Your vital guide to election year mis-information and correction, Annenberg's Fact Check has another piece up.

Today's corrective action involves taxing social security benefits, and a dubious(single source) claim about Kerry and an alleged 50 cent per gallon gasoline tax.

I really cannot add any color to the issue, as Annenberg has touched all the bases.

I don't know when the piece was posted. I checked it late in the evening (US Eastern) and it wasn't posted.

U.S. News and World Report has a nice three page article summarizing Clarke v. White House.

The NYT offers more.

I'm sure it's abundantly clear to the Bushies that the more news cycles that this story dominates, the more damaging it's likely to become. With Rice on 60 Minutes tomorrow evening that will likely keep the collected Washington Punditocracy's brain cells engaged through another full news cycle at minimum.

I'm sure that tomorrow's news daytime news programs will be filled with White House staff in full damage control mode save for Russert. He scored Clarke for tomorrow's MTP. If the attack dog has any bite left, this could provide still more revelations for the White House to contend with.

I'll bring the popcorn.

Condoleezza won't testify in public..at least not as is yet being reported.

The law:

"This is mostly about politics, not about the legalities," said Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law professor at the College of William and Mary who specializes in separation of powers. "There's not much they can point to as settled law to prevent this. This is a matter of political judgment, not legal judgment. ... It hasn't kept her from talking to the press."

Sorry, Condi. No apparent legal cover.

Of course, even the most casual observer will note that Dr. Rice has been sprinting from network to network to tell her tale.

Am I the only one that sees a touch of irony here?

Then there was Bush's odd statement this past week:

"If our administration had intelligence that terrorists were going to hijack an airliner on Sept. 11 and fly it into the World Trade Center we would have acted on it."

Very guarded statement. Bush may have been careful to name the specific date and target..no mention of the Pentagon. Why not?

While the GOP wants secret documents released in an effort to discredit Clarke, Dick Cheney's Energy Policy documents -- which have been ordered released by two court decisions -- remain secreted away.

Then there are the Presidential Daily Briefs many of which haven't been made available to the 9-11 Commission, and those that have are available only to Executive Director Zelikow and commission member Jamie Gorelick.

Zelikow is a horrible pick to serve on the Commission, much less be the Director.

I think everything should as transparent as possible. Not what the White House, and the Commission deem necessary.

Let's get it all out in the open, and see if some simple truths can be found.

Rice and Bush should testify publicly, under oath. That is what we deserve as citizens. Anything less will leave much doubt in the minds of thinking peoples everywhere.

These people tend to vote.

Soldiers Are Speaking Out

A Soldier Speaks Out

A must read. Here's a tiny bit:

Stationed in the area of the Baghdad Airport at the time of President Bush’s Thanksgiving 2003 visit to the troops there, he also recounts that on the day before the president’s visit, the troops were given a questionnaire that asked them whether they “supported the president.” Those who did not declare their support with sufficient enthusiasm were not permitted to take part in the Thanksgiving meal, and had to make do with MREs (meals ready to eat, referred to by the soldiers as “meals refused by Ethiopians”) in their quarters.

This interview offers a rare, unfiltered report from a first-hand participant in the invasion and ongoing occupation of Iraq.

Care to listen?

Friday's Democracy Now! features two stories that might be of interest to my readers.

• Family of Slain Soldier Calls Bush WMD Jokes "Disgraceful"



• Navy Public Affairs Officer Who Worked in Iraq Condemns President Bush & The U.S. Invasion

Of course, there is the engaging Karen Kwiatkowski as well.

Kerry's 10 Million Jobs Gambit

You've no doubt heard about John Kerry's ambitious plan to create 10 million jobs in four years. If you haven't, follow the link.

If the NRO's Kudlow thinks it's clever, it is bound to resonate well with voters.

Without getting into great detail, Kerry's plan repeals much of the Bush cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and uses the revenue to encourage corporate America to keep jobs here through a series of tax incentives.

I saved roughly 10% of my personal tax liability under Bush's plan. I am in favor of paying my old higher personal rate, in return for some services.

I have not spent a nickel of my tax reduction. I suspect that many others are in the same situation as I am. Bush's series of tax cuts in the face of huge increases in federal spending are the most fiscally irresponsible in my memory.

Whether or not Kerry's plan is the magic bullet to jumpstart job growth is unknown. I am inclined to think that it is not. There is too much of a wage differential between workers in the U.S. and workers in emerging regions to make it likely that a tax benefit package is likely -- by itself -- to keep jobs from being moved overseas. Or over our northern and southern borders.

I do applaud Kerry for making an attempt to keep jobs here. He is using the only real tool at his disposal. But I fear it will not be enough.

That Kerry is focused on job creation, and actually has a potentially viable plan set-up to stop the hemorrhaging of jobs out of the U.S. is certain to play well with voters.

Another side of the tax issue that we hear little about from our lying corporate media, is that in order to offset the loss of revenue form the federal level, state and municipal taxes have been raised..or services cut. Either option isn't particularly attractive, and I would make this an issue.

It is a big issue.

I could go on for days about the subject of progressive taxation, but I'll not bore my readers any longer than necessary.

I think you've had enough. :)

Still puzzled over Bush's joke.

At least none of the usual suspects have defended him as far as I can tell.

Ed Gillespie of course defended Bush's gaffe, but none of the Corporate Punditocracy.

It's too hot to handle, and really indefensible.

***************************************

Polls:

Lou Dobbs wants to know what you think the best measure of the strength of the U.S. economy is...

....while MSNBC wants to know who you'd vote for if the presidential election "were held this week."

***************************************

I've uploaded a short Chomsky piece from 03/21/2004. It's around 9MB. Short and a good listen. You can download it here

***************************************

Gotta feed. Give Noam a listen if you have the time.

Bush's Big Joke

"Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere. Nope, no weapons over there. Maybe under here?"

I now must put Bush in the category of: Wholly Unfit to Manage a 7-11.

Much less this country.

589 dead. Untold billions spent and to be spent. How many thousand Iraqis dead?

Bastard.

"If George Bush thinks his deceptive rationale for going to war is a laughing matter, then he's even more out of touch than we thought.'' - John Kerry regarding Bush's "joke(?).

Let's take a quick look at the people that must all be delusional if the Bush administration is to be believed.

• Richard A. Clarke



• Karen Kwiatkowski



• Greg Thielmann



• Paul O'Neill



• Joseph Wilson

I'm sure there are more, but these are all highly reputable people. Who's the liar?

Well, it looks like Clarke has won round one.

Kaplan and Saletan over at Slate have summed things up nicely.

Clake is not going to be easily discredited. In fact, I would argue that the Bushies full frontal assault merely confirms what Clarke wrote in his book, and testified to the 9-11 Commission about.

No one is providing any documents to counter Clarke's most serious charges.

Bush should have never kept an honest man on as a staffer.

Karen Kwiatkowski's Latest

A True Patriot™

Clarke's Introductory Statement Before The 9-11 Commission:

"I welcome these hearings because of the opportunity that they provide to the American people to better understand why the tragedy of 9/11 happened, and what we must do to prevent a reoccurrence.

"I also welcome the hearings because it is finally a forum where I can apologize to the loved ones of the victims of 9/11, to them who are here in the room, to those who are watching on television.

"Your government failed you. Those entrusted with protecting you failed you. And I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn't matter, because we failed. And for that failure, I would ask, once all the facts are out, for your understanding and for your forgiveness."

************

Clarke's the first person to apologize to the survivors. Is this the kind of person that the Bushies want to smear? I think not.

New Get Your War On!

Yes Virginia, the DNC plays games with facts, too.

I don't know why we can't have the level of debate that we need as citizens to make informed decisions as voters. Bush's record on pretty much everything is bad. There's no need to make $hit up about his policies.

I am partisan. Partisan to the truth.

Information wants to be free - Cheney vs. The People

....Significant evidence points to the possibility that much more could be revealed than mere corporate cronyism: The national energy policy proceedings could open a window onto the Bush administration's decision-making process and motives for going to war on Iraq.

In July 2003, after two years of legal action through the Freedom of Information Act (and after the end of the war), Judicial Watch was finally able to obtain some documents from the Cheney-led National Energy Policy Development Group.

They included maps of Middle East and Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, two charts detailing various Iraqi oil and gas projects, and a March 2001 list of "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," detailing the status of their efforts. The documents are available at JudicialWatch.org.

These documents are significant because during the 1990s, U.S. policy- makers were alarmed about oil deals potentially worth billions of dollars being signed between the Iraqi government and foreign competitors of the United States including France's Total and Russia's LukOil.

The New York Times reported the LukOil contracts alone could amount to more than 70 billion barrels of oil, more than half of Iraq's reserves. One oil executive said the volume of these deals was huge -- a "colossal amount."....[snip]

Much More at Link

I recall a time when anyone that suggested that Cheney's Energy Policy Group had designs on Iraq's oil was labeled a tin hat conspiracy theorist. But as with much with this Adminidtation yestrday's conspiracy theory becomes tomorrow's conventional wisdom.

**************************************

On a compleltey unrelated note: when is the NYT going to pink-slip that shallow Bush apologist, neconservative shill David Brooks?

That guy has no imagination. When he strays from his 'neocanned' script, he is utterly asea. It's shameful.

I'm only pointing this out because I like the guy ;)

'Your Government Failed You'

I haven't read through all of today's testimony, but from reading the above article, Richard Clarke appears to have laid out a plan which may have thwarted the 9/11 attacks.

I caught Clarke about 50 minutes into his testimony.

I have now listened to somewhere on the order of 8 hours of the 9-11 Commission testimony..and I feel that the Commission is a tool to mollify the outrage of the survivors of the attacks.

I don't think that's being cynical, I think it's being realistic. All I have heard is a series of softballs with the rare curve thrown in an attempt to look legitimate.

I understand the today's yestimony is being rebroadcast on C-Span radio, if not television.

Justine at THBB has the full transcript up from yesterday's hearing.

Here is a portion of the transcipt from the 9-11 commission from yesterday concerning Deputy Wofowitz, and hia somewhat evasive answer to related questions posed by Commission member Timothy J. Roemer.

ROEMER: So the cost-benefit ratio of a million dollar cruise missile to taking out some people that can come kill others was one we just didn't consider, I don't think, in the right kind of cost-benefit analysis in the long run.

One final question: Again, Secretary Wolfowitz, this is again to be fair, and I want to shoot straight with you on this. We have Mr. Clarke coming up tomorrow. And he has a reference in his book to an April 30th deputies meeting, where he claims -- and we want to know if this is accurate or not, so that we can ask him the direct questions tomorrow -- he claims that in this meeting, when they were talking about a plan to go forward to go after bin Laden and Al Qaida, that you brought up the subject of Iraq and that you put too much attention on Iraq as a sponsor, as a state sponsor of terrorism and not enough emphasis on Al Qaida as a transnational sponsor of terrorism.

I have just two comments or two questions on that. One would be: Is that fairly accurate? Is his portrayal of that deputies meeting accurate at all or accurate to some degree?

And secondly, in an interagency meeting, where dialogue and discussion of these things should take place, that's what the interagency process is about, isn't that where these discussions should take place, that opinions should be bounced back and forth and debate should be heated at times about the different threats to the world?

Simple enough. Wolfowitz's answer:

WOLFOWITZ: In case I wasn't clear,[and he certainly wasn't. ed.] I was not dismissive of Al Qaida as a threat. The whole meeting was about Al Qaida. I also believed that state support for terrorism was a problem. But I have never been dismissive of Al Qaida, and I think precisely because I think terrorism is such a serious problem, as I testified as early as my confirmation hearing.

This is the extent of his answer about Iraq. He mentions Iraq not once, in a question directly about Iraq. I have no idea why Mr. Roemer didn't reframe the question to cause Mr. Wolfowitz to answer in a yes or no manner. I certainly would have.

Wolfowitz deftly dodges answering the Iraq question directly.

Update on our Coalition of One series Croatia dumps US, Backs EU

A snip:

ZAGREB, Croatia (Reuters) - Croatia drew back Tuesday from previous indications it would send troops to Iraq and sign a deal with Washington exempting U.S. troops from prosecution by the International Criminal Court.
Speaking just before a visit to Washington, Foreign Minister Miomir Zuzul's comments represented a turnabout by the new government, which took office in December pledging to seek better ties with Washington.

The new stance was likely to disappoint President Bush's administration as it seeks to broaden a U.S.-led global anti-terror alliance. It follows Spain's decision after elections this month to pull its troops out of Iraq.

"In the current global relations, I do not think it would be good to consider (sending troops to Iraq) now. I think everyone is aware of that," Zuzul told Reuters.

He stressed Croatia remained firmly "part of the global anti-terror coalition," adding that he hoped Washington would understand the former Yugoslav republic's new stance.

Zuzul, a former Croatian ambassador in Washington, also said his country had no plans to sign an accord barring the handover of U.S. military or state officials to the International Criminal Court.

He said Zagreb had told Washington it had to take into account European Union views on the issue. The EU has advised countries against signing the agreement.

Meanwhile in Iraq...

The Media Continues to Only Carry BAD Stories

Iraq is, by all published accounts, growing more deadlier for Iraqis. What a terrible mistake. This must never be allowed to happen again. This month alone, at least 240 Iraqis have died in occupation related violence. How do you address that? I simply cannot.

Bush sleeps, but the killing never does.

Record Gasoline prices to Fuel Bush's Defeat

Well, that's not exactly how the headline reads. But, if you have to spend more on energy costs, then you have less to spend on everything else, which costs more due to increased shipping costs due to higher energy costs.

This has to be another chink in Bush's armor.

Or a 'twofer,' if you're so inclined. Not only have his abysmal foreign policies increased geo-political risks, but he has gutted the EPA whilst doing so. A real bonus for those of you lucky enough to hitch a ride to the nearest habitable planet.

For the rest of us, it's just really bleak.

Dick Clarke Is Telling the Truth

Why he's right about Bush's negligence on terrorism.

Clarke's distinction, of course, is that he was the ultimate insider—as highly and deeply inside, on this issue, as anyone could imagine. And so his charges are more credible, potent, and dangerous. So, how has Team Bush gone after Clarke? Badly.

To an unusual degree, the Bush people can't get their story straight. On the one hand, Condi Rice has said that Bush did almost everything that Clarke recommended he do. On the other hand, Vice President Dick Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's show, acted as if Clarke were a lowly, eccentric clerk: "He wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff." This is laughably absurd. Clarke wasn't just in the loop, he was the loop.

Cheney's elaboration of his dismissal is blatantly misleading. "He was moved out of the counterterrorism business over to the cybersecurity side of things ... attacks on computer systems and, you know, sophisticated information technology," Cheney scoffed. Limbaugh replied, "Well, now, that explains a lot, that answer right there."

It explains nothing. First, he wasn't "moved out"; he transferred, at his own request, out of frustration with being cut out of the action on broad terrorism policy, to a new NSC office dealing with cyberterrorism. Second, he did so after 9/11. (He left government altogether in February 2003.)

Kaplan does a nice job in this article. Go give it a read.

Wolfowitz does not deny that he put Iraq over Aghanistan in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. I'll get the transcript later.

He was directly asked a pointed question about Clarke's assertion the Wolfowitz put Iraq above Afghanistan in "deputy meetings." He said that al-Qaeda was always discussed and important to him. Deftly dodging the question.

In the interim CAP rights the White House's spins in a move to discredit him. Documents abound.

Bush distorts! I know. It is hard to believe.

THE PRESIDENT: We're beginning to see a pattern here. (Laughter.) Senator Kerry is one of the main opponents of tax relief in the United States Congress. However, when tax increases are proposed, it's a lot easier to get a 'yes' vote out of him. (Laughter.) Over the years, he's voted over 350 times for higher taxes on the American people --
AUDIENCE: Booo!
THE PRESIDENT: -- including the biggest tax increase in American history. He also supported a $.50 gallon tax on gasoline.
AUDIENCE: Booo!
THE PRESIDENT: He wanted you to pay all that money at the pump and wouldn't even throw in a free car wash. (Laughter.) Now, Senator Kerry is proposing a lot of new federal spending in this campaign. He's going to have pay for it somehow. There's a gap between Senator Kerry's spending promises and Senator Kerry's promise of a lower deficit. It's what I call a tax gap. Given Senator Kerry's record of supporting tax increases, it's pretty clear how he's going to fill the tax gap. He's going to tax all of you.
AUDIENCE: Booo!
THE PRESIDENT: Fortunately, you're not going to give him that chance. (Applause.)

Oh, really? 350 times..wow Unfortunately for Mr. Bush, there is a thing called the INTERNET.

Annenberg's Indespensible Fact Check does the heavy lifting.

When can an author count on increasing sales and publicity for a new and controversial book?

When it gets banned due to fear of lawsuits stemming from its content is a good start.

HOUSE OF BUSH, HOUSE OF SAUD - BANNED IN BRITAIN!

A publicist's dream!

Buy the book!

Those pernicious liberals over at the Center for American Progress are at it again. Using documentation to support America hating Richard Clarke.

The nerve of those leftys!

Bill Press does a nice job of framing a number of contentious campaign issues in this little piece.

A bit:

...On foreign leaders, here's how it started. At a private fund-raiser in Florida, a guest told Kerry he'd just returned from overseas, where he encountered a lot of anti-American sentiment. The pool reporter covering the event didn't catch the exact quote, but Kerry replied something like this: "I've met with more leaders who can't go out and say this publicly. But boy, they look at you and say: 'You've got to win this. You've got to beat this guy.' We need a new policy. Things like that."

At which point, the White House went ballistic. Both President Bush and Vice President Cheney demanded - demanded! - that Kerry release the complete list of leaders he had spoken to. Otherwise, said Press Secretary Scott McClellan, it was clear that he was lying.

Now, granted, it may not have been the smartest thing for John Kerry to say, even informally. But what was the White House thinking by making a federal case out of it? At least Kerry wasn't promising to deliver a "foreign-handed foreign policy" or "keep good relations with the Grecians," as Dubya did in 2000.

But let's be honest. After George W. Bush treated most foreign leaders like dog poop for the last three years, is there any doubt most of them would be happy to see him disappear? Francois Chirac and Gerhardt Schroeder, for starters. Plus Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Add Spain's new prime minister, Jose Luis Zapatero, to the list. Tony Blair may be the only world leader pulling for Dubya, but I wouldn't be so sure about him.

Why doesn't President Bush resolve this issue once and for all by releasing the names of foreign leaders who endorse his re-election? Is there even one? If Bush refuses to do so, he must be lying - again...[snip]

...Second mistake of the Bush campaign: attacking John Kerry as soft on defense. Speaking at the Reagan Library, Vice President Dick Cheney blasted Kerry's vote against the first Gulf War and against the Apache helicopter: "It is not an impressive record for someone who aspires to become commander in chief at this time of testing for our country."

What a hypocrite! As secretary of defense, guess who killed the Apache helicopter? Dick Cheney! In fact, in testimony before Congress while he was still top dog at the Pentagon, Cheney boasted of killing 81 different weapons programs. Who's soft on defense?

And how dare Bush and Cheney question John Kerry's military experience? Kerry took three bullets in Vietnam and won three Purple Hearts, the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and the Presidential Unit Citation for Extraordinary Heroism. Bush and Cheney, in stark contrast, have no war record. You tell me which one is more qualified to be commander in chief.

Poor President Bush. He just doesn't get it. Every time he attacks John Kerry's military record, it only reminds voters that, rather than joining the young Mr. Kerry in Vietnam, the young Mr. Bush chose to lick stamps in an Alabama Senate campaign - while shirking his National Guard duty.

So far, the White House can prove only that Bush showed up once at Guard headquarters in Montgomery - for a dental appointment. The only drill he saw during Vietnam was a dentist's....[snip]

Fun and informative. I really needed a little levity this evening. It has been a trying night. :)

McClellan at today's press briefing

There is big trouble at the White House.

Dick Cheney on the phone with Rush Limbaugh? That's tragically comical.

Clarke "wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff,'' Vice President Dick Cheney said in a telephone interview with conservative radio personality Rush Limbaugh today. "It was as though he clearly missed a lot of what was going on.''

I have yet to hear anyone actually deny specific charges that Clarke has leveled. I think that the White House must be huddled up and trying to regroup. Today was a very dark day for the Administration.

Lest you forget, tomorrow the 9/11 commission is going to start grilling officials, present and former including Clarke.

Who has the popcorn?

Al-Qaeda a Nuclear Power?

Just one more before I go back to work. I urge anyone who is against the Iraq war and subsequent occupation to listen to Dennis Kucinich on Democracy Now!

Kucinich is really great behind the microphone. He's a really bright guy. We at pure bs like bright people. :)

A couple of quick links.

Who's Weak on Terror?

Snip:

WASHINGTON - In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows.

The document, dated Oct. 12, 2001, shows that the FBI requested $1.5 billion in additional funds to enhance its counterterrorism efforts with the creation of 2,024 positions. But the White House Office of Management and Budget cut that request to $531 million.

Attorney General John Ashcroft, working within the White House limits, cut the FBI's request for items such as computer networking and foreign language intercepts by half, cut a cyber-security request by three-quarters and eliminated entirely a request for "collaborative capabilities."

The document was one of several administration papers obtained and given to The Washington Post by the Center for American Progress, a liberal group run by former Clinton chief of staff John D. Podesta. The papers show that Ashcroft resisted FBI requests for more counterterrorism funding immediately after the attacks.

More Clarke

Snip:

It said the president told national security adviser Condoleezza Rice early in his administration he was "'tired of swatting flies' and wanted to go on the offense against al-Qaeda, rather than simply waiting to respond."

The point-by-point rebuttal confronts claims by Richard A. Clarke in a new book, "Against All Enemies," that is scathingly critical of administration actions.

Clarke wrote that Rice appeared never to have heard of al-Qaeda until she was warned early in 2001 about the terrorist organization and that she "looked skeptical" about his warnings.

"Her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before," Clarke said in the book, going on sale Monday.

Clarke said Rice appeared not to recognize post-Cold War security issues and effectively demoted him within the National Security Council staff. He retired last year after 30 years in government.

Much more at both links. Gotta run.

Update on entry below. Escape Tunnels

Allegedly the "high-level target" used these tunnels to escape as of posting time.

In other news, I see Mr. Clarke is a hot commodity amongst the daytime talk show crowd. Pretty damning stuff. As is proper, he also takes a portion of the blame.

This is one noose that the Bushies are going to have trouble 'explaining away.' Condoleezza Rice was trotted out to refute Clarke's accusations, but her language was very guarded.

At this point the truth doesn't seem to matter. The White House has been delivered a serious blow to their credibility by a guy that has served as anti-terrorism czar under 4 presidents.

This stain won't wash out.

More later.

High-Level Target? High-Level Ruse?

Okay. Tin hat time. Yes, pure bs speculation time!

*This is not hard news*

Let's go back to the latter part of last week. Pakistan believes that there is a "high-level target" being defended in the nefarious border regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan. They send troops and aircraft in to assist the U.S. with "Operation Mountain Storm."

I don't think that any of that is in question.

However, the picture now appearing is that the rumored al-Qaeda No. 2 guy, and the named dropped as the "high-level target," Ayman al-Zawahiri may have been an error. (this is where I install Rumsfeld's* 'knowns' bit of epic prose :) )

As of posting time, the level of the target is now completely unknown. It is now rumored to be a highly skilled fighting force comprised of all manner of militia types. A fighting force sans a "high-level target."

What does the U.S. do after Pakistan, a dubious ally at best - the primary nuclear proliforater in the world today - immediately do for Pakistan's assistance?

Correct. Washington marches good soldier Sec. Powell out to announce that the U.S. has granted Pakistan "major non-Nato ally" status. MNNA status now gives Pakistan a whole bag of perks.

Pakistan is now able to, for instance purchase military equipment and other defense items left behind in the region by the U.S. This can be anything from Abrams tanks to uranium penetrators(the ugly "DU" heavy metal armor piercers).

Normally, I'd let this pass without comment, but since Pakistan and India still have a dispute over the Kashmir region, the new U.S. policy could reignite tensions that have been abating as of late.

I warned you that I was going to speculate.

Did Pakistan ever believe that there was a high-level target in the mix? I think that while we'll never know the true answer, it is likely that they indeed did believe so. But, we'll most likely never know.

I don't know enough about Pakistan's governing principles to say whether or not they would intenationaaly mislead the international community. I think we all have our own opinions about that(Of course - EVERYBODY DOES IT!)

Why did the U.S. grant MNNA status to Pakistan so quickly, particularly in light of recent revelations about their nuclear program? I think it is because we have so alienated much of the world, that we need to make deals with some of the most of the worst regimes on the planet in order to fight terror.

I think a case for the reasons for U.S. - world alienation can be made that it is almost entirely of W's doing, but I'll leave that for my dear reader to ponder.

I really hate to say this, but it just shows how little we learn from our past mistakes. Now we have struck a deal with another potential "Hussein." But this is a Hussein with a nuclear arsenal at its disposal.

Musharraf came into power via military coup. As recently as a few months ago, Director of the US Defence Intelligence Agency, Vice-Admiral Lowell E Jacoby, said, "Popular hostility to the US is growing and Islamist opponents of the current government could try to instigate a political crisis through violent means."

Is this the kind of tenuous regime that we are finding ourselves having to deal with in the fight against terrorism, due to the alienation that W's willful international belligerence, and unpopular war hath wrought?

Will we never learn?

Our history in this area is not laudable.

Duped or not, we may have just made our next Saddam.

*****************************************

* : Rumsfeld's famous bit of prose re. knowns: "There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

That still cracks me up.

Random notes.

I'm still trying to get a feel for the overall size of "M20." "Millions" is just a bit to vague for me.

*************************************

At least one commentator has questioned John Kerry's decision to take a skiing vacation in Idaho as Bush tries to paint him as an elitist. It should be noted, that Kerry is staying at one of his family homes.

I think Kerry's decision to stay in the states after what has been a long, arduous year plus on the road is rather modest. Then again, I live in state where skiing is the norm. If Kerry went to the Monaco and gambled a few million bucks away, I would see this as over the top.

*************************************

9/11? What will Clarke say tonight on 60 minutes? I don't have a functioning television, so I'm going to have to make plans in order to watch the program. I know people with TVs. Shouldn't be an issue.

*************************************

Iraq. It's getting worse -- by all accounts -- for the Iraqis.

2 more GIs killed yesterday. Lunaville hasn't yet accounted for this so as of 4:35 Eastern U.S. time, I believe we have 581 killed by means other than themselves.

Added note: Bush has still not gone to one funeral, or memorial service for those killed in Iraq.

*************************************

Medicare scandal brewing. Feeding knowingly misleading data to Congress is a crime. It's starting to look like this may really stick, as the GOP House and Senate members have to uphold the law...well, that's what they're sworn in to do.

A $150 billion -- that will translate into trillions over time -- dollar lie is not likely to win the White House any favors on either side of the aisle. It gives the Democrats a serious tool to illustrate that the Bush Administration are really a bunch of 'crooked liars.' Anyone seeking re-election should want to distance themselves from this as far as possible.

Either Bush is so incompetent that he never bothered to learn the true cost of a major policy piece, or that he thought it more palatable to go with lower figures. Either scenario has Bush in trouble.

Negligence can only be overlooked for so long. Bush is so uncurious that it does seem possible that when hit with the true costs of Medicare reform he has the deer-caught-in-the-headlights look, and it didn't register.

The other, and I think, more likely scenario is that Bush was involved in cooking the books.

This issue is so important that it needs fleshing out prior to Bush's election gambit.

*************************************

Kerry. Bush has had it pretty easy with Kerry bring on vacation. I expect that once Kerry returns from vacation on Tuesday, that the battle lines will be drawn more distinctly.

There is an almost imperceptible shift in Bush's campaigning rhetoric. He has shifted from painting Kerry as 'weak on terrah' to a taxer.

McCain coming out in defense of Kerry certainly must've stung the White House.

If the ominous Medicare scandal(?) takes form quickly, the White House will be in full damage control mode, and Kerry should get a free pass for a while..well, almost free. It would be a tremendous gift from the Bush's.