Truespeak

Since nobody in the media has enough balls to do it, I will gladly point out the lies, the deceptions, and the bullshit in Rudy Giuliani's speech from last night's Republican Convention. All day long the media has praised him for his inspirational speech, but those of us who know the facts disagree. Let's take a look.

Giuliani didn't waste any time, so neither will we.

...it was here in 2001, in the same lower Manhattan, that President George W. Bush stood amid the fallen towers of the World Trade Center, and he said to the barbaric terrorists who attacked us, "They will hear from us."

Well, they heard from us.

They heard from us in Afghanistan and we removed the Taliban.

They heard from us in Iraq, and we ended Saddam Hussein's reign of terror.

And we put him where he belongs, in jail.

He's not even a full minute into his speech and he's already deceiving the listener. When George Bush said "They will here from us," he was talking about the people who attacked us. Saddam Hussein did not attack us! The President has even acknowledged this. However the Republicans continue to speak as if he did. It's no wonder a good portion of people in the country think Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

Moving along:

Without really thinking, based on just emotion, spontaneous, I grabbed the arm of then-Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, and I said to him, "Bernie, thank God George Bush is our president."

WTF? Now I wasn't there, so I guess I'll have to take his word for it; but what pisses me off about this statement is the implication that nobody else would have reacted the way George W. Bush did. The implication is that everything he has done since that point has been exactly right and anyone else (pronounced Al Gore) would have completely f@*ked it up. Now I know that the Republican Party is one of arrogance, but this is unbelievable. This is an attack on every single person that is not a conservative. This one statement says that anyone who is a liberal is a pussy.

Anyone with half a brain could have done what Bush did atop the rubble on September 14, 2001. As the leader of the country it is your job to go to the site and say comforting things to the families of the victims and vow to exact justice on those responsible. He was simply doing his job. It didn't take a genius to figure out what he had to do. What's sad is that it took him three days to get the balls to do it.

Next on the list:

On September 20, 2001, President Bush stood before a joint session of Congress, a still grieving and shocked nation and a confused world, and he changed the direction of our ship of state.

He dedicated America, under his leadership, to destroying global terrorism.

The president announced the Bush Doctrine, when he said, "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."

And since September 11, President Bush has remained rock solid.

Except for that time he said that he didn't think the war on terror was winnable. Ooops!

Next:

President Bush sees world terrorism for the evil that it is.

John Kerry has no such clear, precise and consistent vision. This is not a personal criticism of John Kerry. I respect him for his service to our nation.

But it is important and critical to see the contrast in approach between the two men: President Bush, a leader who is willing to stick with difficult decisions even as public opinion shifts and goes back and forth; and John Kerry, whose record in elected office suggests a man who changes his position often, even on important issues.

This is not true. If you look back on John Kerry's record in the Senate, you see that he has voted consistently on a number of key issues. For instance, he has always been for gun control, abortion rights, law enforcement, and education. He has always been against unnecessary military spending, fiscal irresponsibility, and tax incentives that favor the wealthy. The Bush administration likes to point out that Kerry has voted for tax increases anywhere from 98 to 350 times. This is simply not true. Many of these votes were actually votes against a tax cut weighted towards the wealthy. They say that he voted against the $87 billion necessary to support the troops. Once again, not true. As Kerry himself has said, he did vote for it before he voted against it. He voted for a plan that would allow us to fund the entire $87 billion by rolling back the tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. What he voted against was borrowing money to pay for equipment our troops should have been supplied with before they were sent into battle.

By the way, if you want to know about John Kerry's "clear, precise, and consistent vision," all you have to do is go to his website and read it.

Finally:

President Bush will make certain that we are combating terrorism at the source, beyond our shores, so we don't have to confront it, or we reduce of confronting it here in New York City, or in Chicago or in Los Angeles or in Miami or in the rural areas of America.

This is a fallacy. The fact that we are currently fighting in Iraq, which the Republicans claim is part of the war on terror, has actually made us less safe. As I said in yesterday's post, we are spending billions of dollars over seas while ignoring problems at home. 95% of the cargo entering our ports goes uninspected. Our nuclear facilities and our water facilities remain unprotected and vulnerable to an attack. Our borders are as porous as they have ever been. The fact that we have diverted our money, our forces, and our attention away from our actual homeland security indicates to me that we are not safer her despite what the 9/11 Commission has told us.

Although the pundits and the bobbleheads keep saying how powerful his speech was, it was full of lies and deceptions. Oh, and disrespectful references to September 11. I know, Rudy was there, but that doesn't give him any more right to revel in the blood of the victims than it does me. During the speech he made no less than twenty references to September 11, the President's visit on September 14, terrorists, the World Trade Center, and hi-jacked plans; including one extremely shameful reference to watching a burning man leap to his death from atop the towers. He does this because even Rudy knows that the only thing our President has to run on is his few shining moments atop the rubble three days after we were attacked.

It was a shameful speech. It was embarrassing and insulting. It was 100% George W. Bush.

As the Republican Convention revs up, there are a few things to keep in mind. Somewhat of a viewer's guide, if you will, for those of us who know the truth.

VIEWER TIP #1
DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU HEAR
As any intelligent person knows, numbers can be manipulated. If you don't have all the information, numbers can be made to say whatever you like. For instance, the viewer is bound to hear about this administration's record on job creation. They will gladly tell you that they have created over one million jobs in the last year; but what they won't say is that they are still 1.8 million jobs short of breaking even over the last four years. They will tell you that their tax breaks have benefited everyone and stimulated the economy; but they won't tell you that the middle class is now responsible for the largest portion of the tax burden. They will tell you that we are "turning the corner" and moving forward with the economy; but they will fail to mention that 1.3 million more people have slid into poverty in the past year. Although some of these statements contain a small shred of truth, none of them tell the whole story and that's the way the Republicans like it.

VIEWER TIP #2
DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU SEE
What you see is not necessarily what you get. Over the next four days, you will see a number of familiar faces: John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger. None of these men represent the true Republican party. As the Republicans repeatedly accused the Democratic Convention of hiding its true liberal face, the Republicans are hiding their true conservative face. In fact, the facade they're presenting for the public disagrees with the Bush administration on a number of key issues. Issues like gay rights and abortion in particular. I find it interesting that the people the Republicans have chosen to represent them are closer in ideology to the Democrats than they are to their own party. This administration of compassionate conservatism doesn't feel comfortable enough in its own skin so they hide behind the moderates in their party. They don't want the coveted swing voter to know how far to the right they really are.

VIEWER TIP #3
JOHN MCCAIN IS A WHORE
I know that a lot of people view John McCain as a hero, and in terms of his military service, he is just that. But after what he was subjected to by the Bush campaign in 2000, his willingness to support the President for reelection makes him no better than a cheap whore who blows her pimp for free to get the good tricks. As I said in an earlier post:

McCain is allowing himself and his popularity to be used by the Bush administration for their own gain while John Kerry, his friend and fellow Vietnam vet, is being smeared by the same people who smeared him. To me this is like professing your love for a woman who screws your friends when you’re not around.

Where is that commendable John McCain who is willing to cross party lines and stand up for what he believes in? Where is his integrity? Where’s that honesty? It’s disheartening to see him allowing himself to be used like this.

VIEWER TIP #4
JOHN KERRY IS A HERO
Although they would have you believe otherwise, John Kerry is a true hero. He volunteered to be put in harm's way when he could have just as easily chosen the easy route our president and vice president did. He risked his own life leading others in a war that he later opposed because he felt that it was his duty to the country. He earned commendations for his bravery and leadership and decorations for his sacrifice. Despite what others would have you believe, John Kerry earned every award he received. His military records have verified that. After he returned from his service, he took a position that placed him at odds with many of his fellow soldiers. He didn't do this because he wanted to be on television, he didn't do this because he didn't honor his fellow soldiers service; he did this because he believed that people should know the truth. He once again put himself in harm's way, taking the lead in an antiwar stance to correct the injustices and atrocities that were taking place in Vietnam despite the backlash that he surely knew would come.

VIEWER TIP #5
WE ARE NOT SAFE
Even though the Republicans would like you to believe that they are protecting you from harm, they are not. Billions of dollars have been wasted on a war that has nothing to do with our safety. As you watch the convention you are likely to hear about how safe we are, but going back to an earlier post:

President Bush has repeatedly called Iraq a "central front in the war on terror." I disagree. In my opinion, the central front in the war on terror is right here in America. Instead of spending $100 billion in Iraq to root out a WMD program that was virtually nonexistent and wasn't threatening anyone, why not spend that money here in America to help secure our borders, ports, nuclear facilities, water facilities, and airlines? 95% of all cargo that comes into our country's seaports goes unchecked. Securing our border with Mexico has been underfunded for years. We've been told repeatedly about the dangers of an attack on our nuclear power plants or about the ramifications of a chemical/biological attack on our nation's water supply yet most are unguarded. And it goes without saying that we are all aware of the dangers posed by hijacked airplanes, yet we are unable to fully staff each airport with qualified screeners and each airplane with an air marshall. Couldn't that $100 billion be used here at home to correct these issues?

It is my belief that this war has actually left us less safe than we have ever been by diverting our money, our military, and our attention away from the true risks. We abandoned the search for the true enemy to go after a man that posed no threat to us whatsoever.

VIEWER TIP #6
DON'T BELIEVE THE PUNDITS
Many of today's conservative pundits have spent a great deal of time talking about the upcoming election. However, instead of telling us about the great things George W. Bush will do for us, they have devoted more time to spreading lies and distortions about John Kerry. For example, I offer this editorial by Diana West of the Washington Times:

Whether it's a silly vow of insta-action belied by his behavior, a Christmas in Cambodia that wasn't really Christmas and likely wasn't Cambodia, widely, seriously contested military claims of both heroics and atrocities, or talk of a "secret" plan to save Iraq, the man increasingly sounds like he is all bluster.
    Mr. Kerry's Brahmin braggadocio on the "Goat" minutes may seem to be a small thing, hardly a matter on which presidential elections turn. But in a campaign based solely on the candidate's "biography," it is one more telling detail in an evolving character study that the Kerry campaign, given the probing charges raised by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the pressing, new journalism of the blogosphere, is no longer sole author of.
    As even Democrats admit, there is little in the Kerry resume to boost a wartime presidency: two dovish Senate decades; a stint as a leading antiwar protester instrumental in creating the iconic image of Vietnam vet-as-babykiller; an abbreviated tour in Vietnam that netted a considerable and, lately, controversial, collection of medals; and a presidential campaign. This, of course, explains why Mr. Kerry has strategically reconfigured his biography so that those four months in Vietnam 35 years ago appear, climactically, precede his White House run today.

Not only does she perpetuate the discredited claims of the Swiftboat Vets, but she claims that Kerry's campaign is based solely on his "biography." I find this statement to be utterly preposterous. For starters, John Kerry has offered an often ignored plan for the future. That is the basis for his campaign, his biography is merely prelude. Second of all, they are supporting a man whose own "biography" has been kept hidden from the general public. If you don't believe me, try asking him a question about the "lost years." And as long as we're on the subject of living in the past, it's no secret that the Bush campaign is running on the President's few minutes of glory atop the rubble on September 14, 2001. It's too bad we haven't fulfilled the promises that he made to us that day. But that's just nitpicking, isn't it.

VIEWER TIP #7
THE REPUBLICANS ARE SCARED
The Republicans will put on a brave face and their talking heads will brandish the latest poll numbers that show them leading nationwide, but they are scared. Why? Because they have nothing to run on besides those few minutes atop the rubble after September 11 and people know it. The polls they are citing are small. They have small sample numbers, a larger margin of error, and are therefore less reliable. According to the latest Zogby/Williams poll a majority of people support John Kerry.

Nationally, a large Zogby/Williams poll of 20,900 voters found Kerry leads Bush by 50.8 percent to 46.7 percent among likely voters, with only 2.4 percent undecided or so soft in their support of either candidate that they could easily change. That survey had an error margin of plus or minus less than 1 percentage point.

The key reason for the unhappiness with Bush is the Iraq war; 46.6 percent list Iraq as Bush's biggest failure.

"I supported the war," said Allyson Dyar, 49, a computer installer in Portland, Ore., who voted for Bush in 2000 but now is undecided. "But then they didn't find any weapons of mass destruction . . . The war right now is not setting well with me."

Theresa Han-Markey, 42, of Ann Arbor said she voted for Bush in 2000. Now she's looking for a good reason to vote against him.

This is why they are spending more time talking about John Kerry than their own candidate. They are scared and I believe they have good reason to be.

So don't fret, don't worry, and remember: Don't believe it.

Approximately four years ago things were going great for me. My life was peaceful, my job was great, my debts were shrinking, and I had more money than I really needed. It had been tough, but things were finally looking up. So I decided to celebrate. On Tuesday, November 7, 2000, I went out for a good time; a few drinks, a little dancing, you know how it is. What ultimately happened to me that evening is still a little blurry. I remember meeting someone who seemed like a decent person. Someone you could sit down and have a beer with. However, I remember disliking the person on a moral level, so I went in search of someone else. That's when things got strange. I remember accusations, arguments, apologies, and a lot of confusion. So you can imagine my surprise when I woke up and found myself in bed with this person.

At first I was pretty stunned. This had caught me off guard. I soon became angry when they refused to leave. Although I wanted to be fair and polite, they were making it hard for me to remain calm. Things really escalated when they resorted to name calling and threats of legal intervention. I tried to protest the situation but I was drowned out. What could I do?

After a while, it became clear that I was stuck with my new companion so I tried to make the best of it. However, we butted heads early and often. For instance, I had heard rumors from friends about my new companion's past and it wasn't encouraging. Rumor had it that this person was known for excessive drinking and possibly abusing drugs. When I asked, I was told that those days were in the past and I should mind my own business. When I inquired about broken promises and failing to follow through on commitments I was met with denials, convoluted stories, and secrecy. Again, what could I do? It was my house and my new companion was making it very uncomfortable for me. However, I stuck it out because I was given the promise that things would improve. I could count on it. This person had integrity.

So here we are, almost four years later and I'm still stuck with this person. Not only have things not improved, they've grown exponentially worse. Over the last four years I have been in a downward spiral. My job was outsourced to Mexico and my companion has been horribly irresponsible with money. I'm so far in debt now that it's going to take me years to get out. My friends have almost all deserted me and I find myself fighting with people for no legitimate reason.

When I really started digging into my companion's past I found things that turned my stomach. They have been sleeping around for years. Sneaking around behind my back to sleep with others. Secret meetings and phone calls, shady deals, and pacts with people of questionable moral standing. Not only that, but my house has fallen into a state of disrepair. After years of hard work I am watching my home crumble around me. All of my plants have died, the air has become stagnant, and I don't think the air conditioner is working correctly. My pets have all become ill, the floors are filthy, and I can't get anyone to help clean up.

Unfortunatley, my place was broken into a few years ago and some significant damage was done. I'm kind of embarrassed to admit this, but my companion has me a little scared about the chances of it happening again. I'm told that it's pretty likely. Luckily though, every time I forget about the risks, my companion is quick to remind me so I don't get too comfortable. (Although I'm beginning to think that these warnings are being used to control me.)

I hesitate saying anything, but I think I've met someone else. Someone who gives me hope. Someone I feel that I can trust. Unfortunately my companion found out that I had been spending some time with my new friend and has begun spreading lies. These are some of the most awful distortions I have ever heard. Listening to them, a person would think that my new friend was deceptive, dishonest, and evil; but this just isn't true. I know because I've checked.

I'm hoping that things will turn around for me soon. In fact, my new friend and I are making plans to get away. It looks as though we can both get together in November. I can't wait!

John Kerry has taken a lot of criticism lately for being too quiet over the Swiftboat scandal. A number of critics and bloggers have accused him of being weak, or worse, trying to lose. Now some may call me naive or say I suffer from wishful thinking, but I believe that Kerry may be doing himself a huge favor by staying quiet. You see, George W. Bush is his own worst enemy. Much like Nixon, the person to bring down George W. Bush will most likely be himself.

John Kerry and John Edwards have been quietly touring the country extolling their message on huge crowds of faithful listeners. Meanwhile, the media can't seem to get enough of the controversy created by the Swiftboat Vets. Why doesn't Kerry say something? Even when asked directly, Kerry seems to skirt the issue. So we are left wondering: are the accusations true? Could he be lying?

The answer is no. As we have learned over the last several days, it is the Swiftboat Vets that are lying. The ironic part of this situation is that the evidence of their lies has been found in their own military records. The accounts stated in their own awards citations confirm that John Kerry's version of the stories are true. So either the Swiftboaters are lying or we are left to believe that they too received medals through deceptive methods. I guess we can take our pick on that one. And with the recent resignations of Ginsberg and Cordier, the Bush campaign has its own questions to answer about their involvement with the Swiftboat Vets. According to a recent poll, most people think they were involved anyway. By remaining quiet, Kerry allowed this scandal to work itself out without having to get his hands dirty in the fray. Sure, the scandal may have cost him some points in the polls, but keep in mind the polls that show the ads causing damage were taken before most of the Siftboat Vet's lies were exposed.

By letting George Bush do all the talking, it appears as if John Kerry is allowing his opponent to define him. However, I think that the person being defined is George Bush. In attacking John Kerry, Bush is placing himself in a vulnerable position because in order to attack someone you have to take an opposing view. Kerry is simply allowing Bush to paint himself into a corner.

Now I grant you that George W. Bush seems to be saying some pretty significant things. For instance, at a campaign stop in Ohio Bush gave his standard stump speech. It was described by CNN as follows:

Presenting himself as the candidate who will fight terrorism and make America secure, President Bush addressed enthusiastic crowds Saturday during his third campaign bus tour of Ohio, beginning with a rally in Troy and followed by a stop in Lima.

With students looking on at Lima High School, Bush said he wants to keep jobs in the United States, help small businesses grow, support home ownership and pursue tax relief for families. (Emphasis added.)

While this sounds like a good thing, a closer examination shows that this is simply empty language. Name me a candidate that doesn't want to keep jobs in the United States, help small businesses, support home ownership, and pursue tax relief. Even Ralph Nader can agree with those goals. But this is typical of the George Bush campaign; say things that sound great and can't be challenged. They have no substance whatsoever. Notice that there is a lack of a plan behind these goals other than continuing what we've been doing. Unfortunately for Bush, we know how well his plans have worked so far; growing number of people living in poverty, increased number of people without health insurance, continued struggles in Iraq, Osama bin Laden still free and al Qaeda still in operation, and 1.8 million jobs lost. By remaining quiet, Kerry is allowing Bush to continue with his empty speech and define himself as a candidate of nothing but failures.

Surely, Kerry knows the statistics. Surely, he follows the news. I'm sure we will hear a lot about these failures and more during the debates. Now I expect that George Bush will receive a boost in his poll numbers from the upcoming Republican Convention, but after that he has to face the music. As long as John Kerry can keep pressing the issue of his failures, George Bush is trapped by his own language. He either has to defend a failed policy or flip-flop. John Kerry doesn't have to be an asshole about it, like Gore was perceived in the first debate of 2000, but he does need to be persistent. When asked specific policy questions, John Kerry has to answer with his own stance and state the stance of his opponent as he has already defined it. If he keeps Bush responsible for his own words, he can't lose.

With a quiet approach, John Kerry is going to defeat George Bush. By allowing Bush to speak unanswered Kerry is allowing the President to define himself with empty language, failed policy, and personal attacks. It's a dangerous slope for the President and in the end, I believe it will be his ultimate undoing..

Can somebody please explain to me how John Kerry's statement to Congress in 1971 got American soldiers killed? We heard this same bullshit about Iraqi war dissenters. How is my saying "I think Iraq is a mistake" going to get a soldier killed? I keep hearing this from the Swiftboaters and their supporters. To my knowledge, not one person died in Vietnam that wouldn't have died otherwise because of John Kerry's statement. That has got to be the most outrageous claim I have ever heard.

Somebody, please explain this to me!

Today, the LA Times released it's latest national poll showing Bush leading Kerry by three points.

President Bush heads into next week's Republican National Convention with voters moving slightly in his direction since July amid signs that Sen. John F. Kerry has been nicked by attacks on his service in Vietnam, a Times poll has found.

For the first time this year in a Times survey, Bush led Kerry in the presidential race, drawing 49% among registered voters, compared with 46% for the Democrat. In a Times poll just before the Democratic convention last month, Kerry held a 2-percentage-point advantage over Bush.

Of course the Republicans are touting this as legitimate polling. Not that I doubt the legitimacy of the LA Times, but when the Times released a poll earlier in the election cycle that showed Kerry in the lead the Republicans claimed that you couldn't trust a shoddy liberal rag like the LA Times. The talking heads from the right claimed that the Times had slanted their sample group by including too many registered Democrats. In their eyes, the poll was untrustworthy and a perfect example of the liberal media bias.

Oh, what a difference two months can make. On today's Rush Limbaugh Show, the flunky filling in (I don't know who it was and I don't think it really matters) was about to have an orgasm talking about how much this must be distressing the Kerry campaign. Of course they don't discuss any of the internal numbers, that wouldn't support their cause.

Yet warning signs continue to blink at Bush. Fully 54% of voters said the country was not better off because of Bush's policies and that it should move in a new direction — although that represented an improvement for Bush from the 59% who felt that way last month.

Asked if Bush deserved reelection, 47% of voters said yes and 49% said no. By contrast, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, the last two presidents who won a second term, polled 56% and 57% on that question, respectively, in other polls at roughly this time in their campaigns.

While 45% of those polled said Bush's economic policies had left the country worse off, 27% believed they had improved conditions. Independents fell on the negative side of that ledger by nearly 3 to 1. And 52% of all voters said the country was heading down the wrong track.

Voters were far more likely to identify Bush than Kerry as inflexible and unwilling to admit his mistakes. Pluralities picked Kerry over Bush when asked which man had better ideas for strengthening the economy and which was more likely "to build respect for the United States around the world."

All this Republican bluster just goes to show that they are willing to support anything that helps their cause. This is the reason that Bush is unwilling to denounce the Swiftboaters. Remember it was this exact same kind of smear tactic that Bush used to help defeat McCain in the 2000 primaries and now that it's proving useful again he's not going to denounce it just yet. I guarantee that if the Swiftboaters were targeting Bush instead of Kerry, the Republicans would be acting exactly the way the Kerry campaign is. Luckily for Bush, there is no Air National Guardsmen for Truth.

As for the poll numbers, it's still within the margin of error so I'm not going to get too worked up about it. After all, the only poll that really matters will be taken on November 2.

Believe it or not, I think we can learn a lot about the Swiftboat Vets by looking a little closer at the Abu Ghraib situation. You see, Army Spec. Joseph Darby, the whistle-blower in the prisoner abuse scandal, now has to be kept in a secret location because of threats made against him.

Meyer also said that Frederick was "concerned about the well-being of" Army Spec. Joseph Darby, the soldier who handed over a CD-ROM full of incriminating photographs to Army criminal investigators, launching the investigation.

Darby, because of threats against him and his family, testified earlier this month by telephone in a hearing for another soldier charged in the scandal, his location kept secret by military officials.

Why would he be receiving threats? Because he broke some unwritten code of loyalty. He "narc'd" on his fellow soldiers. He dared expose the corruption and filth that was taking place. Outside the walls of Abu Ghraib, I think most civilians view his actions as a brave thing. He stood up for decency and civility. He stood up to an abusive regime, so to speak. (Sound familiar?) So why the threats? As any elementary student can tell you, it's because he told. He's a tattle-tale.

This is the same motivation behind the Swiftboat Vets. All you have to do is listen to their latest commercial.

Joe Ponder: The accusations that John Kerry made against the veterans who served in Vietnam was just devastating .... and it hurt me more than any physical wounds I had.

Ken Cordier: He betrayed us in the past, how could we be loyal to him now?

Paul Galanti: He dishonored his country, and more importantly, the people he served with. He just sold them out.

When is telling the truth dishonorable. When is exposing corruption and lawlessness selling out? It all comes down to the loyalty. He wasn't supposed to tell anyone. His crime is that he had a conscience. This is what they're pissed about. He told. It's not about his policies. It's not about his voting record in the Senate. It's about his loyalty to them. He broke it and they're pissed, plain and simple.

Was Kerry saying that every veteran of the Vietnam war was guilty of these atrocities? Hell no. No more than every soldier in Iraq is responsible for the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse. When Kerry testified he was simply sharing the testimony of honorably discharged veterans. These atrocities took place and he was telling the truth about it.

So what the Swiftboat Vets are really saying with their ads is shame on John Kerry. Shame on him for telling the truth. Shame on him for having a conscience. How dare he try to be honest and help others. He's setting such a poor example for America.

According to out president, we are making progress.

President Bush said U.S.-led forces were "making progress" in Iraq where Marines were engaged in fierce battles with followers of a radical cleric holed up in the holy city of Najaf.

"We talked about Iraq, moving forward in Iraq," and helping the Iraqis secure the nation as it approaches elections, Bush said here after mapping defense strategy for more than three hours with top national security officials. "We're making progress on the ground."

His definition of progress is obviously different than mine. In my opinion, progress would be moving closer to a stable country and a decline in the casualty rate for our soldiers. Now we know that a stable Iraq is still quite some time off and if Bush would read a paper once in a while, he might realize that the casualty rate isn't declining but rising. Tracking the casualty numbers since the beginning of the year, we see that the numbers have been going up in recent months.

Aug, 2004 - 53 (As of 8/22)
Jul, 2004 - 54
Jun, 2004 - 42
May, 2004 - 80
Apr, 2004 - 135
Mar, 2004 - 52
Feb, 2004 - 20
Jan, 2004 - 47

How is this progress? More of our young men and women dying is not progress. Admitting mistakes, developing a real plan, repairing damaged alliances; this would be progress. Everyday we hear from the White House that we are making progress, moving forward; but we aren't seeing any proof. Just because they say it's so doesn't make it true.

I think we can add this to the list of things that John Kerry should seize on. Where is the proof? Show me real progress. They keep saying, we've opened schools, hospitals, fire houses, etc. This isn't progress, they were already open. They closed because of the war! They say an evil dictator has been removed. Yes he has been, but now an interim government appointed by an accupying force is in control and they are closing media outlets, talking martial law, offering amnesty to some of the insurgents, etc. They say the Middle East is safer because an unstable element has been removed. However, we've already said that Iraq is still unstable.

So once again, where's the progress? John Kerry needs to ask George Bush to show real progress. Show us a real plan. Don't just say it's so, prove it.

A little over a week ago, the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) announced the moderators of the upcoming general election debates. The schedule and locations for the debates was announced on November 6, 2003, with the format for each being announced on June 17, 2004. As is the tradition, there are three debates scheduled.

But yesterday as I watched Meet the Press it seemed unclear whether or not the President intends to take part in all three.

MR. RUSSERT:  Is the president going to debate John Kerry three times?

MR. [KEN] MEHLMAN [CAMPAIGN MANAGER, BUSH-CHENEY ‘04]:  The president will debate John Kerry.  We look forward to the debates.  There's a big difference on the issues, and we look forward to discussing it.

MR. RUSSERT:  There are three debates scheduled by the commission.  Will he appear in all of them?

MR. MEHLMAN:  The president looks forward to debating.  We look forward to debating the debates after the Republican convention, and there's no doubt about the fact that the American people are going to understand the clear differences between the president and Senator Kerry on November 2 when they vote.

Did I miss it, or did Mehlman not answer the question?

Apparently when his aides say “President Bush is committed,” they don't mean to the debate schedule. What's he going to do? Call in sick? Claim there's a terrorist threat? Skip? This is ridiculous. If the president truly does look forward to the debates, why can't he guarantee that he'll show up for them? Obviously it's an attempt to add some drama to the situation. Will he or won't he? Of course he will, if he doesn't he's a coward. He has to show up. But why do they play this game? Why the secrecy? Is he afraid the topic of military service might come up? I'll bet it does.

John Kerry should jump on this. Make it known that the president is waffling on whether or not to do the three debates. Force President Bush to commit one way or another. It’s about time the president played defense for a while. With the Republican Convention coming up, John Kerry needs to get a little momentum going again. Steal the spotlight back from the Swiftboat Vet controversy and go on the offensive. Make George W. Bush answer questions for a change.

If you're a member of the Swiftboat Vets for Truth, the last few days have been awful. Granted, you're getting more attention than ever, but it's not really the attention you had hoped for. First of all, you've got the Washington Post exposing the discrepancies between Swiftboat member Larry Thurlow's story and his own military records. Then you've got the New York Times exposing all of your ties to the Republicans, the Bush administration, and Karl Rove. Next, you've got KnightRidder basically outing the entire group as liars. And now, there's this from the editor of the Chicago Tribune:

There were three swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam more than 35 years ago—three officers and 15 crew members. Only two of those officers remain to talk about what happened on February 28, 1969.

One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other.

.....

It happened again, another ambush. And again, Kerry ordered the turn maneuver, and again it worked. As we headed for the riverbank, I remember seeing a loaded B-40 launcher pointed at the boats. It wasn't fired as two men jumped up from their spider holes.

We called Droz's boat up to assist us, and Kerry, followed by one member of his crew, jumped ashore and chased a VC behind a hooch—a thatched hut—maybe 15 yards inland from the ambush site. Some who were there that day recall the man being wounded as he ran. Neither I nor Jerry Leeds, our boat's leading petty officer with whom I've checked my recollection of all these events, recalls that, which is no surprise. Recollections of those who go through experiences like that frequently differ.

With our troops involved in the sweep of the first ambush site, Richard Lamberson, a member of my crew, and I also went ashore to search the area. I was checking out the inside of the hooch when I heard gunfire nearby.

Not long after that, Kerry returned, reporting that he had killed the man he chased behind the hooch. He also had picked up a loaded B-40 rocket launcher, which we took back to our base in An Thoi after the operation.

John O'Neill, author of a highly critical account of Kerry's Vietnam service, describes the man Kerry chased as a "teenager" in a "loincloth." I have no idea how old the gunner Kerry chased that day was, but both Leeds and I recall that he was a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the VC usually wore.

The man Kerry chased was not the "lone" attacker at that site, as O'Neill suggests. There were others who fled. There was also firing from the tree line well behind the spider holes and at one point, from the opposite riverbank as well. It was not the work of just one attacker.

.....

Known over radio circuits by the call sign "Latch," then-Capt. and now retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, the task force commander, fired off a message congratulating the three swift boats, saying at one point that the tactic of charging the ambushes was a "shining example of completely overwhelming the enemy" and that it "may be the most efficacious method of dealing with small numbers of ambushers."

Hoffmann has become a leading critic of Kerry's and now says that what the boats did on that day demonstrated Kerry's inclination to be impulsive to a fault.

Our decision to use that tactic under the right circumstances was not impulsive but was the result of discussions well beforehand and a mutual agreement of all three boat officers.

Too bad for the Swift Vets that this comes at a time when they're preparing to roll out a new ad critical of Kerry. Had this article come out a few days earlier, they maybe could have saved their money. But now they're not only out a significant amount of money, but their credibility has been severely damaged. How are they going to counter this? Call him a liar too? By saying that John Kerry got his medals by lying, they are imsinuating that the Navy gave out awards without just cause thereby dishonoring a great number of soldiers who served and won medals themselves. If by making general statements about war-crimes in Vietnam, John Kerry was dishonoring those who served, then the Swiftboat Vets are dishonoring those who were honored for their service. In a sense, they're saying that all medals won during Vietnam will have to be reviewed for their integrity. If I were a veteran, I'd be pissed.

A bust of Saddam Hussein is on display at the Kentucky State Fair.

The head from a damaged statue of Saddam Hussein is on display at the Kentucky State Fair, piquing the curiosity of many tourists but angering some who say it's in poor taste.

The bust, about a foot and a half high, is from a statue that was damaged last year by U.S. forces. It's not from the statue that was toppled by jubilant Iraqis in one of the defining images of the war.

Kelly Barron, a tourism director, said the "quiet, simple display" has attracted many people eager to snap pictures of the deposed Iraqi dictator. Alongside the glass-encased bust is a small Iraqi flag and description of how soldiers captured the statue. The display also includes photographs of the intact statue and tank fire striking it.

How tacky is this? It's as bad as President Bush keeping the gun Saddam was holding when he was captured. Too bad Saddam isn't dead, we could have displayed his corpse like we did with Uday and Qusay. Hell, we could have put him in a glass case with dry ice and paraded him around the country for all to see. Let everybody see how tough we are.

Now maybe some kindly reader will correct me, but I don't recall reading about the Hitler bust tour after WWII. And I don't recall reading about the Robert E. Lee or Jefferson Davis bust tour after the Civil War. To me, this all seems rather childish. Kind of a spoils of war dick measuring if you will. George wants to show everyone how tough he is and how great a military leader he is. Truth be told, most armies could have overthrown Saddam's undermanned, underfunded, underequipped troops. I'd be more impressed if we could put something on tour that showed evidence of a stable, peaceful Iraq; maybe something that didn't represent 950 dead Americans.

Imagine if after 9/11 al Qaeda were to have attacked the Lincoln Memorial and then put the bust of Abraham Lincoln on display for all radical Muslims to fawn over. We would have launched a nuclear strike on the entire region within the hour. There's no way we would have stood for this. This is how the insurgents and anti-American forces in Iraq are feeling right now.

If we're trying to encourage the opposition, I think we're doing a damn fine job of it. So much for trying to bring peace to the Middle East.

I can’t believe that we are going to tolerate this.

Iran's defense minister, Vice Adm. Ali Shamkhani, has warned that Iran may resort to pre-emptive strikes to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities.

Admiral Shamkhani made his comments in an interview on Al Jazeera television on Wednesday in response to a question about the possibility of an American or Israeli attack against Iran's nuclear projects.

"We will not sit to wait for what others will do to us," he said. "Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly. Any nation, if it feels threatened, can resort to that."

This type of rhetoric sounds very familiar.

”We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction.” - George W. Bush, March 6, 2003

Iran is currently taking the same position against us as the one we took against Iraq. Attack them first if we think they might attack us.

It will be interesting to see how we respond to this. If we deny the claim that we are going to attack, will they believe us? Or will they treat us the same way we treated Iraq when they denied having any WMD? Will we call them aggressors and condemn them if they attack Israel the same way we attacked Iraq? Or will we be sympathetic and understanding claiming that they have the same right to protect themselves as we did? What if they don’t have UN approval? Will we say they are reckless for acting unilaterally?

I don’t see us allowing this to happen. I see the White House condemning this as a rogue nation bent on destruction. Kind of puts things into perspective, doesn’t it? This is how the majority of the world now sees us. We should be embarrassed.

On Monday, October 7, 2002, President George W. Bush made the following statements to the American people:

”If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?”

“Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”

“Some have argued we should wait -- and that is an option. In my view, it is the riskiest of all options -- because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become.”

(All italics mine.)

In other words, we can’t wait. No time, hurry up, let’s move, etc. Waiting is bad.

But on Tuesday, August 17, 2004, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said “not so fast.”

The nation's top military and intelligence officials warned senators Tuesday against a rapid restructuring of U.S. spy agencies during a hearing that also exposed fault lines within the Bush administration over whether the Pentagon should yield clout to a new intelligence director.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld cautioned lawmakers that sweeping reforms could disrupt U.S. operations as the nation continues to fight insurgents in Iraq and pursue terrorists in Afghanistan and other countries.

"We need to remember that we are considering these important matters … while we are waging a war," he told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "If we move unwisely and get it wrong, the penalty would be great."

In other words slow down. Haste makes waste, chill out, relax, etc. Waiting is good.

Is it just me or are we getting mixed signals here? The way I understand it is it’s okay to rush into war on faulty intelligence but we should wait before reforming the agencies that provided us with the aforementioned faulty intelligence. Makes sense to me! (All sarcasm mine.)

New York Democrats have made the outrageous claim that George W. Bush is exploiting 9/11 for political gain.

Less than two weeks before the Republican National Convention convenes in Manhattan, a group of congressional Democrats from New York on Tuesday charged that the Bush administration exploits the 9/11 attacks for political gain.

"The Republicans chose to hold their convention here, I think most of us believe, to continue the political exploitation of 9/11, which this administration started almost immediately after 9/11," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, whose congressional district in Manhattan includes the site where the World Trade Center once stood.

"They want to wrap themselves in 9/11 and wrap themselves in the flag. But the fact of the matter is they don't have the right to do that."

Being skeptical that the President would stoop to such a low level, I had to check this out for myself. So I began reviewing the President’s speeches from the campaign trail, searching the text of his recent speeches for instances where he mentions “September the 11th.” Here’s what I found:

August 14, 2004 - During speeches in Elko, Nevada, and Sioux City, Iowa, President Bush mentioned “September the 11th” eleven times.

August 16, 2004 - During speeches at a VFW Convention and at a rally in Travers City, Michigan, President Bush mentioned “September the 11th” a total of fifteen times.

August 17, 2004 - During rallies at Ridley Park, Pennsylvania, and Hedgesville, West Virginia, President Bush mentioned “September the 11th” a total of thirteen times.

A grand total of thirty-nine times over a four day period. I think you get the picture.

To think that our President would exploit the deaths of almost 3,000 innocent people for his own political gain is repulsive. It desecrates the memory of the victims and insults their families. And this doesn’t even take into account the commercials we’ve been seeing. (Which child do you pick up first on September 11th? WTF?) It also doesn’t include the number of times the Vice President, the National Security Advisor, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense have made reference to 9/11 for political gain. That count could reach into the hundreds over the same four day period.

Our administration wants us to remember that picture of the President standing on the rubble at Ground Zero with his arm around a firefighter. Why? Because he has nothing else to run on. They certainly don’t want us to remember that he has hardly mentioned Osama bin Laden’s name lately although on that September day back in 2001 he promised us all that those responsible would be brought to justice. They certainly don’t want us to remember the “Mission Accomplished” stunt aboard the aircraft carrier or that almost 800 more soldiers have been killed in Iraq since that point. They obviously don’t want us to remember that this will be the first administration since Hoover’s to preside over an economy that has a net loss of jobs. They don’t want us to remember anthrax, WMD claims, spy planes in China, North Korea’s nuclear arsenal, intelligence failures, an August 6th PDB, Valerie Plame, Abu Ghraib, and a myriad of other issues. But I remember. I remember them all.

No, they want you to remember the President in his one shining moment. They want to revel in the blood of thousands and hope we’ll all forget everything else.

I can’t forget. I won’t forget.

Yesterday I had the good fortune to hear Barack Obama speak at a public event in west central Illinois. After seeing him at the Democratic Convention and hearing all the media hype, I was concerned that he may not live up to the expectations. I could not have been more wrong. What I saw and heard yesterday was not as polished as what many of us saw on television, but it was much more personal. He spoke of the hope and goodness of all Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike. It wasn't the usual my opponent said this, my opponent said that , like we get from our current leadership in the White House. It was encouraging and forward looking. In, fact I can't recall him mentioning a single conservative by name or even making reference to any individual. The most memorable statement I heard was this (I'm paraphrasing):

"Success is not determined by a fifteen minute speech, but by what we accomplish with our actions."

Afterwards, he was gracious enough to shake hands, take pictures, sign autographs, and even debate a gentleman on the merits of the assault weapons ban. (I was unable to hear the entire conversation, but I believe Mr. Obama took the man's name and address and promised to write to him on the subject.) He was courteous, generous, humble, and eloquent at all times. I know the pundits are referring to him as a rising star, but without seeing him in person, you just can't grasp the quiet strength of this man. He is truly remarkable.

You can visit his website here and read his blog here.

If you watched Real Time With Bill Maher this past weekend, you heard them make reference to this point. Past presidents have often lamented about the lonliness of the job, but President Bush and his handlers are embracing it. The President and the Vice President actually seem to revel in the fact that their handlers are insulating them from any and all dissent. For starters, you may remember the loyalty oath rally attendees were forced to sign.

The latest example of this is the Presidents newest campaign feature: the "Ask President Bush" question and answer sessions taking place on the campaign trail. First of all, these are Bush supporters who are not likely to press him to answer difficult questions. Second of all, some of them aren't even asking real questions.

"I'm 60 years old and I've voted Republican from the very first time I could vote. And I also want to say this is the very first time that I have felt that God was in the White House.''

"Can I introduce my mother and mother-in-law, who are new citizens to this country?''

"Mr. President, as a child, how can I help you get votes?''

Are you kidding me? They ask tougher questions when you're ordering at Burger King. This is like a reporter asking "Mr. President,... what should America do, collectively, as you instructed before 9/11? Should it be "pray?"

But he likes it this way. Look what happens when he gets a tough question:

Q Good morning. My name is Mark Trahant. I'm the editorial page editor of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and a member of the Native American Journalist Association. (Applause.) Most school kids learn about the government in the context of city, county, state and federal. And, of course, tribal governments are not part of that at all. Mr. President, you've been a governor and a President, so you have a unique experience, looking at it from two directions. What do you think tribal sovereignty means in the 21st century, and how do we resolve conflicts between tribes and the federal and the state governments?

THE PRESIDENT: Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a -- you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities.

Huh? (Just for the record, sovereignty means supremacy of authority.)

Now we've all heard about people being ejected from Bush events for wearing anti-Bush t-shirts, and most of us know about protesters being kept blocks away from Bush events so the cameras don't accidently pick them up; but now we have the F.B.I. investigating posiible protesters at the Republican Convention in late August. And to make sure that the vote goes as well as possible, the president's brother is sending out the state police to help supress the democratic black vote in Florida.

When is this guy going to have to face something hard and make it on his own? He's been living in a bubble of protection and privilege for his entire political career. You see, his handlers know that he's unable to think on his feet. They know that once he gets off the script, anything can happen. So they keep it as controlled as possible. No tough questions, no dissent, no thinking allowed.

John Kerry has to take advantage of this. During the debates, Kerry has to make sure that he takes the fight to him. Put him on the defense early and keep him there. Make George Bush answer questions and when he doesn't, say so. Don't let him skate by. If Kerry puts him in a position where he has to think on his feet, Kerry will win hands down.

There's been a lot of back and forth lately about Kerry's response to the question about his Iraq vote. I, myself, have spent some time trying to figure out what to make of it. However, I think that a couple of articles really make a much stronger case than the Kerry campaign has managed so far.

First is an article from Josh Marshall over at Talking Points Memo:

Sometimes in baseball a batter decides to take a pitch. He's decided in advance that he's not going to swing no matter what comes down the pike. But in most cases, when a batter steps up to the plate, he doesn't decide whether he's going to swing until he sees the pitch. Only an idiot decides in advance not knowing what he's going to face. And yet this is roughly what the Bush camp says was the only reasonable, or I suppose manly, approach to the Iraq war.

I see the war decision in very similar terms to this baseball analogy. Voting for the war resolution was not remotely the same thing as going to war at the first possible opportunity.

Forcing inspections meant seeing what inspections would yield. And seeing what inspections would yield was the best insurance against getting ourselves into the current situation and finding that the WMD, which constituted the premise for the whole endeavor, didn't even exist.

To extend our baseball analogy, Bush went to the plate knowing he was going to swing at whatever pitch he got.

Next is an article from Ickabod over at Right Side Down:

On the vote itself: Knowing what we know now, relative to Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill both saying the administration had it in for a war with Iraq come hell or high water, the administration put forth the resolution to authorize force at a time when we had no choice but to vote for it. Let's not forget, the resolution was based on the authorization of force if we didn't get what we wanted through inspections. So a vote against it would have wholly undercut the inspections we were arguing for even before they were to begin. Hence, we had to vote for it in order to give the inspections some teeth. So Bush knew he had a 100% chance of getting approval to fight his war by putting this resolution out there before the inspections rather than during or after, or even not at all. In other words, he played politics with a war vote. He forced us into a position where we either had to vote against giving the inspections some teeth, or vote for a war. Smart politics on his part, but politics nonetheless. So would i vote for it again under the same circumstances? Sure, i'd have to just like i had to then. But that sort of vote, those sorts of games shouldn't be played to get what you want when we're talking about sending men and women to their death.

Both articles are well worth the time and they do a good job of summing up what the Democratic talking heads SHOULD be saying.

According to the latest poll numbers from Quinnipiac University, John Kerry has pulled ahead in the Florida polls. With Nader in the race, Kerry, leads Bush by a margin of 47% - 41% with Nader pulling 4%. Without Nader in the race, Kerry leads 49% - 42%.

"Sen. Kerry is holding on to a modest bounce from the Democratic convention, with his favorability rating jumping nine points since late June as more Florida voters get to know the Democratic candidate,” said Clay F. Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

“Kerry is seen as the candidate best able to handle the health care issue.  The Democrat also is cutting sharply into the perception that the President is the stronger candidate when it comes to dealing with terrorism.”

An article from the Houston Chronicle also shows Kerry leading in Michigan and New Hampshire. This is putting quite a bit of pressure on George Bush. My favorite excerpt from the article is this:

If public polls and pundits are right, Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Oregon and 15 other states plus the District of Columbia are in Kerry's column or leaning his way with 269 electoral votes — one short of the presidency.

Now I don't want to put too much stock into these polls, but it appears as if the Republicans are moving into panic mode. The personal attacks have increased dramatically. Bush has been mocking Kerry about "new nuances," while Cheney has been ridiculing Kerry for wanting to fight a "sensitive war" (although Majority Report Radio has an interesting post on the sensitive comments), a Republican senator is trying to cast Kerry as a French looking socialist, and on top of all this, you've got the Swiftboat Vet's ad and new book claiming Kerry is "unfit for command." (Did anyone else see Chris Matthews bitch slap John O'Neill on Hardball last night?) In my opinion, it always looks desperate when politicians resort to personal attacks.

With the Republican Convention coming up, I think it's safe to say that these polls could still shift. Public opinion is easily swayed. I expect to hear 9/11 at least a hundred times during the convention itself and there is still the possibility of a "terrorist attack" (October surprise anyone?) to consider. I also half expect to see a major improvement in the hunt for al Qaeda, maybe even a picture of bin Laden in shackles shown during the convention. Nothing is impossible.

But for the time being, things are looking better for John Kerry. I'm encouraged by the numbers and I think it shows that personal attacks don't have the effect they once had.

Here's one from the "Let's Scare the Hell Out of Them" files.

Tampering with prescription drugs imported from Canada could be a way for terrorists to launch an attack on Americans, acting U.S. Food and Drug Administration commissioner Lester Crawford said Wednesday.

Crawford said in an interview possible action by terrorists is the most serious of his concerns about the increasing efforts of states and cities to import drugs from Canada to save money.

Would-be terrorists need only poke around the Internet to learn how Tylenol, then the leading U.S. painkiller, was removed from shelves, filled with cyanide and returned to stores to kill unsuspecting consumers two decades ago.

"I would think that's something they would be looking at," Crawford said of terrorists.

This fake terror threat works on two levels:

1. It reminds people of terrorism (like we could forget), and
2. It discourages people from buying their prescription drugs from Canada, helping ensure the pharmaceutical companies make a profit.
   

I'm impressed. Our government is becoming more efficient. No more single objective terror threats for us. I guess 9/11 has changed everything.

The Washington Post is re-thinking it's war coverage.

Days before the Iraq war began, veteran Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus put together a story questioning whether the Bush administration had proof that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction.

But he ran into resistance from the paper's editors, and his piece ran only after assistant managing editor Bob Woodward, who was researching a book about the drive toward war, "helped sell the story," Pincus recalled. "Without him, it would have had a tough time getting into the paper." Even so, the article was relegated to Page A17.

"We did our job but we didn't do enough, and I blame myself mightily for not pushing harder," Woodward said in an interview. "We should have warned readers we had information that the basis for this was shakier" than widely believed. "Those are exactly the kind of statements that should be published on the front page."

As violence continues in postwar Iraq and U.S. forces have yet to discover any WMDs, some critics say the media, including The Washington Post, failed the country by not reporting more skeptically on President Bush's contentions during the run-up to war.

An examination of the paper's coverage, and interviews with more than a dozen of the editors and reporters involved, shows that The Post published a number of pieces challenging the White House, but rarely on the front page. Some reporters who were lobbying for greater prominence for stories that questioned the administration's evidence complained to senior editors who, in the view of those reporters, were unenthusiastic about such pieces. The result was coverage that, despite flashes of groundbreaking reporting, in hindsight looks strikingly one-sided at times.

"The paper was not front-paging stuff," said Pentagon correspondent Thomas Ricks. "Administration assertions were on the front page. Things that challenged the administration were on A18 on Sunday or A24 on Monday. There was an attitude among editors: Look, we're going to war, why do we even worry about all this contrary stuff?"

I think this article, much like the New York Times article from May 26, 2004, critical of their own pre-war reporting, accomplishes a couple of things. First of all, this puts a huge dent in the theory of a "liberal media." If these articles prove anything, it's that the media is NOT liberal. Just because a newspaper prints something negative about a conservative, it does not make them liberal. (Although, if they don't print the negative stuff, they can somehow call themselves "Fair and Balanced.") Throughout the entire Monica Lewinsky scandal, I can not recall President Clinton whining about the "conservative media." The media prints the negative stuff as well as the positive. It's what we call reporting. In this case however, it looks as if the media was actually helping the President.

I also think this article lends credence to all the Michael Moores, Al Frankens, and a myriad of bloggers out there that have been criticizing the media for blindly following the President. I believe Michael Moore called it "cheerleading." They simply weren't willing to ask the questions that needed to be asked. Our government likes to talk about accountability, especially in education, but nobody in the media was willing to hold them accountable. They slavishly reprinted the lies to avoid being labeled liberal or unpatriotic while knowing full well that the intelligence was shaky. Any high school journalism student can tell you that that is just sloppy reporting. They should all be ashamed of themselves.

I think the Washington Post and the New York Times are on the right track by issuing these apologies, but now they have to do the hard part and actually make the change. One of the things that has kept this President afloat so long is the media's willingness to blindly go along with whatever he says. If the media were to finally leave him, I believe the general public would soon follow.

Maybe we should have interviewed this guy before we invaded.

Saddam Hussein gave up all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction in the wake of the 1991 Gulf War, the scientist who headed his nuclear programme, Jaffar Dhia Jaffar, said in a BBC interview.

"There was no capability. There was no chemical or biological or any what are called weapons of mass destruction," said Jaffar in what BBC television called his first-ever broadcast interview.

Speaking in Paris, where he now lives, Jaffar -- who ran Saddam's nuclear programme for 25 years -- said there was "no development" of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons "at any time after 1991".

He said he knew that for a fact "because I am in touch with the people concerned".

When asked about his reaction to what Bush and Blair were saying about WMD before the war, he responded:

"My reaction? I knew they were lying to their people. That was my reaction."

Unbelievable.

As I was reading this morning's New York Times I came across an article about George Bush campaigning in Florida. It was a rather typical article, he says we're safer, makes fun of Kerry, handpicked crowds cheer, etc., etc. But then the last paragraph caught my attention.

In Niceville, Mr. Bush's appearance took on the air of a revival meeting as the audience chanted affirmation to his description of the rationale for his antiterror efforts and roared at any religious reference. Gary Walby, a resident of nearby Destin, told the president during a question-and-answer session that though he always voted Republican, "this is the very first time I felt God was in the White House."

This started me thinking. What if God really was in the White House? (Clearly this gentleman could not be implying that President Bush is God because that would be blasphemy. So this must mean that God is one of the President's advisors.) What kind of advice would God give our President?

For starters, God is all about honesty. I think the first piece of advice that God would impart to President Bush is that he should come clean. Simply tell the truth about everything. He could start with his military record, move into the "lost years," then to his Harken stock deal, on to the 2000 election, moving right along to his administration's attention to terrorism before 9/11, then on to what he was really thinking in that Florida classroom when he was told that the country was "under attack," what he knew about Saddam's WMDs and when he knew it, the truth about PNAC and it's influence in his administration, the Valerie Plame leak, why he opposed the 9/11 commission, why he originally opposed the Democrat's idea for a Department of Homeland Security, his family's ties to the Saudi royal family, why Halliburton keeps getting no-bid contracts despite screwing us whenever they can, and finally, who was on Dick Cheney's energy task force.

Next, if there was still time, I think God would encourage President Bush to re-examine the Ten Commandments. Most notably, number 6: Thou shalt not kill. The God I know would not condone the killing of innocent civilians. After all, we are talking about a God who preaches peace. Peace can not be attained through violence. I believe that God would support a more diplomatic approach to our situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think about the shirt I saw that said "WWJB;" Who Would Jesus Bomb. I'm pretty sure the answer to that question would be nobody. Peace, harmony, love, and respect, that's what God would tell George.

I also have to believe that God would want to talk to President Bush about tolerance; treating others as you would hope to be treated; accepting others no matter what their differences are. Jesus and his disciples were discriminated against for their different views and ideas and this was to be a lesson to us all. I believe that God would urge our President to be more accepting of all races, religions, and even sexual preferences. Although the Bible is clearly against homosexuality, it's also for the equal treatment of all. To prove this, Jesus even befriended an alleged prostitute. Surely we can be accepting of two people who love each other want to get married.

But as we all know, these things haven't happened. So I guess we have to conclude that Gary Walby of Destin, Fla., was mistaken when he said that "God is in the White House." Although it might be nice if He were.

The debate over stem cell research is heating up as the November election nears. President Bush is standing by his earlier position of $25 million for research and the order that no new stem cell lines can be created. Meanwhile John Kerry has promised to lift the current ban and give scientists more freedom and his running mate, John Edwards, has said that the administration would give $100 million for research and establish ethical guidelines for scientists to follow. To combat the Kerry plan, the President has resorted to using his secret weapon: Laura Bush.

First lady Laura Bush defended her husband's policy on embryonic stem cell research Monday, calling Democratic rival John Kerry's criticism "ridiculous" and accusing proponents of overstating the potential for medical breakthroughs.

"We don't even know that stem cell research will provide cures for anything — much less that it's very close" to yielding major advances, Mrs. Bush said.

First of all, let's talk about this statement. If we had applied this logic - let's not do it because we're not sure it will work - to other things in our nation's history, what would the outcome have been? Would we have a vaccine for polio? Would we have landed a man on the moon? Would Hitler have been defeated? The list could go on and on. Somtimes we have to take a risk if we hope to gain anything.

But let's get to the heart of the Bush administration's opposition to stem cell research. Quoting from the AP article:

Religious groups oppose the scientific work in which culling of stem cells kills the embryos, equating that with abortion, and had urged Bush not to be the first president to fund the research — even with limits.

Religious groups, also known as Bush's base, are the driving force behind his decision. If President Bush were to support this research, he risks angering his largest group of supporters. However, the views of these religious groups is inaccurate as was pointed out by Ron Reagan in his speech at the Democratic Convention.

... no fetal tissue is involved in this process. No fetuses are created, none destroyed. This all happens in the laboratory at the cellular level.

Now, there are those who would stand in the way of this remarkable future, who would deny the federal funding so crucial to basic research. They argue that interfering with the development of even the earliest stage embryo, even one that will never be implanted in a womb and will never develop into an actual fetus, is tantamount to murder. A few of these folks, needless to say, are just grinding a political axe and they should be ashamed of themselves. But many are well-meaning and sincere. Their belief is just that, an article of faith, and they are entitled to it.

But it does not follow that the theology of a few should be allowed to forestall the health and well-being of the many. And how can we affirm life if we abandon those whose own lives are so desperately at risk?

It is a hallmark of human intelligence that we are able to make distinctions. Yes, these cells could theoretically have the potential, under very different circumstances, to develop into human beings-that potential is where their magic lies. But they are not, in and of themselves, human beings. They have no fingers and toes, no brain or spinal cord. They have no thoughts, no fears. They feel no pain. Surely we can distinguish between these undifferentiated cells multiplying in a tissue culture and a living, breathing person-a parent, a spouse, a child.

Many people have spoken out on both sides of this issue. Bush and his religious base have called this "junk science," while others have called this a the future of medical research. While the Republicans focus on the fact that it probably won't cure Alzheimer's (which is the popular misconception because of the stance taken by Ron Reagan and its association with the recent death of his father), they neglect to consider that it could cure diabetes, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, and a number of other devistating illnesses.

In my opinion this is a risk that we can't afford not to take. By pandering to his religious base, President Bush is playing politics with the lives of millions. We've already watched him do this in Iraq with our young men and women and now he's doing it here at home. The President likes to claim that he is decisive and doesn't follow the polls, but what he really means is that he's not going to follow the general polls. He only follows those polls that reflect the opinions of his base no matter what risk it may pose to others.

Taken straight from today's press briefing:

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me start by saying that the President looks forward to welcoming Prime Minister Belka of Poland to the White House this afternoon. The United States and Poland have a strong strategic alliance that is rooted in our shared values, and a common struggle for freedom. Poland is a vital partner in the international efforts to help the Iraqi people build a free and peaceful future. And today's meeting is an opportunity for the two leaders to continue discussing the war on terrorism, Afghanistan and Iraq, and our bilateral economic relations, and the NATO and E.U. agendas. And you will hear more from the President following that meeting.

And with that, I'll be glad to go to your questions. Go ahead, Helen.

HELEN THOMAS: The President said at the community college that the people who we're fighting are cruel, have no conscience, and kill innocent people. And my question is, during our two wars in the last three years, have we killed any innocent people?

MR. McCLELLAN: The United States military goes to great lengths to make sure that we minimize any loss of innocent human life, and they go out of their way to make sure that that happens. This administration is strongly committed to making sure we do everything we can to minimize the loss of innocent human life.

HELEN THOMAS: I didn't ask you that. I asked you if we have killed any innocent people.

MR. McCLELLAN: And I would point out that this -- that the war in Iraq was one where we were able to target and remove a brutal regime from power while minimizing any collateral damage --

HELEN THOMAS: Did we kill any innocent people?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- or loss of innocent human life. We certainly do not target innocent human civilians. And there are terrorists and others in Iraq, former regime elements who do target innocent civilians, innocent Iraqis. They are enemies of freedom and peace. What we have done --

HELEN THOMAS: Seventy thousand tons of bombs --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- is liberated the Iraqi people and provided hope for innocent Iraqis.

HELEN THOMAS: How about the people who are dead?

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead. (Moving to the next question)

Helen Thomas has more balls than all of the men in the room put together. With more people like her in the media we might not be in the shit-hole in which we currently find ourselves.

I don’t know what to make of John McCain these days. Most days he appears to be one of the only honest politicians in Washington. His willingness to cross party lines to take a stand for what he believes is right is nothing short of commendable. But these days I have to question McCain’s judgement.

This past week we saw the release of a scathing anti-Kerry commercial by a Republican-funded group calling themselves Swiftboat Veterans for Truth. A commercial in which veterans claiming to have served in Vietnam with John Kerry, although none of them actually served on his boat, state that he has lied about his military record and is unfit to serve as our President. John McCain has called the ad "dishonest and dishonorable" and has called on the White House to condemn the ad as well. (The White House has declined to do so, stating simply that they have never questioned Mr. Kerry’s military service.)

Now if anyone should know about "dishonest and dishonorable" politics it is John McCain. While running for the Presidency in 2000, McCain was himself the victim of a smear campaign. In South Carolina, for instance, the Bush team push-polled some very damaging rumors concerning McCain’s history. Rumors such as McCain’s wife, Cindy, was a drug addict. They insinuated that McCain was mentally unstable due to his time in a POW camp and that he had collaborated with his captors. They even claimed that he had fathered an illegitimate black child with a prostitute. So when Joh McCain calls something "dishonest and dishonorable," you pretty much have to figure he knows what he is talking about.

Later in that 2000 campaign a group calling itself Republicans for Clean Air launched another smear campaign criticizing John McCain’s environmental record. The group ran a series of false and misleading ads in New York and other states prior to their respective primaries. What’s significant about these ads is the involvement of a woman by the name of Merrie Spaeth. Merrie Spaeth is now the media contact person for the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth. So when John McCain states that the Swiftboat Vet’s attack against Kerry is "the same kind of deal that was pulled on me," he’s pretty damn close to the truth.

What makes me question whether John McCain is a hero or a whore is that despite all of these tactics used against him, he continues to campaign for George Bush. Even though the White House will not condemn the Swiftboat Vet’s ad, he continues to promote Bush on the campaign trail. McCain is allowing himself and his popularity to be used by the Bush administration for their own gain while John Kerry, his friend and fellow Vietnam vet, is being smeared by the same people who smeared him. To me this is like professing your love for a woman who screws your friends when you’re not around.

Where is that commendable John McCain who is willing to cross party lines and stand up for what he believes in? Where is his integrity? Where’s that honesty? It’s disheartening to see him allowing himself to be used like this.

So I ask you, the reader:

Is John McCain a hero or a whore?

Last weekend, while campaigning in Arizona, Dick Cheney questioned the race of a photographer before providing press credentials.

The Bush-Cheney campaign asked for the race of a Tucson newspaper photographer covering Vice President Dick Cheney's weekend visit to Arizona.

The Arizona Daily Star refused to provide the race of photographer Mamta Popat and asked why the question was asked, said Teri Hayt, the newspaper's managing editor.

"I have never been exposed to that type of question in 25 years of credentialing people," Hayt said.

The campaign said it asked for the photographer's race at the direction of the Secret Service during the credentialing process.

The question was one of several inquiries aimed at getting specific identifying information to help security officials conduct effective background checks, the Secret Service said.

Can we all spell racial profiling? First, you must sign an oath of support to attend a Bush Cheney rally, and now you must be from an approved race to take a picture. Land of the free indeed!

When George Bush says that the country is "turning the corner," he needs to be more specific about which corner he wants turned. Today's jobs report looks like we've turned the corner into a really dark alley in a bad part of town.

The Labor Department reported businesses added 32,000 jobs in July, a fraction of the more than 200,000 that many economists expected, and the weakest showing so far this year.

Maybe he's just looking for a place to park so he can check the map.

I can still remember the first few days after 9/11 when the country and the world were united in our cause to find those responsible. Then came the anthrax attack. The U.S. couldn't catch a break. Everywhere we turned we saw terrorism. It was a very uncertain time. For the first time, we viewed ourselves as vulnerable. Our leaders leveled accusations, made promises, and quickly embarked on a noble journey. The "War on Terror" was under way.

That was almost three years ago and our original goals still have not been met. Not to worry though, because in this election year we can expect to see a renewed interest in the safety of our citizens. Take note of the terror arrests lately. Everywhere you turn in the news these days there are reports of terror suspects in custody (like here, here, here, and here in today's newspapers alone). Not only that, we are now seriously pursuing the person responsible for the anthrax attacks. What's that old saying? Better late than never?

Why now? To me it seems too convenient. The Republican Convention will be taking place in a few weeks and I expect to hear about these arrests at least as often as we heard about John Kerry's Vietnam service. They are going to parade these arrests and investigations around the stage in order to prove that we're fighting hard and making progress. (I still half expect to see bin Laden brought in from the back in shackles.)

The question I have is this: Why didn't these things happen three years ago? Had we been this aggressive three years ago, instead of detouring into Iraq, we may still have the support of the rest of the world. Al Qaeda may be in shambles. We may have even found bin Laden by now.

This type of aggressive attack on al Qaeda was promised to us three years ago. It is now taking place for political gain. The Bush administration is banking that people will have the attitude of "what have you done for me lately." I say it's too little too late.

Luckily for poiliticians, the general public has a short memory. If a person can ride out a scandal long enough, people tend to forget about it or become bored with it and unless something brings it back into the media spotlight, it's gone forever. Remember Rep. Gary Condit and missing intern Chandra Levy? Gone from the media, gone from our memory. Such is the case with the prisoner abuse scandal. Remember the outrage and disgust upon seeing those pictures for the first time? Remember the embarassment when you found out that it was Americans who were doing those things that we always suspected other countries of doing? Remember our government insisting that this was an isolated incident ivolving a few rogue MPs? Now, it's more recent than Gary Condit and maybe not so far gone, but the media had virtually let it die. Until now.

With the preliminary hearing for Pfc. Lynndie England, the scandal has come back full force. We're going to start seeing the pictures again and we're going to start hearing the stories. This has to scare the hell out of certain people in the Bush administration because details are going to come out that they would prefer stay hidden. Like the fact that Military Intelligence ordered certain detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison to be kept hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Military intelligence officials at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq ordered military police soldiers to keep several detainees hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross, leaving a coded message on cell doors to indicate which detainees the visitors were not allowed to see or interview, according to court testimony here Wednesday.

Staff Sgt. Christopher Ward, a member of the 372nd Military Police Company who was in charge of the day shift at Abu Ghraib's most secure cellblock, said that during at least three official visits last fall and winter, he was ordered to steer the ICRC away from certain detainees whose cells were tagged with signs bearing the words "Article 134." Some of them were kept in a part of the prison's Tier 1A that was obscured by two separate doors.

"I didn't understand it, and I can't tell you what that meant," Ward testified, saying he had no idea what Article 134 was. Military prosecutors here also could not say what the term meant. Ward said military intelligence "directed it. MI put the signs on the door."

The testimony at a preliminary court hearing for Pfc. Lynndie R. England, 21 -- a soldier charged with abusing detainees at Abu Ghraib last fall -- echoes findings of an Army investigation that severely criticized officials there for keeping "ghost detainees," those who were hidden from international humanitarian workers.

Donald Rumsfeld must be thrilled to have this come out. For months now he's been claiming that these MPs were acting on their own and now Staff Sgt. Christopher Ward testifies that this was directed from MI. This is the ironic thing about trials, sometimes the truth actually comes out. I can't wait to see what truths come out in the trial of Saddam. Will he be allowed to talk about the support the United States gave him during the eighties? What about the biological and chemical weapons that we gave him? What about our support for him in the Iran-Iraq war? The Bush administration might want this trial held in private to save Poppy Bush's reputation. It could get ugly.

Anyway, back to the abuse. We were told that Abu Ghraib was an isolated incident, but yesterday three British former "enemy combatants" released a 115-page statement claiming abuses at Guantanamo Bay.

Three British former ''enemy combatants" freed from the prison at Guantanamo Bay released a 115-page statement yesterday claiming they were beaten, sexually humiliated, and held in prolonged isolation during their two years of detention.

They said harsh treatment and incessant interrogations at the US Navy base in Cuba eventually led them to confess to being in a video with Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. But British intelligence later determined that they had been in England at the time the video was shot in Afghanistan, contributing to the British government's decision to let them go free once they were transferred from Guantanamo.

In one alleged incident, one of the three claimed he was assaulted while riding a ferry from the airstrip to the prison.

''We had been told to keep our hands by our sides," he said. ''This was uncomfortable as we were shackled, and after some time I moved my hands into my lap. A soldier came up to me and said, 'Put your hand on your left knee,' which I did. The soldier said, 'This [expletive deleted] speaks English,' and then kicked me about 20 times to my left thigh and punched me as well. I had a large bruise on my leg and couldn't walk for nearly one month."

The accounts -- if corroborated -- would call into question the Bush administration's contention that prisoners at Guantanamo are treated humanely even though the president decided not to apply the Geneva Conventions to Afghanistan war detainees. The accounts were released by their US lawyers at the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York.

Isolated indeed.