borderless European Union, making entry and exit more complicated.

Nonetheless, that banking system remains a magnet for the global underworld: Swiss prosecutors are pursuing two massive investigations of wealthy Arabs accused of financing Islamic extremists through Swiss bank accounts. And street-level militants know that, like other small European nations with traditions of tolerance and neutrality, Switzerland has generous political asylum laws, strong protections for criminal defendants and an ingrained respect for privacy.

This Is No Time to Channel Al Gore

How hard can this be?

It's one fat home-run pitch after another. Kerry knocks a two-bagger now and then, but often fails to get the bat off his shoulder. He's too busy looking for a sign from the third base coach, and to make matters worse, he hires a new one every other day.

Swing for the fences, says one. No, play it safe, says another.

Talk up your own record. No, attack Bush's.

Kerry has the disease.

It's akin to multiple personality disorder, it's a killer, and it afflicts virtually the entire Democratic Party. They can't quite figure out who they represent, what they stand for, or how to explain themselves.

Republicans, on the other hand, are much more cunning. Bible-toters don't have anything in common with social moderates in the GOP, but they all come together when they have to and rally around meaningless slogans.

Compassionate conservative? Count them in.

Terrorists hate freedom? Sounds good.

Tax cuts and smaller government? You don't even have to deliver the goods. Conservatives just love the sound of the words.

The Democrats have no slogan, no idea, as ingeniously simplistic as those of the Republicans. Bill Clinton had a bridge to the 21st century, but Al Gore fell off it chasing soccer moms - or was it NASCAR dads? - while trying to hold onto the Democratic base, whatever that might be.

The other day on the radio with Don Imus, Kerry was asked about getting American troops home from Iraq.

"What you ought to be doing - and what everybody in America ought to be doing - today is not asking me," Kerry said. "They ought to be asking the president: What is your plan?"

Even if he'd tried, Kerry could not have come up with a more harebrained answer. All he had to say is that he foolishly bought into the president's justification for war, and soon as possible, he'll get us out of that mess and fight a true war against actual terrorists.

"We're a