Indeed.

Gore Vidal. Bravo.

“Benjamin Franklin was shown the new American constitution, and he said, ‘I don’t like it, but I will vote for it because we need something right now. But this constitution in time will fail, as all such efforts do. And it will fail because of the corruption of the people, in a general sense.’ And that is what it has come to now, exactly as Franklin predicted.”[...]

[...]“We have been deprived of our franchise,” he says. “The election was stolen in both 2000 and 2004, because of electronic voting machinery which can be easily fixed. We’ve had two illegitimate elections in a row ...

“Little Bush says we are at war, but we are not at war because to be at war Congress has to vote for it. He says we are at war on terror, but that is a metaphor, though I doubt if he knows what that means. It’s like having a war on dandruff, it’s endless and pointless. We are in a dictatorship that has been totally mili-tarised, everyone is spied on by the government itself. All three arms of the government are in the hands of this junta.

“Whatever you are,” he goes on, “they say you are the reverse. The men behind the war in Iraq are cowards who did not fight in Vietnam – but they spent millions of dollars proving that John Kerry, who was a genuine war hero whatever you think of his politics, was a coward.

“This is what happens when you have control of the media, and I have never known the media more vicious, stupid and corrupt than they are now.”

Kerry's Black Sites Bill

Kudos to John Kerry for getting a bill passed requiring congressional oversight of "black sites" operations. From The Hill's e-News email:

Amid controversy about the leaking of classified information regarding secret overseas detention facilities, the Senate voted 82 to 9 yesterday evening to adopt an amendment to the Defense authorization bill introduced by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). The amendment, one of the few Democratic amendments adopted on the authorization bill, requires the Pentagon and the intelligence community to report on clandestine facilities for the detentions of those captured in the war on terrorism. The amendment would not shut down those facilities if they exist but rather it demands oversight of those facilities, Kerry explained. Under the amendment, the Secretary of Defense would have to deliver to both the Senate and House Defense Authorization Committees a detailed classified report on his knowledge or the knowledge of Pentagon personnel of clandestine detention facilities for those captured in the war on terrorism. The Director of National Intelligence is also being asked to provide a full accounting of all clandestine facilities.

It's a good step. Perhaps this can serve as an impetus for returning the congressional duty of oversight to the chambers. At the very least, it will provoke further debate on the morality and legality of running these damned black sites in the first place.

Now, off to find out who the 9 abstainers were. I wonder if they're the same good hearts as the Torture Nine.

Update [2005-11-10 21:55:18]:: Here's the list of Nay votes. Seems Cochran wasn't among them.

Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
DeMint (R-SC)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Martinez (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Stevens (R-AK)
Vitter (R-LA)

Even Blair

The Guardian UK reports with some very interesting messages coming from across the pond:

John Kerry supporters in America have been told by Peter Hain that Downing Street is hoping the Democratic candidate wins the US presidential election in November.

Mr Hain, who sits in the cabinet as Leader of the Commons, has been in the US on a near-private visit. He met Labour supporters in New York, as well as members of the Kerry team. He has declined to discuss the visit, and his public remarks at a party thrown by the former Sunday Times editor Harold Evans were largely bland. But in private discussions with guests, his tone was markedly different.

Those who met him had the strong impression that he was acting with No 10's support, and that a Democratic victory was clearly sought. Such a supposition ought to be natural, but historic ties have been jolted by the strategic and sometimes personal alliance between George Bush and Tony Blair over Iraq. Mr Hain's visit may be seen by some as diplomatic ground-covering in the event of a Kerry victory.

In public the government will remain studiously neutral. And some Blairites doubt that Mr Kerry has the campaign drive to defeat the incumbent.

But in a sign of frustration inside the Labour party over the government's neutrality, the Blairite group Progress is to issue a scathing attack on Mr Bush's record, although the group is sympathetic to the action in Iraq; Alan Milburn, the former cabinet minister, is its honorary president.

In an editorial in its journal of the same name next week, Progress says: "By his manner, his rhetoric and sometimes his actions George Bush has presented to the world an image of America that its friends know is not its true face. That is why those who recognise that American leadership is vital and a force for good in an uncertain world will wish John Kerry well."

Even Blair, who willingly walked into the maelstrom with the Bush administration, is hoping for Kerry's victory.

Peter Jennings is a Tool

I'd always been fond of Peter Jennings, but on yesterday evening's World News Tonight, Jenning's interview of Karl Rove left me flabergasted. Rove had an agenda (obviously), and that was to shift attention of the Swift Boat Vets controversy away from the incredibly involved involvement of Rove and his minions and to something all Americans can agree upon; the destruction and division wrought upon America by the Vietnam War itself, and John Kerry's betrayal of not only the men who served in the jungles of Nam, but every single American. And Jennings just sat back and let him spill his little speech without so much as a countering point. Despicable. From ABC's excerpted transcript:

JENNINGS: Last night, your friend [Virginia delegate] Morton Blackwell was out on the floor of the convention wearing a Band-Aid with a purple heart, clearly a slap at John Kerry. You approve of that?

ROVE: No, not at all. I think it was inappropriate. John Kerry served with valor and distinction in Vietnam. I understand why people are angry about Vietnam and John Kerry, but I think they ought to keep the focus on where the anger is appropriate, and that is what he said and did when he came back home. I had an uncle who served in Vietnam, did several tours of duty in Vietnam. I don't think he was a war criminal. I don't think that the men under his command routinely raped, and pillaged, and acted like Genghis Kahn. It is what John Kerry did after he came home, and he says that it's legitimate to talk about it. He says that he's proud that he went to Vietnam, and he's proud of what he did when he came back. But I understand why a great many military families, and sons and daughters of veterans, and veterans themselves are angry with being sort of routinely painted as war criminals, when they were not.

Just like the second SBV ad. Great minds do think alike after all. WIthout any sort of collusion of course.....

Wholly Unrelated, I'm Sure

Dana Milbank has a piece in today's WaPo that would seem to warrant (it would in a Democratic administration anyway) the launch a thousand investigations.

Four days ago, retired naval Rear Adm. William L. Schachte Jr. seconded accusations made by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth seeking to discredit Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry's record in Vietnam. But since then, Democrats have discovered that Schachte is also a long-standing supporter of President Bush and a lobbyist whose client FastShip Inc. recently won a $40 million grant from the federal government.

On Aug. 27, Schachte issued a statement saying that after he "avoided talking to media" for months, he was reluctantly stepping forward to challenge Kerry's award of one of his Purple Hearts on Dec. 2, 1968. "Kerry had himself in charge of the operation, and I was not mentioned at all," he said. "He also claimed that he was wounded by hostile fire. None of this is accurate. I know, because I was not only in the boat, but I was in command of the mission."

Kerry has said Schachte was not on the boat that night, adding another mystery to the disputed events of 36 years ago. But other events are not in dispute. According to a March 18 legal filing by Schachte's firm, Blank Rome, Schachte was one of the lobbyists working for FastShip on issues such as the effort to win funding for a new marine cargo terminal. On Feb. 2, Philadelphia-based FastShip announced that it would receive $40 million in federal funding for the project.

In addition, David Norcross, Schachte's colleague in the Washington office of Blank Rome, is chairman of this week's Republican convention in New York. Records also show that Schachte gave $1,000 to Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns.

The Kerry campaign alleges foul play. "It's amazing what a $40 million government contract can do for your memory," Kerry spokesman Chad Clanton said, noting that Schachte did not challenge Kerry's Purple Heart while describing the incident in an interview last year. Schachte is listed as "of counsel" on Blank Rome's Web site, but a receptionist at the firm said he is retired, and messages left for him and a firm spokesman were not returned.

Barnes Storming

By way of Josh Marshall comes this must see video clip of Ben Barnes, the former Speaker of the House in Texas (also the former Lt. Governor, some time back, as he speaks to in the clip). It should put to rest any doubt of how George W. Bush found that coveted spot in the Texas Air National Guard. Josh's transcription of Barnes' words, speaking at a recent John Kerry rally:

Let's talk a minute about John Kerry and George Bush and I know them both. And I'm not name dropping to say I know 'em both. I got a young man named George W. Bush in the National Guard when I was Lt. Gov. of Texas and I'm not necessarily proud of that. But I did it. And I got a lot of other people into the National Guard because I thought that was what people should do, when you're in office you helped a lot of rich people. And I walked through the Vietnam Memorial the other day and I looked at the names of the people that died in Vietnam and I became more ashamed of myself than I have ever been because it was the worst thing that I did was that I helped a lot of wealthy supporters and a lot of people who had family names of importance get into the National Guard and I'm very sorry about that and I'm very ashamed and I apologize to you as voters of Texas.

Now compare that to this bit from the Washington Post from July of 1999 on then candidate Bush:

Bush learned that there were pilot openings in the Texas Air National Guard during Christmas vacation of his senior year at Yale, when he called Staudt, the commander of the 147th Fighter Group, and, he said, "found out what it took to apply."

"He recalls hearing from friends while he was home over the Christmas break that the Guard was looking for pilots and that Colonel Staudt was the person to contact," said his communications director, Karen Hughes. She said Bush did not recall who those friends were.

Retired Col. Rufus G. Martin, then personnel officer in charge of the 147th Fighter Group, said the unit was short of its authorized strength, but still had a long waiting list, because of the difficulty getting slots in basic training for recruits at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio. Martin said four openings for pilots were available in the 147th in 1968, and that Bush got the last one.

Staudt, the colonel who twice had himself photographed with Bush, said his status as a congressman's son "didn't cut any ice." But others say that it was not uncommon for well-connected Texans to obtain special consideration for Air Guard slots. In addition to Bush and Bentsen, many socially or politically prominent young men were admitted to the Air Guard, according to former officials; they included the son of then-Sen. John Tower and at least seven members of the Dallas Cowboys.

"The well-to-do kids had enough sense to get on the waiting list," Martin said. "Some [applicants] thought they could just walk in the door and sign up."

One address for those seeking help getting in was Ben Barnes, a Democrat who was then the speaker of the Texas House and a protege of Gov. John B. Connally. A top aide to Barnes, Nick Kralj, simultaneously served as aide to the head of the Texas Air National Guard, the late Brig. Gen. James M. Rose.

An anonymous letter addressed to a U.S. attorney in Texas, produced in a discovery proceeding for an ongoing lawsuit, charged that Barnes assisted Bush in getting into the Guard. The suit was brought by the former director of the Texas Lottery Commission, who believes Barnes, now a lobbyist, may have played a role in his dismissal.

In a deposition for the suit, Kralj confirmed that he would get calls from Barnes or his chief of staff, Robert Spelling, "saying so-and-so is interested in getting in the Guard." Kralj said he would then forward the names to Gen. Rose.

In an interview, Barnes also acknowledged that he sometimes received requests for help in obtaining Guard slots. He said he never received such a call from then-Rep. Bush or anyone in the Bush family.

However, when asked if an intermediary or friend of the Bush family had ever asked him to intercede on George W.'s behalf, Barnes declined to comment. Kralj, in his deposition, said he could not recall any of the names he gave to Gen. Rose.

Hughes, Bush's spokeswoman, said: "The governor has no knowledge of anyone making inquiries on his behalf."

Imagery

Sometimes a picture is the only way to capture a nuanced social situation. By way of example, consider this photo from The Portland Tribune, and the accompanying caption:

An unidentified supporter of President Bush tries to silence protester Kendra Lloyd-Knox (right) outside Southridge High School in Beaverton. Elsewhere in Portland, supporters of Democratic candidate Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., rallied on the waterfront.

Pretty indicative, no?

Mazel Tov

Slim posting, I know, and my apologies for the lack of contact. Lots on the proverbial plate, and will post as I'm able, but wanted to share this from Haaretz:

WASHINGTON - Seventy-five percent of Jewish American voters will vote for Democratic candidate John Kerry in the upcoming November elections, according to a survey released Monday.

The study, sponsored by the National Jewish Democratic Council, found that 75 percent of Jews polled said they would vote for Kerry, while only 22 percent said they would re-elect President George W. Bush.

The results contradict Republicans' claims that American Jewry is facing a historic change in voting habits, leading to mass support of Bush in the upcoming elections.

Republicans believed a record 40 percent of Jews would vote for Bush in November, but according to Monday's study, the president's base of Jewish supporters has not changed significantly since the 2000 elections, when he received 19 percent of the Jewish vote.

The study also shows Jews ranked Kerry highly on issues such as domestic affairs and the economy. Two-thirds of respondents also said that they believed Kerry would be better for Israel than Bush.

Incompetence, Thusly

I mentioned in an earlier post on the subject that intelligence and counterterrorism experts were surprised last week when Tom Ridge came out to rally America for our Two Minute Fear, and with unusual specificity to boot. One had gone so far as to call Ridge's actions "irresponsible." When it was revealed on Friday that in so doing, the Bush administration had blown the cover of a mole deep within al Qaeda, all for a chance at political gain, experts shifted from surprise to shock and anger at the blow this strikes the US in its fight against terrorist organizations.

Having access to someone as deep as Khan was in the organization, someone with knowledge of the encryption techniques al Qaeda uses to communicate, no less, was an incredible coup, and could have revealed a multitude of information about the enemy. Instead, his cover was blown to strike the terror pose that is George Bush's last refuge in the polls. In order to gain the shortest-term political advantage, to shift attention away from the success of the Democratic Party convention in Boston and America's growing comfort with a John Kerry presidency, the incompetents in the Bush administration have again sacrificed the safety of our nation in favor of their own greedy little aims.

Despicable. From Reuters:

Security experts contacted by Reuters said they were shocked by the revelations that the source whose information led to the alert was identified within days, and that U.S. officials had confirmed his name.

"The whole thing smacks of either incompetence or worse ," said Tim Ripley, a security expert who writes for Jane's Defense publications. "You have to ask: what are they doing compromising a deep mole within al Qaeda, when it's so difficult to get these guys in there in the first place?

"It goes against all the rules of counter-espionage, counter-terrorism, running agents and so forth. It's not exactly cloak and dagger undercover work if it's on the front pages every time there's a development, is it?"

A source such as Khan -- cooperating with the authorities while staying in active contact with trusting al Qaeda agents -- would be among the most prized assets imaginable, he said.

"Running agents within a terrorist organization is the Holy Grail of intelligence agencies. And to have it blown is a major setback which negates months and years of work, which may be difficult to recover."

No, not cloak and dagger at all. Not even, it seems, an honest attempt at effectiveness. What it is, if it's on the front pages every time there's a development, is a desperate grab at grandstanding, a desperate attempt to hold on to power through fear. These people must be brought out into the public eye for what they are: a sincere and growing danger to the safety of the American people, if not the entire world. A danger that is as deeply rooted in incompetence as it is in avarice and lust for power.

Swift Boat Veterans

Thanks to CNN's screening it in its entirety this morning, I had the unfortunate opportunity to see the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad attacking viciously attacking John Kerry. I'm in total agreement with John McCain:

"I deplore this kind of politics. I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam. I think George Bush served honorably in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War."

Well, perhaps it's not total agreement. I'm firmly of the mind that Bush shirked his stateside responsibility to the National Guard during the Vietnam War, kept out of the line of fire in the first place by his father's wealth, power, and network of connections, but that's another story altogether. Despite his false claims to the contrary ("I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go to war."), the man has not in fact ever been to war.

Then again, that last sentence, as with some of McCain's other statements today, could be taken as having a variety of implied meanings. For what it's worth, it seems clear to me that Sen. McCain is angry. The sort of anger that only comes with bitter remembrance.

"It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me," McCain told The Associated Press, referring to his bitter Republican primary fight with President Bush.

The Kerry camp hit the nail on the head with their response:

The Kerry campaign also accused the Swift Boat group of having political ties to the Republican Party.

"Far from being a grassroots organization of veterans, this group is a front for the right-wing Texas Republicans to try and take away one of John Kerry’s political strengths — his service to the country in Vietnam," the campaign charged in a 36-page document given to reporters.

In any case, Joe Conason has a good rundown on the folks behind this attack, who they are, their history. They're quite a cast of characters. Media Matters takes another tack and reveals some pretty interesting truths about the coauthor of the SBVfT print attack on Kerry.

In a nutshell, for anyone to give this group any credence at all is simply laughable. For the news media to play and replay this ad, over and again, giving this group and their attacks on John Kerry more exposure than they could have hoped to achieve otherwise is despicable. Par for the course, absolutely, and completely lacking in surprise, but despicable nonetheless.

Undecided?

An AP report on the general state of mind among undecided voters brings good news for the Kerry camp:

Voters who haven't firmly committed to a presidential candidate are in a sour mood. They tend to be more disapproving of President Bush, have a gloomier view of the economy and be more likely to think the country is headed down the wrong track. The mood of these persuadable voters prompted one veteran Republican strategist to warn the Bush campaign that dramatic steps are needed to prevent them from bolting to Democrat John Kerry

Republican strategist Tony Fabrizio, the pollster for Republican Bob Dole's presidential run in 1996, warned the GOP about the sour mood of undecided voters in battleground states, a small slice of the uncommitted voters in the electorate.

Fabrizio, who supports Bush, wrote in a July 8 memo that such voters are "poised to break away from President Bush and to John Kerry."

"Clearly if these undecided voters were leaning any harder against the door of the Kerry camp, they would crash right through it," he wrote, suggesting the president do more to convince voters the economy is recovering and take a more aggressive stance in defining Kerry.

Forty Four

Just a little while ago I was sitting in the dentist's chair, reading. I'd printed off the story on John Kerry from the latest New Yorker, Damage Control and found myself reading and re-reading the same page, the same sentences, over and over, waiting for the gas to finally kick in.

Before I slipped off, I came across this passage and wanted to share it here. Just as an example of Kerry's humanity. (regular readers know I'm a sucker for, and seeker of, the "humanity" of humanity) In addition to in-depth interviews with Kerry and those close to him and his campaign, the writer, Philip Gourevitch, author of We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda, draws a great deal from Douglas Brinkley's book on Kerry, Tour of Duty.

Reading Brinkley’s book, one wonders why Kerry’s campaign does not make more of another occasion when Kerry was sharply reprimanded for having stepped ashore. On a narrow tributary of the Duong Keo River, he and his crew came upon what looked like a deserted village. Then someone thought he saw a man running away. There was no response to a call for surrender, and Kerry took his gun and went to have a look. As he approached, forty-two Vietnamese—women, children, and old men—appeared with empty hands raised. They were in desperate shape, hungry and sick, and although Kerry received radio instructions to leave them and get on with the business of killing enemy combatants, he herded the villagers onto boats and took them to the nearest American base to receive food and medical care. “For an afternoon,” he told Brinkley, “it felt good to really be helping the Vietnamese instead of destroying their villages.”

That, my friends, is an action, a choice, to be applauded. I can't see how it could be anything but indicative of Kerry as a man and human being. The decisions one makes in a warzone are as close to gut, instinctual, reactions as people will ever display. From all I've read and heard, the split-second choices and decisions Kerry made in the worst of all possible situations were sound choices, regardless. This stands in stark contrast to Bush, who, when hearing that America was under attack, sat frozen in fear and without direction for seven precious minutes. Seven minutes in the jungles of Vietnam, or the streets of Fallujah, Ramadi, Samarra--that'll get you, your comrades-in-arms, and perhaps even some unfortunate bystanders, killed. Fast.

Again, for contrast with the current president who was dodging his draft-dodging stint in the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam, here's what Kerry was doing:

Few voters knew the story of how he won his Bronze Star for saving a man’s life until that man, a lifelong Republican named Jim Rassmann, showed up in Des Moines during the last days of the Iowa primary race and returned the favor, helping to save Kerry’s political life by describing how Kerry, wounded and under fire, pulled him, hand over hand, from the water after he was blown off another American boat. Even then, Kerry said almost nothing about the incident, leaving the talking to Rassmann, with whom he’d had no contact in the intervening thirty-five years. He also resists speaking publicly about the incident that won him the Silver Star, but his surviving crewmates have told how, when they were ambushed by a Vietcong guerrilla firing rockets from the riverbank, Kerry made an instantaneous decision that evasive action was impossible, turned his boat directly into the fire, beached it, and leaped ashore, to the astonishment of the man with the rocket launcher, who popped up from his spider hole and fled. Kerry chased him and killed him. Navy men were not supposed to leave their ships during combat, and before recommending Kerry for the medal his commanding officer quipped that he wasn’t sure whether he shouldn’t court-martial him instead.

The Peace President

Yeesh-a-mighty. Today in Iowa:

After launching two wars, President Bush said on Tuesday he wanted to be a "peace president" and took swipes at his Democratic rivals for being lawyers and weak on defense.

With polls showing public support for the war in Iraq in decline, the Republican president cast himself as a reluctant warrior as he campaigned in the battleground state of Iowa against Democrat John Kerry and his running mate, former trial lawyer John Edwards. Bush lost the state in 2000 by only a few thousand votes.

"The enemy declared war on us," he told a re-election rally. "Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president."

Bush has called himself a "war president" in leading the United States in a battle against terrorism brought about by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America.

"I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind," he said in February.

Reluctant warrior indeed. War (president) is Peace (president).

Scientific Americans

One of the many troubling aspects of a second term for Bush would be the continued dismissing of sound science in order to further a short-sighted, theocratic, and wholly political style of governing that puts innovation and advancement at risk across the board. Just ask Nancy Reagan how she feels about scientific research. Or for that matter, ask the scientific community how it feels about Bush's stand on almost anything. So, this isn't very surprising. It's still nice to see, though.

DENVER (Reuters) - Democrat John Kerry picked up the endorsement on Monday of 48 Nobel Prize-winning scientists who attacked President Bush for "compromising our future" by shortchanging scientific research.

"The Bush administration has ignored unbiased scientific advice in the policy-making that is so important to our collective welfare," the 48 scientists, who have won Nobels in chemistry, physics and medicine dating back to 1967, said in an open letter released by the Democratic presidential candidate's campaign.

The scientists, who included 2003 chemistry winners Peter Agre and Roderick MacKinnon, accused the Bush administration of undermining America's future by reducing funding for science and turning away scientific talent with restrictive immigration policies.

"John Kerry will change all this," they said. "John Kerry will restore science to its appropriate place in government."

Kerry, on his first public campaign visit to Colorado, told supporters at a rainy rally in a downtown Denver park that the United States was losing its scientific lead over other nations. He promised to put the country once again "at the forefront of scientific discovery."

The Massachusetts senator argued that greater technological innovation could transform the economy, creating jobs, cleaner energy and medical advances.

"We need a president who will again embrace the tradition of looking toward the future and new discoveries with hope based on scientific facts, not fear," Kerry said, citing his plans to lift barriers to stem cell research, a move Bush has opposed.

Bush came under renewed pressure on the stem cell issue after the death of former President Ronald Reagan, who suffered from a disease, Alzheimer's, that might be cured or treated with stem-cell therapy.

As an added bonus, check this quote out (from the same article):

Kerry was greeted at the Aspen airport by legendary wild man author Hunter S. Thompson, inventor of "gonzo" journalism -- the reporting of facts from a personal perspective.

The two, who have met before, rode together in Kerry's motorcade to the mountainside home of airline leasing executive and major Democratic donor Michael Goldberg.

"How does this sound? Vice President Hunter Thompson," joked Kerry, who is pondering his choice of a vice presidential running mate. "Do you feel better?"

Kerry brought along three copies of "Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail," Thompson's book about the 1972 presidential campaign, for the author to autograph.

Yes. Beautiful.

This comes to us by way of The Gadflyer's Fly Trap, and boy has it made my day. First of all, it warms my heart in a big way to see all of the good work coming out of the New Yorker lately; with Hersh's reporting alone (without which we'd still be in the dark about Abu Ghraib), they've re-earned their stature and continue to do so during this dark period in American history. But of course, more essential to salviging democracy here at home, there is the content. As a compliment to the 26 retired diplomats and military officials calling for the removal of Bush from the White House, we now have word of the Donkeys in the Desert.

In late April, a group of Americans serving in Iraq sent a letter to John Kerry, appealing to the candidate as both an ex-soldier and a peace seeker. It read, in part, “Put bluntly: we believe you need to get over here, suck in some sand and sweat a bit in the desert heat while talking to, among others, U.S. soldiers, Iraqi technocrats, Coalition officials, private sector reconstruction contractors, and tribal leaders. Perhaps only then will you begin to get a real sense of the real Iraq, for Iraq cannot be understood from the halls of Washington or via briefing papers alone.” The letter concluded, “As our next Commander-in-Chief, the sooner you get over here, the better,” and it was signed, “Donkeys in the Desert.”

Something I just don't understand, though:

In addition to the Kerry letter (to which the candidate has not yet responded), the group also published a mission statement, of sorts, in the Overseas Democrat, the newsletter of Democrats Abroad, an official Party organization representing some six million American expatriates.

What could be the justification for ignoring this group? I'm sure Kerry has his reasons, I'd hope so, but I, for one, think a visit to these troops, all of the troops, is very much in order. Especially given such as this:

“There’s a misperception that if you’re in the military you’re going to vote Republican,” Weston went on. “But in the Army there are a lot of rinos: Republicans in Name Only. I think there’s frustration from a lot of reservists, whose terms of service keep being extended.”

Kerry should go. In his stead as a United States Senator, he has every right and, I'd argue, a duty to do so, especially given his candidacy and, I must point out, his culpability for their presence in Iraq in the first place. Suck in some sand and sweat a bit in the desert heat indeed. Go John. Go.

It's a very good, brief piece. I encourage y'all to go check it out. And of course, share it with everyone you know.

So Glad to Be of Service to You, Mr. President

Good to know our tax dollars are being put to such good use:

President Bush is using Air Force One for re-election travel more heavily than any predecessor, wringing maximum political mileage from a perk of office paid for by taxpayers.

While Democratic rival John Kerry digs into his campaign bank account to charter a plane to roam the country, Bush often travels at no cost to his campaign simply by declaring a trip "official" travel rather than "political."...

...of the more than $203 million Bush has raised for his re-election, less than 1 percent has gone to reimbursing the government for travel costs this year....

...The reimbursements do not cover the cargo planes that shuttle the president's limousines and helicopters to every event, or travel expenses of White House advance workers who lay the groundwork for the trips....

...It is difficult to say precisely what the Bush campaign is repaying the government per trip. The White House refuses to:

-Provide lists of political aides who travel with Bush and whose travels are financed by the re-election campaign; or say how many political aides go on any given trip, or even offer a range.

-Provide dollar figures on reimbursements for specific trips. Bush's re-election campaign periodically reports to the FEC lump reimbursement sums for unspecified travel.

-Say how it decides which trips are official rather than political.

Call Them on This

Still they shill. While "word on the street" is that the press is finally taking the president and his fellows to task, CNN is still whoring, big time. From Atrios:

Call CNN
[Kelli] ARENA: Neither John Kerry nor the president has said troops pulled out of Iraq any time soon. But there is some speculation that al Qaeda believes it has a better chance of winning in Iraq if John Kerry is in the White House.

BEN VENZKE, INTELCENTER: Al Qaeda feels that Bush is, even despite casualties, right or wrong for staying there is going to stay much longer than possibly what they might hope a Democratic administration would.

There you go. We're fighting al Qaeda in Iraq and they think John Kerry is a wimp.

Atlanta:
404-827-1500

Washington:
202-898-7900

You can communicate your thoughts to Ms. Arena personally at:
kelli.arena@turner.com

And last night, Paula Zahn was working hard, hard, hard to link AL Gore's fiery condemnation to the "Dean Scream" in Iowa. To hell with them. Call. Today.

***Update****
I'm removed from TV access (a good thing, all in all), and haven't seen, but according to Atrios, CNN is repeating the story. This means it's been worked in to the rotation, and the misinformation will be spread for twenty-four hours at least. Call them NOW.

Also, Atrios adds:

You can now send your emails to Eason Jordan at Eason.Jordan@turner.com. He's CNN's chief news executive.

President Kerry

...spoke today on our National Insecurity and what he intends to do about it. I've yet to read the entire transcript of his speech (been busy rereading Al Gore's from yesterday. Whoo boy! More on that a little later.), but I like what I hear. I wonder if Gore's blistering attack yesterday will pull Kerry into a better fighting stance than he's assumed to date.

Kerry needs to say what must be said. America must be made aware of the stakes here. We need not appeal to the "moderate" misunderstanding of just how dire of a situation we now find ourselves in, thanks to Bush's actions since assuming power. Americans must be educated at every point of the ideological sliding scale as to the unmitigated failure of Bush in the War on Terror. He has put this and at least the next generation of Americans at an incredibly heightened risk, as well as ushering in an age of global destabilization we've very rarely seen before.

SEATTLE (Reuters) - Democratic White House challenger John Kerry on Thursday proposed a national security policy to better fight terror and repair what he described as the damage caused by President Bush's go-it-alone bullying.

"There is still a powerful yearning around the world for an America that listens and leads again -- an America that is respected, and not just feared," Kerry declared in remarks prepared for delivery at a campaign event in Seattle.

Kerry offered a national security policy based on "four imperatives": building a new era of U.S.-led alliances; modernizing the military; better use of diplomatic, intelligence and economic power; and freeing America from its dependence on Mideast oil.

But now compare that with a taste of Gore's speech yesterday (but you really must see the speech to truly appreciate the passion with which it was delivered):

What happened at the prison, it is now clear, was not the result of random acts by "a few bad apples," it was the natural consequence of the Bush Administration policy that has dismantled those wise constraints and has made war on America's checks and balances.

The abuse of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib flowed directly from the abuse of the truth that characterized the Administration's march to war and the abuse of the trust that had been placed in President Bush by the American people in the aftermath of September 11th.

There was then, there is now and there would have been regardless of what Bush did, a threat of terrorism that we would have to deal with. But instead of making it better, he has made it infinitely worse. We are less safe because of his policies. He has created more anger and righteous indignation against us as Americans than any leader of our country in the 228 years of our existence as a nation -- because of his attitude of contempt for any person, institution or nation who disagrees with him.

He has exposed Americans abroad and Americans in every U.S. town and city to a greater danger of attack by terrorists because of his arrogance, willfulness, and bungling at stirring up hornet's nests that pose no threat whatsoever to us. And by then insulting the religion and culture and tradition of people in other countries. And by pursuing policies that have resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children, all of it done in our name. President Bush said in his speech Monday night that the war in Iraq is "the central front in the war on terror." It's not the central front in the war on terror, but it has unfortunately become the central recruiting office for terrorists. [Dick Cheney said, "This war may last the rest of our lives.] The unpleasant truth is that President Bush's utter incompetence has made the world a far more dangerous place and dramatically increased the threat of terrorism against the United States. Just yesterday, the International Institute of Strategic Studies reported that the Iraq conflict " has arguable focused the energies and resources of Al Qaeda and its followers while diluting those of the global counterterrorism coalition." The ISS said that in the wake of the war in Iraq Al Qaeda now has more than 18,000 potential terrorists scattered around the world and the war in Iraq is swelling its ranks.

How utterly refreshing it is to hear the truth spoken plainly (if red-faced and trembling with anger).

Prince of Thieves

I've yet to read the book, but from the excerpts in the Washington Post and points discussed in the major media, the most damning information in Bob Woodward's new book has to be the "Bandar revelation." For those who haven't heard, Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia has promised the Bush administration that OPEC will increase crude oil production and lower prices before the November elections to ensure a solid economic boost for Bush to run on..

First, there's the obvious question of, if Bandar can raise or lower crude prices as he sees fit, what's stopping him from doing so now, when Americans are paying historically high (though internationally still very low) gasoline prices. You'd expect no less from such a close Bush family friend that that the president's mother has nicknamed him Bandar Bush, a man with such a high standing in the Bush administration that he was briefed on the Iraq war plan before even the president's own Secretary of State.

But then of course we must ask why crude prices are suddenly so high to begin with. A vague, "because of the war" makes no sense. We've been in Iraq for a year. Why now? What's the driving factor behind the inflated prices Americans are paying at the pump? We know that American oil companies are processing less of the crude they have on hand, which is in turn driving prices up just as surely as OPEC's decreasing output, but it is the compounded effect of the two that have prices reaching the heights they are. That, though, is not at issue. Why has an organization, OPEC, headed by Prince Bandar, close Bush family friend and trusted ally, chosen to cut back on production now? If logic counts for anything, he must have had a hand in the price spike as well.

Given that Bandar enjoys such privileged access to the Oval Office and the Crawford ranch as well, given that he is briefed on war plans clearly marked as classified against any foreign eyes, that he would allow oil prices to rise to current levels implies one of two things. Either he is indifferent to the political "heat" on Bush, which is unimaginable, or this spike was, as was the planned pre-election drop, decided upon in advance. Under cover of an OPEC decision to cut back production, American companies cut back operations at their refineries too, increasing not only Arabian but American profits as well. Everybody wins. Everybody, that is, except the independent gas station proprietor and the American consumer.

The biggest question raised by all this is why, and how, on earth an Arab monarch can play such a participatory role in American politics. Forget the hundreds of millions of dollars funneled to Bush family and friends by the Saudi Royals. Forget the Saudi nationals collected from all around the country in the days following September 11th, flown to the safety of their homeland and free from questioning by American authorities. Forget about the fact that the Saudi government is paying top dollar for Bush familiar James Baker's law firm to defend themselves in a civil suit brought by the families of 9/11 victims. Forget even the oil connection that binds the families Bush and Saud together at the hip.

The Bush administration owes the American public a detailed and honest accounting of what exactly gives an Arabian monarch the right to decide an American election. The price-fixing amounts to nothing less than Prince Bandar, and by proxy the Saudi government, attempting to influence who should be in power in the United States, a decision traditionally left to the American voter. That 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens should not be lost on us either. After the furor raised over John Kerry suggesting that there were many "foreign leaders" who would like to see him prevail in November, the Bush campaign, if not the administration (devoid as they are of responsibility--for anything), should explain how a tyrannical and oil-rich kingdom's meddling in the electoral integrity of America can be any better at all.

These questions, like so many others before and undoubtedly still to come will most likely go unanswered by the president, but that shouldn't stop Americans from asking them. If the Bush administration is ever to understand that accountability does indeed extend to their own actions, it will only come by the American public calling loudly for answers. Though he did, unfortunately, once publicly long for an American dictatorship (it would be a lot easier, he said) Bush should realize that he is not, unlike his friends in the Saudi royal family, a brutal despot past the reach of both law and public opinion. Not yet, in any event.