Flexible Reality
Friday, August 27, 2004
No...and Yes...
In an interview published on Friday in USA Today, Pres. Bush said that Americans will re-elect him to a second term even if they disagree with his decision to invade Iraq.Bush said voters "know who I am and I believe they're comfortable with the fact that they know I'm not going to shift principles or shift positions based upon polls and focus groups." Bush told USA Today that "the American people have seen me make the hardest of decisions. That's just going to have to be a part of their decision-making process." Bush said his strategy had been "flexible enough" to respond. "We're adjusting to our conditions" in places like Najaf, the paper quoted him as saying.
Note: This reminds me somewhat of Chevy Chase's line: "I'm Chevy Chase, and you're not."
Bush seems to be saying he is not going to change his principles or positions based on input from some people, (those who respond to polls and focus groups); but that he will based on other conditions as they occur. So, it's Yes...and No...Just trust me.
U.S. Court in New York Rejects Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
By JULIA PRESTON
NY Times
Published: August 27, 2004
A federal judge in New York ruled yesterday that a federal law banning a rarely used method of abortion was unconstitutional because it did not exempt cases where the procedure might be necessary to protect a woman's health.
The ruling, by Judge Richard Conway Casey, came in a challenge brought by the National Abortion Federation and seven doctors to a November 2003 law that bans the method known as partial-birth abortion.
Judge Casey determined that the Supreme Court required, in a decision four years ago, that any law limiting abortion must have a clause permitting doctors to use a banned procedure if they determine that the risk to a woman's health would be greater without it.
The Supreme Court ruling "informed us that this gruesome procedure may be outlawed only if there exists a medical consensus that there is no circumstance in which any women could potentially benefit from it," Judge Casey wrote. The Supreme Court's opinion struck down a state law in Nebraska.
The New York case, which was argued by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union, was one of three cases challenging the partial-birth abortion law. On June 1, a federal judge in California ruled the law unconstitutional on similar but broader grounds than Judge Casey cited. The Justice Department has appealed that decision. A challenge in Nebraska is still in federal court there.
The ruling is a new blow to legislation that abortion opponents have hailed as one of their most significant victories. President Bush strongly backed the bill.
Attorney General John Ashcroft said in Washington yesterday that the Justice Department would continue to defend the law vigorously and would appeal the ruling. A department statement quoted President Bush, who had said the law would "end an abhorrent practice and continue to build a culture of life in America."
The ruling by Judge Casey, in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, makes it considerably less likely that the Bush administration will be able to implement the law as it is currently written. It also will shift the focus of the abortion debate back to the Supreme Court and its cornerstone 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade upholding a women's broad right to abortion.
At issue is a procedure, generally used in the second or third trimester of pregnancy, that involves partially extracting an intact fetus from a woman's uterus and then killing it by emptying the brain from the skull. Also known as D and X, for dilation and extraction, it has been used in cases of rare or unanticipated severe medical complications of pregnancy.
After listening to doctors describe the procedure in detail during 16 days of hearings this spring, Judge Casey wrote that it is "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized." He cited medical experts' testimony that the procedure subjects the fetus to "severe pain."
He also dismissed much of the testimony by A.C.L.U. witnesses, saying he did not believe that many of their "purported reasons for why D and X is medically necessary are credible; rather they are theoretical or false."
But Judge Casey was even more pointedly critical of Congress, saying that it had voted for the law without seriously examining the medical issues. "This court heard more evidence during its trial than Congress heard over the span of eight years," the judge wrote.
He found that Congress, in writing the law, had ignored furious dissension among doctors over the safety and necessity of the disputed abortion. The lawmakers had overlooked testimony in their own hearings, he said, and based the bill on the conclusion that partial-birth abortion is "never necessary."
The law includes an exception if there is a risk to a woman's life, but not a broader exception if a doctor decides that there is a risk to a patient's health. A violation is a felony punished with up to two years in jail and fines up to $250,000.
The A.C.L.U. suit did not center on defending the procedure, but on contesting the limitations in the law on doctors' and women's ability to determine medical care.
Where Is The Shame?
By BOB HERBERT
NY Times Op-Ed
Published: August 27, 2004
Max Cleland, minus the three limbs he lost in Vietnam, showed up in his wheelchair outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Tex., on Wednesday to suggest that the president take the simple and decent step of condemning the slime that is being spread by Bush supporters against the war record of John Kerry.
He didn't get very far. The president was busy vacationing and had neither the time nor the inclination to meet with Mr. Cleland, a former U.S. senator who was himself the target of vicious, unconscionable attacks by the G.O.P. slime machine when he ran for re-election in Georgia in 2002.
Later, at a press conference under the hot Crawford sun, Mr. Cleland told reporters: "The question is, where is George Bush's honor? Where is his shame?"
Mr. Cleland reminded reporters of the scurrilous attacks by Bush forces against Senator John McCain in the Republican presidential primary in 2000 and said: "Keep in mind, this president has gone after three Vietnam veterans in four years. That's got to stop."
In what is surely the most important election of the last half-century, we seem trapped in the politics of the madhouse. What is incredible is that these attacks on men who served not just honorably, but heroically, are coming from a hawkish party that is controlled by an astonishing number of men who sprinted as far from the front lines as they could when they were of fighting age and their country was at war.
Among them:
Mr. Bush himself, the nation's commander in chief and the biggest hawk of all. He revels in the accouterments of combat. The story was somewhat different when he was 22 years old and eligible for combat himself. He managed to get into the cushy confines of the Texas Air National Guard at the height of the Vietnam War in 1968 - a year in which more than a half-million American troops were in the war zone and more than 14,000 were killed.
The story gets murky after that. We know the future president breezed off at some point to work on a political campaign in Alabama, skipped a required flight physical in 1972 and was suspended from flying. He supported the war in Vietnam but was never in any danger of being sent there.
Vice President Dick Cheney, another fierce administration hawk. Mr. Cheney asked for and received five deferments when he was eligible for the draft. He told senators at a confirmation hearing in 1989, "I had other priorities in the 60's than military service." Many draft-age Americans had similar priorities - getting an education, getting married and starting a family.
Attorney General John Ashcroft. He is reported to have said, "I would have served, if asked." But with the war raging in Vietnam, he received six student deferments and an "occupational deferment" based on the essential nature of a civilian job at Southwest Missouri State University - teaching business law to undergraduates.
Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary and a fanatical hawk on Iraq. He was not fanatical about Vietnam and escaped the draft with student deferments.
There are many others.
I would like to see at least some of these men, in keeping with their positions as leaders of a great nation, stand up and say it is wrong - just wrong - to try and reap a cheap political gain by defacing the sacrifices of individuals like John Kerry, John McCain and Max Cleland, who put themselves in mortal danger in the service of their country.
It's one thing to decline to serve. It's quite another to throw mud at those who did serve - or to remain silent as allies hurl the mud.
I've interviewed several soldiers and marines who have suffered grave wounds in Iraq, including the loss of limbs. A permanent place of honor should be reserved for them in the pantheon of American heroes. The idea that someone some years from now may trash their service for political gain is beyond disgusting.
George W. Bush ought to call off his dogs. The one thing we ought to be able to do in this hyperpoliticized era is rally in a bipartisan way behind those who have been willing to fight our wars.
The privileged classes no longer feel an obligation to put their lives - or their children's lives - on the line in defense of the nation. The very least they could do is insist that those who have put themselves in harm's way be treated with respect.
Note: As a US Army veteran with service in the 1st Division, RVN at Lai Kai and Dian in the Summer of 1968, I take equal umbridge at this Administration's support of smear tactics against veterans for some of the same reasons stated above by Mr. Herbert.
While Mr. Kerry, Mr. Cleland, and Mr. McCain are public figures having been elected to public office a reasonable person could expect some political action would be mounted against them. However, smear tactics and buying the participation of those willing to lie to discredit a political adversary's service should be condemned, whether it is against Bob Dole, John McCain, John Kerry, or my districts representative in the Georgia Legislature, or me.
Value and speak the truth, while condemning the liars who bear false witness, those who instigate the smears, or finance and support them.
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Personal Attention to Those In Need is Great Medicine
New Therapy on Depression Finds Phone Is EffectiveBy BENEDICT CAREY
Published: August 25, 2004
Debates about the safety and effectiveness of treatments for depression miss a basic reality about the disease: most people affected by it do not seek help at all, and those who do commonly neglect to complete counseling or drug regimens recommended by doctors. For at least a third of the people who try them, treatments of any kind fall short, surveys show.
But improving success rates may be a matter of picking up the phone, according to a report today in the Journal of the American Medical Association. In a large-scale, 18-month study, doctors in Seattle found that they could significantly increase recovery rates for patients taking antidepressants by providing several 30- to 40-minute counseling sessions over the phone.
In previous studies, researchers showed that phone calls from nurses or other clinic staff members providing emotional support could help people trying to quit smoking, stay on medication or shake low moods. The Seattle study is the first to test the effect of a standardized form of counseling, cognitive behavior therapy, delivered entirely over the phone.
It is not clear from the study whether phone counseling will be equally helpful for everyone with depression....
By the end of the study, 80 percent of those who had received phone therapy said their depression was "much improved," compared with 55 percent of those who were given usual care. Of those who received encouragement by phone but not explicit therapy, 66 percent said they were "much improved."
The researchers do not know what component of the phone therapy made it effective or whether the increased attention itself made patients feel better. But for therapists trying to treat patients who are overwhelmed or hard to reach-single parents, low-income people. for example - the study may provide an alternative to in-person care.
Car Buyer?
Dude, Where's My Resale Value?By DANNY HAKIM
NY Times
Published: August 26, 2004
Detroit's big rebates and interest-free financing deals have strengthened car sales for the last three years. But they have also eroded the resale value of many American automotive brands, and that could cost consumers thousands of dollars when they trade in their vehicles.
None of the traditional American brands are among the 10 vehicles expected to retain the most value over the next half-decade, according to a new report from Kelley Blue Book, a company that tracks used car values. But American brands dominate the other end of the spectrum, the vehicles expected to lose the most value.
Confirming the Charge about Linkage
Bush Campaign's Top Outside Lawyer ResignsBy JIM RUTENBERG and KATE ZERNIKE
Published: August 25, 2004
The Bush campaign's top outside lawyer, who said on Tuesday that he had given legal advice to the group of veterans attacking Senator John Kerry's Vietnam War record, said today that he was resigning from the campaign because his activities were becoming a "distraction" to Mr. Bush' re-election efforts.
The lawyer, Benjamin L. Ginsberg, said that the group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, called him last month to ask for his help and that he had agreed. The group has criticized Mr. Kerry's war record and his antiwar activism in a book, television commercials and appearances on various news programs, especially on cable.
"I cannot begin to express my sadness that my legal representations have become a distraction from the critical issues at hand in this election," Mr. Ginsberg told the president in a letter distributed today by the Bush-Cheney campaign. "I feel I cannot let that continue, so I have decided to resign as national counsel to your campaign to ensure that the giving of legal advice to decorated military veterans, which was entirely within the boundaries of the law, doesn't distract from the real issues upon which you and the country should be focusing."
The Kerry-Edwards campaign manager, Mary Beth Cahill, said today that Mr. Ginsberg's resignation "confirms the extent of those connections."
"Now we know why George Bush refuses to specifically condemn these false ads," she said. "People deeply involved in his own campaign are behind them, from paying for them, to appearing in them, to providing legal advice, to coordinating a negative strategy to divert the public away from issues like jobs, health care and the mess in Iraq, the real concerns of the American people."
US record industry sues 744 more for online music downloading
www.chinaview.cn 2004-08-26 09:19:28
LOS ANGELES, Aug. 25 (Xinhuanet) -- In its latest wave of crackdown on music piracy, major US record companies have sued 744more people for illegally downloading copyrighted music from file-sharing networks, the Record Industry Association of America (RIAA)said Wednesday.
Meanwhile, the RIAA refiled lawsuits against 152 people who were previously sued anonymously but later identified and offered the chance to settle, after they ignored or declined those offers, a RIAA spokesman said.
The 744 defendants' identities remained unknown, but the RIAA filed the lawsuits according to the so-called "John Doe" litigation process, which is used to sue unidentified defendants.
The 744 people reportedly used a variety of peer-to-peer services including Kazaa, eDonkey and Grokster Ltd.
This was the first time that eDonkey users were sued, and RIAA President Cary Sherman called it an attempt to respond to "changing circumstances" in the file-sharing world. "Without a strong measure of deterrence, piracy will overwhelm and choke the creation and distribution of music," he said.
So far, the RIAA has sued nearly 4,700 people since last September in its relentless legal campaign to crack down on music piracy, which it blames for the decline of CD sales that costs themusic industry billions of dollars.
Last week, a federal appeals court held that makers of file-sharing software could not be held liable for certain kinds of copyright infringement, dealing a blow to efforts by the RIAA to tackle piracy at the source.
Meanwhile, peer-to-peer vendors continue to decry the RIAA tactics, calling them "unproductive." Instead of suing music fans,the RIAA should negotiate a way to pay artists with peer-to-peer vendors, said Adam Eisgrau, executive director of P2P United, a trade group representing five peer-to-peer vendors, including Grokster and eDonkey.
"The fact that the RIAA has the right to bring these lawsuits doesn't make them the right thing to do," Eisgrau said
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
More On the Bush Admin's Media Method in the Swift Boat Affair and Others
From Eric Alterman on MSNBC:"The LAT editors—and most journos—might want to flip to the back of their paper. "The technique President Bush is using against John F. Kerry was perfected by his father against Michael Dukakis in 1988," says an editorial. "Bring a charge, however bogus. Make the charge simple. But make sure the supporting details are complicated and blurry enough to prevent easy refutation. Then sit back and let the media do your work for you. Journalists have to report the charges, usually feel obliged to report the rebuttal, and often even attempt an analysis or assessment. But the canons of the profession prevent most journalists from saying outright: These charges are false. As a result, the voters are left with a general sense that there is some controversy over Kerry's service in Vietnam. And they have been distracted from thinking about real issues (like the war going on now)."
Josh Marshall's Talkingpointsmemo: August 24th, 2004: Pres. Bush & Moral Cowardice
(August 24, 2004 -- 12:44 AM EDTWith the president descending to the most shameless sort of attack politics to save his presidency, there's an understandable desire on the part of Democrats to reopen every political vulnerability he has that has yet to be fully explored or dissected:
I have no argument with any of this. I think it makes perfect sense. To pick up on the military language that is now so ubiquitous, I think Democrats need to open up on all fronts.
But fighting fire with fire isn't a compelling message. Nor will getting into a tit-for-tat about what each of these guys was doing in 1969 or 1970 or 1971 win this race for the Democrats.
Look at the wrong direction/right direction poll numbers and you see pretty clearly that the country is looking to fire George W. Bush. The president's only hope is to get the debate on to issues like these, shift the dynamic of the race, and convince voters that, whatever their dissatisfactions with his administration, John Kerry isn't an acceptable alternative.
When this stuff comes down the pike, Kerry has to fight back mercilessly. And he can win those fights. But, fundamentally, every day of this campaign that isn't spent talking about the sluggish economy and the president's debacle in Iraq is a day wasted, a strategic failure for the Kerry campaign.
But Democrats don't have to choose between hard-hitting lines of attack on the president himself and focusing on the main issues that are facing the country today. The most damning attacks turn out to be the most compelling, the most relevant for what the country faces, and the most difficult for the president to combat.
I've said several times over recent days that it is an example of the president's moral cowardice that he has such a long record of having others savage his opponents -- for sins of which he is usually more guilty than they -- and then denying any responsibility for what's happening. It's like the moment captured in that recent Kerry campaign spot where John McCain tells Bush to stand by his attacks or apologize, and the now-president is painfully caught off guard, bereft of the protective phalanx of retainers.
He's not used to having to stand behind what he's done. And when McCain comes at him one on one he's jelly. His life has always been a matter of others doing his dirty work for him, others bailing him out. And in that moment it shows.
The current debate about these two men's military service has put the spotlight on physical courage. But that really is a side issue in this campaign, if we're talking substance. The real issue isn't physical bravery but moral cowardice.
President Bush is an examplar of that quality in spades. And it cuts directly to his failures as president. Forget about thirty years ago, just think about the last three years.
Before proceeding on to that, one other point about the two men's service. On the balance sheet of moral bravery, as opposed to physical bravery, the two men are about as far apart as you can be on Vietnam. On the one hand you have Kerry, who already had doubts about whether we should be fighting in Vietnam before he went, and put his life on the line anyway. On the other hand, you have George W. Bush who supported the war, which means he believed the goal was worth the cost in American lives. Only, not his life. He believed others should go; just not him. It's the story of his life.
That is almost the definition of moral cowardice.
We have a more immediate sense of what physical bravery and cowardice are. In fact, when we speak of bravery and cowardice, the physical variety is almost always what we're talking about. It's whether or not you can charge an enemy position while you're be fired at. It's whether you're immobilized by the fear of death.
Moral cowardice is more complex. A moral coward is someone who lacks the courage to tell the truth, to accept responsibility, to demand accountability, to do what's right when it's not the easy thing to do, to clean up his or her own messes. Perhaps we could say that moral bravery is having both the courage of your convictions as well as the courage of your misdeeds.
As I've been saying here for the last couple days, the issue isn't that Bush ducked service in Vietnam. It's that he tries to smear other people's meritorious service without taking responsibility for what he's doing. He gets other people to do his dirty work for him. Again, that image of McCain calling him on his shameless antics and his look of fear, his look of feeling trapped.
The key for the Kerry campaign to make is that the president's moral cowardice is why we're now bogged down in Iraq. It's a key reason why almost a thousand Americans have died there. President Bush has set the tone for this administration and his moral cowardice permeates it.
Consider only the most obvious examples.
The president didn't think he could convince the public of the merits of his reasons for going to war. So he lied to them. He greatly exaggerated what was thought to be the evidence of weapons of mass destruction and completely manufactured a connection between Iraq and al Qaida. He couldn't get the country behind him on the up-and-up. So he took the easy way out; he took a shortcut; he deceived them. And now the country is paying a terrible price for it.
He and his advisors knew that if they levelled with the public about the costs of war -- in dollars, years, soldiers -- he'd have a very hard time convincing them. So he didn't level with them. He took the easy way out.
The sort of forward planning that would have made a big difference in post-war Iraq was scuttled or attacked because it would make the job of selling the war harder. Those who sounded the alarm had their careers cut short.
Once we were in Iraq and it was clear that we had been wrong about the weapons of mass destruction -- a judgement that's been clear for more than a year -- he wouldn't admit it. And he still hasn't. A year and a half after we invaded Iraq and he still can't level with the American people about this. He still relies on his vice president to try to fool people into thinking Hussein was tied to al Qaida and the 9/11 attacks.
More importantly, once it became clear that the president's plans for post-war Iraq were producing poor results, he refused to shift policy or to reshuffle his team. He refused to demand accountability from his own team because of how it would have reflected on him. He's preferred to continue on with demonstrably failed policies because to do otherwise would be to admit he'd made a mistake and open himself to all the political fall-out that entails. And that's not something he's willing to do.
The stubborn refusal ever to change course, which the president tries to pass off as a sign of leadership or devotion to principle, is actually an example of his cowardice.
For the same reasons, he runs from soldiers' funerals like they were burying victims of the plague -- because it's the easy way out. If there's a problem, he denies it or finds someone else to take the fall for him.
Everyone has these tendencies in their measure. No one is perfect. But they define George W. Bush.
The same sort of moral cowardice that led him to support the Vietnam war but decide it wasn't for him, run companies into the ground and let others pay the bill, play gutter politics but run for the hills when someone asks him to say it to their face, those are the same qualities that led the president to lie the country into war, fail to prepare for the aftermath and then refuse to take responsibility for any of it when the bill started to come due.
That's the argument John Kerry needs to be making. And he needs to make it right now.
-- Josh Marshal
The Essential Krugman: "The Rambo Coalition"
The Rambo CoalitionBy PAUL KRUGMAN
NY Times Op-Ed
Published: August 24, 2004
Almost a year ago, on the second anniversary of 9/11, I predicted "an ugly, bitter campaign - probably the nastiest of modern American history." The reasons I gave then still apply. President Bush has no positive achievements to run on. Yet his inner circle cannot afford to see him lose: if he does, the shroud of secrecy will be lifted, and the public will learn the truth about cooked intelligence, profiteering, politicization of homeland security and more.
But recent attacks on John Kerry have surpassed even my expectations. There's no mystery why. Mr. Kerry isn't just a Democrat who might win: his life story challenges Mr. Bush's attempts to confuse tough-guy poses with heroism, and bombast with patriotism.
One of the wonders of recent American politics has been the ability of Mr. Bush and his supporters to wrap their partisanship in the flag. Through innuendo and direct attacks by surrogates, men who assiduously avoided service in Vietnam, like Dick Cheney (five deferments), John Ashcroft (seven deferments) and George Bush (a comfy spot in the National Guard, and a mysterious gap in his records), have questioned the patriotism of men who risked their lives and suffered for their country: John McCain, Max Cleland and now John Kerry.
How have they been able to get away with it? The answer is that we have been living in what Roger Ebert calls "an age of Rambo patriotism." As the carnage and moral ambiguities of Vietnam faded from memory, many started to believe in the comforting clichés of action movies, in which the tough-talking hero is always virtuous and the hand-wringing types who see complexities and urge the hero to think before acting are always wrong, if not villains.
After 9/11, Mr. Bush had a choice: he could deal with real threats, or he could play Rambo. He chose Rambo. Not for him the difficult, frustrating task of tracking down elusive terrorists, or the unglamorous work of protecting ports and chemical plants from possible attack: he wanted a dramatic shootout with the bad guy. And if you asked why we were going after this particular bad guy, who hadn't attacked America and wasn't building nuclear weapons - or if you warned that real wars involve costs you never see in the movies - you were being unpatriotic.
As a domestic political strategy, Mr. Bush's posturing worked brilliantly. As a strategy against terrorism, it has played right into Al Qaeda's hands. Thirty years after Vietnam, American soldiers are again dying in a war that was sold on false pretenses and creates more enemies than it kills.
It should come as no surprise, then, that Mr. Bush - who must defend the indefensible - has turned to those who still refuse to face the truth about Vietnam.
All the credible evidence, from military records to the testimony of those who served with Mr. Kerry, confirms his wartime heroism. Why, then, are some veterans willing to join the smear campaign? Because they are angry about his later statements against the war. Yet making those statements was itself a heroic act - and what he said then rings truer than ever.
The young John Kerry spoke of leaders who sent others to their deaths because they wanted to seem tough, then "left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude." Fifteen months after George Bush strutted around in his flight suit, more and more Americans are echoing Gen. Anthony Zinni, who received a standing ovation from an audience of Marine and Navy officers when he talked about the debacle in Iraq and said of those who served in Vietnam: "We heard the garbage and the lies, and we saw the sacrifice. I ask you, is it happening again?"
Mr. Kerry also spoke of the moral cost of an ill-conceived war - of the atrocities soldiers find themselves committing when they can't tell friend from foe. Two words: Abu Ghraib.
Let's hope that this latest campaign of garbage and lies - initially financed by a Texas Republican close to Karl Rove, and running an ad featuring an "independent" veteran who turns out to have served on a Bush campaign committee - leads to a backlash against Mr. Bush. If it doesn't, here's the message we'll be sending to Americans who serve their country: If you tell the truth, your courage and sacrifice count for nothing.
Monday, August 23, 2004
Josh has it right...he's a coward.
August 24th, 2004From TalkingPointsMemo.com
By Josh Marshall
There was a brief hubbub over the web earlier this afternoon when it seemed that President Bush had denounced the Swift Boat ads. Needless to say, of course, he had done no such thing. He simply repeated the line Scott McClellan has been peddling for days -- that he denounces all independent expenditure ads.
Here's the exchange ....
QUESTION: But why won't you denounce the charges that your supporters are making against Kerry?
BUSH: I'm denouncing all the stuff being on TV, all the 527s. That's what I've said. I said this kind of unregulated soft money is wrong for the process. And I asked Senator Kerry to join me in getting rid of all that kind of soft money, not only on TV, but to use for other purposes as well.
I, frankly, thought we'd gotten rid of that when I signed the McCain-Feingold bill. I thought we were going to once and for all get rid of a system where people could just pour tons of money in and not be held to account for the advertising. And so, I'm disappointed with all those kinds of ads.
QUESTION: This doesn't have anything to do with other 527 ads. You've been accused of mounting a smear campaign.
Do you think Senator Kerry lied about his war record?
BUSH: I think Senator Kerry served admirably and he ought to be proud of his record.
But the question is who best to lead the country in the war on terror? Who can handle the responsibilities of the commander in chief? Who's got a clear vision of the risks that the country faces?
QUESTION: Some Republicans such as Bob Dole and some Republican donors such as Bob Perry have contributed and endorsed the message of those 527 Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads.
QUESTION: When you say that you want to stop all...
BUSH: All of them.
QUESTION: So, I mean...
BUSH: That means that ad, every other ad.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
BUSH: Absolutely. I don't think we ought to have 527s.
I can't be more plain about it. And I wish -- I hope my opponent joins me in saying -- condemning these activities of the 527s. It's -- I think they're bad for the system. That's why I signed the bill, McCain-Feingold.
I've been disappointed that for the first, you know, six months of this year, 527s were just pouring tons of money -- billionaires writing checks. And, you know, I spoke out against them early. I tried to get others to speak out against them as well. And I just don't -- I think they're bad for the system.
<------------------------------------->
He won't say it. He won't embrace it. He won't denounce it. He won't say he doesn't have an opinion. He won't say he won't get drawn into the debate. Nothing. He hides behind words and behind his friends.
As it happens, as Atrios notes, this isn't even Bush's position -- at least it wasn't until it became political advantageous. He opposed the provisions he's now hanging his hat on.
But of course the bigger point is that President Bush won't denounce the ads. If someone asks me to denounce Joseph Stalin and I say, "Well, yes, I'm against all politicians who support the death penalty" then I haven't denounced Joseph Stalin, right? This is the same thing.
(MSNBC, of course, fell for it. Their headline -- as of 4:57 PM -- is "Bush: Vets Should Halt anti-Kerry Ads".)
The full text of the interview is here.
Now, let's step back and consider where we are. Everyone in the country seems to have an opinion on this -- just go see the chat shows, the opinion columns and talk radio. Everybody has an opinion but George W. Bush, the man at the center of it all.
The reason, as we said earlier, is that the president is a coward -- a fact for which this dust-up constitutes merely an example. And as we'll discuss in a post later this evening, President Bush's moral cowardice -- not his physical cowardice or bravery, of which we know little and which is simply a side issue -- is the essence of this campaign.
-- Josh Marshall
Update:
Great moments in headlines written with a straight face ... or, the never ending decline of CNN. Right now -- 5:59 PM -- CNN headline: "Bush urges Kerry to condemn attack ads."
Also, Bob Dole "suggests Kerry apologize". Which lead to the following:
...Dole added: "And here's, you know, a good guy, a good friend. I respect his record. But three Purple Hearts and never bled that I know of. I mean, they're all superficial wounds. Three Purple Hearts and you're out."
Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton said: "It's unfortunate that Senator Dole is making statements that official U.S. Navy records prove false. This is partisan politics, not the truth."
Other Kerry supporters also rose to his defense.
"Senator Kerry carries shrapnel in his thigh as distinct from President Bush who carries two fillings in his teeth from his service in the Alabama National Guard, which seems to be his only time that he showed up," John Podesta, former chief of staff in the Clinton White House, said on ABC's "This Week."
Note: Ya Gotta Love These Guys !!
Sunday, August 22, 2004
Dell Founder Sells Shares
By DOW JONES/THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON, Aug. 20 (Dow Jones/AP) - The founder and former chief executive of Dell Inc., Michael S. Dell, sold $350 million of company common stock this week, according to a filing Friday with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
From Wednesday to Friday, Mr. Dell sold 10 million shares for $34.71 to $35.19 each, according to the filing.
Mr. Dell stepped down as chief executive last month, ceding the post to Kevin Rollins. Mr. Dell remains chairman of the company.
<======================================>
Note: But don't fret...there are over 2.5 billion shares of common stock outstanding at about $35/share, so Michael's not going to bankrupt the company anytime soon...however, there might be more to it than that according to a commentary on fool.com
Kerry: Slo-Mo on Swifties
By MAUREEN DOWD
NY Times
Published: August 22, 2004
Note: An Op-Ed by Dowd that gives a non-flattering re/view of G.W.'s approved method of attacking with surrogates; a practice that depends on projecting falsehoods to a receptive audience, "first-out" charges by the media that are not refuted until they exact damage on their target, and unrestrained jingoism.
Dowd is right though: the Kerry Campaign should have expected these kinds of slim attacks, should have had a clear plan to deal with it, and should not have allowed the Bush campaign a free ride on these allegations about Kerry's military service.
The Xinhuan newspaper suggests this episode is a measure of Mr. Kerry's ability to deal with situations like this; and though the Kerry Campaign and related 527 Committee's did respond in a worthwhile manner, it was a defensive response that will have to fight hard just to get the discourse back to neutral.
At least one Democrat must sincerely hope the Kerry Campaign has a plan, like Kerry's Vietnam Silver Star winning tactic, of courageously attacking an enemy when it was not expected such action. The Far Left would probably go farther and pencil in the plan a picture of Bush as the "Kid in a Loincloth".
Fraud ruled out in Chavez's victory
www.chinaview.cn 2004-08-21 11:05:35
CARACAS, Aug. 20 (Xinhuanet) -- The National Electoral Council (CNE) of Venezuela on Friday ruled out any possibility of fraud, as claimed by the opposition, in the victory of President Hugo Chavez in the recall referendum held last Sunday.
A senior official of the CNE, Tibisay Lucena, said no irregularity has been spotted in the auditing of 150 electoral centers, as confirmed by the international observers.
In 15 percent of the audited centers, "we have not drawn a single ballot showing any irregularity," she added.
Representatives of the Organization of American States (OAS) and the US-based Carter Center, which jointly carried out the audit Thursday with the CNE at the request of the opposition, said that until Thursday, 35 percent of the random sampling of 150 voting centers, out of a total of 12,358, had been checked.
The audit, made on a random sampling of 400 voting machines, aimed to dispel fraud charges from the opposition in the referendum, which accused the government of tampering with electronic voting machines to give Chavez 59 percent of the vote, compared with 41 percent backing its recall.
However, opposition leaders boycotted the audit, saying it was not stringent enough, and demanded a far wider audit to include the touch-screen machines used in the referendum.
Chavez, who was elected in 1998 and reelected to a six-year term in 2000, rejected his opponents' accusation and said they are trying to stir up anti-government unrest in Venezuela.
On Friday, CNE Director Jorge Rodriguez also said the auditing of the votes of the recall referendum has "very over whelming" results of the legitimacy of the process.
The auditing was carried out although there was no formal charges of fraud as claimed by the opponents of President Chavez, he noted.
Rodriguez insisted that until now, the CNE has not received a single charge of fraud. "Everything will be sufficiently cleared up by the time we present the auditing results which, from my perspective are overwhelming," he said.
"This is the last auditing by the CNE in order to bring calm to people who have been bombarded by a series of denunciations that are, from our perspective, unfounded," said Rodriguez.
Meanwhile, both the Carter Center and the OAS have expressed their attitude toward the fairness of the referendum.
"Based on our prior examination of the voting machines, we expect the audit will confirm the results," said Jennifer McCoy, leader of the Carter Center observer mission.
"If there is a significant pattern, ... this audit will demonstrate it," she added.
On Thursday, the OAS said the fact that the same results of the recall referendum were registered in different voting machines "is not suspicious."
At a press conference, mission representative Edgar Castro saidthe results were similar in 47 voting machines.
According to a communique issued by the OAS, its international electoral observation mission validated the victory of Chavez, saying the results were "compatible with the internal controls effected by the mission."
"The electronic-voting system and the broadcasting of the results of the electoral journey were adequately audited, with all due conditions to ensure the secrecy and fidelity of the vote," it added.
Beside the international observers, many foreign countries have recognized Chavez's win. The United States, the biggest buyer of Venezuela's oil, has said that "the process was credible and met international standards."
About 10 million Venezuelans cast their votes in Sunday's referendum to decide whether President Chavez should finish the remaining two years of his six-year term or step down.
A massive turnout forced the authorities to twice extend the closing time of the referendum and keep polling stations open well after midnight.
Bush campaign fires adviser on veterans issues
www.chinaview.cn 2004-08-23 01:44:13
WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 (Xinhuanet) -- The Bush campaign dismissed an adviser on veterans issues late Saturday after learning he was part of an independent group that has been running anti-Kerry ads,news reports said Sunday.
The Bush campaign said Kenneth Cordier, a retired colonel and former prisoner of war, who appeared in an advertisement to be aired by the anti-Kerry group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, would no longer serve in his voluntary position on President George W. Bush's veterans steering committee.
A spokesman for the Bush campaign said Cordier had not previously informed the campaign that he had been involved with the group, but the campaign of Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, said the matter provided evidence supporting its complaint to the Federal Election Commission alleging illegal cooperation between the Bush campaign and the independent group.
Cordier's connection to the Bush campaign was made public Saturday by the Kerry campaign, which found that Cordier had been named on the Bush web site earlier this month as a member of the veterans committee but that his name had subsequently been removed.
The ads by the Swift Boat group, named for the type of boat Kerry commanded during the Vietnam War, has been causing a furiousdebate between the campaigns, with Kerry demanding that Bush condemn the ads that suggest that Kerry did not earn his war decorations and the he betrayed his fellow veterans by his later anti-war activity.
Under US law, groups like the one that sponsored the anti-Kerry advertisement are required to remain independent of either candidate's campaign.
