MAX BLUMENTHAL

What Kerry Can Do on Thursday
There's no reason to believe Kerry can't dominate the first debate. First of all, Kerry knows that Bush will lean back in a relaxed, confident posture and attack him as a wilting, wavering flip-flopper. But Bush could be walking into a trap since his misleading statements about the rationale for war have changed drastically during the past year. Iraq is an ideal issue for Kerry to dull Bush's flip-flop critique by painting Bush as two-faced and disingenuous, from his crooked salesmanship of the war to his ignorant post-war planning.
Halliburton's war profiteering is a rhetorical plum that Kerry shouldn't hesitate to sink his teeth into. A discussion of Halliburton links the war in Iraq to the economy, which Bush probably won't want to discuss. It will also help build momentum for John Edwards, who must translate his Two Americas theme into foreign policy terms on October 5th. Kerry should also attack Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy as irresponsible and unprecedented in wartime.
In general, I think Kerry should stick to populist themes and avoid attacking Bush, for instance, for not releasing the National Intelligence Estimate. As important a point as this is, it's simply too arcane to resonate with most Americans. I suspect Kerry knows this, though I wouldn't put anything past him.
My sense is that America is in an isolationist mood right now so Kerry might want to tone down his Wilsonian talk about rebuilding alliances. Despite Bush's expansionist doctrine, he's managed to maintain popularity in middle America by skillfully adapting the right's traditional backlash populist rhetoric into his foreign policy speeches. With his proud defiance of the UN and France, his staunch refusal to seek an imaginary permission slip to defend America and constant invocations of the doctrine of American exceptionalism with coded phrases like, "An angel still rides in the whirlwind" -- a sure-shot with evangelical audiences -- Bush has managed to paper over the neoconservative ideological underpinnings of his foreign policy. He's George Wallace with territorial ambitions.
I don't know how Kerry can present Bush as beholden to neoconservative ideologues, and I would caution him against even using the word "ideologue" since I question how many Americans even understand the significance of this word. What Kerry can do, however, is rather than pointing to the alliances Bush has broken, point to the alliances Bush has made. Specifically, he can invoke the Bushs' love affair with the Saudis through a phrase like, "I will never sacrifice America's energy independence to the interests of repressive regimes like the Saudi royal family."
While he's on the Saudis, Kerry could score a few points by raising questions about Saudi links to Osama bin Laden, whose name must be mentioned early and often in order to differentiate the war in Iraq from the global war on terror. Has Bush been soft on Al Qaeda because he's in bed with the Saudis? That might be a stretch, but it wouldn't hurt to raise the question.
Nor would it hurt to turn away from the Middle East for a moment and raise the dark spectre of a nuclear North Korea. Kerry should point out that North Korea plans to test a nuclear weapon before November and then lay into Bush's abandonment of direct negotiations and the Sunshine Policy -- "Mr. Bush, by getting us bogged down in Iraq and ignoring real threats to our national security, you've allowed the possibility of a nuclear nightmare on the Korean peninsula to develop."
Some other choice lines for Kerry:
--quote George Bush Sr.'s line after Desert Storm advising against taking Baghdad and occupying Iraq. Then say, "Mr. Bush, don't you think you should have listened to your daddy?" Watch Bush lose his temper.
--"If I were president and America came under attack, I wouldn't sit in a classroom for seven minutes reading a children's book. I would act. Immediately."
--"As president, I will not reinstate the draft."
As far as the so-called "security moms" who are tilting towards Bush, Kerry can turn them back into soccer moms in the second and third debates. Why? Because suburban soccer moms are pro-choice, pro-environmental regulation and generally pro-gun control. These are issues Kerry can hammer home in the next two debates. All he needs to do is win the first and he's back in the saddle.

Securing the Homeland...

Who Wants to be a Millionaire in Iraq?
Bush's coalition does not waver in the face of danger, it does not wilt. It does not negotiate with terrorists. Oh, wait, there's this:

Two Italian aid workers held hostage in Iraq for three weeks were released by their captors yesterday amid reports that a $1m (£552,000) ransom had been paid to buy their freedom.

Simona Pari and Simona Torretta, both 29, were handed to the Italian Red Cross in Baghdad after they were kidnapped by gunmen from the offices of their charity in the capital on 7 September.

Arriving in Rome on a military aircraft late last night, the two women appeared to be in good health. "It went well, we have been treated with a lot of respect," said Ms Torretta.

Dr Sabah Khadim, the spokesman for the interior ministry in Iraq, said the kidnappers' motive was always to extract a ransom. Italian newspapers, quoting reports from Kuwait, claimed that $500,000 was paid via intermediaries on Monday and the rest was to be paid yesterday. The Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, spoke of "difficult" negotiations, and did not comment on whether a ransom had been paid.

A French negotiator said last night he had met two French journalists being held in Iraq and that an agreement had been reached to free them soon.

Is extracting ransom the newest tactic of the insurgency, a follow-up to its terrifying spate of beheadings? And what will they buy with their millions?
I think if the insurgents kidnap any more Americans, we should give them a few Pontiacs, have Barry Manilow serenade them and send them on their merry way. Or am I watching too much Oprah?

This is the type of reporting the US media has generally deprived Americans of. Imagine if images of injured soldiers were treated as a scandal on par with the Abu Ghraib torture rather than the gruesome reality of war that doesn't even bear mentioning. From the Toronto Daily Star:

On Thursday, a medical flight from Iraq brought 27 injured soldiers, two of them fighting for their lives.

"He might not make it," says a member of the medical team as a 27-year-old soldier is lowered from an ambulance and rushed to the intensive care unit.

Plugged to a respirator, the soldier lies naked on a bed, his pelvic area covered by a towel.

A roadside bomb 12 hours earlier left deep burns on 20 per cent of his body, a punctured lung and a broken leg. His chances of survival, a doctor says, are roughly 50-50.

His seared hands are sliced opened to prevent the need for amputation due to swelling. His dead skin is scraped off, a gel is spread thick to prevent infections, and his arms are wrapped in thick, white bandages.

"He's very unstable," says Hecker, 70.

Hecker retired from the military years ago but recently left his lucrative private practice in Detroit to save lives at Landstuhl.

"I'm here for him — nobody else," he says, pointing to the soldier. "I didn't come here for my government."

He pauses, then blurts out: "Bush is an idiot."

Handwringing
Bush is the rare president who treats intelligence assessments as something akin to theoretical advice he can either accept or reject depending on what his political situation is. And when his intelligence services contradict his public statements, he's got no problem attacking them as if they were his political opponents. How dangerous is that?

The Bush administration disregarded intelligence reports two months before the invasion of Iraq which warned that a war could unleash a violent insurgency and rising anti-US sentiment in the Middle East, it emerged yesterday.
The warning, delivered in two classified reports to the White House in January 2003, was prepared by the National Intelligence Council, the same advisory board that warned the Bush administration last month that the violence in Iraq could descend into a civil war.

That forecast radically departs from George Bush's upbeat assertions that the situation is improving in Iraq, and he initially dismissed the assessment as a "guess".

The White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, suggested the assessment was the work of "handwringers".

Capturing the Courts
I was pleased to find this AP article about the Christian Coalition's latest strategy. In the early 1990's, the Coalition groomed and backed stealth candidates to seize local governments across the country and eventually its cadres came to fill the ranks of the House's freshman class of 1994. Now the Coalition has set its sights on the courts, from appellate to federal, with a very realistic goal of eventually capturing the Supreme Court. A friend who went to the Coalition's annual meeting in Washington DC last week told me capturing the courts was the subject of nearly every speech, including Denny Hastert's.

The coalition hopes to help re-elect President Bush and add a handful of conservative U.S. senators who will support its agenda. The ultimate goal is loftier: changing the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal judiciary.

The coalition is finishing interviews of lawmakers for its voter guides, which national field coordinator Bill Thomson called the "B-2 bomber" in its arsenal. Combs wasn't ready to say exactly how many coalition voter guides will be printed. The group handed out 70 million in 2000.

Politicians are being asked a number of questions, including whether they support a constitutional amendment that effectively bans gay marriage. Their views on abortion, late-term abortions and measures to protect children from online pornography are being sought as well.

Voter guides don't advise people how to vote but provide opposing candidates' positions on issues important to conservative voters.

Scroll down for a look at one of these "voter guides," which feature important info on crucial bread and butter issues such as Bush and Kerry's opinion of Mel Gibson.

Another Window Into Hell
An account of Iraq from a Wall Street Journal reporter:

----- Original Message -----
> From: Andrew Rosenthal
> To: Mary Beth Rosenthal
> Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 11:19 AM
> Subject: FW: From Baghdad
>
> Sweetie, I don't want to depress you, so advance warning that this is
> an incredibly powerful email from a Wall Street Journal reporter in
> Baghdad. it's not gross or anything, just terrifying and profoundly
> depressing. It's worth reading. Feel free to pass it on to anyone
> you'd like.
>
>
> From: "Farnaz Fassihi" >
> Subject: From Baghdad
>
> Being a foreign correspondent in Baghdad these days is like being
> under virtual house arrest. Forget about the reasons that lured me to
> this job: a chance to see the world, explore the exotic, meet new
> people in far away lands, discover their ways and tell stories that
> could make a difference.
>
> Little by little, day-by-day, being based in Iraq has defied all
those
> reasons. I am house bound. I leave when I have a very good reason to
> and a scheduled interview. I avoid going to people’s homes and never
> walk in the streets. I can’t go grocery shopping any more, can’t eat
> in restaurants, can’t strike a conversation with strangers, can’t
look
> for stories, can’t drive in any thing but a full armored car, can’t
go
> to scenes of breaking news stories, can’t be stuck in traffic, can’t
> speak English outside, can’t take a road trip, can’t say I’m an
> American, can’t linger at checkpoints, can’t be curious about what
> people are saying, doing, feeling. And can’t and can’t….
>
> There has been one too many close calls, including a car bomb so near
> our house that it blew out all the windows. So now my most pressing
> concern every day is not to write a kick-ass story but to stay alive
> and make sure our Iraqi employees stay alive. In Baghdad I am a
> security personnel first, a reporter second.
>
> It’s hard to pinpoint when the ‘turning point’ exactly began. Was it
> April when the Fallujah fell out of the grasp of the Americans? Was
it
> when Moqtada and Jish Mahdi declared war on the U.S. military? Was it
> when Sadr City, home to ten percent of Iraq’s population, became a
> nightly battlefield for the Americans? Or was it when the insurgency
> began spreading from isolated pockets in the Sunni triangle to
include
> most of Iraq? Despite President Bush’s rosy assessments, Iraq remains
> a disaster. If under Saddam it was a ‘potential’ threat, under the
> Americans it has been transformed to ‘imminent and active threat,’ a
> foreign policy failure bound to haunt the United States for decades
to
> come.
>
> Iraqis like to call this mess ‘the situation.’ When asked ‘how are
> thing?’ they reply: ‘the situation is very bad.”
>
> What they mean by situation is this: the Iraqi government doesn’t
> control most Iraqi cities, there are several car bombs going off each
> day around the country killing and injuring scores of innocent
people,
> the country’s roads are becoming impassable and littered by hundreds
> of landmines and explosive devices aimed to kill American soldiers,
> there are assassinations, kidnappings and beheadings. The situation,
> basically, means a raging barbaric guerilla war.
>
> In four days, 110 people died and over 300 got injured in Baghdad
> alone. The numbers are so shocking that the ministry of health— which
> was attempting an exercise of public transparency by releasing the
> numbers-- has now stopped disclosing them.
>
> Insurgents now attack Americans 87 times a day.
>
> A friend drove thru the Shiite slum of Sadr City yesterday. He said
> young men were openly placing improvised explosive devices into the
> ground. They melt a shallow hole into the asphalt, dig the explosive,
> cover it with dirt and put an old tire or plastic can over it to
> signal to the locals this is booby-trapped. He said on the main roads
> of Sadr City, there were a dozen landmines per every ten yards. His
> car snaked and swirled to avoid driving over them. Behind the walls
> sits an angry Iraqi ready to detonate them as soon as an American
> convoy gets near. This is in Shiite land, the population that was
> supposed to love America for liberating Iraq.
>
> For journalists the significant turning point came with the wave of
> abduction and kidnappings. Only two weeks ago we felt safe around
> Baghdad because foreigners were being abducted on the roads and
> highways between towns. Then came a frantic phone call from a
> journalist female friend at 11 p.m. telling me two Italian women had
> been abducted from their homes in broad daylight. Then the two
> Americans, who got beheaded this week and the Brit, were abducted
from
> their homes in a residential neighborhood. They were supplying the
> entire block with round the clock electricity from their generator to
> win friends. The abductors grabbed one of them at 6 a.m. when he came
> out to switch on the generator; his beheaded body was thrown back
near
> the neighborhoods.
>
> The insurgency, we are told, is rampant with no signs of calming
down.
> If any thing, it is growing stronger, organized and more
sophisticated
> every day. The various elements within it—baathists, criminals,
> nationalists and Al Qaeda—are cooperating and coordinating.
>
> I went to an emergency meeting for foreign correspondents with the
> military and embassy to discuss the kidnappings. We were somberly
told
> our fate would largely depend on where we were in the kidnapping
chain
> once it was determined we were missing. Here is how it goes:
criminal
> gangs grab you and sell you up to Baathists in Fallujah, who will in
> turn sell you to Al Qaeda. In turn, cash and weapons flow the other
> way from Al Qaeda to the Baathisst to the criminals. My friend
> Georges, the French journalist snatched on the road to Najaf, has
been
> missing for a month with no word on release or whether he is still
alive.
>
> America’s last hope for a quick exit? The Iraqi police and National
> Guard units we are spending billions of dollars to train. The cops
are
> being murdered by the dozens every day—over 700 to date-- and the
> insurgents are infiltrating their ranks. The problem is so serious
> that the U.S. military has allocated $6 million dollars to buy out
> 30,000 cops they just trained to get rid of them quietly.
>
> As for reconstruction: firstly it’s so unsafe for foreigners to
> operate that almost all projects have come to a halt. After two
years,
> of the $18 billion Congress appropriated for Iraq reconstruction only
> about $1 billion or so has been spent and a chuck has now been
> reallocated for improving security, a sign of just how bad things are
> going here.
>
> Oil dreams? Insurgents disrupt oil flow routinely as a result of
> sabotage and oil prices have hit record high of $49 a barrel.
>
> Who did this war exactly benefit? Was it worth it? Are we safer
> because Saddam is holed up and Al Qaeda is running around in Iraq?
>
> Iraqis say that thanks to America they got freedom in exchange for
> insecurity. Guess what? They say they’d take security over freedom
any
> day, even if it means having a dictator ruler.
>
> I heard an educated Iraqi say today that if Saddam Hussein were
> allowed to run for elections he would get the majority of the vote.
> This is truly sad.
>
> Then I went to see an Iraqi scholar this week to talk to him about
> elections here. He has been trying to educate the public on the
> importance of voting. He said, “President Bush wanted to turn Iraq
> into a democracy that would be an example for the Middle East. Forget
> about democracy, forget about being a model for the region, we have
to
> salvage Iraq before all is lost.”
>
> One could argue that Iraq is already lost beyond salvation. For those
> of us on the ground it’s hard to imagine what if any thing could
> salvage it from its violent downward spiral.
>
> The genie of terrorism, chaos and mayhem has been unleashed onto this
> country as a result of American mistakes and it can’t be put back
into
> a bottle.
>
> The Iraqi government is talking about having elections in three
months
> while half of the country remains a ‘no go zone’—out of the hands of
> the government and the Americans and out of reach of journalists. In
> the other half, the disenchanted population is too terrified to show
> up at polling stations. The Sunnis have already said they’d boycott
> elections, leaving the stage open for polarized government of Kurds
> and Shiites that will not be deemed as legitimate and will most
> certainly lead to civil war.
>
> I asked a 28-year-old engineer if he and his family would participate
> in the Iraqi elections since it was the first time Iraqis could to
> some degree elect a leadership. His response summed it all: “Go and
> vote and risk being blown into pieces or followed by the insurgents
> and murdered for cooperating with the Americans? For what? To
practice
> democracy? Are you joking?”
>
>
> -Farnaz

This is how the Republican National Committee solicits donations in the Ozarks. 

The Christian Leader Coalition is supposedly sending 25 million of these "voter guides" to churches nationwide (click on image for a better view). 

The Bush-Hitler Axis
This story has been around for a while, but the Guardian has published the most pointed account of Prescott Bush's business dealings with firms that helped finance Hitler's rise to power.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

The debate over Prescott Bush's behaviour has been bubbling under the surface for some time. There has been a steady internet chatter about the "Bush/Nazi" connection, much of it inaccurate and unfair. But the new documents, many of which were only declassified last year, show that even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis' plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty.

There should be three books coming out soon detailing the Bush-Hitler axis. I'm puzzled as to why there hasn't been more intellectual interest among scholars and journalists in Prescott Bush in general and his dealings with the Nazis in particular. It's almost as hard to explain as why nobody (I know of) has bothered to write a biography of Dick Cheney, who may be the world's most powerful man.

Bush is rattling off numbers from a poll conducted by the International Republican Institute which stand in stark contrast to the findings of every other poll taken of Iraqis. Something smells funny.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush on Thursday shrugged off polls that suggest most Iraqis see Americans as occupiers not liberators. ``I saw a poll that said the right track-wrong track in Iraq was better than here in America,'' he told reporters.

``It was pretty darn strong,'' Bush told a Rose Garden news conference with interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. ``I mean, the people see a better future.''

The campaign of Bush's Democratic rival John Kerry was quick to respond. Within minutes of Bush's remarks, Kerry spokesman Phil Singer issued a statement repeating Bush's remarks and asking, ``Did Bush really just say this?''

Bush did not indicate what poll he was referring to, but White House aides cited a recent poll in Iraq conducted in late August that showed that more than 51 percent of Iraqis surveyed felt their country was headed in ``the right direction,'' up slightly from a May/June poll.

The number of Iraqis who feel that things are heading in ``the wrong direction'' had dropped from 39 percent to 31 percent over the same time period, according to the poll by the Iraq Office of the International Republican Institute, a nonprofit group that promotes democracy.

It's unfortunate that AP doesn't provide a more accurate picture of what the International Republican Institute (IRI) is or what it does. In a nutshell, the IRI is an instrument of the US intelligence apparatus which does overtly what the CIA used to do covertly -- manipulate elections, publish disinformation and generally destabilize countries deemed hostile to right-wing US interests.
Take a glance at IRI's staff. It is entirely composed of Republican think tankers and former congressional staffers. And IRI's board includes saints like Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Lawrence Eagleburger. The group is chaired by none other than John McCain.
IRI conducted a ten year destablization campaign against Jean-Bertrand Aristide's government in Haiti and helped organize the coup that deposed him in February.
IRI also worked in tandem with the National Endowment for Democracy to bolster opposition to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
Now, just months after presenting their "Freedom Award" to Condi Rice, they're providing propaganda services to Bush.
"A non-profit group that promotes democracy" my ass.

It's A Wild World
What's startling about the Cat Stevens aka Yusuf Islam episode is that the Bush White House once welcomed him as an honored guest.

FBI and customs officers detained Mr Islam for questioning after security officials diverted his flight to Washington 600 miles to Bangor, Maine, having spotted his name on a watchlist.

It emerged yesterday that on his last visit in May he met with officials of the White House's office of faith-based and community initiatives to discuss philanthropic work. The US department of homeland security said last night that fresh intelligence had been gathered since then.

I love the smell of fresh intelligence in the morning.

Am I a conspiracy theorist? A victim of a botched lobotomy operation named Robert MacMillan from the Washington Post seems to think so, since he points to my piece, "The Voting Machine Jackpot," as one of many "conspiracy theories" being promoted "aggressively online" (I can't even get aggressive in a bar. How in the hell could I get aggressive online?). Here's the crux of the article:

Mainstream critics of e-voting technology have largely focused on what they say are flaws in the security underpinning the touchscreen voting machines and the need for paper receipts recording every vote. But where some technology experts see fixable design flaws, others see sinister conspiracy and are promoting their views aggressively online.

Maybe there are some conspiracy theories out there. My piece was not one of them. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like MacMillan took the time to read mine. In fact, all he needed to do was read the last graf of my story to see that I did not introduce any "sinister" conspiracy theories:

Given the success the industry and its cavalcade of lobbyists have had in compromising the integrity of state election officials and members of congress in their quest for as much federal money as they can get its hands on, it would seem that a more salient explanation for their motives is good old-fashioned corporate greed. It's not as intriguing an explanation as election theft-plotting, but that doesn't make it any less outrageous, does it?

Despite his botched lobotomy operation, MacMillan's manages a clever ploy. By tagging any and all critics of the voting machine industry and its high-priced lobbyists as "conspiracy theorists," he mutes the impact of their reporting without actually disproving any of their assertions.
I guess I'll have to play along and introduce a new conspiracy theory: one of Diebold's lobbyists from the Information Technology Association of America called the Post's editors to solicit the story MacMillan wrote. I know, I know -- I'm getting all Oliver Stone and stuff.

"The Racial Truth?!"
Of all the Republican ads to appear so far this year, this one, which directly accuses Democrats of killing black babies, has got to be the craziest. Here's an excerpt:

"Today, one third of African-American pregnancies end in abortion. Black babies are terminated at rates triple that of white babies. Under Title X, schools can council scared kids to abort their babies without even consulting their parents.

Every year, the abortion mills diminish the human capacity of our community by another 400,000 souls. The Democratic Party supports these abortion laws that are decimating our people. But the individual right to life is protected in the Republican platform.

Democrats say they want our votes. Why don't they want our children?

Learn the racial truth about America's abortion laws. Don't buy the Democratic lie. Killing unborn babies is no way to help those in poverty."

Unnatural Disaster
Is the devastation caused by flooding in Haiti, which has killed around 2000 people so far, truly a "natural disaster?" If you've been following coverage of the floods, Haiti Support Group's pointed analysis is a must read:

The news is terrible, but it is not enough
to wring our hands and say 'poor Haiti'. Nor is it sufficient to call
on the international community to provide more and better humanitarian relief.
We must look at the reasons why Haiti is prone to these catastrophes.

Both the flash-floods in the south-east in May, and now these in the
north-west, are a direct consequence of the over-farming and
deforestation of the
country's hills and mountainsides. When heavy rain falls, the water
cannot be
absorbed, and instead cascades down valleys and ravines, sweeping away
anything
and anybody it its path.

The problems of soil-erosion and deforestation are well-known, and so
is the
only possible remedy - land reform. Yet over the course of almost three
decades, the country's economic policy has been dictated by
international finance
institutions, such as the World Bank, the IMF and the Inter-American
Development
Bank, and not only has land reform never appeared on their agenda, but
no
national government that has proposed it has received any encouragement
to carry
it out.

Instead, successive governments have been obliged to carry out
neo-liberal
economic policies which give no priority to the countryside whatsoever,
even
though some two-thirds of the population live there.

Billions and billions in international aid has been lent to Haitian
governments, but the focus has remained on governance, security,
elections and support
for the private sector. Next to nothing has been done to support the
agricultural sector - no land reform, no subsidies for fertilisers or
storage
facilities, no reforestation campaign,
no irrigation projects, no protection from cheaper imports, etc. etc.

Is it any wonder that Haiti's peasant farmers overwork their small
plots, and
cut down trees to raise cash from charcoal production?

Even now, after neo-liberal economic policies in Haiti have been shown
to
have failed over and over again, the current government - with the
support of the
international finance institutions and the European Commission - is
continuing to ignore the needs of the rural population. At the
international donors'
conference in Washington DC. in July, yet again the focus was on
support for the
urban private sector.

The attitude of the current interim government was summed up when,
shortly
after the May 2004 flood disaster, Prime Minister Gerald Latortue said
perhaps
the solution would be to employ former soldiers to shoot peasants found
cutting
down trees.

By, once more, doing everything to preserve the dominance of the
country's
immensely rich elite, and nothing to support the peasantry, the
international
community is complicit in the loss of life and misery caused by this,
and
future, natural disasters in Haiti.

Read my latest, a profile of right-wing televangelist Paul Crouch, who is accused of having a homosexual affair with a former employee. Here's an excerpt:

But if Crouch's legal and public-relations strategy fails, he could lose his role at the helm of evangelical Christianity's most powerful instrument of global influence, a broadcast leviathan with 43 satellites and more than 10,000 cable and local affiliates worldwide. Crouch may also become a liability to political allies like Attorney General John Ashcroft, his boyhood friend who benefited from the TBN's support during a heated confirmation fight. The scandal could also jeopardize the careers of some of the world's most popular and influential Pentecostal ministers, who rely on the TBN as a platform for their preaching and as a lucrative marketing vehicle for their books and videos.

"Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow."
--TS Eliot 

Even though I wholeheartedly disagree with the logic of this piece, it articulates a discussion I hear everywhere I go, which goes as follows: Should the Democrats even want Kerry to win? After all, with a deepening deficit and a war in Iraq we're sure to lose, four more years of Bush could keep the Republicans out of the White House for generations. It's worth a read; here's an excerpt:

As the opinion polls move steadily in favour of President George W. Bush and the likelihood of a John Kerry presidency recedes, Democrats in the United States can take solace in two facts. If their man is not in the White House for the next four years, then they will not end up carrying the blame for the almost inevitable U.S. defeat in Iraq -- and they will not have to preside over the biggest financial crisis to hit the United States since the Great Depression.

"The U.S. dollar is going the way that (the British pound) went as it lost its place as the world's reserve currency," said Jim Rogers, the Wall Street wizard who in 1973 co-founded the Quantum Fund, one of the first and most successful hedge funds, in a recent interview. "I suspect there will be exchange controls in the U.S. in the foreseeable future....Whoever is elected president is going to have serious problems in 2005-2006. We Americans are going to suffer." Why?

If Kerry won, this would be the third time in a row that an incoming Democratic president inherited a gigantic budget deficit from his Republican predecessor. Jimmy Carter took over a budget deficit of almost four percent of Gross Domestic Product in 1976 and halved it in four years. Bill Clinton was handed a budget deficit amounting to six percent of GDP in 1992 and turned it into a 1.5 percent surplus in eight years. Kerry would inherit a five percent deficit from Bush, about par for the course -- but for the first time he would also be burdened with a huge current account (trade) deficit....

A far-sighted Democratic strategist might therefore conclude that this is the wrong year to win the presidency. Democrats don't want the blame for an impending economic crisis that is mostly due to the Bush tax cuts -- and since their chosen candidate has no strategy for pulling out of Iraq, why not let the Republicans collect the blame for that debacle, too?

There is going to be a smash; it's too late to avoid it; let the other lot stay in the driver's seat for now. We'll win next time, and stay in power for a generation. But there is no sign that anybody in the Democratic Party is making such a calculation: they are genuinely committed to fighting Bush.

One point out of many I'd make to refute this argument is that Bush will see any victory, however narrow or illegitimate, as a mandate and begin pushing a radical social agenda that will include stacking the courts with Federalist Society ideologues.

Kerry=Osama?
I've been subscribing to the Bush campaign's "Team Leader" newsletters for about a year now under the pseudonymn "L. Ron Hubbard" (I guess they think it's okay to just call me "Ron") and every email -- I mean every last one -- contains some blatant distortion or a weird characterization of the Kerry campaign. It's no wonder Bush activists seem so angry -- they've been essentially told Kerry and Edwards are covert agents of Bin Laden. Check out this one from Ken Mehlman:

Dear Ron,

As a Bush Volunteer, you've made an important commitment to an extraordinarily important cause. In the final days of this campaign, President Bush and our team are counting on your help.

www.GOP.com/72Hour

Will you sign up today to make a difference in the crucial final hours?

Sincerely,

Ken Mehlman
Campaign Manager

P.S. The Kerry campaign is relying on a web of shadowy organizations to carry him to victory. We're relying on you! Will you be the difference and commit to helping President Bush and our team in the final 72 hours?

What?! A "web of shadowy organizations?" What the hell is Mehlman talking about? Will Kerry be relying on the Islamic Jihad? Al Qaeda? Hizbollah? If not, then what is Mehlman suggesting?

I'd be surprised (and frankly, a little dissapointed!) if you all haven't read this NY Post tidbit yet, but I'm posting it just in case.

The hot rumor in New York political circles has Roger Stone, the longtime GOP activist, as the source for Dan Rather's dubious Texas Air National Guard "memos."

The irony would be delicious, since Rather became famous confronting President Nixon, in whose service a very young Stone became associated with political "dirty tricks."

Reached at his Florida home, Stone had no comment.

According to the DNC, Bush ducked an afternoon press conference yesterday for fear of being asked about the rumor. Stone's last dirty trick, I believe, was surreptitiously advising Al Sharpton's campaign. Here's a little sampling of Stone's slimy past from a February Tampa Tribune piece (sorry, the link's old and might not work):

Stone, who once laughingly called himself the ``prince of darkness'' for political tricks, was an operative for Richard Nixon's Watergate-tainted Committee to Re-elect the President. He since has served prominent people including Ronald Reagan, Oliver North and Bob Dole.

His foreign clients have included Ferdinand Marcos, the late dictator of the Philippines; Lynden Pindling, the former Bahamas prime minister tainted by drug trade allegations; and Jonas Savimbi, leader of an Angolan rebel group that pursued a bloody civil war.

In 1998, Stone was linked to an apparently phony committee that purported to represent the interests of Holocaust survivors denied life insurance benefits or bank accounts of dead family members.

Instead, it launched political attacks on U.S. officials, including Bill Nelson, then the Florida insurance commissioner trying to force the companies to pay up.

At the time, Stone was a lobbyist for a European insurance company that Nelson said owed Holocaust survivors in Florida millions...

Sharpton has shared paid campaign workers with the Florida Senate campaign of conservative Republican Larry Klayman.

That's What Friends Are For
Our military is overstretched, our troops are exhausted and a draft would end Republican rule for generations. And forget diplomacy -- that's for Old Europe. So when Bush needs a new war, whom can he turn to? How about our little surrogate military base in the Middle East, Israel. They bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor, Osirak, at the behest of Richard Perle and the Reagan administration, and they've strafed Syria for us, too. Now it's Iran's turn. From Germany's Der Spiegel with thanks to Susan in Berlin for the translation:

The US Is Arming Israel Against Iran.

The US plans to deliver 5,000 satellite controlled precision bombs to Israel. Included among these are also 500 so called "Bunker Breakers". Security experts assume that the Teheran atomic program is the reason for the delivery.

Jerusalem - "These are not weapons, which can be used at the Palestinian front. Security sources report that Israel could use the "Bunker Breakers" against Iran or possibly Syria, thereby confirming a report in the newspaper "Haaretz". Neither the US Embassy in Israel nor the Israeli Ministry of Defense were willing to comment. "Bunker Breakers" are bombs which weight about one ton, are able to penetrate deep into the ground and to pierce up to two meter thick concrete walls. These could possibly enable Israel to destroy Iranian underground atomic plants.

According to "Haaretz" the pentagon justification for the sales of the weapons to the US congress was the necessity for the Israeli military to preserve its "Qualitative Advantage" in the region. This also serves the strategic and tactical interests of the United States.

From Israeli government circles it was reported that the arms deal went through without any political difficulties, although Israel had already been strongly criticized internationally for the use of precision bombs in the liquidation of Hamas leaders.

According to the newspaper report, the transaction, worth a total of $139 million, will not be finalized before the US presidential election on November 2nd. According to the newspaper report, Israel wants to buy 4500 more guided weapons in addition to the 500 bunker breaking bombs.

In 1981 Israel had destroyed the building site of the Iraqi atomic reactor "Osirak" with a surprise air raid in order to prevent Iraq from building nuclear weapons. The USA now accuses Iran of hiding the building of nuclear weapons behind its civilian atomic program. Iran denies this and has continuously insisted that its program only serves the generation of electric power.

On Sunday Iran rejected the demand of the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) to suspend its uranium enrichment program. Today the work began for the enrichment of uranium. Vice-president Resa Aghasadeh explained that the first successful tests for the transformation of natural uranium to the gaseous uranium hexafluoride had been completed.

This material can be concentrated in centrifuges so much that it can used as fuel for atomic power plants but also for the building of explosive atomic devices. Some of the more than 40 tons of available natural uranium had already been used for the transformation, Aghasadeh told journalists in Vienna. The Iranian government insists that it needs the uranium enrichment technology for the generation of electric energy.

This is the character the Republicans have nominated to run against Democrat Raul Grijalva in Arizona's 7th congressional district. No, he's not the guy with the pitchfork from American Gothic and he's not a member of Leatherface's family in Texas Chainsaw Massacre (at least, I don't think so). He's Joe Sweeney, a race-baiting homophobe with one issue on his political platform and one issue only: cracking down on undocumented immigrants from Mexico.
In 1996, when Sweeney was running in the primary against Rep. Jim Kolbe, the only openly gay Republican member of congress, he was cited by police for putting up posters claiming that Kolbe had AIDS and had raped a boy.
Sweeney's up to his old tricks again, stating, "I'm trying to represent citizen taxpayers. I'm not for illegal immigration. I'm not for the gays and all this perverted liberalism."
Somehow Sweeney's warmed-over racism, along with the fact that his name's been on the ballot 20 times in the past, helped him garner a whopping 70% of the vote in the Republican primaries. Predictably, the Arizona state GOP is distancing itself from Sweeney's campaign, but they have only themselves to blame for his success.
With their tax-cutting obsession and corporate cronyism, they are responsible for Arizona's absurd $1 billion dollar deficit. Since Bush has created a deficit at the federal level and can't -- or won't -- bail the states out, the only solution for the Napolitano administration is to raise state income taxes, something the wingers in the state legislature have fought tooth and nail.
So to deflect from their regressive fiscal policies, which has helped keep Arizona's corporate income taxes around 6% lower than the national level, the Republicans depend on demagogues like Sweeney to provide their typically rural, blue-collar base with a scapegoat. Don't blame the rich -- that's class warfare. Blame the guy cutting your lawn.
According to a recent ASU poll, 64% of Arizonans are supporting Prop 200, an anti-immigrant ballot measure that dovetails neatly with Sweeney's platform. Many state Republicans including John McCain are actively opposing this iniative while the Bush campaign is distibuting "Viva Bush!" signs throughout the state. But their opposition is an exercise in cognitive dissonance. Because while they weigh in against extremism, their economic agenda has tilled the soil for its germination. 

Fascinating Christian Science Monitor article about anti-Bush troops in Iraq. This is where our future leaders will emerge from, no doubt:

Whether representing pockets of opposition to Bush or something bigger, soldiers and marines on Iraq's front lines can be impassioned in their criticism. One Marine officer in Ramadi who had lost several men said he was thinking about throwing his medals over the White House wall.

"Nobody I know wants Bush," says an enlisted soldier in Najaf, adding, "This whole war was based on lies." Like several others interviewed, his animosity centered on a belief that the war lacked a clear purpose even as it took a tremendous toll on US troops, many of whom are in Iraq involuntarily under "stop loss" orders that keep them in the service for months beyond their scheduled exit in order to keep units together during deployments.

"There's no clear definition of why we came here," says Army Spc. Nathan Swink, of Quincy, Ill. "First they said they have WMD and nuclear weapons, then it was to get Saddam Hussein out of office, and then to rebuild Iraq. I want to fight for my nation and for my family, to protect the United States against enemies foreign and domestic, not to protect Iraqi civilians or deal with Sadr's militia," he said.

Specialist Swink, who comes from a family of both Democrats and Republicans, plans to vote for Kerry. "Kerry protested the war in Vietnam. He is the one to end this stuff, to lead to our exit of Iraq," he said.

It's a cool, cloudy day in Tucson, Arizona. Yesterday it rained and the city streets were flooded. There's nothing like breathing desert air after it rains -- a nice break from the smog choked atmosphere and parched landscape of late summer Los Angeles. Looking out the window from my friend's living room I can see some young volunteers going door to door registering people to vote against Prop 200, an anti-immigrant ballot initiative that will have major national implications. The climate here is heavily politicized: campaign propaganda is pervasive on the street and on the television and I'm meeting dozens of first time voters who are vehemently anti-Bush and deeply immersed in campaign news. I missed a huge Kerry rally here today that featured a speech by Rep. Raul Grijalva, who has the most liberal voting record of any member of congress, and performances by Carole King and Linda Rondstadt (I bet Bill Babiskin wishes he could have been there!).
I'm actually here as a guest of a local human rights group, Derechos Humanos, and the Committee to Defeat Prop 200, and I've had the opportunity to talk about some of my work on the national anti-immigration movement, its roots in eugenics and neo-Nazi organizations and its stealth campaign to increase its influence within the Republican party.
Prop 200, which would effectively ban undocumented workers from receiving emergency medical care, public schooling and would require all voters to show identification -- a subtle form of voter intimidation reminscent of the Jim Crow -- is the spearpoint of the anti-immigration movement's multi-pronged campaign to force undocumented immigrants out of the US and severely reduce levels of legal immigration. It is also a political bellweather and if it passes, it could a message to Republicans in Washington that immigration is a culture war issue worthy of adoption into their arsenal.
Prop. 200 is being backed with $500,000 from America's leading anti-immigration organization, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). FAIR likes to say it is defending American workers against cheap foreign labor, protecting the taxpayer from rising healthcare costs incurred from immigrants' overwhelming public hospitals and protecting the environment from the effects of population growth, which they blame on illegal immigration. A look at FAIR's history and leadership shows otherwise.
FAIR was founded by John Tanton, a Michigan eye doctor and former Sierra Club founding member who is considered the godfather of the modern American anti-immigration movement. In 1986, one of Tanton's memos to a colleague was leaked to the press. Part of it read:

Can homo contraceptivus compete with homo progenitiva if borders aren’t controlled? Or is advice to limit ones family simply advice to move over and let someone else with greater reproductive powers occupy the space?

Tanton's belief in a warmed-over form of eugenics is consistent with the overall ideological bent of the movement he helped spawn. In fact, between 1988 and 1994, FAIR accepted 1.3 million from America's leading eugenics organization, the Pioneer Fund, which distributed Nazi propaganda films during the 1930's. The links between the Pioneer Fund and FAIR are more intimate than that: FAIR board member Garrett Hardin was a Pioneer Fund fellow who openly defended infanticide as an effective form of population control (Hardin killed himself last year when he decided he was becoming senile).
Tanton now runs a publishing company, the Social Contract Press, which publishes "The Camp of the Saints," a tawdry, polemic novel about heroic European intellectuals beating back an amphibious invasion of immigrants from Asia and Africa. The book is full of salacious scenes including "Hindus" running sex farms and African immigrant families writhing on feces-covered floors in orgiastic delight.
The executive director of Prop 200 is Virginia Abernathy, a Vanderbilt university professor who considers herself a racial "separatist." She is the editor of the Council of Conservative Citizens' journal and a board member of the avowedly anti-Semitic Occidental Quarterly.
FAIR is currently collaborating with Project USA, a similar anti-immigration group which accepted $25,000 from the Pioneer Fund between 2000 and 2002, on a stealth campaign to back anti-immigration Republican congressional candidates. Of the 9 candidates they are backing with money, strategic help and grassroots volunteers, their star is Kris Kobach, the former general counsel for the Ashcroft Justice Department. Kobach is running for congress in Kansas' 3rd district and is under retainer by FAIR to argue before the state supreme court that undocumented immigrants should be barred from receiving public tuition to study at state colleges. Dick Cheney, who compiled an anti-immigration voting record during his congressional career, has been out to Kansas to campaign on Kobach's behalf.
Kobach spoke for 47 seconds during the Republican convention. His entire speech was focused on the need to deploy the US Army on the US/Mexico border to repel illegal immigrants. It was by far the most extreme speech of the convention, one which tore away the compassionate conservative window dressing that had papered over the GOP's social Darwinist agenda. Kobach laid the anti-immigration movement's un-Constitutional agenda bare for everyone to see. Unfortunately, his speech was entirely ignored by the media.
Another candidate backed by FAIR and Project USA, Arizona state Rep. Randy Graf, was defeated by moderate Repulican Rep. Jim Kolbe in the primaries here. Graf is a co-author of Prop 200, a former golf pro who is infamous for introducing a bill to allow guns in bars and quite simply one of the most extreme right-wing politicians in the country. Though Kolbe vanquished Graf, he only did so by 10 points and in fact, Graf won a few rural counties in Kolbe's district. Extremism is gaining ground in Arizona.
Of course, as Kobach's speech showed, Prop 200 isn't just about Arizona. It's about the anti-immigration's multi-pronged campaign for national influence and mainstream credibility, one which is modeled after the Christian Coalition's stealth strategy in the early 1990's. Like the religious right, the anti-immigration movement is controlled by extremist reactionaries. And just as the religious right was largely dismissed as too radical to gain a foothold in mainstream American politics, the anti-immigration movement is largely passed off as an array of unaffiliated "hate groups" without a long-term plan.
This isn't just about immigrants, either. With provisions mandating that voters prove they are American and that public school teachers report undocumented students to the police or face criminal charges, Prop 200 is an attack on democracy itself. Wherever you are, the people fighting this initiative need your help. You can donate here.

I wonder how the Bush adminstration will react to Ariel Sharon's Rosh Ha'Shanah surprise announcement that he will scrap the Road Map after withdrawing a few thousand nutters from the Gaza Strip.
If the White House or State Department's issued a condemnation of Sharon's decision already, I guess I missed it. But considering Bush has given Sharon carte blanche to violate all the Road Map's provisions while blaming the Palestinians for not being a "partner for peace," any condemnation now would simply sound incredulous. Furthermore, Bush is under too much pressure from his evangelical base -- much of which opposes even the Gaza pullout -- to enforce the Road Map. Israel gets all carrot and no stick from the man who's all cattle and no hat.
The only thing that surprise me about this, I guess, is that the Kerry campaign hasn't jumped all over it as evidence of Bush's unwillingness and inability to broker a peace in the Middle East.

Was Simone Toretta, the Italian anti-war human rights worker kidnapped yards from the Green Zone, the victim of an undercover operation designed to humiliate the anti-war movement? This story, by Naomi Klein and Jeremy Scahill, is based entirely on conjecture but it still raises some interesting questions. Here's an interesting excerpt:

Most extraordinary was the size of the operation: rather than the usual three or four fighters, 20 armed men pulled up to the house in broad daylight, seemingly unconcerned about being caught. Only blocks from the heavily patrolled Green Zone, the whole operation went off with no interference from Iraqi police or US military - although Newsweek reported that "about 15 minutes afterwards, an American Humvee convoy passed hardly a block away".

And then there were the weapons. The attackers were armed with automatic rifles, pump-action shotguns, pistols with silencers and stun guns - hardly the mujahideen's standard-issue rusty Kalashnikovs. Strangest of all is this detail: witnesses said that several attackers wore Iraqi National Guard uniforms and identified themselves as working for Ayad Allawi, the interim prime minister.

An Iraqi government spokesperson denied that Allawi's office was involved. But Sabah Kadhim, a spokesperson for the interior ministry, conceded that the kidnappers "were wearing military uniforms and flak jackets". So was this a kidnapping by the resistance or a covert police operation? Or was it something worse: a revival of Saddam's mukhabarat disappearances, when agents would arrest enemies of the regime, never to be heard from again? Who could have pulled off such a coordinated operation - and who stands to benefit from an attack on this anti-war NGO?

On Monday, the Italian press began reporting on one possible answer. Sheikh Abdul Salam al-Kubaisi, from Iraq's leading Sunni cleric organisation, told reporters in Baghdad that he received a visit from Torretta and Pari the day before the kidnap. "They were scared," the cleric said. "They told me that someone threatened them." Asked who was behind the threats, al-Kubaisi replied: "We suspect some foreign intelligence."

Blogactive has awarded its "J. Edgar Hoover Award" to Lee Lahaye, son of "Left Behind" series author Tim Lahaye and his wife, Beverly, who is head of one this country's most virulently anti-gay organizations, Concerned Women for America. Lee just happens to be Concerned Women's financial controller in charge of its $12 million budget. A source tells me he's been a fixture on DC's gay nightclub scene for over ten years.
Here's a little glimpse into the agenda Concerned Women is pushing.

Shana Tovah to all the loyal readers of this blog. Here's to a sweet new year and lots of travel over open borders.

Pandora's Box, Ripped Open
It seems that the mainstream press's definition of an Iraqi civil war is exclusively one that pits Shi'ites against Sunnis. Right now, Iraqis are fighting Iraqis and scores of them bleed in the streets every day. How is that anything but a civil war? From the Guardian:

In recent months, and especially since the handover of "power" to the unelected interim government, Iraq's resistance has concentrated its efforts on killing those who collaborate with the Americans - the police officers, would-be police officers, translators, governors and government officials.

It is beginning to look like, and feel like, civil war.

In another incident yesterday, gunmen ambushed a minibus full of policeman in Baquba, north-west of Baghdad, killing 11 of them and a civilian. They were on their way home to their base.

In Ramadi, clashes between US troops and insurgents left eight dead and 18 wounded.

Responsibility for the attacks in Baghdad and Baquba was claimed yesterday by Tawhid and Jihad, Iraq's shadowy and fastest-growing militant group, which is allegedly linked to the Jordanian al-Qaida ally Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

In reality, though, the real identities of the insurgents remain opaque. They undoubtedly include a handful of foreign fighters, but the majority are Iraqi nationalists violently opposed to the continuing occupation of their country.

"What happened here has really got nothing to do with Islam," said Rafid Ahmed, whose shop in Al-Karkh was destroyed.

Persecution at a private Christian school
Here's a disturbing but ultimately inspiring story that was posted on the Kids for Kerry website (Sorry, no link right now):

Let me start this off by saying I am a very strong Democrat. I support
the
Kerry Edwards ticket, I am Purely Anti-Bush and Anti-Iraq war, and of
course
I cannot vote yet.

Anyway back to the reason I am typing this. I attend a Private
'Christian'
school. We have full size lockers taller than most of us (I am Close to
5'6"). We have the right to decorate them as we wish to except for
things
like singers and models and things of that nature. Being a Democrat I
of
course decided to do mine in a Democrat theme putting a Kerry-Edwards
bumper
sticker up, pictures of Mr. and Mrs. Edward's up, Mr. and Mrs. Kerry,
Mr.
and Mrs. Clinton, Al Gore, and Howard Dean. On open house night all the
teachers who saw it got a good laugh out of it saying "I don't support
him
but you have Freedom Of Speech." Well, on the second day of school
after 5th
period I was walking down the hall and the administrator asked me about
it
saying he has nothing against Him and he isn't speaking out of his own
political views but he wants to make sure it doesn't go to far and plus
it
was Freedom of Speech.

Fast forward to 10:36 AM on 8-24-04. The morning had started normal,
me
being called various things for being a Democrat. At 10:36 I was
opening my
locker up to get my Bible out for another class of Bible with the
occasional
comment by the teach about me being a Democrat. The Financial
Administrator
came walking down the hallway as I opened the locker he looked back and
turned around saying "Democrats." He then walked over to my locker and
opened it so he could see it better and said. " He supports abortion,
He
supports Abortion, He supports Abortion [Pointing to the Political
Figures
in My locker) I want this all down NOW!" I looked up at him in a kinda
disbelief and he said "I Mean it!" and left after I started taking them
down
while being laughed at by a couple of republicans nearby. It didn't
take it
long to spread in my school that the only Democrat in the school had to
take
down the items he had in his locker. I was needless to say furious that
day
and still am as I am writing this down about what happened.

One of my teachers laughed as I walked in saying he had heard what
happened. I talked to the administrator at Lunch period and he said he
would
think about what to do after I told him he made me take it all down. My
schools solution was of course saying "As a church we cannot support
either
candidate due to our tax exemption status, therefore we want all the
Party
items to be taken down." I was told this at 5th period that day it
happened
and it was announced to the school 2nd period the next day. This
decision
was said to have been made by the pastor after he was told about it.
The
only problem with this plan was apparently that only applied to my
Democrat
stuff because all the Republican items stayed up and in fact the Verbal
abuse about being a Democrat increased afterwards. I talked to many
people
over the week it happened and Republicans, Democrats, and Centrist were
all
equally outraged saying that I have Freedom of Speech. My Mother
decided
to call the Administrator.

He assured her that it was the Pastors decision to do it and explained
why.
She then asked if it had been Mr. Bush in my locker would it have
happened
and he, being the Administrator of this so called 'Perfect' School,
said yes
it would have since the Pastor decided it. The only problem with this
outright lie was the fact that this all happened because it was not Mr.
Bush
in my locker, their so called 'Perfect' President. It was Democrats in
my
Locker. That is why this whole thing took place because it was
Democrats in
My Locker. Not Republicans.

When I decided I would be a Democrat I was called the following and
more:
Lucifer, Satan, The Devil, Communst, Nazi, and that was one of the
teachers
who started most of that. Plus all of the students have been
brainwashed by
this school into being taught Democrats are bad and Republicans are
good.
Not one of them can tell my why they support Mr.George 'Dubya' Bush.
They
just know they are against John Kerry, even though they have no idea
what he
stands for. The Students also have a hobby of calling me thing like the
teacher had started saying adding a couple more. This really seems like
a
'Christian' School doesn't it? They also seem to like to make comments
about
the Democrats like "Democrats say a lot of thing to say nothing," "
Democrats are blinded" " Democrats are Communist" ' All of Kerry's
wounds
were flesh wounds, all scratches and flesh wounds" " Kerry is a coward
and
has no backbone". Comments like this continue to grow by the day (and
if you
wish for a daily update of things they say see the bottom of this page
which
contains my e-mail) One week we had Integrity as a Vocabulary word.
Want to
know how the teacher taught this word to us? " We had a President who
did
not have this." She then had a student answer which President it was,
and it
was of course Bill Clinton, you know the President who did not purge
our
economy into a downward spiral, who did not send 1,000 innocent
soldiers to
die in a crazy mans war to complete what his Father did not. Another
time
with this same teacher we were studying France and she said how the
French
had a Socialist type government, she then felt the need to add '"
Hillary
Clinton supports a Socialist type government." Please someone tell me
what
this had to do with anything?

Comments and actions like this makes you think if a School like this
needs
to be called a Christian school. I have never been farther away from
the
Lord than after how they treated me. By them of course I mean the
Republicans that make up the entire teaching staff and student body. O
and
about the Bush Campaign items, they are still up.

As Happened in my Bible Class on 8-31-04 a Boy Pointed to a Thing on
the
wall that had two speeches written on it, One Of Kerry's speeches and
one of
Mr.Bush's speeches. The Boy asked 'Why is Kerry's speech so much
longer?"
The teacher replied "Because Democrats say many words to say nothing."
Then
looking he added. " It was because that was the first Bush speech I
found."
If I could argue with them I could set them all straight on the Issues
and
how they should be. But I cannot because I would then face expulsion,
as a
matter of fact I could face it if they ever found this letter out.
During
this year I have been called everything from: Lucifer, Satan, The
Devil, The
Anti-Christ, Carpathea to Adolph Hitler ,Nazi, Communist, Demoncrat.
All
from this so called 'Christian' school I have attended the last 9 years
of
my life.

I ask of you to also look on it this way. Is It people like this who
share
these beliefs who we really want running our nation, people who do not
support Freedom of Speech, people who when they see something different
from
them they try to get rid of it, people who will claim they can be
against
some things the Republican party stands for but if you are a Democrat
you
stand for everything they do. Is this who we want Running our nation?
Personally, I think not.

Which Is why I. Support the The Great Next President of the United
States,
A Great President we deserved but instead got possibly the worst
President
in the History of these United States. Start packing Mr.Bush Cause on
November 2 you will be out of a Job. The Democrats are reclaiming what
should have been claimed in 2000. The White House and the Running of
this
nation is returning to the people who know how to run it and run it
right.
Please Fell Free to send a Copy of this Letter to anyone you wish to.
Some of you probably ask will I remain a Democrat even after this? To
them I
say this. In The word of . The Rev. Al Sharpton "...( I'm going to)
Ride
this donkey as far as it would take us."

Jeb Bush is using nature as an excuse to override a court order barring Nader from the Florida ballot. This is what looks to be the lastest of a sequence of bizarre maneuvers by the Bush campaign (scrubbing minorities from voter rolls, using state troopers to intimidate elderly black voters, etc.) to steal Florida once again.

MIAMI (Reuters) - Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader's name can appear on Florida ballots for the election, despite a court order to the contrary, Florida's elections chief told officials on Monday in a move that could help President Bush in the key swing state.

The Florida Democratic Party reacted with outrage, calling the move "blatant partisan maneuvering" by Gov. Jeb Bush, the president's younger brother, and vowed to fight it.

In a memo to Florida's 67 county supervisors of elections, Division of Elections director Dawn Roberts said the uncertainty of Hurricane Ivan, which could hit parts of the state by week's end, forced her to act.

Interesting article by James K. Galbraith explaining how economics have polarized America's electorate. My only problem with Galbraith's argument is that by explaing America's political framework solely through an economic lens, he seems to discount the GOP's tactical manipulation of backlash social issues like abortion, gay marriage and school prayer to coerce lower-middle class, rural voters to vote against their own pocketbook interests. So, while arguments like this are certainly valid...

In the South, on the other hand, average incomes in many counties have been rising toward the national average. For this reason, the South contributes much less to national income inequality than it used to. In the process, Southerners have become Republican.

...they neglect the dominant role religion -- specifically, evangelical Christianity -- and culture play in Heartland communities.

Not only is CBS standing by the veracity of the Bush National Guard memos, some of those who sprung forth like Jacks in the Box to challenge the memos are retreating. From the Globe:

Philip D. Bouffard, a forensic document examiner in Ohio who has analyzed typewritten samples for 30 years, had expressed suspicions about the documents in an interview with the New York Times published Thursday, one in a wave of similar media reports. But Bouffard told the Globe yesterday that after further study, he now believes the documents could have been prepared on an IBM Selectric Composer typewriter available at the time.

But the damage is done. Even though characters like Bouffard are backtracking, they sowed seeds of doubt in the minds of some voters, especially Republicans, and helped further the Bush campaign's strategy of deflecting factual criticism by deploying surrogates with seemingly expert credentials to confuse the electorate.

As anyone with even the most cursory knowledge of AIPAC's influence on Capitol Hill could have predicted, the lobbying powerhouse seems to have managed to wriggle its way out of some much-overdue scrutiny for its blatant doppelganging. From the Hill:

That intense and frantic lobbying effort, which began on the eve of the GOP convention and continued unabated in New York, led dozens of lawmakers of both parties to testify to AIPAC’s integrity before they had been briefed by the FBI investigators on the details of the case. Some lawmakers, however, stressed that they rose to AIPAC’s defense without any prompting from the group.

The FBI is reportedly investigating whether Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin passed sensitive intelligence to Israel and the role of two AIPAC employees in the matter...

AIPAC, which does not give political donations but spends roughly $1 million a year on lobbying, has received supportive statements from nearly every key congressional leader.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), said, “I know AIPAC. I know the AIPAC leadership. It is an outstanding organization.”

Those comments were similar to Sen. Arlen Specter’s (R-Pa.) words: “I know AIPAC. I know its integrity. It’s a smear.”

Democrats were no less effusive in their backing of the embattled group. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) said, “For more than five decades, America as a country and Americans as individuals have stood by Israel. AIPAC and its members have tirelessly led that effort, and America is better and stronger for it. It is vital work — work I know AIPAC will continue to lead effectively.”

Over on the House side, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) offered a general statement of support. “AIPAC has played a pivotal role in ensuring the strength of the special relationship between the United States and Israel,” she said. “AIPAC is a dedicated advocate for Israel, educating our nation’s leaders about opportunities to assist our democratic ally in the Middle East. I am proud to have worked closely with AIPAC and its leaders to support Israel as it works to defeat terrorism and strives toward a just and lasting peace.”

Beyond the apparent fact that AIPAC enjoys total impunity in congress, this story is another example of how it has managed to compromise avowedly liberal Democratic lawmakers who might otherwise be criticizing the Bush adminstration for its cynical abandonment of the Road Map and all vestiges of the Clinton-era "peace process."

It's hard to tell yet if this is the opening roll of a new drumbeat for war, but it's definitely a story to watch. Bush's Middle East envoy, William Burns, has been dispatched to ramp up pressure on Syria for extending Emile Lahoud's presidency in Lebanon by 3 years. Obviously, I'm no expert on Lebanon but I think there's little debate that Syria's occupation stabilized Lebanon's internal security crisis after Reagan's cut and run in 1983. On the other hand, Syria has turned southern Lebanon into a Hezbollah training ground, so Burns is clearly acting within the framework of the "war on terror" and probably on behalf of Israel, AIPAC and the Likud government-in-exile operating within the Pentagon. From Ha'aretz:

"Burns will deliver a strong message to Syrian President Bashar Assad because it is time for Syrian troops to withdraw from Lebanon and for an end to all interference in its internal affairs," Burns' deputy Elizabeth Dibble was quoted as saying.

"This is not a new message because he has been told in the past, but it is important to say it again at the highest level of the Syrian leadership," Dibble said.

According to Dibble, Washington is considering further sanctions against Syria if it fails to comply with a United Nations Security Council resolution calling on it to refrain from intervening in its neighbor's affairs.

Sources in the U.S. and at the Security Council expressed anger last week following the Lebanese parliament's approval, by a large majority, of an extension to the presidency of pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud by another three years.

The UN resolution was, of course, drafted by the US. Now I think there is a question that bears asking: If Syria pulls its troops from Lebanon and ends its involvement in Lebanese political affairs, what will the price be? The dissolution of parliament and another costly civil war? And what if it refuses? Will that be a pretext for war in a second Bush term?
It's a fair question considering Burns is now attempting to link Syria to a recent Palestinian suicide bombing. Meanwhile, the Bush administration refuses to assist negotiations between Syria and Israel and Burns will not participate in any Israeli/Palestinian detente on his junket. Is this the Road Map to war? Just asking.

All that practicing Boseephus did on his wife finally came in handy when he had to restrain a demonstrator at a Bush rally. Remember, "W" stands for women.  

Some people in the Green Party are "dismayed" that Ralph Nader will limit the remainder of his campaign to swing states. Hasn't his campaign been a Trojan Horse for Bush all along?

Saddam's in jail, along with a few cronies. So what -- the Baath Party's still
in business.
This is excellent reporting. A must read.

President Cheney
Elizabeth Drew, reviewing the 9/11 Commission Report:

The strongest objection lodged by the administration was to the staff report (Number 17) about how the administration performed on the morning of September 11, which clearly suggested that Dick Cheney decided on his own, without first clearing it with the President, that the hijacked planes should be shot down. Neither the staff report nor the final report explicitly charges Bush and Cheney with lying about this when they told the commission that Cheney had first gotten permission from the President to give the order; but the implication that they were doing so is clear.

Both reports observe that though Lynne Cheney and Scooter Libby, the vice-president's chief of staff, were in the White House bunker with Cheney that morning and kept logs of the calls and conversations that took place there, they made no record of any conversation between Bush and Cheney on this subject before Cheney issued the order. There was also, apparently, no record of any such call in the phone logs of the White House switchboard, or the Secret Service and White House Situation Room logs. The staff report said, "There is no documentary evidence for this call." The staff report also suggested that in his appearance before the commission Cheney may have been misleading when he was asked when he reached the bunker that morning, a question that would have a bearing on whether this particular conversation with the President had taken place.

The chronology given in the report shows that Cheney gave the order to shoot down a plane—which was believed to be headed to Washington but in fact had already crashed in Pennsylvania—"probably between 10:12 and 10:18." At that point, the report says, Joshua Bolten, the White House deputy chief of staff, also in the bunker,

watched the exchanges and, after what he called "a quiet moment," suggested that the Vice President get in touch with the President and confirm the engage order.... He said he had not heard any prior discussion on the subject with the President.
Following that exchange with Bolten, the report says that Cheney spoke to Bush at 10:18 and "obtained the con-firmation" of his order. After that, Cheney ordered the shoot-down of another plane believed to be close to Washington. At 10:39 he told Rumsfeld that the aircraft he authorized to shoot down planes approaching Washington had "already taken a couple of aircraft out." As it happened, by the time the order was given, all four hijacked planes had already crashed, and, though fighter planes were scrambled, the order never got to the pilots. Bush told the commissioners that his conversation with Cheney about shooting down the hijackers "reminded him of when he had been an interceptor pilot"—though Bush of course never saw combat.

Will the neocons' shabbos goy, Larry Franklin, finally get his day in court? Check out the New York Sun:

The FBI is expected to interview members of Mr. Feith's staff today. The focus so far of the bureau's inquiry is a Pentagon analyst, Lawrence Franklin, who specializes on Iran. Mr. Franklin has been alleged in press reports based on anonymous sources to have attempted to pass a draft policy paper on Iran to two members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, who in turn gave the information to Israel. Aipac has denied any wrongdoing.
A source familiar with the investigation told The New York Sun yesterday that Mr. Franklin is scheduled to appear before a grand jury on Thursday.

According to the story, Feith's people are being routinely harassed on the phone, allegedly by FBI agents.
Meanwhile, professional alarmist Abe Foxman is working his time-tested schtick, claiming that "permitting government officials to leak stories about pending investigations will only encourage and legitimate anti-Semitism." Right! And jailing Alrich Ames for spying for Russia encouraged and legitimated Slavophobia.

I doubt new revelations of Bush going AWOL will have any impact, at least unless they're couched within a broader and unremitting attack on his credibility. Calling Bush's credibility in question should have been Kerry's strategy from day one. Maybe now he'll start running a real campaign.

Who are the maniacs of the Beslan school siege? Are they Al-Qaeda nihilists or are they, like Palestinian terrorists, the militant offshoots of a protracted and sabotaged struggle for national self-determination? As much as David Brooks would like to convince people the former is true, that Muslim terrorists are "the cult of people who are proud to declare, 'You love life, but we love death... that fetishizes death, that sends people off joyfully to commit mass murder,'" -- in other words, a bunch of perverts who have replaced their innate sexual urges with an insatiable bloodlust to comport with religious strictures -- there seems to be little historical or political evidence to back up his sweeping assertion (which is actually just an overheated rendition of the Christian right's opportunistic critique of Muslim terror), at least as far as Chechnya's concerned.
Among many resources on the net one can use to learn about Chechnyan terror groups, there's an especially good piece in today's Slate. Here's an excerpt:

Russia had no intention of recognizing Chechen independence. The Kremlin's fears were understandable: With the Soviet Union crumbling, there was no reason the shaky Russian federation couldn't follow. Granting independence to one region could set off a chain reaction. What's more, an oil pipeline went through Chechnya, and a small amount of oil was produced in the republic itself, so losing Chechnya could have meant significant financial loss for Russia. President Boris Yeltsin declined even to negotiate with the Chechen separatists—a traditional Russian disdain for this Muslim people no doubt played a role in his decision—and simply let the problem fester for three years.

By the fall of 1994, Chechnya, which had been left to its own devices, had all the trappings of de facto sovereignty. It had its own armed forces, small but well-trained, called the Presidential Guard. It operated its own international airport, which Russia seemed not to notice, and it had effectively taken control of its oil production and exports. In October 1994, Moscow decided finally to put things right by staging an armed uprising in Chechnya. It was meant to look like a spontaneous rebellion of pro-Moscow Chechens, but it was so poorly planned that it failed, and several dozen participants were detained by the Chechens. All the supposed rebels turned out to be ethnic Russians employed by the secret services.

When the covert operation failed, Moscow decided to use overt tactics. The Russian defense minister at the time boasted he could take Grozny, the Chechen capital, in two hours. The war, which began on Dec. 11, 1994, lasted nearly two years, cost at least 80,000 Chechens and about 4,000 Russian soldiers their lives, and ended in military defeat for Russia. In 1996, Russia pulled its troops out of a virtually demolished Chechnya, leaving it to fester—again. For the next three years, Chechnya, whose infrastructure had been bombed out of existence, turned into a state run by and for criminals. In the absence of any clear legal status for the place or its residents, everything that happened there—from oil exports to kidnappings—was by definition illegal....

Nothing can justify what the terrorists did in Beslan. If you're willing to blow up a bunch of kids to free a few of your friends from jail, you've become a monster and there's no turning back. But monsters aren't born, they're created; and isn't it funny how efficiently illegal occupations create monsters?
As usual, Brooks reaches the commanding heights of intellectual irresponsibility by distorting, and to a larger degree, ignoring history to reinforce the right's bewildering critique of international terror. It's easy running around denouncing terrorists as evil-doers who can't be negotiated with. But once you arrive at that analysis, what do you do? Do you confront them with overwhelming force? And isn't using force just negotiation by other means?
In 2001, the Bush administration, through former press secretary Ari Fleischer, seemed to recognize this conundrum:

Q Haven't we made many statements denouncing Russia for its attacks at Chechnya? And is there some image of some freedom fighters there? And all of a sudden, you're calling them terrorists?

MR. FLEISCHER: As I just indicated, the concern for human rights remains a vital part of American policy, and the only solution to the problem in Chechnya is a political one.

Of course, since David Brooks gets his talking points from his neo-con pimp, Bill Kristol, who himself is a shill for the Pentagon's Likud government-in-exile, it's fair to assume that the White House has, or will, change its tune on Chechnya.

It seems the Bush adminstration's theocratic agenda is so cleverly shrouded in a bureaucratic morass, so insidiously entrenched within every government agency, that it's impossible to track. Here's an example:

Texas Baptist Communications

DALLAS--Victim Relief Min- istries, an interdenominational nonprofit organization related to Texas Baptist Men, will take the lead in mobilizing the country's faith community in the event of a terrorist attack or mass-casualty crisis.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security enlisted the national organization to train volunteer victim-relief chaplains during sessions in southern California, Dallas and New York City.

Gene Grounds, the organization's executive director, wants to develop "first response" teams in the nation's 100 largest cities, with help from at least 10 percent of the churches in each site. Response teams would meet the immediate needs of victims, and other trained church groups would minister to them in the long term.

The group follows the model Grounds sees in the biblical story of the good Samaritan. The Samaritan met immediate physical and emotional needs but also provided long-term care for the man who was robbed and beaten.

The latest CNN/Gallup poll contradicts all the polls (Newsweek, Time) showing Bush way ahead of Kerry after his convention. In fact, according to this poll, Bush has suffered a 2% bounce worse than the "baby bounce" Kerry got from the DNC. So it's Bush at 49% and Kerry at 48%. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the closest a presidential race has been this close to election day in recent history?
By the way, I predicted Bush would suffer a baby bounce over a month ago (check my archives) because the electorate is the most polarized and entrenched it's been since Reconstruction. And while the conventional wisdom is that Bush and Kerry are essentially campaigning for 500 morons who watch CSI Miami every week and therefore haven't ma