John Kerry-George W. Bush Debate, Round 1

Left out are the great zingers, like Kerry's remark that Bush outsourced the hunting of Osama bin Laden to Afghan warlords! But this thread of back-and-forth is substantial, and worth reading. You can see that Kerry is responding to Bush, and to the facts on the ground, and our current standing in the world. Bush is simply repeating what he always says. Yes Saddam is a threat, but no you didn't really try to bring in the UN (before or immediately after), no you didn't have a plan to win the peace, and no you didn't find any weapons of mass destruction - points left out of the excerpts! In sum, Bush's words would fit if the situation in Iraq were 180 degrees different from the disaster it is now. And then it hits you, maybe his view is 180 degrees from reality...

Debate Excerpts
By The Associated Press
Excerpts from Thursday's presidential debate at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Fla.:

___
PRESIDENT BUSH:
"I believe I'm going to win, because the American people know I know how to lead. I've shown the American people I know how to lead. I have -- I understand everybody in this country doesn't agree with the decisions I've made. And I made some tough decisions. But people know where I stand."
SEN. JOHN KERRY (news, bio, voting record):
"I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are. But we also have to be smart. And smart means not diverting your attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan (news - web sites) against Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) and taking if off to Iraq (news - web sites)."
BUSH:
"My opponent looked at the same intelligence I looked at and declared in 2002 that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was a grave threat. He also said in December of 2003 that anyone who doubts that the world is safer without Saddam Hussein does not have the judgment to be president. I agree with him. The world is better off without Saddam Hussein."
KERRY:
"This president has made, I regret to say, a colossal error of judgment. And judgment is what we look for in the president of the United States of America."
BUSH:
"First of all, what my opponent wants you to forget is that he voted to authorize the use of force and now says it's the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place. I don't see how you can lead this country to succeed in Iraq if you say wrong war, wrong time, wrong place. What message does that send our troops? What message does that send to our allies? What message does that send the Iraqis?
"No, the way to win this is to be steadfast and resolved and to follow through on the plan that I've just outlined."
KERRY:
"Yes, we have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we're there. We have to succeed. We can't leave a failed Iraq. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake of judgment to go there and take the focus off of Osama bin Laden. It was. Now, we can succeed. But I don't believe this president can."
BUSH:
"My opponent says help is on the way, but what kind of message does it say to our troops in harm's way, wrong war, wrong place, wrong time? Not a message a commander in chief gives, or this is a great diversion. As well, help is on the way, but it's certainly hard to tell it when he voted against the $87 billion supplemental to provide equipment for our troops, and then said he actually did vote for it before he voted against it."

KERRY:
"Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse? I believe that when you know something's going wrong, you make it right. That's what I learned in Vietnam."
BUSH:
"I understand how hard it is to commit troops. Never wanted to commit troops. When I was running -- when we had the debate in 2000, never dreamt I'd be doing that. But the enemy attacked us ... and I have a solemn duty to protect the American people, to do everything I can to protect us."
"But a president must always be willing to use troops. It must - as a last resort."
KERRY:
"The president just said something extraordinarily revealing and frankly very important in this debate. In answer to your question about Iraq and sending people into Iraq, he just said, 'The enemy attacked us.' Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. Al-Qaida attacked us."
BUSH:
"First of all, of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that. And secondly, to think that another round of resolutions would have caused Saddam Hussein to disarm, disclose, is ludicrous, in my judgment. It just shows a significant difference of opinion."
BUSH:
"I fully agree that one should shift tactics, and we will, in Iraq. Our commanders have got all the flexibility to do what is necessary to succeed. But what I won't do is change my core values because of politics or because of pressure. And it is one of the things I've learned in the White House, is that there's enormous pressure on the president, and he cannot wilt under that pressure. Otherwise, the world won't be better off."
KERRY:
"I have no intention of wilting. I've never wilted in my life. And I've never wavered in my life. I know exactly what we need to do in Iraq, and my position has been consistent: Saddam Hussein is a threat. He needed to be disarmed. We needed to go to the (United Nations (news - web sites)). ... But we didn't need to rush to war without a plan to win the peace."
BUSH:
"I've got a good relation with (Russian President ) Vladimir (Putin). And it's important that we do have a good relation, because that enables me to better comment to him, and to better to discuss with him, some of the decisions he makes.
KERRY:
"I regret what's happened in these past months. And I think it goes beyond just the response to terror. Mr. Putin now controls all the television stations. His political opposition is being put in jail. And I think it's very important to the United States, obviously, to have a working relationship that is good. This is a very important country to us. We want a partnership. But we always have to stand up for democracy."
KERRY:
"Let me look you in the eye and say to you: I defended this country as a young man at war, and I will defend it as president of the United States. But I have a difference with this president. I believe we're strongest when we reach out and lead the world and build strong alliances. I have a plan for Iraq. I believe we can be successful. I'm not talking about leaving. I'm talking about winning. And we need a fresh start, a new credibility, a president who can bring allies to our side."
BUSH:
"If America shows uncertainty or weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. That's not going to happen, so long as I'm your president. The next four years we will continue to strengthen our homeland defenses. We will strengthen our intelligence-gathering services. We will reform our military. The military will be an all-volunteer army. We will continue to stay on the offense. We will fight the terrorists around the world so we do not have to face them here at home."

Weekend worrier

If anyone's noticing... I returned to the older format for this blog. It was called "The Daily Orange" for about two weeks, hence the brightly coloredmargins. I switched back for two reasons: one, I found that the Syracuse campus newspaper already goes by that name; and two, I don't particularlycare to spend more than the occasional moment decrying the conservative biasin the Orange County Register or the civic close-mindedness of local yokels, many of them as ignorant as they are wealthy. It's a waste of my time. Or rather, it's MORE a waste of my time than other wastes of my time. Toparaphrase Green Day, I don't want to be an American Idiot, but I also don'twant to be preoccupied with their redneck agenda. Or orangeneck agenda,as I think of certain Sunbelt suburbanites.

This weekend was the first I really enjoyed in a while. It didn't start smoothly - my dad and I wentto see "The Bourne Supremacy" on Friday at the bargain theater in Woodbridge. And what a bargain - something was wrong with the sound during the trailers,got better during the movie, which went completely silent after 40 minutes - loose crystals, caused by bumping into the projector, the kids at the frontcounter said. We'd get a free pass if we stayed through the movie, which I figured was just as good as getting our money back - even better, as itwas a matinee, but as I mentioned the sound went completely out, so we tookour money and left. Which was too bad, as the action was just heating up,and I was left slightly dizzy by the cuts and handheld realism. I don't mind that technique, but I minded missing the "payoff" of seeing the plot unfold. And these days, the Bourne character is one of the few mainstream creations who is not working FOR the CIA! All over the TV, you see the CIA or some cousin agency as the good guys, ala Alias or ThreatMatrix or what have you. Folks outside the US must wonder how we can do this after the revelations about the coup against Allende in Chile, Arbenz in Guatemala, and Mossadegh in Iran, plus the funding of the same Afghan groups supported by Osama bin Laden.

Ironically, the CIA's misjudgments in Afghanistan that has ultimately led to the disaster that has elevated its reputation - or maybe not its reputation, but its relative standing - among the American public. In "The Bourne Supremacy", the CIA is seen fairly close to how it really is - another self-interested bureaucracy dedicated to preserving its own standing, and its members interested in covering their hides. Yes, there's the public service/national security bit, but the Agency's overreaching as even more bad consquences than their underreaching - hence the creation of robot assassin types like Jason Bourne. It's not inherently evil. But its aims, or perhaps the aims of this country, put in, and sometimes on, the path of evil. Well, this weekend I put those thoughts largely out of my mind.

I'll probably not return to that theater - Captain Blood's, an odd name for the Irvine "family theater" - you know the kind that shows "family" fare like "The Passion of the Christ" and the above film. But I'll remember it fondly. As a kid, I went to the movies very infrequently. But most movies I saw in the 1980s were at this theater, like "Revenge of the Nerds II" and "Troop Beverly Hills". Ah, the classics! Back then it belonged to the Edwards Cinema chain, before it went bankrupt under the huge expansion spending spree of James Edwards. A pleasant byproduct of this spree is the fact that Irvine has seven movie theaters, with roughly 60 screens. Even nicer, the University 6 (near UCI) plays limited release films, some might call them "indie" films, while others call them "art" films (aren't movies supposed to be?) - and occasionally, so does the one at Irvine Spectrum 21.

After the botched film excursion, my dad and I went to Barnes and Noble. I glanced at the various current non-fiction titles, including the increasingly numerous political books that expressly or by implication favor of disfavor Bush or Kerry. The difference, if anyone takes care to notice, and not many do, is that the "pro-Kerry" or "anti-Bush" books are often written by conservatives or moderates such as Eisenhower Center head David Brinkley (Tour of Duty), Reagan adviser Kevin Phillips (American Dynasty), and Bush I's Ambassador to Kuwait Patrick Wilson (The Politics of Truth). Not to mention Rand Beers and David Brock. "Anti-Kerry" or "pro-Bush" book authors tend not to have any independent standing outside of the right-wing media, such as talk-show brother David Limbaugh, and WSJ OpinionJournal editor Tony Taranto. In other words, the blowhard candidate are being supported by blowhards. So what's new.

After glancing at the new titles, I finally found what I was looking for: In the Shadow of No Towers by Art Spiegelman. Who better than this New Yorker and author of Maus to depict the tragedy and tumult of September 11th and its crazy aftermath? I found a couple good reviews at the San Francisco Chronicle and New York Times. My own observations: for a oversized (11" by 17") book, it's very hard to find. That's because the hard cover is black, like the New Yorker cover following the terrorist attacks. Inside though is an almost zany world of colors, starting with the inside cover page, which was the September 11, 1901 edition of Joseph Pulitzer's New York World. Front page headlines? The assassination of President McKinley, by a man with anarchist beliefs who was thought wrongly to be a foreigner. Sideline? The arrest and questioning of Emma Goldman, the famous immigrant labor activist, feminist, and revolutionary, about the assassination which of course, she had nothing to do with at all. The more things change...

racial profiling is un-American

Funny, I thought the 'war on terror' was an attempt to protect our democratic and free society, not to eviscerate it.


Amnesty condemns US use of racial profiling

Mon Sep 13, 7:16 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Racial profiling by US law enforcement agencies has grown over the past three years to cover one in nine Americans, rights group Amnesty International said in a report.

"State and federal agencies, under the guise of fighting terrorism, have expanded the use of this degrading, discriminatory and dangerous practice," said Curt Goering, deputy executive director for Amnesty International USA.

According to its study, some 32 million Americans have been subjected to profiling, defined as the targeting of people because of their ethnic or religious background.

And some 87 million Americans are at risk of racial profiling during their lifetime.

Amnesty said use of profiling has seen a major increase since the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington.

The practice "violates human rights, undermines national security and simply does not work," said Goering.

Timothy Lewis, a former district court judge and federal prosecutor, said that racial profiling is not only ineffective, it violates the US Constitution. "It is wrong, and nothing that happened on September 11, 2001 makes it right," he said.

The Amnesty report pointed to "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh, British shoe-bomber Richard Reid and Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh -- who escaped as police searched for Arab suspects -- as examples of people who did not fit the standard terrorist profiles.

President George W. Bush vowed to end racial profiling in US law enforcement in February 2001, but the ban is a policy -- not law -- and has no enforcement teeth, according to the report.

Bush "has failed to support any federal legislative effort" to eliminate racial profiling in the country, Amnesty said.

Cathy Harris, a senior US Customs inspector, complained in 1998 about racial profiling practices that included strip searches of black and Hispanic women. Following the complaints Harris said that Customs changed their practices and the group saw drug arrests increase by 300 percent.

But following the September 11 attacks and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, Customs merged with the Immigration and Naturalization Service and 20 other federal agencies -- and Customs "is slowly going back to its old ways," Harris said.

"The targeting of certain groups -- specifically Arab and Muslim Americans and travelers who are citizens of Arab and Muslim nations -- has increased," she said.

According to Amnesty, people of Middle Eastern or South Asian descent and those of the Muslim and Sikh faiths are most at risk, especially since the September 11 attacks.

Amnesty wants the US Congress as well as state and local governments to enact comprehensive legislation banning the practice.

Amnesty's 50-page report documents cases of people pulled over by police and treated as suspects solely based on their looks, as well as people of Middle Eastern and south Asian descent who do not call police or the fire department because they fear they will be targeted based on their race.

--

"A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws." - Justice Anthony Kennedy

at home in the world

A few days ago, I read a random blog authored by a medical student or resident doctor in Saudi Arabia. I was reading about him and his friends, who all had odd non-Arabic names and then I scrolled to see photos of a bunch of Asian men about my age. Like so many productive denizens of Saudi Arabia, they were Filipino.

I didn't plan this introduction, and in fact I have no idea where to find this blog of - let's call him Mr. F. But I learned a lot more about the importance of Mr. F and his friends, to his family, his country, and the intricate weave of the world economy, all of which are threatened by a war of choice.

In July, the Philippine government decided to withdraw from the "coalition of the willing" in occupied Iraq. I don't recall much coverage of this event in the U.S., though it reveals how willingly they participated. Anyway, here is how Radio Singapore analyzed the decision.

The Philippines has begun pulling its forces out of Iraq, after a militant group has threatened to execute a Filipino hostage.

The pullout was initiated after another group of kidnappers in Iraq said they beheaded one of two Bulgarian hostages.

Despite the pullout, Manila had no information on the situation of Filipino hostage, Angelo de la Cruz.

Asiri Abubakar (AA) is the Professor of Asian Studies at the University of Philippines, and he updates RSI's Melanie Yip on the contingent pullout.

AA: I think the final figure now, the remaining contingent in Iraq is about 43.

Now, on the issue of the hostage taking. Other countries like South Korea and Japan did not pull their troops out of Iraq despite public pressure. So why did the Philippines decide to withdraw their troops now and earlier than their scheduled pull out date in August?

AA: I think that on the part of our government, the Arroyo Administration is, for the first time, facing a tremendous internal pressure on this issue. You see, we have around 8 million Filipinos working abroad, and there is tremendous pressure from families of these millions of Filipinos who are working abroad. They leave the country in search for jobs abroad because our country is not in any position to give the people that many jobs. This is purely internal pressure, which is tremendous. The Arroyo Administration cannot set aside this pressure.

But do you think that by pulling out the troops, it will help President Gloria Arroyo's political standing in the country?

AA: Well, it is a terrible choice for the administration, it must be admitted. But the [Philippines Presidential] elections have just concluded, there are so many political and economic issues facing the administration, so these are some of the factors the administration had to consider the pressure coming from the families, and other sectors to take advantage of the ongoing hostage taking situation.

Now, how is the United States reacting to the Philippines' decision to withdraw its troops from Iraq?

AA: I think it is a great displeasure for the United States, particularly for the Bush Administration, when he is facing re-election this year. It is understandable for the Bush Administration to be displeased with the decision of our government. This is the first time that any Philippines Administration has openly defied its decision to support an American policy, particularly in the case of Iraq.

What message will this current situation of the Philippines withdrawing their troops from Iraq, how would this set a precedence for the coalition of the willing in future?

AA: Well, other countries have done it, like Spain. We are doing almost like Spain, although in their case, Spain has experienced such horrible happenings like the train bombings before their elections. The new Spanish government decided to withdraw their troops. I hope it doesn't set an example for other countries to follow. As far as the Philippines is concerned, it is unique to us. We have this tremendous number of Filipinos working abroad, most of them in the Middle East. So there is tremendous pressure on this administration.

Will the terrorist groups get the upper hand?

AA: I don't know whether we can influence, and how much our decisions matter. It may not also help that the terrorist threats the Philippines is facing on the domestic front. The Philippines went to Iraq on the basis of our commitment to help the international community laid by the US to fight terror. But there is also a problem with respect to the war in Iraq. Even the US officials and some members of the coalition of the willing, including the UK are saying that there was not much justification for going to war. So that's also one problem.. The war was not internationally recognized, and even some Filipinos feel that the war is immoral.

Some people have said that a truly international coalition desired by the realists ala the Gulf War would have been very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. But the fact that the U.S. didn't even try but instead created a multilateral facade to hide its singular arrogant face, means that even the facade will be very difficult, if not impossible, to duplicate.

I didn't realize how globalized our society has become, for everyone. Not just the very rich or very poor nations, but especially for those in between like the Philippines, whose human talent is not matched by its economic might. So its doctors, nurses, engineers, and maids are flung across the world, applying their skills where the financial rate of return is greater.

But all the flinging and border crossing depends on stability, and the more far-flung your pool of talent becomes, the greater becomes your desire for international political stability. By diving into Iraq under American pressure, President Arroyo put her nation's welfare at risk. And domestic terrorism or insurgency doesn't even play into the decision, because that occurs anyway. The concern are the 8 million living abroad and sustaining home who are potential hostages.

And the retractions regarding "weapons of mass destruction" by US and UK leaders really unhinge the screws from the facade. Americans may be alright with the war of choice and regime change, but the rest of the world really sold this on terrorism. But we sold our satellites' leaders a bill of goods, and forced them to sell it to their people. Either sale will be much harder when we need to make the hard sell - say, in fighting real terrorism or preventing a nuclear threat. Or how about averting genocide? International law aside, those political consequences are arguably worse than leaving a brutal dictator in power.

As the town elder told the shepherd boy who cried wolf, "You must tell the truth, not just now and then, but all the time."

A deficit in objective reporting

I opened up our local paper today to find on the front page, right-hand column, the following headline:

"CBO sees federal deficit shrinking from predicted size"

Underneath the title is the lead, in small font:

Deficit - The Congressional Budget Office projected that this election year's federal deficit would be a record $422 billion, a shortfall that would be smaller than analysts predicted earlier this year. The projection became instant fodder for both political parties. News 13

So I turned to page 13, where I saw the headline in even bigger type:

"Congressional analysts lower deficit forecast"

And then below it, the subheader: "However, the latest federal projection - a $422 billion shortfall - is still the biggest dollar amount in history."

It seems obvious to me that the most significant and newsworthy fact is that this deficit is $422 billion dollars, and that is a record deficit. After that, one can add that however, the new projections are lower than before. Certainly Alan Fram thought so. Fram is the Associated Press writer of this article. The headlines, however, were produced courtesy of The Orange County Register, probably the most conservative daily paper of its size in California, and certainly one of the most conservative in the nation. A reader can see that slant in the editorial pages, and come to expect that bias.

What once surprised and now just offends me, is the way the bias bleeds into the news and even the copy (headlines, graphs, placement of stories). It's fine to reflect one's opinion in the opinion section, but it seems unethical for a publisher to massage the facts like with the record deficit story, particularly in an election year. Of course, being who they are, that's even more reason for the Register folks to soft-pedal bad news for the Republicans.

Am I reading too much into the headlines? If I didn't, I would not have caught their sleight of hand. But let's test my hypothesis. Other dailies surely picked up this AP wire story. What do their headlines look like? I turned to Yahoo! News and searched for the article using deficit and Fram. You can even repeat my experiment. I posted the results below.

The top 20 hits come from 14 unique sources. Of those 14 unique sources, NINE mention $422 billion, TEN mention record deficit, and just TWO mention the lowered prediction. One of those two, from the Philadelphia Inquirer, said "Record deficit but less than forecast". The other mention comes from fredericksburg.com, a site that registered seven separate hits because it takes all AP feeds and does not produce any copy of its own.

No other news site crafted headlines like the OC Register, even though the article itself was virtually the same across the board. And to say that the CBO sees the deficit "shrinking" from its predicted size falsely implies that the deficit situation is materially improving. I mean, the CBO announcement is a prediction too. In fact, no "real" shrinking of the deficit has or will happen - especially not with the current administration. But that conclusion is exactly what the Register wants to obscure from plain view.

NEWS STORIES

Results 1 - 20 of about 183 for deficit fram.

Sort Results by: Relevance Date

1. Analysts predict record deficit ALAN FRAM; The Associated Press
   Tacoma News Tribune - Sep 08 1:25 AM
   WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Congressional Budget Office projected Tuesday that this election-year's federal deficit will hit a record $422 billion, a shortfall that would be smaller than analysts predicted earlier this year.


2. CBO Projects $442 Billion Federal Deficit By ALAN FRAM
   Fredericksburg.com - Sep 07 8:15 PM
   The federal deficit will swell to a record $422 billion this election year but fall short of even more dire forecasts, Congress' top budget analysts projected Tuesday in a report that became instant fodder for both political parties.


3. CBO Projects $442 Billion Federal Deficit By ALAN FRAM
   Fredericksburg.com - Sep 07 8:15 AM
   The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that this election-year's federal deficit will reach $422 billion, congressional aides said Tuesday, the highest ever, yet a smaller shortfall than analysts predicted earlier this year.


4. Analysts Expect Smaller Budget Deficit By ALAN FRAM
   Fredericksburg.com - Sep 07 5:16 AM
   Congress' top budget analysts still expect the 2004 federal deficit to set a record, though a smaller one than they and the White House anticipated earlier in this election year.


5. Federal Budget Deficit To Reach $422B This Year, Pressure on Medicare
   Medical News Today - Sep 08 4:14 PM
   The federal budget deficit will reach a "record" $422 billion, or 3.6% of gross domestic product, in fiscal year 2004 and is expected to rise to $2.3 trillion over the next 10 years, in part because of the rising cost of programs such as Medicare and Social Security, according to new figures released Tuesday by the Congressional Budget Office, the Washington Post reports.


6. Federal deficit expected to be record $422 billion
   Miami Herald - Sep 08 12:22 AM
   Congressional analysts projected a record $422 billion deficit this year, a figure that falls short of earlier forecasts.


7. Federal deficit will increase to record $422 billion this year
   The Ohio University Post - Sep 08 6:45 AM
   WASHINGTON -The federal deficit will swell to a record $422 billion this election year but fall short of even more dire forecasts, Congress' top budget analysts projected yesterday in a report that became instant fodder for both political parties.


8. Record deficit projected
   Kansas City Star - Sep 08 12:48 AM
   WASHINGTON — The federal deficit will swell to a record $422 billion this election year but fall short of even more dire forecasts, Congress' top budget analysts projected Tuesday.


9. Deficit predicted to reach $422B
   Long Beach Press-Telegram - Sep 08 12:53 AM
   Parties seize record figure as political fodder. WASHINGTON — The federal deficit will swell to a record $422billion this election year but fall short of even more dire forecasts, Congress' top budget analysts projected Tuesday in a report that became instant fodder for both political parties.


10. Year's deficit to reach record $422 billion
    Denver Post - Sep 07 8:08 AM
    Washington - The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that this election-year's federal deficit will reach $422 billion, congressional aides said today, the highest ever, yet a smaller shortfall than analysts predicted earlier this year.


11. Deficit numbers still a record
    Albany Democrat-Herald - Sep 07 3:06 PM
    WASHINGTON - The Congressional Budget Office projected today that this election-year's federal deficit will hit a record $422 billion, a shortfall that would be smaller than analysts predicted earlier this year.


12. A record deficit but less than forecast
    The Philadelphia Inquirer - Sep 08 12:22 AM
    At $422 billion, the projection fell short of what had been expected. Each party had its own spin.


13. for
    SanLuisObispo.com - Sep 08 6:29 AM
    Parents, coaches and rec league officials are invited to submit their stars of the week. Please remember that kids can appear only once a month. And if your star doesn’t make it the first time, try, try again.


14. CBO Projects $442 Billion Federal Deficit By ALAN FRAM
    Fredericksburg.com - Sep 07 5:59 PM
    The federal deficit will swell to a record $422 billion this election year but fall short of even more dire forecasts, Congress' top budget analysts projected Tuesday in a report that became instant fodder for both political parties.


15. CBO Projects $442 Billion Federal Deficit By ALAN FRAM
    Fredericksburg.com - Sep 07 4:30 PM
    The federal deficit will swell to a record $422 billion this election year but fall short of even more dire forecasts, Congress' top budget analysts projected Tuesday in a report that became instant fodder for both political parties.


16. CBO Projects $442 Billion Federal Deficit By ALAN FRAM
    Fredericksburg.com - Sep 07 10:29 AM
    The Congressional Budget Office projected Tuesday that this election-year's federal deficit will hit a record $422 billion, a shortfall that would be smaller than analysts predicted earlier this year.


17. CBO Projects $442 Billion Federal Deficit By ALAN FRAM
    Fredericksburg.com - Sep 07 7:31 AM
    The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that this election-year's federal deficit will reach $422 billion, congressional aides said Tuesday, the highest ever, yet a smaller shortfall than analysts predicted earlier this year.


18. Analysts forecast record $422 billion deficit
    The Olympian - Sep 08 5:28 AM
    WASHINGTON -- The federal deficit will swell to a record $422 billion this election year but fall short of even more dire forecasts, Congress' top budget analysts projected Tuesday in a report that became instant fodder for both political parties.


19. Congressional analysts say deficit will be record
    Daily Bulletin - Sep 08 12:46 AM
    WASHINGTON - The Congressional Budget Office projected Tuesday that this election-year's federal deficit will hit a record $422 billion, a shortfall that would be smaller than analysts predicted earlier this year.


20. CBO Projects $442 Billion Federal Deficit
    Lebanon Daily Record - Sep 07 3:04 PM
    WASHINGTON - The Congressional Budget Office projected Tuesday that this election-year's federal deficit will hit a record $422 billion, a shortfall that would be smaller than analysts predicted earlier this year.

* Note: the San Luis Obispo headline, which does not show in the hyperlink, reads CBO Projects Record $442 Billion Federal Deficit. Check it out.

Charge of the Far-Right Brigade

Forward, the Far-Right Brigade!
Was there a man dismayed?
No, though the soldier knew
Someone had blundered
Theirs not to make reply
Theirs not to reason why
Theirs but to do and die:
Into the Valley of Death
Drove the ten hundred.

U.S. Death Toll in Iraq Reaches Grim Milestone

(Reuters) - The American death toll in Iraq topped 1,000 on Tuesday nearly 18 months after President Bush launched the war that has become a central issue in the November U.S. presidential elections. U.S. casualties in Iraq have surged in recent weeks, particularly among Marines, as Washington fights a guerrilla war that has no quick end in sight. Bush's Democratic rival John Kerry -- a decorated Vietnam War veteran -- called it "a tragic milestone." More

Today is the day I dreaded, and yet expected, would come. Expected, given the lack of international support for our invasion, the loss of civil order and resulting chaos in Iraq, our lack of a transition or exit strategy, and our abuse of the Iraqi people and destruction of their daily life. These reasons are known to all, and too well. But the thousand American deaths surprised a few. It certainly would have surprised the man who in May 2003 commandeered some real military pilot's jet and landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln, where he had ordered the unfurling of a banner that said "Mission Accomplished". I'm sure that George W. Bush hoped to shower us with photos of that day during the fall of 2004. Well, here we are.

Ironically, Bush said today that "We will be there until the mission is finished." If i were prosecutor cross-examining him, I might ask, "Were you lying then, or are you lying now?" Or, there's a third possibility. Perhaps under Bush's watch, we're simply moving backwards.

Only backwards thinking can explain their continued effort to confuse the "war on terror" and the invasion of Iraq, two events connected solely in the minds and plans of the neocons:

Bush administration officials sought to put the 1,000 deaths in Iraq in the context of the war against terrorism. "When combined with U.S. losses in other theaters in the global war on terror, we have lost well more than a thousand already," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a Pentagon briefing.

Rumsfeld's smug and cavalier (is there any other kind?) words are well past the "sell by" date for the fictional al-Qaeda connection. It only makes sense if we're going backwards in time. Personally, I don't blame the Bush administration for the events of September 11. Those attacks were probably unavoidable, given our resources and knowledge. But the deaths of 1000 Americans, and over 10,000 Iraqis, was totally preventable. By going to Iraq, we've made it another Ground Zero, another place for American suffering, a tragic connection of our own creation.

At the same press conference, AP News reported that Rumsfeld said "our enemies have underestimated our country, our coalition. They have failed to understand the character of our people. And they certainly misread our commander in chief." Like Bush, he seems to suffer from rhetorical dyslexia--mixing up his subjects and objects. It'd be more accurate to say that we underestimated their country and their coalition of Sunnis and Shiites. We failed to understand the character of the Iraqi people, proud and unbowing. And our commander in chief certainly misread them. Again, these administration folks have things...backwards.

This entry would not be completely meaningful if I just left it at that: my angry thoughts and my sadness at a country gone wrong. Even though it's not 1854 Balaklava and they're not the Light Brigade, our soldiers still obey and do and die because thats what soldiers do. I only hope we can recast our mission and trim our sails so that their brave efforts were not offered in vain. I try to contribute in some miniscule way, by pointing out where and how civilian leaders and citizens can be more responsible, and more worthy, of their sacrifice.

On June 19th of this year, Marine Pfc. Sean Horn died in Iraq. Before that he was stationed at Camp Pendleton, just south of Orange County. Before that, he lived right here in Irvine. He joined the Marine a year ago, just out of high school. He died of a single shot to the head, in his bunker. The military calls it a "non-combat incident". It wouldn't be right to say any more. I won't try to reason why, and in fact I don't know anything except what was written in the newswire, and at the Fallen Heroes Memorial website, where a fellow soldier wrote these words:

"sean
im so sorry i let this happen i never should have convinced you to join . i loved you like my own brother through all of it and theres nothing i can do now. but it haunts me and ill never forget you or the last time we spoke in kuwait.i love ya"

josh of al asad iraq

There's nothing we can do now, for Sean. But maybe for Josh, for the 100,000 soldiers there, for the millions of Iraqi men, women, and children, we can do something, something different. We owe them that much.

Salute what?

My Front Page Headlines Aug 30 9:29pm PT

Top Stories from Reuters	Aug 30 7:52pm PT
Republicans Salute Bush's Leadership After 9/11 Iraqi Cleric Calls Cease-fire After Bloody Uprising U.S. Guard 'Stomped on Fingers' in Iraq Jail

I think the nature of Bush's "leadership" after September 11th is amply illustrated by the next two headlines. Rather succinctly, they sketch the result of our president's decision to channel national grief and outrage into fueling his war of choice, and an occupation that was little more than a barely controlled atmosphere of violence, both American (bloody fingers) and Iraqi (bloody uprising).

The violence will dissipate and calm will return to Iraq, as the American presence dissipates among a larger international coalition and American soldiers return home. Now, that would be a win-win situation.