BushOut and KerryIn

This is interesting.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/26/opinion/polls/main619786.shtml
NEW YORK, May, 26, 2004
Poll: McCain/Kerry Ticket A Winner

A hypothetical Kerry/McCain pairing holds a 14-point advantage over President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney, nearly double the 8-point lead Kerry has alone over Bush.

(CBS) Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry holds an eight-point lead over President George W. Bush among registered voters in the latest CBS News poll, 49% to 41%, but one of the names currently bandied about as a running mate for him - Republican Sen. John McCain - gives Kerry an even larger edge when added to the ticket.

McCain has continued to face questions about joining his fellow Vietnam veteran Kerry on a ticket, despite having insisted that he is not interested in doing so. America’s voters, meanwhile, do have interest in such a bi-partisan slate: a hypothetical Kerry/McCain pairing holds a 14-point advantage over President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney, nearly double the 8-point lead Kerry has alone over Bush.

KERRY & McCAIN VS. BUSH & CHENEY: CHOICE IN NOVEMBER (Registered voters)

Kerry/McCain 53%
Bush/Cheney 39%


End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This just in from Judy:

One sunny day in 2005 an old man approached the White House from across Pennsylvania Avenue, where he'd been sitting on a park bench. He said to the U.S. Marine who was standing guard, "I would like to go in and meet with president Bush."

The Marine answered, "Sir, Mr. Bush is no longer president and no longer resides here."

The old man said, "Okay" and walked away.

The following day, the same man approached the White House and said to the same Marine, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."

The Marine again told the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Bush is no longer president and no longer resides here."

The man thanked him and, again, just walked away.

The third day, the same man approached the White House and said to the same Marine, "I would like to go in and talk to President Bush."

The Marine said, "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have asked to speak to Mr. Bush. I've told you already that Mr. Bush is no longer the president and no longer resides here. Don't you understand?"

The old man looked at the Marine and said, "Oh, I understand. I just love hearing it."

The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said,
"See you tomorrow, sir."
***

End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/05/26/amnesty.reut/index.html
Amnesty condemns U.S. terror war
Wednesday, May 26, 2004

Amnesty International also rapped partners across the world in the United States' self-declared "war on terror" for jailing suspects unfairly, stamping on legitimate political and religious dissent, and squeezing asylum-seekers.

"The global security agenda promoted by the U.S. administration is bankrupt of vision and bereft of principle," Amnesty head Irene Khan said, launching its annual report.

"Violating rights at home, turning a blind eye to abuses abroad and using pre-emptive military force where and when it chooses has damaged justice and freedom, and made the world a more dangerous place."

Specifically, Amnesty lashed Washington for unlawful killings of Iraqi civilians; questionable arrest and mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and Afghanistan; and opposition to a new global criminal court.

"The world is crying out for principled leadership," Khan added, saying the negative effects of U.S.-led anti-terror policies had spread far and wide.

"Governments are losing their moral compass, sacrificing the global values of human rights in a blind pursuit of security."


End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Polls/iraqi_emotions_poll_040525.html
Anger Rising
Americans Increasingly Frustrated With Bush Iraq Policy
Analysis
By Gary Langer

May 25, 2004-- Anger is up, pride is down, worry continues, and hopefulness -- while still present — is in shorter supply. Those are among the changes in Americans' emotional responses to the situation in Iraq, compared with the early days of the war in March 2003.

A new ABC News/Washington Post poll finds the sharpest change is in anger. As the war began, 30 percent of Americans were angry about it; today, asked about the situation in Iraq, 57 percent are angry — almost twice as many. Anger is highest — 70 percent — among the roughly half of Americans who think that, given its costs versus its benefits, the war was not worth fighting. . . .


End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I finally figured this out, but Josh sent something that says it better --

from Hal Crowther's column in Independent Online:
. . . This is a referendum on what is arguably the most dismal performance by any incumbent president--and inarguably the biggest mistake. This is a referendum on George W. Bush, arguably the worst thing that has happened to the United States of America since the invention of the cathode ray tube.

One problem with this referendum is that the case against George Bush is much too strong. Just to spell it out is to sound like a bitter partisan. I sit here on the 67th birthday of Saddam Hussein facing a haystack of incriminating evidence that comes almost to my armpit. What matters most, what signifies? Journalists used to look for the smoking gun, but this time we have the cannons of Waterloo, we have Gettysburg and Sevastopol, we have enough gun smoke to cause asthma in heaven. . . ."

http://indyweek.com/durham/current/news.html
***

End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I thought Dave's letter to the editor in the May 11 StarTrib was damned funny at the time, and on the mark:

Preemptive measure

President Bush has said he was blindsided by the pictures of American troops torturing prisoners in Iraq. I am confident that he will meet the challenge and prevent such a thing from happening again.

If he has not done so already, I expect he will soon ban possession of cameras by our soldiers.

David Garland, Minneapolis.

Now that I see how prophetic it was, it's even funnier, and damned sad.


End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=4&u=/nm/20040520/pl_nm/campaign_bush_dc
Politics Thu May 20, 3:16 PM ET
Bush Asks Worried Republicans to 'Keep the Faith'
By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) asked fellow Republicans on Capitol Hill on Thursday to "keep the faith" as he sought to ease their jitters about Iraq (news - web sites) and his lowest approval ratings ever.

At a closed-door meeting described by some as a pep rally, Bush vowed to "stay the course" and do what is right for America, prompting lawmakers to shower him with ovations, Republicans said afterward. A top Democrat fired back by calling Bush incompetent.

"He asked us to keep the faith," Rep. Deborah Pryce of Ohio, a member of the Republican leadership, said as she emerged from the meeting. "We're all behind him."

Bush's approval ratings have slipped to the mid-to-low 40 percent range, the lowest of his presidency. No recent president has been re-elected with such numbers this close to the November elections.

"The color code alert level has moved from yellow to orange," a senior Republican aide said. "There isn't panic, but there is considerable concern."

"We'll all be concerned until Election Day," Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, said 5 1/2 months before the nation votes. "But we remain confident. We believe in President Bush. He will win re-election."

Many Republicans offered such talk publicly this week even as some privately gave the White House advice on how Bush could best rebound -- from holding more news conferences, to coming out in support of a buyout of hard-pressed tobacco farmers, to better articulating his message on Iraq.

Bush intends to lay out in a major speech on Monday his strategy for handing sovereignty to Iraqis.

NO TALK OF POLLS

"We didn't talk about polls," Rep. David Hobson, an Ohio Republican, said after the meeting with Bush. "He believes in what he's doing and he will stay on course for his beliefs, no matter what the political cost is." . . .

. . . At a news conference, House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, said, "I believe the president's leadership in the actions taken in Iraq demonstrate he is incompetent in terms of knowledge, judgment and experience." . . .



End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://newyorker.com/printable/?fact/040524fa_fact
News: The Gray Zone (15 May 04)
How a secret Pentagon program came to Abu Ghraib.
SEYMOUR M. HERSH
New Yorker (May 24 Issue)
The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a decision, approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to expand a highly secret operation, which had been focussed on the hunt for Al Qaeda, to the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq. Rumsfeld's decision embittered the American intelligence community, damaged the effectiveness of élite combat units, and hurt America's prospects in the war on terror.

According to interviews with several past and present American intelligence officials, the Pentagon's operation, known inside the intelligence community by several code words, including Copper Green, encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq. A senior C.I.A. official, in confirming the details of this account last week, said that the operation stemmed from Rumsfeld's long-standing desire to wrest control of America's clandestine and paramilitary operations from the C.I.A. . . .

End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However,
"Given the volatility of events, the amount of time before Election Day and hurdles Kerry must overcome, Bush has plenty of time to recover. His advisers said that they recognize the weakness in the president's current standing but that he is far more resilient politically than his detractors suggest. They also argue that in this climate, perceptions of Kerry will be just as important as perceptions of the incumbent, and they have poured tens of millions of dollars into television ads attacking Kerry as a politician lacking clear convictions." (Same source).

That 46% figure is just a downward spike caused by the prisoner abuse scandal, similar to the 64 percent upward spike after Saddam's capture. Bush's present strategy seems aimed at foisting the Iraq mess off on the Iraqis and the UN, so we can turn our backs and forget it, and we will. Or let the economy show signs of rebound, and it's Bush for 4 more. I think it's a bit early to relax.

End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25367-2004May13.html

Analysis
Bad Signs For Bush In History, Numbers
Approval Rating Is Lowest of His Term
By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, May 14, 2004; Page A01

Six months before the November election, President Bush has slipped into a politically fragile position that has put his reelection at risk, with the public clearly disaffected by his handling of the two biggest issues facing the country: Iraq and the economy.

Bush continues to run a close race against Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) in national polls, and his reelection committee has spent prodigiously to put Kerry on the defensive in the opening phase of the campaign, with some success. But other indicators -- presidential approval being the most significant -- suggest Bush is weaker now than at any point in his presidency.

Bush's approval rating in the Gallup poll fell to 46 percent this week -- the lowest in his presidency by that organization's measures. Fifty-one percent said they disapprove -- the first time in his presidency that a bare majority registered disapproval of the way Bush is doing his job. A Pew Research Center survey released Wednesday pegged Bush's approval at 44 percent, with 48 percent disapproving. . . .

End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: How far up does the responsibility go?
It certainly does ring true and make a lot more sense than that a few red-neck soldiers harassed Abu Ghraib inmates. As is made pretty clear in this Washington Post article 05/09/04:
Pentagon Approved Tougher Interrogations
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11017-2004May8.html


End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Letter to the Editor printed in today's Mpls Star-Tribune:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/563/4768915.html

Preemptive measure

President Bush has said he was blindsided by the pictures of American troops torturing prisoners in Iraq. I am confident that he will meet the challenge and prevent such a thing from happening again.

If he has not done so already, I expect he will soon ban possession of cameras by our soldiers.

David Garland, Minneapolis.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dave advises, "IME the Strib likes short snappy letters with sound bites, humor, a twist, something to make it stand out. (I think the last time I got in, it was alliteration that gave me the necessary bonus points.)"

The Pioneer Press seems similar, but maybe a little easier about it. By the way, we're not limited to writing to the paper on our own side of the river.

End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This rings true and makes a lot more sense than that a few red-neck soldiers harassed Abu Ghraib inmates.

The New Yorker
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact

TORTURE AT ABU GHRAIB
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
American soldiers brutalized Iraqis. How far up does the responsibility go?
Issue of 2004-05-10 Posted 2004-05-01

. . . Myers, who was one of the military defense attorneys in the My Lai prosecutions of the nineteen-seventies, told me that his client's defense will be that he was carrying out the orders of his superiors and, in particular, the directions of military intelligence. He said, "Do you really think a group of kids from rural Virginia decided to do this on their own? Decided that the best way to embarrass Arabs and make them talk was to have them walk around nude?"

In letters and e-mails to family members, Frederick repeatedly noted that the military-intelligence teams, which included C.I.A. officers and linguists and interrogation specialists from private defense contractors, were the dominant force inside Abu Ghraib. In a letter written in January, he said:

I questioned some of the things that I saw . . . such things as leaving inmates in their cell with no clothes or in female underpants, handcuffing them to the door of their cell—and the answer I got was, "This is how military intelligence (MI) wants it done." . . . . MI has also instructed us to place a prisoner in an isolation cell with little or no clothes, no toilet or running water, no ventilation or window, for as much as three days.

The military-intelligence officers have "encouraged and told us, 'Great job,' they were now getting positive results and information," Frederick wrote. "CID has been present when the military working dogs were used to intimidate prisoners at MI's request." At one point, Frederick told his family, he pulled aside his superior officer, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Phillabaum, the commander of the 320th M.P. Battalion, and asked about the mistreatment of prisoners. "His reply was "Don't worry about it.""

In November, Frederick wrote, an Iraqi prisoner under the control of what the Abu Ghraib guards called "O.G.A.," or other government agencie--that is, the C.I.A. and its paramilitary employees--was brought to his unit for questioning. "They stressed him out so bad that the man passed away. . . .

. . . Frederick’s defense is, of course, highly self-serving. But the complaints in his letters and e-mails home were reinforced by two internal Army reports--Taguba’s and one by the Army's chief law-enforcement officer, Provost Marshal Donald Ryder, a major general. . . .


End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't want to alarm you, but --

THE MORE YOU LEARN about touch-screen voting machines, the more nervous you may feel about a high-tech replay of the hanging-chad fiasco of four years ago.

In a Broward County, Fla., election in January, touch-screen machines failed to record a choice on 134 ballots -- an odd result since there was only one race on the ballot. There was no way to conduct a recount. . . .

A report by Johns Hopkins University researchers found "significant and wide-reaching security vulnerabilities" with the Diebold systems used in Maryland. A new review, by Science Applications International Corp., said the Maryland system was "at high risk of compromise." Yet a third study, by RABA Technologies, cited "considerable security risks that can cause moderate to severe disruption in an election."

Or maybe I do. . .

http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W4RA0583EE5C132700A573E2A6A69

End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In California, people are putting up banners on the overpasses:

motorists are getting to see such great
statements as: "Nobody Died when Clinton Lied," "Osama Bin Forgotten,"
"Real Soldiers are Dying in their Hummers So You Can Play Soldier in
Yours," or "Quagmire Accomplished."
http://www.freewayblogger.com
From Judy


End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote: "It's approximately 500, of which -- I can get the exact numbers -- approximately 350 are combat deaths." -- Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz speaking about U.S. casualties in Iraq at a congressional hearing on Thursday, when the Pentagon's official death tally was 722, including 421 in combat.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59832-2004May1.html

End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------