More on the "Your Kids Are Going To Die" warning

Now the administration is saying that the school warning came about because last July they found a computer disk in Iraq that had the floor plans to US schools. I simply do not believe it.

For all we know, no one found anything in Iraq. Or. some CIA, DOD, or other pro-Bush individual simply downloaded a few Web sites to a computer disk and left it somewhere for others to find. Why is that so hard to believe? Bad cops sometimes plant evidence at the scene of a crime. Are we to believe that no pro-Bush partisan is, well, partisan enough to plant fake evidence to help the president win the election? Hell, these guys are willing to lie about WMD being in Iraq, so why wouldn't they lie about a simple computer diskette, if it served their purpose?

I hate so say this, because for all I know perhaps someone is casing our schools, but I simply don't believe a single God damn thing this administration says about anything anymore, period. They lied repeatedly about finding WMD in Iraq. remember that little Sarin shell they found months ago? Haven't heard a lot about that since then, have we? These guys base their lives on lies. It's all for the greater good, they think. And if they're willing to lie about why it's "good" to invade Iraq, then they're just as willing to lie about why it's "good" that Bush win the election.

Again, I hate to say it, because I'm not usually a conspriracy theorist, and God forbid an attack actually happen, but these son of a bitches have lied to me for the last time. They can go to hell before I'm going to believe them ever again. Read More......

Global Test

(Credit goes to Atrios, I stole this off of his site, it was too funny to pass up.) Read More......

Newsweek's Fineman: Bush is sounding desperate

MSNBC/Newsweek:

Bush is beginning to sound desperate
by Howard Fineman, MSNBC/Newsweek

George Bush's real political enemy now isn't so much John Kerry as it is the flow of the news. Not long ago, Kerry's decision to attack the president as commander-in-chief (remember all those Swift Boat vets in Boston?) was dismissed by analysts (including me) as naïve at best, folly at worst. Well, it may turn out to have been the move that wins this race.

Presidential campaigns take on a life and shape of their own in the last stretch and this one now has. It's the president desperately trying to tear down Kerry as the news tears down the president. Good things are happening in the war on terrorism — the voting in Afghanistan, for example — but they are all but unnoticed in the rising flood of stories from and about Iraq.

As things now stand, Bush is left with only one argument and justification for having launched a war that has cost 1,000 lives, $150 billion and whatever goodwill America had won in the aftermath of 9/11. His last-resort reason: Saddam Hussein might have developed weapons that he might have given to terrorists that might attack the United States. And even that reasoning is undermined by the new report of the Iraq Survey Group, which says that Saddam's capacities, whatever they might have been, were withering, not "gathering," under the weight of inspections.

We now know to a relative certainty that there were no WMD, no relationship with al-Qaida to speak of, no close ties to other major terrorists, and that, in the view of Paul Bremer — Bush's own man in Baghdad and a fellow Yalie — the Bush administration pretty much botched the occupation.

One new poll out shows that half the American people now think the war in Iraq was a mistake; as that number rises, and it will, Bush's fortunes will decline, as they are now doing. History shows that only one challenger in modern times has been behind in the AP poll on Labor Day and come back to win. That challenger was Ronald Reagan. Now Kerry is no Reagan, not by a long shot. But if people conclude that Bush was profoundly wrong to have gone to Iraq, Kerry doesn't have to be Reagan....

Read More......

Zogby: Kerry ahead in battleground states

Zogby:

Fresh off one of the highest points of his campaign – a superior performance in the first head-to-head debate against President Bush – Democratic challenger John Kerry not only stopped the slow leak of support for his campaign, but added back some air to the inner tube keeping afloat his run for the White House.

As a result, he remains on top in a still-tight race that shows every indication it may be every bit as close as 2000, with support for Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry teetering within a very slim margin.

Mr. Kerry now leads in the race for Electoral College votes and can now see a path to victory, but it’s still far from his grasp. Needing 270 votes to become the next President, he has coddled together a lead in states that total 278, compared to just 207 for Mr. Bush, the latest collection of polls by Zogby Interactive shows.

The latest group of surveys, conducted Sept. 30 to Oct. 5 after the first presidential debate in Coral Gables, Florida, reflects the first substantive drop in Mr. Bush’s fortunes since Mr. Kerry named North Carolina Sen. John Edwards to the Democratic ticket in July.

But unlike the Edwards appointment, this drop was more of Mr. Bush’s own making, as he stumbled and stuttered his way through the first face-to-face, looking and sounding defensive about the one bifurcated issue that has given his campaign muscle all year long – the war in Iraq and the war on terror.

Mr. Kerry lost the lead in none of the nine states he controlled in the interactive surveys of Sept. 21, and grabbed tiny leads in two states that had been counted in the Bush column in the last round – Colorado, with nine Electoral votes, and Nevada, which boasts five.

Two states remained undecided because they are so close – Florida, with 27 votes, and Arkansas, with six – and are not counted in the Electoral College tally in this report.

The biggest news is the third state that is now also too close to call: all-important Ohio, a Midwestern bellwether that carries 20 votes for the winner. Mr. Bush had lead here, at times handsomely, but that lead is now so much wind through his fingers.

The importance of Ohio cannot be understated: never has a Republican won the White House without carrying Ohio. Never. Though the latest collection of polls shows Mr. Kerry doesn’t need Ohio or Florida to win the race, should he capture either one, the game is over. Mr. Bush won both four years ago and, even then, just eked out the win after five inglorious weeks of political wrangling almost unprecedented in our history.

The shift in the polls, however small, underscores the importance of the remaining debates between Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush. If Mr. Bush again shows poorly, he may kick just enough undecideds into the Kerry campaign by convincing them that he is just not up to the task of another four-year term. If he shows strong, this race could revert back to its complexion of a couple weeks ago, when Mr. Bush had a slow but steady drive building in the grass roots.

There is hope for the incumbent. Mr. Bush remains close in several states that were won by Democrat Al Gore four years ago, and he leads in the toss-up states of Missouri and North Carolina, the home of Democratic vice presidential hopeful John Edwards.

This is the shape of the current political landscape: Mr. Kerry, always known as a strong campaign closer, holds a lead heading into the last crucial weeks. It may take an extraordinary set of circumstances, like a knock-out punch in one of the two remaining debates, for the President, known as a disciplined campaign plodder, to climb back into this one in time.

Mr. Bush is known more for his kidney punches than his rainmakers to the jaw. Yet, Mr. Kerry has also proven this year that he is one of the worst at preserving a lead. Forget winning. This race could boil down to a question of which candidate manages not to lose as badly as his opponent.

Another point. Because there was a once-per-decade political reapportionment to reflect population shifts after the 2000 election, Mr. Bush theoretically gained strength because more Electoral College votes shifted from Gore Blue states to Bush red states. If the race were run this year exactly as it turned out four years ago, Mr. Bush would win by a 278-260 margin. According to this latest series of polls, he has lost 71 Electoral College votes, compared to where he started this race. That’s more than the total of California and Michigan combined.

But again, 53 votes (Florida, Ohio, and Arkansas – all won by Mr. Bush four years ago) remain too close to call, and others are extremely close, easily within the margin of error. This is by no means a Kerry blowout.

Read More......

Zogby's latest on Bush vs. Kerry

Zogby:

Bush v. Kerry
In the first Reuters/Zogby poll in election 2004, President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry are in a dead heat race for the White House—with President Bush holding a slight edge over Senator Kerry (46%-44%). The telephone sample of 1217 likely voters was conducted from Monday through Wednesday (October 4-6, 2004). Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/-2.9%.

Favorable/Unfavorable
President Bush and Senator Kerry are statistically tied with their favorable ratings (55%-54%) and unfavorable ratings (44%-43%).

Prez Job Performance
President Bush’s overall job performance rating shows a 47% approval rating and a 52% disapproval rating.

Right Track, Wrong Track45% country on right track, 48% wrong track

A near majority of voters in the armed forces (50%)... believe that the US is headed on the wrong track.

Bush loses NASCAR fans
When asked if President Bush "deserves to be re-elected", 44% support the president, while half (50%) still say that it is "time for someone new." The President’s bid for re-election is support by: those in rural areas (57%); small cities (46%); married couples (50%); Protestants (56%); and conservatives (75%). Among those who say that it’s time for someone new are: independents (53%); Hispanics (43%); African-Americans (84%); younger voters (63%); women (52%); and NASCAR fans (52%).

Pollster John Zogby:
"Remember this is larger than Bush vs. Kerry. This is two equal-sized warring nations going into this election. The first set of numbers in our Reuters/Zogby Tracking Poll shows this. Kerry leads in the East (48%-44%) and West (49%-42%), while Bush leads in the South (56%-36%). They are tied in the Central-Great Lakes Region at 43% apiece. Please note the higher undecideds in this region which has several battleground states. Also, the initial impact of Edwards in the South seems to have dissipated.

"Kerry leads big among 18-29 year olds (56%-31%) and Bush holds an impressive lead among 30-49 year olds (54%-38%) -- but the two are tied among voters over 50.

"I have stated all year that Bush needs to win among self-identified investor class members by double- digits and he is ahead in this group 51%-42%. He also leads among households with someone currently serving in the military or veteran (52%-39%).

"While Bush is holding on to a 90% support level among Republicans, Kerry receives only 76% of the Democrats. Kerry leads by 5 points among Independents (45%-40%), with a large percentage of undecideds.

"The marriage gap is wide: Bush leads by 13 points among married voters (52%-39%) while Kerry has single voters by 27 points (57%-30%). Kerry leads among voters who hold active passports (49%-42%).

"Interestingly, the two have pretty much the same favorable-unfavorable ratings, revealing how split this nation really is. The President's job performance rating is still negative, though improved (47% positive, 52% negative). But only 44% feel that he deserves re-election to 50% who think it is time for someone new.

"Kerry's edge on the economy is gone. Among those who cite the economy as the top issue, the candidates are in a dead heat --Bush holding a slight edge of 46%-44%. The President also leads among those who cite the war on terror as the top issue (68%-26%) -- but the Senator holds big leads among those who cite education (51%-36%), the war in Iraq (51%-39%), and health care (52%-38%).

"Among undecided voters, only 15% feel the President deserves to be re-elected, while 39% say it is time for someone new."

Read More......

House GOP leaderships kills Hate Crime bill again

Yep, it passed both the House and the Senate, and simply added three new categories to the ALREADY EXISTING law on the books. In addition to race, religion and national origin, which are already on the books, the bill would have added sexual orientation, gender and disability. But for the GOP the trifecta of helping gays, women and people with disabilities was just a little too do-good. So they killed it again.

Vote the bastards out. Read More......

Another 7400 jobs lost in an instant

AT&T; announces another round of layoffs.

Added to this morning's announcement from BoA, that's 11,900 jobs eliminated at only two companies in a single day.

Tomorrow morning, the Bureau of Labor Statistics will release its September numbers. No matter what they say, dubya will declare victory. To the nearly 12,000 people that lost their jobs today from just those two companies, well, it's hard work.
Read More......

No comment necessary

Read More......

Cheney now say damning new report PROVES HIS CASE

The hubris, the ability to lie and lie and lie again with a straight face, is absolutely incredible. Today Dick Cheney said that the Duelfer report, that showed Saddam didn't have a lick of WMD and wasn't on the path to getting any either, actually HELPS SUPPORT THE CASE FOR WAR. How?

Although the report says Saddam's weapons program had deteriorated since the 1991 Gulf War and did not pose a threat to the world in 2003, it also says Saddam's main goal was the removal of international sanctions. "As soon as the sanctions were lifted he had every intention of going back" to his weapons program, Cheney said.

Well, ok, but wasn't that why we had the sanctions on him in the first place, because we feared without them he'd try to build WMD? I mean, that's a justification FOR sanctions, not a justification for throwing out the sanctions and declaring war. And the fact that Saddam wanted to throw out the sanctions says nothing. Every prisoner wants to be free, that's hardly cause for locking him up even longer, or killing him. The test here was whether the sanctions were working or not, and the Duelfer reports says they were. If the UN ever decided it wanted to lift the sanctions, we could have announced in advance that that would have meant war. But we didn't. The UN actually got the inspections going again, and THEN we declared war anyway. There is no scenario under which this administration would have not declared war on Saddam Hussein. It was their plan from the beginning, they repeatedly denied it was their plan, and now they're arguing that it actually WAS their plan all along.

These jackasses need to be voted out of office and thrown in jail. Read More......

Aides admit Bush stoking fears of terrorism for political gain

UPDATE: I cannot believe this. The Bushies have just issued a terror warning about, you guessed it, Al Qaeda is coming to kill your kids in school. Gee, isn't it an amazing coincidence that the polls showed just a few weeks ago that "security moms" were freaked about the Russian school killings and that such security moms were more prone to vote for Bush because of the killings. And now we have the Bushies telling America's moms, out of the blue, once Bush's numbers are falling, that Al Qaeda is coming after your pre-schooler. No warning on this 7 WEEKS AGO WHEN THE KILLINGS ACTUALLY HAPPENED. No, the warning comes now, right before the election. These guys are scum.

Read this little tidbit buried in a front page Washington Post story today. According to Bush's aides, regarding the "big speech" he gave yesterday, "The strategy is aimed at stoking public fears about terrorism..."

What? They're actually admitting that they're trying to stoke the public's fears about terrorism for political gain. Jesus F'ng Christ. This is not just despicable, but guess what that means the next time the Bush Administration puts out a terror warning? The next time they raise us to a code whatever? It means a lot of us, even more now, are going to wondering if this is just another effort to "stoke our public fears about terrorism." Which means the next time the threat is real people could die, since many won't believe the threat is real, taking it as more political posturing by the Bush administration.

Is it just me, or is this one of the most outrageous and damning admissions yet from Bush's own people? This alone could win Kerry the election - demand that whoever on Bush's staff gave that interview be fired immediately.

The strongly worded speech, which indicted Kerry as a "tax-and-spend liberal," was timed to deflect criticism of Bush's Iraq policy from such key sources as former Iraq administrator L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. weapons inspector and the State Department. A Bush adviser said the president hopes to change the dynamics of the race with more biting attacks on Kerry's record and trustworthiness and on what Bush charges is Kerry's reluctance to use U.S. military force to defeat terrorism. The strategy is aimed at stoking public fears about terrorism, raising new concerns about Kerry's ability to protect Americans and reinforcing Bush's image as the steady anti-terrorism candidate, aides said.

Read More......

Nader taking money from Swift Boat donors

It's hard to see what was once a good man fall, but Ralph Nader has become the big money-grubbing bad guy he's railed against for his entire life. According to today's Washington Post, Nader is knowingly taking money from big right-wing funders of the Swift Boat Veterans. I'd call that dirty money if there ever was any. How does Nader's spokesman respond to the charges? "Twenty-five percent of our voters are people who voted for Bush. I'm not surprised there's some overlap in funding, as well." And then this little baby, "If they support us, they support us. We can still criticize their advertising campaign."

I'm sorry, but what is the difference between Ralph Nader and some big congressional whore if the test for accepting donations is "hey, if you suport me, you support me." Doesn't that pretty much mean everything is ok? Hardly Nader's previous position over his entire career. Not to mention, how is there not a conflict of interest in Nader criticizing the Swifties, yet taking what amounts to their money?

And finally, Nader's own spokesman just admitted that ONLY 25% OF THEIR VOTES ARE COMING FROM BUSH. The rest - 75% - are per se coming from either undecideds or Kerry supporters. That means that Nader is hurting Kerry, period. And even he admits it.

We may need to add another photo soon to the skank column (wonder if we can get Ralph Nader in a leather vest?) Read More......

I [heart] Betty Bowers

As only Betty could analyze the VP debate:

So I don't know why people are scoffing at Mr. Cheney for stating that he never tied Iraq to 9/11, he'd never met John Edwards or that things are going swimmingly in Iraq. Yes, to those obsessed with facts, such statements would appear to be brazen lies. But it is like I always say to myself when filling out that rudely inquisitive "age" box on forms: If you repeat a lie, it becomes your truth. And if you repeat a lie often enough, you become a Republican.

Read More......

Why is it ok for Coulter to be such a skank?

I'm serious. Ann Coulter, Miss Conservative, always dresses in public like she wants to get fucked, right then and there. As someone who makes her living off of launching personal attacks on others, it's fair game to ask why Coulter panders to her conservative fan base by dressing like such a skank? She appeals to them with sex, when I thought that was a big no-no on their side of the aisle. Not to mention, for someone so highly critical of others for being supposed intellectual fakes, you have to wonder about a chick who relies on T&A; to sell her ideas. To wit, this photo from the cover of her latest book (I'm sorry, sleeveless leather? Come on):

Read More......

The Dead

Every day, if I'm up for it, I think I'd like to post the photo and bio of an American who has been killed in Iraq. I think it's important we see just who's dying for this war. I'm starting with this young man, who died a few days ago, and just so happens to be from a town a few miles from where I grew up. Tell me he doesn't look every kid in your neighborhood and your family.


Died October 1, 2004

Army Sgt. Jack T. Hennessy

21, of Naperville, Ill.; assigned to 1st Battalion, 9th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas; killed Oct. 1 when his check point came under small-arms fire in Baghdad. Read More......

Cheney now haggling over definition of "met"

Good God, they're actually defending Cheney's outright lie that he never met Edwards before. And even better, they're lying in their lie about the lie. Suggesting that Cheney said he never met Edwards at work - which Cheney didn't say at all. And even if that were true, how is meeting Edwards on the Senate floor not "at work"? Was the requirement that Edwards be bent over scribbling a piece of legislation when he "met" Cheney? Or that they be in a room negotiating something?

I mean hell, by Cheney's standard, Edwards was in the Senate EVERY DAY and never once met Cheney, the president of the Senate, "at work." So I guess that means Cheney didn't do a damn thing his entire term (well, other than lie to get us into a war that's killed over 1,000 Americans and set back the war on terror).

As the DNC said the other day in a new ad, if they're willing to lie about the little things...From the Washinton Post:

It depends on what the meaning of the word "met" is: Some debate viewers thought Vice President Cheney, who also serves as president of the Senate, got off a good zinger Tuesday night when he ripped into John Edwards's attendance in the Senate. Like a stern principal, Cheney lectured Edwards, the boyish truant: "The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight."

Ooops. Turns out they'd met at least three times before. One of the meetings was caught on camera: on Feb. 1, 2001, when the vice president thanked the North Carolina senator by name and dined next to him at a Senate prayer breakfast. Then on Jan. 8, 2003, Edwards accompanied Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.) to her swearing-in -- conducted by Cheney. And, according to Tim Russert, a pretty good eyewitness, Edwards and Cheney also met backstage and shook hands on April 8, 2001, during a taping of NBC's "Meet the Press."

Was Cheney dissembling -- as Edwards suggested post-debate -- or misremembering? Of course not! The Bush-Cheney camp yesterday portrayed those occasions as "casual encounters," not meetings.

"The fact is that the vice president has never seen John Edwards at work. . . . He's never met John Edwards at work in the U.S. Senate," campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt told us. "The vice president meets thousands of people and he's had three casual encounters with John Edwards. . . . I think most people understand that a casual encounter -- a breakfast, Elizabeth Dole's swearing-in -- is different from John Edwards showing up at work."

They had a "casual encounter" rather than acually meeting. I thought Cheney was trying to get those banned in the Constitution? Read More......

It's Iraq, stupid

According to a new Zogby poll, Kerry wins when the issue is IRAQ:

With the war in Iraq dominating the campaign agenda, Kerry opened a 51-39 percent lead over Bush among voters who cite Iraq as the top issue. Bush held a 68-26 percent lead among voters who cite the war on terror as the top issue.

But while Kerry once hoped the economy would give him a vital advantage, he has not been able to break away from Bush among voters worried about the topic.

"Kerry's edge on the economy is gone," pollster John Zogby said. "Among those who cite the economy as the top issue, the candidates are in a dead heat -- Bush holding a slight edge" at 46-44 percent.

Read More......

Poland?

From the Washington Post:

"Among the most diplomatically explosive revelations [in the Dalfeur report] was that Hussein had established a worldwide network of companies and countries, most of them U.S. allies, that secretly helped Iraq generate $11 billion in illegal income and locate, finance and import banned services and technologies. Among those named are officials or companies from Belarus, China, Lebanon, France, Indonesia, Jordan, Poland, Russia, Turkey, Syria, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen."

Poland? Read More......

Another 4,500 jobs gone in an instant

BoA cuts workforce 2.5 percent.

You know, it's hard work, destroying an economy like this.
Read More......

Bush backs down on defending the homeland because it might hurt him in the polls

I smell desperation. From Newsweek:

President Bush today distanced himself from his administration’s quiet effort to push through a law that would make it easier to send captured terror suspects to countries where torture is used. The proposed law, recently tacked onto a much larger bill despite the fallout from last spring’s interrogation scandal, is seen as an attempt to counter a recent Supreme Court decision that would free some terror detainees being held without trial.

In a letter published in The Washington Post, White House legal counsel Alberto Gonzales said the president “did not propose and does not support” a provision to the House bill that removes legal protections from suspects preventing their “rendering” to foreign governments known to torture prisoners. Gonzales said Bush “has made clear that the United States stands against and will not tolerate torture.”

But John Feehery, spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who introduced the bill last Friday, said the provision had actually been requested by the Department of Homeland Security. “For whatever reason,” Feehery said, “the White House has decided they don’t want to take this on because they’re afraid of the political implications.”

Now, wait a minute. Bush thinks this legislation is necessary to defend the homeland against the next "big one" (caused by Kerry's election, I guess), but he doesn't want to push it now since it might hurt him in the polls. Get that. Bush doesn't want to do what HE THINKS is necessary to defend our country because it might hurt him in a poll. So he'd rather risk 3,000 more people dying than dropping 3 points in the polls. Regardless of what YOU think of this legislation, BUSH thinks it's necessary but is willing to sell out for political gain. That's scary.

How's that for a debate question? Mr. President, how many points in the polls would you be willing to drop before selling out the American people to terrorists? Read More......

U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons

I know we reported on the Duelfer report yesterday, but today's top headline in the Washington Post is hard to pass up. "US 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons." Wow.

The 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capability and, for the most part, Saddam Hussein did not try to rebuild it, according to an extensive report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that contradicts nearly every prewar assertion made by top administration officials about Iraq.

Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program."

The findings were similar on biological and chemical weapons. While Hussein had long dreamed of developing an arsenal of biological agents, his stockpiles had been destroyed and research stopped years before the United States led the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Duelfer said Hussein hoped someday to resume a chemical weapons effort after U.N. sanctions ended, but had no stocks and had not researched making the weapons for a dozen years.

Duelfer's report, delivered yesterday to two congressional committees, represents the government's most definitive accounting of Hussein's weapons programs, the assumed strength of which the Bush administration presented as a central reason for the war. While previous reports have drawn similar conclusions, Duelfer's assessment went beyond them in depth, detail and level of certainty.

"We were almost all wrong" on Iraq, Duelfer told a Senate panel yesterday.

Ok, time to say it. Our 1,000+ dead in Iraq died for President Bush's mistake. Read More......

Guns, knives now PERMITTED in grounds, parking lots of DC's airports

Thank God. You know, it's been 3 years since I had to fear for my life and my country in this city, and it's about time our officials did something to make my life a bit more dangerous.

Apparently the gun nuts were upset that they couldn't bring their guns to the airport. Now they can. (Wonder if this includes box-cutters?)

Disgusting, absolutely disgusting.

PS Wonder what George Bush's position is on this? Mr. Kerry ought to bring it up on Friday. Read More......

Step 1: Admit that you have a problem

Last night I tuned in to CNN and the news anchor reported that the new study by Charles Duelfer "offered both sides something to support their case." That is quite an interesting way of putting it after Duelfer reported yesterday that "we were almost all wrong" to the Congressional committees. I do not really see much that supports the Bush position. That's quite a stretch for CNN though not much of a surprise.

Kerry really needs to hammer the point that Bush is unwilling and unable to change in light of new reports. How can you correct a problem if you can not admit that you have a problem?
Read More......

Bush digging in his heels

Perhaps he's doing this because he has nowhere to go and simply can not admit any mistake, ever. Even insiders realize that this is a risky strategy though they believe that if they change it will only play into the hands of Kerry. Perhaps, but it appears to me that Kerry is doing an excellent job of painting Bush as a stubborn man that does not have the ability to face facts and change when necessary. The flip-flopping works both ways.

Mr. Bush's new speech signaled that he would stand firm between now and Election Day over his handling of Iraq and appeared to be an effort to take attention away from the 918-page report released in Washington on Wednesday detailing how Saddam Hussein's stockpiles of unconventional weapons had been
dismantled years before the invasion last year, and how the Iraqi dictator's ability to pose a serious military threat - a justification for war Mr. Bush still makes regularly - had eroded after 1991.

There was a time for Mr. Bush to make such concessions, the official said, but "that moment passed months ago." To do so now, the official argued, would both undercut the campaign and the 138,000 American troops in Iraq.

But one of Mr. Bush's closest aides said that "it's more important that he shows he is going to stick with it, not look back, and make this work."

In fact, Mr. Bush's new speech did not contain a line he has often used acknowledging that no caches of chemical and biological weapons had been uncovered in Iraq.

Meanwhile, the New Donkey is saying to look out for the new pivot in Bush strategy. We should expect even more aggressive attacks about Kerry's record as Bush tries to push Kerry out to the fringe (where Bush already resides.) Bush is in a corner and has nowhere to go. With Bush now attacking Kerry from an event in 1972, will we see Kerry make mention of Bushies "lost years?" Wow. Does Bush really want to go back over those times and open up a full review of his own life back then? Dangerous territory there for Bush and it just goes to show how desperate and afraid of losing they are.
Read More......