6 October 2004

BWUSA Comment on VEEP Debate
Cheney proves again that he can think and speak better than his running mate. Republicans are gleeful that at least one on the ticket may be fit to hold office. Edwards definitely stepped up, showing he was equal to, and several times, better than the Vice President.
Transcript: Vice Presidential Debate

Read FactCheck.org to see who was the worst offender
Cheney & Edwards Mangle Facts
Getting it wrong about combat pay, Halliburton, and FactCheck.org
FactCheck.org, 6 October 2004
EXCERPT: Cheney wrongly implied that FactCheck had defended his tenure as CEO of Halliburton Co., and the vice president even got our name wrong. He overstated matters when he said Edwards voted "for the war" and "to commit the troops, to send them to war." He exaggerated the number of times Kerry has voted to raise taxes, and puffed up the number of small business owners who would see a tax increase under Kerry's proposals.
Edwards falsely claimed the administration "lobbied the Congress" to cut the combat pay of troops in Iraq, something the White House never supported, and he used misleading numbers about jobs.

For Cheney and Edwards, Efforts to Improve on the Other Debate
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
NYT, 6 October 2004
EXCERPT:  Once again, Dick Cheney sought Tuesday night to come to the rescue of a member of a political family that he has served so loyally for nearly a generation. For most of the 90-minute encounter with his rival, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, Mr. Cheney tried to reassure Republicans unsettled by President Bush's debate performance against Senator John Kerry last week, while hammering home the case against Mr. Kerry that polls now suggest Mr. Bush failed to make.

Iraq Spurs Sharpest Exchange in Debate
Cheney Asserts Hussein-Al Qaeda Ties; Edwards Accuses Cheney of Misleading America
By Lois Romano and John F. Harris
Washington Post, 6 October 2004
EXCERPT:  Iraq and terrorism dominated a hard-hitting and sometimes personal debate Tuesday night between the vice presidential nominees, with Vice President Cheney accusing the Democratic ticket of lacking the judgment to lead, and Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) responding that Cheney and President Bush lack credibility. The lines of attack were drawn within the opening moments of the nationally televised encounter at Case Western Reserve University, with Cheney asserting strongly that the decision to topple Saddam Hussein last year was justified by an "established Iraqi track record with terror."
Striking an incredulous air at Cheney's assertion, Edwards responded, "Mr. Vice President, you are still not being straight with the American people."
This set the tone for a debate that ran several minutes longer than its scheduled 90 minutes, and featured sharp, sometimes snappish exchanges over such matters as Edwards's one-term Senate record -- which Cheney dismissed as "not very distinguished" and marked by chronic absenteeism -- and the vice president's record as a congressman in the 1980s. Noting that as vice president he presides over the Senate, Cheney said acerbically to the freshman senator: "The first time I met you is when you walked on the stage tonight." Cheney met Edwards twice before, according to the Kerry-Edwards campaign.
In defense, Edwards shot back, "I'm surprised to hear him talk about records," and pivoted into a discussion of conservative votes cast by Cheney. "He voted against the Department of Education. He voted against funding for Meals on Wheels for seniors. He voted against a federal holiday for Martin Luther King. He voted against a resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela in South Africa."

Jeb Shows Lying and Deceit Runs in the Family
This is Jimmy Carter's Critique of the Voting System in Florida
EXCERPT: ...some basic international requirements for a fair election are missing in Florida. The most significant of these requirements are:

• A nonpartisan electoral commission or a trusted and nonpartisan official who will be responsible for organizing and conducting the electoral process before, during and after the actual voting takes place. Although rarely perfect in their objectivity, such top administrators are at least subject to public scrutiny and responsible for the integrity of their decisions. Florida voting officials have proved to be highly partisan, brazenly violating a basic need for an unbiased and universally trusted authority to manage all elements of the electoral process.

• Uniformity in voting procedures, so that all citizens, regardless of their social or financial status, have equal assurance that their votes are cast in the same way and will be tabulated with equal accuracy. Modern technology is already in use that makes electronic voting possible, with accurate and almost immediate tabulation and with paper ballot printouts so all voters can have confidence in the integrity of the process. There is no reason these proven techniques, used overseas and in some U.S. states, could not be used in Florida.
It was obvious that in 2000 these basic standards were not met in Florida, and there are disturbing signs that once again, as we prepare for a presidential election, some of the state's leading officials hold strong political biases that prevent necessary reforms.
Four years ago, the top election official, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, was also the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney state campaign committee. The same strong bias has become evident in her successor, Glenda Hood, who was a highly partisan elector for George W. Bush in 2000. Several thousand ballots of African Americans were thrown out on technicalities in 2000, and a fumbling attempt has been made recently to disqualify 22,000 African Americans (likely Democrats), but only 61 Hispanics (likely Republicans), as alleged felons.
The top election official has also played a leading role in qualifying Ralph Nader as a candidate, knowing that two-thirds of his votes in the previous election came at the expense of Al Gore. She ordered Nader's name be included on absentee ballots even before the state Supreme Court ruled on the controversial issue.
Florida's governor, Jeb Bush, naturally a strong supporter of his brother, has taken no steps to correct these departures from principles of fair and equal treatment or to prevent them in the future.
It is unconscionable to perpetuate fraudulent or biased electoral practices in any nation. It is especially objectionable among us Americans, who have prided ourselves on setting a global example for pure democracy. With reforms unlikely at this late stage of the election, perhaps the only recourse will be to focus maximum public scrutiny on the suspicious process in Florida.
AUDIO LINK
Listen to Jeb misstate and otherwise fail to address Carter's concerns about the electoral process in Florida
Gov. Bush: Florida Vote Will Proceed Smoothly
Morning Edition, Tuesday , October 05, 2004
Florida Gov. Jeb Bush assures skeptics that voting in his state will be smooth and fair in next month's election. The governor dismisses allegations that he used his office improperly four years ago to help his older brother win the 2000 presidential election.

Bush to protect the U.S. against terrorism too
Half of U.S. Flu Vaccine Withheld
Supply Due From British Firm Tainted
By David Brown
Washington Post, 6 October 2004
EXCERPT: The supply of influenza vaccine for the coming winter was abruptly cut in half yesterday when one of only two companies making flu shots for use in the United States said it would not be able to sell 48 million doses here because some of it may be contaminated. Within hours of the announcement, federal officials said they would appeal to healthy adults to forgo flu shots this year so that the now-diminished supply can go to the young, the old and the infirm, who are at higher risk for complications from the viral illness.
Ironically, the change of course comes at a time when the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had just expanded the target population for flu shots and was in the midst of a campaign urging more people than ever to get them.
Before yesterday's announcement, this season's supply was supposed to be about 100 million doses, up from 87 million last winter. Influenza kills about 36,000 people in the United States each year, and as many as 500,000 worldwide.

5 October 2004

'Thanks, Condi. That's a good one!'
Bush Calls Kerry's Policies a Danger 'for World Peace'
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
NYT, 5 October 2004
EXCERPT: President Bush charged Monday that Senator John Kerry's policies were "dangerous for world peace" as his campaign suddenly changed plans for an event on medical liability on Wednesday and scheduled a speech by Mr. Bush on terrorism and the economy instead. On the eve of the vice-presidential debate, with polls showing that Mr. Bush lost ground after his debate with Mr. Kerry on Thursday, the pressures on the White House to regain the upper hand appeared to be mounting.

Cheney Owes Us Explanation on Crucial Issues
By John Nichols
October 5, 2004
Madison.com, 5 October 2004
EXCERPT: Dick Cheney, who spent most of his administration's first term in a secure undisclosed location, has been campaigning this fall in the Potemkin Villages of Republican reaction. As such, he has not faced much in the way of serious questioning from his audiences of party apparatchiks. Nor has he been grilled by the White House-approved journalistic commissars who travel with the vice president to take stenography when Cheney makes his daily prediction of the apocalypse that would befall America should he be removed from power.
Tonight, however, Cheney will briefly expose himself in an unmanaged setting - to the extent that the set of a vice presidential debate can be so identified. In preparation for this rare opportunity to pin down the man former White House counsel John Dean refers to as "the de facto president," here is a list of 10 questions that ought to be directed to Dick Cheney:
SEE ALSO:
Cheney's Cronies
The Nation editorial, 18 October issue
EXCERPT: As he prepares to debate Halliburton CEO turned Vice President Dick Cheney, Senator John Edwards would do well to study up on his Harry Truman. The buck-stops-here President had a word for war profiteering: "treason." He had another word for those political and business leaders who condone "waste, inefficiency, mismanagement and profiteering" during a time of war: "unpatriotic." If John Kerry's running mate wants to have a greater impact in his debate with the Vice President--which follows hard on the first presidential debate--than did the woefully inept Joe Lieberman when he faced Cheney in 2000, Edwards has to drop the faux friendliness of the Washington elites whom Truman so disdained in favor of blunt talk about Cheney, starting with his Halliburton connections.
Halliburton has been experiencing a growth spurt ever since Cheney passed through the revolving door of Washington politics to set up the Administration he manages for George W. Bush. The Texas-based corporation moved to number one on the Army's list of top contractors in 2003, pocketing 4.2 billion taxpayer dollars last year alone. It got one no-bid contract after discussions in which Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was involved. (Despite soaring revenues, however, the Halliburton unit doing work in Iraq is plagued by so many problems, from mismanagement to allegations of corruption, that it may be spun off to try to salvage what's left of the parent company's reputation.)
If Edwards brings Halliburton up during his Tuesday night face-off with Cheney in Cleveland, the Vice President will undoubtedly claim--as he has whenever he's been challenged--that he no longer has any connection with Halliburton. Edwards can counter with another of those blunt Trumanisms: "liar." The Vice President continues to receive money from Halliburton--$178,437 in 2003 alone--and a Congressional Research Service study has described the sort of deferred-salary payments he receives and the millions in stock options he retains as "among those benefits described by the Office of Government Ethics as 'retained ties' or 'linkages' to one's former employer." In other words, Cheney has a great big conflict of interest, and pounding away on it will go a long way toward exposing the crony capitalism that has been a hallmark of the Bush Administration.

The Falling Scales
By PAUL KRUGMAN
NYT, 5 October 2004
EXCERPT: Last week President Bush found himself defending his record on national security without his usual protective cocoon of loyalty-tested audiences and cowed reporters. And the sound you heard was the scales' falling from millions of eyes. Trying to undo the damage, Mr. Bush is now telling those loyalty-tested audiences that Senator John Kerry's use of the phrase "global test" means that he "would give foreign governments veto power over our national security decisions." He's lying, of course, as anyone can confirm by looking at what Mr. Kerry actually said. But it may still work - Mr. Bush's pre-debate rise in the polls is testimony to the effectiveness of smear tactics. Still, something important happened on Thursday. Style probably mattered most: viewers were shocked by the contrast between Mr. Bush's manufactured image as a strong, resolute leader and his whiny, petulant behavior in the debate. But Mr. Bush would have lost even more badly if post-debate coverage had focused on substance. ...In tonight's debate, John Edwards will surely confront Mr. Cheney over that task force, over domestic policies and, of course, over Halliburton. But he can also use the occasion to ask more hard questions about national security. After all, Mr. Cheney didn't just promise Americans that "we will, in fact, be welcomed as liberators" by the grateful Iraqis. He also played a central role in leading us to war on false pretenses. No, that's not an overstatement. In August 2002, when Mr. Cheney declared "we now know Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons," he was being dishonest: the administration knew no such thing. He was also being irresponsible: his speech pre-empted an intelligence review that might have given dissenting experts a chance to make their case.
So here's Mr. Edwards's mission: to expose the real Dick Cheney, just as Mr. Kerry exposed the real George Bush.

Four Years Of Failure
Joseph E. Stiglitz
TomPaine.com, 4 October 2004
EXCERPT: No wonder 67 percent of Americans find the American Dream harder to achieve. Median real income has fell by $1,500 in the last three and a half years. Nobel-winning economist Joe Stiglitz says it was the Bush administration's wrong choices that got us here. They may have inherited a recession, but they made it worse—a lot worse.
Joseph E. Stiglitz is professor of economics at Columbia University and a member of the Commission on the Social Dimensions of Globalization. He received the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001.
Many around the world are surprised at how little attention the economy is receiving in President Bush's re-election campaign. But I am not surprised: if I were President Bush, the last thing I would want to talk about is the economy.
Yet many people look at America's economy, even over these past three and half years, with some envy. After all, annual economic growth—at an average rate of 2.5 percent—may have been markedly slower than during the Clinton years, but it still looks strong compared to Europe's anemic 1 percent growth.
But these statistics mask a glaring fact: The average American family is worse off than it was three and half years ago. Median real income has fallen by more than $1,500 in real terms, with American families being squeezed as wages lag behind inflation and key household expenses soar. In short, all that growth benefited only those at the top of the income distribution—the same group that had done so well over the previous 30 years and that benefited most from Bush's tax cut.
For example, some 45 million Americans today have no health insurance, up by 5.2 million from 2000. Families lucky enough to have health insurance face annual premiums that have nearly doubled, to $7,500. American families also face increasing job insecurity. This is the first time since the early 1930s that there has been a net loss of jobs over the span of an entire presidential administration.
Bush supporters rightly ask: is Bush really to blame for this? Wasn't the recession already beginning when he took office?
The resounding answer is that Bush is to blame.

Bush Mischaracterizes Kerry's Health Plan
Bush claims Kerry's plan puts "bureaucrats in control" of medical decisons, "not you, not your doctor." But experts don't agree with that.
FactCheck.org, 4 October 2004
Summary
A Bush ad claims Kerry’s healthcare proposals would put "big government in charge" of medical decisions. In fact, Kerry's plan would leave 97% with the insurance they have now -- while up to 27 million who aren't insured would gain coverage. Bush's claim turns out to be based on opinions from two conservative advocates whose predictions aren't supported by neutral experts.
Analysis
Bush launched this misleading attack on Kerry's plan in an ad made public Sept. 13, and has been repeating the same idea in nearly every campaign speech since.

The State Department's Extreme Makeover
A veteran Foreign Service officer warns that when Colin Powell departs in a second Bush term, America will lose its last bulwark against the radical ideologues who are planning more Iraqs.
Editor's note: "Anonymous" is a veteran Foreign Service officer currently serving as a State Department official. The views expressed are personal and not related to his official position.
By Anonymous
Salon via Antiwar.com, 4 October 2004
EXCERPT: Secretary of State Colin Powell is not staying for a second Bush term. When he goes, the last bulwark against complete neoconservative control of U.S. foreign policy goes with him. The implications are enormous, yet the American electorate appears to be blinded by the Bush campaign's deliberate manipulations of 9/11. Powell has served both as the reasoned voice of career diplomats and the experienced voice of career U.S. military in the Bush administration. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ignored military advice and excluded Department of State career professionals from Iraq planning. Power was concentrated in the hands of a clique of neocon ideologues he placed in key policy positions, including Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith. In the first term of George W. Bush, protégés of now disgraced former Defense Policy Board member and neocon godfather Richard Perle achieved control or subordination of every executive branch foreign-policymaking body -- except the Department of State.

Poll Finds Kerry Assured Voters in Initial Debate
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON and JANET ELDER
NYT, 4 October 2004
EXCERPT: Senator John Kerry came out of the first presidential debate having reassured many Americans of his ability to handle an international crisis or a terrorist attack and with a generally more favorable image, but he failed to shake the perception that he panders to voters in search of support, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll. The poll also found significant doubts about President Bush's policies toward Iraq, with a majority of the public saying that the United States invaded too soon and that the administration did a poor job thinking through the consequences of the war. But Mr. Bush maintained an advantage on personal characteristics like strong leadership and likability, as well as in the enthusiasm of his supporters. Four weeks from Election Day, the presidential race is again a dead heat, with Mr. Bush having given up the gains he enjoyed for the last month after the Republican convention in New York, the poll found. In both a head-to-head matchup and a three-way race including Ralph Nader, the Republican and Democratic tickets each won the support of 47 percent of registered voters surveyed in the poll.

Making votes count
More Troubles for Diebold
NYT, 4 October 2004
EXCERPT: Diebold, the much-criticized electronic voting machine company, got another black eye last week. A federal court in California ruled that it had violated federal law when it falsely charged two students with violating its copyrights by posting critical information about its voting machines on the Internet. The case raises more questions about Diebold's honesty and its commitment to transparency. The story began early last year when someone - it is unclear who - posted internal Diebold e-mail messages on the Internet that discussed flaws in the company's electronic voting machines. Two students from Swarthmore College then posted those messages on various Web sites. Diebold sent out a flurry of cease-and-desist letters claiming that the postings violated its copyrights. The students sued, charging that Diebold knowingly misrepresented its rights under copyright law. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California agreed. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, it is illegal to send a cease-and-desist letter while knowing that the claim of copyright infringement is false. The court held that Diebold knew that its e-mail messages "discussing possible technical problems" with its voting machines were not copyrighted, but went ahead anyway. This is the second recent setback to Diebold's already troubled reputation. Last month, California's attorney general, Bill Lockyer, joined a false-claims suit against Diebold charging it with lying to the state about the security of its voting systems. Now, a federal court has ruled that Diebold made knowing misrepresentations to get damaging information about its machines' security off the Internet. Diebold has a great deal to do to make its work transparent and its company trustworthy if it wants to remain in the elections business.

Abu Ghraib, the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and Intelligence Failures Disappear from Debate
Ari Berman
The Nation, 4 October 2004
EXCERPT: To his credit, The NewsHour's Jim Lehrer asked John Kerry and George W. Bush serious questions about Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Russia and Sudan. But the veteran moderator couldn't find the time to mention Abu Ghraib, the Israeli- Palestinian conflict or the intelligence failures preceding September 11 in a ninety- minute discussion about American foreign policy. That's timid journalism, an unfair limiting of the debate and a disservice to the American electorate tuning in.

AUDIO/VIDEO LINK
Nader Charges DNC Chair McAuliffe Told Him "We're Going To Try To Get You Off The Ballot In All Of The Close States"
DemocracyNow, 4 October 2004
An extensive conversation with independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader about why he has chosen to stay in the presidential race and about the allegations that he is taking support from GOP operatives.

GOP Takes Care of Zell for Taking Care of Kerry
Rebel Ga. Democrat gets his pet projects paid for in approps
By Alexander Bolton
The Hill, 29 September 2004
EXCERPT: The Republicans are making sure that Sen. Zell Miller, who launched a withering attack on presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry last month, gets his pet projects paid for in appropriations legislation. Miller, the Georgia Democrat who was the keynote speaker at the GOP convention in New York and who alienated his party by excoriating Kerry, has been told not to worry about losing his earmarks in the new fiscal year, which begins Friday.
The week that Congress returned after the GOP convention, Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) grabbed Miller’s arm outside the Senate chamber and assured him, “Don’t worry about appropriations, I’ve already put that stuff of yours in there.” The New Mexico Republican is chairman of the Appropriations Energy and Water Subcommittee, a panel that small-government advocacy groups say doles out far more pet projects than most other spending subcommittees.

4 October 2004

Bush Cuts VA  Budget Already Under Strain
Claims Backlog Besets Returning U.S. Troops
By Josh White
Washington Post. 3 October 2004
EXCERPT: Thousands of U.S. troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with physical injuries and mental health problems are encountering a benefits system that is already overburdened, and officials and veterans' groups are concerned that the challenge could grow as the nation remains at war. The disability benefits and health care systems that provide services for about 5 million American veterans have been overloaded for decades and have a current backlog of more than 300,000 claims. And because they were mobilized to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly 150,000 National Guard and reservist veterans had become eligible for health care and benefits as of Aug. 1. That number is rising. At the same time, President Bush's budget for 2005 calls for cutting the Department of Veterans Affairs staff that handles benefits claims, and some veterans report long waits for benefits and confusing claims decisions. "I love the military; that was my life. But I don't believe they're taking care of me now," said Staff Sgt. Gene Westbrook, 35, of Lawton, Okla. Paralyzed in a mortar attack near Baghdad in April, he has received no disability benefits because his paperwork is missing.

The Global Test
It's called reality.
By William Saletan
Slate, 4 October 2004
EXCERPT: We've just reached the crux of the presidential campaign—the moment in which one candidate, purporting to expose the other's fatal flaw, has instead exposed his own. Saturday morning, President Bush attacked John Kerry for a comment Kerry made in Thursday night's debate. Here's how Bush described Kerry's remark:

He said that America has to pass a global test before we can use American troops to defend ourselves. That's what he said. Think about this. Sen. Kerry's approach to foreign policy would give foreign governments veto power over our national security decisions. I have a different view. When our country is in danger, the president's job is not to take an international poll. The president's job is to defend America. I'll continue to work every day with our friends and allies for the sake of freedom and peace. But our national security decisions will be made in the Oval Office, not in foreign capitals.

This description, which Bush continues to repeat at campaign stops and in television ads, is plainly false. In his first answer of the debate, Kerry said, "I'll never give a veto to any country over our security." But if that isn't what Kerry meant by a "global test," what did he mean? Let's go back and look at Kerry's words.

No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do in a way that passes the test--that passes the global test--where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
Here we have our own secretary of state who's had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations. I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy, in the Cuban missile crisis, sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with [French President Charles] de Gaulle, and in the middle of the discussion to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, [the secretary of state] said, "Here, let me show you the photos." And de Gaulle waved them off, and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me." How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we've done, in that way?

It's clear from Kerry's first sentence that the "global test" doesn't prevent unilateral action to protect ourselves. But notice what else Kerry says. The test includes convincing "your countrymen" that your reasons are clear and sound. Kerry isn't just talking about satisfying France. He's talking about satisfying Ohio. He's talking about you.

USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll
Says Bush, Kerry in a Draw
By Susan Page
USA TODAY, 4 October 2004
EXCERPT: Favorable public reaction to his performance in the first presidential debate has boosted Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and narrowed the contest with President Bush to a tie, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.
Bush's lead of 8 percentage points before Thursday's debate evaporated in a survey taken Friday through Sunday. Among likely voters, Bush and Kerry are at 49% each. Independent candidate Ralph Nader is at 1%. As it enters its final month, the presidential campaign is essentially where it began: too close to call. "This is an even-up race that's going to be decided by everything that happens in the next 30 days," says Mark Mellman, Kerry's pollster.

As Deadlines Hit, Rolls of Voters Show Big Surge
By KATE ZERNIKE and FORD FESSENDEN
NYT, 4 October 2004
EXCERPT: A record surge of potential new voters has swamped boards of election from Pennsylvania to Oregon, as the biggest of the crucial swing states reach registration deadlines today. Elections officials have had to add staff and equipment, push well beyond budgets and work around the clock to process the registrations.
SEE ALSO: Millions of New Voters Have Registered to Cast Ballots in Presidential Election (Knight Ridder Newspapers)

Goss Pick Choice for Executive Director Quit CIA Under Fire in 1982
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post, 3 October 2004
EXCERPT: Michael V. Kostiw, chosen by CIA Director Porter J. Goss to be the agency's new executive director, resigned under pressure from the CIA more than 20 years ago, according to past and current agency officials. While Kostiw, a colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve, longtime lobbyist for ChevronTexaco Corp. and more recently staff director of the terrorism subcommittee of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, has been through the CIA security vetting procedure, final clearance to take the job has not been completed pending review of the allegations. The job is the third-ranking post at the CIA. In late 1981, after he had been a case officer for 10 years, Kostiw was caught shoplifting in Langley, sources said. During a subsequent CIA polygraph test, Kostiw's responses to questions about the incident led agency officials to place him on administrative leave for several weeks, according to four sources who were familiar with the past events but who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the information. While on leave, Kostiw told friends he decided to resign. Agency officials at the time arranged for misdemeanor theft charges to be dropped and the police record expunged in return for his resignation and his agreement to get counseling, one former official said.

Bush's Retreat into a Substitute Reality
By Touching on Bush's Ambivalent Relations with His Father, Kerry Exposed His Delusions about Iraq
By Sidney Blumenthal
The Guardian (UK) via Common Dreams, 2 October 2004
EXCERPT: After months of flawless execution in a well-orchestrated campaign, President Bush had to stand alone in an unpredictable debate. He had traveled the country, appearing before adoring pre-selected crowds, delivered a carefully crafted acceptance speech before his convention, and approved tens of millions of dollars in TV commercials to belittle his opponent. In the lead, Bush believed he had only to assert his superiority to end the contest once and for all. But onstage the president ran out of talking points. Unable to explain the logic for his policies, or think on his feet, he was thrown back on the raw elements of his personality and leadership style. Every time he was confronted with ambivalence, his impulse was to sweep it aside. He claimed he must be followed because he is the leader. Fate, in the form of September 11, had placed authority in his hands as a man of destiny. Skepticism, pragmatism and empiricism are enemies. Absolute faith prevails over open-ended reason, subjectivity over fact. Belief in belief is the ultimate sacrament of his political legitimacy. In the split TV screen, how Bush felt was written all over his face. His grimaces exposed his irritation and anger at being challenged. Lacking intellectual stamina and repeating points as though on a feedback loop, he tried to close argument by assertion. With no one interrupting him, he protested, "Let me finish" - a phrase he occasionally deploys to great effect before the cowed White House press corps. John Kerry was set up beforehand as Bush's foil: long-winded, dour, dull. But the Kerry who showed up was crisp, nimble and formidable. His thrusts brought out Bush's rigidity and stubbornness. The more Bush pleaded his own decisiveness, the more he appeared reactive. ... Near the end, Kerry praised Bush for his public service, and his wife, and his daughters. "I'm trying to put a leash on them," Bush said. That was hard work, too. "Well, I don't know," replied Kerry, who also has daughters. "I've learned not to do that, Mr President." Even in the banter, Kerry gained the upper-hand. But Bush lost more than control in the first debate. He has lost the plot.
SEE ALSO: After Make-or-Break Buildup, CNN's Commentators Downplayed Significance of Debate (Media Matters)
SEE ALSO: Current Electoral Vote Predictor (Electoral-Vote.com)
SEE ALSO: Dems Fear 'October Surprise' (Capitol Hill Blue)
SEE ALSO:
Bush and Reality
By BOB HERBERT
NYT, 4 October 2004
EXCERPT: For 90 minutes, at least, democracy seemed to be working. The two men in dark suits took their places at the lecterns. The analysts, the handlers, the spinmeisters and the hangers-on had been cleared out of the way. With no commercial interruptions, more than 60 million Americans got a rare, unedited, close-up look at the candidates in one of the most important presidential elections in the nation's history. John Kerry got the better of President Bush in last Thursday's debate in Coral Gables, Fla. The president seemed listless, defensive and not particularly well prepared. His facial expressions and body language at times were odd. Some of his strongest supporters were dismayed by his performance, and polls are showing they had reason to be concerned. There undoubtedly were many reasons for Mr. Bush's lackluster effort. But I think there was one factor, above all, that undermined the president in last week's debate, and will continue to plague him throughout the campaign. And that was his problematic relationship with reality. Mr. Bush is a man who will frequently tell you - and may even believe - that up is down, or square is round, when logic and all the available evidence say otherwise. During the debate, this was most clearly displayed when, in response to a question about the war in Iraq, Mr. Bush told the moderator, Jim Lehrer, "The enemy attacked us, Jim, and I have a solemn duty to protect the American people, to do everything I can to protect us." Moments later Senator Kerry clarified, for the audience and the president, just who had attacked the United States. "Saddam Hussein didn't attack us," said Mr. Kerry. "Osama bin Laden attacked us. Al Qaeda attacked us." Given a chance to respond, Mr. Bush flashed an unappreciative look at Senator Kerry and said, "Of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us - I know that." With no weapons of mass destruction to exhibit, and no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, Mr. Bush has nevertheless tried to portray the war in Iraq as not only the right thing to do but as largely successful. The increasing violence and chaos suggest otherwise.

America Divided Against Itself
If Americans choose Bush over Kerry, it will be from fear, a lack of choice - and a preference for power over safety
By Gary Younge
The Guardian (UK), 4 October 2004
EXCERPT: If Bush wins fair and square on November 2, then what conclusions can we draw about a nation that consciously decides this is the course it wants to take? We might start by ruling out a few. First, it will not mean that Americans are stupid. They aren't. Compared with the rest of the world, they are pretty well educated and certainly no more stupid than Britons, French or Portuguese were when they had an empire. Nor will it mean they have been duped. They haven't. They have been lied to constantly and their mainstream media has served them poorly, particularly over weapons of mass destruction, the connection between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein, and the Middle East. But in a nation where the internet is widely available, and films, books and radio stations present other opinions, Americans have had access to a wide range of viewpoints, including Howard Dean and Michael Moore. True, dissident voices have been marginalised. But they have not been extinguished - and, if anything, have grown more mainstream in the past year. So if Americans come away from the plurality of opinions with which they have been presented to back Bush, it will not be because they did not know that other views were out there, but because they chose to believe one set of views over others. The question is, why? Partly because they have not been presented with much of an electoral alternative. The choice, come November 2, is between a man who prosecuted the war and a man who voted for him to do so. Indeed, Kerry's polling numbers have only started climbing since he began putting a distance between himself and Bush on the war, as he did during the debate.

"Protections" for Utah Rivers Emerge as Gift to Oil and Gas Industry
BushGreenWatch, 1 October 2004
EXCERPT: Three days before announcing "protections" for scenic Utah rivers, the Interior Department opened up nearly 5,000 acres of the preserved canyon area to oil and gas drilling--a far more serious threat to the area's environment than mining, according to a report released today by the Environmental Working Group (EWG). "The Department of Interior's own records show that there is little or no interest in metals mining on the lands that [Secretary of the Interior] Gale Norton announced she is 'protecting'," Dusty Horwitt, an EWG analyst, told BushGreenwatch. "But highly destructive oil and gas drilling may still go forward on thousands of acres of these sensitive lands." Earlier this month, at a publicized picnic in Moab, Utah, Norton dramatically signed an order "protecting" 112,000 acres around the Colorado, Dolores and Green River canyons from hardrock mining claims, even though there hasn't been any commercial mining in the area for the past 50 years. But the order left the area wide open to oil and gas drilling. EWG's analysis of federal land--use records shows the oil and gas industry controls 8.2 times more land in the "protected" area and surrounding lands than the mining industry.

U.S. Cybersecurity Chief Abruptly Resigns
By Ted Bridis
AP, 2 October 2004
EXCERPT: The government's cybersecurity chief has abruptly resigned after one year with the Department of Homeland Security, confiding to industry colleagues his frustration over what he considers a lack of attention paid to computer security issues within the agency. Amit Yoran, a former software executive from Symantec, informed the White House about his plans to quit as director of the National Cyber Security Division and made his resignation effective at the end of Thursday, effectively giving a single's day notice of his intentions to leave. Yoran said Friday he "felt the timing was right to pursue other opportunities." It was unclear immediately who might succeed him even temporarily. Yoran's deputy is Donald "Andy" Purdy, a former senior adviser to the White House on cybersecurity issues. Yoran has privately described frustrations in recent months to colleagues in the technology industry, according to lobbyists who recounted these conversations on condition they not be identified because the talks were personal. As cybersecurity chief, Yoran and his division — with an $80 million budget and 60 employees — were responsible for carrying out dozens of recommendations in the Bush administration's "National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace," a set of proposals to better protect computer networks.

In the Senate, Raising a (Quiet) Republican Voice Against the Administration
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
NYT, 4 October 2004
EXCERPT: One day after the Supreme Court sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush, his running mate, Dick Cheney, went to the Capitol for a private lunch with five moderate Republican senators. The agenda he laid out that day in December 2000 stunned Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, sending Mr. Chafee on a painful journey of political conscience that, he said in an interview last week, has culminated with his decision not to vote for Mr. Bush in November. "I literally was close to falling off my chair," Mr. Chafee said, recounting the vice president's proposals for steep tax cuts, missile defense programs and abandoning the Kyoto environmental accords. "It was no room for discussion. I said, 'Well, you're going to need us; it's a 50-50 Senate, you're going to need us moderates.' He said, 'Well, we need everybody.' ''For Mr. Chafee, who was a prep school buddy of the president's brother Jeb and whose father, the late Senator John Chafee, was close to the first President Bush, that day was the beginning of an estrangement with the president, whom he had worked to elect. In the months since, he has opposed Mr. Bush on everything from tax cuts to gay marriage and the war in Iraq. Now, this life-long Republican has concluded that he cannot cast his ballot for the leader of his party. "I'll vote Republican," he said, explaining that he would choose a write-in candidate, perhaps George Bush the elder, as a symbolic act of protest. Asked if he wanted Senator John Kerry to be president, Mr. Chafee shook his head sadly, as if to say he could not entertain the question. "I've been disloyal enough," he said. On Capitol Hill, some regard Mr. Chafee, a soft-spoken, gentle man who once shoed horses for a living, as the Republican counterpart to Senator Zell Miller, the fiery Georgia Democrat who is campaigning for Mr. Bush. But the truth is more complex. While Mr. Miller is retiring, Mr. Chafee is planning to run again in 2006. His misgivings about his party's conservative tilt have thrust him into a powerful position in Washington, where Republicans' memories are still fresh of how another moderate, Senator James M. Jeffords of Vermont, defected in 2001 and became an independent, temporarily giving Democrats control of the Senate. Mr. Chafee insists he has no intention of defecting. But it is no secret that Democrats would welcome him, and already, Mr. Jeffords is offering him counsel. "I understand the feelings that he has," Mr. Jeffords said. "I'm going to be talking to him, so I'm not going to say any more. I probably shouldn't have even told you that."

Kerry vs. Bush on Health Care
NYT's editorial, 3 October 2004
EXCERPT: The faults in the American health care system become more glaring with each passing year. Large numbers of Americans have no health insurance at all, and those who do have insurance are faced with soaring premiums that threaten to make coverage unaffordable for individuals, families and employers. The two presidential candidates have responded to these problems with health plans that differ markedly in scope and philosophy. Both tinker at the edges of the current system rather than seeking a broad, nation-shaking change. Sadly, the fervor for sweeping reform died a decade ago with the disastrous demise of the Clinton health plan..That said, President Bush and Senator John Kerry clearly want to nudge the nation's health care system in different directions. Senator Kerry would build on the status quo by expanding existing government programs for the poor and by increasing subsidies for employer-based coverage, the core of the current system. This is hardly a government takeover that would put bureaucrats in charge of your health care, as President Bush has shamelessly contended. Indeed, the strength of the Kerry approach is that it relies primarily on well-tested health-insurance arrangements. President Bush would also continue to rely on - and even expand - employer-based coverage. But he would supplement this approach with tax credits to help individuals and families buy their own policies or invest in so-called health savings accounts backed by high-deductible coverage. This is the health care version of the president's "ownership society.'' If adopted widely, such individual coverage would represent a radical alternative to employment-based policies, but for now the Bush plan takes only small steps in that direction.

2-3 October 2004

Bush’s 11 Point Lead in the NEWSWEEK Poll Evaporates
Newsweek Online, 2 October 2004
EXCERPT: With a solid majority of voters concluding that John Kerry outperformed George W. Bush in the first presidential debate on Thursday, the president’s lead in the race for the White House has vanished, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll. In the first national telephone poll using a fresh sample, NEWSWEEK found the race now statistically tied among all registered voters, 47 percent of whom say they would vote for Kerry and 45 percent for George W. Bush in a three-way race. Removing Independent candidate Ralph Nader, who draws 2 percent of the vote, widens the Kerry-Edwards lead to three points with 49 percent of the vote versus the incumbent’s 46 percent. Four weeks ago the Republican ticket, coming out of a successful convention in New York, enjoyed an 11-point lead over Kerry-Edwards with Bush pulling 52 percent of the vote and the challenger just 41 percent. Among the three-quarters (74 percent) of registered voters who say they watched at least some of Thursday’s debate, 61 percent see Kerry as the clear winner, 19 percent pick Bush as the victor and 16 percent call it a draw. After weeks of being portrayed as a verbose “flip-flopper” by Republicans, Kerry did better than a majority (56 percent) had expected. Only about 11 percent would say the same for the president’s performance while more than one-third (38 percent) said the incumbent actually did worse that they had expected. Thirty-nine percent of Republicans felt their man out-debated the challenger but a full third (33 percent) say they felt Kerry won. ...Meanwhile, Bush’s approval ratings have dropped to below the halfway mark (46 percent) for the first time since the GOP convention in late August. Nearly half of all voters (48 percent) say they do not want to see Bush re-elected, while 46 percent say they do. Still, a majority of voters (55 percent versus 29 percent) believe the president will be re-hired on Nov. 2.

Abortion: 'What If Roe Fell?'
Newsweek, Oct. 11 issue
EXCERPT: Abortion-rights activists have long warned that the Supreme Court is just a vote or two away from overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case establishing a woman's right to an abortion. But what would really happen should Roe fall and the issue were left to the states? This week the Center for Reproductive Rights will release a new study, "What If Roe Fell?" the first comprehensive legal analysis of how abortion would fare state by state. The group studied old abortion bans still on the books, state legislatures that have restricted abortion and which state constitutions offer their own protection. The conclusion: 20 states would protect abortion rights, nine are borderline and 21 would likely outlaw the procedure, potentially affecting 70 million women. But CRR may have painted an overly gloomy picture. Several of the 21 states on its "high risk" list don't seem likely to ban abortion right away: North Carolina was one of the first states to liberalize it in the 1960s. Virginia lawmakers have been hostile to abortion, but the state has a pro-choice governor. Kentucky has no current ban and a legislature that hasn't restricted the practice. "They're assuming worst-case political scenarios," says Emory legal historian David J. Garrow. And Roe itself wouldn't fall unless a re-elected President George W. Bush got the Senate to replace two pro-Roe justices with abortion opponents and the new court heard a direct Roe challenge—many "ifs" away.

The Case Against George W Bush
Reprinted from Esquire Magazine, September 2004
By Ron Reagan
The Bush Presidency, 2 October 2004
EXCERPT: It may have been the guy in the hood teetering on the stool, electrodes clamped to his genitals. Or smirking Lynndie England and her leash. Maybe it was the smarmy memos tapped out by soft-fingered lawyers itching to justify such barbarism. The grudging, lunatic retreat of the neocons from their long-standing assertion that Saddam was in cahoots with Osama didn't hurt. Even the Enron audiotapes and their celebration of craven sociopathy likely played a part. As a result of all these displays and countless smaller ones, you could feel, a couple of months back, as summer spread across the country, the ground shifting beneath your feet. Not unlike that scene in The Day After Tomorrow, then in theaters, in which the giant ice shelf splits asunder, this was more a paradigm shift than anything strictly tectonic. No cataclysmic ice age, admittedly, yet something was in the air, and people were inhaling deeply. I began to get calls from friends whose parents had always voted Republican, "but not this time." There was the staid Zbigniew Brzezinski on the staid NewsHour with Jim Lehrer sneering at the "Orwellian language" flowing out of the Pentagon. Word spread through the usual channels that old hands from the days of Bush the Elder were quietly (but not too quietly) appalled by his son's misadventure in Iraq. Suddenly, everywhere you went, a surprising number of folks seemed to have had just about enough of what the Bush administration was dishing out. A fresh age appeared on the horizon, accompanied by the sound of scales falling from people's eyes. It felt something like a demonstration of that highest of American prerogatives and the most deeply cherished American freedom: dissent.

And now back to what the Swift Boat Vets said about Kerry...
Fox News Pulls Item With Fake Kerry Quotes
By AP, 1 October 2004
EXCERPT: Fox News apologized Friday for posting phony quotes from Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on its Web site. Carl Cameron, a Fox reporter who covers the Kerry campaign, wrote an item that looked like a news story with made-up Kerry quotes, said Paul Schur, a Fox spokesman. The item was not intended to be posted on the site. ``Carl made a stupid mistake which he regrets,'' Schur said Friday night. ``And he has been reprimanded for his lapse in judgment. It was a poor attempt at humor.''The phony item posted early Friday read in part: ``Rallying supporters in Tampa Friday Kerry played up his performance in Thursday night's debate in which many observers agreed the Massachusetts senator outperformed the president. ``'Didn't my nails and cuticles look great? What a good debate!' Kerry said Friday. ``With the foreign-policy debate in the history books, Kerry hopes to keep the pressure on and the sense of traction going. ``Aides say he will step up attacks on the president in the next few days, and pivot somewhat to the domestic agenda, with a focus on women and abortion rights. ``'It's about the Supreme Court. Women should like me! I do manicures,' Kerry said.'' The item also quoted Kerry as saying of himself and President Bush: ``I'm metrosexual -- he's a cowboy.'' After withdrawing the item, Fox posted a statement on its Web site, http://www.FOXNews.com apologizing for the error. It said: ``The item was based on a reporter's partial script that had been written in jest and should not have been posted or broadcast. We regret the error, which occurred because of fatigue and bad judgment, not malice.''
SEE ALSO:
"Cuticle Carl"
Talking Points Memo, 2 October 2004

C.I.A.-White House Tensions Are Being Made Public to Rare Degree
By DOUGLAS JEHL
NYT, 2 October 2004
EXCERPT:  James L. Pavitt spent 31 years at the Central Intelligence Agency, the last five as head of the clandestine service, before retiring in August. But never, Mr. Pavitt said Friday, does he recall anything like "the viciousness and vindictiveness" now playing out in a battle between the White House and the C.I.A. The tensions have simmered for years, mostly over intelligence about Iraq, including whether Iraq posed a threat. But in the last few weeks, they have surged into the open in a remarkable way, in a struggle in which both sides believe they have much at stake. Already, the contents of classified intelligence estimates about Iraq have been leaked by people sympathetic to the C.I.A., to the considerable embarrassment of the White House. In response, the White House associated the documents' authors with "pessimists and naysayers," and President Bush initially dismissed one particularly damaging forecast as nothing more than a guess. And in newspaper columns in recent days, Republican partisans have variously described what is now afoot as part of an insurgency or vendetta being waged by the C.I.A. against the White House. ...But Mr. Pavitt was not alone among former intelligence officials in describing what is now unfolding as extraordinary. In interviews, several other former high-ranking officials, including those from the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies, said that while C.I.A. and White House were continuing to work closely and professionally together, they had rarely seen tensions so high among their allies and other partisans on both sides. As for what may lie ahead, the shape and fate of any intelligence overhaul still remains far from certain. The terms of possible legislation are still being debated by the House and Senate, and it is unclear whether new legislation will be passed before Election Day. But all of the changes under consideration threaten to strip the C.I.A. from the position of preeminence among American intelligence agencies that it has enjoyed for more than 50 years. "I think this has much more to do with intelligence reform than with Iraq," said the former senior C.I.A. official. "People are just very angry and worried and on the defensive about what they think might happen to the agency." (Like most others interviewed for this story, the former official would not allow his name to be used, saying that to do so would jeopardize his professional and business relationships.) Whatever the motivation, the steps taken by people sympathetic to the C.I.A. allies to call attention to intelligence successes on Iraq have been notable. They included the disclosure in mid-September by government officials to The New York Times of details of a classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared for President Bush in July 2004 and distributed in late August. Its gloomy assessment of the challenges facing Iraq said that an environment of tenuous stability was the best-case outcome the country could expect through the end of 2005. Other disclosures by government officials early this week have included specific new details contained in two other classified documents, prewar assessments on Iraq that were issued by the National Intelligence Council in January 2003. As described by the government officials, the postwar challenges identified in the documents included a surge in anti-Americanism in the Muslim world and the possibility of an anti-American insurgency in Iraq. The intelligence warnings appeared to have been much sharper than was acknowledged in the more upbeat forecasts provided before the war by Mr. Bush and top deputies including Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary. From some conservative voices, including the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, the response has been furious. An editorial published by the Journal on Wednesday under the heading of "The C.I.A.'s Insurgency" said that Mr. Bush "now has two insurgencies to defeat: the one that the C.I.A. is struggling to help put down in Iraq, and the other inside Langley against the Bush administration.

DeLay Cases Could Imperil His Climb Within the House
By CARL HULSE and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
NYT, 2 October 2004
EXCERPT: Representative Tom DeLay, the majority leader rebuked by House ethics officials for pressuring a fellow member to switch his vote on a health care bill, still faces potentially more serious accusations, subjecting him to a new scrutiny that even some Republicans say could complicate his political future. Mr. DeLay, the take-no-prisoners Texan known for maintaining strict discipline in his caucus, is entangled in a series of inquiries here and in Texas regarding his fund-raising and other activities. In Texas, three of his top aides have been indicted; in Washington, the House ethics panel is deciding whether to initiate a formal investigation. On Friday, Republicans publicly rallied around their leader, though some said privately that the surprise ethics rebuke on Thursday - the second for Mr. DeLay, who was previously chastised for pressuring interest groups to hire Republicans - could hinder the leader if he tried to become speaker. Democrats, who are already making Mr. DeLay an issue in their campaigns, attacked him on Friday for what Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, called a "continued abuse of power.'' She said there was "an ethical cloud over this Capitol because of how he is conducting business here.''

Bush Ensures 'His' Military Vote Only to Disenfranchise Others Overseas
By MICHAEL MOSS
NYT, 2 October 2004
EXCERPT: Amid new evidence that civilians lagged far behind soldiers in voting from abroad four years ago, political operatives on both sides of the presidential campaign raced this week to help Americans overseas cast their ballots in time for next month's election. Sixty percent of the overseas military voted in the 2000 election, up from 53 percent in 1996, according to a new Pentagon report obtained yesterday by The New York Times. At the same time, voting by civilians dropped to 22 percent from 29 percent, the report said. Civilians' low participation rate is raising fears among Democrats who believe that these estimated 3.9 million eligible voters are more likely than members of the military to support John Kerry over President Bush. It is also fueling concern that the Federal Voting Assistance Program, which the Pentagon manages for all overseas voters, may be doing more to help the estimated 500,000 members of the military overseas. Pentagon officials have denied such accusations.

Bush Aide Karen Hughs in "Normal" Form
Kerry-Edwards Site via PoliticalStrategy, 2 October 2004

IN 2000, BUSH CAMPAIGN ON SIGHS AT THE DEBATE: "(Gore) brought in a debate coach who is apparently working on trying to correct the sighs and the eye-rolling and the condescending tone," said Bush spokeswoman Karen Hughes. "But I expect that over the course of 90 minutes in a high-pressure situation, the real person tends to come out." [Boston Herald, 10/11/00]

LAST NIGHT, BUSH CAMPAIGN ON PRESIDENT BUSH’S SCOWLS: “On his face, you could see his irritation at the senator’s misrepresentations…He was answering the senator with his face,” said Bush confidante Karen Hughes. [Washington Post, 10/1.2004]

FILM REVIEW  'I ♥ Huckabees'
On a Stroll in Angstville With Dots Disconnected
By MANOHLA DARGIS
NYT, 2 October 2004
EXCERPT: The high-wire comedy "I ♥ Huckabees" captures liberal-left despair with astonishingly good humor: it's "Fahrenheit 9/11" for the screwball set. Chockablock with strange bedfellows — Dustin Hoffman and Lily Tomlin play a hot-and-heavy married couple, Jason Schwartzman gets his groove on with Isabelle Huppert — the film is a snort-out-loud-funny master class of controlled chaos. In this topsy-turvy world, where Yes is the new corporate No and businesses sponsor environmental causes while bulldozing over Ranger Rick, a pair of existentialist detectives sift through clients' trash to solve the riddle of their malaise. Like the film's director, David O. Russell, they gladly risk foolishness to plunge into the muck of human existence. The film, which opens nationwide today, hinges on one of these clients in midcrisis, Mr. Schwartzman's Albert Markovski, a Sisyphean figure with a flop of hair and his own giant rock. The founder of an environmental advocacy group (the rock is the sole survivor of one of its campaigns), Albert has recently agreed to join forces with Huckabees, a Wal-Mart-like corporation with the newspeak motto of "one store, one world."

1 October 2004

SEE ALSO:
Debunking the Debates
Ari Berman
The Nation, 30 September 2004
EXCERPT: Conventional wisdom tells us that the three presidential debates, especially the first one tonight, present the best, last chance for John Kerry to reinvigorate his battered campaign. The debate's potential to affect the outcome of a close election cannot be overstated, but the process has become far more scripted than most people think. For the first time ever, the highly secretive Commission on Presidential Debates released a 32-page "Memorandum of Understanding," hammered out by negotiating teams led by veteran Democratic operative Vernon Jordan and longtime Bush fixer James Baker. Before the spin even kicks in, the Commission aims to manufacture consent, downplay controversy and sidestep direct confrontation. Instead of a true debate, we're likely to witness a ninety-minute interview with the two candidates. It's spectacle, not spontaneity, that counts. Here's a sampling of the more pathetic rules:
SEE ALSO: Bush Sees a Safer America, While Kerry Sees a 'Colossal Error' (NYT)

Not that ANYTHING Republicans do can be a scandal anymore...
Bush Campaign Helped Write "Brave" and "Respected" Foreign Leader's Speech to Congress
By Dana Milbank and Mike Allen
Washington Post, 30 September 2004
EXCERPT: The Bush administration, battling negative perceptions of the Iraq war, is sending Iraqi Americans to deliver what the Pentagon calls "good news" about Iraq to U.S. military bases, and has curtailed distribution of reports showing increasing violence in that country. The unusual public-relations effort by the Pentagon and the U.S. Agency for International Development comes as details have emerged showing the U.S. government and a representative of President Bush's reelection campaign had been heavily involved in drafting the speech given to Congress last week by interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. Combined, they indicate that the federal government is working assiduously to improve Americans' opinions about the Iraq conflict -- a key element of Bush's reelection message. USAID said this week that it will restrict distribution of reports by contractor Kroll Security International showing that the number of daily attacks by insurgents in Iraq has increased. On Monday, a day after The Washington Post published a front-page story saying that "the Kroll reports suggest a broad and intensifying campaign of insurgent violence," a USAID official sent an e-mail to congressional aides stating: "This is the last Kroll report to come in. After the WPost story, they shut it down in order to regroup. I'll let you know when it restarts."

International Observers Fear Repeat of 2004 Election
Reuters via The Guardian (UK), 1 October 2004
EXCERPT: International observers of the US election have highlighted concerns over voting machines, voter eligibility rules, and allegations of intimidation aimed at lowering the turnout of ethnic minorities. The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe observers issued a report this week on preparations for the vote after a visit earlier this month, and warned that the result could again be delayed. "In general, the nationwide replacement of voting equipment, inspired by the disputes witnessed during the 2000 elections, primarily in Florida, may potentially become a source of even greater controversy during the forthcoming elections," the group said in the report posted on its website, www.osce.org/odihr. Many new machines did not produce a paper ballot to permit a manual recount, said the observers, who were invited by the Bush administration. Uneven application of rules on provisional ballots, which can be cast even when the voter's eligibility is unclear, "may cause post-election disputes and litigation, potentially delaying the announcement of final results," they added.

Presidential Fiction: The Story Behind the Debate
By Ira Chernus
TomDispatch, 1 October 2004
EXCERPT: The first Bush-Kerry debate made the Democrat's dilemma all too clear. Kerry wants to focus on pocketbook issues, promising every American a chance to achieve or retain a comfortable middle class standard of living. In a debate restricted to foreign policy, he could only criticize the President and say, "Somehow, I'll do better." Bush was content to focus on foreign affairs, as long as he could stick to the big picture and avoid talking about realities on the Iraqi ground. With the economy still sputtering and Iraq engulfed in violence, he has little to offer except the big picture -- a grand story of America's global mission. Among voters who decide mainly based on issues, Kerry has the lead in this election. Voters who decide mainly based on the candidates' "character" favor Bush, the story-teller. Right now, the contest is too close to call. Never underestimate the power of a grand story. For most of human history, most people have lived in abject poverty. They survived, in part, on stories. They told stories to interpret their suffering or to distract themselves from their suffering, to participate vicariously in magnificent events and give meaning to an existence that might otherwise seem meaningless. In most cultures, the truly powerful stories -- myths, legends, or sacred narratives -- were religious ones. In the United States, where we have no religious myths that we all share, the history of the nation has become our most powerful shared myth. Like all religious stories, the most popular versions of American history are a mixture of fact, fantasy, and wish-fulfillment. Judging from the first debate, it's not clear that Kerry and his campaign strategists understand the power of this potent brew. The Bush campaign understands it all too well. Throughout the debate, Bush stuck doggedly to his script, re-telling the most popular American myths. Millions of us, watching his performance, were not sure whether to laugh or cry. But millions more undoubtedly took him absolutely seriously and cheered. For many, he has become the hero and the very embodiment of the meaning of America.

Press Plays It (Mainly) Straight in First Reports on Bush-Kerry Debate
By E&P Staff
Editor and Publisher, 1 October 2004
EXCERPT: When newspapers began to weigh in on the presidential debate late last night on the Web, they focused, as did the contest, on the split between the two candidates on the war in Iraq. USA Today, like many, highlighted Senator Kerry's charge that President Bush made "a colossal error in judgment" in going to war in Iraq, while Bush said Kerry had sent "mixed messages" that endangered America's security and hurt the morale of troops.
The headline on the top story at the The New York Times site by Richard W. Stevenson read: "Bush Sees a Safer America, While Kerry Sees a 'Colossal Error.'" The Washington Post story proved similar in describing the candidates' "different vision over how to protect the nation."
As many had urged, most of the early reports played it straight with little "spin." But USA Today did quickly reveal: "Early polls indicated Americans felt Kerry had won the debate. Fifty-three percent of Americans polled in a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll said Kerry had won, compared to 37% for Bush. Kerry also was ahead in polls taken by CBS News and ABC News." Other newspaper sites also caught up with the polls in the wee hours.
And the Associated Press moved two analysis stories quickly. Calvin Woodward commented on the two candidates "stretching the record," noting that Bush exaggerated the decimation of al-Qaeda while Kerry seem to suggest only the rich got a tax cut recently. "Self-serving oversimplifications marked the first presidential debate," he wrote.
Another AP piece, by Terence Hunt, observed that "Bush appeared perturbed when Kerry leveled some of his charges, scowling at times and looking away in apparent disgust at others. Kerry often took notes when the president spoke."

A New Opening for Kerry
By Michael Tackett
Chicago Tribune, 30 September 2004
EXCERPT: Whether John Kerry won the debate with President Bush Thursday night is an open question that voters will decide, but he almost certainly won a chance for a second look. And that he quite clearly needed. Some Republicans had said the Bush campaign wanted to switch the issue of foreign affairs from the third debate to the first one to give the president the chance to effectively close out the race by undercutting Kerry on shifting positions on the war in Iraq. Instead, Kerry painted a contrast with the president over the war and challenged an aspect of Bush's character--a sense of moral certitude--that could be the president's greatest electoral liability, especially among women and independent voters. "It's one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong," Kerry said in perhaps his most effective rejoinder. "It's another to be certain and be right, or to be certain and be moving in the right direction, or be certain about a principle and then learn new facts and take those new facts and put them to use in order to change and get your policy right...And certainty sometimes can get you in trouble."

Move assures more rightwing tilt to agency
New C.I.A. Chief Chooses 4 Top Aides From House
By DOUGLAS JEHL
NYT, 1 October 2004
EXCERPT: Porter J. Goss, the new director of central intelligence, has chosen four House Republican aides for senior positions at the Central Intelligence Agency, including the No. 3 job in the agency, former agency officials said Thursday. The decision to appoint the four officials is creating waves in the agency, which prides itself on objectivity and independence, the former officials said. All four worked under Mr. Goss as political appointees on the Republican staff of the House Intelligence Committee, when he was the panel chairman.
The move could also reignite Democratic criticism of Mr. Goss, 65, a former Republican congressman from Florida who promised in his confirmation hearings that in his new position he would put behind him a partisan political past.
All four aides are seen as highly loyal to Mr. Goss, and their appointment was viewed in the C.I.A. as an effort by the new director to assert control of an agency that has come under sharp criticism from conservatives over recent disclosures that have been portrayed as disloyal to President Bush.
"If you want to come in and show people up front that you're in charge, this is a pretty aggressive way of doing it," said a former intelligence official who worked under George J. Tenet, the former director. It is not unusual in the agency's history for a new chief to appoint a new team. But it is rare for so many newly appointed officials to come from outside the agency and from jobs where they were partisan appointees.

Inspector General Says E.P.A. Rule Aids Polluters
By MICHAEL JANOFSKY
NYT, 1 October 2004
EXCERPT:  In a rebuke of the Bush administration, the inspector general of the Environmental Protection Agency said on Thursday that legal actions against major polluters had stalled because of the agency's decision to revise rules governing emissions at older coal-fired power plants. The inspector general, Nikki L. Tinsley, took direct aim at the administration's revision of the New Source Review rule, one of the administration's most prominent - and vilified - environmental initiatives, saying that it makes it easier for power-plant operators to postpone or avoid adding technologies that reduce polluting emissions. The revised rule, made final last year, has not been put in effect yet because of legal challenges. But the report concludes that just by issuing the rule, which scuttled the enforcement approach of the Clinton administration, the agency has "seriously hampered" its ability to settle cases and pursue new ones.

Increasing sophistication of war, decreasing sophistication of soldiers...very clever you Bush guys
Its Recruitment Goals Pressing, the Army Will Ease Some Standards
By ERIC SCHMITT
NYT, 1 October 2004
EXCERPT: To help meet its recruiting goals at a time when its forces are strained by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has lowered some requirements for recruits. The changes are among the clearest signs yet of the military's growing problems in recruiting and retaining soldiers. They mean that many hundreds of prospective recruits who would have been rejected in the past could be enlisted.
Army officials characterize the changes as modest, reasonable and well within quality standards mandated by the Pentagon and Congress. But they amount to the first relaxation in Army recruiting standards since 1998, when a strong economy hurt military recruiting. Army officials said Thursday that for the recruiting year that started this week, at least 90 percent of new recruits must be high school graduates, compared with 92 percent last year. And up to 2 percent of recruits can be enlisted even if they scored in the lowest acceptable range on a service aptitude test, compared with 1.5 percent last year. Given the total of 101,200 incoming soldiers whom the Army and the Army Reserve say they need this year, the changes mean that as many as 2,000 or so recruits who would have previously been rejected could be enlisted.
"In difficult recruiting environments, it is inevitable that either quality standards or recruiting resources be subject to adjustment," said Richard I. Stark Jr., a retired Army colonel who is a military personnel specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies here. "The Army has been forced to adjust to both." The Army's decision to loosen standards comes amid calls for the House Armed Services Committee to investigate accusations by some Iraq war veterans that, nearing the end of their enlistments, they are being pressured to choose between re-enlisting on one hand and being sent back to Iraq with another unit on the other. Army officials have denied using any such approach to encourage re-enlistment.
See Also

'Bugman' DeLay's own house need fumigation
House Ethics Panel Says DeLay Tried to Trade Favor for a Vote
By CARL HULSE
NYT, 1 October 2004
EXCERPT: Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the House majority leader, was admonished by the House ethics committee on Thursday night for improperly trying to win the vote of a Michigan lawmaker during a heated floor fight over a health care bill last year. In a lengthy report, the panel said it had determined in its investigation of allegations first raised by the lawmaker, Representative Nick Smith, a Republican, that Mr. DeLay offered to endorse Mr. Smith's son in a Congressional primary if he would support a measure then teetering on the edge of defeat. The special four-person subcommittee that conducted the inquiry said it had "deliberated extensively" over the actions of Mr. DeLay, who is one of the most powerful members of Congress, and weighed his actions against the leadership's traditional role of trying to round up votes. The report concluded that Mr. DeLay went too far in trying to secure a victory. "The promise of political support for a relative of a member goes beyond the boundaries of maintaining party discipline, and should not be used as the basis of a bargain for members to achieve their respective goals," the committee said, saying there was evidence to find Mr. DeLay in violation of House rules. The panel recommended no further action against Mr. DeLay or two others it also admonished - Mr. Smith and another Michigan Republican, Candice S. Miller. The committee is considering a separate complaint against Mr. DeLay on a series of allegations made by a Texas Democrat, but it made no disclosure of its intentions on those accusations.

Reporters Face Jail, Fines, Dates in Court
By Joe Strupp
Editor and Publisher, 1 October 2004
EXCERPT: OK, people! Let's be calm. We have a little problem. Actually, it's a big problem. But we can handle it. Can't we?
That seems to be the collective discussion/uncertainty among newspaper industry leaders over what to do about the unprecedented string of subpoenas and other federal inquiries into confidential sources during the past several months. From Washington, D.C., to San Francisco, the attack on the coveted reporter's privilege is reaching unprecedented heights.
"It has changed with a velocity that would make your head spin faster than Linda Blair in The Exorcist," exclaimed Bruce Sanford, a noted media attorney who spoke during a panel on First Amendment issues at the Society of Professional Journalists convention in September. Adds Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, "It is the worst it has ever been."
But while news outlets scramble to counter the recent wave with appeals and motions to quash, the broader question of how to stem this tide of pressure on the press before it kills anonymous sourcing completely is not easily answered. Some want a federal shield law, while others claim a U.S. Supreme Court ruling is the answer. Still others push for the industry to police itself more strictly on anonymous sourcing.
"We need to persuade people that without reporters' privilege, sources, and whistleblowers who are critical of government who need anonymity to do their jobs will not be heard from," argues George Freeman, an attorney with The New York Times, which has received several subpoenas for reporter testimony and records in the last few months. "This justice department is certainly not respectful of, or an ally of, the media."

Fake Republicanism
The Nation, 30 September 2004
EXCERPT: If there was any lingering doubt that President Bush is a reckless extremist rather than a true conservative, an extraordinary letter by the son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower should dispel it. John Eisenhower, who served as American Ambassador to Belgium between 1969 and 1971, joins President Ronald Reagan's son in condemning the Bush Administration for its abdication of conservative principles. Click here to read Eisenhower's letter published this past Tuesday in New Hampshire's Manchester Union Leader.