Meet the New Boss

Same as the old boss.

The Independent is reporting that former generals of Saddam's regime are being recalled to serve in Iraq's 'new(wtf?)' military.

This story illustrates just how little we have accomplished in real terms of bringing change to Iraq.

Additionally, former Ba'athist party officials are being employed in the 'new(honest, it's really new)' government.

The CPA, and the IGC are seen as illegitimate by some 80 percent of the population. That was prior to this new(old?) policy shift.

Read Cockburn's piece.

This is yet another official major policy shift that underscores just how unprepared the COAB(Coalition of the Billing) was in their quest to remake Iraq.

If ever you needed an unequivocal action that affirms the maxim: "The more things change, the more they stay the same," the Bush Administration, and it's collective of neo-con advisors' and minders have provide you a "casus exemplar" of the highest(and humanistically direst) order.

If this latest policy blunder not mark the death knell for the "Bush Doctrine" - which is really just PNAC's principles implemented as policy - humanity is in far worse shape than I ever imagined.

Peace!

Blog News

Over the weekend, I'm going to adding approx. 16K to the site's file size. That's because I'm adding two linked stylesheets, and the little Javascript widget to enable you, my dear readers to switch between the styles. The switcher has a really 'dumb' cookie script enclosed within it's 1.67KB size.

I say the cookie script is dumb because it only 'remembers' but one thing. It remembers which of the alternate styles you last used whilst reading/mocking/shaking fist at/ this site.

If you know Javascript, you'll see that there is nothing nefarious about the cookie script.

Here's the cookie script:

function createCookie(name,value,days) 

{

  if (days) {

    var date = new Date();



    date.setTime(date.getTime()+(days*24*60*60*1000));



    var expires = "; expires="+date.toGMTString();

  }

  else expires = "";



  document.cookie = name+"="+value+expires+"; path=/";

}





function readCookie(name) 

{

  var nameEQ = name + "=";

  var ca = document.cookie.split(';');



  for(var i=0;i < ca.length;i++) 

{

    var c = ca[i];

    while (c.charAt(0)==' ') c = c.substring(1,c.length);



    if (c.indexOf(nameEQ) == 0)





 

return c.substring(nameEQ.length,c.length);

  }



  return null;

}



window.onload = function(e) 

{

  var cookie = readCookie("style");



  var title = cookie ? cookie : getPreferredStyleSheet();



  setActiveStyleSheet(title);

}





window.onunload = function(e) 

{

  var title = getActiveStyleSheet();



  createCookie("style", title, 365);

}





var cookie = readCookie("style");



var title = cookie ? cookie : getPreferredStyleSheet();



setActiveStyleSheet(title);

Nothing to worry about. I was going to offer a 'switch cookies off' function, but I want to keep the code as lightweight as possible to keep page load times to a minimum.

Mo' Money

Since I'm still cheesed off at my fellow countrymen over their alleged support for the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, I'll add some more fuel to the fire.

If you have been following the Bush budget process, you should be aware that his 2004 budget didn't include funds for ongoing operations in Iraq or Afghanistan.

You should also know that it's not a function of the Pentagon planner's inability to come up with figures. It's an election year dodge. Pure and simple.

Now, the Washington Post tells us that "Intense combat in Iraq is chewing up military hardware and consuming money at an unexpectedly rapid rate".

Horse dung. Just because no one can expect to keep their job in the Bush administration if they reveal unpalatable estimates for various programs and activities, does not mean that these estimates haven't been made.

Larry Lindsey was essentially 'shown the door' as Bush's Economic Adviser by claiming that war with Iraq would cost between $100 billion to $200 billion.

Medicare actuary, Richard S. Foster was threatened with termination if he gave a higher cost estimate of Medicare 'reform' to Congress.

Obviously, if you tell the truth about costs in the Bush administration, you'll soon be unemployed.

Lindsey's scurrilously high estimate has proven to be absurdly low. The talk by administration officials at the time shows a stunning lack of leveling with the 'American People' regarding the war's potential costs.

Historical Information

(no, its not like anacondoleezza's 'historical information' - this is the real thing)

This CNN article chronicles a bit of the stunning hubris of the Bush Administration.

I mean, can you believe Bush said this regarding Iraq? : "I want to remind people that Saddam Hussein, the choice is his to make as to whether or not the Iraqi situation [is] resolved peacefully. ... I hope we're not headed to war in Iraq."

"This economy cannot afford to stand an attack. And I'm going to protect the American people. The economy's strong. It's resilient. Obviously, so long as somebody's looking for work, we've got to continue to make it strong and resilient."

01/02/2003 - George Wtf Bush

An attack by Iraq? No one with a functioning organ atop their shoulders took this seriously. Brother.

It's now clear that when Bush made this ludicrous statement about Iraq attacking us, it was already a 'done deal' that Bush was going to attack Iraq. Iraq was the neo-con's 'exemplary action' of the now discredited "Bush Doctrine."

But I digress. Sorry.

Getting back to the military's money woes, WaPo reports, in part:

Intense combat in Iraq is chewing up military hardware and consuming money at an unexpectedly rapid rate -- depleting military coffers, straining defense contractors and putting pressure on Bush administration officials to seek a major boost in war funding long before they had hoped.

Since Congress approved an $87 billion defense request last year, the administration has steadfastly maintained that military forces in Iraq will be sufficiently funded until early next year. President Bush's budget request for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 included no money for Iraqi operations, and his budget director, Joshua B. Bolten, said no request would come until January at the earliest.

But military officials, defense contractors and members of Congress say that worsening U.S. fortunes in Iraq have dramatically changed the equation and more money will be needed soon. This comes as lawmakers, returning from their spring break, voice unease about the mounting violence and what they say is the lack of a clearly enunciated strategy for victory.

The military already has identified unmet funding needs, including initiatives aimed at providing equipment and weapons for troops in Iraq. The Army has publicly identified nearly $6 billion in funding requests that did not make Bush's $402 billion defense budget for 2005, including $132 million for bolt-on vehicle armor; $879 million for combat helmets, silk-weight underwear, boots and other clothing; $21.5 million for M249 squad automatic weapons; and $27 million for ammunition magazines, night sights and ammo packs. Also unfunded: $956 million for repairing desert-damaged equipment and $102 million to replace equipment lost in combat.

The Marine Corps' unfunded budget requests include $40 million for body armor, lightweight helmets and other equipment for "Marines engaged in the global war on terrorism," Marine Corps documents state. The Marines are also seeking 1,800 squad automatic weapons and 5,400 M4 carbine rifles.

Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, charged that the president is playing political games by postponing further funding requests until after the election, to try to avoid reopening debate on the war's cost and future........[snip]

Remember, the Republican's 'support the troops.' Until they ask for a few bucks.

There. I feel better now. Please read the information contained in the links. It's all very important to provide my gentle readers with a fuller picture of Bush's mis-handling of anything with a "$" sign in front of it.

If you only read one of the articles, the WaPo article is a must for today.

I've a lot more to say, but in the interest of brevity, I'll end here. :) Read. Learn. Know stuff.

Better Late Than..

Never. In These Times' Frida Berrigan, interviews Karen Kwiatkowski.

I really like Karen K. She is anti-bs. Hence, she is anti-neocon, anti-Bush and pro-democracy.

Different Planet?

New WaPo - ABC poll shows Bush in lead. Okay, I can buy that, but as to the 'why', I am having a hard time wrapping my head 'round this one.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - President George W. Bush has overtaken his Democratic rival John Kerry by a 48-43 percent margin, as Americans rate Iraq and the war on terrorism more important than the economy and jobs, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

I must be living on a different planet. Iraq is an illegal action, having NOTHING to do with terrorism. Yet it's costing thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

Terrorism? WTF?

People still buy into the pressing of the fear button. Damn sad. Pavlov's pooches had a leg up on these polled people.

I like Larry C. Johnson, former CIA analyst and deputy director of the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism's take:

"I call the color-coded system the 'terrorism mood ring.' Security isn't green, yellow and purple. This is a public relations ploy, run by people who are making decisions on security who don't really know what they're doing. They make statements that aren't backed up by any real data or empirical evidence. It's faith-based security.

"They continue to insist that this is the greatest threat we've ever faced, and that's just ludicrous. I don't want to minimize the terrible losses of 9/11, and we have to take the terror threat seriously. But let's be real: We've heard the likes of Gen. [Richard] Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, say that terrorism is the greatest threat we've faced perhaps since the Civil War. Are you kidding me? There were more than a half million deaths in that war. There were nuclear missiles pointed at us by the Soviet Union during the Cold War that could've incinerated millions instantly. Terrorists on their best day can't kill millions."

Who in their right mind - that has a working knowledge of the material - thinks Iraq was/is a good idea? Illegal wars built on lies are what the 'American people' want? Not this American.

Terrorism? Johnson nails it. Now, how do we get Joe and Josephine six-pack to put down their remote controls and learn enough about the real threat of terror, and Bush's mis-steps, to be able to make an informed decision? An informed voter is the GOP's worst nightmare.

Wake Da F*** Up, America!

Fallujah Gets a Pass

The BBC is reporting that the U.S. is going to be easing up a bit in Fallujah.

Of course, this is a 'deal.'

In exchange for:

• Better access to local hospitals so the wounded could be treated, as well as for retrieving and burying bodies



• Amnesty for people who hand in their weapons



• Easy access for ambulances



• Shortening the curfew by two hours



• Regular joint patrols between US forces and local Iraqis



• Reforming police and the Iraqi defense corps - which will be able to take over and pledge to eliminate "foreign fighters, criminals and drug users in Falluja", said Mr Senor.

The Iraqis in Fallujah must "turn in all illegal weapons."

He[U.S. spokesman Dan Senor] said the US would not resume offensive operations "if all persons inside the city turn in the heavy weapons". "Individual violators will be dealt with on individual basis," Mr Senor said.

At this juncture, collectively punishing the Iraqi people for the actions of the few that committed the atrocity of the killing and subsequent display of the four U.S. contractors is absurd. It will do nothing more than cause others to pick up arms against the coalition forces.

Dealing with individuals on a case by case basis is the only rational way to proceed. As far as the Iraqis in Fallujah giving up their 'illegal' arms, I don't know how that will play out. It seems a rather grand scheme for a city under siege. I'm sure the Iraqis - at least some of them - feel that their weapons are the only things keeping them from the grave.

We'll have to wait and see how the next few days play out. The U.S. needs to exercise patience here. I fear patience is in short supply.

The Shell Game

It's always interesting to compare and contrast the differences between ways the business press and the popular press cover corporate malfeasance.

In the CBS MarketWatch story, it seems a bit troubling. In the story in The Independent, the title: "Lies, cover-ups, fat cats and an oil giant in crisis" cuts to the bone. I like that.

Shell has been very bad.

Given that corporate 'book cooking' is still happening, you'd think that champion of everyman: G. W. Bush, would be taking a tough stance on corporate tax cheats. You'd be wrong.

From the NYT:

Since taking office, the Bush administration has repeatedly promised to get tough with tax cheats, saying it has ended a long slide in enforcement of tax laws.

But an independent analysis of new Internal Revenue Service data released today shows that tax enforcement has fallen steadily under President Bush, with fewer audits, fewer penalties, fewer prosecutions and virtually no effort to prosecute corporate tax crimes. The audit rate for the 11,200 largest corporations, which pay nearly all corporate income taxes, has fallen by almost half over the last decade, as has the audit rate for unincorporated businesses.

Link.

Ken Lay remains free. Astonishing. Maybe we can get Kenny Boy labeled an 'enemy combatant' and send him to Gitmo sans any charges whatever. :) I won't be holding my breath.

706

706 American 'casualties' in Iraq per the Pentagon. Wounded in excess of 3600.

Mordechai Vanunu

I know what you're thinking: 'Who the heck is Mordechai Vanunu?'

Mordechai Vanunu is one of the heroes of the peace and disarmament movements. He has been locked up in an Israeli prison for the last 18 years for providing the London Times with evidence of Israel's nuclear weapons program.

If you're not reading the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists on a regular basis, you're missing out on some of the very finest in accessible literature concerning all things nuke related and not. My use of the word 'accessible' in the last sentence refers to the fact that one needn't be an atomic physicist to grasp the material.

Their members' list reads like a who's who in nuclear sciences. More Nobel laureates than ought to be legal. Always fascinating reading.

Click on over and give the Vanunun article a read(I know that the links are in .pdf form, but worthy of your time).

UPDATE: The Independent is reporting that Vanunu is repeating his call that Israel's nuclear weapons be destroyed. Maybe not the most tactful thing to do while still captive. He is due to be released from prison this Wednesday.

"Casualties"

Iwas just at Lunaville's official Iraq war casualty site, and I see that thus far this month, that the U.S. has had at least 101 deaths. The previous monthly high for U.S. troops was 82 in Nov. 2003.

I see we're making real progress.

Who knows how many Iraqis have lost their lives since the beginning of hostilities?

In Fallujah this month alone there have been well in excess of 600 deaths reported. And I fear that the last half of this month may yet be bloodier.

The on-again, off-again nature of the "ceasefire" in Fallujah - which seems to mean that coalition forces won't use AC130s, tanks and attack helicopters, while marine snipers continue to shoot ambulances and TV crews - doesn't bode well for future peace.

It's unclear what role Negroponte will play, as it's reported that Bremer cannot control the 'police operations' in Iraq.

On Edit: The always resourceful Knight-Ridder Washington Bureau adds some historical perspective on the Iraqi death toll.

[snip]...The last time U.S. troops experienced a two-week loss such as this one in Iraq was October 1971, two years before U.S. ground involvement ended in Vietnam.

There are 135,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Nearly 700 American troops have died since the beginning of the war. As of Sunday, 503 had been reported killed in action. At least 3,630 more have been wounded.

The Vietnam War started with a slower death rate. The United States had been involved in Vietnam for six years before total fatalities surpassed 500 in 1965, the year President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered a massive buildup of forces. There were 20,000 troops in Vietnam by the end of 1964. There were more than 200,000 a year later.

By the end of 1966, U.S. combat deaths in Vietnam had reached 3,910. By 1968, the peak of U.S. involvement, there were more than 500,000 troops in the country. During the same two-week period of April that year, 752 U.S. soldiers died, according to National Archives records....[snip]

Link

Johnny's In, Paul's Out

ABS News is reporting that it's now official, John Negroponte is going to replace Paul Bremer as the top civilian in Iraq.

For lovers of democracy everywhere, this is a sad turn of events(not that I had any warm, fuzzy feelings for Bremer).

Negroponte of Iran-Contra infamy, Ambassador to Honduras under Reagan, and all around denier of human rights seems the right man for the job(heavy sarcasm).

Disinfopedia has a crash course on Negroponte.

Hearts and Minds

Go. Read. It's only a couple of paragraphs. Important ones, though.

Woodward: The Oil

On 60Minutes last night, Woodward got to the issue that everyone knew was at least on the periphery of the Iraq war equation. No surprise, Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia knew what all of us should have known.

Here's a bit:

....But, it turns out, two days before the president told Powell, Cheney and Rumsfeld had already briefed Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador.

"Saturday, Jan. 11, with the president's permission, Cheney and Rumsfeld call Bandar to Cheney's West Wing office, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Myers, is there with a top-secret map of the war plan. And it says, ‘Top secret. No foreign.’ No foreign means no foreigners are supposed to see this," says Woodward.

"They describe in detail the war plan for Bandar. And so Bandar, who's skeptical because he knows in the first Gulf War we didn't get Saddam out, so he says to Cheney and Rumsfeld, ‘So Saddam this time is gonna be out, period?’ And Cheney - who has said nothing - says the following: ‘Prince Bandar, once we start, Saddam is toast.’"

After Bandar left, according to Woodward, Cheney said, "I wanted him to know that this is for real. We're really doing it."

But this wasn’t enough for Prince Bandar, who Woodward says wanted confirmation from the president. "Then, two days later, Bandar is called to meet with the president and the president says, ‘Their message is my message,'" says Woodward.

Prince Bandar enjoys easy access to the Oval Office. His family and the Bush family are close. And Woodward told 60 Minutes that Bandar has promised the president that Saudi Arabia will lower oil prices in the months before the election - to ensure the U.S. economy is strong on election day.

Woodward says that Bandar understood that economic conditions were key before a presidential election: "They’re [oil prices] high. And they could go down very quickly. That's the Saudi pledge. Certainly over the summer, or as we get closer to the election, they could increase production several million barrels a day and the price would drop significantly."......[snip]

Well. That's a tidy little bit of covert diplomacy. Tsk, tsk.

My favorite part is this:

“And there's this low boil on Iraq until the day before Thanksgiving, Nov. 21, 2001. This is 72 days after 9/11. This is part of this secret history. President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically, and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, ‘What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.’"

Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam - and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.

"Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the preparations in Kuwait, specifically to make war possible," says Woodward.

"Gets to a point where in July, the end of July 2002, they need $700 million, a large amount of money for all these tasks. And the president approves it. But Congress doesn't know and it is done. They get the money from a supplemental appropriation for the Afghan War, which Congress has approved. …Some people are gonna look at a document called the Constitution which says that no money will be drawn from the Treasury unless appropriated by Congress. Congress was totally in the dark on this."

I hate to use the "I" word, but this does reach the level of an impeachable offense. I expect a lot of the Bushies to get "Reaganitis' over this.

It Woodward's assertions can be shown to be reasonably accurate, anyone that stands by Bush after this, is mired in cognitive dissonance.

I still think Woodward's a putz. But he did do something of import here. For that he is to be congratulated.

Oh. the link ;)

New GYWO

Get Some!

Ten Iraq Links

Muktada al-Sadr's backers are reportedly predicting an attack on the city of Najaf after negotiations broke down earlier today.

The Aussies are out of Iraq by December. Imagine, Ahmed Chalabi couldn't persuade them to stay on? Boggles the mind.

Arab News is reporting that a Sunni group is allying itself with al-Sadr. Mohamed Ayash Al-Kubaisi, representative of the Muslim Clerics Association, told Al-Arabiya television said, "Iraqis are aware that it?s not in our interests to compete for sectarian gains. The Shiite resistance... strengthens our will as we are both fighting the same enemy."

King Abdallah of Jordan who is seen as a moderate in the region(save for the neocons) sees anti-American sentiment like never before. Speaking stateside, he said today, "this[the Iraq war] has created for the first time that I have felt in the Middle East ... some sort of animosity that I never felt or heard about toward the United States." He ought to know.

Okay, I don't think this was meant as satire, but..well, you'll see. Jennifer Loven, writing for the AP tells us what we need to know about the 'power of incumbency.' Yes, she is writing about Bush. Honest. She writes, '-Photo opportunities such as Bush's surprise Thanksgiving visit to American troops in Baghdad and his dramatic, flight-suited landing on an aircraft carrier to announce the end to major combat in Iraq.' This is a positive? For Kerry absolutely. I put it here, because she mentioned Iraq a couple of times. I think someone needs to have a talk with Ms. Loven.

You could see this coming. Karl Rove regrets the 'Mission Accomplished' banner. *Snicker* This is precious. Here's Herr Rove: "I wish the banner was not up there. I'll acknowledge the fact that it has become one of those convenient symbols." Convenient? Yes, it is all that. Maybe Karl can give Ms. Loven a call.

I guess the neoconswill take a pass on Iran. Sure Khatami is blustering. But he does have a good point. Iran would be a much tougher situation than Iraq, and we know how easy that has been(heavy sacrasm filled with sadness). I wonder if Rummy thinks there are any good targets in Tehran? We'll likely never know. Good thing.

Jennifer Loven again. She must have has a busy day. Here she tells us that Tony and George welcome a U.N. expanded role in Iraq. I think that position is axiomatic.

A very angry voice from an Iraqi ex-patriot living in Canada.

The above piece reminds me, if you want to know how the Arab street is feeling about things, the English version of Islam Online is a good bet. I'm not counting that as a link. Just an FYI.

You've probably heard about the two highways being closed leading into Baghdad, but read the remarks. It doesn't sound especially promising.

Foreign fighters in Iraq. No, not 'al-Qaeda types,' or the U.S and British militaries. Nor those that have reportedly 'answered the call of jihad.' These are mercenaries, and they are finding work - and lots of it, in Iraq.

KBR, a wholly owned subsidiary of Halliburton has been having a job fair in the Florida panhandle. Some applicants reportedly walked out after learning that most of the jobs are in war zones. Others were hired on the spot. War profiteering is really an ugly thing.

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

That's more than ten! And no repeats..although there is some overlap and overtly cynical dovetailing.

Iraq and DeBug

There are numerous reports of fierce fighting and many(more) dead in Iraq. At least 5 marines and 'dozens' of Iraqis are reported killed in fighting in Husaybah, near the Syrian border.

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

While they die, Tom DeLay(R-Retard) is accusing the 9-11 Commission of 'parisan mudslinging.' There is precedent to call DeLay a genuine expert in mudslinging. Although I think he prefers bovine excrement.

Here's a bit:

In a letter to commission chairman Thomas Kean on Friday, DeLay said he was troubled by what he believed was "gotcha-style questioning" during the panel's recent hearings with national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and top officials from the FBI and CIA.

"The camera-driven tone of the hearings undermines the commission's credibility, distracts the American people from the gravity of the war on terror, and could send dangerous messages to unfriendly eyes and ears around the world," DeLay wrote.

Kean, a former New Jersey governor and a Republican, denied the 10-member panel was politically motivated and said it was committed to a full accounting of the events leading up to Sept. 11. Some of the commissioners' disagreements with witnesses during the hearings were a natural result of open debate, he said.

"Sometimes the public exchanges are pointed, but no more so than in the Congress itself," Kean responded in a letter to DeLay. "Our answer to our critics can only be the quality of our report."

DeLay is a knuckle-dragging case in hypocrisy. DeLay has to be amongst the blindly partisan invertebrate on the national political scene.

"Dangerous messages to unfriendly eyes and ears around the world?"

Please.

Tom, it's called democracy.

Asshole

New look

I decided the ol' blog needed a coat of spring paint. I have four style sheets that I like to varying degrees. I like this look very much.

I'm going to offer visitors the option to choose amongst three styles. The one you're looking at :), the darker one that was here up until a moment ago, and a basic greyscale(newsprint) style.

I am having issues with my previously debugged style-switcher. It works in IE, but hangs in Gecko based browsers - Mozilla, Firefox, Firebird, etc.

I should have it figured out by the end of the weekend. It's got cookie persistancy, and it's super lightweight.

I hope you like this look. It's a more friendly appearance. Please comment.

Nukes: Thumbs down

PIPA/Knowledge Networks conducted a poll in March concerning American's feelings about nuclear weapons testing and their fears about WMD. For the abstract and other good stuff, see the links from this page. Note: .pdf files - Acrobat reader required.

People surveyed showed strong majorities to be in favor of multi-lateral inspections regimes, including the U.S. to ensure compliance with the various international conventions. A very positive thing.

Because people tend to read what's on the page, rather than follow links to information, I'll post some of the findings here.

A near unanimous 92% favored giving international inspectors the power to examine biological research laboratories in all countries, including the US, to determine if they are abiding by the treaty against biological weapons, and 74% incorrectly assumed that the US favors inspections, too. When a separate sample was told the US argument that "If international inspectors can look into US biological research laboratories they may get information that they can use for their country's advantage in commercial biotechnology and biodefense," support was lower, but still strong at 76%.

Eighty-seven percent favored US participation in the treaty banning all nuclear weapons testing (CTBT) and 56% incorrectly assume that the US is already a member. When presented several arguments for and against participation, including the concern that it would limit development of US nuclear weapons, support was almost unchanged at 84%.

A majority (59%) is not aware that the US made a commitment to seek the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons as part of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. However 84% think doing so was a good idea and 86% think the US should make greater efforts toward that goal. Even without this information 61% favor pursuing the goal of elimination of nuclear weapons, though two-thirds recognize that this is not the goal of the Bush administration.

In general, Americans show a readiness to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in US security policy. Fifty-seven percent favor the US reaffirming its commitment to not use nuclear weapons against countries that do not have nuclear weapons, as a way of encouraging them not to acquire or build nuclear weapons. Despite heightened concerns about a chemical or biological attack, 84% oppose seeking to deter such an attack by threatening nuclear retaliation. Eighty-one percent oppose the US ever using nuclear weapons first. Eighty-two percent favor the idea of the US and other nuclear powers agreeing to reduce the number of nuclear weapons on high alert.

When asked whether it is necessary to develop new types of nuclear weapons, 65% said that it is not. However when a separate sample was presented a series of arguments for and against developing new nuclear weapons, some arguments in favor were found convincing and afterwards the percentage saying that it was not necessary was lower--59%. The most convincing argument, though, was a con argument that said, "The immense destructiveness of nuclear weapons makes it critical that the US discourage other countries from developing them. The US would be setting a bad example if it were to abandon its restraint and start developing new types of nuclear weapons," which 63% found convincing.

Americans show a readiness to make deep cuts in the number of US nuclear weapons. Asked how many nuclear weapons the US has ready to be used on short notice the median estimate was 200-far below the actual number of approximately 6,000 active strategic warheads, more than 2,000 of which are on high alert. Nonetheless, asked "How many nuclear weapons do you think the US needs to make sure other countries are deterred from attacking it," the median response was a mere 100. Also, while the Bush administration has proposed only dismantling nuclear weapons that come under US-Russian arms reduction agreements, 72% reject this reversible approach in favor of completely destroying them.

On the biological weapons front, 68% opposed the idea of inventing new infectious diseases as part of biodefense research--rejecting the pro argument that "it is always possible that terrorists will also develop them and we need to be ready with new vaccines and antidotes against them," in favor of the argument that if the US does, "then other countries are more likely to do so and there is too great a danger that the new infectious diseases will be released into the environment by accident or malicious intent."

Consistent with the support for deemphasizing the role of military threats in dealing with the threat of proliferation, support for increased defense spending has slipped to its lowest point in a decade. Just 16% said the US spends too little on defense, while the percentage saying that it spends too much-41%-was the same as the percentage saying the present level is about right. The last time the percentage saying the US spends too little has been so low was in January 1992 (NBC/Wall Street Journal).

More broadly, Americans show strong support for a multilateral approach to US security interests. Asked to choose between two statements, only 16% chose the one that said, "The US should use its power to make the world be the way that best serves US interests and values." Rather, 83% chose the one that said, "The US should coordinate its power together with other countries according to shared ideas of what is best for the world as a whole." Similarly, 79% rejected the argument that "Since the US is the most powerful nation in the world, we should go our own way in international matters, not worrying too much about whether other countries agree with us or not"-historically a very high percentage for this trendline question that has been asked for decades.

Interesting stuff to a numbers geek like me. Obviously people are concerned if not a little bit ignorant about where the U.S. stands on various issues.

I'll bet with a series of qualifying questions leading up to the big question as to the proper amount of military spending, you could shift most of that 'other' 41 percent to answer that the U.S. spends too much on its military.

When you look at the numbers of people that are for non-proliferation of weapons, it doesn't make a great deal of sense that the U.S. spends roughly as much as the rest of the world combined - or at least the next 50 countries combined - that 57 percent of respondents think that the U.S. either spends the right amount, or not enough on offense(let's call a spade a spade here. Spending on the military is primarily for offensive operations). An odd position, but not unexpected in a country where irrational fear is engendered by the politico/media establishment.

You can read the results as well as I can. It shows that people aren't likely to vote for 'mini-nukes' even in the current climate of fear - the 'background level' for the threat of terrorism is 'elevated' (you know 'yellow' or Ernie, I believe).

All in all, a very positive poll. People realize that the U.S. isn't alone in the world, and that we have some blood on our hands.

Bush v. Treasury

Is Bush just really confused? His own Treasury Department contradicts his campaign's message.

Since it's a tax issue, I can't hold Bush too accountable. He's an MBA, and they are infamous for their inability to 'do the math.' ;)

At this point, it's Bush's only campaigning tool. Pretty much everything else he was going to run on is now a liability. From being 'tough on terror' to ummm being 'tough on terror,' his campaign is unraveling.

Click on over to Fact Check and give a Republican a math quiz. It'll be fun, I promise.

Lying in Your Email

This time Annenberg's Fact Check is dishing out the truth regarding an email being circulated that's infested with presumably GOP lies.

Annenberg's Brooks Jackson sets the record straight.

Some of this stuff will surely end up on Snopes along with that stupid Robin Williams foreign affairs hoax. I have received that one at least a dozen times. Some of the senders have grad. degrees.

Critical thinking should really be taught in schools. Americans are so easily taken in by utter bs. It's sad commentary on the state of our education here in the US of A. *sigh*

Woodward too?

Well, well. It seems that Bob Woodward is really free of morality. Of course in November of 2002 when it was financially advantageous - as well as politically safe - to paint Bush as a warrior, Woodward fawned praise on our Commander-in-Chief.

Woodward's OLD Bush book, Bush at War was a flattering bit of tripe. Woodward's NEW Bush book, Plan of Attack, reportedly casts the Bush Administration in a far different light.

I'm no fan of W, as I feel that he is wholly unqualified to lead this nation.

Bob Woodward, who has had unsurpassed access to the Bushies, looks - and I'm being kind here - like a faux patriot.

Woodward's latest work is more or less likely to be a corroboration of things that numerous former Bush Administration officials have been saying since Greg Theilmann first spoke to PBS' Frontline a couple of years ago, and then the O'Neill/Suskind book came out and Clarke's, ad infinitum. Now that Bush bashing is in vogue, Woodward unwraps another book exposing the Bush's plans to invade Iraq and take out Saddam.

His 'coming out' will be in this week's installment of 60 Minutes. I know, I was shocked as well.

Fish wrap.

Poor Bob, he had a career once. He was involved in exposing a thing called "Watergate." Now the only thing he's exposing is his yellow streak.

"A courageous man prefers death to the surrender of self-respect." - Mohandes K. Gandhi

I wonder what Woodward prefers?

I am all for getting to the truth about Bush's Iraq plans. Now that it is 'safe' to talk about such matters, Woodward enters the fray. I'm sorry, but Woodward is damaged goods. Too bad. I'm sure his book will fill-in lots of gaps.

Out of the loop

I am so out of the loop right now. It's very sad ;) Because I've received some negative feedback as of late, I'm working on two new style sheets for the blog.

The first one, which I'm nearly finished, is for those that have observed that my blog is too dark. I think you'll like the results. I'm liking it very much....and I'm my own harshest critic.

The other stylesheet will give the blog a much more newspaper look. Not as fun, but industrial.

I have a newly worked out style-switcher in Javascript..it works in all JS capable browsers.

So, if you pop by say..On the 17th or 18th, you'll be able to view the blog in any of three styles.

I'll post some 'ouvelles de la politique' either later on this evening, or tomorrow.

If you can bear with my idiosyncrasies for another 48 hours, I think you'll like the new viewing options.

In the interim, if there is anything you are interested in and the usual suspects aren't bearing fruit..try News Now, the amazing UK news aggregation service.

One thing..I was just reading this CS Monitor piece, and while hand-wringing over just what label to apply to the utter chaos in Iraq, the writer, Jeffrey Shaffer fails to mention the most likely scenario.

It is becoming clearer with every passing hour that the Iraqi people are simply not going to sit idly by while the U.S - who is seen by many Iraqis as another repressive ruler - serves as a surrogate for Saddam. Iraqis want law and order. Being people with a sense of pride mixed with a healthy dose of outrage, they seem bent on pursuing whatever course allows them to be a free people.

You can forget about WMD. Everyone with any semblance of critical thinking skills and not ignorant of the situation knows that we lied our way into Iraq. The Iraqis are all too aware if this. Now we are killing them ofttimes without provocation. If what is happening over there was to happen here, I'd be an armed 'insurgent.' I think the term Mr. Shaffer is searching for is patriot.

The Iraqis are doing everything in their power to drive the invaders out. Sure it's tough to hear and watch, but turn the tables. What would you do? Anything and everything you could to drive out the occupiers. They drove out the British in the 1920s. Do not be surprised if history repeats itself.

Why do they hate us? I have no idea.

[Update: Since I posted the above, I have recieved some less than pleasant emails. To those of you that read that entire enrey and felt compelled to drop me a line, I do thank you. However, I must tell you that I am in no way condoning the atrocities being exacted upon by persons and/or groups within Iraq against any foreign persons. I am applying this to both indigenous persons as well as 'the coalition.' I was - and in hindsight can see how my entry may have engendered anger - simply trying to place myself inside Iraq as a common Iraqi. The U.S. invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq was and remains a breach of International law(see Richard Perle for details). The Iraqis no doubt see this as a war fought under a bogus pretext, and now view everything that the coalition does, and the IGC with skepticism if not outright cynicism. I still maintain that if the tables were turned, we would do likewise. Thank you.]

Distortions

In Slate piece, TNR regular Jonathan Chait, points out the obvious. Namely that GWB distorts his opponents' positions on terror. Not really anything new there.

He fails to correct Right-Wing hack, and former W speechwriter David Frum who wrongly wrote in the nearly unmentionable National Review™ - A Rupert® Murdoch® Publication® when he penned(typed?) that "It was George W. Bush, first, who recognized that this war[against international terrorism] was indeed a war."

Frum knew better. Or at least he should have. It was another faux cowboy in the White House, Ronald Reagan, who in 1981 averred, "let terrorists be aware, that when the rules of international behavior are violated, our policy will be one of swift and effective retribution." Over the remainder of his terms in office, Reagan and his Cabinet would employ the tools of war, espionage, secret negotiation, and finally international law enforcement, in the effort to combat terrorism.

It should be pointed out that whilst Reagan was fighting terrorism in Libya and Lebanon, Reagan was also arming and training anti-communist groups like the Contras and the mujahideen.

Consider Frum's statement an example of the 'doctrine of change of course.' Simply put, every few years we move in a new direction - often a repeat of an old pattern - and conveniently forget the less glorious consequences of our past which we were denying even as it was taking place.

Iran - Contra is a notable example of 'the doctrine' in effect.

Oddly enough, W's dad never mentioned being at war, or fighting back against terrorists.

However, Clinton did.

Read Chait's piece at Slate. It's quite good. I promise. :)

Dear John

If you're going to reuse a phrase that implies a known data set, just do it. Don't fudge it.

Once again, Annenberg's Fact Check does the heavy lifting.

This time Kerry falls under the watchful eye of the Annenberg Public Policy Center.

I'll leave it up to the reader to determine what items should be covered when gauging the nation's 'misery'. I'd say that unilateral unpopular illegal war should be included. But then, that's me.

If you're going to compare 'apples to apples,' make sure that they're the same varieties of apples. This isn't reasoned dicourse. It's unsound obfuscation. I have no tolerance for bs(blog name notwithstanding :) )

Unfiltered Iraq News

Here's the Free Speech Radio News segment about Iraq from 12 04 2004.

I also cropped today's report(13 04 2004). You can d/l the file and listen right here.

They're on a pretty fast server, and the file sizes are far more manageable.

Amazing reports coming directly from Iraq.

Peace.

Stuff - Unsorted

I haven't had a chance to read Ashcroft's statement and testimony before the 9-11 commission of earlier today.

I won't - and this is a true shame - be able to listen/watch Bush's scripted 'press conference'/address this evening. A tragedy.

If you want o get a much better sense as to what is really happening on the ground in Fallujah download and listen to today's and yesterday's broadcasts of Free Speech Radio News. Correspondent Aaron Glantz is in Baghdad, and has spoken to seemingly everyone from al-Jazeerah to (something of import beginning with "Z")     :)

Relatively small download sizes for newscasts, and well worth listening to. One caveat. If you have broadband, it won't seem like it d/l ing from the site. The server is pretty slow. I may host the reports if given permission. The request has been made.

Until Friday, it's going to be very weird at the pure bs command center. I've taken on a bit too much work. Pity that. I'd much rather be informed, and blogging :)

Bush A Casualty?

If you extrapolate Lunaville's Official 'Casualty' Count you'll quickly discover that this month is likely to be the deadliest yet for American troops in Iraq.

It is also likely to be one of the bloodiest for Iraqis.

Just off the wire is news that Hazem al-Aaraji a reported al-Sadr aide, and prominent Shi'ite cleric has been detained.

Update: Reuters is reporting that al-Aaraji has been released after questioning.

The situation is intense, and apparently very fluid in Baghdad, Najaf, Fallujah and Kerbala, with al-Sadr's al-Mahdi militia reportedly still in control of Najaf and Kerbala.

The U.S. plan to kill or capture al-Sadr and "destroy his militia" - that has been providing needed services - isn't likely to win the 'hearts and minds' of the Iraqi people.

It's as simple as dirt. The Iraqis are acting precisely as I hope we would act if an army invaded the U.S. and occupied the country.

The Iraqis do not trust the IGC, and Bremer doesn't appear to have any support at all. I fear that things are going to get far worse before they get better in Iraq.

I have a couple of accounts from Fallujah that I'll put up as .mp3s from the last couple of days. I'm working a crazy schedule, so it may be a couple of days before I get them sorted and uploaded.

I have a friend that is a foreign desk editor for the AP working in the region, and she tells me that all the reports that are coming in are almost surreal. U.S. troops "acting way outside of international conventions" is really distressing to her. It bothers me greatly as well.

WTF was Bush thinking? A$$hole.

Regime change begins at home.

Bush's re-election bid should be a casualty of the Iraq war redux.

(I know that this entry is a lot more pointed and shrill than nearly all of my other entries, but I do have emotions....honest! :)

We're Not Buyin'

Editor & Publisher has a rundown of how a sampling of the press reacted to the late Saturday night release of the now famous 6 August, 2001 PDB.

The majority of the press outlets looked at don't appear to be buying the White House pre-spin as elucidated by Dr. Rice during her appearance before the 9-11 Commission.

E&P's article does contain some 'historical information' concerning what W was doing on 7 August 2001. (Hint: His hair was not on fire)

As Tony Turns

In this entry I linked to this CNN article concerning Scalia's lack of concern for our Constitution when he had two reporters erase their audio tapes of a speech he gave in Mississippi.

Well, it looks like that heroic defender of the Constitution has had a change of heart. (no doubt he'll be needing Jarvik's latest model soon..It's humor, folks)

Tony has graciously apologized to the two reporters and revised his stance on audio recordings of his speeches so that now we may be blessed with Scalia's words in print form only. Why the big deal? He's no one I'm rushing to listen to.

So, for you press types, you can make audio recordings of Tony's speeches, but may only reproduce them in print form. They are not for airing on television or radio(I suspect that the web is verboten as well).

A tragic loss to us all. ;)

Semantic Antics

Dana Milbank, reporting for WaPo.

Bush, on a trip from his ranch here to nearby Fort Hood, said he is praying daily for fewer casualties in Iraq, where nearly 50 Americans have been killed in an uprising over the past week. But Bush said he sees no need for more troops and characterized the violence in Iraq as the work of "a few people" and "violent gangs."

"It was a tough week last week, and my prayers and thoughts are with those who paid the ultimate price for our security," Bush told reporters after praying with families of soldiers in Iraq. Asked whether the violence would ebb soon, he replied: "It's hard to tell. I just know this: that we're plenty tough and we'll remain tough."

Bush has been quoted as saying that he gets his news from his advisers, but can he really be this far out of the loop of current events?

I think we may need to redefine the following words in the following manner:

Few = Thousands (a "few people" do not typically take over three or four major cities)

Gang = Well Armed Private Militia See: Popular Uprising (gangs aren't known for providing services to people when an occupying force cannot)

We = Surrogates Sent by a President to do his Bidding

Maybe it's just me, but this sequence illustrates a Commander-in-Chief unconscionably out of touch with the reality on the ground.

Vacationing while you're private war rages uncontrollably? This man is not thinking.

Someone should let George know that prayer is no substitute for additional troops.

I wonder if Bush has heard the word "Mahdi?"

It Takes a Crook

BuzzFlash interviews convicted Watergate felon, and Nixon's chief counsel John W. Dean. The interview's focus is the why of the provocative title of Dean's new book Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush.

Worth a few minutes of your time.

QUOTES!

Well, two anyway. This is Larry C. Johnson, former CIA analyst and deputy director of the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism.

"I call the color-coded system the 'terrorism mood ring.' Security isn't green, yellow and purple. This is a public relations ploy, run by people who are making decisions on security who don't really know what they're doing. They make statements that aren't backed up by any real data or empirical evidence. It's faith-based security.

"They continue to insist that this is the greatest threat we've ever faced, and that's just ludicrous. I don't want to minimize the terrible losses of 9/11, and we have to take the terror threat seriously. But let's be real: We've heard the likes of Gen. [Richard] Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, say that terrorism is the greatest threat we've faced perhaps since the Civil War. Are you kidding me? There were more than a half million deaths in that war. There were nuclear missiles pointed at us by the Soviet Union during the Cold War that could've incinerated millions instantly. Terrorists on their best day can't kill millions."

Indeed.

These quotes came from this Salon article, which is an illustration as to how and why the Bush Administration continues to press the fear button.

If it's Christmas, go to threat level Ernie.

More Iraq

The Telegraph adds some color to my assertion below that the Sunnis and Shi'ites are forming an alliance.

The Mahdi Militia - the private army of Muktada al-Sadr - is reportedly handing out leaflets calling for both unity amongst the two sects to fight against the occupation.

In other Iraqi news, Patrick Cockburn, reporting for The Independent is stating that the cease fire is holding, even in lieu of the earlier downing of a Blackhawk helicopter and the killing of its crew of four.

There is just way too much going on in Iraq to get to all of it. News Now gives you to the minute coverage from over 16,000 news sources...Indispensable.

Ceasefire Reached

I have a bunch of items from a bunch of sources.

IOL is reporting that faced with stiff Iraqi resistance and mounting popular resentment, the U.S. occupation troops and Iraqi fighters in the restive town of Fallujah have reached a 12-hour ceasefire starting Sunday, April 11, 06:00 a.m. GMT (10:00 Baghdad time).

Aljazeerah satellite channel said that the U.S. occupation troops will pull out of the town six hours after the start of the truce.

Bush is reported to have called the past seven days of violence in Iraq: "A tough week."

Mid-East medical sources are reporting that there are 600 Iraqis dead in Fallujah alone.

Tony Blair is quoted in The Observer as saying: "We are locked in a historic struggle in Iraq. On its outcome hangs more than the fate of the Iraqi people. Were we to fail, which we will not, it is more than 'the power of America' that would be defeated. The hope of freedom and religious tolerance in Iraq would be snuffed out. Dictators would rejoice; fanatics and terrorists would be triumphant. Every nascent strand of moderate Arab opinion, knowing full well that the future should not belong to fundamentalist religion, would be set back in bitter disappointment."

The British played this movie before. Think back to circa 1920..yeah, when Churchill was keen on using chemical weapons against THAT popular Iraqi uprising.

It is great news to hear of a cease fire..however brief.

It should be clear to anyone getting their news from other than U.S. propanganda arms, that the uprising in Iraq is rapidly turning into a popular uprising.

The Sunni's and Shi'ite's are united against the coalition forces. This unification hasn't happened since Great Britain occupied Iraq in the early 20th century.

Iraq is, by accounts coming in from the region, a more dangerous place than at any time since the beginning of hostilities.

Bush can drop the "enemies of freedom" bs. These people are fighting for their freedom. Not freedom on U.S. terms. On Iraqi terms.

We're going to have to figure this one out by ourselves. The U.N. and the balance of the world community aren't likely to lend a hand in what is almost universally seen as an illegal occupation. I hope that we possess the wisdom to see this though, and to allow Iraqis the freedom for which so many of them have already died.

Sorry about the 'staccato' nature of my sentences. It's quite late for me. I promise more fluid prose tomorrow. :)

Democracy Now!

If you can spare the time, Friday's edition of Democracy Now! is definitely worth a listen.

Included in Friday's show are two ex-CIA analysts, and reknowned whistle-blower Coleen Rowley. Sibel Edmonds makes a return visit, and none of the four have very flattering things to say about the Bush Administration. I have seen Ray McGovern, one of the ex-CIA agents, on PBS, and he seems a very 'straight shooter.'

Monica Gabrielle, member of the Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Commission, Co-Chairperson of the Skyscraper Safety Campaign and a member of Member of Coalition of 9/11 Families and 9/11 Families for a Secure America chimes in with her own critique of the 9-11 Commission.

On a humorous note, a Washington state-based company that manufactures and sells bags around the world has a bit of fun with our Commander-in-chief. The company, Tom Bihn, is now selling bags with an inside label that carries instructions on washing and caring for the bags. Because the bags are sold in Canada, the instructions are also printed in French. The French version, however, contains an additional phrase that translated into English means, "We are sorry that our President is an idiot. We didn't vote for him."

I don't think that Bush is an idiot. He is, in my not so humble opinion, wholly unqualified to lead the nation, but that doesn't make him an idiot. I too, am wholly unqualified to lead this nation. But then, I KNOW I am not qualified to be pres-uh-dent. :)

The PDB

I should let this pass without comment as I'm a few days off the pace. However, I'll just post a few links.

David Usborne, reporting for The Independent counters Condi's claim, and I think rightly so, that the 6 August 2001 contained only "historical information."

Full text of the PDB:

Declassified and Approved for Release, 10 April 2004

Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a ...(redacted portion) ... service.

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told an ... (redacted portion) ... service at the same time that Bin Ladin was planning to exploit the operative's access to the US to mount a terrorist strike.

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of Bin Ladin's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the US. Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that Bin Ladin lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own US attack.

Ressam says Bin Ladin was aware of the Los Angeles operation.

Although Bin Ladin has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Ladin associates surveilled our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

Al-Qa'ida members -- including some who are US citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. Two al-Qa'ida members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our Embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ... (redacted portion) ... service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.

More links:

Bush claims PDB did not foretell of attacks

Ashcroft Never Saw PDB

DoJ and the FBI to Exchange Blows

FBI has Some Explaining to do

The American Muslim Vote

This data is about a year old, but I think one can still draw conclusions from the data. This is especially true given the recent, ongoing violence in Iraq.

This study was limited to Detroit area Muslims. Potentially, this is political dynamite, as Michigan is one the hotly contested "battleground states" in the upcoming elections.

The study, conducted by Ihsan Bagby, a professor at the University of Kentucky, has only just released the findings.

Essentially, Professor Bagby's findings are that whilst traditional Muslims have shunned politics in the past, they are now motivated by what they see as civil rights issues to become more politically active.

Professor Bagby writes:

"A couple of decades ago, Muslims were, for the most part, internally focused and had very few involvements at any level [with civic life].

"Starting in the 1980s, the Muslim community, as it matured and became a lot stronger, started to become more involved."

The 1300 surveyed Muslims, when asked about their religious beliefs were fairly evenly divided between those who took a more traditional approach to Islam, and those who believed a more liberal interpretation should be interpreted in a modern-day context. Only 8 percent said they followed ultra-conservative(fundamentalist) teachings. Curiously, the 8 percent closely follows those Christians in the U.S who regard themselves as fundamentalist Christians.

But I digress.

Nearly two-thirds of those who called themselves "most conservative" Muslims, strongly agreed that they should participate in U.S. politics.

Moving on to the bigger picture, 78 percent of all respondents said they "strongly support" political involvement. Additionally, 73 percent said Muslims should "work more closely with non-Muslims" on community service projects.

Concerning politics, not surprisingly, respondents ranked civil rights as the most important for American Muslims followed by education and U.S. foreign policy. Pre-9/11, American policy in the Mid-East had been the defining issue for the American Muslim community.

Since the survey was conducted just after the invasion of Iraq, we get to the potential bombshell. A full 85 percent of respondents disapproved of the wat Presindent Bush "was running the country." About 66 percent were registered to vote.

Note: I got some of this data from an AP wire article. The balance of the data was mined from information at Zogby International.

What does this mean? I would say that there is a strong possibility that the great majority of American Muslims -- whose real numbers are hard to come by -- will be voting for someone other than Bush in November.

If there are, as is widely reported 7 million Muslims in the U.S., this could have a profound effect on the outcome the presidential election. If, as is otherwise reported, there are as few as 1.5 million, the effect will naturally be less pronounced. See this article to see the wide variance in American Muslim population.

I'm going to leave it at this: The American Muslims are a voting force, but just how much of a force depends on numbers that there is no real consensus on. How's that for taking a stand ? :)

Kerry in the Lead

The latest NEWSWEEK poll shows Kerry leading Bush by 50% to 43%.

If you dissect the data, the biq question: "[Do you approve of] the way things are going in this country" garners just a 36% percent positive answer.

That is usually the most telling question about how voters feel about the big picture. For the Bush camp this has to a source of concern.

Then again, these early polls are for pundits and news junkies.

While you're at NEWSWEEK, take the Condi Convincing Poll

As usual the web respondents seem to be another species. Everybody's a critic :)

Semi-Random Thought

If Bush is running as a "war president," what has he done to assuage Americans' concerns about the recent and ongoing sharp escalation of violence in Iraq?

He speaks volumes by remaining mute.

Scalia: Supreme Hypocrite

Tony hails U.S. Constitution as "extraordinary and amazing," in a speech in Mississippi, while trampling freedom of the press.

Neanderthal.

Condi Files

Now that Dr. Rice has testified, I'm going to offer two Commissioner's questions and her answers per day. In the interest of brevity, I'll stick to what I see as the most controversial of matters.

Without further ado, Day 1.

KEAN: Some Americans have wondered whether you or the president worried too much about Iraq in the days after the 9/11 attack and perhaps not enough about the fight ahead against al Qaeda.

We know that at the Camp David meeting on the weekend of September 15th and 16th, the president rejected the idea of immediate action against Iraq. Others have told that the president decided Afghanistan had to come first.

We also know that, even after those Camp David meetings, the administration was still readying plans for possible action against Iraq.

So can you help us understand where, in those early days after 9/11, the administration placed Iraq in the strategy for responding to the attack?

RICE: Certainly. Let me start with the period in which you're trying to figure out who did this to you.

And I think, given our exceedingly hostile relationship with Iraq at the time -- this is, after all, a place that tried to assassinate an American president, was still shooting at our planes in the no-fly zone -- it was a reasonable question to ask whether, indeed, Iraq might have been behind this.

I remember, later on, in a conversation with Prime Minister Blair, President Bush also said that he wondered could it have been Iran, because the attack was so sophisticated, was this really just a network that had done this.

When we got to Camp David -- and let me just be very clear: In the days between September 11th and getting to Camp David, I was with the president a lot. I know what was on his mind. What was on his mind was follow-on attacks, trying to reassure the American people.

He virtually badgered poor Larry Lindsey about when could we get Wall Street back up and running, because he didn't want them to have succeeded against our financial system. We were concerned about air security, and he worked very hard on trying to get particularly Reagan reopened. So there was a lot on our minds.

But by the time that we got to Camp David and began to plan for what we would do in response, what was rolled out on the table was Afghanistan -- a map of Afghanistan.

And I will tell you, that was a daunting enough task to figure out how to avoid some of the pitfalls that great powers had in Afghanistan, mostly recently the Soviet Union and, of course, the British before that.

There was a discussion of Iraq. I think it was raised by Don Rumsfeld. It was pressed a bit by Paul Wolfowitz. Given that this was a global war on terror, should we look not just at Afghanistan but should we look at doing something against Iraq? There was a discussion of that.

The president listened to all of his advisers. I can tell you that when he went around the table and asked his advisers what he should do, not a single one of his principal advisers advised doing anything against Iraq. It was all to Afghanistan.

When I got back to the White House with the president, he laid out for me what he wanted to do. And one of the points, after a long list of things about Afghanistan, a long list of things about protecting the homeland, the president said that he wanted contingency plans against Iraq should Iraq act against our interests.

There was a kind of concern that they might try and take advantage of us in that period. They were still -- we were still flying no-fly zones. And there was also, he said, in case we find that they were behind 9/11, we should have contingency plans.

But this was not along the lines of what later was discussed about Iraq, which was how to deal with Iraq on a grand scale. This was really about -- we went to planning Afghanistan, you can look at what we did. From that time on, this was about Afghanistan.

KEAN: So when Mr. Clarke writes that the president pushed him to find a link between Iraq and the attack, is that right? Was the president trying to twist the facts for an Iraqi war, or was he just puzzled about what was behind this attack?

RICE: I don't remember the discussion that Dick Clarke relates. Initially, he said that the president was wandering the situation room -- this is in the book, I gather -- looking for something to do, and they had a conversation. Later on, he said that he was pulled aside. So I don't know the context of the discussion. I don't personally remember it.

But it's not surprising that the president would say, "What about Iraq," given our hostile relationship with Iraq. And I'm quite certain that the president never pushed anybody to twist the facts.

Two questions, two answers. Answers that have qualifiers such as "I don't recall" and "I'm quite certain," should instill doubt in persons in pursuit of what really occurred. If you look at Richard Clarke's public testimony, you see very little of this behavior.

On the question of Iraq, I think that there is too much corroboration of Clarke's account -- including Paul O'Neill's and Sir Christopher Meyer's recollections -- to let Rice's "I don't remember the discussion" statement pass without comment. This is most likely an attempt to shelter the president.

That Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz wanted to invade Iraq as an exemplary action to test PNAC's worldview is certainly no surprise.

Rice's entire answer to Kean's follow-up question is very odd. "This is in the book, I gather," can only be viewed as that she certainly has knowledge of Clarke's book, and I find it very odd indeed that by 15 Sept. 2001, it was from all accounts obvious that 9-11 was al-Qaeda's "spectacular" attack, that Iraq would even be discussed.

Clarke wrote and testified that Bush did want to connect Iraq to 9-11 and by other accounts this is reasonably confirmed.

Leave comments if you wish. I'm off for the night. Tomorrow I'll be back to 4+ items per day.

Condoleezza Live!

Listen or Watch Live!

Will the 9-11 Commission fry Rice?

Stay tuned!

Live updates:

9:18 A.M. Dr. Rice looks and sounds frightened

9:28 A.M. Pressured speech apparent

9:58 A.M. The August 6th PBD - Richard Ben-Veniste finally throws a good pitch.

10:01 A.M. Ben-Veniste asks directly that the Aug. 6th PDB be declassified (applause)

10:04 A.M. Ben-Veniste finally starts the tough questioning

10:09 A.M. Rice: "No direct threat information about a U.S. attack" in Aug. 6th PDB

10:09 A.M. Rice: Clarke was "shaking the trees" about al-Qaeda attack

It's clear that the August 6th PDB needs to be declassified in it's entirety...the PDB is titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the United States"

10:20 A.M. Commissioner Fred Fielding offers that several attacks thwarted

10:22 A.M. Fielding questions Rice about 'principals' not being involved in Bush Administration during high threat period

10:25 A.M. Rice questions whether "shaking the trees" thwarted millennium attacks. Rice credits "alert customs agent."

10:28 A.M. Gorelick is picking up where Ben-Veniste left off. She's very good.

10:39 A.M. Gorelick asks Rice about differences Bush Administration and "Operation Infinite Resolve" - The Clinton Administration's plan.

10:59 A.M. Kerrey slams Rice over the "swatting of flies" statement. Claims - "Bush never swatted any flies..so what the Hell was he talking about?"

11:04 A.M. Kerrey accuses Rice of filibustering..rightfully so. It's his time!

11:07 A.M. Kerrey claims that if intel was put on on "Intel Link" they would have "rolled this up."

11:09 A.M. Kerrey drops a bomb. Reads portion of memo: Planes to be hijacked - July 5th 2001

I'm listening This is intriguing.

A couple of notes:

Rice makes no apology.

It appears that Rice was "out of the loop," rather than Clarke.

I'll cherry-pick the transcript later :)

It's obvious that we need to get a bunch of documents declassified. Demand it!

Bah. Rice basically gets a free pass.

Bush Ad Distorts Again!

I really adore Annenberg's unbiased Fact Check. Today's winner(loser?) is a Bush attack ad that uses previously debunked material as well as new distortions. Who says you can't have it all?

Quick analysis:

Bush released yet another attack on Kerry April 1, an ad appropriately named "troubling." The Bush ad recycles a couple of bogus claims we've de-bunked before -- a misleading claim that Kerry voted for "higher taxes" 350 times and a claim that "Kerry's plan will raise taxes by at least $900 billion." We pointed out previously that the 350-vote figure is so off base that it actually counts some Kerry votes for tax cuts as votes for "higher taxes." And as we said earlier , the only tax "plan" Kerry has proposed is to repeal Bush's tax cuts for those making $200,000 a year or more, while giving some additional tax breaks to those further down the income scale.

The Bush ad also regurgitates the old refuted themes of the "50 cent per gallon" gasoline tax, and social security tax increases.

Obfuscations all. But, if you repeat a lie loudly and often enough, it becomes the truth. That was before this internet thing.

If you're interested in what Kerry really has to say about his economic initiatives, he delivered a major address yesterday at Georgetown(no relation to "W") University.

Iraq: Deadlier Than Ever

Ferocious fighting continues in many areas of Iraq with at least another 12 U.S. marines killed along with at least 66 Iraqis as the Shi'ites vow to resist the coalition occupation.

The Times of India is reporting that Najaf has been taken over by Muktada al-Sadr's militia.

For the latest news concerning Iraq see Google's aggregator and better yet The UK's fabulous News Now.

Variously, you'll find pieces questioning whether Iraqi violence could "derail" Bush's election bid to Rumsfeld recanting his statement of less than 24 hours old. He now states that he will offer more U.S. troops if requested.

That's all, gotta run.

Kerry: Fiscal Conservative?

The Independent is reporting that John Kerry is due to deliver a "major speech" tomorrow detailing a plan calling for a return to the fiscal responsibility of the 1990s under the Clinton Administration.

Republican Senator John McCain has accused the Bush Administration of spending "like a drunken sailor."

The Kerry camp is betting that through a combination of selective mix of targeted taxation - as well as tax cuts to spur job growth - and warning of the dire consequences of uncontrolled deficit spending, that their message will resonate well with the electorate.

I think that this is a very reasonable position. How it will play with the average voter remains to be seen.

Read the article. Rupert Cornwell goes into depth like few American 'papers' do.

Jobs Jobs Jobs

James Galbraith at Salon does some of the heavy lifting over March's job report.

I first heard about the Clinton job creation data of creating in excess of 300,000 jobs per month for 24 months while listening to Al Franken on Air America Radio last week. The Bush Administration can claim but 1 month of job growth in excess of 300,000.

Galbraith does add some color that I wasn't entirely aware of.

I still had two burning questions.

What do the 308,000 jobs consist of? Are wages growing enough to offset higher energy prices and taxation at the state and local levels?

This Bureau of Labor Statistics table shows pretty stagnant wage growth.

Bush's tax cut wasn't really a tax cut at all - except for the very well-to-do. It was a shifting of taxation from the federal level to the state and local level.

Essentially, while one month's numbers look good at a cursory glance, a little further scrutiny shows that real wage growth - purchasing power if you like - has contracted. This is a very troubling phenomenon, and one that doesn't lend itself to easy solutions.

Democracy: Nice Concept

Thomas Kean, Chairman of the 9-11 Commission told Tim Russert on Meet The Press yesterday that their report will contain "surprises," and that the White House will be going over their report "line by line" vetting it for national security purposes.

One can't help but be suspicious over the vetting process. After all of the stonewalling and obfuscations by this White House over nearly every substantive issue.

Kean reported that White House Chief of Staff, Andrew Card will be overseeing the vetting.

This is the same Andrew Card that said in 'selling' the Iraq war to the American people: "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce a new product in August."

I can only hope that truth, and historical accuracy trumps party this time. I am not however, holding my breath.

Iraq: More Bad News

Wapo is reporting that Shi'ite cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr is facing murder charges stemming not from this weekend's violence, but for the killing of another cleric last April.

On 10 April, 2003 a moderate Shi'ite cleric, Abdul-Majid Khoei was killed one day after the fall of Baghdad. This is the murder for which he is wanted in connection with. It is not known by this commentator if additional charges are forthcoming against al-Sadr over his call to "terrorize your enemy," which apparently incited much of the violence over the weekend.

The situation on the ground is extremely fluid with news accounts contradicting each other and more fighting between coalition forces and Iraqi militiamen being reported.

There have been reports that Fallujah - the scene of the grisly American execution style killings of last week is surrounded by U.S. and Iraqi soldiers. This in an attempt to find the perpetrators of the killings.

Additionally, Islam Online is reporting that the weekend uprising of Iraq's Shi'ites is supported by the Sunnis as well.

For up to the minute coverage of the changing situation in Iraq, point your browser to News Now's Iraq feed

My blogging will be a bit less over the next few days. I am doing marathon sessions at work :-/ :)

Three Quick Links

Leaders of 9/11 Panel Say Attacks Were Probably Preventable

New to the Job, Rice Focused on More Traditional Fears

Kerry Tries to Portray Bush as Borrow-and-Spend Leader

Iraq: GOP Style

From that madcap group of neocons that brought you, "Iraq War: The Redux" comes Jihad Spun - GOP style.

Hard to know what to say. Several expletives immediately come to mind.

More Iraq

Islam Online is reporting on what may have incited the violent clashes earlier.

"There is no use for demonstrations, as your enemy loves to terrify and suppress opinions, and despises peoples. Terrorize your enemy, as we cannot remain silent over its violations." -- Muqtada al-Sadr

Much more

I should add that Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is the anti-American cleric whose newspaper was shut-down by the U.S. backed Iraqi Governing Council. It was reported that Paul Bremer directly ordered its shut-down, as the paper according to Bremer, "not only mislead readers but constitute[d] a real threat of violence against coalition forces and Iraqi citizens who cooperate[d] with the coalition in the reconstruction of Iraq."

In addition to the newspaper shut-down, a chief aide of al-Sadr, Mustafa al-Yacoubi is reported to have been detained inciting further rage against what Iraqis see as anti-democratic practices by the IGC.

An update of the situation just came over the AP wire. 10 U.S. troops are now being reported killed as well

Bush Blew It

In thinking about how awful the whole spectrum of Iraq is, I recalled a specific instance wherein Bush could have proven himself to be a man of honor. But alas, it was not to be.

War President? Hardly.

He couldn't even make it to a common gunfight.

Sad.

Vanity Fair and Iraq

The Independent is reporting that Sir Christopher Meyer gives a detailed account - 25,000 words - to Vanity Fair magazine detailing, amongst other things, Bush's aim to invade Iraq. This dinner took place a mere nine days after 11 Sept. 2001.

This corroborates both O'Neill's and Clarke's assertions that Iraq, and ousting Saddam Hussein was a top priority of the Bush Administration.

Sir Christopher, former British ambassador to Washington, allegedly attended a private dinner where Bush asked for Blair's support in invading Iraq.

How many people have to come forward before Bush's facade of truthfulness comes crashing down?

Note: In a recent CBS Poll Bush lead Kerry by 47% to 29% in key 'battleground states' when asked, "does each candidate say what he believes?" This seems a demonstrably falsely held belief by the electorate. Either that, or Bush is delusional. A conclusion I am no longer willing to reject out of hand.

Clarke On NPR

Richard Clarke on NPR from 24 March, 2004. Relinked by reader request. It is an especially good episode.

Iraq

First of all, I would just like to acknowledge that I am fully aware of the horrific atrocities of last week. I am referring to the execution style killings and subsequent display of four Americans.

I am still attempting to get a sense of just how bad things are in Iraq. The security situation for anyone suspected or known to be assisting the 'coalition' seems especially imperiled. I am not discounting the fact that the average Iraqi also faces death on a daily basis.

This morning, MSNBC via the AP is reporting that at least 18 have been killed in another round of clashes in Najaf. Four Salvadorans and fourteen Iraqis are reported to have been killed. More than 130 are reported wounded.

The clashes followed demonstrations by Iraqis over the reported detention of Mustafa al-Yacoubi, an aide to Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

The situation is by all accounts dismal in Iraq. It's easy to point fingers at the Bush Administration and state that they didn't follow through with the numbers of troops as assessed by other departments of our government. This does nothing to help the situation we now find ourselves in, as well as the Iraqis.

I don't know - nor does anyone with intellectual integrity - what is going to happen during the transferal of 'power' to the Iraqis on 30 June, but our record of Iraq security doesn't bode well for the future.