Right now, as you read this Republicans are out there blatantly lying about this. They are saying that eliminating the cap 'only buys you seven years'. This is a lie. A blatant, bald faced lie.

For a nation that is supposed to be obsessed with reality TV, it is odd that our political analysis hasn't focused on the pseudo-tribal nature of politics today. I'm not a fan of reality TV. Indeed, I am in no position to comment on it, never having watched. But as a piece of pop culture, the essence of the primordial reality program "Survivor" is well known.

Let's call them the red tribe and the blue tribe. Stranded on a deserted island with nothing to sustain them (but an X trillion dollar economy, a Y trillion dollar government, a Z trillion dollar military) They have to perform tasks as "tribes". Periodically, they have to choose someone to "kick off the island".

My Dad cast an absentee ballot for John Kerry last week.  I don't really see how we can lose.

People are talking about the weak hand that Kerry will have should he prevail in this election. I would suggest that the real story is the weak hand that Bush will have if he squeaks out a victory. First, consider that on ideological grounds we are about evenly split between left and right. So you start from a partisan base of half the electorate. After 9/11 most of the other half of the electorate decided to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. To trust him to work his ass off in the best interest of the country and to forget about partisan politics.

I agree with Hal Crowther, who has written, 'I don't think it's accurate to describe America as polarized between Democrats and Republicans, or between liberals and conservatives. It's polarized between the people who believe George Bush and the people who do not'. For the half of us who don't believe George Bush, the thought of four more years of this is truly frightening. This isn't your normal Democrat/Republican food fight. This is life or death stuff.

We, who don't believe Bush are a pretty large group. And we are growing rapidly. Republican Senators like Chuck Hagel and RIchard Lugar and Johm McCain don't believe Bush. An overwhelming fraction of the intelligence community, doesn't believe Bush. A huge majority of the scientific community doesn't believe Bush. The more educated you are, the less likely you are to believe Bush. The higher the average IQ in the state you are from the less likely you are to believe George Bush. The more creative and independent you are the less likely it is that you believe Bush.

Between now and the election it is up to all of us to explain to those who believe, that they have been conned. It's never easy to hear that, but time is running out. They need to hear that they have been tricked by a cynical scam operation. Highjacked by a gang of liars and thieves. Kerry and Edwards are doing their part to show the country the real George Bush and DIck Cheney, rather than the cartoon images that have been created to dupe the rubes. They have made a good start in the last two debates, and there is the hope that the more the country sees of the real George Bush, the fewer of them will decide that this is a cult they want to sign up with. There are less than four weeks to reach these folks. And the stakes couldn't be higher.

Iran-Iraq War

 
"1980-88, protracted military conflict between Iran and Iraq. It officially began on Sept. 22, 1980, with an Iraqi land and air invasion of western Iran, although Iraqi spokespersons maintained that Iran had been engaging in artillery attacks on Iraqi towns since Sept. 4. Iraqi president Saddam Hussein claimed as the reason for his attack on Iran a territorial dispute over the Shatt al Arab, a waterway that empties into the Persian Gulf and forms the boundary between Iran and Iraq. In 1975, a militarily weaker Iraq had by treaty signed over to Iran partial control of the waterway, but after the fall (1979) of Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlevi and the resultant weakening of Iran's military, Iraq seized the opportunity to reclaim the Shatt al Arab. Iraq also hoped to seize the western Iranian region of Khuzestan, an area known for its extensive oil fields. The Iraqi offensive was initially successful, capturing the port city of Khorramshahr by the end of 1980. Iranian resistance proved strong, however, and Iraqi troops had withdrawn from the occupied portions of Iran by early 1982. Nevertheless, Iranian leader Ruhollah Khomeini declared that Iran would not cease fighting until Saddam's regime was toppled. Iran began a series of offensives, which proved successful enough to cause Iraq to resort to the use of chemical weapons (see poison gas), a tactic reviled by the international community. Khomeini's troops captured the oil-rich Majnoon Islands from Iraq in Feb., 1984, and southern Iraq's Fao peninsula in early 1986. Sporadic air and missile attacks on cities and military installations were common throughout the war, and in 1985 both sides began to strike their opponent's capital. The United States and several Western European nations became involved in the war in 1987, in response to Iranian attacks on Kuwaiti oil tankers traveling in the Persian Gulf. These attacks sullied Iran's international reputation considerably, making it difficult for Khomeini to obtain arms. Finally, in July, 1988, Iran was forced to accept a United Nations-mandated cease-fire. Estimates of the number of dead range up to 1.5 million. In its war effort, Iran was supported by Syria and Libya, and received much of its weaponry from North Korea and China, as well as from covert arms transactions from the United States. Iraq enjoyed much wider support, both among Arab and Western nations: the Soviet Union was its largest supplier of arms. In 1990 Iraq, concerned with securing its forcible annexation of Kuwait (see Persian Gulf War), agreed to accept the terms of the 1975 treaty with Iran and withdraw its troops from Iranian territory as well as exchange all prisoners of war. An agreement was not signed, however, and both sides held thousands of POWs for many years. Several prisoner exchanges and releases occurred after 1988; the final exchange took place in 2003".

1.  Notice the dates.  1980-1989.  Reagan/Bush
2.  Notice Kohmeini vowed to continue the fight until Saddam's           regime was destroyed.
3.  The Iranians began working on the neocons as soon as Bush lost the 92 election.
4.  They cultivated them, encouraged them and convinced them that getting rid of Saddam was an urgent priority.  The steady stream of Iraqi defectors were part of the scam.
5.  Intrigue and guile proves to be more effective than human wave attacks and brute force.
6.  Saddam's regime is destroyed
7.  The "Great Satan" is reviled in the eyes of the world.
8.  Iraq is moving towards a Shia dominated Islamic State.
9.  Tie a yellow ribbon around these apples.

This says a lot doesn't it?  I think this says something about Peter Jennings as well.

The main thing it says is that these people on top of being thoroughly corrupt and venal, are also dumb as fence posts.  This sort of publicity is priceless.  Someone will certainly distribute this film.  And the bigger fuss they make over it, the more interest they will generate.  It is shaping up like a repeat of the attempt to not publish "Stupid White Men" after 9/11.  It is almost as dumb as Fox News suing Al Franken.  But then, maybe all they really care about is keeping Jebby on board.

"There's been quite a lot of chatter in the last couple days about an article in the Daily Trojan (no snickers, please), the USC student newspaper, which reports the following about what author Ron Suskind allegedly said at at a public forum on campus ...

One of Suskind's most severe critiques of Bush was not only Bush's lack of press conferences but also his management of those conferences.  

For each press conference, the White House press secretary asks the reporters for their questions, selects six or seven of the questions to answer and those reporters are the only ones called upon to ask their questions during the press conference, Suskind said.

I'd never heard of such a  thing and couldn't believe it was true.  But Suskind's a serious person and a first-rate journalist.  And a bunch of readers asked if I knew anything about it.  And, frankly, I've gotten burned a few times underestimating the degree of skullduggery this White House is capable of.  So, with some trepidation, I emailed two friends from the White House press corps just to make sure.  

I know and trust both of them and both assured me, categorically, that this is not what happens.  

In the words of one of them: "It's complete ---------. As in 'I can't believe that he was quoted accurately' ---------. Occasionally, before background briefings, White House aides will canvass reporters to ask what we're interested in on that day (but "the Middle East" is plenty answer for them). But I have never, ever heard of submitting questions in writing, orally, by email, or any other way before a presidential press conference. Not under Ari, not under Scott."

Josh is helping to create the impression that a large fraction of the questions asked  Bush during his press conferences weren't pre-screened.  This is false.  Perhaps his sources are honest.  Then they are ignorant.

"I have to say that Rummy's assertion today that it would have been a mistake to go after Bin Laden before 9/11 because 9/11 would have happened anyway but it would have then be seen as some sort of just retaliation by Bin Laden's people is truly one of the weirdest things I've heard... I guess that's part of the patented Rumsfeld "outside the box" thinking..."

Now, I haven't been watching the hearings.  I don't know what the context is here and entirely what was said.

But to me this is more than weird.  These guys have been spinning like crazy trying to find a way to justify their negligence pre-9/11.  You had the chimp himself weighing in on that today.  So it is clear they are throwing out everything they can think of and trying to find something credible.

This statement by Rummy seems to me to be a new low.  Like he's just given up.  I mean this has to be the absolute bottom of the barrel rationalization.  If this is what they have to work with, they are truly screwed.
 

Don't these folks have any pride?  Why the hell do they take that shit?  It is well past time for the gloves to come off regarding this.   It is in the public record.  The Clinton team DID take the terrorist threat seriously.   They tried in vain to get the incoming Bushies interested in the subject.  This is not in dispute.  It is in the public record.  And as bad as that behavior is, it is somehow even worse in light of the fact that they have the nerve, to blame the very people who tried to warn them in the first place.  It really is breathtaking.  

I suspect that this is why the 9/11 commission is potentially so damaging even though it was consitutued to put a happy face on things and to be somewhat control-able.  The truth is that the facts are so evident on even a cursury examination that it can't help but be devestating.  Because their behavior was deeply, fundamentally negligent regarding the most serious threat to the country since the end of the cold war.

So, despite the possible impact of the 9/11 commission report, it is high time for the Democratic National Security establishment and particularly the Clinton people to come out swinging.  John Kerry can't be expected to do this alone.  They have to get out there and attack Bush's credibility on this issue.  No more genuflecting to the office.  The Bush political team has no honor and it is time to deal with them in the manner they deserve.

In a primary season it is axiomatic that a candidate needs to appeal to their base to win the nomination, and then once the nomination is secure, they move to the center so as not to scare off swing voters.

The perceived advantage for an incumbant president who faces no primary challenge is that he doesn't have to do that.  He can start his campaign from the center, while his adversaries are playing to their base.

This year in Bush's case we have completely upended that dynamic.  Bush is desperately playing to his base in a way that is going to turn off swing voters in the national election.  This is good news folks.  His combative state of the union speech, his defensive performance on MTP, and now his joining the fray regarding Gay marriage all means that he is forced to do all of the counter-productive things he would have had to do if he were challenged in the primaries.  Good stuff.  Not to worry. They are killing themselves with this nonsense.  

The White House is striking back at the recalcitrant space worker.  This is the text of a message sent from NASA to Spirit two hours ago.

Spirit Rover,

As one Rover to another, I hope you understand your responsiblities in this matter.  It would be tragic if anything were to happen to your sister ship Saturday night.  We expect that you will get back to work and do your part for the re-election of the commander in chief.

Yours,
Karl

NASA engineers have assured Spirit that they "don't have a dog in this fight" and urged the balky planetary explorer to get back to work.  The major sticking point in the negitiations seems to be Spirit's insistance that the Hubble Space Telescope continue to be serviced and remain operational.  NASA's political appointees had decided to let Hubble die in favor of Bush's campaign promise to focus on Mars.

It is unclear if Spirit has decided to accept the engineer's assurances or if the spunky spacecraft is demanding some show of good faith.

Apparently Spirit has entered into negotiations with China concerning a new contract that couldn't be exploited by the Bush re-election campaign.

Spirit's last recorded message, currently being with-held from the public read, "I didn't sign up to work for that fucker's re-election campaign, using my mission as an excuse to terminate the employment of one of the nations most dedicated space workers is unacceptable"

09/01/2004

"The Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies (`Shell') announced today that, following internal reviews, some proved hydrocarbon reserves will be recategorised.  The total non recurring recategorisation, relative to the proved reserves as stated at December 31st 2002, represents 3.9 billion barrels of oil equivalent (`boe') of proved reserves, or 20% of proved reserves at that date.  Over 90% of the total change is a reduction in the proved undeveloped category; the balance is a reduction in the proved developed category".

This is being spun in the business news as poor management.  Not so.  Shell is simply the first of the majors to come clean.  Notice that most of this 20% reduction comes from the catagory "proved and undeveloped".  This isn't just Shell's problem.  This is a world wide problem.  The USGS and the EIA has been routinly overestimating the amount of undeveloped reserves in a manner that is almost criminal.  We are all going to pay a heavy price for this duplicity.