Cheney, Rice, Powell, Bush - liars all

This New York Times editorial pulls it all together -- The Nuclear Bomb That Wasn't.
"The more we learn about the way Mr. Bush paved the road to war, the more it becomes disturbingly clear that if he was not aware that he was feeding misinformation to the world, he was about the only one in his circle who had not been clued in . . . It's shocking that with all this information readily available, Secretary of State Colin Powell still went before the United Nations to repeat the bogus claims, an appearance that gravely damaged his reputation. It's even more disturbing that Vice President Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, had not only failed to keep the president from misleading the American people, but had also become the chief proponents of the "mushroom cloud" rhetoric. . . If Ms. Rice did her job and told Mr. Bush how ludicrous the case was for an Iraqi nuclear program, then Mr. Bush terribly misled the public. If not, she should have resigned for allowing her boss to start a war on the basis of bad information and an incompetent analysis."

Go Riders Go!

So we're sitting around watching The Score last night when the numbers flashed by on the ticker -- Saskatchewan 34, Montreal 19, 10 minutes to play.
WTF? What did that say? We had to sit through the ticker cycle again, just to see it, just to make sure.
If there was one game just about everyone had pretty well written off for the Riders this year, it was this one. No matter that Danny Barrett had pointed out that they had only lost to Montreal previously this season, twice I think, by a combined total of 10 points. Yeah, but when was the last time the Riders won against the Als?
Well, the miracle happened -- Kenton Keith runs for 146 yards as the Roughriders beat Montreal 35-19
I'm pretty sure my brother was down to Regina for that game, so he'll tell us all about it when he drops over today. Ah, sweet victory! Good job, guys!

Say it loud - basic health care for every American

The next debate is the BIG ONE -- Kerry MUST seal the deal with American voters.
Bush will try to keep the focus on tax cuts -- his ONLY domestic policy.
I think Kerry must stress health care, health care, health care -- there is nothing more basic to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", and nothing more frightening to the American voter than losing their health insurance. Fear over health care is the domestic equivalent of fear of terrorism.
The democrats may be tempted to focus on jobs -- but other than dealing with outsourcing, there is not much that any government can really do about jobs per se. Health care, on the other hand, is a realistic promise.
Here is Canada, Paul Martin basically won the election last June with his promise to fix health care. The media considered it a "ho hum" promise -- but people responded to it and decided to give the government one more chance. And after a summer of listening to the premiers fart around, Martin delivered.

Be brave

I loved the way Mike Wilson framed this in a comment, so I wanted to highlight it here:
Bush's core message is "Be afraid. I'm a tough guy who will go it alone to protect you. Leave everything to me. Don't worry your pretty little head about how."
Kerry's core message is "Be brave. Though there is much to fear, I'm not afraid and neither should you be. We will work together with our friends for mutual protection."
Exactly.
I had to miss the debate itself because of a social obligation, so I was thrilled to get home and check the blogs and find out how well Kerry had done. My daughter watched it and we agreed when we were talking about it tonight that the Democratic base is now on the march -- the previous attitude of "well, I'll vote for Kerry to get rid of Bush" is now "I'll vote for Kerry because he'll be a damn good president."

What can you do in five minutes?

After Bush was told "America is under attack" on 9/11. he spent the next five minutes or more sitting and flipping through My Pet Goat.
Now, in five minutes, I can sweep the kitchen floor, or mix up a cake mix, or fold a load of laundry. I can run across the street to help a boy who fell off his bike, or bandage my daughter's bloody knee, or remove a sliver from my son's finger. I can deal with a phone call at work, or type up an email, or proofread a poster.
So what's the explanation for why Bush took five minutes to do anything on 9/11?
When FOXNews ballyhooed that O'Reilly was going to ask him the big question about why he just sat there, I just had to check to see what his answer was:
"O'REILLY: One of the big propaganda things against you is the classroom in Florida after 9/11 when Andrew Card came in and whispered in your ear. . . . Let's clear this up once and for all. What were you thinking?
BUSH: I was thinking America was under attack, I was collecting my thoughts, and I wasn't about to panic a bunch of kids. And the program was winding down, I waited for the end of the program, I excused myself and I went to action. And what the American people will judge me on is whether or not I handled that crisis, in a way that lets them know that, that I'll lead in this war on terror, that's what they need to look at, and I think they are looking at it that way."
So I guess he only appeared to be stunned and speechless, frozen with fear, unable to move, needing someone to tell him what to do. Actually, he was 'collecting his thoughts' -- they must have been pretty scattered, eh?

Progressive Women Bloggers Ring

Thanks to Shaula at tsuredzuregusa, I just applied to join the Progressive Women Bloggers Ring See all the links, below. Looks like a terrific group.

Five cruicial questions for the media to ask about Bush's performance during the debate

Josh Marshall describes the problem with the "post-debate debate" in this post at Talking Points Memo. He emphasizes how important it is for dems to begin framing the crucial debate issues NOW rather than later.
In other words, if they don't take steps now, the Dems will get a "post debate analysis" of how sweaty Kerry got under the TV lights. Its already part of the RNC spin.
So the Dems should focus their frame on the following five crucial questions:
1. Will Bush's receeding hairline allow too much forehead shine in the television glare?
2. Is his hair too wispy to show well in the debate backdrop?
3. Will the debate rule against using any stepstools or platforms make Bush look too short and fat beside Kerry? Will the podium be short enough that Bush can lean on it as he likes to do when speaking?
4. Will Bush find the warning lights too distracting? Will these throw him off balance during his answers?
5. Will there be sufficient water available so that Bush does not have to keep constantly licking his lips during his answers?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Someone may be tapping the phone, but they're not listening

Well, the US war on terror doesn't seem to be going so well on the home front, either.
If there actually are any real terrorists making phone calls these days, I guess they can stop bothering to speak in code. How incredibly unlucky would they have to be if any phone call they made actually got translated? MSNBC - FBI lags in translating audio from terror probes -- the article says the FBI had more than 300,000 hours of untranslated tapes. And remember the news a few days ago (see my Saturday post) that all a terrorist has to do to get off the No-Fly list is change his name?
The problem is this -- too much technology, not enough focus! Sure they can record hundreds of thousands of hours of phone calls, which which ones are the important ones? And they can put thousands of people on No-Fly lists, but which ones are actually dangerous? While US agencies spend millions of dollars and hundreds of hours sorting through all this data, their systems are so convoluted and information-overloaded that any real terrorist could dance rings around it.
And now the War in Iraq is adding thousands of new potential "terrorists" to their phone tap and airline lists, as Iraqis and Muslims all over the Middle East get angrier and angrier at the United States.
Nice going, guys. Now, does everyone feel safer?

Flagpole article?

This bizarre article - Reporters Put Under Scrutiny in C.I.A. Leak - strikes me as a flagpole article - "let's run it up the flagpole, boys, and see who salutes!"
The article hints that no charges are going to be laid -- ". . . investigation inside the government, in which the president, the vice president and many other officials have been questioned, seems to have been both exhaustive and inconclusive . . . ". And while the text seems to confirm that Scooter Libby is one of the guilty ones -- "The four reporters who have testified in the Plame case say they talked about conversations with I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff . . . Mr. Libby's lawyer, Joseph A. Tate, said Mr. Libby had signed a form authorizing reporters to tell prosecutors about their conversations with him.. " -- the graphic implies he is not, or at least, not the only guilty one.
So the article, itself, becomes the prosecution if the investigation stalls.
And if the public and blogger reaction is that of course journalists should protect their sources, that the public interest demands it - well, then, that's the end of the investigation. If the reaction, however, is one of horrified disgust - how dare they connive at protecting a criminal? - then maybe the investigation continues.

"The Americans will defeat the Americans"

CBC broadcast Control Room tonight -- its a documentary about Al Jazeera during the Iraq Warm up to about mid-May, 2003. What a terrific show.
Lots of terrific scenes and fascinating people, but the most affecting line for me came from CentCom reporter Hassam. When one of the other reporters asked him, before the war began, who would defeat the Americans, he said "America." His colleagues looked at him, and he explained, "America will defeat the Americans. The US Constitution. I believe in the US Constitution."
There, in one line, is the hope of the world, that Americans themselves will use the strength of their own constitutional foundation to turf out the neocons who have tried to jettison it.
See it if you can.

Utterly ridiculous

This Washington Post editorial points out the stupidity of how the 'No fly' lists are being enforced. Moonshadow Boxing
But here's a sentence that points out the stupidity of the lists themselves: "Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) apparently shares a name with someone on the no-fly list and has been told several times that he can't fly. So have numerous other non-terrorists. At least one person says he was told that he needed to have his name legally changed to avoid the problem in the future. " (emphasis mine)
So if legally changing your name is sufficient to avoid the 'No fly' list, what would stop a "real" terrorist from just changing his name, and flying all over the country? The whole thing appears to be just a ridiculous waste of time and money for everyone.

Those who live by the sword . . .

This Washington Monthly article "Perverse Polarity" by Paul Glastris lays the blame for increased partisanship in Washington at the door of the radical republican right.
Glastris concludes "The point is that [Republicans] have clearly taken the lead in dismantling bipartisanship by uniting around a radically conservative agenda and consciously--even gleefully--defying the old unwritten rules of politics that once kept partisanship and ideology in check. The same simply does not hold true on the other side of the political spectrum. You can say a lot of things about the Democrats. You can say the party's grassroots loathes Bush just as intensely as Republicans loathed Clinton. You can say Democratic members of Congress have, belatedly, become less naive about making deals with the Bush administration. But you can't say Democrats have moved farther to the left. They have recognized a radical presidency for what it is--but that does not make them radical as well."
Now, I am not a political scientist nor an expert on history, but in my observation, radicalism always leads, ultimately. to marginalization.
A radical agenda is, by definition, an ideological agenda. Radical ideology does not work in a democracy for the long term because it is not responsive. When ideas matter more than people, the ideology does not, because it cannot, respond to people's needs. In the end, provided that the elections are held fairly, of course, ideology is ALWAYS voted out eventually.
Even a cursory look at the politics of democracies in the 20th century proves this case -- in England, conservatives hold sway for a decade or two, then labour comes back with a rush when people finally get fed up. In Saskatchewan, the NDP get defeated when they simply will not listen to people's complaints. In Quebec, the Parti Quebecois loses when people get tired of the rhetoric. And, of course, if the next government also proves to be too ideological, then ultimately it gets turfed as well.
What drives Conservatives in Canada mad is that people simply will not vote the Liberals out of power -- the federal liberals refuse ideology as a basis for most of their political decisions, preferring polls and focus groups -- you might say their ideology is simply that they govern based on what people want. Ideologues on both sides call this cynical and pandering -- but actually, it works out quite well. Basically, if enough people want a non-ideological government to do something, then such a government will do it. That's OK with me.
Getting back to the situation in the US, the more ideological the republicans get, the more certain it is that ultimately they will lose. And it is the needless, ideological war in Iraq that will be their undoing. Just as Vietnam and the Iran hostage crisis were blamed on the democrats, which allowed the republicans to elect Nixon and Reagan, so America will blame the republican ideologues for Iraq -- and rightfully so.
Bush and Cheney cling to their justification of Iraq as payback for 9/11, as a crucial battleground in the War on Terror. But as the situation deteriorates there day by day, as it becomes more apparent that the US is losing Iraq, then even that linkage turns around and bites them in the ass -- if Iraq were, actually, a crucial battleground, then losing in Iraq means the US is losing the War on Terror, does it? And whose fault is that? Not only that, but they're also losing in Afghanistan, as the debacle-to-come in the Afghan elections in two weeks will make clear. They can writhe and snap at Kerry, and try to blame the UN, and the French, and everyone else, but basically they are twisting in the wind.

Kerry and the debates

The presidential debates are set. Its three-- which is an indication that Bush knows he is in serious trouble.
Now, the media meme is all about how terrific Bush is at connecting with the people, and how stiff and wooden and convoluted Kerry is. So count on the major media's "coverage" of the debates to pick Kerry's responses to pieces while applauding Bush for not tripping on the stage.
Remember how Gore actually "won" the first debate - his polls were up -- until the media decided overnight that he had actually lost and so announced it the next day?
The difference this time could be the blogs. Reporters deride them, but they read them -- don't ever think they don't -- and increasingly they take their direction from them.
Now, the right-wing bloggers will be doing their very best to put the positive spin on everything Bush says.
So it is the BOUNDEN DUTY of every good blogger to do the same for Kerry.
Kerry has a better plaform than Bush does, so have no doubt -- he will win these debates. But its crucial that the debates get reported this way.
First and foremost: Edit yourself! Refrain from blogging any policy quibbles and strategy critiques, which would lead reporters to intone things like "Senator Kerry's message tonight got a mixed reaction even from his own supporters.....blah, blah"
Second: Praise Kerry's engaging smile and throw in a mention of basset hound eyes (everybody loves bassets; heartwarming, friendly)
Third: Don't forget to mention Kerry's "commanding" presence and demeanour (tall, dominating, authoritative, etc etc). Bush's least remarked-upon trait is his remarkable resemblance to Mad Magazine's Alfred E Newman, which is getting more pronounced as his hair thins and as Alfred's "What Me Worry?" slogan becomes ever more applicable. The physical contrast with Kerry could not be greater.
Fourth, and very important: Repeat and echo every good Kerry line and phrase. He will have some good zingers, and a lot of thoughtful phrases which may not be delivered as well as they could be. It is every good blogger's duty to make sure they are highlighted.
Gentlemen, start your engines . . .

UN bashing

Here's the new RNC talking point -- Iraq is all the UN's fault. Listening to some US news broadcasts tonight about Bush's speech, the tone was that the UN should have helped more and because America had to do it alone, no wonder the troops are having problems and the UN said they would help with the elections but they aren't doing that either.
The New York Times criticizes Bush's speech as self-serving - President Bush's Lead Balloon: "Mr. Bush might have done better at wooing broader international support if he had spent less time on self-justification and scolding and more on praising the importance of international cooperation and a strengthened United Nations. Instead, his tone-deaf speechwriters achieved a perverse kind of alchemy, transforming a golden opportunity into a lead balloon. "
But they don't get it -- Bush didn't go to the UN to get anything done -- he just wanted to begin to establish the new talking point line. And bashing the UN has the side-benefit of undermining Kerry's approach for getting more international support.

"We were misled"

Compare and contrast:
"We were misled" says Dan Rather in MSNBC's story CBS News admits Bush documents can't be verified. The story continues "Rather acknowledged CBS failed to properly determine whether the documents were genuine." -- Sept. 20, 2004
Result: CBS election coverage tainted, credibility lost; RNC delighted with opportunity to try to smear the Kerry campaign. Talk shows hysterical.
"Before the war, the U.S. intelligence community told the president as well as the Congress and the public that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and if left unchecked would probably have a nuclear weapon during this decade. Today we know these assessments were wrong." says Senator Pat Roberts, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee in CNN's story Report slams CIA for Iraq intelligence failures. The story says that intelligence used to support the invasion of Iraq was based on assessments that were "unreasonable and largely unsupported by the available intelligence." -- Friday, July 9, 2004
Result: 1,100 US troops dead, 8,000 wounded; 20,000 Iraqis dead; Iraq infrastructure destroyed; cost of $200 billion and rising; Al Quaida recruiting bonanza. Talk shows hysterical but Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheney all keep their jobs. Tenent retires.
Somehow, there's really no comparison . . .