September 2004 Archives

"Stamps.com to Halt PhotoStamps Program":

Stamps.com Inc., which sells postage stamps over the Internet, said the U.S. Postal Service had asked it to suspend its trial PhotoStamps program for evaluation.

Stamps.com will stop taking orders Friday for PhotoStamps, which allow customers to turn their photographs into postage stamps, the Santa Monica-based company said.

Better grab those Ted Kaczynski stamps while you still can.

According to Gallup, among registered voters Kerry leads in both Pennsylvania and Ohio, one of which Bush must win. And yet the collective MSNBCNNFOX narrative is that it's desparation time for Kerry because tonight's debate is his "last chance" to get back in the race.

Go figure.

Juan Cole:

When you are deep in a hole, the first rule is to stop digging. Whatever Bush has been doing in Iraq for the past 18 months demonstrably has not worked. He desperately needs a change of mind on these policies. He needs to try something else.

The image of him giggling about Kerry changing his mind on Iraq takes on a chilling aspect when you think of him as Captain Joseph Hazelwood of the Exxon Valdez. Hazelwood told the helsman to steer right and then went to bed. The helsman didn't steer far enough right, and plowed into the Bligh Reef and disaster. Part of the reason was that corporate cost cutting had left the ship without radar. If you think about it, in fact, a wrecked oil tanker is a good image of Bush administration Iraq policy.

Bush should stop slapping his thigh and guffawing about that flipflopper Kerry and being to think seriously about changing his mind on some key policies himself. Otherwise, an Iraq as failed state could pose a supreme danger to the United States, the kind of danger that the Bligh Reef posed to the Exxon Valdez.

One of the side effects (undoubtedly by design) of Bush making the Kerry flip flop theme the centerpiece of his campaign is that it allows him to avoid explaining his plans for Iraq. We're told that if we simply stay the course everything will magically turn out okay. Well, that doesn't work if the course leads you to ram the ship ashore. And to date we've received no other directions.

I didn't witness it, but this incident occurred within walking distance of the Resonance world headquarters:

A brawl involving about a dozen people including rival Bearden High School students that allegedly began with one student spitting Kool-Aid on another's car ended Wednesday with a shooting and two people in the hospital.
. . .
One person, apparently an adult, was shot, and a person thought to be a high school student was struck in the head with a baseball bat, witnesses said. Investigators questioned between 10 and 12 people involved in the fight, Sexton said.
. . .
Witnesses said the shooter, thought to be a high school student, was aiming at the student who allegedly spat on his car. Instead, he struck another person, who Bass described as a high school graduate.

The older, adult brother of the shooter's intended target then struck the alleged shooter with a baseball bat, witnesses said. All the while, other students continued to fight, witnesses said.

Bass said the shooting suspect was wearing a hooded sweatshirt with the word "Shooter" stitched on the front.

Now there's a reason to shoot someone--because he spit on the car.

If there's anything worse than having a self-promoting "shooter" in the neighborhood, it's having a bad shooter roaming about.

Good thing I've got two guard cats here for protection.

According to this, the US military has "lost" 11 nuclear bombs over the years.

There's a comforting thought.

Authorities are currently searching for one of them off the Georgia coast.

Interesting how the talking heads on MSNBCNNFOX today seemed more distressed over how the candidates' debate agreement forbids TV "cut away" shots than they did about the prohibition against the candidates having an actual debate.

Not to worry, though. The networks maintain they have loft "journalistic standards" which must not be violated by a mere candidates' agreement--at least when it comes to those all important camera angles.

If the Department of Homeland Security ever gets around to issuing another terror alert bulletin (isn't it curious how quiet they've been since Bush surged ahead at the GOP convention?), it might be to watch out for terrorists operating under a new disguise:

Iraqi security forces captured a suspected terrorist operating on Baghdad's blood-soaked Haifa street -- cornering him today in a cupboard as he was disguising himself with his wife's underwear.
. . .
Acting on tips by local residents, Abdullah said Iraqi security troops backed by Us forces caught Kadhim al-Dafan as he hid out in his home. The suspected terrorist reportedly told Abdullah he was hurriedly trying to disguise himself with his wife�s underclothing.

Beware of suspicious-looking men wearing women's underwear.

Last night I saw Bill Maher make a good point regarding the debate spin cycle: it's funny how these candidates spend the entire year trying to convince voters that his opponent can't walk and chew gum at the same time. But then as the debate approaches, the other guy suddenly becomes one of the great orators of our time.

The secret contents of another intelligence "guess" have been disclosed:

The same intelligence unit that produced a gloomy report in July about the prospect of growing instability in Iraq warned the Bush administration about the potential costly consequences of an American-led invasion two months before the war began, according to government officials.

The estimate came in two classified reports prepared for President George W. Bush in January 2003 by the National Intelligence Council, an independent group that advises the director of central intelligence. The assessments predicted that an American-led invasion of Iraq would increase support for political Islam and would result in a deeply divided Iraqi society prone to violent internal conflict.

One of the reports also warned of a possible insurgency against the new Iraqi government or American-led forces, saying that rogue elements from Saddam Hussein's government could work with existing terrorist groups or act independently to wage guerrilla warfare, the officials said. The assessments also said a war would increase sympathy across the Islamic world for some terrorist objectives, at least in the short run, the officials said.

What can we glean from this?

(1) Someone in the intelligence community isn't a happy camper and keeps leaking details from these classified reports;

(2) The meltdown formerly known as Iraq shouldn't have come as a surprise to the Bush administration;

(3) The administration's failure to plan for or respond to the insurgency demonstrates just how incompetent it is;

(4) There's a good chance we're generating more terrorism than we're preventing by occupying Iraq.

How long do we have to repeatedly see this kind of information before American voters start to understand that pounding "resolve" into a podium is no substitute for sound foreign policy.

We've got four days for the political TV talking heads to hype up this week's presidential debate. But just what kind of debate will we see?

Still, officials of the debate commission said they were agreeing primarily to those things Mr. Bush's aides had emphasized as especially important to them: a strict time limit on candidate responses, an electronic warning when candidates exceed their speaking time that can be seen and heard by viewers at home, and a prohibition against the candidates' directly posing questions to each other.

I don't think the cosmetic and procedural rules are a big deal. But the latter condition--that candidates can't question each other--is huge. Unless the moderator is really on top of it--and I don't have great confidence he will be--it means that this "debate" will likely be little more than a glorified forum for the candidates to recite their canned talking points. Don't expect a very substantive argument on the issues this Thursday night.

In Iraq, the U.S. government is risking thousands of American lives and spending hundreds of billions of dollars, allegedly in part to give Iraqi citizens the right to vote.

But here in America the government is threatening to disenfranchise thousands of newly-registered voters if their registration isn't printed on 80-pound stock paper.

What a bizarre world we live in.

UPDATE: It may be even worse. According to this commenter, the Ohio Secretary of State itself distributed forms that don't comply with the 80-pound requirement it is now attempting to enforce.

Our hard-headed decisive leader strikes again:

President Bush said he had no regrets about donning a flight suit to give his "Mission Accomplished" speech on Iraq in May 2003 and would do it all over again if he had the chance, according to excerpts from an television interview released on Sunday.

When asked by Fox News if he still would have put on a flight suit to declare major combat operations in Iraq over, Bush replied, "Absolutely."

I guess that means we've had 900 Americans die in "minor" combat operations, if that's any comfort to their families.

Several bloggers have noted how this response illustrates how detached from reality Bush is. But it really shouldn't surprise anyone, should it? For months Bush has been boasting on his ability to smash U.S. foreign policy into the Iraqi wall without blinking. Do you think he's going to lose sleep over a speech?

I think the more startling or disturbing part of the released excerpts is this:

Amid a rising U.S. death toll and a rash of abductions and beheadings in Iraq, some members of Bush's own Republican Party have criticized him for not doing enough to secure insurgent areas in Iraq sooner.

But Bush said he also did not regret the decision to withdraw U.S. forces from the rebel stronghold of Falluja earlier this year because he believed the conflict there could have jeopardized the June handover of sovereignty to Iraqis.

You remember Falluja, don't you? It's the place where, against the military leaders' best judgment Bush ordered a rushed attack against the city's insurgency, then ordered them to pull out before they had finished their objectives. And the reason why? Because Bush didn't want military operations interfering with the symbolic transfer of power.

How typical. The top priority in Bush world is not in doing the hard work to fix problems, it's to "keep promises" for use on the campaign trail and to conduct meaningless photo-ops. And that's one of the reasons Iraq is a mess today.

Mount St. Helens is rumbling again.

Current updates here.

We don't need this:

The Bush administration's failure to shut down al-Qaida and its bungled efforts to rebuild Iraq have fueled the insurgency and made America more vulnerable to a nuclear attack by terrorists, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy said in his latest screed against the president's war policies.

Kennedy, in remarks prepared for delivery to George Washington University students Monday, said that by shifting attention from Osama bin Laden to Iraq, Bush has increased the danger of a ''nuclear 9-11.''

I agree with the general proposition that a number of the Bush administration's decisions have made us more vulnerable to terrorism. And this might even include nuclear weapons, as Kennedy asserts. But unless Kennedy has specific intelligence pointing this direction, we don't need any more people ratcheting up the national fear factor. The terrorist-related rhetoric in this campaign is spiraling out of control, as many other important national issues are ignored. I've criticized Bush/Cheney '04 for some of their comments, and the same fair-and-balanced guideline applies here. Unless someone has evidence that al Qaeda has a nuclear project in the works, I think we've heard enough about mushroom clouds for one campaign.

A reader at War and Peace makes an excellent point: if part of the "success" in Iraq is that it has allowed us to fight the "terrorists" on the battlefield of our choosing (the so-called flypaper strategy), then why is the US pressuring neighbor states to secure their borders with Iraq? If our intent is to confront the "terrorists" in Baghdad rather than Boston, shouldn't we want porous Iraqi borders to facilitate the terrorist's migration into our trap?

Is it just me, or does it seem like for all the talk we've heard recently about the elections being the magic potion for peace in Iraq, there hasn't been much discussion of what those elections actually mean?

No, it's not just me:

KOPPEL: Despite the positive words from Bush and Allawi, some U.S. officials behind the scenes acknowledge more pessimism that in reality it may be difficult to go ahead with elections as early as January and, if they did, worry whether Iraqis would accept those elections as legitimate -- Aaron.

BROWN: Now, the next challenge for you, having tackled this one for us, is to explain the complicated nature of the election itself how they're -- it's not like they're going to vote for a president and a vice president and members of Congress. They're talking about this big block of votes.

KOPPEL: And I can give you a real quick answer. They don't know yet. I mean a lot of these things have to be -- have to be worked out. In fact, they're thinking people would vote for a party and then the block of parties and then the parties would pick the representatives to go to parliament.

And, it is just -- there are so many steps that have as yet to be ironed out. Many people are saying even if security is not an issue, how are they going to lay the groundwork for elections in four months?

So not only do we not know if the elections can be pulled off logistically, we don't yet even know what Iraqis will be voting for.

But enough of this pessimistic talk. Freedom is on the march, provided Kerry and the terrorists step out of the way.

I go out of town for half a day and the whole blog falls apart--literally. I inadvertently let my account with the hosting company lapse yesterday. So if you stopped by and didn't find anything here, that was the reason.

Yesterday afternoon I went to the mountains. Would you believe that in the dozens of trips I've made to the Smokies over the years, I have never hiked up Mount Leconte? I went up the Alum Cave Bluff trail. Not the easiest five-mile climb, but I made it without incident. Wow, what a spectacular view! I'll post some pictures soon.

SayUncle offers would-be hostages advice on how to respond to their abductors.

President Bush, on the quality of the intelligence reports he receives:

July 14, 2003

Well, let me first say that -- I think the intelligence I get is darn good intelligence. And the speeches I have given were backed by good intelligence.

September 21, 2004

The CIA laid out a -- several scenarios that said, life could be lousy, like could be okay, life could be better. And they were just guessing as to what the conditions might be like. The Iraqi citizens are defying the pessimistic predictions.

When did our "darn good intelligence"--errrr--"guessing" turn "pessimistic"?

Whenever a candidate can't make his case for himself based on facts, an easy out is to start distorting his opponent. Here's what President Bush said yesterday:

We agree that the world is better off with Saddam Hussein sitting in a prison cell. And that stands in stark contrast to the statement my opponent made yesterday when he said that the world was better off with Saddam in power.

Wow. Who wants a president who supports brutal dictators ruling the world? Boo Kerry.

But wait a minute. Is that what Kerry really said? From his speech:

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.

[Olliver Willis has this comparison in video format from ABC News.]

I don't see anything there about the world being "better off" with Saddam. So where did that come from? Did Bush simply make it up?

What Kerry's statement recognizes is the basic economics of foreign policy. Yes, there was a benefit in removing Saddam Hussein. But that's only half the story. The benefit has come at a tremendous cost: thousands of people killed and maimed, hundreds of billions of dollars spend, and Middle East instability. In assessing a policy, you've got to weigh how the world is better off against how things are worse off. And in the judgment of many people, including Kerry, the benefit of removing Saddam hasn't been worth the cost.

Sometime I'd like to see a reporter (with guts) ask President Bush if he thinks the world is better off with Kim Jong Il in power. Because I haven't seen Bush lift a finger to remove the North Korean leader. And according to Bush's twisted logic, if you don't support the military ouster of a national leader, you must think the world is better off with that ruler in place.

President Bush yesterday:

In the words of the Burmese democracy advocate, Aung San Suu Kyi: "We do not accept the notion that democracy is a Western value. To the contrary; democracy simply means good government rooted in responsibility, transparency, and accountability."

There's classic irony for you. These are three of the last terms one would associate with this administration.

Kerry gets funny on The Late Show with David Letterman:

Kerry also poked fun at the tedious debate negotiations between the rival campaigns that ended in agreement Monday. Kerry said he wanted running mate John Edwards to stand in the vice presidential debate, but Cheney wanted to sit. "We compromised and now George Bush is going to sit on Dick Cheney's lap," he said.

And the Top Ten:

Kerry's "Top 10 Bush Tax Proposals" are

10. No estate tax for families with at least two U.S. presidents.

9. W-2 Form is now Dubya-2 Form.

8. Under the simplified tax code, your refund check goes directly to Halliburton.

7. The reduced earned income tax credit is so unfair, it just makes me want to tear out my lustrous, finely groomed hair.

6. Attorney General (John) Ashcroft gets to write off the entire U.S. Constitution.

5. Texas Rangers can take a business loss for trading Sammy Sosa.

4. Eliminate all income taxes; just ask Teresa (Heinz Kerry) to cover the whole damn thing.

3. Cheney can claim Bush as a dependent.

2. Hundred-dollar penalty if you pronounce it "nuclear" instead of "nucular."

1. George W. Bush gets a deduction for mortgaging our entire future.

Overall, Kerry appeared fairly relaxed and good humored (which appears to require some effort). The sad thing is that this appearance probably had a greater impact on undecided voters than his Iraq policy speech earlier in the day. But that's the America we live in.

Kerry is currently having his first press conference sometime in over a month. Good. I don't know why he's been avoiding reporters recently.

I see the Kerry campaign has already set up a fund to pay the expenses associated with a potential election recount effort.

You'd like to think we won't be going there again. But given all the controversy we've already seen over voting machines and the behavior of some electoral commissions, it wouldn't come as a surprise.

Many right wing pundits are giddy today regarding CBS's admission that the Bush memo story was a 'mistake'. Certainly CBS does have egg on the face for a very sloppy episode of journalism.

I wonder, however, how many of these pundits who have been on the warpath against CBS's credibility for relying on forged documents did the same last year against the government when it made claims based on fake papers. Funny how I don't recall those stones being hurled.

I may not be Arab, Muslim, or 6 feet 5 inches tall, but there is one thing I apparently have in common with Osama bin Laden: both of us want John Kerry to win:

House Speaker Dennis Hastert said Saturday that he believes Al Qaeda operatives will use terrorism to try to influence the Nov. 2 election to sway opinion toward Democrat John Kerry over President Bush.

"I don't have data or intelligence to tell me one thing or another, [but] I would think they would be more apt to go [for] somebody who would file a lawsuit with the World Court or something rather than respond with troops," said Hastert, a Republican from Plano.

Asked directly by reporters whether he believed Al Qaeda could operate better with Kerry in the White House, Hastert replied, "That's my opinion, yes."

Lovely. Of course Hastert doesn't have any evidence to support his fear mongering, it's just something in his gut he feels compelled to share. Vote for my party or you risk being killed.

These people disgust me.

UPDATE: In the comments, Len Cleavelin points to Juan Cole's post on this. Bottom line: Al Qaeda really doesn't care who is president:

Al-Qaeda does not care who wins the elections. If the US withdraws from Iraq (which could happen willy-nilly under Bush as easily as under Kerry), that would be seen as a victory by al-Qaeda. If the US remains in Iraq for years, bleeding at the hands of an ongoing guerrilla insurgency, then that is also a victory for al-Qaeda from their point of view. They therefore just don't care which candidate wins. They hate general US policy in the Middle East, which would not change drastically under Kerry. To any extent that al-Qaeda is giving serious thought to the US elections, it would see no significant difference between the candidates. But given its goal of creating more polarization between the US and the Muslim World, it is entirely possible that the al-Qaeda leadership would prefer Bush, since they want to "sharpen the contradictions."

I haven't read any surveys of al Qaeda, but I think this is right. It's not about our president, it's not about our "freedoms"--it's about our policy. But that's a topic for a separate post.

Kos introduces George Lakoff's new book entitled Don't think of an elephant!, which discusses how "conservatives" and "liberals" view and discuss issues.

Looks like an interesting book.

Interesting speculation by Robert Novak on Bush administration plan for Iraq. Consider the source:

Inside the Bush administration policymaking apparatus, there is strong feeling that U.S. troops must leave Iraq next year. This determination is not predicated on success in implanting Iraqi democracy and internal stability. Rather, the officials are saying: Ready or not, here we go.
. . .
Whether Bush or Kerry is elected, the president or president-elect will have to sit down immediately with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The military will tell the election winner there are insufficient U.S. forces in Iraq to wage effective war. That leaves three realistic options: Increase overall U.S. military strength to reinforce Iraq, stay with the present strength to continue the war, or get out.

Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush's decision will be to get out. They believe that is the recommendation of his national security team and would be the recommendation of second-term officials. An informed guess might have Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, Paul Wolfowitz as defense secretary and Stephen Hadley as national security adviser. According to my sources, all would opt for a withdrawal.
. . .
Abandonment of building democracy in Iraq would be a terrible blow to the neoconservative dream. The Bush administration's drift from that idea is shown in restrained reaction to Russian President Vladimir Putin's seizure of power. While Bush officials would prefer a democratic Russia, they appreciate that Putin is determined to prevent his country from disintegrating as the Soviet Union did before it. A fragmented Russia, prey to terrorists, is not in the U.S. interest.

I'm not exactly what "get out" means here. Removal of a majority of the troops? Removal of all the troops? I have my doubts on the latter. Not because it would contradict what the administration has been saying--we've become accustomed to it saying one thing and doing another--but rather because it would be an abandonment of our military, financial, and corporate interests in the region. Given what we've spent to establish this Middle East beachhead, I'm skeptical that we will completely abandon our investments there.

On a hallowed hill in Tennessee
Like beacon shining bright
The stately walls of old UT
Rise glorious to the sight.

So here's to you old Tennessee
Our alma mater true
We pledge in love and harmony
Our loyalty to you.

What torches kindled at that flame
Have passed from hand to hand
What hearts cemented in that name
Bind land to stranger land.

So here's to you old Tennessee
Our alma mater true
We pledge in love and harmony
Our loyalty to you.

O, ever as we strive to rise
On life's unresting stream
Dear Alma Mater, may our eyes
Be lifted to that gleam.

So here's to you old Tennessee
Our alma mater true
We pledge in love and harmony
Our loyalty to you.

Oh no. The secret liberal plot has been exposed:

Campaign mail with a return address of the Republican National Committee warns West Virginia voters that the Bible will be prohibited and men will marry men if liberals win in November.

The literature shows a Bible with the word "BANNED" across it and a photo of a man, on his knees, placing a ring on the hand of another man with the word "ALLOWED." The mailing tells West Virginians to "vote Republican to protect our families" and defeat the "liberal agenda."

Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie said Friday that he wasn't aware of the mailing, but said it could be the work of the RNC. "It wouldn't surprise me if we were mailing voters on the issue of same-sex marriage," Gillespie said.

Prohibiting Bibles? What kind of delusional people come up with this kind of thing? Do these so-called "Christians" think they have the moral standing to spread lies?

If you've been paying attention to presidential election polls recently, you know they've been rather confusing. Not only has there been a wide disparity in the findings of different polls, but there's also been big fluctuations in the findings of the same polling organizations from week to week.

What accounts for these large swings in the polls? According to The Hotline editor Chuck Todd, it's women:

WOODRUFF: So, you've looked at a lot of numbers, how do you see the women's vote shaping up this year with Bush and Kerry?

TODD: Well, it's interesting. When you see John Kerry's numbers they move when he does well in national polls, it's because he's doing really well among women voters. When President Bush has taken the lead it's because he's improved his numbers among women. This new Pew poll that's out today shows exactly the same movement where President Bush before his convention was only getting 42 percent of women. After his convention he got it up to 48 percent.

Now as John Kerry has made some improvements there, Bush's number is back down to about 43 percent. It's the number that fluctuates. The CNN/Gallup poll right after the convention had President Bush getting 48 percent of the women's vote. There is no way John Kerry can win this election if George Bush is even getting 45 percent of the vote. We did a study in the states. And if you look at the states there's not a single state that George Bush carried of the showdown states where he got less than 45 percent of the vote.

Let's hope voting women wise up by November 2.

Knoxville Utilities Board has a web page where you can check on power outages.

Of course you'll need a power source for your computer to see if your electricity is out.

I was surprised to see all these local schools closed today. I don't recall ever getting a day off of school due to rain--only about three inches of it at that.

Back in the good old days we had to battle the elements armed only with this quaint contraption we called an umbrella. I wonder what ever happened to those things.

Via Andrew Sullivan comes this Ryan Lizza observation on the Bush campaign:

[F]or the most part, spending time on the trail with Bush is like being transported to a parallel universe. The only music is Christian rock and country tunes about plain-talking everymen. The only people who ask the president questions are his most feverish supporters, never the press. In this alternate universe, Iraq and Afghanistan are marching effortlessly toward democracy. The economy is, in the words of former Broncos quarterback John Elway, who introduces Bush in Greenwood Village, "the best in the world." John Kerry, whose platform is to the right of Clinton's in 1992, is calling for a massive expansion of government.

Is Bush out of touch with reality? Well, let's compare and contrast. Here's what Bush had to say yesterday on Iraq:

In Iraq, there's ongoing acts of violence. This country is headed toward democracy. There's a strong Prime Minister in place. They have a national council. And national elections are scheduled for January. It wasn't all that long ago that Saddam Hussein was in power with his torture chambers and mass graves. And today, this country is headed towards elections.

Freedom is on the march.

A beautiful sight, isn't it--freedom is blossoming in Baghdad.

But here's the contrasting view Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) offered yesterday:

"We've gotta be honest with ourselves ... the worst thing we can do is hold ourselves hostage to some grand illusion that we're winning," he told reporters on Thursday.

"Right now we're not winning. Things are getting worse," Hagel added. "Measure that by any measurement you want. More casualties, more deaths, more oil pipeline sabotage, I mean you pick the measurement standard and it's worse than where it was six months ago or 12 months ago."

Hmm, two vastly different assessments. Which one do you think is more attuned to reality?

The former head of the National Security Agency weighs in on Iraq:

"Bush hasn't found the WMD. Al-Qaida, it's worse -- he's lost on that front. That he's going to achieve a democracy there? That goal is lost, too. It's lost." He added: "Right now, the course we're on, we're achieving [Osama] bin Laden's ends."
. . .
"This is far graver than Vietnam," said Gen. Odom. "There wasn't as much at stake strategically, though in both cases we mindlessly went ahead with a war that was not constructive for U.S. aims. But now we're in a region far more volatile and we're in much worse shape with our allies."
. . .
Gen. Odom remarked that the tension between the Bush administration and senior military officers over Iraq is worse than any he has ever seen with any previous U.S. government, including during Vietnam. "I've never seen it so bad between the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military. There's a significant majority believing this is a disaster. The two parties whose interests have been advanced have been the Iranians and al-Qaida. Bin Laden could argue with some cogency that our going into Iraq was the equivalent of the Germans in Stalingrad. They defeated themselves by pouring more in there. Tragic."

Wow, that sounds grim, doesn't it?

But don't worry. Our leader assures us that "freedom is on the march."

Today's lesson in legal ethics:

Model Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 1.8(j):

A lawyer shall not have sexual relations with a client unless a consensual sexual relationship existed between them when the client-lawyer relationship commenced.

What does this mean? It means not to do this:

Theresa Olson, the former King County public defender accused of having sex with her client in a jail meeting room two years ago, testified yesterday that she had an inappropriate relationship and had physical contact with her client, but maintained that it was simply "a hug gone bad."
. . .
Olson is accused of having sex with her client, Sebastian Burns, who was later found guilty with friend Atif Rafay of the 1994 slayings of Rafay's father, mother and sister in their Bellevue home.
. . .
Olson testified that she and Burns had developed romantic feelings for each other, and that when Burns gave her a hug during their August 2002 meeting, she did not pull away.

"I should have, but I did not," she said, adding that the hug � which was more than platonic � had surprised her.

Bar lawyer Joanne Abelson pressed Olson, asking her whether she found the hug "flattering," "exciting," "stimulating" and "thrilling." To each question, Olson replied, "yes."

I guess the lesson here is to be careful with those hugs.

Back when 60 Minutes aired its report featuring the disputed Bush National Guard memos, I pointed out that the White House itself released copies of two of the documents:

After the broadcast, the White House, without comment, released to the news media two of the memos, one ordering Bush to report for his physical exam and the other suspending him from flight status.

At the time I thought it was funny that the White House had these documents, since it claimed it had already released all that it had.

Shortly thereafter, word came out that the White House had received said documents from CBS. Okay, no big deal. But then all the brouhaha about the document's authenticity erupted. Even Laura Bush weighed in, calling the documents apparent forgeries.

This raises an interesting question: if the documents were so clearly false, why did the White House release them without disputing their contents?

Q Scott, on the National Guard documents on "60 Minutes," the First Lady says she believes these are forgeries. The RNC has accused the Democratic Party of being the source of these documents. Knowing then what you know now, would you still have released those documents when you did?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's a hypothetical question, John. We received those documents from a major news organization. We had every reason to believe that they were authentic at that time. And in keeping with the spirit of releasing documents and being open about all the documents that we have, we made those documents available to everybody else so you could look at them yourselves. Since that time there have been a number of questions that have been raised about these documents and their authenticity. There continue to be questions raised. Those are serious issues; they ought to be looked into fully.

How about that--We had every reason to believe that they were authentic at that time. If the White House thought the entire 60 Minutes report was bogus, that would be a reason to question the authenticity of the documents, wouldn't it? But tellingly, it didn't dispute the substance of the report. So the entire debate this last week has not been about Bush's military record--which by all accounts is lacking; instead it's been about the paper trail.

You can always count on the America media to get at the heart of an issue, huh?

According to a report, a nation has been experimenting with chemical weapons in Sudan. And no, it's not Iraq:

Syria tested chemical weapons on civilians in Sudan's troubled western Darfur region in June and killed dozens of people.

The German daily Die Welt newspaper, in an advance release of its Wednesday edition, citing unnamed western security sources, said that injuries apparently caused by chemical arms were found on the bodies of the victims.

It said that witnesses quoted by an Arabic news website called ILAF in an article on August 2 had said that several frozen bodies arrived suddenly at the "Al-Fashr Hospital" in the Sudanese capital Khartoum in June.

Die Welt said the sources had indicated that the weapons tests were undertaken following a military exercise between Syria and Sudan.

One might note that in addition to its weapons of mass destruction program-related activities, Syria has also been involved in state sponsorship of terrorism-related program activities. But it should not be confused with the "axis of evil."

Via The Moderate Voice.

A woman claims she was fired for having a bumper sticker on her car:

"We were going back to work from break, and my manager told me that Phil said to remove the sticker off my car or I was fired," she said. "I told him that Phil couldn't tell me who to vote for. He said, 'Go tell him.' "

She went to Gaddis' office, knocked on the door and entered on his orders.

"Phil and another man who works there were there," she said. "I asked him if he said to remove the sticker and he said, 'Yes, I did.' I told him he couldn't tell me who to vote for. When I told him that, he told me, 'I own this place.' I told him he still couldn't tell me who to vote for."

Gobbell said Gaddis told her to "get out of here."

"I asked him if I was fired and he told me he was thinking about it," she said. "I said, 'Well, am I fired?' He hollered and said, 'Get out of here and shut the door.' "

She said her manager was standing in another room and she asked him if that meant for her to go back to work or go home. The manager told her to go back to work, but he came back a few minutes later and said, " 'I reckon you're fired. You could either work for him or John Kerry,' " Gobbell said.

So one of the freedoms we're always being reminded of in America is the freedom to be fired for displaying a bumber sticker on your own vehicle.

UPDATE: Senator Kerry called the woman and offered her a job.

What does "99.9% Up Time" from a web hosting service mean? It means at some point there will be 0.1% down time. And that's what's happened here recently as the web hosting provider has experience some sort of hard disk problem.

The company is currently in the process of bringing files back on line. But I see that the last few posts and comments have disappeared. Not sure if they will be restored or not.

UPDATE: Technical support says about two day's worth of blog-related activities has vanished from the server. Alas.

Elsewhere in the "Axis of Evil":

President Bush and his top advisers have received intelligence reports in recent days describing a confusing series of actions by North Korea that some experts believe could indicate the country is preparing to conduct its first test explosion of a nuclear weapon, according to senior officials with access to the intelligence.

While the indications were viewed as serious enough to warrant a warning to the White House, American intelligence agencies appear divided about the significance of the new North Korean actions, much as they were about the evidence concerning Iraq's alleged weapons stockpiles.

Given the recent track record of American intelligence, there's plenty of room for doubt as to whether or not the North Koreans will actually conduct a test. But there's no doubt regarding their nuclear intentions. And how has the administration responded?

On the other hand, the divisions within the administration over how to deal with North Korea mirrors some of the old debate about Iraq. Hard-liners in the Pentagon and the vice president's office have largely opposed making concessions of any kind in negotiations, and Vice President Dick Cheney has warned that "time is not on our side" to deal with the question. The State Department has pressed the case for negotiation, and for offering the North a face-saving way out. While the State Department has won the argument in recent times, how to deal with the North is a constant battle inside the administration.
. . .
Mr. Bush, while declaring he would not "tolerate" a nuclear North Korea, has insisted that his approach of involving China, Russia, Japan and South Korea in a new round of talks with the North is the only reasonable way to force the country to disarm. He has refused to set the kind of deadline for disarmament that he set for Saddam Hussein.

When asked in an interview with The New York Times two weeks ago to define what he meant by "tolerate," he said: "I don't think you give timelines to dictators and tyrants. I think it's important for us to continue to lead coalitions that are firm and strong, in sending messages to both the North Koreans and the Iranians."

So for all the Bush/Cheney '04 bluster about indecisiveness being a sign of weakness in the "war on terror," our North Korean policy has been drifting along without a rudder for three years as the evildoers ramp up their nuclear program.

But hey, we took care of Saddam's aerial drones, didn't we?

The New York Times has an anniversary page with archived articles, interactive features, and other remembrances. I flashed back by glancing at a few articles published in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. They still echo the shock and uncertain fear which compounded the terror. A more recent article looks back at the people who jumped from the World Trade Center. To me, the jumpers, more then anything else, encapsulate the horror of that day.

Elsewhere, South Knox Bubba remembers the victims.

Once our arm chair document experts conclude their investigation into the 60 Minutes piece, it would be interesting to see them turn their investigative sights on other questioned documents. Since it only took them a couple days to determine that the 60 Minutes memos came from the Kerry campaign, I'm sure it will take them no time to determine where these documents originated.

From today's press gaggle with Scott McClellan:

Q This was a direct order he defied, right? I mean, he did have a direct order that he defied?*

MR. McCLELLAN: John, these issues have come up every year. This was all part of the records -- that he was seeking to transfer to a unit in Alabama because he was going there to work in a civilian capacity. And he was granted permission to do so. And he was proud of his service and he was honorably discharged in October '73, after meeting his obligations.

*The memos that were released, in fact, show the President was working with his commanders to comply with the order.

Yes, that is lifted directly from the transcript of the press briefing. The White House added an asterisk to "clarify" a reporter's question.

I thought it was bad enough when the White House added footnotes to clarify their answers. Now they apparently must clarify what the reporters ask--i.e., they inform the readers what reporters should have asked.

When will the spin end?

President Bush
"Meet The Press"
February 7, 2004:

Russert: But you authorize the release of everything [National Guard records] to settle this?

President Bush: Yes, absolutely.

We did so in 2000, by the way.

Yet magically, the White House found more documents to release last night:

After the broadcast, the White House, without comment, released to the news media two of the memos, one ordering Bush to report for his physical exam and the other suspending him from flight status.

In the MTP interview Bush also stated he had cleared his move to Harvard:

Russert: You did � were allowed to leave eight months before your term expired. Was there a reason?

President Bush: Right. Well, I was going to Harvard Business School and worked it out with the military.

Yet as Salon's Eric Boehlert points out, Bush fulfilled no such arrangement; to the contrary, Bush again relied on his ties to get out of the military:

On Oct. 1, 1973, Bush received an honorable discharge from the Texas Air National Guard in order to move to Boston and attend Harvard Business School, where he was still obligated to find a unit in Massachusetts to fulfill his remaining nine months of duty, or face being placed on active duty. Once again, Bush made no such effort. But the Air Force in Denver, acting retroactively, in effect overturned Bush's honorable discharge and placed him on "Inactive Status" effective Sept. 15, 1973. When Bush left Texas, his personnel file was sent to Denver for review. The ARPC quickly realized Bush had failed to take a required physical exam, his Texas superior could not account for his whereabouts covering nearly a 12-month period, and because of absenteeism Bush had failed to "satisfactorily participate" as a member of the Texas Air National Guard. Bush's "Inactive Status" meant his relationship with the Air Force (and the Guard) was severed and he was therefore eligible for the draft.

Soon afterward, large gaps began appearing in Bush's paper trail. Lukasiak concludes that only last-minute intervention, likely from Bush's local Houston draft board, saved him from active duty, as well as finally securing his honorable discharge, removing his "Inactive Status." Ironically, that means strings were pulled to get Bush out of the Guard in 1973, just as they were pulled to get him enrolled in 1968.

Undoubtedly, there's more to this story--depending on which documents the Bush machine failed to scrub the media uncovers.

This week we witnessed the 1,000th American military death in Iraq, not to mention the 7,000 + wounded and 12,000+ Iraqi civilians killed. That's a large number to put your head around.

Fortunately, we have the administration to put it in context. Here's Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld:

It should be noted that the civilized world passed the thousandth casualty mark a long time ago. Hundreds were killed in Russia last week to be sure. And this week, of course, on September 11th, 2004, we remember the 3,000 citizens of dozens of countries who were killed on September 11th in 2001. And September 11th, 2001 was not the beginning of terrorism, and the war in Iraq has not created terrorism. International terrorists declared war on the civilized nations of the world some time back, and over the decades, they have killed many thousands of Americans and citizens of other countries as well.

And as we commemorate the third anniversary of the attacks of September 11th, it's appropriate to honor the fallen and to reflect on how far we have come and to determine what more might be done.

Ahh, yes--September 11. You remember that, don't you? Of course the administration has never said Iraq was responsible for 9/11, they just keep happen to keep talking about the two at the same time; it's a freakish coincidence, really. And when you think about all the people who died on 9/11, the hundreds of Americans who have died in the 16 months since President Bush declared major combat over in Iraq really isn't that big of a deal.

See, that's the problem with today's liberal media--they don't put such things in a proper perspective. You have to focus on the big picture. It's hard to see the progress of the Iraqi soccer team when you're bean-counting returning coffins. Thankfully, we still have voices to keep us focused away from this "ghoulish" media celebration of American casualties.

Time to break out the chicken suit?

President Bush may skip one of the three debates that have been proposed by the Commission on Presidential Debates and accepted by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), Republican officials said yesterday.

The officials said Bush's negotiating team plans to resist the middle debate, which was to be Oct. 8 in a town meeting format in the crucial state of Missouri.
. . .
The audience for the second debate, to be at Washington University in St. Louis, was to be picked by the Gallup Organization. The commission said participants should be undecided voters from the St. Louis area.

A presidential adviser said campaign officials were concerned that people could pose as undecided when they actually are partisans.

We're supposed to believe that Bush is a tough leader with the fortitude to make life or death decisions in combating terrorists, yet he's afraid to take questions from partisan voters posing as undecideds? That's lame.

More documents found. Apparently they reveal that Bush wasn't the model reservist. This isn't a great surprise to many people, but it does refute the recent Bush line about fulfilling all his duties.

It's also interesting what a difficult time investigative reporters have had in digging up these records, isn't it?

Although posting has been light this weekend, there's plenty of stuff going on:

The national news has been dominated by coverage of Hurricane Frances. Certainly no laughing matter for those in the storm's path. But I continue to be amused by how the news channels cover the storm. It's a sight watching some reporter standing in a parking lot attempting to shout out his or her insights through the howling rain. And I love it whenever the concerned anchor in a studio hundreds of miles away warns the brave reporter (and the audience) that he or she should seek shelter if things get too dangerous. Thank you for that.

Senator Graham's new book sheds more light on the interaction between President Bush and Saudi Arabia:

Two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had a support network in the United States that included agents of the Saudi government, and the Bush administration and FBI blocked a congressional investigation into that relationship, Sen. Bob Graham wrote in a book to be released Tuesday.

The discovery of the financial backing of the two hijackers ''would draw a direct line between the terrorists and the government of Saudi Arabia, and trigger an attempted coverup by the Bush administration,'' the Florida Democrat wrote.

I don't think you have to venture into conspiracy land to reach the conclusion that there's a lot going on in the Middle East--including Iraq--that isn't being covered by the major media's narrative.

The Osama watch continues.

A couple presidential polls have reported Bush with a double digit percentage point lead. According to Josh Marshall, both campaigns' internal polls have Bush with a four point lead.

The terrorist school attack in Belsan, Russia is horrendous. At least with some of al Qaeda's attacks you can see some degree of method to their madness by striking targets symbolic of America's power. Attacking a school is just madness.

Andrew Sullivan:

THE END OF CONSERVATISM: But conservatism as we have known it is now over. People like me who became conservatives because of the appeal of smaller government and more domestic freedom are now marginalized in a big-government party, bent on using the power of the state to direct people's lives, give them meaning and protect them from all dangers. Just remember all that Bush promised last night: an astonishingly expensive bid to spend much more money to help people in ways that conservatives once abjured. He pledged to provide record levels of education funding, colleges and healthcare centers in poor towns, more Pell grants, seven million more affordable homes, expensive new HSAs, and a phenomenally expensive bid to reform the social security system. I look forward to someone adding it all up, but it's easily in the trillions. And Bush's astonishing achievement is to make the case for all this new spending, at a time of chronic debt (created in large part by his profligate party), while pegging his opponent as the "tax-and-spend" candidate. The chutzpah is amazing. At this point, however, it isn't just chutzpah. It's deception. To propose all this knowing full well that we cannot even begin to afford it is irresponsible in the deepest degree. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the only difference between Republicans and Democrats now is that the Bush Republicans believe in Big Insolvent Government and the Kerry Democrats believe in Big Solvent Government. By any measure, that makes Kerry - especially as he has endorsed the critical pay-as-you-go rule on domestic spending - easily the choice for fiscal conservatives. It was also jaw-dropping to hear this president speak about tax reform. Bush? He has done more to lard up the tax code with special breaks and new loopholes than any recent president. On this issue - on which I couldn't agree more - I have to say I don't believe him. Tax reform goes against the grain of everything this president has done so far. Why would he change now?

Ouch.

George W. Bush, 2000:

I don't have enemies to fight. And I have no stake in the bitter arguments of the last few years. I want to change the tone of Washington to one of civility and respect.

We sure saw that on display at his convention last night, didn't we?

Prepare accordingly:

"A Safer World, A More Hopeful America"

They've done a great job laying the groundwork for this, haven't they? Hope is on the way!

Last night Josh Marshall offered one of the better onsite reports on the GOP affair. His conclusion:

This whole confab has been built around militarism, the seductions of the mentality of siege and insecurity both from without and within, and the sort of no-rules-win-at-all-costs-lie-if-it-works mentality that will lead this nation to grief.

Indeed. As I recall, this line in Cheney's speech drew a wild crowd response:

My fellow Americans, we have already been attacked, and faced with an enemy who seeks the deadliest of weapons to use against us, we cannot wait for the next attack. We must do everything we can to prevent it � and that includes the use of military force.

What the heck is going on in this country? I thought our objective was peace. But you listen to some people and you're lead to believe that war is America's desired policy. Look at that softie Kerry--he talks about alliances and diplomacy. Boo! In contrast, Bush has no reservations in launching a war on the mere suspicion of a threat. Yeah, let's go to war.

Stay tuned tonight. War Hope is on the way.

CNN refuses to air Log Cabin Republicans television ad because it is "too controversial." Yet it continues to run discredited Swift Boat Veterans spots.

That liberal media.

President George H.W. Bush (41) appeared on Imus in the Morning on Wednesday morning. I didn't hear the interview, but here's a couple interesting clips from the transcript:

Imus: "We are talking with the 41st President of the United States George Bush... you also dispel the notion that the President went to war in Iraq to finish the Gulf War and you said essentially that it was nonsense. You told Paula Zahn that the President feels the Gulf War was finished and yet the President told the Washington Times that he did not intend on sending mixed signals to the Iraqi people and cut and run like they did in 1991."�

Bush: "Yea, I didn't like that much."�

Imus: "It doesn't sound to me like he thought that it was finished, does he?"

Bush: "Well he hasn't said it again, has he?"

(laughter)

Imus: "No sir, he has not."

(laughter)

Bush: "No I'm sure there was some background around that statement because I saw that and frankly it hurt a little bit but that's you know. . ."

Imus: "You don't need that do you?"

Bush: "I'm getting it from quite a few people. You're asking about it but in a very gentlemanly way. I appreciate that and I understand the question. But I'm saying it's a different time and different strokes and I'm sure that there are some people, in the current administration that think it could have been done differently. Well... I'm proud of what we did, proud of the way the war ended and very proud of the way this President is conducting this war which in my view is quite different."

Bush continues to play the supportive father, but he was obviously bothered by some aspects of Gulf War II. I certainly had differences with Bush the elder when he was in office, but clearly he understands the world better than junior does. And we witnessed the difference once major combat ended.

On a less consequential note, here's a weird exchange:

Imus: "It seems like the current President for whatever reason, has done, someone has said it�s like a reverse playbook of what you did. You were tough on Israel, he was not. You raised taxes unfortunate, he didn't. He acts more like a Baptist then a Episcopalian...then this business of emulating Reagan."

Bush: "He's Methodist, I think, is what he is."

Imus: "Is he?"

Bush: "I tell you one thing, you raise a point. I�ll tell you what annoys me. I just finished this book April 19 65 or whatever when Robert Lee surrendered and Lincoln was shot within oh what a few weeks. In that book they talk very convincingly about Lincoln�s faith and what it meant to him and how important faith was. He'd talk about it to the American people. Now in the liberal elite say the President shouldn�t be talking about faith. He shouldn't have faith. He is not saying that other people ought to do it like he does, Methodist, Episcopalian, whatever the heck it is. He is just saying, this is what sustains me. Don, that is true. I know this guy. I can see it sustains him. Lincoln said you cannot be President without spending some item on your knees. I have repeated that and a bunch of Atheists got all over me. Wait a minute. Does that mean that you cannot be President if you are an Atheist? I say yea that does mean that."

(laughter)

Bush: "One Nation Under God."

Uh, 43's faith is real important, and yet 41 isn't sure what church he belongs to? That's odd.

Zell Miller
September 1, 2004:

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?

U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?
. . .
John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security.

That's the most dangerous outsourcing of all. This politician wants to be leader of the free world.

Free for how long?

For more than 20 years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure.

As a war protester, Kerry blamed our military.

As a Senator, he voted to weaken our military.

March 1, 2001 (via Eschaton):

My job tonight is an easy one: to present to you one of this nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best-known and greatest leaders � and a good friend.
. . .
In his 16 years in the Senate, John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington.
. . .
John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment. Business Week magazine named him one of the top pro-technology legislators and made him a member of its "Digital Dozen."
. . .
John is a graduate of Yale University and was a gunboat officer in the Navy. He received a Silver Star, Bronze Star and three awards of the Purple Heart for combat duty in Vietnam. He later co-founded the Vietnam Veterans of America.

Of course for Miller, as for all of us, 9/11 changed everything--including the meaning of "John has worked to strengthen our military."

After the "Land of Opportunity" program concluded, Miller proceeded to make the TV circuit and dig his hole even deeper. First I saw him on CNN where the anchors rightly pointed out that once upon a time Dick Cheney had also opposed some of the weapons systems Miller blasted Kerry for voting against. Miller couldn't put together a coherent rationalization explaining why Kerry was wrong but Cheney was right.

Next, it was over to MSNBC, where the Miller meltdown was completed. After fumbling with Chris Matthew's straightforward questions on whether or not he actually believed Kerry wanted to defend America with spitballs, Miller resort to yelling, "Get out of my face." Then things turned really bizarre: "I wish we lived in the day when you could challenge a person to a duel." Fortunately, Matthews was interviewing Miller from a remote location, so no shots were actually fired.

Overall, I thought "A Land of Opportunity" night worked to Kerry/Edwards' benefit. I don't see Miller's over-the-top rhetoric playing well with undecideds. And Cheney's flip flop speech didn't seem all that more effective. The Bush campaign is working hard to shore up the base. There's a real opportunity for Kerry to hone in on the middle if he can focus his message.

I think I spotted Tom DeLay at the GOP convention . . . he was in one of the crowd shots during the Ronald Reagan tribute video.

Anyone know where the House Majority Leader has been? Perhaps he switched places with Cheney and went to the undisclosed location. Interesting how a party convention yields the stage to an actor, a figure skater, a gymnast, a football player, but not one of its most power leaders.

I don't consume alcohol, so I thought I'd come up with a healthier version of the drinking game:

I will bicycle 25 miles for every mention of "Osama bin Laden" by either Vice President Cheney or President Bush in his acceptance speech at the GOP convention.

Better go pump up those tires.

Feel free to set your own personal challenge. And tune in as our leaders recite their efforts in bringing the head 9/11 perpetrator to justice.

UPDATE: I've searched Cheney's speech and no Osama. Guess Cheney was too busy going after America's real enemy--John Kerry. But, not to worry. I'm sure our wartime president will level with us tonight and offer a candid update on his pledge to located Osama "wanted dead or alive" bin Laden.

UPDATE 2: Alas, it's 0 for 2 in the speeches. But I suppose I can do a nice long ride anyway.

Back in October 2001, who would have imagined that in his re-election convention speech President Bush would place a much greater emphasis on Iraqi elections than on Osama bin Laden?

Tennessee Ruck informs us of a new blogging project in the works.

Matthew Yglesias notes how the president has been bragging about how many people are registered to vote in Afghanistan. Problem is that there are now more people registered than eligible voters. Oops.

Kind of ironic how we are fraudulently giving away the right to vote over in Afghanistan, but taking it away here in places like Florida.

This, if true, is disturbing. But don't hold your breath waiting for big media investigators to get to the bottom of it. They've got important celebrity trials to cover.