The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > Kerry Attacks Bush Over Loss of Explosives
"Last night on this broadcast we reported that the 101st Airborne never found the nearly 380 tons of HMX and RDX explosives,'' Tom Brokaw, the NBC anchor, said. "We did not conclude the explosives were missing or had vanished, nor did we say they missed the explosives. We simply reported that the 101st did not find them.''
"For its part, the Bush campaign immediately pointed to our report as conclusive proof that the weapons had been removed before the Americans arrived,'' Mr. Brokaw added. "That is possible, but that is not what we reported.''
For the second day Mr. Bush did not speak about the issue, twice ignoring questions from reporters.
We do know that the US was informed about this weapons cache before the war and absolutely no effort was made to search or secure the site during the war.
And who is responsible? Ultimately, the President. Again it points to the lack of planning that went into the war and the poor way it was and continues to be waged. Does this make you feel any safer?
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
C.I.A. Is Accused of Delaying Internal Report
The New York Times > Washington > C.I.A. Is Accused of Delaying Internal Report
The Central Intelligence Agency has blocked, at least temporarily, the distribution of a draft internal report that identifies individual officers by name in discussing whether anyone should be held accountable for intelligence failures leading up to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, members of Congress from both parties said.
The delays began in July, at the direction of John E. McLaughlin, then the acting director of central intelligence, and have continued since Porter J. Goss took over as the intelligence chief last month, members of Congress said. The delays have postponed the next step in the process, which calls for the draft report to be reviewed by affected individuals.
Of course.
The Central Intelligence Agency has blocked, at least temporarily, the distribution of a draft internal report that identifies individual officers by name in discussing whether anyone should be held accountable for intelligence failures leading up to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, members of Congress from both parties said.
The delays began in July, at the direction of John E. McLaughlin, then the acting director of central intelligence, and have continued since Porter J. Goss took over as the intelligence chief last month, members of Congress said. The delays have postponed the next step in the process, which calls for the draft report to be reviewed by affected individuals.
Of course.
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Those headlines the President hates
Hike In War Funding Sought: Administration's planned request for $70 billion would bring wars' total costs to nearly $225 billion.
Allawi Blames U.S. for 'Gross Negligence' : In rare criticism of U.S.-led forces in Iraq, interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi on Tuesday blamed foreign troops helping secure the country for "gross negligence" in the massacre of 49 Iraqi National Guard recruits last weekend.
Consumer confidence falls for a third month: Consumer confidence fell in October for the third consecutive month, the Conference Board said Tuesday. The decline was steeper than expected. The Consumer Confidence Index dropped 3.9 points to 92.8, from a revised 96.7 in September, according to the Conference Board, a private research group. Analysts had expected a reading of 94.
AP: New Bush Guard Papers Leave Questions: Unearthed under legal pressure, three-decade-old documents portray President Bush as a capable and well-liked Air National Guard pilot who stopped flying and attending regular drills two-thirds of the way through his six-year commitment - without consequence.
Embedded Reporter Saw No Explosives Search: An NBC News reporter embedded with a U.S. army unit that seized an Iraqi installation three weeks into the war said Tuesday that she saw no signs that the Americans searched for the powerful explosives that are now missing from the site. Will Drudge shut up now?
Allawi Blames U.S. for 'Gross Negligence' : In rare criticism of U.S.-led forces in Iraq, interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi on Tuesday blamed foreign troops helping secure the country for "gross negligence" in the massacre of 49 Iraqi National Guard recruits last weekend.
Consumer confidence falls for a third month: Consumer confidence fell in October for the third consecutive month, the Conference Board said Tuesday. The decline was steeper than expected. The Consumer Confidence Index dropped 3.9 points to 92.8, from a revised 96.7 in September, according to the Conference Board, a private research group. Analysts had expected a reading of 94.
AP: New Bush Guard Papers Leave Questions: Unearthed under legal pressure, three-decade-old documents portray President Bush as a capable and well-liked Air National Guard pilot who stopped flying and attending regular drills two-thirds of the way through his six-year commitment - without consequence.
Embedded Reporter Saw No Explosives Search: An NBC News reporter embedded with a U.S. army unit that seized an Iraqi installation three weeks into the war said Tuesday that she saw no signs that the Americans searched for the powerful explosives that are now missing from the site. Will Drudge shut up now?
Monday, October 25, 2004
Kerry for President
Kerry for President (washingtonpost.com)
And now the Washington Post endorses Kerry.
Editor and Publisher has the details on the endorsement race:
Sen. John Kerry continued his raid on newspapers that backed President Bush in 2000, grabbing 24 new "flip-flops," plus The Washington Post, which was a major supporter of the war in Iraq. The Democrat has now won endorsements from at least 35 papers that went for Bush in 2000, while Bush has earned only two Gore papers.
And now the Washington Post endorses Kerry.
Editor and Publisher has the details on the endorsement race:
Sen. John Kerry continued his raid on newspapers that backed President Bush in 2000, grabbing 24 new "flip-flops," plus The Washington Post, which was a major supporter of the war in Iraq. The Democrat has now won endorsements from at least 35 papers that went for Bush in 2000, while Bush has earned only two Gore papers.
Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq
The New York Times > International > Middle East > Tracking the Weapons: Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq
This is bad.
The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives - used to demolish buildings, make missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons - are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.
But it gets worse.
Administration officials say they cannot explain why the explosives were not safeguarded.
Condi Rice was told a month ago. They were stolen while the country was still under the CPA. And now they're being used against our soldiers.
And Scott McClellan gives this excuse today:
At the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom there were a number of priorities. It was a priority to make sure that the oil fields were secure, so that there wasn't massive destruction of the oil fields, which we thought would occur. It was a priority to get the reconstruction office up and running. It was a priority to secure the various ministries, so that we could get those ministries working on their priorities, whether it was --
We secured the oil fields, but didn't secure ammo dumps that we knew existed. Oh, and then we didn't bother guarding treasures or preventing looting from the very offices that would have contained any information on any WMD, if there were any.
Glad to know we have our priorities.
This is bad.
The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives - used to demolish buildings, make missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons - are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.
But it gets worse.
Administration officials say they cannot explain why the explosives were not safeguarded.
Condi Rice was told a month ago. They were stolen while the country was still under the CPA. And now they're being used against our soldiers.
And Scott McClellan gives this excuse today:
At the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom there were a number of priorities. It was a priority to make sure that the oil fields were secure, so that there wasn't massive destruction of the oil fields, which we thought would occur. It was a priority to get the reconstruction office up and running. It was a priority to secure the various ministries, so that we could get those ministries working on their priorities, whether it was --
We secured the oil fields, but didn't secure ammo dumps that we knew existed. Oh, and then we didn't bother guarding treasures or preventing looting from the very offices that would have contained any information on any WMD, if there were any.
Glad to know we have our priorities.
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Pic of the Day
Gosh, something evil in me likes this:
That's Karl Rove under the wheels of Air Force One.
That's Karl Rove under the wheels of Air Force One.
Feeling the Draft
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Feeling the Draft
For those of you concerned about a draft, this column will not help you feel more secure.
I doubt that Bush has any intentions to reinstate the draft, but his lack of foresight and doctrine of democracy by force leave us in a dangerous position. Any new military action, pre-emption against Syria or Iran, or defending an attack at home, while maintaining the same troop level in Iraq would give them no choice but to begin drafting.
Paul Krugman, the column's author, is an economist, so I am a bit more skeptical of columns that stretch too far out of that field. He has some good stuff here, though.
The administration's strategy of denial in the face of these realities was illustrated by a revealing moment during the second presidential debate. After Senator John Kerry described the stop-loss policy as a "backdoor draft," Charles Gibson, the moderator, tried to get a follow-up response from President Bush: "And with reservists being held on duty --"
At that point Mr. Bush cut Mr. Gibson off and changed the subject from the plight of the reservists to the honor of our Polish allies, ending what he obviously viewed as a dangerous line of questioning.
And during the third debate, Mr. Bush tried to minimize the issue, saying that the reservists being sent to Iraq "didn't view their service as a backdoor draft. They viewed their service as an opportunity to serve their country." In that case, why are they being forced, rather than asked, to continue that service?
For those of you concerned about a draft, this column will not help you feel more secure.
I doubt that Bush has any intentions to reinstate the draft, but his lack of foresight and doctrine of democracy by force leave us in a dangerous position. Any new military action, pre-emption against Syria or Iran, or defending an attack at home, while maintaining the same troop level in Iraq would give them no choice but to begin drafting.
Paul Krugman, the column's author, is an economist, so I am a bit more skeptical of columns that stretch too far out of that field. He has some good stuff here, though.
The administration's strategy of denial in the face of these realities was illustrated by a revealing moment during the second presidential debate. After Senator John Kerry described the stop-loss policy as a "backdoor draft," Charles Gibson, the moderator, tried to get a follow-up response from President Bush: "And with reservists being held on duty --"
At that point Mr. Bush cut Mr. Gibson off and changed the subject from the plight of the reservists to the honor of our Polish allies, ending what he obviously viewed as a dangerous line of questioning.
And during the third debate, Mr. Bush tried to minimize the issue, saying that the reservists being sent to Iraq "didn't view their service as a backdoor draft. They viewed their service as an opportunity to serve their country." In that case, why are they being forced, rather than asked, to continue that service?
Monday, October 18, 2004
John Kerry for President
The New York Times > Opinion > John Kerry for President
In case you missed it, the NYT endorsement of John Kerry:
Mr. Kerry has the capacity to do far, far better. He has a willingness - sorely missing in Washington these days - to reach across the aisle. We are relieved that he is a strong defender of civil rights, that he would remove unnecessary restrictions on stem cell research and that he understands the concept of separation of church and state. We appreciate his sensible plan to provide health coverage for most of the people who currently do without.
Mr. Kerry has an aggressive and in some cases innovative package of ideas about energy, aimed at addressing global warming and oil dependency. He is a longtime advocate of deficit reduction. In the Senate, he worked with John McCain in restoring relations between the United States and Vietnam, and led investigations of the way the international financial system has been gamed to permit the laundering of drug and terror money. He has always understood that America's appropriate role in world affairs is as leader of a willing community of nations, not in my-way-or-the-highway domination.
We look back on the past four years with hearts nearly breaking, both for the lives unnecessarily lost and for the opportunities so casually wasted. Time and again, history invited George W. Bush to play a heroic role, and time and again he chose the wrong course. We believe that with John Kerry as president, the nation will do better.
In case you missed it, the NYT endorsement of John Kerry:
Mr. Kerry has the capacity to do far, far better. He has a willingness - sorely missing in Washington these days - to reach across the aisle. We are relieved that he is a strong defender of civil rights, that he would remove unnecessary restrictions on stem cell research and that he understands the concept of separation of church and state. We appreciate his sensible plan to provide health coverage for most of the people who currently do without.
Mr. Kerry has an aggressive and in some cases innovative package of ideas about energy, aimed at addressing global warming and oil dependency. He is a longtime advocate of deficit reduction. In the Senate, he worked with John McCain in restoring relations between the United States and Vietnam, and led investigations of the way the international financial system has been gamed to permit the laundering of drug and terror money. He has always understood that America's appropriate role in world affairs is as leader of a willing community of nations, not in my-way-or-the-highway domination.
We look back on the past four years with hearts nearly breaking, both for the lives unnecessarily lost and for the opportunities so casually wasted. Time and again, history invited George W. Bush to play a heroic role, and time and again he chose the wrong course. We believe that with John Kerry as president, the nation will do better.
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Debate Three
Well, a busy schedule has forced me to limit my posts and also prevented me from seeing last night's debate. My analysis comes from what is being said in the press, and let's keep in mind that this is how most voters will get their information.
Overall, another Kerry win. A Kerry sweep, they say. Bush again appears to have given up on the middle, the undecided, and is focusing on rallying the base. By Kerry reaching to the center it makes him look like he cares more about the average American. Who can say which strategy wins more votes (in the states where that matters)?
And let's clear this up before it gets any more traction. Mary Cheney is out, Dick has mentioned her sexuality on the stump, and she WORKS for the campaign. A simple mention of her is entirely legitimate. Did Kerry smear her? Did he make fun of her sexuality? NO. It may have been an unnecessary comment, but it shows the hypocrisy in the Bush stance.
Where do we go from here? Well, in states in play like Colorado, we'll see more ads, more visits, more ground game. In the press we'll see a repeat of the "Kerry surge" from Iowa and pondering on how Bush can maintain his position. From the spinners? More nonsense and more ugliness. The Lynne Cheney response was planned and coordinated, mind you.
With any luck, it'll all be over on Nov. 3. Until it goes to court, that is.
Overall, another Kerry win. A Kerry sweep, they say. Bush again appears to have given up on the middle, the undecided, and is focusing on rallying the base. By Kerry reaching to the center it makes him look like he cares more about the average American. Who can say which strategy wins more votes (in the states where that matters)?
And let's clear this up before it gets any more traction. Mary Cheney is out, Dick has mentioned her sexuality on the stump, and she WORKS for the campaign. A simple mention of her is entirely legitimate. Did Kerry smear her? Did he make fun of her sexuality? NO. It may have been an unnecessary comment, but it shows the hypocrisy in the Bush stance.
Where do we go from here? Well, in states in play like Colorado, we'll see more ads, more visits, more ground game. In the press we'll see a repeat of the "Kerry surge" from Iowa and pondering on how Bush can maintain his position. From the spinners? More nonsense and more ugliness. The Lynne Cheney response was planned and coordinated, mind you.
With any luck, it'll all be over on Nov. 3. Until it goes to court, that is.
Sunday, October 10, 2004
Debate Two
Need wood?
My, there were many things to laugh about during this debate. Painful, too, in many ways.
Bush, again, came across as angry, leaping out of his chair and interrupting the moderator. Not very polite. Kerry, on the other hand, was at times clear and strong, but other times he returned to that senatorial doublespeak. I score it a draw simply because Bush didn't fall on his face like he did last time. I don't think that it has stopped the Bush/Cheney slide. Or maybe I should say that it will not stop the growing Kerry/Edwards momentum. The Bush attacks are not working. Kerry appears smart, direct and very clearly Presidential in these debates and this alone will win him votes from the undecided. And on the other side Bush looks defensive and annoyed. Slapping the "liberal" label on Kerry is only going to work with people who are already going to vote for Bush.
So with Bush on the defensive, his slew of "distortions" in this debate, and facts on the ground in Iraq not in his favor, Kerry has the opportunity this week to really take control.
And, yes, Bush has an interest in a timber company.
My, there were many things to laugh about during this debate. Painful, too, in many ways.
Bush, again, came across as angry, leaping out of his chair and interrupting the moderator. Not very polite. Kerry, on the other hand, was at times clear and strong, but other times he returned to that senatorial doublespeak. I score it a draw simply because Bush didn't fall on his face like he did last time. I don't think that it has stopped the Bush/Cheney slide. Or maybe I should say that it will not stop the growing Kerry/Edwards momentum. The Bush attacks are not working. Kerry appears smart, direct and very clearly Presidential in these debates and this alone will win him votes from the undecided. And on the other side Bush looks defensive and annoyed. Slapping the "liberal" label on Kerry is only going to work with people who are already going to vote for Bush.
So with Bush on the defensive, his slew of "distortions" in this debate, and facts on the ground in Iraq not in his favor, Kerry has the opportunity this week to really take control.
And, yes, Bush has an interest in a timber company.
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Cheney Rewriting History
MSNBC - Rewriting History
With virtually all of the administration’s original case for war in Iraq in tatters, Vice President Dick Cheney provided shifting and sometimes misleading arguments in last night’s debate with John Edwards about Saddam Hussein’s ties to terrorists and his access to weapons of mass destruction.
Just to set the record straight.
With virtually all of the administration’s original case for war in Iraq in tatters, Vice President Dick Cheney provided shifting and sometimes misleading arguments in last night’s debate with John Edwards about Saddam Hussein’s ties to terrorists and his access to weapons of mass destruction.
Just to set the record straight.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
U.S. Report Finds Iraq Was Minimal Weapons Threat in '03
The New York Times > International > Middle East > U.S. Report Finds Iraq Was Minimal Weapons Threat in '03:
"At the time of the American invasion, Mr. Duelfer concluded, Iraq had not possessed military-scale stockpiles of illicit weapons for a dozen years and was not actively seeking to produce them. "
Ah, makes me proud.
"At the time of the American invasion, Mr. Duelfer concluded, Iraq had not possessed military-scale stockpiles of illicit weapons for a dozen years and was not actively seeking to produce them. "
Ah, makes me proud.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
It's Ugly!
Again, I hate to detail a hasty reaction to the debate and then have to reconsider later, but I can't help thinking that Edwards wins this one. I think he had the issues, the substance. Cheney just seemed to prattle on about how right the Administration is, and when he wasn't prattling he was downright mean.
Let me be clear and honest here. I have a real visceral dislike for Bush/Cheney. These are not guys I would want to have a drink with. They just scare me. And they think they are absolutely right on everything and they shouldn't be questioned. No one can tell me that they're looking out for me. I don't believe it.
I do think Edwards missed opportunities here, but I think he was better at expressing his plan for making this country a better place. And that gets my vote.
Let me be clear and honest here. I have a real visceral dislike for Bush/Cheney. These are not guys I would want to have a drink with. They just scare me. And they think they are absolutely right on everything and they shouldn't be questioned. No one can tell me that they're looking out for me. I don't believe it.
I do think Edwards missed opportunities here, but I think he was better at expressing his plan for making this country a better place. And that gets my vote.
Bremer: 'Not enough troops' in Iraq after Saddam's ouster
CNN.com - Bremer: 'Not enough troops' in Iraq after Saddam's ouster - Oct 5, 2004
Not only was the war the wrong choice, but then we couldn't even do what was right there. While we can't dispute the necessity of going to war when we did, there is no question that the war was mismanaged. And who's going to make us safer?
Not only was the war the wrong choice, but then we couldn't even do what was right there. While we can't dispute the necessity of going to war when we did, there is no question that the war was mismanaged. And who's going to make us safer?
Sunday, October 03, 2004
Iraq: Politics or Policy?
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Iraq: Politics or Policy?
Tom Friedman's back and he takes it to the Bush Administration:
This war has been hugely mismanaged by this administration, in the face of clear advice to the contrary at every stage, and as a result the range of decent outcomes in Iraq has been narrowed and the tools we have to bring even those about are more limited than ever.
Then there's this:
But my time off has clarified for me, even more, that this Bush team can't get us there, and may have so messed things up that no one can. Why? Because each time the Bush team had to choose between doing the right thing in the war on terrorism or siding with its political base and ideology, it chose its base and ideology.
And:
Mr. Bush is president, charged with protecting the national interest, and yet from the beginning he has run Iraq policy as an extension of his political campaign.
Boy, have we missed you, Tom.
Tom Friedman's back and he takes it to the Bush Administration:
This war has been hugely mismanaged by this administration, in the face of clear advice to the contrary at every stage, and as a result the range of decent outcomes in Iraq has been narrowed and the tools we have to bring even those about are more limited than ever.
Then there's this:
But my time off has clarified for me, even more, that this Bush team can't get us there, and may have so messed things up that no one can. Why? Because each time the Bush team had to choose between doing the right thing in the war on terrorism or siding with its political base and ideology, it chose its base and ideology.
And:
Mr. Bush is president, charged with protecting the national interest, and yet from the beginning he has run Iraq policy as an extension of his political campaign.
Boy, have we missed you, Tom.
Friday, October 01, 2004
Debate Talking Points
Here are Kerry's key statements from the debate:
- I believe America is safest and strongest when we are leading the world and when we are leading strong alliances.
- I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. But we also have to be smart.
- You don't take America to war unless you have a plan to win the peace.
- We haven't done the work that ought to be done.
- I will bring fresh credibility, a new start.
- The truth is what good policy is based on. It's what leadership is based on.
- We need to be smarter about how we wage a war on terror.
- I've had one position, one consistent position: that Saddam Hussein was a threat, there was a right way to disarm him and a wrong way. And the president chose the wrong way.
- You have the president's plan, which is four words: more of the same. I think my plan is better.
- I have a plan to do it. He doesn't.
- Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us.
- I'll tell you this as president I'll never take my eye of that ball.
- You have to earn that respect. And I think we have a lot of earning back to do.
- It's one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong.
- We didn't need to rush to war without a plan to win the peace.
Print this out. Carry it in your pocket. Mention these things to your friends. Reinforce it with the fact that Kerry won the debate because he had ideas, he has a plan. Tell them Comeback Kerry is on the way.
Debate One Analysis
I was not watching the debate last night with glee, nor did I jump up and down in celebration at its end. I could not declare a Kerry victory right away. To tell the truth I was very nervous during the whole thing because I've seen how the Bush camp can turn the smallest thing into something significant. Kerry's comments were sometimes convoluted and he failed to summarize most responses into bumper sticker statements. He did manage though to be forceful and direct, which means he avoided being boring and pedantic.
Bush seemed to struggle through most of the debate. He succeeded in hammering the same points he's been using on the road, but this began to become a problem. There's not a lot behind his bumper sticker statements, and when given two minutes to elaborate Bush was often at a loss for words. He also failed to deliver any forceful attacks. We've heard what he has to say about Kerry and their differences for months (mostly because the press reads straight from the RNC talking points), and he had nothing new to say. And I think that's what was frustrating him.
Ironically, what may have hurt Bush most was Fox News's decision to use the split screen. We were then allowed to see Bush's pursed lips, smirks, rolling eyes, and seething anger. He was mad, and I don't think most people would see that as Presidential.
After the debate and thinking and talking about it for awhile, it became obvious that Kerry won, simply because Bush was forced to spend most of the ninety minutes defending himself. Kerry too managed to push his plan for Iraq and Bush was never able to counter with one of his own. He can only say "strong and resolute" so many times before we realize that it doesn't mean a thing. Reviewing the candidate's message last night it boils down to, for Kerry, "we can do better," and for Bush"it's hard work." I think one of these might work better for the American people.
But a Kerry victory last night only means that he's still in the game. Remember that the Bushies are better at controlling the message. The Dems will have to use those keys from last night, those things that had traction, and pound them. If the media begins to think that there's a Kerry comeback starting, that will dominate.
Bush seemed to struggle through most of the debate. He succeeded in hammering the same points he's been using on the road, but this began to become a problem. There's not a lot behind his bumper sticker statements, and when given two minutes to elaborate Bush was often at a loss for words. He also failed to deliver any forceful attacks. We've heard what he has to say about Kerry and their differences for months (mostly because the press reads straight from the RNC talking points), and he had nothing new to say. And I think that's what was frustrating him.
Ironically, what may have hurt Bush most was Fox News's decision to use the split screen. We were then allowed to see Bush's pursed lips, smirks, rolling eyes, and seething anger. He was mad, and I don't think most people would see that as Presidential.
After the debate and thinking and talking about it for awhile, it became obvious that Kerry won, simply because Bush was forced to spend most of the ninety minutes defending himself. Kerry too managed to push his plan for Iraq and Bush was never able to counter with one of his own. He can only say "strong and resolute" so many times before we realize that it doesn't mean a thing. Reviewing the candidate's message last night it boils down to, for Kerry, "we can do better," and for Bush"it's hard work." I think one of these might work better for the American people.
But a Kerry victory last night only means that he's still in the game. Remember that the Bushies are better at controlling the message. The Dems will have to use those keys from last night, those things that had traction, and pound them. If the media begins to think that there's a Kerry comeback starting, that will dominate.
News you may have missed this week
House Ethics Panel Rebukes DeLay The committee admonished Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) Thursday night for offering a political favor to a Michigan lawmaker in exchange for the member's vote on last year's hard-fought Medicare prescription drug bill.
House Rejects Same-Sex Marriage Ban The House joined the Senate yesterday in refusing to approve a constitutional amendment to bar same-sex marriage, described by Republican supporters as a vital protection for traditional families but denounced by Democratic foes as a divisive pre-election ploy to inflame prejudice.
Growing Pessimism on Iraq A growing number of career professionals within national security agencies believe that the situation in Iraq is much worse, and the path to success much more tenuous, than is being expressed in public by top Bush administration officials, according to former and current government officials and assessments over the past year by intelligence officials at the CIA and the departments of State and Defense.
Oil and Gas Hold the Reins in the Wild West Land-Use Decisions Largely Favor Energy Industry
Senate Confirms Rep. Goss as Intelligence Director The Senate voted overwhelmingly yesterday to confirm Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) as the new head of the CIA, brushing aside complaints from some Democrats that he is too partisan and insufficiently interested in reform to head the embattled agency.
Key Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional A federal judge in New York ruled yesterday that a key component of the USA Patriot Act is unconstitutional because it allows the FBI to demand information from Internet service providers without judicial oversight or public review.
Thanks to WashingtonPost.com (registration req'd and worthwhile)
And then there's this editorial in yesterday's New York Times:
Playing With the Election Rules
"In Colorado, Secretary of State Donetta Davidson, also a Republican, has issued a bizarre ruling of her own on this issue. She will allow provisional ballots cast at the wrong polling places to count for only the presidential race. The Senate race in Colorado, among the closest in the nation, could determine control of the Senate, and there is no reason all valid provisional ballots should not count in this race or for statewide ballot propositions. Colorado Common Cause is challenging Ms. Davidson's rule, but she should not need a court to tell her to count the votes."
House Rejects Same-Sex Marriage Ban The House joined the Senate yesterday in refusing to approve a constitutional amendment to bar same-sex marriage, described by Republican supporters as a vital protection for traditional families but denounced by Democratic foes as a divisive pre-election ploy to inflame prejudice.
Growing Pessimism on Iraq A growing number of career professionals within national security agencies believe that the situation in Iraq is much worse, and the path to success much more tenuous, than is being expressed in public by top Bush administration officials, according to former and current government officials and assessments over the past year by intelligence officials at the CIA and the departments of State and Defense.
Oil and Gas Hold the Reins in the Wild West Land-Use Decisions Largely Favor Energy Industry
Senate Confirms Rep. Goss as Intelligence Director The Senate voted overwhelmingly yesterday to confirm Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) as the new head of the CIA, brushing aside complaints from some Democrats that he is too partisan and insufficiently interested in reform to head the embattled agency.
Key Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional A federal judge in New York ruled yesterday that a key component of the USA Patriot Act is unconstitutional because it allows the FBI to demand information from Internet service providers without judicial oversight or public review.
Thanks to WashingtonPost.com (registration req'd and worthwhile)
And then there's this editorial in yesterday's New York Times:
Playing With the Election Rules
"In Colorado, Secretary of State Donetta Davidson, also a Republican, has issued a bizarre ruling of her own on this issue. She will allow provisional ballots cast at the wrong polling places to count for only the presidential race. The Senate race in Colorado, among the closest in the nation, could determine control of the Senate, and there is no reason all valid provisional ballots should not count in this race or for statewide ballot propositions. Colorado Common Cause is challenging Ms. Davidson's rule, but she should not need a court to tell her to count the votes."
The Debate, the Media Perspective
Newspaper Editiorials
The Washington Post: Both performed credibly enough to keep voters tuned in for the next debate.
New York Times: If the question was whether Senator John Kerry would appear presidential, whether he could present his positions clearly and succinctly and keep President Bush on the defensive when it came to the critical issue of Iraq, Mr. Kerry delivered the goods... Mr. Bush, whose body and facial language sometimes seemed downright petulant, insisted, again and again, that by criticizing the way the war is being run, Mr. Kerry was sending "mixed signals" that threatened the success of the effort.
LA Times: In contrast to the president, who at times seemed tired and annoyed at having to share the stage, Kerry's command of the facts didn't get in the way of his being lucid and direct. The senator and former prosecutor delivered a powerful indictment of Bush's foreign policy record.
USA Today: The view here is that Kerry's analysis of Iraq is on the mark. But it is an observation made in hindsight — a fact Bush jumped on repeatedly Thursday by charging Kerry had shifted his opinion for political advantage.
The question that matters now is which candidate's world approach will be more effective going forward.
Rocky Mtn. News: Sen. John Kerry turned in his strongest performance of the campaign in Thursday's debate. He was calm, assured, clear, forceful and articulate. His supporters must be ecstatic.
Polls on who won the debate
ABC News: Kerry 45%, Bush 36%, tie 17%
CBS News: (Uncommitteds) Kerry 43%, Bush 28%, tie 29%
CNN: Kerry 53%, Bush 37%
The Headlines
Iraq Takes Center Stage in Debate
Bush and Kerry Clash Over Iraq in Debate
Bush, Kerry Trade Barbs on Iraq War
Candidates clash on terror, Iraq
Kerry, Bush clash on national security
Iraq war dominates Bush, Kerry debate
The Washington Post: Both performed credibly enough to keep voters tuned in for the next debate.
New York Times: If the question was whether Senator John Kerry would appear presidential, whether he could present his positions clearly and succinctly and keep President Bush on the defensive when it came to the critical issue of Iraq, Mr. Kerry delivered the goods... Mr. Bush, whose body and facial language sometimes seemed downright petulant, insisted, again and again, that by criticizing the way the war is being run, Mr. Kerry was sending "mixed signals" that threatened the success of the effort.
LA Times: In contrast to the president, who at times seemed tired and annoyed at having to share the stage, Kerry's command of the facts didn't get in the way of his being lucid and direct. The senator and former prosecutor delivered a powerful indictment of Bush's foreign policy record.
USA Today: The view here is that Kerry's analysis of Iraq is on the mark. But it is an observation made in hindsight — a fact Bush jumped on repeatedly Thursday by charging Kerry had shifted his opinion for political advantage.
The question that matters now is which candidate's world approach will be more effective going forward.
Rocky Mtn. News: Sen. John Kerry turned in his strongest performance of the campaign in Thursday's debate. He was calm, assured, clear, forceful and articulate. His supporters must be ecstatic.
Polls on who won the debate
ABC News: Kerry 45%, Bush 36%, tie 17%
CBS News: (Uncommitteds) Kerry 43%, Bush 28%, tie 29%
CNN: Kerry 53%, Bush 37%
The Headlines
Iraq Takes Center Stage in Debate
Bush and Kerry Clash Over Iraq in Debate
Bush, Kerry Trade Barbs on Iraq War
Candidates clash on terror, Iraq
Kerry, Bush clash on national security
Iraq war dominates Bush, Kerry debate
My letter
Below is my letter to the editor published today in the Denver Post regarding the race in Colorado's 6th between Republican Tom Tancredo and Democrat Joanna Conti:
Tom Tancredo has done nothing in the House but focus on immigration. He has stated that not only is illegal immigration a problem, but legal immigration as well. He has used the issue to push a racially questionable agenda, and this does not represent the residents of the 6th Congressional District.
Joanna Conti is a fiscally conservative Democrat, and she is well-suited to serve the district. She believes that our representative in the House should focus on things besides wedge issues. She is definitely not gutless, and she shows it by taking on the Republican incumbent in a heavily Republican district. And I applaud her for it.
Damon Garr, Golden
(Also, a letter to the Editor of the Metropolitan that I wrote in March, 2002, during the height of the Enron crisis is still online here.)
Tom Tancredo has done nothing in the House but focus on immigration. He has stated that not only is illegal immigration a problem, but legal immigration as well. He has used the issue to push a racially questionable agenda, and this does not represent the residents of the 6th Congressional District.
Joanna Conti is a fiscally conservative Democrat, and she is well-suited to serve the district. She believes that our representative in the House should focus on things besides wedge issues. She is definitely not gutless, and she shows it by taking on the Republican incumbent in a heavily Republican district. And I applaud her for it.
Damon Garr, Golden
(Also, a letter to the Editor of the Metropolitan that I wrote in March, 2002, during the height of the Enron crisis is still online here.)
It's On!
Initial reactions here as I look around at reactions to last night's debate and it is pretty darn clear that Kerry won. Bush was defensive and mad, and it showed. You tell me which one looked more Presidential.
The fight is on.
More to come on this later.
The fight is on.
More to come on this later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)