Flexible Reality
Thursday, September 16, 2004
The Straight Story
Note: It will soon be a year since Seymour M. Hersh's October 2003 article in The New Yorker appeared, and it is still the best read on the ramp-up to the Iraq War. The first paragraph is quoted below, and confirms the observation by many that the mechanisms of control within the Bush Administration were primarily responsible for the disconnect between what the intelligence community was saying, and what came out of the White House."Since midsummer, the Senate Intelligence Committee has been attempting to solve the biggest mystery of the Iraq war: the disparity between the Bush Administration’s prewar assessment of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and what has actually been discovered."
Excerpts: Paul Wolfowitz in a NY Times Article: Sept 16th, 2004
"The First Draft of Freedom"Paul Wolfowitz in the NY TImes
Sept. 16, 2004
"Our own Declaration of Independence doesn't speak of elections but rather about the rights of all human beings to certain "inalienable rights," in particular "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." And it is a fundamental principle of our Constitution that citizens cannot be deprived of those rights except by due process of law.
Elections are properly viewed as a mechanism to hold government accountable, particularly in its most fundamental responsibility of protecting the rights of its individual citizens.
Accordingly, the rule of law is one of the essential pillars of a democratic society. There are few powers that a democratic state possesses that are as awesome as the power to prosecute its own citizens lawfully. And few things are more threatening to a true democracy than the abuse of that prosecutorial power.
One of the worst possible ways that power can be abused is to take away the freedom of the press and thereby remove one of the most important mechanisms for ensuring that government respects the rights of its citizens. As Mr. Bambang pointed out in his eloquent pleading before the court in August, the collapse of Indonesia's first brief experience with democracy in the 1950's began with "an attempt to undermine freedom of the domestic press through the criminalization of journalists."
...
Both of the candidates in next Monday's presidential runoff election {in Indonesia}, have expressed concern over this case. One hopes that beyond acquitting Mr. Bambang and his colleagues of any of the criminal charges pressed against them, Indonesia will take steps to ensure that this intimidation of a free press should cease."
Note: Unfortunately this article seems allegorical at best, or at worst an attempt by Mr. Wolfowitz to paint himself in a light significantly different than his statements during the past several years. Herein he appears to argue against unjustified prosecution of citizens, and governmental hinderances to a free press; yet his statements from earlier this year, and before, project an entirely different orientation.
9/7/03: "One of the things that is most important for troops facing danger on the front lines is the knowledge that their dedication and sacrifice is appreciated by the people of America."
6/9/03: "We don't discuss military plans, for good operational reasons. I can assure you that I didn't see these press reports but, if they are as you describe them, they certainly didn't come from me or anybody in my party."
2/17/02: "There're a lot of options for them, {detainees at Guantanamo}. I think the most important thing right now is to focus on the fact that, first of all, these are dangerous people, and they're still trying to hurt people. They make threats all the time, and we've got to keep them secure.
Our principal objective is to get whatever information we can get them to give us about networks elsewhere. Then, ultimately, there are decisions about whether, if they are guilty of a crime, is it something to be tried in the United States, or is it something to be tried in another country? If it's in the United States, there're various options for doing that. So we're a long way, I think, from taking these people to trial.
5/17/04 :"there are some serious issues between us and the Red Cross about Guantanamo...[but] they have nothing to do with the kinds of abuses that we've been hearing about in Iraq."
10/3/03: “foreign policy decisions cannot be subject to the kind of ‘rule of law’ that we want for our domestic political process.”
1/31/04: "You have to make decisions based on the intelligence you have, not on the intelligence you can discover later,"
6/11/02: "He {Jose Padillo} is an enemy combatant. Enemy combatants, whether they are American citizens or not American citizens, are subject to the same provisions of the laws of war."
7/27/03: "I think people should be a little careful about throwing around words like intelligence failure. It's easy to go around and play this blame game...Well, we always ought to compare what we thought from our intelligence with what we discovered later, and it's a difficult job to do, especially if every time somebody discovers a discrepancy it is described as a "failure"... If people keep treating every intelligence uncertainty as an example of failure I guess we have a problem."
6/26/03: "Frankly, part of our problem is a lot of the press are afraid to travel very much, so they sit in Baghdad and they publish rumours,'' he told the committee, "and rumours are plentiful.'
<------------------------------------->
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
From Norman Rockwell, entitled "Freedom of Speech". Look at it closely. Is he a Republican? a Democrat? No ! That doesn't matter. What does matter immensely is he is an American, exercising a right granted by our Constitution. Fie on any so-called "leader" who would bash him for his work clothes, the 50'ish audience, or the circulars that brought these people together. He, a man in himself, not money, not political power, not refined good looks, is a powerful symbol of America's strength. To require him to be in suit and tie before speaking is to deny the principles on which this country was founded, and hopefully will continue to be based.
Definition: "Traditional Family Values"
Our Wordwise expert Mia Stephens, suggests the following definition:The serious attempt to define below gives historical info and settles on Schwartz 1992:
The traditional family model-the husband as breadwinner and the wife as homemaker-makes up only 7% of the families in U. S. society (Duxbury & Higgins, 1991; Nieva, 1988). Changing attitudes toward sanctioned men's and women's roles due to the increase of women in the workforce may have created more similarities in roles for men and women, especially with respect to family responsibilities (Denmark, 1992; Shaw & Burns, 1993).
Given more contemporary attitudes toward the family in the form of women in careers and acceptance of divorce, one might expect a parallel change in constructs such as individuals' family values. Family values can be defined as desirable and important goals that serve as guiding principles for maintaining one's family (adapted from Schwartz, 1992). Contemporary societal changes might be associated with less adherence to traditional family values in younger generations that have been socialized in a period marked by shifting attitudes toward gender roles.
No doubt the definition of exactly what these values are will depend on the individual's own views.
The phrase in a political context it is suggested comes from the 1992 US presidential election, and is attibuted to Dan Quayle's 'Murphy Brown' speech.
<------------------------------------->
Trial Lawyers for Truth
Bush tortures facts on 'trial lawyers'Newsday.com
July 13, 2004
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. No, wait. First let's torture the facts.
To hear President George W. Bush and his business supporters tell it, a legion of "trial lawyers" - personified by Democratic vice-presidential hopeful John Edwards - is ruining America. They clog the courts with frivolous lawsuits. They drive good doctors out of medicine with outrageous malpractice claims and astronomical insurance premiums. They bring honorable businesses to their knees with big class-action suits that bestow the most benefits on rapacious lawyers.
All outrages, if true. But are they? Ask John Ashcroft.
The attorney general keeps a fine set of numbers about civil trials and their outcomes. In April, the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics published a survey of state cases - most civil lawsuits are brought in state courts - that were decided at trial in 2001, the most recent data available. Cases that end without a trial - 97 percent - aren't included because settlements are often kept private.
Here's what the Justice Department says:
The number of civil trials in the nation's 75 largest counties dropped by 47 percent from 1992 to 2001. In jury trials in which the plaintiff was successful, the median award shrank from $65,000 in 1992 to $37,000 in 2001. Winning plaintiffs won punitive damages in only 6 percent of trials - with the median punitive damage award $50,000.
Not enough to make you, or your lawyer, rich.
Anyway, the president doesn't worry about the run-of-the-mill car accident case - though 60 percent of tort lawsuits involve automobiles, according to the National Center for State Courts. Nor is he concerned with the mundane slip-and-fall suit (17 percent of cases).
It's those oversized damage awards and over-the-top class actions that have his dander up.
But the largest damage award turns out to have been granted not in some liberal bastion but in Bush's home state of Texas. The award was indeed huge - $454 million, reduced to $121 million on appeal. Did this go to a child poisoned by toxic drinking water? No. It went to a Texas company that won a contract dispute with Mexican partners who'd broken a franchise deal.
And how many class-action suits turned up in the Justice Department's survey of 12,000 concluded trials? One.
It was against an insurance company that had changed the job classification of its claims representatives to "administrative" personnel - a switch that exempted the company from paying overtime. The employees won $124.5 million in uncompensated overtime and interest, to split among 2,400 workers and their lawyers.
Now, maybe these folks are greedy. But what would you call the lawyers who cooked up the job-title scam? Campaign contributors, maybe.
Come to think of it, have you ever heard a politician who is prone to apoplexy over "trial lawyers" also complain about union-busting lawyers? How about tax lawyers? Or HMO lawyers? The Bush administration just sided with these in a crucial Supreme Court case that said patients cannot sue their HMOs, even when the insurance plans deny care that doctors recommend.
Pity the doctors. They're squeezed between insurance companies that want to hold down their incomes and other insurance companies that want to pump up their malpractice premiums. Premiums have indeed spiraled upward. But the reason isn't only malpractice suits. The nonpartisan General Accounting Office concluded that losses from malpractice claims contributed to the premium hikes - but it couldn't determine "the composition and causes of these losses." We don't know if they stemmed from bad lawsuits or bad doctors.
The accounting office also found that insurers took in less money from investments in a chronically soft market - and so charged doctors higher premiums to make up the difference.
There's a mountain of evidence that should get the political case against trial lawyers dismissed. It probably won't. Few arguments are as powerful as a populist-sounding cause backed by the corporate wallet.
Does Pres. Bush Have An Early Stage of Alzheimers Disease?
The Author of the Letter Sees: Pre-Senile Dementia
Letters to the Editor Atlantic Monthly: Sept 2004
{In Reference to An Article in a previous month's AM Edition entitled: When George Meets John}
"James Fallows's description of John Kerry's debating skills ("When George Meets John," July/August Atlantic) was interesting, but what was most remarkable was Fallows's documentation of President Bush's mostly overlooked changes over the past decade—specifically, "the striking decline in his sentence-by-sentence speaking skills." Fallows points to "speculations that there must be some organic basis for the President's peculiar mode of speech—a learning disability, a reading problem, dyslexia or some other disorder," but correctly concludes, "The main problem with these theories is that through his forties Bush was perfectly articulate."
I, too, felt that something organic was wrong with President Bush, most probably dyslexia. But I was unaware of what Fallows pointed out so clearly: that Bush's problems have been developing slowly, and that just a decade ago he was an articulate debater, "artful indeed in steering questions and challenges to his desired subjects," who "did not pause before forcing out big words, as he so often does now, or invent mangled new ones." Consider, in contrast, the present: "the informal Q&As he has tried to avoid," "Bush's recent faltering performances," "his unfortunate puzzled-chimp expression when trying to answer questions," "his stalling, defensive pose when put on the spot," "speaking more slowly and less gracefully."
Not being a professional medical researcher and clinician, Fallows cannot be faulted for not putting two and two together. But he was 100 percent correct in suggesting that Bush's problem cannot be "a learning disability, a reading problem, [or] dyslexia," because patients with those problems have always had them. Slowly developing cognitive deficits, as demonstrated so clearly by the President, can represent only one diagnosis, and that is "presenile dementia"!
Presenile dementia is best described to nonmedical persons as a fairly typical Alzheimer's situation that develops significantly earlier in life, well before what is usually considered old age. It runs about the same course as typical senile dementias, such as classical Alzheimer's—to incapacitation and, eventually, death, as with President Ronald Reagan, but at a relatively earlier age. President Bush's "mangled" words are a demonstration of what physicians call "confabulation," and are almost specific to the diagnosis of a true dementia. Bush should immediately be given the advantage of a considered professional diagnosis, and started on drugs that offer the possibility of retarding the slow but inexorable course of the disease. "
Joseph M. Price, M.D.
Carsonville, Mich.
<------------------------------------->
Note: Reading from the description of the stages of the disease one sees some striking parallels.
Common early symptoms of Alzheimer's are:
* confusion
* disturbances in short-term memory
* problems with attention and spatial orientation
* personality changes
* language difficulties
* unexplained mood swings
It is important to understand that Alzheimer’s disease does not affect every patient in the same way. The stages listed below represent the general progression of the disease.
Stage 1: Early in the illness, Alzheimer's patients tend to have less energy and spontaneity, though often no one notices anything unusual. They exhibit minor memory loss and mood swings, and are slow to learn and react. After a while they start to shy away from anything new and prefer the familiar. Memory loss begins to affect job performance. The patient is confused, gets lost easily, and exercises poor judgment.
Stage 2: In this stage, the Alzheimer's victim can still perform tasks independently, but may need assistance with more complicated activities. Speech and understanding become slower, and patients often lose their train of thought in mid-sentence. They may also get lost while travelling or forget to pay bills. As Alzheimer's victims become aware of this loss of control, they may become depressed, irritable and restless. The individual is clearly becoming disabled. The distant past may be recalled, while recent events are difficult to remember. Advancing Alzheimer's has affected the victim's ability to comprehend where they are, the day and the time. Caregivers must give clear instructions and repeat them often. As the Alzheimer's victims mind continues to slip away, the patient may invent words and not recognize familiar faces.
Stage 3: During the final stage, patients lose the ability to chew and swallow. The very essence of the person is vanishing. Memory is now very poor and no one is recognizable. Patients lose bowel and bladder control, and eventually need constant care. They become vulnerable to pneumonia, infection and other illnesses. Respiratory problems worsen, particularly when the patient becomes bedridden. This terminal stage eventually leads to death.
Another Republican Party Slime Campaign !
Soros lodges formal complaint against Hastert before the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.Sept 14th, 2004
Talkingpointsmemo.com
Below is the text of the letter ...
Dear Members of the Committee:
I am writing to encourage the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to create an investigative subcommittee to examine the conduct of Representative Dennis Hastert under House Rule 43, clause 1: "A Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives shall conduct himself at all times in a manner which shall reflect creditably on the House of Representatives."
In an August 23rd radio interview and an August 29th nationally broadcast television interview, Representative Hastert deliberately and repeatedly issued an innuendo – which he cannot substantiate because it is false – that I may have received illegal drug money. The use of such dishonest smear tactics reflects discredit upon the House of Representatives and warrants the investigation of your Committee. The texts of Representative Hastert’s remarks are attached.
Representative Hastert has attempted to pass off his comments as either a misunderstanding or a disagreement about policy. Both arguments are demonstrably false. Representative Hastert made innuendoes about alleged facts, namely that I might be receiving “drug money” from “drug groups.” That he made and then repeated this smear demonstrates that there is no misunderstanding about the implication of his statements – or their purpose.
Representative Hastert now seeks to excuse his conduct by saying that this is a disagreement over groups to which I give money. The indisputable fact is that he alleged that I might be receiving “drug money” from “drug groups.” His comments were explicitly about the source of my income, not its use. This slander is invented out of whole cloth. Indeed, the only other examples of this bizarre assertion of which I am aware are the equally irresponsible accusations of the Lyndon LaRouche campaign and organizations, which bear a strong resemblance to Representative Hastert’s remarks. Excerpts of comments from the LaRouche campaign and organizations are attached.
Representative Hastert has the right to feel strongly about his opinions. He has no right to fling assertions of possible criminal conduct at those with whom he disagrees. This kind of insinuation – that a private United States citizen was in league with drug cartels and may be receiving funds derived from criminal activity – has no place in public discourse. The fact that this profoundly disturbing innuendo was made in the context of criticizing an American citizen’s efforts to participate in the political debate about the future of our country strongly suggests a deliberate effort to use smear tactics, intimidation and falsehoods to silence criticism.
Representative Hastert has had numerous opportunities to apologize for and retract his remarks. He was explicitly given the opportunity to clarify his remarks during the August 29th interview, and he chose instead to repeat the innuendo. Not only has he declined to apologize, he has made new, false accusations.
Such conduct brings discredit on the House. It is inconsistent with basic notions of fair play and open debate that are the basis of our Constitutional system, and it is all too reminiscent of the McCarthyite tactics that were used to such scurrilous effect to stifle dissent during one of the darkest periods of recent United States history.
Members of both political parties have recently decried “the politics of personal destruction.” It is time for the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to formally declare that smear tactics and innuendo are discrediting our political process and the House of Representatives as an institution by taking appropriate action to investigate and censure Representative Hastert for these outrageous remarks.
Sincerely,
George Soros
Bad Moon Rising Redux
Note: The Lyrics from Bruce Springsteen's Song.I see a bad moon rising
I see troubles on the way
I see earthquakes and lightning
I see bad times today
Don’t go ’round tonight
Well, it’s bound to take your life
There’s a bad moon on the rise
I hear hurricanes a-blowin’
I know the end it’s coming soon
I fear rivers overflowing
I hear the voice of rage and ruin
Don’t go ’round tonight
Well, it’s bound to take your life
There’s a bad moon on the rise
Hope you got your things together
Hope you’re quite prepared to die
Looks like we’re in for nasty weather
One eye is taken for an eye
Don’t go ’round tonight
Well, it’s bound to take your life
There’s a bad moon on the rise
Don’t go ’round tonight
Well, it’s bound to take your life
There’s a bad moon on the rise
"Health care costs are spiraling out of sight at seven times the rate of inflation. 43 million Americans have no health insurance at all. Both of these trends are accelerating. Before long, most small companies may not be able to provide their employees with any health coverage at all. Bush's solution is to give you a tax credit to pay for your own insurance. Well, yeah ... a check from the government. Actually, that's not really correct. If you have the money to pay for insurance you might get to deduct a part of that payment from your taxes. How does that sound to those of you making $5.15 an hour?
Bush blames frivolous lawsuits for the high cost of health care. This argument deserves to stand up there with that {Iraqi} mushroom cloud bullshit. The real reason is that the American worker is subsidizing the health care of the entire rest of the world because we {currently} have no way of controlling any of those costs.
If you like the way that things are going, vote for Bush. If you believe that HMOs and pharmaceutical companies should make health care policy vote for Bush. If you trust oil companies, power companies and chemical companies to do the right thing on environmental policy vote for Bush. If you think that massive deficits don't make any difference vote for Bush. If you like the fact that companies have no real oversight and can avoid paying taxes with sham offices overseas vote for Bush.
The commander-in-chief will stand in front of snappy banners and five billion flags and offer unrealistic enthusiasm, but if you look over you will notice the ground rushing up to meet us as we plummet over the edge!
If you want a change, vote for Kerry."
Note: This exerpt came from a nicely done article on counterbias.com. Read the entire article here.
SP2 Users Are Not Affected.(?)
How Convenient Is That for MS?
Major graphics flaw threatens Windows PCsPublished: September 14, 2004, 1:24 PM PDT
By Robert Lemos
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Microsoft published on Tuesday a patch for a major security flaw in its software's handling of the JPEG graphics format and urged customers to use a new tool to locate the many applications that are vulnerable.
The critical flaw has to do with how Microsoft's operating systems and other software process the widely used JPEG image format and could let attackers create an image file that would run a malicious program on a victim's computer as soon as the file is viewed. Because the software giant's Internet Explorer browser is vulnerable, Windows users could fall prey to an attack just by visiting a Web site that has affected images.
The severity of the flaw had some security experts worried that a virus that exploits the issue may be on the way.
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Nader Did Not Qualify to Be Put On the Ballot Legally
So, Thanks to Republican Help He Gets On Anyway !
Florida OK's Nader's Name on Election Ballot
Mon Sep 13, 2004 06:31 PM ET
By Jim Loney
MIAMI (Reuters) - Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader's name can appear on Florida ballots for the election, despite a court order to the contrary, Florida's elections chief told officials on Monday in a move that could help President Bush in the key swing state.
The Florida Democratic Party reacted with outrage, calling the move "blatant partisan maneuvering" by Gov. Jeb Bush, the president's younger brother, and vowed to fight it.
In a memo to Florida's 67 county supervisors of elections, Division of Elections director Dawn Roberts said the uncertainty of Hurricane Ivan, which could hit parts of the state by week's end, forced her to act.
The action came in an ongoing legal battle over whether Nader should be allowed on the Florida ballot as the Reform Party candidate.
Nader, an independent nominated by the Reform Party, was a presidential candidate in 2000 when Bush won Florida, and the White House, by 537 votes over then-Vice President Al Gore. Analysts said most of the nearly 98,000 votes Nader got in Florida would have gone to Gore had Nader not been on the ballot.
Florida Circuit Court Judge Kevin Davey issued a temporary injunction last week preventing the state from putting Nader on the 2004 ballot, siding with a Democratic challenge that the Reform Party did not qualify as a national party under state law.
A hearing on a permanent injunction is scheduled for Wednesday. But Roberts said Hurricane Ivan, which is headed for Florida's Gulf coast, had raised "a substantial question as to when such a hearing" will be held.
'PARTISAN MANEUVERING'
As a result, she said, Florida's Department of State had filed an appeal against the temporary injunction. The appeal application automatically lifts the injunction, allowing the counties to put Nader's name on overseas absentee ballots, which must be mailed by Saturday.
"I'm in disbelief," said Scott Maddox, chairman of the Florida Democratic Party. "This is blatant partisan maneuvering on the part of Jeb Bush to give his brother a leg up on election day." "They are trying to get ballots printed with Nader's name on them," said Maddox. "I am astounded that Jeb Bush is willing to defy the judiciary to help his brother."
Maddox said if Nader drew votes away from any candidate it would be Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. Gov. Bush said he agreed with Roberts' decision.
"It's up to the judge to determine, based on the law, whether Nader should be on the ballot or not," Bush said. "But while that process goes on, we cannot put ourselves in the position where the ministerial role of the supervisors cannot be fulfilled."
Maddox noted that Tallahassee, the state capital where Davey sits, is not expected to be directly hit by the hurricane. He said the circuit court could hear the case as scheduled on Wednesday and rule immediately.
In addition, the case is before the Florida Supreme Court, which could also rule at any time, he said.
Yeah, talk to us about s*** that really matters! the War in Iraq, the Federal Deficit, Jobs, Health Care & Prescription Drugs, Higher Education, Immigration, etc, etc. What Kerry or Bush did thirty years ago pales in comparison with what they did three years ago !! In three years we've gone from the most respected country on Earth to the most hated, distrusted, and feared. It's past time to do something concrete about that. Give us specifics, not platitudes, or wishful thinking! When, where, how...the why we can discuss and decide at some later date !!ยท
Essential Krugman: Taking on the Myth
Taking On the MythBy PAUL KRUGMAN
NY Times Op-Ed
Published: September 14, 2004
On Sunday, a celebrating crowd gathered around a burning U.S. armored vehicle. Then a helicopter opened fire; a child and a journalist for an Arabic TV news channel were among those killed. Later, the channel repeatedly showed the journalist doubling over and screaming, "I'm dying; I'm dying."
Such scenes, which enlarge the ranks of our enemies by making America look both weak and brutal, are inevitable in the guerrilla war President Bush got us into. Osama bin Laden must be smiling.
U.S. news organizations are under constant pressure to report good news from Iraq. In fact, as a Newsweek headline puts it, "It's worse than you think." Attacks on coalition forces are intensifying and getting more effective; no-go zones, which the military prefers to call "insurgent enclaves," are spreading - even in Baghdad. We're losing ground.
And the losses aren't only in Iraq. Al Qaeda has regrouped. The invasion of Iraq, intended to demonstrate American power, has done just the opposite: nasty regimes around the world feel empowered now that our forces are bogged down. When a Times reporter asked Mr. Bush about North Korea's ongoing nuclear program, "he opened his palms and shrugged."
Yet many voters still believe that Mr. Bush is doing a good job protecting America.
If Senator John Kerry really has advisers telling him not to attack Mr. Bush on national security, he should dump them. When Dick Cheney is saying vote Bush or die, responding with speeches about jobs and health care doesn't cut it.
Mr. Kerry should counterattack by saying that Mr. Bush is endangering the nation by subordinating national security to politics.
In early 2002 the Bush administration, already focused on Iraq, ignored pleas to commit more forces to Afghanistan. As a result, the Taliban is resurgent, and Osama is still out there.
In the buildup to the Iraq war, commanders wanted a bigger invasion force to help secure the country. But civilian officials, eager to prove that wars can be fought on the cheap, refused. And that's one main reason our soldiers are still dying in Iraq.
This past April, U.S. forces, surely acting on White House orders after American television showed gruesome images of dead contractors, attacked Falluja. Lt. Gen. James Conway, the Marine commander on the scene, opposed "attacking out of revenge" but was overruled - and he was overruled again with an equally disastrous decision to call off the attack after it had begun. "Once you commit," General Conway said, "you got to stay committed." But Mr. Bush, faced with the prospect of a casualty toll that would have hurt his approval rating, didn't.
Can Mr. Kerry, who voted to authorize the Iraq war, criticize it? Yes, by pointing out that he voted only to give Mr. Bush a big stick. Once that stick had forced Saddam to let W.M.D. inspectors back in, there was no need to invade. And Mr. Kerry should keep pounding Mr. Cheney, who is trying to cover for the absence of W.M.D. by lying, yet again, about Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda.
Some pundits are demanding that Mr. Kerry produce a specific plan for Iraq - a demand they never make of Mr. Bush. Mr. Kerry should turn the tables, and demand to know what - aside from pretending that things are going fine - Mr. Bush intends to do about the spiraling disaster. And Mr. Kerry can ask why anyone should trust a leader who refuses to replace the people who created that disaster because he thinks it's bad politics to admit a mistake.
Mr. Kerry can argue that he wouldn't have overruled the commanders who had wanted to keep the pressure on Al Qaeda, or dismissed warnings from former Gen. Eric Shinseki, then the Army's chief of staff, that peacekeeping would require a large force. He wouldn't have ignored General Conway's warnings about the dangers of storming into Falluja, or overruled his protests about calling off that assault halfway through.
On the other hand, he can argue that he would have fired Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary who ridiculed General Shinseki. And he would definitely have fired Donald Rumsfeld for the failure to go in with enough troops, the atrocities at Abu Ghraib and more.
The truth is that Mr. Bush, by politicizing the "war on terror," is putting America at risk. And Mr. Kerry has to say that.
From today's Hauser Report
The Supposedly Forged DocumentRemember the Sandy Berger smear? This was the story claiming that President Clinton's National Security Advisor had smuggled incriminating documents out of the National Archives. (Berger was completely cleared.) This was a planned smear - in the works for months - and was used by the Republicans to make the public think that Clinton was responsible for letting the 9/11 attack happen and that "the Democrats" were engaged in a conspiracy to cover up the evidence.
Well, along similar lines, and listening to Limbaugh just now, I can see that the Right's "Bush Guard memo forgery" is taking shape. The entire Wurlitzer - the Right's media echo chamber that is able to repeat a lie over and over and over until it is the ONLY story in the news - is cranked up and telling the public that CBS has been caught engaging in a smear against Bush using forged documents. Never mind that the document (one document, no plural 's') in question is legit.
According to Limbaugh:
One document is said to look like it could have been typed on a modern computer.
Therefore ALL such documents are forgeries.
Therefore CBS is intentionally working a smear on Bush.
Therefore ANY stories about Bush's National Guard service are not to be believed - he served honorably.
Therefore this proves that CBS (and by extension, ALL mainstream media) is a tool of the "Liberal Elite" and is working hand-in-hand with the Kerry campaign to smear Bush.
Again, by extension, ANY stories ANYWHERE, EVER about Bush doing ANYTHING bad are Liberal lies.
Keep in mind that this is not just Limbaugh. In a NY Times Op-Ed this morning William Safire has a piece titled "Those Discredited Memos" (note that he uses the plural...) And it doesn't stop there. It hardly even STARTS there. Today a Google News search for "Bush documents CBS" locates 2,460 stories. (According to reporting from Salon, a Republican PR firm that is also involved with the Swift Boat smear is engaged in driving this story.)
This also has all the earmarks of typical right-wing smear tactics. It starts with a small, unproven accusation. The Right's Wurlitzer picks up the accusation and amplifies it until pretty much everything else is deflected out of the news. Soon every story on the subject assumes the truth of the original accusation. As soon as each new accusation is refuted - a refutation never even mentioned in the Right's stories - new accusations emerge, leaving the original accusation and refutations behind.
Within days the accusations are escalating so fast that no one can keep up - by the time one accusation is addressed two or three more appear, which creates a fog that is impossible to cut through. The cumulative accusations -- all assumed to be true in the stories put out by the Right media -- become a general attack on "Liberals" or "Democrats" in general. The entire episode "proves" that the public should dismiss ANY story from the "mainstream" press or any authority figure that previously might be thought of as "responsible."
And so it goes. Watch your backs!
<------------------------------------->
Monday, September 13, 2004
No End in Sight to the Possibilities of Fraud in the General Election
Absentee Votes Worry Officials as Nov. 2 NearsBy MICHAEL MOSS
NY Times
Published: September 13, 2004
As both major political parties intensify their efforts to promote absentee balloting as a way to lock up votes in the presidential race, election officials say they are struggling to cope with coercive tactics and fraudulent vote-gathering involving absentee ballots that have undermined local races across the country.
Some of those officials say they are worried that the brashness of the schemes and the extent to which critical swing states have allowed party operatives to involve themselves in absentee voting - from handling ballot applications to helping voters fill out their ballots - could taint the general election in November.
Commissioned Reports = Truth, or Advertising
Microsoft Adds to Its Anti-Open-Source ArsenalEweek Article
By Mary Jo Foley, Microsoft Watch
September 13, 2004
As its 'Get the Facts' campaign moves into Year 2, Microsoft is set to roll out more commissioned research reports and case studies.
Microsoft Corp.'s anti-open-source 'Get the Facts' campaign is entering its second year. And Microsoft has no intent to change course. Martin Taylor Microsoft's appointed Linux point man and platform strategist is making the rounds and touting yet another Microsoft-commissioned study that Microsoft is using as 'proof' that Windows surpasses Linux in total cost of ownership, security and reliability.
Although some press, analysts and customers have, over the past year, criticized Microsoft's campaign to tout studies for which it paid, Microsoft has no intention to back down from this practice, Taylor said.
'In 2005, our 'Facts' approach won't change an ounce,' Taylor proclaimed. 'Commissioned reports were exactly the right thing to do. We used reputable firms.'
Note: Yes, both Microsoft and the Bush Administration see the virtue of 'commissioned reports' to provide 'proof' of information that supports their views. How convenient is that? And incidentally, what about violations of "Truth in Advertising" provisions of international law, for which Microsoft was previously reprimanded by a UK watchdog group..
Political statements are traditionally exempt from Truth in Advertising regulations, (unfortunately); but not commercial interests.
Opposition Grows to Paperless Voting: "More than a year ago, Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., introduced the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act, which would require all voting machines to produce a voter-verified paper record for use in manual audits by this year's election. A similar bill introduced more recently sets the same requirements for the 2006 election."
Bob Novak Has An Idea about Revealing Confidential Sources
Note: Bob Novak, who won't reveal who helped him disclose the identity of an undercover CIA operative, went on CNN Sept 11th, and demanded CBS reveal its confidential sources for the report about Pres. Bush's National Guard service record. The following is the key portion:"NOVAK: The -- Margaret, I believe -- I don't know of anybody who changed their opinion. "The Boston Globe" got a new expert who said the thing probably is authentic. In the same story, they went back to the expert that "The Washington Post" had used. He said it isn't authentic. I think it's going to be very interesting to find out if these are forged or phony documents. That's -- as a journalist, I think that's a very interesting story.
I'd like CBS, at this point, to say where they got these documents from. They didn't get them from a CIA agent. I don't believe there was any laws involved. I don't think we'll have a special prosecutor, if they tell. I think they should say where they got these documents because I thought it was a very poor job of reporting by CBS. Why did CBS not go to the -- to Killian's family and get -- and ask them about it, as ABC did, and got these quotes, and they said they think they're phony documents -- I thought -- I thought that the "60 Minutes" thing by Dan Rather was a -- was a campaign operation, rather than an attempt to get to the bottom of the truth.
HUNT: Robert Novak, you're saying CBS should reveal its source?
NOVAK: Yes.
HUNT: You do? You think reports ought to reveal sources?
NOVAK: No, no. Wait a minute.
HUNT: I'm just asking.
NOVAK: I'm just saying in that case.
HUNT: Oh.
NOVAK: I think -- I think it's very important. If this is a phony document, the American -- the people should know about it.
HUNT: So in some cases, reporters ought to reveal sources.
NOVAK: Yes.
HUNT: But not in all cases.
NOVAK: That's right.
<------------------------------------->
Iraq Update from APAF
IRAQOut Of Control
From: American Progress Action Fund
Sept. 13th, 2004
"The mission in Iraq is far, far from accomplished. A surge in deadly violence this weekend brought the bloodiest day in Iraq in recent months; suicide bombings, mortar fire and fierce battles between insurgents and U.S. and Iraqi security forces, including a firefight between an Iraqi crowd and a U.S. helicopter crew, killed dozens, leaving even more injured. Attacks against U.S. forces now average 87 per day, the worst monthly average, reports Newsweek, "since Bush's flight-suited visit to the USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003." Casualty figures keep escalating: the U.S. death toll passed 1,000 last week and over 7,000 have been wounded. Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted this weekend, "We did miscalculate the difficulty" of winning the peace in Iraq.
FALLUJAH FAILINGS: In a significant setback for U.S. efforts in Iraq, Fallujah, one of the nation's biggest cities, is now entirely under the control of rebel insurgents. This weekend, the Iraqi military force put in place in the explosive city by the Marines disbanded. There is strong evidence that many members have been working with insurgents against the U.S. forces that provided them with weapons and paychecks. Last April, the White House withdrew Marine troops from the city, hoping the newly created Brigade would work with the Iraqi government to fight the insurgency. The city quickly fell under the control of the insurgents, as many in the Brigade openly joined the rebel forces against the United States. Today, the city is a safe haven for insurgents, a place to "take refuge, plot attacks and run manufacturing centers for car bombs and other explosives."
GENERAL DISAGREES WITH APPROACH TO FALLUJAH: Lt. Gen. James Conway, the outgoing U.S. Marine Corps general in charge of western Iraq, said yesterday that he had disagreed with the hasty order that sent his troops to invade Fallujah in April as well as the subsequent decision to withdraw from the city and turn over control to the disloyal Brigade. Conway said the disastrous assault increased tensions while making the region more hostile to U.S. forces: "We felt like we had a method that we wanted to apply to Fallujah, that we ought to probably let the situation settle before we appeared to be attacking out of revenge." Instead, higher ups insisted on the attack, and then demanded troops pull out when the fighting grew fierce. "I would simply say that when you order elements of a Marine division to attack a city, you really need to understand the consequences of that, and not, perhaps, vacillate in the middle of that. Once you commit to do that, you have to stay committed." Marine Col. Jerry Durrant agrees: "The whole Fallujah Brigade thing was a fiasco."
LIGHTS OUT IN IRAQ: Nineteen months after the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has failed to achieve significant reconstruction, contributing to the ongoing frustrations of the Iraqi people. According to Bathsheba Crocker, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, when it comes to economic opportunity, services, and social well-being, "Iraq is actually moving backward." The Los Angeles Times reports the job of restoring electricity to war-torn Iraq is "steeped in errors and misjudgment." Electricity for Iraqis was central to White House reconstruction plans, but today, Iraq's largest source of electricity, the Baiji power plant, "produces less than half the electricity it generated" two years ago. Why is the country still in the dark? Lack of planning, inconsistent leadership and an over-reliance on private contractors. The Bush administration "vastly underestimated the time, money and effort needed to restore the country's power grid." It's indicative of the failures of the entire reconstruction process, still marked by "tainted water supplies, limited sewage treatment and curtailed construction of public buildings." The ongoing failure has dire ramifications for the unstable security situation, producing "a deep reservoir of confusion and anger that feeds the country's deadly insurgency."
PROBLEMS WITH DEMOCRACY: The increased violence has serious ramifications for the scheduled elections. "We're dealing with a population that hovers between bare tolerance and outright hostility," says a senior U.S. diplomat in Baghdad. "This idea of a functioning democracy here is crazy. We thought that there would be a reprieve after sovereignty, but all hell is breaking loose." The Bush White House is blithely insisting elections will occur in January as planned. Security concerns, however, have left others less confident. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated this weekend on Meet the Press that "It would be lovely if they took place in January, but I sure don't see it." Iraqi officials are also increasingly skeptical. One senior Iraqi official told Newsweek, "I'm convinced that it's not going to happen. It's just not realistic. How is it going to happen?" Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari echoed that thought, saying, "The timetable really depends at the end of the day on the security situation." Some worry that the Bush administration, desperate to avoid the appearance of yet another setback, will stick to the schedule despite ongoing problems. Ghassan Atiyya, director of the independent Iraq Foundation for Development and Democracy, warns, "Badly prepared elections, rather than healing wounds, will open them.""
While we sympathize with those in the Gulf Coast communities that will soon be affected by Ivan, we are thankful that our friends and families in Florida have been saved from a three-peet.
Something Else to Be Concerned About.
Pathogens in Sea Water
Note: A short article in the AJC Newspaper on Sunday entitled: "Flesh-eating germs kill Texas dentist" was about a very serious, and potentially deadly bacteria which is usually present in seawater, and can pose serious health issues.<------------------------------------->
The bacteria: vibrio vulnificus is especially prevalent in shellfish, most noteably raw oysters. Persons with a history of liver, or autoimmune diseases are especially at risk, as are those with open cuts/wounds who enter infected seawater, piers, or docks.
The Centers for Disease Control have online information about this pathogen here.
Sunday, September 12, 2004
Which Suffers Most When A SUV and a Car Collide?
And How Much Does it Cost to Repair Each?
Group Warns on SUV - Car Bumper AlignmentBy THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: September 12, 2004
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The difference in bumper height between cars and sport utility vehicles leads to costly accident repairs even after low-speed crashes, an insurance group said Sunday.
Ford Motor Co. vehicles had the lowest repair costs in 10 mph crash tests because their bumpers were most compatible, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said. Vehicles from Volvo and DaimlerChrysler AG had the highest repair costs.
The institute wanted to find out what happens when an SUV hit a car from behind and when a car hit an SUV from behind.
The organization tested five pairs of 2004 and 2005 vehicles, each from the same company: Ford's Taurus sedan and Explorer SUV; Chevrolet's Malibu sedan and TrailBlazer SUV; DaimlerChrysler's Dodge Stratus and Jeep Grand Cherokee; Nissan's Altima sedan and Murano SUV; and Volvo's S40 sedan and XC90 SUV.
``We thought that, at a minimum, automakers should be paying attention to the compatibility of the bumpers across their own fleets,'' said Adrian Lund, the institute's chief operating officer.
Lund said on some vehicles, such as the Dodge Stratus and the Jeep Grand Cherokee, the bumpers passed each other by.
Ford had the lowest repair cost of $1,256 after the Explorer hit the Taurus -- $555 in parts and labor for the Taurus and $701 for the Explorer. Ford also had the lowest repair cost of $2,608 when the test was reversed and the Taurus hit the Explorer.
It cost $6,080 to repair the Volvos after the S40 hit the XC90 and $6,129 after the Jeep Grand Cherokee hit the Dodge Stratus. The Nissan vehicles sustained more than $5,000 in damage in both types of crashes, while the Chevrolet vehicles had more than $4,000 in damage in both crashes.
Lund said there was far more damage, including broken radiators and major leaks that would require the vehicles to be towed, than most people would expect in a 10 mph crash. He also said it was striking that cars could inflict so much damage on SUVs.
Car bumpers line up reasonably well because federal standards require them to extend from 16 inches to 20 inches from the ground. But no such requirements exist for SUVs, minivans or pickup trucks, so they often have flimsier bumpers or no bumpers at all, Lund said.
Automakers have promised improvements. Last year, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a Washington trade group that represents 10 automakers, announced a voluntary agreement to improve compatibility between vehicles by 2009.
Protect the Vote
By BOB HERBERT
NY Times Op-Ed
Published: September 13, 2004
More than 80 percent of the population of Detroit is black. This is very well understood by John Pappageorge, who is white and a Republican state legislator in Michigan. "If we do not suppress the Detroit vote," said Mr. Pappageorge, "we're going to have a tough time in this election."
Oops! Republicans aren't supposed to actually say they want to suppress black votes. That's so retro. It's so Jim Crow. This is the 21st century, and the thing now is to do the dastardly deed, but never ever acknowledge it.
That's where our friend Pappageorge went wrong.
After his startling quote was published several weeks ago in The Detroit Free Press, Mr. Pappageorge, who is 73, apologized and said he certainly never meant to suggest that anything racist or illegal take place. But he reiterated to me in a phone conversation last Friday that he did indeed mean that the vote in Detroit needed to be kept down.
A lot of other Republicans have similar views about the vote in areas with large African-American populations. Most blacks vote Democratic. If those votes can be suppressed, Republicans benefit. And there is increasing evidence that a big effort to suppress the vote among blacks and some other heavily Democratic voting groups is under way, which is why it is important to keep the following phone number handy:
1-866-OUR VOTE.
That's a hot line set up by the Election Protection Coalition, a group that was formed to identify and stamp out attempts to disenfranchise voters, especially in predominantly black and Latino precincts around the country.
