Progress - Thursday and Friday

Thursday and Friday.

LH Goes Catblogging

In honor of the NY Times article on "Catblogging," I add my name to the list of cat bloggers. Say hello to Kusaka, the ferocious kitty.

Kiss it Goodbye, Rudy

Rudy Guiliani just lost the Republican Nomination for President in 2008. Here's the statement that has ended his political career:

The president was cautious the president was prudent the president did what a commander in chief should do. No matter how you try to blame it on the president the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough? (Emphasis added)

Now I haven't mentioned this before, but I have a cousin who's in the army and in Iraq now, and I don't appreciate this administration and its allies blaming the troops for all the problems in Iraq. The troops don't make policy, they don't make command decisions, and they don't mislead the American people as to why we went to war in the first place.

For the Mayor to blame the troops for the Al Qaqaa fiasco is beyond reprehensible. George W. Bush has said repeatedly "You can't be Commander-in-Chief if you denigrate the troops." For once I agree, so George W. Bush should RESIGN from the presidency now for sending Guiliani out to parrot this horse manure.

"It's not my fault, the troops shouldn't have been incompetent!" Go Cheney yourself you douchebag.

It's too be expected, from this crowd, I suppose. How can you respect our armed forces if you couldn't respect a commitment to stay in the Champaigne Unit for the full six years?

Progress Reports

I've been slacking on posting these. Here's Monday, Tuesday and today. Of course, you can always go to the archives here.

More Florida Fraud

Continuing on the voting fraud kick, the BBC caught the Florida GOP red-handed this time, via Daily Kos, check out the story here.

The critical part:

A secret document obtained from inside Bush campaign headquarters in Florida suggests a plan - possibly in violation of US law - to disrupt voting in the state's African-American voting districts, a BBC Newsnight investigation reveals. Election supervisor Ion Sancho believes some voters are being intimidated. Two e-mails, prepared for the executive director of the Bush campaign in Florida and the campaign's national research director in Washington DC, contain a 15-page so-called "caging list". It lists 1,886 names and
addresses of voters in predominantly black and traditionally Democrat areas of Jacksonville, Florida. An elections supervisor in Tallahassee, when shown the list, told Newsnight: "The only possible reason why they would keep such a thing is to challenge voters on election day." [...]

The story in the New York Times this weekend about the GOP's "challenge" of newly registered voters in Ohio was just the tip of the ice berg. We have to remember who we're dealing with here - the Karl Rove-controlled GOP is a tight network of operatives who get their marching orders from a single source - these are not isolated incidents.

This "challenge" garbage is a systematic attempt by the GOP to suppress voter turnout and prevent minority (heavily Democratic) voters from being counted. I recently posted on some other activities here and here.

Denying someone their right to vote is morally reprehensible, and for one of the two major political parties in this country to be actively pursuing such a strategy smacks of facism. The names of the people behind this must be recorded, and after the election, these crooks must be held criminally responsible. They are not fit to be involved in the American political system in any way, shape or form.

Criminal Neglect

Today's New York Times has the bombshell regarding the disappearance of 380 tons of super explosives. A few weeks back I had a post regarding the disappearance of weapons and munitions in Iraq. Well, according the Times, it's far worse than I imagined.

Some of the key paragraphs from the Times, first pinning the blame directly on the US occupation:

"The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no man's land, still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday. United Nations weapons inspectors had monitored the explosives for many years, but White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge that the explosives vanished sometime after the American-led invasion last year."

These weapons and materials are so devastating, the represent an immediate threat to global security:

"American weapons experts say their immediate concern is that the explosives could be used in major bombing attacks against American or Iraqi forces: the explosives, mainly HMX and RDX, could produce bombs strong enough to shatter airplanes or tear apart buildings.

The bomb that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 used less than a pound of the same type of material, and larger amounts were apparently used in the bombing of a housing complex in November 2003 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and the blasts in a Moscow apartment complex in September 1999 that killed nearly 300 people."

Our government was warned very early on (i.e. before the invasion) and has no explanation for what happened to the materials:

"The International Atomic Energy Agency publicly warned about the danger of these explosives before the war, and after the invasion it specifically told United States officials about the need to keep the explosives secured, European diplomats said in interviews last week. Administration officials say they cannot explain why the explosives were not safeguarded, beyond the fact that the occupation force was overwhelmed by the amount of munitions they found throughout the country."

There is much, much more in the Times article, and I bet money that there will be more stories surfacing in the print media over the next couple of days.

Over at Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall has been tracking this story quite diligently. He also has a post about the Administration's reaction in a press conference by White House spokesman Scott McLellan.

"Asked whether securing a facility like this wasn't a key priority of the occupation forces, McClellan responded: "At the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom there were a number of priorities. It was a priority to make sure that the oil fields were secure, so that there wasn't massive destruction of the oil fields, which we thought would occur. It was a priority to get the reconstruction office up and running. It was a priority to secure the
various ministries, so that we could get those ministries working on their priorities, whether it was ..."

This is so outrageous it's almost too much to believe. We wanted to secure the oil first, and then if we got around to it, maybe we'd deal with this 380 tons of super explosive stuff. Of course, if we'd had any sense to realize there would be an insurgency, and that the insurgents would probably steal weapons and use them against our troops over the next 18 months, maybe we would have changed....no wait a second. We don't make mistakes. If we had it to do all over again, we'd do it the exact same way.

This is nothing short of criminal negligence on the part of this government, and this alone is enough reason to turn this government out.

More on Voter Fraud

I made a list of voter fraud efforts in various states earlier in the week. Well, the Sproul-based fraud activities are making national news. Apparently, if you were stupid enough to sign up democratic voters and then tear up their registrations, you are in a hell of a lot more trouble than if you simply refused to sign them up.

If you're gonna cheat, at least make sure to tell your people how to do it without comitting a felony!

Creating Our Own Reality - Proof

Synthesizing Reality - A how-to guide from the Bush White House.

By Timothy Noah
Posted Friday, Oct. 22, 2004, at 10:25 AM PT

Theory:

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend—but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

—Ron Suskind, "Without A Doubt," in the Oct. 17 New York Times Magazine

Practice:

Q: Scott, this morning Senator McCain said that he disagreed with the things that President Bush has said about Senator Kerry misunderstanding the war on terror. What do you guys have to say to that?

A: I think what Senator McCain said was that he believes that the President is the best one to lead us forward in the war on terrorism. He spoke about how the President is leading with moral clarity and strength, and that's what we need as we move forward in the war on terrorism. There's a clear choice on how we approach the war on terrorism and how we lead going forward. And Senator McCain—that's what Senator McCain talked about. I saw what he said earlier.

Q: He did say what you're saying he said, but he also said he disagreed with the characterization of Senator Kerry, so I wanted your reaction to that part of what he said.

A: I don't know if those were his exact words. I think what he focused on—what he focused on was the President's leadership, and how important his leadership is to prevailing in the war on terrorism. And that's what this election is about; it's about who can lead us forward to prevail in the war on terrorism. Senator Kerry has the wrong approach. The reality is we live in dangerous times, and the President has a comprehensive strategy for winning the war on terrorism, and we appreciate Senator McCain's strong support for the strategy that the President is pursuing.

Q: But he did say he disagreed with how the President is characterizing Senator Kerry. So can you guys react to that at all?

A: I think the choice is very clear for the American people. The President is—he'll talk about it again, today, in his remarks. If you look at what Senator Kerry's—if you look at Senator Kerry's record, and look at his views, it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the war on terrorism. He has a record of weakness when it comes to national security issues. He is someone who has voted to significantly cut intelligence funding, right in the aftermath of the 1993 World Trade Center attacks. He has a view of retreat when it comes to Iraq. It's important that we succeed in Iraq. Senator McCain talked about that this morning, as well, because Iraq is a central commitment to prevailing in the war on terrorism.

—Scott McClellan answering questions at a White House press gaggle, Oct. 22

Timothy Noah writes "Chatterbox" for Slate.

Bull Moose

The Bull Moose blog is written by a Teddy Roosevelt Republican who recently worked for Sen. John McCain. He has very interesting thoughts.

Progress Report

Today's edition from the Center for American Progress.

Evicted Tenet

I don't know if it's bitterness or honesty or both, but former CIA Director George Tenet, the man who told George Bush that the WMD argument for going to war in Iraq was "a slam dunk," now says the war was wrong.

Reality-Based Community

Why am I a proud member? Read Ron Suskind's NY Times Magazine article to find out.

The key paragraph:

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

Center for American Progress

From now until election day, I'll post the daily report from the Center for American Progress. If you want to get pissed off about the antics of the Bush Administration, just read the report.

Archives are here.

Let's Talk Voter Suppression

President George W. Bush loves to use the line, "Freedom is on the march!" while describing elections being held in Afghanistan and Iraq. Meanwhile, in the USA, a different march is occuring:

In Philadelphia, home of the Liberty Bell, Republican operatives wanted to conduct a last minute move of the polling precincts.

In Florida, Jeb "brother of Freedom Marcher W." Bush put in place a voter purge list that he knew was bogus.

In Nevada, where prositution is legal in some parts of the state (talk about Freedom!), former Voter's Outreach of America employee Eric Russell said the Republican-backed organization paid only for Republican forms and tore up any Democratic registration forms - perhaps hundreds of forms were destroyed.

In Oregon, where Freedom marches so defiantly against terror that only one state trooper is needed to protect the entire coast, the same outfit accused of destroying Dem registrations in Nevada has been so charged in the Emerald state.

In New Hampshire, where they know a thing or two about elections, the guy who orchestrated an illegal phone-bank jamming attack on the local Democrat's GOTV effort in 2002 has been running the Bush-Cheney 04 North East campaign until late last week when he was forced to resign for being a criminal.

Perhaps you are seeing a pattern here? Well, go here and read about a man named Nathan Sproul, who seems to be real good at this game.

West Virginia and Pennsylvania get in on the act with Mr. Sproul's outfit.

More from the Institute for Public Accuracy:

This summer, Michigan state Rep. John Pappageorge (R) was quoted in the
Detroit Free Press as saying, "If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we're
going to have a tough time in this election." African Americans comprise 83
percent of Detroit's population.

In South Dakota’s June 2004 primary, Native American voters were prevented
from voting after they were challenged to provide photo IDs, which they were not
required to present under state or federal law.

In Kentucky in July 2004, black Republican officials joined to ask their
State GOP party chairman to renounce plans to place "vote challengers" in
African-American precincts during the coming elections.

Ohio, where Freedom marches to the tune of the Buckeye fight song, the Republican Secretary of State is invalidating voter registrations because they aren't printed on the right paper.

Finally, the RNC threatens Rock the Vote with legal action because they say the word "draft" a lot.

I guess Freedom is on the march in Afghanistan and Iraq because it sure ain't marching here.

The Little Hippo has big backup! 

Mother of God

Geesh, it gets more outrageous each day!

So Bush tells us that we went into Iraq to disarm Saddam and eliminate the threat of weapons of mass destruction. Now it's clear that not only was Saddam not a threat and did not possess such weapons, but our own incompetence in handling the post-war situation as actually caused the disappearence of materials that could be used to create WMD.

These materials were tagged for monitoring by the IAEA and had been dormant ever since the UN forced Saddam to shut down his weapons programs after the first Gulf War. The UN had monitored them the whole time, all the way up to when we invaded and the UN had to flee. Now everything's vanished without a trace.

It's one thing to be wrong about the prescene of WMD, it's something else entirely to be the actual cause of terrorists getting their hands on stuff that can be used to make WMD. If someone builds and uses a bomb from stuff that was stolen from these facilities, the blood will be on Bush's hands.

Kerry-Bush II

I thought Bush was somewhat better prepared in terms of having more hard-hitting lines and a clear plan of attack. His anger was frightening, especially when he steam-rolled Gibson on a rebuttal - very UN-presidential. I'm sure that Bush's demeanor reflects the typical GOP response to everything - just act tougher and meaner and the base will be reassured.

Kerry was not quite as sharp as the first go-round, and I thought he tried to cram too much information into his responses - he seemed rushed at times. In spite of this, I still thought he did well - poise, knowledge and repoire with the audience was much better than Bush. He also drilled Bush several times, such as on the partial-birth ban and parental notification - I wonder how many female votes Bush lost on that one.

With that said, I can't see how this debate resolves any of Bush's problems from the first debate. First, his unhinged tirade during the first half of the debate, in my judgement, turned off independents and undecideds. No one wants to be screamed at when trying to make a decision about something important. Could you imagine your real estate agent screaming at you while you are touring a home that you're not quite sure is the right one for you? Can you say, "your fired"?

Second, Bush still comes off as ignorant, no matter what his spinners say - ignorant of the economic situtation of many Americans, ignorant of the true problems in Iraq, ignorant on social issues. He may have strong positions on abortion, taxes, etc., but these convictions are bathed in ignorance.

Kerry had several opportunities to perhaps crush Bush at this debate the way he did at the first one, but he failed to do so. Bush left him the Grand Canyon of openings on the final question - regarding naming three mistakes he's made as president. Bush could not indicate that he even suspected that anything he's done might possibly be a mistake. I thought Kerry's response was insuffucient - yes Bush made a colossal error in invading Iraq, but this was a chance to label his entire administration as a mistake and Kerry missed it.

Kerry also answered that question on Bush's terms - as he did several other questions - by talking about Iraq. The question was about the totality of Bush's term, and Bush started his response saying that the question was really about Iraq. Kerry should have responded to the original question, and by doing that, obliterate Bush for being totally incapable of admitting when he's been wrong.

One thing has me worried about the final debate, and that is Bush's focus on the social agenda. This is weak ground for Kerry in terms of defending his own positions. Not weak in terms of the legitimacy of his stances, but weak in the practicality of rhetorically defending them in a debate of this format. If he responds as he did to the question about partial-birth and parental notification, he'll do well. If he responds as he did on the question about federal funding for abortion, Bush the Rabid Right-Wing Dog will eat him alive.

One more thing

To add to the last post, I think I was too soft on Edwards. After the debate, my inititial reaction on his performance, in addition to what I said in the last post, was that he did not rebut enough of Cheney's charges. In other words, Cheney left him some openings and Edwards didn't take advantage of them.

Again, after reflection, I began to think that this was just not feasible given the number of lies, distortions and mischaracterizations Cheney made. If Edwards had tried to refute every charge, he would have spent all of his allotted time doing so, at the expense of talking up the Kerry-Edwards ticket. His two primary goals at the debate, in my judgement, was to land some real shots on Cheney and to advocate on behalf of John Kerry. So now I'm thinking he probably did all he could in rebutting Cheney, although perhaps he could have been more efficient in his specific responses.

Over at Josh Marshalls TPM, a reader had this take on Edwards approach, which I think is certainly plausible and not mutually exclusive of my hypothesis.

The VP Debate

The debate between the current VP and the NC Senator left me a bit perplexed. At first, I thought that it was probably a draw, but maybe Cheney was a tad bit better. He was his usual dower self, smug, arrogant, methodical and ruthless. That attitude comes off very strongly on TV, so at first I felt like it worked pretty well.

Edwards started strong out of the gate, but some of Cheney's subsequent attacks during the foreign policy portion challenged Edwards' composure - Edwards never faltered though. Edwards definately gave it right back to Cheney, especially on the VP's previous voting record (MLK day and Mandela). The first part of the debate was like a tug-of-war match where each side pulls the other pretty close to the line, but after a half-hour of tugging, they end up pretty much where they started.

Again, immediately afterward the debate, I felt Edwards won the domestic portion of the debate pretty handily - evidenced by Cheney's repeating of "where do I start" and also passing up two different opportunities to use up his time. He wasn't showing a lot of passion for his ticket's candidacy by giving up speaking time. Edwards really presented a strong case, fact-laden and in-touch with the mainstream public. I thought his closing was very strong, especially compared to Cheney's "vote for us or fear for your life" closer. I thought Cheney was a real dick for not thanking Edwards - after Edwards had thanked him in his closing - and for remaining seated when they shook hands (Edwards had stood). Bad form, Mr. VP.

I flipped on MSNBC immediately following the debate and nearly vomited. Right down the line - Mitchell, Reagan, two magazine dudes and Scarborough all gave it to Cheney in a romp. What the f**k?! Were they watching the Red Sox game or the debate? CNN had it a draw, and even Bill Krystol was on Fox saying it was about an equal performance from each side.

So, at first I gave Cheney a lot of credit for fighting tough - but then it hit me. Why should I give this guy credit for lying through his teeth for 90 minutes? I'll put it another way, if the two had had this very debate, but only said things that were factually accurate (even if they spun a little bit), I'd say "tie." But if one candidate blatantly lies over and over and over, it really doesn't matter how smug, arrogant, methodical and ruthless he was, he loses for LYING so damn much!

So what were his lies? Here's a sample:

"Senator Gone"
"Hadn't met you til tonight"
"Kerry Tax cut will affect 900,000 small businesses"
"I'm in the Senate most Tuesdays"
"I have never suggested a connection between Saddam and 9-11"
"Tenet testified to 10-year relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda"
"Allies providing debt relief to Iraq"

And that's just what I could throw up here in about ten minutes time. Did Edwards twist a few things to support his agenda? Sure - that's to be expected of every politician. So Cheney should get a little slack, but not a blank check to lie all night long. There's a huge difference.

So now that I've had a chance to reflect, I think Edwards will be remembered as getting the better of Cheney. Not by a rout (Kerry-Bush I), but there are some underlying things that make me think history will look better on Edwards than Cheney. First, the lie about not meeting Edwards until the debate has absolutley blown up in Cheney's face. It's all over the place now. This one has legs because it's simple, it's easy for the TV media to play with, and it's so unrelated to any real election issues.

The other thing that works so much more in Edwards favor is his connection to "average folks." He comes off as authentic and talks the same language as "everyday people." He expressed real concern and interest in the domestic problems in this country while Cheney really showed no spark or sincerity. Cheney tried to express a "common touch" quality with his bit about having a similar personal history as Edwards, but it was not very convincing and he did not deliver it very well. Besides, as a sitting VP with his reputation, if you have to compare yourself with a freshman Senator you've just been slashing for over an hour, you really come off a bit fake and even more out-of-touch.

In the end, I think Edwards kept the Dems excited, and helped the ticket build on the foundation Kerry laid Thursday night. Cheney probably statisfied his base to a large degree, but did little to reach out to undecideds. The bigger problem for the R's is that Cheney isn't debating on Friday, it's Bush, and if he blows it again, then they are in serious trouble. If he makes a comeback, then the third debate may be the deciding event.

Are the wheels coming off?

What the hell is going on? First, Bush gets hammered at the debate. Then, over the weekend, the administration gets sandbagged when the NY Times publishes an expose on the fuel rods and Condi's all over the sunday talk shows spinning like mad. Colin once again regrets his using bad intelligence. Rumsfeld comes out yesterday and admits that not only was the WMD evidence faulty, but there was apparently no connection between Saddam and 9-11 (he later said he was "misinterpreted," even though he was quoted word-for-word). Paul Bremer then says we didn't have enough troops in Iraq from the start, and that it's one of the reasons things have not gone as well as everyone thought they would.

Wow. Where is the famous "message discipline" of the Bush administration?

Now if that's not enough, some very important economic data is coming out this week and what's been released so far has not been pretty for the GOP. MSNBC reports that job lay-offs were at an eight-month high for September, and only 16,000 new job openings were announced last month, compared to 132,000 for August. This data suggests that the jobs report, slated to come out Friday, may be far below the predicted number of 148,000 (August saw 144,000 jobs added). If so, Bush will be cut off at the knees heading into the town-hall debate that night in St. Louis.

Oh, and the price of oil continues to climb - $51 per barrell and rising. Growth in the service sector of the economy declined.

October is quickly becoming a very scary month for the Bush campaign.

The First Debate

Round one to John Kerry. No doubt. Kerry was calm and cool while delivering shot after shot of heavy criticism at the President while delivering to the audience his clear, unmistakable position on the critical foreign policy issues. He was outstanding on North Korea, and deftly handled the canard about his vote on the $87 billion. He was very effective in clearly articulating his commitment to defending the country both at home and abroad. Boffo performance.

Bush was poor at best. He started decently enough and really only needed to come off as the "aw-shucks" guy we're all familiar with to walk away from this debate with his dignity intact. He's the incumbant, he only needed a tie to be successful. He couldn't do it though as Kerry's criticisms became more poignant and sharp. Bush began losing his composure, straying from his script, demanding rebuttal minutes that he then fumbled, leading to more damaging blows from Kerry. He communicated a lot of negative emotions through facial expressions and body language.

The only thing "on message" Bush communicated effectively was his infallable belief in his own ability to protect the country and that being a war president is "hard work." I don't think that's what the country really wanted to see. People are looking for a President, but what they saw in Bush was a pissed-off frat boy who'd rather be screwing around with his cronies than seriously debating critical political issues. Bush had a pretty low bar to cross over, and he couldn't even do that. He failed, badly. This was an unmitigated disaster for the Bush campaign (despite their spin), and if Kerry wins the election, will be regarded as the defining moment of this campaign.

Let's remember the context here - this was supposed to be Bush's strongest subject - the war on terror and homeland security. He was beaten on his own turf. Kerry turned the boat towards Bush and drove right at him. Bush wanted to get the hell out of Dodge. Each candidates' performance at the debate last night, in my mind, reflected quite clearly on the biography of each man. Kerry took the fight to the enemy, never wavered, and showed guts and determination - much as he did in 'Nam. Bush started off well enough, but got bored, agitated, angry and wanted it to be over so he could go back to being the dauphin - much like his Texas Guard career.

The question now, I think, is whether this new twist will be reflected in the polls - will people finally decide they are voting for Kerry more than against Bush. Given the compressed schedule of the debates (Oct. 5 [VP], 8 & 13), things might be a little fluid until the thrid week of the month. If last night's trend continues, I cautiously expect JFK to go in front in the polls around the 20th, leaving him two weeks to finish the thing off. The pressure is on Cheney Tuesday night to restore the Cons' faith that the campaign has some idea of what its doing, because the whispers are starting, at least as far as the blogosphere goes.

Of course, things could change. Kerry could really gaffe it in the next round, or Edwards might get chewed up by the Prince of Darkness. I have no delusions about the fact that Kerry/Edwards still need to be darn-near-perfect to win it, given what they're up against. And of course, there will no doubt be some sort of "October Surprise."

Without a doubt, it will definately be interesting.

Bush's Resume

http://atlanta.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/12731102.html

Quite impressive. If I had a job to offer him, I'd consider interviewing him. Well, I would have before the debate last night. Oy!