Great chat tonight on AMERICAblog

Just a quick note to say that we had another great chat tonight on AMERICAblog. We had a much more fun night than our last chat during the Republican convention - that was more like a group therapy session.

Tonight was a great night for our side. John Kerry did a great job, he looked like the President he can become. He was honest with the American people - and I can tell you that the chat room loved every minute of it. Hopefully we'll have another chat at the next debate. Read the rest of this post...

VOTE in the post-debate polls

MSNBC: http://hudson.typepad.com/line/2004/09/click_em_all_vo.html

CNN: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/ Read the rest of this post...

AMERICAblog Debate Chat

Like we did during the Republican Convention, AMERICAblog will host a chat. Send an AOL Instant Message to robinbaltimoremd and I'll invite you to join. Read the rest of this post...

OPEN THREAD - DEBATE IS ON

Chat away Read the rest of this post...

By the way, donate to Kerry TONIGHT if you can

Tonight marks the end of the giving quarter when financial statements have to be filed with the feds. If you can give to the DNC to help Kerry's election BY MIDNIGHT TONIGHT it will be counted in the forms they file tomorrow. Why does this matter? Because the more money the DNC files tomorrow, the BIGGER the story about the momentum Kerry has picked up in recent donations this quarter. May sound silly, but it's for real - this kind of stuff matters big-time when influencing public opinion. Also, it's not like the DNC couldn't use more money to help run its ads for Kerry.

So, if it moves you, please use this link to go to the DNC Web site and give some love to help defeat Bush. I'm clicking right now and giving $100 bucks. Please give whatever you feel appropriate. JOHN Read the rest of this post...

How we're gonna work the debate on AMERICAblog

Ok, I'm going to watch the debate at a friend's party and will have Internet access there, so I can post throughout. I think I'll post an open thread - or several open threads - where folks can post their comments DURING the debate. Obviously, you can also post to anything I write during the debates. Atrios is doing the open-thread idea, giving each thread a different purpose (exposing Bush's lies, etc.). I think it might just be easier to have one big open thread for folks to post in. What do you guys think?

Also, if I can get it to work, I *might* be on AOL instant messenger during the debate, under screenname: AMERICAblog And I don't ever check that email address, so do NOT email me at AOL. Read the rest of this post...

Kerry wins vote in Marines' latrines

You have to love the French. Only THEY could get away with putting the word "fuck" in a news story. Read the rest of this post...

NEW Zogby analysis: "This race is still John Kerry's to lose"

Fascinating new and just-released-today analysis by John Zogby, one of the top US pollsters, and a pollster often preferred by the Republicans. Read the entire thing, it's worth it and is a quick and easy read, but here are a few excerpts:

Released: September 30, 2004
The Race Is Still Kerry’s To Lose
By John Zogby

I think even more today that if John Kerry loses this race it will be because he has blown an opportunity rather than from any innate strength of the present incumbent....

Remember, this is a candidate who gets about 45%-47% of the vote just by showing up. That is the purely anti-Bush vote....

the Massachusetts Senator still has aces in his hand that he can play. First, the President’s numbers are still not good. Despite a few outlier polls that show a large single digit or even a double digit lead for Mr. Bush, my poll has the President’s lead at only 3% and the average of all the public polls (as of this writing) is only a 4 point lead. Mr. Bush is only polling at 46% to 48% both nationally and in many key battleground states, hardly victory territory. And his barometric readings are still more negative than positive.

The best that can be said is that the President’s numbers are still better than Mr. Kerry’s. But my polling reveals another important fact – Mr. Kerry has more room for growth than the President. He has to first consolidate his base with an anti-war message that his base wants. He need not worry about accusations of flip-flopping on this issue because that is what the other side says about him and they are never going to vote for him under any circumstances. This alone will bring him to parity with the President in the polls.

From there we see a startling statistic: only 16% to 20% of undecided voters feel that the President deserves to be re-elected. Forty-percent of this relatively small group feel that it is time for someone new. They seem to have their minds made up about the President and have been given no reason to vote for Mr. Kerry. What is most important to this group? They agree with Mr. Bush on values, leadership, the war on terror, and likeability. They prefer Mr. Kerry on the economy, health care, the war, and education....

As of this writing this race is still John Kerry’s to lose.

Read the rest of this post...

A wonderful post about our troops

A visitor just posted a really nice comment I wanted to "bump" up so everyone could read it. And it raises a valid point. We bitch so much about how Bush has so totally fucked things up by going into Iraq, that we may not mention enough the bind our troops are in.

Our troops went to Iraq because they volunteered to help defend our country. They didn't "choose" to go to Iraq, they got ordered to go. They were told they were there to help the war on terror, there to find the WMD, there to help stop Osama and Saddam. They got lied to as badly - if not worse - than the rest of us. I say "worse" because it's THEIR lives that are now on the line for Bush's lie, not ours. And when it comes down to it, they're the ones who Bush sent without adequate body armor, they're the ones who had to approach Baghdad without enough food so that they actually had to beg for it from locals, and they're the ones who are being treated like crap once they're injured.

With all of that in mind, here's the post (and after eading this post, check out this amazing Washington Post article from a few months ago about the liberation of Paris in 1944, I still get chills re-reading this article):

My admiration of the American soldier is unreserved. It is the commanders with whom I have trouble. Security in Baghdad is rapidly deteriorating. To put children and troops in harms way to try to deny this reality is logically inexplicable.

When I studied in France my French mother told me about the fall of Caen. When the first American tanks came in, after days of bombardment, she ran away with her young children, and hid in the ruins of a church. (Ruins being all that was left.) She was afraid of both the American firepower and German retaliation if the American advance failed.

When it became clear that the Americans had won, she and many others went begging to American troops for food, fuel, clothing, everything, and the quartermasters did their best.

She vividly described the chocolate bars and cigarettes that the GIs would give as they marched by. Convoys of Americans going to the front were like holidays with GIs throwing rations, cigarettes, chocolate, sometimes blankets or jackets.

The generosity of the average GI was well remembered then and will be remembered in Baghdad also.

Signed, clio

Read the rest of this post...

My take on the pre-debate analysis

Kerry simply needs to do okay and he wins. Here's why...

Cokie Roberts mentioned last weekend something about voters in 1980 being unsure if Ronald Reagan was really presidential material. After the debate with Carter some voters told her: "You know, I didn't even think of Ronald Reagan before the debate, but he held his own against the president of the United States for an hour and a half - I actually think he could do the job."

That is all that Kerry need to prove tonight: That he can hold his own against the president of the United States and do the job at least as well as Bush. Why? Because the majority of the public wants someone other than Bush to take over. They think the country is going in the wrong direction, and they want a replacement. But they don't yet trust John Kerry, nor do they yet KNOW John Kerry. And that's where the debates come in.

All Kerry has to do is hold his own against Bush. Come across as having a brain. Come across as having a heart. Come across as having the nerve (not to get too Dorothy on you). All he has to do is be as good as Bush and he's won. People don't want Bush, they want a viable alternative. They're not convinced that Kerry is yet viable. So all he has to be is viable.

That's not to say I don't want Kerry to do even better than ok tonight. But he doesn't have to, and that's why he's going to win. Read the rest of this post...

One More Piece of Advice for Kerry Pre-Debate

Okay, everyone has advice for John Kerry and surely his staffers have stuffed his already-bulging brain with an overload of information about catch phrases and taglines and points of attack.

Can they fit in one more word? If so, here's one word Kerry should arm himself with tonight:

AFRAID

As in Iraq: "We are in a terrible, terrible situation in Iraq and you can't tackle the problem until you face up to it. George Bush may be afraid to face the truth, but I'm not."

As in firing staffers when they screw up: "George Bush could learn something from Donald Trump: the importance of telling staffers who screw up -- "You're fired." We've had the worst intelligence failure in decades and George Bush didn't fire anyone. We've had a complete collapse of decency in the Abu Ghraib scandal and George Bush didn't fire anyone. We've had a total mess in post-war planning and George Bush didn't fire anyone. Well, George Bush may be too afraid to fire staffers who let down the American people but I won't be. Everyone makes mistakes but if you fail time and time again, you should be fired. Hopefully, George Bush will learn this come November."

As in Saudi Arabia: "George Bush says he wants to spread democracy around the world. But who are his allies in that fight? Not Canada or Germany or Mexico. No, the countries George Bush is most closely linked to in this fight are Syria and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Syria has a dreadful record of human rights abuses. Pakistan is responsible for the spread of nuclear knowledge and material to more rogue nations and more terrorist groups than Iraq ever was.

"And Saudi Arabia...[pause as he grasps the shame of it] Saudi Arabia is a corrupt and cruel monarchy that keeps its women enslaved under the most dreadful conditions. Saudi Arabia stifles any dissent and spends its wealth on spreading terrorism and hatred of the US throughout the world. But George Bush and his father and their family have worked hand in hand with Saudi Arabia his entire adult life. They've made millions of dollars together for themselves and their companies. George Bush and his family consider these people their dearest friends and George Bush has always been too afraid to denounce the Saudi government for what it is: the enemy of freedom and the enemy of its own people.

"I doubt George Bush will find the courage tonight to face the truth about the corrupt Saudi government. But if he does, it will be the first time in his life that he's ever done so."

AFRAID.

It will push George Bush's buttons and it's a defining characteristic for him. Afraid to fight in Vietnam. Afraid to try and succeed on his own. Afraid to fire employees who don't do their job. Afraid to back down to the religious right and turning on the children of his vice president instead. AFRAID. That one word will either make him furious or make him stumble. Either way, we win. And you can worry about Saudi Arabia later. They've got no where else to turn. Read the rest of this post...

OMG - check this out!

Someone in Boston "borrowed" the photo I did of the Bush twins in military garb and made it into a protest poster! That so friggin' rocks! If you click on the photo, below, it'll take you the Yahoo page where the photo sits. Make sure you vote at the bottom of the page to give the photo a high ranking so it will get seen more:



Wed Sep 29, 7:11 PM ET
Protesters picket outside a Boston bar during a campaign visit by President Bush's daughters Jenna and Barbara for young Republicans, Wednesday, Sept. 29, 2004. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa) Read the rest of this post...

The DRAFT debate hits the colleges

From the Denver post:

The table placards began showing up at the University of Colorado student center this week: "YOU'RE GONNA GET DRAFTED."

The hundreds of tiny placards, attributed to Students for Kerry, scold: "You blew it. You didn't vote last time. ... Now you're gonna get drafted."

At the University of Denver, students have been talking about the draft for weeks.

Read the rest of this post...

GOP has passed NONE of the federal budget, other than defense

Yet they have the time to vote, YET AGAIN, on gay marriage in the House today. The highway bill? Not done. The funding bills for EVERY SINGLE FEDERAL AGENCY save defense - all due today, mind you? Not done.

But hey, the flag, the pledge and marriage are all now safe. Osama take THAT. Read the rest of this post...

If they weren't "ex"-gays, I'd call them "big fags"

I just got a press release from one of the "ex"-gay groups (i.e., religious-right-funded anti-gay groups that think you can pray away the gay.) The release claims a billboard of theirs in Virginia was "vandalized." Curious, I clicked on the link to see if they had a picture of the crime scene, and lo' and behold they do.

Here's the picture. See if you can figure out what is wrong with this picture? I kid you not, this is the picture in its state of already having been vandalized!



Now click on the high-res copy and you can just barely see the problem.

Like I said, if they weren't "straight" now, I'd say they were a bunch of whining fags :-)

PS A fun little aside: The head of the "ex"-gay group is a woman with a full-grown openly-gay son who was actually living with her a few years back while frequenting gay bars (I know this because I saw her speak at a conference about this). But she's supposedly an "expert" on "curing" gays. Uh huh. Read the rest of this post...

NEWSFLASH: Bush lies about Iraq (duh)

At some point, I should just write a stock story and simply reprint it every time Bush gets caught telling a new lie about Iraq.

Reuters:

Despite President Bush's promise to spend $9 billion on reconstruction contracts in Iraq in the next several months, administration and congressional officials said on Thursday it could take more than a year to actually pay out that much money for projects.

With the reconstruction held up by an intensifying insurgency, the administration has faced criticism over the slow pace of spending. Just $1.2 billion has been paid out of the $18.4 billion that Bush asked Congress to rush through last year.

Bush sought to counter the criticism last week by promising that over the next several months "over $9 billion will be spent on contracts that will help Iraqis rebuild schools, refurbish hospitals and health clinics, repair bridges, upgrade the electricity grid, and modernize the communications system."

On Thursday, as Bush prepared to debate Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry on foreign policy, White House officials sought to clarify the $9 billion estimate.

The officials said Bush was not talking about actual spending for work on projects themselves. Rather, they said, he was referring to the amount of money that has been "obligated" to contracts. [Note from John: Bush was apparently talking about "make-believe" spending. Like in fairy-land, or the land of the Pet Goat.]

The figure promised by Bush included $7 billion already under contract but not yet spent on the ground, officials said. Another $2 billion worth of contracts would be added within the next several months.

But spending the full $9 billion on the ground in Iraq will take time -- anywhere from 15 to 30 months, based on Congressional and administration estimates.

Read the rest of this post...

South Carolina GOP Senate candidate let's gay-hater stay on staff

Just read it. I love how the Republican has "written up" his staffer. Gee, that sounds scary. I hope it doesn't go in her permanent record.

The real question is: Is this woman going to be working on Capitol Hill if this GOP candidate is elected? The woman should be fired immediately. Or will it take a few comments about Jews and blacks to reach that point?

And forced to take a spelling class. Read the rest of this post...

ACTION ALERT: What to do IMMEDIATELY after the debates tonight

This is from the DNC, and they're exactly right. You "win" the debates only if you win the AFTER-DEBATE SPIN in the ensuing 48 hours. It's sad, but true. Let's make sure we get our spin out there. The DNC tells us how in this email I just received:

Tonight, don't let George Bush's henchmen steal another victory. We need your online help immediately after the debate, so save this email, print it out, and have it ready with you as you watch the first Presidential debate tonight.

We all know what happened in 2000. Al Gore won the first debate on the issues, but Republicans stole the post-debate spin. We are not going to let that happen again, and you will play a big role.

Immediately after the debate, we need you to do three things: vote in online polls, write a letter to the editor, and call in to talk radio programs. Your 10 minutes of activism following the debate can make the difference.

Vote
National and local news organizations will be conducting online polls during and after the debate asking for readers' opinions. Look for online polls at these national news websites, and make sure to vote in every one of them:

ABC News: http://www.abcnews.com/
CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/
CNN: http://www.cnn.com/
Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/
MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.com/
USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/
And be sure to check the websites of your local newspapers and TV stations for online polls. It is crucial that you do this in the minutes immediately following the debate.

Write
Immediately after the debate, go online and write a letter to the editor of your local paper. If you feel John Kerry commanded the debate and had a clear plan for fixing the mess in Iraq, put it in your letter. If you feel George Bush dodged tough questions on Iraq and didn't level with voters, put it in your letter.

With just a few clicks, you can write your letter at our online media center:

http://www.democrats.org/media/

Call
Do you listen to national or local call-in shows on the radio? How about on TV? Call them and let them know what you thought of John Kerry's plan to keep America secure and George Bush's continuing refusal to admit the truth about his record.

Here are some national shows to get you started. (All times are Eastern.)

Air America (all day): 646-274-2346
Alan Colmes (10 a.m. to 1 p.m.): 212-301-5900
Ed Shultz (3 p.m. to 6 p.m.): 701-232-1525
Bev Smith (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.): 412-325-4197
Doug Stephen (5 a.m. 10 a.m.): 1-800-510-8255
Find shows in your area on our media website:

http://www.democrats.org/media/find.html

Your actions immediately after the debate tonight can help John Kerry win on November 2. Make your voice heard!

Don't forget to visit our 2004 Debate Center before, during, and after the debate for important information, including questions Bush must answer, a Bush/Kerry contrast on keeping America safe, and Bush Debate Bingo, a game you can play with friends during the debate.

http://www.democrats.org/debates/

Thank you,
Terry McAuliffe
Chairman

Read the rest of this post...

GOP becoming unglued over "draft" rumors

Methinks they doth protest too much. Article 1 and article 2.

Well, their outright panic over the issue is evidence enough to me that we need to go full steam ahead with it. Not to mention, I sincerely believe the draft is coming. Read the rest of this post...

35 Iraqi children blown up after being enticed to US photo op

Ok, is it just me, or does anyone else have a problem with enticing small children to show up at high-profile US photo ops in Baghdad? Does it take a rocket scientist to know that these events are high-value terrorist targets? I mean, you wouldn't catch me dead at an event like that if I lived in Baghdad (hell, you wouldn't catch me in Baghdad at all). But the US authorities assume it's safe enough for kids? And now they're all dead.

Now that I've had a few more minutes to think about this... President Bush said things were going well in Iraq and it was only a handful of people causing disturbances. His puppet Allawi said last week, in a speech we now know was written by the State Department and Bush's presidential campaign staff, that things were going well in Iraq and most of the country was fine. Did local US officials on the ground in Baghdad rely on Bush's and Allawi's assurances when planning this event? Is that why they felt it was safe enough to entice children to a clearly-dangerous propaganda fest, an invitation that just got 35 children killed and over 100 wounded? Because they relied on Bush's and Allawi's lies?

This from AP:

A series of bombs killed 35 children and seven adults Thursday as U.S. troops handed out candy at a government ceremony to inaugurate a new sewage treatment plant. Hours earlier, a suicide blast killed a U.S. soldier and two Iraqis on the capital's outskirts.

The bombs in Baghdad's al-Amel neighborhood caused the largest death toll of children in any insurgent attack since the conflict in Iraq began 17 months ago.

"The Americans called us, they told us, 'Come here, come here,' asking us if we wanted sweets. We went beside them, then a car exploded," said 12-year-old Abdel Rahman Dawoud, lying naked in a hospital bed with shrapnel embedded all over his body.

Two bombs went off in quick succession at the ceremony about 1 p.m., then were followed by a third explosion a short distance away, said Interior Ministry spokesman Col. Adnan Abdul-Rahman. He said there were two suicide car bombs and one roadside bomb; the Americans said all three were car bombs.

The explosions killed 42 people and wounded 141, including 10 U.S. soldiers. The wounded included 72 children under the age of 14, said Dr. Mohammed Salaheddin.

And note this from Reuters:

One boy lay swathed in bandages on a stretcher, his severed leg on a table beside him. Others were scarred by shrapnel, their clothes blown off by the force of the explosion.

Read the rest of this post...

Play Bush debate BINGO tonight!

When you watch the debates tonight, use this DNC Web site to print out randomly-generated Bush debate BINGO cards. This is ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT of the DNC.



And these are the game pieces:

Read the rest of this post...

The World Votes

A very interesting Web site is letting folks from EVERY country vote for who they'd prefer to win the US presidential election. If this is any guide, President Bush's highest support is in:

Afghanistan
Andorra
Azerbaijan
Brunei
Comoros
Congo
Faroe Islands
Georgia (formerly Soviet Georgia)
Iraq
Kiribati
North Korea!
Libya!
Liechtenstein
Macao
Malawi
Maldives
Marshall Islands
Montserrat
Niger
Palestinian Authority!
Papua New Guinea
Timor-leste

So basically, the only countries that like President Bush are the countries he can't find on a map. Read the rest of this post...

Surfer in California rides a whale!

Sorry for another non-political story but this is the coolest story I have seen lately. I kayaked in Namibia for a few hours with a southern right whale who loved playing games with the kayaks and it was an absolutely fantastic experience. This guy though actually was lifted up by the whale! I was dreaming of such a thing in my kayak but I had no such luck.

All of a sudden I just felt, wow, this huge noise and bump," said Vamvas, "and it lifted my board up. I'm looking down, and there's just swirling water and I see barnacles on the back of the whale. I'm used to dolphins. This was different. It was huge."

Read the rest of this post...

Debate? What debate?

For about 20 seconds yesterday, DC stopped screaming politics and started talking baseball.

(yes, I realize this may be the only sports-related post ever on this blog.)

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming. For the record, the President still regards the trading of Sammy Sosa as the worst mistake he's ever made.
Read the rest of this post...

Iraq continues to charge towards democracy. 35 dead, 120 wounded

Another bloody day in Iraq today but the president will tell us tonight about how well we're doing. A shocking number in this story is that attacks on American troops are now averaging 80 per day, up from 40 per day only a month ago.
Read the rest of this post...

Balanced, schmalanced. Who needs to be fiscally responsible?

Balancing the budget is such a low priority when you have such as exciting proposals to debate such as FMA, flag burning and more tax cuts. Balanced budgets are for wimps anyway.

The balanced budget amendment was a cornerstone of the Republicans' "Contract With America" 10 years ago, and halting efforts to resurrect it has underscored party divisions over a budget deficit that will reach $422 billion this year.

Last Wednesday's drafting session turned into a fiasco, members from both parties said. Democrats ridiculed the GOP majority, which has controlled Congress and the White House for most of the past four years while record budget surpluses turned to record deficits. Even some Republicans conceded that their hearts were not in it. Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said he had not taken it "as a very serious discussion."

"We can limit [deficits] on our own," said Flake, a Judiciary Committee member. "We in Congress ought to be embarrassed by what has happened. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves."

Deficit hawks were amazed that the GOP even tried, after Congress had squandered a $236 billion surplus recorded in 2000. Since 2001, overall government spending has risen 23 percent. Defense spending at Congress's discretion has increased 48 percent, while non-defense spending has jumped 27 percent. Meantime, taxes have been cut four times, at a price tag of $1.9 trillion over 10 years. House and Senate negotiators began work yesterday on a major corporate tax cut that could be wrapped up by the end of next week.

Read the rest of this post...

Drip, drip, drip, drip...another Bush Guard document released

Let's all take a guess about what might happen if someone in the National Guard, who is serving today, was to send a letter to the Guard that they were leaving because they had "inadequate time to fulfill possible future commitments." This ranks right up there with Cheney "having other priorities." Is this what Bush considers consistent or is this just another case of him flip flopping? Are these the words that would come from your average GI Joe or is this just another case of a man of priviledge thumbing his nose at the system? [The document above is shown in the linked story.]
Read the rest of this post...

New LA Times Poll -- Kerry Gaining Ground?

A new LA Times poll shows Bush with a 5% lead and says he's gaining ground among some key independent groups. But it also says if you look at registered voters (and not just "likely" voters) that the lead is only 4% and that the margin of error is 3%. That means that they could be anywhere from 1% to 7% apart.

The annoying part? Despite numerous articles in the last day or two about polls and serious questions about the mix of voters involved, this poll never mentions its breakdown of voters -- was it 52% Republican and 38 % Dems or 45% of each with 10% independents in both? Who knows? I looked through the article and the 22 page attachment that broke down its poll and couldn't find that very basic, arguably crucial breakdown anywhere. Maybe I missed it. If I did, let me know. If I didn't, email the LA Times and ask them why they don't include a breakdown of the people polled by party affiliation and ask them to provide it for this poll and all polls in the future.

Let's face it: polling is an inexact science and some of these groups have developed their own "secret formulas" for decades in an attempt to be accurate and beat out the compeition. That means they're both leary (sic?) of revealing methodology and are such number geeks that they've never been questioned before. People just took polls at face value, just like they never questioned their priests or ministers on questions of faith. Those days are over.
Read the rest of this post...

The Decline and Fall of The Rove-an Empire

Here's a comforting essay in The Washington Monthly by Benjamin Wallace-Wells that compares the Republican Party of today to another decaying empire that once held sway over our nation.

"The truth is, for all its apparent strength, the modern Republican Party has worked itself into a position of profound and growing decay. Worried Republicans are right to look to the past to help sort out their future. But the right date isn't 1994 or 1904. It's the late 1970s--and the party to look at isn't the Republicans, but the Democrats. Like the Democrats of that period, the current version of the Republican Party is supremely powerful but ideologically incoherent, run largely by and for special interests and increasingly alienated from the broader voting public. Today's GOP is headed for a profound crackup. The only questions are when, exactly, the decline will start--and how long it will last."

Okay, maybe this just speaks to me because I profoundly rejected the Dems in the late Seventies, early Eighties (slaves to the unions and special interests!) and today I profoundly reject the Repubs (slaves to the religious far right and special interests!). Does it speak to you?
Read the rest of this post...

There is SO much wrong with this story

Man, this is NOT the Washinton Post story to read before bedtime or you will NOT sleep. There is just so much wrong in this story, and it's all infuriating. Let's take it in turn.

1. The Pentagon is wasting taxpayer money to send Iraqi-Americans around the country to convince the news media that everything in Iraq is a-okay (please ignore that dead man behind the curtain). Yes, your tax money is going to a domestic propaganda campaign to influence the election. Gee, how many laws does THAT violate? And you thought Bush had sunk as low as he could go?

2. The US Agency for International Development is now going to restrict information about the security situation in Iraq after the Washington Post got its hands on a not-so-flattering report and published it last week. The report showed that Bush was lying to the American people about the "improving" situation in Iraq. Apparently, AID is no longer solely focused on international development but now is also a political arm of the Bush re-election campaign. That should go over REAL well in developing countries where AID workers already had to watch their back.

3. The US Embassy in Baghdad, the British Foreign Service, and a Bush campaign official helped write Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi's speech to Congress last week. Yes, a Bush campaign official was busy helping write a speech to Congress by a foreign leader. A speech that coincidentally backed up every lie the Bush campaign is trying to spread about Iraq. Where to even begin with that one? Read the rest of this post...

Rhymes with RAFT

Detroit Free Press:

Under Bush, the Army is quietly working to add 30,000 soldiers to its active-duty force of half a million. Kerry has proposed adding 40,000 troops. That's less than half what's needed, most experts agree: 100,000 new soldiers. And they are needed quickly....

A study by the Defense Science Board, a Pentagon advisory group, has concluded that even with another 30,000 troops, the current force cannot meet "our current and projected global stabilization commitments."

Within the Army, there is deep concern that the manpower demands of Iraq and Afghanistan have left the United States with no strategic reserve of ground forces, short of a total mobilization and deployment of all active-duty, reserve and National Guard troops....

And the Bush administration's strategy of aggressively promoting global democracy to prevent terrorists from building strongholds in failed nations will require significant new ground forces, said Thomas Donnelly, analyst at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank.

"In the simplest terms, this requires the expansion of the active-duty component of the U.S. Army," Donnelly said....

The top U.S. commander for Iraq, Army Gen. John Abizaid, acknowledged last week that more troops are needed there than the 138,000 U.S. soldiers and Marines now deployed. But he said he hopes the additional manpower could come from allies and from the Iraqi security forces in training.

But efforts to train and equip new Iraqi security forces are lagging far behind schedule, U.S. military officers have said.

Allies? What allies? We're 90% of the troops in Iraq today and our "allies" - the remaining ones who don't yet hate us, or haven't yet pulled out of Iraq - are busy making million dollar deals with the terrorists. And as for the Iraq security forces, you mean the 220,000 of them, I mean 110,000, I mean 90,000, I mean 30,000, I mean 8000 of them we already have fully trained? The same security forces who apparently are now in cahoots with the insurgents? Right, and this is Bush's brilliant plan to avoid the draft. Read the rest of this post...