Tuesday, March 30, 2004
We're losing
USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll: Majority Backs Bush Handling of Terrorism
Reuters Tue Mar 30, 2004
"A majority of Americans approve of the way President Bush is handling terrorism. . . . The Bush campaign's attempts to paint Kerry as a tax-and spend Democrat who wavers on the issues had more impact on the race than charges by [Richard Clarke].
". . . 58 percent of Americans approve of Bush's handling of the terrorism threat and 39 percent disapprove. . . . Given a matchup between Bush and Kerry, 51 percent of the respondents said they would likely vote for Bush -- up seven percentage points from a March 5-7 poll. 47 percent said they would likely choose Kerry, down from 52 percent."
Makes you think, doesn't it?
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll: Majority Backs Bush Handling of Terrorism
Reuters Tue Mar 30, 2004
"A majority of Americans approve of the way President Bush is handling terrorism. . . . The Bush campaign's attempts to paint Kerry as a tax-and spend Democrat who wavers on the issues had more impact on the race than charges by [Richard Clarke].
". . . 58 percent of Americans approve of Bush's handling of the terrorism threat and 39 percent disapprove. . . . Given a matchup between Bush and Kerry, 51 percent of the respondents said they would likely vote for Bush -- up seven percentage points from a March 5-7 poll. 47 percent said they would likely choose Kerry, down from 52 percent."
Makes you think, doesn't it?
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, March 28, 2004
I'm rather impressed they sent this on a Sunday evening. Judy
Center for American Progress wrote:
To: "Judith Abbott"
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 19:41:03 -0800
Subject: SPECIAL Progress Report: Rice on 60 Minutes
From: "Center for American Progress"
FACT CHECK: Condi Rice's 60 Minutes Interview, 3/28/04
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice appeared on CBS's 60 Minutes in an effort to quell growing questions surrounding the Administration's inconsistent claims about its pre-9/11 actions. Not only did Rice refuse to take Richard Clarke's lead and admit responsibility for her role in the worst national security failure in American history, but she continued to make unsubstantiated and contradictory assertions:
RICE CLAIM: "The administration took seriously the threat" of terrorism before 9/11.
FACTS: President Bush himself acknowledges that, despite repeated warnings of an imminent Al Qaeda attack, before 9/11 "I didn't feel the sense of urgency" about terrorism. Similarly, Newsweek reports that his attitude was reflected throughout an Administration that was trying to "de-emphasize terrorism" as an overall priority. As proof, just two of the hundred national security meetings the Administration held during this period addressed the terrorist threat, and the White House refused to hold even one meeting of its highly-touted counterterrorism task force. Meanwhile, the Administration was actively trying to cut funding for counterterrorism, and "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism" despite a serious increase in terrorist chatter in the summer of 2001.
Source: "Bush At War" by Bob Woodward
Source: Newsweek & vetoed request - http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorismfoi/whatwentwrong.html
Source: Refusal to hold task force meeting - http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8734-2002Jan19?language=printer
Source: Only two meetings out of 100 - http://www.detnews.com/2002/politics/0207/01/politics-526326.htm
RICE CLAIM: "I don't know what a sense of urgency any greater than the one we had would have caused us to do anything differently. I don't know how...we could have done more. I would like very much to know what more could have been done?"
FACTS: There are many things that could have been done: first and foremost, the Administration could have desisted from de-emphasizing and cutting funding for counterterrorism in the months before 9/11. It could have held more meetings of top principals to get the directors of the CIA and FBI to share information, especially considering the major intelligence spike occurring in the summer of 2001. As 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick said on ABC this morning, the lack of focus and meetings meant agencies were not talking to each other, and key evidence was overlooked. For instance, with better focus and more urgency, the FBI's discovery of Islamic radicals training at flight schools might have raised red flags. Similarly, the fact that "months before Sept. 11, the CIA knew two of the al-Qaeda hijackers were in the United States" could have spurred a nationwide manhunt. But because there was no focus or urgency, "No nationwide manhunt was undertaken," said Gorelick. "The State Department watch list was not given to the FAA. If you brought people together, perhaps key connections could have been made."
Source: Slash counterterrorism funding - http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/transcrime/articles/How%20Sept_%2011%20Changed%20Goals%20of%20Justice%20Dept.htm
Source: CIA knew 2 hijackers in the U.S. - http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/6/2/111044.shtml
RICE CLAIM:“Nothing would be better from my point of view than to be able to testify, but there is an important principle involved here it is a longstanding principle that sitting national security advisors do not testify before the Congress.”
FACTS: Republican Commission John F. Lehman, who served as Navy Secretary under President Reagan said on ABC this morning that "This is not testimony before a tribunal of the Congress…There are plenty of precedents for appearing in public and answering questions…There are plenty of precedents the White House could use if they wanted to do this.” 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick agreed, saying “Our commission is sui generis…the Chairman has been appointed by the President. We are distinguishable from Congress.” Rice's remarks on 60 Minutes that the principle is limited to "sitting national security advisers" is also a departure from her statements earlier this week, when she said the principle applied to all presidential advisers. She was forced to change this claim for 60 Minutes after 9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste “cited examples of non-Cabinet presidential advisers who have testified publicly to Congress." Finally, the White House is reportedly moving to declassify congressional testimony then-White House adviser Richard Clarke gave in 2002. By declassifying this testimony, the White House is breaking the very same "principle" of barring White House adviser's testimony from being public that Rice is using to avoid appearing publicly before the 9/11 commission.
Source: Quote from Tony Snow Show - http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-03-23-911-rice-usat_x.htm
RICE CLAIM: "Iraq was put aside" immediately after 9/11.
FACTS: According to the Washington Post, "six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2-and-a-half-page document" that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq." This is corroborated by a CBS News, which reported on 9/4/02 that five hours after the 9/11 attacks, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq." The President therefore did not put Iraq aside -- he merely deferred it to a second phase, after Afghanistan. To the question of Iraq or Afghanistan, Bush replied: let's do both, starting with Afghanistan. In terms of resources, the Iraq decision had far-reaching effects on the efforts to hunt down Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. As the Boston Globe reported, "the Bush administration is continuing to shift highly specialized intelligence officers from the hunt for Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to the Iraq crisis."
Source: September 17th directive - http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43909-2003Jan11?language=printer
Source: Rumsfeld orders Iraq plan - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml
Source: Shifting special forces - http://www.iht.com/articles/106783.html
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Center for American Progress wrote:
To: "Judith Abbott"
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 19:41:03 -0800
Subject: SPECIAL Progress Report: Rice on 60 Minutes
From: "Center for American Progress"
FACT CHECK: Condi Rice's 60 Minutes Interview, 3/28/04
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice appeared on CBS's 60 Minutes in an effort to quell growing questions surrounding the Administration's inconsistent claims about its pre-9/11 actions. Not only did Rice refuse to take Richard Clarke's lead and admit responsibility for her role in the worst national security failure in American history, but she continued to make unsubstantiated and contradictory assertions:
RICE CLAIM: "The administration took seriously the threat" of terrorism before 9/11.
FACTS: President Bush himself acknowledges that, despite repeated warnings of an imminent Al Qaeda attack, before 9/11 "I didn't feel the sense of urgency" about terrorism. Similarly, Newsweek reports that his attitude was reflected throughout an Administration that was trying to "de-emphasize terrorism" as an overall priority. As proof, just two of the hundred national security meetings the Administration held during this period addressed the terrorist threat, and the White House refused to hold even one meeting of its highly-touted counterterrorism task force. Meanwhile, the Administration was actively trying to cut funding for counterterrorism, and "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism" despite a serious increase in terrorist chatter in the summer of 2001.
Source: "Bush At War" by Bob Woodward
Source: Newsweek & vetoed request - http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorismfoi/whatwentwrong.html
Source: Refusal to hold task force meeting - http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8734-2002Jan19?language=printer
Source: Only two meetings out of 100 - http://www.detnews.com/2002/politics/0207/01/politics-526326.htm
RICE CLAIM: "I don't know what a sense of urgency any greater than the one we had would have caused us to do anything differently. I don't know how...we could have done more. I would like very much to know what more could have been done?"
FACTS: There are many things that could have been done: first and foremost, the Administration could have desisted from de-emphasizing and cutting funding for counterterrorism in the months before 9/11. It could have held more meetings of top principals to get the directors of the CIA and FBI to share information, especially considering the major intelligence spike occurring in the summer of 2001. As 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick said on ABC this morning, the lack of focus and meetings meant agencies were not talking to each other, and key evidence was overlooked. For instance, with better focus and more urgency, the FBI's discovery of Islamic radicals training at flight schools might have raised red flags. Similarly, the fact that "months before Sept. 11, the CIA knew two of the al-Qaeda hijackers were in the United States" could have spurred a nationwide manhunt. But because there was no focus or urgency, "No nationwide manhunt was undertaken," said Gorelick. "The State Department watch list was not given to the FAA. If you brought people together, perhaps key connections could have been made."
Source: Slash counterterrorism funding - http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/transcrime/articles/How%20Sept_%2011%20Changed%20Goals%20of%20Justice%20Dept.htm
Source: CIA knew 2 hijackers in the U.S. - http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/6/2/111044.shtml
RICE CLAIM:“Nothing would be better from my point of view than to be able to testify, but there is an important principle involved here it is a longstanding principle that sitting national security advisors do not testify before the Congress.”
FACTS: Republican Commission John F. Lehman, who served as Navy Secretary under President Reagan said on ABC this morning that "This is not testimony before a tribunal of the Congress…There are plenty of precedents for appearing in public and answering questions…There are plenty of precedents the White House could use if they wanted to do this.” 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick agreed, saying “Our commission is sui generis…the Chairman has been appointed by the President. We are distinguishable from Congress.” Rice's remarks on 60 Minutes that the principle is limited to "sitting national security advisers" is also a departure from her statements earlier this week, when she said the principle applied to all presidential advisers. She was forced to change this claim for 60 Minutes after 9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste “cited examples of non-Cabinet presidential advisers who have testified publicly to Congress." Finally, the White House is reportedly moving to declassify congressional testimony then-White House adviser Richard Clarke gave in 2002. By declassifying this testimony, the White House is breaking the very same "principle" of barring White House adviser's testimony from being public that Rice is using to avoid appearing publicly before the 9/11 commission.
Source: Quote from Tony Snow Show - http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-03-23-911-rice-usat_x.htm
RICE CLAIM: "Iraq was put aside" immediately after 9/11.
FACTS: According to the Washington Post, "six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2-and-a-half-page document" that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq." This is corroborated by a CBS News, which reported on 9/4/02 that five hours after the 9/11 attacks, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq." The President therefore did not put Iraq aside -- he merely deferred it to a second phase, after Afghanistan. To the question of Iraq or Afghanistan, Bush replied: let's do both, starting with Afghanistan. In terms of resources, the Iraq decision had far-reaching effects on the efforts to hunt down Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. As the Boston Globe reported, "the Bush administration is continuing to shift highly specialized intelligence officers from the hunt for Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to the Iraq crisis."
Source: September 17th directive - http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43909-2003Jan11?language=printer
Source: Rumsfeld orders Iraq plan - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml
Source: Shifting special forces - http://www.iht.com/articles/106783.html
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letters to editors
Has anyone else written a letter to the editor? There's still time to write before the April 1st contest deadline.
I wrote two, one each to Startrib & Pioneerpress, neither of which was printed. That puts the East Side ahead by two points (the judges are still debating DaveG's 3/17 entry).
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has anyone else written a letter to the editor? There's still time to write before the April 1st contest deadline.
I wrote two, one each to Startrib & Pioneerpress, neither of which was printed. That puts the East Side ahead by two points (the judges are still debating DaveG's 3/17 entry).
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, March 26, 2004
Letters to editors?
On 3/19 I urged everyone to write letters to editors. I said, "There'll be a munificent cash prize for the side of the river that does the better job; a real whopper. A letter on another subject, if you so choose, will count equally toward the prize." Did anyone write?
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 3/19 I urged everyone to write letters to editors. I said, "There'll be a munificent cash prize for the side of the river that does the better job; a real whopper. A letter on another subject, if you so choose, will count equally toward the prize." Did anyone write?
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, March 25, 2004
Dave, that was fast work. I'll be interested in seeing what these bumper stickers of yours look like.
On that subject, Gary said he has "some doubts about the bumper sticker campaign, especially with the word liar in it, no matter how accurate. Be careful there isn't a backlash against trashing a sitting President. They did it to Clinton, but Clinton was re-elected. . . ."
Maybe it would help if it was funny. Anyone got a witty slogan for a bumper sticker?
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On that subject, Gary said he has "some doubts about the bumper sticker campaign, especially with the word liar in it, no matter how accurate. Be careful there isn't a backlash against trashing a sitting President. They did it to Clinton, but Clinton was re-elected. . . ."
Maybe it would help if it was funny. Anyone got a witty slogan for a bumper sticker?
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Dave, you might be onto something with this bumper sticker train of thought.
Earlier, Peter told me he was going to produce an anti-Bush bumper sticker, and I waited for him to do it before saying anything. Now I find out he has them for sale already. The bumper sticker design is at:
http://www.seebs.net/images/firebush.png
and it's for sale at:
http://www.cafeshops.com/seebs/
If we were to think about lots and lots of stickers on lots and lots of cars, here and in other swing states, or around campuses, or some other mad scheme, this fancy design might not be the answer. We have smart, creative people in this conspiracy (everyone; that's why you're in it). How about some ideas on how to take advantage of this idea. Any suggestions for a message?
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earlier, Peter told me he was going to produce an anti-Bush bumper sticker, and I waited for him to do it before saying anything. Now I find out he has them for sale already. The bumper sticker design is at:
http://www.seebs.net/images/firebush.png
and it's for sale at:
http://www.cafeshops.com/seebs/
If we were to think about lots and lots of stickers on lots and lots of cars, here and in other swing states, or around campuses, or some other mad scheme, this fancy design might not be the answer. We have smart, creative people in this conspiracy (everyone; that's why you're in it). How about some ideas on how to take advantage of this idea. Any suggestions for a message?
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2004-03-23-anti-bush-books_x.htm
Anti-Bush books continue to sell
NEW YORK (AP) — Newsmaking allegations, White House rebuttals and a ready audience for anti-Bush books have helped make Richard A. Clarke's Against All Enemies a big best seller, publishing officials say. . .
. . ."I fundamentally disagree with his assessment both of recent history, but also in terms of how to deal with the problem" of global terrorism, Cheney said Monday.
Wietrak says the White House criticisms have only helped the book. Against All Enemies was ranked No. 1 on Amazon.com's list of best sellers as of Tuesday afternoon and has raised sales for other works attacking Bush, including Kevin Phillips' American Dynasty and Ron Suskind's The Price of Loyalty, a collaboration with former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill.
Anti-Bush books have been popular since last fall, when liberal pundits Al Franken, Joe Conason and Molly Ivins were among those with best sellers. Now the best sellers are being written by historians such as Phillips and former Bush officials such as Clarke. . . .
. . .Books unfavorable to Bush will continue coming out, including Worse Than Watergate, by John W. Dean, a former aide to President Nixon, and The Politics of Truth, by former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, who has criticized the White House's uses of intelligence before the Iraq war.
This fall, a book on the Bush family is due from Kitty Kelley, known for her gossipy best sellers about Nancy Reagan and Frank Sinatra. Former President Clinton's autobiography is also expected some time this year. . . .
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2004-03-23-anti-bush-books_x.htm
Anti-Bush books continue to sell
NEW YORK (AP) — Newsmaking allegations, White House rebuttals and a ready audience for anti-Bush books have helped make Richard A. Clarke's Against All Enemies a big best seller, publishing officials say. . .
. . ."I fundamentally disagree with his assessment both of recent history, but also in terms of how to deal with the problem" of global terrorism, Cheney said Monday.
Wietrak says the White House criticisms have only helped the book. Against All Enemies was ranked No. 1 on Amazon.com's list of best sellers as of Tuesday afternoon and has raised sales for other works attacking Bush, including Kevin Phillips' American Dynasty and Ron Suskind's The Price of Loyalty, a collaboration with former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill.
Anti-Bush books have been popular since last fall, when liberal pundits Al Franken, Joe Conason and Molly Ivins were among those with best sellers. Now the best sellers are being written by historians such as Phillips and former Bush officials such as Clarke. . . .
. . .Books unfavorable to Bush will continue coming out, including Worse Than Watergate, by John W. Dean, a former aide to President Nixon, and The Politics of Truth, by former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, who has criticized the White House's uses of intelligence before the Iraq war.
This fall, a book on the Bush family is due from Kitty Kelley, known for her gossipy best sellers about Nancy Reagan and Frank Sinatra. Former President Clinton's autobiography is also expected some time this year. . . .
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, March 22, 2004
Jesse, Here is a link to Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:
http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=7800
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=7800
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unbelievable: A month after 9/11, the White House cut an FBI request for anti-terrorist funds by 2/3. Here's the web site, provided by Democratic Underground.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13541-2004Mar21.html
washingtonpost.com > Nation > National Security
FBI Budget Squeezed After 9/11
Request for New Counterterror Funds Cut by Two-Thirds
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 22, 2004; Page A06
In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows.
The document, dated Oct. 12, 2001, shows that the FBI requested $1.5 billion in additional funds to enhance its counterterrorism efforts with the creation of 2,024 positions. But the White House Office of Management and Budget cut that request to $531 million. Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, working within the White House limits, cut the FBI's request for items such as computer networking and foreign language intercepts by half, cut a cyber-security request by three quarters and eliminated entirely a request for "collaborative capabilities."
The document was one of several administration papers obtained and given to The Washington Post by the Center for American Progress, a liberal group run by former Clinton chief of staff John D. Podesta. The papers show that Ashcroft ranked counterterrorism efforts as a lower priority than his predecessor did, and that he resisted FBI requests for more counterterrorism funding before and immediately after the attacks. . . .
Posted by Judy
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13541-2004Mar21.html
washingtonpost.com > Nation > National Security
FBI Budget Squeezed After 9/11
Request for New Counterterror Funds Cut by Two-Thirds
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 22, 2004; Page A06
In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows.
The document, dated Oct. 12, 2001, shows that the FBI requested $1.5 billion in additional funds to enhance its counterterrorism efforts with the creation of 2,024 positions. But the White House Office of Management and Budget cut that request to $531 million. Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, working within the White House limits, cut the FBI's request for items such as computer networking and foreign language intercepts by half, cut a cyber-security request by three quarters and eliminated entirely a request for "collaborative capabilities."
The document was one of several administration papers obtained and given to The Washington Post by the Center for American Progress, a liberal group run by former Clinton chief of staff John D. Podesta. The papers show that Ashcroft ranked counterterrorism efforts as a lower priority than his predecessor did, and that he resisted FBI requests for more counterterrorism funding before and immediately after the attacks. . . .
Posted by Judy
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get 'em into the Ammo Dump while they're hot!
Referring to the post by DaveG @ 10:24 PM Sunday, March 21, 2004, below, that's why we need to grab the articles we want -- before they disappear -- and save them in the Ammo Dump, so they'll be readily available for use.
When an AP reporter's byline is given, then AP should be the source, & I guess the newspaper doesn't matter. When, for example, the NYTimes rewrites or reslants it, so the AP reporter's byline isn't there, or an NYT one is, we would use NYT as the source instead of AP. Does that make sense?
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Referring to the post by DaveG @ 10:24 PM Sunday, March 21, 2004, below, that's why we need to grab the articles we want -- before they disappear -- and save them in the Ammo Dump, so they'll be readily available for use.
When an AP reporter's byline is given, then AP should be the source, & I guess the newspaper doesn't matter. When, for example, the NYTimes rewrites or reslants it, so the AP reporter's byline isn't there, or an NYT one is, we would use NYT as the source instead of AP. Does that make sense?
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, March 21, 2004
Which are the most credible sources for news articles?
AOL News published this on it's online news this afternoon. It should be in the newspapers tomorrow. Where is the best source to list for credibility? Washington Post, New York Times, what? That's the version we should put in the Ammo Dump.
Ex-Terror Adviser Says Bush Ignored Threats
By TED BRIDIS, AP
WASHINGTON (March 21) - Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism coordinator, accuses the Bush administration of failing to recognize the al-Qaida threat before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and then manipulating America into war with Iraq with dangerous consequences.
He accuses Bush of doing ''a terrible job on the war against terrorism....'' (Link changed from AOLNews to accessible one:)
http://www.news-leader.com/today/0321-Exterrorad-44010.html
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AOL News published this on it's online news this afternoon. It should be in the newspapers tomorrow. Where is the best source to list for credibility? Washington Post, New York Times, what? That's the version we should put in the Ammo Dump.
Ex-Terror Adviser Says Bush Ignored Threats
By TED BRIDIS, AP
WASHINGTON (March 21) - Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism coordinator, accuses the Bush administration of failing to recognize the al-Qaida threat before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and then manipulating America into war with Iraq with dangerous consequences.
He accuses Bush of doing ''a terrible job on the war against terrorism....'' (Link changed from AOLNews to accessible one:)
http://www.news-leader.com/today/0321-Exterrorad-44010.html
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Framing the issues http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml
Linguistics professor George Lakoff at the Free Speech Movement Café. (BAP photos)
Framing the issues: UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics
By Bonnie Azab Powell, NewsCenter | 27 October 2003
BERKELEY – With Republicans controlling the Senate, the House, and the White House and enjoying a large margin of victory for California Governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger, it's clear that the Democratic Party is in crisis. George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley professor of linguistics and cognitive science, thinks he knows why. Conservatives have spent decades defining their ideas, carefully choosing the language with which to present them, and building an infrastructure to communicate them, says Lakoff.
The work has paid off: by dictating the terms of national debate, conservatives have put progressives firmly on the defensive. . . .
. . . The background for Rockridge is that conservatives, especially conservative think tanks, have framed virtually every issue from their perspective. They have put a huge amount of money into creating the language for their worldview and getting it out there. Progressives have done virtually nothing. Even the new Center for American Progress, the think tank that John Podesta [former chief of staff for the Clinton administration] is setting up, is not dedicated to this at all. I asked Podesta who was going to do the Center's framing. He got a blank look, thought for a second and then said, "You!" Which meant they haven't thought about it at all. And that's the problem. Liberals don't get it. They don't understand what it is they have to be doing.
Rockridge's job is to reframe public debate, to create balance from a progressive perspective. It's one thing to analyze language and thought, it's another thing to create it. That's what we're about. It's a matter of asking 'What are the central ideas of progressive thought from a moral perspective?'
How does language influence the terms of political debate?
Language always comes with what is called "framing." Every word is defined relative to a conceptual framework. If you have something like "revolt," that implies a population that is being ruled unfairly, or assumes it is being ruled unfairly, and that they are throwing off their rulers, which would be considered a good thing. That's a frame.
If you then add the word "voter" in front of "revolt," you get a metaphorical meaning saying that the voters are the oppressed people, the governor is the oppressive ruler, that they have ousted him and this is a good thing and all things are good now. All of that comes up when you see a headline like "voter revolt" — something that most people read and never notice. But these things can be affected by reporters and very often, by the campaign people themselves. . . .
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistics professor George Lakoff at the Free Speech Movement Café. (BAP photos)
Framing the issues: UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics
By Bonnie Azab Powell, NewsCenter | 27 October 2003
BERKELEY – With Republicans controlling the Senate, the House, and the White House and enjoying a large margin of victory for California Governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger, it's clear that the Democratic Party is in crisis. George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley professor of linguistics and cognitive science, thinks he knows why. Conservatives have spent decades defining their ideas, carefully choosing the language with which to present them, and building an infrastructure to communicate them, says Lakoff.
The work has paid off: by dictating the terms of national debate, conservatives have put progressives firmly on the defensive. . . .
. . . The background for Rockridge is that conservatives, especially conservative think tanks, have framed virtually every issue from their perspective. They have put a huge amount of money into creating the language for their worldview and getting it out there. Progressives have done virtually nothing. Even the new Center for American Progress, the think tank that John Podesta [former chief of staff for the Clinton administration] is setting up, is not dedicated to this at all. I asked Podesta who was going to do the Center's framing. He got a blank look, thought for a second and then said, "You!" Which meant they haven't thought about it at all. And that's the problem. Liberals don't get it. They don't understand what it is they have to be doing.
Rockridge's job is to reframe public debate, to create balance from a progressive perspective. It's one thing to analyze language and thought, it's another thing to create it. That's what we're about. It's a matter of asking 'What are the central ideas of progressive thought from a moral perspective?'
How does language influence the terms of political debate?
Language always comes with what is called "framing." Every word is defined relative to a conceptual framework. If you have something like "revolt," that implies a population that is being ruled unfairly, or assumes it is being ruled unfairly, and that they are throwing off their rulers, which would be considered a good thing. That's a frame.
If you then add the word "voter" in front of "revolt," you get a metaphorical meaning saying that the voters are the oppressed people, the governor is the oppressive ruler, that they have ousted him and this is a good thing and all things are good now. All of that comes up when you see a headline like "voter revolt" — something that most people read and never notice. But these things can be affected by reporters and very often, by the campaign people themselves. . . .
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medicare has been placed on a downward spiral toward insolvency. After doing the deed, Scully "resigned from his position on Dec. 15, just seven days following Bush's signing of the drug law. He announced that was joining a private law firm, one that represented drug manufacturers.". And there is little chance of the Medicare Bill being reversed.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4571136/
Newsweek
Between the Lines
The Smell of a Real Scandal
The run-up to the Iraq war was more hype than lie. Medicare is a clearer example of dishonesty and corruption at high levels
By Jonathan Alter
. . . As for Bush himself, there are only two possibilities, both bad. The first is that he never learned the true cost of one of the major policy initiatives of his presidency. If so, he was incompetent. The second, more plausible, alternative is that he simply chose the lower, more convenient number and didn't have any problem with the honest figures produced by the bureaucracy's getting "deep-sixed," as they used to say during Watergate.
You might think this is standard operating procedure in Washington. It is not. Every White House sends the press secretary out to spin the numbers that emerge on a weekly or monthly basis from the Department of Health and Human Services, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and other agencies. But applying political pressure to cook the numbers themselves is a true scandal. . . .
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4571136/
Newsweek
Between the Lines
The Smell of a Real Scandal
The run-up to the Iraq war was more hype than lie. Medicare is a clearer example of dishonesty and corruption at high levels
By Jonathan Alter
. . . As for Bush himself, there are only two possibilities, both bad. The first is that he never learned the true cost of one of the major policy initiatives of his presidency. If so, he was incompetent. The second, more plausible, alternative is that he simply chose the lower, more convenient number and didn't have any problem with the honest figures produced by the bureaucracy's getting "deep-sixed," as they used to say during Watergate.
You might think this is standard operating procedure in Washington. It is not. Every White House sends the press secretary out to spin the numbers that emerge on a weekly or monthly basis from the Department of Health and Human Services, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and other agencies. But applying political pressure to cook the numbers themselves is a true scandal. . . .
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another reason to get Bush out.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/03/21/lost_in_space/
Lost in space
Why the death of the Hubble telescope matters
By Peter Dizikes, 3/21/2004
. . . When NASA announced in January that it would no longer use the space shuttle to service the Hubble, which means that the telescope will stop working within a couple of years, Riess was stunned. "I was very disappointed," Riess says. "Crushed."
His reaction is not unique. "It's a real disappointment," says J. Michael Shull, chair of the Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences department at the University of Colorado. Since 1998, Shull has helped a Colorado team build a new instrument for Hubble -- the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph -- intended to let scientists study how galaxies form and evolve. The spectrograph is now sitting in storage, and about 20 jobs at Colorado have been erased by NASA's decision. "That rug was pulled out from under us overnight," Shull says.
Astronomers and historians of science alike say they cannot remember any other time in modern scientific history when the world's most powerful telescope was simply abandoned, without a better one ready to replace it. "Usually other instruments are there and taking over," says Owen Gingerich, emeritus historian of science at Harvard University who specializes in astronomy. "You don't have this interim gap where you throw away an instrument that is producing heavily in anticipation of something else."
Moreover, though the politics of NASA's decision have been widely debated -- the agency says its rationale is safety, but skeptics believe the Hubble is being sacrificed to pay for President Bush's goal of sending astronauts to Mars -- fewer people recognize that scientists are enjoying one of the most productive moments in Hubble's history. . . .
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/03/21/lost_in_space/
Lost in space
Why the death of the Hubble telescope matters
By Peter Dizikes, 3/21/2004
. . . When NASA announced in January that it would no longer use the space shuttle to service the Hubble, which means that the telescope will stop working within a couple of years, Riess was stunned. "I was very disappointed," Riess says. "Crushed."
His reaction is not unique. "It's a real disappointment," says J. Michael Shull, chair of the Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences department at the University of Colorado. Since 1998, Shull has helped a Colorado team build a new instrument for Hubble -- the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph -- intended to let scientists study how galaxies form and evolve. The spectrograph is now sitting in storage, and about 20 jobs at Colorado have been erased by NASA's decision. "That rug was pulled out from under us overnight," Shull says.
Astronomers and historians of science alike say they cannot remember any other time in modern scientific history when the world's most powerful telescope was simply abandoned, without a better one ready to replace it. "Usually other instruments are there and taking over," says Owen Gingerich, emeritus historian of science at Harvard University who specializes in astronomy. "You don't have this interim gap where you throw away an instrument that is producing heavily in anticipation of something else."
Moreover, though the politics of NASA's decision have been widely debated -- the agency says its rationale is safety, but skeptics believe the Hubble is being sacrificed to pay for President Bush's goal of sending astronauts to Mars -- fewer people recognize that scientists are enjoying one of the most productive moments in Hubble's history. . . .
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, March 20, 2004
Try:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040317/wl_nm/security_spain_truce_dc&e=2&ncid=721
Purported Al Qaeda Letter Calls Truce in Spain
Wed Mar 17, 4:56 PM ET Add World - Reuters to My Yahoo!
By Opheera McDoom
CAIRO (Reuters) - A group claiming to have links with al Qaeda said on Wednesday it was calling a truce in its Spanish operations to see if the new Madrid government would withdraw its troops from Iraq (news - web sites), a pan-Arab newspaper said. . . .
. . . An unrelated videotape of a man describing himself as al Qaeda's European military spokesman also claimed responsibility for the Madrid bombing, saying it was in retaliation for outgoing Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's domestically-unpopular support for the U.S.-led Iraq war. . . .
. . . WE WANT BUSH TO WIN
The statement said it supported President Bush (news - web sites) in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry (news - web sites), as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."
In comments addressed to Bush, the group said:
"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization."
"Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."
The group said its cells were ready for another attack and time was running out for allies of the United States.
"Whose turn is it next? Will it be Japan or America, or Italy, Britain or Oslo or Australia?" the statement said, adding Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were also targets.
The group is named after Muhammed Atef, also known as Abu Hafs, a close bin Laden aide killed in the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan (news - web sites).
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040317/wl_nm/security_spain_truce_dc&e=2&ncid=721
Purported Al Qaeda Letter Calls Truce in Spain
Wed Mar 17, 4:56 PM ET Add World - Reuters to My Yahoo!
By Opheera McDoom
CAIRO (Reuters) - A group claiming to have links with al Qaeda said on Wednesday it was calling a truce in its Spanish operations to see if the new Madrid government would withdraw its troops from Iraq (news - web sites), a pan-Arab newspaper said. . . .
. . . An unrelated videotape of a man describing himself as al Qaeda's European military spokesman also claimed responsibility for the Madrid bombing, saying it was in retaliation for outgoing Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's domestically-unpopular support for the U.S.-led Iraq war. . . .
. . . WE WANT BUSH TO WIN
The statement said it supported President Bush (news - web sites) in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry (news - web sites), as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."
In comments addressed to Bush, the group said:
"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization."
"Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."
The group said its cells were ready for another attack and time was running out for allies of the United States.
"Whose turn is it next? Will it be Japan or America, or Italy, Britain or Oslo or Australia?" the statement said, adding Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were also targets.
The group is named after Muhammed Atef, also known as Abu Hafs, a close bin Laden aide killed in the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan (news - web sites).
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of news source sites
For all you researchers and potential researchers (that's everybody), here's a handy list of sites of political news sources -- like AP, CNN, LA Times, NY Times, etc., all the important ones, I think. It's the Columbia Journalism Review's "The Campaign Desk" at
http://www.campaigndesk.org/politics-on-web.asp
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all you researchers and potential researchers (that's everybody), here's a handy list of sites of political news sources -- like AP, CNN, LA Times, NY Times, etc., all the important ones, I think. It's the Columbia Journalism Review's "The Campaign Desk" at
http://www.campaigndesk.org/politics-on-web.asp
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Useful and interesting site:
Annenberg Political Fact Check -- Holding politicians accountable
www.factcheck.org
They debunk and unspin politicians' statements. They seem to try hard to be nonpartisan, giving as much space to Kerry's inaccuracies as to Bush's, um, well, "inaccuracies." Example of unspinning:
February 27, 2004 - Biggest Deficit in History? Yes and No
Half a trillion dollars is the most ever, but several others have been worse relative to the size of the economy.
[this is linked to a brief analysis -- which shows the Reagan and elder Bush deficits were worse relative to size of the economy]
Annenberg Political Fact Check is produced by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the U of Penn. I understand it has a good reputation.
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annenberg Political Fact Check -- Holding politicians accountable
www.factcheck.org
They debunk and unspin politicians' statements. They seem to try hard to be nonpartisan, giving as much space to Kerry's inaccuracies as to Bush's, um, well, "inaccuracies." Example of unspinning:
February 27, 2004 - Biggest Deficit in History? Yes and No
Half a trillion dollars is the most ever, but several others have been worse relative to the size of the economy.
[this is linked to a brief analysis -- which shows the Reagan and elder Bush deficits were worse relative to size of the economy]
Annenberg Political Fact Check is produced by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the U of Penn. I understand it has a good reputation.
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, March 19, 2004
This should make your heart race a bit.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040329&s=schell
The Empire Backfires
by Jonathan Schell
The first anniversary of the American invasion of Iraq has arrived. By now, we were told by the Bush Administration before the war, the flower-throwing celebrations of our troops' arrival would have long ended; their numbers would have been reduced to the low tens of thousands, if not to zero; Iraq's large stores of weapons of mass destruction would have been found and dismantled; the institutions of democracy would be flourishing; Kurd and Shiite and Sunni would be working happily together in a federal system; the economy, now privatized, would be taking off; other peoples of the Middle East, thrilled and awed, so to speak, by the beautiful scenes in Iraq, would be dismantling their own tyrannical regimes. Instead, 549 American soldiers and uncounted thousands of Iraqis, military and civilian, have died; some $125 billion has been expended; no weapons of mass destruction have been found; the economy is a disaster; electricity and water are sometime things; America's former well-wishers, the Shiites, are impatient with the occupation; terrorist bombs are taking a heavy toll; and Iraq as a whole, far from being a model for anything, is a cautionary lesson in the folly of imperial rule in the twenty-first century. And yet all this is only part of the cost of the decision to invade and occupy Iraq. To weigh the full cost, one must look not just at the war itself but away from it, at the progress of the larger policy it served, at things that have been done elsewhere--some far from Iraq or deep in the past--and, perhaps above all, at things that have been left undone. . . .
. . . The questions that now cry out to be answered are, Why did the United States, standing in the midst of the Pakistani nuclear Wal-Mart, its shelves groaning with, among other things, centrifuge parts, uranium hexafluoride (supplied, we now know, to Libya) and helpful bomb-assembly manuals in a variety of languages, rush out of the premises to vainly ransack the empty warehouse of Iraq? What sort of nonproliferation policy could lead to actions like these? How did the Bush Administration, in the name of protecting the country from nuclear danger, wind up leaving it wide open to nuclear danger?
In answering these questions, it would be reassuring, in a way, to report that the basic facts were discovered only after the war, but the truth is otherwise. In the case of Iraq, it's now abundantly clear that some combination of deception, self-deception and outright fraud (the exact proportions of each are still under investigation) led to the manufacture of a gross and avoidable falsehood. In the months before the war, most of the governments of the world strenuously urged the United States not to go to war on the basis of the flimsy and unconvincing evidence it was offering. In the case of Pakistan, the question of how much the Administration knew before the war has scarcely been asked, yet we know that the most serious breach--the proliferation to North Korea--was reported and publicized before the war.
It's important to recall the chronology of the Korean aspect of Pakistan's proliferation. In January 2003 Seymour Hersh reported in The New Yorker that Pakistan had given North Korea extensive help with its nuclear program, including its launch of a uranium enrichment process. In return, North Korea was sending guided missiles to Pakistan. In June 2002, Hersh revealed, the CIA had sent the White House a report on these developments. On October 4, 2002, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and Pacific Affairs James Kelly confronted the North Koreans with the CIA information, and, according to Kelly, North Korea's First Vice Foreign Minister, Kang Suk Ju, startled him by responding, "Of course we have a nuclear program." (Since then, the North Koreans have unconvincingly denied the existence of the uranium enrichment program.) . . .
. . . In short, from June 2002, when the CIA delivered its report to the White House, until October 16--the period in which the nation's decision to go to war in Iraq was made--the Administration knowingly withheld the news about North Korea and its Pakistan connection from the public. Even after the vote, Secretary of State Colin Powell strangely insisted that the North Korean situation was "not a crisis" but only "a difficulty." Nevertheless, he extracted a pledge from Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, that the nuclear technology shipments to North Korea would stop. (They did not.) In March, information was circulating that both Pakistan and North Korea were helping Iran to develop atomic weapons. (The North Korean and Iranian crises are of course still brewing.)
In sum, the glaring contradiction between the policy of "regime change" for already disarmed Iraq and regime-support for proliferating Pakistan was not a postwar discovery; it was fully visible before the war. The Nation enjoys no access to intelligence files, yet in an article arguing the case against the war, this author was able to comment that an "objective ranking of nuclear proliferators in order of menace" would put "Pakistan first," North Korea second, Iran third and Iraq only fourth--and to note the curiosity that "the Bush Administration ranks them, of course, in exactly the reverse order, placing Iraq, which it plans to attack, first, and Pakistan, which it befriends and coddles, nowhere on the list." . . .
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040329&s=schell
The Empire Backfires
by Jonathan Schell
The first anniversary of the American invasion of Iraq has arrived. By now, we were told by the Bush Administration before the war, the flower-throwing celebrations of our troops' arrival would have long ended; their numbers would have been reduced to the low tens of thousands, if not to zero; Iraq's large stores of weapons of mass destruction would have been found and dismantled; the institutions of democracy would be flourishing; Kurd and Shiite and Sunni would be working happily together in a federal system; the economy, now privatized, would be taking off; other peoples of the Middle East, thrilled and awed, so to speak, by the beautiful scenes in Iraq, would be dismantling their own tyrannical regimes. Instead, 549 American soldiers and uncounted thousands of Iraqis, military and civilian, have died; some $125 billion has been expended; no weapons of mass destruction have been found; the economy is a disaster; electricity and water are sometime things; America's former well-wishers, the Shiites, are impatient with the occupation; terrorist bombs are taking a heavy toll; and Iraq as a whole, far from being a model for anything, is a cautionary lesson in the folly of imperial rule in the twenty-first century. And yet all this is only part of the cost of the decision to invade and occupy Iraq. To weigh the full cost, one must look not just at the war itself but away from it, at the progress of the larger policy it served, at things that have been done elsewhere--some far from Iraq or deep in the past--and, perhaps above all, at things that have been left undone. . . .
. . . The questions that now cry out to be answered are, Why did the United States, standing in the midst of the Pakistani nuclear Wal-Mart, its shelves groaning with, among other things, centrifuge parts, uranium hexafluoride (supplied, we now know, to Libya) and helpful bomb-assembly manuals in a variety of languages, rush out of the premises to vainly ransack the empty warehouse of Iraq? What sort of nonproliferation policy could lead to actions like these? How did the Bush Administration, in the name of protecting the country from nuclear danger, wind up leaving it wide open to nuclear danger?
In answering these questions, it would be reassuring, in a way, to report that the basic facts were discovered only after the war, but the truth is otherwise. In the case of Iraq, it's now abundantly clear that some combination of deception, self-deception and outright fraud (the exact proportions of each are still under investigation) led to the manufacture of a gross and avoidable falsehood. In the months before the war, most of the governments of the world strenuously urged the United States not to go to war on the basis of the flimsy and unconvincing evidence it was offering. In the case of Pakistan, the question of how much the Administration knew before the war has scarcely been asked, yet we know that the most serious breach--the proliferation to North Korea--was reported and publicized before the war.
It's important to recall the chronology of the Korean aspect of Pakistan's proliferation. In January 2003 Seymour Hersh reported in The New Yorker that Pakistan had given North Korea extensive help with its nuclear program, including its launch of a uranium enrichment process. In return, North Korea was sending guided missiles to Pakistan. In June 2002, Hersh revealed, the CIA had sent the White House a report on these developments. On October 4, 2002, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and Pacific Affairs James Kelly confronted the North Koreans with the CIA information, and, according to Kelly, North Korea's First Vice Foreign Minister, Kang Suk Ju, startled him by responding, "Of course we have a nuclear program." (Since then, the North Koreans have unconvincingly denied the existence of the uranium enrichment program.) . . .
. . . In short, from June 2002, when the CIA delivered its report to the White House, until October 16--the period in which the nation's decision to go to war in Iraq was made--the Administration knowingly withheld the news about North Korea and its Pakistan connection from the public. Even after the vote, Secretary of State Colin Powell strangely insisted that the North Korean situation was "not a crisis" but only "a difficulty." Nevertheless, he extracted a pledge from Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, that the nuclear technology shipments to North Korea would stop. (They did not.) In March, information was circulating that both Pakistan and North Korea were helping Iran to develop atomic weapons. (The North Korean and Iranian crises are of course still brewing.)
In sum, the glaring contradiction between the policy of "regime change" for already disarmed Iraq and regime-support for proliferating Pakistan was not a postwar discovery; it was fully visible before the war. The Nation enjoys no access to intelligence files, yet in an article arguing the case against the war, this author was able to comment that an "objective ranking of nuclear proliferators in order of menace" would put "Pakistan first," North Korea second, Iran third and Iraq only fourth--and to note the curiosity that "the Bush Administration ranks them, of course, in exactly the reverse order, placing Iraq, which it plans to attack, first, and Pakistan, which it befriends and coddles, nowhere on the list." . . .
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq on the Record -- Light the fuse?
I think the Iraq on the Record report would be a bombshell if people could see it, but I've seen no media coverage at all. Is there a way to get this in front of more eyes? Can anyone spend more than a moment of creative thought on this?
See the report at the link DaveG posted on Mar. 17.
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the Iraq on the Record report would be a bombshell if people could see it, but I've seen no media coverage at all. Is there a way to get this in front of more eyes? Can anyone spend more than a moment of creative thought on this?
See the report at the link DaveG posted on Mar. 17.
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
Do you mean this poll?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/16/politics/campaign/16POLL.html
Nation's Direction Prompts Voters' Concern, Poll Finds
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JANET ELDER
Published: March 16, 2004
George W. Bush and John Kerry enter the general election at a time of growing concern among Americans that the nation is veering in the wrong direction, the latest New York Times/CBS News poll shows. Mr. Bush faces unrest over his management of the economy, while the public has doubts about Mr. Kerry's political convictions....
. . . The Times/CBS News poll found that Mr. Bush continued to enjoy an advantage over Mr. Kerry in managing foreign policy, and in protecting the nation against terrorism. Indeed, fighting terrorism remains Mr. Bush's greatest area of strength.
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/16/politics/campaign/16POLL.html
Nation's Direction Prompts Voters' Concern, Poll Finds
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JANET ELDER
Published: March 16, 2004
George W. Bush and John Kerry enter the general election at a time of growing concern among Americans that the nation is veering in the wrong direction, the latest New York Times/CBS News poll shows. Mr. Bush faces unrest over his management of the economy, while the public has doubts about Mr. Kerry's political convictions....
. . . The Times/CBS News poll found that Mr. Bush continued to enjoy an advantage over Mr. Kerry in managing foreign policy, and in protecting the nation against terrorism. Indeed, fighting terrorism remains Mr. Bush's greatest area of strength.
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does the latest Times/CBS News poll give us any guidance on what we should try to do?
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, March 15, 2004
Yesterday's most disturbing news was the capitulation of Spain's voters to terrorists (below). Whether al Qaida was responsible for the bombings or not, it's a victory for them, and they'll want to repeat their success here in November.
I think Americans will react in the opposite way. If Bush is seen to be the strongest defender against terrorism, he'll probably gain support.
Maybe we'd all rather hear how well our side's doing than how the job just got tougher. I would. But I want to know what we're up against, too. I've had to think lately about reducing the amount of time I devote to this "conspiracy." Now I can't.
Socialists Oust Spain's Ruling Party
Popular Party Hurt by Charges It Provoked Bombings by Aiding Iraq War
By ED McCULLOUGH, AP
MADRID, Spain (March 14) - Spain's Socialists scored a dramatic upset in elections Sunday, unseating conservatives stung by charges they provoked the Madrid terror bombings by supporting the U.S.-led war in Iraq and making Spain a target for al-Qaida.
It was the first time a government that backed the Iraq war has been voted out of office. Incoming prime minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has pledged to bring home the 1,300 troops Spain has stationed in Iraq when their tour of duty ends in July. . .
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think Americans will react in the opposite way. If Bush is seen to be the strongest defender against terrorism, he'll probably gain support.
Maybe we'd all rather hear how well our side's doing than how the job just got tougher. I would. But I want to know what we're up against, too. I've had to think lately about reducing the amount of time I devote to this "conspiracy." Now I can't.
Socialists Oust Spain's Ruling Party
Popular Party Hurt by Charges It Provoked Bombings by Aiding Iraq War
By ED McCULLOUGH, AP
MADRID, Spain (March 14) - Spain's Socialists scored a dramatic upset in elections Sunday, unseating conservatives stung by charges they provoked the Madrid terror bombings by supporting the U.S.-led war in Iraq and making Spain a target for al-Qaida.
It was the first time a government that backed the Iraq war has been voted out of office. Incoming prime minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has pledged to bring home the 1,300 troops Spain has stationed in Iraq when their tour of duty ends in July. . .
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The title line above
Phillip recommended changing our title line above from "replacing Bush with somebody else" to "replacing Bush with John Kerry".
Speaking for myself alone, I'm mainly concerned with the angle of dumping Bush, and it's where I'm aiming my efforts -- at telling people what's wrong with him and his administration. I'll rely on the Dem campaign to say what's right with Kerry. Others will differ.
Simply "dumping Bush" seems more general and inclusive. Any other suggestions for the title line?
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip recommended changing our title line above from "replacing Bush with somebody else" to "replacing Bush with John Kerry".
Speaking for myself alone, I'm mainly concerned with the angle of dumping Bush, and it's where I'm aiming my efforts -- at telling people what's wrong with him and his administration. I'll rely on the Dem campaign to say what's right with Kerry. Others will differ.
Simply "dumping Bush" seems more general and inclusive. Any other suggestions for the title line?
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, March 13, 2004
AMMO DUMP OPEN FOR BUSINESS
We now have a place to store news articles and other ammunition useful in our campaign to dump Dubya. I'ts called the "AmmoDump," and it's at:
http://ammodump.blogspot.com/
It follows the same format as the Bushout blog, so there's little new to learn. I suggest you go there, take a look, and bookmark it.
Common sense says material posted on the AmmoDump will be most useful if it includes the source (like the name of the newspaper), and the link to the original article.
Ammo will be moved periodically from the Ammo Dump to the Ammo Library (due soon) where the stored material can be accessed by topic. So when posting material on the Ammo Dump, topic will need to be included. There's a list of topics on the Ammo Dump reading page.
Now we can start digging up ammunition in earnest, to battle Bush in earnest. This is going to be helpful to Ann and me as we use what you find on our topic, and it will speed up the work of the next ones who decide to tackle other issues.
If you run into problems with the new Ammo Dump, check with Leo; he set it up and can explain how it works.
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We now have a place to store news articles and other ammunition useful in our campaign to dump Dubya. I'ts called the "AmmoDump," and it's at:
http://ammodump.blogspot.com/
It follows the same format as the Bushout blog, so there's little new to learn. I suggest you go there, take a look, and bookmark it.
Common sense says material posted on the AmmoDump will be most useful if it includes the source (like the name of the newspaper), and the link to the original article.
Ammo will be moved periodically from the Ammo Dump to the Ammo Library (due soon) where the stored material can be accessed by topic. So when posting material on the Ammo Dump, topic will need to be included. There's a list of topics on the Ammo Dump reading page.
Now we can start digging up ammunition in earnest, to battle Bush in earnest. This is going to be helpful to Ann and me as we use what you find on our topic, and it will speed up the work of the next ones who decide to tackle other issues.
If you run into problems with the new Ammo Dump, check with Leo; he set it up and can explain how it works.
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, March 12, 2004
Salon March 10, 2004
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/03/10/osp_moveon/
The new Pentagon papers
A high-ranking military officer reveals how Defense Department extremists suppressed information and twisted the truth to drive the country to war.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Karen Kwiatkowski
In July of last year, after just over 20 years of service, I retired as a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Air Force. I had served as a communications officer in the field and in acquisition programs, as a speechwriter for the National Security Agency director, and on the Headquarters Air Force and the office of the secretary of defense staffs covering African affairs. I had completed Air Command and Staff College and Navy War College seminar programs, two master's degrees, and everything but my Ph.D. dissertation in world politics at Catholic University. I regarded my military vocation as interesting, rewarding and apolitical. ...
...In the spring of 2002, I was a cynical but willing staff officer, almost two years into my three-year tour at the office of the secretary of defense, undersecretary for policy, sub-Saharan Africa. In April, a call for volunteers went out for the Near East South Asia directorate (NESA). None materialized. By May, the call transmogrified into a posthaste demand for any staff officer, and I was "volunteered" to enter what would be a well-appointed den of iniquity....
...The education I would receive there was like an M. Night Shyamalan movie -- intense, fascinating and frightening. While the people were very much alive, I saw a dead philosophy -- Cold War anti-communism and neo-imperialism -- walking the corridors of the Pentagon. It wore the clothing of counterterrorism and spoke the language of a holy war between good and evil. The evil was recognized by the leadership to be resident mainly in the Middle East and articulated by Islamic clerics and radicals. But there were other enemies within, anyone who dared voice any skepticism about their grand plans, including Secretary of State Colin Powell and Gen. Anthony Zinni.
From May 2002 until February 2003, I observed firsthand the formation of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans and watched the latter stages of the neoconservative capture of the policy-intelligence nexus in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. This seizure of the reins of U.S. Middle East policy was directly visible to many of us working in the Near East South Asia policy office, and yet there seemed to be little any of us could do about it.
I saw a narrow and deeply flawed policy favored by some executive appointees in the Pentagon used to manipulate and pressurize the traditional relationship between policymakers in the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies.
I witnessed neoconservative agenda bearers within OSP usurp measured and carefully considered assessments, and through suppression and distortion of intelligence analysis promulgate what were in fact falsehoods to both Congress and the executive office of the president. ...
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/03/10/osp_moveon/
The new Pentagon papers
A high-ranking military officer reveals how Defense Department extremists suppressed information and twisted the truth to drive the country to war.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Karen Kwiatkowski
In July of last year, after just over 20 years of service, I retired as a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Air Force. I had served as a communications officer in the field and in acquisition programs, as a speechwriter for the National Security Agency director, and on the Headquarters Air Force and the office of the secretary of defense staffs covering African affairs. I had completed Air Command and Staff College and Navy War College seminar programs, two master's degrees, and everything but my Ph.D. dissertation in world politics at Catholic University. I regarded my military vocation as interesting, rewarding and apolitical. ...
...In the spring of 2002, I was a cynical but willing staff officer, almost two years into my three-year tour at the office of the secretary of defense, undersecretary for policy, sub-Saharan Africa. In April, a call for volunteers went out for the Near East South Asia directorate (NESA). None materialized. By May, the call transmogrified into a posthaste demand for any staff officer, and I was "volunteered" to enter what would be a well-appointed den of iniquity....
...The education I would receive there was like an M. Night Shyamalan movie -- intense, fascinating and frightening. While the people were very much alive, I saw a dead philosophy -- Cold War anti-communism and neo-imperialism -- walking the corridors of the Pentagon. It wore the clothing of counterterrorism and spoke the language of a holy war between good and evil. The evil was recognized by the leadership to be resident mainly in the Middle East and articulated by Islamic clerics and radicals. But there were other enemies within, anyone who dared voice any skepticism about their grand plans, including Secretary of State Colin Powell and Gen. Anthony Zinni.
From May 2002 until February 2003, I observed firsthand the formation of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans and watched the latter stages of the neoconservative capture of the policy-intelligence nexus in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. This seizure of the reins of U.S. Middle East policy was directly visible to many of us working in the Near East South Asia policy office, and yet there seemed to be little any of us could do about it.
I saw a narrow and deeply flawed policy favored by some executive appointees in the Pentagon used to manipulate and pressurize the traditional relationship between policymakers in the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies.
I witnessed neoconservative agenda bearers within OSP usurp measured and carefully considered assessments, and through suppression and distortion of intelligence analysis promulgate what were in fact falsehoods to both Congress and the executive office of the president. ...
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Ann and Dennis loudly announce:
WORK HAS BEGUN ON A PAMPHLET OR BOOKLET
Ann in Baltimore and Dennis in St. Paul will produce a minor (short) work on George W. Bush's psych profile, family connections, and other influences that make him the scary person he is, and showing how these forces determine his actions as president. Wish us luck and Godspeed.
Ann is in charge of gathering data and organizing it so well that all Dennis has to do is write what she gives him and take the credit. Other researchers and surfers are invited to help scare up material on the subject, to be posted on the Ammo Dump under the topic "PROF" for profile (replaces "PSYCH" for psycho). More later on that.
This project started because Ann stepped forward and said she was willing to help with research on any of several projects. If someone else is as brave, another worthwhile work could get rolling.
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORK HAS BEGUN ON A PAMPHLET OR BOOKLET
Ann in Baltimore and Dennis in St. Paul will produce a minor (short) work on George W. Bush's psych profile, family connections, and other influences that make him the scary person he is, and showing how these forces determine his actions as president. Wish us luck and Godspeed.
Ann is in charge of gathering data and organizing it so well that all Dennis has to do is write what she gives him and take the credit. Other researchers and surfers are invited to help scare up material on the subject, to be posted on the Ammo Dump under the topic "PROF" for profile (replaces "PSYCH" for psycho). More later on that.
This project started because Ann stepped forward and said she was willing to help with research on any of several projects. If someone else is as brave, another worthwhile work could get rolling.
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, March 08, 2004
Mankiw and Edwards on our two Americas
Connect the dots. In Kirkpatrick's Fortune article about off-shoring jobs (the one Jeane pointed out), he says, "Make no mistake, this is the issue of the year. "
And you remember Bush's chief economic adviser Greg Mankiw saying, "Outsourcing is a plus for the economy in the long run." Which, if true, simply means the rich get richer THAN the poor get poorer.
E. J. Dionne Jr. in this morning's PioneerPress Opinion, says John Edwards' well-stated message should be the central theme for Democrats: "There are two Americas, one for the privileged, and one for the rest of us." Bingo.
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connect the dots. In Kirkpatrick's Fortune article about off-shoring jobs (the one Jeane pointed out), he says, "Make no mistake, this is the issue of the year. "
And you remember Bush's chief economic adviser Greg Mankiw saying, "Outsourcing is a plus for the economy in the long run." Which, if true, simply means the rich get richer THAN the poor get poorer.
E. J. Dionne Jr. in this morning's PioneerPress Opinion, says John Edwards' well-stated message should be the central theme for Democrats: "There are two Americas, one for the privileged, and one for the rest of us." Bingo.
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/08/opinion/meyer/main604592.shtml
Have Rove & Bush Lost Their Mojo?
WASHINGTON, March, 8, 2004
Speaking of the conservative base, they're going nuts as they realize that their man is a gen-u-wine big spending, big government Texan.
(CBS) This Against the Grain commentary was written by CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer. An unexamined and unspoken assumption behind the vast majority of publicly perpetrated election analysis holds that the Republicans will have strategic and tactical superiority this year simply because Republicans are better at strategy and tactics than Democrats.
The most cynical strain of this thinking says that President Bush’s chief political adviser, Karl Rove, is not the Boy Genius of his nickname, but an Evil Genius, pulling the strings of a puppet president happy to do anything to get re-elected. Together, they can conjure up Osama in October or make the market soar after Labor Day.
The milder manifestation simply observes that this Republican political team, which has won three elections together, has discipline, organization, pragmatism and oodles of money, whereas Democrats have disorganization, factions, wishful thinking and money trouble.
Well, guess what? It's beginning to look as if the vaunted Karl and George team has developed a serious case of tin ear syndrome. The evidence is mounting: ...
========================
This is enjoyable to read. Looks like Rove and Bush are making a bad start and have a lot of ground to make up.
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have Rove & Bush Lost Their Mojo?
WASHINGTON, March, 8, 2004
Speaking of the conservative base, they're going nuts as they realize that their man is a gen-u-wine big spending, big government Texan.
(CBS) This Against the Grain commentary was written by CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer. An unexamined and unspoken assumption behind the vast majority of publicly perpetrated election analysis holds that the Republicans will have strategic and tactical superiority this year simply because Republicans are better at strategy and tactics than Democrats.
The most cynical strain of this thinking says that President Bush’s chief political adviser, Karl Rove, is not the Boy Genius of his nickname, but an Evil Genius, pulling the strings of a puppet president happy to do anything to get re-elected. Together, they can conjure up Osama in October or make the market soar after Labor Day.
The milder manifestation simply observes that this Republican political team, which has won three elections together, has discipline, organization, pragmatism and oodles of money, whereas Democrats have disorganization, factions, wishful thinking and money trouble.
Well, guess what? It's beginning to look as if the vaunted Karl and George team has developed a serious case of tin ear syndrome. The evidence is mounting: ...
========================
This is enjoyable to read. Looks like Rove and Bush are making a bad start and have a lot of ground to make up.
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, March 06, 2004
The Whole Truth About The Iraq War
Tom sent this info:
A DVD documentary called "Uncovered: The Whole Truth About The Iraq War" uses government people from the CIA, Pentagon and foreign service to obliterate Bush's whole case for going to war against Iraq. Here's the web site:
http://www.truthuncovered.com
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom sent this info:
A DVD documentary called "Uncovered: The Whole Truth About The Iraq War" uses government people from the CIA, Pentagon and foreign service to obliterate Bush's whole case for going to war against Iraq. Here's the web site:
http://www.truthuncovered.com
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeane checks in by proxy Jeane sends her apologies from the Arctic Circle for not checking in on the blog. Her feeble excuse is she can't spend her limited internet time reading and posting. She wanted to know what we're saying, so I went to the bother of sending her our posts to date. Now she owes us a similar effort, figuring out how to further our efforts to unseat Bush & Co.
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, March 05, 2004
Tip. To turn a URL into a link highlight it, then click on the globe on tractor treads (the third icon) paste the URL in the box and it will become an active link such as:
http://www.glocom.org/opinions/essays/20040301_tsurumi_president/
A good read Dave G. (Dave H. is not on board yet.)
The best people in the business and his closest friends have tried to talk Nader out of running to no avail. He will run, no matter what. So what else can be done to diminish the damage? Looks like the Green party does not want to run him so he is running as an Independant.
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.glocom.org/opinions/essays/20040301_tsurumi_president/
A good read Dave G. (Dave H. is not on board yet.)
The best people in the business and his closest friends have tried to talk Nader out of running to no avail. He will run, no matter what. So what else can be done to diminish the damage? Looks like the Green party does not want to run him so he is running as an Independant.
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It looks like Nader will do it again
AP report: the latest poll shows support for Bush at 46%, for Kerry 45%, for Nader 6%. This is after all the Democratic primaries news coverage, before the Republican campaign takes off -- a bad sign. Even if Nader's support drops to 3%, like last time, he'll be able to deliver the election to Bush and the looters again.
Maybe the best thing this conspiracy can do is write persuasive and convincing letters to Ralph. Can anyone find his address?
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AP report: the latest poll shows support for Bush at 46%, for Kerry 45%, for Nader 6%. This is after all the Democratic primaries news coverage, before the Republican campaign takes off -- a bad sign. Even if Nader's support drops to 3%, like last time, he'll be able to deliver the election to Bush and the looters again.
Maybe the best thing this conspiracy can do is write persuasive and convincing letters to Ralph. Can anyone find his address?
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave G (I assume that's Dave G, not Dave H, saying not sure what this blog is for),
I think it's for whatever you want to use it for in support of opposition to Bush and his minions. In fact, variety is good. Mainly discussion, comments, questions, answers, alerting others to info they may not have caught, as Leo just did (like I said, he never learned the value of brevity). And it's for exactly what you used it for just now, asking what we should be doing. Most of all, hopefully, what we can do. Glad to see you here!
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it's for whatever you want to use it for in support of opposition to Bush and his minions. In fact, variety is good. Mainly discussion, comments, questions, answers, alerting others to info they may not have caught, as Leo just did (like I said, he never learned the value of brevity). And it's for exactly what you used it for just now, asking what we should be doing. Most of all, hopefully, what we can do. Glad to see you here!
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, March 04, 2004
If you are not a MoveOn member, here is the first part of today's email:
Dear MoveOn member,
In the months after the attacks on September 11th, President Bush told reporters that he had "no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue." But the campaign ads he revealed today use imagery of Ground Zero and of a fire fighter's funeral to argue for his re-election.
9/11 family members are furious about it. The New York Daily News covered the story this morning:
"It's a slap in the face of the murders of 3,000 people," said Monica Gabrielle, whose husband died in the twin tower attacks. "It is unconscionable." . . .
Firefighter Tommy Fee in Rescue Squad 270 in Queens was appalled. "It's as sick as people who stole things out of the place. The image of firefighters at Ground Zero should not be used for this stuff, for politics," Fee said.
(The whole article is online here.)
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/170291p-148587c.html
If we don't tell President Bush now that exploiting our national tragedy for partisan political gain is off-limits, we can expect far more of this in the months ahead. The best way to put Bush on notice is by filling the nation's editorial pages. If we all write our local papers, Bush will understand just how inappropriate his ads are.
Writing a letter to the editor doesn't actually take very long – you can do it in ten minutes or less. Writing a letter that's short, sweet, and to the point is the best way for you to get it published. We've added some tips and some talking points below. Once you've written, please let us know...
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear MoveOn member,
In the months after the attacks on September 11th, President Bush told reporters that he had "no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue." But the campaign ads he revealed today use imagery of Ground Zero and of a fire fighter's funeral to argue for his re-election.
9/11 family members are furious about it. The New York Daily News covered the story this morning:
"It's a slap in the face of the murders of 3,000 people," said Monica Gabrielle, whose husband died in the twin tower attacks. "It is unconscionable." . . .
Firefighter Tommy Fee in Rescue Squad 270 in Queens was appalled. "It's as sick as people who stole things out of the place. The image of firefighters at Ground Zero should not be used for this stuff, for politics," Fee said.
(The whole article is online here.)
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/170291p-148587c.html
If we don't tell President Bush now that exploiting our national tragedy for partisan political gain is off-limits, we can expect far more of this in the months ahead. The best way to put Bush on notice is by filling the nation's editorial pages. If we all write our local papers, Bush will understand just how inappropriate his ads are.
Writing a letter to the editor doesn't actually take very long – you can do it in ten minutes or less. Writing a letter that's short, sweet, and to the point is the best way for you to get it published. We've added some tips and some talking points below. Once you've written, please let us know...
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO POST MESSAGES ON THIS WEBLOG -- First-time users:
1. Have in mind the user name and password you want to use. Be prepared to add numbers or something to the end if the name or password is already in use. "Dennis," for example, wasn't accepted, so I made it "Dennis11." The blog program still signs my posts "Dennis."
2. Click on: "Sign in, Post, Sign out" at upper right on this page. That will take you to a "home page" with a link to "Bushout" at the right. Click on that.
3. Sign in with user name and password. (And remember them.)
4. That will take you to the "Post" page, where you write your message. Check in and tell us you're here. The blog program will show you your message and let you change it before you decide to post it.
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Have in mind the user name and password you want to use. Be prepared to add numbers or something to the end if the name or password is already in use. "Dennis," for example, wasn't accepted, so I made it "Dennis11." The blog program still signs my posts "Dennis."
2. Click on: "Sign in, Post, Sign out" at upper right on this page. That will take you to a "home page" with a link to "Bushout" at the right. Click on that.
3. Sign in with user name and password. (And remember them.)
4. That will take you to the "Post" page, where you write your message. Check in and tell us you're here. The blog program will show you your message and let you change it before you decide to post it.
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
Watch out! Here it comes.
http://nytimes.com/
Bush Ad Campaign Ready to Kick Off Expensive Effort
By JIM RUTENBERG
Published: March 4, 2004
RLINGTON, Va., March 3 — The Bush campaign on Wednesday announced the start of what may be the most expensive advertising campaign in presidential history, with commercials devised to erase months of Democratic attacks by portraying President Bush as a plain-spoken leader who steadied the nation after the 2001 terrorist attacks.
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://nytimes.com/
Bush Ad Campaign Ready to Kick Off Expensive Effort
By JIM RUTENBERG
Published: March 4, 2004
RLINGTON, Va., March 3 — The Bush campaign on Wednesday announced the start of what may be the most expensive advertising campaign in presidential history, with commercials devised to erase months of Democratic attacks by portraying President Bush as a plain-spoken leader who steadied the nation after the 2001 terrorist attacks.
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Dem candidate
John Kerry probably wasn't the first choice for most of us, but he's a good choice when you think what matters most is deposing King George W. Kerry's the most politically savvy, and there's truth in the old adage, "Set a politician to catch a politician." I'll support him as well as I can.
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kerry probably wasn't the first choice for most of us, but he's a good choice when you think what matters most is deposing King George W. Kerry's the most politically savvy, and there's truth in the old adage, "Set a politician to catch a politician." I'll support him as well as I can.
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's Strib Editorial Worth A Read.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/561/4640918.html
Editorial: Whom to trust?/Bush's credibility problem
Published March 3, 2004
Last updated: March 2, 2004 at 8:35 PM ED0303
Once it would have been a simple question for Americans -- whether to take the word of their own government or to believe a bitter Caribbean politician's claims that the United States kidnapped him and forced him into exile.
But the Bush administration has so often twisted the truth -- on matters from Iraq's stockpiles of sinister weapons, to who really gets tax cuts, to the real long-term implications of budget deficits -- that the public doesn't quite know what to believe....
...In his State of the Union speech this year, Bush proclaimed: "For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible -- and no one can now doubt the word of America."
"What? He said what?" came the world's reaction. But the president was simply following the Bush formula for dealing with a credibility problem: State the opposite and pretend it's true....
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.startribune.com/stories/561/4640918.html
Editorial: Whom to trust?/Bush's credibility problem
Published March 3, 2004
Last updated: March 2, 2004 at 8:35 PM ED0303
Once it would have been a simple question for Americans -- whether to take the word of their own government or to believe a bitter Caribbean politician's claims that the United States kidnapped him and forced him into exile.
But the Bush administration has so often twisted the truth -- on matters from Iraq's stockpiles of sinister weapons, to who really gets tax cuts, to the real long-term implications of budget deficits -- that the public doesn't quite know what to believe....
...In his State of the Union speech this year, Bush proclaimed: "For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible -- and no one can now doubt the word of America."
"What? He said what?" came the world's reaction. But the president was simply following the Bush formula for dealing with a credibility problem: State the opposite and pretend it's true....
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
Central Time Zone
Ann went through the Help Files and found how to set the blog time zone. I had overlooked it. I changed from the default zone 8 (LA) to zone 6 (Chicago). So now the time should make sense for those in the Central Time Zone. Ann will still be an hour off.
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ann went through the Help Files and found how to set the blog time zone. I had overlooked it. I changed from the default zone 8 (LA) to zone 6 (Chicago). So now the time should make sense for those in the Central Time Zone. Ann will still be an hour off.
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, March 01, 2004
Counterattack?
Excellent conservative strategy -- coming out against gay marriage. They correctly estimated it would be a bigger issue for most people than Bush's war and Bush's lies. And he has Pope John Paul's approval on it, so there's a big part of the "Catholic vote."
John Paul must have said something bad about Bush's war. I missed it. Does anyone remember? Can anyone find it? It would be useful ammo to counter with.
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent conservative strategy -- coming out against gay marriage. They correctly estimated it would be a bigger issue for most people than Bush's war and Bush's lies. And he has Pope John Paul's approval on it, so there's a big part of the "Catholic vote."
John Paul must have said something bad about Bush's war. I missed it. Does anyone remember? Can anyone find it? It would be useful ammo to counter with.
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
