Slashdot Mirror

By reports, she of course meant newspaper reports. You know, the things most of us get our information from. From the Washington Post:

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.

Later in the article:

But administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the prime minister was coached and aided by the U.S. government, its allies and friends of the administration. Among them was Dan Senor, former spokesman for the CPA who has more recently represented the Bush campaign in media appearances. Senor, who has denied writing the speech, sent Allawi recommended phrases. He also helped Allawi rehearse in New York last week, officials said. Senor declined to comment.

So it seems that it is a bit more than mere suspicion, as you would characterize it. The article makes it pretty clear that Allawi was a mouthpiece for the Bush campaign while he was here in the US. So that's why Ms. Feinstein was dismayed. Frankly, so am I.

The article is here

You'all are forget'n the context of the big picture, YOUR COUNTRY WAS ATTACKED!!

OK, I'm being trolled, but...

People get arrested ONLY for speaking their mind more often than you think. Police will make up a crime - I've seen it done many times, and had it happen to me once - you can read about it here if you feel like it.

Of course, you're breaking a law at almost any time. It's more common to arrest someone for breaking a law that many other people are breaking, the only difference being that the arrested person spoke their mind against the current Administration.

I step off the sidewalk to walk around people every time I walk down Canal Street in Manhattan, as do the cops. However, people who have more of a history of speaking their mind get arrested for the same act - I read an article here about this just today.

So I don't find your criticism credible. I wouldn't bother posting, except you seem like someone logical who's drawn a conclusion based on incomplete information, and I wouldn't want others to do the same.

Remember: Allawi and his speech-writers write in Arabic for an Iraqi audience. Of course he is going to get help on a speech delivered in English for an American audience. If you want more authentic Allawi, read his speech to the U.N. General Assembly he gave the next day. The Arabic translated into English is far more bland and unappealing but the content is the same. You can also read the press conference he gave afterward, or an interview to the Washington Post, or anything else you can google if you want to read what Allawi says without assistance from American speech writers.

Remember: Allawi and his speech-writers write in Arabic for an Iraqi audience. Of course he is going to get help on a speech delivered in English for an American audience. If you want more authentic Allawi, read his speech to the U.N. General Assembly he gave the next day. The Arabic translated into English is far more bland and unappealing but the content is the same. You can also read the press conference he gave afterward, or an interview to the Washington Post, or anything else you can google if you want to read what Allawi says without assistance from American speech writers.

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.

Last time I checked, Meet the Press was not a session of Congress.

Also, yes, those things are violations of the Geneva convention in the strictest sense. However the military STILL uses .50 calibur weapons, depleted uranium, and napalm (we've just changed the formula a bit and changed the name), cluster bombs, etc... All of these make every soldier who uses them, practically every soldier in the field, a war criminal. Sad but true.

If I recall, the Bush administration was looking for loopholes in the Geneva convention to justify torture.

So by your folks very logic, the sitting president of the United States is guilty of violating the international laws of war by ordering the armed forces to use weapons that violate the laws of war, violated the Geneva conventions, unilaterally attacked a nation without UN approval, has stated the desire to do so again in Syria and Iran, and has the worlds largest known stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction. This lands our current regime as squarely a 'rogue state' by any measure.

So it is critical that every citizen of the US, of voting age, overturn the government peacably through the election process.

By your very logic, we should probably send Bush to the Hague as well; maybe thats the real reason Bush is so afraid to join the ICC.

Or, if you're lazy, read the list of similarities in this column in the Washington Post.

And this is the Washington Post article that Feinstein is responding to that cites "administration officials" who say "the prime minister was coached and aided by the U.S. government, its allies and friends of the administration."

Or, if you're lazy, read the list of similarities in this column in the Washington Post.

And this is the Washington Post article that Feinstein is responding to that cites "administration officials" who say "the prime minister was coached and aided by the U.S. government, its allies and friends of the administration."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan, asked Tuesday about similarities between Bush's statements about Iraq and Allawi's speech to Congress last week, said he did not know of any help U.S. officials gave with the speech. "None that I know of," he said, adding, "No one at the White House." He also said he did not know if the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad had seen the speech.

But administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the prime minister was coached and aided by the U.S. government, its allies and friends of the administration. Among them was Dan Senor, former spokesman for the CPA who has more recently represented the Bush campaign in media appearances. Senor, who has denied writing the speech, sent Allawi recommended phrases. He also helped Allawi rehearse in New York last week, officials said. Senor declined to comment.

The article on Allawi over at wikipedia is quite informative, though it raises more questions than it answers... there are a lot of wild theories and accusations out there, hard to know which are true. At the very least, he's led an interesting life. Since he's worked so closely with the CIA, MI6, and the Baath party in his earlier years, and seems to have a (possibly undeserved) reputation as some kind of hitman/thug/loose cannon, I wouldn't blame an Iraqi for not trusting him.

Does anyone have a link to the washington post article that Feinstein is quoting? This is close, but not it.

-jim

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.

from TAPPED:

But it turns out that "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." The same article notes that the official response to some negative data that USAID released a few days ago is going to be to stop releasing the data. The whole story's a must-read, revealing how the entire federal government has been mobilized to fight not the war on terrorism but the president's reelection campaign."

That last sentence is obviously partisan, as suggested by the source, but read the article it links to.

from TAPPED:

But it turns out that "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." The same article notes that the official response to some negative data that USAID released a few days ago is going to be to stop releasing the data. The whole story's a must-read, revealing how the entire federal government has been mobilized to fight not the war on terrorism but the president's reelection campaign."

OK, that last sentence is partisan, but read the article.

It's funny that those same blogs don't fact-check the Bush administration as much as they do the Kerry campaign. Here is an administration that has told more lies to the public (in the few press conferences that they've had; they're also very secretive) than any that I can remember (Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II).

"Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, and we know where they are."
"Saddam is in cahoots with al Qaeda, and could give WMD to them."
"We went to war for the freedom of the Iraqi people."
"These tax cuts are going to stimulate the economy and create many new jobs by stimulating investment."
"We've inherited a recession from Clinton."
"You don't need to know who Cheney spoke to in his secret energy policy meetings."
"We're going to whole-heartedly support fighting AIDS in third-world countries."

It's so funny that I could cry.

Actually, arbitrary imprisonment is now simple and convenient - you just need to be declared a "material witness":

• Intel programmer "material witness",
• aliens
• military custody
• 800 detainees!
• lawyer losing rights after misidentified fingerprint, (with great terrorist media smear campagain!)
• legal limbo for "material witnesses"

When even with the info lower level agents get ignored because "terrorist" actions are merely part of the plan? something like a "new pearl harbor" like event And which is it again, when you are "following orders", do you investigate, or shine it on because some "superior" individual has connections with those you are supposedly investigating, so vital information gets ignored on purpose? Why is it, when someone with the legal and law enforcement cred of David Schippers, successful impeacher of a freekin president, successful chicago area mob prosecutor, can't even get word to ashcroft (I'm sure you heard of that gent) about upcoming bad news scenarios despite repeated and exhaustive attempts? Why is that, an "unfortunate intelligence failure"? Or was it because it was ON PURPOSE. Ignored, avoided on purpose?

Sorry, I'll be way way WAY more impressed when some white guys in suits and uniforms get indicted by a grand jury for some charges up to and including murder and treason. You can talk about "additional powers" then, once you effectively use the ones you already have, and a LOT more of you come forward like the small handful of TRULY brave and honest agents have,and stop being chicken for your careers over the nations safety. Follow your oath, not your paycheck in other words. Use your brain for something more than to absorb "commands". You're an agent, they are supposed to QUESTION things, not just blindly follow orders, they are supposed to deal in data, not be part of a massive coverup that's destroying a nation and imperiling the entire planet.

Nuhremberg established the precedent, "following orders" is no excuse for helping along high crimes and misdemeanors, and being as it's the internet age and some decent info is available, there's no excuse for remaining so uninformed other than laziness and an uncaring attitude and blind obedience and brainwashing.

Oh, the links? There's hundreds more, THOUSANDS more,just use google, 9-11, government prior knowledge is a good start. I'm not going to do your work for you, and if you had been paying attention even just on slashdot you would have already seen quite a few of them dropped, in many articles and in many comments.

Educate thyself before wanting to make all the US people some "enemy" to "investigate". We have had enough of the surveil/command/CONTROL aspect of this and the recent past US "regimes" and their (mostly) *mercenaries*. Stop being a stooge for them killers and thieves.

Here, I'll give you an easy one. How did WTC building 7 manage to fall down? Here's another easy one, bush and company, including rice, swore to the 9-11 "investigative commission" that they had "no idea that planes could be used for hijacking and then used as weapons" and etc.. uh huh. How do you explain terrorist hijacking scenario drills, one being run the same day as the attacks then? A COINCIDENCE? You smelling a rat yet? I hope so, I really do.. we need more honest cops, less blind order followers. I hope you are one of the former.

Link Here - interesting read.

Are you questioning a newspaper founded by the messiah? Blasphemer!

Fox was never one to stand by while people blatantly unclose facts to the public

I don't even know what this means, or why you keep bringing up Fox. This has nothing to do with Fox.

This has everything to do with a long-time prominent news anchor going against his advisors to run a story with a clearly faked source, to attack someone against whom he clearly has a bias. If you think it's somehow far-fetched that these documents aren't real, then I suggest you look here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18982-20 04Sep13?language=printer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A300 43-2004Sep17.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A317 27-2004Sep18.html

and especially, this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/dail y/graphics/cbsdocs_091804.html

I suggest you quit drinking the Kool-Aid and actually take a look at what's happening. This isn't the first time Dan Rather has aired false, but easily discredited, material.

Fox was never one to stand by while people blatantly unclose facts to the public

I don't even know what this means, or why you keep bringing up Fox. This has nothing to do with Fox.

This has everything to do with a long-time prominent news anchor going against his advisors to run a story with a clearly faked source, to attack someone against whom he clearly has a bias. If you think it's somehow far-fetched that these documents aren't real, then I suggest you look here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18982-20 04Sep13?language=printer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A300 43-2004Sep17.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A317 27-2004Sep18.html

and especially, this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/dail y/graphics/cbsdocs_091804.html

I suggest you quit drinking the Kool-Aid and actually take a look at what's happening. This isn't the first time Dan Rather has aired false, but easily discredited, material.

Fox was never one to stand by while people blatantly unclose facts to the public

I don't even know what this means, or why you keep bringing up Fox. This has nothing to do with Fox.

This has everything to do with a long-time prominent news anchor going against his advisors to run a story with a clearly faked source, to attack someone against whom he clearly has a bias. If you think it's somehow far-fetched that these documents aren't real, then I suggest you look here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18982-20 04Sep13?language=printer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A300 43-2004Sep17.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A317 27-2004Sep18.html

and especially, this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/dail y/graphics/cbsdocs_091804.html

I suggest you quit drinking the Kool-Aid and actually take a look at what's happening. This isn't the first time Dan Rather has aired false, but easily discredited, material.

Fox was never one to stand by while people blatantly unclose facts to the public

I don't even know what this means, or why you keep bringing up Fox. This has nothing to do with Fox.

This has everything to do with a long-time prominent news anchor going against his advisors to run a story with a clearly faked source, to attack someone against whom he clearly has a bias. If you think it's somehow far-fetched that these documents aren't real, then I suggest you look here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18982-20 04Sep13?language=printer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A300 43-2004Sep17.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A317 27-2004Sep18.html

and especially, this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/dail y/graphics/cbsdocs_091804.html

I suggest you quit drinking the Kool-Aid and actually take a look at what's happening. This isn't the first time Dan Rather has aired false, but easily discredited, material.

Actually, this is incorrect. Outside of Bush (and who is very wrong in doing so), calling for the elimination of all 527s, no one even mentioned them at all until the Swift Boat Vets came out. Then all of a sudden, all the Democrats wanted conservative 527s shut down.

At least this article could have taken the time to point out this man is rabidly anti-Bush, and is one of the biggest bankroller of opposition groups like MoveOn.

If you want more information on this man,
Here's one excellent background piece.
Here's an article where he compared Bush to Hitler.

It's simple, if you make the ballot in enough states to possibly win the elections, you should be part of any debate. Since you can get on enough ballots simply by mobilizing regular citizens

"Political campaigns are always eager to keep hecklers out of their pep rallies, but the Republican National Committee took that desire to a new level last week, requiring supporters to sign an oath of loyalty before receiving tickets to Saturday's New Mexico rally featuring Vice President Cheney."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A310 19-2004Jul31.html

you couldnt make this stuff up

In terms of voter intimidation tactics, the Repubs are already preparing for this year... (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/opinion/20herbe rt.html, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A337 98-2004Aug25.html) I respect differing opinions, but I think that turning a blind eye to the controversy of the 2000 election is just willful ignorance. At least admit there was controversy about the vote in 2000! The fact is that there WAS. I am so worried about the vote this year that I could tear my hair out. Wouldn't it be *amazing* and interesting and an incredible show of integrity if Bush were to say "screw these crazy touch screen machines, I want everyone to have a RECEIPT or some kind of printed verification of their vote. I don't want any question about my winning this time!" But you'll never see that happen, he'd rather take it to the Supreme Court and hash it out there.

First Mention is in this 7/15/04 Peter Gammons piece. Most of it is about Baseball, but here's the relevant paragraph:

Thing called love

We have been led to cynically believe that many politicians are disingenuous and generally phony, but few will ever beat Massachusetts Senator John Kerry. This man, who changed his middle initial to be JFK and at an anti-Vietnam rally threw someone else's medals into the water, made a self-promotion appearance with Boston talk-show maven Eddie Andelman and claimed he was a big Red Sox fan from his days growing up in Groton, Mass. And at the promotion he said Eddie Yost was his favorite player.

This remarkable paragraph contains three assertions about Kerry: "middle initial", "medals", and "Yost." The first two are erroneous, and the third is not testable. "Middle initial" is false -- Kerry's middle name is his mother's maiden name, Forbes, a famous old Boston name. Gammons has an error in his "medals" story, Kerry threw ribbons over a fence; not medals in the water. You can read Thomas Oliphant's eyewitness account here or here. To summarize, Gammons makes three assertions about Kerry, and the first to are erroneous. What about the third? I don't know any way to prove a negative, but the very first mention of the "Yost" story that I can find, in Boston or anywhere else, is that 7/15 Gammons column. It's all over the blogsphere now, but Gammons has first mention. Given Gammons' other errors, I don't find it very credible.

Now just to complicate matters, Gammons brings up the "Yost" story again five days later in another column. Again, it's mostly about baseball, but here's the relevant paragraph:

So who puts the bug in candidates' ears about seeming what they are not? John Kerry last week professed to be a big fan of "Manny Ortez," then re-emphasized the phoofery by correcting it to "David Ortez." No, that was Dave (Baby) Cortez and "The Happy Organ." A few years back Kerry went on a Boston station with Eddie Andelman and said "my favorite Red Sox player of all time is The Walking Man, Eddie Yost," who never played for the Red Sox. Kerry is going to sweep New England. He's going to get 70 percent of the vote in Massachusetts. He doesn't have to be a Red Sox fan, all he has to do is not be John Ashcroft.

This time, the "Yost" story is folded in with less controversial claims. If you're an anti-Kerry blogger, this version looks less foolish, but given the first mention amongst two canards, I don't find it credible on Gammons' say-so alone. I say bring me independent confirmation or dump it.

And now a bit on the meta-story. Let me shamelessy copy the Daily Howler and quote David Broder:

In a year when war in Iraq, the threat of terrorism and looming problems with the federal budget and the nation's health care system cry out for serious debate, the news organizations on which people should be able to depend have been diverted into chasing sham events: a scurrilous and largely inaccurate attack on the Vietnam service of John Kerry and a forged document charging President Bush with disobeying an order for an Air National Guard physical.

Almost. Ladies and gentleman, we're watching a brilliant campaign at

It's all over the web. One of many places is from The Washingto Post.

Everyone who was on that list was notified via postal mail that they were on it, and were also told how to appeal the entry. It's so simple even a hanging chad could figure it out.

Incorrect. Some counties did. Some didn't. Some details.

Etta Rosado, spokeswoman for the Volusia County Department of Elections, said the county essentially accepted the file at face value, did nothing to confirm the accuracy of it and doesn't inform citizens ahead of time that they have been dropped from the voter rolls.

In those counties that did, a surprising number of entries were found to be incorrect (same article):

Of the 3,258 names on the original list, therefore, the county concluded that more than 15 percent were in error.

15% false positives? In that county alone 245 were assumed guilty until they took active steps to prove their innocence. I find that abhorent. The right to vote is one of our most important rights, people should not be expected to jump through hoops to be allowed to do so.

How about proving any disenfranchisement?

Sure, how about Kelvin King and Sandylynn Williams?

You're just angry your horse lost the race. Boo hoo.

The situation is more complex than Democrats versus Republicans. Gore wasn't my candidate; I voted third party and was fully prepared for either a Bush or Gore victory. I'm not angry Bush won. I'm angry at what was at best a dangerously sloppy felon purge. I think every American should hold our elections process to a high standard. This is why I'm also against receiptless electronic voting machines (which as far as I know is a non-partisian issue).

You don't talk about how the race was called early for Gore while voting was still open in the conservative panhandle, causing thousands of conservative voters to give up and go home.

I see a large difference between a media report on an election and a government body telling someone that they cannot vote. True, those reports can influence the election, but it hardly seems the same level of seriousness.

How about the effort to throw out valid overseas votes by military personnel?

Indeed, that's a terrible thing. But attempts to block votes by one side in no ways justifies attempts to block votes by the other.

I agree with you that the right to assembly is essential. Unfortunately, those rights have often been ignored in the past and are currently being violated with little objection from society at large.

Certainly you've seen some coverage of IMF/WTO protests in the last few years: protesters getting beaten by batons, hundreds or thousands of people getting arrested. Now, some of those people are arrested for vandalism or because they attack police officers without cause, and certainly they should be arrested. So it leads one to wonder if they're all being arrested for good cause.

If you check out, for example, the Washington Post's coverage of the tactics used against protestors at the Republican National Convention you'll see that a great many people are arrested for no reason other than exercising their first amendment rights. Then, of course, there is the issue of the "Free Speech Zones".

Now certainly, it's reasonable to say that people can't block traffic or similar without a prior warning or a permit, but increasingly these "time, place, and manner" restrictions are used to prevent people from protesting at all, and people are arrested even when they comply with the law. Clearly, we still have a lot of free speech in this country, but these are disturbing trends. So, all I'm saying is that while certainly the right to assemble should be respected, it is already trampled on regularly.

The people of China deserve better than the government that is thrust upon them

Well then, it's about time the Chinese had a revolution, if they agree with you. It's not as though the Chinese are unfamiliar with the notion of fighting to change governments. That is how it became a communist nation in the first place (See here).

The US is not making a lot of friends lately by pontificating about how everyone ought to be just like us and then imposing that decision upon them by force or more subtle pressures. Everyone here is assuming that the Chinese government is evil and then debating whether or not Google should do business with evil folks. Maybe we should accept that China's government is as it is and the responsibility to change it or pass judgment upon it lies not with a company from the US but with the Chinese people. I mean, self-determination is the fundamental tenant of this democracy thing that we want everyone to practice.

I'm sure a lot of countries would like to see our government changed, but that doesn't make it their responsibility or their right to get Bush out of office. We would be furious if we found out that Chinese companies operating in the US had a secret agenda to change our government. Can't deny that. How is it acceptable to say that an American company should do something analogous in their dealings with China?

Before I get flamed on how the same could be said of the Nazis, let me say that the Nazi's are an absurd example to compare anyone to, except perhaps the Mongols and a handful of other empires in human history. It's a strawman argument that evades any shades of gray.

America currently has a regressive tax rate at the top end. The richer you are the smaller the percentage of your income you pay, mostly due to extremely low dividends and capital gains taxes. Most of the flat tax rate proposals aim to do away with dividends and capital gains taxes entirely, which would make the rich essentially untaxable (since they make their money through investment, not labor), and thus institute a completely regressive taxation system. The measures to eradicate progressive taxation are slowly shifting the tax burden. The bush tax cuts were a large instrument in this.

Money has a natural tendency to pool because rich people can invest their money instead of having to spend it. You need a progressive taxation system to ensure the gap between rich and poor doesn't grow steadily.

Look up the evolution of the GINI index, which represents income inequality. America has one of the highest gaps between rich and poor in the world, on the level of a third world nation, and almost every year it grows wider.

Now, if the poor had a minimum quality of life, this wouldn't be a problem, but the figures are clear that the poor in the US don't have access to basic human rights like healthcare and education anymore.

So, I say, let the rich be rich, as long as they pay enough taxes to ensure everyone who is willing to work has a minimum quality of life. If you're holding down a job, or trying to get one, you should be able to get affordable healthcare and send your kids to a decent college.

complaining about bush, but he inherited a recession

As they should. Bush did not inherit the recession, it started (officially) two months after he came into office. Revisionist history

I say that because I have also heard the argument that there was no waiting list at all, but instead as few as 10 other applicants. I guess my question is, how do we know the status of the "waiting list" for the TANG in 1968? How do we know which people on it were even medically qualified? Since you have said this was a fact I was curious if you could help clear up the matter and cite a source.

Yeah, this one is pretty muddled, but try this. Most Guard/Reserve units had long waiting lines in 1968 since these units were regarded as a safe way of staying out of Vietnam.

Oh, and this was all after something like 4-5 years as a guard pilot... it is not like he got his initial training and vanished.

So, lets say you sign up for 6 years but blow off the last year. I mean, like, WTF, why not? After all, you did complete 5/6ths of your contract. Bet there are more than a few Nat'l Guard troops in Iraq who wish they could get away with that today and some vets who might still be alive today if they had been able to do that during the 'Nam.

From the Washington Post:

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa.

You've looked back before 9-11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9-11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have learned from it?

BUSH: I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it.

John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could've done it better this way or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet.

... Stuff about he's sure we'll find WMD in Iraq deleted ...

I hope -- I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.

Alan Keyes, the Republican candidate for Senate in Illinois

It should be noted that Alan Keyes isn't FROM Illinois, he is merely running in the Senate race. I don't think that in itself is bad, but it is probably one of the many reasons he is trailing in the polls.

I seem to remember Keyes once saying that people from out-of-state SHOULDN'T run for a state office, but I can't find that quote now, so maybe I'm just spreading nasty rumors. But it's ok, because I fufilled my duties.

So Alan Keyes, another Republican who wants to control things. There was once a day when Republicans were about NOT controlling things, but that time is long gone.

I find it interesting that voters with passports support John Kerry over...

I find it interesting that citizens with criminal records support candidates like Kerry. I also find interesting the extent to which Trial Lawyers perfer Kerry over Bush.

No, they didn't. In 2001 Congress passed a resolution passed authorizing military force in Afghanistan. Then in 2003, Congress passed a resolution authorizing military force in Iraq. At no point did Congress pass a declaration of war. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants to Congress the power to declare war.

How the heck does this guy think that "Iraq didn't pose a clear and present danger to the United States." Iraq was the source of the terrorism.

Saddam Hussein doesn't like the U.S. He did a lot of terrible things. But he didn't have anything to do with 9/11.

The 9/11 Commission found no links between Iraq and 9/11. Check out their report here.

This past Sunday on Meet the Press, the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, said "I have seen nothing that makes a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and that awful regime, and what happened on 9/11."

President Bush, when pressed, has said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Here is President George W. Bush, on Sept 17 2003: "No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th"

The FAA is under the auspices of the US Department of the Interior, aren't they? You know, the same department that was ordered by a court to take ALL of their systems off line because they were apparently unable to secure them? TWICE? (No, wait, the latter link says THREE times, most recently March 2004...!)

Is there some secret plot to make them look bad, or is the Department of the Interior riddled with incompetence? I certainly don't feel real secure about the safety of our airlines right now - and it's got nothing to do with "terrorists"...

(Not to say that terrorism isn't a real concern, but I'm somewhat less worried that their intentional plots will slip through observation by the authorities than "accidental" screwed up software being deployed by the FAA...)

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States"

>Kos suffered from a case of "Baghdad-Bobia

Kos is a community site, there is no consensus or "master leader" unlike the other blogs you listed in your other post like Instapundit. Hell, instapundit doesnt even allow comments, yet thedailykos gives weblog space to all its users and the really good entries get promoted to the front page.Kos, Atrios, etc don't just parrot the corporate media, but question it. I dont see the point of reading Instapundit if he's just playing the role of an MSNBC or Fox News anchor.

Even moderation is more interesting at kos as you can see who moderated what. No hidding behind your mod points. The kos community has also dropped hundreds of thousands of dollars into helping win elections. Its a community in every sense of the word, not just "one guy's opinion." That really sums up the whole conservative vs liberal fight in the US. The cons tend to be top-down and the libs tend to be grassroots/bottom up. No comments on Sully, Insta, Dick Cheney makes you sign a loyalty oath, etc.

As far as suffering through syndromes go, these conservative bloggers ignored all the good questions regarding WMD only to back-up the president while the liberal blogs were presenting evidence and good arguments on why Iraq would be WMD-less and a quagmire. Guess who was right?

Andrew Sullivan, Instapundit, and the other token conservatives/neocons don't even allow comments. That speaks VOLUMES on how they run their ship and what kind of information they are peddling.

>Chomsky suffers from being Chomsky

That's an easy attack, but if you want to understand media there's few better books than Manufacturing Consent. Or Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death.

This being politics.slashdot.org I fully expect many people with agendas to hide behind their mod points and rate me a troll or "over-rated" like they've done with my previous posts.

I tire of this. How much do you need? I have posted several links already, as have others before me. This is not a new issue... there were articles about it before the 2000 (s)election, and there are articles now. You want articles? Here:

• http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2004/02/ 02_802.html
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7372-200 4Feb2?language=printer
• http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0219-03.htm
• http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040920/usnews/2 0guard.htm

Some of these links are from admittedly conservative sources, others from admittedly liberal sources. They do discuss the releases of info by the WH on the issue, and all come to the same conclusion: the pay stubs and the dental record do not disprove the gap in service, but only support it. Now, as I have said before, I tire of this. You obviously have your opinion, which is fine. What wears on me, though, is your steadfast dedication to the expression of this opinion through falsehood. It is one thing to state that Bush is a "war president," or to state that he is at all presidential material. It's a clearly seperate thing, though, to state that Bush was obviously not AWOL. This is not an opinion, but a simply act of willful ignorance. Maybe Bush wasn't AWOL. I sure as hell don't know. What I do know, though, is that I have evidence supporting that he was AWOL, and none opposing. Thus, until the situation stands, it is not logical, nor reasonable to confuse this simple reality with opinion. What is the signifigance of this issue? Well, that's your opinion. What is the fact of the issue? That isn't.

Oh, it's hard to narrow it down to a small list.

The previously mentioned Talking Points Memo is quite good.

Also see:

Washington Monthly (Kevin Drum, formerly of Calpundit)
Altercation (what liberal media?)
Daily Howler
Columbia Journalism Review de-spins the media.
Juan Cole (very insightful Iraq commentary from this professor of history)
White House Briefing (political round-up)

While not quite a blog, Howard Kurtz's Media Notes are certainly much more even-handed than most, and the way I start every day:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/nation/column s/kurtzhoward/

Other great kinda blogs are:
http://wonkette.com/
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/TheNote/Th eNote.html
http://www.rogersimon.com/

Yes, I would have voted for the authority [to use force in Iraq]. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have. But I would have used that authority, as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively.

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,550,000 for john kerry vietnam. (0.66 seconds

Results 1 - 10 of about 83,800 for george bush awol. (0.36 seconds

That's just regular google.com though, so it includes all kinds of non-news tidbits.

I am not, incidentally, saying this proves media bias. I'd rather point to the headlines on CNN which, today, included: Bush documents forgery, Paris Hiltons Bio, the hurricane in Haiti and ten other little crap articles. No word about the National Guardsmen under lock and key prior to their deployment to Iraq. No word about the comparison between the job of a National Guardsmen during Bush's tenure or now... because now they go to war. THAT speaks of bias to me. Why is the document forgery more important than what is happening with our troops NOW, today?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31689-20 04Sep18?language=printer But really to me it's a no-brainer... the media have been far less tough on the SBVT's than they have on any criticism of Bush in terms of what they cover and how they present it. But the chicken/egg question which then naturally ocurrs is... is it The Media who are to blame, or the people who push the ratings to which the Media caters?

Well, but, but, but... "That's not at all what she said --go read the transcripts --and she's also the same person who was quoted in the Dallas Morning News as saying that the thought Bush was "selected, not elected." No possible agenda there, no sir." But, he wasn't elected. That's a statement of fact, not an agenda. (Frankly I have not gone off and done all the research into every little detail of this or that or the other as I could care less. But truth be told, Bush never would've signed up for a National Guard en route to Iraq... which is just what he's doing now!) http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31689-20 04Sep18?language=printer

It's also very very interesting to note that Bush is not letting guys in the National Guard today, get away with what HE did 30 years ago. No way, no sirree... they are not only having to show up, they're being kept under lock and key until they are shipped off to Iraq. Not only that, but this is all due to his own choice not to expand our armed forces. And not only THAT, but if someone were to refuse a phsyical now... what do you think would happen? Oh George, this is just getting so ugly! http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31689-20 04Sep18?language=printer